scriptfactory

I like your follow-up post, micalo. :) There is nothing disastrous about this project but there are some disappointing factors, in my opinion. Rust and ARK have released entire visions as well as short- and long-term goals. Rust has made an elaborate mind-map and Garry is super transparent with the users. ARK has one of the best development teams that actually shape the game based on user input. Hell, both games do that. ARK is just way better with community communication. It is smashing the survival game market at the moment. And the users appreciate it: http://steamcharts.com/cmp/252490,221100,346110#6m It seems that Bohemia is scared of releasing too much information for whatever reason. No idea what is going on, to be honest. But clearly defined goals and game design transparency is #1 on my wishlist. But who am I? No one. If they haven't presented us with this info by now I doubt it will ever happen. Let's see what changes when they finally update the roadmap.

This is a wall of text post. Maybe this is a shitty topic to discuss, I am not sure. If you have problems digesting written information just skip to the bottom for a TLDR. So, while discussing realism in DayZ for the umpteenth time I made this statement: "If you are saying the audio and visual cue system is more approximate to real life then I would disagree with you. I don't think there is an objective way to say who is right in this regard and it doesn't change the fact that an icon based system (like Mod) is less intrusive than having to go to your inventory to see your character status..." Then I realized I was being a dumbass and someone has probably already taken it upon themselves to study realism in video games. I found the following term paper: Understanding Realism in Computer Games through Phenomenology by Gek Siong Low. The paper, in turn, lead me to this chapter from the book "On the Internet" titled "Disembodied Telepresence and the Remoteness of the Real" which contains this text: So realism, as defined in these papers, is simply the ability of a game to let a player lose himself in the fantasy world of the game. This is the essence of "immersion". Perception alone is not enough to convey a sense of realism. Perspective also has little to do with it. In fact, this paper says the following about first-person perspective: In DayZ SA the tunnel vision effect is severely amplified in 1PP mode. Many people discuss having the feeling that they are driving a human tank around. This could be explained by the unique Arma first-person camera view which is awkward and FoV calculations which seem to produce significant warping. The paper goes on to say the following about the third-person perspective: So at the surface 3PP mode appears to be more unrealistic than 1PP due to its floating camera but in actuality it allows for a more realistic perception fo the game world without the "human tank" phenomena. So what the paper is basically postulating is that it is not the player viewpoint that is responsible for the sense of realism, rather the way the user is able to operate inside of the game world. To me the biggest blockers for DayZ SA realism is the janky movement and controls. Pressing 'v' multiple times to jump. Having to press hotkeys multiple times for actions to occur and then the my action not even being performed. Getting stuck in animations leading to walking off buildings. TL;DR: Regardless of your preferred game perspective, what brings you out of the DayZ experience? What are the biggest problems for you in regards to DayZ SA realism and how would you fix them? I have added a poll with some of the things I could think of. If you vote on the poll please add a comment as to how you would change this aspect of the game. Please don't turn this into a 1PP vs 3PP debate.

Like someone else in this thread mentioned, I feel that people are using the term "realism" for their own agenda while ignoring the multitude of other unrealistic elements in this game. Regarding your Elite example, one of the papers called this "statial incoherence". You should, theoretically, be able to just fly to whatever star system you feel like. It would, perhaps, feel more coherent to require "stargates" to jump between systems like in Eve Online. Then having a pass to enter a system would make sense. But this would limit players in other ways so they chose a pretty incoherent way to create their content gates. Kinda' sad since Elite is, pretty much, the most coherent space sim I own. Regarding the apple lottery: I have a huge problem with all random elements in this game. From the apple and berry picking to the random loss of food from a can. Thankfully the DayZ dev team said this was only placeholder functionality. There are questions in the Q&A status report thread about this, one from myself. Let's see if Brian responds.

One of the main things Rocket was trying to promote in SA was a sense of getting lost/disorientation. For experienced players it would, of course, never work. It takes like a week to learn the map... but for new players he wanted them to feel confused as hell. I don't necessarily agree that confusing players is a good game design decision but this design element supports his goal.

