Jump to content

Katana67

Members
  • Content Count

    3625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Katana67

  1. That is interesting. I would pose the idea, though, that if cross-server persistence did not exist... there would be no using of the forums to trade, unless servers themselves were given threads and/or their own meta-space to breath. I don't think that'd happen with public servers. This all assumes they completely lock down each character to each server. I would also suggest that it's not the end-result (which, as you describe, was very rewarding) but the means which were used to achieve that result. The same thing could be achieved through an in-game radio broadcast or somesuch, or even a dead drop with a note in a garbage bin. "If you want a DMR, leave a Coyote Pack in this dumpster at 0200 EST on Sunday June 23rd, I will be watching". The point is that there are in-game means which can be used to have the same experience of trading and/or an in-game economy. I agree that things like statistics ruin the game. I had always assumed this stuff was self-explanatory, as you head to the barracks for the high-end stuff and that's pretty much it (outside of killing folks or stealing from tents). Or perhaps I am misunderstanding, I haven't heard of this concept. This is related to what I was saying about memorizing the map, which is a hard thing to amend when you're dealing with a finite map. I think the fundamental issue here, is that the developers and the community need to make up their mind across the board about the direction of the game (with regard to larger population servers and thus, the tolerances of the map) and character persistence. To me, there isn't really a middle ground between metagaming and playing within the auspices of the game. You're either doing it or you're not. The problem for me, is that there are flat out no in-game substitutes for metagame mechanics, when these could totally work to boost immersion and gameplay if implemented properly or at all.
  2. I'm not sure I want it to be though. Unless you mean within the individual servers, not cross-server forum-esque trading. If you mean cross-server trading, then I really don't want that at all. It just further perpetuates these metagame tendencies that ultimately take me out of the experience and/or short-change gameplay (cross-server persistence and TS/Skype/Vent specifically). This isn't an entirely related issue, but the map is finite and easily memorized... which in itself, sort of waters down any sort of persistence when one can just respawn on the same server. This is not an easy problem to overcome, but it's the same metagame (circumventing the game itself).
  3. The idea that including "military" weapons is some sort of betrayal to a realistic survival game, is absolutely ludicrous. An AR or an AK should not be god's gift to man. I'm sorry, but I really don't want to be relegated to every dumb Romero-esque zombie weapon trope (i.e. shotguns, bolt-actions, melee weapons). DayZ's lineage is directly tied to a military simulator, one would think that it would warrant a careful treatment but fervent inclusion of military weapons. Rather than an absolutist mindset, what is the matter with making military weapons justifiably rare? Or justifiably hard to maintain? Or justifiably hard to re-arm? People are so stuck into this idea of high-end loot = AS50 or M107. I don't think these weapons are even a problem in vanilla DayZ, but I don't mind that they're out. What I don't want to have happen, is a slow declining of military weapons in DayZ SA. Light-machine guns and assault rifles specifically, sniper rifles... I could care less about. Not because they are overpowered or that I whine about getting sniped, far to the contrary as is evidenced in my post history. Perhaps using phrases that are specific, instead of "military weapons", "high-powered sniper rifles", and "high-end loot", would be more beneficial to the development. Rather than just saying one does not like it and then move on. If you mean the AS50 and/or M107, then say that. There should be high-end loot, in the sense that nothing is ever easy. If you've got an optic, you'll have to find batteries. If it breaks, good luck finding a new one. If it doesn't fit the weapon you have, tough tits. Oh, you've got a jammed AR? Find a cleaning kit for it. 7.62x51 only comes in sparse boxes of sub-30 count rounds, enjoy using your Mk 48 as an assault rifle. Point being, you can put anything in the game (be it an AS50, L85 TWS, etc.) so long as you justify the costs of finding, maintaining, upgrading, and re-arming said weapon. This is where I think the global loot table will be nice, but I don't want it creeping into things that are relatively mild (Assault Rifles). I also don't think it's wise to make judgment calls like this based on our incomplete knowledge of loot spawn in SA.
