DaveyTheElder

This is ridiculous. If you don't feel mad about games, do you feel happy? Why do you play them? You're telling me that you wouldn't be upset if this happened to you? This game relies on the collection of loot, and the loss of loot associated with death to have the impact it has on players. Do you think that the game shouldn't have this impact? Maybe chat rooms are a better place for you to make your memories.

Locking players to single servers will happen as soon as any server specific structures of permanence are added. If there are bases, or vehicles, people are much more likely to stay on one server. Vehicles can't work exactly as they did in the Mod however because in a world where you don't spend all your time, you have to be able to lock things up.

How do people feel about a liberal policy of disarmament for lowering KOS? I imagine that could be controversial? Very few weapons, very little ammo, base building, defensive strategies abound. Only the ultra powerful are armed.

Why are you guys all being so unpleasant? I understand why Helicopter Hunter likes this idea, but I do think that, if you read my post about Mind/body(avatar) relationships, you will see the problem. In a linear game, the game makers want to be able to tell their own story, and since you usually play as the main character they have to give your character, a personality. Since you are playing as someone else, it makes sense then that they might suffer from psychological maladies. However, in a game without a story, where you are playing a character of your own creation, the MIND of your AVATAR is your mind. You even speak as your player in game. It makes no sense to create a mind of your avatar, and separates your relationship to that avatar.

Well, Helicopter hunter, As I see it, the trouble with including psychological maladies in day z is that YOUR mind is the mind of your AVATAR. Your avatar does not have a mind or emotions that can be effected by your actions, YOU are the mind and your body is your avatar. That is the basic relationship. When I speak of what I am doing in Day z, I don't say, "My character is heading to zeleno," I say, "I"m going to zeleno." Me and my body, are going to zeleno. With psychological effects added, the question becomes, "who is the person suffering psychological effects?" Who is it?

Helicopter Hunter, I think what has made your idea so unappealing to everyone is that it completely breaks the existing reality of the game. How would this idea of yours make any sense in a Godless world, in a world without positions of authority outside of yourself, in a world without some kind higher power, a Big Brother, a corporate omnipresence watching and recording everything you do. Your idea is exactly the kind of thing that DOESN'T exist in an apocalypse. It breaks the "fourth wall," and demonstrates that, in fact, a game maker is running the show. In short, it is fundamentally destructive to the Day z universe.

Totally. The best way to survive is to avoid gun fights all together, avoid being seen, and to eliminate all threats whenever you have the positional authority to do so. Never stay still after you fire, and always move within and to cover. But I think what a lot of people want out of Day z, is a game where there are more positive social interactions with strangers. When this happens in Day z, it is really a unique and wonderful experience. However, I don't think that there is a simple and desirable game mechanic that can "fix" the "KOS mentality," other than to DRAMATICALLY reduce the presence of ranged weapons/ammo. If there was a low chance that another player could kill you easily, then the incentives for killing any player "on sight," could be lowered enough to eliminate the "KOS problem." This actually might be a good idea, and might be fun, especially if there were a lot more things to do in the game, but ATM, there is shit all to do if you remove collecting weapons and attachments/ worrying about, or shooting up fellow survivors. The trouble with day z's "KOS mentality" is the trouble with all extra-societal human interactions in which both parties can reasonably suspect that the other party is armed. If there is no law, then each person must protect themselves, and the best and most fool proof way to do this is to eliminate all threats, and EVERYONE represents a threat. The only types of interactions in Day z which do not regularly lead to KOS are encounters between the unarmed, or the dramatically mismatched. This is because in both of these situations, threat is not felt from both parties, in order for KOS to make sense (other than from boredom and having just found a long range scope,) BOTH parties must be able to threaten the other. If you don't want to be killed on sight. Avoid being seen, and don't carry a weapon :) sound fun? That's not the game, that's human nature that the game reflects and this is the best part of day z

I do not think that this is the direction that Day Z is heading, Alpha or otherwise. Skill Trees are enormously complicated and I doubt that they could be grafted on-top of the existing mechanics. I really don't think anyone at Bohemia has an appetite for this either. It seems clear that the over-arching design aesthetic for Day Z is one of minimalism as an means toward "immersion." Bohemia and Dean Hall are always trying to remove the game, from the game. They don't have health bars, they have text updates on how you feel. Whether Skill trees could be done with this same minimalist aesthetic is up for debate, but in the past, skill trees and skill progression have been part of a very different maximalist design aesthetic that Day Z seems to be a reaction against. That said, I think you bring up a very interesting point about the effect that Skill trees and player-progression would have in the Day Z mechanics. I had never thought of this before. On the other hand, I had never thought of the lack of attachment to the life of my character to be a problem before. When you say, " You are Jack, you heard DayZ is a survival game. You start playing it. You find some gear, food and everything you need to survive. You run around in unpopulated areas so you don't get killed. You do that for 5 hours. Boring. Why are you doing it? There is no point is surviving. You decide to go to the coast and experience something exciting. YOU ARE DEAD. You respawn. " I think you bring up a good point. It is boring to run around the woods and avoid danger, but this problem is not solved by the introduction of skill trees. When I get rich in Day Z, I feel a very strong pull to avoid danger, to hide, play safe, trust no one, and keep all my great gear. The trouble is, this way of playing the game is super boring. Conflict and danger are more interesting than safety and peace. Without getting into WHY this is, or how this could be made better, I just want to point out that the introduction of character progression and skill trees would, as you say, increase the incentive to "play it safe," and "survive," but would not do anything to increase the fun of playing in this manner. To make survival more fun, so much about DAYZ must be different, that what we are talking about is not how Day Z should be different, but about an entirely different game.