pillock

DayZ does sit apart from other games I've played, in terms of its scope and potential to cater to all player types. Thing is, it doesn't do that at all well yet, and it's mostly - if not entirely - down to the fact that basic survival is much too easy, and "permadeath" doesn't really exist (because you can restock from your own dead body or from previously-hoarded gear). To use Bartle's player types as an example: there is nothing for "Achievers" to achieve, beyond accumulating gear (which, in itself, is boring); there isn't a great deal to attract "Explorers" because, despite the map being large, the far-flung locations are pretty similar to each other with not much of interest in between and no challenge at all in reaching them; "communicators" can't communicate except with proximity chat, which is pretty limited in scope and usually ends in death anyway. And that leaves "Killers". I know Bartle's player types are not perfect for describing DayZ's player-base, but it's useful for illustrating the limitations of the gameplay in its current form. I don't think there is any solution that doesn't involve making, first and foremost, the individual single life your your current character actually matter to players - if you die, you need to lose everything, with no comebacks; if you can meta-game your way around permadeath, then in-game progression quickly becomes meaningless. Secondly, maintaining the single, valuable life of your current character needs to be difficult. Otherwise, why will anyone ever bother using features like farming, hunting and fishing, except for mild amusement once every blue moon? And why would anyone bother cooperating with other players they meet, except for mild amusement and the lack of other things to do? And if you can run around the entire map, visiting every location within a single play-session without much risk or required preparation or impediment at all, what's the point in having it be so large?

I also think spawn selection would be bad. But I do think that if you and your friend(s) have new characters, you should be able to group up in the server/friend selection menu, so that you both (or all) spawn in the same, random and unselected, place. If you have existing characters, it's tough shit - you have to make your way to each other's location manually.

There need to be more deer. And boar. and rabbits. And hopefully wolves and bears and perhaps game birds in future. Feral dogs would also be great. As I understand it, the numbers we see now have nothing to do with "realism", in terms of population effects on hunting. It's to do with the game not being able to handle very many of them at present due to performance considerations. It's the same issue as the zombie numbers.

I ate a man I found lying dead beneath a crane at Sveltojarsk docks. I guess he'd committed suicide. I'd only recently spawned and was hungry - seemed sensible not to waste a free meal. There weren't any immediate effects and I thought nothing of it. Forgot about it fairly quickly. The next time I logged on, though, it was night and I was creeping about the city looking for supplies when I suddenly heard the crying. It scared the living shit out of me, I don't mind saying. Because I'd forgotten about my earlier cannibalism, I thought there must be a psycho in my very close proximity, and I spent about 10 minutes hiding in a shed. Stupid game.

I think the important thing is that having negative health statuses, such as hunger or fatigue or cold should actually affect your gameplay. It shouldn't just be a bit of text at the bottom of the screen saying "I am starving" or whatever - there should be some kind of audio/visual impairment, as well as effects on the character's movement ability, in order to simulate the fact that being hungry, etc, is distracting and it does get in the way of your normal functions. And pain! Pain needs to be a thing. Again, audio/visual effects, perhaps tunnel-visioning or something, in extreme cases. Pain stops you doing stuff, it makes normal tasks harder, it distracts you from what you want to do and affects your awareness of your surroundings. "My leg hurts" doesn't cut it.

For me, this is the point. Whether or not there would be ample supplies left over, it makes for better gameplay if the 'struggle for survival' aspects are emphasised. If not, then the game is just about running and looting shooting - which gets boring. Having to constantly deal with character health problems like injury and sickness and hunger and fatigue and so on should be driving players to loot and rob and hunt and farm and forage and scavenge. It gives those gameplay elements a sense of purpose. Without the 'struggle', there's no reason for it and everything becomes a chore, or you find yourself searching around the gameworld for something to do. Why fix up a vehicle? Because it's fun to drive around? Perhaps the first couple of times, yes, but it would lose its appeal. If you need a vehicle in order to transport supplies, because you or one of your group is in a bad way, then there is purpose. Why engage in combat? Because PvP is fun? Yes, perhaps, but is that what DayZ is supposed to be? A combat sim? Personally, I hope not. If you need to use force to defend your camp, or steal supplies from another group, because your health and very survival depends on it, it gives the experience a much-needed edge - a purpose. The game needs you to have to struggle to keep your toon alive, because the other gameplay elements are pointless without it.

DayZ has essentially been, for as long as I've owned it (year and a half, maybe), a Womble simulator. You move around collecting things. Underground, overground, making good use of the things that we find, things that the everyday folks leave behind. As a survival game, the focus has GOT to shift away from collecting loot. Looting should be a means to an end, not the end itself. Survival is about careful management of your character's health. The main focus of the game should be looking after your nutrition levels, warmth, illness and injuries (these last two should be more-or-less constant problems, to varying degrees), exhaustion, fatigue and physical condition of your character. That's what survival is. Finding bits of stuff lying around and making useful tools out of it should be something you do from time to time, when needed - it shouldn't be the entire gameplay experience. We need complex, detailed character health and fitness levels that we can build up over time by making successful decisions, and will lose over time (or suddenly) by making poor decisions. That's where interesting, rewarding in-game progression needs to come from in this genre of game. It doesn't come from hoarding better equipment than the next guy.

It'd be useful if there were some way of directly exchanging items between players. Such as: stand near trading partner -> place item in hands -> perform 'exchange' gesture -> both players confirm exchange within (say) 5 seconds -> items swap places. Something like that?

