Katana67

Right, but it's not instanced. It's server-based. It would be different if there was one persistent world and the server allotted you an instance. But it doesn't. You log onto the server and that server is the main delineation of the experience. The hive really only controls (for now) what servers your particular character will transfer over to. It defeats the purpose of a dynamic instance when you have to willfully switch. I think people use the term MMO too loosely with DayZ. Simply because a lot of people are playing on different servers on the same map, doesn't mean it's a MMO. A lot of non-MMO games have that capability. There isn't much to differentiate it from current non-MMO shooters like Battlefield as it stands, as it's still based on a highly granular server architecture. That and 40 person servers aren't exactly "massive". An MMO to me, as its most basic function, means we're all playing in the same world at one time (not only a map). Whatever one does has the admittedly minute chance of affecting everyone.

Zombies need to actually interact with the player as if he/she were a human being, not a ghost to be lunged through. Then blocking would make sense and dodging would be possible/rewarding. Dodging now is just too unpredictable, albeit easy to accomplish. I'd like to see the way in which objects receive damage get revamped before melee is touched. But yeah, I think they should implement some sort of tackle/knockdown. Might be cool. And could make for some tense situations if you tackle another player who's got an armed partner, won't be able to get a shot!

Several things. I think vehicles may help in the plausibility of carrying large objects, or perhaps wheelbarrows. But I've heard nothing to suggest that they view it as an issue. Some things just aren't going to be wholly realistic. The inventory system is just that. Again, this assumes that HESCOs cannot be vaulted over or dismantled. Barriers shouldn't be indefinite area denial tools, they should be impediments to incoming movement and should act as cover. That and if they were made suitably difficult to construct, then I doubt people would use them much for griefing. People got a bad taste in their mouth from the mod, because of how awful the construction was. Picket fences should be vaultable. High fences should be climbable. HESCOs should be scalable. Nevermind that they all should be destructible. I see no difference in terms of "griefing" potential in HESCOs than I do in lockable doors and barricades (which appear to be inbound).

The assertion that larger = better isn't a fallacy, its an opinion to be held. One can assert that larger maps are better, based on personal taste (because "better", like most things... is entirely subjective). I take wholesale issue with the above statement. The current "state" of the map, whatever that means to you (I have tons of fun in the north and have for two years) can be explained by the things you dismiss as irrelevant. I'm not sure what it sacrificed to be bigger than everyone else's map either. I mean, can you name a large map that has near 100% enterable non-instanced buildings and all of the systems that go into DayZ (i.e. the basic FPS mechanic, survival mechanics, vehicles (inbound), coherent zombies (inbound) etc.) I think you're placing too much significance on the map and not taking a wholesome outlook as to the aspects which FACTOR IN TO HOW WE USE the map. I have yet to hear the map's size be used as an excuse for not doing X. Nevermind that aesthetically, the north has been upgraded SIGNIFICANTLY. Most of the forests have been improved, there is now a large city north of NEAF (and it looks like one will be going in north of NWAF as well). The towns inland have been completely revamped and are now much more substantial than in the mod. Most have high-value buildings. You said it yourself in the OP, people tend to hang around where they spawn. So why not diversify the spawns so that people hang around in more areas? I'm not sure how this could be done, as I don't want folks spawning inland. But I'm sure it could be addressed. Nevermind that people DO in fact move away from their spawns. But even then, why not give people incentive to move inland or away from their spawns? Loot balancing also plays a heavy role. It dictates, for now, where people travel. It's almost the sole determinant in this. Trouble is, there's too much loot around the coast. Why they thought it prudent to put in a barracks at Balota is beyond me. Moreover, the loot distribution system hasn't been implemented (which will place a finite amount of rare items on the server/hive). Plus, once the zombie numbers are upped and they can actually BALANCE the map, I suspect the large cities on the coast will be near suicidal for the unarmed player. The big thing that you're forgetting, and that has been the case since the mod, is that there's not much to do other than loot and kill people. Even when one is fully geared, there's nothing to do. Even something as simple as persistent storage worked wonders in moving people across the map, just to store equipment. The same can be said about vehicles, which both allow for storage AND allow for rapid movement across the map. Not to mention construction. Likewise, it would've been more prudent to argue that the size-to-player ratio is too low. Meaning that we need to add more players to increase the likelihood of people being in X location across the board. There are just so many competing factors which dictate how folks behave in DayZ that the size of the map is a non-issue when viewed in context. That and I don't have an issue with the coast being a clusterfuck. More loot and wide open space for me. With that said, I do think that in the future (like the next decade) they will have to look into procedurally generated maps.

It doesn't matter what you can see, only what the physical model of your character can see. If it's not in his/her line-of-sight then it can't be viewed in the "vicinity" menu. This is a working-as-intended feature. But yes, I agree it should be more intuitive to select items.

