badbenson (DayZ)

everything that makes a zombie a zombie is what characterised infected except that infected can move fast. the following is true for both. 1. eat humans 2. the ability to turn into one is transfered like an infection (incase of the walking dead zombies for example the bite doesn't turn you immediatly but kills you in a matter of hours or less and then turns you) 3. reduced to basic instintive behaviour there might be more... the distinction comes mainly from different movies/universes because the first zombie movies had dead people actually coming from their graves. but since romero this whole genre has the above rules. although "28 days later" might not be called a zombie movie by some sticklers it still is. the idea is not different from the romero classics. it's just modified. they are just faster to make them more scary. dayZ has fast zombies. call them what you want the premise is the same. also the whole setting of dayZ is modelled after any zombie movie/cimic/tv-show you can find. most people are turned into monster the others are the so called survivors struggling to survive, scavenging, forming groups and fighting eachother. stop acting as if dayZ has anything else but zombies. how do you explain each one of them trying to eat you? which "authentic infection" would justify that? adding certain behaviour or features to dayZ's zombies isn't a matter of logic or authenticity. it's a matter of if rocket wants it that way or is able to do it that way. no matter how he or any of his self-proclaimed spokesmen justify it. dayZ zombies are basicly like l4d zombies. no one would call l4d an infected shooter. it's a zombie shooter. please stop it now...

rocket said that about player controlled zombies. he also said other stuff he took back or never talked again. stop being a douche and let people discuss what they want. this isn't the official feature list it's the suggestion forum... gotta love those dismissive douchy know-it-all oneliners. people think they're so cool :rolleyes:

word! people should stop acting as if dayZ was some scientific social experiment. nowadays most people behave like dicks on the internet just because they can. trolling is the cool thing to do. man i get the urge to vomit everytime i hear some tard saying "umad bro?". it's just a big culture of little spoiled kids thirsting for attention by being totally annoying. it's really sad but also pointless to get worked up about. you can never replicate human behaviour under those conditions. in my opinion all those people saying that's how humans are and that dayZ just shows that are delusional. most of them wouldn't even stand their ground in a real life fist fight. i really would love to see all those nurtured, spoiled little douches see pull the trigger on an actual human being... it's so pathetic how often you hear the line "dayZ is a harsh world...adapt". not long ago all those self-proclaimed bad asses were whining on these dame forums about the "too dark" night and the "too deadly" zombies because they couldn't take it. rocket should stop listening to any of the stuff the players say overall. he already reacted way too much in the totally wrong ways. i mean why are we debating diseases and pooping when the so called public alpha test wasn't used at all to balance the core game. all i see is nerfing of uncontrollable dangers. why not use the mod to test some drastic changes in loot rarity, speed of hunger increase, super deadly zombies etc? wise up or grow some balls goddamnit. 'bout time to really experiment before using twisted mechanics to make people work together in the stand alone. also...just using the usual internet dicks as a factor of tension is lazy. by doing that you just force everyone else to adapt to that. at the moment there is no meaning in dayZ. the reality of the game is what creates people's behaviour not the "reality" of a "real" zombie apocalypse in the back of their mind. if the game makes you eat every once in a while and just keep moving around zombies to easily survive than that's what you're gonna do. at the moment these things are a factor in dayZ like was collecting coins in super mario. the zombies are the best example. when you couldn't shake them of at all people were actually sneaking around zombies because they had to. now only people who don't know better do that. everyone else just runs. the mod got totally ruined in terms of that.

since when do people mostly die to zombies in those places?! just not true. 1. the zombies suck because of the way they are made. they were much better in the beginning because they were based on normal AI units. then they got reduced to a very simple AI which makes them run to your last position instead of your current position. and then because people were whinning that they can't hide from a zombie inside a house (eventhough they just aggroed it *sigh*) rocket implemented the fancy line of sight shizz which makes them totally useless. aka run into a bush and it will be as if you were never there. 2. rocket stated several times that the zombies will be be rebuilt from the ground up. so yea you CAN count on drastic changes come SA. 3. to say it's awesome they work as "well" as they do considering arma 2 is just bullshit too. there are several zombie AI scripts for arma that work MUCH better than the dayz zombies. the dayZ zombies are made simple to save resources. so please check your "facts" before you drop another "truth bomb" on people...

