Isaaq

Ehh, even that area would seem a lot larger with vehicles, which have to navigate stuff - and the inability to sprint better than any cross country runner alive.

The map is huge - it only seems small as you can run at sprinting speeds everywhere, with no need for breaks. You also handle slopes, which are everywhere, better than an average car likely would. Vehicles also will not be able to go through trees particularly easy. Basically, once vehicles and some kind of stamina/weight system is implemented, the map will actually seem a lot larger.

All I know is that since it installed, I've not been able to leave Kamenka. I ran from Kamenka to Pavlovo, teleported back to Kamenka... Disconnected, closed DayZ, started again, got to Zelenogorsk and then teleported back to Kamenka. Really hope it was just my internet, but alpha, I know - just pointing this out in case it is actually being caused by the patch.

Saying that they should lower the price when it is finished is ridiculous. This game is going to be a lot larger (content wise) than your average game like Call of Duty or Battlefield. They retail at about £40 - £50. So, when this game goes final, I wouldn't even complain about spending £60+ on it. However, I feel they'll probably stick to about £40 - a very, very good price. But because I bought it in alpha, I got it for half that. How are you going to complain about getting a game for half the price you'd get it at when it comes out in a final release? I don't understand you saying it's expensive for an alpha. I mean, you get the full game still - just a little bit later. What does that give you? More play time. But saying this game should be below £20 - hell, even below £35 on final release is absolutely ridiculous.

Well... I mean the disclaimer is nothing to do with perma death... It's not a bug or a glitch. It's not because it's in alpha, that you lose all your stuff. It's because that's the game - and the disclaimer has nothing to do with that. Anyway, you'll have to get used to it, man. That's what the game's about - trying to survive. There'd be no point in playing if you could just die and respawn with all of your loot. It's a post-apocalyptic simulator, basically. If you got murdered in real life, would you respawn with your stuff?

So, I just thought this was worth highlighting since it's such a common theme where someone suggests just about anything. A very large portion of people on this forum seem to think that because the game is in alpha, people shouldn't talk about bugs - or request new things to be implemented because end game easily achievable. There are two main parts to an alpha - bug fixing and feature implementation. This means that assuming people aren't telling the dev's their ass holes and crying about bugs, they can't be had a go at for posting about them. I've seen 'This really needs to be fixed' and people replying with 'OMG, ALPHA, SHUT UP' essentially. That's counter-productive and people SHOULD be talking about bugs and requesting them to be fixed. The devs need to know which people consider the most important and most dire so that they can focus on the ones that affect the most people. The second point of an alpha is a more tricky one. As I've studied game design - and actively design games as a hobby, I can tell you, the normal development timeline of a game is as follows. Early Alpha - Very core functionality. Loot systems, combat, storage, basic travel and even basic bases should be focused on. Focus on game breaking bugs and the worse glitches, such as no-clipping zombies (and people.) The functionality should be a priority during alpha because as more functionality is added, more bugs emerge. Late Alpha - Generally, at the end of an alpha, all PLANNED content is implemented. The game will still be fairly buggy, but everything planned should exist in the game. The functionality in the game should be at a playable level by this point - meaning that stuff should need no major changes. Beta - During Beta, the focus is almost entirely on bug fixing and optimization. While things like multi-core servers come under core functionality, there are many other small aspects like perfecting draw distances to make the game run smoother. During Beta, some features may still be added, but these were not planned from the start. . Final - At this point, the game should be finished. There may still be a few bugs kicking around - and smaller bits of functionality can still be added, so the occasional patch will still be released, but all of the major work is done. 'DLC' style content - In the case of games like DayZ, the community often drives for new functionality to be added. It can be as simple as nerfing or adding new weapons, or as large as entire cities being added to the game. Either way, this stuff can be done after the game is released but again, stuff people expected to be implemented when the game was released should be completely finished long ago. Minecraft is an exception which people often use. Games like that can afford to be developed completely differently due to the style of the game. DayZ however, does not suit that format. Whatsoever. So, what's my point here? When you see someone saying they want tents - or they want vehicles, don't jump up with 'it's an alpha.' Because that's what alpha is for. It's for adding stuff like that, which are ABSOLUTELY core functionality, even if their later-core stuff. Telling people to shut up with requests because it's alpha stunts the growth of a game. Instead, talk about the features they are suggesting specifically. Improve on them - or explain why they wouldn't work. Everything should be talked about at this point - telling people not to complain about certain things is not what an alpha is for. Edited for slightly better wording, removed some repetition. May make it a little more concise later.

