Katana67

I think any initial difference, if they implement some sort of choice in backgrounds (which I'm not convinced they should), should be purely aesthetic. I do want them to encourage people to actually play their characters, and not use them as disposable mannequins. But I'm not sure pre-defined backgrounds are the way to go. I'd rather the individual characters change over time, rather than being predisposed to some things. I think people are blowing the knowledge gap between military/civilian way out of proportion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to center yourself and lower your elbow. Doing so doesn't automatically make one a soldier, or a SOF operator, or any of that.

You all are assuming that our characters are clean slates. I really don't understand the so-called "civilian" focus that people try to read in to DayZ, and unfortunately in my opinion that has seeped in to the development process. The average jackass, in my experience, doesn't even know how to operate a bolt-action rifle. Much less a light machine gun. But that's the point, our characters are not average jackasses. To survive in Chernarus (up to the point where we "spawn"), our characters would obviously have to be extremely proficient at certain things. I also think some people here are underestimating the ingenuity of human beings. An M249 isn't a Rubik's Cube, it's a machine to be operated. Sure, it makes the initial exploratory process easier to be trained to operate a weapon. But that doesn't mean that it will be a hunk of useless metal in the hands of an un-trained individual. It doesn't therefore mean that a person will never be able to operate the weapon through trial-and-error, or finding a training manual. The way I see it, we either have an across-the-board premise of weapon knowledge in our characters or a gradual system whereby reloads/accuracy/stances improve over a life. I personally don't like the shying away from "military" stances and weapons for a variety of reasons, which my entire post history has demonstrated in detail. I was bummed when I first saw the "civilian" weapon animations with weapons and the pronounced chicken wing when aiming the AR-15. I just don't see a need for this, especially when it's purely aesthetic. Or rather, if you're going to make it purely aesthetic, have it improve over time. That way, it might be a useful tool in the toolbox of sorting through KOS. Whereby a player who's fired his/her weapon more, would "look" more proficient in handling a weapon.

Cue the "Where are the rest of the zombies? I thought it was supposed to be 3000!" reactions. Although, I'm not seeing where he confirmed this.

This was suggested a while back, and I felt it was in poor taste (at the time) due to the proximity of the shooting in Connecticut. I personally wouldn't find it a problem if child zombies were included, babies seem a bit gimmicky. It's one of those things where I'd be totally fine if it were included, but would be just as fine without. If they did, though, they need to take a hard line. They can't be wishy-washy in the slightest. I read an article about some HL2 mod with child zombies a few days ago, and they immediately released a statement saying that it was an immovable part of their vision and wouldn't be changed. That's what kind of stance they need to take if they include child zombies in DayZ.

It's a still from Gamescom footage, or maybe even a devblog. I got a sense that people might be disconnected from the previous information.

And this, far more exciting in my mind... More variety...

I wasn't doing any of that, though. :) I simply don't enjoy wide, distorting FOVs (which are often WORSE on third-person).

Even if it is a player or zombie, what does it matter? Or, moreover, what does it add to the significance of the image? We've seen other players and we've seen zombies rendered in SA many times before.

But FOVs in video games don't behave like mathematical FOV's. They adjust perspective and not just the amount of things visible at one time. Also, it's debatable as to whether we actually use 180 degrees of vision, or focus on it at any given moment.

They need to tone that wide FOV town, humans aren't fish... (Yes, I'm aware there will be a slider) Glad to see some overcast weather in SA. Still not liking the overall washed-out "tint" of the landscape, but not that big of a deal.

Hmmm. I wonder if they have, or are planning on having, the same attachment system that they have for more modular weapons (M4A1 and AK-74 respectively) with weapons like the Mosin. I would love to slap a PU scope on that bad boy and bend the bolt-handle down (I would live if they didn't include the latter inclusion, a bit technical). Or just frill it out with a little bit of foliage netting. Also, makeshift suppressors would be lovely to add on to bolt-actions. I think an attachment system for the more "common" weapons is essential to having them take a competing place with rarer assault rifles and/or whatever else they decide to include on the so-called "high end" weaponry.

