FlimFlamm

The only way to sucessfully implement aircraft in DayZ is to find a balance with them. It would be very hard to balance a UH-1Y in the game of DayZ. Anyone who thinks firing 2000 rounds of 5.56 every minute is a good plan then they have another thing coming. Military aircraft, as I will argue, should only come to fruition with modding tools. As has been said before if people want full militarization they are going to need to wait until modding tools. Military aircraft aside, I'm keen to discuss exactly how arcraft can be kept balanced while still making them satisfying in the long run: here are my ideas so far. Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance. This is the obvious and easy way to balance any form of aircraft implementation. The more in-depth the maintenance, the more difficult helicpters will be to use effectively. Realistic Damage. If aircraft take bona fide damage from bullets, then we will see them be used in a drastically different manner than we saw them used on the mod. On the mod aircraft were pretty beefy and hard to hit. Attack helicopters could be easy hit with bullets if they were attacking you or trying to land, but the amount of armor they had made them flying tanks. If aircraft have little to no armor (I.E, not military aircfraft) then nobody will fly low and base hunt out of fear of being shot down. We will see them used in civilian-esque ways instead of airforce-esque ways. Better (more realistic) Flight Model. Aircraft should definitely, definitely, definitely, behave in a more realistic manner than the way they behaved in Arma 2. Flying a helicopter was literal child's play. Autohover was constantly used by 95% of all pilots simply because they are bad pilots, but autohover allowed them to takeoff and land. Not loosing control, Landing properly, Taking off properly, actually flying straight, etc..., these are all things thta will become genuine issues for people. Even with the ease of flight in DayZ there was like a 20% crash rate. In my experience, 20% of all aircraft flights end in a crash (resulting from the poor average piloting skill of the public), imagine how high that number could be if helicopters were actually more challenging to fly. I don't even really need to make this argument regarding planes and autogyros, but a better flight model is absolutely expected. On the DayZ mod people crashed planes and gyros so frequently that literally only one in 50-100 players was competent at flying them. If the devs addressed these three main aspects, getting a helicopter could become so difficult that groups of 20 struggle to achieve it after weeks of play. Through part rarity, tool rarity, resource rarity/complexity it is possible to counteract the OPness of a heli of just about any size, but if helicopters should not be too OP in the first place, and overall they should not be nigh on impossible to get. The last and most important method of balance is the overall rarity dilemma. The issue is that once servers gain control of vehicle spawn rates, they will jack up the numbers, and those servers will become the most popular for that singular reason. This is where the concept of supplementary constructable ultralights comes in an tries to save the day. Ultralights in the form of fixed wings, autogyros, and mozzies (with their respective complexity and difficulty to construct) will satiate many players who want flight for the sake of flight without giving them something inherently OP. (1 passenger, basically no cargo capacity). Because of this, players and server owners will be much more apt to not want an increase in actual vehicle spawns because they will want to preserve their rarity and value, knowing that players have access to alternatives they an achieve through their own hard work. The problem is we all want aircraft to be rare, but even more so we want to actually use one more than once a year, and so we jack up the spawn rates and fuck over the rarity and then there are too many OP helicopters everywhere, and the game changes (Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow :D). If we implement constructable ultralights then we address the problem on many fronts. Firstly we allow for more vehicles without making them free and spawned in everywhere, players have to work for them; value of aircraft is preserved and the number of constructable vehicles will only ever reflect the amount of work players have put into making them on a given server. Secondly, the 'extra vehicles' that exist as the result of being constructed by players will be inherently weaker and more limited than real helicopters; we satiate people with a vehicle of their own after two weeks of work, but we don't break the game by rewarding them with something over powered. This also keeps real helicopters much more valuable given that they can actually be used as transports so the most powerful groups (or the badmins) can be the ones to vie for the ultimate power (if indeed it be that). Thirdly, and perhaps in the end the most important reason to have constructable ultralights is Realism/authenticity. Small groups and lone survivors simply aren't going to have the where-with-all to maintain and operate any kind of medium or large helicopter. Realistically the best they could hope for in the name of reconnaissance or travel is an ultralight that they can actually construct, maintain, and fly on their own. Given the availability of ultralights, many players will opt for an ultralight instead of going for a much harder to maintain/fuel/fly large helicopter. As a result instead of servers needing to spawn 20 helicopters to satisfy their playerbase, they might only need to spawn 4 or 5, or even 2-1. Instead of everyone and their grandmother flying around in a little bird or better, the aircraft economy will actually scale with the strength of groups who play on a given server. The level of maintenance required such as complexity of parts and amount of resources required can also scale with group strength; only large groups will be able to power the machine shops and fabricate parts they need; only large groups would be able to collect enough fuel for a large aircraft like a little bird. And I promised myself I wouldn't make a huge post... TL;DR: BALANCE!!!!! balance real aircraft with extraordinary maintenance requirements, weak armor resulting in extreme fear of bullets while flying (realistic damage), and make them be much more difficult to fly (wind, turbulence, tailspin, no auto hover, etc...). Add Ultralights in order to neuter the chance of 2000 vehicle bonanza servers, thus preserving the value and rarity of actual aircraft while giving something less powerful and more authentic to smaller groups who cannot fight for the super rare helicopters. Not to mention ultralights would instantly become an incredibly attractive end game.

