Friend-or-Pho

I agree, playing with friends is incredibly fun. But, to what extent would you like to be able to choose? I certainly don't think players should be able to choose to spawn at any in-land cities/towns. Also, if players could simply spawn at Cherno/Elektro it would (probably) lead to an increase of PvP in those cities. Taking 2 hours simply to find your friends may be a pain, but I think a lot of players prefer DayZ to remain this way. Just like many things in DayZ, the ability to play with friends requires effort on the players part.

You mentioned Zombies, and I merely gave those 2 things as examples of how thier threat might be increased. Splitting hairs over the rest completely misses the point since you still claim there is only one authentic way.

I don't know how I feel about adding camo netting to specific assets (vehicles/tents). But perhaps if there were large camo nets (the kind you often see at medic tents/ military bases) that players could construct I would be more inclined. You'd have to find the parts, as suggested, but the net itself wouldn't be applied to a specific object. I object mainly because I don't know how possible it would be to add asset specific camo nets.

I would love to take part in this. This kind of player driven, community based effort is what I hope to see more of! Sign me up

For the simple fact that DayZ uses the Arma 2 engine, I doubt it will ever become "mainstream". The control bindings alone are more than most people I know can handle. While I agree that DayZ should remain difficult and true to it's design philosophy, I don't fear an influx of new players. Perhaps some of them will actually like the game for what it is and stick around. Those that truely don't "get it" will move on.

YES There certainly are cons, but I'd be willing to give it a go. It might lead to frustration, but what doesn't in this game?

YES if... proximity and length of contact were also factors. I doubt Rick (using the Bar Scene example) knew they were bad within a few seconds, even though he may have been immediatly suspicious. He certainly wouldn't have been sure of it from a couple hundred feet away. As the scene continued there were more and more cues that those guys where bad.

I disagree completely with this being tied to humanity. But it would be interesting if there was a way that players at low blood (regardless of morality) had a chance to become zombies when attacked.

+1 good sir! And no, walking completely upright should not be as stealthy. It may be as quiet, but you are presenting a target that appears roughly 1/3 larger than crouched. Pogoman has a good point about how tiring crouch running is. The last time I played paintball, I spent almost the entire day crouch running. My legs were beat afterwards. But someone should actually take a look in-game to see what difference there is between sprinting and crouch running, as far as fatigue produced.

There is no one solution to encouraging teamwork. Zombies would need to be made insanely powerful to actually force players to use teamwork, and even then many players would still prefer to go solo (as is thier right). As it is now, even with the more dangerous zombies, it is fairly easy to avoid having to fight them in the first place. So increasing zombie aggro and damage shouldn't be considered the only "authentic" solution. If higher-end loot was harder to find, there was additional end-game content for groups to do, and if zombies were made more challenging then you might see a more meaningful shift towards teamplay. Any one of those changes on thier own isn't going to "fix" the game necessarily.

How does giving players the ability to do something that is physically possible' date=' turn DayZ into CoD? If by bigboys you mean people that love games with engine limitations and design flaws, you are a [b']big man. But I don't know if this would be possible at all, as stated above this is an Arma feature, not DayZ.

In regards to building forts and occupying existing towns. Occupying existing buildings should be considered what an average player could accomplish solo (if necessary). It wouldn't require the time invested to gather building materials, but it wouldn't be a very safe location. Ultimately this is already possible in game, and shouldn't need additional mechanics to implement (players simply need more imagination). Constructing a small building such as a log cabin could be the alternative for a skilled solo player or small group. The cost in time and materials would make it suited to more experienced players, but not be an impossible task. In essence it would be a more "permanent" alternative to a tent. It could offer only the barest essentials ie a fireplace and a footlocker for gear. Forts or small user created towns would be the upper extreme of such projects. It would not only require the work of multiple players to find the materials, but also the work put into defending such a fort. Forts could be given a chance to attract zombies that is proportionate to thier size, while offering more perks than a tent or log cabin. Again, this is just an outline I did off the top of my head.

I was thinking of the same thing myself. Some people have said we shouldn't have as many military grade weapons, but I disagree. Instead of reducing the number/quality of military grade weapons, they could be harder to find. Instead of just hopping over to your nearest airfield to loot for some of the best guns, you'd have to either actively search or be lucky enough to come across a wrecked convoy. As it is now, it is too easy to go from a Makarov to an M16. +1

Don't get me wrong I agree with you there. My initial fear about this idea was that it would turn into Farcry 2 or Stalker where your AK jams every other round because it is "a little dirty".

This is ture, but if fautly ammo was added, it shouldn't occur more than it does in the real world (depending of quality). A lot of games that have weapon jamming do so in a very simplistic fashion. If implemented it should truely simulate all of the possible ways in which a gun misfires, without being exaggerated. Consider my suggestion about weapon cleanliness just another layer of detail to your own. Besides if bulk quality ammo were to be added, you would need to clean your gun more regularly.

If body armor were added it's effectiveness should vary depending on what is shooting you. It shouldn't stop an arbitrary number of shots, 4 in the OP's example. Range, power of the round, and condition of the armor should all be taken into account. And this all depends on if it is actually added. As far as the other ideas, I particularly like the bit about dehydration in the sun. We have to worry about getting too cold, why not allow us to worry about getting too hot? Zombies spreading infection? Sounds interesting and it makes sense logically, as I wouldn't want a disease ridden corpse to claw at my skin. Perhaps if implemented in the correct way, this could add a level of challenge to zombies that is sorely needed.

