SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

That game is awesome. Unfortunately DayZ will probably never be able to support anything like that. I would also like to see blood trailing, but it would have to be done right. That, and looting a corpse that is still bleeding should get blood on your clothes.

No news is good news, But any press, as they say, is good press.

Too bad there's no way to prevent 3rd party voip programs from working in the background.

Wow, um, that got really dark for a second.

I also want to be able to do jumping jacks and weird character gestures to limber up.

Yeah. I saw a work in progress community made Chernobyl zone map. But it's very flat, like a lot of the community made maps.

Well Chernarus is 10x10 km. As far as I know the current Arma 2 engine can only handle a maximum map size of 20x20 km. So I don't think a map 10 times the size of Takistan is even possible. Not to mention that it would be completely boring to get stuck out in the middle of the desert, which is one of the main reasons I don't play Takistan as it is.

First off, I think a few issues must be addressed. We talk about issues like "KoS," or "PvP," a lot. We talk about it because in the state DayZ is in, there isn't much else to do. On top of that we talk a lot about things like "realism," "authenticity," ect., ect. I think we tend to discuss these things because we as human beings are innately aware of a few realities: 1: Human beings have countless limitations. We experience pain, fear, fatigue, hunger, thirst. Because of these limitations, cooperation with other human beings is literally the only way we can accomplish certain tasks. Your home, or apartment, for example, was not built by a single man. 2: Death is completely permanent. Meaning real human life is actually highly valuable, since every individual has unique kinds of knowledge and capabilities that others may not have. These facts are just a few of the logical bases for what we call "morality" in the real world. (glazing over things like procreation, ect.) Moral decisions are generally cooperative in nature; cooperative decisions are moral because they contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. Now obviously, death is not permanent in DayZ. You as a player continue to live, while your character is respawned. Well, if we examine why human life is valuable in the real world, we can come up with a way to make it more valuable in the game world. I'm going to attempt to tie my suggestions as closely to the Standalone as possible, since most of them are based on my rough knowledge of the current features of the Standalone. Humanity I've thought much on humanity. It's almost become the basis of the entire game. As it is, I actually like the way the humanity system works. However, it's obvious that bandit skins are not going to be implemented in the standalone, since players can choose their own clothes. However, I still want to be able to detect the difference between a player with high humanity and a player with low humanity. I propose a system based on body reaction. Body language is a powerful tool in human communication, and our human intuition is highly attuned to it. Body language can reveal a person's true intentions. The system works thusly. - You're character would react to different humanity levels. These reactions would only work inside a certain distance, and while you are looking directly at another player. So let's say you cross paths with a high humanity player. As you look at him, your player would automatically go into the relaxed state, lowering his weapon. If you are also high humanity, he would also go into the relaxed state, lowering his weapon as well. (Keep in mind, you can always raise or lower your weapon manually, so it would still be possible to raise your weapon and kill a high humanity player.) Also, high humanity players would automatically wear a grin at seeing a neutral or high H player. They might frown at Low H players. (again, keep in mind: You can change your facial expression manually. This, along with gestures, were already confirmed by Rocket to be in progress.) - If you encountered a neutral player, your stance would remain neutral, meaning no automatic change. - If you encountered a bandit, your gun stance would either remain up, or (if you happen to have your weapon lowered) would raise automatically. You're character might also start to quiver just a little, your heart beating heavily, warning you of danger. (again, this only works within a certain proximity, and only if you are looking at another player.) - Players with low humanity would become immune to these types of reactions, and would automatically frown at strangers, once inside their transmission distance. They would not automatically lower their weapon for high humanity players. (Though they could manually lower their weapon to try and trick other players.) Humanity would have it's own attributes that it would contribute to the "skill pool," which I'll discuss later. All players would have a certain "detection range" (perception) and a "transmission range" for their humanity. - High humanity and neutral humanity players, after playing for some time, would gain detection range and also would gain transmission range. - Low humanity players would gain detection range, but lose transmission range. This is what I call "guile." Basically, it allows bandits to get even closer to people before their humanity is revealed. Of course, older players would have a higher detection range, allowing them to spot bandits from farther away. I'll provide a visual example. (This chart assumes that each example is the same skill level.) Concurrent Cooperative Actions - Constructions should be implemented. We need to be able to build walls, barriers, and possibly even small buildings. Such objects should be completely persistent, unless the server removes them, or unless they are destroyed with explosives. Constructions like this would require two or more players to simultaneously interact with the "construction." (Perhaps this could be accomplished with a transparent preview of the object a player is about to place) - Each construction should require a certain amount of "materials," certain tools, and a minimum sum of "skill" to build, which would be taken from all the players collectively, when they build it. Meaning this system could be flexible. A small sandbag wall would only require one sandbag item, and a shovel, and a basic level of construction skill. Therefore a lone player with a shovel and a sandbag could do it, but it would take the lone player twice as long to construct the wall. (let's say 60 seconds.) These actions would also burn calories, increasing his hunger. He would also gain construction experience from success. But let's say there are two players. Player A has a shovel, and player B has a sandbag. Player B could start to place the sandbag (since he is the owner of the object) and player A could simply walk over, interact with it, and because he has the shovel, the construction can begin. However, for the two guys working together, the wall would only take 30 seconds to build, and it would only burn half as many calories for each of them. They would each gain the same amount of construction experience as a lone individual would - meaning that between