Katana67

Again, I think your English is a little off on this one. I'm advocating against reacting irrationally and complaining irrationally.

It does?

I mean, the actual effect that this will have on gameplay, even for new players, is almost completely negligible. Not only is it predicated on actually having a fully pieced-together map (to be able to make full use of this ability in the first place), it's also predicated on the player not using the much easier, complete, and instantly available map resources available on the internet (at places like DayZDB). So, I mean, yeah it's a bad idea on principle. But acting like this is going to somehow dramatically affect how the game is played is ridiculous. People already have access to maps to figure out where they are. Doesn't matter if it's precise or not, they don't need a yellow circle to let them know that they're in <insert city here>. They don't need a yellow circle to orient themselves either from that location.

They, in my opinion, should be only used in-game. They should be the reward of the expenditure of in-game time/effort/risk. Not something that everyone can just alt-tab to access from the start. Otherwise, what's the point of having a map in-game? I'm not going to spend time piecing together a map (for one, because I don't need a map to navigate Chernarus) because I can just alt-tab and pull one up on DayZDB without doing anything. So, if there's an easier and more flexible alternative that's readily available, what use do maps have in-game? The same applies to Teamspeak and walkie-talkies. I'll let you fill in the blanks to the above statement to apply to Teamspeak. If I had my way, alt-tabbing would close the game out entirely. But, that's clearly never going to happen.

Yeah, bad idea in my opinion. Should only be the purview of someone with a GPS or somesuch. Definitely not an innate ability. But then again, I don't really care about the maps in DayZ. They've been utterly ruined by the (perhaps unmitigated) use of websites. Until, or if (which is unlikely) something is done about this issue, then maps are just there for posterity... the same goes for walkie talkies. That and it doesn't really do anything for me, I know where I am in Chernarus. Guess that's one of the perks of playing the shit out of ARMA II, DayZ mod, and DayZ. Bad idea on principle, but doesn't affect how I play the game.

Yeah, as others have said, I want it to attract them. Zombies need to eventually have a gradient of aggro, vice just being an on/off switch. - Loitering. What you see pre-aggro, they're just stumbling about doing whatever. - Alerted. They sense a stimulus, but are unsure of what it is. They gradually begin migrating in the area of that stimulus (i.e. distant fire, distant gunshot, distant explosion, distant visible player, etc.) - Aggro. They have full awareness of where their target is and will home in on it at full speed so long as line of sight and/or audibility can be maintained. Then, if line of sight is broken, they travel back down the ladder. First entering into an alerted state, investigating the area around the last point of contact with their target. Then, after a certain period without finding anything, they enter back into their default loiter mode. The AI behind the cops in GTA IV/V is a great general framework for how I'd like to see zombies approached. Some of them should be migratory as well.

http://imgur.com/a/kqlRZ

I haven't played the latest version of the mod, or experimental either. But for a while in the mod (and it may still be the case, they've toyed around with it multiple times) tents were very very strict on what surfaces they could be placed on. Likewise, they were very draconian in their collision detection in, sometimes, not being able to set a tent down anywhere near a tree. Pretty much guaranteeing that tents had to be placed in the middle of clearings.

Bear in mind, balance could mean multiple things. Could be in reference to weapon performance. Could just be in reference to rarity/commonality tweaks with regard to weapons/magazines/ammunition. Could be both.

Devs/the tents themselves. EDIT - Hey! 3000 posts! Remember folks, 5000 posts with nothing logical/good/constructive to say never wins over 1 really intelligent and well-reasoned post.

Hopefully something like this... /fapfapfapfap

Hide them strategically all you want, they'll still get found all day erry day. Coming from someone who almost exclusively gears by raiding other people's tents, until you let folks camouflage them or offer smaller storage options, tents will get found pretty ricky tick. Problem gets much worse as well when they're super stringent about collisions too. I don't want folks having a corner of their tent sticking out from within a rock... but just let me put up a tent underneath a tree.

What they really need, is the ability to snip off bits of bushes/trees and allow the player to camouflage them. Because even a green camouflaged tent is still a "one size fits all" tent that cannot be adapted to its surroundings. Hopefully they end up having more variety as well. Like one of those huge-ass tents, or just a simple pup tent. Or, just stashes buried in the ground... hung from a tree... all that jazz. But yeah, even though it's got some flaws, nobody's more excited about tents than me! :D

Given that they're massive grey/blue domes... Going to go ahead and guess that they're easier to spot. Not that the ones in the mod didn't stick out like a sore thumb.

