Evil Minion

Here older is actually better as the cartridge has more time to appear in a certain place. Thats why .22LR, .380 Auto, .45 ACP and even .30-06 are actually not that unlikely. Now we know that 5.45x39mm and .30-06 are coming so we got: 1 small cartridge (.22LR)3 pistol cartridges (.380 Auto, .9mm Parabellum, .45 ACP)1 revolver cartridge (.375 Magnum)2 small rifle cartridges (5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm)1 intermediate cartridge (7.62x39mm)2 full power cartridges (7.62x54mmR, .30-06)1 shotgun shell (12 gauge)If they are planning on adding 7.62x51mm as well we got three full power cartridges. Now take a look at some other options: 9mm Makarov - This is completely overshadowed by the 9mm Parabellum and .380 Auto - both allow for more weapons and together they include most 9mm Makarov weapons. It would only mess with the dynamics without being worth it. 7.62x25mm Tokarev - Same story its overshadowed by 9mm Parabellum in particular. Allows for a few old guns - that are actually less likely to be found than an M1 Garand because they do not make for good hunting weapons. .25 ACP - Another handgun caliber but actually closer to the .22LR. Now it seems less popular and doesn't allow for firearms you could not replace by more fitting or popular ones. .40 S&W - It is relatively new, relatively american and doesn't allow for many weapons you could not find an adequante replacement in 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP - both cartridges more likely to be found in Chernarus. .38 Special - Now we are getting somewhere. Old round - check. By nature it allows for more weapons than the .357 Magnum as it can also be used by those guns - check. And it can even be fired by already existing guns - check. 9x39mm - Allows for some pretty interesting guns that even match the setting. Also nothing wrong with being very rare (both guns and ammo) so less effect on dynamics and makes those weapons reasonably hard to maintain. .243 Winchester - Seems like a American hunting cartridge to me. Now Hunting Rifles often support a good variety of calibers there is no reason not to use existing calibers instead because of the impact on gameplay dynamics. Now it could work if hunting rifles would end up with a different ammo distribution system that is based on static rarity or geographical range rather than dynamic competition. .270 Winchester - Similar to the above actually not needed and might only be worthwhile for changing the hunting rifle dynamics to many guns, many calibers. I doubt this would be a very good change in gameplay terms though as it might add too many rifle strains. .338 Lapua - A cartridge only for snipers? There should not be so many snipers around and I think here competition with more common guns would work better. Might work as two-layer rare similar to 9x39mm but weaker as the weapons it allows for are not too much different from snipers using other calibers - and they are all snipers. .50 BMG - Allows for HMGs and AMRs both which probably gives it the advantage over .338 Lapua. Also quite an old and popualr cartridge. Weapons and ammo should be rare though but having other guns than sniper rifles in the list boosts the competition factor which is a good thing. 12.7×108mm - Basically the same but Russian. Both would be equally possible but rarity would mean its unreasonable to add both. 20 gauge - Why not add another shotgun shell? We got so many handgun and rifle calibers but only the 12 gauge shell (granted its by far the most commonly used). So some varienty would be appreciated. Dynamics-wise it allows for a second shotgun strain allowing automatic shotguns to be decoupled from civilian ones. .410 bore - Actually I am in favor of this over 20 gauge because there is more difference compared to the 12 gauge. 20 gauge seems to allow for more guns though.In the end it depends on the intended dynamics. More cartridges means less migration and competition (unless they are geographically distinct) while less cartridges reduce the possible amount of guns and increases the chance of finding ammo in an unlooted area. If a weapon or weapon type is the only user of a certain type of ammo most other will simply ignore it as it is of no use for them. This would for example cause a sniper to find a box of .338 Lapua rounds in the "trash" others left behind. Another factor might be distribution - more types would mean more people actually have ammo but less people would have a lot of it. So its easier to get supplies but you will probably get less of them. In the end "good mix" is probably be the way to go: Add a number of rounds that allow for interesting weapons but avoid adding rounds that don't give you no options to keep the game mechanics more competitive and limit the amount of possible strains. We got 10 strains of weapons already. Compare this to the current maximum server population of 50 players.

