Jump to content

Solopopo

Members
  • Content count

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About Solopopo

  • Rank
    Bean King

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4618 profile views
  1. Stress Test vol.14

    When the game wasn't crashing, did anyone notice any new features in stress test 14? I missed this one.
  2. Soft Skills

    I don't think you understand what @Whyherro123 was saying. He was talking about how progress towards one specialization takes the opposite down, and then expressed his opinion on that one specific aspect. He isn't criticizing the entire concept of soft skills, as you are. Thus far they have taken a very conservative approach to soft skills, and it is far from the way you have characterized it. Soft skills have been part of their plan for a while now, and many of us have been eagerly anticipating them. Their main motivation behind soft skill is to give players a reason to try to stay alive even if they have lost all of their gear and have been captured. This is cool and definitely something we all want. It has nothing at all to do with any of that crap you just said. My criticism of the system is that it is not beneficial enough to motivate players to stay in game in that situation, however that is my first impression in a stress test setting.
  3. Soft Skills

    I think I would enjoy it more this way too. @Parazight, I agree that these soft skills don't seem like they will be providing significant combat advantages. But I think healing is intended to provide at least some advantage, within reason. I don't think it's unreasonable for a medic to be able to make a difference in combat scenarios. When the devs first spoke about soft skills they said they wanted to include them because they want players to value their character more over time, which is important if we are ever to successfully capture anyone in game and strip them of their weapons. They don't mean for it to be meaningless. If it is meaningless they have failed at what they set out to accomplish in the first place. You use that word often to refer to a lot of work the devs have been doing I've noticed. I know you are trying to make the point that people who don't like it don't even need to worry about it, but its not meaningless. Its clear they put a lot of thought into the current implementation. Its minimal but influential by design. In my opinion the effects are too minimal right now, but I already talked about that.
  4. Stress Test vol.13

    Sure hope so. I'm primed and ready for a weekend long stress test. Bring it on devs!
  5. Soft Skills

    Yes, I was very happy it resulted this way. I was motivated to find this out because if it wasn't the case, I would truly despise this system. And thank you, I forgot to mention that as well. Additional crafting and mending features could make specialization more valuable.
  6. Soft Skills

