Jump to content
TahYank243

Karma System - I know, I know!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TechoverMana said:

 

Not really. 1) These guys don't even necessarily work for the PMCs they used to belong to, you can see that it says ex-BEAR/USEC PMC operator, not necessarily a current one, therefore, they wouldn't necessarily see that faction or its members having their best interests in mind, especially since it seems like these guys have been completely abandoned by their respective PMCs in the first place. An organization that leaves you in a warzone to die and cuts off support for you, you might not like anymore and even turn against. So, no, I don't think these guys would just automatically be buddy buddy with every other person who happened to be with that employer at some point.
 

 

NO point reading past this because once again you are just misrepresenting the facts. The lore does not state that you are ex PMC, but active. There is nothing in the lore that says the PMC factions have been disbanded. In character creation it says you are an operative for either faction, not ex operative. The warzone was quarantined by UN and other forces not the PMC's. They have just been cut off from their command. So yes, these guys would still be cooperating together. 

And even if that wasn't all in the lore, they still would be cooperating because that makes the most sense. People don't just turn on their comrades as soon as chain of command falls apart, especially when working together increases their chances of survival.

Edited by Dunkurtin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dunkurtin said:

The lore does not state that you are ex PMC, but active.

exbearpmc.thumb.jpg.b0ea5067e941dddb4b8382cc64205b32.jpg

 

51 minutes ago, Dunkurtin said:

they still would be cooperating because that makes the most sense.

Not really. I could easily see people not wanting to cooperate with the people and company that abandoned them and left them to die in a war zone. People have defected over less.

52 minutes ago, Dunkurtin said:

People don't just turn on their comrades as soon as chain of command falls apart

Assuming they think it's just it falling apart and they weren't abandoned, or set up to fail, and also means they wouldn't have trust of others in that company because it means that there was a lot of guys who let them down, not just higher ups but logistics people, communications people, contacts, other team mates. It's not over nothing. People who are left behind to die could easily be driven to revenge on them. Again, people have turned on people for far less.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One screen that could possiblly be a typo... compared to all the places where it is stated that they are not disbanded. 

 

 

1.png

2.png

3.png

Edited by Dunkurtin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I don;t even know where to begin with you confusing working with those you fought side by side with and wanting to duck over higher ups and executives... who aren't the people you're stuck with. 

Seriously, this is basic human psychology, which happens to be my field of study as well, they are more likely to cooperate than turn on each other, especially when there are still other enemies in the area. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fragging and defection happen. Not everyone who fights alongside each other likes each other. Not everyone who is in the armed forces stays loyal to the country. The Soviet Union and Russia as well as the United States both have guys who went over to the other side, burning people to do so, many more than they like to admit and even the ones they tell us are quite startling. Just because you're working with someone doesn't mean you like them. And then you actually have a betrayal of that trust, abandoned by people you thought had your back in your time of need, yeah, people might get a little miffed by that. Again, it just has to be what it appears to be from the view of the guy on the ground. The PMC might be honestly trying to do something to get them back but all it takes is just the feeling of abandonment from the viewpoint of the operator for things to get messy. Lots of guys have assumed something and acted on it despite what actually happened being different from their point of view, but they act on what they believe has happened.

It's perhaps a comforting thought that everyone in the armed forces is all patriotic brothers in arms, or cops or whatever group, but that's just a myth. There's plenty of rivalry between different departments, divisions and shops, and even just conflicts you'll see pop up that are straight out of high school or college, because a lot of these people are only a few years separated from it. You'll have people getting NJP/Article 15s for fighting, once they're out of medical, and that's at peace with everything going well. I've been there, I've seen it happen, I've seen the reports, heard the CO come over the 1MC and tell us exactly why someone is now enjoying the old 45/45 and reduced rank and restriction. And that's the ones who get caught. You didn't even need someone actually getting abandoned in a war zone and left to die, something that could easily make someone defect and work for the opposition, if not just want to do as much damage to those they feel betrayed them. People serving together in the military sometimes are good friends and hang out together after work, no denying that. There's a hell of a lot more who're just neutral towards each other. But there's a hell of a lot who if they showed up to the same bar there'd be a bloody fight.

Edited by TechoverMana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking, perhaps the difference between the two isn't a typo, but where these characters start, vs where they end up.

Perhaps when the game gets the full release, we start with guys who are fully on with the PMCs, get abandoned or left behind, and then when you've gotten to the end of the story, they can decide to leave or stay in Tarkov, but afterwards become ex-PMC operators once everything is said and done at the end of EFTs story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

Except the opposite has happened all the time. When the DayZ mod first came out you had plenty of ARMA vets helping the new guys who just got in for zombies explain the mechanics, aiding them in finding weapons, assisting with meds, ect.

