badbenson (DayZ)

sorry dude but i really have no interest in dealing with your personal issues. i just told you that i never thought you were saying anything of the client side stuff. i also never said that you need to use common sense (i expect that from people...). i was just pointing out that i obviously wouldn't know any real details about the SA and that interviews and common sense are the sources of my information. you are just reading stuff into my posts because...i don't know why to be honest. just read my last post again without your angry internet debate nerd filter and you'll find a lot more than just that, regarding actual problems with your "proposal". but yea, it couldn't be more evident that that's not what you are after...

the problem here is not that i'm no native speaker. the problem is that you think i'm after you. i never said you said anything like that. i was thinking out loud about concepts that are different from what we have now in the mod, because i'm interested in more persistence than gear and position saving. i tried to focus on problems with your vague request to maybe spark some ideas for solutions. but i get it. you don't seem to want to talk about the actual points but rather try to win some argument you are imagining here. so i'll leave you to that. if not, maybe try to address my points instead of patronizing me because you feel the need to come out on top. debates are good if they are fertile. everything else is just pointless internet sparing.

why so iffy? i'm just sharing my thoughts on the topic. how would i know what exactly you meant by securing a house? you simply asked for the option. how about just going into detail next time instead of getting all debaty on me. it's true that just getting an option on a house's door to barrikade it would probably work. still it remains highly unpractical due to the main database saving positions. you just taking people getting put on the coast as granted ignoring that it never was in dayZ and probably won't due to the other problems it brings. sure if it was like that you could lock down a house. but why would you even bother, if after playing on another server you will be put on the coast again? in general i wouldn't assume the SA getting rid of position saving, they could've done that before and they didn't due to it taking a feature away from the whole concept (save everything including where you are) and the obvious problems it would cause. you just saying you don't care about them doesn't make them go away. on the barrikade thing. how would that work (i'm genuinely interested)? you would have wood in your inventory and then could lock down any door? if so, like anything else, people will get the needed loot from every other server and soon everything will be blocked. without required objects even faster. i don't see why that isn't obvious. and what then? can they be destroyed? what's the benefit, if they can be easily destroyed? lock down a house, log out, come back, everything is gone becasue someone simply had to remove one barrikade to get in. doesn't sound like something i would wanna invest my time into. i'm not saying the idea sucks. just pointing out that looking at the bigger picture taking everything into account, it doesn't really sound practical or worth investing into to me. if you would present a thought through concept i'd roll with it but you didn't so far. and to set this straight. i'd love a feature like that. but i think it's not likely having heard rocket talk a lot about underground stuff as a compromise.

that would solve the problem of teleporting but not the other stuff i talked about. just think about it for a minute. you go around place wood on doors and windows. how would the system handle that? would this be saved on your character so when you connect on a random server it suddenly appears there? doesn't sound practical at all. all that is possible is what we have in the mod. barrikades that are on one server and will get cleaned up eventually. if that's what you want then you already have it. and i don't see how the number of houses is relevant if objects like barrikades will infinitely keep spawning as loot. loot can travel servers, remember? by this logic there wouldn't have been a problem to just keep each tent and barrikade that was placed so far. i'm not saying it's impossible at all but these are just the reasons that rocket mentioned in interviews and what you come up with thinking about it using common sense. as i mentioned. one example would be to do it like in wasteland. have a limited number of base objects spawn and let players fight for them. hmmm...not really.....and it also creates other problems like spawn camping..................................... ;)

because they insist on keeping server hopping an option. you can never secure a house as long as you can teleport into it using server hopping. to make it possible they'd have to separate the servers from each other like private hives. on a separate server you could manage that easier. you'd have to limit resources like in wasteland though to avoid object counts getting higher and higher over time. i'd prefer separation and thus more details like that but i guess they want to keep it all connected to make it more random and exciting or something. sadly houses will just be loot spots and people will dig caves instead to live in. :D makes no sense but seems the only option as long as all persistence is based only around the character and not hte world.

lol. the angry frog dude reminds me of cartman. he has some good points though.