    In stress test 12 they introduced soft skills. This is our first look at how soft skills could be in beta. The little meter on the lower left is the soft skill meter. It starts in the middle. You can progress either left or right. If you mend and stitch, it goes to the left. If you craft and build, it goes to the right. You can undo crafting progress by mending, and visa versa. But if you max out the stat in either direction, it stays locked in place (which took forever to prove). The consequences of this are interesting, although I don't know If I am entirely on board with it yet. With the given system, players that spawn are posed with a question. Do they want to be a crafter this life, or a medic? It makes sense to make a decision one way or the other, because otherwise your meter will just balance out in the middle. This is interesting because it provides players the option to choose a sort of soft class, without actually requiring any decisions to be made about your character in the selection screen. It also allows players to reverse decisions if they want to, up till a certain point. Again, I don't know if I'm on board with it yet though. I liked the idea of being able to max out all of your stats, not just specialize in one. This does however provide interesting coop opportunities, at least in theory. It would make sense for one team mate to focus on the opposite task, one healing, one crafting. But there is a problem. I managed to max out crafting/building as shown above. I have to say I am a little underwhelmed by the benefit of having maxed crafting. When the meter is in the middle, it takes 5.5 seconds to craft a stick fireplace. At max crafting it takes 4.5 seconds. That is a lot of work to do for one second. Neither mending nor crafting is actually very useful from what I can tell. Being able to craft something one second less isn't really that big of a deal. I suppose you could say the time was lowered by about 20 percent, but still, this isn't really all that much to get excited about, and certainly not enough to motivate someone to deliberately max anything out. For those of you who are curious, it took me about seven hours to max it out in Elektro with no threats or distractions around, taking breaks every once in a while. I was relieved to discover what I set out to, that the bar indeed locks if you max out, but I regretted the time spent to gain the benefit I got. 7 hours of work for a 1 second difference? That's a little crazy if you ask me. If I am remembering right, the purpose of soft skills was to encourage players to stick it out on their experienced survivors, even if things got really rough. This isn't enough to motivate anyone one way or the other. edit: One more interesting consequence of this system I forgot to mention is that all those useless items lying around all over the place aren't so useless anymore if you care about your soft skills.
  7. It's possible that the console port had no influence on their decision to remove dispersion. Maybe I'd go so far as to say it's likely. They have been nothing if not deliberate in everything they have done thus far. They redesigned the entire engine so the game could do the things they wanted it to do. I don't really think they would allow the console port to influence any aspect of their game design after so much effort to get it right. But the thought still scares me. I only talk about it as a deterrent, because the possibility exists. But realism hasn't always worked out for DayZ. I think realism within reason should be the goal. DayZ had overly realistic features in the past, but they have slowly removed them one by one from the alpha. Players used to go unconscious for realistic amounts of time, which is stupid. Players would commonly break their legs and be unable to walk, which is stupid. The day/night cycle was actually on a 24 hour schedule on every server, which is preposterously stupid. If you have time, you should check this out. I think it provides interesting perspective on the development of realistic video games. This game is a perfect example of what I am speaking about. The devs had to completely redesign the game after realizing they had made it too realistic. It was so realistic that it was impossible to actually appreciate how realistic it was from the players perspective. The devs realized that they had to redesign many features of the game to make it fun and desirable to play. The result is interesting. It is universally accepted that STALKER is a flawed masterpiece. Fans acknowledge its shortcomings as a game, but are also incredibly impressed with its realism, enough to inspire a strong, but not entirely fulfilled, fan-base. My point is that this is a real possibility for DayZ right now. The risk of being too realistic exists, but at the same time the game's realism is absolutely critical to its success. There must be a balance between the realism and the game. Personally, I am a fan of the removal of dispersion, because it makes shooting less random. All competitively viable games have one thing in common; they are consistent. Random elements don't make for good games generally, as far as competition is concerned. If the same player puts his cross-hair in the same spot, with the same gun, under the same conditions, I think that bullet should do the exact same thing every time. That's not to say the shooting shouldn't be dynamic and realistic, but I think there is definitely a limit to how realistic shooting can become before it just stops being fun and starts being stupid. This is what I think the devs were referring to when they said dispersion is nonsense. From a game-play perspective, it sort of is. If every weapon had it's own unique dispersion that was predictable for that weapon, maybe it would be different. But the way they had previously implemented it, it was random. Still, I am not totally opposed to the implementation of dispersion. Many people seem to care about it on these forums. I could take it or leave it really.
  8. Honestly, I would not have thought about it at all. I recognized right away that shooting felt a little more "solid" to me. It felt like my bullets went where I intended to put them more often, and I liked it. It doesn't feel like they've taken anything away from the shooting, it feels like they have added to it. However, I have feared this since the day they announced DayZ for console. They aren't porting DayZ to console because they think it will be good on console. All experience with console ports suggests the contrary. They are developing it for console because they ultimately need to profit more from the work they have been doing all these years. Which in my opinion underscores the major problem associated with releasing a game in early access. It is unreasonable to expect people to do work they aren't getting paid for, and I do mean GETTING paid for, not paid for in the past. The world doesn't work that way. The massive amount of work that has been done turning DayZ into a redeemable project did not come free, and anyone who thinks the Alpha profits are sustaining their current work is naive. No one wakes up in the morning and decides to spend their short, precious, life working for money already earned. The decision to overhaul the engine was calculated. They planned out how they were going to pay for this a long time ago. My biggest fear is that the money is in the console version of the game. This terrifies me. If they do in fact compromise the integrity of the PC version for the console version, they will have definitely proven that early access is the most sinister concept to ever assault the industry. But it was a necessary evil to port to console because they chose the route they did. The work just would not have gotten done without profit potential. But again, it does bring the whole notion of early access into question. I really wish they would just let go their death grip on the whole early access thing. No one associates early access with good things. It isn't good to be associated with it. Early access does not define DayZ. It is so much more than that. But for what it's worth, I think DayZ is slowing turning into a masterpiece and I applaud the work that is being done. They haven't done anything to suggest they are making drastic compromises yet in my opinion. I think it is important that DayZ is not just a simulator but also a game. We already have Arma. I'll give the devs the benefit of the doubt for now. I am so happy with the work I've seen so far.
  9. If nothing else, one thing has been made clear to me by .63. They do listen. I see it in so many things. As for dispersion, if they could implement a realistic dispersion system that didn't make shooting actually more difficult than real life, I would be for it.
  10. The Ability to IV yourself

    I'm conflicted. I've always wanted to be able to use bloodbags and saline on myself because I lone wolf it a lot, but I understand your concern that it might hurt the integrity of the game. 7 seconds does seem brief for self administered saline. I could stand to see the duration increased to as much as 30 seconds. I don't like holding the mouse button for long periods of time though. I hope they would make it so you only have to press once to initiate actions when they are long. I do like that we have to hold the button now in general. It makes it feel like you are actually doing what your character is, but it gets tiresome sometimes.
  11. Melee System needs balance/tweaking

    I like the melee combat, but it has its problems for sure. I may just be bad, but at the moment I feel that some of the combat features don't function properly. I haven't managed to get much legitimate use out of the dodge or the block, unless I'm fighting zombies. The block causes invisibility against them. My biggest complaint with the melee combat system is that for all the features they have added to it, the simple light punch combos to the face are more effective than anything else, which is the same thing we have already been doing in alpha for years. I dropped person after person by just walking right up and aiming for the face with light hits. I see a lot of people doing the charge attack, but even a connected charge attack leaves you open to retaliation. Despite the quirks, I still think it's fun. I have managed to make use of the heavy attacks, even if they do get me punished more often than not.
  12. Start Walking

