Katana67

No thank you. There are many reasons why this is a bad idea. And, it will certainly be the case with private hives when they come around. Multiple characters work when they're FIXED to a server/instance, not persistent. Which is the approach they've chosen with the current public hive. 1. Your avatar in DayZ is meant to represent you as the player, not you inhabiting a distinct character 2. More character slots (on a public hive) would allow for a lot of detrimental activities (i.e. excessive loot hoarding, server hopping [until it's remedied], easy deathmatching, perhaps even unmitigated ghosting [in leaving one character at the top of NWAF, and one at the bottom], etc.) 3. I never really liked it in the MMO's I've played in not knowing who's who. I RPed in SWG for six years and it was insanely frustrating not knowing who's who from an OOC point of view when RPing with someone.

I've long said it, and one of my few interactions with Rocket on this forum was had when I said... "Complex does not mean complicated" What I think is the issue with 99% of the "realism" folks, is that they don't even CONSIDER the in-game benefits that said suggestion would yield. They just say "X is realistic/unrealistic, so therefore it should/shoudn't be included because it's realistic/unrealistic." Which is detrimental in the long term, because then you have people decrying legitimate mechanics just because of the premise that they're realistic. They also do themselves a disservice by not expanding upon how something realistic, could also be beneficial to gameplay (i.e. a lack of random spread with weapons). Why can't we just deal with mechanics? Why do we have to assign "realistic" or "unrealistic" connotations to things? It inevitably clouds the question of "How would this particular suggestion affect gameplay?" Which is why I like your use of complex, because ultimately, nothing in DayZ is purely realistic. But I want things to be complex, as to demonstrate the individual skill/knowhow of the player. And, to add a bit of variety in terms of gameplay. For example, one who knows a lot about how cars work, could market his/her skills in Chernarus as a mechanic. If one actually had to jack up a vehicle, loot a tire/rim, mount the tire, torque down the individual nuts, and fill the tire up to a recommended pressure, one could actually demonstrate a skill. Plus, it would add a fun new exploratory process for the uninitiated player. That's the issue I have now, there are a lot of actions in DayZ (i.e. click "Use" to bandage) but not a lot of activities in DayZ (i.e. locate wound, sterilize, stop bleeding, dress wound, redress wound, etc.)

Agreed, the only folks that I think have suggested otherwise are the developers, unfortunately. But, we haven't received official word from them. Attachments, at least ones like foregrips, should only affect how the weapon handles for the player. Not down-range accuracy.

The "spread" values they have now are not only detrimental from a "realism/authenticity" point of view, but also from a pragmatic gameplay point of view as we (i.e. not hitting what you're rightfully aiming at). BF, in my opinion, has a broken shooting mechanic due to this very concept. Random spread. Now, granted, weapons do have natural deviance. But it's not on the order of feet or tens of feet at 300m. I would really like to hear a dev's point of view on it. Because I really don't know if it's a "work in progress" or "working as intended." But either way, I think the community needs to be more vocal on this one. But I think people need to temper the cries for "realism," as making weapons more accurate inevitably puts folks on a more even playing field in terms of accuracy (which isn't necessarily how it works in the real-world). For me, this is primarily a concern of just making the shooting more WYSIWYG vice simulating "realism." However, on the flip side, they've stated they're interested in having wind be a factor in shooting. So I think they'll have to marginalize, or downright remove, any "spread" values when that happens.

One, not going to lower myself to that level. Second, there's much more (by your own admission) that matters other than the view provided by helicopters (which can also be mitigated, as well). And you're trading stealth for a better view, which is a fair trade off. Third, there's so much to fault with the nuke analogy that I won't even waste time pointing it out. I think the "overpowered" nature of helicopters, especially in DayZ, has been vastly overstated. That and I'm not a huge fan of artificial balance anyhow. I don't get killed by helicopters that often in the mod, even though they're supposedly "all over the place." I get shot down every time I pilot one in Overwatch. Point being, even if I acknowledge that rarity is a non-issue (which it is), helicopters don't actually provide one with the ability to "dominate" the map. They can be downed by small arms fire in the mod, to say nothing of the standalone. Moreover, they should be a force to reckon with. They should be something to fear.

I think folks need to be a bit more vocal and concise about this. My interpretation, is that it's pretty unpopular. Yet I haven't really seen all that much focused discussion about it outside of the forums. I've yet to see a developer actually comment on it either.

Tanks are a different story from helicopters. At least in the mod, helicopters could be taken out by small arms fire. Whereas that was not really the case with tanks. That and helicopters trade resistance for visibility. To approach this, I think tanks should be unarmed. Not to mention suitably cumbersome and fuel inefficient.