Interested to see what they actually have done, rather than speculate endlessly with a tinfoil hat on waiting for them to inevitably fuck up. And before anyone, once we find out what they've done and you don't like it, reacts... remember what the Tweet says. "1st balancing pass of firearms," not final... not third... first.

A fictional reason explaining the fictional presence of an item in a fictional land, you say? How novel!

Seeing as most of the weapons in STALKER were from the West (or fictional, or unrealistically depicted, or "obscure"), going to go ahead and disagree again. http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.:_Shadow_of_Chernobyl 15 non-Russian firearms by my count 13 Soviet/Eastern firearms by my count as well Again, again, like again... you're mixing two issues. Weapons simply being included in the game, and being rare/common.

I'm pretty sure they're downed UH-60s. In the mod they were UH-1Ys.

Minor tweaks to accommodate a wider variety of weapons with a wider variety of capabilities (and therefore, a wider variety of playstyles and preferences) doesn't constitute an adjustment to the history, just an addition. Moreover, it can also be argued that the history of Chernarus already provides for a ton of NATO gear to be present. So it's arguable as to whether anything would have to be added at all. Nevermind the real-world precedent for NATO gear permeating into Eastern Europe and former Soviet countries. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that NATO gear should be more commonplace than Warsaw Pact stuff, I have never seen anyone suggest this. So it wouldn't "mirror place located in the US," either, because it isn't all that different in the first place. Chernarus is fictional, so it's not for you or me to deem what is "likely" in it. Because that is up to the people crafting the fiction and nothing else. Hence why you rarely see me suggest a weapon because it's more or less likely than another. I suggest a weapon based upon what it can offer the experience, and secondly, my own personal liking (which is pretty broad, as I like most firearms). All we can do, is say what weapons we want. It's not for us to dictate what is more "likely" in Chernarus. I'm in the business of inclusion, not exclusion. I don't see any reason why any weapon should be categorically removed from consideration in fictional-ass DayZ just because it's made outside of mother Russia. Not saying this is what you're saying, and I agree that I want NATO weapons and the like to be pretty dern rare.

Yep, some magazines need to be made more common and need to be spawning in the same types of buildings (but not beside, at the same time) as their respective weapons. Sporter mags spawning primarily in military buildings isn't cutting it.

Or the simple inventory fluff line of "Chernarus purchased several thousand M4A1s as their standard service rifle following the US peacekeeping mission." Or Chernarus could have its own armories, like it already does in CR (a CZ analog). Or the United States could've equipped the CDF with AR-15s after it departed Chernarus (like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan). Or some unforeseen circumstance of an international effort to contain the outbreak in Chernarus. Or AR-15s could've been smuggled in via an illicit arms trade (see most recent conflicts). I mean, it's a god damn AR-15. Not a freakin' pile of Plutonium. There are tons and tons of ways that it is plausible, not to mention the fact that there are AR-15 manufacturers/users in Eastern Europe and/or former Soviet-controlled countries.

Meh, as much as I'd like to see the AK-101 with an ACOG/EOTech/Aimpoint, I'd rather have the rarer NATO weapons be the ones who can mount the generic attachments. I think the more common (by comparison) Warsaw Pact stuff should have more weapon-specific attachments/optics.

Errr, I know it isn't World of Warcraft. It's DayZ.

Yes, but I actually have a reasoning behind why I deem it as beneficial. "Realism" isn't in and of itself a reason for doing something, it isn't better or worse. It's just neutral, it's a trend. It doesn't add or detract in and of itself. Which is why I detest the blind assertion that "realism" makes for a better game, because I seldom see people actually make the argument for why it is the case. This isn't just an exaggeration, people have literally said things to the affect of "It's realistic, do it because it's realistic." And we're talking about subjective understandings, obviously. My line is drawn at what we have currently, magazines/weapons/ammunition spawning separately. But I actually frame my reasoning for that opinion in terms of how it affects DayZ. Just saying "Because it's realistic" isn't a mode of argument, it's just a statement. When it's devoid of a why, why does this enhance DayZ? You can advocate for "realistic" things, but there has to be a reasoning for doing so, and a reasoning why it should be the case. Something that I rarely see. Anywho, sort of over it. You know where I stand.

I wasn't saying you were either :D