[email protected]

That gives me an idea......

Honestly, I don't think the "boss-fight" idea is a very DayZ way to go about things. :P Just saying. Wildlife should definitely play a part in the game, but not as a way of enforcing/encouraging teamwork. More as environmental "fluff". We'd have wolves and bears entering towns, because there's no "civilisation" (cars, crowds and noise) to be afraid of anymore. Wild boars in the forests should be really feckin' dangerous. As should elk etc. if they're ever added. Getting gored is going to suck. Big time. And if you're wandering around while wounded or bleeding, you'll have wolverines trying to eat you. (nasty little buggers) Not to say that a bear-den won't be sort of a boss-fight. Just that setting it up with that intention is pretty crappy for an anti-game. It's not like bears are renowned for collecting and hoarding treasure.

Honestly, I was expecting this to be a retro "Wall climbing machetes" topic. Still. Pleasantly surprised. If climbing (scaling sheer walls) isn't feasible, I'd still like to see the ability to hop onto those objects which are vault-height but un-vault-able. (if you know what I mean) That mod LoK brought up would be absolutely spot-on. As long as there's a MAJOR cost to player condition. Depending on the medical system for SA, we might be able to have "endurance" as a factor of your overall wellbeing. Most folks will get fairly puffed climbing shoulder height repeatedly. Especially while carrying everything they own on their back.

:facepalm: "Different", because the two are not mutually exclusive, maybe? We should be supportive of all forms of improvisation. That's how scavenging works, once the real tools are gone. "Most shotgun users" would most certainly not be melting down AMR rounds. If they had no use for them and no way to make them useful, they are by definition "useless". Sounds like you're looking for any reason for 50s not to be in-game. We imagine the contents of the game-world are based loosely on reality and work from there. If there's any desperation here, it must have followed you. EDIT: (spelling and wording)

Heh. I get what he's on to. A lot of suggestions are just ideas that folk pulled straight out of their ass. Not exactly "Designer" material. We can't all be expected to have a working knowledge of programming, but enthusiasm has to be tempered with a little dose of reality. :P

^ that too. We'd have the "Starving Moderators Foundation" to deal with.

You'll fire off your huge stockpile of 3 bullets, then get eaten by Zeds while trying to climb down from the roof. ^_^

RE: Zeds or No Zeds? It brings to mind Rocket's eagerness to dull the hype surrounding launch (for the sake of server space etc.) If the first Alpha shipped sans zombies, we'd certainly be looking at a less excited audience. Generally speaking. Most of the dedicated folks would probably shrug it off, but many others might decide to opt-out based on that alone.

The current system leaves it to user's judgement. While that might not be the best idea 100% of the time, for the most part it works well. Posting in an old topic, if the subject becomes relevant again, is preferable to opening a new topic most of the time. It saves the same points from having to be made repeatedly (which already happens without deleting old posts, so it's only going to make things worse) Also, keeping old posts open allows for reviewing of previous discussions etc. One of the best things about forums. We have non-stickied topics which are still being added to occasionally, but not necessarily regularly (like in the gallery), meaning an autolock/delete would have probably closed them even though they're still in use. Inactive topics will eventually fade into the mists in due time. The second idea is good. I'm just not sure how it would work. Personally, I'd just link the "create new topic" button to the "search" page instead and be done with it. :P

Aye, a one by one animation would be pretty spot-on, I reckon. If it takes long enough that preparing ahead of time becomes important, it'll be fine.

The advantage/disadvantage comes from the degree of camouflage only. I wouldn't want anybody to spawn with stuff in their inventory, but the clothing should definitely be random. IMO When you give players a choice, they'll choose whatever gives them the greatest advantage. A properly random clothing choice means it's all fair. (there or thereabouts) There would be no huge practical impact, I don't think. Just a little bit of flavour added to the world. Teams of players will likely want to collect certain types of outfits/items of clothing, which gives greater value to items depending on the rarity. Non-civilian clothing should be rare to the point that it becomes almost mythical. As long as it's not entire uniforms, it's not as if the game would be forcing a story onto your character. It's all just salvage, after all.

Honestly, it's all in jest. I'm good-natured, really. I just can't help but get frustrated watching so many folks, who are clearly passionate about the subject, wasting the opportunity to explore ideas simply because they don't see entirely eye to eye. At the very least, after realising that you don't share the same ideals as someone, repetiton of the same points is redundant. Being angry is a sign that the topic in question is important. So spirited debate (and a raging argument) isn't really a bad thing. I'm just poking the beast with a stick, hoping for something other than "more of the same".

