• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vattenlarv

  • Rank
    Helicopter Hunter

Recent Profile Visitors

1904 profile views
  1. I hope you are right. I hope they have set the standards of the finished product so god damn high, they are undoubtedly confident that the entire modernized world is going to forget about Half-Life 3 for all eternity, shit bricks for weeks, call in sick and spend their entire yearly vacation in Chernarus, when DayZ 1.00 finally hits the market.
  2. @emuthreat I am not saying YOU are against such a system. I am more "screaming" at the world. But I think you look at it from a different angle than I do. You question the actual impact it will have on player behavior. I don't really care how people behave. DayZ is not a Pulitzer Prize dinner, and whether people are complete assholes or not does not concern me. What does concern me is that players that look for a "gritty survival experience" has that experience ruined. Not by other player's behavior per se, but by the sense of hopelessness when the A-D-A-D twitcher shows up and plays Mario 64 with his ass (while being an annoying little shit). This game- and immersion breaking event could be reduced to an absolute minimum by realistically limiting the way a player moves. A physical altercation would greatly increase the risk of taking a serious beating yourself, as you would no longer be able to, inertia-less and full speed, twitch your character out of harms way. Players can be as annoying as they want. If they would suffer a much greater risk of having their asses handed to them, they would probably even consider a different play style. Why should the DayZ developers listen to whiny complaints about not being able to PvP on the coast, when they have been clear from the beginning that they want to create a different experience. There are literally hundreds of fast paced shooters, even in similar environments as DayZ, that cater to that specific crowd. DayZ Standalone had a revenue of over €100,000,000, some 3 million copies sold, like two years ago. There is absolutely no reason for them to NOT create the ultimate experience. About getting shot by bambi snipers. This is not something I would even take in to the equation. I'd much rather be shot by a bambi sniper on the coast every once in a while, which would most likely be a result of my carelessness rather than the stamina system, than not being able to hit a A-D-A-D twitcher when emptying a fully loaded Python at point blank range due to highly unrealistic movement, and I guess the added complications with rubber banding that becomes more of an issue because of this. There are endless ways to counter bambi snipers other than keeping a ridiculously unrealistic movement model. Like I have briefly mentioned before; Not being able to sprint out of dodge like a god damn go-cart is going to make one think twice before pulling the trigger. A lot of infected nearby, the new meaning- and risk of attracting unwanted attention, a re-worked loot economy with less ammunition, etc. The vision of a suspenseful and beautifully played game should not suffer due to a couple of short-attention-span-players that wish to spawn and die on the coast within an hour and call it a night. That is giving up way to easy. I dare anyone reading this to find a clip of e.g. Squad, EFT or even Insurgency (a very fast paced shooter) where someone is A-D-A-D twitching around another player slicing them up with a knife while dodging bullets, like many players do in DayZ. You know what, don't bother. You will not find a single clip throughout the whole of the internetsis. Still, combat in each one of these games is intense and exhilarating. Why shouldn't we ask (even demand or cry viciously) for an equally awesome experience within DayZ?
  3. Not only will interactions be more smooth and believable. Your own approach to any potential interaction would be crucial to the outcome, as your intentions would be identifiable by your movement and overall behavior. With the lack of inertia and a stamina system everybody moves in an unrealistic manner, so you can only guess by whether or not the other player has a clown mask or a weapon drawn if he/she is hostile or not. Also, it doesn't really matter what conclusion you come to as the outcome of the interaction / altercation / fight / shoot-out will solely be a result of who has got the most rounds, semi- or fully automatic fire mode, or simply who is best at A-D-A-D twitching. With a system like this, the overall quality of- and skill required to do anything from planning the route of your next 2 km travel, how you tactically advance toward a popular loot spawn area, how you cautiously approach another player due to the high risk of him/her and the infected, hunting etc, will be raised to a rooftop bar standard. This will make you care about your character more, it will make you care about others more. It is the one and only pure and unconditional change the developers can make to DayZ that does not limit people's intentions, that does not turn DayZ in to a grind, that is fair and equal to everybody and would make the overall experience better for EVERYBODY. The only argument against the implementation of such a system I can appreciate is the increased time it would take to travel. However, this is a matter of patience on each player's behalf (I don't see how anyone with a short attention span can play DayZ, not even at its current state), and something that will not be an issue when vehicles, especially bicycles, are in. Then it would make even more sense to have such a system in place as the conscious decision of speeding up your travel by getting on a bicycle, or getting in to a car, would have to be weighed against the risk of giving away your position and having to stick to the main roads. Do you really believe that a stamina system would deter players from traveling long distances in Chernarus? I think it would do the complete opposite due to the fact that it would be a greater challenge, with greater rewards. When I last played, Cherno and Elektro was always full of players, while the rest of Chernarus was a barren wasteland. It seems like the supernatural ability to cover tremendous distances in no time at all by simply jamming down W with a toothpick, does not encourage players to do so. Maybe the developers should try something different? It seems like we do want the same thing, to some extent. I just do not see why seasoned DayZ players would have any reason to oppose (more) realistic movement in a game like DayZ. It is a conundrum, I tell you that. Edit; Maybe it is the classic fear of change that is such an uncomfortable thought for so many DayZ players. They have played this alpha for three years, and have become very good at it, and a change that would have them learn it all over again, and after all this time become equal to new players with hardcore "milsim" experience in other games such as EFT or Squad, would be a blow to their self-esteem... or something. I seriously can not figure this one out, it is just a mind-boggler.
