ZedsDeadBaby

You could request some of these be moved to the Suggestions forum. It seems like they're randomly in General Discussion.

Downbeans. There are plenty of ways to solve server hopping without fundamentally breaking the game. I don't want my entire life to rely on whether some random pickledick I've never met keeps paying his server rent fees.

Nice idea, if for no other reason than it's silly that a set of keys or a battery take up the same space as a can of beans or a soda. I could fit 10 batteries in the same space as a can of beans.

Sorry, downbeans. No way. The text is distracting enough, hearing my own voice talk about how hungry or hurt I am would be unbelievably annoying. Especially if you had voice for a variety of conditions, all of which I might have at once. "I'm hungry. I'm thirsty. My arm hurts. My leg hurts. I feel sick. I have a headache. I need to shit." Holy shit no thanks shut the fuck up. The text system is stupid, period. Respect to Dean, but it makes absolutely no sense. Pain, hunger, thirst, cold - these are emotions. They are things people feel, not things that they think or say. They are ever-present and they do NOT manifest as English words either in our heads or audibly. Hunger is just hunger. I might think to myself "gee, I could go for a hot dog," but hunger itself is just a feeling. Say what you will about HUDs but on-screen icons are the ideal solution for these types of conditions. I shouldn't have to think "my arm hurts" to know my arm hurts. I just know it. My arm hurts, right? You don't actually have to talk to yourself to know that you're in pain. It's silly and there's no reason we should enhance this type of feature in the game. I'm hoping that the addition of the hunger/thirst meters to the inventory screen is a sign that Dean recognizes that the text system is a bust and a go-nowhere solution to the problem. Bring back icons, they worked fine.

Okay, but I'm not always doing those things in the game. Right? Full support for two hands. I should be able to hold a bat or axe in one hand and a flashlight in the other. Yes, a one-handed melee attack should do slightly less damage, but it's still effective. I invite anyone with doubts to let me smack them in the face with a fire axe using only my right hand and we will evaluate the results afterward for science.

No, there definitely does not need to be that option. People who want a friendly game have plenty of options in other games. Violence between players is one of the core underpinnings of the game and all of the other mechanics are balanced around this threat of violence. Removing it essentially breaks the game. Welcome to the forums and all, but slow it down. I invite you to read through other suggestion threads, the dev blogs, and previous threads on related subjects and hope you will realize why PvE servers will not and should not ever exist in DayZ.

Thanks for the quote. Keep in mind that my idea relies heavily on proximity. You need to be able to see your friends' faces at a distance from which a normal human would be able to recognize a face. Maybe 60m. 80m if we're being generous. If the developers wanted to get fancy, they could make it a sliding scale, so recognition would be guaranteed within 50m, but at 51-80m you would have a smaller chance to recognize your friends (especially if you're under stress). At 81m+ it gets tough. I really want to emphasize that the goal of my idea is to recreate normal human facial recognition. The HUD elements I consider undesirable, but necessary to compensate for the graphical engine's lack of ability to accurately recreate the vast complexity of human facial features at reasonable distances. Here's another thread you might want to take a look at: Squad Identification. I talk about using a clothing, armbands, patches, face paint and other means to identify members of your squad. Beans and comments are appreciated in either thread. For identifying friends, absolutely. But I think it's really important for the future of the game that we also be able to identify enemies - and in that case nobody's going to voluntarily wear a "bad guy" arm band to alert you to their intentions. One thing Dean has always talked about is his hope that players will be able to enforce their own laws and rules one day. I think for this to be a reality, people are going to need to be able to recognize people that they have seen do evil things. If I watch through a pair of binoculars and I see you gun someone down in cold blood, I should be able to commit your face to memory so the next time I run into you I remember you and can act accordingly. This is the sort of thing that DayZ desperately needs in my opinion. Ways for players themselves to use their own powers of perception to identify players, judge their actions, and act accordingly. It doesn't require any outside intervention in order to "punish" people for their sins, it just relies on players building up information over time and using that information as they see fit.

The answer is obviously both. Just because you needed his stuff doesn't mean you're not a bandit.

