LilBambi

Yeah, I don't see the point of the shaky cam. Games (at the moment) can't properly simulate the vestibular sense (knowing where you're moving, how much you're moving, and how to have postural balance) and the kinesthetic sense (knowing where your body parts are). This is why shaky cameras are disorienting in both movies and videogames. This is also why these forms of entertainment -- despite their attempt at realism -- do not accurately portray how a real individual would perceive his environment.

I've seen trading outposts in zombie movies before. They are centers of trade for people to go to when they need supplies. So could this exist in the Standalone? I think it could. This is how they would work: They would spawn randomly in the middle of forests so you would have to find them first.They would be protected by small barriers such as wire fences here and there, a palisade, a tank trap at the entrance, and two small lookout towers.There would be supplies of all kinds including residential, farm, industrial, and military loot. The military loot, however, would have only civilian weapons such as pistols (not silenced) and shotguns.Players could use the building as a base or to find and trade with new people. I think this would make journeys into forests far more entertaining. Plus, it would give players something new to find (like heli crashes). It would also be good for a secret base without requiring base construction mechanics like in DayZ Origins. What do you think? EDIT: PLEASE READ THIS FIRST: I think you are all misreading what I said. It's a trading outpost ONLY IN NAME. It doesn't do anything special whatsoever. It's just a randomly spawned building that has loot. No safe zones. No new mechanics. It's just like any other supermarket or firestation. The only difference is how it looks, what loot it spawns, and where it can be found. :P Too bad the polls are probably screwed now, haha.

The purpose of the trade outpost isn't really for trade, despite the name. It's to have a base in the middle of nowhere that doesn't need construction mechanics like in Origins. A randomly-spawned log cabin may be a better alternative, however.

I haven't played Arma 3, so I'm not sure. I'm a bit confused as to what you were saying in that last part.

Sorry, but that sounds extremely boring.

I don't think the system can be too specific without programming complications happening with the engine (just a guess). So what we'll probably get is: Bullet hits weapon - weapon is rendered useless or nearly inoperable Bullet hits backpack - anything in backpack has a chance of being damaged or completely destroyed Bullet hits anywhere else - any items being carried in anything besides the backpack has a chance of being damaged or completely destroyed But if that's too much... Bullet hits anywhere - anything being carried at all has a chance of being damaged or completely destroyed

Same here. There needs to be some incentive for a bandit to take a hostage rather than gun him down.

I would play SA if it was 1st person only, but the 1st person mode available now is quite mediocre. The head-bobbing and low fov are my two main gripes. And no, even if you completely disable head-bobbing in the menu you WILL still get some head motion (especially when doing an action). I didn't vote in the poll because it seems like its trying to get support for a 1st person mode. Maybe it was the phrasing of the question...

Hello, I was wondering... since all items can be destroyed or break down in SA, how easy will it be to do this? If a bandit shot a few bullets at a survivor and killed him, how much of his stuff would be damaged and to what degree of damage would they suffer? If you don't know, how much damage to items do you think should be incurred in a gunfight?

Without zombies, there is no real "survival" aspect left. It would just end up being a really slow TDM, lol.

If you're looking for a TDM-style game, I'd suggest playing Arma 2 or 3.

Increased transportation. Minimal parts required. No fuel needed. Let's make this happen, people.

Bases in DayZ: Construction vs Fortification it's been talked to death before, but I think it's time to resurrect this idea of base building in a new light. The purpose of this thread is to get a general consensus of what the public thinks about base building in DayZ Standalone as well as to provide a framework for possible solutions. There are different degrees of base building that could be in the Standalone. Our focus is to choose a balanced medium that will not only satisfy the general audience, but also flow with the central concepts of DayZ. If done correctly, this new mechanic could give players a new way to experience the dark and mysterious world of Chernarus. Generally speaking, there are two main paths that base building could take in the Standalone. The first is "Construction". This includes building houses, sheds, and the like by using tools and materials. Defenses could also be built as well such as walls and fences. While this would provide deep levels of creativity and creation, there are problems incorporating it into DayZ. One of the main disadvantages of this system is that a building could "bug out" in the game world if it is constructed on the wrong terrain or location. There is also the problem that the buildings could be spammed by players and make the landscape look unrealistic and unsightly. Even constructing a house itself during a zombie apocalypse could be seen as "unrealistic" and wouldn't make much sense from a practical standpoint. But most importantly, the largest complication with this system is that it would go against the multi-server architecture of DayZ. Players could clip into buildings when they log into a new server and most likely die as a result. The streamlined essence of the DayZ servers would also be lost as a result of this new permanence from custom-build houses. As it stands, "Construction" does not seem to be the way to go for the Standalone. The second path available is "Fortification". Basically, this means adding defenses into the in-game world. This does NOT include constructing new houses or buildings. Rather, it is about temporal means of protection in an ever-changing wasteland. Barbed-wire fences, different sized tents, and boarded-up windows would be a few examples of temporal defenses that focus on a more nomadic lifestyle. This direction does not suffer from the problems that "Construction" has. Since options would be far more limited, fortifications could be built on almost any terrain or location. They would not look unsightly either because they would simply only add to the pre-existing architecture rather than taking away from it. Fortifying a pre-built house could also be seen as more "realistic" as the time and knowledge it would take to actually construct a house in reality would be very long and unreasonable (not to mention exceptionally dangerous in the context of a zombie apocalypse). Fortifications would not go against DayZ's multi-server architecture either because they are meant as temporary defenses. Clipping would also be a very minor problem since large and thick structures could not be built in the game world. In my opinion, "Fortification" is the way of the future for the Standalone. tl;dr - Construction = bad. Fortification = good. What do you think? Would you rather build your own house and rearrange the furniture or fortify a building and keep the zombies at bay? Thanks for reading. Post any comments, suggestions, or ideas that you may have. But most importantly, have a wonderful day!