i just remembered that any sound you make already attracts zombies (eating, drinking etc). would be funny to have pooping like a mini game where you have to let it out quietly like you would if you are on a huge public toilet (of course you often fail which in dayZ could mean your death). :D i'm kidding of course...

i think in general the whole thing being based around loot is kinda boring anyways. it's great that this is steering the focus somewhere else. although i hope this isn't just a twisted way of trying to keep people from killing eachother.

i don't see how this makes sense with regards to the "tactics" most people already use to preserve their gear. then again. if a character becomes more than just a temporary hull and surviving longer will actually have benefits i see this becoming very intresting. so basicly we're gonna see server after server being totally infested with diseased dead bodies and when there's no server left to go to there will be a major wipe of everything. and then there will be the new times of sharing and looking after eachother and veterans will tell new players about the dark times. and civilization will rise again. and when the new players will ask where to get a gun the veterans will just smile and send them to collect medical herbs in the forest. just kidding. :D i just hope the whole system will carry something like this and not totally rely on players to make it work. i know that's the main vision here but i'm just not that idealistic about people's behaviour in a game. every loophole will be used... anyways i'm sure you guys have thought this through and i'm now looking forward to the standalone much more. EDIT: lol omg. if you go full on with this then all my concerns are wiped.

i don't want to be the party pooper here but i don't see myself looking for a cure if the best cure is suicide and respawn. also there are many players playing in "PvP rush mode" respawning several times a play session. how will the whole system make diseases like this actually make sense? why would i try to stay alive longer and build labs and shit to be prepared for a disease, if someone just playing for PvP, running around the map (perfectly healthy all the time due to PvP related respawns) in search for players, will eventually find it and destroy it just for fun? i'm not saying i don't like the idea but i already see people giving their gear to friends/putting it in their cars so they can respawn to get rid of a disease. this is just something that comes to mind if you think about those diseases put into a game that works like the mod dayZ. so wouldn't it make more sense to make atleast parts of the disease (maybe not the state of the disease but the mere fact of being infected with it) travel over to a new character? so people are forced to deal with it and accept it as a part of the whole experience. not trying to make it sound bad...just thinking out loud here. it's just that my experience with games in general and dayZ especially is that people will find the most effective way of playing the game and play it that way. so why would someone go into town to find antibiotics and risk his life AND gear if he could do what i said before and save the gear and only lose his life? which is a very temporary loss in a game. :P so to make it short: will this make sense in a broader perspective or will it just be a factor/hassle for those players who avoid other people?

i wasn't sure about this feature at first but reading what people come up with just thinking about it makes me want to have it in the game. :D

yea and i'm sure you absolutely don't use it to your advantage yourself...i guess you don't see the issue because you are one of those just scavenging and avoiding players (nothing wrong with that). the funny thing is that i don't have an issue with third-person because i feel i'm getting unfairly killed or something. it's because as someone who lately only plays this for PvP i realised how in most of my kills third-person exploits played a huge role. it's not only unfair it also reduces PvP of the gameplay to "spots first gets the kill" which gets boring after a while. firefights would be much more unpredictable and dynamic without third-person. this is the only reason this is discussed as an issue at all. if people weren't so cheap to only populate 3rd-person servers and day servers there would be so much more variation in gameplay for everyone. instead most people go the easiest path just to combat the uncomfortable feeling dayz is supposed to create. some people even go on empty night servers to gear up... :rolleyes: so the game has to adapt to people's mental weakness and force them. again. this can also be done by tweakig the third-person view. but saying there's no issue at all is ignoring reality. and to say dayz isn't a PvP game is just ignorant too. you may avoid other people and concentrate on scavenging but guess what happens most of the time when you meet someone...a firefight. i think people not seeing the issue haven't fully embraced the range of dayZ's gameplay or are just suppressing the fact that it's helping them too. and people who just avoid other players shouldn't take part in this discussion at all. you might have a legit playstyle but most people embrace this as what it is. a multiplayer experience. if other players are just an atmospheric element and implication of danger to you then you absolutely don't represent the majority of players.

