BeefBacon

What feature would you love to see implemented in DayZ that you know will never make an appearance? (maybe it's too ambitious even for DayZ, or otherwise isn't feasible, or just doesn't mesh with the rest of the dev team) Are there plans to create a brand new map once Chernarus+ is finished, or is it at least something you'd like to do? Are there plans to 'seal off' Chernarus with, say, a mountain range so the map doesn't abruptly end with an immersion-breaking plain of nothingness? When DayZ finally hits 1.0 and the modding community is active, what mod would you most like to see? (perhaps a Wasteland-style mod, or maybe a STALKER or Fallout-themed one, for example) Is 3pp 'wall-peeking' something you intend to address further? If so, how? Given that guns will be rare and melee weapons and tools of various kinds will be quite common, will melee combat see any kind of update? Do you intend to add, say, blocking or directional swings, or just generally make it more interesting than it currently is?

@IkaikaKekai The devs aren't expanding the current map but they've not, to my knowledge, ruled out releasing a completely new map. Don't be an arse. Arizona could be cool. Hot days, probably cold nights, array of environments - deserts and forests, plus good potential for varied terrain (hills and rocks and that). A map where a proper city is the central focus could be nice - something like The Last of Us where there are trees and deer and that in the streets. People can still hunt animals and chop down trees and farm and so on, but they're in the middle of a city. I don't know if that'll ever be feasible, but it'd be pretty cool.

Easy fix. Drop your gun in favour of something else. You will instantly start finding ammo for the gun you used to have, but you will never find the gun you dropped.

There won't be house building like there is in, say, Rust. The devs, I think Hicks specifically, has said that this is to avoid these huge ugly box structures appearing all over the map. I concur. Building is horrible. We will, however, be able to build things like scrap walls and gates - like a walled encampment. We will also be able to barricade pre-existing structures. Having, say, 30% locked doors would be great - maybe even more. Doors should 'respawn' as well, so they can become locked if they were opened before. There would still be plenty of loot for players that aren't equipped to open locked doors, but there would be even more loot for players who are willing to take the risk to bash down a door (it is loud, after all) or who have a lockpick.

Hicks mentioned he hoped there'd be some rain. You'd have thought they'd use some sort of debug build to allow them to control the weather. I was watching the Mount and Blade Bannerlord gameplay footage a while back. In that they went along a set path where things were spawned ahead of time, so they weren't running around like headless chickens looking for something to show off. I feel as though maybe there should have been a script or something that meant it'd start raining an hour in, or that a fully working vehicle would spawn in Kamy or something, so they could get around quicker. Instead they just ran along the coast. When they got to Elektro and were able to show off the zombies that was really good, but most of it was just running. It would have been nice to see Cherno as well, but they had technical difficulties - plus... Jamjar? And the other one? Anthony? Whoever. They were sort of pissing about a bit. That's fine, but I think Hicks was probably very conscious of the time they had left - that last disconnect they had just before entering Cherno was horribly timed, so that was a shame. The biggest thing I took away from it was the visual improvements, the steadier frame rate and - unexpectedly - the new zombie behaviour. I never thought zombies would actually be able to vault over obstacles. No longer will I be able to hide behind ankle-high obstructions to avoid ravenous zombies.

The zombies looked nice. Ignoring the grey ones, of course, it was pretty cool to see them vaulting over stuff. Combine that with the animation they showcased of a zombie knocking down a door and it seems that zombies will become a lot more manoeuvrable. Frame rate was hard to tell, but it looked pretty stable. There were a few massive frame drops but besides those incidents it looked like a pretty solid frame rate across the board. The fog was nice, but I would have loved to have seen how it looked from a hilltop. A lot of people seemed to think it was just a lower view distance, but really the fog is volumetric. Lower altitudes have a layer of fog. The coast is the lowest (I assume) so it has a lot of fog. Awesome, and it looked lovely, but it should have been shown off. UI is okay. It doesn't seem all that different from before, it's just got a new skin. It doesn't make very good use of space, so hopefully it's not by any means final. The hotbar colours were a little bit garish. Random items in containers and random weapon attachments is a good. No new weapons is disappointing. I've never found a FAL or an VSS or anything even remotely fancy, but it's cool knowing those weapons are out there. Hardly the end of the world, though. Carrying backpacks (and seemingly any item) in hands is good. It seems a lot of new features are dependent on things like the player controller. When these foundational features are in, I expect we'll see a lot of things like diseases, new animal AI, stamina and so on. I get the impression that a big hurdle has been passed, so .61 might see more tangible progress. Maybe we'll see .60 next week. Maybe.