I like your idea but a system similar to that from ARK actually makes a lot of sense as well. There are a few different movement modes:Mode 0-1: Resting/standing still = Speed x0Mode 2: Crawling/crouching/walking = Speed x0.2/x0.5/x1Mode 3: Jogging/trotting = Speed x1.5/x2Mode 4: Sprinting = Speed x4Your stamina and energy drain is based on your current movement mode (0-4).Trotting is a special movement mode than can only be reached gradually through jogging. Basically, your speed gradually increases while jogging until you eventually reach a trot. If you go to any other movement mode (e.g. resting, sprinting, walking, etc.) you lose your "trot" status.Jogging and trotting have the same caloric and stamina requirements.You can only sprint or jog while stamina > 0.Current stamina, energy and movement mode dictate your rate of stamina regain.Resting - maximum stamina regain.Standing still - normal stamina regain.Walking - very slow stamina regain.Jogging/trotting - slow stamina drain.Sprinting - super fast stamina drain.​No passing out when stamina is low.(Temporary) passing out when energy is low.Heart attack when hydration is low.I feel like this is slightly more realistic. When you are jogging long distances occasionally you will eventually hit a "groove" where you can run pretty quickly for a long period of time. Sometimes you may walk to regain your breath and then start jogging again. People can walk almost indefinitely. The main blockers are dehydration and foot injuries. I partially agree with this. Chernarus is small compared to Altis. I play on an A3 Chernarus server and you can get across the whole map in a couple minutes. It is very easy to find player camps and if I am playing in a group we can pretty much grief the entire server quite easily. That being said, I love fast ground vehicles (120kmh) and very slow flying vehicles.

I'm honestly shocked by the quality of the responses in this thread. I have altered my viewpoint on many current in-game features based purely on what many people have written (e.g. item descriptions). When this thread dies down I would suggest we make a follow-up thread in suggestions for the hottest topics. Everyone could give their input on how they would like to see this awesome game improved. Seriously, great thread. :D

That's actually a good question for Brian. He mentioned on Reddit that the current, horrible, apple picking system was only temporary. Brian: Any chance to elaborate on the plans for removing some of the random gameplay elements like apple and berry picking and opening cans?

Meta-gaming is a potential realism killer for many people. I learned everything I know about DayZ through Google and not in-game resources. The map is an item I will not pick up. I don't need it taking a precious item slot from my Improvised Backpack. Leaving a game in order to figure out what to do and where to go seems like a definite immersion breaker. Rust solved this problem by simply making each player auto-create their own map through exploration. I feel a similar approach in DayZ would make the map much more useful but would remove the whole disorienting aspect for new players which could be good and bad. I remember reading disorientation was something Rocket wanted to provide to new players. He wanted people to feel lost. Unfortunately, Chernarus is just too small for this effect to last so I feel like that was a failed endeavor. It would be interesting to see how many players are actually using the in-game map. For comparison, I use the map in Arma constantly but that is only because I can set waypoints with it. xD

Please don't take my generalizations about killing in DayZ personally. I kill everybody when I play. There is, literally, nothing else to do besides play dress-up and kill. I am an old-school gamer. I'm 34yo and can still, clearly, remember the thrill of PvP in Ultima Online. The karma and fame system was fairly strict but it made each person think before taking action. Remember, Mod added a humanity system for a specific reason and Rocket TEMPORARILY removed it because he thought it could be controlled in another way; through game mechanic changes (e.g. gestures, survival elements, raising/lowering weapons). He admitted defeat in a recent interview and said that in his new game players would be given the power to control negative player behavior themselves (via an in-game version of the RIOT player tribune). You make some good points and I could talk about this all day long but I will drop the murder topic so we don't derail the conversation.

Question: Has any thought been given towards releasing the SA GDD?

