BeefBacon

I don't know what legal issues might be involved with forcing the mic to always be on - it could be considered an invasion of privacy. Plus wouldn't you run the risk of fucking people over? Imagine running sneaking through Cherno and hearing "Timmy, take out the trash!" "Aw moooooom!" or broadcasting the constant loud hum of your potato mic. For people with good mics and who don't live with any people or animals I'm sure it'd be fine, but I don't want to get shot because somebody heard my dog barking. Plus, as people have said, it could be avoided with relative ease. It'd be nice if everyone only used in-game comms, but people will always use third-party software. Improving what we have, however, is definitely a good idea. The ability to whisper would be great, and the audio quality really should be improved.

I think the text indicators are being replaced by icons. Smell has been brought up before. It's not something that you see much in videogames, for obvious reasons. If it can be implemented well I'd love to see it - maybe smells can be blown by wind, so you can smell a campfire downwind, and the wolves can smell you. Vomiting in the presence of corpses I'm not sure about. It takes a while to rot, after all, and Chernarus (but maybe not other maps) is set in autumn, where it'd be pretty cold - so bodies would decompose even slower. Besides that, vomiting would be pretty annoying.

Yeah, Rommel was a pretty cool guy - as generals go. Brilliant tactician, cared for his men and opposed Hitler. Even people like Churchill sang his praises - he shouldn't be remembered as a Nazi. Guitar would be cool. Maybe have a system that allows you to play actual tunes - though I don't know how that'd look. I know Rust has a guitar, but it seems to be a pretty shit system.

Adding a stamina system and decreasing ammo aren't just to make zombies more difficult to deal with - it's to increase the game's difficulty as a whole, independent of zombies - though they will certainly affect player-zombie interactions. Again, zombies will never be the primary threat. I fail to see why arming them would change that in any meaningful way. A stamina system won't make them more difficult. Less ammo won't make them more difficult. Better AI won't make them more difficult. However, giving some of them the ability to inaccurately spray bullets in your general direction? Basically unstoppable. I would wait to see how zombies measure up when they can knock down doors, players are affected by stamina, and there are more of them. Zombies as they currently are are basically just an annoyance. Arguably the main threat they currently pose is that they can draw attention to you, which other players can take advantage of. I don't know if those things will mean that zombies will pose an actual threat, but I suspect they will. If they're still harmless after that then I think yeah, maybe some of them could have guns - a bit like the zombies in STALKER. For now it's best to see how they pan out - it doesn't make sense to suggest a solution to a problem that hasn't even had the opportunity to arise yet. That doesn't mean this shouldn't be discussed, of course. Mum, dad, please stop fighting.

He says THE real threat - not A real threat. What he's saying is that other players and the environment (hunger, cold, etc) are the primary threats. He expands on this by saying that AI is predictable, which means that players will always be able to turn that to their advantage. Players are not predictable, and so will always be a threat. I suppose he could have said "Ostensibly zombies are the main threat because this is a zombie game, but it's actually other players that you need to watch out for."

I disagree. You won't be able to outrun zombies as easily when the stamina system is in. You won't be able to hide as easily when they can bust through doors. You'll be overwhelmed when more of them are added in, and you won't be able to just shoot them all when ammo is rebalanced. I really doubt that you'll just be able to circle strafe to avoid their attacks too. That sounds like a threat to me. I don't think zombies should be able to use guns. Basic tools maybe, but never guns. It would be nice if military zombies occasionally carried things like pistols, ammo, grenades and so on, but nothing that they can actually use. Zombies hiding and camping in buildings would be cool, though. Would be neat if they did things other than wander aimlessly in the streets.

If we can set the cap, or if it's optional, I see no issue. Seems like a pretty good idea. Just as long as they don't do something stupid like tie the physics engine in with the framerate...

Are people being purposely obtuse? He's not saying that an economic system should be introduced where you can go to a safe zone and buy an AS50, he's saying that money, as an item, should be introduced. If players then decide "let's use money in a player-driven trading system" then that's up to them. They could just as easily use sheets of paper, or pumpkin slices, or whatever, but it may be that they decide to use the money item instead. I doubt we'd really see that - bartering is a better way of doing things - but I can definitely see a money system potentially popping up on certain well-regulated servers. If players decide it has no value, it will have no value. I don't see any particular reason why it shouldn't be implemented, but I've got a feeling it'd just be another near-useless item, especially given how easy it is to find books and paper.