It's based on your character's line-of-sight. If your character can't see it, it can't be picked up. This is combat against a reliance on the "vicinity" loot system, which would undercut the action of actually having to search for loot. If you're using third-person as a gauge, then it's not accurate. That said, picking up items is cumbersome, but I feel that the "vicinity" system is fine the way it is. The other stuff, like things being inaccessible on top of lockers, clipping through walls/floors, and counter-intuitive select-boxes are much more pressing flaws.

They've been implementing the stuff in the next patch for the past month. See this. http://dayzdev.tumblr.com/. Physics is already implemented. They just have to turn it on. I suspect they'll have ragdoll in the short-term within a month or two. Four months is July, that's Q3. And for the record, I didn't see the "next next patch" detail you provided above. I read it as "next patch".

I mean, some "realism" has to be suspended. Just a small picket fence requires a small wheelbarrow (at best) to transport, or a multitude of trips collecting one board at a time. An individual HESCO bastion wouldn't be much different (nevermind that there are a variety of sizes in HESCOs). Six slots in a pack sounds about right. We've yet to see how they're going to handle really big items in DayZ.

2-4 months? No way. The next patch was said to be coming by the end of April, by Rocket himself, in the worst case scenario.

The only issue I had with HESCOs is that they couldn't be destroyed or mounted. Other than that I see no reason why they shouldn't be implemented. Should require a decent amount of digging to fill up.

Myshkino. All of it will be mine. Or just the barn and outhouses north of it. I hope we can put up HESCOs or at least fences. I had some pretty epic forts in some of the mods at this location. Or some of the random cabins in the woods north of NWAF. I think they should add random cabins in the Wilderness just for this purpose.

Probably ruin it. I love modding, but it hemorrhaged players from the vanilla experience into ridiculous mods which bore little to no resemblance to DayZ as it was intended.

Yeah, I'm with the first poster. It's just because it has to play a death animation, and I think it'll be fixed once ragdoll is fully implemented. As I understand it, the backend for physics has been running in the background for some time in the current build, it's just been turned off. This was, ostensibly, to check the load on the server. So, I suspect it'll be implemented very soon. As to the plausibility of immediately dropping when getting shot, it totally depends on where you're hit. So, not sure if there's any credibility to blanket statements like "You can get shot five times in the chest and still fight back!" It depends on where in the torso you're hit. I suspect if a 7.62 round destroys your spinal column, you're going to go down like a sack of bricks. Same with a shot which destroys your heart, brain, or any integral part of your nervous system. Until proper internal ballistics is rendered by BIS, which I doubt will ever happen, or they somehow tweak the damage values, then we're going to have to live with people taking multiple shots to the torso in a general sense.

Not a BR/DMR. Point?

As are most things. M4's can accurately reach up to 500m (fairly sure Marines are tested at 200m and 500m w/ the M16 and/or M4). Yet in DayZ, they have trouble going past 100m. Doesn't have to be 500m. But it has to be a useful weapon at range, especially with an optic.

DayZ hasn't been a thing for four years, it's been out for two (mod came out in April 2012 IIRC). And yes, it is difficult. The respawn mechanic is temporary. However, I love the fast zombies. Keep em' comin'.

Well, I would posit that it isn't good for gameplay at all... to have random dispersion values. Or, rather, random dispersion values that render a weapon useless at reasonable ranges. As to your second statement, they're not slightly off, they're way off. I personally have an issue with attachments making a weapon artificially accurate/inaccurate. With stuff like target acquisition, making certain stocks have "speed" benefits makes sense. Likewise, having foregrips (later on) would make sense if it translated into a benefit to stability. But putting a plastic MOE handguard on your AR doesn't magically make it more accurate on any plane of existence. Why should it? What use does that have, as opposed to just having the weapon be that accurate in the first place? What would be best in terms of gameplay, would be to have the PLAYER be the biggest factor in how accurate a weapon is. How the player manages wind, lead, sway, stance, recoil, and range. Not just applying an arbitrary dispersion value.

I'm not sure why so many people are in favor of limiting the variety in DayZ. Different types of rounds, rare/specialist rounds, make it easier to balance so-called "high-end" weapons through ammunition/magazine rarity. Although, it may not be worthwhile to do given the amount of development (although Torchia and the modelers seem to be pretty efficient), it would make balance-through-rarity much easier. As opposed to finding a box of 7.62x51 which can fit into hunting rifles, battle rifles/designated marksman rifles, bolt-action sniper rifles, and general-purpose machine guns. Moreover, it's not like finding a random .338 LM round for your insert .338 LM rifle here is going to break immersion. If your concept of DayZ is one of pure realism or purely a realistic depiction of a post-Soviet state, then you have misconstrued what DayZ is (and reality as well). Not sure how to approach it. One could make weapons rare, one could make ammo rare. One could make ammo specific to a certain weapon class (i.e. having all "high-end" bolt-action sniper rifles be .338 LM). Perhaps a combination of all three.

