Clumzy (DayZ)

It's fake.

It shouldn't be though, that's my point. It shouldn't matter whether these zombies are undead or infected in regards to this suggestion, we could have players becoming zombies either way. Just because the players are currently identified as immune, doesn't mean they always have to be forever. If people would stop nitpicking and missing the point of this suggestion, implementing this as a feature could greatly improve the game. Not because of the player zombies, but because one single hit from a zombie could be fatal, and they would finally become a real threat. What's so scary about a zombie when all they do is punch you?

I don't understand why people complain so much about zombies being too easy, but then shoot down this excellent idea so viciously. Why? Because it goes against some code found in the game files and a paragraph on the mod website? It's not like the game is built around the players being immune, and I don't think players dying before being zombified is the key point of suggestions like this, so people rejecting the idea because of that is just ridiculous. I think that this is the absolute best way to make zombies a legitimate threat, but every person here rips it to shreds for no good reason. So what if the players are currently immune? Is that really impossible to change?

It's easy in the US, but I don't think it would be quite as easy in a place like Chernarus, AFAIK.

I've changed my mind on this. I used to think that players should stay immune, but then I thought, why? The community complains constantly about how the zombies are too easy, but any time someone suggests a fantastic way to make the zombies a legitimate challenge, everyone shoots it down relentlessly. Why? Because they are 'infected' zombies, and not 'undead' zombies. So what? You don't have to die to turn into a zombie, maybe the server would just replace you with a zombie once the infection reaches a certain stage. Of course, some people argue that it's already been stated that the survivors are immune. Is lore so important to a mostly backstory-less game in its early alpha stage? Would it really break the game and destroy the story if we changed this? See, this is what I'm talking about. There is no such thing as realism when we are talking about fictional zombies. There are no rules to follow, and we don't have to do things a certain way forever, just because the mod's webpage said so.

Remember that the switching weapons + moving still doesn't work perfectly, I think they have to make a unique code/animation for every weapon being holstered or unholstered while moving. That's why sometimes you'll stop moving when equipping something (Happened more earlier in the alpha). The devs would have no good reason to not allow you to move while gesturing, I bet it's just because they have not yet programmed that feature in.

The main appeal of this game is the human interaction, for most people it's worth the more scarce loot.

The human eye has a much higher 'resolution' than a standard PC monitor or TV. You would be able to make out detail and movement much more precisely in real life, so the blur would still not be realistic.

It's probably not a design choice, but a limitation on how the gestures work. If you played the mod, you know that you were unable to switch weapons while moving. I'd wager that this is the same kind of thing. I'm sure the devs will be able to fix this, though, somewhere down the road.

Please do not add blurring around any of the scopes, period. In real life you would not be able to focus on the outside of a scope, yes, because your field of focus is about 3 degrees out of 180-ish. But, since we are looking at a monitor/TV with our real eyes as well, the same is still true. If you look directly at the center of a red dot scope in game now, and try to read something in the corner of the screen, you wouldn't be able to, because your eye can only focus on very little at once. So, it would be redundant to add this feature, since the human eye is already doing it. Now, let's think about if you were looking through a magnified scope in real life. If you wanted to move your eye and look outside the scope (without moving your eye or the scope), you could because your eye can easily adjust focus to something on the outside of the scope. That's why we don't have everything in the game blurry except for 3 degrees in the middle, because you are able to move your eyes around to focus on different things in real life, so your character doesn't need to. In conclusion, if this feature ever gets implemented (however unlikely that may be), please do not blur the outside of a scope. It is redundant and unrealistic. The only exception should be to improve performance while using that feature.

Just a small suggestion regarding the wildlife situation in DayZ Standalone (Once wildlife starts being implemented, of course). I was watching a video of a sound mock-up for the standalone, and the creator added in some bird sound effects for the outside sound effects. Makes sense, but when he started showcasing the M4 sound effects while outdoors, and the birds kept happily chirping away, it got me thinking. My suggestion is to add in actual birds that will fly away from trees when startled. So, when a gun goes off near a tree, or even if a player just walks past, there could be a chance that a flock of birds will fly off of it. This could be a good way to track players or be alerted to the presence of a player/zombie. Hopefully this can be implemented sometime in the future. So, what do you guys think?

Don't understand what everyone is doing when they meet people to scare them so, I've met 20-30 people so far and not a one has combat logged on me.

Splitting the community is never a good thing, and according to every single person who defends 3dp on this forum, nobody uses it for peeking around corners. At least, from what I've seen in the many, many debate threads about this topic. Would you feel comfortable knowing that there was a button that allowed you to see through walls in this game? You wouldn't have to use the button, but everyone else would do it. I think there should be a LOS system where players/zombies that would be in the first person view wouldn't be rendered in third person, either. Then the community can play together, and we would still have the other benefits of third person.

The only time I've killed another player was when I was north of Cherno with a fire ax, and some unarmed guy came running up to me. I tried to talk to him in direct, but he kept running and started swinging his fists at me. To this day I still don't understand what he was thinking when he did that.

Just because the devs didn't program in any 'endgame', doesn't mean there is nothing to do. In fact, this thread is basically describing an endgame, one created by players. That is the kind of endgame we should have in DayZ, a player-driven endgame. You just need to think outside the box a little.

