bobotype3334

And not as in randomly crashes every 3 seconds, obviously. It's taking into account stones and shit popping a tire, causing damage to it, causing you to crash.

Horses would have fled or been eaten by zombies if out in a paddock, and ones in a barn or stable probably wouldn't have been fed. This is much lower priority than bicycles. If you want to play cowboy and ride horsies, go play Call of Juarez or something.

I appreciate your well thought out and well written post, m9. I'm trying to say though, that when you say Then that's what irritated me about his post. I'm saying R E D U C E, not absolutely remove I don't want to "almost completely" remove the KoS mentality, I just want to make the average player more likely to save bullets for a zombie. This can be done, and will be done by a series of measures which are on their way. I know that they will take time, I know there will always be griefers based on any ability you give them to harm other players. I just want to reduce that behaviour, and content can do that.

None of you come up with original posts much, do you? I do ride bikes quite often, a mountain bike as a matter of fact, and I also have been hiking on about four occasions. I can tell you matter-of-factly that you have no chance at getting on a mountain bike and actually riding it normally with a large mountain backpack which is taller than your head on your back overbalancing you. This is why I suggested the weight gate on bicycles to ride them, to save the devs the work of having to put in the physics and animations for being retarded enough to get on a bike, thinking you aren't too heavy with a full combat vest, full pockets, full shirt pockets, a rifle, a fire axe and a full hiking backpack and then falling over like the fat heavy shit you would realistically be. Bikes will be overpowered, because when all you really want is something to outrun zombies, bikes triple your current walking speed IRL. They need no fuel, and sure they need repairs, but not to the standard of cars. Bikes are much less hassle than cars, and the "less protection than cars" argument is silly when a car's driver is surrounded by glass windscreens and windows anyway. Thank you for your very well thought out and not at all parochial comment, Korsbaek, "master of Random". I'm sure you realise this game is set in a poor post-Soviet country and not in your home country of Denmark, which Google lists as officially the first Bike City Of The World? http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/bicycle-culture/ Bikesbikesbikesbikes.

Here's my plan for making bikes not always the best option for transport, when they're implemented, when you find them, over the repair-intensive, fuel-intensive cars and helicopters. Bikes cannot be ridden while wearing any backpack with more than 25 items in it. [also, prevent player wearing backpacks while sitting in a car seat-they have to put it in the car inventory before getting in]. If the player tries to get on a bike wearing a 25+ item backpack, they overbalance.Bikes need repair just like cars, getting flat tyres, wrecked gears and broken chains. They will rarely break chain or pop a tyre mid-ride, which can leave you stacked in the centre of a zombie horde.Bikes use up Energy almost as much as sprinting- pedalling periods burn Energy per second.Bikes have a finite "sprinting" [pedalling] period, 30 seconds of pedalling max [works on an unseen "overheat" gauge]. You can cruise on gained speed, but zombies will start to catch up.Bikes have a chance of randomly crashing.Make them a little rarer than Cars, maybe having 40 Bikes on the server all up, and increase their concentration inland.Of course, we keep the huge advantages-- no fuel needed but Energy, fewer parts required, and still able to outpace a zombie or full sprint player while pedalling for less fuss.

Yeah, if it was somehow set so the sights/scope were resting above the book in first person prone this could be cool. Of course, it's a luxury for now. Other stuff needs implementing first.

Okay, good. I don't want to see Boomers and shit. That takes suspension of disbelief and throws it into the trash. But I don't want the body armour torso on Rocket's super zombies to be impervious either, just able to take 4 or so more bullets before the zombie dies.

No thank you, unrealistic. And not every post-apocalyptic world features zombies only taking damage from head hits; in fact, I struggle to name many zombie franchises that don't feature zombies taking damage all over their body. It's not dumb. Realism is all-important in DayZ; one of the original selling points of both ARMA and Rocket's mod was unforgiving realism. No, no, no, no, no. We have to think realism, not "the simplest way". Zombies should be adrenalin-fuelled, with no self preservation and so none of the constraints of a human body like stamina and fatigue, all abandoned by the virus so it can spread faster even if the host body is hurt. Zombies should shrug off one or two torso bullets, their viscous blood and inability to feel pain meaning they don't care about a bullet in their spleen or even heart, and even though they're bleeding out they will continue to run at you. However, enough successive bullets of about 6 upwards will do so much damage to the torso that they will, eventually, die on the spot; and a well placed headshot will do as much damage as a well placed headshot already does. Decapitation and limbic removal is great too- via shooting or hacking, remove arms so it can only bite, or remove legs to create a "crawler" which commando wriggles at you, like in the original mod. tldr; headshots only is unrealistic; zombies ignoring about 5 bullets to the torso actually makes sense, but any more than that should literally shred them and kill them; Headshots should just do as much damage as guns do on headshot now.

