Katana67

Fixed. Again, applied to certain things. Not everything. Driving and running occupy a middle-ground where they're both procedural actions and based on player input.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Real-world knowledge doesn't factor in at all. Player skill, does. And in areas which involve little to no player skill (i.e. procedural animations) is where I see a "skill system" working best.

But you already have that, by virtue of you surviving for so long as a player. This gets back into whether we're playing distinct characters or playing as ourselves through our characters.

Answer, it shouldn't apply to thinks like accuracy. Done deal. Innate qualities of your character are, supposedly, the innate qualities of the player. Procedural actions are a different matter.

I like the "skill" system as it's explained by Rocket, but it can't apply to everything. I think it should only apply to certain things, in two overall categories - Aesthetics (i.e. how your player looks in terms of stance and animation) - Actions which are a process (i.e. bandaging, reloading, blood bagging, etc.) I think aesthetics is an understated value when it comes to progression. Granted, this... again... runs into the problem of cross-server characters, but I'll just go with it. If a player looks like he/she has been at it for a long time (i.e. sprints efficiently, shoulders one's weapon efficiently, etc.) I'll be far more likely to treat them as a threat over someone who looks green (i.e. sprinting like a jackass, poor shooting stance, etc.) That's not to say that everyone who looks "green" isn't an experienced player, but it's just one more visual identifier to use in the overall scheme of threat analysis in DayZ. Actions which are a process, like bandaging, are tied to the actions menu or directly through the keyboard (press R to reload, etc.) The player clicks a button and the action goes about automatically. Other than the player's initiation of the action, he/she has no input. There is no "player skill" in an automated animation, which takes X amount of time. These are the things in which I think a progression system is fitting, whereby if you do something enough the time it takes to do it shortens. Likewise, you have the "luck" element in that certain things (bandaging, bloodbagging, etc.) may have a higher chance of failure for an inexperienced character.

Dean "Rocket" Hall, 12/09/13 "You can never be too sure what bugs are behind the ones you fix, that's why I am being so coy. take a look at the stream though you can see several big problems". http://i.imgur.com/baMDKzm.png That's why Rocket isn't talking, because DayZ has never been contingent upon something as insipid as nebulous "release dates". The release is contingent upon meeting milestones and accomplishing objectives. These milestones and objectives are fluid, thus requiring an adaptive development that cannot be beholden to a finite release date. Good night.

I guess the year of constant updates, videos, devblogs, twitter posts, and reddit posts doesn't count as engaging with your community and keeping everyone updated. Nope, not at all. Especially when you go silent for the lengthy period of a day or so. /sarcasm I care about the game, not the PR.

Oh lawdy, what ever will we do?

That uncertainty is really paramount to me. It affects so many things in the mod. Like "are those zombies spawned around me? or someone else?". It's not about your own individual awareness of the environment, it's about how well you can play the system. That's what breaks it for me, playing the system rather than the game. The same applies to people who remove ATOC, up their gamma at night, abuse side-chat, and talk to their friends on the other side of the map on TS. There are so many (poorly implemented/non-applicable) variables that it becomes impossible to ever have a "pure" experience in-game. This short-changes everything in my opinion, including the much vaunted "player interaction" that folks tout as the whole purpose of DayZ. I've heard Rocket talk about the "meta-game" of DayZ before, and I've never really heard a good argument (outside of the "convenience" argument) as to why we should allow for some of this stuff. I'm not sure I'd ever support tents being able to be moved across servers just on principle. If they're going to store a lot of items, they have to be fixed. Otherwise they're just glorified backpacks (and even then, having two packs is a bit much). As for sleeping, it just sounds like an in-game log-out timer to me. I'm not particularly fond of it, but I think your suggestion is a step in the right direction. It's not, for me, about having to sacrifice time/energy in order to switch servers. But making that decision to switch servers have consequences once you make it. The detriment (which happens on both ends) is aimed squarely at the server to which you switch, rather than the one you just left.