polycount: look at the sample character for arma 2 inside oxygen. if you select it and hit E you will get some stats. arma models have resolution lods. if you set those up right you shouldn't have to worry too much about polycount. just keep it inside reasonable boundaries. an arma 2 model is around 3000-4000 polies in the highest resolution lod i think. just a guesstimation though. as map: as far as i know AS stands for ambient shadow. it's basically an ambient occlusion map. it has less influence than you would think though. basically it only becomes visible on parts of the model that are in shadow. it's always good to bake some AO into the colour map aldo. i keep it subtle though. smdi: those are simple specular maps. there are ways to generate those from normal maps (crazybump). there is no one way to create them or any fail safe method since it depends on the case though. scratches on a gun are different than an overall shimmer on skin for example. when i generate them i always edit them in photoshop afterwards since they are a tool for the artist to decide which part will be shiny and how much not just an overall lighting pass. they are black and white and get turned into some redish stuff when you convert them with texview.

making new characters is kind of a pain. there are 3 ways to go. 1. reskin: change the textures of existing arma 2 models. this requires hexediting to change the texture paths inside the models since those are binarized. (search the bohemia interactive forums for a detailed guide) - this is what dayZ (mod) does using some of the chernarussian civilians - easiest way - limited 2. making new models using arma 1 models (which were released; arma 2 models aren't available in an editable format). what you do is take models from arma 1 make some changes to make them fully compatible with arma 2 and add small stuff like vest pouches or in your case maybe an eyeball hanging out of the eye cavity :D - this is (for zombies) the imho the best way since you can add model parts but don't have to do any complicated rigging - some of the arma 1 models have bad UV layout which makes reskinning hard sometimes - you'll have working hands 3. make a model from scratch and rig it to the arma 2 skeleton in oxygen (part of the BI tools) - this is more limited than you would think - model has to fit the skeleton - rigging in oxygen is a PAIN (atleast compared to stuff like Maya) - stuff will look really awkward if you don't stay close to the arma skeleton - total freedom model-wise - most work i heard about a way to rig/skin the model to the skeleton in Maya (oxygen has a Maya weight import) but i never found all i needed for it (arma skeleton for maya + guide how to translate to oxygen). i already made models for arma 2 using method 2 and 3. and i can tell you, since you basically only want to make fucked up humans, that method 2 should be the best for you for now. i made a skinny grey alien which looked awesome in zBrush but rigged to the arma skeleton it just looks awkward. the guys making models for the stand alone (BI staff) are using proper tools (they sure don't use oxygen for modelling and rigging) which aren't available for the public so that shouldn't be compared to what you want to achieve. also they are reusing the character base models already made for arma 3. you don't have those resources so keep it simple. don't get me wrong. method 3 is still a good option but you would have to learn alot of arma specific stuff first. sorry about the messy post. just quickly sharing some stuff. hope it helps :) some useful links: weighting in o2: http://forums.bistud...light=weighting example of an arma 1 model prepared to work in arma 2: http://forums.bistud...inkowski sample details on how to use parts of the arma 2 character sample model to get arma 1 models to work in arma 2: http://forums.bistud...inkowski sample needed resources: arma 1 character models: http://www.armaholic...t=SAMPLE+MODELS the arma 2 sample character: http://www.armaholic...t=ARMA+2+SAMPLE

lol? if everyone has to use ironsights it will be the same as if everyone uses crosshairs. the only difference is that now you have no flashy crosshair but an easy to determine spot on a model to aim with. i don't see how the difference in skill will get bigger through this. these over dramatising statements show why it's a bad idea to ask the "community". soon after the reasonable posts the whining and fighting will start and drown everything else. why not just make this (not THAT big of a deal) design decision just like that without creating a big pool of never ending opinions. i don't see how this helps. it seems like you (rocket) are way to concerned with the complainers. we all know each single one of them will get the game so just do your thing. there doesn't need to be reasoning to justify everything. i mean you can't talk about game design almost like an art form and then go and try to please everyone. artists don't do that. why even think about it from the anti hacking perspective. all that matters here is your vision of the gameplay. i mean how do you want weapons to feel? if you go for helis that are very hard to fly how can there even be a discussion about crosshairs? let's be honest it's not THAT hard to aim with ironsights. anyways i can live with both. i just hope those decisions won't be made based on polls or server traffic. we all know why the dog licks his balls...so more servers with crosshairs should hardly be an argument. please stop the democracy hippy crap and just make those decisions. this needs to be more of a dictatorship. if i want games that are made to please the average statisticly created gamer (or buyer/customer) i have more than enough to choose from. "personal preference" is the new multi functional argument these days. i say let them make their own game if they wanna decide.