I don't think there are any arguments that the current system of food and water is set at a realistic rate, but is it a good thing for the game? It's a lot harder to stay alive now, and it kind of adds more focus to the survival aspect of the game. There's a feeling of scarcity that was never really present in DayZ mod, it was never a challenge to have enough food and water. So what do you guys think? Should it be changed? Should it stay the same?

I've noticed that a lot of people just let the zombies get really close before even reacting to them. Maybe zombies should be able to grab players and impede their movement?

I really hope they don't do that, every player digging a hole in the ground like a gopher doesn't seem to fit into a zombie survival game. I'd much rather just have base fortification.

Well, it's definitely the reason I stopped playing the mod for a while. Splitting and fracturing the community over and over is never good for a game. A couple weeks before the release I wanted to play DayZ mod, but I didn't find a single vanilla or DayZero server with good ping and anyone in it. It was ridiculous, because I don't have any interest in the Origins/Epoch modmods. I think it's a very good thing that server owners can't make servers like this, as it's just trying to appeal to the masses and get as many players as possible, and I don't think that's what DayZ is about. Say what you will against third and first person, but I don't believe that splitting the community into groups that play a hundred different variations of the same game will be anything but a bad thing. It's best that we keep the game unified. Oh, and about this quote of yours: "You want everyone to only have the option of first person because it is "fair". But like I said, that makes you arrogant. You want everyone to change how they play to suit your play style so that you don't have to deal with third person players. You don't care if they like third person, you want it removed because that's how it "should" be according to you." I don't think you should be accusing him of being arrogant, for trying to change how everyone plays based on his opinion of what is best for the game. That's what a suggestion is, look at all the suggestions made that would have (and did) change the way that everyone played the game. I only hear accusations like this when it's about third person. He's not being arrogant or anything like that, and he has never at any point claimed to be part of a 'master race'. He is just saying what he thinks is best for the game as a whole. There is no need to attack him, it's better to just have a respectful discussion about the pros and cons of third person (That would be a first).

See, this argument for 3rd person always kind of bothers me, because you can get your 1st person FOV really high in this game. Plenty of people still use the standard FOV when playing DayZ, and you can easily get a 1st person FOV that is much higher than the default 3rd person FOV. Oh well, at least I don't see people complaining about head bob anymore. And to people saying that server owners should have as many options as they want, don't you think it's a good thing that 97% of the servers aren't "10,000 vehicles start with guns daylight 24/7" anymore? Just before SA I actually had a really hard time finding any server that wasn't like that. It may be their own server, but giving people too much freedom just means that they're going to go for the lowest common denominator, and make DayZ into something that it's not. I certainly hope that doesn't happen to the standalone as well. Anyways, since we are able to have only one or two items across all servers now, I think there should be a very small amount of news choppers, but completely wrecked. I imagine all of the ones in working order would have already left Chernarus.

Well, I'm sure you realize that the things I listed are just examples, and things like running a trading post would have a pretty good chance of happening in some sort of apocalypse. There are tons of things you can do, not just the things I suggested. That's the point of my post. Besides, the endgame isn't just about what you personally would do, it's about the player, and everyone can make their own endgoal. I'm all for farming and base fortifying, but I wouldn't really consider that as an endgame, more of a means to an end. But to each, his own, I guess. And any specific endgame that had to be added in as a new mechanic (e.g. some of the suggestions from a while back about being able to find an NPC heli and fly away into the sunset, or finding a cure for the virus) don't seem to belong in DayZ.

Y'know, the thirst system may be WAY too extreme, but I'm kind of liking it. It's an actual challenge to stay alive again. You get that feeling of scarcity that was often missing in the mod. Especially without loot respawns. Man, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally. Programmed mechanics shouldn't create an endgame. The player should create their own endgame. Go clear out a town with some friends and create a clothing store in Kamenka. Sneak up on those snipers in Elektro and drop cans of beans all around them without noticing, then slip away. Do whatever you can think of. This is DayZ. This is your Story.

It may be a good idea to the person who thought of it, but that doesn't mean it would be beneficial to the game. I don't think the majority people are here just to bash unpopular opinions (although we do have our share of those people, like any other community), they just care about what they think is best for the game. Same as you.

See, now this is the kind of mentality that causes games like DayZ to devolve into an endless deathmatch. Just because there are no endgames that are programmed by the developers doesn't mean there is nothing to do other than get gear and KOS. Think about your experiences in DayZ mod. Depending on how long you played it for, I'd be really surprised if you told me you've never found anyone creating their own endgame. I once met a guy in Cherno who claimed to be a watch salesman, there was a trading post on the server I went on for a while, and I ran a charity out of Elektro church. And maybe you;ve seen that video on Youtube about the guys who kidnapped players and forced them into Gladiator-style fights to the death. That's what the endgame should be like in DayZ, not anything artificial or scripted. It should all be up to the player, to create their own story.

Every time I see another player I try to approach them. I've met a bunch of people in the few days of playing SA, and I've only been killed, like, 3 times by other players. I've been killed by other people as much as I've been killed by bugs and glitches, so I don't really believe that KOS is an immediate problem in the SA. It was the same in the mod, I got killed by players, but it wasn't like an epidemic or anything. I ran a charity out of the church in Elektro for months, and the majority of players either got their loot and left or actually helped me out in running the church. There was a trading post for a few weeks on the same server. So it seems to me like gear is not the only motivator in the game, and people tend to blow KOS'ing in DayZ a bit out of proportion.