I thought Hicks said Tisy base was in, just no contamination?

So far I've not seen anything that I wouldn't be able to put up with for an experimental build. The loot spawning is definitely a problem, but I'm not sure what else is stopping it from hitting experimental. Grey zombies aren't exactly a gamebreaker.

I don't think they'll be adding a proper single player mode, but they will be adding a sort of single player so mod developers can test their mods. I don't doubt that someone, somewhere, will develop a proper single player mod of some sort.

We know the map won't be expanded, but some of these ideas are really good. A historic town with a castle and the remains of walls would be amazing. An oil tanker out at sea, anchored or something, would also be amazing. Rocket, years ago, said he wanted proper rivers. I hope we'll see that.

I've no doubt that people would play on a server that, say, somehow has a bug that makes high-end loot spawn more commonly. Just because people are playing it that doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs to be solved. Now you could argue that the 'problem' of 3pp is subjective, and I suppose that it is - but you can say the same about that high-end loot server. I don't see why the ray-cast occlusion would be unacceptable, provided it worked properly of course. Literally everybody would be happy save for the people who demand the ability to wallpeek, but how long will they remain playing once they can't just sprint from the coast to NWAF without becoming exhausted and starving to death, even if they can wallpeek? They use DayZ as an open-world deathmatch game, but that isn't will DayZ will be. I don't think that wallpeeking has any place in a hardcore survival game.

As a pessimist I doubt it, but that'd be all kinds of wonderful. Hicks standing on a stage saying ".60 is LIVE", pyrotechnics go off behind him. "Look under your chairs and you'll find your very own DayZ .60!" I would approve of that immensely.

I suppose it'll actually be four days, given that it probably won't be released over the weekend. It's annoying (if they are indeed holding its release) but understandable. Though also not understandable because I'm pretty keen on playing .60 this weekend. I don't now what to think any more.

I don't know. Are you saying it's been ready for a while now? I can see it being ready maybe a couple of days ago an so they're holding it for PAX. I don't see a problem with that. Now that all these clues are surfacing that .60 is close, however, I am getting very impatient - I don't really care for months, and now it's (maybe) days away I cannot wait. Who knows, maybe they plan to release .60 in time for PAX so they can join a full server or something (though people running around in dresses and fire extnguishers might not be the best way to show off .60). Maybe we're looking at it too closely. Given that the devs have made numerous comments about how badly they want to release .60 I can't imagine they'd want to purposefully push it back - not for more than a day or two anyway.

They wouldn't upload a version for PAX though, would they? They'd just have it on a hard disk. Fingers crossed for this week or next. If they have a working build I hope they don't wait for PAX, but it's understandable if they do.

I've never been a bandit. It's not for want of trying, I'm just really bad at the game. I'm the sort of bandit who'd get the drop on you before slipping on a banana peel.

The visible part of an object can be rendered while the invisible part isn't rendered. If you can see their leg, then only their leg renders rather than either rendering their entire body or rendering nothing at all. If that isn't possible then a threshold can be set so that objects are rendered just before they become visible, rather than at the exact moment they become visible. While this second option could still be exploited, it'd be considerably harder - and any wall peeking would be limited to a tiny angle that would be unlikely to confer a significant advantage. It wouldn't be that exact script, or even necessarily something similar. The video showcases a concept - you can only see stuff in 3pp that you would be able to see in 1pp. It's the concept that is broadly being discussed, not the actual script and how it functions.

That's not a good argument. You're basing that assertion off of a script that some guy probably made in an afternoon. I imagine a large team of dedicated developers with considerably more resources and access to the core of the game and its engine would be able to do a better job. Tightening the camera can only do so much. I suppose it's possible that the camera could intelligently detect scenarios so that it restricts itself dynamically, though. I wish the devs would do this sort of thing in experimental. Experimental just seems to be a platform on which people can stress test and find bugs for stable - there's nothing very experimental about it.