I never wanted to shove 1pp upon anyone. All I wanted was for people to share their opinion, for or against, whatever it may be, just as you have done. The fact that 1pp only can cause some people headaches is an excellent reason why 3pp should never go away. At the same time it's relevant to my desire to understand the why behind the differences in popularity of 1pp and 3pp servers.

This is an interesting thread for a few reasons... The poll shows that a lot of people are O.K with 1pp, and that also a lot of people are passionately against 1pp only. The latter is shown not only in the poll but also in many of the responses to the thread :) This thread was never intended as an argument for 1pp only or to influence the devs, but instead to explore opinions and get to the root differences between the two camps of opinion. A lot of people had been talking about it (it's always been a classical DayZ issue) and with the changes to 3pp coming there was a lot of varied discussion about what's what, so I thought a 'feeling' based poll would be a great way to elicit opinions. Turns out it was quite effective! It seems that the main fissure runs between the issue of "peeking around corners and above walls" line of argument, with the typical counter either being "You can wall look too" or "wall looking isn't that effective". I have talked to many people and most of them seem to be favorable toward 1pp, and so I found it curious that 3pp servers were more popular. The poll seems to show in favor of 1pp, but still 3pp servers are more popular. Is this a case of hypocrisy? Are the 3pp players so dedicated that their numbers attracts more traffic from the hypocritical 1pp enthusiasts? :D If I had to conclude based on reading the thread, I would say that 3pp remains more popular, and will remain more popular, because while people like the idea of a difficult game, they prefer to take short cuts (please forgive me, ye crowd who sayeth 3pp does not give tactical advantages). So I guess I'm calling most of us hypocrites. Including myself actually. I have more hours on 3pp servers than I do on 1pp servers. Sometimes because of the higher population, sometimes because 1pp is less convenient when it comes to looting, hunting, landmark navigation, and yes, pvp. My third cent. TL;DR: 3PP will never go away, nor should it. The devs probably are going to try and remove wall peeking from 3pp by changing the way the camera rotates around you. We all say that we want difficulty and we consider ourselves purists but we're all hypocrites. The popularity of 3pp server and the results of this poll proves it. This thread overfloweth...

Me and a buddy got bear maced by a couple of hooligans before (cannot blame them they were terrified of my friend :) ) and basically what happens is you have a good ten seconds of failing vision before you realize how much pain you are in, and it's not worth chasing down a couple of mouthy miscreants and go blind for a good while. The trick to getting maced is to use that ten seconds of failing vision to get a-hold of them and throttle them good!

Ok I'm going to deal with only this erroneous claim, because after clarifying you still seem to misunderstand. No sales. Just math. Here we go: (44 member(s) have cast votes) - this is the total number of voters (information found at top of poll) Constructable Ultralight aircraft has 26 votes - This is the total number of votes cast for constructable ultralights (information also in poll) What this means is that 26 out of 44 people chose constructable ultralights. or 59% of everyone 24/44=59.09% The 13.27 percent that you are working from presumes that each vote of the entire poll comes from a new voter, but most votes come from the same voters because multiple votes are allowed. It's only when we count up all the votes for every category that we come with the 13.27%. If you still don't understand then consider this, If I was the first person to vote and I selected two options (civ helis and constructable ultralights) then the poll would show both options at 50% because it calculates from total votes cast instead of total members cast. Since multiple votes are allowed we must calculate from total members cast, otherwise every statistic will be drastically deflated. (I thought you linked me to a thread I had made and said it was a mischaracterization, editing to correct that sorry for the assumption, it's a totally different thread which is exactly as you characterize it)

25/42 people voted for the constructable aircraft option. that's 60%. Believe me now? Because there are multiple selections allowed, the percentage listed by the results in the poll do not actually mean anything relevant. Those statistics are about how often certain selections are chosen compared to all the other selections and do not take into account multiple selections. Constructable ultralights are (were) undeniably the most popular choice.

zeds seem to be in but not respawning, so once an area is clear they are gone. Same with animals.