No, really. I'm pretty sure the devs have said it takes place in the Arma universe - an alternative timeline, of course. Besides that, it takes place in Chernarus - the fictional country in Arma 2. It'd be like setting a game in Cyrodiil and saying it's not in Tamriel, and Elder Scrolls? What are those? As for the division thing - I can see where you're coming from. It's a legitimate concern, but maps will always offer different things. I've not played the DayZ mod, but I'm sure people still play Chernarus alongside... Taviana? Namalsk? They're all popular maps that offer different things - I doubt Chernarus will be rendered obsolete, not for a very long time, anyway.

The devs have stated that they're not going to expand the map any further. I don't know why, but that's what they've said. It's possible that they'll change their minds - but it might be an engine limitation thing. I'm not too fussed about the lore - I'm just pointing out that Chernarus is a fictional country and not a region of the Czech Republic, and that established lore dictates that Chernarus is part of the mainland. It's not especially important, I just waned to point that out. It'd be nice if Chernarus was an island, sure. I certainly wouldn't be against it. However, I'd prefer it if they designed a brand new map that has been designed as an island from the ground up rather than, as I said, just slapping a coast around Chernarus.

As I recall, the devs poo-pooed this idea. Not sure why. It's been suggested before. Chernarus is a fictional country, not a region of the Czech Republic. The Chernarus map is only a small part of the whole of Chernarus - a region called South Zagoria. The events of Arma 2 are canon in DayZ - US forces are deployed in Chernarus, where a civil war is ongoing, in opposition to the rebels and the Russian forces that back them. DayZ takes place some time after Arma 2, which is why we see all the burnt-out tanks, old crashed choppers, things like that. That being the case, Chernarus cannot be an island because it has already been established that it is a part of the mainland. The edge of the map is ugly as sin. A mountain range would be a pretty elegant solution if not for the helicopters. Simply adding coastline around the map wouldn't really work anyway, unless you want to totally rip up the geography of half the map. Remember that the further inland you go, the higher above sea level you get. Putting a coastline at the top of the map would mean you'd either have to have one hell of a cliff face, or you'd have to lower the elevation of the entire north of the map - and that probably isn't ideal. Somebody else has already made this point - it'd be better if there's a map made from scratch that is designed to be an island, rather than just putting water around Chernarus and calling it an island.

I'm okay with the buildings. In a small region, buildings are going to look the same. Where I live, the buildings in one village look pretty much the same as the buildings in the next village - so that makes sense. Having said that, as you say, colour variations on houses would be nice, even if they're exactly the same model. However, the interiors should be unique. It'd be much better (though perhaps not feasible) if all buildings were completely blank on the inside by default, and all the furniture and decorations were placed manually by the level designers, making all the buildings unique, at least on the inside.

I agree. They should either remove the majority of the wells, or make it so that wells spawn randomly. That is to say, you can't just go to a village because you know for certain there is a well there - it's random like police cars and heli crash sites. The spawns would have to be permanent, though, since it'd be weird going to a village that had a well 10 minutes ago which has now despawned. Wells should be super valuable, and should serve as hotspots for player interactions. Put a well in some random village in the middle of nowhere which is the only reliable source of fresh water for miles around. Boom. Instant new NWAF. Previously unvisited locations would become valuable spots for a reason other than military loot. As it stands you can find fresh water everywhere. Hydration may as well not be a thing. Boiling water to purify it should be a major component of the game. Water purification tablets should just be a portable water boiler, if you like, so you can just pop one of those in instead of having to set up a fire and get a pot and all that. As a side note, it could be cool to allow us to build wells when basebuilding is a thing. Depending on the location of the well (I'm not sure how water tables work but I assume you'll have to dig pretty deep if you want to build a well on a hill) it could have a different yield/capacity. I saw a while back a video on how to build a well. You need a few meters of tube that you hammer into the ground (there was a way they got the dirt out, I don't recall how), a pipe to reach to the water and a pump. On the other hand maybe it'd be better if you had to take basic resources (such as water) into account when setting up your camp. In regards to zombies and food, yeah. There'll be many more zombies, and I expect the stamina system will prevent you from just outrunning them forever. Hiding in buildings won't be an option because they'll be able to knock down doors. As such, finding pre-packaged food, and supplies in general, will become a lot more difficult. I expect we'll see an expansion of the hunting and foraging mechanics to compensate.

We don't know that. Blood splatters, decals, whatever, have been in games for a very long time. They exist in some form in the Arma games. I'd be surprised if blood splatters weren't implemented, and I expect the blood particle effect will be changed at some point. In fact I think there's supposed to be some new particle system coming in at some point, so it'll probably be addressed then. As for the bandages - you're probably right. The devs really don't like clipping, and bandages would be very likely to clip. You never know, though.