wow now i feel bad. i always assume that people have basic logical abilities and/or know when they have nothing or only bullshit to contribute and then i treat them like they know better. i take it all back. can't be ignorance. must be just lack of...well...nevermind. yea you are right. why even think about changing weapon properties in a thread about changing weapon properties. so absurd oops! what's that? oh no! context. damnit now it all makes sense...or does it? but since you just said what you said and not this.... ...congratulations! you are only the second stupidest person in this "conversation". now punch yourself in the face and quietly leave the forums. thx! btw i couldn't care less about the actual topic. just having fun with retards :D

buuullshiiiiiaaat! why make totally wrong statements about something you have no idea about and embarress yourself? you can change any value AND the crosshairs of any gun in a mod like in any other modable game. why wouldn't that be possible? i don't get people like you. you obviously have no idea about arma modding or modding in general. so why even bother making a post like this? need attention? sorry but ignorance makes me mad and mixed with wise-assery it's like...fuck....have a good day....you f....ret.....sir. and if you're trolling...i still hate you...

you silly goose! this isn't about who has the best arguments. it's about how many people are actually willing to go hardcore. i'm guessing that more people that play dayZ aren't playing arma at all. believe me the real arma communities like shacktac weren't really intrested in dayZ for long. also when it comes to dayZ you can only talk about something like a community when it comes to private hives maybe. everything else is just a big mess. so dayZ being the PvP griefing fest it is today it's kind of silly to talk about who has the better arguments when the whole reason people make threads like this is that 3rd person can and will be exploited alot (just watch some PvP videos on youtube). it's not about personal preference or anything like that. just simple competitiveness. and yea since most people are like you nothing will happen to your "loved aspect" (made me lol). so stop acting like "your side" has out-debated the other side. it's just stupid. i'm sure most people who want to restrict to 1st person like 3rd person too but actually are able to see how 3rd person is used and are willing to make a small sacrifice. unlike most people here. and you obviously haven't played on a real arma PvP server. otherwise you would know that they never allow 3rd person because they know what it does. sure arma has a big spectrum but noone can convince me that dayZ isn't about PvP.

just use boot camp if you wanna play games on mac. :P

nah. they're just reusing stuff since it's all the same company. arma 3 will be, although more drasticly than before, "just" be an updated version of the old engine. so reusing stuff is easy. look at the "new" dayZ male player model in underwear for example. it's just a recoloured arma 3 character model that has been shown before http://media.pcgamer...909-627x391.jpg

ok. just ignoring the weird people and trying to get this back on track. posted by WiFin: ...where the hell are the moderators? RooBurger are you some kind of social worker? i love how you are calmly reacting to the irrationality.

i want this fixed too!!! everyone knows that leaves and branches are the kryptonite of zombies. infact i can't really understand why they didn't already add the ability to craft a super anti zombie armor from branches if you have a knife or an axe. it's so obvious and would totally improve not only the gameplay but the realism of the game. and while you'Re at it please nerf the normal zombies some more. you can't shoot anything without being bothered by a zombie. and having to run into the next bush everytime to lose them is way too hard. atleast add more vegetation to the map or make players invisible when they are in a 10m radius of any kind of plant...including grass.

