Katana67

It's not fun because there are no consequences. Storage itself isn't the problem. In fact, it'd be a disservice to not have storage. It seems there are a few schools of thought regarding storage, persistence, and construction. One of which is the idea that DayZ is supposed to be this fleeting nomadic experience where the player isn't supposed to settle down even to the slightest degree. I don't see that as the sole purpose of DayZ. This gets back to the idea of "DayZ is what you make it", and settlements (however small they may be) have not been accurately provided for in DayZ. Tents are part of an immensely flawed system, that needs to be addressed and expanded upon. The problem is with persistence. The tents stay put after your character dies for a long while. That needs to no longer be the case. You die, your shit goes with you within ten minutes so that the people who killed you can loot it and you cannot haul ass back and get your stuff 9 times out of 10. Hoarding isn't a bad thing, it's a bad thing when the loot is plentiful. What if that player worked his/her ass off to get all that loot? The problem is that, in the mod, it takes far too little effort to gather loot. Likewise, the system for storing loot is far too forgiving. Lockable containers would curb, like you said, people having ready access to other people's stashes and would add consequence to checking out a structure/tent. You can't just loot and bail, you have to linger. You also have to have a particular set of equipment (which takes up inventory space/slots) to open said lock or deconstruct said barricade. Hell, you might not even be able to loot the thing at all if you don't have the right equipment for that particular lock. That and it seems that the inventory in SA will curb the benefits of looting stashes as well. Personally, I think storage should be a feature that is widespread. Defunct refrigerators, boxes, cabinets, nightstands, etc. Every house should have some form of container inside, or multiple containers. As of now, houses (even with interiors) are just shells. There is no depth, no use to anything inside the house save for a few nebulous loot spawns. In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong with "putting stuff inside other stuff". <Insert Joke Here>.

Missions, yes, should be entirely organic. You find a note with the location of a possible stash in a house. You watch a helicopter crash and decide whether or not to investigate. It should always be up to the player, and there should be no artificial interface to organize it. You either do it, or you don't. Even if you do, that note with the stash location could be bogus... or someone could've already looted/boobytrapped/camped it. That should supplement the purely player-driven stuff, and could complement it as well. I've used this example before, but imagine leaving a note in a trashcan dead-drop. Somebody picks it up and it reads "Drop a DMR in this trashcan at 1300 EST. Will trade for a medbag and a backpack. We will be watching you". Both organic events and player-driven interaction has to be provided for. Missions, as it were, isn't really an apt term.

So, to everyone discussing locks, Epoch, and whatnot I will say this. Everything requires a counter. In Epoch, bases are indestructible and you're SOL without the passcodes. This is a dumb system. If one puts up a locked wooden door, one should require a wood axe to chop it down. Or a suitable breaching round. If one puts up a metal door with a heavy padlock, one requires a satchel charge to blow it up or a welding kit to deconstruct it. These are just examples. You can apply any level of granularity that you like to the particulars, but to make it a decent system without screwing people over... it has to be rock/paper/scissors. If this type of balanced system were to be implemented, I'd support fortification on any building (including high-value loot buildings should they exist in SA). I don't think underground bunkers are the right way to go. Or rather, they shouldn't be the only way they're going. Underground bunkers work fine as a top tier construction. However, for low and mid-level construction, I think the fortification of existing structures is more than suitable. It then complements the "end-game" bunker, rather than just leaving it on its own. Likewise, it's easier to predict (as there's only X amount of possible fortification "slots" per building, and Y amount of buildings on the map).

I wasn't referring to the "Hay Shack" depicted in the screenshot. The "Farm Huts" I'm talking about are the ones we've got in game already that are pretty much just sheds, but they're not open in the mod. Rocket enters one and changes his axe out for a fire extinguisher in the latest devblog.