According to this picture a point in Chernarus is about 2172km away from Moscow. Thats way further than Ukraine or the Czech Republic. Countries with this distance are (no all of them): BelgiumItalyAlbaniaTurkeyIraqIranTurkmenistanUzbekistanKazakhstan

Whats the problem with those? Now I don't want zombies to be clones of players but I also don't want players to be clones of players. So if the final game features a great varriety of appearances (which it definitely should) you might also use those for zombies. Now the zombies should still ne clearly infected if you look closer (pale, zombie animations and sounds etc.) but the overall appearance (body shape, facial features, clothes) should be shared with survivors. Would be silly if you had tons of clones running around or waste resources by making zombies and survivors use discrete feature sets. Same with zombie behavior. Why shouldn't some zombies make loud noises drawing in others? Not some supernatural Nazgûl-screams but just load versions of the usual zombie noises. And zombies wandering around makes them less predictable requiring you to keep your eyes open. This makes them less predictable and stealth more important. Now I think a zombie should still stay an infected human and should not mutate into some kind of monster. They should be about as strong/fast/tough as survivors but more numerous and stupid. So all of their abilities should still stay within the possibility of the human body. This includes causing disease, bleeding etc. but excludes things like spitting slime or running faster than a cheetah. Zombie animals... I don't really like it and would rather have authentic animals with authentic behavior. But thats just personal preference.

Are you sure about this? Because if my information is correct you will get increased blood loss as you can stack the "bleeding" debuff. And the number seems to depend on the weapon/ammo used. Otherwise I like your ideas and I do not think its really that hard to understand either. The problem is implementation as you want the system to work like it would in real life (which takes way more resources tthan the current simple version) and still got quite good performance. Also you might want to avoid crazy interactions and side effects. Here the question is how detailed this should be. Now this could be done by "nested hitboxes" where bullets travel a certain distance inside the tissue and deal damage to blood and health according to this. Depending on the hitbox hit and the damage done to it there might be additional effects like broken bones etc. The same model might also allow for bullet penetration through walls, clothes and bodies. Would be preferable to a system where you magically take more damage when attacked from behind. Hunting is a good example why this system would work better as right now you don't need to aim at specific body parts to take down your prey, shots won't affect the amount/quality of meat and animals are so stupid they don't flee when they see you or even when you are shooting at them. So right now you can just fire in the general direction of an animal and fire away until you get lucky. Thats not how huinting should work. Don't! Its important to bring up and discuss conecpts early as it helps to get a good model that avoids many "mistakes by design". The current damage system is odd and needs revision anyways so why not change it towards the suggested model?

For those types the way to go is to report them as they violte the terms of use. But a server blacklist would really help finding suitable servers in terms of house rules as it basically works as some kind of filter. For example you could blacklist 24/7 daylight, friendly, high loot servers or servers with specified PvP areas.

