entspeak

Great video. It was awesome to see people wearing different clothes! It looked more like a group of guys hanging out in their city... which was awesome. I'm excited to see how the clothing system impacts social interactions (clans, gangs, etc...) I love the fact that you'll have to open doors and boots to loot vehicles. And, yeah, that shot of the zombies milling about was enticingly daunting, I'm looking forward to figuring out how I'm going to get through that. And, I love the idea of wandering herds of zombies. And animal tracking, possibly?! Aww, yeah... "Where is he, boy? Go, get 'em!" Excellent! I love the details you guys are adding and if you were making slick videos, I'd wonder why you were slacking off on the game... haha! My only criticism would be for the guests... maybe now the next group will know to be more forthcoming with their commentary; it was a bit painful to look from guy to guy thinking, "Don't everyone talk at once, now." ;)

Haha! Spoken like a guy who fires a bow. Like I said, calling them bolts today is quite the controversy between those who use crossbows and those who use bows. Whatever you want to call them, bolts can certainly be made of wood - people make their own crossbow bolts all the time. If, however, they aren't of the right weight, they will splinter when you fire them, as you say. The crossbow is only a one shot kill on zeds, like the hatchet is. The only way you're going to kill a player with one shot is with a headshot - not an easy thing to do with the crossbow sights being what they are. :)

I stand corrected. :) So, it's not that the arrow breaks upon firing - which it seems to me should mean it doesn't hit the target - it breaks upon impact - which is a bit odd if it penetrated and killed the zombie. Either way, my thought is that - given how difficult it can be to retrieve bolts anyway (can be awkward to retrieve in a timely fashion or they're absorbed) - adding a 1 in 5 chance of breaking is too much. I wish they would fix the glitches associated with retrieval before adding this. It nerfs an already difficult weapon to use. I'd never heard it described as OP until r4z0r49 mentioned it.

I don't think you experienced a broken arrow, because the breakage happens when you fire - a misfire, if you will, so you wouldn't have skewered anything with it. What you experienced was the absorption of the bolt, or the difficulty in retrieving the bolt that has always existed in the game as a glitch. What they've done is added a 20% chance of the crossbow misfiring on top of what you experienced, as I understand the changelog.

Yeah, I've seen several... mainly parked at either the NW or NEAF - though, once I saw one in a field near Pobeda Dam. People don't fly them too much on Chernarus as far as I've seen... there are very few good places to land.

Is sleep a part of 1.7.6? I just noticed the option on a private 1.7.6.1 server I'm on. If so, what does it do? Or is it just a nifty but useless animation? When I did it, it didn't seem to do anything but take and look interesting.

I played on a server like that last week, but it also looked like the server hadn't been restarted in some time because there were heli crashes all over the place. In one night of walking, I counted about 20. And once I got in a chopper, it was crazy... they were everywhere. And, when I died... I came back the next day and was able to loot my body. But this was also a 1.7.5.1 server right before the 1.7.6 update.