Yes, it's a survival game, not a Blues' Clues simulator. Wanting to know which nation the zombies came from has nothing to do with survival, searching for a gun and can of beans is survival, mate. You already know quite well what the zombies are. Having exposition dropped everywhere in the form of audio logs is unrealistic. I never said it was PVP, don't put words in my mouth. No thank you, you forgot to take many things into account there: the story will be different for everybody in the map every time they respawn, but in the same world; exposition items would not make sense in other players' storylines [say you find a document saying the zombies are from London and a player whose story says the zombies are from Africa picks it up]; the same stories will be recycled over and over again by a certain point, removing the interest of random storylines in the first place because you can only have so many, and finally you forgot that that's retarded. Why don't people drop this? Rocket's idea is much better. Rocket means [i assume] that people will simply create the side story of how survivors get along in Chernarus, while the main story arc has already been explained in many places-- Many people tried to flee the zombies, many were killed/infected, the Chernarus Defence Force was overwhelmed, it called in outside support from Britain and the US, and some of those support vehicles crashed.

To sum up your post: {citation needed} Okay, I'll take it on face value that no matter what we do other than outright removing it, all players who KoS now will continue to do so in the future and forever, and there's nothing we can do. Stop trying, Rocket! Stop the presses! Didn't you hear? It's completely impossible! Fuck new content to divert players from KoS; that doesn't work at all, does it? let's just add more variants of American weapons and British weapons because KoS is inevitable and we're actually playing Call Of Duty. Seriously though if you're going to stand in the way of progress at least give reasons why. Just saying "it won't happen" is not reasons. Saying "making zombies too difficult would be a problem in itself" actually supports my point the zombies are a bigger problem than the players for bandits], unless you're talking gamebreakingly OP zombies, which I'm not. And you don't think zombies are interesting to fight? [a] too bad it's a zombie apocalypse game, frantically fleeing zombie hordes until you have a gun to mow them down is indeed interesting. I gave reasons, you do the same. The vegan metaphor is nonsensical and does not apply, either. I'm talking about a video game where you can change nearly anything, not a global meat industry and people's eating habits.

Not a timed thing either, then you either have a 10 second Ubercharge with which to hunt down the bandit and punch him to death and take his gun, or you have bandits waiting out the 10 seconds on a fresh spawn and then getting him. If you make the timer longer, you make invincible Bambi Bilboas/very patient bandits, and if you make the timer shorter that's just a little longer wait for a bandit's fresh meat.

No thank you. Unrealistic. If we can see it, we can shoot it. Ps- this also means people can literally just camp on you and wait for you to move even slightly so they can pack you full of lead. At any rate this is a bad idea as well as nearly useless.

No thankyou. What, people in the middle of the zombie apocalypse in a second-world low tech country had time to make audio diaries? Would they make sure to write notes while being mauled to provide exposition to other people about the zombie apocalypse's reason for existing [which would be common knowledge worldwide anyway before the radios and TV cut out]? No, the information of why you came to be there on the coast should stay trapped inside the head of your character. This leaves it to the player to give themselves a back story. Personally, I like to think I've been dropped off by a military airboat or helicopter because there was no room on an aircraft moored offshore, a la World War Z. But that idea shouldn't be forced on anyone, because it takes away your imaginative input. Really, the idea of things everywhere explaining what went down is retarded [except in the way it's handled in Left 4 Dead, and that only makes sense within the context of a rich Western nation].

Stop it with the "doing X won't stop KoS". I see those comments on every KoS thread and they're starting to bug me. Nobody with the best interests of the game in mind wants to stop KoS, just to reduce it. And there are many ways you can reduce KoS. I don't personally agree with OP's method; I'd say the answer is greater numbers of zombies, and more dangerous zombies [zombies faster than you unless you're sprinting, with limited sprint bursts for you and NOT headshot-only zombies] so that the thing players are aiming to kill is zombies, not each other. That way the majority of players conserve their ammo for self-defense, not sniping. KoS is still as prevalent as it would be IRL [maybe a fair bit more due to players who are only out to kill,] but your average player will be more concerned with the zombies in a zombie apocalypse than the people.

My addition: 10 levels of speed to make it nice and simple. [i might have fucked up a few details] 0/10: stationary. 1/10: Crawling on low blood/energy or while carrying a heavy load. 2/10: Crawling at a normal rate. 3/10: Crouchwalking, or walking/crouchwalking after a leg injury. 4/10: Walking while fully burdened. 5/10: Walking while semi-burdened. 6/10: Walking while unburdened/running while burdened fully. 7/10: Running while semiburdened. 8/10: Running while free of items completely. 9/10: Running while free of items with good shoes.\ 10/10: Running with high energy, unburdened, with good shoes. 25/10: Bicycle at full tilt. We reduce the normal running speed we currently have just a little, and make it the standard movement speed. You start at a walk and then break into a jog unless you start sprinting straight away. We make zombies always a bit faster than your standard jog, but slower than your sprint. However, no matter how much Energy you have, your Sprint is finite. Once you're below a certain Energy level, like very low, you can't run any more. Once you're at really really low Energy you can only crawl.

