ollox

Are you a Death Note fan by any chance? B) I hate to say this but it's a terrible idea, interesting and I like it but it's terrible for Day Z. Magical notebooks are not the answer. Replacing bandit skins with bandit tags is not the answer.

That was a terrible interview (and Rocket gives great interviews). 39:30 is where currency is mentioned and shortly after that Rocket explicitly states there will be no safe areas, so you heard that part wrong. I don't understand your objection to trade. Yes you will be able to buy items but you'll have to scavenge other items to pay for them or do something else useful to earn money -- it's not like you get free items. People can already trade it's just awkward and dangerous. There are some important issues with currency that I hope Rocket is taking into consideration. (I wrote this on another thread but can't find it :(.) For a currency to hold any value that value must be enforced by a central authority: this requires that the authority guarantees the currency is accepted as tender by all within their jurisdiction, and that the authority regulates the supply of currency in circulation. Currency cannot be a consumable or perishable item, it cannot be created, sourced or destroyed without the consent of the issuing authority. If Rocket intends to introduce randomly spawning items as potential currencies we have two problems: 1. Even if the items only spawned in one area that could be controlled, those items could be acquired on another server and imported thus inflating the currency. 2. If the rate of spawning cannot be controlled then the supply of currency may not be sufficient. The currency must be produced by the player and it must be an unique item that can only be produced by that player or their delegates.

This is an optimisation issue and we'll see more zombies as the code improves cuts out all the unnecessary stuff from ArmA. The correct term for a group of zombies is a horde or swarm. :P

I'm not forcing anything, I'm only asking people to think of the real advantages of teamwork. I'm actively trying to avoid more suggestions that impose sanctions on players who don't want to cooperate. Did you not read my post? That goes against everything I've been trying to get across. It's completely illogical to force players to wear particular clothes based on their playing style, that's why Rocket took out the bandit skins. There could be gear that is particularly useful for bandits like that balaclava but it shouldn't be enforced. If I came across someone wearing that I would be pretty darn suspicious, I'd wonder if he was a bandit and observe for more clues. I don't want to be able to look at someone and immediately recognize them as a bandit, that takes the tension out of it. Conversely a bandit could dress up as a friendly comrade and march into a settlement undetected and then start murdering and pillaging (and possibly raping if rocket wants to add that!) this all adds elements to the game that would be lost if we had a set wardrobe. In real life your enemies wont always look like bad guys, in fact the one's that do are the least dangerous.

Search! There are other suggestions that are exactly the same as this and better.

I'm abandoning this idea because it imposes an artificial emotion on the game: feelings of remorse, grief and fear should come from the experience not be imposed on the player. You should feel grief for a dead comrade because of the journey you've been on together. You should feel remorse for murder because you are weaker alone. You should not kill your allies because they are more valuable to you alive. You should fear your enemies because your life is worth something. Not all of these factors are true at the moment but they are the ultimate goal and should be remembered when making suggestions. I will leave this idea intact as a reminder to everyone of what Day Z is and what it is not. There have been many anti-bandit suggestions but all the ones I've seen imbalance the game by imposing restrictions on how we should play, I've been very careful to avoid this when forming my idea for morale. I want to introduce more consequences and more emotion for both bandits and comrades alike. Morale is governed by the following factors: Trauma, Familiarity, Hardness and Drugs. Trauma lowers your morale and is experienced when fighting (players or zombies), when players die, finding dead bodies, and so on. Trauma is permanent and incurable. Trauma must be kept in check as a low morale can lead to increased hunger, thirst and shaking. Familiarity boosts your morale and is gained by staying close to other players. The downside is that when familiar players die their familiarity to you becomes trauma for your character. All players you come in contact with, even if only for a few seconds, will gain some familiarity towards you until they are far enough away for this to deteriorate. Hardness bolsters your morale by gradually counter-acting trauma, with the added benefit of making you less susceptible to future traumas. Drugs, such as cigarettes and alcohol, offer temporary reprieve from trauma and boost to your morale. You may become addicted through prolonged use of drugs and experience a decrease in morale until the addiction is satisfied or starved for long enough to recede. Alcohol abuse impedes vision and co-ordination, but cigarettes take time to smoke and are effective for a shorter time. So there you have it, your choice is whether to go it alone and support an ever increasing addiction or team up at the risk of being severely traumatised by the death of your friends and possibly falling into drug addiction anyway. What a happy world.

I'm abandoning this idea because it imposes an artificial emotion on the game: feelings of remorse, grief and fear should come from the experience not be imposed on the player. You should feel grief for a dead comrade because of the journey you've been on together. You should feel remorse for murder because you are weaker alone. You should not kill your allies because they are more valuable to you alive. You should fear your enemies because your life is worth something. Not all of these factors are true at the moment but they are the ultimate goal and should be remembered when making suggestions. I will leave this idea intact as a reminder to everyone of what Day Z is and what it is not. I think it's a well presented idea too so hopefully that rubs off on those who post one-line poorly thought out crap.

