semipr0

I don't expect base building functionality of any type until beta. We might get tents and/or craftable survival shelters before that. But I really have no expectation of the dev team to get base building and permanent/semi-permanent storage into DayZ for another year at the earliest. Too many other things to focus on first really.

If they were hitting DayZ they'd have said something about it. You're dealing with people that are reveling in their own infamy right now, its not like they're going to neglect to mention what they're doing because the entire point of it is "for the lulz" but in reality the entire point of it is for the attention. Perhaps whoever is behind it all thinks they'll get a book deal after they do their prison time, Who knows...don't really care either. The unfortunate truth of the world is nobody cared about these guys when they were taking down GMod RP servers. It just wasn't worth anyones time because there wasn't enough money behind the potential damages to incite criminal investigation. Over the last week and a half they've stepped up to spitting in the eyes of EA, Microsoft, Internap, Black Lotus, Cloudflare, LMN and a good sized number of other very large net entities...DERP can DERP, but they are running on extremely borrowed time at this point. Lulzsec couldn't get caught either...they were "smarter" than the feds too. Seems they weren't smarter for long enough though. So in the end, I'm not even sure I entirely disagree with this DERP groups philosophy to a certain extent...but they aren't targetting DayZ cause if they were they'd have said so....free publicity is free publicity after all.

There are no instances of mention of DayZ going all the way back to their original launch of this twitter site. They are not targetting DayZ, currently they appear to be targetting XBL...if that somehow is affecting DayZ, then we have a larger conspiracy than a bunch of guys with USB drives wandering around botting unsecured hardware to create hostile networks, to figure out.

This DERP group hasn't targeted DayZ. Its mostly throughout its history been focused on GMod communities and Cloudflare/LMN services, its only just recently stepped up to Internap level and has been hitting much bigger targets...but they haven't launched a direct attack at DayZ itself. Its possible that they've hit something thats directly affecting the primary hive host though, but its collateral damage of something else they're doing. And yeah that "leaked personal info" is definitely not their information, otherwise they wouldn't have acknowledged it.

Atypical responses were made in regards to similar concerns forwarded about the mod. And people did look to themselves and it required mods of the mod to actually achieve any form of actual growth for the experience. My boredom is not from my lack of ability to engage myself in creative story telling for the purposes of filling the time. But if the true content of a game must come from its players in the form of adaptive story telling and player created mods simply to fill in obvious game systems gaps....then the game isn't really doing much of a job of not being boring on its own. I've walked from one end of Chernarus to the other over the last couple years more times than I can count, there were great fights, great retreats, great losses, great bases, great group tactical work with my boys, lots of little bits of self made fun. All I'm asking the actual DayZ game to do is actually take a stab at being a game...and not the framework for someone else to make a real game out of. Not even Bethesda is guilty of that kind of half measure design. Regardless of pretty much everything they make requiring user created fixes and improvements they do at least release a fully featured game. Is it really asking DayZ so much to actually have some features to engage the player beyond depending on the players imagination? If you ask that question about the mod, I'd say its probably asking a lot, cause...the mod was free, and we got a lot out of it for not having to pay anything (relatively at least). We paid for this, I'm kind of hoping that means that the end result will be a fully featured game.

Did you not read the first part of the original post? Far as quantifying the subjective, we quantify the subjective on a daily basis. You are quantifying the subjective by forming opinions about a post you read on a forum from your own point of view. Mental health can be quantified if you're completely adverse to the idea of anyone quantifying mental health you need to speak to the people at the APPI cause they've been quantifying it now for over 60 years. The associated mental conditions related to extreme stress are not as subjective as you seem to think. Health conditions based on lifestyle are not as subjective as you may think.

Its about giving the game a shape at all. Not just the way I want it to be but a way. Tell me what shape this game has. A big piece of terrain with guns scattered around and occasional AI hazards? People killing each other for lack of anything else to do? Thats a hell of a feature set for a game thats been as popular as DayZ has been since its inception. Right now we're playing the game the way Dean wants it played...we're playing it his way or we're going to be "punished" ergo, don't fucking eat and drink and you're going to fucking die. Is that an imposition on your sensibilities? Cause if not then why would a system that simply adds complexity and depth to what Dean is already doing and benefits you for managing it well...regardless of what you do....killing people or not, be an imposition on your way of playing the game? I'm not proposing anything more than an expansion of what you're already dealing with, just giving a meaning to everything beyond a food and water, a meaning to your actions, a goal to achieve, something to value in your experience in the game, something to truly be sad to lose if you lose it, as compared to now where I kinda like dying cause it gives me an excuse to keep playing at the moment...which in and of itself is an direct indication that something is seriously wrong with the current dynamics, when dying is more fun than living....you haven't achieved a survival simulation.

