Firewarrior64

Well, personally I wouldn't risk landing such a rusty plane anywhere but on an airstrip, but that'd be your choice. Sea planes would be friggin' awesome though.

The point is that it would take a lot of work to implement the plane. And that work wouldn't be worth it if the majority of the player doesn't use the plane due to it being impractical.

Sorry mate, but rivers have been discussed countless times. Now, we all want 'em of course, but the thing is that the engine (still) only supports water being at one level, the lakes and ponds are seperate objects (and also only at one level). VBS3 supports rivers, but I doubt that will ever be implemented in any currently existing BI game. The only option left would be to create 'fake rivers' that are at the same level as the sea. This is possible, look at fallujah for instance. However, that would require A LOT of work on the map... it would be nice to have, but I really doubt rivers will come. Maybe in a future map.

No. While it would be really nice to look at, and really cool to fly over the map with (HEY LOOK AT ME I HAVE A PLANE GUISE), I don't think it would be worth the effort of implementing it, for various reasons: 1. limited options to start and land This one's obvious. Basically you can only land at the airfield or on roads (possibly a field if you're good/lucky) 2. LOUD AS FUCK Yep. Would attract all zombies from the area (although that's not that much of a deal atm) and players, of course. 3. Gasoline. While a helicopter is able to simply land next to a fuel station, you'd have to carry the gas all the way to the airfield if you have a plane. Not to mention that you currently don't have cars, so you can't even carry more than one or two at a time. So while it would be cool to fly and look at, it isn't really practical. Helos are a different thing tough.

It is real-time. If you can only play at night, but want to play in daytime, it shouldn't be hard to find a daytime-only server.

The person who plays the game they want is the one who plays it the right way. DayZ is a sandbox game. All playstyles are good, because nobody can define which ones are good and which ones are bad. Also, there isn't just a 'friendly' or a 'KOS bandit' playstyle. People are more complex than that. Everyone plays the game their own way, and more often than not don't fall in such a simple category. Again, all playstyles are 'skilled', because nobody can define overall game skill. As inception said, though, you can measure skill in specific tasks, e.g. aiming. No playstyles are 'lame' because they aren't for the people that play them. What I mean is that you may think sniping people from elektro sniper hill is badass, while others think sitting on a hill for hours is 'lame' and sniping doesn't take skill. 'skill' and how playstyles are 'lame' or interesting is just your personal opinion. And just to prove you wrong - let's think of the following situation: You are fully geared with an M4 in your hands, a mosin on your back, tons of ammo, all that good stuff. You are at the coast for whatever reason and you see a freshspawn. You know the range, and you can kill him very easily. What do you do? Option one: BOOM. headshot. He's dead. He poses no threat to you any more, and he never really did. Option two: 'hey, freshspawn! Yes, you in the white T-shirt! are you friendly?' You alert him of your position, you talk to him. 'Oh, hey mate! Yeah, I'm friendly.' 'Oh, that's cool! hey, wanna have a revolver with bullets?' 'yeah, sure!' so you give him the revolver. He could now easily kill you. You put yourself at risk. Will he kill you? Will he team up? I'd say that's a lot more intense and also a lot more brave than just killing everyone you see. However, that's just my opinion, because option two is my playstyle. You may find option one cooler and less 'lame'. And that's fine! nobody can decide what playstyle is cool or lame except you. Feel free to make your choice, but please don't say your opinion on a playstyle is 'true'. Because everyone has their own opinion. TL;DR a 'lame' playstyle is a playstyle that isn't fun. However, the feeling of fun is something that varies with every individual and thus there can't be a generally 'lame' playstyle. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't matter how much 'skill' dayZ takes. Even if the learning curve was just minimal, it exists.

I have a couple of saline bags. PM me if you want one. Alternatively, just eat and drink a LOT. You will gain a "healing" status, and be back to full health in no time.