Support this. I think it'd be a good idea to 'draw' a radius around all of the military areas and make these no-spawn zones... Then literally anywhere on the main landmass can be a spawn (preferably once vehicles are added.)

Oh, just throwing this out there actually... If you attack someone, it already can tell where you hit them. Multiple hit boxes are already in effect. There are two unarguable examples of this. First, what loot is 'ruined.' Shoot them in the head? The helmet/hat gets ruined (I've even heard about sunglasses getting broken on eye shots.) Same with the chest and legs. The second part is blood. When you hit someone, the blood comes from the area you hit them. Hit boxes aren't an issue.

Except punishing people for stuff they do happens in real life too. The game is a simulator - it's meant to be realistic. But, I know that if I went out and started murdering people, it'd fuck me up. I'm not a particularly compassionate person either. You only argument is 'WE CAN PLAY HOW WE LIKE!!!1!.' No, you have to play within the confines of reality. It's meant to be a realistic game.

Aspects of the new spawns are nice, but it did make a couple of areas on the map pretty useless to most people. It's like they moved spawns to encourage people to go into one place in the map - and it worked too well and now no one goes to other places.

Well... Seeing as all of that is being implemented - and soon - you should feel a little... Idiotic right now.

You're right in the sense that the server handles where everything is - and zombies exist everywhere on the map, regardless of player location. But that doesn't change the fact that models, animations and that kind of thing all are client side... Not server side. I can't say for certain - as I've never used this particular engine, but generally, hit boxes are client side too... It tells the server whether it hit or not - and where it hit - rather than the server figuring it out itself. Gore could easily be coded client side, basically, not affecting the server at all... Then, the player could choose the detail of gore (or turn it off all together) and no one would have performance issues due to gore.

See, people talking about this not being realistic really seem to just be attempting to justify their own playstyle. I'm going to add to the idea a little - and change some wording, but here's how it could work - and be realistic, as well as more fair. What should be added is an overall sanity system. People spawn with a 'sanity score' slightly below that of a happy and normal person. The sanity system isn't as large a factor as food, water or sickness, but it can still have very bad effects if neglected too much. So, what affects sanity? Eating rotten food - it gives the chance of sickness already, but if you're desperate enough to eat rotten food - and do it on a regular basis...Wearing 'ruined' and 'badly damaged' clothes - Walking around in the harsh winter of Chernarus in shredded clothing isn't going to do anyone a lick of good. Not only should this effect sickness, but people aren't going to be amazing at coping with that either.Spilling food - Yep. You're not going to like spilling food when you open cans with things other than a can opener.Killing Zombies - Zombies are people too! Just gross, angry, evil people... You take a hit on your sanity from killing zombies.Killing people - This one is a little more complex. If you're 'hungry' or 'thirsty,' killing people should not affect your sanity at all - you need the supplies to live. Then, it needs to take into account the method of murder - is it a long range shot? Not very damaging. Neither is a quick burst of machine gun fire. But are you hacking at the fecker with an axe? Yeah. That's gonna mess you up good. Finally, gearing should be taken into account. If you kill someone with military gear, fair enough. Their a threat - probably shouldn't trust them and you might get some useful loot too. If you kill people with very little gear? Yeah. That's gonna damage your sanity. So, what effect does sanity have? Early on, it can be small things - slightly shaky hands, not causing any real problems unless you absolutely suck at shooting.Getting on a little, it can be slightly more noticeable stuff - like blood shot eyes as an indicator for people that this character might be getting a bit desperate. It's fair enough here, I feel.Later on? You get flashes across the eyes, bouts of intense shaking, immobility in the worst cases. Think shell shock. Now, people may argue a couple of things against this. First, Psychopaths - Less than 1% of the population are psychopaths. It's not a good argument to use, really. Next, dealing with stuff is easier in a post-apocalyptic environment. Sure, some stuff might be necessary - and I've taken that into account. But think about that for a minute... You heard of PTSD and Shell Shock? That thing people suffer after going to war? During World War 1 and 2, there were millions of soldiers who experienced forms of shell shock and PTSD. The ironic thing here is that, at least for World War 1, most soldiers were enthusiastic to 'go and kick some German ass' and absolutely hated every German soldier. So, assuming they weren't psychos, the majority of them had ill effects from murdering people - and that was on a battle field. How about in a survival situation, where you know that every survivor actually counts, didn't want to go into this, have lost all of your family and friends and are struggling to live? Unless you ARE a psychopath, you're not going to be immune to anything, psych-wise. I'm not saying 'zomg. If you kill anyone, you have to go crazy.' But stuff should build up over time, damaging your mental health. I don't suggest any form of sanity system being implemented, however, unless it was possible to take a lot into account. Seriously, it needs to consider so many different factors. However, if something like I suggested were possible - and the devs were able to do a nice bit of balancing, it would not only be realistic, but beneficial to gameplay. EDIT: Oh, to regain sanity, you can do stuff like be around people for extended periods of time, eat nice, pristine food and fresh fruit, not experience any of the 'hunger,' 'thirst' and 'sick' tabs for a while. After an hour of not having to kill anything, you gain 1 sanity per minute. That kind of thing.