That and art can be democratic when it wants to, as can the creative process. And I'm not sure where people are saying that DayZ's creative process is democratic, Rocket and the developers have always had the final say... I don't think anyone would dispute that. I'm also not sure where people are expressing their "entitlement". They sure are expressing a poor grasp of what constitutes a release date, but not much more than that sprinkled with a hefty dose of speculation.

/sigh Why can't there be a "downvote" bean interface?! WHYYYY?!

I think most rational people don't even bother making arbitrary distinctions (when a game is releasing, sans release date) to condescendingly distinguish themselves from "irrational" people.

Never have I encountered paranoia on this level. Makes me never want to work as a game designer, or as a politician for that matter.

Even if you're not a "roleplayer", just from a pragmatic standpoint of knowing how well you blend in with the objects around you is reason enough for me to like third-person. This is a side issue, and there's not necessarily anything wrong empirically with the way you use it, but I think there's a bit of misuse with the term "roleplayer" in the DayZ community. Strictly speaking, roleplay is just that... playing a role. Looking the part doesn't explicitly have anything to do with that. Now, it has everything to do with shaping your character as do a lot of other things. But, as it stands now, there's really no character-building. So, it's roleplay in the most literal sense of "What role do you play? Doctor? Bandit?". Even this literal roleplay is very sparse in DayZ and could use a second look. To be fair though, some of the systems they've planned for SA will add variety to the specializations to which players can adapt. I come from an in-character roleplay background (I doubt this will have any relevance here, but I roleplayed a character on SWG for eight years) and there really isn't any place in DayZ for that. Not that there necessarily can or should be (I personally think there should be) as that might be outside of the scope of DayZ.

I had forgotten to reply on this issue. It might seem contrary to my usual emphasis on immersion and deepening the experience, but I actually like third-person. Now, this is one of those issues that has surely been debated to death with many vitriolic arguments on both sides. Because of that, I won't go all "TL;DR" on you all like I normally do. I just don't really have a problem with third-person. I understand that it can sometimes be unfair, and that it is an "immersion breaker". But what can I say? I like looking at my character. I think there might be a middle ground to be found with a dynamic FOV, forced first-person when in combat, and/or stance-specific POVs as indicated above. Vehicles should be first-person only as well. But it should, in my opinion, be possible (somehow) to look at one's character. If it has to be through an inventory window, so be it. But I think there might be more thoughtful solutions than that. I will say, though, that I am on the fence still regarding different servers having different POV options. My previous argument on honing and/or standardizing the content of the DayZ experience might apply here. But I'm still not sure where I stand on that particular aspect.

My money's on an old .56-56 Spencer cartridge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56-56_Spencer DISCLAIMER - I had to look it up, my firearm knowledge only really extends to the early 20th century at best. HISTORICAL EDIT - It seems that this cartridge, as per your annotation, was used at the Battle of Brandy Station which apparently featured heavy use of cavalry (which were likely equipped with Spencer carbines).

3,000 will probably be more than enough. I'll reserve judgment until I see it, and specifically the distribution of zombies. Obviously, I suspect the density will be higher in cities. But I'm more interested in the average zombie presence in the wild and in the smaller villages.

*shrug* We've seen the Mosin-Nagant and the AK-74.

It's not rimmed, therefore it isn't 7.62x54R (the R stands for "rimmed", compare the primer-end of each round). Probably just .308/7.62x51.

Cue "Ermergerd, deyr jerst gettin ter der burritz neww??!!"

Very cool!

Which is why I've (controversially) in the past, suggested some method of marginalizing TS in favor of a more robust in-game communication system. It might be an impossible premise, but third-party communication programs which are not integrated into the game absolutely ruin the experience for me, and (in my opinion) should be prohibited. Certainly not a popular position, but it's not even a matter of "realism" or preference for me. It's a matter of cheapening the experience. Why care about your life when you can always arrange a consequence-less helicopter ride with your clan back to collect your things or find new stuff? Too much is taken for granted in the mod currently.

And there could be some sort of signal capacity not dependent on voice. Hell, I'd even be in favor of radios having a text capability. Meaning that a player who has found/constructed/repaired a radio would have access to some sort of chat channel with other people with radios (depending on a particular frequency).