Katana67

I agree. You raise an interesting point with the radio station. What good will this new mechanic be, if one cannot exert control over a radio station? The radio station needs to be able to be fortified to allow artful individuals/groups to fend off bandits who seek to gain control of the radio station. If a player/group logs out, leaving the radio station entirely undefended, what's the point of having one? Barricades should be difficult to make and difficult, but not impossible, to destroy. There should be varying levels of protection, like starting out with easily scavenged "chain-link" fencing to use as a door to keep casually geared intruders out. This would have the drawback of being easily defeatable (wire cutters) and able to be seen/shot through. Upgrade that to plastic sheeting, which would be still easily scavenged but able to be defeated (toolbox and/or rifle fire) easily and would not allow people to see inside your building. Upgrade that to wooden planks, which would be harder to scavenge, as you would have to hone raw wood logs into planks or scavenge them from industrial areas. This would provide a medium-level of coverage which could be destroyed with enough damage from a grenade or specific shotgun breaching round if further secured with a door lock or padlock. Gradually progressing up to a steel door, which would be difficult to scavenge for suitable armored plates and/or welding materials. Steel doors/windows would require something like a satchel charge to defeat which would risk losing some of the loot inside. This could also be tied in with a keycode locking mechanism like in Origins, which requires a battery to power. Thus requiring the player to scavenge for new ones when the old one dies, leaving the base vulnerable. Plus, would add a bit of intrigue in the divulgence of a clan's keycode. Oh, and plus... it'd always be possible to camp a fortified house and wait for the players inside to open the door... blast away, and walk through the open door! Something like that. But it'd have to be scripted for each house (i.e. Chernarushouse1 has 4 windows and 1 door, thus five access points need to be scripted). That and it would have to be suitably difficult for a group/individual to maintain and scavenge for, all the while being defeatable by something specific. This is key, as if everything is defeated by arbitrary "damage" then anyone with a hatchet can take down anything given enough time (perhaps the wooden door suggestion should be amended to differentiate between "Flimsy Planks" and "Hardened Wood Door", because hatchets can harm one but not the other). This will create a new role in groups of "Breacher", the guy who has the wire cutters, blowtorch, etc. to defeat any potential fortification. All while potentially under fire. But the main purpose of this is to limit the effect a single individual can have on a variety of things, because if X requires Y to defeat rather than Z, people will be less likely to have Y on happenstance. Whereas now, like with the Toolbox, once you've got a Toolbox you can do a wide variety of things to a wide variety of vehicles and construction components (construct, destroy, repair, etc.)

This is exactly what was suggested and discussed earlier. Some folks found issue with it encouraging deathmatching by teleporting geared players immediately to the coast if they server hop, thus facilitating killing newspawns. I don't exactly agree with it. But it's a fair point.

Looting will always be hard for one person, as it should be. If people have to rely on stealth to enter towns, vice just bolting in and counting on walking zombies in buildings, they'll actually have to take their time. This is what I did before I realized zombies walked indoors. Plus if looting were difficult for one person, you'd think that would encourage teamplay in itself? To be honest, and this is my opinion, I found everything (with the exception of construction) about Origins to be poor. Taviana as a map is terrible and uninspired. I really don't think a non-zombie staffed area in Chernarus would work, nor would it "encourage" teamplay any more than what we have now. In my mind, having systems in place to increase individual reliance on others would do this. Simply having an ambient WoW-esque raid location doesn't fulfill that need. Rocket has said as much. Plus, the "teamplay" you describe only really applies differently than vanilla DayZ in Salvation City. Outside of that, you get the same exact interface we have in vanilla DayZ. Furthermore, the opposite of PvP is PvE not "teamplay". I know plenty of teamplay clans that PvP their hearts out. I know plenty of solo players that don't even touch PvP if they can. Origins and Breaking Point are novelties, albeit relatively innovative ones. It's not that vanilla is less fun, it's just not lasting. Whereas with mods, there are new experiences to be had, thus some of that initial giddiness returns. I know, I've tried many a mod and gotten bored with them in far less time than I became stagnant with vanilla DayZ. People play them because there's new stuff to do, not because they offer a "better" experience. Origins offers construction and Taviana. BP offers more weapons, that's it. Nothing else advertised about BP works currently. Other than that, they're the same thing as vanilla DayZ. All of the same "collecting, repair, & major focus on PvP" you mention is still there. In fact I'd submit that it's exacerbated by the ready availability of weapons in BP and poorly thought out placement of new high-end loot spawns. What will discourage wanton PvP, is what Rocket has stated. Hard and unforgiving mechanics, sparse loot, rarer weapons and ammunition, managing disease, managing hunger and thirst moreso, and all the other additions of SA. Plus, you can't both call DayZ boring and then turn around and say it's too focused on "extreme PvP". DayZ is special because it allows players to fill roles, such as having players be roving bandits rather than just copping out and having them be NPCs. If they were NPCs, they'd have set patterns and thus would be predictable. You can't interact with them in a manner other than, shoot or die. That seems backwards to me when you're advocating against the same drawbacks of PvP. The two main grievances people have against vanilla DayZ as a game are that there's too much deathmatching and there's not enough "end-game" stuff to keep players occupied. The latter feeds into the former, because people get geared and there is nothing left for them to do besides kill people. They don't have a hard time surviving, they don't have to marshal resources, they don't have to maintain their gear, they don't have a hard time repairing vehicles. There are no camps to maintain, there is nothing. Most if not all of this is being remedied in SA.

