BeefBacon

I have no issue with gamma only being something you have to set before you start playing. However, that wouldn't really fiix the issue. People could just set the gamma so that it's not too bright for day, and not too dark for night - or they could just change their monitor or video settings. The third-party solutions mean there'll always be gamma exploits. Limiting the degree to which we can alter gamma would make it less convenient, but it wouldn't do much to actually address the issue. I don't know what can be done about it. Perhaps we could discuss other solutions.

Still fixed. Protector cases protect the items inside. I put a stick of morphine and bandages in mine, plus maybe some spare ammo and a magazine if I have one. Sometimes you can win a fight and still bleed out because your bandages got ruined, or you won't be able to reload because your other magazine got ruined. So yeah, handy to be able to protect emergency items.

Yeah I've seen a ton of animation glitches, though they're not quite as bad as they were in .59. I often see my mate running around without moving his legs - sometimes he's crouched when he says he's standing, hands by his side when he says he's aiming his gun. I expect this is a similar issue. I expect, or I hope, it'll be resolved by the new animation system. Great video.

Simple but functional. Nothing wrong with that.

No. Regardless of how many posts somebody has made, or the rep that they have, if an idea is good then it will be supported. If an idea is flawed then it will be criticised - that's just the way of it. People with more posts and more rep are more likely to be better received because they, typically, understand the game and the community better than the people who are new and so are more likely to post things that the community will agree with. I don't think people make a pre-judgement. People don't automatically like something that a forum regular has posted, and they don't automatically discredit something a new person has posted. The issue that people are having with you is that you've stormed into a thread talking about something that isn't even related to the topic, and then declared that nobody likes your ideas before anybody has even responded to you. Then, when people do respond, you declare that your idea only got criticised because you've not been around very long, even though nobody outright disagreed with you at any point - they, we, just pointed out a few flaws with your idea. People are trying to facilitate a discussion - even though this isn't the thread for it - but you act as though everyone is waving burning torches and pitchforks. Chill. Whyherro at no point implied that his opinion was worth more than yours. What he said is that he is very well known for being strongly in favour of the more survival-focused aspect of DayZ. Tanning leather, hunting animals, making fires, stuff like that. Others might be more interested in finding the most kitted M4 that they can, getting into an Apache gunship and levelling Cherno with rockets. Both are perfectly valid. I, as most players do, sit somewhere in the middle. So when he brings up the fact that he is very well known for sitting on one end of the spectrum rather than the other, and then you accuse him of only being interested in suggestions revolving around military-grade weapons, he corrected you... and you interpret that as "I'm right because I have more posts than you." Hell, he agreed with you when you mentioned that fuel pumps don't work without power. So yeah. Relax. Maybe post something related to the actual topic. You could even post your own thread regarding power plants and such - as I said before I'd be in favour of hydroelectric dams. I suspect Whyherro would be against hydroelectric dams for reasons he's outlined - realism and authenticity is something Parazight touched on, which is a recurring theme in DayZ discussions. People won't just discredit me because Whyherro has more rep, they'll judge me based on whatever arguments I make. Make a good argument, respecting authenticity and realism and gameplay implications, and people will at the very least respect your opinion, even if they don't agree with it. Being generally rude (by posting something completely unrelated on somebody else's thread, for one example) isn't the way to go. - Rocket, years ago, mentioned flowing rivers. I don't expect it's something that's incredibly hard to implement - in its most basic form it'd be little more than a scrolling water texture. Plenty of games have done it in various ways. I don't expect there'd need to be water physics or anything over-complicated like that. I'm hoping they add at least one wide river that only has a couple of bridges over it, but lots of little streams would be wonderful too.

You're all over the place. He said you can't power a city on a small generator - I'm sure you'd agree with that. You also can't just 'turn on' a power plant. However, there are a number of dams throughout the map, so maybe hydroelectric power could come into play - or maybe the devs will add wind turbines - who can say? I mean, before Whyherro was talking about changes in terrain, and then you go off about electrical grids? That's not even the topic. Just relax. You came into this thread hyper-defensive before anybody even responded to you. Flickering lights would be cool, sure, but I can't see why they'd exist. If there's no power then lights don't just come on for no reason. You've experienced power cuts, surely? Blackouts? There's not a lone street light flickering ominously when that happens. If people want to use a genny to light up a few street lights then I say go for it. If the devs want to have dams provide power, then that sounds like a cool idea. That's not the topic, though.