So you're saying it's more realistic for 2 people to stop what they're doing in a warzone so one can explain the mechanics and keybindings of the video game?... These people are doing it to be nice, not to increase their survival chance (another point against realism)

 

9 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

Less threats=less tension and suspense. There will literally be less things to worry about.

 

What?... The movie Alien comes to mind vs Aliens. Have you played a game where you have to identify your targets before shooting? To say there's less tension because there's less threats is extremely naive. For me, the end of the raids are just as tense as the start, where there are considerably less threats present on the map. There are numerically more active threats in a game like Battlefield than Tarkov, is Battlefield more tense?

 

9 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

You just spawn, you don't respawn in the same raid. Once you die, you don't come back to it, you don't spawn back in.

The point isn't changing the name... The point is I come back into a match with all the experience from the previous ones. Who the other players IRL is meaningless, but my experiences aggregate. This is a respawn mentality.

 

9 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

It's more like they don't work exactly like that due to technical limitations

 No... there's literally no value to implementing the simulation of gunpowder. Misfires and other characteristics of gunpowder can be simulated. It has nothing to do with computation power. It's simply effort versus return value.

 

9 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

Nothing is stopping you from joining in a group and having some guys to work with, and then you wouldn't have to KOS and you'd get that teamwork going.

 

Again... you're missing the point. How do you equate finding a group via an internet forum with banding up with players in game... Since you seem intent and arguing full realism, which is more realistic?

 

 

Karma is an unrealistic sub-system meant to promote a more realistic experience. You seem extremely biased towards realism, but almost every example you mentioned is completely unrealistic. Karma would ideally deter the nonsense "Doing it because it's a video game and there are no repercussions" reasons. At least acknowledge that mentality is completely unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

So you're saying it's more realistic for 2 people to stop what they're doing in a warzone so one can explain the mechanics and keybindings of the video game?... These people are doing it to be nice, not to increase their survival chance (another point against realism)

People needed help, and they didn't just kill them. That whole "they were just being nice", means what they aren't doing is KOSing. Can't help out someone if they're dead, and often would team up to teach and mentor, and have someone to watch their back, meaning, yes, it increases their survival chances too. At the very least, it means a potential attacker has someone else to shoot at first, meaning it's given them more opportunities to live and get out.
 

11 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

The movie Alien comes to mind vs Aliens.

Part of this is also that there's no weapons in Alien, it's far more isolated on the ship, and it's a bunch of space truckers instead of hardened colonial marines. On top of that, it's more tense in a movie perspective when you're an observer, not actually in the situation itself because of things like mood, music, atmosphere and other things from the mise en scene of the film to attribute to that. Some of that just comes down to the fundamental differences between perspectives, as well as the differences between movies and interactive games.

11 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

Have you played a game where you have to identify your targets before shooting?

Yes. Namely a very large amount of time in ARMA 3 in a group doing coop missions. Target ID is very important there, blue on blue was very bad. But if it happened, and it did happen, guns didn't jam up, people didn't get sick or suddenly find their legs removed or some magical BS.  The game would just keep moving on with the loss of the teammate and we'd have to carry on with one less, and depending on who that was, could make or break the success of that op.
Even when it was overtly deliberate and excessive, punishment didn't occur through some in game mechanic, we just wouldn't let that person play with us if they deliberately were TKing, because otherwise it'd break the immersion.
 

11 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

There are numerically more active threats in a game like Battlefield than Tarkov

Even on the largest 32v32 maps, Battlefield doesn't feel as threatening because there just aren't that many targets aimed at you due to the team nature of it. There's 32 opposing players on the opposite team, but they're focus is along the other 32. It isn't 1 v 32.  You don't have all 32 people gunning for you at the same time. On top of that, the respawning mechanic where you're only out of the action for a few seconds, as well as always having back up from other team mates to take the heat off you and deal with a lot of those other threats, reduces it further, things that I'd rather not have in Tarkov, where instead of having to deal with possibly up to 8 PMC threats and 2-4 Player Scav threats and 2-3 AI scav threats, reducing it to where there's only 3-4 PMC threats, 2-4 player scav and 2-3 AI scav will mean less threats to the individual, but now even those threats are going to be spread along that faction's PMCs so even with less threats available, they are less likely to be aiming at me, and I'll have more guns to deal with them.