Regarding the results of the poll so far, a few interesting trends are emerging. Very few people want to see "full blown military aircraft"... Most people seem to be interested in seeing "constructable ultralight aircraft" (This pleases me immensely :D), and also "Light civilian helicopters, limited passenger capacity (4-6)" The latter statistic might overlap with "Civilian helicopters with doors which passengers can shoot their guns from, or drop grenades" which has slightly less than 50% of the vote and so a new poll might be required to find out what the result would be between strictly helis 4-6 capacity versus helis 4-6 capcity capable of door gunning. The conclusions I would draw is that people want aircraft to be very limited in their power and also people are generally interested in seeing constructable ultralights. If I was a dev then I would think about conceding ;) If I had it my way, personally (please nobody hate me for this), I would make vanilla have two choppas with 4-6 capacity (undecided on shooting from doors), two planes like cessnas or something, which would have a 4 capacity but be better on fuel and be able to lift more than the chopper (obviously landing is a hassle). Aside from this all other aircraft would come in the form of constructable Ultralights. Now before we all freak out and fear that the skies will be filled with mozzies or gyros or areolites, I would also limit the number of engines that players can find in order to limit the availability and maximum number of possible makeshift vehicles. Engines would also not be transferrable server to server, so there would be no latteral issue between servers either. The amount of tools and crap required would be immense, making them pretty hard to exploit. The system in theory would work :/

I've got a hard on specifically for a glorious thing called an "autogyro". If I had that I wouldn't care about anything else :). Me second hard on comes from planes of any kind. I love flying planes. They require less fuel and can lift more. They are harder to exploit for a tactical advantage in DayZ and therefore have less impact on the game than a chopper (Gyros included). It's very important to me that the devs get vehicles right, or else vanilla DayZ SA will go the exact same way of the vanilla DayZ mod for arma 2. I think the best solution to this is to supplement vehicle access with hard to construct makeshift/ultralight replacements. This way servers won't feel the need to jack up vehicle spawn rates, vehicles will still be hard to get, and real vehicles will still be far superior to their makeshift/ultralight counterparts and therefore real vehicles will still be icnredibly valuable. This opinion goes a bit off topic of the thread but it's still quite relevant. I've made a thread in the past about makeshift ground vehicles, it got a good response. (IIRC) I might ressurect it or simply create a new thread devoted specifically to the concept/mechanic of players putting their own vehicles/aircraft together from tools, raw materials, and parts.

Any fellow Scotia Novan DayZ players is alright in my books :) I type too much sometimes... It's like a drug... The TL;DR of my most recent post is that with the vanilla mod most servers wound up jacking up the vehicle spawn count to ridiculous numbers because people felt they were too rare. It had the ironic effect of making them feel worthless... Until the mods hit the scene and then supplementary vehicle access was added like bicyceles, makeshift vehicles, and NPC vendors. (not that i am supportive of NPC vendors, it was just a ebtter system than 2000 vehicle bonanzas)

I would like to make a quick point not so much about aircraft specifically, but about vehicles in general. It begins with the story of the DayZ mod, when we all heard about this cool new freeish game and we tried it; turned out to be amazing. We were all instantly hooked. We play for a few days, and then suddenly we see a car drive by at high speeds along the coastal highway where we are roaming. "HOLY SHIT THIS GAME HAS VEHICLES?" We all thought... Then we continued playing for around a month but lamentingly we were not able to actually find a vehicle; turns out they are too rare to actually hope for. *several months pass For some strange and unknown reason, all of a sudden there are a crap ton of vehicles everywhere. They are now easy to find and as a result you don't even feel like they're worth anything. even the helicopter you found. "Big whup", you think... *several more months pass You can no longer play on the server that you began on because it has given way to something called "2000 VEHICLE BONANZA". The most popular servers are ones that have vehicle numbers jacked way up and manys ervers are getting replaced by modded versions of themselves. These modded versions alter the way vehicles are accessed, increasing their potential numbers but still keeping them somewhat difficult to get. *a year passes The original version of DayZ that got you hooked, nobody any longer plays. It's fun but it is only fun for so long when you either cannot get a vehicle due to rarity or everyone can get them becasue they're too easy to get (the vanilla mod's main issue). The result is that everyone has now migrated onto modded servers that flesh out deeper vehicle functionality and improve means of access. These mods are very popular (even still today) If I had it my way, I would lobby for 1-2 actual helicopters capable of transporting lots of players, a couple cessnas capable of doing the same, (so 4 natural aircraft total), and then all other aircraft would need to be laboriously constructed by individuals and groups, and would only come in the form of ultralights. If servers want to, they could also turn off spawning helicopters alltogether, and disable construction of ultralights. If your guy's vision of a flightless DayZ is good, then I'm sure some servers will cater to it. One of the things that I really hope gets addressed is the problem of servers jacking vehicle spawn numbers way up to make them accessible. There are other ways to make them accessible without jacking up their inherent spawn rates, constructable ultralights being for me the most attractive option.

