burneddi

That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is, as the name would suggest, playing a role. It doesn't have to be a realistic role, it doesn't necessarily even have to make any sense (although your fellow players may frown upon you if you want to roleplay something silly or meta). It has nothing to do with what someone would do in real life. What you want to do doesn't have anything to do with this conversation, either, you're just making yourself look bad.

Have you ever played regular ArmA? Playing missions with a group (or a clan, if you prefer that term) is even more hardcore, especially if they're PvP. You might not respawn at all! If you die, your experience in that scenario is over, finished, while your killer is free to continue enjoying the mission. Now that's exciting!

Yes, I agree with you. Saying that literally everyone KoSes was a hyperbole. What I meant is that it seems like the largest group of the different playstyles currently out there is the KoSers. Personally, I enjoy dealing with unknowns in DayZ. That means that even if I meet a KOSer, as long as I actually have a chance to meet and interact with them in any significance, I don't really mind if I end up getting killed. As you said, that is part of the appeal. Base building is one of the large features I expect to be of major significance on how people play the game, especially combined with the other TBD mechanics that will add more depth to survival. I am very hopeful that through it, each player would have a "home server", and slowly get to know the rest of the people on that server. Social interaction is a big part of multiplayer games, and as DayZ pitches itself as an MMO or at least having MMO-like features, social interaction is even more important. It doesn't have to be immersive RP interaction, but I've found that just talking to people makes the game a lot more fun, even if the other party ends up murdering the other. On the topic of social interaction, I found this video today. To me, encounters such as this have always been one of the best parts of DayZ, and I think you would agree at least to a degree. That video is really good in many ways, as it also shows precisely what's "wrong" with a large part of the community when these guys just shoot the wigglers for no reason at the end. Or more specifically, how they just brush off the ridicilously funny scenario they just faced and kill the guys.

I'm not saying that you're playing the game wrong if you kill people. I'm saying you're playing it wrong if you treat it as a competitive game. This is completely anecdotal evidence, but having talked to a great many people who tend to play the game like most people seem to nowadays, they do treat it as a competitive game on many levels. For many it's not something as obvious as collecting murdercount or negative humanity. It takes more subtle forms, such as treating (and often even calling) other survivors as enemies by default, thinking the game has some sort of a built-in "kill or be killed" mentality to it (as opposed to a mentality completely instilled by certain members of the community), and for a great many, not ever talking to people not on your external VOIP. The reason I think this kind of gameplay does not inherently belong in DayZ should be obvious: it completely wastes the setting. Sandbox deathmatching like this requires no zombies. It requires no complex first aid mechanics with blood types, no hunger/thirst/sickness mechanics, no crafting, no hunting. It doesn't require survival. One integral part of it that I do agree it requiring is a scavenging system. For these reasons, I think deathmatchers should really be playing something else instead. For instance, Wasteland caters pretty much exactly to this niche. I suppose the reason many of them stick with DayZ instead is that DayZ was their first experience with gameplay like this, and it's become sort of habitual for them. Making the change to a slightly different, but at its core similar game would be such a drag. Having some KoSing players certainly does spice up the gameplay, I do not deny that. However, I'm saying that when the majority of the community is playing a game like this that way, they're really wasting the potential of the game. It's not a very severe offence yet, as so many features are still missing, but if I still see the majority of the playerbase playing the game like Wasteland with zombies in six months, I'm going to have to consider migrating to private communities that do not squander the potential of the game. I do hope, however, that mechanics changes and new features will make deathmatching a less desireable activity, as there would be other, more exciting activities to attract people's attention.

Yeah, which means that now is the perfect time to tackle all the "radical" design choices that differ from what the mod was like, and talk about things like how you are actually "supposed to" be playing this game. We're at a major turning point, as at this point it's finally actually viable for the game to be designed like it originally was supposed to be. A lot of things are going to change as we progress into the standalone, among those will be many of the conventions you're so used to seeing while playing the mod, as mechanics shift and different ways of playing suddenly become more exciting.

That's entirely true. However, when literally everyone is a "bandit" that kills everyone on sight, the game turns into what is commonly known as a deathmatch. Deathmatching in a game this vast is just wasted fucking potential. There are tons of games out there explicitly designed for the purpose of being a deathmatch, so why people have to do it in an immersive survival sandbox is beyond me. It's not a god damn competitive game, treating it as such is just playing it wrong and not living your life correctly.