I mentioned this in a thread about 1.7.5.1 and thought it might be good to make a suggestion thread for it. I have an idea about the zombie AI. I feel that the way that they handle sight and sound should be different in terms of aggro. I'm not sure how the AI works in the coding (I've looked at it, but it's all gibberish to me - lol). But, if what I propose is possible, I think it would solve some of the issues the community has had with the zombies in DayZ. The basic premise: As a general rule, zombies should aggro when they recognize food - meaning based on sight. If they see a player, they aggro. This should always be the case. Sound, however, should be handled differently. Really loud sounds may aggro zombies for a bit, but if they don't see food after a short bit of time, they should calm back down. If a zombie hears a quieter sound, it should simply be attracted to it - like they currently are to flares. It would also be great if, when zombies hear something, they moved toward the position at which the sound occurred and not the originator of the sound (unless they see him). And sight and sound should be separate things to a zombie - meaning that they will break off moving toward a sound if they see a player... any player - even if that player didn't make the noise, they then aggro on that player. Sight should be given priority when it comes to aggro. And louder noises should trump softer ones. If a zombie is turning toward you because it hears you walking, but someone fires a Lee Enfield... the zombie should aggro on the Lee Enfield noise and you should pray that the noise doesn't put you in the path of the zombie. So, how might this work specifically? Like so: Firing a weapon: Weapons seem to fall into these categories when it comes to noise - None (though, it's not really none), Low, Moderate, High and Very High. Weapons that are Moderate and above, should aggro zombies within hearing distance. This aggro should make them run toward the sound for 10 seconds. If, however, in that 10 seconds, they don't see any players to munch on, the aggro should stop and they should continue slowly on the path toward the sound. Low noise weapons should only attract zombies and not aggro them unless the zombie is within 20m of the noise - in which case, the zombie aggro will follow the rules of the louder weapons. If, while turning toward a noise, the zombie sees a player, it then will aggro on that player - even if that player wasn't the source of the noise. Silenced weapons should never aggro zombies and only attract zombies within hearing range of the weapon (you'd pretty much have to be firing right next to one to attract it's attention). Actually, BigMike had an idea that I think would be much better: two zones for hearing a shot from all weapons - one that aggro's and one that simply attracts zombies. Since, as I understand it, audible range is based on the ammo, you could have an aggro range as a percentage of the audible range. As an example: 9mm pistols would aggro zombies at 40% of the audible range for zombies (about 20m or so), .45's at 50%, Stanag based guns at 60%, Lee Enfield at 85%, etc... Zombies outside those ranges, but still within audible range for zombies would still be attracted to the sound, but not aggro (unless they hear another zombie nearby aggro - at which point, they follow the zombie hearing zombie guidelines.) Movement: If a zombie hears a player moving, they should be attracted to it, but only aggro when they see a player - even if that player isn't the one making the noise. But, I also think that if you get too close to them (1m?) they should aggro on you - sensing you. They should also aggro if you run into them. Engine noise: Engine noise should aggro the zombies within hearing distance toward the sound of the engine - changing their path toward any player they see on the way. Once the engine is off (or idling), the aggro ceases after 10 seconds if the zombies don't see a player. Turning on a car and idling shouldn't aggro zombies outside a 10m range, but should attract them (maybe the range could be adjusted based on the vehicle... the range at which a zed would aggro when starting a V3S is greater than they would when starting a Skoda, for example). Of course, if a zombie sees a player in the vehicle, they should aggro. The exception to all of this is the bicycle... which should only attract zombies that hear it, but not aggro them unless they see a player. Personally, I think that the noise from bicycles should also be a bit quieter to be more realistic. Vehicle Repair and Refuel: The sound of repairing a vehicle should only aggro zombies within 20m, but attract them beyond that, if they can still hear it. The sound of refueling should only attract zombies, and they aggro if they see a player. Zombies hearing other Zombies: If a zombie hears another one aggro, that noise should only attract them toward the aggroing zombie... and they will only aggro themselves based upon the above guidelines for sound or if they see a player. With all of this, zombies should lose complete interest in a noise a minute or so after the noise is gone... they, in essence, forget why they were going that particular direction and continue on mindlessly. The benefit to the above system is that it keeps the zombies relevant and a threat, but not overpowered. It makes them more like the zombies that we know from films. It makes it very dangerous, but not totally suicidal to fire a weapon around zombies. It also impacts team play in that your shots may cause a zombie to aggro on a nearby teammate who happens to be the first one the zombie sees as it turns toward the sound. Thoughts, suggestions? Is this something that can be done with the AI code? Or is it too complex for the engine?

I'm wondering if, as an additional benefit, this proposal might also reduce cpu load - especially if zombies only run to the position at which the sound was heard unless they see a player. Can someone tell me, is it easier on CPU strain to have zombies fix on a single position when they hear something and move toward it than it is for them to track and move toward the player as he moves even if they don't see him? Might this proposal reduce the cpu load of aggro'ing zombies in cases where the aggro is based on sound, because, if they don't see a player, they don't have to update the player's position? Am I wrong about how that works and the impact on a player's CPU?

haha! True.I think it might be worth exploring a wider FOV. Currently, you have a better chance of being seen farther away than up close and I wonder if the opposite should be true. I don't know what impact viewing distance has on CPU... Maybe there's a way to balance it by lowering the viewing distance to compensate for the increased FOV?

Most of the servers that pop up for me in DC haven't even done the update for the hotfix - which is why I haven't updated. That may be saying something.

