smoq2

I'm fully expecting to see a DayZ SA version of Arma 3 Epoch or Exile. I.e. Traders, currency system, tower building system, simple missions and tons of vehicles and weapons ported from other Arma games. Do I want to see that? I don't really know...

This one actually deserves defending, so here goes... :) The "surviving" aspect is non-existent at the moment, but with good reason - the team is testing functionality of certain systems, so they make related objects easily obtainable on purpose. E.g. They allow you easy access to food and see if e.g. vomiting applies desired effects/hunger and dehydration progresses at desired pace/etc. (Of course nutrition testing was concluded long time ago, I just used it as an example.) You'll see a shift towards survival aspects when they start data mining for social behavior, migration, frequency of occurrences, etc. and start fine tuning the numbers of what you find or are able to do in game. Digression: They already do that, but to a very small extent, like making heatmaps of where people die. When that comes is a totally different question though...

I'm with elander on this one... At this point (with the overall project delay), believing that we'll get a declared, feature complete beta, is unfortunately borderline delusional. All the "nope" features in the above post commenting the roadmap are kind of "grand" and I don't see them appearing out of nowhere between updates. Basic implementations, elaborated later, is what I'm expecting. Then again, the developers claim that many systems are already in place, just waiting to be switched on when blockers are removed, but I've seen little evidence (I could be ill-informed). Disclaimer: I have no emotions regarding the matter, just want people to get real.

I too have an awesome story from yesterday! Was looting a building in Vybor when a zombie spotted me through the window! It run through the door when I was pulling out my bat. -> I beat it to death, but got hurt. -> My bat bugged out and I couldn't put it away, nor drop it. -> I bled out and died! -> Uninstalled DayZ till the next "kaboom" update. Best play session ever!

I think he was talking about an internal release date, which I'm also almost certain exists - There is a budget allocated to each phase, so there has to be an internal estimate on how many man-hours or man-days it will take and real time deadline (or even several: "target", "safe" and "critical" if shit really goes south). For obvious reasons, it won't be made public, so there is no public/official release date, which makes you also right. Ergo, both of you are right, you're just talking about two different things. ;) To the OP - We don't know; BI won't tell...

The whole mission concept, with the ideas included herein, reminds me of what we have in Epoch/Overpoch/Exile right now, which is basically a very basic method of inciting players to gather up in one place, which leaves a bitter taste. Nobody cares what the mission actually is, as basically in every scenario it's (1) Kill AI, (dependent) Kill any players around (2) Loot crate. The thing is, in my experience with the aforementioned mods I noticed a pattern - If you really want to succeed in the mission, which I understand by gaining the reward, you have to join a server with 20 active players at max. Otherwise it's just a snipefest until the crate despawns and nobody actually wins. On occasion a clan or group of 10 people came around and actually did hold the ground (with losses and run-straight-to-the-body gimmicks) - didn't see that on popular servers that could hold a notable population till present day (others run dry now). All of the above is paradoxically the same reason why I'm certain we will have the very same missions when BIS throws out mod support - the system is easy to port between BIS games and people already got use to it. Now I know OP wants to have missions "on steroids", not the clunky and basic system I related to, but I fairly don't expect that to see the light. It's just too ambitious. But I do hope to be wrong...

While all of your ideas are good, they revolve around combat. My take on bases was from a survival perspective, since that's my preferred style of play. And from that perspective I see very little of value in having a base. That, and well... Quoting someone from this forum: "If the developers rely on mods to make their product attractive, they have already failed." Being a strong advocate of this thought I almost never include mods into my line of thinking when discussing future features.

I'm not sure how will I personally use the feature... In Arma mods where basebuilding is a feature I always build some form of a base, but in the end I always end up playing solo. The groups I played with disbanded sooner or later and maintaining bases and vehicles becomes simply tedious. Nowadays, I see that in the long term 1-2 stashes of some form of container and one smallest possible vehicle is enough for a lone wolf. Everything else simply draws unneeded and uncontrollable attention. Since I don't see any potential groups among my friends that will bank another 1k hours into DayZ as I will after release, I also don't see the need to build anything, apart from something small and lockable to park my smallest vehicle for the night. Ergo, basebuilding is a feature I consider to be profitable only for groups. Of course, I am against any artificial measures that would prevent a lone player from building a sizable fort, should he/she wish to. [EDIT] I forgot to mention one thing that puts me off - exploitable design flaws. Exile and Overpoch left a bitter taste due to the fact that hackers or glitchers can penetrate bases with relative ease. I don't know if that will be the case when DayZ hits 1.0, but it's safe to assume it will - hacks will always exist, exploits will also always exist. Another reason why "safety = concealment" and "safety =/= walls" in my book.

