Katana67

Yep, but I won't kill the horse before I've even ridden it. Meaning I won't outright dismiss the premise of an AS50 based solely on the idea that it might be exploited.

Right. Fix the exploit.

Not saying they shouldn't consider it at all, never did. I'm saying you can't let the chance of exploitation dictate content. Especially when fixing an exploit actually solves a problem, rather than just sweeping it under the rug by not including "powerful" items on the off-chance it'd be exploited.

By that logic, every item shouldn't be included, because it's possible to exploit. The game shouldn't be made, because exploits are possible. Fix the exploit.

Regardless you can't NOT INCLUDE SOMETHING based solely on the premise that it MIGHT be exploited. You fix the exploit.

An assumption. One which doesn't include a 1 per hive limit. Perhaps duping would be rendered impossible when the server/hive only allows one of a certain item to exist at any given time. Hive/server recognizes a duped item (because there's more than X) and deletes it. And comparing it to the mod is irrelevant, one could theoretically loot an infinite amount of AS50s (regardless of duping). Whereas with the new loot management, the likelihood that you'll loot one in the first place is "exponentially" less. And more importantly, you can't not INCLUDE AN ITEM/MECHANIC solely under the premise that it might be exploited. You fix/marginalize the exploits. One could theoretically dupe a million M4s, do we stop adding weapons? Do we discard a new loot mechanic? Or do we fix duping?

And many Eastern Bloc/post-Soviet countries commonly use NATO weaponry. Plus, with the loot system inbound, the loot distribution would be controlled on the hive. Meaning a fixed number of X (in this case AS50's as an example) in the game, controlled by the hive. So no, "everyone and their mother" wouldn't be able to use such a weapon. Immersion = subjective. Personally, I don't find the chance of finding a rare SCAR or insert unnecessarily vilified weapon here to be immersion breaking in the least.

Apple =/= Orange For the record, you did say "native."

People don't take the full picture into account. They just dismiss something based on an irrelevant previous experience, a misconception of the landscape of DayZ, and the nature of rarity. I wouldn't mind an AS50 at all. I'm cautious about thermal optics, as that, to me... removes some of the awareness necessary to play DayZ. But that said, anything can be added inasmuch as it's suitably rare/balanced. However, anti-materiel rifles are one of those "take it or leave it" things. I wouldn't mind if they were included, but I wouldn't mind if they left them out.

It's supposed to simulate Chernarus, fictional-ass Chernarus. It draws on a number of influences. AK's and AR-15's are both plausible, given a multitude of factors. Hell, even an M107 (as with most weapons) is plausible in my mind, given that Luvo Prague (Czech AR manufacturer) distributes Barrett products. Not to mention the fictional explanations, which are far more important.

Never had any issue with weapons like the M107 and AS50 other than the fact that they weren't suitably rare or prohibitive to operate. The TWS itself may have been a tad much, granted, but I think people lump anti-materiel rifles in with this flaw rather than anything to do with the rifles themselves. Matt pretty much said (around E3 or Gamescom I think, 2013) that they're not interested in putting rifles like the AS50 in. However, I see no reason why they shouldn't (if made suitably rare, difficult to arm, difficult to maintain, prohibitive in terms of encumbrance, and awful in CQC). Cool beans about the MP5K. Would've rather had a full-on MP5, but whatever. Hopefully it's got the folding stock.

Any game can be used to roleplay. But not all have a large toolbox which allows for decent roleplay. DayZ fits into that category. There isn't enough to do yet, plain and simple. My character isn't going to be defined by what loot I fancy at any given moment. He's going to be (if you choose you look at it as a "character" as our avatars are more representative of the player than anything) a product of his actions. As of now, the only real actions are looting and shooting. Some variation of those. That's pretty much it.

This isn't an issue of realism for me, it's a gameplay issue. One shouldn't be able to casually dump one's helicopter when the shit gets tough and be able to parachute 100% of the time. He/she should have to actually invest time in looting a parachute, rather than just getting it 24/7.

I suspect it's not finished, and there will be improvements made. There's a vast difference between "promoting a style of gameplay" and "adding consequence to action."