Overall, meaning Tarkov will be a less threatening environment and far easier to deal with.
 

11 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

How do you equate finding a group via an internet forum with banding up with players in game... Since you seem intent and arguing full realism, which is more realistic?

You can do it either way. Add in a VOIP in game, and you'll have people decide to group up in game as well as outside the game. I don't see what's wrong with that. And arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to do things outside the game, say agree to group up to play together, because it's against realism doesn't make any sense either since it's not exactly violating some law of physics or something that people work together and have a multitude of paths to talk with each other to do so. Unless you think it's somehow more realistic that people could only communicate with each other face to face in the game and things like radios, phones, letters, notes, ect are somehow unrealistic and people couldn't arrange to work as a group before getting into the raid.

In fact, I would say its more realistic that anyone who would want to work inside a group would probably get those arrangements done well before a raid starts beforehand instead of trying to just go into a raid by themselves and then just see what they can do on the fly. Do you think Spec Ops people, mercenaries, or even gang members don't get together first before they do something. They don't just start shooting and hope some other people happen to join in because they'll just know.

 

11 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

Karma is an unrealistic sub-system meant to promote a more realistic experience.

Except it doesn't. People don't get sick, don't have guns jam on them, or anything else simply because they do evil acts with them. None of that is realistic, and it doesn't provide a realistic experience since no one got sick or had their guns jam up on them just because they were evil or doing bad things. That's not a realistic experience.

11 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

Karma would ideally deter the nonsense "Doing it because it's a video game and there are no repercussions" reasons.

There's in game repercussions, and ones that make sense. Kill a team mate who was working with you, they won't work with you anymore in the future and you lose that extra set of eyes and ears, and that extra gun and help for the next firefight. Now you might lose that fight you would have won because that extra person you decided to off is gone. Hell, you might run into another group who didn't decide to kill each other and now you're outgunned and out manned. 

 Adding repercussions that make no sense and detract from the experience, harm the game and makes it unrealistic as a system, and makes for an unrealistic experience.

 

11 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

You seem extremely biased towards realism, but almost every example you mentioned is completely unrealistic.

Somehow me saying I don't want there to be magical gun jams for 'bad' behavior that no one but God would be able to see and know about somehow is unrealistic, but somehow you going around with "Karma, the Indian religious concept that good or bad deeds and acts will have the universe return good or bad to that person, that is all seeing and all knowing no matter how well hidden or covered up, with the effect of making guns magically jam once they sense they're in evil hands, and make people sick because viruses only attack the unjust, just cause, and transfer such karma between 2 unrelated people, who wouldn't even speak the same language." 

Perfectly realistic. Such a grand realistic experience only for the most realistic of games, like Star Wars or Mass Effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

... 

Even with your wall of text, you deviated from the point of those observations and went off on a tangent about getting sick and weapons jamming... none of these things I even spoke about. I was discussing the viability of player XP penalties... since XP / Leveling is already part of the game.

 

2 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

Kill a team mate who was working with you, they won't work with you anymore in the future

This is literally the "magic all seeing entity" argument you just made: "If you shoot someone, they won't want to team up with you again" Isn't that unrealistic? They should not know I tked them, because they died and should have to play with me again...

If you take your argument a few steps further, you arrive at:
How does the game know how much XP to give me after a match? I get more for more kills I get, but how does it know I got more kills if there was nobody there to witness it???? I hope they remove the XP system....

Both of these arguments are obviously obtuse on purpose.

I think you should take a high level consideration of the point of game mechanics in general. They themselves are not always supposed to be 1-1 with real life. They're meant to drive a realistic experience. You can see that in the Trader mechanics. The bartering system is a great way to gate access to high tier items and make it fun to collect/earn instead of allowing the player to just throw tons of money at them. Since the economy doesn't work on a finite amount of money, it would a horrible idea to make everything purchasable with $. A great example of where making it realistic would greatly hinder the gameplay experience.

Nobody wants it to feel magical, I think most people just don't want it to devolve in a FFA cluster****. It will always boil down to "is it work tking for their stuff?" and the answer, as it is right now, will always be yes... it's just a matter of when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

went off on a tangent about getting sick and weapons jamming... none of these things I even spoke about

Because that has been what the devs have been talking about for karma system penalties, so I think they're fair to criticize what devs are planning for that system when we talk about the system.

 

8 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

I was discussing the viability of player XP penalties... since XP / Leveling is already part of the game.