So, you would rather keep on doing the same thing over and over again (teaming up with your static on an external VOIP and go KoS people) than have the possibility for some unique player interaction, simply because you're so concerned about your gear in a game where you can easily get fully geared in less than an hour?

I did not mean it like entirely serious hardcore roleplaying. I meant just lightweight trying to immerse yourself into the game world. For instance, when someone charges you with a shovel in Elektro, instead of not saying anything or saying "What the fuck leave me alone fag", you say something like "You've gone mad have you? So be it!". It's not a competitive game. The aim isn't to hoard as much loot as you can and kill as many players as you can. The aim is to have fun, and the way you're "supposed" (as in, the reason the game is designed as it is is to allow for gameplay like this) to have fun in immersive games like this is to immerse yourself into them. I doubt a lot of people currently playing DayZ even know what that means.

What people did in the mod shouldn't really affect standalone after it has more features. The mod was a largely unfinished hackjob that suffered vastly from it's ArmA2 heritage. On there, deathmatching was rather understandable -- there was not much else to do. It even became the norm. Now that standalone is upon us and the game may finally take the path Rocket wants it to, people should try and forget how they played it in the mod, and come up with new ways of playing. At least after some more features are in, as in the current version there's also remarkably little to do. Perhaps the community as a whole should pick up some roleplayer aspects into themselves, too. This type of games are much more enjoyable when you immerse yourself in them, as that's the way they're meant to be played. PS: KoS deathmatching is not banditry. Banditry is killing a guy for his can of beans. Deathmatching is killing a guy just for the heck of it, then checking his corpse afterwards to see if he maybe had anything you might want.

Yes, it wouldn't really fit into the run-and-gun way of playing many (most) people have nowadays, that is entirely true. It's not entirely unrealistic, though. Entering a room with hostiles in it through a doorway without flashbanging it would probably get you killed in reality. Similarly, getting shot in the back in a hallway is almost sure to get you killed in reality, too. Reality differs from video games, and your average soldier (let alone a survivor) is not a Hollywood action star. This game isn't designed to be a "fair" game in the sense that some other first-person games involving guns might be. In something like Counter-Strike, if you enter a room with two hostiles waiting for you, if you're really good there's a good chance you'll come out of top. Similarly, if you get shot in the back in a hallway in Counter-Strike, if you're good you can just 180 and pop them in the head. Of course in reality, in both of these scenarios it'd be rather unrealistic to come out on top like that. So what I'm saying is, precisely because it's a simulation game, the player does not necessarily have to be given any sort of a realistic chance to survive in a life and death situation. It's not really a competitive game. EDIT: Don't get me wrong, an automated system (such as the automated weapon raise system suggested earlier) would be vastly superior. I am simply suggesting that the spacebar implementation be used as a placeholder of sorts, as there is lots of animation work involved in an automated system. EDIT2: As a slightly off-topic curiosity, do you walk around with your weapon raised? I keep mine lowered almost all the time because it lets me move faster.