The answer is obviously it depends on what sort of people they are in the first place. Read up on the social science surrounding empathy. It's something humans are born with, but if it's not cultivated by a nurturing environment that teaches people to care about others, then the brain begins to abandon empathetic reactions. In mild cases, you get self-centered assholes. In extreme cases, sociopaths. Point being, not everyone reacts identically to being exposed to the suffering of others. Implementing a system that pretends that everyone is equally empathetic towards other humans is entirely artificial.

Listen, mate. Just because people don't like your ideas doesn't mean we feel the effort is hopeless. Random player killing will become less common when people have other stuff to do. Scrambling around looking for a bunch of goof-ball fixes to the problem now is like trying to fix the fact that your house is always cold before it has walls on it. "We need blankets!" "Start a fire!" No. Just wait for the fucking walls to be built.

People who would like a game to consist of something besides running and picking up loot, because right now those are the only two things in the game that are reliably functional. I look around the forums and see a lot of people who are delusional and talking about a game that doesn't exist yet. Yes, the future of DayZ is exciting but the present of DayZ is a broken shell of a game that has a long and bumpy road ahead of it. We're not doing ourselves any favors by pretending it's a Porsche when it's still a Toyota Camry.

Jesus, people. Come on. I know we're all excited to be playing DayZ and stuff, but seriously? Can we try not to speak in hyperbole and be honest with each other about where the game is in its development cycle? Better than full release games? Just brilliant? There are literally zero actual features in the game. There are a half-dozen deaf and dumb zombies per server which don't respawn when killed, no loot spawning, virtually no collision detection, random character wipes, massive connectivity issues, immortal rabbits that make zombie or soda can sounds, two actual weapons and a laundry list of features that are non- or partially-functional. Yes. It's a really good start and we should all be glad that the game has made it safely on to its own engine and doesn't crash to desktop or cause your house to catch fire, but for real you sound like a bunch of teenage Beatles fans ranting and raving about how "brilliant" or amazing the game is in its current state. It's a goddamn mess.

Uhh, that's exactly WHY we should expect to see huge updates and patches often. If they're that far out from Beta, then they should be making massive changes constantly and huge strides forward on basic functionality and new features. As Beta approaches, changes should become smaller and less frequent, because the game will be closer to done. If it takes more than a couple weeks between major patches, then Beta in 2014 sure as Hell isn't going to happen.

They don't, obviously. People just like to assume the worst so they feel justified blasting the living shit out of everyone they see without actually admitting that that's what they do. "Server hopper! Get him!" It's impossible to actually tell the difference between a server hopper and someone who just happens to be logging in there for their daily play session, but don't tell people that. They love to fancy themselves Heroes saving the world from server hoppers rather than admitting that probably 50% of the time their just straight murdering someone shortly after login.

This is why it's funny when people suggest that murder should make people "go insane" or become unstable or somehow otherwise compromise their ability to function in the world. Like, apparently it's totally okay to commit mass murder so long as people are "really sick" and we "definitely tried pretty hard to cure them." If there is a cure found in, say 50 or 100 years, history will remember us all as monsters. Sneaking into innocent people's homes, stealing their canned goods and then systematically gunning down entire families in their front yards. Grainy black-and-white photos will show us standing proudly around stacks of corpses of sick people, and school children of that age will go "Man, that's some messed up stuff."

It should not rely on a handshake. If I see someone's face, I should be able to recognize them later whether they "agree" to it or not. This is critical, because part of the point of the system should be identifying potential enemies, not just friends. I also don't think it should be nametags. Just because you recognize someone doesn't mean you know what name they're called. Just a subtle on screen indicator that "this is a person you have seen before" and some way to tell what you remember about them. Please take a look at and comment on these threads. Not only are they in the Suggestions forum which is a more appropriate place to have this discussion, but we've been over a lot of this already, and there are sample screenshots: Player Identification and Classification SystemThinking beyond only facial recognitionSquad IdentificationReconize This post in particular speaks directly to your concerns about facial recognition ranges and graphics hardware capability (incidentally, we agree - I don't think in-game facial features properly recreate human facial recognition which is possible at over 100m).

