horrorview

I meant in terms of performance. If 50 more players is equal to, say, 1000 more zeds, I'd rather we get the zeds!

Will these 100 person servers come at the expense of infected amount? I find that on the 50 person servers I have just enough player interaction (at hot spots but also, on occasion, just out in the middle of nowhere) to keep me on my toes. If increased player count = less infected, I'd actually prefer more zeds! :(

Hey Brian, thanks for doing this. 1) Will we ever see things like water catchers and primitive shelter "recipes" (lean-tos, etc) 2) Will truck inventories eventually fit things like military and car tents? Also, will we be able to carry military tents and backpacks (empty) in our hands someday? 3) Are roaming hordes being considered? Maybe as a random events or something? It'd be amazing to have a horde wander through a camp or be able to do a Walking Dead and guide them into areas with flares/noise. 4) Is this what it sounds like, when the doves cry?

I definitely want roaming hordes, and would love to see the devs add them as a dynamic event. Like I said, I'd also like to have individual zombies scattered around the woods and fields as well, just to serve as a little bit of an extra threat/diversion. Imagine having a small wave of zombies just creeping toward your camp on their own or, better yet, a massive cluster of them drawn toward your camp by the enemy?

My fear with the infected is that they're trying to make them too "smart" with their speed, senses, and varying attack animations and such. As someone else pointed out, the mod infected were gloriously stupid and cheap in terms of resource cost. I'd almost rather they just dumb the current zombies down, drastically reduce their speed, and make them shambling slow-moving Walking Dead type beasties. Make them hit like a ton of bricks and hard to kill (head shots/brain bashing only), attracted to loud noises/light, and give them a small "awareness/attack radius" with just enough "intelligence" not to walk through walls, doors, or fences. Sure, in small numbers they'd be easy just to avoid, but if you get stuck in a tight area with a few you've got your work cut out for you. Scatter a handful in the smaller towns, a few random ones off in the woods and fields, and fill the high value loot areas and bigger cities with hordes of 'em. If you get their attention, they'll swat at you and maybe stumble after you a bit (along with whichever ones are nearby), but not chase you for a mile. Make them a giant, slow-moving deterrent rather than the hyper-aware speed demons they currently are. I just don't know if we'll ever see the huge amounts of infected a gameworld this size needs with the current iteration of them.

The infected that will be returning - will these be the ones that were tweaked for the new animation system, or will these just be the original infected back for a fashion until that new animation system is implemented?

How, exactly, is what I'm doing any different than what you're doing? You're just regurgitating information you saw on Reddit, but in a thuggish manner that helps NO ONE. At least I attempted to answer someone's question, and, whether you like how it was phrased or not, it was the correct answer. And your last line shows you just make things up to serve your argument as Rocket spent the better part of today telling ArmA 3 players not to expect DayZ SA developments to make their way over to that game. Here's a direct quote from him: "This does really bother me, but I do understand you're not alone with this sentiment. Just because you highlighted something you felt was important, does not mean the developer is magically obligated to provide it. To expect the Arma3 team to do everything DayZ does, as well as everything Arma3 does,... is complete madness. DayZ can do what it does because we removed functionality, we made it simpler because DayZ's requirements were much more narrow. This allowed us to focus. So to take gains from DayZ and "put" them into Arma3, you would have to drastically slash existing functionality for Arma3. You would destroy many areas of backwards compatibility for the A2 mod for A3, and for other community mods already released." I'm not going to waste time arguing with you for all you seem to do is type lots of words that say nothing and it's obvious you're as ill-informed as you think I am.

I know what you're saying and I'm not arguing with that. I'm not even defending what I said as being RIGHT as, like you say, it's info that's a year-and-a-half old. With Gorvi, however, It's all semantics. His reply dismissed my post as bullshit, but he went on to say everything I said using different words. Yes, the SA engine is now very much its own entity, but TOH is still at its core. My original post was simply answering someone else's question as to whether or not TOH was RV3 like ArmA 2.

Yes, which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID! Read my post again. The person I was replying to asked "Isn't the TOH engine RV3 like ARMA 2?" I then replied telling him what the TOH engine was "It's the engine from Arma 2: OA, and it was modified for Take On Helicopters" Then I go on to say THIS about how said engine has been modified for SA. "DayZ SA, they've changed it up even more, and, as I said in my original post, added middleware (Bullet, etc), and will be swapping out the renderer, so, in the end, it will be a very different engine. Yes, the core of it is RV3, but the myriad fixes/changes are going to alter it drastically." Then, after your "Don't spout bullshit" rage, you go on and type this: "Even if it is using source code from the Take On branch, its going to be drastically changed even more when the renderer and interface is ripped out." Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

"The standalone engine we are using is a branch of Take on Helicopters, which itself is a branch of ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead. We chose this because of its stability, ease of development, very achievable optimization, and the fact that our programmers are the architects of the engine - the very people who built it from the ground up over ten years." That's straight from the bloody devblog. Sorry if I this all changed but wasn't reflected in the game's only official documentation. Was just going by what I'd read. Now go choke on your own over-inflated sense of self-esteem.

It's the engine from Arma 2: OA, and it was modified for Take On Helicopters. DayZ SA, they've changed it up even more, and, as I said in my original post, added middleware (Bullet, etc), and will be swapping out the renderer, so, in the end, it will be a very different engine. Yes, the core of it is RV3, but the myriad fixes/changes are going to alter it drastically.

Very exciting news! My jaw dropped when I saw the pic of that unfinished building Torchia posted.That thing looks IMMENSE! Oh, and that fish fillet....delicious!

Whenever you change back and forth between experimental and stable there's a small-ish download required.

They've modified the Take On Helicopters engine, added some middleware engines (ie; physics SDK, and are planning on adding more for ragdoll etc), plan to add a new renderer, etc. By the time the game hits Beta, it'll essentially BE a new engine that adapts to needs of the game rather than game having to adapt to an existing engine that doesn't meet their criteria.

As a cigar smoker, I'd love "smokeables" in game. It's terribly unhealthy, but it's relaxing, and, if I'm living in a world where death's around every corner, the last thing I'm going to worry about is my lungs (or liver, which is why I would also like to see vodka).