I would only be in favor or weapon jamming if it were dependant on the condition/quality of the weapon. There would also have to be a cleaning kit that would take up a Tool inventory slot. This way it would be up to the player to make sure thier weapons are always in fighting condition. Obviously, if this were implemented it should also reflect the real-world ruggedness of each weapon. As far as ammo quality, I'm not entirely sold on the idea. Logically it makes sense, and it would actually be the easier of the 2 suggestions to implement.

Thing is, when it is said that incentivizing teamwork will make it OP compared to solo, that is how it should be. In reality a group of people can accomplish more than a single person any day, so why should there be artificial limits on how useful it is to team up. Currently there is no reason not to kill every single person you see. How is that good for the game in the long run?

After reading some of the suggestions about murderers/bandits I've come to the conclusion that people are focusing on the wrong thing. Instead of punishing players who are murderers/bandits, shouldn't the game reward players who work together and help one another? Currently there is more reason to kill an unknown player than not. They could very well aim to kill you, they may have nicer gear, or they may of simply spooked you and you shot on instinct. Right now the simplist motivation that DayZ offers (to survive) can easily be fulfilled while playing solo. Should that be considered enough? There will always be players who prefer to go the lonely hermit route, and there will ALWAYS be players who are willing to kill. Both of these methods are every bit as valid as the desire to band together and survive. In my opinion any solution that punishes these play styles is inherently flawed. So what are some potential rewards for teaming up? Keep in mind these are some rough ideas, and by no means are they the only ones. Feel free to add your own. - An increase in morale when your character would otherwise be scared - The ability to form large groups and build a small town/fortification - A mechanic for establishing (within visual range) that both parties are committing to a non-violent parley

I think some people have completely missed the point here. Incentivizing teamwork doesn't have to come in the form of actual "bonuses" or perks. Part of what I suggested was for there to be more end-game content that gave more purpose to not only surviving but also teaming up. There would be no reward beyond the content itself, I dont know why anyone would think fixing a helicopter would reward with beans. That kind of reward system has nothing to do with this thread.

There are already risks and consequences to going on killing sprees; you'll attract the attention of zombies, and no matter how good you are eventually someone is going to shoot back and kill you. I was going to say no to implementing psychological consequences on the basis that any moral or psychological shortcomings should be limited to the space between chair and keyboard. After thinking though, there already is the panic mechanic for when zombies are near a wounded player. I'm not entirely sold on the idea, but it warrents discussion.

Unnecessary' date=' players should make the precautions themselves. [/quote'] Those ideas are hardly the entirety of this concept. As far as this idea, I meant a more visual indication such as completely holstering you weapon or a friendly wave. The risk/precaution would still be entirely up to the player. You could always say, "screw this, I'm shooting." Nothing about any of these suggestions is meant to take the risk out of the game. Nor are they about enforcing peace among survivors. What I imagine this specific mechanic to simulate is something you often see in single-player RPGs. NPCs don't like it when you talk to them with your weapon out. I believe that survivors should atleast have the option for showing they don't have hostile intentions. The risk in doing so would be that you've put your gun away (hypothetically), the precaution would be making sure the other guy has done the same as well. After all if it is a stupid idea thats fine, but atleast we are brainstorming.

You have clearly missed the entire point of this thread... What I am suggesting is that there should be some mechanics that reward players for taking the risk to trust another survivor. I flat out said that punishing murder is stupid. There is nothing about rewarding teamwork that directly punishes bandits/murderers, because the same teamwork incentives would be available to bandits. All three of the brainstorm ideas I came up with are also applicable to bandits. What I would like to see is more depth than simply the desire to survive, as that can easily be fulfilled with the current game. This can go on to include end-game content that requires coordinated teamwork from either survivors OR bandits, such as the ability to construct forts. If you would be so kind, please quote anything I have posted that resembles whinning about dying. Again, since it was missed the first time: There will always be players who prefer to go the lonely hermit route, and there will ALWAYS be players who are willing to kill. Both of these methods are every bit as valid as the desire to band together and survive. In my opinion any solution that punishes these play styles is inherently flawed. For anyone who doubts or doesn't understand what I'm getting at. Imagine a group of survivors have successfully built a fort out in the woods. They have stockpiled weapons, ammo, food, and medical supplies. You and your bandit buddies group up, form a strike team and attack the fort. Imagine that you were successful in raiding the fort, now you have all of that gear for yourselves. The heart of what I'm suggesting would only improve and add diversity to the PvP encounters that are already in-game. The benefits of teamwork mechanics would work both ways, in offering survivors more possibilities for teaming up; as well as give bandits the same benefits. If you are scared that the dynamics of the game may shift out of your comfort zone, I understand that. But in the end which is more EPIC, killing some scrub for his Mak and beans, or leading the most amazing bandit raid that nets you a bunch of gear AND a sweet fort. Another potential way these mechanics could benefit Bandits. Suppose you see some survivors, you indicate to them that you want to meet peacefully. All the while they dont know your buddy is in the bushes with a DMR. You walk up to them start some small talk, and then your friend blows thier brains out. How is that punishing banditry?