SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

Is it not accurate that Rocket made a statement to the effect that in the standalone, gear rarity can be governed across all official servers out of a shared pool? Therefore, only a certain number of holo sights will exist; only a certain number of acog sights will exist; only a certain number of military weapons will be available. Isn't that an authentic solution to a real world problem with the availability of gear?

Sadly I have to agree with you on that bit. I *have* played computer sailing simulations before. However, such systems simply aren't feasible for a globally persistent multiplayer game like DayZ. I just use the word schooner wantonly because of the books I read, and the fact that I do have a love of actual sailing. Maybe a few years from now they could develop something convincing, but it definitely won't be a priority.

I think a bayonet attachment is an excellent idea. Hunting knives are already in game. Duct tape is in standalone. I should theoretically be able to secure tape a knife to the end of a gun. However, I would argue that this type of attachment should have some serious degradation - but less so if you actually find a purpose built bayonet and compatible weapon. Leaving room for multiple gameplay vectors for similar goals is very important, I think. More on this in a moment. So anyone with an Kalashnikov and a hunting knife can tape up a rude bayonet that would probably tear loose from the gun - or actually damage the internals of your gun - after repeated use, but if you actually found a Russian bayonet, you could fit it to a weapon with a compatible mount and therefore have an even more sturdy variant of a basic tool. I think bayonets would realistically become essential for pretty much all survivors in this situation, since shooting every zombie you see is hardly a good option; and sacrificing firepower for melee ability is too great a compromise. Firearm suppressors are actually quite rare, and they would be gobbled up quickly by gearheads. Flashlights also make complete sense. I think it would be interesting to allow players to do things like, attach flashlights to certain pieces of clothing, as well as to their guns, as well as to other sorts of objects. A player could attach a light to their helmet, or hat, for instance, making a basic headlamp. this is functional, however, perilous as it will make you highly vulnerable to head shots in a firefight. Or, one could attach the light to a tactical vest, which would place it on your chest, or your shoulder. Or you could attach it to your gun, which is tactically the most advantageous solution. What I want to draw attention to is how these types of player driven choices can actually indicate a players true modus operandi. Leaving room for multiple gameplay vectors to accomplish similar goals leaves room for human creativity to utilize those different pathways in the order that they naturally find most logical. We human beings operate in such a way that our true intentions will always drive our choices, no matter how minute. If we can receive logical, cause-effect based information from the environment, then we can draw basic human conclusions that give us insight into a given situation. This is the experience that I think would make the game become much more compelling. The thing about it is that our subconscious minds are actually hyper-intelligent - we tend to pick up on the slightest tells, gestures, behavioral patterns, and evidence quite naturally in the real world. If you shoot somebody and immediately run over and loot their struggling, squirting corpse, then naturally you will be covered in blood. If you hatchet a person in the head - warm, sticky blood would come gushing out, all over your hands and face. You'd have to find a water source and bathe to remove it. (and I do think that bathing should be a gameplay feature, considering that it attributes to basic hygiene and prevents serious diseases, and is entire possible right now with natural water sources. Salt water in particular is known for it's anti-bacterial effects.) But anyway. Good ideas. I think spears were unofficially officially confirmed by Rocket. By that I mean he mentioned them briefly as a possible game play mechanic. So they are in the development cloud, so to speak.

You kind of just blew my mind with that comment. I've been thinking on a intuitive and gameplay efficient surgery system for some time, but I hadn't even considered that as a possibility.

Thank you sir!

The devs are working toward cooperative goals, including construction and the ability to occupy territories where zombies would previously re spawn.

I just want party spawning. Telepathic access to my teammates health and location is not necessary, nor is it authentic. Let's just stop wasting player's time by allowing them to quickly group with the people they want to. Gameplay would be verily improved in my humble opinion. Cooperative partnerships would be more likely to succeed, since those who are cooperative can generally overcome selfish lone wolfs who tend to pick said players off before they can even meet their friends. I want to outfit my team mates with matching orange beanies and glocks, Steve Zissou style. We'd troupe around Chernarus making wry documentary type videos for youtube, fighting highwaymen along the way.