I quoted the OP. I appreciate your attempts to view this topic objectively, but it's very difficult to talk about 3pp without mentioning, even implicitly, 1pp. Remember that it has been stated by the devs (or a dev, this was a while ago) that 1pp is how DayZ is meant to be played. That is an important aspect of the discussion as that view directly impacts the way DayZ is being designed. It creates a dissonance where the game is being designed one way, but people are playing it another. The result is that either a compromise sometimes has to be met when it comes to design decisions to make them affect two distinct styles of play, or certain elements of the game (backpacks obscuring vision, for example) are ignored entirely depending on whether you're playing in 1pp or 3pp. However, I will make some effort to try and avoid the topic of 1pp, especially given we seem to agree on what the actual problem is. 'Peeking' or 'wall peeking' are terms I use to refer to all kinds of 3pp peeking. You'll notice I used the example of a sniper on a roof in my mini essay. Having a different word for different kinds of peeking seems unconstructive - what about walls that are broken at the bottom? That's broken-bottom-of-wall peeking of course. I also tried to cover points made in favour of 3pp, but concluded that it provides no actual benefit to gameplay outside of aesthetic (being able to see your character) and lessening the impact of poor performance. I've seen a few people mention the crosshair in the past. I don't necessarily think that it's a direct result of 3pp, but I think that it exists in the way that it does in order to facilitate hip fire in 3pp. I would remove it completely, but keep a dot in the center of the screen. The dot doesn't represent where we're aiming, but it provides a point of reference when we're trying to pick things up. I would very much like to know if the devs are aware of this occlusion thing. If they are, what do they think of it? Is it feasible? Do they have a better idea? Is peeking something they even intend to address outside of minor changes to camera angles?

No... Now that might not cause grief, as such, but it does remove some nuance from the game. Other issues are largely subjective. Immersion, for example - some say 1pp is more immersive, others say 3pp is more immersive. 3pp may well be perpetuating the hip fire crosshair that is currently in-game, and that has no business existing in a hardcore survival game. DayZ seems to be a game that is being designed for 1pp, but has 3pp slapped on top of it, the sole reason being that the mod had it. The wall peeking thing is the main issue. If wall peeking was somehow fixed, but any other issues related to 3pp remained, I don't think many people would complain too much. If everyone was honest and swore some solemn oath to never wall peek, there wouldn't be a problem. Peoples' issue isn't with 3pp itself, I certainly don't mind being able to pan around in third person, the issue is that it can be exploited. The best solution I've seen is the occlusion thing - if you can't see it in 1pp you can't see it in 3pp.

I'd play 1pp more if the performance was better - providing of course that my mate wanted to play 1pp as well. 1pp from a gameplay perspective is objectively better. Wall peeking is an exploit, and it is an unfair advantage regardless of whether everyone uses it or not. Let's say there was a type of wall that maybe had a funny collision mesh which allowed you to see through it when you stand at a certain angle. Would that be fair because everyone can do it, or would it be an exploit? Let's say there's any easy way to duplicate items, so you give yourself infinite ammo. Would that be fair because everyone can do it, or would that be an exploit? "Well those obviously weren't intended by the developers!" I hear you cry. I have a hard time believing that the devs were sitting around a table discussing how they want players to be able to peek around walls in 3pp. In fact they've made some effort to reduce our capacity to wall peek. Imagine a sniper lying prone on a roof in 3pp. They can see you, but there's no possible way that you can see them. 1pp is centered around risk/reward. You poke your head out and you risk getting spotted, but you are rewarded with information. You wear a big backpack (as the OP mentioned) and you can't look over your shoulder, but you are rewarded with more inventory space. In 3pp you can peek over a wall and see if there are any zombies, completely shitting on a large part of the PvE aspect. A while back, probably in .57ish I went into a fire station on a 1pp server. I found a flare gun and thought it'd be fun to shoot it into the sky, since it was night time. As I'm leaving the station I get shot at by a PM73 and I panic fire the flare as I'm running back into the fire station. The flare covers up the sound of me positioning myself near the stairs so I can cover the back door with my MP5, but if he tries moving in through the front I'll hear him. The flare dies down but I don't move. He managed to hit me a couple of times - I didn't bleed, but for all he knows I'm dead. Minutes pass, and I consider making a run for it, but I don't know if he's waiting for me. Eventually I see him peek through the back door, and I kill him - but then I wait. Maybe he has friends. After a couple more minutes I bolt, and I survive. By waiting in the station I had a secure position and good cover, and by not moving at all I was able to convince him I was dead, but I sacrificed information. I had no idea if he was alone or in a group, or what he was doing. Did he leg it after he failed to kill me? Is he waiting out front? Is he going round the back? He has no idea if I'm alive. If I am alive, did I go to the top? He didn't see me go up. I can't be waiting this long, I must have logged. He decides to go round the back to see if I'm even there. He takes a risk and he pokes his head out, but I had the better of him. I took advantage of his lack of information, and later took a risk when I ran out because I didn't know if he was alone. Now imagine that exact scenario, but we're both equipped with magical periscopes that allow us to see each other. So at best 3pp detracts from gameplay. At worst it's an exploit. What pros does 3pp confer? It doesn't increase FoV, but it does increase awareness of your immediate vicinity, including behind your own head. DayZ is a game that focuses on our characters, and it's nice to be able to see what we look like in the environment - when I play on 3pp servers (which is most of the time since 1pp is underpopulated and there are some really good 3pp private servers) I like to travel in 3pp because I like to look at my character. For some, 1pp can cause nausea caused by head bob (which can be disabled) and the horrible frame rate, which is set to improve. So the pros don't exactly weigh out the cons. I've never heard an argument in favour of 3pp, from a realism or authenticity standpoint, that made me go "that's a good point." People like 3pp because they like being able to peek over walls, they like to see their character and, in fairness, 3pp is easier on the head brain when you're lucky to scrape 30fps. Barring the frame rate issue, there doesn't seem to be a viable argument for 3pp to exist besides "I like it." As @St. Jimmy said, this seems to be a good solution. Maybe not this exact script since it doesn't seem very precise, but something like it would be perfect. It would remove many of the inherent issues of 3pp while not getting rid of 3pp. I'm not in favour of removing 3pp. If the devs suddenly decided to remove it, I'd get used to it pretty quickly, but I don't think I'd actually support its removal. A compromise as shown in the video above sounds ideal. Everybody wins and threads like this can disappear forever.

