hoak

I'd bet that virtually everyone that posts on these forums watched that video the day it appeared... It warrants mention (as it's the point of this thread) that if your take on what Rocket is saying ergo 'all about player interaction' that PvP is only one interaction, the most primitive/simplistic, and the lowest bar to go under in terms of game design; it's also an interaction that ends all further interaction between two Players. Unrealistic game mechanics including but certainly not limited to unlimited magical ammunition spawning everywhere all-the-time are without a doubt considerable enablers to the game current state of devolved, derivative, arcade death-match... ∆

Can you shit your pants? Would that attract Zeddie or make him ignore you? Will the retail game come with a 'Scratch & Sniff' card? Stay tuned... :huh:

Personally, if ammunition was finite and realistically scarce, I wouldn't mind the motivated and calculating Sniper that stalks me for hours, and uses his one and only bullet to take me out of the game... But that a player can quickly gear up as fully outfitted Sniper complete with Gillie suite, state of the art rifle in perfect operating condition, enough ammunition and food to camp and kill with impunity for as long as he wants to play -- makes the current iteration of DayZ is as arcade and silly as it gets... ^_^

Again, cogent, to the point and my sentiments exactly... I was up too late posting, responding, and reacting to take the argument by the horns and just shoot down all the invalid premises people are running with... There are a lot of neck down Players in DayZ (and this thread) that would I'm sure be just as gratified playing as Zombies and get just as much out of the game -- go figure... :)

Thank you Trashcanman, some here that may not be able to follow logical sequitur, do simple abstract problem solving, or understand basic gaming statistics should be able understand the point made the way you've made it. :thumbsup:

All unsupported assumptions. Where for example is your imaginary player going to get five magazines of ammunition if it's scarce? Who is going to risk a booty fight for harder won booty via a sketchy crap-shoot fire fight where they may have only three rounds, but the other guy may have four or a faster firing weapon? These non-sequitur non-thinking binges are certain to go on in game even under circumstances of scarcity, just as they do in the real world (and on this forum) -- but when it becomes more of a zero-sum approach (unless you carefully stalk and observe someone for what they're carrying) DayZ will become less of the slow-motion arcade death-match casnio game it has, and more of what its Designer intended... :rolleyes:

I don't know why people keep ragging on this, I never said it would, it may make people more judicious as to when and who they shoot however -- but I've always said I want that up to the Player not impressed on him by design, and with some of the other features and mechanics discussed it could have a hand in getting the game back to where (and I agree with Rich here) the game it was better as there was more uncertainty. Just by way of illustration as to how more realism can effect (not control or change, that's still up to the Player) these outcomes; if for example AKM rifles and it's ammunition is only found in only location on the map (where it might be realistically stored and found), the weapon may be common there and the ammunition less so, and other weapons likewise in other locals shotguns on farms etc., and two players have a confrontation in yet another local each has the implicit premise they are probably be carrying different guns, are probably low on ammunition, and neither is likely to be hauling ammunition the other guy can use. This offers a situation of more parity of uncertainty and negatives with respect to violent outcomes that are quite realistic in some regards where the risk of getting in a fire-fight for the small gain of what someone is carrying may not serve a person as well as trying to trade or partner up or even just moving on... If the game insures that all players are shy on ammunition, and that's not a difficult thing to achieve no one will have certainty in of outcome -- and that's what I think we all really want, opportunity and choice. Currently I can scrounge up more ammunition in this game more quickly then I deploy with in ArmA II, and it's ridiculous that even though I may not spawn with a gun, in no time at all I'm more heavily armed then contemporary infantry, in a post-apocalyptic world where all means of ammunition manufacture are gone. Like others in other threads I enjoy the foraging, but I'd like it to be a smarter, more realistic and challenging strategic affair then the effortless death-match arena pick-up and stupid booty fight it is... Just say'n... :)

No. That's as unsupported an assumption as any you've claimed I've made; it would seem you've never confronted someone with ill intentions and firearms as the means to accomplish them in the real world, and countered with the same threat of force. In the real world the consequences are very final, and most people will act to avoid them; in DayZ there are virtually none... To be explicit so there's less opportunity future misunderstanding: 1) Like Rocket I have no desire to stop people from killing each other that want to do that, I do however think there should be realistic alternatives that work; currently there are none, and I'd like to see some of the arcade/magic death match 'enabling' mechanics removed from the game like infinite magic ammo and weapons everywhere (at a greater per capita density then Quake III Arena)... You may choose to like the fundamental absurdity and lack of realism this puts in the game, I do not. 2) Ammunition should be finite for a plethora of reasons that go beyond this discussion, and while ammunition scarcity alone might not effect more realistic game outcome, more realistic weapon and ammunition placement, with finite ammunition together could have a very positive effect in this regard. 3) Realistic friendly or friending mechanics, building, radios, and other game world interactions instrumentality and/or tools will give Players means to team up and effect more realistic outcomes then just death-matching. 4) In the real world there is always strength and security in numbers; larger numbers (all other things being equal) always have an advantage, and cooperating with someone is virtually always the smarter, safer long term bet then killing them for what you can get off them. Even in DayZ where if you effect some modest navigation skills you don't need rape players for a cans of beans and a few bullets, in fact while it may be very gratifying to weak egos, it's very inefficient, just as it is in the real world...Bottom line is my argument don't have to satisfy you, or yours me; as neither of us are the arbiters of this game's design; but as is, DayZ is a just simplistic slow death-match, and if that doesn't change, the popularity fad, like all game fads will fade fast. :)

