Katana67

Wat?

Who is it turning away? And if it did, how would it? He linked it, probably due to the overall message of the piece, about endorsing consequences in video games. Likewise, he linked it, he didn't author it. Thus making it unofficial at best, and completely speculative at worst.

This. Not to mention it's pretty obvious that, even if Alpha were to be released in 2013, the full 1.0 version would probably come about in 2014. It states nothing about the alpha itself.

I wouldn't read too much into it, given that it's not a direct quote from Rocket. Even if it isn't just the author of the article speculating, it's pretty vague anyhow (I'm sure we all knew SA would be out, in alpha form or not, sometime between now and the end of next year).

No, that is in reference to Nowhere, Leonard Ritter's game. "You should feel responsibility for what you're doing," says Leonard Ritter, an independent game developer based in Dresden, Germany. "But most games do not give you the option." Ritter wants to explore consequence in games even further. He is working on a title called Nowhere that aims to simulate complex social interactions between players and computer-controlled characters, showing players how their actions affect not only those characters but also future versions of themselves. The full game is not due for release until 2015, but early versions will be available next year. Ritter got the idea when, while playing Grand Theft Auto 4, he was struck by how players played two types of game. Sometimes they would run around shooting people without thinking about the consequences; at other times, they would concentrate on achieving a strict objective. He wondered what would happen if your disruptive self suddenly showed up during a mission and shot you. "You would ruin your own game," says Ritter. "I thought that would be powerful." Learn to read in context before accusing Dean of negligence.

As an immersion booster, sure. As a so-called "anti-camping" measure, whatever that means, absolutely not. Wafting breaths aren't billowing clouds of steam, I'd suspect that they aren't commonly visible at 400m unless you're looking down an optic. That, and not everyone breathes out of their mouth.

Y2K brah.

I love that whole Kamenka>Pavlovo>Zelenogorsk>Pustoshka/Myshkino>Lopatino/Vybor corridor. I spend 90% of my time there and always giggle when people bitch about Kamenka spawns, it's so obviously the best one if you've got an attention span of more than five seconds. I saw a while back, I think it was in some convention footage, where Zeleno had barracks. I doubt barracks will have the same significance as they do in the mod, but it looked nice.

Hence why I was making a counter-argument, not telling you that you're wrong... Agree to disagree.

Again, it's not whether or not they are done right that dictates whether or not they're a core feature... that is an ancillary concern to the genre in which DayZ places itself. I can overcook/undercook chicken, but it's still poultry, and I still -have- to cook it, and I still have to eat to survive. Just because I can eat other things, or could've cooked the chicken better, doesn't mean chicken itself isn't important or food. And the idea that gamers are absolutist doesn't make sense, one can hate how a system in a game is implemented yet still play it, it isn't all or nothing. For instance, I hate the shooting mechanic in BF3, yet I have 800h played. Simply because people play the game for other reasons, doesn't mean it's not a core feature. They are a core feature (but really HAVEN'T been to date, as is demonstrated per their poor implementation), the name DayZ itself implies this. Not to mention the fact that it's part of the zombie genre. Also, because they're poorly implemented doesn't mean that they aren't a core feature either, that's not what I was saying. In every Youtube video, stream, whatever that I see... zombies are always a problem. They're more of a nuisance, but a problem. Also, a weeks trial with no zombies as an indicator of overall popularity is silly. It's predicated on zombies returning eventually and as a previous paradigm, so it's not like it serves to indicate interest in a zombie-less game. I mean this in the non-combative sense, but you're making logical leaps and bounds.

Let's talk about the merits of player housing or somesuch, I always liked that discussion better... :D

Right, and so popularity is a useless category to exalt. It's not indicative of whether something is worthwhile, or executed well, it's an indicator of how well it appeals to others or of whether it fits into an existing framework. With that in mind, if DayZ were devoid of the "zombie genre", it's entirely likely that it would've been less popular (given the immense contemporary popularity of the genre itself). But it's irrelevant, as DayZ as a concept, features zombies as an antagonist. Sure, zombies have been executed poorly since launch. But that doesn't mean that they aren't a core feature. To me, the fact that they haven't really been done well to this point (yet have been a feature since launch) UNDERSCORES the intense need to do them well for SA alpha.