Very cool. Something that's been eating at me. None of these buildings, even though they look great, are significant yet. Sure, they'll spawn loot (ostensibly) but unto themselves, they're just containers of loot and nothing more. You could of course, make the case that they're an enhancement to the landscape usable to the player. They are. But they do not affect the player in any real sense. I guess what I'm getting at is that there's no benefit in being sheltered or having shelter. You go into a house and exit once you're done. There is no incentive to stay in the house. Which also brings me to construction. Improving shelter is contingent on a few systems being implemented (as well as more I'm sure) Weather This would create a need for shelter, in that your condition (disease vulnerability, heat loss/management, fatigue, item condition, etc.) would deteriorate rapidly if one is exposed to the elements for too long. Temperature is not the only threat to human life. Rainstorms, wind, snowstorms can exacerbate the effects of fatigue and exposure. I'm sure Dean could sympathize with this one. This used to be significant (at least for me) when in the mod entering a building increased your temperature recovery. Shelter After the "weather" system (which is half-way implemented with temperature) one would require tangible benefits to staying indoors or under cover. I think temperature recovery is a good start, but it needs to be made more unforgiving as a mechanic in the first place. I'm not saying that if you venture out on a cold day you should freeze to death within fifteen minutes. But nightfall, on a cold night, you should be seeking shelter or moving from shelter to shelter. Construction Doors, walls, planks, fences, etc. I think they should start out slow, but in a way that benefits the player immediately. I've always been of the school of thought that DayZ requires a construction mechanic which allows players to fortify existing buildings. In my paltry understanding of programming/the needs of DayZ, I've always thought it to be more efficient and applicable to just come up with fortification templates for existing buildings. I don't think building a bunker somewhere or building a cabin should be the last and only form of construction. I mean, we're going to have villages/cities full of enterable residential housing. Why not have those buildings be able to be boarded up? I'm not saying make high-value buildings like barracks or apartment buildings be able to be boarded up (I mean, maybe). So long as there is an appropriate counter to every fortification, I think this system would work well. Some small caveats - Campfires should be able to be created indoors again. I don't know if a "smoke" mechanic is called for, whereby smoke builds inside a building without proper ventilation. Or, if it should require different materials? But it should be possible. - Storage containers need to be able to be placed indoors and provide for persistent loot storage. Again, I think this all goes back to them making up their minds on what is persistent across servers and what is not. - Doors need to be able to be opened/closed on all buildings which have them. Those new farm huts, which look great, don't seem to have closeable doors. They're just permanently fixed open. - I'm not sure if this'll be a problem in SA, but zombies actually need to RESPECT closed doors and walls. If it's an unfortified door, I'd be in support of them breaking it open after a while. But they shouldn't just walk/clip through the door.

So, I've been on planes all day... but... DayZGame? Whaaaaaaaat? I assume I'm late to whatever party happened. Do tell.

You can smash a bug... but it's still 86% more likely to cause hax. Here's a tip, aim for the brain stem and put that bug down for good!

Someone needs to shop Rocket's face over NPH's pronto...

I'll reserve judgment on the non-floating loot until I see it. Just afraid it might get a little clippy, but it seemed like a fairly easy problem to remedy if it's out of the way already. Cool though!

Why? I never understood this. DayZ mod was without vehicles for many extended periods throughout development, and people still played/enjoyed it. In the heyday of DayZ, vehicles weren't a given. I've spoken about this before, but vehicles (while fun and interesting) just make the map smaller for me. Granted, if I find a fully repaired truck in the woods you bet I'll be taking that sucker. But I've only been compelled to repair a vehicle from scratch perhaps once or twice. Likewise, vehicles compound the negative effect that sidechat and TS/Skype has on DayZ. Nobody gives a shit about getting killed when you can just instantly radio your buddies for a pick-up on the coast. I'm not against vehicles being included at all, but they have certain problems. Mostly having to do with how easy it is to repair and refuel them in the mod, and how difficult it is to actually hide vehicles. But there are systemic considerations which have to be brought to light. That and I think people having to walk everywhere for a good long while will add weight to survival and maybe stop how entitled people feel toward rides.

I wasn't answering your question, but commenting on the content of your post and your explanations. I have no idea of anyone working on a new map. If they ever do, I want a new (or re-worked) engine to accommodate some level of procedural generation. It wouldn't be a very long-term solution to just put out maps for people to get bored with shortly (as you assert). I'd rather the map be expansive and responsive to a larger number of players, rather than limiting the auspices of DayZ to the map size (which isn't all that big once the blanks have been filled in).