I think you guys really need to stop with the "In real life, gorilla warfare trained armed forces clear rooms in a quarter of a second and are home in time for dinner!" -arguments. They contribute nothing to the discussion, and have very little to do with it in the first place. Also, I think I'm catching on to the pattern here -- it's not that you selectively choose to ignore every refined argument and idea in this thread, it's just that you never read them in the first place. It seems like a lot of the replies are by people who see the thread get bumped to the front page, open it, read absolutely nothing but the opening post, and think that makes them qualified to contribute with their incredibly correct opinion while ignoring all the discussion already present in the thread. Simulator games like this have always been about realism. Realism in this context means "mechanics and events that reflect reality", not "the act of playing it feels like real life". What I mean by this is that the game aims to look, play and feel realistic, but must do this within the confines of traditional mouse and keyboard (and potentially joystick/gamepad) input. It also means that real-life practical experience (things such as muscle memory etc) does not directly carry over into the game, whereas theoretical knowledge will. So while in real life to eat a can of beans you found on the ground you would reach into your pocket, take out your can opener, open the can and enjoy your meal, in DayZ, you must first put the can in your backpack, drag your can opener on top of it, relocate the now opened can that has been moved into the first free slot in your inventory, right click it, select "Eat", sit through an animation of your character moving the food to his mouth, select "Eat" again.. And repeat the last few steps until you're full. Does this make the game unrealistic? No. Would you be able to do some part of this process way faster in real life? Probably. However, that doesn't matter at all. Someone being able to chug down an entire can of baked beans in one fell swoop instead of eating it a quarter of the can at a time is no argument for making the bean-eating process of DayZ match that speed by eg. removing the opening mechanic and making everyone consume entire cans at once. Now where am I getting with this analogy? While a simulator game's mechanics should reflect how things work in reality as much as possible, the execution of those mechanics does not need to be realistic. The absence of immersive motion-tracking VR technology is no argument for missing out on a feature like realistic gun collision indoors in a milsim(-based) game that has a large amount of indoor areas. "We can't give it perfect and instantly intuitive controls!" is no argument for leaving out significant chunks of realism in a game where realism is a key aspect, and certainly a much more important aspect than fluid shooter mechanics. The usage of the movement controls in DayZ/ArmA2 is a skill in and of itself. A skilled player can manipulate the controls to a high degree of precision and be unhindered by them, and as such perform in the game in a realistic manner. Part of the learning curve of this game (and also all the ArmA games I've played) is learning and getting used to the controls. Yes, initially they feel clunky and bad, and may really be clunky and bad, too, but after you get used to them, the gaming experience can be a highly immersive and fun one. Besides, the purpose of this alpha testing is to implement and test the core features of the game. Leaving out features because they cannot be polished right away is just dumb -- polishing is supposed to be done much later on in development. As you should've read and understood when you purchased and took part in it, the alpha is not here to satisfy your DayZ cravings and make your DayZ experience comfortable. The alpha is here to test and develop the game, and if you don't want new features in a testing and development stage because "they're clunky, unfinished and unpolished", well, you shoudn't have bought the alpha in the first place.

If the rifle is longer than the doorway is wide, no matter how you alter the way you are holding it, it will not fit through the doorway and be ready to fire. Key here is "ready to fire", as the point of this discussion is that it should be impossible to keep very long rifles in a firing position while maneuvering in confined spaces. In this context, "Ready to fire" means the gun's buttstock is pressed firmly against the operator's shoulder, and it is aimed more or less horizontally ready to fire upon any potential targets. The common doorway is something like 36", or about 90cm wide. The length of an M4 carbine is 33", or 84cm. The thickness of your average survivor shoulder fully clad can be approximated to something like 15-20cm or so. As such, simple maths tells us that a raised (butt to shoulder, barrel horizontal) M4 carbine+survivor would be about a metre thick at the shoulder, more so when wearing a backpack. Now, let's apply some more basic arithmetic. A metre (that is, 100cm) is a greater length than the 90cm hole that is the doorway. Thus, roughly 10cm of either survivor or gun will collide with the door frame or the wall. In laymans terms, the gun will not fit through the doorway sideways while raised and ready to fire. "But Dejecaal", you may say, "in reality you wouldn't sidestrafe through the door" You are exactly right! And were gun collisions properly implemented in DayZ, you wouldn't sidestrafe through the door in-game either! You would go face (and gun) forward through the door. In this scenario, as the gun is perpendicular to the doorway even if it is raised, the weapon's length does not matter, and because a survivor's shoulder width is considerably less than 90cm, you can comfortably maneuver through the door and be on your merry way. Exactly like in reality! "But hey Dejecaal", you'd probably continue, "what if I want to turn around in a 90cm wide space with my M4 carbine?" Oh, but that is simple. You press 'spacebar'. That is the wide rectangular button in the central bottom area of your keyboard. In DayZ standalone, pressing this key lowers your weapon with a fluid, swift animation that does not interrupt your movement or force your character to a standstill for its duration. Were weapon collision implemented, logically, while your weapon is lowered it wouldn't collide with stuff, as has been suggested numerous times by me and many other people in this thread. Genius! And very close to how you would maneuver indoors in reality! Now, if any of you pumpkins have any further confusion or questions on the matter, don't hesitate to ask. I'll be more than glad to reply. Just try to form a coherent post that addresses the points (re-)stated in this post, so that this discussion may actually move onwards, as a healthy discussion should.

