Katana67

Honestly, they NEED to leave some wilderness areas. There's enough cities now. There's no real frontier/wilderness areas for us to camp out. Depending on how far they go with construction, this'll be essential. If they just go the "barricading existing buildings route" (which I support wholeheartedly) then I'd love to see some tucked-away little cottages out there in the woods as well.

I've noticed that in the small dark wooden houses (along with most small houses), one of which was a loot spawning house in the mod, no longer spawn anything. Likewise, there is no loot spawn on the second floor of the small house... with two floors. We really need a categorization system for these buildings.

I am pretty sure they're aware of it, too lazy to find it, but they are aware that there are problems with loot spawning in some buildings.

No specifics, no. For that matter, I'm unsure if they intend to expand the map (i.e. make it larger) or just expand it in terms of depth. But, I've always been of the opinion that to make it a true "MMO" they really need to start looking at procedural maps. But I doubt that'd happen, even in the long-run. I think that Chernarus, as it stands now, could use a modest bump in overall player count. But it ain't as big as people think (in terms of encountering other players). There's currently too big a gap now between encountering TONS of players in cities to encountering NOBODY EVER in the smaller towns. I'd like to be encountering players every now and then when I loot a village. Part of it has to do with how many servers there are, so people can just chill in an unpopulated server to their heart's content. I personally think server counts (not player counts) should be dynamically allocated to suit the population at any given time. No more and no less. I recognize that "rented" servers might take a hit, but that's sort of the idea. I think that as they add more features (vehicles, barricading, and storage) that we'll see people spread out more.

I agree that it does rain a lot now. I don't think it'll be annoying once they've managed to add some values in and tweak the rain. I don't mind the rain as much, as it gives an incentive to stay indoors. But it's a bit annoying to have a raincoat and have it get wet just as fast as everything else. As for the spam messages, I suspect they'll be done away with. It's not like we need any further reminder that it's raining... when it's raining.

If true, that's saying something, because BF3/4's "random spread" is atrocious.

But what if they allow us to barricade existing houses? That's the impression I got when they announced "barricading" rather than "construction/base-building".

Yeah, this is why they can't have hive servers with characters logging in where they logged out. I used to write walls of text outlining this problem. Not sure what they're going to do with regard to this. I've always supported resetting character locations to the coast when server swapping (which would solve a multitude of problems). Or, having each server be a private hive. There are a lot of ways to discourage the problem, still unsure as to the right one.

I think combination locks, if implemented, should be breakable by the player. However, in the act of breaking it (whether through potential improvised explosives, shotgun slug, or appropriate bolt-cutters) it should give a chance of damaging whatever's inside. Having combination locks was pretty annoying in one of the mods for DayZ mod (Overwatch, IIRC). It's not that I disagree with the concept, but how it was implemented. The locks could never be destroyed, they were ONLY able to be used if one had the combination. That and the lock (or locking mechanism) should be suitably rare.

This would be good information to have. Not sure any of it, if it's out there, is very reliable... as sounds are very buggy now (although less-so than they used to be, I haven't heard a random can opening/munching/zombie rabbit in ages).

I can't wait till they tweak the loot so that outfits like this will be more common by comparison to the tactical gear (which I like). I'm dressed like a high-speed-low-drag operator before I find decent civilian clothes.

I assume the values haven't been added yet. But my raincoat gets just as wet as everything else. Oddly enough, my boonie doesn't get wet at all.

I was being sarcastic champ, to demonstrate your sweet straw man.

Right, because ruined gear is a totally artificial consequence to shooting other players.

I think ARMA 2's were perfect. The only issue I ever had with ARMA's shooting mechanic was the absurd amount of sway given when one stops sprinting. I've sprinted 100-500m and fired at things on the range just fine. It made sense for scoped weapons. But, with something like an EOtech or RDS, it's dumb. You don't need wind to factor in, in my opinion. Maybe for sniping, I could get behind that. But it'd just be a nuisance for most weapons. I never played ACE, but saw some videos of a sniper using the Kestrel with it. Seemed fun, and could be another layer to discouraging consequence-less sniping in having to find/power a Kestrel (wind meter) to tell the windage.

So, you can kill folks for "teh lulz" nothing wrong with that. But I'm still very much in favor of adding consequence to killing other players.

1000m is a long way, not sure if you're just being hyperbolic... but I've never had a zombie aggro me from more than 500m (if that, which is still a long way off, too long just by LOS if you ask me).

Only thing I do to discourage/fool other players that's out of the ordinary is close doors to make it look like buildings haven't been looted... when I just cleaned them out. Not sure if this works or not. Always been something I've done.

Peak Peek Grammar Nazi #learntotakeajokefolks

I spawned in the north naked the other day, after having logged out with a geared character. More fun that way.

This is another thing. Running away shouldn't JUST involve putting distance between you and a zombie. It needs to involve more hiding and breaking LOS (if already aggro'd, never mind when drawing aggro) actually needs to make a difference.

