nhdkiller93

They should not reimplement arma 2 ballistics. THEY SHOULD BE USING ARMA 3'S BALLISTICS SYSTEM. Reason: it is by far the most realistic weapon ballistics system in any game i have played. from the weapon sway, recoil, all the way to the effect of the wind and bullet drop. while going back to arma 2 would still be an upgrade. It is no where near that of arma 3's amazing feat of realistic weaponry.

There i was, tracking an unlucky soul who caught my attention as i roamed the plains of western chernarus. i follow him for a while, playing the "hunter" game, remaining in the shadows, but following him no matter which direction he went. Soon though, we reach a treeline, i race to keep up, constantly losing sight of my prey, relocating, then losing as he went behind a tree, or bush. Eventually, i lost track of him. I had an idea of what direction he had gone, but without any physical indication of where he was heading, the trail was lost. So i thought to myself, why aren't there footprints? Now i know what most of you are going to say, "it would lag up the game", "there would be footprints all over the place", "rable rable rable rable" well, what i would like to suggest is adding a system for footprint using the environment, weather, ect, to determine the duration of how long they would last, and weather they would show up in the first place. for example, footprints would not show up on concrete, asphalt surfaces, unless, the player had just been running through mud, and even then, footprints would cease after a certain distance. Or, if it was raining, they would wash away, disappear, within a certain time frame. And for roaming the woods, footprints would appear, yes, in a straight line trailing the player, but over time, different sections of that "trail" would begin to deteriorate. So while you are following the footsteps of a person, it wouldn't be a straight line straight to them, but rather a puzzle of the sort. You follow his footsteps, they stop, then you must look around for another set of footprints that at one time connected to the ones you were following. And the sections that would deteriorate would be at random, so while you are following a set, the trail could vanish, only to be rediscovered 1/2 mile down the path. What this would do is add a sense of "player tracking", without drawing a straight line to the player. IMO it would open up countless possibilities, as far as how people would act while hiking in the woods, are you the one that looks toward the ground, tracking other players, or are you the one looking behind you trying to conceal your trail as best as possible. or, are you the type of player who wanders the woods, gathering supplies from survivors you track and engage? Also, while i don't believe it would fully curb the camping/kos in major towns, it would spread players across the map more. spawn on the beach? there would be the footprints of numerous fresh spawns, pick a set, and begin to follow, those disappear, only then you find another set and begin to follow them, leading you deeper and deeper into the map. just got in a fight with someone, only to have them run off? you'd be able to follow his trail, and sooner or later (or never) catch up with him. Your hiking through the woods, you spot some footprints, and decide to follow them, not knowing where they lead, you continue to follow them for miles till you reach another players camp, and well, we all know what could happen then. lost your buddy? how intense would it be to follow your buddies footprints from his last known location, only to find them stop at his dead body. These are just some examples of how they could completely alter the way we play dayz. Now, I know this idea would take much more thought to make plausable, and that it would take some time to implement and get right. it would add to the Immersive nature of dayz, especially on hardcore servers. and hell, if people dont like it, they can make it only for hardcore. Just an idea, would love some CONSTRUCTIVE feed back/additional ideas. no trolling, or unhelpful/useless comments. I wanna hear would you guys think, we are, anyways, all part of this great community.

thats another thing, it would make hunting (confirmed) much more realistic. cause idk bout other people, but the couple times iv gone hunting with a buddy, first thing we looked for were tracks.

after thinking about it alittle more, i thought of the same thing, make it based on a % depending on the type of surface.

There is only 1 rifle suitable for the zombie apocalypse. And that if the SKS. IMO =)

or eat a bad can of beans and start seeing zombies which arent there O.o

that'd be gnarly.

A 30 year old can get a heart attack by eating too much mcdonalds, drinking too much soda, and running long distances without rest.

nah, i seen it too, thought it was the affect of a bad can of beans i ate earlier.

what if your a badass and keep running?

Or when you try running from nwaf to cherno. idk bout you, but im pretty sure an average human being would keel over after running 5km at a full sprint.

should use used arma 3 weapon ballistics.

if they are, they dont last very long. im talking about persistent footprints that would allow tracking and such.

Best fix, ADD MORE ZOMBIES. make it to where the person doing the killin has to think "well, ok, i could kill this guy, but then ill have 50 zombies on my ass."

i think they should stick solely with civilian cars/trucks. but add some extremely rare military transport vehicles.

i think they should of used altis =P

no sir, you get over yourself. exactly where was i stating that vehicles should be priority? please point it out Mr. smart man. and YOU are WRONG, because if you take a look back to famous, well known zombie apocalypse movies, or any authentic apocalypse movie (well, as authentic as it can be, since no one knows what the apocalypse will be like) cars are everywhere. even years after the initial outbreak. and in REALITY, which obviously is a hard thing for you to grasp, cars need operators in order to move. well, with no people around to operate them, exactly where would they magically make off to hmm? answer that one for me smartman. broken down, destroyed, covered in plant life, rusted ect. but they are still very much there. So yes, REALISTICALLY there would be an abundance of vehicles, just not WORKING vehicles. Obviously you lack the ability to think logically. and the fact that you took the post out of context, without really knowing what the hell your talking about, shows that you were simply here only to troll. well, if your going to troll, go read a book or something, gain some knowledge, that way you actually know what your talking about rather than spitting out senseless BS.

imo, there should be an abundance of vehicles. think about it, if a zombie apocalypse happened, cars wouldn't simply "disappear" there would be cars everywhere, littering streets, parked in driveways, ect. would all of them necessarily run? well of course not. but they would be there, available to whom ever may be able to get them running. say you stumble across a farm house with a truck parked outside, only, it has no gas. well, logically, if one was able to obtain gasoline, one would also be able to use the truck. same goes for if it had a faulty engine, if one could scavenge the parts (which would be much more difficult than simply finding gas) for that vehicle, and fix it up, it would be usable. what im trying to say is, even with an abundance of vehicles, not all of them would be usable. as would be the case in RL, givin the situation. parts would be scarce, requiring much time and effort in order to obtain. Also, you would have to know what you were doing when fixing them (Ex. requiring a manual of some sort depending on the car), cause lets face it, not everyone knows how to fix cars. if they were able to implement some sort of similar system ingame, not everyone would have cars, only those who devoted the time and effort into gathering the necessary parts and knowledge. it would also make use of the misc. books and such, give incentive to actually look for certain ones. it's just my opinion on the whole vehicle argument goin on in the thread.

this isn't call of duty, IT SHOULD BE 1 SHOT KILL UNLESS YOUR SHOT IN THE LIMBS. even then, a gunshot wound is going to bleed out rather fast. The point is to not get shot. if people could get shot 3-4 times without dying it would ruin the tense atmosphere that comes with firefights. The only way you shud be able to survive that many gunshots is if you have some sort of body armor/ballistics helmet. even then, your chances of surviving a volley of rounds hitting you should be very low.