*Bill enters to find Fred and Ralph twitching and mumbling on the ground, clearly enthralled in some shared delusion brought on by the empty cans of paint nearby that they have been huffing. "Sorbital Trikes!", screamed Fred... "Badministrator...", mumbled Ralph... "Wake up you blithering buffoons! We're movin out!!!!" *Fred and Ralph scramble to their feet and perform a shoddy looking salute "Where are we heading sir?", asked Fred. "We're heading to a place that has more than just one singular flying machine. It has smaller ones that we have a viable chance of getting our hands on. Better still there seems to be no evil and all powerful diety who controls all flying machines and brings about our constant demise through their god like knoweldge." "That sounds amazing!!!!" ejaculated Fred and Ralph... "Will there be orbital strikes sir?", Asked Fred longingly. "Fred, If I catch you huffing anymore of our paint I'm going to take you out back and make fertilizer out of you. Kapishe?" "HAIL GUZZOLINE!!!!" *Fred sprays his AK crazily into the air while everyone else plays the all to familliar game of "duck and cover"

This is a really good idea. +1

Ah pish posh. Semantics! From that article: Many military installations are known as "forts", although they are not always fortified. Larger forts may be called "fortresses"; smaller ones were once known as "fortalices". The word "fortification" can also refer to the practice of improving an area's defence with defensive works. City walls are fortifications but are not necessarily called fortresses. What I meant was that some people could consider traps to be a form of fortification. We can appeal to wiki as a god source and debate whether or not land mines could be considered "defensive works", but I suspect this is not what either of us wants :) 2. By "airforce base" I meant someplace that you could protect an aircraft from attackers, and this is if there is a large group to defend it in the first place. I'm not asking for an aircraft carrier here. A bush for a gyro, some light tree cover for an ultralight fixed wing, a car tent that they can be towed into. Large helicopters or planes will require something special. A secured roof for instance. Large planes will be required to land in isolated places and constantly moved around. (Islands perhaps?) If your main objection in point #2 is that the ability to move troops to hot zones is over powered, then realize that the availability of large capacity flying machines would be very limited. A little bird with max 6 capacity is literally the best helicopter I would be interested in seeing, with people able to shoot their guns when hanging out the sides, or else whatever MG is in game, the ability to mount it to the door (even if it is just an AKM). If littlebirds exist there would be only one or two of them available, and they would represent the pinnacle of fast travel and troop deployment (if you all have parachutes). At the same time using a little bird to deploy troops better have a damn good cause. If a group is going to be hasty with their ultimate tool then it will easily get destroyed, and they all die and whine. Ultralights are both easy to shoot down, cannot carry heavy loads, and cannot carry more than one passenger. 3. I'm not exactly sure if constant lighting, patrolling, workshopping etc... is required to operate a single aircraft... Maybe if you want to field a quartet of hueys, you would need such resources... We can grow crops and make our own fuel (I'm not so sure about aviation quality fuel such that helicopters require), but this doesn't mean that we need to keep workshops constantly running, lights always on or constant patrols. We can go on "missions" of various kinds with the aircraft and it will either be useful or it wont. If we don't use it to collect enough supplies, or gain enough information, or save enough time, then it will have been a waste of time, albiet an enjoyable one in the context of a video game. If you crash it; waste of time. Gets stolen; waste of time. Disabled; waste of time. Marooned somewhere with no fuel; waste of time. Constantly in maintenance due to "that missing part"; waste of time. Joy riding in aircraft which causes strain on food and security; happiness; also, like all ineffective or superfluous gameplay, a waste of time. 4. I was a pyro in my youth, fire is a warm mistress indeed, just don't burn down my stuff! Regarding the zombie infection lore, It doesn't really make sense that all these zombies have not simply starved to death. God knows my character has. I can sort of make sense of it by presuming that every day is to be considered the first day of the apocalypse (hence, Day Zero), but then this basically says fuck you to any aspirations of long term thinking and end game functionality (not that the lore will actually outweigh gameplay in the end) If we're under quarantine then an aircraft is the best bet you have of escape! The perfect end game... :) 5) Ahh you see the problem here is the most successful groups are very very nasty ones. They actually have a very strange religion regarding guzzoline and follow a sadistic patriarch (harem and all). The real problem with settlements is they all get raided to shit by this one crazily powerful group of metal head road warriors who worship guzzoline, huff paint all day, and are expert vehicle mechanics because that is their religion and their instrument of war. This gyro captain is in effect absolving himself of having to worry about these ground killers (as best he can) with their very fast cars and nasty attitudes. He would probably live in a settlement if he knew of one that was safe, until then he will keep on the move, living a nomadic gyro lifestyle...