that's because the arma community always focused more on Coop than on PvP. but there are still PvP servers that usually have 3rd person turned off because people are actually realising that in a competitive PvP enviroment an exploit/cheat like that just can't be allowed. that's the point i was trying to make. dayZ is mostly PvP so why keep it like that if it ruins it...

i like the idea of being able to influence the zombie population. this concept is kind of useless if server hopping stays possible like it is now though, people will escape the zombies like they escape night time. http://en.wikipedia....hibition_effect expecting civilised behaviour from people in an online enviroment is just unrealistic. fighting would be a major part of dayz even without the fresh spawn killers and cherno snipers. http://www.nationmas...s-with-firearms the usage of guns is (obviously) related to the availability of guns. why does the dog lick his balls? because he can. i think the key is to reduce weapon and ammo spawn rates (especially military). this will not reduce PvP but make it more challenging and less high tech military. it would create a connection between PvP and the survival aspect.

lol. way to go using a great quote totally out of context in a discussion about a game. :D the original is not about freedom of choice. good job hobby demagog. ;) why would anyone think that the humanity system changed anyone's PvP behaviour. it's in my opinion the most gamey part of dayz and just a value people look at who need something to work on. because deep inside they need somekind of moral justification for what they do (especially so called "bandits"). "no no i'm not a scumbag i'm a bandit, it's my job, i live by a code, bla bla bla...". or just look at the outcry when people thought the debug monitor was totally removed. some people just need that kill counter so they can tell themselfs how awesome they are. not everyone can find enjoyment in the process of things. most people need a value to approve them like their mom telling them "you did good honey". anymore "mechanics" like this would just ruin the game. especially punishment systems. i personally shoot everyone i see if there's a chance he/she has some ammo for my gun/ a gun i want. so then i can go on and shoot the next guy better. survival of the fittest...uhm best equipped person. that's what it is. it will never change. deal with it. the people advocating total freedom when it comes to choice/commonness of weapons who start crying when people suggest making certain weapons rarer or even removing some of them are just silly. in a PvP centered game weapons are what make the gameplay. every...EVERY good competitive shooter has somekind of balance in place not to save people from being shot but to keep variaty in gameplay and make every piece of equipment valueble instead of just having certain weapons/vehicles that win the game. it's just what makes a good game. there is a reason that dayz doesn't include tanks. Rocket sure knows how that would change the game. if it was totally "realistic" and open and free he would've just included all arma equipments...and if you're one of those who rely on a certain weapon to have fun. making it rarer will only make it more valueable and increase the gratifivation when you find one. if you can't kill people with a double barreled shotgun....well, get some skills. it's just funny that people except the fact that there is no TWS sniper rifle or LMG in the game (anymore) but start babbling about total freedom of choice and realism when some people suggest to remove the L85 (i personally have no problem with that weapon at all. just trying to make a point here). so please let's not turn another good thread into a fight between two popular opinions where facts and the willingness of actually solving problems are totally absent. this is not a philosphical issue. so stop with the pompous statements already.

that's true but in arma the focus was never on PvP. the point is that people act like if it's impossible to play in 1st-person which is just straight up bullshit.