This is a collection of some ideas on how to improve spawning inside the game: Item spawn coupling Some items receive a list of related items (guns get ammo, attachments or magazines, uniform pieces get other uniform pieces etc.). Now whenever one of those items spawns there is a small chance (5-10%) of a related item spawning nearby as long as there are no other restrictions active. Item spawn bias Items are more likely to spawn on servers with higher population and in areas with low player density. On empty servers items only spawn if a certain minimum count is not reached yet. Player respawn bias Players are more likely to respawn in areas with low player density and away from: persistant storagetheir own corpse(s)cities and military basesHowever they will only spawn along the coast and spawning within a city full of players and tents is still possible but very unlikely. Ending streams of zombies: There are quite some zombies in the city but not too many. Each city/area also got a value that represents the number of allowed zombie respawns. If a zombie is killed and there are respawns available he/she is spawned outside a certain area around players, preferably out of sight and non-aggro'ed. And one respawn ticket is removed upon death. Of course if the tickets reach zero or negative values no zombies will respawn but death will still remove another one. Respawn tickets slowly regenerate when the player count inside the city/area is below a certain threshold. Now the maximum zombie count should be limited by the server instead of each city/area separately. So a zombie who died in one city and did not get a ticket here may respawn in another city if there is a ticket and the maximum number of spawned zombies in this area (which should be fairly large - in total much higher than the server limit) is not reached. This way zombie population is higher in untouched areas and lower in areas with a high survivor count (which should mirror loot respawns). Conversely if a city just reached a positive number of tickets it might still not spawn zombies yet as they could be alive and well elsewhere. Finally something that should matter later: Zombies should never spawn inside barricaded areas but they should be able to spawn inside houses. Player bubbles (safe zones) In addition to counting towards server population and player density every survivor creates two areas around him. The first is fairly big (40-200m) and interacts mainly with the environment. The second is fairly small (max. 20m) and interacts with other players. The body of a player logging out does not create such an area nor does a newly respawned player during his first seconds of gameplay (though they still interact with other players bubbles). Big Bubble Within this area no loot or zombie spawning might occur. All spawn-related timers are halted so items won't despawn either. The area also blocks every player respawn thus prevents (some) spawnkilling. In case the whole respawn area is covered with big bubbles player respawns might occur within this area but the newly spawned player will receive a warning message ("I am in a dangerous area") and only half the penalty for getting killed until he leaves the bubble in question. Small Bubble A much smaller area that responds to player spawns (upon joining). Whenever a player attempts to spawn inside another ones small bubble he gets moved outside (shortest distance) and both players receive a warning message like "I think I am no longer alone". The small bubble also prevents the body of players who logged out from disappearing.

Another idea I wrote here was based on an existing suggestion that different clothing items as should have different access speeds. Then the obvious benefit of a holster would be a very fast access speed - which is its benefit in real life. A second one is coupled with a weight system (which is confirmed) - a holster would allow you to carry a pistol in an additional slot at lower weight than a vest reducing disadvantages (somewhat mitigated by the magic rifle slort though). And of course a holster helps to prevent overheating (not a factor right now but maybe later).

A good concept on its own - might be worth to add during development. However, in the end a working respawn/persistence system would be better: Server restarts should not change the number and place of loot in general. Maybe with some exceptions. Now this concept would still work with new servers/shards/hives and in case of greater updates or even wipes so it wouldn't be useless even after the loot economy is finished. And in case absolute persistence turns out to eat too much resources it might work quite well given long enough times between resets.

Adding too many calibers would reduce competition between guns. The more types the higher the chance that the ammo you need is left untouched in any given area. Diluting the spawns is actually a good thing as it means you got less ammo in general and more options. However, at some point the dynamic effect mentioned above (lacking competetion for ammo) might overcome the static effect (spawn locations and rarity) which increases the chance of finding ammo for one particular gun. Because of this less ammo types emphasize migratory behavior (go to a place that is not yet looted) while more ammo types emphasize niche selection (pick your weapon according to the ammo around). The current dynamics lack the former (reasons are unfinished loot spawns and server hopping) while the latter is already present.

You have an odd definition of "realism". It doesn't reduce realism. More the other way around: It improves realism by making the game less MilSim-y. Can't agree with things that are plain wrong. Not having bright colored spraypaint and not being able to use it is what reduces realism. Because a zombie apocalypse is not a big deathmatch where everything resolves about survivors shooting each other. Yeah and this point is bullshit. You want to sell your "thats how this game has to be played" under the guise of realism. There is nothing realistic about this only wild assumptions of "people would not use this in reality".

I didn't notice much of a difference. Maybe its less KoS because the "S" part is less trivial? In fact first person only is actually better for PvP (no peeking) so it should attract more people who want to play "CoD: Chernarus".

I always thought of "high loot" servers as restarting more frequently. Thats why I avoid them like the plague.

You cannot really hunt because animals right now are dumb and easily killed. However, you can slaughter them if you have a gun (they will run away if you move too close - but not very far) and a knife to harvest meat from the corpse which you can cook on a fire. Careful though fires seem magically superpowered and will cook meat very fast. About three minutes and if you aren't careful you will have burned meat instead.

Updated. Used this topic but left out the Underarmour items as I am not exactly sure how to include them.

