Turin (DayZ)

There's absolutely no rush to get the standalone out there. I don't understand why they were so determined to hit 2012 in the first place. War Z has been a complete failure, so there's no pressure to compete with that anymore.

The mod is arguably at it's best and most enjoyable when you're still going through the learning curve and finding it incredibly tough to survive. Once you become really familiar with where to find loot, how to avoid zombies, etc. survival becomes a bit easy and trivial... and overall the game becomes somewhat less rewarding (albeit still fun). So no, I don't think this is a good idea.

In my opinion, Chernarus hugely responsible for the success of DayZ. Perhaps more than any other aspect. It's just such a perfect map / setting for a zombie survival game. I just can't imagine DayZ being anywhere near as good in a different setting... especially a Mediterranean setting.

The bandit skin was a nice but very flawed idea. Perhaps it needed tweaking instead of removing. *shrug*

Indeed. Serves him right. :sleepy:

Most of the rare weapons in general. The scarcity of ammo kind of negates the slight lethality increase they offer. I find a lot of them to be more of a novelty than anything else.

It's the best open world zombie survival game.

Simple - because people on the coast have usually just spawned and therefore have less to lose. People further inland have generally aquired some decent loot and/or walked a long way to get inland. Therefore, they care a lot more about dying.

As i've said in similar topics, the best way to discourage all the PvP deathmatching that's going on is to shift the emphasis back onto survival and zombies. Recent updates to the mod appear to have that goal in mind. Also, introducing more features like blood transfusions which require players to cooperate with each other with probably go some way towards solving the problem.

I think it's disappointing that so many people are running around PvP deathmatching without really giving a damn about the survival asoect of the game, but at the same time this was inevitable given the mainstream attention DayZ has been getting. All Rocket can really do to counter this is make survival a tougher, more engaging experience (which appears to be his goal with recent changes, like the removal of the starter gun).

I don't always shoot on sight, even when they have a gun. I don't try and speak to them either though, so it's always a gamble. Quite a lot of the time the gamble pays off and we end up cooperating for a short while. Other times, they shoot me in the head and I feel silly for trusting them.

I hope so. It should be an open-world zombie apocalypse survival simulation, but it feels more on the fringe of being an open-world PVP deathmatch FPS game with added loot and zombies in the background. Recent changes are encouraging though, as they seem geared at shifting the focus back on survival instead of PVP deathmatching.

If melee weapons were a secondary weapon, then pretty much EVERYONE would carry one and there would be no real sense of urgency or vulnerability when you run out of ammo. You'd always have a usable and fairly effective weapon. As primary weapons, people are forced to make a choice more - whether to drop their weapon that's out of ammo and pick up a crowbar, or risk holding out for more ammo.

Nope, bad idea.

Well said. New players will be frustrated at first... but once they become familiar game, a lot of them will be glad about there being no starting weapon.