Simply because it's an intended feature doesn't mean it's -not- a huge problem. Regardless of whether everyone has access to it, or if the developers intended for it to work as such, the fact of the matter is that you can choose what you see and you can gain an advantage (that is outside of the realm of your own sensory faculties) that isn't reasonable. Graphics settings providing advantages against those whose only crime is wanting a better looking game is simply silly to me. If you can run it at full settings, that's great. If not, there should be options available to you. But those options shouldn't go so far as to offer you an advantage on either end. It's a relatively undiscussed problem, which happens to affect daily gameplay. In my opinion, it needs to be worked on heavily. I'd even suggest that they wait until they've fixed it to release alpha, or have some significant headway so that it can be rolled out shortly thereafter. Things like ATOC standardization need to be put into effect, that would be my main suggestion. Just because the quality of what you're seeing is diminished doesn't mean that the physical area on the screen which that object is supposed to occupy at full ATOC has to diminish.

Depends on what they mean by "Unique Items", could be as simple as looting a rifle named Bessie instead of CZ 550!

A great idea, kicking myself for never even thinking of it... Would be great finding certain books, weapons, and the like in certain towns. Also, could be a good opportunity to bring in MMO-esque unique items (which would probably just be aesthetically different, incorporate some kind of lore, or just be different in name only). I think the reasoning behind it is, they're making the buildings enterable, thus there will be more loot in the villages. Likewise, they seem to be interested in expanding the villages themselves (which I'm not entirely in support of). Right now, at least in my favorite village of Myshkino, there's only one enterable building to my knowledge. So it doesn't leave a lot of room to loot. There certainly are more ways of making villages more attractive though.

Yeah, I have no technical knowledge either. Either way, I think having things being linked to server restarts is a bad precedent. It effectively limits the game to instances rather than persistent worlds. Which, as we've discussed a lot in the past, I think they need to make up their minds in terms of persistence. I would assume, with the loot tables themselves being tied to a central table, that they could then apply that same type of concept to control other things. I don't expect things like zombie spawns themselves to be wholly persistent (i.e. having the same zombie respawn back in the same exact spot) but the reliance on server restarts not only interrupts gameplay literally, but it shouldn't be contingent for the proper use of other game systems. And hey, a server restart at the end of the day, or every few days, wouldn't bother me. But, every four hours just to have the game function as intended? That's pretty restrictive.

Which brings me to the real fault of DayZ. I assume you're referring to the potential spawning system in SA and not the mod. Correct me if I'm wrong. Why are rapid server restarts acceptable? I think this should be an area of development (akin to the network bubble in terms of importance), minimizing or outright ridding us of the need for individual server restarts.

I had heard that about SA. But I was more keying in on the qualifier of "for some time", meaning that the spawning of zombies would stop for X amount of time once the game recognizes an area has been purposefully cleared for Y amount of time. Likewise, I'm not sure as to whether their revamping of the zombies and/or network bubble will have any affect on the spawns themselves.

As to the towns being made more relevant, sure, I think overall this will be good. But I think a word of caution is in order. I like villages that are small and on the periphery, like Myshkino. Making these villages more relevant, while at the same time preserving their quaint and limited nature is important to me. Making them loot "destinations" certainly isn't the right way to do this, which is why I like that they're more focusing on residential housing. At the same time, though, with the Polana screens we've just seen... they seem to be just adding buildings rather than making towns unique. They certainly look good though, don't get me wrong, I just wish to voice a bit of caution. This is way down the line, but ultimately what I think would be the best approach for making villages/towns relevant is to add some sort of barricade/fortification system to residential buildings as well as the ability to clear a town of zombies for some time. Simply having small towns available to be looted doesn't make them relevant, as now most places will spawn loot in SA. Imagine coming up on a small deserted hamlet and finding a boarded up house, which you could either break in to or interact with people who might be inside. I've fleshed this idea out more in other threads, so please don't bumrush me with scrupulous analysis. Likewise, imagine approaching a small town via a wooded road, only to find a foreboding (manned or unmanned) checkpoint with skulls and "TURN BACK" signs 500m away from the village which has been secured and fortified by a clan. Also, I think this unfortunately will be the case, I've seen a lot of the player map screens from SA which show the previously unpopulated north being filled in with towns and roads. Chernarus isn't -that- big once you've filled in all the blanks, and I really want a wild frontier to be preserved to some degree.