Hah, I wish I had such luck. That's very gentlemanly. Nah, in my case both my friend and I died in an excellent example of why you should always shoot first rather than give some shifty bastards the benefit of the doubt. It was actually kind of hilarious. We're in Zelenogorsk and spot these guys 'stealthily' creeping towards us. Instead of shooting them we keep our distance, but it quickly becomes apparent that they're not friendly, and they shoot first. We traded fire and ran away from each other. My buddy and I got split up. I go into a shed, bleeding, when I see my mate run by "you just ran past me, I'm right here" he doesn't see me "you practically just looked at me" he still doesn't see me, so I bandage. My mate runs in and starts trying to punch me out "why are you..." oh. No, turns out it was one of the guys who tried to kill us, only he was wearing the exact same clothes as my mate. I shoot him twice with my Winchester, he runs away. Tragically, my mate did finally spot 'me' behind him, which is exactly where I said I was. "That's not me!" too late. By this point I know there's at least two of them, but one of them has no ammo. I try to save my mate but he dies as I get out into the street, I shoot one of them again and they scatter. I move to a better position as I take more fire. I know my mate had an SKS so I wanted to deny the unarmed guy that advantage. I try to flank round to my mate's body to grab the SKS, but it's not on his body any more. Sure enough, SKS fire is spammed out of a side alley and I die. Basically everything, including how bad we are at the game, conspired against us. We, or I, would probably have been fine if two point-blank Winchester shots to the chest had proved lethal - It may even have been three shots as I'm not sure which one I hit in the street. That's DayZ.

I shot a guy twice in the chest at point blank with a Winchester and he was fine. I think sometimes it's just a bit screwy. In my case the guy just bled a little. @Rags! "Enfusiastic about 0.60" I see what you did there.

I'm not against this. I suppose my only concern is its feasibility. Like if society collapsed a week ago, my first instinct wouldn't be "I want to mount a skull on a pike and wear somebody's face skin on my face."

I've not played DayZ since January. I was disappointed when we didn't get .60 at the end of Febuary, and I suppose I'm faintly disappointed when new versions don't include features I'm specifically looking forward to, but am I disappointed in DayZ as a whole? Absolutely not. If the devs turned around right now and said "muwaha, it was all a ruse, we just wanted your early access money! Look upon an unfinished game, that we never had any intention to finish because we are the true embodiment of evil, muwaha!" I'd have gotten my money's worth out of DayZ, easy. So no. It's not a disappointment. Games take time to develop, especially when the groundwork has to be torn up. The scope of DayZ is far greater than its 'rival' survival games, and that contributes to its development time as well. Remember that the Standalone was originally just going to be a polished version of the mod, but the devs decided to make something better. If they'd just made a polished version of the mod, then why not just play the mod? The standalone will be better than the mod - different at the very least. That takes time.