Oh aye. Don't get me wrong. The right tool for the job is always the wisest choice. I don't think anyone's expecting the "1HK from a mile" you think of when you see AMRs mentioned around here. Honestly, I just thought in a pinch, no harm in trying. Think of it as using flaming petrol when you don't have det-cord, sort of thing.

^ If that sort of idea could be made TRULY random, without being vulnerable to folks who'd just suicide until they got good gear, it would be ace. If there was like a 1/5000 chance of spawning in non-civillain gear, it'd be reasonable to assume nobody will spam-respawn it. I do like "random gear" spawn ideas, for adding variety, but they're just WAY too easy to min/max. Sometimes starting everyone with bugger all is the best way.

Apparently the concept of discussion is lost on you. But go ahead. Repeat yourself again. It's not like you were considering doing anything useful.

So even a point-blank 50 from a 12 gauge couldn't impact hard enough to be AntiMateriel? Not even AntiSkoda? My thinking was, no matter the loss in stability, velocity and impact-power, it's still going to give a fair whack. It's a feckin' big cartridge. And it's packed. Precision engineering can take a back-seat if there's a practical use for "winging it". Hands in the air, I'm not the numbers-guy.

Someone with the time and inclination could probably edit these 101 pages down to 2, maybe 3 and there would be the same amount of on-point, useful or discussion-worthy content. We just had Bad_Mojo very nearly discussing something interesting, only for the "If you're not 100% with me, you must be 100% against me"-blinkers to fall into place. Now we've got another parrot? I honestly can't tell whether this is how you get your kicks, or you've just really got nothing better to do.

Pistol step-ups would be likely to jam, and cause mechanical damage, but aren't exactly a recipe for a "Bugs-Bunny blowout". Also, the use of smaller ammunition in pistols would be WAY less useful than the ability to fire AMR rounds from a 12 gauge. If the feature really is too complex to be feasible (on account of the numbers), I'd forget about stepping-up ALL ammo and just make 50 BMG moddable, for its unique functionality.

I seriously doubt the primary concern here is user-safety. When you have your shotty, 12.7 and tape in-hand and that pesky banditmobile is causing havok, you likely won't be thinking "Geez, this isn't exactly the intended purpose of these two. Better not risk it" Risk/Reward is the name of the game. Rags, petrol and glass bottles probably don't meet any kind of munitions-safety standards, but improvise to win, baby.

Palm to the Face, dude. GTA has a huge number of enemy spawns, fast-paced urban driving and what can only be described as "eccentric" gameplay. All of this is tuned to reach a specific difficulty with the 3rd person perspective in mind. Not once have I said that FPV doesn't increase difficulty. But you're clearly seeking an argument, as per usual. Surprise, surprise. GTA is difficult in FPV because the creators of the game never intended for it to be played that way. The point you're trying to make is irrelevant, since ArmA and DayZ have 3dp as standard and the Devs have chosen to make it a feature. There are actually many activities in ArmA/DayZ which FPV makes easier. Such as shooting, looting and activating objects in the world (gates, ladders etc.) **(note. Unless you play with crosshairs enabled) If the creators of the game intended for it to be played solely from one perspective or the other, there simply wouldn't be a choice. EDIT: If you really are just looking for a fight, stick your head up your arse and fight for breath. Otherwise, stop with the bollocks. FPV only WILL be a server option. The question is, what's 3dp going to end up like? If you never play 3dp, it's none of your concern.

That's a bit mental. But it's the sort of thing you expect in DayZ. After you've taped up your 50, keep the tape handy. You might need it to stick your fingers back on.

I clearly misunderstood your point about searching for PC peripherals then. In any case, you speak quite good English, for a left-hander. It's a shame the apocalypse will wipe you out. (j/k, my brother's a mutant, too) @ Dallas. That's the sort of thing that'd work well with an encumberance scale, determining how much you can carry without getting puffed. That way, it'd be a little bit of a balancing-act between carrying all the provisions you need and being able to move around reasonably quickly. Also, speed of movement. You should be able to ditch your pack, to lighten your load, if you need to split in a hurry. And while looting, you're probably going to be better off if you're not clunking around wearing everything you own.

Ummm... You can't just say "matter of fact" and then talk bollocks. ^_^ If you use "left-handed" anything, then you didn't do any adapting. On that note. We're going to need left-handed hatchets, left-handed handcuffs and a pair of thick rubber-gloves (so we don't have to risk catching left-handed) :P

I'd guess the lack of bullets would be a bit of a deterrent. Not to mention attracting a horde of Zeds with a gunshot. But yeah. There's nothing stopping you from taking your victim's gun and killing him. Or just panning their head in, if that's your thing. :bandit: It's a wait and see sort of thing. I'm secretly hoping some of the changes of pace and gameplay will lead players away from the "High-score to win" attitude. But that's probably giving folk too much credit.