them, they created twice as much experience total. This means that when it comes to more advanced projects, since they've both increased their skill, they collectively have a better chance of building that 6 foot high wall, or whatever. It's synergy. Larger constructions like high walls, buildings, (and maybe even small towers?) would require at least three (or more) people to accomplish, and would work on the same principles: One player places a "proposed" construction, and other players interact with it. Assuming that between all the players involved there are enough of the required tools, materials, and skill, construction will begin. - Heavy objects and resources like vehicle parts should only be transportable by hand or by vehicle. What I mean is that we should have to literally hold large objects in our arms to transport them. This would practically necessitate teamwork to accomplish certain actions, which I think is rather authentic. - Vehicle repairs should work similarly to constructions. Multiple players could concurrently work on a vehicle, thus combining their knowledge, tools, and materials, to accomplish the task at hand. - Cooperative movement actions. I want to be able to lift my buddy over a wall, or on top of a small structure. I know developing this is probably a lengthy process, since it would require animation and scripting. But think of it. If people can literally help each other from point A to point B, then you've created a quick, completely believable incentive for sustained teamwork. A lone wolf would just have to find a way around. It would also make breaking into other players constructions easier. The intensely debated "Skill" System - Each character would spawn with different "base attributes." Certain characters would have a background in medical knowledge, mechanical knowledge, construction expertise, military or police experience, hunting knowledge, ect. Each of these "base characters" would have different positives. Furthermore, players would have no control over what kind of character they spawn with. - As a character completes certain "challenges," i.e. repairing a vehicle part, performing a medical procedure, successfully killing another player, constructing a wall, ect., that character would gain some "skill" in that area of expertise - meaning you would have less likelihood of failure at that task, or you might gain perception, or guile. (your base attributes would also affect your probability of failure at related tasks) - Upon death, your character would spawn out of a variety of random "backgrounds," gaining new "base attributes" and retaining all of the "skills" of his past life, minus a certain percentage. (My guess would be something like 20-30%, but I would leave it up to the devs to make those kinds of balancing decisions) This means that not everyone would be able to, say, repair an engine. Not everyone would be able to perform advanced surgeries, or build walls. Meaning each individual character is valuable. Not because of his material possessions, but because of his individual skill. It also means that death is even more unknown. Maybe you won't spawn as a "mechanic" next time, which would make it more difficult for you to repair vehicles. Maybe you won't spawn as a "doctor" next time, which you probably found hugely beneficial. However, after repeated deaths, your experience would begin to aggregate. Players who persist will inevitably gain all the skills they need - but not until after many, many attempts at those certain tasks, and many deaths in between. The "Comfort" System Certain variables should affect a general level of "comfort" for your character. Actions like sitting and resting, being near a campfire, being inside a building, eating, drinking, or using certain consumables (like cigarettes or alcohol), ect. Should add to your comfort level. Things like exposure, cold, injuries, stress (i.e. being chased by zombies, or being in combat) should lower your comfort level. Comfort would govern certain player capabilities. Being comfortable would slow your hunger and thirst increase, as well as speed up your blood restoration. It should also add to your player's ability to overcome illness, and/or heal broken bones. (I don't know if letting broken bones heal is an existing feature, but I've consistently seen "splints" mentioned by the dev team, which leads me to believe that it is at least one way to repair broken bones.) Environment changes - Shorter day/night cycles. I think the whole 24 hour thing is pretty cool and all, but let's be practical. The experience should be slightly condensed. I just don't have 12 hours to play a game waiting for it to be night time. Also, night time should be one of those things that we simply must deal with. As it is, almost every server is "24/7 daylight." I would personally like to see a 6 hour day, followed by a 3 hour night. (Or something to that effect.) That way, night time is not avoidable, but also isn't too much of a burden. Maybe offering servers variations on set day/night cycles, rather than allowing them to simply make their own (thus making it daylight constantly), would be a fair solution. Conclusion These are just a few ideas to help create a more believable game environment. If you will notice, none of my suggestions prefer any one "type" of player from another; they simply impose authentic limitations on all players, equally. I'm sure some of these ideas have been suggested before, but I wanted to draw them all together and point out how a serious, multi-faceted approach can alter the gameplay to make it more based on cooperation survival in a bleak, dangerous world - and less on just "killing bandits" and getting to the "NWAF." The point of these suggestions is to create a more authentic zombie survival experience, which I think is the ultimate goal of DayZ. Let's presume all of the aforementioned game mechanics. Let's say you're a "bandit" - a serial player killer, and you found a car for the first time in the standalone. Let's say the car needed, at minimum, an engine to run. So you go east to the factory and find an engine. But you can't just shove this thing into your backpack anymore, and you don't have any tools. Right then, a man steps into the building. You have a gun, and he has a gun. You're in a stand off. You are a habitual player killer, and you know that at this distance, he might be able to detect your low humanity. So you decide to shoot first, killing him. And what do you know, he's got tools! So you walk all the way back to your car, lugging the engine parts in your arms the whole way. You finally arrive, as the sun is setting, and crouch down to fix your wonderful, wonderful vehicle. But what's this? "You have failed to repair the engine." You try it again. "You have failed to repair the engine. You lack the necessary skill." Your character doesn't even know how to do it! But, what if the guy you killed back at the factory did? What if, between your combined skill, you could have actually pulled it off? Right about now, you might be rethinking your actions, but it's probably too late for you; while you were carrying that engine back through the woods, a zombie attacked you, and now you've contracted a nasty disease. The tough shit is that you don't even know which disease it is or what medication to take for it.

