Shadow Man

I do love it when people start talking about their rights to their opinion.

I'd be happy with it being completely random but with some large exclusion zones around major towns and airfields. Could be in a building or you spawn prone if outside, as if you just woke up. I would like some sort of server check to make you spawn a minimum distance from any other players, maybe about 100m, just to limit spawn killing. Edit: Didn't see your post Dortmunder...

Which is exactly why DayZ should not have death messages. If there's so many people who want an arcade zombie shooter with stats then they're spoiled for choice. DayZ was never going to be that and people would be fools for even wanting it.

There is a solution. Fix zombies. I don't mean adjust their damage/speed etc. I mean make them like actual zombies. Making the current zombies harder doesn't make gameplay better because of how they behave. Have you ever seen an enemy in any game thats comparable to these rediculous things? Maybe its not possible in the mod due to the Arma 2 engine but its the biggest problem with Dayz. I don't think the OP was trying to stop kos. Running with a train of zombies behind you should mean that stopping to kill a player for fun is a bad idea. But the zeds are such retards that you can simply run around until you get bored. There's no real skill or tactics involved in beating them, we all know what to do. And standing and fighting is just utterly silly. The zombies have always been shit and if they stay like they are, then Dayz cannot change. I think many people underestimate how game changing it would be to have proper zombies. Look at lots of other zombie games and imagine if you could just transplant them into Dayz. Any of them would be better than what we have.

To the people complaining about infection, the problem is not infection its the zombies. The mod has the most awful melee in any game I've played. The zombies run at you, stand a couple of metres away and spasm. You don't get any gauge of when they could hit you other than they just will at some hard-to-define point. Look at melee in other games(a good example is Condemned), if you could actually fight zombies, maybe block their attacks or at least see them swing an arm at you, you would stand a much better chance of avoiding infection. Right now its so silly that if you try and fight a few you're almost certain to get hit.

Yeah I keep coming back to see how its going. Pretty much the same stuff as 50 pages ago, just different people.

Great dev blog. Was very pleased to hear that the zombies are going to be completely re-done. All the other work being done for the SA is awesome but I think the z's have always been the biggest flaw. I just hope the engine is able to allow the right behaviour.

Whats bothering me is the number of people who put more effort into flaming "the other side" than actually tring to resolve the discussion. There are issues with both views. Rocket would prefer to keep both, but he has said himself that there are issues with using 3rd person exploits. Whatever the result, whether they manage to modify 3rd or not or whatever, the game as we know it in the the mod is NOT going to be the same as the SA. If people are so precious about 3rd person then they're probably going to be shocked by the way the game plays differently. All the crafting stuff they're are putting in isn't there just for show, you're going to have to use it and actually survive. A lot of people are talking like they expect and want the SA to be like the mod, its not. At least I hope not.

That is the lamest argument ever. So are you going to complain when you don't have the choice to use an invisibility cloak? Or when you cant choose to teleport around the map?

Hmm its the old "fun" argument. Fun is such a pointless word sometimes. If I think about some games I've played, its about an experience. Much like watching a horror film I do it because it messes with my brain, it makes me feel anxious, nervous, uneasy or even scared, despite me being sat in my living room in front of a screen. The experience dayz was meant to provide was not meant to give a shit about fun. If people want to put their mind through a torturing ordeal then thats their choice. If you see someone playing the original slender, or even better scp containment breach, those games are hardly what you call fun, its harrowing. But people love it, they like to torture their minds for some reason. Dayz shoud be in the same category if you ask me. Fuck fun, SCARE ME GOD DAMMIT!

I have to agree with everything mZLY said pretty much. To me a mod is a new game idea created using the engine from another. The trouble with all these dayz mods is that they are just dayz with all manner of changes to weapon spawns, skins, vehicles etc. All they've done is water down dayz for people too damn lazy to play the original game. If you allow the SA to be modded, it wont be to create a new game, it will simply be used for server owners to change the game merely to get players in their server. Some dayz mods are ok, but it seems like hardly anyone is interested in vanilla dayz anymore. All these people saying "if it weren't for modding the dayz wouldn't exist", and then no one plays the fucking game! They play some other variation with extra free stuff or whatever. If every game that was ever made was open to modding the world of gaming would be a mess. No one would be playing the originals, they'd all be playing some twisted abortion barely resembling it.

One more thing... If 3rd person stays, they need to have equal numbers of 3rd only/1st only servers and not allow private hive EVER. Once private hive servers are allowed it will all go to shit. Thats it. I'm done now.

Sorry but I have to completely disagree. Many great games exist that are full of restrictions which no one minds. Look at the popularity of cod and battlefield. They don't have a 3rd person option, but do people mind? No. The way it should work is, the devs design a game with a concept in mind of what they want the player to experience. THIS is the important part. If the devs decide they want the player to have a thrill ride full of explosions and bullets whistling by everywhere, they design a game that provides that. If they want the player to be paronoid and creeped out by atmosphere and hidden danger, they design the game completely differently. This can only be done by subtly forcing the player into situations, not by giving them options. I always thought Dayz was meant to be this anti-game that didn't play by the rules, didn't make it easy, didn't help you. They took away a lot of typical game elements to try and create a brutal survival sim. Having an option that gives you easy mode just goes against everything that I thought DayZ was meant to be. Also you cant use youtube as a valid argument. Watching other people play a game is totally different to playing it yourself. I agree that 3rd person video's are great to watch, but I never play in 3rd. Either way it looks like Rocket is making DayZ something other than what I thought it was. I like the fact that he's trying to find a solution, but I seem to remember a time when Rocket didn't care if no one liked the game. He was going to make Dayz the way he wanted and that was all. Now it seems like he's making sure he doesn't upset the playerbase. If he really wants 3rd person and always had that in mind from the beginning then somehow over the last couple of years I've got the whole thing wrong. But thats fair enough, if thats the game he wants then its all good. Its just not the game for me.