  4. I think many of us, especially in the forums, have a distorted idea of what DayZ is, and what it can become. We have been playing the game, followed the development, fantasized and argued over the future of DayZ for so long, we can no longer truly empathize with what a new player, who is brand new to the entire concept of this "gritty and authentic, horror survival hybrid experience", actually experiences when he/she first spawns on the coast of Chernarus. Just look at how beautiful this game is now. Screenshots are at times worth printing and framing above your bed, and a gamer oblivious of DayZ (the do exist believe it or not) wouldn't think twice of it. We are concerned about lack of content. I am not sure when I actually played last, but it was a long time ago. Back then I had still not had the pleasure of experimenting with all of the content. There were many weapons I had not yet fired, and many places I had not visited. Barrels were fairly new and I did not even get around to dye any clothes before I decided to not contaminate myself further, and wait for the finished product. This is after a couple hundred hours of game play. Many could possibly sprint themselves everywhere on the map, server hop and try out all the gear etc within a week, but that is not my play style. Imagine installing DayZ for the first time today, without any or much knowledge of what you are getting yourself in to. It would take a very long time before game content would be your main complaint. It would take a very long time before you would find your way around, or instantly realize where you are when you spawn. I think with the new update, it would even take a long time before you felt the world of Chernarus was repetitive. However, it would not take more than 30 minutes, on a full pop server, before the first erratic sprinter would show up, flying around like a whirlwind, not at all interested in your bambi ass, looting the first little village dry in 3 minutes blank, a village you cautiously approached out of fear of not knowing what to expect, and leaves you with a pink dress and a horde of aggro infected. If the whirlwind does not decide to circle you, like an annoying wasp on a hot summer day, screeching some annoying song on VOIP, slashing you once with a sickle and then leave your ass to die with a fading "noooooooooooooooooob" as he disappears in the horizon. I am not trying to be rude, emuthreat, but I think you are dead wrong. I do like your idea of a morale system, and I think it would complement the idea of a more realistic stamina, weight and movement system beautifully. But to say that (more) realistic movement would drive players away, instead of enhancing the overall experience, is just wrong. The only players it would drive away, if any (because I am confident such changes would make it a better experience for everybody), would be loud and obnoxious Pewdiepie type players and tea bagging teens. Of course they would be welcome to stick around, but they would not be able to break immersion for anyone, as the game itself would "force" them to conduct themselves in a more realistic manner. I am not saying elite forces survival simulator 2.0 here, where you have to spam keys in a particular order to lick the bottom of your tuna can. Simply slow game play down, add some inertia. That's it! Well, also completely remove 3rd person, this affront to everything that has ever been holy and sacred in video game shooters until console gamers decided to buy PC's... but I guess that's a completely different discussion.
  5. In my utopian vision of what I believe the suggested changes would do to DayZ, RP servers would not be necessary, server hopping would be more hazardous than rewarding, friendly samaritans would be considered legends, and true adventures would take place in Chernarus. Well administrated servers like, my one and only go to server when I still played, Oldschool DayZ Hardcore would have a world order, where Kunthammer and his raving lunatics would control the southern cities, and the peacekeepers would have to intervene when bambies report sinister laughter throughout the area, etc. This is what I am hoping for in DayZ. Not GTA 5 style combat or Pewdiepie type players everywhere. But that's me, my wishes. I am not expecting anyone else to share them, even tho I wish I could convert a couple of non-beliebers out there.
