mr_chabowski@live.co.uk

And I'm sure any creature would do the same. But that doesn't stop packs of wolves from regularly taking down deer and other large animals, does it? An elk/moose/deer would kick a man's ass 1 on 1, so I reckon if wolves can take them down, they can definitely take zombies down. Did you read Gews' post? Zeds don't use tools, so I don't imagine bare-handed struggling is going to do any good against a wolf-pack. :P

I don't think "time" should be the factor to decide improvements. But I do think the fact that all survivors are exactly the same is in need of change. Any adapting should be due to real-world factors. Eg. The condition of your overall health and ability to perform physical feats should depend on your diet, exercise and whether or not you've been injured etc. Poor diet would mean your wellbeing suffers. Driving everywhere would mean you're less well prepared for long bouts of running. Actions like shooting and driving should NEVER be affected by stat-changes. Injured states and "debuffs" (cold, hunger/thirst, pain etc) should have a negative effect, where it's reasonable, but other than that it should be totally down to player-skill. Skills related to actions, like cooking, gathering wood, harvesting food, medical treatment and mechanics should increase with practice, as they would IRL. Making the activity go faster or become more effective as applicable. Any action which a player can't control should be a skill with opportunity for advancement. But not using your skills should also decrease them over time. All this should be able to reward players who take more care in their actions and encourage a more survival-oriented gameplay overall. You're not just trying to prevent yourself from dying. You're keeping yourself alive and healthy. This will add value to player lives, as the more you learn about the skills you need in the apocalypse the better a survivor you become. On death and respawn, all physical stats should return to an "average" not good, but not bad state and all your skills should be lost. Starting from scratch.

I suppose it depends how long it's been since the end of the world. As well as whether or not Zeds will be provoked by anything other than human survivors. A zombie-infested town is going to be a lot quieter than your average "living" town. And animals given long enough to get used to the idea of not having to avoid these settlements wouldn't think twice about going for a look, whether searching for food or just expanding their territory. Who's to say wolves wouldn't hunt zeds? They're a lot less dangerous than an elk could be, if it was on a rampage. As I said, there are other factors. Zeds behaviour and reactions are largely unknown at this point. As is the setting, time-wise.

SOLD! To the man with the Punisher avatar!

I think it's one of those cases where trying to fix it would just break something else. That's why adding something to draw focus away from the problem would work better in my view. Maybe sometimes just covering over the cracks actually is the best solution. :P

@ Wayze. There's absolutely no difference in accuracy or recoil in 3dp compared to FPV. In actual fact, shooting in FPV is easier because of the view. If you're going to start lumping crosshairs, nametags, peripheral dots and map-markers all in to try and make your point seem "right" it just makes you look desperate and actually drags the whole pro-FPV argument down. Don't quote me if you're talking about something else entirely. And I already made it very clear I'm not interested in this pointless repetiton. EDIT: @bad_mojo. Increased awareness is the entire point of 3dp. That's never been in question. I'll look back and see where we went wrong, but as far as I can tell you were just determined to see the line "FPV is harder". EDIT2: Yup. Honestly, all I can see is you baiting for that one particular phrase. The funny thing is, I didn't disagree with you in the slightest. I just carried on the discussion. Pointless thing to cut all ties over, but suit yourself.

Awh. :'(

Yip. Found that right after I posted. I can't tell if you're making a new point or just quoting me to show that you found it too. The ghosts in that version are dumbed down and slowed down precisely because it was intended for FPV gameplay. Which is what I was on about with the GTA thing. Gameplay for any game is geared towards the way the creators intended it. If the guy took away the radar it would be even harder / more frustrating. But whether that would make it more fun / better would, as in ArmA, be a matter of personal preference. You'd still be performing the very same actions. + How about a little respect for quite possibly the most influential video game ever? :P

I sometimes wipe the case when I spill my cup of tea on it.

The only other factor is whether or not you're standing up straight. You obviously stick out more when you're crouched. Other than that, it could just be bad luck. It's not the trees' fault. They're just trees.