Just saying, gore wouldn't be server side... It'd be client side. The server simply handles whether or not there's a zombie there, in basic terms. Your client handles when you hit the zombie or not - and the animations along with everything else similar... So gore wouldn't (or shouldn't) slow down servers at all.

I've heard somewhere that they want to make this kind of thing a reality - and it's fairly likely it will happen. But don't expect it any time soon... There are many, many more important things to think about first.

All good points, I think. The only thing is, I'm fairly sure that the tents appearing in choppers, etc will be fixed now. I never played the mod, so I'm not entirely sure what the problems are, but from the sounds of it, it seemed to be as simple as the draw distance... I'm sure that's easily fixable now. Unless every single tree were visible from the height of a chopper, the only fair way would be to just make them invisible on the z axis as soon as you're above the treeline. Anyway, we'll see how it goes. The point of people just running in straight lines/through remote areas doesn't necessarily make much of a difference if you place the tent on a side where there's nothing behind it, if you catch my drift - that'd leave it with people only finding it if they were actively looking for it. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm looking forward to it.

People don't seem to be taking into account the new spawns... I feel like both North airfields are going to be a lot worse now. NEAF is near spawns - and the west one is still closer. The fact that it's better will just draw in even more people. Balota isn't really that far from Elektro, either, so I'd not trust that one either. Then, there's the fact that most people with common sense are going to realise that their all very unsafe now - and go to the smaller ones, making them dangerous too. The new spawn system, I feel, has done a good job at what it was meant to do - spreading people out... However, it's not so nice for those who want to get fully kitted without coming into contact with others. Long story short? No where is safe, at all. However, if you really don't want to see people, try the smaller bases, like Green Mountain. Less loot and such, but their probably going to be the least targeted. Far west is probably a good idea too though - just not the airfield.

Misunderstood what you were saying. Think I fully support you now though. The only thing I would say would be that everything should be watered down from real life... Sure, it's cool to have a game where everything is realistic, but after a certain point, it get's ridiculous. I think that players should need actual skill and basic knowledge on stuff their doing to well... Do it. But you shouldn't have to be an expert on car repairs to actually repair a car in game. So, I agree - learn stuff to do stuff in game. But not to the extent that it just gets ridiculous at. EDIT - Also, there should be a way to recover from anything other than death. I know that it's not very realistic in many, many circumstances, but it's a massive pain to just sit there, knowing you're going to die and there's nothing you can do about it. It's that balance between realism and playability.

I disagree - people expect wipes during alpha - but people expect basic functionality too. Wipes, I can deal with. Having absolutely nothing to do after a couple of hours on a character, however, isn't so easy.

Assuming the animals aren't all zombies, they actually aren't that likely to attack... Bears rarely attack unless you stand between them and their cubs - and wolves will often give warning nips and the likes - until you piss them off too much and they attack you... People keep wolves as pets. I think that having these animals would be awesome - and they could have the possibility of attacking you, but they should act realistically. Would also be awesome to have feral dogs and cats - and, once bases are implemented, having the opportunity to capture one and re-train it. How cool would it be to have a dog run with you - or, better yet, a wolf. They'd also be high risk, high reward... Dogs and wolves can smell people and warn you long before - but when training them, you can get bitten - and cause bleeding and illness.

Didn't read it all yet because I'm on my phone, will do later. But when people talk about end game, they mean stuff to do once you're fully kitted up, which is very easy at the moment. They want features like bases and storage and vehicles for this time - the end game.

I completely agree with the point on sacrificing something for a second gun bag... But not a backpack. If I can carry a firemans axe somewhere, I can carry most guns there - so you have the choice of a second large gun or a melee weapon. The only other thing I'd question is holsters. Really, you could put holsters over any item of clothing in DayZ - and have many more pistols (or sub machine guns and sawnoffs when their implemented.) I know that DayZ has a certain feel to it, but I don't like the fact that leg holsters and waist holsters don't even exist.

Got the game on the 23rd, was away from the 24th to late on the 26th and have 37 hours playtime. Damn. That means on days I have the option of playing, I average 6 hours.

Not really. Should I be? Oh, by the way, the bitching part wasn't about you.