So was I. Some people just think 'hardcore' means 'impossible to survive'. Hell, I even heard people wanting to remove purification tablets and introduce disease by drinking from unpurified water. My opinion on the topic is simply: You can't make it 100% realistic. If it was possible to survive in the apocalypse, there wouldn't be an apocalypse.

So you want a game without any chance to survive...? Wow, that'd be so much fun... Why don't you just spawn with the 'You are dead'-screen, that would be realistic if all people in Chernarus got infected at roughly the same time!

I don't like this idea. Firstly, I think this wouldn't make the player's experience unique, but frustrating. If you run around at all the military camps, putting yourself in danger, and you find out that the M4 you want sooo much is blacklisted for you, I guess you wouldn't be happy. Secondly, this gives players less incentive to continue playing and searching dangerous places to get their dream items if they are probably blacklisted- the whole point of super-rare items (in my opinion) is to give players something to work for, something that will make all the looting worth it (mountaindew :P). If you know you can't get it, why would you continue looting? And now don't tell me 'it's random, you can't know that the item won't spawn for you' because that's dumb. If you looted twenty barracks without an M4 spawning in them, it would be obvious that it's blacklisted for you. Lastly, it would encourage KOS because certain items will only be obtainable through killing. I certainly don't want KOS removed, but I definitely don't think it needs to be encouraged.

Thank you. That's exactly what I want. To explain My thoughts about the topic, I think that a LOT of things in the Standalone should be extremely complex, for instance helicopter flying with the Take on Helicopters startup and flying physics. Same goes for medical procedures, repairing, crafting... This way, experience you get in-game is permanent. YOU get skilled at the game, and also more valuable to people who would otherwise kill you- they probably need you because it'll be very difficult to know all the things in-game, so you'd need specialists. The player should have to get skills, not the character.

1.) As said in the thread, the zombies aren't undead but infected. Shots to the leg would also kill very quickly due to bleeding out or the heart stopping of shock. 2.) Planned. 3.) Indeed, zombies need balancing. IMO they should run just as fast as the player at full speed, and there should be a temporary sprint that would allow you to lose them (wasn't that implemented in some devblogs anyways...?)

Let people play the way they want. First person has a lot of downsides, for example not giving the player information about how the body is located in the world (e.g. for hiding or peeking around corners), or not appropriately representing real life FoV. Most importantly though, many people get motion sick in first person- even without head bob. That being said, third person of course has known exploits- looking around corners without exposing oneself is probably the best known. First person servers are the perfect solution right now. People who want to play first person only are free to do so, and those servers are definitely not all empty. In the future, although I'll always stick to first person, I'd like to see third person being 'fixed', i.e. not allowing you to see around obstacles. The 'zoom' is needed and realistic. If you focus on something in real life, you don't see it bigger, but you can see it better due to you... well, focusing. You also get less peripheral vision (due to you focusing, duh)- so less FoV. Yes, 'zooming' isn't the perfect way to represent this, but it's better than nothing.

Good job contributing to the discussion here. And then you look at TF2. The difference is that the things you buy in TF2 are permanent. They stay in your inventory forever, unless you sell them. Buying extra lifes is temporary and won't help you in your next life at all. That's my point: It is generally bad to generalise. Yes, most f2p titles are pay to win, but some aren't. This brings me to my next point: F2P in DayZ is only possible as pay to win. And we all hate that, don't we? All the other ways of optional bonuses that you could farm yourself are not possible in DayZ due to the lack of a rank/money system. /thread

Not all F2P games are like that. Many F2P games I know contain the entire game for free- however, to get the content without paying you'll have to get a certain rank/money which often takes ages. Also some games (like for example Team Fortress 2) are fully F2P without any neccessary items you have to buy/farm.