Well you pretty much stated what I just said. Individuals who had certain specializations could "pass on" their knowledge by completing actions with less experienced players. It's synergy. That's the whole basis of the concurrent part of concurrent cooperative actions. Also, what makes you think it would even be easy to find enough construction materials to build 1000 sandbag walls? That many sandbags probably don't even exist on a server. It's just not possible. Furthermore, the more material you waste on simply farming, the less you would have to complete a productive endeavor. Again, why would you build a pointless wall when you could simply build a useful wall and also gain the experience from it at the same time? The scarcity of materials and tools is what your "farming" issue fails to take into account. If there were infinite sandbags lying around, then yeah, it might be an issue. But there isn't. They're hard to find. Moreover, each one you build would cause your character to burn calories, and become more dehydrated, meaning you would have to be constantly locating more food and water while you constructed all these pointless walls. But remember, the water is poisonous, so you have to boil it or something first. Meaning you have to find said equipment. Meanwhile there's dangerous zombies and other players pretty much everywhere. Oh yeah, lets not forget your shoes degrade over time, so you might want to keep an eye out for more of those. It's like saying players would deliberately damage their own vehicles in order to practice doing repairs on them, in order to gain skill. But why? Wouldn't you just save your valuable, scarce car parts and use them when your vehicle inevitably takes damage due to some life threatening circumstance? Plus, you might damage it beyond your capabilities of repair. The same goes for walls. Sure, you could just build a wall in the middle of nowhere for no reason, but this could very well be the first sandbag you've encountered in days. Why would someone waste something that is scarce? Even if they do, why stop them? It's not like there's thousands of sand bag kits just lying around. I rarely ever find one. Even if that was their goal, the probability that they would die while just going around looking for construction materials is pretty high, which would negate a great deal of the positive effects of their "farming" attempts. It's just not worth it. Might as well bandage yourself when you're not hurt, just for the skill. It's just a waste of a bandage that you might need later. Also death would set back your skills, which already makes suicide detrimental. That was in the original post. I don't remember applejaxc saying anything about respawning or base character attributes. He was arguing against the humanity system. Totally different. I don't see how "re randomizing" a players skills every 6-12 hours would do any good, seeing as most players die within an hour. You'd probably just end up mucking up someone's existing character stats with basically no rhyme or reason. They might be in the middle of doing something and then they'd hit that "6 hour" mark and suddenly they wouldn't be a doctor anymore? It makes absolutely no sense. Death is the only thing you can hold over a person's head. It's the fear of losing their current base attributes and a good chunk of their skill - that gives death real consequences.