I think the ArmA3 stance animations are awesome, but as far as I can remember, this issue was touched once and they didn't have plans to add them. I really hope they would, though. This is completely true. Such a discrepancy in design is almost hilarious. The game has (planned) features like a rather realistic first aid and health system, complex item maintenance and crafting (with eg. realistic gun maintenance), a realistic day/night cycle with truly realistic pitch-black autumn nights (granted, light sources in said nights could work a bit better)... And then you have a ridicilously completely out-of-place thing like third person, something you would normally expect to find in a much more casual game (not even Battlefield has third person, though), in place almost purely because half the community is comprised of people who can't deal with difficulty and realism in a game designed from the ground up to be unforgivingly difficult and realistic. This is true. Making radical design choices such as this would send a clear message of what the standalone is going to do -- take the original core principles and aspirations of the mod, back then out of reach because it was just a mod, make them reality, and toss out all the customs and conventions created by a community playing a broken, unfinished mod. The question is, will they do it? I hope they would, but I sort of doubt they will. And if they indeed won't, a separate "hardcore" difficulty would be the best compromise. Ultimately I think it depends on what rocket's vision of the game really is, as I trust him to make the game exactly as he wants it to be. As to that, I don't think we're really going to get a detailed answer out of him.

How many times do I have to spell it out for you? You don't have to put your weapon on your back in standalone. You literally only have to press space to lower it. It takes less than a second, and you can do it while turning or moving.

Yes, and as people have said before, a feature like this should be implemented into the game. In fact, it already exists -- you press spacebar, it lowers your weapon, no tricks, no hassle. What you're essentially saying, because in real life you would lower your weapon or keep it vertical, in DayZ weapons should be able to pass through walls. Makes perfect sense! What exactly is so difficult to understand here?

Yes please. Also, being able to chamber a single round into any gun even if you have no magazines for it would be nice. I keep finding loads of FNX45's and ammo for them, but the mags are ridicilously rare. It'd be nice to be able to put a round in the chamber to use as a warning shot of sorts to spook off potential axe-wielding threats.

Ah, alright. That really is a lazy way of doing it. I usually just tried to never strafe indoors, and could get by just fine without getting stuck in doorways.

I'm inclined to agree with you. DayZ (and any other milsim game, really) should not be a third-person game in my opinion. Hell, I'd not even call it an opinion -- third person is in direct conflict with the realism aspect of the game. I think it is one of those myth type things, started by ill-informed people, and perpetuated by people who have grown accustomed to it. Aside from allowing you to peek over grass, and behind and through walls, third person offers no definitive advantages, and there should be no arguments for constantly using it like a lot of people seem to (aside from getting used to it, which is the case for most people, it seems). However, at this point its usage is so popular it is more of a question of whether or not it is viable to just cold turkey it out of the game, and obviously what Rocket and the rest of the devteam think of the matter. I wouldn't say removing it is definitely not going to happen, as it would certainly go in vein with all the new difficult (compared to the mod) mechanics introduced by standalone, but realistically, I have my doubts about it. Have you seen all the casual tears caused by the new hunger/thirst/sickness mechanics? Just imagine the anal anguish if third person was removed. Of course, that might be a positive for you if you're into that kind of thing, but I would expect the devs don't really want to upset a major portion of the playerbase. Anyway, I still think an enforced Hardcore ruleset would be a good solution. There never really was one for the mod. Naming it "Hardcore" or "Extreme" or something similarly superlative is important, I think, as it sort of gives it that "this is the true experience" kind of ring to it. and lets me berate everyone playing on any other difficulty for being casual PS: Admittedly, the first person of DayZ/ArmA2/ArmA3/whatever also is a matter of getting used to. In fact, you could even argue that the third person mode is easier to get into, and as such takes *less* getting used to than first person. You probably wouldn't be wrong. However, these are all simulation games, and as such, realism is a key aspect. Third person simply is not realistic. Sure, it takes some practice to be able to comfortably maneuver in first person like you used to in third person, twice as much for land vehicles and four times as much for helicopters, but once you get the hang of it, it is extremely rewarding, immersive and fun.