Keep in mind DayZ is a sandbox game. Increasing character value encourages people to be more careful with their lifes, yes. Paying for characters would FORCE people to be more careful with their lifes, no longer giving them the option to just play the deathmatch they want. Yes, most of us hate KOS and deathmatch, but one of the things that make DayZ so unique is that everyone has the choice how to play. Making people pay for their characters destroys one of the fundamental things about DayZ.

With the F2P model you suggested DayZ would be dead. Yes, life needs more value in DayZ, but like this you would punish the victims of KoS. Generally KoS will increase terribly because everyone will be paranoid to not get killed themselves. Furthermore, that wouldn't actually be 'free-to-play' because you have to pay 5 Pounds to play a single character. It would be 'free-to-download, incredibly-expensive-to-play'.

If the player isn't seeing me and has their back turned to me, I'll tell them to drop their gun and not turn around. Everyone has turned around so far, so I shot them. It's basically KoS, but you don't feel like a dick because you know they were actually hostile. However, if the person actually would drop their weapon, I would ask them about their health, shoot them if they have enough health to put them unconcious, bandage them and get the hell out of there.

Well, there was a zombie apocalypse which only a few people are immune to. I don't think 70+ people would have that immunity in the area of chernarus. Furthermore, I think a (very) low player count adds a lot to the immersity. If there are 70+ people on the server you know there's almost certainly going to be a player in Cherno/Elektro/Stary/Berezino or the airfields. You will get contact with players a lot more often, and you'll (have to) shoot a lot more often. If there are only <10 people in the area of chernarus, it gets really lonely. If they also increase the danger of zombies, they will be the main thing you think about when entering a town. Less people on the map and more zeds also encourage friendly player interaction. Think about it like this: You are in a zombie apocalypse and permanently meet people, many of those being hostile. You get very cautious and maybe switch to KOS style. If you only see a player once a day or even less, you'll think about it more. 'will that player be useful to me?' 'omfg, a human! don't kill him yet, maybe talk to him!'. I think the main thing why the DayZ KOS style isn't realistic because IRL you can't escape the situation. You are trapped in the apocalypse, lonely, in the middle of nowhere. You'll be happy about every human encounter you get, to talk, to get intel about what happened, to maybe get back to a social life. Of course that can't be simulated, but I'd like to be player encounters a lot more rare. TL;DR <10 Threadjacking towards the effect of player count on KOS successful.

Indeed... Why should there be a devblog if it's supposed to be the 'final lap'? Also, did I miss something or why do people think there's a devblog upcoming?

Yes! Anything that encourages intel gathering and not just running in and shooting shit. I'm also looking forward to taking scopes from guns and using them seperately without the gun.

FTFY So somewhat like Fallujah? @OP: I voted Ireland/GB because it's a cool landscape and not too different from Chernarus. I wouldn't like Greenland because it would be way to hard to survive. However, what I'd really like but isn't in the poll, would be greece/italy. Generally something set in the mediterranean area- like Altis in ArmA 3.

I think item damage is a nice way to reduce KoS, but it still doesn't fight the core problem. Regardless if you kill someone or handcuff them, it's still a hostile encounter. I'd like to see a lot more things encouraging friendly encounters than stuff punishing hostile ones. Actually, I think handcuffing people is worse for the victim than killing them. why? Imagine you get killed. Great, now you can respawn and gear up again. Now imagine you get handcuffed in the middle of nowhere and everything is stolen from you. 5 minutes later you struggle free. And you are without food, probably already hungry and thirsty, without a weapon, without anything. Half an hour later you'll have starved to death. If you had been killed immediately, you'd probably already have a weapon again by now.

I don't think this is possible in the mod - and the SA won't have a humanity system. Still, I really like the idea- as Ap_norris said: a funeral for comrades. This might not matter if you know your comrade irl or on steam, but if I teamed up with a random survivor and he gets killed I will know that I probably won't ever see him again- expecially if it's permadeath (banned from server after death). In that case I'd leave him a grave. (although everyone else would just loot him and get on with their lifes lol)