Josefinko

you should contact the same guy that make cinematics for franky to make ones for you to make a real parody :)

It's obviously off-topic but as mentioned by dreygar, i as well think letting anyone running a dayz server will not result in a desired outcome. Fact of the matter is that public hive structure doesn't offer much freedom, at all. when the server is shaped by the players playing on it then real magic may occur. the players are incharge of what's happening rather than an admin. this can only occur when players commit to one place that they invest their time on and is monitored by professionals, and not by size of pockets. ideas like mention on this topic, good or bad, afaik will be impossible on a public hive structure. i hope the direction the team took is to take control over the servers rather than leaving it to the community because at the long run everyone running their own business is fitting an FPS game rather than what DayZ striving to be, which is anything between mmo to an rpg. Gotta keep in mind that the combination of MMO and FPS is not new, though dayz brought a whole new meaning to it and it is very fitting to follow traditional mmos here. for a game like planetside2 it might not be the case.

Technically you can always create new character on a new server (referring to private hives). Sure, you wont be able to move your already built up character from one server to another though imo the pros overcoming the cons in that case. the possibilities are really great if players are bound to a server. it gives options in terms of server dynamics, community events, ingame trade, total autonomy that fits perfectly to the whole dayz idea, again, in my opinion.

Speaking of mmo's, if there's something that SA should take from private hives is the bound to server approach but achieving that is almost seem impossible. What i'm thinking off is something like that: What's the ideal? Creating a realm of servers(or a server) that allows to bound players to it and share data without creating a situation where one wont be able to get in because of the low population (50-60 on a server) and thus be on queue time pretty much for eternity. all in all i think that bounding characters to servers is something dayz really need and will make the game ten times better, Achieving that though pose alot of challenges. What is needed is to increase the world to as such that we can populate it not with 50-60 players, but 500, or 1000. How you do that? One option might be using existing maps and instance them into one big world. you move from one map to another through an instance, but the data is permanent on all of them, thus the world. If all the players wanna go to the same location (which may raise a problem) i guess that can be somewhat solved as well by allowing player's cap on each instance. it still wont fix the whole queue issue but it may lower it to something more manageable. needless to say that there will be a need to cap the amount of players that can even create characters on a server as you obviously dont want thousands trying to connect as there's no solution for that. all in all i think that it's somehow what the team seem to be planning for the future though the underground idea was in my opinion not a good solution to the problem.

You're right, it does pose a problem. one solution i may think off is randoming these houses location like helicopter sites. so not every server will look similar.

Pretty straight forward suggestion. I understand that there are big plans for SA in terms of constructions and big instanced bases.. though,my suggestion applies to what can be done to provide some sense of security to players without the need to drill beneath the ground. Allowing players to occupy abandoned homes is one of the options. Allow them to occupy houses and lock it's doors, and windows. allow them to fortify it, and allow them to be able to also lose what hidden inside, and the house as well. The house it self can't be registered to any player, or anything like that. it's a free item that anyone can make a use of it - If a group of players, or an individual player, have pieces of wood and metal and the right tools, they are allowed to fortify the house and lock it up, or in contrast if the team finds a locked house that has already been fortified, with the right tools (such as construction hammer) let them smash the door up and see what inside, and make it their own. Obviously making construction tools a rare find and the houses as well should be very limited source to give it an advantage over tents for example. It might not fit in the current mod since such structures should be added to the map rather then come with it. more or less there's a need to plan it out smartly. In addition since such places may also be considered "hot spots" players that own the house may use its windows and walls as cover to return fire thus inviting strategic gameplay.