I think it's something I'd like to see trialled, maybe in experimental. Another way could be to, perhaps, punish the player for suicide, or even death in general. In 7 Days to Die when you first log in you have 100 health. You can increase your health cap by eating, drinking, staying warm and so on. The higher your current health cap, the harder it is to increase it further. However, when you die your health cap is lowered by 10 for a bare minimum of 60. With the new player skills, maybe this is something that can be looked into. You spawn with a base skill level in all skills - let's call it 0. You can increase these skills by performing them (as is planned) but death will decrease these skills. If your skill level is higher than 0 (in anything), death will decrease your skill level to 0. If you have no skills above level 0, death will will decrease your skill level into the negatives, making all tasks more difficult to perform. While this could potentially punish players who are simply bad at the game, or who just have shitty luck, it would certainly deter players from killing themselves for a better spawn or from trying their luck at knocking out a geared player with their fists. Obviously, the lower your skill level, the easier it is to increase it - but players who let their level drop too low will be at a serious disadvantage, and will have to put a lot of work in to get back up to 0. There could maybe be a buffer, maybe allow for one death at the base skill level before it drops into the negatives.

I don't like the idea of 'biomes'. Also, mountains are pretty freaking big, you'd need most of the map to lead up to the peak. There are rarely any major geographic changes over a short distance in real life. Terrain is pretty dull for the most part. The differences across different parts of Chernarus are small but noticeable. Up north are cliffs and woodland. The middle is dominated by open plains and patches of trees. As you get near the coast the terrain becomes forested and quite hilly. A crater caused by a nuclear weapon would be massive, and I expect that any radiation wouldn't be lethal enough to instantly kill. If it was then nothing in Chernarus would survive. Chemical weapons, maybe, but then Tisy will pretty much fill the role of a contaminated area. There are already lakes, and if you look around you can see what will probably one day become actual flowing rivers. Caves I like and more evidence that there was military or civilian resistance to the infection (and each other) would also be nice - though the devs have done a pretty good job so far. I'd like to see more interesting landmarks along the roads, though, as most of the focus has been around cities. In regards to cities looking unique, I think it'd be nice if each major town/city had one or two unique structures. Residential buildings will look the same wherever you go - it's not like there are distinct architectural differences between villages in real life, even villages on opposite ends of a country (let alone a county or region). However, if each major town had a building that only that town had, that'd be pretty cool. Maybe a unique town hall, or a unique hospital or police station - like the provincial police headquarters or something.

Your character does this to communicate the fact that you've logged out. Just going prone does not communicate that, and would also facilitate combat logging. If you get shot at you could just go prone behind a low wall, and yo'd have a good chance of getting out alive since nobody is terribly likely to push you if they can't see you. If your character stands up and sits down and so on then it makes combat logging considerably more difficult. Just hide in a tree. If you think you might be being followed then wait a minute before logging. If you have to, I don't know, answer the door or something then I guess do your best to hide and hope it'll turn out okay.

No. Working together is something that should be encouraged by game mechanics and the difficulty of the game, not the threat of hallucinations or some random debuff. DayZ isn't like the trailer for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the game isn't even finished yet, and probably won't be finished for quite some time. Current player interactions will likely change drastically over the course of development. Secondly, it's a trailer. Most game trailers are not exactly representative of the actual game. Hell, I design game trailers as a freelancer - the aim is to make the game look as good as possible and that often involves setting up a scenario that, odds are, you'll rarely, if ever, actually see play out in-game. This is especially true of multiplayer games. I mean, there could be a 30-minute uncut trailer of a player running across the map only for it to end in *CRACK* "You are dead" but that wouldn't be especially interesting. No doubt the devs want as many people to have that 'trailer experience' as possible, but that won't happen until the game is, you know, finished.

I'd love to see more about decals and shadows from dynamic lights. Will these shadows be impossible to disable? I certainly hope so, since keeping them off would only confer an advantage. Are we talking actual, proper decals or the Arma 2 method of simply changing the player's skin so it has blood on it? Will there be a decal limit? I assume there'll be bullet decals, will we have blood decals? How long will they last? I'd love to visit a military base that has evidence of a recent - or not so recent - fight.