I'll do it in a sentence, and even modify it to fit Rocket's own premise: Firearms should not be the only instrumentality of DayZ... If you want a larger context for some of the discussion that ended up here; then take a look at; Time Glitche's thread about MineZ, a mod that's more influenced by Rocket's design intentions and recitation, then current DayZ execution... If that doesn't help you, and you can't see that DayZ in it's present form is in essence slow motion death-match, and that Rocket has/had more ambitious intentions then that; then I can't help you... :blink:

No, that statement does not distill my post, you're quoting out of context, and no where do I make an assumption; the statement is literal, and does not imply any conseqences beyond what it says... It wasn't, my intention is clearly stated in the thread topic, in fact it's not far from the design intentions Rocket has been discussing, ergo making the game more then a shooter with building, and larger scale of interaction/interactivity (more sand boxy), with more game opportunity then just killing -- which was my reason for posting... Please, with the petty remarks... If you honestly give a shit; read the thread... AGAIN... Or 'bro fist', congratulate yourself on an imagined Internet life achivement and bicker about semantics -- but if you want to discuss game design, with Developers, at least make a more honest effort to do so...and I'll return your consideration in kind... ∆

That assumption belongs exclusively to you and Zeromentor, no where did I say, suggest or imply it would; the thread is about game instrumentality and interaction (I'd suggest reading it in entire) there is however considerable digression to that effect... On the topic of assumptions, your's aren't particularly complete or full-context either offering only simplistic either/or alternatives, which quite simply in terms of game design doesn't play out that way. It's easy enough to prototype and test your theories, in fact it's already been done... ∆

Which idea? And, how does magic/infinite ammo vs finite ammo = the same volume of killing? Nice try though. :rolleyes:

I wrote it why would it frustrate me? No, that assumption is all yours, no where do I suggest or even imply that it will... I have made no assumptions, only a suggestion that the game's ONLY instrumentality be deemphasized and others added. If games ONLY interaction is killing, there's no depth, no future and absolutely no suspense. The game as it stands is Quake III Arena in a mash-up of mixed-mode (Bot & Human) slow motion, random respam, death match with unlimited ammunition, lives and weapons. Calling it 'survival' is no more apropos then calling a Burger King Whopper a 'Survival Sandwich'... Rocket, the mod's lead Developer (not me) has indicated his desire and intent to offer more instrumentality in the game (like building), and for it to be more then just a shooter... ∆

That's an irrational assumption... First of all if you only have three rounds for your weapon, you simply can not 'kill everyone' you can at MOST kill three (if your luck and skill hold out). Of those three who will have ammo for your weapon? The most likely scenario if ammunition is realistically scarce is NONE... Is it really that hard to understand? Honestly are you even making an effort to read (and understand) what anyone else is saying but yourself? Does full-context understanding of simple game design abstracts and basic human psychology escape you entirely? Do you not understand the title of the thread? ∆

I'd love it! :D

Which only reinforces the point that the unlimited/growing ammunition supply currently in DayZ is not only unrealistic, but larger then needed. Add to that and consider kovalhuk's point in his post above; where a gun with just one round is lethal, and even empty but unknown is a powerful threat -- and you have much more interesting game-play with scarcity then the current shoot every human on sight death match play with unlimited ammo... ∆

Well said... ∆

The 'realism' part of the discussion (and your love of it) doesn't pertain to zombies, which aren't even supposed to be zombies in DayZ but 'infected'... You have read and viewed Rocket's comments on his design intentions right? The 'realism' part of the discussion here pertains explicitly to the fact that ammunition is not only in infinite supply in DayZ but grows, i.e. the more players that join the more ammunition there is in the game -- not the opposite which would be the 'realistic' and prevailing trend. ∆