People got bored with those additional maps pretty quick too, and subsequently returned to Chernarus with more extensive mods (i.e. Breaking Point, Overwatch, etc.) None of the maps (other than Chernarus) in my opinion were believable. Taviana and Lingor were the worst, I hated both of them and uninstalled pronto. They were completely unimaginative and far too clean. Namalsk seemed alright, I suppose, but lacked the polish of Chernarus. I'm not sure the maps themselves caused the so-called exodus from vanilla DayZ so much as the gradual addition of new gameplay features in the various mods. I think people are underestimating the additions they've made in Chernarus Plus, as well as the effect that near 100% enterable buildings will have on making the map itself more interesting.

I never mentioned how you felt, as I have no idea how you feel. I'm merely suggesting that you're taking one instance (your specific offer of audio resources being unheard) and extrapolating an unreasonable conclusion (that the developers are wholly and categorically uninterested in community-produced resources).

So you're making a sweeping accusation about their unwillingness to use community resources based on the fact that you (an individual) got snubbed? Perhaps they don't need your sound resources because they've already hired audio personnel.

People's definitions of plausible vary, and I do believe that believability should trump (but not rule out) pure variety. Some believe it's implausible to have an AR-15 in a supposed (albeit fictional) former Soviet state. I don't believe that it's implausible at all, especially given the fictional nature of DayZ. However, the line is drawn for me at weapons that wholly bring me out of the experience. For instance, when I saw the WA2000 in MW2 (after coming off of CoD4) I was pretty bummed, because less than 200 of those were made, each one costs more than a BMW, and they're used primarily as collector's pieces. The LeMat is not only highly antiquated by today's standards (which alone is not enough to dismiss it entirely), it was very rare in the time it was produced (150 years ago), and is also implausible in the sense of "Why it's there". Now, granted, this is just another example (as it is certainly apparent that the LeMat isn't a likely inclusion in DayZ). I hesitate to use the "laser weapons" analogy, which isn't totally applicable. But there is a line of plausibility which strengthens the experience of the game rather than just putting weapons in randomly.

Oh the irony, a LeMat? Really? Hope that one doesn't make it to DayZ (it seems unlikely). Normally, I'm an advocate of weapon variety and all that jazz. But the LeMat is really just an antique piece at this point. Roughly 2,900 were ever produced, lord knows how many have actually survived two centuries of the world turning. Hence why they're so valuable and collectible. I supposed it'd be plausible for it to be a modern replica of a LeMat, but there are so many more plausible weapons (Plausible as in fictionally plausible, as it's much more reasonable to have a NATO intervention sprinkling AR-15's in a foreign country than having a crowd of Wild-West memorabilia collectors sprinkle LeMats in Chernarus during a zombie apocalypse). Nagant Revolver would be great. Surprised we haven't seen it to be honest. I don't much care for revolvers, however.

Still not convinced that the forests are passable yet, yes pre-Alpha and whatnot. I understand some work has bee devoted to their improvement, but they still (from what I'm seeing in the stream) look like heightmaps with colonnades of trees attached. There might be some improvements, but it's very minor.

DayZ doesn't need them either, it just has them. Shooters like BF and CoD would benefit just as much, in my opinion, in having 100% enterable buildings.

Well, here's the thing... There are so many places for you to be in those buildings, that a sniper will really have to be on his/her game to nail you. Plus, I hope we won't be running through the buildings like morons as much as we'll be crawling around with the express purpose of avoiding snipers and/or zombies. That, and there's the whole "shit's harder" thing that will probably make it less likely and/or more risky for snipers to be there.

I will say, those enterable apartment blocs look great. The rooms appear to have different layouts as well, will be wonderful sniper territory I'm sure.

You can acquire almost every weapon in DayZ, as a civilian, in the United States. And, I know this certainly wasn't your implication, but the argument against military/tactical/high-end gear is often surrounded by a desire for moronic Romero-tropes like bats, chainsaws, and hatchets. Which we've got, but it doesn't appear that we'll be wholly reliant on them. That, or shotguns and bolt-actions. Which we've got, everyone's happy. Save for the folks who wanted to rid DayZ of "military" weapons, to whom my FUCKWAD message was directed. :D

I've had an M&P almost remove my thumb. No thank you. FNP/FNX plox.

Bold move devs. My favorite sidearm. To all the anti "high-end" military weapon folks...

All things are relative.

I have yet to see this be done. Putting crates in hangars/warehouses does not count.