finnpalm

When it comes to community management the story of World of Tanks comes to mind. World of Tanks was originally budgeted for a market of 600 000 users, in Russia and neighbouring countries. Last year they passed the 60 million mark and hold the Guiness World Record of "most concurrent users on one server". The game grew bigger and faster than Wargaming.net could imagine, and needless to say their community management was chaos for a long while. They were a small studio and didn't know how to handle such a large player base, nor did they have the resources in manpower to do so. They tried to catch up by expanding with offices and community managers in different areas of the world to deal with the respective player bases (as different areas of the world needs to be managed differently). It took them quite a while to get there. I'm not sure how it is today, but I do remember the vast work they had to put into it. DayZ might have grown larger than Bohemia expected, and they might not have considered the different approach that is needed when it comes to managing a larger player base as opposed to a smaller one. Hopefully they realise they need to work on this before it gets even more out of hand. The sooner they realise this the less work will be needed to deal with it, and the less disgruntled players they will have. On a related note World of Tanks also had trouble getting their patches out in time for quite a while. They often missed deadlines and updates were delayed by weeks. Nowadays as I understand it they have quarter yearly patches.

Or at least make a list of things they specifically want tested so that those of us that really want to help get an idea of what to do. Like for example if there are problems with spray painting the fire axe and they let us know that, those who want to help can focus on getting cans of spray paint and run around spray painting every fucking axe they can find. That would save us testers some time and energy.

Just to clarify, they don't have a team working only on zombie pathfinding. They have a team brought in to work on the hunting system, which includes pathfinding for animals, and they will be looking at the zombies as well.

Well, I understand that stealth is something that's being worked on already, and there have been suggestions about different "types" of infected with different characteristics here in the forums, so let's just hope they consider those suggestions. And pathfinding, well.. let's not

I'm pretty sure he meant "die in-game". Not irl. Please, don't kill yourself. ;)

When I get cornered in a house by infected I usually just get a table or something between me and them and Benny Hill around it and then dart out. Or I close the door after me when I enter.

They don't respawn indefinitely.

I think that when pathfinding is fixed, and if zombies are made to spawn out of sight, the respawning system is the only way to allow for large numbers of infected. People who ask for large numbers forget that it puts a strain on the server to keep track of large hordes if they all "exist" at the same time. While if they respawn you'd get the feeling of larger numbers, although there would only exist a few at a time. So I'll repeat what I've said about respawning out of sight again (because since pathfinding is already worked on that doesn't need to be adressed). Have the game track players' line of sight, and spawn the infected behind bushes, trees, buildings, walls and so on. If the player is in the middle of an open field with tall grass, have the infected spawn with a "standing up from prone" animation, as if they were lying around in the grass (which will allow the player to see the infected while it's standing itself up, and have a chance to put some distance between it and them if needed). Spawning behind a player like some games do should be avoided and might not be the best way to do it, since it can ruin immersion if you're turning fast and one second it's clear behind you and the next there's an infected there. Now if this is done, I don't care if the infected are fast, aggressive, strong and downright bloody dangerous. I want the game to be damn difficult, rather than a literal walk in the park.

True. But it has something to do with what has been suggested here about how to simulate factoring in aspects of aiming into the game.

Come to think of it.. How about actually having a key that you press and your toon takes a pinch of dust or grass from the ground and tosses it up and you have to actually figure out what direction the wind is blowing by looking at it? That would make it a great deal more hard core than arrows showing up on the screen (no offense meant), and more immersive as well.

However much I'd love for wind to be a factor when shooting in-game, I can't see how it can be implemented in a good way. When I shoot certain weapon systems irl, I nab a pinch of dust or grass from the ground and toss it up to see where the wind is roughly blowing. How would you suggest something like that to be implemented into the game? You need to be able to tell where the wind blows if it's an affecting factor.

So, this: "Many players have outlined how much the mouse acceleration/controls need to be modified. Players head (view) will move instantly with raw 1:1 mouse feedback. Weapons may “lag behind” depending on how heavy and cumbersome the weapon is. For example, players with a pistol will be able to turn around and fire much faster than a player with a M4, or a chainsaw." and this: "and sweep through and tweek some of the firearm cfg values." found here: http://dayzdev.tumblr.com/post/81688020510/a-very-busy-couple-of-weeks-for-the-whole-team-has Thoughts?

It would be nice if the baseball cap could be seen in first person view, and actually blocked the sun accordingly. The trade off is that you can't use the hat slot for a helmet and such, and the bonus is that when the sun is high in the sky, around noon, the cap blocks the sun's direct rays and the bloom that follows. What do you think of the idea?

Often doors actually squeek less if you open them really fast and more if you open them slowly.

Excellent suggestion.

I would love if sunglasses actually helped a bit against the sun bloom, and deteriorated as you describe.

Well, hopefully they'll see this thread and consider changing to a system where the weapons and scopes are accurate (in pristine condition) and instead add multiple factors that ruin your ability to aim properly. I've grown to like that idea more and more.

This thread is really going places. I like the suggestions for a more true to life accuracy of a weapon, and instead simulating difficulty aiming down the sights as several different posters have suggested. I also liked the suggestion someone made about a mechanic from another game where you could "bind" your weapon to surfaces for increased support and ability to aim correctly. I've been thinking however, what if the devs actually want to smooth out the differences between skilled players and less skilled players? Maybe they don't want the gun play to require skill? It's not completely unthinkable considering comments on how the game stirs up emotions in people. Maybe they try to follow up on that and move the game in that direction? Or maybe they plan to put in an experience system, where the game rewards you in some way, making your character better at certain tasks the longer you stay alive and the more you perform those same tasks? Or both? Just thoughts. I don't have any answers.

I've shot assault rifles at 300 m. I don't think your friend is lying, but maybe there's some miscommunication there. If you had said optics or 100 m I would have believed you. Iron sights at 300, no. Just no. EDIT: Actually, I take that back. I'm mixing up the sizes of the different coins. He might be able to put them that close, but if he does that consistently he's probably one of the top shots there.

With iron sights or optics?

All engines have limits to how far away you can render something, how fast an object can move and so on. While you may be correct in that Real Virtuality 3 can render things further away than 1 km (I don't really know), that does sound a bit far. It would be nice with an official word on what limits the engine has.

Wikipedia only covers some of the background to the zombie concept. I'm gonna have to get back to you after the weekend however. I'll provide you with some neat history, and you'll see what I mean. EDIT: Note that I perfectly respect your preferences when it comes to what you think a zombie should be like. All I'm saying is that there are several different variants of zombies, all different, but all are zombies.

Yet, zombies can vary in appearance (not only physical). You might prefer the slow, stumbling type of zombie. Someone else might prefer faster and superhuman zombies. The genre is very broad, and the reason for this can be found in the background of the "zombie" concept, which touches a large number of old folklore and mythologies from various places. The actual name "zombie" is a later construction.

According to other forum members. Not devs.

Just playing with a thought here. What if their goal is to make the gunplay frustrating? Apparently, according to other people on the forum, it's neither meant to be a sim, nor realistic.