There should be many ways to unlock a locked door. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

How is actually building things abuse of the system? It's use. Also, why would people waste their resources and time building useless walls? Wouldn't they just use those walls to make a base, for example?. Furthermore, you would have zero GUI to tell you how many "skill points" you have. If there were only two people farming their skills up, they would still need a third or fourth person to help them build a large wall or building. They would still have to find the necessary materials to build said walls. It just wouldn't make sense to waste those precious materials for the sake of skill alone. Setting bones and bandaging are very different things? Yeah, maybe in real life, but I think this is where we have to draw the distinction between realism and authenticity. So yeah, medical actions would all contribute to an overall level of medical knowledge. Higher medical knowledge would allow you to do more advanced medical procedures. The more different wounds you have to fix, the more you generally learn about medicine. Simple bandaging would only add a little experience each time, whereas applying a splint or more advanced things would give you even more experience. It shouldn't be overly complicated. I'm not asking for realism here. What I want is more authenticity. It's totally authentic to say that a guy who's had to patch up his buddies (or himself) over and over due to lots of combat would become very well versed in practical medical knowledge. Along the way he would discover different techniques for fixing wounds. He might teach himself to suture, for example. What if reading books could actually contribute to certain skills? Reading a medical book for example would increase your medical knowledge. Even without the skill system, the real point is that construction gives players a reason to interact with each other on some level, thereby accomplishing it's actual goal.

Arma 2 already has in-game editor mods, and the server-client netcode has been completely rewritten to give the server control of scripts. So my guess would be yes, it should be possible. DayZ already has mods that enable construction of bases in the game. Forcing concurrent interactions would be even easier to do with the server processing all the player inputs, but then again, I don't know a lot about programming, so I might be wrong. As I suggested, lone wolves would still be able to make constructions, but they would not be able to do so as quickly or in the same scale as a group of players. It's simply not physically possible for a person to build a log cabin all on their own without some kind of mechanical or human assistance. Again, if human limitation necessitates cooperation, then players will simply have to adapt and actually cooperate to accomplish things. This doesn't "alienate" anyone. In fact, it does the exact opposite. Forcing you to interact with other players doesn't alienate you. It includes you. You alienate yourself by choosing to be a lone wolf, and that's fine. You could still play as a lone wolf - the difference is that groups of people who want to play as a group would also be able to build stuff and achieve more impressive goals. Friendly groups might even be beneficial for lone wolves, as the loner in question could engage them in a neutral interaction and maybe trade for items or services he needs.

Correct good sir. Victims of circumstance, as we call them. Again, this makes humanity quite ambiguous. The simple existence of blood on a person's clothes does not mean they are evil - but it might be related. It can provide evidence for either side. Say a "bandit" is hunting someone who killed his partner. If he found a guy in the immediate vicinity, covered in blood, the conclusion is pretty obvious. That is why I want such a feature. It would be interesting to see how real cause-effect type evidence could contribute to gameplay. @ Applejaxc Yeah I get it, but it's not stupid. Just because people can gain humanity you say they shouldn't lose it either. I say bullshit. If somebody just goes around killing people, doing absolutely nothing constructive, then yeah. The guy obviously has low humanity, and your human instinct would be able to tell. But if two "bandits" kill people sometimes, but also heal each other, then they do have humanity - towards each other. They aren't completely inhuman, are they? It doesn't necessarily mean that they have good intentions, either. Your argument also proves that humanity is a variable that can change over time - meaning you can have low humanity for a period of time and gain it back. That's why the player actually has to draw the distinction and use their own common sense and reasoning in any given situation. It's also why I consistently argue against long distance and highly obvious humanity indicators. Because really, it should be a relatively minor component of player interaction. But the fact remains that I personally have never been killed by a player with a hero skin, I have been consistently attacked by people in bandit masks, and pretty much 60/40 of my interactions with neutral players turn out violent or peaceful, respectfully. So it's clear that the skins are somewhat accurate in predicting people's behavior. The problem in my opinion, is just that it must be more subtle. If it were more subtle, people might not even have a reason to "farm" their humanity up, because they could simply overcome the subtle cues by say, manually changing their facial expression, or lowering their weapon and pretending to be friendly.

