Kageru

It's a game that will soon exhaust it's "celebrity status" and be a niche PvP mod on current trajectory. Which is fine if that's what the designer was aiming for. Hopefully someone else can capitalize on the interesting idea of a zombie survival simulator, rather than "bandit-wars".

For those who don't check the suggestions forum and because it's as much a discussion point.

Impressive stat. And this would not include bandit on bandit kills I assume. I suspect it will fixed by removing the "bandit" designation since without a meaningful humanity system it does not have any real relevance to the game at this point.

Bandit heartbeat range is 15 meters. If they are a bandit you've probably already been shot long before that. The best way to help others without risk is probably avoid them (bandages aren't that rare), shoot aggro zombies or go anti-PK if you are geared and good... but spotting PK's is pretty hard work without bandit skins and the good ones will be geared and working in groups.

Random gear resets would probably do more for fair play than just about anything else. But anyway, I'm sure this will be plugged as soon as it can be.

.... temptation.... too..... strong.... IT'S ALPHA!! Though if NWO is some sort of hard-core PvP group, and that was their lovingly gathered / duped gear stash then I'd add a complimentary: DON'T GET ATTACHED TO YOUR GEAR!

more like in the "who? and why should we care?"

You should make a you-tube video of you saying "medic" and getting shot repeatedly. It would be a good reality check. Still, interesting experiment.

Not really. Gear is the way this game keeps score. It allows the skilled hunters an advantage, allows those who have stockpiled gear an advantage, makes you not want to lose your gear and allows griefing through taking gear / killing those without the gear to present a threat. Besides, I walked from one end of the map to the other which is trivial (barring the chance of PvP) and boring. The value of the landscape is defined almost entirely by the loot spawns, which are known in advance, so that defines where the action is. I'll consider anti-PK when finding out who the PK's are isn't such a handicap. But the above sounds sort of fun, zombie trains through the middle of Cherno!

I knew all those beans would cause issues. (Shooting mechanics are more Arma-II territory so probably out of scope for Day-Z).

It is not new maps the game needs. It's more game play mechanics. It's a sandpit... but if you dig in the sand most of what you'll find is guns.

Greetings, I write this by torchlight in the hills while the goat cooks. This mod is really interesting and atmospheric but it didn't take too long that I had the rudiments of survival (though who would have thought finding something to carry water would be harder than finding guns?) and started thinking about what came next. In pretty much all the zombie comics and movies I've seen a couple of things happen: - A lot of people panic, fail to adapt, get surprised and get eaten or shot. Lots of that going on. - Some people adapt too well, find a high powered weapon, and decide that makes them a god in this new world and everyone else is a danger / opportunity target / loot stash. Lots of this going on. - Some people focus on survival so get the necessities and head for the hills avoiding all contact since a lot of the people around are armed and crazed. Ultimately a somewhat lonely game experience though. But there's something else that happens in zombie movies and isn't in the game. People try to work together, create a small pocket of tenuous security, and try to hold out. Indeed almost every movie I know is about this group trying to survive not about a lone sniper on a rooftop or a mountain top hermit. Of course the nature of the game makes it hard to have anything persistent (or even find each other), and you don't want to take control out of the players hands, or need too much content. So while I hope there is a plan for a cooperative end-game by the people who are doing the hard work I'll throw out some ideas I had simply to get them out of my head: 1. Somewhere on the map, ideally randomized, there's a camp or repurposed building which is a survivor camp, possibly more than one. It has a couple of NPC guards who will shoot zombies or bandits within their range. This gives a small zone of weak security and makes up for players not being persistent. This camp provides shelter, a place to gather and form hunting parties, a place to camp out of the game and log back in safely but not much more. Notes giving this location (if random) could even be a loot drop. 2. A bandit is someone whose account (or they'll be "washed") has killed more survivors than X per hour of game-time (say 1 per 3). Survivors won't know if you've made a couple of opportunistic or self-defence kills, but if you've killed 100 survivors a day you are going to be a hot topic of discussion. So if a guard or player who has visited the camp can identify a person they'll know if they're a bandit or not (ie. red name). The main advantage is that it's really easy to automate, no complex code needing to try and work out who shot first, no gaming it (especially if the stats are hidden) and allows for the occasional "oops" or "yeah, co-operation is fine, but he needed to be shot for the common good". Most everything else could be left up to the players and what ever evolves. You still won't be able to fully trust each other because people can be moles for the bandits, potential bandits, low-key bandits or thieves but at least there's a place to gather and explore the issue of trust in a zombie apocalypse rather than everyone heading for the hills or shooting it out in the cities. There's some other game-play that could be extended from this, but its also more complexity: A. The humanity system could tie into it. Both being a bandit and occasionally needing the company of others. Most people probably can't handle living in the hills, dodging the dead and killing bandits forever, they'd need a place to recover. Other people would flagrantly advertise the fact they want none of it and choose to wear a bandit skin (and find another sort of stability). B. The camp could move. It might also need to be constructed, say it gains strength the more material is scavenged to build it or takes damage from presumably fighting off zombie hordes. So there's a reason to form a party and go scavenge material from industrial sites. Or maybe they can craft found objects into useful stuff. C. It makes a reasonable place to recover from infection, exposure or broken bones over time. The medicine will be instant but of course probably camped / dangerous to get. So you have to make a decision. D. It could be a place to park personal vehicles? I've no idea how that part of the game works though (not really interested either). E. It could have a per-server "community chest". Co-operative people *might* engage in altruism and trade, or they might steal everything in it, would be fun to find out. It also gives a motive to keep going out on hunting parties even when you've personally found most of the stuff you want. F. The guards will shoot at anyone who injures a survivor within their perception range (reduces exploit potential). G. You could have Jerry cans of water giving a place to fill flasks, but sometimes needing to be refilled themselves. H. Getting drunk... hey, it's another way of dealing with the end of civilisation and not all those bottles of scotch can be empty.... yet. But you'd only drink in a place you feel somewhat secure. Anyway, thanks for reading if you got here, sorry for it being long but wanted to get my ideas out so I can stop thinking about them :) Thanks again to the mod creators, there's nothing quite like this out there.