while i agree that this wouldn't encourage team work just like that i think that very deadly zombies are a must to make looting a real struggle and bring back the sneaking of the old days. while it's true that people adapted over time it's hardly the only reason why they deal with zombies like they do now (just run past them). in the early days of dayZ zombies didn't have line of sight detection and couldn't be shaken off once they were aggored. this may sound like an improvement it actually totally ruined the zombie gameplay because it took away the reason to really try to avoid them. now you just lose them running into a bush. what also has been "tweaked" for the worse is the probability of getting knocked out by zombies. people just complained so much that the zombies step by step got nerfed to what they are now. while things like getting knocked out by a zombie or being chased by it until you kill it might sound annoying at first sight it is actually what makes the zombies much more believable. sure being knocked out by a zombie is kinda funny but it basicly just simulates what you see in several zombie movies. one grabs you leg and holds you back and if you don't get free fast enough (getting free in this case is the timer running down) you'll get eaten by the horde. if the players can constantly run around without the risk of aggoing a huge amount of zombies they can't get rid of just like that they will do so. if getting close to a zombie will most likely not get them knocked out they will get close to them alot. the zombies changed alot over time. and that changed the gameplay. i agree that a more hostile enviroment won't necessarily lead to team work but i think that it absolutely influences gameplay and overall behaviour around zombies. the problem is not that people will find ways to avoid zombies. the problem is that at the moment you don't need any anti zombie tactics at all. you just couldn't run around like crazy in early dayZ if you hadn't enough ammo to deal with the zombies you aggroed. those assessments don't have to be made anymore. which in my opinion makes the experience alot more flat and one dimensional. that's why i don't play it anymore and wait for SA. i just don't feel like running for hours to get one or two firefights. not worth my time. i miss the drama of engaging someone and having to retreat because of too many zombies. that was unique. i hope it comes back in the SA.

only if there's a rape/struggle cuddle combo that can only be performed by the masterful struggler. on a serious note: what you suggest sounds an awful lot like a quick time event which is not only boring but also very undynamic. i also think that simple hit, block and push would be enough tools to make people who want to fight eachother able to in a tactical manner but also avoid locking you down in a spot/scene ready to be picked off by the next sniper. it just doesn't fit a game like dayZ that is so dominated by long range combat. i would love to be able to sneakily take people out from behind and be able to take their stuff or take them captive. funny stuff would happen.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." you obviously don't know what out of proportion means and eventhough you read my posts you didn't seem to get one bit of it. the point of those pictures was to show that arma's first person in particular is not broken which becomes clear if you compare it to other games. first person games will never represent the human field of view as long as they are rendered on a normal monitor, unless you prefer "fish-eye-view" over non distorted objects. so yes indeed, backing your claim that arma's first person lacks with data about the human field of view is blowing things totally out of proportion. although i have the feeling i'm talking to a vegetable i'm hoping you understand that now. not only are you just claiming things without proof (go ahead and post some "proper" comparison screens), you are also proving you have no idea what you are talking about yourself which is kind of embarrassing if you ask me. not to mention your desperate attempts to insult people when they prove you wrong. i would go on battling with you but you are obviously unarmed. also i think just understanding what i just wrote will take you a while anyways. so i'll leave you to yourself now...

what the hell are you even talking about?! jesus. just read what i and other people wrote. you're not contributing you're just being some kind of annoying chat bot. x:"how are you today?" you: "i like turtles." bleeding: read thread. first person patches up things: read thread! 3rd person is more realistic than 1st person; READ THE GODDAMN THREAD! if you wanna win the debate contest atleast try to make some sense. good day! have them good sir.

you could have a heart beat sound and maybe a visual effect. like any other this isn't a strong argument compared to the exploits. couldn't agree more. everything has been said and every shit argument has been falsified several times. i was just trying to show how stupid these FOV arguments are and how pointless this discussion itself is now after such a long exhausting thread. but of course people will go on :rolleyes: in the end like with any other hardcore feature the whiners will win just because of their sheer numbers. it's like with zombies. one is just a brainless mad person but in great numbers they are deadly. :P it's a natural instinct. you will rather notice the crying child than the guy who says "hey please cut my left arm off i need a challenge". i get the reasoning behind that. dayZ is a commercial product now. no room for drastic changes that would potentially (at the end of the day they would still play it) scare of too many people. i like 3rd person too when i can have it. this doesn't change the fact that it breaks PvP. lets just hope SA won't be as focused on PvP. that would be a major bummer with 3rd person like this... EDIT: so let me see if i get this right. it's too much to go into the options and pull a slider too the left?...you lazy motherfucker! :D i personally like a bit of a headbob. not too much but a little bit. feels much more "realistic" to me than a cam on rails. yea 100% is annoying. BUT it doesn't give me an advantage so why not keep the option??!!