Again, won't be continuing this line of discussion/thought. My apologies.

I apologize, but you were the one telling me to "use common sense" and then using a logical fallacy because you didn't understand the premise of my (previously articulated) argument by saying that I had not outlined it thoroughly. Which, through the course of a debate, you are interpreting as a personal attack. I addressed your points, I even said... verbatim... "to address your first point". Followed by a step by step counterargument, which you dismissed entirely and it is now evident that you misunderstood what I was saying. It really doesn't get much clearer then that. You focused on problems with an argument you thought I was making (i.e. clientside spawning, constructable houses) which I wasn't in support of at all. I'm not going to continue this line of thought, unfortunate that it had to be this way and that you think I was attempting to defeat you rather than respond in defense of my argument.

Normally, and I'm guessing you're not a native English speaker (nothing wrong with it, just is evident in your spelling and syntax), people tend to know what I'm saying. So by saying "use common sense", which is condescending by the way, I would think you'd be pleased with my intelligent and mature response. So, I'd appreciate you not equating "debaty" with "pissed". Debates are good, you however were debating something that you misunderstood. The ad hominem as well won't get you far either, I am not required to disclose EVERY single intimate detail of an idea in a brief original post (which was sufficient enough), so don't fault me as a person. And for the record, the several posts I put forward went into considerable detail (in addition to my OP). There's no precedent for clientside construction following players from server to server, so I figured that was self-explanatory.

Jesus tits, THIS! Maybe I should skip speaking in long-winded sentences and stick to bullet points.

No doubt, I'm just saying that there would have to be other mitigating factors to discourage PvP in general and add weight to actions such as killing newspawns. Where you say giving players an "easy and quick way to get to the coast is only going to lead to more deathmatching"... I say, "removing ease of access to weapons, ammo, and other kit is only going to reduce the likelihood of deathmatching"... I think the end result would be somewhere in the middle. Personally, I'd rather characters be restricted to the server entirely. But they seem keen on having persistent characters on multiple servers, so with the current paradigm, we've got to flesh out these workarounds.

What if zombies were made more of a threat in SA? /whisper They are! I've played Origins, and it's every bit as boring/exciting as vanilla. In fact, I'd submit that it's unremarkable due to the uninspired layout of Taviana.

Personally, I don't regard killing new people as a problem at all. Partly because I don't go to the coast, and partly because there's nobody to blame but yourself. Oh, and partly because you don't actually lose anything worthwhile. All in the current mod paradigm of course. To address your first point, that assessment is fair. Although, you mention firearms and eating. Two systems that are not really that effective in the current paradigm. Players find fully operational weapons, and instantly gain food/drink "points" by eating with no consequences or even difficulty in finding ammunition. I have no doubt that this would facilitate deathmatching, but it would be offset by the factors I mentioned above. You're right, deathmatchers don't worry about eating. But they should be forced to, like everyone else, through unforgiving hunger mechanics and sparse loot. Simply BEING on the coast, even with gear (the likelihood of which would be decreased if the above mechanics I mentioned were in place) would be and should be suicide for both empowered bandits and poorly armed newspawns. And, this isn't an argument, more of just an anecdote but... the coast is supposed to be a clusterfuck... right?