Here's the thing. In my opinion, PvP should take a second seat to PvE; it should occur within the dangerous world of the zombies. Everything should. It seems to me that is the challenge of DayZ - surviving and getting things done under the continual threat of zombies. PvP should have to adapt to it, people who want to collect vehicles should adapt to it, people who want to play the survival aspect alone should adapt to it. Not the other way around. This is a game with no manual and no tutorial - meant for you to figure out how to survive and adapt... it's meant to be hard. I think some in the community have become so comfortable with zombies that are more an annoying gnat-like backdrop than a real threat. 1.7.5.1 was the first time they actually were a threat. And, apart from legitimate glitch complaints and, to some extent, a good point about pistol fire, people were complaining rather than adapting. Players should HAVE to slow down and really gauge if they can do what they need to quickly... choosing when they can run, how close they can get to a zombie, if they can get by it or have to kill it, whether they can rob, kidnap or kill this other player and avoid being killed by zombies. In other words, they should HAVE to adapt to the threat that exists and not complain because it's suddenly harder to have a shoot out between squads in Cherno or run into the NWAF and loot the barracks or get all the parts they need to fix a heli. All the changes being made to make tasks like refueling slower and more realistic are just pointless time-wasting annoyances when there's no danger involved in doing them. Yes, one could say, "but you run the risk of being shot," but that means we're doing CoD meets FarmVille and not a zombie survival game. In a zombie survival game, the guy doing the shooting should ALSO be in danger if he fires his weapon. If he can shoot me AND survive the zombies coming after him - you know, the point of the game, then good on him - he deserves the vehicle and my loot... a game well played. But, if I get shot while the zombies are just ho-humming around, that's just lame. And, I appreciate that there are limits to what the devs can do and I think they do a phenomenal job. I wonder, however, if it is such a good idea to cater to the community when doing so diminishes the theme of the game. Fixing the glitches - yeah, I love it! More realistic stuff - fantastic! Make it easier for the guys who come on to get a couple of hours good PvP action - No! Make these guys up their game to get that action in a world where zombies are a threat. Make them, make everyone, adapt to the zombies and not the other way 'round. Yes, the game should be playable, but it should be as advertised - very hard. I think there are ways to make the zombies hard, but not insanely OP. And, hopefully, the devs can find that point - I imagine it's the hardest thing to tweak because of the impact zeds have on game performance. Look at the videos streaming on YouTube - from Frankie, Jack and others... I hear a lot of, "just ignore the zombies"... "just keep running and you're fine"... "Don't worry about the zombies"... not a great comment on a zombie survival game, in my opinion.

You could argue that, but it's a specious argument. Yes, I could look around more, but all that head motion might as well be head bobbing if you're going to even get close to the more accurate awareness that 3rd person affords when it's not being exploited. And, it doesn't completely neuter sneaking around when it's not being exploited. I'd be down for 1st person if they had peripheral dots as I've described them.

No, they're easy because you can do more without attracting their attention. Fix the engine on a vehicle... zeds really close by don't care anymore. Fire a gun, meh, they got better things to do. Run by them, eh, they'll think about coming after you. And if they do, they often give up really easily if they lose sight of you for even a moment. Losing zombie aggro is easier than it ever has been. That's why they're too easy. The cities are supposed to be dangerous because of the number of zombies there.Yes, they still glitch some, but not as bad as before. I just make sure to stay clear of the walls if zombies are near them.

Here's my thought on this: I've played both and, yes, 1st person is more intense - as real life would be if you were forced to wear blinders that limited your view. When I played on a 1st person only server, a guy ran right by me without seeing me. The thing is, in real life, he would've seen me. So, in fact, 1st person is MORE artificial and LESS immersive in terms of awareness of your surroundings - which is why, as I understand it, BI has 3rd person in Arma. 3rd Person is not a cheat in and of itself; it's a legitimate feature of the game that people exploit to, in essence, cheat. The most comparable thing in the game is brightness/gamma... also a legitimate feature that people exploit in order to cheat. In terms of compensating, I think that 3rd person = weapon down is a good middle ground. Zooming in, however, defeats the purpose of 3rd Person. And, so long as it exists, there will always be people who exploit it. If 3rd person was removed, then they would really need to bring back peripheral dots to compensate for the limited FOV. Ones that fade out and disappear when the object is behind cover and fade out as the object approaches 90 degrees on either side. And different colors for different things... Because in real life, you'd see the thing and recognize it as a vehicle, an animal or a person.

Very true!Hey! Whatever you guys are planning to do with those pelts, don't forget the children's sizes!

Sorry, I missed this post. Ah, I thought it was constant and, of course, a pulse makes total sense in terms of minimizing the hit to a player's CPU. That would explain a lot. With such a narrow FOV, if it's turning, it could easily cover that area at close range in between pulses. And, it explains the delay in aggro that occurs. Is it the same for hearing? If so, that would explain why some zeds don't respond to other zombie calls. I'm sure server lag might also impact this. I wonder if the chance based stuff compensated for this. I don't think it makes sense of how quickly they lose interest now, though.

