mr_chabowski@live.co.uk

There's already talk of unarmed combat in SA, but I doubt it would be a form of attack, more likely just for self-defense in a pinch. Fighting without a weapon should be a last resort only. If you're undetected and there's an armed threat nearby, you should be thinking about how to get away, not trying to snap his neck.

@ SmashT. I based my "safe" point mostly on leviski's comment and the attitudes and general expectations of folk in other topics about base-building. @ leviski. Of course I read your post. 1. support "safe-storage" (among other things), 2. insult anyone who doesn't agree with you, 3. cover your ass with "wait and see". :lol: We know the actual features can't be judged until we see them, but we CAN speculate on the idea. Being that the interior is instanced, activity on one side of the door will have no indication on the other side. eg. a firefight could be going down right outside your "base" and you'd be oblivious to it. It's safe to assume an underground instance would provide some degree of security. Access, probably through an in-world object (hatch), will likely be easily hidden. The benefit/drawback of that is a matter of opinion, but I personally don't like the idea. I understand that game mechanics allude to real world actions, without fully simulating them, but a base dug out of the ground would have to be created in a way which I can only describe as "unnatural". This could be harmful to DayZ's target of maintaining authenticity.

The best changes for realism in vehicle handling would be simulated traction and manual gearboxes.

I like it. It should affect your temperature too. Missing windscreens should also make an empty JD bottle into a viable weapon. (if you aim it just right)

Is that so?Making "bases" which are "safe", whether from zeds, players or the environment, is a BIG fuckup in DayZness. IMO Nothing should be safe. I've talked with some folks here before about having finite fortification-resources spawn in the same way vehicles do in the mod. That way, there's no load added to the sever if a barrier is dismantled and repositioned. Just pre-existing objects being shuffled around. The instanced, underground building idea was a solution to the problem of having huge amounts of data on servers. And it would sort that particular problem. The thing is, underground instances come with their own issues which IMO would be worse for gameplay than just leaving construction out altogether.

@ unclebully. Sounds like you might want to try some Benylin for that cough. And some Calpol for the butthurt.

Necro-threads are starting to snowglobe recently.

I think it's something of a misnomer TBH. It's not MMO that folks don't like the idea of, it's the thought of being thrust into a particular situation (with backstory, however slight) and being tasked with filling a role. Folks want to carve their own adventure. I think that's where a lot of the appeal stems from. Making the first wee while of survival a "fledgling" stage is perfect for encouraging folks to take their time while looting and causing an obstruction for those who would simply loot their own corpses or regear at tents. It's the sort of thing that could be done by degrees, per sever.Some less brutal servers might start you hungry/thirsty, whereas a take the piss hardcore server might start with you bleeding and passing out, with a bad case of VD and a beastin' hangover.

I'd like this. It'd be better (I think) if any working parts were salvagable from all vehicles, and the scrap yard was like a vortex for wrecks.

With almost every building enterable and loot being hit or miss, the small-town spawns will be less of a reason for folk to complain. IMO Kamenka is one of the best spawns you can get. It'll only improve with more accessible houses. Granted, if you intended to meet up with someone, some spawns are a bit out of the way. I still don't get why folk would rather suicide than just play with the hand they've been dealt. Trying to be as polite as possible, but if folks are willing to jump off a lighthouse or get eaten by zeds intentionally because of a "bad spawn", fuck 'em. Don't cater to lightweights.

Put it in your sig or something.

I like the idea of more densely zed-filled areas, and the challenge it would add, I just can't help but feel that rewards of uber-lootz would only serve to make already strong clans even stronger. If the danger-zones were important installations, such as a large fueling station or maybe some kind of radio relay, they would be sought after, but stuck in a permanent, non-securable location. (eventually they would be swarmed again)

In other post-apocalyptic settings I tend to lose myself in the detail of certain scenes. Take Fallout, for example. Every title in the series has mini backstories to investigate, which, while totally unnecessary, add to the experience greatly. I appreciate that Rocket wants US to tell the stories, I just feel that snippets from the lives of former residents, even the scenes of their last struggles, would really serve to flesh-out the world and make it feel lived-in. These stories might even be another opportunity for the artistic members of the community to lend thier talents.

Cheers for that, dude. :thumbsup: It's a bit of a shame that it's turning out to be so much hassle, but I'm glad to hear the idea isn't written off entirely.

Is there any word on when the "drag and drop" interface will lose the boxes for clothing items? The PAX demo video (if I remember right) had a quick mention of clothes being placed directly onto the character model. I thought that was a neat little idea.

It's also entirely missing the point.Which you continue to do for a further 24 pages.

Nobody needs banned I understand the sentiment, but consistently and intentionally refusing to acknowledge any reasoning which refutes your own interpretation certainly strikes me as trolling. You're allowed a different opinion, but repeating it over and over serves no purpose. Clearly folks don't see the inventory UI being low priority as much of an issue at the moment.

:o

Thing is, if more gear (such as rebreathers and gas-masks, waterproofs and welly-boots) were practical, as in serving a purpose, looking catwalk-sexy won't be the first thing that comes to mind. EDIT: As long as there are drawbacks to dressing solely for style, I see no harm in including as many options as possible. Snow camo combats and a denim patch-jacket might not be the most suitable survival-clothing. But you'll know it's me when you see me.

Guys, you can only tell someone "fire is hot" so many times before you just have to give up and let them stick their hands in there.

It's a nice thought, but I guarantee you most of the dupe-topics come from folks who wouldn't even read stickies.

Why is everyone basing their thoughts on 360 and PS3? There's no chance a console version of DayZ will be out in the current-gens' lifetime. The game is at least a year away from being considered "done".

It wouldn't be cross-platform developed though. I'm pretty sure a port would only be started when DayZ goes gold. Besides that, Rocket has said his guys wouldn't handle any console ports, it'd be done by a 3rd party. A potential PS4/XboxOne version, somewhere down the road, will have no impact at all on DayZ development. It just allows BI to reach a wider audience.

This is my favourite UI on the Citadel.

Wait. Steve Jobs came back as a ghost. And he stayed in his grave? I thought he was supposed to be smart? STEVE! YOU CAN DO GHOST STUFF NOW! You can't work a touch-screen though, because your ethereal form would just go through it. EDIT: Bet you wish you went for voice-activation instead now.