He discussed it in the last devblog, and went into more detail in the subsequent Q/A and interviews coming out of Rezzed. HDR revamp appears to be a big thing they're looking into. Apparently, it only renders the scenes in flat black, rather than a gradient.

1. Most former Soviet nations and/or Eastern Europeans use NATO weaponry nowadays. From SCAR-L's in Serbia, to M4A3's and Mk 48's in the Czech Republic (the country upon which Chernarus is based), to HK416's in Slovakia, to G36's in the Baltic States. See this - http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/181980-the-battle-rifle-thread/?p=1885077 And here's an image of Kenyan AF/LE using Mk 17's to emphasize the broadening scope of modern weaponry Oh, and some Polish (former Warsaw Pact country) SF using brand spankin' new ACR's in Afghanistan. And here's the MSBS Radon, slated to become the next Polish service rifle. Essentially a copy (at least aesthetically, I don't know much about the internals) and/or bullpup modification of an ACR. 2. Do not pretend to speak for a majority. Speak for yourself only, works better. 3. Reading real-world circumstances into Chernarus doesn't really apply. It's a fictional nation. In a fictional universe. With fictional circumstances applied to it. Nevermind that the UN and USMC intervened in Chernarus in said fiction (and neighboring Takistan also experienced a US Army intervention). 4. Even if one uses the "real world" as a gauge, the presence of a lot of NATO weaponry is commonplace. See above. Even in civilian gun shops, Torchia just tweeted a pic of a kitted out AR-10 in a shop in Prague. FiveseveN's aren't that rare either, no idea what you're on about there. Certainly no rarer than the Amphibia S. 5. Having "CoD-style" weapons, whatever the hell that means, wouldn't "increase" PvP. Rarity is the only thing that has an effect on PvP in terms of weapons. Not the "type of weapon".

Chris Torchia @ctorchia @JakeW0518 no plans for sub and supersonic at the moment because it would require separate mags to work right. So, does this not conflict with the inclusion of suppressors in-game? I mean, there are 5.56x45 suppressors for the M4, yet they don't actually do anything because, for one, it doesn't modulate sound at all (i.e. change the sound itself, not the volume). And second, we have no subsonic ammunition to use with suppressors so that they can actually be used to quiet rifle shots. Point being, suppressors are pretty useless now. And unless they decide on having them work for normal supersonic ammunition, they need to include subsonic ammo. Wasn't a point of emphasis in differentiating magazines from ammo in SA to get away from the dependency on magazines to dictate the usefulness of the type of ammo inside? This was the case in the mod, and it was sort of silly. Moreover, with the increasingly threatening zombies (and the future revamp of zombie aggro) having suppressors down before that happens is essential. I'm not sure how subsonic ammo would require a different magazine on any of the weapons currently included in DayZ. Likewise, the weapons which already fire subsonic ammunition do not appear to be affected by the use of a suppressor anyhow (I could be mistaken, I haven't had the chance to use a suppressed pistol that wasn't an Amphibia S post-patch).

This, the Rabbits are made out of stone.

I mean, they look "Russian" but it also fits into the Blaze 95, which cannot be chambered in 7.62x54R. I know they rendered models of 7.62x54R either way, so you could be right about that. I just don't want it to be forgotten and have 7.62x51 be a full-on multi-purpose round in terms of rarity.

I wasn't referring to civilian use of .338 LM. I was referring to military use, so I agree with you regardless. :D

The reason I don't have any issue with rare, expensive, or obscure rounds is that they can be used to keep certain types of ammo (and therefore the use of certain types of weapons) rare. I mean if every swingin' dick can get his hands on a box of 7.62x51 (.308) which goes in everything from civilian hunting rifles, to battle rifles/DMRs, to bolt-action sniper rifles, to GPMGs... then it sort of defeats the purpose of making ammo rare. Even if said ammo is rare, it can be used in a variety of weapons. With more obscure rounds, its use is limited in addition to its rarity. .338 LM is gaining popularity, there are a wide range of weapons that use it. Specifically the AWSM, which is seeing use by a multitude of countries. On one hand I like ammo which can be used in a variety of weapons. But I'm not entirely opposed to making certain rounds the X round. Like having .338 LM be the bolt-action sniper rifle round. Or having 7.62x51 be the battle rifle/DMR round. Or .300 Win Mag be the hunting rifle round. That type of division allows for the devs to more easily police rarity.