OK, even from that case. You shoot someone, it gives you 100 xp from killing a player lets say. Does the player in question affect that action? Is it worth any more or less per kill? Experience I think would be worth more depending on the toughness of the fight, not the uniform that person happened to be wearing. Best solution they've seemed to come up with is that higher level players net higher XP, which to some degree makes sense, although high level=/= high skilled or tough fight.

 

12 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

"If you shoot someone, they won't want to team up with you again" Isn't that unrealistic? They should not know I tked them, because they died and should have to play with me again...

Assuming they got killed, and didn't manage to win that fight. But again, either way, they wouldn't team up with you again, because they are dead and thus won't be playing with you because that person would be 6 feet under. Or managed to survive by killing you or managing to put enough of a fight to escape alive, and now won't work with you knowing you're a backstabber. Same result. The only way you're talking about is if it's an entirely new person, like if it's a player scav or something.

 

15 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

How does the game know how much XP to give me after a match? I get more for more kills I get, but how does it know I got more kills if there was nobody there to witness it???? I hope they remove the XP system....

No, because you still have the experience because you experienced it. If you do 400m sprints for hours over the course of months, even with no one observing you running, you'll get faster because your muscles, and lungs will get better at it. That makes sense. If you start lifting heavy weights, your muscles will get bigger and you'll get stronger independently of anyone observing you doing the weight training. No one has to observe you doing your daily workout for the benefits your physique will experience.

And same with learning skills. You could be put into a black box, not knowing anything beyond 1+1=2, and have a math book in the room. If you read and study and learn the contents of that book, you could exit that black box now knowing how to do multiplication, division,algebra, given enough time, even some pre-calc if you kept up with it. People have done it, self taught, self experienced. Their brain doesn't need someone to watch them read, or observe the neurons reshaping themselves to have them learn a skill either, just like with the weightlifitng.

And the same with getting better at killing. You'll gain experience in the art of warfare and killing because you are working at killing, and it doesn't need an observer for you to simply get better at it over time. The only observer is yourself. You just have to do it to gain the experience in it. Thus, experience is given still.

And even after that defense of it, I also will admit I think the XP system is an oddity and could use reworks of its own.

 

25 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

The bartering system is a great way to gate access to high tier items and make it fun to collect/earn instead of allowing the player to just throw tons of money at them.

29 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

A great example of where making it realistic would greatly hinder the gameplay experience.

No, frankly I find the barter system as is to be dumb, because a lot of that makes no sense, and a hindrance to the experience. Why would a trader say no to a lot of money, which is more usable and easier to work with than forcing something like "3 packs of smokes" or "5 filters" especially if the player could offer money in excess of the worth of those items. I think it either needs to be where it'll give you a number of items and a money amount where either one or the other needs to be met and both would just be within 10% of each other. 

The fun comes from the higher tiered stuff being in and people using it to make better and higher level gun fights. The devs have said that combat is the heart and soul of the game, not artificially cutting off so people just end up grinding for useless stuff to turn in instead of being in the actual meat of the game and engaging in highly geared gun fights. Grinding isn't fun, and that's what the bartering system pretty much does, it encourages people to just grind factory to try to get filters or something, it encourages things like just mindlessly hatchet running on factory, because you're not there to fight, you're just there to get the item to get into the fight. It's an unnecessary process that gets in the way of the game, not enhancing it. Going around collecting X number of items might be fun for some, and maybe works for something like Guild Wars or World of Warcraft, but I think is a terrible approach in this very different game as well and hopefully is something else the devs will rework down the line.

So, I completely disagree with your assessment there as well. Being more realistic, having the traders just sell items at the right price would streamline things and make the game better and more fun.

34 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

Nobody wants it to feel magical

Except a karma system would by its very nature.
 

35 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

I think most people just don't want it to devolve in a FFA cluster****.

I don't want that either all the time, that's why people play in groups as well as alone. They get a wider range of experiences because they have multiple avenues to play with, instead of just one road everyone has to go down. VOIP will enhance this further and people playing in groups means it's not a free for all since there's guys who clearly are working together.
 

37 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

It will always boil down to "is it work tking for their stuff?" and the answer, as it is right now, will always be yes

Again, not true at all for people who play in groups. You don't see people working in groups of 2-5 killing each other or dropping an F-1 in the extract or something. Hell, people give up their stuff, they only have to ask, they offer it freely. Or they talk it over "Hey, do you want this M4" "Sure" They don't have a fire fight over it. Theres dozens of videos on youtube of these sorts of interactions already so the idea that 'the answer will always be yes" is complete BS, since people aren't regularly killing people in their own groups that they come together with.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

So, I completely disagree with your assessment there as well. Being more realistic, having the traders just sell items at the right price would streamline things and make the game better and more fun.