With regards to every player having the same "exploits" and "advantages", I would say they are available to everyone but crucially, not all at the same time. What I mean is, if you are advancing towards a town/village, 3rd person gives another player hiding near buildings an advantage by being able to see you advance, but does not, at the same time offer any advantage to the player approaching. If the advancing player decides to stop and camp, then they would have an advantage over an approaching player. Basically, it always gives a defending/hiding player an advantage and never an advancing moving player. Which gives rise to all the rooftop campers who spy on everyone. If you honestly do not think that being able to watch an approaching player while remaining absolutely undetectable(by means of a game mechanic) is an unfair advantage, then I guess the conversation ends here.

What he means by "properly", is fair. 3rd person does not provide a level playing field. Can I ask, what do you think about the exploits possible because of 3rd person? Do you mind that one player has an advantage that cannot be countered?

What?? You really think there are are just a handful of people who would prefer dayz to be 1st person only? I am temted to make a poll just to prove you wrong. And if you read the comments under dslyecxi's video you'll see that the vast majority are in favour of 1st person. I have yet to read a convincing argument for why 3rd is preferred, other than that it is what they prefer, which says nothing other than a disregard for what dayz is. If 3rd person is to stay then the only suggestions I can think of are 1. Players, zeds, loot etc are all invisible while in 3rd. 2. Players cannot move while in 3rd so they can admire themselves. Whatever happens, if one player has an unfair advantage over a another, as a result of a game mechanic and not a playstyle, then I will not be getting the game.

I'd like to know why you prefer 3rd person please. Can you explain in detail?

That is a very bad justification. Numbers don't always show you the absolute truth. The answer is in human behaviour. A game is made, then a game mechanic is introduced that can give an advantage but is left as an option. Because it gives the player an advantage then of course people use it. I want DayZ to be 1st person only, but I use 3rd in the mod because I'm otherwise disadvantaged. If for some reason 1st person suddenly gave the player an advantage over 3rd users, you could bet your life masses of players would start using it.

3rd person exploitation is not a playstyle. An exploit is a polite way of saying cheat.

You know you could just play the game, instead of memorising loot spawn locations.

Never liked, or never tried? I didn't think I would like it but god damn its addictive.

I'm not so sure about other countries, but if the apocalypse came to the UK you could walk for days and not find much more than a shotgun in a farm. Go to a city and you might start to find something better but they wouldn't be laying all over the place. If you fill any game with guns and let the players loose with them then it seems pretty obvious what they'll do with them. Its the old PVP v PVE argument in the end. The two do not co-exist easily. If DayZ is a survival game then really it should be PVE, in which case the environment is the zeds, disease, starvation etc. Usually as soon as you mention this you get a barrage of people saying "DayZ is PVP whether you like it or not!" The OP is right, gear is more valuable than life, if you take out alot of the guns then it tips the balance the other way a bit. The alternative is to make ammo very rare, which is more likely and more realistic. Don't get me wrong, the fear of being killed by players is crucial to the atmosphere of the game. But as long as its as simple as pulling the trigger then nothing will change. Somehow players need to be in a situation where they depend on other players (friends or strangers) for survival. The player has to make the choice that they are better off not killing this person because of x,y and z. But that is pretty much PVE. It could lead to different end results though. It could end up destroying the very thing that makes the game great. Or it could balance out perfectly. For anything to change though, the game would have to be designed to make choices have consequences, without punishing playstyle directly. Choosing to be a bandit should really be a completely different in-game existence to being a friendly player. A true bandit without the help of a group would have to have different struggles based on their chosen lifestyle compared to a friendly player. The more I think about it though, the more I feel that the bandit as type of person would not really exist. Any survivor could be considered dangerous if they found a weapon and were going to starve. Another gripe of mine is perma-death not really being that permanent. Starting again should mean you lose a lot of... something? Like starting a new world in minecraft and having to find all that diamond again... More than just doing the same old run to an airfield to find a gun.

What really amazes me is the way people don't seem to be able to resist watching these video's. Some people even watch tutorials about a game before ever playing it, just so they don't look like a newbie. Some of the best game moments are the ones you don't see coming or don't know exist. One of the best things about Fallout 3 was going for a wander around thinking there was nothing about but stumbling across some crazy ass cannibals. And yet there are tutorials showing you EVERYTHING in the game. If you were to watch all that there would be no point playing it. The fact is you won't stop people making youtube vids because they are making money from it. Even if they weren't, they would probably still make them.

This is actually a really good point. When I played Namalsk, I soon realised that I would be friendly to the first person I came across, because I had seen not one single edible item. I starved to death. Also, when it comes to KOS, you cant shoot someone if there are no weapons. Guns of any sort would surely be rarer than they are.

None taken, it wasn't an actual suggestion for the game, I was just making a point. I'm just saddened by the state of the mod. Getting killed is fine, I just want there to be a reason for staying alive. I'm hoping that the SA survival changes will help, but if its still a DM I'll get bored pretty quick.