louist

It seems unknown entities are "dead" players. They died, but a bug causes them to remain. So... Undead?

I imagine well see a drift. PCs and consoles will start to look more and more like each other. You can already see a little of that in the steam box (moving pc games to the television), and whatever the modular pc design razor is putting together is called. Though I am a little skeptical of the razor system, as it requires a change in hardware standards. Sure looks interesting, though.

I don't really see how it would benefit from a console port, beyond opening up a new user base. There is, first of all, the issue of controls. While some of them can be simplfied, I don't think you can do enough with a controller to do the experience justice. Another issue is with whether the port would make use of console servers, or the pc servers. I can't think of any cross platform shooters. I know Microsoft did some internal testing with the console and pc versions of Halo, and the scores were extremely one-sided, in favor of the computer users. There's a reason aim assist is a pretty standard feature of console shooter; you just can't beat the accuracy of a mouse. So that means console players would either make use of separate servers and hives, which isn't a bad thing in itself, or else the console players will be playing at a huge disadvantage.

Hey, it's still better than the mod. I no longer break my legs walking up stairs.

Bring back the great green Wookie!

You mean other players?

If I could report this post from my phone, I would.

One of the features of the mod is that I silenced gunshots don't just draw nearby zombies, they also spawn new zombies if you fire too close to any structure that normally spawn zombies when you approach. I wonder if SA will implement a similar system. It might help reduce some of the KoS attitude, at least within cities by adding a greater level of risk to such actions.

Interesting. I hadn't experienced gunshots drawing any zombies beyond those which were already in the area. Perhaps it has changed.

+1 all this. I give beans if that were possible on my phone.

Come on, lets get more votes for the low amount of cheaters! :|

Those first moments will be crucial. Have a bag packed and ready beforehand.

The problem I have with that is: how far away are these fruits grown? Somewhere in southeast Asia, perhaps, in the case of bananas and kiwis? That's a pretty far distance to ship without refrigeration. And refrigerated cargo trucks don't seem like the most convenient way for survivors to travel (though it would have some uses). So perhaps they were flown in? Even if this is the case, who are these survivors that fly around and conveniently go around the outlying towns and routinely drop bananas all over the place? I think bananas, kiwis, and oranges are somewhat hard to justify, unless the outbreak is extremely recent, that is, within days or a couple weeks. Replacing these fruits with apples, pears, and other temperate fruits would be a lot easier to explain.

Well, we have a lot of contradictory evidence. On the one hand, we have rusted out Vehicles, which take more than a year or two to really fall apart like that. Longer, if we look at all that missing upholstery and the absent wheels. That's years and years of exposure. Hell, my grandparents had an old junker sitting exposed and untouched for 5 or 6 years, and it wasn't nearly in the shape the DayZ vehicles are. On the other hand, there is the overgrowth of fauna. Or rather, the lack of it. While the grass is pretty high in areas, overall there is a unusually low amount of overgrowth on dirt roads, as was mentioned, and in the smaller cities as well. We should see a lot more saplings along the coast, a lot more bushes and weeds everywhere, as those things really spread. Based on this lack, the outbreak could have happened within months. There's also the building interiors, which generally still look to be in fairly good shape. Still clean, etc.

You don't need a beast to run dayZ, however. I'm on the process of upgrading, but I'm currently still using an old nVidia 1gb 260 gtx, and the game is extremely playable. They aren't produced anymore, but you can find them on eBay for like 20$. That said, if you're planning to get a card that will still compete going forward, something like a 660 2gb card will last you a while and costs about 100$.

I wouldn't mind some heavier vehicles, such as the humvee, but I don't want to see weaponized variants. The reason for this is pretty straightforward: you shouldn't have such vehicles without a means to counter them. But that means adding high-calibre anti-material rifles (which Rocket stated he didn't want to do) and RPGs to the game, which, I think, is just silly. Vehicles I like. In the mod, they added to the emergent gameplay. Merely having them created, for me, missions to find parts, tool boxes, and fuel, which I loved. I could spend an hour or two trying to get a truck in working order, and that sort of thing is great for giving you an organic experience. But a BTR running around with a machine gun or light cannon... Eh. Not really what in looking for.

Zed: in terms of the chef analogy, you're forgetting the fact that that chef's signature dish, and indeed the entirety of his success and growing name, is due to his doing the exact same thing to another's dish. He came in to another's restaurant and said, "Wow, this is great and all, but it would be a lot better with this and that." And people agreed with him. A lot of people did. So for him, after achieving such success, to Turn around and declare that no one is allowed to change, and possibly improve upon, his dish is more than a little hypocritical. I'll respond to the rest of your post when I've had time to think it over fully.