See, I've really not had this problem. Having said that, I am aware that overheating is currently an issue, so I am making sure that I wear light clothing - shirts and that. While I've been wearing a shirt, I've not even gotten hot.

I hate the item damage system. If I get shot in the leg, everything in my trousers should not burst into flames. There should be a chance for one or two items to become damaged or ruined, but not a near-certainty that everything will be ruined. Things like food should never become ruined, but they should lose their contents. Maybe if a can of peaches gets 'ruined' you stand to lose 20% - 90% of the contents, as though you've opened them with an inappropriate tool. Zombies should be able to damage clothing, but not their contents. Ruined and damaged clothing should have considerable drawbacks - reduced protection from the elements, perhaps. Currently I think the only drawback is they provide less physical protection. Given that you can repair clothing to a worn condition, pristine clothing should be far superior to worn clothing - and so players should spawn with damaged clothing to make finding new clothing a top priority. The way stacks are handled should be changed as well. The only way you're going to ruin 40 rounds of loose ammo is if you send them through a grinder. However, I would like to see wetness play a role in damaging items. Some items should be immune - why would a sealed can of beans become damaged by water? Why would a bottle of water? Ammo and guns should be damaged very slightly by water, especially if they get soaked rather than damp. Rice and cereal should also degrade, and wet sticks, matches, paper an so on should have a high chance of failing to catch fire. Electrical equipment (rangefinder, flashlight, cattle prod, whatever else) should also have a good chance of becoming damaged, and a small chance of becoming ruined if used while wet. I digress however.

I can't see a Chernarussian farmer owning some kind of fancy tomahawk. He'll have a splitting axe, or a hatchet, or a splitting maul. He won't use freaking carbon nano-fibre throwing knives for hunting. He'll use something cheap and practical. However, if this sort of thing might be used by soldiers as part of their field kit then I could see it being military loot.

I hadn't really thought about it, but you're quite right. I wouldn't mind seeing an HQ variant of each emergency building. A police headquarters in, I don't know, Novo - I think there's already a massive hospital or two - and a fire headquarters in Zelenogorsk or something. Each major town should have its own unique building or feature. On a similar note, it'd be nice if there were more crashed emergency vehicles. Police cars randomly spawn, so why not ambulances and fire engines?

1500 posts isn't exactly low, though. The alpha card has its place. DayZ is indeed in alpha, and vehicles do not yet work as intended - this should be taken into account. The V3S has always been a bit shitty. I only drove the V3S in the first patch it was released, whenever that was. Even then it was pretty tough going up hills. I think part of the problem is the physics system - there's very little in the way of friction, and it seems pretty rudimentary in general. I imagine that once vehicle physics is improved (I assume that's on the cards) the V3S, and vehicles in general, will perform a lot better. For now, yeah, just avoid going up hills if possible until you generate some good momentum. Easier said than done given the awful acceleration. Well, a lot of suggestions people make are pretty shit. Most shitty suggestions are posted by people who only have a couple of posts. People who have been around a while tend to have a pretty good idea of how DayZ will turn out. When somebody comes along and says "I want an island that's 3 times the size of the original map where all the buildings are made out of AS50s" the people who get the direction that DayZ is taking will tend to criticise that suggestion - and those people tend to be the ones who have been around a long time and have a lot of posts. Of course not everybody who has no posts is completely new to the game, but it seems to be a pretty common theme. Sometimes suggestions are considered to be unrealistic goals, but remember that most people here are not game devs and they do not necessarily know what can and can't be done. They can probably make an educated guess, but you shouldn't get too upset about it. If somebody tries to tell you that your suggestion is unfeasible, either try to disprove them, or guide the discussion towards something that people agree is a realistic goal.

And you can't enjoy new content if they're spending all their time fixing bugs that affect legacy mechanics. Again, there is no point in fixing bugs when many of those bugs relate directly to systems that are going to be replaced. When bugs render the game virtually unplayable, then they issue a hotfix. As for the renderer and performance, this is only the first iteration - it will get tweaked and updated to perform even better. This will happen over the course of development. As it stands, they are focusing on core stuff. Once that core stuff is in, I expect they'll start thinking about bug fixing and optimisation to some extent.

Add content, then fix bugs. Remember that there are still a ton of core features - the new audio and animation system, for example, that aren't even in yet. Most of the bugs will be related to systems that won't even exist in a few months. There's no point in cleaning things up yet. Remember that DayZ is in early access - you have to expect performance issues.