Heck, all the end-game loot is primarily for killing players thanks to it being inherited from Arma-II. Not much point in getting all those rare guns if you are not going to shoot someone with it.

The only functional end-game is PvP / PK. Or possibly hiding in the forests trying to stay alive to show up on the longest survivor leader board but that is hella boring, and still really PvP because that's the only challenge there too.

Dividing people into camps is valid because people *are* divided into camps by their game-style focus. The person focused on "I'm a zombie survivor!" is much more likely to be looking for co-operation, rebuilding, gathering supplies with others. The person focused on "group based PvP" has an almost entirely different focus. The problem is they're on the same map, their gameplay styles will collide and one of them is far more likely to be back at the coast wondering what happened and why people are so hostile. It is not realistic but there needs to be some mechanism to warn the first player that those guys over there aren't going to be interested in roleplaying a scavenger hunt, so that the advantage of co-operative play which is group play happens more in-game with the survivor players (The good PvP teams are going to be grouped, because it's a huge advantage to their play-style). That also allows PK, anti-PK battles so that co-operative "we hunt the hunters" conflicts can happen. The current "heartbeat" mechanism is hilariously useless for this purpose. Which could be taken as an indication Rocket wants the PK groups as "hunters" providing the threat in the game. Which is fine, but people will realise the game is not really a zombie game after the first couple of hours. The game would also really gain from a structured progression such that PvP hotspots aren't right next to new player spawns and that increases in environmental or zombie difficulty don't freeze out the new player and scale as they gear up. But I assume rocket knows that. Eve, from the example above, does this through group reputation. If you see another player you know if his clan is hostile to your clan (allowing for politics), you know if he's a PK and there are policed safe zones for new players. Though a lot of that depends on having thousands of people on one server.

15m? That's fantastically pointless. I'm awed, and yeah can imagine it gets annoying.

Heck, even drinking from a creek without a tool is beyond us now. In practice the limiting factor is water, most of the water sources are either exposed or in towns. But the gameplay is too damn boring that it becomes an issue.

Is there a range limit at which you can detect it?

I've never suggested PvP be removed, it just took me a while to realise there really isn't a valid alternative. Once you've got some basic gear you are more or less done with the non-PvP/Zombie part of the game unless you roleplay it yourself. And most of the mechanics even work against that since attempting to play a "survivor" is unrewarding for a lot of reasons and a substantial PvP handicap when other people are roleplaying "special forces squad". What I want is what I think a lot of others want, a more complete game in which multiple play-styles are possible and balanced. But I'd estimate that's many months or years away, game development takes time. And in the mean-time I expect very well organized and motivated PvP centric groups will drive off the majority of the people attracted to it as a game primarily about zombies and fiercely oppose anything that reduces the focus on their preferred play style. It would be just as bad if people argued for the complete removal of all PvP. Though the pro-PvP people are generally much more motivated forum participants too. What Rocket wants... well, that doesn't really matter as much as the mechanics he implements. The removal of the bandit skin certainly encouraged a PK outlook now (no consequences! harder to trust, harder to anti-PK, more realistic) but there's just as much chance we'll see a new humanity mechanic at some point that changes the balance again. We'll only find out over time, and since the focus is emergent gameplay I think even the designers will get some surprises.

A player hiding in the forest isn't gaining anything by it, isn't having much of a gaming experience and is still at some risk of PvP. It's not really worth the server load of populating the forests, or plains, since there's nothing of value or interest there. I mean if you want the experience of being completely safe and eternally self-sufficient the easiest way to do it is log off.

You are funny and transparent in your motive.

It's a minor problem that only PK's really care about, but I'm pretty sure a short logout timer is likely. A quick google suggests there's some mechanical problem with times greater than 5s though, which is probably why it's not in now.

Nah, that's how it is (a thin skin over a tactical simulator). I think Rocket and many of the people buying into it believe it could be more, but that's going to take time. The only thing that's certain is that the current state is not the end goal.

This game is a thin layer over a tactical combat simulator. With the added bonus that persistence allows an organized team to multiply their advantages, and victims to feel a deeper sense of loss when they are sent back to the coast without any gear and face hurdles to re-gearing. Plus some of those guys try to play as "pacifists" in the middle of a war-game making them easier targets. In time it might be a zombie game, but it really isn't at the moment.

Once you know the spawn points, how to deal with zombies and the fact that you aren't really risking much when you have just spawned the "survival" part of the game doesn't last long.