Posted this suggestion in the regular thread, thought it is really something that should be implemented in the next generation of dayz. Greetings, i apologize in advance if this was suggested before, i tried to search for something similar but with no success. My suggestion is as follows, I think it's fair to say that there's a consensus regarding anti-material equipment or heavy machineguns - such as the As50, and their impact on the game compared to other weapons. My suggestion is aimed towards slightly lowering the weapons dominance where it doesn't pass the test of reality, while still preserving the strategical value of the guns, and making them more situational. Making these weapons more balanced is surely not an easy task. on one hand you want to keep them ingame as they bring strategical effect that is very needed. but on the other, they give the one using them slightly above acceptable advantage over those who aren't, especially, when it can be used simultaneously while running, walking, or standing, just as any other gun. Arma is a military simulator, and as such, i thought that allowing the soldier to be able to wield any gun while at any position is slightly unreal. I'm not a soldier, never fired an anti-material gun, but my impression always was that these kind of weapons seem to weight alot. much more than any other, and never are fired while standing or running. There's no way you can hold such powerful thing while standing, not to mention running. it doesn't make sense. What i offer is that instead of just making such weapons rare, perhaps these weapons should also be locked to certain body positions, such as crouch, and prone. This not only offers a dilemma to the one who may find it, but it makes the weapon much more situational and strategical as it meant to be. for instance: A Player that is often travels alone and usually always on the move, might not find such weapon, which to be considered heavy, to also be worthwhile for him to pick up. Not in his backpack, and not in hands. Why? because not being able to shoot on the go while running or standing puts a single player in a great disadvantage when facing more than one target. it's more than likely that a lonewolf will be outnumbered, hence why he may as well think twice before taking that decision, if such system was implemented. For a squad, It may be different. For a team that has the luxoury to have X members on the move and X stationary, This kind of change might have less of an impact but still requires some measurement of cautious when operating an anti-material gun, as you cant operate it while on the move. Limiting different weapons to certain body positions can help even increase further the realism that is presented in this game, but also make these weapons even more strategical than they already are. Hope it wasn't suggested before as that will be a shame. anyway, best regards,

Greetings, I suggest a "simple" (not sure how simple in reality it is) counter to having thermal detectors in game. all in all it is realistic that thermal detectors and nightvision equipment can be found in military facilities and it's silly to take it away. What you need is a counter. my suggestion, Special clothing matirials, and variety of survival techniques players can use, to avoid being detected by thermal vision or night vision. This may include pouring water over a vehicle to cool it down, or wear special clothing to hidden body temprature. i.e one article said this: "Reducing a vehicle's thermal energy As long as a vehicle's engine is running it will be detectable by a thermal imaging device. If you are mobile in a motorized vehicle and suspect that hostiles are conducting a search for your presence, you must find a source of water, shut down your engine and cool it down to ambient air temperatures by pouring sufficient amounts of water over it. Don't forget to cool down your exhaust system as well. When your vehicle's engine has been cooled to air temperature, camoflauge the vehicle under trees or brush to prevent detection by sight." it goes further and say:" Reducing human thermal energy Beside your vehicle, you must also take steps to reduce your own thermal energy in an evasive situation. It is not possible for you to cool your body temperature down to ambient air temperature. Any attempt to do so will induce hypothermia and you may die In summer months when air temperatures rise between 96 and 100+ degrees there is very little to no contrast between your body's temperature and it's surroundings. During these conditions you will be able to elude thermal imaging devices by camoflauging against detection by eye sight and traveling in the heat of day. Avoid shaded woodlands or areas where temperatures will be reduced and will provide a contrast between your body's heat and surrounding air temperatures." how realistic it is i'm unsure. but i think the logic is quite there. everything mentioned though doesn't beat the system, but reduce the chance of being detected. i think Dayz SA should follow similar logic. players and vehicles should be able to perform different acts that may reduce the chance of being detected. that may include having smaller silhouette for exmaple. to sum things up, I think removing a powerful item from the game, like happend in the mod, will be short-sighted solution. If you think something is powerful, find a counter to it and perhaps gimp it down.. thanks for reading, gl.

I suggest you reconsider and rephrase this "bunch of crap". no substance what so ever, nor anysense of decency to at least explain what exactly is "bunch of crap" to you. and the notion of "ruin a great game" is totaly absurd. If an individual managed to create a great game, wont you agree that it is fairly unlikely that he will also be the one to turn it into bunch of crap? Usually it goes like this: First guy have a great idea and brings it to life > First guy moves on to his next stop in life > his succesor takes over the project and change things around > the project wether turns into bunch of crap, or turning even more successful than before, or the person incharge getting fired before neither happen.

Think you got a good point, though i argue that the lesser heavy ones should sway alot more. and the real heavy ones should still be unable to operate by standing, or even crouching. i argue that in order for the gun to pass the reality,and logical test, such heavy weapon must be leaned against a firm ground in order to be operated. Not sure if it possible at all - as the whole map terrain will have to be tweaked towards allowing it in any other position other than prone where at such you automatically have your weapon being set on the ground to hold of it's weight. it requires having every fallen tree, every stone, every window customized to allow the weapon to be set down on it. maybe something that can be implemented in the future, but for now, i think locking it only to certain stances should be favorable.