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Good job teaching that phony bitch his lesson. I've been searching for a nemesis of my own to give such a punishment, but it's impossible now. I'll just have to find more nemeses in the standalone, when this hacking situation is more thoroughly taken care of. Just to make it worse, I would use direct chat and hover over him playing annoying hits from the 90's.

Mine was just a funny combination of words I said absently in a bar conversation once. I can't even remember how we got on the subject of salamanders.

I really, really like this idea, but I think players should have absolutely no control over the original attributes that they spawn with (with each character - death results in new base spawn attributes, and retains only a small percentage of your previous skills, respectively). When players succeed at certain tasks, they are awarded with a generally lower level of failure at that specific task. This would have all have to be very background in nature. No GUI or anything telling you "how good you are at replacing a car tire." Just the simple, unknown, calculated risk of failure. Your actions in your "previous lives" would aggregate into a kind of inherited, reincarnated, experience - which would make it easier and easier over multiple deaths to repair a vehicle, or perform a surgery, but you would pretty much never have a 100% chance. I think that would be quite interesting and compelling as a game experience.

I would grow my own weed in the apocalypse. Trade it for anything I need. People love that shit. They'd probably give a lot to get some in the middle of so much violence and horror. Lol.

Good sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Allow me to contribute. - Items and inventory should be factored by weight. This seems obvious. I won't ever have to sacrifice something like a pack of cigarettes for any one item. Slot based inventories are weird and inauthentic. - Very heavy, bulky items like car parts, wheels, construction materials, ect. Should only be transportable by carrying, with your own two bare hands, at the cost of speed and holding a weapon - or by vehicle or possibly load-bearing equipment. - Large constructions should require multiple players to simultaneously interact with tools and materials to accomplish. They should NOT be removable except by demolition - i.e. satchel charges or other high powered explosives. - Group spawning via lobby partying. Essential to building cooperative relationships and also allowing players who know each other to form groups more quickly than lone wolfs can pick them off.

I think carrying helicopter rotors and car engines in your backpack is absolutely ludicrous. Why don't we have to transport such items in a more authentic way, i.e. having to carry it in your arms and not be able to tote a gun - or run at full sprint - for that matter? Also, the ability to build player constructions, like walls and barriers, but only after gathering sufficient materials like wood, scrap metal, and other construction materials - however, large constructions could only be placed by multiple players, simultaneously. If you and two other people literally must cooperate to construct a barrier, which is actually pretty authentic, *cough* Dean Hall please pay attention *cough* then the value of human life increases inexplicably. And consider this - You could force people at gunpoint to do your bidding. a.k.a slavery - and need we look but only two centuries ago to see a blatant example of that in actual human history. So you see, human evil can still affect all human goals. Furthermore on the gameplay- Group spawning, I feel, is absolutely necessary. Just being able to send someone else in the spawn lobby an invite to spawn at the same location, maybe even form parties, would be dramatically helpful. Players could start together, against a dangerous world, which literally requires them to cooperate to accomplish certain tasks. The productive and cooperative will always prevail. If a man must carry a car tire in his two bare hands, straining against it with all his will, to repair a vehicle, then surely he will need the aid of another man. Therefore, only cooperative, productive groups (maybe a few very lucky, or skilled, lone individuals) would be able to harness the power of a broken down vehicle. This is the kind of authentic activity that our human brain needs in order to rationalize cooperation. Also I agree about the hints subject. We need more subtle, cause-effect related evidence to allow our human minds to draw conclusions, rather than blatant turban you can see through a sniper scope.