1. I think your view of bases is way beyond the proportion of what I thought it was. The first line of defense is camoflague. You make it hidden. The second line of defense are traps. Things like bear traps, land mines, trip wires, etc. these are equally camoflagued as your base. (some might call these 'fortifications') The third line of defense can be boarded up and padlocked doors in already existing buildings. Existing buildings make for perfect player bases. They blend right in. As far as actually constructing bona fide fortifications like walls and ditches and such, I'm really of no opinion. They might be cool but I don't need them. I'm a minimalist in truth. 2. Maybe for this reason I will fortify areas that contain absolutely nothing. Maybe my real loot will be buried out back in a bush and all you will get from me is the cash in the register. Furthermore I agree with you that all base building is an exercise in the delay of it's inevitable collapse. This is a bit of a tangent I don't really see why aircraft are going to quicken the inevitable demise of big, bad bases. 3. Your response is interesting. You talk about wanting to trade (trade for what? you already have everything. I would trade for aircraft parts.) and about raising militias and such and all this grandeose stuff, but when it comes to flight, something that would be helpful in a zombie apocalypse, you scorn and scoff and act like it's a terrible idea. Your bias shows through when you talk about things like industry, 'military defense pacts', the whole shebang. Except flying. That's for tossers and the like! If the wright brothers could do it on their own then so can I with all my modern advantages. 4. It's slightly worrisome that you so frequently speak of burning things to the ground :D. First you burn my base to the ground and now you're burning all my pet zombies to the ground too! Also, if you think you can simply suffocate a zombie, you're crazy! Zombies don't use oxygen man, they eat a lot of brain food! People will always be a bigger danger than zombies in DayZ, I get that. I have thousands of hours played on the mod and the SA is even more filled with amoral players. This is another reason why aircraft can actually be a boon rather than a burden. When organized groups control the ground there is no escaping them. they have faster vehicles than you, longer range guns, and there are more of them. You simply get hunted down and you die. Traveling in an aircraft means that when you are spotted you aren't then subject to the whims of whoever happens to control the region; you can fly away. I remember being constantly pinned down and wrecked by Humvee driving coastal bandits, even without a mounted gun. They can run you down and put you into a corner/hole. At least once it would be nice to give them a 'fuck you' and make an aerial escape. The idea hat as soon as a base is spotted it will be burned to the ground aside, I would rather there be so many zombies that burning a few of them here and there won't make much of a difference. There should be around 6 billion zombies or so on the earth in the event of a zombie apocalypse, and they aren't going to all just die convieniently for us, cause well, then they wouldn't be zombies. 5. I never said I abandoned anyone. In the situation where it is a one man camp and I'm living a nomadic gyro lifestyle I will flee any danger for fear of losing my gyro. I would park it in random isolated places each night and conceal it in bushes and trees as best as possible. In the situation where I am living with others, and I have something to defend, like I said in my post, I will fight and die for glory and for the honor of my comrades let the autogyro be a prize that goes to the victor. Tell me in which ways the following video breaks with your vision of what DayZ should be