Sigh... There is not much to say in the matter, other than just the reception of the game is what it is. Call the reviewers haters, spoiled brats with too much cash or uneducated in terms of game/software development, they are the market and the market is very similar to a force of nature e.g. a flowing river. No matter what arguments you put forward, the river just keeps flowing. You can either adjust yourself to float and go along or drown. Metaphors aside... People are giving the game harsh reviews because it doesn't/didn't meet their expectations. Period. It may not be just, it may not be polite, it just is. DayZ is an ambitious project that has to survive on a very shifting and demanding market segment (gamers). One of the main distinguishable aspects of this segment is an almost addictive need for the "new" - deliverance has to be frequent and fast. Corner-case users will say that "Let them take their time. I want the game to be as good as it can be.", but the truth is, if they don't fit their best reception window period, it will hurt their predicted sales and development budget for subsequent phases. Repercussions are that the long-tail of feature implementation gets cut starting with the features planned after 1.0, and if the situation becomes dramatic, e.g. sales predictions after 1.0 become close to 0, not all the features planned even for 1.0 are implemented and the game gets instantly "released" with some promotional badge. IMO, I don't know what's the situation in BIS marketing department, I don't have the data relevant for their strategy. I just get an inkling that the faces there are not too happy with the statistics they produce. Also, I'm beginning to see that the recipe for success in the gaming industry is to impress more frequently with less than to promise more and hope for patience. Oh, and changing the scope after market exposure is not a good move as well.

I never referred to closed product testing. Don't know how this made it into the discussion, but anyway... I don't question the nature of EA. I mean, making MVPs is the common and most logical way of doing projects now and that's fine. However, entertainment industries are plagued with companies that, as you said, "made bank and ran". Without going into detail, throwing around feedback that half of the promised product is already worth the asked price for the complete one sets the premise to either rise the price or stop any further work and capitalize on the rest of the product's life cycle while keeping most of the allocated funds for further investment - enticing to make bank and run. That's the whole problem with being easily satisfied in the economy. I only think that we, as consumers, should be more demanding because that's the only way to make companies make good on their word. I believe BIS is taking the first route and will be increasing the price as development progresses until it no longer becomes beneficial.

I'm happy for you. You're a living example that in order to be happy one should not expect much from anything, and that's a fundamentally good thing. However, it also strengthens the rampant trend of under delivering among companies, and that's fundamentally bad. As abstract it might be, consumers should expect and demand from companies to make good on their word and deliver on what they sell in full for the price they ask. Unless in time we want to be charged the same for less and less. It's only logical if clients are always happy with half the product... Disclaimer: I'm not implying BIS is not making good on their word with 0.60, as they are. The above is just an "econo-philosophical" remark.

Still not implemented. Dunno if it ever will be... The last time I heard when the issue was brought up Dean Hall was still on board and said they never considered it a thing.

Did it once... My two friends were talking to fresh spawn in Berezino. They were giving him food, etc. I was about 0.5km away and trying to meet up with them. They really wanted to help the guy... When I arrived I ran up to the the fresh spawn, shot him in the face with a buckshot and said "OMG Dude! You look fucked up! Are you ok?". My buddy just said stoically "Well... Shit..." -> laughter... I don't know if that's shit talking, but it was hilarious at the time... Never did it again because going full jerk is not my style. Had to just, well... See how it is just once. :)

I'm not a native as well. In fact, I've been only twice to countries where English is an official language. Nonetheless, I believe effort is a display of respect. To each his own I guess... Yeah, I get your point. There is so much wrong with the quality of BIS products no argument is strong enough to defend them. I'm going to pass on trying to change your opinion, and respect it, but I'm keeping a firm stance on the topic of the team's dedication. Also - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization#Adjectives ;)

I'm going to treat this seriously, despite your complete ignorance for the conventions of written language... You are right to some extent, the dev-consumer communication is inconsistent due to various factors and the development pace is not standing up to consumer demand, but saying that the team "does not give a shit/fuck" is way too extreme. I don't know how long have you been on the bandwagon, but they didn't expect DayZ SA to be such a selling hit. Once they got the funds, the whole scope of the project changed. Of course, I can see that under this pressure some decisions in project management were poorly handled. Regardless, they did decide to improve on the engine, which was out of the question in terms of funding before the game hit EA and that decision screams dedication. You wouldn't take away that, if you knew something about the industry. Then again, I don't hold that against you, as DayZ is a B2C product and consumer products should take into account end-user's ignorance in order to be successful. As for the servers, the amount that is accessible is feasible for stress testing purposes and that is what they were meant for, for the good or bad. Also, a word of personal advice... You're in public space, place keep it civil. And a bit of practice in English grammar (or general grammar) will also benefit you in the future. ;)