why are you so desperate to prove your point that you need not only repeat the crap other people said a thousand times in this thread but also blow your fancy angle calculation argument totally out of proportion. so what exactly is the difference between this... http://cubeupload.com/im/ml7C2X.jpg and these?: http://cubeupload.com/im/YPonn3.jpg http://cubeupload.com/im/N3XkxQ.jpg http://cubeupload.com/im/n72GkT.jpg infact if you double tab "-" in arma you get a better perspective than in the above. http://cubeupload.com/im/n72GkT.jpg so if you want to get some perspective why don't go on the call of duty (or any other shooter) forums and suggest they add 3rd person because their first person lacks so bad. the fact is, just like in skyrim, if you give people 3rd person as a choice they will use it most of the time because it provides more overview. it's just like the dog...why does he lick his balls? but saying arma's is first person is insufficient and that 3rd person is needed to make up for that is so silly it makes me giggle. just read the thread and leave it be. it all has been said and your attempt isn't really the best presentation of your side of the argument. the main concern is that 3rd person can be heavily exploited. pulling weird arguments out of your ass to argue for your personal preference doesn't change that. edit: oh and it is not true that head bobbing remains when you turn it off. infact it's reduced to such a minimum that anything less would be a camera on rails. so everyone still complaining about head bob in my eyes is just being annoying...

i stand corrected/convinced sir! but i'm glad that he actually wants to limit constant running but doesn't go with what people have suggested in this thread (stamina to make zombies more dangerous). then we would end up with what warZ currently has which is just a bad lazy concept.

nice "it's always sunny.." reference. :D in my opinion experimental drugs or parasites would make more sense to me than the whole infection thing.sure the whole zombie virus idea kinda based on rabies but the effect of rabies on humans is different from animals. all it does is destroy the central nervous system which can lead to manic behaviour, uncontrolled excitement and stuff like that. if you apply that to a carnivore it explains the bites. it makes much less sense with humans though which rabies shows. in the end rabies just destroys the infected as opposed to making him/her/it a wandering flesh lusting maniac. parasites on the other hand actually have an intrest in keeping the host alive (atleast for a longer period) but you'd have to go all fictional with that too since it would have to be a very advanced life form that's able to alter the hosts bahaviour to it's liking. and drugs have a rather unpredictable effect on different individuals so it would have to be something especially designed for the bahaviour it causes. maybe the good old "military experiment gone wrong" plot. which would also be more science fiction than anything. so in any case fiction is the only way to go with zombies/"infected". which leads to endless possibilities to make them make the most sense from a gameplay perspective instead of claiming authenticity to justify design decisions. looking at the current zombie situation slow zombies would make things even worse so them being fast just makes sense in a big enviroment like dayZ's where you have always space to evade. so stamina is a logical conclusion. the game (arma) already has some kind of stamina system in place which current only influences sprinting (which is just slightly faster than running) and aiming. making players normal people instead of marathon runners and adding more cars into the mix would make things much more intresting, i think this is yet another "quote" out of context. i think the statement you are refering to was about HUD and a stamina bar was used as an example. if that's not true you might want to state your source. otherwise i'm not convinced that rocket said that. i still think the problem is not the zombies' speed but their "AI" and the dammage they do. by trying to make them more realistic (line of sight) rocket accidently made them way to forgiving. why would someone who wants to eat you so bad that he sprints after you suddenly stop running in your direction just because he lost sight of you for a second? also the decision to make zombies do tiny amounts of dammage and adding the possibility of a knock out just doesn't make them feel dangerous but rather annoying. so making it possible to lose the zombies and making them less dangerous (thx to all the whiners) basicly broke them in their functionality. even with the broken AI (which is partly a problem of modding arma for MMO purposes) the zombies would do their job if they could kill you easily. people would be thankful that they aren't really smart in any way. the classic arma 2 zombie mission series "chernarus apocalypse" shows how easy it can be done. in those missions zombies are fast too and they kill you with 3 hits if you don't heal in between hits. while the set number three might appear kind of acardy the result is the opposite. people respect the zombies in those missions as a real threat and that results in "realistic" zombie apocalypse gameplay. i can't say it often enough. it's a simple matter of balancing. in the end advanced pathfinding and other AI fancyness are just cosmetics which make the zombies more convincing. to make the players afraid of them all you need is make them able to easily kill you.

as long as beans and stuff are as easy to find as they are now this would be just a feature for people who just want to eat other people for the sake of it. if there would be no other choice in some situations it would make more sense maybe.