^ I lol. can't stop giggling. beans for good humor :D

sure there are small differences in "playstyle" but basicly the game itself dictates how it's best played. it isn't and will never be like other RP concepts. the great thing about dayz is (was) that it forced you into situations which created those "stories" Rocket keeps going on about. there was never a need to imagine factors that aren't there to make it more intresting. that's what i'm trying to say. the variaty of things that can happen to you is created by the game not the players. sure the players can decide to shoot you or not but by making shooting the only intresting thing in the game basicly boils it down to that. sure dayz needs some more group mechanics so communication is easy and stuff. but what is really missing/has been drasticly reduced is the enviromental factor. how can survival be part of your stories if it's never a factor. dayz doesn't have to be balanced with reducing PvP in mind. PvP is a vital part. but just making zombies a real factor again and reducing loot (especially ammo not so much weapons) spawn rates would finally make it more than just what it is now again. i'm sure you wouldn't need any other new mechanics. and yea. people(including myself) will always kill on sight. the only problem is that military weapons and ammo for them are not really rare. just observe your own thought process when encountering another player with different kinds of weapons. if the chance of hitting him from a longer range (not sniper long range but assault rifle long range) and you have atleast two mags (let's say M16 with 2x30rounds) you will instantly shoot at him/her. if you have an enfield instead you get another factor. reload time for every single bullet. so if your target is moving or has cover close to him/her you'll approach the situation less impulsive. sure if you really want to kill that person you will keep trying but it will be harder and your probability of success will be lower. you can do this with any kind of weapon and you'll realise how much they influence the whole game. to see balancing of weaponary and spawn rates as restrictions is just foolish since it's actually the other way around. it shouldn't be so much about "PvP or not to PvP?". it should be about "how to PvP and when to PvP". people tend to see the sandbox concept to much like an image: gameworld = area of the sandbox loot = toys that are scattered in the sandbox for me it's much more about decisions. you can just say; "well aren't there all kinds of weapons in a post-apocalyptic world and isn't it more realistic to make them all available?". but that's totally besides the point in my opinion. survival should be about making the best of the equipment you have. if you just have to sprint to the next baracks to get a decent gun then i'll do that for sure. it just shows how deeply flawed the spawning system of dayz is and how totally degrades the game. even reminds me of good old unreal tournament where i always rushed for the rocket launcher spawn before i even started playing. :D so as long as it's stays like this the whole thing will never mature and always stay this one-dimensional. and just because "in a zombie apocalypse the living are the bigger threat" doesn't mean the "dead"/infected have to be almost no threat at all. they should be less of a threat because of their lack of intelligence not the number of health points they can take from you. the concept of zombies/infected has always been: one you can easily handle but several are deadly (when they get too close). so basicly 5-8 zombies should be as deadly as one human player. 2-3 hits = death. again. that's the kind of balancing dayz needs. not bandit masks and humanity values. making a good sandbox is all about balancing.

let's be realistic. dayz's main gameplay aspects are scavenging and PvP. and that's by (non-)"design". if anything people who were looking forward to building little farms and survive peacefully should be worried about how dayz is gonna turn out. or better said they should've realised by now that dayZ just isn't that. most people still play it for the tension that the focus on gear/loot combined with PvP brings. that's what the game is about. i'm sure everyone who wants something totally different from it has already left. i think the key is some of the stuff logan23 mentioned. two main things: 1. the zombies/infected. 2. the amount of weapons and ammo. in the first versions of dayz the zombies could kill you very fast and every zombie you aggroed had to be dealt with. you couldn't just run into a bush to magicly make them lose intrest in you. that meant that aggroing a few zombies while still not having a weapon could have been a death sentence. and then Rocket reacted to the whining about the zombies being to hard (in a zombie survival game *sigh*) and started slowly degrading them to the mild annoyance they are today. just look at videos streams of people playing the game. it's not that people got better at it. the game just became flat and predictable. today there's no more planning which route to take into a village without one aggro. just rush in take what you need and rush out into the next group of trees/bushes. this and the constant availability of lots of weapons and ammo made dayz what it is today. so it's actually the other way around. people were constantly talking about zombies like an annoyance which had to be eliminated/reduced because it was keeping them from what else they wanted to do in the world. like: " hey zombie can you please stop it i'm trying to take aim here..." :P the drama of being overrun by a (actually dangerous) horde because you engaged someone inside a settlement is totally gone. all the zombies do is swarm around the players like moskitos that occasionally sting you a little. these days dayZ (hehe) is just suffering from really bad balancing. and i'm not talking about bad aim if you kill too many players or any other kind of forced consequences for doing a certain thing. it's just the core elements of the game that were "tweaked" into the totally wrong direction. the game would be much more intresting if you actually had to manage your resources like logan23 mentioned. in my opinion that's all that's needed. no fancy mechanics just good old balancing.

yea losing your gear after death would be unthinkable...mighty lord!!! i think justifying the lack of this feature with story is kinda weird in the case of dayz. dayz has no story at all and basicly leaves it up to the player s imagination. sure Rocket said some things about the infected but i don't think those statements are law to him. stuff might change. i'd love this feature since it would bring more randomness/unpredictability. but i would already be happy with some real zombies/infected instead of grotesque stupid puppet creatures. i miss the zombies from the first versions. you couldn't lose those and getting close to them was actually dangerous. it got kinda ruined after the new AI was added. you had to deal with every zombie you aggroed. these days it's the opposite. anyways. would be great if those survivor zombies could take a bit more dammage since they just got infected and still have alot of human strength. or maybe those would be harder to shake off since they still have more of their original senses left.