The problem I have with that argument, though, is that it ignores what, to me, is obvious: that such a trend exemplifies the fact that, to the vast majority of players, those mods represent a more enjoyable experience, a superior product. Those mods fall more in line with what a majority of players want from a game. Denying modders the means to improve upon, in their view, DayZ, is a rather backwards attempt at protectionism. For people who enjoy DayZ as it is, there will always be the base game, just as for people who enjoy Arma 2, there's always Arma 2. Denying people the ability to to create, share, an play mods, simply to ensure they stick to one specific mode, one single vision, is, in my opinion, wrong. Yes, mods will pull people away from the base, and yes, those mods may end up being more popular than the base game. But that speaks to the fact that people want and enjoy those mods. Just as people wanted and enjoyed the DayZ mod. At the end of the day, people creating, sharing, and enjoying an experience is always a good thing. No one suffers, not the least of whom is Rocket, who will still be selling copies of DayZ.

In response to ZedsDead: I don't see why it's bad for a player to play a mod and not the base game. People generally have enough sense of their own desires to find the games they would enjoy, and to ignore the ones they wouldn't. I had never played Arma 2 when I started playing the DayZ mod, and that did nothing to diminish or devalue my enjoyment of the mod. Saying that it would be bad for people to play a mod of DayZ SA without trying the base game also invites the argument that it would be bad if they never played the DayZ mod, and Arma 2 before that, and Flashpoint before that and Quake before that. If you see what I'm getting at. It's a slippery slope. I also don't enjoy such things as advanced weaponry, 24 hour daylight, and global chat. But mods and servers that incorporate such don't affect me, and don't diminish my experience. It simply doesn't matter that other people enjoy a different version or view of the game than I do, and saying that they shouldn't be allowed to, simply because I don't like it, is rodiculous. I say let people enjoy whatever version of the game that suits them best.

Ah, profanity and personal attacks, the traditional last stand of the baseless argument. I'll make it clear, though. A mod, by it's very nature, is optional. It isn't something you can be forced into playing. Your words have shown you to be someone who didn't understand that. I hope that helped clear things up for you.

You do not understand how a mod operates.

I support modding. Both in general, and in this particular case. The reason mods of the DayZ mod itself have become so popular is because there was a demand for them. Yes, vanilla servers are less common, but that's because less people are playing them. Disallowing modding in SA is silly. It denies modders the chance to craft other unique experiences, and in doing so, Rocket would be turning his back on the very process which made him so successful and undoubtably made him quite wealthy. Denying others that same chance simply because some players don't want others to experiment and create experiences that these same players would never be forced to play is ridiculously closed-minded. Lets not forget that modding, and the DayZ mod in particular, revitalized a franchise and put a lot of money into the pockets of BI. As it has done for a never of developers; DOTA and similar mods increased the lifespan of Warcraft 3 and generated new sales, just as CS, Team Fortress, Natural Selection, and now DOTA 2 have done for Valve and related mod-teams-turned-companies. He'll, without those mods we wouldn't see a number of popular games they inspired, nor the genres they gave rise to or otherwise popularized, such as League of Legends and the MOBA and Tower Defense genres, respectively. In short, denying mods will likely deny the developers income, the game longevity, the community a creative and entertaining outlet, and is (in this case) poor form, given DayZ's roots. There is no good argument for not allowing modding, beyond funding shortages, which doesn't look to be the case for an alpha that has generated nearly $30 million in its first month.

About a week I to playing the mod, I started to server hop. I got fed up with constantly being run down and murdered before I really knew what I was doing. At best, I'd be rocking an axe (as I didn't know the map, and where to get military gear) or the odd Enfield, but I'd always run into someone better equipped, and that was the end of me. But after a few weeks of doing that, I grew incredibly bored with DayZ, and started wandering around again. It wasn't until I became familiar with the map and was able locate myself navigate reliably that I started to enjoy the game again. I'm not entirely sure if my experience reflects that of other people who server hopped, or those that still do, but for me it was the frustration of constantly dying while still getting geared and getting my bearings. But server hopping, in hopes of evening the playing field essentially poisoned my experience. Now actually enjoy those one-sided encounters, where I'm facing someone with a huge envantage in material and firepower. Makes for some intense moments.

It's hard for me to work out an average, as every life turns out rather differently for me. I do routinely kill more people than die to them, but how many, exactly is hard to work out, especially with bodies disappearing. Most of the time I can't tell if someone had died or just combat logged.

Most games don't have children you can kill because it's in extremely poor taste. And censorship issues...