Greetings, i apologize in advance if this was suggested before, i tried to search for something similar but with no success. My suggestion is as follows, I think it's fair to say that there's a consensus regarding anti-material equipment or heavy machineguns - such as the As50, and their impact on the game compared to other weapons. My suggestion is aimed towards slightly lowering the weapons dominance where it doesn't pass the test of reality, while still preserving the strategical value of the guns, and making them more situational. Making these weapons more balanced is surely not an easy task. on one hand you want to keep them ingame as they bring strategical effect that is very needed. but on the other, they give the one using them slightly above acceptable advantage over those who aren't, especially, when it can be used simultaneously while running, walking, or standing, just as any other gun. Arma is a military simulator, and as such, i thought that allowing the soldier to be able to wield any gun while at any position is slightly unreal. I'm not a soldier, never fired an anti-material gun, but my impression always was that these kind of weapons seem to weight alot. much more than any other, and never are fired while standing or running. There's no way you can hold such powerful thing while standing, not to mention running. it doesn't make sense. What i offer is that instead of just making such weapons rare, perhaps these weapons should also be locked to certain body positions, such as crouch, and prone. This not only offers a dilemma to the one who may find it, but it makes the weapon much more situational and strategical as it meant to be. for instance: A Player that is often travels alone and usually always on the move, might not find such weapon, which to be considered heavy, to also be worthwhile for him to pick up. Not in his backpack, and not in hands. Why? because not being able to shoot on the go while running or standing puts a single player in a great disadvantage when facing more than one target. it's more than likely that a lonewolf will be outnumbered, hence why he may as well think twice before taking that decision, if such system was implemented. For a squad, It may be different. For a team that has the luxoury to have X members on the move and X stationary, This kind of change might have less of an impact but still requires some measurement of cautious when operating an anti-material gun, as you cant operate it while on the move. Limiting different weapons to certain body positions can help even increase further the realism that is presented in this game, but also make these weapons even more strategical than they already are. Hope it wasn't suggested before as that will be a shame. anyway, best regards,

You know, if there is something that i picked up from rocket about the standalone(or foundation) from his interviews and game presentations, is that nothing is determined, or put to stone, except two things. bugs and hackers. The concept is there, DayZ i'm sure many may argue is just a great game even with no additions to it. what it needs most is a secured ground that scripters,hackers, you name it. wouldnt have such an easy time to breach. and a firm ground at which the game can evolve upon. freed of glitches and bugs. Regarding the concept, that can be changed. surely concept material need to be tested, things might be added, curent ones reconsidered, when it comes to concept it is fairly to assume that anything is subject to change before it officially implemented into the game. i think it's too early to even theorize on some of the stuff you mentioned as they arent even in the standalone, ie instanced bases( was mentioned several times that it might come afterwards). And about abandoning the mod community. Well frankly, in my opinion if we'll be able to have an access to a game that the amount of scripters in it is limited, it's a fair exchange. you cant eat the pie and leave it as a whole now can you?

offensive may not the right term to describe it. and you're wrong. you asked a question that in its nature imply that there's another vision. if you truly wanted an open discussion about people's expectations and ideas you could've chosen different wording for your title. something that doesn't include "rocket" "vision" and trust" what i did is to attempt and prove that there's no other vision. only one vision. coprendo? no wonder, point didn't get across.

I didn't made any comparison. i was trying to prove a point by offering example. The examples might seen as radical though radicalizing something is known as an invalubale tool in the doctrine of rhetorics. it's pitty that you honestly think that i compared rocket to god but whatever.

I'm sorry, but i'm quite insulted by this thread. both as DayZ enthusiastic, and just a general consumer who appreciates great ideas. Listen carefully, The question posed in this thread is no different than questioning for instance Henry Ford at the time he started to build cars. If the way he chose to build them was the right course for him. As far as anyone concerned he could have failed, many have. his ideas could comeshort, or never be implemented the way he wanted. i'm sure plenty of folks experienced that. Trying to make your way, and build something from the ground up, But unable to for many reasons. it's up to the man himself to capitalize on his ideas, and make them work. him and no other. There's no right or wrong here, There's a vision made by one guy. It can move left, or right, though its fairly unimportant. what is important, is that at the end there will be an end product. something that will be offered to you for fixed price. You may then realize that the product might not be exactly what you had expected it to be, Slightly falls short on expectations, that can happen, But it's ok. You can always go shop for another car, or consider buying a motorcycle. While most grand ideas are often being executed by a team rather than one individual in order to be able to have the vision become reality, It is still a one man path, that others tag along with. This has a philosophical side to it. I guess another good example could be the bible. Many question god ways. many dont agree with him, and thus not following his guidebook. they choose another one, they practice different religions, or none. I find it ridiculous to even suggest that anyone, anywhere, has a better understanding of rocket vision for the game. If there's such individual who truly belives that he knows better, then he should as well acknowledge that it is no longer rocket's vision, but his own.