Um, isn't the basis of "humanity" really just cooperation? The point is that "morality," or "humanity," or whatever - is actually quite ambiguous. Therefore, people who are just "looking out for their own" aren't necessarily inhumane. Bandits who are purely dedicated to killing other players would also suffer from additional issues, like not being able to complete certain tasks because they have nobody in their group with the necessary skill. They would get blood on them from looting fresh corpses. All humanity shows is how often people tend to cooperate with others. Even then, how does not having it really create any benefits whatsoever? Just because there is a way around it doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. You might as well say there shouldn't be laws against murder because people do it anyway.

Hey, I'm stoned when I come up with a lot of my ideas, and theyyyyyy're GREAT! lol.

Great idea. They could also be used to transport vehicle parts.

Well thank you. On the skill system, killing yourself for better character options is a very good point - but, death would have a negative effect on your overall stats. So suicide actually might not be in your best interests. Also, you would still be able to learn and use medical knowledge as a non-doctor. Especially if two people could perform medical treatment at the same time on a patient, for example. So you could still play as a "doctor" without killing yourself just for the base attributes. Also, we tend to die quite regularly, meaning that each time we spawn with different attributes, it would be easier to rack up experience in that particular "field." So let's say you finally spawn as a doctor. Using your base attributes, you naturally succeed in healing people and therefore gain more and more skill in the medical field. If you die, you might not come back as a doctor (in terms of base attributes), but the medical skill you gained in your previous life would remain, for the most part. But maybe this time you're a mechanic, and now you have medical knowledge as well as mechanic attributes. So over time and many different lives, experienced players could actually develop a wide range of skills which would enable them to play however they wanted, regardless of the base attributes they spawn with. That's why I really like this system. It doesn't trap you. You can learn how to do anything you want, while still being valuable as an individual character.

This is less of a suggestion and more of a criticism.

The game needs both programming and art, like all games. So basically you're saying "don't add new features now, release the game and then add the new features"? Why? Do you know that old saying "You don't get a second chance to make a first impression?" Well that's a perfect example of what we have right now. DayZ needs to make a good first impression if it's going to keep and gain support along the way. It has to be something people play and go "Yeah, that feels like a game of it's own. I want to see more!" If they just stop implementing new material, then the standalone will be just as limited as the mod. People would whine and complain that it's not any different, that Dean Hall is full of shit, ect., ect. They've already started making these new developments. To stop developing them and release now would be sheer stupidity.

I'm simply pointing out that violence and cruelty are part of human nature. Real human beings play this game, so our human nature has an effect on the way we play it. That's all. If people are capable of murder in real life, naturally we are capable of murder in a fictional world. Especially when there isn't much else to do. I think my real point is that even with the addition of proactive features, instances of shoot on sight, pvp, or theft probably won't decrease. However, hopefully it will change to a more group oriented affair.

You guys really don't think men kill for sport? Or for fun? Men hunt other men all the time. Men actually blow themselves up in order to kill other men. Do you really think that in the apocalypse there wouldn't be rampant murder? There are people who would do these things, when pushed to extremes.

So... wait for the standalone like the rest of us? lol.

I was just watching A Scanner Darkly and I think that would be a great idea. Disconnect the accelerator linkage so they go careening off a mountain road or straight into a wall. Or just cut the serpentine belt. Could be great for getaways. Imagine siphoning all the gas from a camp's cars and cutting their brake cables under the cover of darkness. Then you take the last car and drive straight out of the camp. Haha. That would be magnificent.

Zombies don't respawn in the presence of players - in the standalone. It'd be perfect for a trade post.

The problem is that currently zeds would spawn inside bases anyway. In the standalone we will have the ability to take over towns and clear the zombies out of them. Hopefully we'll be able to build walls and stuff as well, eventually. Servers could maintain one or two really persistent bases with admins - which could sort of be like self-governed safe zones, while survivors could also build their own bases (though these would likely change hands or be destroyed more often than admin maintained bases).