Please don't operate under the guise of "common sense", present a counterargument without condescension please. Okay, so, to address your first point. House barricades would be serverside, not clientside (i.e. they WON'T travel with the player, just like tents). SA servers have been much more stable, and even if they initially require "clean ups" in the sense that we have them now... I doubt they will in the future. The number of houses is ENTIRELY relevant. It sets a firm parameter for how many objects are possible, thus dictating the feasibility of the server/client processing load. If there are a maximum of 1000 doors in the world, then there is a possibility of 1000 doors being blocked (thus having to render 1000 blocked doors). Vice having an unlimited amount in the control of the player (i.e. like tents, an infinite number can be placed until the server [theoretically] craps itself). The reasons Rocket mentioned were (I believe) in relation to PLAYER CONSTRUCTED houses, meaning an infinite number of player houses could be constructed per server. Vice with this, you're just securing houses which are already able to be handled by the server/client/game.

In the current mod paradigm, yeah. Not in a system where there are hard consequences for not eating, drinking, tending to disease, managing wounds. Not in a system where there isn't extensive ammunition availability/commonality and where high-end weapons require ZERO maintenance. The point being, people will be far less likely to be highly geared and if they are, they'll be consumed with survival activities. If these systems are in place, as in standalone, not only will transplanted bandits be less capable of killing new people spawning on the coast, they'll be far less inclined to switch servers in the first place. Plus, I don't know about you, but I'd rather not risk my kit to some lucky shot SMLE guy on the coast. Much less OTHER bandits who're already there anyhow. These are mitigating factors of course, but we can have restricted servers or workarounds to server hopping which may not be 100% effective.

I'm curious as to how you think 1.7.7 has been held up by Rocket going to Everest. There has been a lot of work done, hell, they're even talking about crafting and attachments. How the hell does that not warrant a bit of extra time? When they're cornerstones of the SA and now the mod. I for one was amazed that they managed to do this, so I'd assume that is what was holding them up. All of the problems you list, seem to be problems with yourself and your friends, not the community as a whole. The reason why people play BP and Origins, vice vanilla, is that it's a new experience. Not a better one.

So you're saying that... playing a mod of DayZ is somehow a bad thing? Origins and Breaking Point are two very different mods, which are VERY different from DayZ in terms of scope and focus. Neither of which even resembles what we've heard out of the Standalone. However, they owe their existence to vanilla DayZ. It's not like they're both PROGRESSIONS of DayZ, they're just different things with different focuses. As far as I'm concerned, if you're in the DayZ community, playing a mod of a mod is just as significant as playing the original mod itself. Since when is "months" for a substantial update outrageous?

This is why server hopping should be allowed, but you should always start out at the coast when you switch to a new server. Keep your gear, but spawn elsewhere. As to the object count, there's a finite amount of houses in the world. The system of adding to these houses would be finite as well (X amount of doors to board up, X amount of windows to cover, X amount of cupboards). A system would have to take this into account. I want to be clear, I'm not advocating adding anything which is potentially infinite to the world. Merely using what is already there.

Right, I love the addition totally. Plus, Dean has said that they're working on player-created letters, notes, and/or books. But that it's just not finished yet. Again, and I raised this a while back, why can't systems be put in place for a player to use/live in the existing houses? With 90% of the buildings becoming enterable, it seems plausible that only a small fraction of these would be used by players if systems were in place. Likewise, mechanics to secure buildings (boarding up windows, locking mechanisms, fences, etc.) should be made significantly difficult to scavenge for and construct while also being able to be defeated by vigilant players. If this type of system was in place, one could subsequently make items like bookshelves, beds, sinks, refrigerators (if generators were added), and the like useful to the player in some regard. I never really got a substantial answer to the question of "Why can't we use the existing houses as player houses?". I understand the reasons for not having ADDITIONAL player-constructed houses. But I can't help but feel that underground bunkers aren't the only solution to this problem. To me it's all about persistence, if I have a house with books collected, meat hanging above the kitchen, windows boarded up, and a lock on the door (although nobody should ever be impervious to breaches) I would have a much more rewarding experience and would also be encouraged to play on the same server vice server hopping when things get inconvenient.

Hmmm... all of this discussion about books in DayZ has me a bit confounded. I mean, it certainly isn't a harmful addition, I like it and think that they should keep going with it (I am someone who endorses the RP side of DayZ and thinks that there's a lot to work with there). But I'm just confused as to what the point is and whether or not this'll actually have an effect on gameplay. I guess my first reaction was, "Oh, this'll be nice to pass the time with". But then I just thought to myself, "I'd rather be passing the time by making a camp... scavenging... all that". I know full well, that this isn't intended to replace anything and is really just an immersion booster (and a clever one at that, full-length books). I'm just wondering as to whether I'll ever actually be like "Let's read a book!" vice doing other stuff. If there were bookshelves in player-commandeered houses, on which these books could be collected and stored, I think they'd actually end up being important rather than just pleasant distractions.