Well this response explains a lot. If you don't understand why that's less realistic based on how video game economies work, there's no reason discussing this threads topic any further. I totally get why you dislike getting sick as being one repercussion to TKing, but not understanding why something needs to deter it is a whole different level of missing the point.

 

9 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

You don't see people working in groups of 2-5 killing each other or dropping an F-1 in the extract or something.

Ofc you don't KOS the IRL friends who bought the game with you... o.O

 

9 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

If you do 400m sprints for hours over the course of months, even with no one observing you running, you'll get faster because your muscles, and lungs will get better at it.

Even if your player dies every day of that month? Seriously? Every example you give contradicts the reason you give it.

 

This thread is no longer about a karma system, and now about trying to explain why the frequency of KOS in Tarkov is unrealistic in general...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/8/2017 at 4:10 AM, TechoverMana said:

Screw it, why not just have the gun explode in their hand and instantly kill them?

Or maybe they could just get hit by lightning by the Karma God or something? It gets to the point where it's like, just turn FF off and save people the trouble when you want to toss the realism aspect out the window. Friendly fire happens, and guns don't jam up magically because you shot the wrong person.
I'm hoping they drop the karma system at some point in development before the full release since it sounds terrible any way you cut it.

One thing is friendly fire, and other is intentional traitor fire to your homies. Scav on scav violence must be punished and hard, I would personally put a punishment in roubles to the player traitor if he tries to play back as a scav. And each time the punishment would be bigger and bigger if he continues being a traitor, to a moment where is not worth it for him to play the scav.

Devs agree that being a dick and killing your own scav faction members must and is gonna be punished. "You must be marked as a thread if you are known to shoot your people in the back".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not want the karma system, I think we should shoot everything that moves (except our friends.) . players with little equipment will kill you. and for example, playing premade with a friend from a other faction than your would give the option to clear the map.

Well, that's my opinion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

If you don't understand why that's less realistic based on how video game economies work

I really don't care how some other video game models its economy or whatever magical bonds or poo it does. If you want that go play WoW and trade with Night Elves or whatever and those fantastical rules they play by.  EFT, I'd far prefer the economy and traders it based around how actual arms dealers would work and operate. You sound like you're too stuck in how something like EVE online or Runescape does its economy and trying to make the game more like that, instead of how arms trade actually works to get weapons to insurgents and fighters in Syria or Donbass, and how those people actually operate to do their business.

9 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

Even if your player dies every day of that month? Seriously? Every example you give contradicts the reason you give it.

If they die, it can reset, and I'm not opposed to them stripping the weird progression system in place since a lot of that stuff is sort of questionable anyway, or like I said before, where you play a new character every time like with the player scavs. I'd like more realism, not less, and I acknowledge that there's obviously always going to be limits to how much and in how much detail can be simulated, I don't think that because we can't draw a 1:1 thing with reality, aka we don't actually die or get injured when shot in the game, the mere fact that we have a separation and only join via the interface of keyboard, mouse and monitor, doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and then toss realism out the window with things like a karma system.

9 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

you don't KOS the IRL friends who bought the game with you

If you've only known them for 30 seconds prior to entering the game are they your IRL friends? It's just some people who play together, they don't actually know each other outside of some guy saying "Hey, who wants to do some raids in EFT?"

But it still contradicts your point. It clearly can't be a free for all cluster duck if you've got a fair amount of people getting together in an organized manner and playing together, those are mutually exclusive.

And again, this isn't even getting into the plenty of times people just friendly wiggle each other and decide right then and there to work together and make it through entire raids based on nothing but gesture and wiggles, no VOIP or anything.

 

5 hours ago, Terminator01 said:

One thing is friendly fire, and other is intentional traitor fire to your homies

How's the computer going to tell the difference?
 

5 hours ago, Terminator01 said:

Scav on scav violence must be punished and hard

I get frusterated getting shot in the head too by a fellow scav, but that's the scav life. Devs also describe scavs as cutting each other's throats for a bigger piece. Shooting someone for their bigger gun sounds right and is a risk.
 

5 hours ago, Terminator01 said:

I would personally put a punishment in roubles to the player traitor if he tries to play back as a scav. And each time the punishment would be bigger and bigger if he continues being a traitor, to a moment where is not worth it for him to play the scav.

Ok, and I understand that.