I'm also someone who thinks that crossbows fire bolts and bows fire arrows. They're usually shorter and heavier than arrows used with a bow and sometimes have no fletching. In my opinion, the interchangeability of the terms came about because of the argument that firing a crossbow wasn't archery because it fired bolts. But, I don't care what they call them so long as they don't have a 1 in 5 chance of breaking with the way things work currently... it nerfs an already difficult weapon to use (primarily because it can take so long to get a bolt back if you get it back at all.) R4Z0R49's comment is the first I heard of the there being a concern by anyone that the crossbow might be OP. It's true that the surest way to get your arrow back would be a headshot - unless the zed falls into a wall or market shelf unit or something. It won't absorb it if you get a headshot, but doing that without crosshairs is not an easy thing to do at all. And, if you hunt with it, pretty much, say goodbye to the arrow.

Yeah, but it's not nearly as frenetic and spastic as it was. It's a huge improvement, in my opinion.

Oh. So, the 30 degree FOV is not a new thing? I thought it was reduced for this update. Well, being on the lower end of the spectrum, myself (Dell 14r - i3) I wouldn't want to face more cpu load. Hmm... It never seemed like an issue before. It's hard to imagine that removing the chance based system has had so drastic an effect. And it sounds like, in terms of being near zombies, that's the only thing that changed. I literally knelt a few meters away from a zombie in the first industrial area past the fire station at the NWAF, it was walking toward me, it turned started to turn, it's front crossing my plane and kept on turning. It wasn't until I walked up to it from the side and it heard me that it spun back to attack, but at that point, I was swinging the hatchet. And in Solni, today, a zombie aggro'd on hearing me, came around the corner and started hopping slowly again. I started to run, which aggro'd it again. I ducked into a shed a few meters away and waited for it to come. When it didn't, I peeked around the corner and it was hopping slowly toward me... I had to walk up to it and kill it. I have to say, the new aggro pathing is awesome, though. :) I'm beginning to be able to gauge where they will come by me... and can get them to run into my swinging hatchet. It's makes for some very cool Hollywood style slayings when there are multiple zombies coming at me.

Actually, I just realized I'm wrong. If you're 10m away from a zed and come in at a 16 degree angle off straight on, it can't see you. I think that's way too narrow a FOV - that's extreme tunnel vision. Still doesn't explain how I walked circles around it and why it didn't aggro when the others did, but... still. I think a 60 degree FOV might work better... 30 degrees either side. That way, you can come at it from the side, but not from directly in front of it.

I've only tried the crossbow a couple of times since the update. I was able to get the couple I fired back. Sometimes, you have to go into 1st person, zoom in and move the mouse around a bit - it seems that a section of the arrow has to be in the crosshairs or center screen in order to get the option to show (that's been my experience of it). Sometimes, it's hard because the zombie doesn't have that requirement to access it's body and this seems to override the arrow retrieval option.

I've found maps and hunting knives pretty readily, so this just might be a luck thing. I've had days where I couldn't find a map at all, days where I couldn't find a camping tent and then there are days where that's all I see. I think there's always been a small chance of finding Ghillie's in residential loot spawns. I would find them on castle tower tops occasionally in earlier versions. Yeah, something's not quite right with the zombies alert system. It seems almost random. One zombie will aggro on me and the others just won't care. I've had zombies aggro outside after hitting a zombie with a hatchet while I was in a tent. I changed a tire with a zombie walking about 3m away from the vehicle and he didn't bat an eyelid. And losing them is easier than ever... they do seem to just give up really quickly. I wonder if the FOV is too small. Having the 80m viewing range may be fine if they have a wider FOV. I understand people wanting freedom to move, but it should require some tactics and timing. Players should have to make a choice... wait for a zombie to turn or pass, find a path around it, or deal with it. I've always had fun keeping an eye on where zeds were facing, how far away they were... I could guage which was going to see me first and I'd deal with it before it was a problem - it was particularly fun when it got more difficult in 1.7.5.1. Now, I have no clue... I know it's not, but it just seems random. I'll go toward a zombie I think is going to see me in a moment and some zombie I don't see will aggro because of noise, but the one in front of me hasn't. So, now I'm just running past them, getting the aggro, losing it and going about my day - the zeds mean little again.

I was wondering this as well. It would be nice, but considering BI doesn't really make Mac software, I wouldn't bet on it. I think Arma Tactics is the only game I've heard will run in a Mac OS.

Yeah, I've experienced the same... and the video I posted shows that as well. The zombie I'm circling doesn't respond to the other zombies that eventually aggro on me. And in other instances, I've had a single zombie aggro and the others do nothing. It seems to be hit or miss, I think. I don't know if there's some other factor that comes up in these instances that is causing it not to work at that moment.