Obviously, but not the point... No one is going to try to 'friend' someone that's running and gunning, or even just alone and armed and has their gun out, or anyone that does is going to learn quickly this is not the best approach to meeting people in DayZ... First of all over generalizations like 'nobody', 'everybody', 'always' and 'never' are more frequetnly wrong then right. You did however indicate a vague qualifier with 'this situation', and that is what I feel is key to suspensful, realistic friending, trade and or altercation in DayZ where -- just like a real survival situation you'd be cautious and or scared of a threat you did not have a good measure of, and you'd use realistic means to sizing them up, following them, observing them from a concealed position from a distance, and then from a concealed position announcing intentions and suggesting a meeting. Again, this is in part because ammunition is currently in magical infinite supply in DayZ , which is patently ridiculous... The game mechanic would change radically if you could only find two or three rounds for a weapon inside an hour -- meeting people would be much more interesting as no one would be sure their prospective friend or foe had a full magazine, just one round or none, and they'd have the same uncertainty about you, this would creat the same random vulnerability real people have in these situations... We'd never have the civilization we have or game's like DayZ if the kind of mechanics that currently prevail in the game prevailed in the real world. ∆

I understand your objection and appreciate your actually making the effort to discuss the topic! However think about how this (or something similar) would operate in practice... First all the time constants for these actions have to be at parity, so 'faking' while possible is a challenge as it would be in the real world; no one in their right mind is going to yank out and 'waive the hanky' at someone pointing a firearm at them (unless they know the opposition), you only take the thing out to signal friendly intentions to someone that's disarmed, to do the same -- if they draw you draw, if they don't respond you make a decision, if they waive back you make the next step in raising the level of trust in the interaction. Skins and classes are cheap game mechanics that remove all the interaction of trust from the game; I like Rocket want for there to be the opportunity for people to prove themselves as assholes, or show themselves to be trustworthy and accountable. ∆

The game is already Call of Duty or more accurately Quake III Arena in slow motion with a realism paint job if you think about it as DayZ has all the same mechanics as Quake III Arena: · random re-spawn death match · stupid angry bots · unlimited magically re-spawning pick-ups & ammo · moshing homicidal stupid players Everything just happens in slow motion, you even re-spawn with no consequences but a tiny inventory of pick-ups lost, as there's no Call of Duty like round to wait for to finish...I point this out not to be cynical or negative, but because as most Players discover this they'll loose interest in the game and sans changes it's success will be little more then another gaming fad. The anecdotal responses from the death-matching Cretins that can't manage any large full-context thinking beyond shooting and killing doesn't make a case for anything other then something we already knew, ergo there are death-matching Cretins playing DayZ too -- which I'm sure is an exciting life achievement for some of these individuals... But for the rest of us that want a more realism, more survival centric, or survival horror world with building and more interaction then just shooting and killing and death-matching mechanics; will want more. As I offered earlier; in any catastrophe where industrial production has ceased, and life and death confrontation between most of the world's population has prevailed -- ammunition would not only be scarce, it would be a fossil resource for a long time, that became increasingly scarce, which is the opposite of what we have in DayZ now where ammunition supply actually increases as it re-spawns and is added to a growing server population's inventory. It doesn't matter what individual Players think or would do, what matters from Rocket's own perspective is realism and atmosphere; and if the same mechanics that prevail in DayZ prevailed in the real world -- the human race would have been extinct with the inauguration of firearms. I'm fine if some miserable lone slob with no life wants to get his endorphin kick sniping people, there are obviously people that fucked up in the real world, and they'd prey on people in the event of any cataclysm; but these people are not the majority who want more out of everything, i.e. not just to survive, but flourish -- and apparently Rocket gets this and wants to have building mechanics in the game -- I just wonder if he gets the prevailing (monotonous & boring) death match economy that rewards little more then killing... Perhaps a return to the premise of the thread: firearms should not be the main instrumentality of DayZ (emphasis added)... ∆

If true that only demonstrates the kind of player you are, and aren't, and really isn't germane... If ammunition were scarce the volume of killing would be a lot lower, more selective and much more realistic... ∆

Thanks, it seemed that way to me as well... :)

Does anyone know of the Axe and Crowbar do the same damage?

There are some valid points made in the OP, especially about the lack of any realistic ability in DayZ to signal and ascertain friendly intentions -- and this hurts DayZ substantially both in terms of realism, and fun. The point about weapons being overpowered however lacks merit -- as DayZ's design intentions are more to realism. The over abundance of ammunition in DayZ however, is both unrealistic, and a detriment to depth of play and fun. To wit any 'event' where all industrial production as ceased, and confrontation between most of the world's population has prevailed would exhaust or destroy most stocks of ammunition and munitions -- making them (by most estimates) as or more scares then food or medical supplies... Making ammunition more realistically scarce in DayZ would make it a much more valuable commodity rather then a simplistic, mechanical means to a destructive end; people would be more willing to trade for ammunition, and less willing to use it on other sentient Players... -- Hopefully this will be considered...