You mean a system where standing near trusted allies and working together makes it much easier to survive? Because that's already in the game. It works fine. Currently it's a completely unfinished game with basically zero real features. Talking about what the game "currently" is is like complaining about how a car handles before they've put the tires on. Do you know what's harder to kill than one person? Two people. Do you know what's even harder than that? Three. That's true whether you're talking about versus zombies or players or environmental hazards. There's plenty of incentive for player interaction. Sure, there's not an incentive for me to get buddy-buddy with every random picledick I bump into in Chernogorsk, but that's okay. There doesn't need to be. People shouldn't be forced to be friendly to strangers by adding a bunch of goofy mechanics to the game. This idea that "interaction incentives" should extend indefinitely to every person you encounter in the game is not going to go anywhere. Even the things that are being proposed to support team play like vehicle construction and base building are not going to improve stranger-on-stranger relations. Why would I get together with some random stranger and spend hours repairing vehicles or building a base if I'm never going to see him/her again? It's senseless. Stranger vs. stranger encounters are probably always going to remain 80% gunfights, 20% "hey, how's it going, need some beans? No? See you later" encounters and there's really nothing the developers are ever going ot be able to do about that.

Search SA and mod forums for "sanity" and you will find 18 months worth of discussions on precisely this same topic, and endless explanations for why it is inappropriate. It is incredibly commonly suggested, because it is a punishment that "makes sense" and therefore people think they can sneak it in under the radar. "Oh, I'm not trying to punish killers, I'm just trying to increase realism!" But, you're not fooling anyone. Peel away the realism argument, and you're left with a pretty cut-and-dry "punish killers, reward heroes" system, which you will find no support for among DayZ purists nor, last I checked, the developers. One interesting fact all of these suggestions conveniently ignore is that zombies are human beings, too. If killing makes us go wibbly-wobbly in the knees, then we're all going to be shaking like leaves in the wind 15 minutes after spawning, because we're constantly gunning down humans in the streets. Mothers, fathers, children. You're breaking into their homes, stealing their soda and tuna, and then systematically murdering them in their back yards. Sure, they're sick, but are you really going to argue that "it's okay to murder sick people?" But, that's beside the point. The important fact to keep in mind is that the team has a firm commitment to balance in-game acitivities naturally, by giving players choices; if you want players to spend less time murdering each other, find ways to give them other things to do with their time. Consequences for player actions should arise naturally from the player community. Don't like it when people behave a certain way? Start a clan, make that behavior against your clan rules, and gather like-minded people together who agree to follow your rules. Better yet, load up a bunch of guns and go track down people who refuse to behave that way and punish them yourselves. Don't want people mishandling beachsprouts? Start a Beach Patrol and make the coast safe again! The developers are not going to ride in on their winged horses with their magic wands and make people behave. They're just going to pack the game full of mechanics, tools and resources and let players choose how to use their time. Their hope is that eventually players will spend slightly less time blasting each other in their faces, but that's not their goal and if that doesn't happen they're not going to panic and start implementing a bunch of wrist-slappy bullshit to make people fall in line.

If I need two people to do things, I'll convince my brother to play. If I need more than that, I'll join a clan. I'm not going to group up with random jackwads, ever. How is it useless? It's exactly right. You already have all the incentive you need to group up with people. It's 500% easier to survive in a group than it is alone. Point being, people aren't going to just group with random dickless shitwhiskers they run into on the coast. They're going to group with friends and trusted allies and pretty much continue to mostly ventilate everyone else they come across. Yet we hear every day about people who refuse to KoS and still enjoy the game. It's insane.

From Wikipedia: According to Brooks himself, the law is an "outrageous oversimplification." Yes, it's true that you can't make a project go faster just by throwing money and people at it, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the DayZ team shouldn't grow under the circumstances. DayZ is not a free-to-play iPhone game. It needs more than a half-dozen people to see it through to the end. I really do hope they hire.

The harder the game gets, the more I'm going to want to kill random jagoffs and see if they have anything decent on their corpses to help me face all the tough challenges the game has to offer. Sorry for the news.

