Katana67

Really? This is the most reasoned argument you could come up with? Horror time = missed window? Standalone has always been "It'll be done when it's done", not "We'll release it when it best fits into the yearly holidays". If it had been ready in June, it'd've been released in June. If it had been "DayZ - Halloween Spooktacular DLC", then I'd be more than inclined to agree with you. The fact that it's October, and we're gearing up for a potential release is purely coincidental and not correlative/causal. People can speculate all they want, and say "I told you it wasn't coming out this year!", but at the end of the day we still have no idea when it'll be released (those people included). Yes, it seems that it'll be "soon". But until we get concrete release dates, or a release itself, it's all just gossip. So what does it matter? EDIT - And again, the whole "AAA game release" theory doesn't really make any sense. People can purchase BF4/ACIV/COD and still play/enjoy Standalone. DayZ isn't a direct competitor to any of these games, so it's not an "either/or" scenario. It's both irrelevant to the developers (because they don't care about appealing to the masses) and irrelevant to players (who just want a decent product and hopefully can play more than one game at a time) whether or not DayZ comes out in the same time-frame as AAA titles. Why else do you think most games get released in the Fall? Because that's when people buy things, apparently. Point being, the fact that many game releases occupy similar time spans is irrelevant (as most games release alongside one another and still succeed).

Enter the "I told you so" crowd... Because they're all so well versed in dealing with facts (SPECULATING). Rocket means that the map isn't indicative of the actual layout of the Chernarus Plus map. He was just using the image to demonstrate how (generally) the network bubble works.

Again, the assumption you're making is that DayZ and BF4 are direct competitors. It's not an "either or" scenario, it's not like if they release on the same day that people aren't going to buy one or the other a day later. My point is that it doesn't matter, and that not all games are competing for the same thing. Even when they are, though, they can both succeed. Also, the assumption you're making here is that streamers are indicative of a community. Or, moreover, that they matter. Not to me and not to anyone who can think for themselves (DISCLAIMER - This is not directed at you personally. But just is an expression of the conflated emphasis people place on streamers nowadays rather than actually experiencing things for themselves).

DayZ Standalone Forum Edition - Your boxed copy will come with a free ticket to Area 51 to get to the bottom of the conspiracy which led to DayZ's "development"! - Sit down with project lead Dean "Rocket" Hall in this exclusive behind the scenes clip where Rocket faces away from the camera! - Included in the box is a code for the special digital download "Canteen of Tears" item which you can use to help you survive in-game! - A video documentary about paint drying, narrated by misinformed idiots who yammer on about things, to remind you of the fun times on the forum! $499.99. No refunds.

Probably both.

Assumptions made... - People cannot pay for or play more than one game at a time - The fanbase of BF4 and DayZ are the same - The same media "hype" applies to both games - That DayZ is directly comparable to BF4, and that they will be judged against each other - That other games, releasing soon, won't have any possible effect

It's been a year and six months (since DayZ was made public, not since SA was announced)... and you've had a continually evolving mod to play that whole time. What more do you want?

So I went to look at servers for DayZ Overwatch. Man, depressing. 1000 vehicles, more barracks than you can shake a stick at, self-bloodbag, custom loadouts. Do people really not see the error in this? Sure, it might be popular, but so is a lot of dumb stuff. In DayZ, you cannot ever experience the concept of "plenty". It is, by definition, non-apocalyptic and non-survivalist. It just bastardizes the experience into something else that is profoundly not DayZ. I get that, yes, it's a mod and I don't have to play it. Also, I get that whole "freedom" of choice thing. But this isn't DayZ, it just isn't. It's something else. Likewise, it saps a potential playerbase away from the mod. With SA, I really hope it stays un-moddable for a while or indefinitely and that the server settings are modest. Normally I'm a pretty big proponent of modding, but there is a detrimental effect that happens when too much is done to an experience.

And if you'd follow the community, you'd know that they say things that are vitriolic, baseless, and uninformed.

If you're talking the mod, then your list is way off. If you're talking hypothetical SA hierarchies, maybe. I'd prefer it if zombies were the primary threat, humans second, then the environmental actors (which is not to suggest that they won't be a threat, I want them to be far more significant than in the mod), and lastly bugs (because I die far more due to bugs than I do players in the mod). Also, it's worth considering that "humans/bandits/whatever" might not be an apt category to include in the same list as zombies and environmental factors. The latter two are ambient game systems, even zombies. Humans have their own volition and variables, so you'd have to place the onus of threat on the individual rather than a reductionist "average hostility" of other players.

I would assume, and swear to god I've heard Rocket mention it before, that the "stamina" system will at least function differently than it does in the mod. As to the statement above, yes, there should be wildcards. But that shouldn't (and I'm aware that this may not be your intent by implication) override a dutiful player who takes his or her time. What I mean by that is, certain things shouldn't be insurmountable. Even things which are out of the player's control, should be able to be mitigated through proper preparation. For example, <insert rapidly onsetting natural disaster here> should be able to be managed by someone who's got <insert appropriate survival gear here>. Or, more specifically, massive snowstorm should be able to be countered by player who has shelter/fire/clothing. It's not a statement of certainty, but even the unexpected can be prepared for. You're still at the whims of your own foresight and it should always be up to you how or how well you handle a situation. Sort of why I've never had any pity for people getting killed on the coast or at NWAF, you know what you're likely to get in to when you go to these places... it's your choice and your own flaws/strengths that will dictate whether or not you succeed/fail. To put that in the perspective of DayZ, things like "zombie sense" shouldn't be all-powerful. That doesn't mean they can't be unforgiving, brutal, and difficult. I've discussed this before, but making zombies a very dangerous threat also needs to be accompanied by a thoughtful treatment of mitigating factors. Like "stealth", whereby zombies can be regularly avoided by crawling/prone. This is a fairly rudimentary example, but you understand my meaning of having wildcards and tough situations, but always favoring the careful and considerate survivalist.