The "kos is inevitable, players will always KoS" mindset which some people have been putting forward in the forums really needs to be stamped out. The current situation of fully equipped players slaughtering bambis is not an accurate depiction of the want of an average player. The average player is not a griefer who joined to fuck with other people, but a person who bought DayZ to play the game, whatever it has to offer. Since at the moment the most it has to offer [unless you have a good imagination] at its highest level, after you've scavenged all your loot and travelled, is the psychological feedback you get killing other players with your military-level weapons, then what players are going to do is kill other players. Yes, le ebin master trells exist, who play almost solely to KoS. This is not a bad thing in small amounts, and adds to the game. But not every player wants to do that, they just don't have much else to do. So stop saying "KoS can't be fixed because people are assholes." It can be fixed, and gradually will: -Multi-person tasks will make players more valuable as allies. -Make zombies more attracted to a noisy "crime scene". -Tougher zombies are coming; this will make ammunition more valuable. -Zombies dropping loot and being in larger numbers and being harder to evade will make killing them more entertaining, necessary and rewarding than at present, where they are barely a threat. -Vehicles and other things will bring more stuff for bored players to do. Not everyone in DayZ is an asshole, they just have no other goals at the moment. So stop calling them assholes and have some faith in the playerbase.

Wait, what? When did I say what you quoted me as saying? Wow, you managed to combine an un-necessary lecture and hate speech in one post. Congratulations. Considering most of my post was dedicated to talking about the good nature of the majority of DayZ players, I thought I was being the opposite of sanctimonious/self-righteous. But yeah, you've been a big help in showing me the light of how much a jerk I am.

Your idea of "gunfire all around you" on the coast isn't what DayZ is meant to be at all. In the mod, you would spawn on the coast, then immediately begin crawling to avoid sight of the zombies you knew were all around you. Fear prevailed instantly, because you had the ability to, with common sense and awareness, avoid the zombies. There was no "fuck it I'm going to probably get shot so I'll sprint" attitude, because zeds were actually a genuine threat. DayZ Mod presented a great, almost perfect simulation of a zombie apocalypse, capturing what you would be spending most of your time doing if such a thing happened in real life: crouching in bushes and behind fences breathing heavily. The soundtrack added to the fear too *nolstalgia* :') With full on KoS, DayZ is becoming a SPRINT FUCKING EVERYWHERE game because sprinting/standing out in the open attracts nowhere near as much of a zombie threat. This effectively neuters the zombies, and allows a Call Of Duty situation to prevail. Zombies should be the main threat, not players. Bandits are the terrifying once-offs you encounter, guys in clown masks [or even not-so-blatant clothes] who lead a zombie horde to you, or snipe you, and are always players smart or lucky enough to avoid the zombies AND try to kill players.

Yeah, of course KoS will always be there and KoS is a good thing in regulated doses. But if the game is all PVP all day, there's no point marketing it as a zombie apocalypse game. Content can actually detract from KoS though, because as I said, there's little to do for a player with a full set of gear. He can become a medic and help new players, but help them do what? Survive to become a bandit? Or you can use your military-grade weapons to kill other player-killers, which is in itself a form of banditry. Adding more stuff to do is adding alternatives to banditry.

Buffing zombies to something crazy is obviously retarded. Buffing zombies a fair bit would make zombies, in a zombie apocalypse, an actual threat you would have to worry about just as much as the bandits. Hence less banditry. Gawsh.

Yeah, and a walkie talkie wouldn't be able to communicate with a person with no walkie-talkie. I was about to suggest this myself until I saw it in search, and have one addition: MAKE IT SPAWN RARELY. Preferably inland.

Give them bras with breasts rather than chaste undershirts and I think we have a fair trade. Titties <> beards

I really like this, actually, with a few adjustments. The things that caused them to start playing from your perspective would be the ones that change their lifestyle, e.g. the hermit running out of food. "Castaway" spawn: Lying down on the beach wet, no equipment. Will have a mild cold problem initially."Hermit" spawn: Generally in a remote bunker or cabin, with empty tins around as you said. Hunger and thirst is too prohibitive though [because navigation ain't always easy] so instead pretend they just ran fresh out of food and decided to move from their hideaway or die They will have a makeshift torch, the Cell Phone."Crash survivor" spawn: In the wreckage of a car or even helicopter, having just regained consciousness. Mild injuries, but no broken bones, just a little blood loss. Still carrying Cell Phone. Not one of those people who's been in a car crash and comatose since day one, but more a person who found a car maybe a few hours earlier and WAS driving it until they met another car/the ground.

I want to lose one eye just so that I can get a badass eyepatch. In terms of practicality, you should lose the ability to zoom in/look down sights or something when you have an eye missing.

No, it would make mundane repeat tasks much longer. Just no. What, do you want a "drink from the pipe" minigame every time you lean down to pump water? Of course you don't. Russian roulette does sound really cool though.