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*

This came up recently in the General Discussion, but i'll post it here as well. Currently, if a player finds and puts on a ghille suit, their backpack is not shown, but they still have access to any items in it. To me, this seems overly convenient... not to mention unrealistic. Instead, I think they should make it a tradeoff so that the player can't wear the suit and have a backpack at the same time. Survivors who come across ghillie suits should have to make a decision whether to keep their backpack and the extra space it provides, or enjoy the benefits of being camouflaged.

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.

I only shoot at zombies when i'm spotted and have no other choice anyway, so the noise it makes really isn't a huge issue.

It's good for a fairly common primary weapon, but i'd much rather use a lee enfield or a winchester... which are fairly common as well.

I know what you mean. I think the mod can improve a lot and certainly become more polished... but there's always the danger of feature overload, or of it heading in a completely wrong direction (such as becoming more gamey and less sim-like)

I just hope they have the sense not to pay any attention to the hundreds of stupid suggestions that would: - Make the game more gamey or arcade-like - Make the game less about survival and more about killing hordes - Make the game more about PvP deathmatching - Make the game more casual and easy going - Make the gameworld less believable and immersive The fact is, for every good suggestion I see on these forums, there seems to be another 10 geared at ruining the game by making it one of the above.

i TOTALLY disagree - I feel missions would add a good element to the game. For example: "Unusually high numbers of zombies have been seen in and around (insert name of town) - eliminate them" ( ^ ^ ^ no thought put into this as it's just a quick example ^ ^ ^ ) or you come across an mortally injured survivor NPC who was trying to get medicine for his young son so now this task now lands on your shoulders as I said - examples . . . . . . . Chernarus is supposed to feel like believable world that's been decimated by infection. Having the game assign you missions detracts from that in my opinion. Besides, DayZ is supposed to be about survival. It's not about killing hordes of zombies as your mission example suggests. The only real "mission" should be surviving. To accomplish that goal, you set your own objectives... like travelling to Chernogorsk for medical supplies, or meeting a friend at Balota to search the airfield for better equipment. Killing zombies should be a means of survival. Almost a last resort if you can't sneak past them. Not something you do for fun because the game sets it as a mission. Think about it - if you were in a real zombie apocalypse, you wouldn't go to a town and think "I know, i'll clear all the zombies out of this town for fun". You'd do your best to avoid them and take what you need from the town. Only if they spotted you would you resort to killing.

I think a better way to get people to work together in game is to simply include more things like blood transfusions... that one player can't do by themselves. Players can find blood packs, but they need another player to administer the blood to them.

I don't play Arma 2 because I want army training. I play it because I want an immersive and fairly hardcore FPS experience. :-/ I still enjoy more casual arcade-style FPS games as well... but for a different reason. DayZ is a zombie survival simulation. That doesn't mean it's designed to train people in case a zombie apocalypse happens, or anything stupid like that. :rolleyes: It just means that it's goal is to immerse the player as much as possible and really put them into the scenario of a zombie apocalypse. If I want something less serious, I'll go play an arcadey zombie game that's about horde killing.

No. That would make it far too gamey and detract from the zombie survival simulation approach Rocket seems to be going for.

What? :-/ So I guess Bohemia Interactive are morons for making Arma 2 in the first place then, because as far as FPS games go, that's fairly realistic.