  6. Woah, I was not expecting this much action. Just a tad bit derailed here and there, but I have been guilty of doing the same to other threads, so fair play I guess. I understand how I can come off as an elitist cunt at times, as I am very strong in my convictions. But please trust me when I say that I do not wish to force players out of the game, so only me and people like me can play the game in peace. That is not at all what I am trying to say. My rhetoric can at times be very fingerpointing, I know. I shouldn't have used those exact words, and I am glad someone corrected me for doing so. I have made attempts to convince the masses of my beliefs in the past. Not only in the DayZ forums, but also in other early access games forums where I have felt a slower paced game, with an "everything is OP"-model in place, and more realistic player movement, would've enhanced the experience for everybody. When I do so, I am often met and "downvoted into oblivion" with similar arguments as yours, Lexman61. No one wants to be told how to play a game, and the game shouldn't restrict you from playing the game your way. Especially not DayZ. Slowing down player movement, plus a fair amount of inertia, weight penalty and a somewhat realistic stamina system would not restrict anyone from playing the game the way they want to. IMO it would only add more suspense and tension, appreciation for the world of Chernarus (as you would not be able to just sprint past everything), and more justifiable kills and deaths whether you are the psycho screwdriver bambi or not. In a slowed down DayZ a psycho screwdriver killer would actually be a terrifying idea, as it would be much more unlikely. It would be so humiliating to be mauled by a screwdriver, when you're carrying a repeater and a side arm, that the idea of such a thing would haunt you as you're making your way through Elektro. At the current state of the game, the probability of death by screwdriver is unrealistically high, and therefore nothing but frustrating (what I think Kirov was trying to point out with his tea bagging metaphor). I know it's a game, and I don't want it to be anything else. I just want it to be the best game it can be, and I think player movement is the missing ingredient that would turn the cheese and ham sandwich in to a 5 course dinner. That is all I am trying to say really, but it feels like sometimes one has to go in to subatomic detail to get the point across. That is frustrating, and when I am frustrated I sometimes say stupid shit. I apologize.
  7. Pilgrim, I do appreciate your post. It was a good read! This! If DayZ players were forced, by the game itself, to do everything more cautiously and tactically due to increased "realism" and "difficulty" (increased in the way this thread is suggesting), the short attention span teenagers and other players that do not fit into the supposedly gritty world of Dayz would stop playing the game. They would neither have the patience or cognitive skill to survive as they could no longer sprint all over the map looking for tactical bacon, or make favorable tactical decisions in a game that does not allow them to use the same combat tactics as they do in GTA 5 online. Edit; If the scenario of DayZ would take place in the real world, intelligent, perceptive and knowledgeable people would be the ones surviving in the long run. Hostility and brawn would only get you so far before you'd be outsmarted by another survivor, or just ruthlessly killed by nature. In DayZ, at its current state, knowing how to manipulate and abuse gameplay mechanics in your favor to get the upper hand in a combat situation is the one and only tool you need.
  8. Gritty in the same way a movie would be gritty, I suppose. Urban Dictionary; "harsh, coarse, rough and unrefined, as in film depictions that portray life as it truly is, without false distortions, stylizations, or idealizations. Often, the realism is exaggerated such that the culture or society being portrayed appears more coarse than it really is." Gritty? Far from it. Authentic how, I wonder. There are so many meanings to the word, and what the author of this description does mean is unclear. Free Dictionary; adj.1. genuine; real. Google; "based on facts; accurate or reliable. an authentic depiction of the situation". Definitely not one of these examples, which are the only ones I could find that could possibly be used to describe a video game. Survival horror hybrid. Hmm.. Survival according to Google; "the state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances."; "the act or fact of surviving, especially under adverse or unusual circumstances." This one I can not take away from DayZ. Not getting shot, try not to glitch out of a staircase and fall to your death, hope that your vehicle does not randomly lose all gravitational properties or that an infected beats you to death while spawning and waiting for the game-world to load, run full speed for 30 minutes through a rural Russian landscape to not die from hypothermia, while looting and avoiding death by other survivors, infected and wolves (all at the same time)... all of these do technically qualify as "surviving". Horror? Oh, they mean the horror of dodging hordes of infected like your playing Space Invaders? Maybe they are referring to the most aggressive packs of wolfs of all time? We have all seen how poorly wildlife is thriving in areas where human activity is minimal, right? I mean the lack of natural prey must be really strenuous on the poor wolves, and that is why they're attacking humans like it's in their everyday routine. Authenticity at its finest. "Players can live through powerful events and emotions arising from the ever-evolving emergent gameplay." This right here is the main problem. Gameplay does not evolve whatsoever. More content is added, graphics are updated, animations and sounds are improved. Gameplay does not evolve, it is merely spiced up. It is the same run n gun game it has been since day one of alpha release. The concern here is whether or not the devs will make the necessary changes to turn this game in to what they claim it is (or going to be at release). It is not an impossible task. They have a really good foundation of a beautiful landscape, a fair amount of content and a large player base.