I personally, feel the exact opposite. I would put no punishment on a player scav outside of having an actual gun fight on his hands that he could lose. The most I would do is just have it where any AI scav that sees or hears the player scav shoot another AI or player scav engages them like a PMC. But if they're sneaky, kill him out of sight and with a silenced weapon or knife, then yeah, he gets it and walks out of there a happier scav. Such is life.
 

5 hours ago, Terminator01 said:

Devs agree that being a dick and killing your own scav faction members must and is gonna be punished.

Devs also said they're cutting each other's throats and the game is going for 'uncompromising realism' so it sounds like devs need to decide on one or the other because they're sounding like they want to have their cake and eat it too. Some of these are true that devs stated them, but they've stated mutually exclusive concepts. You can't have scavs be backstabbing cutthroats and somehow offended that they've actually been backstabbing cutthroats. You can't be 'uncompromisingly realistic' while putting in systems that are just a compromise on reality.

I'd rather they just stick to that scavs are bastards and the game is uncompromisingly realistic. Others clearly would prefer that scavs are actually all best friends who would never hurt each other and toss the reality right out the window for more classical video game logic and systems in place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TechoverMana said:

I really don't care how some other video game models its economy or whatever magical bonds or poo it does. If you want that go play WoW and trade with Night Elves or whatever and those fantastical rules they play by.

...what are you talking about? ....because hyperinflation being a natural result in a video game economy only applies to fantasy games... because wizards?... Please elaborate on this, I don't understand the argument.

The reasons video games don't implement all game mechanics as they exist in real life is because without EVERY constraint / nuance of the real life system, the mechanic could never work in the virtual world. Economies are pretty much the easiest thing to understand because of the hyperinflation that naturally occurs due to the infinite ceiling of cash. This is why certain game mechanics are implemented, to combat these nuances.

Because, realistically, individual KOS wouldn't happen forever. Every lone wolf with the KOS mentality would eventually be killed off resulting in packs being prominent. This will never happen in a video game because you can just keep spawning in over and over.

If you would prefer not having a Karma style system, that's fine. Some people prefer the game to have more people to shoot at. Like @FLP mentioned: the option to clear the map would be a fun experience. I get that.

If there are too many enemies on the map it devolves into a FFA COD style shooter. I've had a few rounds like this (surprisingly on Shoreline) where there were 5 FFA players all shooting at each other (Of which I took down 4 within a minute and made it out alive m4 vs pistols). But it wasn't fun, it just felt like a hectic mess. It wasn't tense it was just constantly spinning around looking for more people.

However, if there are too few enemies, you may not end up seeing a single enemy during a raid. I think they just want to find a good balance between action and tension building.

One thing I'd like to say in favor of Karma, would be they could easily increase the number of players on the map at a time. You'd have more player interaction with the same number of enemies to shoot at. This would be a pretty sweet compromise for those worried about shooting things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, pierreofthefr said:

what are you talking about? ....because hyperinflation being a natural result in a video game economy only applies to fantasy games... because wizards?... Please elaborate on this, I don't understand the argument.

How you've seen economies work in other games isn't going to be the way it may or may not work out in EFT. Partially due to the difference in how the economies are working out and planned to be working out, and from the difference in genre and style and gameplay mechanics.

In short, you said

13 hours ago, pierreofthefr said:

less realistic based on how video game economies work

Where, it should be based on being more realistic depending on how actual economies work. Conflicts that might arise due to the nature of it being a game/simulation might arise, sure, and cross that bridge when it gets there. But what it shouldn't be is a complete fabrication from the get go.

Currently, devs are just basing the pricing of weapons and ammo based on what their real world costs are.

An M4 costs about 750 bucks in game. If you look at real world prices for an AR15, such as the M&P 15, you'll find most models come down to between 600-800 bucks.

You'll see a similar trend in the SKS, ect. That's why the MP5, despite not being as good as the AK or M4, is still more expensive. Or why the pump shotty costs more than the AK. A video game economy would have it be similar to say, Counter-strike, where the MP5 would be less than the AK or M4, and the pump shotty around the price of the MP5, because they're basing it on the video game logic. EFT has shown to just take the real world pricing. So, despite that you could easily make the argument that the AK or M4 are superior weapons, they aren't more expensive because the real world pricing just doesn't reflect that.

And in the end, none of that has anything to do with traders not working with you from Karma system shenanigans. Arms dealers deal to anyone with enough money to buy the guns, I don't think they'd care who you use them on as long as the money keeps coming in. They'll sell to both sides and make a nice profit while they kill each other. The Karma system still wouldn't make sense, and it shouldn't be in.
 