Funny thing is that you stopped quoting me exactly before I was coming to this. For this reason left-handed survivors would probably be at a slight disadvantage. So there might be less people picking a left handed one. Which is fine as in real life there are also less left-handed people.

Going naked has gameplay implications and can be to your advantage. Less so at the moment as Chernarus is pretty cold right now. Is it even possible to die from hyperthermia in stable? They should probably add something like a "blazing sun" weather effect. You didn't - might have been misleading as I quoted your post. I absolutely agree with consequences - painting something in bright colors should come with all implications. Thats what it takes to be a gameplay choice rather than a purely cosmetic one. You use bright colors because you want others to see them. Because the lack of expected consequences is what would break immersion. Thats the reason this is shit (if meant/working as actual armor) but this is not (though especially the shoes would not really add to the game because there is no sexual signalling which is basically their only purpose). Now things like metallic spraypaint might be a little rarer and pink might not be the most common color either but it shouldn't be hard to find red or blue paint.

So how exactly would bright spraypaint take away from the game? It would enhance any aspect that is not PvP - and even PvP if used properly. The negative effect? Self obsessed freaks going YOLO? We still got this and it arguably enhances the experience. The arguments here are akin to "wearing pink should be outlawed because I don't wear pink and I hate seeing people in pink clothes". For me it seems you guys are coming from Arma and any change that would benefit social aspects and move DayZ further away froim being a MilSim takes away from the game. DayZ is not and should never be a MilSim!

I would surely like to have a left-handed option. In most cases it would just come down to mirroring which shouldn't be that hard. The only point that would require more work is firearms - because most are made for right handed people. This means left-handed survivors would need special animations and would be at as disadvantage when using certain guns. Which is actually not that bad either - it would make less people play as left-handed character (which is authenic as there are more right-handed people) and add some value to guns that are not strictly right-handed. Might make for an interesting addition and would probably be worth the work.

So what? Let them be self obsessed freaks! The have the right and should be able to do so. Its an open world game after all! Why do you guys try to limit options for the sake of limiting options and then call it "immersion"? Its not immersive if the only items around are things directly related to survival. Its not immersive if everyone looks like a freaking soldier. Its not immersive if the only spraypaint around is conveniently in some kind of "camouflage color". And its not immersive not being allowed to be a self obessed freak in what is supposed to be an open and authentic world. Maybe painting your gun pink would actually improve your chance of survival in a zombie apocalypse because of the signalling aspect? Bright colors are a way of communication you know.

Or you could just attach a reasonable cost to hopping. Less effort and less impact on loot economy and other players. Was discussed here in some depth.

I think this is supposed to regenerate. Maybe its broken maybe its incomplete. The medical system needs some work anyways. Punishing people for surviving longer - which this is not because you need to be hit, meaning you actually get punished for being hit more often - would be a stupid concept. Also balancing high/low gear is not done via such things but by the effort involved.

I think a better approach is to make life/death actually matter instead of taking away options because they could be used in a "YOLO careless!" sense. Maybe its even enough to make respawns bad in general. In the end people should be allowed to be pink trolls just as they should be allowed to kill friendlies on sight. The best way is probably to provide a wider array of sprays for both camouflage (greens, greys, browns, black, ...) and signalling (reds, white, pinks, yellows, ...). Bright colors have uses for sane people as well - as a way of communication. Especially in close quarters you might even go "screw camouflage we use pink guns to avoid friendly fire". Or for people who try to be friendly anyways and rather want to roleplay/show group colors.

Definitely - in cities you don't even have to search residential homes as the buildings with a chance to spawn firearms also spawn tons of food. Another factor is animals simply not running away so hunting is childs play as well.

Now you told me you don't want it because people would never use it and that you don't want it because people would use it... So in fact it would only piss you off because it would allow people to play the game in another way than you want them to? Stop using "immersion breaking" for "I do not want to see this". Did you ever experience a zombie apocalypse before or why are you so sure about it? Though I agree backpacks or clothing should rather be dyed than sprayed.

Why oppose it then? Add it and see if you are right - thats what the game is for.