Is this screen shake upon the injury (get shot, screen shakes) or is it constant? Because there is no way I'd be pro-screen shake if it was anything other than extremely temporary. I think when you're extremely injured or in a lot of pain it'd be cool if a low pass filter was applied, making the audio muffled. A change to screen brightness could be cool as well. A few years back I broke my arm and I remember I was okay to begin with - I was in a lot of pain - but I was more or less fine. After a few minutes, however, I had to sit down because I almost passed out - I remember seeing lots of colour and bright lights. Simulating shock, rather than just pain, would be a great touch - even if the effects only become apparent after a few minutes. Current damage models are a little wack. I imagine they'll tweak the numbers when the new player controller is in. I don't think it should be entirely realistic, however. Almost every time I've been shot at I've not seen my attacker. Weapons are extremely accurate. A few days ago I was happily running along when I got shot at by either a RAK or a Scorpion. One round hit me in the chest, which probably would have killed me in real life - and that wouldn't be especially fun. It can take a long time to gear up in DayZ, and I'm not especially keen on being one-shot by just about any weapon you can get your hands on - as realistic as that might be. it's fine in, say, Red Orchestra because you respawn and you are instantly back in the fray. Not so in DayZ, so there needs to be a little bit of leeway there - though not surviving-a-Winchester-shot-at-point-blank leeway.

That doesn't mean there are 40 patches left. There could be more. There could be less. The devs aren't going to get to patch, I don't know, .89 and then realise they've finished, so they go "quick, let's release 11 1kb patches so we can get to 1.0". They're not going to get to 1.0, realise it isn't finished and then just release it because "it's 1.0, that means it's done!" There have been 30-odd versions so far - .28 was the first EA version. The rate that updates have been released has varied greatly. There have been weeks that have seen two new versions. There have been months that haven't seen any. .60 has introduced a massive component to DayZ. The next few versions will add more massive components - the audio engine, player controller, new AI and so on. Development seems slow because new features are reliant on these massive projects. Now that these projects are nearing implementation we will start seeing tangible progress in the core game. You've taken the time it's taken so far, and then you've decided that 1.0 is the end point, so you've filled in the gaps assuming that development will progress at its current rate - a rate that you know is severely slowed for reasons I've outlined. A statistician you are not. In regards to the OP, I didn't address the guts thing before. If doing it pretty much guarantees disease, I don't see why not. Then again, the zombies aren't undead, they're infected - that doesn't mean they're stupid. They're not rotting corpses, so I don't see why covering yourself in rotting corpse would be an effective disguise.

...I don't think you get it. You can skin and eat players. You can skin and eat animals. He's saying we should be able to skin and eat zombies. I personally don't see the point. Lore-wise, if there is a lore, zombie flesh should be so tainted it'd be lethal to eat. I mean, I don't have any particular problem with it, I just don't know what it'd add to the game. Agreed.

Yup, we got my dad a little cider press a while back. Made really nice cider. I imagine making cider without a press wouldn't be too too difficult, but it'd be cool if it was an actual item. Stuff like relaxation is sort of an abstract concept, though. Our character is only as stressed as we are, and I'm not sure how the idea of stress would be put across - maybe the same way as all other statuses, I suppose. I don't like the idea of sleeping, or at least I hate the way games like Rust do sleep. Drugs that provide a buff/debuff would be good. Maybe increased pain resistance for increased water consumption or increased risk of infection or something. It's gamey, but DayZ is a game after all.

That was pretty good. Watched to the end. Best to post videos in the gallery, though. https://forums.dayz.com/forum/81-gallery/

I could get behind that. I'd maybe simplify the things you can gather, but I do like the idea of waste products. They shouldn't be entirely useless (bad apples, for example, could be a sort of last resort food. Maybe some sort of mulch could be used as fertilizer or in fuel or something like that). I hope the devs outline how difficult they want the game to be as some point. I know they've said they want it to be difficult, but I'm wondering how difficult. As someone who wants a challenging game, there are limits where, for me, it would become too difficult and therefore not fun. Currently it is far too easy. I've said before that .55 was the most fun I've ever had in DayZ, just because finding the most simple items was extremely difficult. Using that as a base, I'm wondering if 1.0 will be more or less difficult than .55. I suppose you can't really compare .55 and 1.0 and 'difficulty' is a nebulous quantifier, but I'd still like to know more.

I'm sure that's all true, but wouldn't that lead to an overabundance of food? It might require some preparation, sure, but it's not very difficult to build a fire. Hunting and scavenging for pre-packed food, however, can be challenging and risky. Apples and berries interfere somewhat with the survival aspect of the game, so I hope they'll be balanced. If acorns or whatever are balanced in the same way (say each bush or tree has a limited supply of food that can be harvested) I could get behind it. In fact it'd be excellent, because pooly equipped players will be restricted to apples and berries, while players that have pots and pans and matches will have access to more food. I'm definitely up for MREs, however.