On Zombie Spawns Yes, it needs to be reworked. Although it's a placeholder, the concept of spawning zombies pre-aggro'd and within the sight of the player is laughable. For one, if relied upon to "simulate" aggroing a large group of zombies... it really doesn't allow for realistic "threat assessments" on the part of the player. It'd be too formulaic if I went into a relatively unpopulated area, fired, and was immediately accosted by an infinite number of zombies. Even if they put an artificial limit on how many zombies can be spawned around the player, it's still highly formulaic. Go into an area, fire, kill 20 zombies, you're good. Rinse and repeat. As opposed to just having large amounts of zombies be spawned in the world already, which allows the player to assess the situation and make a judgment based on that assessment of how to approach the situation. But first and foremost, they need to revamp how zombies draw aggro. Zombies now rely almost solely on line of sight to draw aggro, which is a mistake (and contrary to Rocket's description of zombies as having poor sight but amazing sensitivity to sound). Likewise, they do not respect tangible changes in distance, silhouette, movement speed, and other factors on the part of the player. Simply put, with the current (and previous) zombie mechanic, there's only two options... run away or fight. There's no third way, meaning stealthily sneaking past the zombies (making oneself vulnerable). Stealth is non-existent in the Standalone. It was essential to some of the earlier versions of the mod where zombies were difficult, I remember having to crawl into every town just to loot. I'm not saying everyone should HAVE to do this, but it should at least be a viable option. Whereas now, whether you're prone in a bush or sprinting across an open field, zombies aggro you regardless. That needs to be addressed before they up the count. Tweaking the spawns is fine, and I suspect it's the main goal of this tweak. But it raises the overall number of zombies encountered by the player, even when the zombie-player interaction mechanics (i.e. aggro and damage-dealing) aren't finished/good. Nevermind that it's a bad approach to spawn zombies within 100m. I have no issue with zombies being a threat. I've advocated for it for a while. But the current status of zombies isn't anywhere near what I had wanted, and am glad it's a placeholder for something else. On Zombie Animations This is always an area that I felt they needed to improve on massively. Zombies need to actually interact with the player somehow, through animation. They can't just lunge vaguely at the player and impart "damage" randomly. The way in which two objects interact with one another has always been a weak aspect of the engine/game in my opinion. That said, I welcome faster zombies. I'm not a fan of shamblers.

Yes, it needs to be reworked. Although it's a placeholder, the concept of spawning zombies pre-aggro'd and within the sight of the player is laughable. For one, if relied upon to "simulate" aggroing a large group of zombies... it really doesn't allow for realistic "threat assessments" on the part of the player. It'd be too formulaic if I went into a relatively unpopulated area, fired, and was immediately accosted by an infinite number of zombies. Even if they put an artificial limit on how many zombies can be spawned around the player, it's still highly formulaic. Go into an area, fire, kill 20 zombies, you're good. Rinse and repeat. As opposed to just having large amounts of zombies be spawned in the world already, which allows the player to assess the situation and make a judgment based on that assessment of how to approach the situation. But first and foremost, they need to revamp how zombies draw aggro. Zombies now rely almost solely on line of sight to draw aggro, which is a mistake (and contrary to Rocket's description of zombies as having poor sight but amazing sensitivity to sound). Likewise, they do not respect tangible changes in distance, silhouette, movement speed, and other factors on the part of the player. Simply put, with the current (and previous) zombie mechanic, there's only two options... run away or fight. There's no third way, meaning stealthily sneaking past the zombies (making oneself vulnerable). Stealth is non-existent in the Standalone. It was essential to some of the earlier versions of the mod where zombies were difficult, I remember having to crawl into every town just to loot. I'm not saying everyone should HAVE to do this, but it should at least be a viable option. Whereas now, whether you're prone in a bush or sprinting across an open field, zombies aggro you regardless. That needs to be addressed before they up the count. Tweaking the spawns is fine, and I suspect it's the main goal of this tweak. But it raises the overall number of zombies encountered by the player, even when the zombie-player interaction mechanics (i.e. aggro and damage-dealing) aren't finished/good. Nevermind that it's a bad approach to spawn zombies within 100m. I have no issue with zombies being a threat. I've advocated for it for a while. But the current status of zombies isn't anywhere near what I had wanted, and am glad it's a placeholder for something else.

This thread is proof that people are idiots. Not the OP, mind you, it's well that we discuss the inaccuracies of the weapons now. Not sure why people are so upset by it. Yes, the M4 is laughably inaccurate. Especially given the fact that the ACOG is theoretically able to be used at 500m on an AR-15, yet my rounds just disappear when I try to engage a target at anything other than 50m. The pistols, they're okay. I certainly think that they could get a minor bump in accuracy, especially given how incredibly hard it is to hit/bring down the average zombie with some. With the Amphibia S, if you're placing a premium on headshots, it has to be remarkably accurate to justify it. Randomized "dispersion" values ruin shooting mechanics.

Right, hence why I was speaking for myself, not anyone else.