1 hour ago, pierreofthefr said:

Because, realistically, individual KOS wouldn't happen forever. Every lone wolf with the KOS mentality would eventually be killed off resulting in packs being prominent. This will never happen in a video game because you can just keep spawning in over and over.

There's limits to simulation, something I've already said since the very fact I don't have 200 bullet holes inside me would prove that we'll never get a 1:1 simulation of reality with every hydrogen atom and quark in a simulated environment, especially with people. So yes, you're right, we don't actually kill off players at the keyboard when we kill them in game to make them stop. And there's always going to be meta-gaming no matter how well you set it up unless you strap someone into the matrix or something. The mere fact they know they're playing a game will alter their behavior in the game. I know that's something that can't be changed due to the nature of this being a game and not actually having people shoot each other in some city in Russia.

But that doesn't mean that there's no point in trying to make the game match as close as possible, to try to aim for that 'uncompromisingly realistic' goal by putting in a system that is laughably unrealistic with no basis in reality to begin with. The closer the better. A karma system by its very nature, makes the game less realistic, not more, since it has unrealistic coverage and presumption of motives, unrealistic penalties, which forces unrealistic choices and thus makes the game as a whole more unrealistic. People won't be thinking "Should I shoot or not shoot because I don't want to give away my position, or I want that team mate to work with to improve my chances, or I'm too exposed and need to get to better cover first." Which are realistic thoughts and choices to make and consider. With a karma system, that goes out the window. They'll just think "I can't shoot because the Karma system will screw me." and that's that. There's no realism to that, as well as no choice.
 

1 hour ago, pierreofthefr said:

If there are too many enemies on the map it devolves into a FFA COD style shooter.

Again, if there's a group of 4-5 guys working together, that alone means it's no longer a FFA COD style shooter. Even if everyone else is doing whatever, that group that's working together means it's no longer a free for all, it's no longer every man for themselves. It's become by default an Us vs Them.

Put a group of 5 working together, and 15 guys who are doing the FFA thing and that'd still hold true, since it'd just mean its the group of 5 vs a violent mob, but it's still not a free for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about.. if you kill a team member.. your player starts uncontrollably spouting vocal taunts? seeing as in real life, to kill your own team members would be insane, so maybe this could be portrayed through the player uncontrollably talking and giving away their position? i would find that enough of an incentive to check before i shoot.. what about you guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leefy said:

how about.. if you kill a team member.. your player starts uncontrollably spouting vocal taunts? seeing as in real life, to kill your own team members would be insane, so maybe this could be portrayed through the player uncontrollably talking and giving away their position? i would find that enough of an incentive to check before i shoot.. what about you guys?

I think it's dumb. Although I could agree that you might question the sanity of a person who decides to kill those who're close to them (although there could be plenty of reasons either real or perceived that might make you want to kill your own team mates), there's plenty of guys who do just that and don't let out a peep. Heck, there's people who kill their own parents, siblings or offspring, nurses and midwives who kill innocent babies, and remain completely mute if they're ever even caught at all.
Although some people do kill and tell, loving to taunt, it's unrealistic to have that be everyone's reaction. It'd be more realistic to see how the player behaves in their own behavior. Some might taunt themselves or gloat and take too long farming gear or something else to set themselves up for failure.

Some will just be sneaky as hell and disappear like a shadow in a dark room and never speak a word of it. But that variety in response and behavior is what makes things interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will always be players who prefer playing the lone wolf instead of with teams. Those players should have a place in EFT too. 
If you play on your own why not KOS? 
if you're geared why would you trust a random hatchetman or Makarov-runner just because he has the same faction? 

Why wouldn't the low gear player take a penalty for teamkilling when he can get out with gear worth half a million roubles or more? 

Edited by rix5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leefy said:

how about.. if you kill a team member.. your player starts uncontrollably spouting vocal taunts? seeing as in real life, to kill your own team members would be insane, so maybe this could be portrayed through the player uncontrollably talking and giving away their position? i would find that enough of an incentive to check before i shoot.. what about you guys?

I think if you carry rare items and high value gear on you i'd make my way taunting to the exit with your stuff ... that won't stop me from taking your things. 

Edited by rix5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random jamming is a little bit too fantasy for me in a game like Tarkov. Bad people don't magically have jam-happy guns in real life. They generally get killed by other people who find out about what they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TechoverMana said:

I think it's dumb. Although I could agree that you might question the sanity of a person who decides to kill those who're close to them (although there could be plenty of reasons either real or perceived that might make you want to kill your own team mates), there's plenty of guys who do just that and don't let out a peep. Heck, there's people who kill their own parents, siblings or offspring, nurses and midwives who kill innocent babies, and remain completely mute if they're ever even caught at all.
Although some people do kill and tell, loving to taunt, it's unrealistic to have that be everyone's reaction. It'd be more realistic to see how the player behaves in their own behavior. Some might taunt themselves or gloat and take too long farming gear or something else to set themselves up for failure.