I think they need to actually change the building models of the castles themselves. They look, and play, horribly. They're low-res grey blobs with idiotically simple interiors. Likewise, there's no real reason for anything to be spawning in the castles we've got now. They're not museums, they're just empty warrens. Sort of silly to just have decent loot spawning on the bare stone floor of a random castle. They need to update the interior and exterior models (are shelves out of the question?), add a bit of variety to the castles themselves (i.e. not just one spire and that's it) and perhaps fortify them as to give them both an apocalyptic feel and make loot spawns a bit more plausible.

I have yet to hear a coherent reason for dismissing helicopters. Never understood why people see fit to arbitrarily limit what can and cannot be in DayZ. Helicopters are here to stay, I love them. They're great. I'm a solo player, so I am rarely able to actually use them effectively. Yet I love them because of the tension they add and never thought they were overly powerful innately.

Yes, I don't have an issue with helicopters as a concept. Which you apparently do. I don't have an issue with the benefits they give players who have them, because they can be mitigated or made rewarding (vice being simplistic) via the mechanics you dismiss as irrelevant. The end result is the same (i.e. Player X has a helicopter), but the process in maintaining/repairing/flying/refueling/finding a helicopter isn't. Making something rare, for example, decreases the overall likelihood that it will even be encountered in the first place. The only issue that I ever had in the mod with helicopters, was how easy it was to spot folks in forests and how easy it was to spot tents. Which is a separate issue.

Yeah, I love helicopters in the mod. I love what they add to the game. Sorry, more vehicles please. And rarity/ease of use/ease of maintenance is a massive factor in deeming helicopters as inappropriate/appropriate. Dismissing it as a factor is just silly.

Spawn on the east coast. Run to the west. Reap the untouched Zeleno, Pustoshka, Veresnik, Vybor, NWAF corridor. Live the rest of my life.

Err... why don't we just wait and see?

I mean, the solution as outlined in the Youtube video in the OP has characters literally zorping in and out of existence instantaneously. For example, if someone were under a tree, I could use third/first STILL to spot them (perhaps easier) by looking for where they pop in. A more practical solution is occlusion blurring, so that if one's character's view is obscured, that portion of the screen is blurred. In conjunction with just lowering the effing camera, I think this would work wonders. And it's mainly impractical because it's actually removing things from the client.

This is why I like the fused approach of having pre-existing objects act as supports (a la ACE) and having portable/deployable items which can be used as fixed supports (a la shooting sticks). Might lend to the approach of using backpacks and ammo cans as supports, I think it'd be best just to limit it to the backpack.

But Taviana, as it was before they expanded upon it, was much smaller than Chernarus. I think what Rocket was saying, is that the overall size of the map cannot be expanded. Hence why they can add Utes to Chernarus in the sea (which is within the borders of the map) but cannot add to the actual borders themselves.

Well I mean both Russia and NATO intervened in Chernarus sometime prior to the outbreak, so the international infrastructure would be there. Be it Russian roadblocks or American roadblocks. Not to mention that Chernarus isn't that poor, I mean even Sierra Leone and Liberia have some sort of internal infrastructure that provides for refugee camps and roadblocks in times of conflict.

I don't really get this. What does it matter if Chernarus is "poor"? So-called poor nations can set up roadblocks and refugee camps. It's not like they'd just be like "Oh, welp... time to just lay down and get eaten... cause' we ain't got no money." Never mind the obvious presence of international organizations (NATO/UN).

Well, a few things... I'd say no, the reason they switched the spawns to the east coast isn't because they're expanding the map. I'm not entirely sure why, but I believe it was for us to try out their new cities which are closer to Berezino. Likewise, I think it's to keep folks away from Balota. And I'm fairly sure Rocket has said it's impossible to actually change the overall size of the map, given how the engine renders the terrain. As I understand it (and this could be wrong) the location of everything is relative to everything else. So if you proverbially "stretch" something it stretches everything else. I would love a larger map, and view it as necessary for the future. In the long-term (talking decade here) I feel they'll need to invest in procedural generation of terrain as to provide for a true MMO experience. Making the wilderness significant again is a prime concern of mine, and I hope they can manage to at least add some unassuming wilderness along the borders of the map. I'd rather have them remove the Balota military loot spawn and then allow people to spawn along the entire coast.

God the melee system is so atrocious. Funny stuff though.

Rocket even commented on this solution recently, and said it's not practical/beneficial. It's not just zorping people out of your view, it's zorping them out of existence for the client entirely (if I understand it correctly). That and if flicking the characters in and out of existence doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, I don't know what does.

Primarily to do with the round, rather than the weapon itself. Which is what is being discussed. Moreover, in a video game, this is hardly a concern (as they'd both be firing generic "5.56" ammo). And I did say "pretty much" vice "exactly the same."

"Quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movement of well persons who may have been exposed to a communicable disease to see if they become ill" ~ Center for Disease Control and Prevention I thought of the idea of a quarantine, as an interesting thought exercise in how we can fuse the ideas of lore, unique locations, zombie densities, and pragmatic gameplay considerations. This isn't a suggestion per-se, but more of a demonstration of how lore is important and can translate into in-game environments and gameplay dynamics. Lore Sometime after 2009, Chernarus was the host to a virulent outbreak of "infection" (we have no formal name as of yet, but this is the "zombie virus" as it were). As such, and being a pre-militarized nation which played host to a NATO/US/RU peacekeeping mission, the government (in conjunction with international monitoring organizations) attempted to quarantine the outbreak. This saw a deployment of military personnel and emergency responders to construct an infrastructure to implement said quarantine. This included the rapid deployment of security forces to quell insurrection and rioting, the construction of a network of roadblocks and checkpoints to regulate the population, and the fortification of various entry/exit points into the country as to implement further regulations on the population. These measures of quarantine obviously failed, as we're left with a deserted landscape populated by the infected (and pesky bandits). Yet the infrastructure of the quarantine would remain as both a blemish on the landscape of Chernarus, and as a remnant of the vein attempts to contain the infection. Thereby adding to the sense of post-apocalyptic survival in DayZ for the player. Unique Locations This brief bit of background has very real implications for the tangible in-game environment of Chernarus. Roadblocks and quarantine stations could be erected outside of every major city (Chernogorsk, Elektrozavodsk, Berezino, Svetlojarsk, Zelenogorsk, etc.) Likewise, certain areas could be wholly contained by retaining walls (see below) which has resulted (as per the failure of quarantine in Chernarus) in a containment of masses of infected in certain cities. At these locations, who knows what one might find. A traffic jam, an abandoned military convoy, a mass grave, a burnt out husk of a roadblock, evidence of a riot, or just a horde of infected. Each one could be configured in such a way as to tell a specific story. Likewise, in addition to land-based roadblocks or outposts, one would also find quarantine centers and/or hospital ships in the ports of Berezino, Svetlojarsk, Chernogorsk, and Elektrozavodsk respectively. This could perhaps explain the un-moored (and wrecked) ship south of Svetlojarsk. Zombie Densities This method of quarantining could lend to an approach which addresses a variety of zombie densities. For example, in a larger city with a trapped/quarantined infected population, it could be assumed that there would be a higher density of zombies in said city. However, in smaller towns which were not the subject of quarantine, the zombie population would be more diffuse or spread out. Likewise, the quarantine (as a plot device) can be used to explain or to provide for a more dangerous experience in entering a city. Not only would a player have to potentially navigate around the physical barriers of a quarantine, but he/she would have to contend with a higher zombie count inside of a quarantined area. Gameplay Considerations As mentioned above, the idea of a quarantine (as opposed to a blanket treatment of zombie spawns across the map) may provide for more risky and rewarding urban gameplay, where zombies become the alpha threat. This is not to suggest that in rural areas, the zombies should not be a threat (they should). But to justify the added loot inside of cities, and potentially encourage people to be more mobile, I think this would be a good method of adding a bit of lore-friendly and environment-building danger to Chernarus. Quarantine stations and roadblocks could potentially yield their own loot categories. Which would perhaps be limited to riot gear and/or police uniforms. I'm timid to suggest adding more military spawns to the world, but adding a diffuse (vice centralized) network of potential loot spawns is something to consider. The overall level of "military" loot should not be upped in my opinion. Moreover, any new loot building/location shouldn't be able to compete with the pre-existing barracks and jailhouse buildings we've got now. Once vehicles are implemented, assuming that it's still more expedient to drive on roads, roadblocks could possibly be used by enterprising players/bandits as outposts. Which could lead to shakedowns, firefights, trade hubs, all that jazz. Likewise, once construction is implemented, these roadblocks could perhaps be cleared and fortified by the aforementioned players to be used as a fortress (which would of course be subject to infiltration and destruction). Your thoughts? TL:DR - Lore is important in buttressing or providing for in-game environments - Quarantine infrastructure could be used to add unique locations and in-game environments (such as roadblocks, quarantined areas, etc.) - It could also be used to tweak zombie densities into the cities and/or surrounding quarantine infrastructure - Quarantine infrastructure provides for unique in-game experiences with regard to looting, player interaction, vehicles, and construction.

Yes, hence why this isn't really commenting on current circumstance.

I mean, you DIDN'T say what you're now saying. So, if that's nitpicking (i.e. prompting you to actually be specific, rather than insanely vague) so be it. Optics weren't mentioned, you used the phrase "high-powered modern weapons." Ammo rarity is a separate issue from which weapons should be included. And you didn't answer my questions regarding the use of COD/BF as somehow a negative proof to judge which weapons should be included and which shouldn't.