Requirements for a Functioning System of Currency The supply of currency must be issued and regulated by a central authority: Currency must not be consumed, destroyed or created unless sanctioned by authority. Without these regulations currency has no controlled value and cannot reliably used for trade. The central authority must guarantee the value of the currency since it may not have intrinsic value (and is better if it doesn't), this is done through enforcing widespread acceptance of the currency and regulation. These requirements are not possible to fulfil since there is currently no item that players have complete control over with regards to supply. Some people criticise the idea of currency because "there's no government", but you don't need a government per se to have a currency system, you just need an authority to regulate it. There are millions of "micro-currencies" such as token systems -- just like you see in arcades or casinos -- that are used in small communities where there is no officially recognised currency. The benefit of any currency system is that you don't have to carry heavy items around to conduct trade. Surely that would be an advantage in Day Z. I would love to see Day Z at a stage where currency becomes viable but that's a long way off. We can't make currency and we don't really have much use for it yet.

This is fucking stupid. Logic -1

That's exactly the same as tents except worse. ^_^

ncloseclosecloseclose

I understand your frustrations but you're picking the wrong target. The problem is that life has no value in and of itself; the only thing that makes your life valuable is the items you carry so if you can store it in tents then you have no worries again. But removing the tents is a backwards solution, we need to add value to life in some intrinsic way that can't be removed from the player and stored elsewhere.

You could easily wire a generator into a lamppost via the service hatch. Not a very efficient way to produce electricity though. Is there a power station in Chernarus? That would be a pretty major project. Then you could sell electricity to different cities.

It's already in the game, you just have to look really hard for them.

Yes I like this idea very much. No private channels, that's BS. You tune into a frequency, start talking and everyone on the same frequency can hear you. If you want to have private communication you must devise your own codes. I would add radios too for longer range communication, but they would require an antenna. People would no doubt start radio stations too which would be cool. Your walkie-talkie could receive the radio broadcasts but wouldn't have the power to respond.

I support this but have one concession: there has to be enough game for everyone. There's not enough outside the major cities, there's barely any enterable buildings or food . Farms are really the only places to go outside cities. Survivors should be free to play how they want and should not have to fight through bandit-infested cities to get a meal. The way I see it, bandit and survivor are two different paced styles. Bandits rush into the towns and grab the best loot and then fight to maintain their position and prey on others. Survivors are more cautious and take longer to acquire decent loot but SHOULD survive longer on average. The trouble is you pretty much have to go into the cities whether you like it or not and that gives bandits the home advantage. I'd love to see this game turn into a real post-apocalypse nation where groups of peaceful comrades build settlements dotted all over the map, gradually trade routes develop between settlements, which become a target for bandits who occupy hideouts in the cities. That idea must appeal to both bandits and comrades. We need a chance to form these kind of communities or we will never get beyond a simple death-match.

That was actually a valid sentence and it was intentionally hard to read. Cind and cant are not words. :P Love your sig quote. :beans:

Only if we can also have giant robot dragons that we can ride and there are clowns running around throwing custard pies at the zombies and every hour every texture in the game becomes an animated psychedelic rainbow and the zombies all turn into unicorns and instead of bullets you shoot flowers and candy and all the buildings grow legs and start dancing around to techno music!

I think hardness has to be a variable too; so we have Hardness, Trauma, Familiarity, Drugs and Drug Addiction. Here's a diagram that should give an idea how these variables work together. The right half of the bar is positive morale while the left half is negative. As you can see, the character hardens over time. They only need drugs or companionship while they are still dealing with trauma, but traumatic events are common and include such things as finding dead bodies or getting close to zombies, not just death. I don't know what effect an overall positive morale might have yet. I think the game actually needs to evolve before there can be a use for positive morale. We need something to work towards, not just pure survival. If you could build bases and things like that you'd be able to work harder if your morale was high.

Sorry but this is full of stereotypical "computer game" bollocks that Day Z is trying to get away from. Points are just a method of directing the player's actions and we don't want to do that with Day Z. The only reason points ever existed is because old arcade games were so limited and repetitive and points were the only way to keep people playing. It's the 21st century for beans sake! We have better ways of giving feedback.

You want a proper implementation of cigarettes? See Morale.

Good point. Maybe having friends around would help reduce the effect of any trauma you experience. I'm thinking zombies would traumatise you the same way people become familiar. If you have more than one friend then you wouldn't suffer so badly losing one as you would losing your only friend.

I've updated the OP with a more succinct explanation. Thanks. I want to focus on emotions but yes other drugs could be added to this system and give you an addiction maybe. This is the best strategy if you want to kill players. This is why snipers tend not to get as shell-shocked because they don't have to look the person in the eye as they pull the trigger.

This is unfair for bandits, for something more balanced see Morale.

If it seems that way I haven't explained the consequences well. I am punishing both playing styles: Losing one close friend could have as much impact on you as killing a dozen strangers. The choice in how you play is deciding whether to scavenge for alcohol and cigarettes but avoid getting attached to anyone, or befriending people which means you wont need so many drugs to keep you happy but you risk a heavy penalty if they die. [deleted the rest because it was crapply written and too long.]