  9. I said I wasn't going to respond to out of context quoted paragraphs, but I have to on this one. Mate... "Again, simply put (there is A LOT more to it of course, e.g. misguided retaliation)." I have not done nothing other than putting a clear disclaimer on my statement; "judging by online lectures and articles I have read over the years", and then expressed my conclusion. I think you should go flaming at e.g. Veterans Against The War, Sebastian Junger and BBC among many others. That'd be all.
  10. This is quite a read. I think I have kept it interesting and relevant, without too much bullshit, so give it a shot! From what I have gathered, browsing forums and commentaries, the main complaints and discussions about DayZ Standalone are; Killing on sight The infected Not enough content for PVE Weather hazards Loot economy The last three are IMO just frustration. Frustration because the environment is not compelling or challenging enough. The actual complaints about loot, weather and game content are just subconscious misinterpretations. Let me elaborate; If the act of looting itself does not excite you, the only reward for looting is finding good loot. This leads to boredom and frustration when loot is scarce or when you do not find the wanted, or needed items. DayZ should not be about the loot you expect or want to find, it should be about adapting to your situation - surviving. The act of looting, or as a true survivalist - crafting, which is a constantly ongoing necessity to survive, has to excite and offer more than just that. The hazards of rain and cold weather does play a part here. But after a while, players will only find "the know how and elbow grease" of staying dry, until you can continue looting, extremely tedious. Instead of bringing excitement to the task at hand, it only prolongs the inevitable and expected result of finding loot. Add more interesting loot, crafting, and ways of protecting yourself against the harsh climate of Chernarus, you say? More content would interest both seasoned and new players, but only for a limited amount of time. Once you have put up your first bush craft shelter, looked at it in admiration and shared the print screen, it will serve no more purpose than a camouflaged tent. It wouldn't take long until complaints about lack of content start pouring in again. This is why the infected is such a vital part of the game, right? They add that little extra excitement, fear and fun! No, they don't. Once you have figured them out, and you know how to use the mechanics of the game to not be particularly concerned about their presence, they are nothing more than a nuisance, just adding more frustration to the looting procedure. However, they do give away your position to other players. Which leads us to the big bad wolf; Killing on sight. I am going to take a little detour here, please stay with me. Since the invasion of Iraq back in 2003 I have been very interested in war. What has interested me the most has not been the advances in weaponry and strategy, but the psychology of war. Foremost why so many young soldiers in war zones are capable of purposeless killing. Simply put, judging by online lectures and articles I have read over the years, boredom and frustration is the main reason why e.g. a young soldier can shoot an innocent civilian on a bicycle in the back and not feel the least bit remorseful. These senseless killings often take place in less hostile areas. Young men (they are mostly men) have, since enlistment, been riled up about going to war. They expect, and want, war. When they don't get it (let's say they're put on guard in a relatively non-hostile area), they take their boredom and frustration out on civilians. Again, simply put (there is A LOT more to it of course, e.g. misguided retaliation). Back to the topic! To solve a problem, we first need to understand the problem. Why do so many players kill on sight? There isn't a simple answer to this question. Some probably just do it for fun. Some might be nervous by nature and very easily feel cornered and therefore kill on sight out of pure self-preservation. In these cases there is not much the game can do to encourage a different action. However, I do not think that most players that do kill on sight, at the current state of the game, (deep down) really want to kill everyone they encounter. I think they are experiencing the same boredom and frustration soldiers in real life sometimes do. They expected an exciting, exhilarating game where they would have to survive the elements, fight off "zombies", encounter groups of either bandits or heroes, and the occasional lone survivor where anything could happen. What they got was a 13 square kilometer big map that they could cross in less than 35 minutes. Effortlessly outrunning zombies, A-D-A-D themselves to safety when being shot at, server hopping to gear up faster etc. The one and only thing to do that is somewhat thrilling at this point is killing. - To all of you who have read my previous recent posts, I think you know where this is going, and some of you might even think; "This guy again with his stamina and weight system, and inertia. What a drag". I don't really care, because I am 100% convinced this is the only way to save this game and have it reach its full potential. I am not going to complain about 3rd person, even tho I think it is an absolute