Some will just be sneaky as hell and disappear like a shadow in a dark room and never speak a word of it. But that variety in response and behavior is what makes things interesting.

fair enough, however i would imagine immediate consequences for killing teammates would cause players to be less willing to do it, some kind of behavioral change in your player that leaves you at a disadvantage, maybe the headache or tremors. something immediate, and severe enough to warrant actually considering if killing that teammate is worth it. Currently its far too easy to see a teammate, like the look of their gear and shoot them in the back, in tarkov, if you were part of USEC or BEAR, you wouldnt kill your teammates unless you knew you could get away with it. Scavs is different as it says in the game description of them they are quick to abandon moral constraints. But USEC and BEAR are organisations, who would disapprove of killing their own team members.

Edited by Leefy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Leefy said:

immediate consequences for killing teammates would cause players to be less willing to do it

Undoubtedly true, but by the very nature of it being immediate and having zero tolerance with no context around why it happens, it's horribly unrealistic any way you slice it.
 

45 minutes ago, Leefy said:

some kind of behavioral change in your player that leaves you at a disadvantage, maybe the headache or tremors. something immediate, and severe enough to warrant actually considering if killing that teammate is worth it.

Put this already exists to some extent in the game and the meta game. Namely, if you find a group of people you actually want to team up with, and then decide to shoot them in the back, there are things to consider and disadvantages to be had.

Namely, you're in a fire fight with what could be some fairly skilled and fairly geared players. There's the possibility you lose that fight outright and end up with nothing.

Even if you win, you could be so injured that you cannot survive long enough to exit and actually extract, or just end up trading kills.

You give away your position and let anyone else on the map know your location, which means player scavs, possible AI scavs and other players now might be headed your way.

If you kill off your team mates, you lose those extra sets of eyes and ears as well as the extra fire power and tactics they can bring. Suppress and flank, pincers, watching each others backs takes 2 people. Without that extra person to aid you, now you might not survive the next fire fight.

If there is another group, you are now at a huge distinct disadvantage. Even if it's just 2v1, it's still 2 v 1 and the odds are against you, let alone if you run into a group of 3, 4, or 5 players.
 

Then, you have the fact that if you shoot a team mate in the back, they're not going to want to play with you anymore and now you've lost that possible help forever.

 

51 minutes ago, Leefy said:

Currently its far too easy to see a teammate, like the look of their gear and shoot them in the back

Most friendly fires right now aren't because of gear, people who are grouped up openly share the wealth. Most of the time you see people in a group shooting each other, it's poor communications and losing sight with one another. 
 

52 minutes ago, Leefy said:

in tarkov, if you were part of USEC or BEAR, you wouldnt kill your teammates unless you knew you could get away with it.

The nature of a brutal war zone is that it's a place where you exactly could get away with those sorts of things. If you and a buddy decide to take out guy #3, and then feed people a story of how some scav shot them, or how they got lost and went MIA in the chaos, or stepped on an IED. You could feed people any story and there'd be no real way to dispute it. Or hell, even just one guy killing another guy and burying the body in the woods somewhere, and gives the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' bit, people might never find that corpse, or find it years after the fact and have no way to rectify it.

 

58 minutes ago, Leefy said:

But USEC and BEAR are organisations, who would disapprove of killing their own team members.


The story of Tarkov is contradictory in some ways about if the players are currently affiliated with or ex-PMC operators since there's evidence to both sides. If they end up being ex-operator from the get go or by the end of it all, then the loyalty might disappear right along with the paychecks and support. That's also assuming they haven't just been entirely abandoned and betrayed by the PMCs and thus feel burned and feel like burning them right back. People defected from the Soviet Union to the USA, and from the USA to the Soviet Union all throughout the Cold War, often spilling national secrets and either directly or indirectly getting their former countrymen killed. Defections, fragging, traitors are things that are not unheard of throughout times of conflict, and plenty of people who defected ended up living full and happy lives despite having blood on their hands. Maybe a few of them had some lingering regret or psychological torments about what they did and to whom, but I'm sure there's just as many who slept like a baby with happy dreams that very same night and never lost a minute of sleep over their defection.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
b38e7c858218a416ef714554dce933a2