Is it against realism? Realism, in the context of video games, is the ability of a player to immerse himself into a game. It does not mean that because something can be done in real life it should be able to be done in a game. It means that a player's should be able to lose himself in the fantasy of the game. KoS is not a part of that fantasy. It is an end to it. The KoS thread is hundreds of pages long for a reason. People that tend to KoS and grief are not doing so because the game's narrative has drawn them to murder someone else. They do it because they are used to shooting other people in games or want to ruin someone else's day. In my opinion KoS is one of the largest hurdles to overcome in allowing players to completely let themselves dive into DayZ. There is a reason the Mod has humanity and it isn't because people thought a humanity indicator was realistic. Humanity was an attempt to regulate the behavior of griefers so that emergent gameplay could present itself more often. Edit: I really don't want to derail the conversation towards KoS since I feel that many players have strong opinions about this and this isn't a complaint thread, rather a discussion of how game mechanics can be tweaked towards more immersive gameplay. But I feel that the terms "realism" and "authenticity" are major stumbling blocks for players that want DayZ to be a PvP experience without repercussion nor distraction. But if we take an objectively viewpoint of the situation, a deathmatch situation is completely unrealistic on the scale that it occurs in DayZ or any shooter game out there. The most violent places on earth don't have murder rates even close to approaching what we have currently on DayZ. So I feel the word "realism" is completely misused in this situation.

There are a few big budget games that have been done exceptionally well and have had amazingly long lifespans with high replayability values. Eve Online. World of Warcraft. Halo. Minecraft. Almost every Street Fighter (not SFxT which was broken by the stupid as fuck gems system). Every Fallout. Every Elder Scrolls game. It can be done. I believe that DayZ can be that game but it needs to go back to its roots. Why did Rocket remove humanity in SA, for example? Because he believed gameplay mechanics (e.g. survival elements, weapon raising/lowering mechanics, etc.) would drive player interaction. He even admitted his own failure in this regard and is trying a new approach for his new game (player-driven rewards/punishments). So I believe the game designers need to address every single Mod gameplay element and find what role it played in making Mod good... then use this information to make SA fucking amazing. It can be done.

There is a reason why every multiplayer "survival" game with PvP (d)evolves into a deathmatch. The only way that I have seen to successfully to mitigate KoS is some kind of persistent reputation system like the Ultima Online karma and fame system combined by a negative/positive gameplay effect (e.g. NPCs interaction modifications, visible reputation status, content gates, etc.). The sad part is there are so many players that feel KoS and/or griefing is the entire point of genre that they often dissuade game developers from adding such a system, even if it is simply an alternate game mode. I'm just going to say it; I miss humanity from mod and I find it sad they still haven't built a better version for SA.

Two of the departments I help out with at my company are sourcing and monetization/game design. We evaluate potential licenses for playability, marketability, and potential for monetization. The key to making a game that appeals to a large audience seems to be making "subsets" of the game. Game modes, special characters or different motivators. You balance these and modify them, add new game mechanics, different win conditions to reach the widest audience possible. In other words, you don't just take out everything people hate and you don't just add in everything people like. You start with a basic, fun, game design pattern and modify it based on the wishes of the players. DayZ SA is a resource management game at it's core. Spawn, acquire and protect resources. There are no win conditions. There is only one "lose condition", health resource dropping below zero. That is all. Every suggestion made by a player needs to be evaluated on that basis. This is why a great lead game designer is so important. It means the difference between making a game that is derivative but playable and one that is truly entertaining. This is, of course, just my nerd opinion. Confusing players is a good way to reduce the chance that a player will return to your game. I believe his is why the industry has steadily become more "casual" over the years. In a multiplayer game CCUs matter and the best way to get more players playing is to make sure the game is accessible for the most people possible.

I really don't want to derail the conversation but there IS a tactical mirror. We used them in Iraq when I was sent over there in 2003. Pretty sure they are common. But does lack of a challenging environment really bring you out of the DayZ experience? Are you going around just thinking, "Man, this is so easy. Not at all realistic. None of this is believable." I would think that the environmental asthetic is more of a challenge to post-apocalypse realism (i.e. no dead bodies, no trash, everything looks fresh and clean.)

I totally agree with this. The new player controller should help with this but, honestly, I feel that it will take a lot of effort and fine tuning to get the smooth and direct feeling of character control that Battlefield has.

Scattering infected across the map is less awesome than running into hordes of them. This is really exciting. Can't wait to see what comes of this. Hopefully event-based zombie spawning (maybe even with rare loot). Dare to dream.

It would be awesome if the player tutorial was presented in this format. A tutorial is definitely needed to increase the player count.