"NOBODY controls my kill/no-kill actions except ME." "Intentions discovered, interaction controlled. That's how I roll with every stranger, regardless of their skin." That's what I just said. I control the interaction by communicating with other players. I do this out of "self-defense." You're arguing with me when actually, we are in agreement. The thing is that DayZ is a purely materialistic reality with zero consequences for your actions against other people, really. I beg of you to read "The Sea Wolf." It's such a good book - and I think it can be enlightening on the situation in DayZ. In a purely materialistic world, with no laws; one that actually tends to reward brutality in some cases - morality has very few benefits. That's exactly what DayZ IS - a purely materialistic world with no laws, no real consequences and tends to reward brutality. To deny this would be complete blindness to the factual situation. So those who learn to exercise brutality typically last longer than those who do not. That's just nature, man. That is the natural world. Human beings know this innately because we are actually just advanced primates. Our instinct knows that in the natural world, brutality is rewarded. We kill other animals for gain, do we not? We wantonly slaughter cattle for human consumption, so that the strong may gain upon the consumption of the weak. This is the fundamental root of all evil. We are but yeast, consuming the weaker so the stronger can survive. Materialistic, manipulative, instinctive animals. The only difference is that we have language and reasoning. One can rationalize excessive brutality just as easily as he can rationalize excessive passiveness. Say we met, in Dayz. IF I ordered you to drop your gun, what would you do? Would you engage me vocally with communication? If you simply kill me for telling you to put your gun down, then you are just as evil as anyone else. If you, for instance, used direct chat and refused, then I might actually talk to you. Maybe we could form a cooperative relationship based on mutual respect. But it remains no less factual that communication makes the difference between a friendly player, and an unfriendly player. If you refuse to communicate, and act suspicious - I.E. Aiming your gun at me, taking offensive tactical positions, ect. ect., then I will engage you ruthlessly - and I might die, but you will probably perish, as I do not take many chances. I would rather kill the uncooperative man, and spare the cooperative one. It is the sign of a man's true intentions. I judge people by their immediate reaction to the situation. Granted - I'm not always right. For often I am the one who ends up being betrayed. I am a loyal companion as they come - assuming you are cooperative and communicative. However, some of the issues in the general shoot on sight modus operandi CAN be addressed by further development of the game. Let's not forget that the build you and I play is a MOD. Not even a budgeted, standalone release. A fucking MOD, SIR! Simply addressing the low value of human life in terms of gameplay value can alter the fundamental activity of the player base. People adapt to the environment, even YOU.

Why not just come up with a way to force a player into a non-violent interaction? If you were any good, you could get the drop on strangers and use your voice and tactical superiority to command the other person to drop their weapon. If they don't, then kill them; if they do, interact with them. That's my system. The difference between a friendly player and a non-friendly is almost always communication. A friendly player will want to communicate with you, and will generally comply, whereas someone with ulterior motives probably won't. Intentions discovered, interaction controlled. That's how I roll with every stranger, regardless of their skin.

Just read Rocket on Reddit. He's able to reply directly to questions pretty quickly there without things getting too out of hand. He actually posted some stuff about the release today. From what I can gather, the team is hard at work on it, which is why they aren't releasing any information. They'd just have to explain a bunch of stuff that isn't working - which would do no good to the game's reputation. Basically, they are waiting until they have something presentable to present. I think that's only fair, when you consider that games like Watch Dogs and The Division show trailers -what - once a year at e3? Nobody expects those heavily funded developers to release constant dev-blogs (*the last Watch Dogs dev diary was in MAY*) but somehow Hall and his small team are supposed to do this every other day? They simply might not have anything to show. Most of what they are doing is programming related, which is impossible to even explain in a "paragraph and a screenshot." I think people's frustration with the lack of information is simply selfishness and impatience. Haha, thanks.