Look at it this way: if you were a new chef trying to make a name for yourself in the world of culinary excellence and you opened a restaurant offering a signature dish you designed yourself, you would want diners to taste it as you envisioned and as you prepared it. You would probably not be very happy if a bunch of wannabe chefs showed up and any time you served your signature dish one of them ran over and said "Hey, good choice! But, it's definitely better with a ton of barbecue sauce. Here you go!" *splash splash* Yes, you can argue the analogy is flawed because in the case of playing on modified servers, it is the player's choice and not the modder's. Maybe they like barbecue sauce? Maybe the dish even tastes okay slathered in barbecue sauce. Thing is, if they never taste it without, they won't know what they're missing. This is what I keep reading, but I disagree. I think there are a variety of ways that, especially long term, the persistent presence of modified servers could have an effect on your experience of the game. First is the most obvious: population. If more and more modifications become popular, it will become increasingly difficult to find populated vanilla servers. Especially in the long term as server owners start taking their servers offline or adopting mods because they aren't seeing activity on their vanilla setups. Second is less obvious but more serious: development priorities. If Dean & the team look at the player population and see that most people are playing on custom maps, what motivation will they have to modify vanilla Chernarus? If custom weapon packs and vehicle packs become the norm, why would the team dump a lot of resources into creating their own? Eventually, they could come to rely on modders to "take care of content" while they just focus on game features. That works great for everyone except people on vanilla servers, who get no new weapons/vehicles/map updates because the team has handed that torch over to the mod community. Last is as I said before: brand integrity. DayZ initially went viral because of the things it does differently than other titles: permanent death, unrestricted PvP, open world survial, etc. If Dean can build on the game's success then it will be proof that there is room in the industry for hardcore, niche features like this. If the media and industry executives instead see most people abandon vanilla DayZ for "lol rocket launcher party" servers, then they will just see it as confirmation of long-standing industry norms. "People don't want hardcore games, so let's just go ahead and make Left 4 Duty 6: Nazi Dance Revolution."

That's a little bit specious. The release will support mods, but there's absolutely no information on what the extent of those mods will be. It will be up to the team to decide how modifiable the base functionality is and how far off baseline mods are permitted to go. The danger arises with completely new players who might think they want a certain experience. Someone who has never played "true DayZ" might not know what the experience is really like and immediately assume it's not their thing because of some articles or online reviews they read, so they immediately flock to modified servers and never give the base game a chance. Perhaps if they had tried it out they would have found it to their liking after all, and changed their mind about the base experience, but given the range of mods available never actually play the base game. That's bad in my opinion. It has the ability to do both. It can expand the player base, but it can also limit it in certain ways. I support mods, but I think they should be limited in scope and type. I do not feel that players should have the option to play on "100 vehicles, all rocket launchers, no gravity, glow-in-the-dark underpants" servers, or "all thermal snipers, 10 million player health" servers, etc. At some point it becomes a question of brand integrity. rocket/Bohemia surely want the DayZ brand to mean something in the industry. Controlling what that brand means to players and the media is an important part of building towards a future that includes games that are more hardcore, like baseline DayZ. I would like to see them maintain the integrity of the name by not allowing people to drag it through the mud with insanely ridiculous mods, or goofy changes to the game's basic premise. Mods I would like to see would be things like:More powerful zombiesMore numerous zombiesNo loot respawns (or 24 hour cycles)Temporary bans on deathTournament play (think Hunger Games)Faster day/night cycleLess ammunitionNew maps, locations, buildingsClan vs. Clan with statsSlower health rengerationNew items and weapons Mods I would hate to see would be things like:Tons of vehiclesTons of ridiculous weaponsNo PvP, "Friendly only" Vehicles galore!Goof-around changes to gravity, friction, player healthKill cams, nametags, map waypoints (like old recruit servers)No hunger/thirst/sickness/weatherUnlimited ammoClown suits for everyone!Global chat

Similar ideas and discussion in this thread. Would appreciate comments and beans: Squad Identification

I think the game already includes the concept of "line of sight." i.e., if someone is close enough to you to be seen, but is otherwise obstructred by foliage, trees, walls or other objects then they're not actually visible. So the facial recognition system would simply have to respect this. I think they use this to decide whether zombies can see you for instance. So, hopefully it's as simple as that. Obviously we would want to avoid any and all instances where a hidden player is "seen" by this system.