You, as a player become more invested in the world (your particular server, in which the layout of Chernarus is ostensibly unique in terms of loot displacement, player concentrations, player community, etc.) and therefore you become more attached to your character living in that world. I'll submit it in the form of an anecdote. I log out next to a tent, that tent is limited to the server. I change servers and log back in, the tent isn't there. How is that immersive? The particulars in continuity are what bothers me with being able to switch servers with the same character. It's a case of playing in the same world versus playing with the same character. I think any discussion of "character" might be a bit academic, as ultimately we're just playing in models which have no motives outside of the individudal player. There is no character really, just the player which is what I think is what separated DayZ apart and made it so immersive. You are the character, you, John Q. DayZ Player. Not Zombie Survivor 1. Which could lend credence to the argument of "you" being able to log into whatever server you want. But it's not that simple, and thus I think any discussion of "character attachment" has to include a discussion of what constitutes a character. I think you can have that immersion always, having a server-fixed character doesn't affect immersion or attachment for me. I think the question of immersion is a double sided coin. On one hand you have people who value their characters in being able to flexibly exist in a variety of servers, thus adding a bit of continuity. On the other hand you have players who value that same immersion, but in a different way. That immersion is broken by things such as being able to transcend the particular server (i.e. removing your character from one instance or world and artificially transporting them to the next). What really bothers me, in relation to my "character" or at least my own investment in that particular life, is the possibility of someone server hopping to take all that away from me without legitimate cause. That's what gets me, just the uncertainty that someone could've manipulated the system to kill me and/or my character. That's the crux of the issue for me, along with loot discrepancies. Personally, I think the compromises listed in the prior discussion are the way to go now rather than having an either/or. If we're going to have a mix of fixed-server resources and cross-server characters, swapping servers cannot remain consequence-less. If I had my way, I'd make the characters fixed to the server (to fall in line with server-specific resource systems such as construction, loot, and storage). But with the compromises, I feel that the negative effects of a trans-server character are mitigated nicely.

It's interesting that you consider it to be "more than 1 character" rather than "a server-specific character". I think it's an interesting discussion between where the line is drawn, at the character or at the world which the character inhabits. To me, the world is that line. The character already exists within that world, so I think to that extent you might be overstating the significance in the character in relation to how much it can hinder an invested experience. I don't see it as more than one character, because I've only played one character at a time. When that character is killed, I respawn and start anew. I'd submit that it enhances the attachment to your character, in that one cannot freely just upload/download their character into a different world at will. Likewise, even if one does maintain multiple characters, these characters still have different attributes. Your grievance might be more squarely aimed at private servers with ridiculous settings, and easily-obtained loot, rather than the concept of fixed-server characters. On any other day I'd be in full agreement with you, but the problems of player persistence in a segmented server structure really does not jive well with me. I've spent countless hours deriding people who have multiple characters in certain RPGs, so I can certainly sympathize.

It might sound a bit cliche, but I'd like to see a DayZ map in an American Northeast analog. I can't really recall any decent zombie movies/games which are set in the American Northeast. But that's just my personal prejudices being from New England.

I had thought of this, but I do not like the idea of islands. To me, it's just a meta-excuse to limit the size of your map. It's a convenient game development trope to just have an "island" rather than a "world". I like the idea of Chernarus being attached to a landmass. That and making Chernarus an "island" would restrict further map development. I really want them to make every effort to either expand Chernarus well past the current borders or to scrap Chernarus entirely and go with a (perhaps moderate) level of procedural generation way down the road. I don't want them getting comfortable with the "island" paradigm that's become prevalent in game design. Eventually I'd love to see the entirety of Chernarus represented in DayZ. But that seems a long way off.

"I'm not a proponent of censorship, although I'm a big believer in self-censorship" ~ Will McAvoy, The Newsroom Might have to put that one in the old sig, my distaste for the use of TL;DR and the subsequent intended hilarious antagonism isn't funny to me any longer haha. EDIT - There, look what you made me do.

Like I said, will not be commenting on the hypotheticals that you insist upon injecting into the argument. Interesting discussion, moving along.