  4. Whoa... just heard Dean say that they aren't really concerned with making weapon-specific attachments. Bummer. Crossing fingers for caliber-specific attachments (at least with suppressors). http://www.gamespot....3-2013-6410300/
  5. Man, I haven't found one in months. They are the tits.
  6. I guess I don't really get that, as I play alone most of the time. But, to me, that's part of the magic... and a valuable weight on gameplay. Rather than just beaming over to NEAF for ten minutes and back off with some nice loot, actually preparing for a journey, scaring the crap out of myself at every snapped twig in the woods on my way there, then the tension of looting the place and making it back to base in one piece is just more rewarding to me. It's not that I don't like vehicles, whenever I find one, you can bet your ass I'm using that bad boy. But, my main issue is that they're far too easy to repair and maintain to justify their benefits. Tires fit EVERY vehicle, engine parts fit EVERY vehicle. Which I'm sure is a problem they'll rectify in SA. But if vehicles were made harder to repair, with scarce fuel availability, I think they'd be more valuable... less likely to be used... and would fall more in line with the tension of DayZ. Plus, if sidechat were disabled across the board, I think they'd be seen as less of a common occurance and more of a significant "thing" if that makes any sense. Doing without for a while might help get back to that baseline.
  7. I may very well be, but I actually think it might be good for the community to do without for a while. I mean, I still walk 90% of my time in DayZ even on high vehicle count servers/mods. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic, but I think a lot of people have been spoiled by how easy vehicles are to maintain. To prove my point, I see people whining (yes, actually whining, not just hyperbole whining) for rides from the coast. This never used to happen, and really sort of underscores how spoiled people have become when they expect pickups along the coast. Granted, I attribute this more to the faults of sidechat more than anything, but the sentiment is still there.
  8. I've discussed this a lot, but it would have to be accompanied by a few things. First, storable containers indoors. Second, shelter needs to be made significant (benefits to health and stronger effects of weather). Likewise, and Rocket has said as much, it will be possible to clear an area for at least a while. Which could make for exciting gameplay if a clan manages to cordon off a town for their own uses, which leaves endless possibilities. All of the benefits of the proposed "underground" shelter can be applicable to existing houses, while being more organic and immersive in my opinion.
  9. Hmmm... all this vehicle talk from Dean has got me thinking. Honest to god, I wouldn't mind DayZ without vehicles for a while. I really wouldn't mind if they were put on the backburner for other things. I'd rather have barricade-able houses than customizable vehicles. But, on the other hand, customizable vehicles could be a good testbed for houses. I don't know, I just really could care less about vehicles. Is anyone with me? Or am I alone?
  10. It is ENTIRELY mainstream. Most people have PC's, and it doesn't require a "gaming" PC to game on a PC. Especially with a game like WoW. You're confusing "casual" and "mainstream". Mainstream means that something caters to, and is accessible to, a wide audience (10 million players sounds pretty mainstream to me). Titles like Journey and Minecraft are pretty casual in my book, but aren't necessarily "mainstream". WoW is both casual and "hardcore", as WoW can also accommodate hardcore players and there are DROVES of casual players. Rocket refers to the SA as a MMO most of the time in reference to the server architecture and persistent characters. He doesn't mean "Everyone will play on the same server", as one aspect of a MMO, for example. Again, he means it in a different sense than most people do when they say MMO.
  11. Farmville is every bit as "mainstream" as WoW. DayZ is not, though it certainly should be (i.e. rewarding and challenging game experiences). I'm not sure how you can make these claims. SA isn't a MMO in the traditional sense of the acronym.
  12. I actually think it might be a deterrent to banditry to a small degree too. Making death more significant in DayZ is something that I support on a fundamental and conceptual level. Personally, I think things like this won't stop banditry. But they will make it more difficult and level the playing field. Plus, I don't really have an issue with it... but I think that if bandits had much more to lose by acting offensively, it'd just be less common (in addition to the vast amount of unforgiving mechanics that have been discussed to death). If a deathmatch-oriented person (separate from bandits) cannot easily access high-end weaponry, then he and the average survivor are on more equal footing. Likewise with earned skills, one won't want to enter a hostile area just to kill things in order to preserve gained skills. However, if combat should come to them, they will be more prepared.