I think it would be retarded not to have at least ultralights available. I'm just as skeptical about the realism/authenticity of helicopters has you are but flight in today's world is too common place not to simulate. There is a sacrifice to realism I will concede this. Not everyone is a pilot or understands flight mechanics, they are rare, but there should be enough material, information, and resources available that somewhere it will happen, so why not in Chernarus? Ken Wallis, the old man, (RIP), in the photo a few posts above built, designed and flew auto-gyros for almost his entire life. give him some aluminum, a drill, and a diesel engine even, and he could make a surprisingly safe to fly autogyro. In a zombie apocalypse, I would half expect his reanimated corpse to build and fly a gyro in order to get to his human supper in comfort and style; that's how capable he was. Players are incredibly worried about their camps being spotted, but this will happen anyway, and the devs can address the rendering issues which have made it cheap in the past. Bases built in the open should be prepared to have defenses. Bases made to be invisible need not be affected by flight. Regardless of whether or not flight is available, it can always be balanced via rarity, maintenance difficulty, flight difficulty, and vulnerability. Flying low and everywhere base hunting is a great way to get shot down; there goes a week of solid effort on nothing more than a gamble. Flight is not necessarily destructive whatsoever to any matter of survival simulation or gameplay, there are simply a few hits to your ability to believe that a 15 year old knows how to install an engine on an aircraft (or a V3s for that matter). The amount of fun and potential that aircraft bring make the slight hit to realism an honor to endure. For me at least

My main statistical analysis comes from the "Does dayz need aerial vehicles thread" which has ample sample size. If you're interested in learning about statistics, here is a statistical analysis post I made on this exact subject. If you want to make me feel like I'm bad at maths or statistics, then criticize that post why don't ya?: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/222236-does-dayz-need-aeiral-transport/page-9#entry2250687 1. Because no matter how well your abse is hdden someone will find it, in which case you need a second line of defense? "WHAT ? MORE THAN ONE LINE OF DEFENSE? RIDICULOUS!" 2. Why cannot I board up and lock some doors in the interior of a building or something? Why can I not place hidden traps? 3. Players will accumulate resources regardless of how difficult the game is. We will beat it and exploit what we are given. All bases end, and no matter how difficult erecting them might be, we still always find a way to do it gloriously. Play Dwarf Fortress why don't ya? Not everyone will have excess, I understand this, but some people will... And what do they do once they get excesses? Sit on top of it like some most specially greedy, strong and wicked worm? Snort. 4. Good luck accomplishing anything with all the zombies. Trade routes? Fat chance. Wait 20 eyars until all the zombies are gone, until then we need mobility. 5. I don't live on an airstrip. I have an Autogyro hidden behind some bushes on the rear hill. As soon As i heard a mortar explode I grabbed what my Gyro could carry and I abandoned by camp by taking off down the hill and flying low around the trees. OR As soon as the mortars started landing on our hill, we all grabbed our guns, radio'd for assistance and are engaged in open warfare. We aren't running anywhere.

1. I think not selecting any options is already possible for you, and your abstinence will be recorded by the total of how many members casted votes. If someone could confirm this for me, that would be wonderful. That said, if aircraft are going to be in regardless of any polls or argument against them, then you should voice an opinion about them for your own benefit. If your exact vision of DayZ won't become a reality (probably none of our "visions" will) that doesn't mean you cannot try and positively influence what will it will become. If you are very against aircraft based on the idea that they are overpowered then you should be submitting an opinions like "aircraft should be super rare" or "aircraft should be nearly impossible to maintain and operate", or even "there should only be one heli per server", like some have done. I am actually quite good at statistics. If I gave you an actual "No" option then you wouldn't bother giving the opinion this thread is specifically designed to elicit, which is if aircraft, then what kind and how, rather than simply: Aircraft? Really had I allowed an option that doesn't answer the question the thread poses I would be screwing up my data gathering approach. 2. If somebody can spot enemies on the ground from an ultralight (unconcealed enemies) and provide a real tactical advantage then they are putting themselves at risk, because they too can be spotted, and shot down. You talk about the actual difficulty of getting off the ground as if it is a godly feat. An actual city-state would be able to basically do many of the things that modern civilization does simply because we now know how, and our technology and information is well preserved. All we need is one library. The main issue to actually doing maintenance on an aircraft, or building one, is simply know-how, not material scarcity. A small group of individuals with the right knowledge could get it done. Since servers actually have communities much larger than 200 and since it is much easier than you think to achieve basic flight, there would be plenty of competition. I think that access to flight alters the game as well, dramatically, and for the better. Without altering or removing any ground mechanics it opens up an entire new frontier and end game that is interesting, challenging, and enjoyable. Terra firma lovers will need to adapt to threats possibly coming from the sky, but so what? Seems more challenging and exhilarating to me. Being attacked from the air is terrifying and awesome. 3. I find it really curious that you can run from end to end in 30 minutes... Is this when you are fully stocked with water and maxed out on calories? Do you have to stop to forage? Are you including all the hassle and inbetween? When stamina hits the map is going to grow, relativistically speaking. Traveling will take more time and zombies will pose much more of a threat. A pox on your 30 minute fairy tale! It's not necessary for large groups to form that we have aircraft, it is just highly conducive to them. Getting everyone together at the same time can prove quite a task. People die and need rides, there are only so many ground vehicles available, they break down, so people tend to not bother and go their separate ways. Groups who are masters of aircraft gain the convenience of being able to get everyone together in an amount of time that is reasonable. 4. V3S's are going to be much more rare than they are now, and driving along the coast in a v3s with all that gear for god knows what reasons must have meant you guys were done surviving and just doing stuff for shits and giggles. Is there really that much of a difference between driving around for fun and flying around for fun (or with purpose?). In my vision of DayZ, only fools or bandits would drive a gear laden V3S down the coast If it only takes me 5 minutes or less to fly from map end to map end, that's fine with me. I like how I don't need to spend a fully realistic amount of time running from town to town, there is only so much time I want to spend traveling when I am determined to get from point A to point B. 5. It may well be that you disagree but if I was a betting man, I would bet against the devs changing their mind on aircraft. I understand you have some valid arguments but I implore you to make some DayZ lemonade!