Someone said something along the lines of "the good news about SA lately". I think they must've meant "rampant speculation" in place of "good news".

Wait, did something happen? /seriousquestion

Much prop from a fellow New Hampshirite.

Fixed.

It wasn't a comparison between the two, it was to indicate that rare (STG44s), "Western" (FN2000 and HK G36), and/or modern (AK-107) weapons exist in a variety of scenarios and in places where one might not expect.

ERMERGERD DER EMFERS ERNT RURRR! I cannot believe this type of stuff is still in the water supply. So let's break this down. 1. It's an Alpha. Even if the M4 is the only weapon in the game at launch, it will be there for the purposes of testing the attachments. By virtue of the AR-15 platform, it's incredibly modular, lending itself to an easily visible attachment system. 2. Even if a weapon itself isn't rare, you have no idea of the rarity of the ammunition. Likewise, we have no idea as to whether we'll find 100% ready-to-roll brand spankin' new AR's laying around. Who knows? Maybe we'll have to piece them together? Maybe we'll be most likely to find crappy ones and have to repair them? Maybe it will be difficult to maintain without things like a cleaning kit and gun oil? 3. There are other weapons coming, cool your tits. We've seen the Mosin-Nagant, the AK-74, as well as others (Ruger .22 LR was mentioned). Even if the M4 is the only weapon available at launch, which I doubt, it won't be long before it is accompanied by a vast amount of weapons. 4. The AR-15 platform is one of the most ubiquitous platforms out there in the modern world. There is an increasingly blurred line now, especially in states where you'd think AK platforms would be entirely pervasive. If Gaddafi could get brand new FN2000s/AK-107s/HK G36s, Syrian rebels can get truckloads of rare STG 44s, and the Mahdi army in Iraq could get .50 BMG anti-materiel rifles, then why can't one of the most widely distributed weapon platforms exist in a fictional country/state/game/scenario/etc? 5. An AR/AK isn't god's gift to man. Yes, they should be rarer in DayZ SA than they are in DayZ mod. Yes, I would greatly revel in a more gradual system where you had to rely on more common weaponry (.22 LR, bolt-actions, shotguns, etc.) But the AR's aren't that good in-game, so stop making them out to be some sort of high-end Tiffany's engagement ring and STOP reading current mod circumstances into a SA that hasn't even released yet. A bone-stock AR means nothing in the hands of a moron. Likewise, one could be extremely effective with a SMLE and a little bit of sense. 6. While I value so-called "everyday" weapons in DayZ. I do not want to be reduced to relying on idiotic Romero-esque melee zombie killing tropes (i.e. baseball bats, hatchets, crowbars, chainsaws, etc.) Other games have this covered, to an extreme degree (i.e. Dead Rising and Dead Island). People are certainly entitled to disagree with this, but DayZ has its roots in a military sim, let's act like it shall we? God I feel like my entire post history is dedicated to defending decent weapons in DayZ.

I would love to see some sort of demographic trends, or actual empirical data, on the average age of the average CoD player. Because these "kid" claims are insanely vague and frankly laughable. Oh, and not to mention wholly off-topic.

There's information from the future here... October 24th hasn't happened yet for me.

"Just sayin'...". Very possibly the most idiotic phrase ever uttered by man. Well sir, I am "Just listenin'...". Does that add to my legitimacy? Rhetorical question. Perhaps these developers are not singularly driven by monetary gain. It's been a frequently stated goal that Rocket is not interested in making boatloads. Likewise, it's been extremely damaging when he does make concrete assertions about his product and then has to walk them back because the community is just starving for this nebulous "hype" concept that people keep pinging on. Which, mind you, will have -no- bearing on the end product. So as a consumer, you should have no concern of whether or not the developers "hype" their product. I edited my post to include the Merriam-Webster defintions of "hype", which are as such. 1. slang, a drug addict or hypodermic needle 2. PUT ON, DECIEVE 3. To promote or publicize extravagantly (of a contrived nature) 4. STIMULATE, ENLIVEN Anywho, this is madly off-topic, and was seemingly designed so as it has no relevance to the thread and/or constructive feedback. I will not be participating in any further entries in this line of conversation.

Explain to me what exactly you think "hype" is, why the devs should be doing it, and how it affects whether or not the game itself will be good. It will please me. For references, Merriam-Webster defines, "hype" as... 1. slang, a drug addict or hypodermic needle 2. PUT ON, DECIEVE 3. To promote or publicize extravagantly (of a contrived nature) 4. STIMULATE, ENLIVEN

Prepare yourself for a shit-show regardless, if GTA V and ACA healthcare can't roll out without an IT clusterfuck... I wouldn't put it past DayZ. Even if all goes to plan, servers will be mobbed.

So I played DayZ today for the first time in a while. Certainly not the place to put this, but what is with the "2nd grade doodle"-lookin' HUD? People had a shit fit over the font in WIP SA HUD screens (love those acronyms). Still had my Mk 48, DMR, RF, NVGs, and GPS. That was neat. Still not much to do now that I've got all that, so, bring on SA!

Apparently I'm a fucking super-human because no matter what distance, be it one inch or ten feet. I can still see that bad boy.

Know what I might do today? Actually -play- some DayZ. Haven't done that in months...