  13. If done properly, I think this could both fit in to the spirit of DayZ while benefiting gameplay. When people think "skills", they tend to revert to one of two extremes. The first being "We don't need any artificial skills, let the players show that for themselves". The second being, "I want DayZ to be an RPG with acquired skills that help me in the long-run". Initially, I sided with the former. But now, I think it's at least worth discussing/trying/fleshing out, rather than dismissing it as not the objective of DayZ. One of the "pillars" of DayZ has been realism, so why is something that allows a player to become more efficient in movement/weapon handling out of the question? I know when I first started using firearms, like most people, I was pretty inexperienced. Now, I am not, through practice and range time. Reloads are faster, manual of arms is more efficient, stances are better suited to various types of shooting, etc. I don't say this to illustrate what a lolbadass I am, I actually view shooting as sort of a neutral activity in the grand scheme of "manliness". I say this to illustrate the point that people get better over time at a variety of things. Now, there are a few ways something like this can be done. - Gradual ambient progression (i.e. the more you do something, over time your reloads incrementally become faster, stances more efficient, etc.) - Visible skills (i.e. 1000 zombie kills = 25% faster reload) - Acquired Skills (i.e. physical manuals on weapons being looted in-game) - Pre-ordained skills (i.e. player chosen backgrounds, military, civilian, police, etc.) I think Rocket would favor, and has favored the first option. Though it is not as different from the others as has been suggested.
  14. I can see that, I was more referring to the people I encounter up north versus people on the coast (which I seldom visit, and assume ALL players to be deathmatchers there). I mean, the respawing on the same server deal sort of ruins all of the "book cover" mechanics like this. But, if i encountered someone say... near Vybor heading to NW who looked like a bumbling idiot, I wouldn't pay them much mind. But if I came across someone who looked like they knew what they were doing say... in the woods north of Petrovka, I'd treat them as a serious possible threat. Obviously, different people have different levels of threat assessment, but this type of thing could at least add a hint of suspicion and/or gullibility for people who underestimate folks who're fumbling around. EDIT - As an aside, I'm kind of skeptical about the new look of Vybor. I always liked it because it was a pretty big city with densely fitted houses, and now it seems more open as per the redesign. Not sure what to make of that. I do like how the school and supermarket are further away from one another though.
  15. Right, and I'm hesitant to suggest that it be "kill" based (both on zombie kills and player kills) because that strikes me as both a direct encourager of PvP and/or one of those RPG-y tropes that DayZ is trying to get away from. Perhaps it should be a combination of time/kills so that one just surviving in the wilderness would more gradually learn how to hold the weapon versus someone who's more aggressive toward zombies and/or players. Because it would be aesthetic, I don't think it'd be a "reward" for killing things per se. But, you do raise a good point, it could help supplement the changes (whatever they may be) to the humanity system by allowing the player to be aware of the level of relative competency of a player, whether they be survivor or bandit. I'd be much more suspicious of someone who looks like they know what they're doing vice some jerkoff in Cherno who's fumbling with his mags.
  16. I would caution people against two things... One - To the people offering criticism, there is a way to do it so that you're not being inflammatory and misinformed. Two - To the people decrying people offering criticism, you're sort of proving the point of all the folks who say that these forums are intolerant of dissent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do want to raise the issue of the animations again, from a civilian/military perspective. Are we sure this is something we want? I am not entirely supportive of this effort to make our characters "look" like civilians (i.e. like they don't know what they're doing). I have never thought, with the mod, that the animations looked overly "military", they just looked like they knew their way around a weapon (which should be self-explanatory in a survival context). Again, the animation with the player holding his/her weapon parallel to the forearm is a cool "slow-walking/idle" addition. However, the chicken-wing shooting stance and a few of the other animations just strike me as blatantly there to make the character seem sort of bumbling and inexperienced. It just sort of brings me out of the whole experience to a degree. Have they said anything about stances progressively getting better as our characters "learn" the ins and outs of combat? I'd like my character to improve over time, aesthetically of course.