    It does. I agree that there is a difference between what Dean Hall wanted for DayZ, how players now prefer to play it, and even how the current devs view the game. I referred to that article because I was looking for something that spoke about DayZ's core philosophies. It seemed to make sense to start at the beginning. But the current devs, the ones who have their hands on it now, have stated that they don't intend to encourage PvP. I do in fact believe that player interaction and interaction with the environment is meant to be an integrated experience. We need to have a common enemy in order to not KOS all the time. Zombies are actually dangerous now, and food and thirst degrade faster than before, depending on the circumstances. I couldn't believe it, but I got overwhelmed by just two zombies on my last death in .63. I was fully geared. I got comboed to death. I couldn't even draw my weapon. Working together may be preferable to KOS for this reason, and when players are working together they sometimes betray each other, making any PvE scenario a possible PvP encounter as well. I know I personally have interacted with more people in the past few days of stress testing than I have in months in alpha, and I think at least part of that is because of the additional challenge. I've had many people limp up to me asking for help. As you say, the survival features enrich the experience. But they aren't meant to be a distraction, a passing fancy, as you make it to where the game really starts: the airfield. The survival features ARE the game, at least a significant part of it, along with player interaction and everything else. It isn't something just tacked on to distract from running. I don't think that is the way the devs see it, or how they have designed the beta experience to be. But of course, everything is still up in the air right now. We'll see just what kind of PvE experience they will actually give us soon :)
  13. Start Walking

    You read an entire article about the challenge and hardcore nature of DayZ and conclude it's not supposed to be hard? I would encourage you to read people's entire responses to you, as @Guy Smiley suggested. Mine is entirely based on that article man. Did you read it at all? You can't take players out of the experience and still have DayZ. It is hard to survive because they are there. It is hard to find food because they are there. Obviously the themes discussed in this article apply to every aspect of the game, not just player interaction itself. Why am I the one trying to find an article proving the most basic tenet of DayZ? I challenge you to find even one that supports what you are saying, which will be significantly more difficult, because it doesn't exist. But there are a myriad of articles out there on the subject of DayZ's difficulty. When I said it took me 3 seconds to find that article, I meant it. You won't find a single one implying anything about the game is easy. You need to define what you mean by survival if you are going to continue to insist that it is not hard. What exactly are you referring to? If you are trying to say that persisting in .62 with no other players to threaten you is easy, I don't think anyone would argue with you about that. .63 may be a different matter. Getting and staying well fed and hydrated is not as easy as it was in .62. Does that not suggest something to you? Maybe it's supposed to be a least a tad challenging? To me the fact that anyone would suggest DayZ is not supposed to be hard is absurd. Players are dropped in the middle of nowhere in an epic landscape with no map, no compass, no weapon and no food. They are already thirsty. If they choose the wrong way to run they will starve. There is literally nothing but experience to guide you. Honestly, I think you've been playing the alpha too long. Do you seriously not remember how hardcore this game is intended to be? How unforgiving it is to new players? How unforgiving it can still be to you if were to make the mistakes you've already learned from a thousand times before? Just last night in .63 I got completely lost at night in the woods and wound up running the wrong way for 20 minutes. I was fortunately stocked with food, but if I wasn't, I could have died easily, especially if wolves were spawning right now. The "grind" as you call it, makes your character more valuable every passing moment. And at any moment you can lose it all. At it's core, DayZ is an extreme survival game, and while you may not think it is hard, clearly it is intended to be. Hard, brutal, challenging, real. These are themes that underpin the DayZ experience. To think that they would exclude one part of the game from this philosophy.... why? Why would you think it's not supposed to be hard. Explain. No comment. This is not relevant to the discussion.
  14. Start Walking

    DayZ is meant to be challenging. I'm surprised you are still arguing this point. The game is extremely hardcore by nature, and that's not hyperbole. Its reputation is built on that. You are speaking about what the game is currently and trying to make the point that it isn't hard because finding food is easy. But you can't consider only the nutrition side of survival alone and say survival is easy. There is more too it than that. There are not as many players on the map as there are supposed to be, so of course if you run off to some barren region with practically no people and apple trees, you'll be fine in the alpha. There are also zombies and wolves to contend with, which are much worse to deal with when people are around. If all you want to do is persist, you will have an easy time in the alpha. If you want to actually play the game, it will be hard. But it is supposed to be hard to survive all the time. It is one of the most basic philosophies of the game. Death is inevitable, and you are just fending it off. DayZ is literally the most brutal survival game on the market. The apple glitch has caused so much damage to some people's outlook of the game, it's crazy. Before people knew about it, it was actually a real challenge to survive in the alpha, with or without people around. The name DayZ Standalone is synonymous with difficulty and challenge. It brings constant hardship and death to most people's minds, so much so that some people even avoid it for this reason. Surely there is a limit to how much difficulty is fun, but I think they've struck a nice balance with .63 so far. If you want to hear it from the developer's mouth, heres an article it took me all of 3 seconds to find. https://www.engadget.com/2013/03/29/gdc-2013-dean-hall-on-the-pillars-of-dayzs-design/ If you do some of your own searching you'll find that Dean Hall also cites the 60 player limit as one of the biggest drawbacks of the alpha build. There are also many articles like this one where he talks about the importance of DayZ's hardcore nature.
×