Yeah, it'd be really cool to have a decent sized cabin in the middle of nowhere (randomly spawned) where you can do cooking, hunting, and sleeping.

What do you guys think of having small cabins in the middle of forests? Or even... caves?

I guess you're right. I just wish there was something interesting to find in forests.

Please don't exaggerate things. The trade outpost only has a variety of loot, not tons of it. And currently, most of the buildings in DayZ are carbon copies of each other, making every town look the same. I don't see how a trading outpost in the middle of a forest ruins anything. Haha, I tried the same thing in Elektro. Actually had a pretty nice cookout with some friendlies.

LOL I think you are all misreading what I said. It's a trading outpost ONLY IN NAME. It doesn't do anything special whatsoever. It's just a randomly spawned building that has loot. No safe zones. No new mechanics. It's just like any other supermarket or firestation. The only difference is how it looks, what loot it spawns, and where it can be found. :P

Have you ever stopped by in a town to grab some loot, then suddenly someone steals your car? Having car keys in the Standalone could change that. So how do car keys work? All spawned vehicles come with the keys. The keys would be located either in the "Gear" slot or it would be laying around somewhere near the driver's seat. The car key would only work with that vehicle type (for example, a Ural key would only work with other Urals). In order for the vehicle's engine to start, the key must be in the ignition. The key would be located in your "Tools" slot so you wouldn't have to tediously equip it or anything. If you leave a car's engine running, the key will be left in the car. So how would you start a vehicle if you didn't have a key? You'd have to hotwire it. In order to hotwire a vehicle, you'd need "Wires". The process of hotwiring a vehicle would take considerable time... at least 1-3 minutes. So if you can hotwire a vehicle, why would you need keys? First off, you'd need "Wires" which would be relatively rare. Second, you'd have to spend 1-3 minutes to hotwire the vehicle itself. Third, you may be shot by the original driver if you are stealing a vehicle yourself. The process would create a few loud sparks and some light flashes, so the driver may spot or hear you easily if he is nearby. Fourth, the "Wires" would be a consumable item. The vehicle will no longer need keys for the rest of its lifespan, but you will need more "Wires" if you want to hotwire another vehicle. Fifth, if someone finds your vehicle while it is unattended, they could easily steal it since they would not need the keys. So how does this improve the gameplay? The game becomes more realistic and immersive, car thief scenarios are more dynamic, and you have more protection for your assets. So what do you think of "Car Keys"?

Why?

It makes more sense that you can lock your own car that you worked hard to get. It would still be relatively easy to steal it, just not stupidly easy as it is now. All you would need is, say, a hatchet/gun (to break the window) and a toolbox (to hotwire), and then of course the 1-3 minute timer to complete the process. The locking mechanism that stands in the way for a car thief isn't an "ultimate" security system by any means. It's just a way to give the original driver a chance at protecting his assets. Yes, a hotwired car would stay hotwired. That's one of the disadvantages I mentioned that would be incurred if someone hotwired a car they found rather than wait for the driver to come back and then steal his keys. It's a risk-reward system for both the driver and the car thief, which I think would make the game more interesting. I'm sorry if my post implied "ownership" beyond anything of a simple locking mechanism. It just a term I used to refer to someone's assets (like in the case of someone's tent).

I also forgot to mention that we're not going for total realism here. That would suck. In real life, you couldn't repair anything in a helicopter unless you had extensive knowledge and experience about it. We're going for gameplay here, not total realism. Depends on the car. Also, it's mainly for gameplay reasons. Otherwise, it would be too easy for a fresh spawn to take a car someone worked hard to get. Remember though, that in my idea I said that all cars spawn with their keys inside them and the keys are vehicle type specific, not individual vehicle specific (for example, a Ural key would work with any Ural). Also, I don't think ya'll are getting it, lol. With no locking mechanism like a key, there would be no way to show "ownership" of the car. If hotwiring was in the game but keys weren't, the second you get out of your car, you'd have to hotwire your way back in. This would be silly, of course. That's why there has to be some kind of way to show "ownership" of the vehicle - a way to lock and unlock it properly. Hence, keys.

Do you guys think it would be better to require extra wires to hotwire a vehicle or should you only need a toolbox?

I still don't understand why you would need hotwiring if a vehicle doesn't require keys to run, lol. Several other people are saying yes to hotwiring but no to car keys, when hotwiring is useless in a world without the need of car keys (such as it is now in the DayZ mod). I don't know too much about cars, but I believe the world Chernarus is set in has old vehicles (all of the models look at least 1970s) aside from maybe the SUV. On a newer car such as the black SUV, a more elaborate hotwiring process may be required (making them more valuable).

Smashing the windows doesn't get the engine running. It just gets you into the car, lol. EDIT: Sorry for double-post. My bad.