Take cover behind maple/oak trees, not pine trees. The trunk of the tree is solid. All a pine tree does is obstruct your vision.

Self-imposed restrictions can put some challenge back into the experience. If that's what you're missing. If you want to give yourself a handicap, don't wear a backpack. Or only use a sidearm. A little imagination can do wonders. It is a sandbox, after all.

When the alpha rolls out and nobody has seen or heard from you for a couple of weeks, it might pique their interest.

All the assets are property of BI, so they can cherry-pick what they like from where they like. I don't follow ArmA 3 development, so your guess is as good as mine when it comes to specifics. But from an outsiders point of view, it makes sense to take both titles in different directions while things are still in heavy development and subject to change at any point. In any case, I don't think either title is harming the development of the other.

Hmmmmm. I think we need more opinions on this.....

I think you'd better survey the communities opinion on whether or not we should have any more polls. Perhaps through some sort of vote?

If you're going to necro a topic, try and make it worthwhile. A substantial point would be nice. Anyhoo. With aim-deadzone up to ~10% the point you're aiming at becomes hard to determine. Hopefully the devs have thought of this and enforced it to prevent home-made crosshairs.

The way group-camps work would go pretty much completely out the window with a mechanic like that. And risking hindrance to any 3rd party just seems like the wrong way to go IMHO. For bodies, however, a player-detection would be a good idea. I brought this up on another topic (can't find it ATM).. When you die and respawn, your body should remain, as normal, unless you approach the point where you died. When you get within a certain range, say ~500m, the body would be removed. Team-members (if they are around and alive) would be looting you regardless, as would ANY other player, so what they do is largely irrelevant. The main factor is you'll be unable to restock and simply pick up where you left off.

At the very least, development of both simultaneously allows for exploration of more ideas. It's also an advantage to be able to learn from each other's mistakes.

I can understand why it's thought of it as a "buff". Preconceptions go a long way towards how well anything can be received. And it's a shame. Driving, flying and shooting are reliant on player abilities and that's the way it should stay. The learning and improvement should only apply to activities in which the player has no control (beyond selecting the action and waiting for the animation to play out). Practical skills which can be reasonably well simulated don't need "skills" attached to them. The biggest issue is determining the scale of improvement over time and the degrees by which skills would increase. In any case, I'm getting off-topic. There's no telling for certain, but theoretically, if it increases the disparity between veterans and beachlanders, it adds value to life. All I really want to see is player's lives' worth being measured in more than just their easily reclaimable possessions. (left-wing alert)

I don't think reviews are that big of an issue for DayZ TBH. Not a penny spent on advertising, buggy as hell, (basically broken a lot of the time :P) . Massive success. It's not like the fans who keep themselves informed are going to instantly change their opinions. Besides, when something manages to prove bad reviews totally wrong (or vice-versa) it tends to be an even more powerful message in the end. * insert example here *

When we know there will be different server options, moving from one type of server to another is always going to be a sore point. (gearing up and shifting server) If settings are ALL pre-set (no mixing and matching) then locking characters to specific server settings seems reasonable. It's not really the same as "multiple characters", but it could serve that purpose to an extent. Eg. If I'm playing alone, I've got my lonewolf character on a Merc-server. But if I'm playing as part of a group I'll most likely be on a Veteran-server. I'd still have the same profile name etc. but it's essentially an alt. account.

Thing is, moving everything to the 'yard takes away a lot of the organisation ability we have when things are left in particular threads and directories. Making searching a wee bit more of a pain. (and it's hassle at the best of times) Seriously though. If the topic-title/search-relevance thing IS possible, I'd back that 1million percent. :thumbsup:

See, I always thought of relying entirely on gear to give any sense of worth to a life as a bit...unsettling. You know? Giving the wrong impression. For some reason, folks seem very opposed to skill-systems. Maybe it's just the terminology that they don't like, but that's beside the point. Education and improving your abilities is a far more lifelike way to suggest "value" and "meaning" in individuals and their experiences/life. It's something that can be shared, but can't be taken forcefully. And something you can't take with you when you die, or store away for later.