No no! I actually like the idea of a forest as you explain it. I'm just positing the idea of a "wall" as an alternative to what we've got now (unfinished terrain), not as an alternative to a potential forest. And not that it matters, but I'm actually a grad student in Middle Eastern studies. :D

It both doesn't sound good and depletes the effectiveness of what you're trying to say. You're asking me to comment on a hypothetical, when (ironically) there are real-world examples that I've used to demonstrate my point. Walls separate things. I'll address the hypothetical points you've raised, and will answer no more highly situational hypotheticals, as one could go on incessantly about this forever. 1. Yes, it takes a moderately divested infrastructure roughly ten years to construct 200 linear miles of fencing, concrete barriers, barbed wire, and check points (see West Bank). I cannot comment on a mobilized international construction effort as would likely be required in the physical quarantining of a portion of an infected nation. But, let's just say six months supported by a peacekeeping task force to (ostensibly) contain any infected personnel approaching the construction zone. In fact a wall would save money, as once it is complete (pending a cure not having been found) one would have a minimal security staff. 2. Because we are human? We have competing ethical and political imperatives to act in certain ways? Why doesn't Israel nuke Gaza and the West Bank? Because of the political and ethical ramifications of condemning a large population to death. Again, you're applying real-world pragmatism to a genre which relies very little upon it. Regardless, the entire point of this was to provide something more plausible than a blatantly unfinished terrain at the map boundaries. EDIT - Nevermind the fact, that by my inclusion of its failure... it's sort of included because it failed. To add plausiblity to the borders and depth to the lore of DayZ. Because nobody's ever undertaken a construction project which failed right?

I enjoy civil debate, not deeming things as categorically "stupid" as a framework to support my points. Call me crazy.

You're missing the concept that I'm expressing, and I suggest you temper your reactions. Wall, sea, plastic covering over a gurney, refusal of immigration, are all constructs given to contain people. These are all functions of a quarantine. I'm not commenting on the realistic application of a wall. Although I think you're vastly underestimating its usefulness, see modern-day West Bank and pre-modern China. All of which made/make extensive use of walls to keep people in/out. I also think you're being very selective in your argument in terms of the "zombie" genre.

You raise a very interesting point, which is sort of what I was trying to get at. It's less about where players are as to where they go if that makes any sense. That and there's nothing encouraging a player to settle at all if he/she chooses to.

I don't ever go into Elektro or Cherno. I can count on my hands how many times I've been there in a year. I still encounter tons of people in the Wilderness and elsewhere. That and it's my impression that Utes will be difficult to access. What I'm trying to say to all of you, is that there's more to the map size than just square kilometers and accessible areas. It's about where the players go and what draws them there. More players = more players in X area. If the overall area does not expand, the overall density/distribution will increase if more players are added.

But I don't really go into the "dense" portions of the map though, and I still encounter people all of the time. I see people in Vybor constantly by the way. This is all anecdotal of course. But having interiors increasing the available space to the player, does not therefore add space to the map in terms of player distribution. Again, if you're in a building or beside a building, you're still in that place. I'll use the Overwatch server I play on as an example. There are barracks dispersed throughout the map, in areas which are normally devoid of anything valuable. Replace barracks with cities, and you make for a much more distributed player population. Couple that with more players and it only compounds that distribution.

Right, I am assuming that. Just as you are assuming that - A wall is impractical in quarantining an area - Reality should dictate fiction explicitly - There is still a society left to nuke Chernarus in your hypothetical scenario - That society viewed Chernarus as a wholly lost cause and did not try and offer a cure to infection I'd direct your attention to the preceding movie of 28 Days Later, whereby they didn't nuke the United Kingdom. They quarantined it. This quarantine was provided for by a natural sea boundary. Insert "man-made wall", and you've got that out of your way. I'd also direct you to World War Z and Land of the Dead, whereby a wall/moat was used to cordon off a large area. It doesn't matter if it's a city or country, whatever area is deemed as a potentially infected area requires quarantine. Put walls around Chernogorsk and Elektro for all I care, that would actually enhance the so-called realism argument you're making whereby they have several contingencies of quarantine should the city-level quarantine fail. You're applying a real world hypothetical to a fictional (and finite) map to which it is not applicable. I merely suggested the wall as a means of plausibly explaining the unfinished edges of Chernarus.

I think 50 players is more than enough. I encounter people. All... The... Effing... Time... The problem will be exacerbated with a smaller "Wilderness" in which I already encounter a ton of players.

See every fortified border in history. See every zombie apocalypse in fiction. See quarantine doctrine. If you're applying only reality to a fictional circumstance, you're already looking at it from a problematic angle. DayZ wouldn't be a very fun game if they glassed Chernarus. Hence why applying only pragmatism isn't always helpful.