destroyer of games, because I know it is here to stay. If you are wondering what the hell I am talking about, have a look here and it will be explained to you in full detail; The Lonely Bandit's derailed thread Furthermore, movement- and wear & tear penalty when walking/jogging/sprinting on different surfaces is an absolute must. It should be less exhausting, faster and less wearing on footwear to travel by road, path or meadow than through the woods, up and down slopes and on rock formations. Predators could also be more prone to attack players moving around in woodland areas or high grass, but this aggression could be evaded by calm and collected movement. With a system like this implemented; - survivalists would have practical reason, out of a risk- and safety point of view, to stay in the woods. Only occasionally would a stealthy, high risk looting mission in the nearby village be necessary. Just crossing a big meadow could lead to disaster, so maybe a nearby tree-line is a better choice, even though it is an extra 300-400 meters to travel. Also, the probability of a wood dweller running into a like-minded fellow survivalist in the woods would be much greater than running into a psycho murderer. - psychos and degenerates would, just like in real life, congregate in urban environments and would probably feel very out of place in the woods, probably a little scared even. This would also give the larger cities a scary feel for survivalists, as they'd know there would probably be some messed up shit going on in there. - I think bandits would turn in to scavenger type players. Since bandits are not psychopathic murderers, but more role players giving their victims a frightening experience, they would need to travel in groups because on their own the risk of getting hurt when acting hostile, or trying to rob someone, would be much greater. They would also have to loot or craft to survive, just like everyone else, and as they are looking for interactions they can appear anywhere on the map, and their actions would be unpredictable. - anyone can be a hero. If you and a couple of friends run in to a friendly survivalist and he tells you he got robbed by a couple of bandits not more than 10 minutes ago, you could actually use your knowledge of the area, the map and your common sense to have an idea of where the bandits might have headed to (as the environment prevents them from being 4-5 kilometers away already). Hunt them down and return the stolen hunting rifle to the survivalist. Mission completed! - hardcore, military gear, combat tactical, seasoned players looking for an adrenaline rushing shoot-out would be able to take advantage of all these elements. At the same time, I do not think they would be as prone to instigate shoot-outs or kill on sight, as they understand the hardship everybody's going through. It would also be a feat and adventure to acquire full military gear, and someone who has taken his time doing so would not risk it all on killing bambis, giving away their position. The classic PVP areas of the map will still be their go to areas for combat, and the rest of us would know to stay the hell out of there. As much content the developers could ever muster to create, all the loot economy balancing they could ever care to spend time on, or all the updated graphics and real-time weather events they could code in a decade or two... all of that wouldn't even have "a fart in space"-significance to enhance game play and create a more genuine experience, compared to just making player movement and the environment's effect on player movement more true to real life. End; This is my last attempt to raise this idea of what I believe is absolutely pivotal to the success and survival of this game. I will bump this thread every now and then when it goes dead, as this will be my one and only domain here in the DayZ forum. If you read the whole thing, thank you for your time. If you didn't and decide to take one or two paragraphs out of context and comment on that alone, I will not bother to answer. My point is thoroughly expressed, and shouldn't require further explanation.
  11. The reason why they see it as a basic pvp game is because of videos like the one I posted earlier. There are literally tens of thousands of videos of DayZ like that. 3rd person, full speed running pvp like DayZ is Quake 3 Arena with a rural Russian countryside as map. When this is what new and future players learn from youtube, you will never see those types of interactions again - Now do you understand what we where discussing earlier, and how it actually is very relevant to this topic? (not flaming or ranting, hehe)
  12. I am sorry, I didn't mean to derail your thread. But I honestly do believe that all the things I have mentioned and discussed in your thread (again, I apologize for not staying entirely on point), is directly related to banditry and player interaction in general. You wrote in your first post; "Banditry was a lot more common, - interactions - were a lot more common!" I shared my opinion as to why I believe this is, and what needs to be done to revert this unfortunate trend. Side note; I am since a few months back working online, so I get interrupted when writing a post, and sort of just keep going when I have the time between work tasks. Sorry mate, I'll start a new thread if I feel like discussing this further.