Or... you don't get a bonus for doing it, but you get a malus if you don't. Simulates sleeping rough and feeling shattered in the morning. It's not that important, I don't think, but it would be quite a nice addition. Encourage people to base themselves instead of roaming around like a psychotic hobo.

Infectedinfectedinfectedinfectedinfected! A car's a car's a car. But DayZ doesn't feel right without zombies.

I like the idea of getting bonuses for logging out in a 'comfortable' place, rather than just any old where in the middle of some bush. I'd rather it had an effect on your stamina, rather than your Energised status, though, given that we're getting stamina mechanics later. Alcohol is also a good idea - quite likely to make it in, I think, given that we appear to be getting cannabis. Contrary to scriptfactory, I don't think it should increase your 'sanity'! (I don't think any kind of 'sanity' status is a good idea at all, come to think of it.) I like the idea of generating electricity - using water power or whatever else might be believable to the scenario. Less likely to get in the game, though, I think.

This is the most backward, narrow-minded, pessimistic thing I've read for ages. Congratulations and beans.

It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

I generally think the game experience would be better if most/all people used the in-game comms instead of 3rd party software. It would add to the atmosphere and authenticity of the environment and scenario. It would also be better if noone used 3rd party/out-of-game maps, or websites that tell you how to craft certain items or where best to find others. The best case scenario is that everybody in the gameworld has the same information and tools at their disposal, and they use in-game methods to gain advantages over other players or make progress in the game. The devs can't explicitly stop people using other software on their PC. But I think they should still be aiming to encourage people to use in-game systems as much as possible, because that would make the game better. The radios need to be more useful and more widely available, and there've been encouraging signs of this in the Status Reports/Devtracker recently. If in-game communication using in-game methods becomes commonplace then stuff like TS3 might actually begin to get in the way, and people might be less inclined to want to use it. I think that's all the devs can do. [What about that suggestion earlier about having Battleye refuse to launch DayZ if it detects certain other software running? Is that not feasible/ethical/legal?]

DayZ doesn't give you an explanation as to what has happened. There is no backstory, no prologue nor introduction. You wake up on a beach, not knowing where you are or how you got there or why. You don't know who you are. You don't know what has happened prior to your arrival in this place where you now find yourself. Are you from here or are you an outsider who's washed up from some shipwreck? You don't know. You have the scenario as it is, as you find it, and you can use the evidence in front of you to try and piece together some kind of explanation as to what went before. But there is no right or wrong answer, because that hasn't been written into the game's scenario. It isn't realistic or unrealistic - it just is what it is. Once you've played the game a bit, you realise that the only "survivors" are those people like you who appeared on the beach with amnesia. There are no natives; noone remembers; noone is at home in this place; noone has roots. Nobody rebuilt society after the collapse: there is evidence of some failed attempts, but noone succeeded. Why - we don't know, but that's the reality. Shops are bare. Houses are bare. People's possessions are scattered in random places, from apartment blocks to barns to industrial premises to military compounds. There seems little logic to it sometimes, but that's the reality. Don't complain that this is unrealistic, and definitely don't base that complaint on some pseudo-scientific mathematical formula that makes sweeping assumptions nonapplicable to the game in question. If you need a backstory, make one up based on what you see around you. There are good reasons for loot scarcity in DayZ - some are technical, some are gameplay-related. The possible fictional events that might lead to this situation are very open to interpretation and can be explained with a bit of imagination.

Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLhCNEpcPO4

You shall be hearing from my lawyer, sir.

Seriously, what does this jumble of random words mean? I don't want to knock anybody's English, but I think for the purposes of public communications, especially high-profile announcements like the Dev reports, somebody ought to proof-read it. That said, I understand "Fortunately it's now fixed", which I guess is the most important bit!

We're going to need hand-carts, that's for sure. If only as a means of transporting ourselves to hell.

I only use the forums for getting info on the development - I don't have a twitter account or reddit or anything. I am aware that the next Stable update, 0.57, is planned (provisionally) for next week and I expect there will be a status report to go with it, telling us what's in it and such. I don't really feel I need to know more than that for now. The best places to follow latest information for me is the Experimental thread and Devtracker. I don't see a problem with the communication.

My little brother bought it for me then forced me to pay him back, the little blighter.

Only if you used piddly thin twigs, and let your fire get really big and fierce. To cook on a fire, it's best to let it burn for a while so that the flames die down and you've got hot embers. Then you'd use some fairly sturdy branches to suspend your cooking pot (they'd need to be to hold the weight, anyway), which wouldn't get burned through before your food is cooked. It's pretty naff to have to carry around a pre-fab tripod, taking up inventory space, when you ought to be able to rig one up yourself. Hopefully they become craftable later in development.

It's better to think inside the bin with it. I wouldn't feed that shit to my dog.

Melee combat with zombies is teeth-grindingly, mouse-throwingly, shit-losingly frustrating. They just zoom around you like a fucking bluebottle and are near impossible to hit. I have completely given up "practicing" this particular "skill" on the assumption that both zombies and melee combat in general will be fixed sooner or later, thereby rendering the process of getting better at fighting them a complete waste of time. Besides, they are incredibly easy to avoid/ignore, since they are so unobservant and unreactive now, so long as you don't fire a gun anywhere near them.

That is the friendliest, most polite thing I have ever seen Grimey Rick post on this forum. Congrats to the OP.