I don't appreciate your over-generalization of "people who oppose bandit skins." "Kill a fest of "innocents?" lol. You act like death in a video game is real - and more objectionably, that there are any innocents in DayZ. We all kill other players from time to time. It's just a fact of life in this game. Nobody is "innocent." We're all just pathetic, squirming pieces of yeast, consuming each other to survive. I am a friendly player. I oppose bandit skins - with the knowledge that the standalone has customizable gear. You can't just take away one player's ability to change their clothes and let other players keep it - therefore the developers must come up with more elegant and cause-effect related signs that you might be dealing with a dangerous person. http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/142489-a-light-dissertation-on-morality-in-dayz/ You create a false dilemma by assuming that the game can somehow judge your intentions. Even friendly survivors are often times forced to defend themselves. If they kill someone out of fear or self defence, and automatically receive a bandit skin, then the game is actually choosing the role that you play, not you. You're entire argument hinges on the assumption that bandit skins are assigned accurately 100% of the time. A computer system cannot accurately analyze situational context - therefore bandit skin "false positives" are possible - which makes the bandit skin a self-fulfilling prophecy. It would be more organic and natural to let people choose their own clothing as they find it, allow them to make the decisions they want to make, and have authentic effects based on those decisions - i.e. looting a body that is still bleeding would leave residual blood on your hands for a while. Taking damaged, bloody gear from a shot up corpse. Your face over many kills would slowly form into a frown. As you age your beard would grow - which visually indicates the survival time of a player. All of these subtleties are what form an authentic experience. The way I see it, bandit skins are placeholders. You people act like DayZ is already in it's final version. The gameplay is going to be drastically changed with the changes coming in the standalone. We have to look at the bandit skin as something to be replaced with other pathways. And consider this. Would you rather see a guy in a bandit mask and immediately engage him in a gunfight - or would you rather have to atually interact with all players on the same terms - with no exact knowledge of their past? That opens the door for many different options. An instantaneous gunfight could actually evolve into a new friendship - or a cunning attempt at betrayal. But personally, I'd rather be interacted with and then betrayed than just shot on sight because of this reasoning: "I have a bandit skin, therefore if he sees me, he will shoot me. Therefore, I will shoot first, so I don't die." This is the practical case by case dilemma that you have to deal with. Why can't we just have an intelligent discussion about it without jumping to conclusions about the "morality" of other players? Isn't the whole point of DayZ to build tension by adding ambiguity and suspicion to player interaction? If you know someone's history or intentions right off the bat, then it is not ambiguous. It just boils down to "heroes vs. bandits" - not the unique, individual experience of DayZ.

All this just seems like examples of you being a more cunning and ruthless survivor than other players. Good on ya.

I thought it was a very funny story. "This will feed us for a few days lads" - fucking hysterical.

So true. I feel like most people who rag on DayZ for it's "popularity" or "bugginess" are just impatient little brats who expect everything they play to be a finished product right away. It's like they don't understand the words "mod" or "alpha." It's okay though. I'd rather DayZ lose player base due to frustrated weaklings who can't grasp it's true merits as an experience - than be forced to deal with said brats in the game. It's like natural selection. The weak die off, and the strong and persistent push on to enjoy the world around them.

It already happens. Why wouldn't you wait? If you quit, you lose your gear and your progress. But if someone has knocked you unconscious, it means that the player plans to do more with you than simply kill you. So why not try to stay alive for as long as possible and maybe even survive the interaction? That's the kind of emergent gameplay that I enjoy about DayZ, which is why I participate in it. Think of it - if I see another player in the woods, and I think he might be friendly, and maybe I want to team up - then instead of killing him, I'll knock him unconscious, take his weapon, and now with the advantage and the good intentions (or bad, as I see fit) I can begin to try to form a cooperative partnership with that person. Maybe in the end he would be better off for being knocked unconscious. Right now we have a false dilemma in the game of either A: leave the person alive and under their own free will at all times, or B: kill that person. You could try to obtain compliance, but that rarely happens, since it is a living being's nature to be insolent. My point is that giving players more physical options than just killing other players is one excellent way of reducing the indiscriminate kill on sight mentality that most people play the game with. No need to start calling people names for a feature that already exists in the game. lol. Relax buddy.

I certainly don't intend to imply that my beliefs are the only correct ones, or anything like that. I've been reading novels like The Sea Wolf, With the Old Breed, Hellhounds on his Trail, Heart of Darkness, and Crime and Punishment lately, which has prompted me to start a discussion about this interesting and infinitely nuanced subject we call "morality." I don't mean to offend anyone or discount their arguments. Thanks for all the feedback guys.

Haha, that's why I can't wait for suicide functionality.

Kidnapping.

I prefer the idea of using the butt of your gun to render them unconscious. Think of the possibilities! Imagine if you could put dragged bodies into vehicles. Haha. Kidnap your foes! I want THAT kind of functionality. I'll just hatchet that fool in the head if I want to insta-kill him.