  17. http://kotaku.com/da...or-we-513010392 Good Q&A plus new screens! Unsure if this is the same interview as the aforementioned "reddit" one, hadn't seen this before. Mosin-Nagant anybody? Oh wait, might be a Kar98, I think it is... I really hope that's how the lighting ends up looking in SA.
  18. Wouldn't be the first time... Road north of Skalka leads nowhere, trololololol.
  19. Man, that's kind of a bummer... There might be too many roads and such, who knows what structures are on them. Could be a good thing I suppose, but I pointed out a while back that Chernarus isn't all that big... so I'm a bit worried about the wilderness staying wild. Vybor sure looks different though, and Zeleno has barracks. Not sure if the loot'll still be high-end at barracks, but... we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. Oh, that and Petrovka is now bordering a massive open field... Maybe they really expanded up north after all. I'm baffled.
  20. But one cannot factcheck said facts, this isn't a peer reviewed journal. It's a public forum, thus, everything posted by posters is their own opinion/thought... however objective/subjective/logical/illogical it may be. Plus, I'm not entirely sure you were referring to my post, hence why I wasn't taking it personally. I was taking issue with the notion of splitting hairs, when it should be readily apparent that no matter how objective/subjective someone is being, ultimately, they're expressing their personal thoughts. One shouldn't have to explicitly disclaim that, when it is already in the context of a public forum. You can challenge their assertions, but doing so by saying "You're not disclaiming that this is opinion" doesn't make much sense. Facts are all well and good, and are essential to a logical argument. But subjective analysis of what those facts represent, what consequences they impose, and whether or not they are supportive, is far more valuable than just stating the facts.
  21. I agree and I think this is where people saying "Oh, it'll be the same as the mod" are off point. Likewise, I think the developers are very slightly off point by dismissing the notion of making things look good at this juncture. Obviously, yes, you should be focused on adding new systems that work and enhance gameplay. But, personally, I think they're getting to the point where they should be devoting at least some resources into making what they've already got look better.
  22. Well for one, I would assume that everything in a forum post is personal opinion... hence why we have things like forum tags and usernames to delineate my thoughts from others. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, voicing dissatisfaction with something BEFORE it's final is exactly what alphas are for and is the best time to voice criticism.
  23. This posted in the announcements forum for some reason... First thing that struck me about the E3 footage... the distant zombie "hits" look worse than ever. I understand it's an early build, but zombie damage needs to be improved a lot. I like the animations, but hate that zombies still just magically "afflict" damage to you without any sense of contact. That, and EVERYTHING still clips, zombies still jump through buildings and fall through the ground. That type of stuff really breaks immersion for me. I could live with it in the mod, but not necessarily in the SA. Again, I recognize that this is an early build, hence why it is prudent to outline these issues now rather than later. EDIT - Just read Rocket's reddit explanation of zombies doing damage, very hopeful and glad to have a bit of clarity. The animations look good, but I'm not sure I like the way they're going. The "hold the weapon by the forearm" one is interesting, but your character shoots like a five year old with a Red Ryder. I assume this is in an effort to make our characters less "military" and more "civilian". Which I'm not sure I am in agreement with personally, as it doesn't reflect the player's skill so much as it just makes everyone look like they don't know how to fire their weapon. I can only hope that they have some sort of "progression" as has been suggested, whereby a player gradually learns how to hold his/her weapon and this is reflected in the animations. I would think a very basic backstory would need to be created as to why a person has survived the initial zombie outbreak on Chernarus to even wind up alive on the shore in the first place. Whether it's through guile, previous experience, trial and error, military training, etc. Perhaps allow the player to choose things like this? Which would reflect in the animations/behaviors of your character. I am hesitant to suggest something like this, as it is a pretty conventional RPG trope and may not be in the spirit of DayZ. But, I think they need to clearly specify "why" they're doing something, because if it's to make everything look "more civilian", I think they might be going a tad overboard.
  24. Katana67

    E3 and our attendance

    Or, it'll be a toggleable clientside/serverside option. I mean, we've got the crosshair now, which is in a sense far more effective than the chalk white expandable cross that they've got going. That being said, I still don't like it. And for what it's worth, they haven't REMOVED ironsights. It's still the same thing we've got in the mod, the crosshair has just been changed.
×