smoq2

It might (and probably has been) suggested before but since I couldn't find it (not an expert forum user :)) I'll give it a shot. Since we have many gestures now, including sitting down, why can't we have a "fake death" animation? The idea came to me when I was prone near another dead body looting it, when another player run over to me from behind a building. I literally thought I was done for, since I didn't have a weapon in my hands. Funny thing is, the guy just run to the other body, and started looting it. It occurred to me that very moment that my would-be killer thought I was already dead! :D. I pulled out my 1911 and placed a bullet in his head. Now I know I was extremely lucky but it got me thinking. How many times have we witnessed "playing dead" as a survival tactic in movies or RL? Hell, it's a natural procedure designed by evolution itself. Hard to see it not being an option in a game focused on SURVIVAL. Now imagine using that tactic when you start hearing sniper shots fired at you an you're in an open field. You just drop down hoping the sniper will buy it. I know that once the option would be implemented most snipers would just "double tap", but still 1/10 might just let you off. There should be some restrictions of course, as the feature should practically be an all-in gamble. E.g. Trying to move or look around should break the animation. Also, I have no idea how would that perform once ragdolls make it into the game, but on a side note, I wonder how "unconscious" will work with ragdolls as well. Death with ragdoll and falling unconscious with an animation will clearly be distinctive -> double tap.

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. ;)

Hard to say... The pattern noticed throughout last 2 years would be for an update to sit 15-30 days on experimental, then get pushed to stable, depending on the severity of blockers. However 0.60 is unprecedented in terms of scale so throwing any time frame would be complete guesswork. Also, there may be other factors than technicalities (e.g. marketing) in place to rush/postpone a stable push.

I managed to get in and play 2-3 hours altogether. When I first joined I was overwhelmed with joy! 45 FPS in Cherno! After all, the amount of work and passion they've put into it to make a new renderer and whatnot... But after the excitement settled (around 1 hour into the game) I started to analyze how much value was actually added to the product from the end-user perspective and I couldn't shake off a feeling, that it's very little. I mean, from my perspective it's just average 20 FPS more, otherwise its the same amount of content/value that 0.59 was giving. The problem with the patch is that we can only experience the tip of the iceberg and that's not enough for me to get into the game for more than just to have a quick peek on what has changed. Rational judgement: I do give credit to the team for pulling this off - Thumbs up! I can see you're trying to make the best product you possibly can! Emotional judgement: Initial excitement ended with "meh". Too little value delivered to the consumer in terms of UX. I'll give it another shot when stable rolls out, but I don't expect fireworks.

I don't see the problem with what it is now... I however do see it if they were to implement some unnatural solutions to circumvent the current outcome. Like temporary invincibility for example... The universe of DayZ is nothing like it would be in the real world under the same circumstances - immortality or "rebirth" is not a factor in real life after all, thus value of DayZ life is simply very very very low. It's a blend of VR with a coating of reality. If you stuffed 50 people with Deadpool like powers on one e.g. island you would have DayZ. To put it bluntly, don't expect DayZ to be like real life, it will never come close, and so is its society. Depends on your goal, but if you want to survive the longest, always keep in mind that this is a game and approach it a such. If you don't want to be killed on the coast after spawning then just head for the nearest village that is not on the exact coastline the very second you have control of your char.

I'm not sure whether we can even do a realistic guess work regarding the value of having a base at this time - it all boils down to how balanced it will be. I mean, taking 1 hour or 1 week to break into a base by hammering the door with a sledgehammer alone changes the value of any base basically from meaningless to "all win". Whether we will be able to see the damage done to that door once we log in and can repair it breaking the breaking-in process is another major factor, how long will it actually take to build something decent, etc. Ideally (IMO) I would image a system, where destroying (breaching) some creation would take roughly the same amount of time it took to build. If it took you a week to build something, it would have to take a week of someone else's time performing some action in order to destroy it.

As Grimey Rick said, 99% you were just sniped. It didn't have to be from a range - many guns glitch out (e.g. the mosin) and don't play the fire sound for other players. Many of my friends don't hear me shooting, although standing right next to me. Also, a bullet hitting your body makes the same (probably placeholder) sound as being hit with an axe. Since there was no gunshot sound to mix, you could hear the hitting sound loud and clear. Hate to say it, but "typical alpher".