  13. I agree with you that it will require some heavy tweaking and fiddling with the balance. But do you agree with the idea of a significantly slowed down game? I am glad to see some players who are on the same page for once. Have faith man! By the time DayZ is finally released the market will have been flooded with arcade-ish 3rd person shooters and people will be sick to death of it. They will have to make these changes. And the more we nag and bitch about it, the bigger chance there is they will listen. They have to at least try it, because I am pretty sure the majority of "casual" players has no idea what they are missing and will love it if implemented.
  14. With a new realistic (for lack of a better word) speed, stamina and weight system in place the game would by itself, without further encouragement in form of lore/scenarios/events or whatnot, become incredibly intense. Players would no longer complain about how there is nothing to do, as just looting a village safely could take up to an hour when you need to sneak past zombies, be on the look-out for other players, stay dry and warm, refill your canteen and so on. Even possibly interact with a passerby looking for food or someone to team up with so he/she can safely reach friends in a nearby city. Unless you are in the northwest, there will be plenty of friendly interactions as you no longer can eat two apples and then run to Vybor and gear up, but instead need a plan of action, plenty of supplies and maybe the company of a stranger with a rifle and a few rounds to even make it that far. At least, that is what I expect from DayZ Standalone. I don't know how or what they should do with the infected. I just wish they were less buggy, and that it felt justified every time they hit you. Maybe give them roughly the same stamina of a less geared up player, so you can outrun them if you're a bambi and do not carry a decent melee weapon. So if you are a little more geared up, and if you got a good head start on an aggro zed, you can still outrun it, but if there are more nearby they will join in on the chase and probably force you to defend yourself. I think the infected can be fairly easy to kill, or at least cripple, but the intense fear of attracting the attention of too many of them should force not-very-well-armed players to be very cautious. If the devs are not aware of this by now, they have been completely blinded by their own development. I think they know, but they need to see an absolute outcry in the forum before they'd feel comfortable in implementing the changes.
  15. I know I might come off as very tedious when I am constantly bringing up the same issue. But have a look at this video, recently posted to DayZ TV. From 0:40 to 2:28 you might as well have the Benny Hill theme on in the background. There is nothing exciting, terrifying or nerve-racking about this situation. There is no suspense whatsoever or no real consequence for attracting a small horde of zombies. It looks more like an NFL running back being chased by a bunch of toddlers. It is laughable at its best. The player does nothing wrong, he is doing what the game allows him to do, and he knows this is the most effective way to survive in this situation, from both the infected and other players lurking around. Let's say you are observing this situation from afar. Not only does it look ludicrous, but would you want to step in to this situation trying to help this survivor (given that this situation doesn't take place at NWAF)? Why would you? He can just run away. He's not gonna get trapped or be in any serious danger unless he makes a stupid mistake. You will probably see him run off with a horde of zombies on his tail, looking like mama duck with a flock of chicks following him around. Him not being in any real danger, other from encountering another player, makes him dangerous. The KOS cycle is complete! Since DayZ plays the way it does, gear is the only thing that matters. If you spot someone with an assault rifle at a about 100 m away in a village or city, it often doesn't matter that you have a fully loaded mosin or that you have the upper hand. There is no real way for you to predict where the other player will appear next, after he disappears around a corner, and you have no real time to tactically move in on the location, since the other player could be 10 meters to the left of you in less than 15 seconds. Especially if you are playing in 3rd person perspective, as he can stand anywhere in full cover and just watch you advance. Also, let's say you get a shot off with your mosin and the other player doesn't die, or fall unconscious. In a matter of seconds he will have circled around you, erratically A-D-A-D so you can't hit him with a second precision shot, and let off a long burst of rounds at you. The more people play in 3rd person and learn how to survive, which means use (abuse) the game mechanics of DayZ, the less interactions there will be. Like Kirov said; "DayZ combat is only slightly higher than first Doom games in terms of realism." Add 3rd person view to that and it feels more like Mario 64 than a horror, zombie, survival game. It does not go well with the gritty melancholic theme of DayZ. In order for people to feel the need to interact they have to become immersed and involved in the world of DayZ and Chernarus. Traveling on foot should take time and force you to appreciate the surroundings, and the possible run in with someone. The infected have to be a serious threat and you should often wish that another survivor would come around to help fend them off and offer you food or medical treatment. It is baffling to me how this has not constantly been the number one complaint, suggestion, priority or topic of discussion since alpha release.