Honesty, I'd just get a mic. In my case the mic on my headset broke for some reason, so now I use the inbuilt mic of an old webcam. Works fine, though it's not the greatest sound quality. If you stop to type in chat you're liable to get shot. A lot of people also don't trust people who don't talk back - so not having a mic in itself can be seen as hostile in some way.

I don't think you know what criticism means.

I can't wait to trek from Cherno to Tisy, stop for 30 minutes to make dinner and then make that trek all over again. I can't wait for the server to reset so I can make that trek again. That sounds like so much fun. Transportation would become almost useless. It'd be fine if you happened to run across a fully functional car on the coast, but good luck if you're trying to repair a car next to, I don't know, Stary Yar and then you have to log out for whatever reason. Why is a surge of coastal interactions a good thing? The vast majority of interactions happen on the coast - all this would do is limit interactions further inland. If you don't like server hopping then play on private servers. I don't understand why solutions to server hopping are almost always batshit - yes it's an issue, but how is this a good solution?

Well, I doubt there's all that much you can do about it. The devs are aware of this issue - even I had it once, though I got no error box. You'll probably have to wait for stable - it's issues like this (among others) that are keeping .60 in experimental.

People seem to be under the impression that DayZ as it currently is is representative of how it will be. "What's the point in camps? I can just sprint across the map in 10 minutes to find an SVD and 20 mags to hunt freshspawns since there are no zombies or wild animals, and if I die I can just gear up again because there's no penalty to death!" You won't be able to move from one side of the map to the other on foot with any speed. You will be slow, and you will need to stop to look for food unless you really stocked up before you set off. You will have to evade zombies and wolves, and if it comes to it you might have to expend one of the 8 rounds you have for your peashooter in order to stop something from eating you. You won't want to die, because then your soft skills will be lost - and maybe there'll be another penalty for dying, who knows? Shelter of any kind will protect from the elements and from threats to varying degrees. Being able to build a shelter that you can defend that is away from a town or a city will be extremely valuable. Finding a house in the middle of the woods that you can fortify could be even better, though such houses appear on a map which might not be ideal if you wish to remain hidden. I seem to recall one of the devs saying that the new renderer might mean more trees and thicker foliage, meaning that hiding in the woods might actually become viable. Has a chopper spotted your base from the sky? Well good on them for putting a billion hours into getting a working chopper and then hovering in the sky without getting shot at. I will probably never bother building a proper base. I might end up barricading something with my mate, but I don't think I'll ever put the time in to build anything substantial. Others might, though, and I'd love to see that.

I don't know if this belongs in suggestions, but here goes. It's quite self-explanatory, it'd be nice if the dev tracker worked again. I liked having somewhere I could check for little updates from the devs - Twitter, Trello, Reddit, whatever - without having to go digging through irrelevant stuff to find a nugget of interesting information. The last post was on the 22nd of January, but there was a post almost every day before then. Not everything was super interesting, but there was plenty of stuff there that was like "oh, that's cool." I say 'fix' dev tracker because I assume it's broken since the forum redesign/hack/whatever.

The point is that DayZ was a mod of Arma 2. What if BI had decided Arma 2 should have limited modding? Perhaps there will be a DayZ mod that creates a whole new subgenre of game. It's not terribly likely, but limiting modding in a game that came about as a direct result of the mod community seems wrong to me. I can see where you're coming from. I'm hoping that we don't see modding until, at the very least, DayZ at its core is finished, and they're effectively just bugfixing. If they release modding when DayZ is as unfinished as it is now, vanilla will disappear before it gets a foot in the door. Some mods will be silly. They'll feature tanks and helicopter gunships - and that, I think, is what you're afraid of. Don't forget, however, that there will also be a lot of incredible mods; perhaps mods that are even more survival-focused than the base game, or mods that simply expand on vanilla with new weapons, clothing and locations. Vanilla will eventually fall to the wayside. I'm hoping that it sticks around long enough to influence the mod community, and the community as a whole, to keep the original focus - survival - and build upon it with different ideas and themes rather than going the F-22 and Thermal AS50 route. I personally think that a Fallout or a STALKER-themed mod would be amazing (I've said that many times, hopefully it'll influence modders on a subconscious level). It could be silly, or it could go super survival mode. I guess we'll see, but heavy restrictions on modding isn't the answer to making sure people make the 'right' mods.