I came to this conclusion through several years of experience in my professional line of work. Furthermore, I said "large" not "largest". A large portion of the "sales pie chart" can be stated for 5-15%, so the notion is subjective. Ultimately however, even 5% of your customers (when you count your sales globally) matter greatly and should not be treated as a leftover statistic and told in a cynical manner to sit quietly in the corner because they don't know how things work. If treated accordingly, this group can turn around any PR backlash you might be facing with design choices, obvious development hinders, etc. Basically anything that influences negatively your project in any other area. And don't live in denial, PR passively influences everything else you do, be it production speed, income, reception, etc. To relate to the second part of your statement, it's not true that very few games offer an alpha/early access as "QA" (quotation marks intended because of sarcasm and personal prejudice). Look at GoatZ... Their advertising phrase "buggy zombie survival games became a genre of their own", or something along those lines, clearly implicates that the trend has become somewhat widespread, and that the fact that DayZ is blatantly stated as the "role model" also hints of the existing infamy. So please don't spread false truths about BI being generous to let us have a "sneak peek" at their game during the development phase, if that was your aim. They did it to gain funding and if anything, should be radiantly thankful to everyone who gave them the benefit of doubt and bought the game or rented a server. I disagree, but it comes from my different perception of things you name as "whining" and "complaining". Of course I don't disagree with helping through the bug tracker or other tools the developers setup. I just don't support telling those who believe something is fundamentally wrong with the project to focus on the details. I really hope you understand my point - it's basically saying "don't discriminate" in gathering opinions.

He's not actually wasting time. He represents a portion of BI audience and clients. Yes, a portion that can be called immature and not caring to get even a glimpse of insight of why things in game development are as they are, but still, a portion that I bet forms a large chunk of the sales pie chart, and are not irrelevant to BI, otherwise the company would show serious inability in creating their customer archetypes. Steam chart shows a decline of interest, hell even the server list shows a decline of interest by just looking at it. And let me mention the best one: the game hasn't been released yet. At least not in the technical term. If this keeps up, by 1.0, we will have a bump to 40% (~10k avr. players) interest in the product of the of initial release (>20k avr. players), and that's an optimistic guess. If that is enough for the company to keep up with the running costs of the project, then great - business model worthy of worship... But will it be so great for (even the hardcore/devoted) the player? So in my honest, and professional opinion, evil11 is providing valuable feedback. He/She is completely, or in majority, dissatisfied with the product he/she got, regardless of what anyone else is saying. Now I could quote a certain shoe selling company that follows a mantra "We mostly provide customer service. It just so happens that we also sell shoes." I bet that company could get some valuable info from evil11 instead of having its forum stuff ridicule his/her complain. As for the feedback tracker... Some of us think there is no point in telling someone "Hey, your wheel is broken!", if we believe they are going in the wrong way altogether. Sorry for the off topic. On topic: I see no reason for praising BI. I witnessed better developer interaction with their clients in other software companies. I can point out the sticking out dedication of some of the DayZ team members to their project as something worth mentioning, but that's it.

Persistence will be disabled, so there is no way to build anything permanent, especially camps. I understand why there is a need to remove zombies temporarily as well, but it basically leaves the player base with "looting and shooting" even more than in the initial release. I don't know if the player base can handle those cuttings any more. I personally wasn't moved when players started leaving, it was when the servers started shutting down and entire communities with members counted in hundreds were disbanding that I got seriously worried about the future of this game. DayZ was first designed with a very niche player group in mind, then it escalated to a sort of mass audience product and expanded the project's scope, and now it's slowly shifting back to the dedicated niche, but the much larger scope of things to do remained. Will this be enough to maintain the game when it reaches the planned release date? I don't know... But something rubs me the wrong way very much when I look at this game...

After reading this thread I come to a conclusion that the whole debate is due to varying interpretation of the term "End Game". 1. I noticed that to some it basically means character development, which by all means will always be a finite progression and have a specific "end" to it, e.g. there will always be a gun/clothing/vehicle/building material considered best in a given class. Then again DayZ gives us the ability to play as you and you can hone your real skills at playing the game indefinitely. 2. To others "End Game" means some kind of plot/gameplay mechanism that is lacking in the current stage (no forced goals). This is unlikely to happen. It would be best to just state more clearly what do we refer to when saying "End Game". I think that most "lack of End Game" cases are about those complaining being dissatisfied with the amount of activities one can do and that the world is in fact too limiting. Whatever you choose to do, you will very quickly end up doing it over and over and over again. E.g. [future build assumptions] Once you built your base in the most desolated place possible, start your own garden, gather rain water with X amount of barrels it basically would become unattractive to even log in to the game (to most players it will) - the game environment lacks the amount of external factors the real world posses. In the end, without question the game is mostly a sandbox game and its entirely up to the player what he/she makes out of it.