I think you have a good point, there's more to the success of DayZ than zombies. And I'd agree with you that zombies have been broken since the mod came out, and thus haven't really affected the evolution of DayZ. But they have been there since the beginning... There is also the issue of DayZ being designed within the framework of a zombie apocalypse. Both in terms of the actual in-game setting and the fictional lore of DayZ. Granted, the "lore" as a traditional term is sort of flimsy, as they haven't -really- fleshed out the backstory. But the gist that "a zombie apocalypse happened" is central to the current concept of DayZ regardless of what people play it for. "The majority of the player base hate them", here I'm assuming you're referring to the broken state of zombies, not that the majority of players hate them as a concept. Please feel free to correct me if I'm being presumptuous. If one acknowledges that zombies are broken in the mod, it implies that were they fixed (or were they never broken), one would have a more complete "DayZ experience". So in this light, one can see how they become a significant area for improvement (as you can't really call your game a "zombie survival" game without zombies). It doesn't really matter, in the end, whether or not people play it for the zombies or for the player interaction (in most cases, I believe it's both). Zombies are a crucial and fundamental aspect of DayZ, even the nomenclature of DayZ itself is reliant on the zombie genre. Personally, if DayZ wasn't set in a zombie apocalypse, I doubt I'd be playing it as regularly if at all. People, nowadays anyway, tend to marginalize the setting/genre of games in favor of citing so-called "gameplay" aspects as being more worthwhile. To me, it's extremely important. I don't think (nor am I saying this is what you were getting at) that marginalizing zombies to any degree is warranted with DayZ, they need to be improved and revamped for the very reason that they've been broken for a while and they are a central concept of DayZ (albeit a poorly executed one).

I don't doubt it, when DayZ first hit the Kotaku feed back in March/April of last year, the servers were clusterfucked into oblivion. I wasn't able to even log in to a server for more than five minutes for a few days. I think, unfortunately, people in general just need to sit back and deal with rough launches as commonplace. I miss the days, which arguably never existed (but they did to an ignorant child throwing in N64 cartridges and having them work 100% of the time as intended), where games simply worked when released. I could've just been ignorant, but I don't remember crippling launches pre-2003. The first one I remembered was SWG, and that's just my own anecdotal experience. Yet, I played that game for eight years afterward... so I think I could live with SOE's first three days being unplayable... Either way, so long as a launch isn't hindered by purpose-built, hyper-restrictive DRM (i.e. SimCity and Diablo) then people should just recognize that it'll always be rough the first few days. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a game, even established ones, which release smoothly into the online realm. Black Ops was unplayable for the first day if I remember correctly, likewise with BF3 (which still has circa-launch bugs to this day).

A lot of people seem to forget, because it was shown off and talked about a while back, that we're getting near-100% enterable interiors. For me, this is reason enough to buy SA.

It won't stop KoSing, it will distinguish between those who are there to kill and those who are there to acquire gear, thus mitigating it to a degree amongst those who do not kill for the sake of it. Pretty straightforward. As an example, if 30% of people don't KoS, 60% KoS to get gear, and 10% KoS for the hell of it... you're effectively neutralizing that middle 60%. Insert whatever rhetorical percentages you want.

Would have to probably change the name though... Not too many -other- fictional apocalyptic scenarios which can riff off of the letter "Z". I think the issue here is that we've -never- really, had threatening zombies. Just by virtue of the way they were implemented in the mod, they aren't truly a threat. Sure, it's been worked on in later mods of the mod (DayZ+, BP, etc.) but that pretty much just centers on upping the damage of zombies. While I think the damage of the zombies needs to be vastly increased, there are other aspects which have been mentioned previously that just haven't been a factor in the mod due to the rudimentary state of zombies. Along with making zombies a threat comes making them behave in ways which aren't so glitchy. - Movement. Big one, and is being improved. Not just the animations, but the tracking as well. Likewise, with zombies running inside buildings. This will increase the threat of zombies exponentially, as running inside of buildings is now a "get away free of consequences" action. - Numbers. More zombies in more places, pretty self-explanatory. Woods, fields, inside buildings, etc. Hoards. - Damage and hit-detection. Part of improving zombies is just making their interactions more predictable. I mean that hitting through walls and the way zombies do damage now is just too inconsistent. - Awareness. Personally, I think that zombies should be rushing general areas and should never (excluding immediate LOS) have access to the player's exact location through noise. But on the flip side, zombies should be migrating toward you if you discharge a loud weapon from a ways off. Otherwise, when coupled with all the other improvements, they become too much of a threat. - Player stealth. This is a big one, and it needs to be streamlined so that I can reliably enter a town the way I did before I realized zombies walked inside buildings (i.e. slowly, and in the prone position). In short, making zombies more of a threat involves a few approaches. The first being the obvious, making them do more damage, be more pervasive throughout the world, and having them be more intelligent in terms of negotiation. The second is making them behave in ways which are less reliant on the system itself and more reliant on how the developers want zombies to be. The third is making some of the interactions with zombies more consistent and managable, so that the player has to expend a lot (but a consistent amount) of effort to avoid zombies whilst allowing for dire consequences if he/she fucks up. It's just as much about the ways in which the player has to counter the increased threat of zombies as it is about increasing the threat in the first place.

This (the type of "conversation" above) is still happening? Really?