It's been talked about and in the road-map forever. If the devs were going to change their mind on aircraft we would have heard so by now. Regarding what percentage of players want aircraft and which percentage do not, it's actually quite close to 30%-70% divide. For example, the most popular option is the constructable ultralight option, and 19/27 people have selected this as an option (equivalent to almost 70% exactly). I'm pretty sure that you can select zero options and still submit a vote, this is what I reckon has happened. All that statistic business aside, I think you are somewhat biased in your vision of what aircraft would be like. Here is my counter dialogue: "So Ralph, we've been living in this zombie apocalypse for about a year. We have a hidden and fortified base stocked with weapons, ammo, food, traps everywhere, and several ground vehicles stashed out back. We have weapons and supply cashes around the map and we are starting to get bored of carjacking and sniping people as a pastime. What do?" "Well Fred, there are three airports nearby, what if we could get some sort of plane up and running? It's not that difficult to fly a plane right?" "Sure it's not too difficult if you know a little bit about planes, but the real problem is going to be getting the thing flight ready." "Well that's fine with me Ralph, I have a full set of tools and there are a few machine shops we can power with generators if necessary. I've been doing mechanical work on all our ground vehicles, I think that it's possible I could do work on a plane if I could get the right materials" "Is it really worthwhile Fred? Won't it be a huge hassle?" "How much of a hassle is it to walk and drive around on the ground through hoards of zombies and marauding bandits just to get from place to place, or to transport some supplies we have located? We've been toiling on the dangerous ground for long enough. I want to feel freedom again, even if it will only last as long as one tank of fuel." "I don't know Fred, I just don't see the use..." "You don't see the use of being able to evacuate a survivor in need who is calling on the radio for help? You don't see the use of being able to transport supplies much more safely than driving them along the bandit and zombie infested ground? You don;t see the benefit of being able to collect members of our clan when they return to Chernarus from their travels?" "No Fred, I just see it as a massive expense and a massive risk for us to take" "Jesus H Zombie Christ Ralph! We've been living here for a year and the most amount of convenience we have been able to achieve is a lightly armored pickup truck. When are we going to evolve? I want to explore new lands. I want a safe method of escape. I want to start a family and expand our commune. Think about the long term. Do you really want to sit in your snipers nest and defend this place forever? When do we move on to bigger and better things?" "I don't care what highfalutin wish wash you think you can accomplish, my rifle and my bicycle are it for me". "Well that's all well and grand, but I should remind you that the east coast bandit company has been systematically razing all fortifications to the ground. They operate like a military unit and have the best of everything. The only possible way to escape them is in the air." "They cannot kill what they cannot find, and an aircraft is probably only going to draw their attention and if we give them the idea then they might decide to get aircraft of their own and then where can we hide?" "Where can we hide anyway? It's only a matter of time before people stumble across us. You shot three people on the eastern hill this morning. And you know very well this place is invisible from the air. Why else would we have concealed everything in buildings and under thick trees?" "Fine then Fred, if you want to open up this giant can of birds then so be it, but you are not to bring your aircraft within 1km of this place for any reason." "That's fine Ralph, me and the other clanmates who want more for our children have decided to construct a fortified base out in the open. We are done hiding, and what we have we are willing to protect. It's the only way to compete against the organized bandits." "You think you can defeat the unending tide of evil scoundrels that will kill you, take your precious aircraft, and then devour your freshly butchered corpse?" "No Ralph, maybe not. But we have to try... Because this isn't living, it's just waiting to die." ... Several months pass and Ralph see's the efficacy of aircraft in a zombie apocalypse ... "Fred!, your aircraft has given me an idea... ORBITAL STRIKES!!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!!! OUR ENEMIES WILL BURN FROM ABOVE LIKE ANTS FROM GOD'S OWN MAGNIFYING GLASS!!!!!!" *Fred clicks the radio on "Uhh guys? Where did we put the straight jacket? Ralph has just lost it again..." "ANTS!!!!! MUAHAHAHHAHAHHAA !!! ANTS!!!!!!"