Yeah, just placeholder zombies. They've disclaimed several times and it's been mentioned in a devblog. I hope everyone hasn't forgotten those screens of female zombies. Really looking forward to some variety with zombies.

Ermergerd. Screenshot. @rocket2guns DayZ jumping zombie attack GO! https://twitter.com/...5399809/photo/1

It sort of betrays the whole "survival" and "immersion" aspects that DayZ is going for if everyone can chat with everyone in a supposed apocalypse. That, and consider how large the EvE world is... and how small (relatively) the map of DayZ is. 50 people at once is pushing it in my mind. That's the one thing that I think BIS and Rocket need to make up their minds on. The persistent universe, because as of now... too many things poof on restart, too little incentive to stay on a server, and it's too easy to memorize everything. I hope later on, they'll be able to diversify the game map a bit (way way way down the road).

@rocket2guns DayZ Client/Server Architecture is functionally complete! Large scale test occurring tomorrow for those in closed testing team

Exactly, radio needs to be replacing all consequence-less and/or non-acquired methods of communication, TS and Skype included.

So long as I can flip to a different frequency from someone blaring dubstep across the radiowaves, it'll be cool. I think though, that maybe this'll encourage a bit more server loyalty and/or significant servers. Everyone'll probably flock to the server with the "Three Dog" imitator.

It totally should be, though. I really hope people realize the detriment to in-depth gameplay that external communication programs pose. Why scavenge when you already have crystal clear comms with your massive clan? Why care about your life when you just respawn and immediately arrange a pinpoint accurate pickup on the coast? At least with a radio, you have to find/repair it. Or, on the flip-side, as I constantly try to illustrate when I play... One can broadcast locations of vehicles, tents, and players on sidechat. Same thing can be done on server TS channels. Meta-gaming, in the traditional RP sense, is really what is cheapening the experience for me. Knowing that there is a consequence free comm system out there when I try to ambush a group or even defend against a group, knowing they can communicate my position even after they're dead. Comms need to be brought into the systems of the game. Radios should be the only method of long-range communication. However, radio stations will probably end up being like "medics" in DayZ. There'll be a bunch of shitty ones that just annoy you, and maybe one or two that stand out as immersive and noteworthy.

Has Matt secretly acquired the fountain of youth? Mothafucka' ya' look thirty... (But really, you look 15). I know we knew this before, but with regards to the weapons, how are they being "redone" specifically? I saw the AK-74 in that PAX (?) footage, and it looked pretty much the same. So, I would guess that the majority of the weapons are being redone simply to make them jive with the attachments. Is this just to make them as solid as possible as a base weapon, to standardize them for attachments, and/or to just make them look prettier? All three? Honestly, I'm really looking forward to attachments. Although I'm doubtful as to how different it'll end up being from what we've got now. I'd imagine they'd have to create a large set of resources if they want to add attachments beyond Aimpoints and suppressors. Likewise, I would think that with more ambient attachments (foregrips, bipods, slings, etc) that they would have to add a whole new set of parameters to say "Foregrip steadies your aim by X while doing Y", for example. Hopefully bolt-actions (Kar98, Mosin-Nagant, SMLE, etc.) with suppressors will be a thing. And to be honest, from a "balance" point of view which I don't really agree with or abide by, I think that the benefits of a suppressed sniper rifle would be offset by either a difference in ammunition behavior (sub-sonic vs. super-sonic), rarity of specific suppressors (i.e. .303 suppressor, .308/7.62 suppressor, 7.62x54 R suppressor, etc.) or by a windage mechanic making sniping more difficult in general. EDIT - And, moreover while on the topic of suppressors, I hope that they will have a finite number of rounds that can be put through before they give out. In the real-world, suppressors essentially have a set amount of rounds that can be put through them before the baffles and the like begin to degrade. Often times, with centerfire weapons, this number is on the order of tens of thousands of rounds (which would outlast multiple barrels on most firearms). But with pistol suppressors and rimfire (.22 LR) suppressors, they degrade much quicker and can actually fill with lead from the round itself. I'd love to see specific attachments (like the battery system for certain optics) like the suppressor require their own separate maintenance routine to remain functional or have a finite lifespan so the player would have to scrounge for another.