As with many issues in DayZ, this has multiple strings tugging at it. Would the problems of not needing to mind flashlights and night-time gear be lessened if we were on a more unified server architecture rather than a massive swath of "traditional FPS-type" servers? Maybe. Part of the problem is negotiating folks with different timezones, and to that I recognize that people may not want dead accurate time in DayZ. And no, it's not enough to say "Well some servers can have 24-hour cycles and others can have X-hour cycles." One of them isn't DayZ by that measure. It pains me to say it, but efforts need to be taken to bring everyone under the same envelope in DayZ. This is not to suggest that I want people to play the same way, this is a sandbox which thrives on emergent gameplay. But there's a difference between playing a certain way and playing in the same set of circumstances. I support modding and flexibility, it's what made DayZ great. But now that it's a singular entity, it needs to be standardized (in terms of fundamental and basic premises, like day/night cycles). Specifically with regard to this, I think a potent middle ground can be found. I don't want 24/7 day servers to be prevalent or even possible. But I also recognize that night is unplayable, even by my own consideration. Perhaps a 12-hour cycle would be better. Or even a 3-hour cycle. I think a discussion needs to happen based upon a balance, not an "either/or" scenario. Likewise, the nights themselves need to be improved before the day/night cycle is finalized.

Yeah, as others have said, it's largely to do with the graphics. Which should not be underestimated or assumed to be a paradigm. It needs to be addressed. The only thing that helps me is getting the jump on somebody. I attribute 90% of the combat in DayZ to just seeing someone before they see you. Which doesn't happen a lot for me, given that I like my game to look good. Not DayZ64. I absolutely hate the fact that people can tweak their graphics settings to be more effective in combat.

With regards to the "laboratory", that's sort of where I wanted to go with Myshkino. Perhaps there'd be a clandestine bunker in the woods or something. But I wasn't sure if it should just be a novel naturally-occurring infection vice an accident. Wanted to leave that open for debate. With regard to the overall time spent, I wanted to convey a sense of a "spread" and "collapse" vice just a fixed point where it happens. Likewise, I wanted to have some beacons of hope (i.e. the report of the quarantines holding and later Russian/Georgian successes in the NE) to be dashed. But, the specifics of the timeline certainly are flexible. I felt a three-week timeline was plausible whilst allowing time for the myriad attempts to contain the infection to occur. Likewise, an element of 28 Days Later that I always liked were the stories told by Mark and Selena in the beginning, which detail the plight of the refugee and the "it started as riots" confusion.

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/186377-framework-for-lore-discussion/ I started a thread with the express purpose of establishing/discussing a timeline preceding the events of DayZ. It's long, but if you read the entire piece you'll get a sense of what a coherent background can do to the experience of DayZ.

No, and this is a common argument I hear for not even trying to mitigate the detriments of third-party comms. Making it impossible is, as you say, an extreme. Like hacking (not equating third-party comms with hacking) it is not feasible to assert that one can "get rid of it entirely." Making it difficult to use, cumbersome to manage (like having to dial your buddies up on a phone, in this example), and unattractive compared to in-game mechanics is the goal. Not making it impossible. There will always be workarounds. But making said workarounds more difficult and less-attractive than in-game mechanics makes all the sense in the world to me.

Many other games aren't DayZ though. DayZ is different, whereby the onus is placed upon the player to acquire and maintain his/her ability to do X in-game. Which underscores the detriment of "meta-gaming." Other games do not place this responsibility on the player. Same can be said about in-game maps versus alt-tabbing. However, the benefits to that particular instance of metagaming are less widespread.

Because the in-game mechanics that I mentioned are wholly undercut by the meta-efficiency offered by third-party programs.

Yes, this is why it's a good idea in my opinion. Just making a chance that someone will overhear someone blabbing to their clan across the map on TS is immensely helpful. It doesn't have to be fool-proof, and I doubt many people would go through the trouble of using multiple mics. I would think that the detrimental effects placed upon in-game mechanics (like walkie talkies, direct chat, group play, etc.) by third-party comms programs would be concerning to say the least from a developmental perspective. There's certainly something to be said about third party comms programs. But in my opinion, they render the aforementioned mechanics utterly useless/consequence-less, cheapen other mechanics (like vehicles, storage, and loot) and artificially limit what you all can implement. Why put in walkie talkies when the majority of folks use consequence-free TS? Why care about your life when you can arrange a pickup instantly with your clan across the map? The only negative I've ever seen raised is that "I don't want people overhearing me." Which is sort of the point... If you don't want to be heard in DayZ, mute your mic... or be quiet. Game mechanics shouldn't be catered to the off chance that the player is a loud imbecile. Other than that, I don't think people would mind "always on" direct chat.

Why can't zombies be both "harder" and more numerous?

Either way, zombie is semantic. It doesn't solely apply to the undead.

Yes, we have. Dean has said pretty unequivocally that they're infected human beings, not the undead. However, no, we don't know the sequence of events. Which is essential in my opinion. If you want The Road - The Game, try DayZ 2017 [sic?] mod. I don't really expect DayZ to be like The Road. You're crossing a great many issues toward the end of your post.