I understand that around 30% of you want a "no" option but what would be the point? Given that three are going to be aircraft regardless of any polls, we might as well get around to discussing the types we want to see available rather than arguing that they should not be available at all. To all the people who want no aircraft whatsoever, my advice is to argue for the most minimalistic implementation of aircraft you can think of, much like what boneboys has done. When it comes to bona fide aircraft like little birds or cessnas, I think that they should be rare and very difficult to repair/maintain. There should be no militarized aircraft (shooting a pkt/pkp out of a heli door should probably be the pinnacle) whatsoever. The reason why larger substantial aircraft should be very rare is because of their utility. The convenience of transporting 6-8 players from the coast is not something that should be commonly experienced, but the experience needs to be available. There should also be smaller ultralight aircraft with 1-2 person carrying capacity and severely limited (like in real life) maximum weight capacity. I think these should be incredibly difficult to get, but I also think that players should be able to construct ultralights themselves through adequate tool/part/resource requirements. One of the main arguments against aircraft in general has been that they will be used to spot player camps. All I can say to this is that the game graphics mechanics are going to change slightly, and who knows what the final build will be like or whether or not camp visibility will be a problem. I want a balance between availability and utility. I'm sort of against giant helicopters like an Mi-17 because they are too powerful. I want to have access to flight, but on my own the most I should be able to do is construct an ultralight for transportation. If there were so few aircraft that experiencing them was a statistical anomaly, then team play would be less dynamic. Compare your experiences on the vanilla mod to your experiences on a mod like overpoch. On the original mod with regular vehicle rarity flying with friends was a once in a blue moon affair that seldom happened. Friends were few and far between on the vanilla mod. When people had access to vehicles larger groups formed because they were actually capable of getting together!

I wouldn't mind if numbers were very limited, but 1 I think is a bit too rare. One of each kind of heli and plane, 2 planes and two helis or 3 planes and 3 helis, per server, might be enough for me, but even then I would feel like they are too few in number, especially given Chernarus + and ideally a higher player count per server. When it comes to the so called conclusions I draw from the polls, the numbers I give are supported by the poll results :)

If anyone is interested here are the conclusions that can be drawn from the old threads: 70% of people want aircraft, 30% don't. Of the 70% that wants aircraft, Around 40% of them want to see "all kinds of aerial vehicles" (rather vague) and the other 60% wants to see something less than all kinds... We can conclude that 40% of people want Autogyros, 35% of people do not want autogyros, and 25 % are on the fence about them...

The problem with a "No" option is that it is an impossible option :) I'm doing you a service (in my own crazy and convoluted way, hehe) by limiting the poll in this way. Now you can vote for whatever is most minimal (non constructable ultralight planes?) and your opinion will be reflected in a statistic that matters. (the devs simply aren't going to not add in some kind of aircraft) It's basically like me telling you who is definitely not going to win an election, so you can avoid wasting your vote on them :D I also think it's important to have renewed discussion, even though nothing has really changed on the aircraft or vehicle front since the old threads, there is only so much utility in older, many paged, and less specific posts. As the game becomes more fleshed out, people can begin to get a clearer picture of how aircraft should be.

While that thread is probably going to overlap somewhat with this thread, the discussion that I am interested is slightly different. Presuming that DayZ is going to have aircraft, I want to discuss more specifically what kinds of aircraft we should have, and why. Also the mechanics of flying them, and how we get our hands on them in Chernarus. I did a heavy amount of posting in that thread but most of my arguments were related to reasons that aircraft should be in the game or criticizing reasons why they should not be in the game. With this thread I hoped to move past the issue of whether or not they should be in the game and instead start thinking about exactly what they should be presuming that they are indeed going to be in DayZ.

It's a harsh reality that you are going to need to face. Aircraft are coming to a Chernarus near you. We might as well talk about them in order to figure out the best way to implement them right? I thought we were past debating over map size dilemmas... P.S the main aspect of aircraft I have always argued for is an ultralight makeshift/constructable aircraft. I have only ever brought up militarized aircraft to discuss their nature and have expressed negative opinions on anything overpowered.