I would be in favor of infected being mostly "special events". I don't want the map crawling with infected. If you hear one growling it should make you shit your pants. Example: If you are listening to your radio and hear a broadcast about a NATO helicopter crashing (with coordinates) or a hospital being overrun you travel there knowing that there will be good loot but they will also be crawling with zombies. Helicopters should have armored zombies (harder to kill). Example: When walking through towns you should basically see no zombies. Infected should mostly spawn inside of buildings to surpise you when you are looting. If you put your ear to a door maybe you could hear them. This would make players be more methodical with their looting while making infected a bigger threat. Players would draw infected outside to kill them. This could potentially attract the attention of other players. Example: Firing weapons could have a chance to spawn more infected in nearby buildings. If infected are just sick humans then they should be able to open doors. If you are in the middle of the woods you would feel more comfortable getting into firefights.

The deeper the survival mechanics, the more likely they are to need a HUD. As far as I have seen, attempts at a minimal user interface without a HUD (e.g. flashing screen, character sounds, etc.) has problems adequately communicating current status to a user. Do you have an example of a natural and fluid UI in a survival game? In Breaking Point they use screen decals and character sounds to convey the various medical statuses. While it works quite well for short-term effects (e.g. stun, bleeding, etc.) it is pretty bad for persistent, long-term mechanics (i.e. hunger, thirst and sickness.) Exile is a good example of a minimal UI adequately conveying survival mechanics. Now, the survival mechanics in Exil are simple and yet they definitely affect gameplay in noticeable ways. Because your values are clearly visible in the HUD it gives players the ability to make intelligent decision based on this information. Here is the scenario: I had just finished an AI mission all by my lonesome in a distant corner of Bornholm. I saw the airdrop coming in and the mortar explosions started going off. Now, this process normally lasts a couple of minutes, which is nothing, but my hydration status was around 20%. I stupidly forgot my water bottles at my safehouse (a converted industrial storage shed) and had a choice to make. 1. Get all of the loot into my vehicle and risk death. This isn't that bad. I could run back to my body fairly quickly but someone might steal the leftover loot in the process. They might also ambush me on the way back to my body. 2. Just get the most valuable stuff, go get water, and then come back to loot the rest. This way I would make certain my more valuable loot was safe 2. Search the nearby houses for water while keeping an eye on the loot stash. This might make me die anyway. As I am going over the various options in my head someone started shooting at me. I ducked behind a hillside and took careful aim. It was a perfect headshot. I ran over to this guys body and there it was, my precious liquid of life. It was a great experience. This story contains many elements of what I feel is missing in SA. Clear communication of survival status. Mission objectives that are made more difficult by shitty planning on my part. Event-driven player interaction.

People don't turn into jelly and slide across the ground... Less this: https://youtu.be/7USlcp02vQ8?t=54s More this (still not realistic): p.s. I am a US Army vet (91-B/W Medical Specialist). I worked in a hospital (BAMC) for two years and then was sent to a rapid deployment unit so I do have some "experience" with dead bodies. Go search on LiveLeak if you want to see what it really looks like...

I don't like ragdoll animations in any game since that is not what death looks like. I think I remember them being added to SA as a proof-of-concept for the physics system. I personally feel they should be removed until they are server-driven as they don't benefit gameplay at the moment and they make looting enemy bodies difficult or impossible.

ARK has the strongest AI out there and KoS is still pretty common. I haven't played it in a while but Project Zomboid, the only multiplayer zombie game with legit hordes, had a crazy KoS problem on most PvP servers. Try playing a roguelike. Permadeath means nothing.

My opinion is that this thread will get closed by BoneBoys. If not, I think the DayZ Dev team has real problems with transparency and communication, especially compared to other leading Early Access games.

The servers are empty for a few different reasons. The game isn't accessible to newer players, the "Arma"-esque performance, the development process isn't communicated transparently and regularly, the lack of game depth and motivators, etc. I do agree that the DayZ SA KoS culture is probably one of the reasons less aggressive players avoid the game. Compare DayZ to ARK (which boasts a larger active playerbase than GTA 5) and you will find a probable answer to the low player count; multiple game modes and/or modding support.