Scerun

I'm with you on the first half, for the most part. the second part I strongly disagree. The only way I see the deathmatching being solved is when better in-game communications are made available that can help better establish that very basic level of trust between players. Until then, it's shoot or be shot, because hell, i'll not be getting within spitting distance of that guy just because he might want to work together (often, he'll shoot oyu on sight because he'll have the same "shoot or be shot" mentality). Communication is key! Without it, you are just better off shooting/avoiding every other player where and when possible. Oh, and i'm not talking about a global chat. Teams/bandit skins/self-destruct-pc-after-pking/blahblah are arbitary stamps and labels nullifying an otherwise extremely interesting and fun (read: FUN) part of the game.

I'd love this so veryily much

the fuck isnt this in the game already

What the fuck is a twinkie? The closest i've come to seeing a twinkie is when the black cop was eating one in that Die Hard film

This is really interesting. It would certainly add more to the game that goes beyond the "Okay. I need a gun. Okay, now some beans. Okay. now to shoot other players now that I have nothing that needs to be done." Plus the potential emergent gameplay you talk of would be great. furthermore, anyone bitching about "durrnoantibioticsspawns" is stupid. That can be tweaked incredibly easily. If there were other obectives available that pertained to self-preservation -SURVIVAL - that went beyond shoot-on-sight, i'd certainly welcome it.

Yeah I just did a little sick in my mouth

Not so sure. I think things such as the range finder, Binoculars should have to be either/or, not both. While being able to put the torch on your toolbelt was a move forward, I don't think this has any benefit to the game. I don't consider having to make less choices between what you want a benefit, in this scenario.

Yeah this is a great idea. The more sounds the better. Giving players a better perspective of their immediate environment is crucial.

Yeah. Barbed wire needs to have a way to get rid of it. You shouldn't be able to pull it apart with your bare-hands. Maybe a toolbox or something. Atleast with sandbags you can vault over them.

While I completely agree that communication -is- key to game communities, I feel that side chat detracted a lot from the experience of Dayz. Instead of reintroducing a pervasive global chat, we would see alternatives such as radios in the future. Short range communications between players need to significantly better, too. Better communication at face-level, that build up a very basic level of trust (E.g. Will this guy shoot my face off?) will prevent a lot of KoSing, and will slowly build a community through face-to-face interaction. This sort of community building would be far stronger than frail global chats that are prone to being trolled.

I see more people using voice chat recently, which is great. It can get a bit problematic when there are a group of you in excess of 4. You're all trying to have separate conversations with another guy, but you still need to be in range of the others incase something goes wrong. I figure that if volume of voice chat was affected by distance, it would help scenarios such as that. Your friend next to you is loud, whilst the other guys chatting 60 m ahead are significatly quieter. Ofcourse, there are a few other implications to this that could add to the game experience. Say you hear some quiet voices in the distance, maybe they're chatting about beans, or maybe they're talking all sinisterly. You current can't tell if they're chatting right on the other side of the wall, or are the entire 80m away. A small feature such as this could change the way players interact with eachother, strangers, stealth and tactics. It could work for the better. Something of a similar nature could be implemented for text chat, too.

Whoa, this would be so fucking cool!

Was waiting for someone to make a topic about this (being too lazy). When there was the bug with absolutely ZERO food, a new found friend and I had new objectives that caused us to really explore the game and PLAY the game as a survival. No longer were we thinking "Hey, let's shoot that guy and take his frank and beans!" - because we knew he would unlikely have anything. We were completely focused on finding food and water - mostly water. We would delve into the dangerous parts of town and root through god damned everything to find supplies. No longer just a case of nipping into Chero to get the goods and getting the hell outta there. We had to stay or else we'd perish. We didn't care about a new gun, or more ammo, or a car. We just wanted sustenance. Ofcourse, we knew where we could inevitably find food. Animals could be found, we;d ust need to root about a bit more to find some tools, after we'd got a water bottle or some coke. Then the interesting dynamic came. We realised that zombies drop loot. We had to dispatch small groups of zombies whenever we could. Not farming them, no. We didn't have much ammo so it was something very considered. We found a water bottle and two cokes to share between us and went on our merry way to hunt animals. Usually I get bored of finding them after 10 minutes, but we spent 45 minutes scouring fields (in the pitch black, might I add) hoping we'd find an animal. This made the game really great fun. People were concerned with surviving, and the water bottle became the number one thing we wanted. Would Rocket perhaps consider purposely recreating a world like this, where again, there is so very little sustenance to be found?

I was about to outright disagree with your sentiment, but noticed that it was more aimed at -individual- zombies inflicting such massive damage. Your solution makes a lot of sense, and I reckon would make the game more fun; four zombies stomping on me and I'd happily accept that I'm pretty much guaranteed to get a broken leg.

It's not human nature. It's human nurture.

I just sicked. Why does everyone have to think "what's in it for me?" for absolutely every damned thing they do.

WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

Thanks for taking the time to repost this. It's a really great notion and I'd love to see it in the future

I was thinking of this last night. It would be very cool. efinitely add to the atmossphere of the game, I reckon

Very cool idea

While I agree with the notion, I feel that there should be a bit further consideration. I think that yes, weapon spawns should be lower, but not -too- much lower. Yes, I want it to be a big deal when I find a gun, but I want to be able to find one. What will take this to the extent you're talking about is -ammo-. If ammo is scarce, there won't be a time when we have no gun at all, it'll just be no ammo. Which is just as bad. I should feel that if I want to survive, that I need to drop this m16a2 that I love, which ran out of ammo 30 minutes ago, and pick up this winchester which only has half a round of bullets available. Or drop my Uzi for this Makarov. These are the kinds of decisions that will make the game fun. If there are no guns at all, it'll be frustrating. If there -are- guns, just with next to no ammo. That'll be fun.

I like the idea, but perhaps not so much an implementation exactly like this. I get that it's just speculation, so let's speculate: I feel that a higher death penalty system would work better, if certain frustrations with death are dealt with beforehand. Once you nullify the experience of unfairness when you die (For example, zombies hitting you through a wall, their super speed, other player communication break-downs resulting in utter KoS-play. I don' find it frustrating to die, mind, as I feel it's great fun looting new gear - the challenge - which is why I don't entirely sympathise with those clan-guys who farm NWAF and have shoot outs with the enemy gang encroaching their turf...Those who'd feel that this system you mention is bullshit.

Whoa. My mind has been blown. WHAT IF YOU COULDN'T? Now that there's an interesting notion. GET SOME TEST SERVERS UP IMMEDIATELY FOR THIS.

I just sicked