it's funny how people keep repeating the same arguments over and over trying to drown other opinions or actual suggestions. seems like in this forum every suggestion thread is a poll where the "louder" faction "wins". the argument with the 180 degrees is just ridiculous. in any other 1st person game noone would complain about it being unrealistic. people are just spoiled by arma's free-look combined with 3rd person and just the thought of that 360/24/7 awareness being taken away from makes them scream out nonsense in fear. most of you guys just can't take the extra tension this would add. and saying 3rd person view is more realistic because of the view angle is just a joke. the point is that with third person you get a camera behind the player which you can move to places that aren't actually visible to your character's eyes. you can cheat with that. period. so what is more realistic now? as i said before tweak the 3rd person view so it's less exploitable. i made some suggestions before maybe people can add to that instead of repeating the same shit over and over again. it doesn't make it true if you keep saying it...

once and for all: the head shaking effect can be turned off in the game options. everyone finding excuses is just afraid of losing uber human fov. we all know how dayz is played with 3rd person. in CQB it's just a plain cheat and while running people keep scanning the area holding ALT which basicly creates almost 360° awareness all the time. this luxery is something that can only be found in arma and still people talk about it as if it's a known standard. you guys are just used to it and now you get defensive when people address it. every successful PvP competitive shooter has 1st-person only for exactly this reason. it's unfair. combine with arma's alt-look around feature even more. in dayz people are just so sensitive about their gear that they fail to see that those inbuilt exploits degrade the game. why not find a compromise? - disable crosshairs entirely (on all servers)...to atleast make 3rdp less relevant in combat - limit the camera movement when using ALT to xz axis only so you can't look as easily from roofs/over walls while you aren't visible at all - bring the 3rd person camera much closer to the player to limit ALT+3rdp exploits i would prefer 3rdp being totally removed but it seems this issue needs subtle balancing so all the crybabies don't die of fear looking around a corner in 1st person. let's face it. dayZ is a competitive PvP game. and hiding, sneaking and finding good cover are big parts of it. why degrade it just because some people can't take change?!

that's a good question. the reason is that in arma females use a different skeleton than males. this means every animation has to be made twice. it would be possible but the raw mocap data rocket used for the males would have to be put on the female skeleton from scratch. also it would be better to let females make the mocap stuff to make it fit the bone structure of the female skeleton better. i'm sure there will be female zombies in the stand-alone version of dayz. as i said it's really just a matter of making extra animations for the females.

lol. sometimes these forums are like a nursing home. lots of grumpy grandpas hating on anything that implies change. but i have to agree that the puzzle thing is silly. i think it would be cool if there was just an antidote which is as hard to find as the antibiotics (or just use the antibiotics). but the general idea of people turning into zombies is a must imo. it works great in other games/mods and would create cool situations especially in groups. also it would make the zombies more dangerous without changing anything. people wouldn't just take small hits because they know they can. they would try to not get hit at all.

everyone who used the gun before knows that it's overpowered. don't forget that on many servers there're crosshairs so the whole "it has drawbacks" argument is kind of silly. on the other hand if you keep moving you shouldn't have a problem being spotted. where it really shines is against snipers hiding under trees with ghillie suits. all you gotta do is scan the tree line and look for a bright spot. sure it's too easy but i really don't mind if i get shot by some guy using thermal or a guy with an enfield. it still feels better than get shot in the back by someone who just logged in behind me. also people quoting rocket about balance are so silly. sure he said that. but he was talking about PvP not weapon balance. why do you think some weapons are rarer than others? sure if you meet someone with said gun you should better run and hide but it won't happen all the time. so stop acting like rocket just took reality and put it in a mod. the mod is full of decisions influencing gameplay.

since you seem to be an expert on the topic why don't you enlighten us all about what exactly in the arma engine is keeping anybody from realizing what's suggested here? it's funny how suddenly everyone is and expert on arma modding... :rolleyes:

why isn't there one video of prove of this admin abuse? i mean i'm sure it exists but naming servers without any prove is bad. what is it with people just claiming things in these forums. moderators are badly needed.