This was actually possible with the ArmA2 collision. In reality, when entering through doorways, you don't strafe through them sideways. You approach it along the wall, then turn towards the doorway, stick your gun through it, step through it while checking the side of the room opposite to you, then immediately turn to face the side of the room you approached it from. You can replicate this maneuver with the gun collision very well, and it's not even difficult. Just never try strafing through the door and you're pretty much golden. Actually, it was. Many variations of DayZ used a config that removed it to make maneuvering inside easier for people who were not aware of the weapon collision. I never really had issues using ARs indoors in ArmA2, anyway. It gets really easy as soon as you figure out strafing through doorways doesn't really work -- and I don't know about you, but the doorways in my house aren't really wide enough to allow a person to comfortably pass through sideways holding a raised assault rifle.

It's not "adding shit for the sake of adding shit". Being able to run around unobstructed indoors with your 4-foot Mosin with a footlong bayonet attached to its muzzle is part the reason people are able to play this game like an arcade deathmatch shooter with zombies. It also reduces the effectiveness of short guns like submachine guns, pistols, shotguns (especially sawed-off ones) etc, as they lose one of their advantages compared to long rifles. As I've said numerous times in this thread, by pressing spacebar you can lower and raise your weapon at will. You can do this in any position, while walking and running, and the animation is very fast. As I've also stated numerous times, the idea of weapons having collision except when in the lowered position sounds very good to me. As you have repeatedly shown in your replies here, you seem to completely ignore this idea.

That trunk matter is exactly the kind of "definite ownership" I don't think belongs in this game (on the topic of Epoch, that mod variant is full of examples of this kind of stuff). What is there stopping people from breaking open the trunk? Trunk locks aren't exactly difficult to break and doing so would cause no damage whatsoever to the contents. In fact for a lot of old cars you can just jam any long metal object into the door locks and there's a good chance you can just unlock them like you would with a key, and even if that doesn't work, car locks are hardly the most secure locks out there.

On the topic of 3rd person "representing peripheral vision", you have no idea what you are talking about. Third person in this game does absolutely nothing of the sort. It doesn't increase your field of view at all. It is literally just a third-person view, it moves your camera back a metre and up like 20 centimetres. It is a 100% an illusion and just something you've grown accustomed to. Say you're running in a forest, in third person your camera is essentially where your first person camera was a second ago, and it does not give you any more vision as it doesn't change your field of view. The only advantage 3rd person has over 1st person is being able to peek over grass, and behind and through walls. That has absolutely nothing to do with "peripheral vision". If you want something representing peripheral vision, either bring back the peripheral dots (an awful solution if you ask me), or just learn to utilise the Alt key to look around.

The game only has stereo sound, though. Not only that, but "surround" headphones are completely useless anyway, as you only have two ears and regular headphones are already covering both of them.

I wouldn't call it "almost instant" -- rifles aren't only long, but also heavy and the kind of objects you tend to want to handle with at least slight care. If a video game accurately replicated handling a large rifle in confined spaces, you'd probably think it extremely slow and "unrealistic". This is because you're probably used to seeing very fast-paced streamlined arcadey video games that don't model things particularly realistically. Anyway, with raising/lowering your weapon vastly improved in the standalone, I still think lowering your weapon allowing you to move freely indoors would be a good solution. This is also a good idea, although it takes a little work to implement. Even if this is to be eventually implemented, as a temporary solution I would prefer the "collision on, weapon lowering turns it off" idea from earlier on in this thread.

The keys issue is rather complicated, though. Most of the time people don't park their cars and leave the keys inside (although it might be slightly more common in a zombie epidemic!). It also has issues with the concept of definite ownership, which I think doesn't fit DayZ as a game very well. It could work, though. A few things are for sure: the keys should not be unique, instead, there should be a bunch of different keys (perhaps one key type per type of car). That way, if you lose the keys, you can randomly find a new pair that fits your car, and other players can also find another copy of the keys that can exist simultanously to your own keys, and use them to get into the car. Perhaps not the most realistic solution, but I think it's a necessary compromise. Secondly, the keys should not "hard define" ownership of the vehicle. Even if you have the keys to a car, anyone should be able to break into it and hotwire it if they have the tools. There should be no unnecessary penalties to doing so, aside from broken locks/windows etc. Also, hotwiring a car should mean that the car can be started without keys by anyone after that point. I don't think making it possible to reverse hotwiring is necessary, in fact it being a permanent process would probably be for the better.