That is English. I realize I'm a wordy bastard and I can lik tolly say thins wit way less ltrs...but its just not how I think so what you get is what comes out of my brain. I don't think in sound bytes...I think in novella. Sorry if that offends or causes cerebral hemorrhage.

No...its not. Its how you've chosen to understand it. It was a simple and black and white example. You got hung up on that and decided the entire post was about it. Thats not my problem...its yours. The root of the idea is to play the game to a complex set of parameters that yield variant and beneficial and in some cases negative results depending on how you manage them. Suffice it to say I will never use such a cut and dried and easily understandable parallel of play styles such as Hero/Bandit in my explanations here again given as single minded individuals seem to be able to discern my "sekret agenduh" simply by reading those code words.

From a certain point of view...achieving a game design that has a parallel to heroin is kind of the holy grail of game design in general.

Right the first 520+ words are fine, and a choice few in the other 300 are not. Can we just get past that and understand my explanation that I'm not simply talking in complete black and whites here? Its just as possible for a hero to lose their marbles in a scenario where they are not meeting other key critical health concerns as it would be for any other style of player. Its not about reward A/punish B..its about layered depths of achievement and challenge all of which work together in a complex web of interconnected variables that all have direct affect on the player and each other. The associated effects of which are variable depending on how they are managed. Think of it as SimPerson....SimPerson with a Gun™. So aside from the daily routine of wandering around looking at the scenery and occasionally dodging bullets or throwing lead at other people, you are also managing this internal system of needs which begin to define you as a person over time.

I believe it will give people a moment to pause and evaluate the risks. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone..some people just want to watch the world burn after all. But we don't shoot people for fun and profit in real life because there are associated risks with doing so. Loss of freedom being one of the more generally known ones, but there is the risk of your own death occurring in the process as an unintentional side effect of having decided to go on a murder spree. We don't engage in these kinds of behaviors generally because the risks are too imposing. We have too much to lose. We can rationalize it around morality and that kind of thing if we really want to pick nits...but in general, people refrain from murdering other people not because of morality but because of fear of loss. Thats kind of the sad state of the human condition because as you may have noticed people that have nothing to lose, or have no fear of reprisal are far more content to butcher other human beings than most of the rest of us...and its because we have that fear...not because we have morality. A generic killer in DayZ has no fear because they have nothing to lose. I don't like to use the term "bandit" specifically because a bandit is actually someone who puts some effort into taking what you have beyond shooting you in the face from a nice safe distance. But your general killer in DayZ...someone who's just going to pop you because you're there will do so because there is no fear whatosever. Anything they lose should things not go their way...is replacable within minutes or at worst an hour. Life has to have value to fear losing it. I believe the same can be applied in a game environment if done in a well implemented manner.

Again its not about punishing bandits...punishing bandits should be done by people with guns thats kind of the point. You can read the above to get a better idea of what I mean. People need to stop getting hung up on small points and understand the larger systemic intentions here. I used that as a baseline example..I even say that its a baseline. Its not complex. Its not full feature presented...its an idea that evolves...kind of like how I'd like to see people evolve.

No what basically happened is you ran aground of a point you disagreed with then discounted everything else. Which is fine, you're welcome to disagree with it...but I don't think addressing the validity of behavioral choices affecting character outcomes is something that should be so shallowly discounted either. What I'm describing is not an indepth system, its a simple, if wordy, explanation of what a more complex system could be...and in all fairness the system could be even more complex than my simple description of it. So don't immediately assume just because I painted that out as an example that I completely believe that good guys should get rewarded and bad guys should be punished, I'm simply using it as an example system which could be implemented to help give the experience depth. Now does that mean I think bandits should get the shaft and heroes should get the night elves? No...not entirely, I think there should be a lot of factors figured into the overall conditional mental health of all players regardless of their chosen style of combat...its just really too complex to plot it out in a simple idea forwarding forum post. All factors should be considered in regards to the evolution or retardation of a characters development...and negative and positive benefits should not be wholly and totally in the corner of one playstyle or the other, but a combination of all relevant factors leading to various individual results end up doing something slightly interesting...ergo, your toon kinda ends up with a personality based on what your own personality has molded into it. So again...its a little more complex than you've painted it, but in fairness its a lot more complex than I've painted it as well.

Life is a sandbox, the choices you make define who you are and what you achieve. DayZ is a sandbox, the choices you make determine absolutely nothing...there is nothing to achieve because...there is nothing to achieve. That is not a sandbox, that is using "sandbox" as an excuse for not having slightly more complex game dynamics. So in truth, self "professed" sandbox would be a far more accurate description. The last true "sandbox" game was SWG...but that is a subject for another forum entirely.