Well, as I said, there'll be a new player controller that will affect how players move, animate, interact with the environment and so on. There's no point in spending time fixing anything that has anything to do with player movement because it's going to get completely replaced. Again, if there was a bug that rendered the game unplayable (say your legs invariably broke whenever you walked on a road texture or something) they would fix that, but unreliable vaulting isn't worth the time to fix since the entire system that allows vaulting in the first place is going to be replaced. Given that the new DX11 renderer is going to exist in the final game, I expect that the devs will start working on renderer-related issues - flickering shadows, stuttering and so on - but these issues will probably take a back seat while they work on things like the new audio, player controller, AI and so on. When the basic framework is finally in (and they can start properly building on game mechanics) I expect we will see more bugfixing alongside new content, and then a final round of bugfixing before release.

I don't code, but from what I understand bugs can be created by new content very easily. If you're constantly fixing bugs as they pop up you'll be doing just that - constantly fixing bugs. They fix the bugs that make the game literally unplayable, but for the most part they get ignored - which makes sense. Old bugs that everyone knows and loves - like dying randomly on stairs - will likely be resolved by the new player controller. There's no point wasting time fixing a bug if it's going to be made redundant soon™ anyway. Yeah I'm a lot like you. I just tend to wait between updates, or play so irregularly that I don't get bored with it. I know a lot of people plough thousands of hours in, but I've not even got 300 hours in yet, and I've played every patch since December 2013. I think most of my time in-game has been over the past 12 months or so, since my mate bought it... and probably many hours spent on the .60 server menu... I don't like the UI at all. I hope - in fact I'm sure - that it's temporary. It uses space just... horribly. It works pretty well, like technically, but it's not well designed. So far I've not bothered with vehicles or camps. I drove a V3S when vehicles were first introduced and I put something in a barrel once. Until it's more robust, that'll do for me. As I understand it, zombie numbers will increase dramatically at some point soon™. This means that the food found in town and cities will be much harder to get a hold of, making hunting and foraging and so on a more attractive option. But yeah, for now there's not really any point in hunting. Zombies are much better now. They don't glitch through walls (though they can be a bit funny if you close a door on them), they'll be able to knock downs doors and stuff at some point and they can already hop over walls and other obstacles. Couple all that with more of them and they should be pretty lethal. There's still a lot of work to do, but I think people are starting to get a good idea of how DayZ is shaping up. Certainly the massive improvement to performance has made people a bit more positive. However, even though I'm the sort of person who would defend DayZ's development pace as being pretty normal in the grand scheme of things, I hope we don't have a .60-style wait for .61.

Are you saying that the devs should continue developing the game? That's a revolutionary attitude to have. Also, you're only surviving one hour? I am very bad at DayZ, but I'm not quite that bad. I do agree with the ruined gear thing, though. Getting shot in the leg shouldn't break everything I have stored in my trousers. Items getting damaged like that should be quite rare. I don't have a problem with clothing being ruined, but the items in your clothing should be relatively safe.

Very well presented, but I'm going to be that guy. DayZ is feature incomplete. It is in alpha. Crafting more things (weapons, attachments, clothes, facepaint, traps, bases, armor protections, armor personalization, etc) I don't doubt there'll be more crafting options in the future. To what extent I do not know, but given that there's a scant handful of crafting options now, I assume we'll get more down the line. Just adding some achievements (steam) I don't see why this is important but, again, I suspect DayZ will eventually get achievements. If it doesn't I don't think I'll lose any sleep, mind. Some kind of system of reputation for goals and good/bad behavior This will never happen. Mods, maybe, but never for the base game. Some pasive skills or skill tree wich restart if you die (like unturned) (Example: doctors) Soft skills are planned. Cities or buildings repair (posibility to add lights, generators, etc.) Planned, as far as I know. Correct the looting economy (make more realistic) Vague, but the loot economy will see incremental changes. Buildings with realistic side and worn (it looks that dayz architects made builings for single mothers: 1 bedroom, short side bedroom environments, a few huge buildings; all in perfect conditions). If you are in a zombie apocalypse: would you make a base in the middle of the forest far away of any resaurces or you probably find a random huge building and set you base in one fo the floors, loking the doors and putting some barricade? Not certain what exactly this means. Chernarus is a post-Soviet shithole - most people don't seem to even have plumbing. Houses are bound to be small. More destruction would be nice, and I seem to recall devs saying there will be 'destruction passes' where they go through the map and add ruined buildings and things like that. Barricading buildings is planned.