[email protected]

I think a Mirco skill system as suggested is too arbitrary. It's not really affected by how skilled the player is in anyway; you don't really gain anything based on what you're good at, it's based on time spent in-game. Even if you have it based on individual actions being strengthened by your use of them; you could still meta game the game, by sitting down somewhere and just lighting fires, to put your stick rubbing skills up. I suppose you could have skills diminish; if you don't use them but again that's not really an organic reaction to the game world; you'll still know what to do the game, it just won't perform the way you expected too. This again doesn't work because essentially all you've done is allow the computer to say no, based on time you've spent playing. In my view the only skills we should see in the game are player based, in order words; things you have control over. This is were in my opinion health, food/water and condition play into it. This is a direct catalyst; the more positive these things are; affects your ability to preform tasks. Example: If your cold; your ability to light fires will be decreased. You'll be slower; you might use more matches. The only other way I can see skills used correctly is within crafting recipes. Example: Again back to fire: you might use different resources to start a fire; one will start the fire quickly but will burn out faster and use more resources another, might take longer to gather the correct materials but will light more easily and could be kept alight longer. Essentially: my idea is to base the out come of tasks on a player ability to either look after their character or remember how to use items. This way things are a lot more organic and can be achieved by any player providing they know what they're doing. If there is something more artificially I might suggest; it would be, as a player accomplishes new tasks (like a more efficient way of making fire) the game automatically takes note. Which the player could later view for reference in future and again of course this would be reset on death.

I'm sorry but an improved weather system is kinda a none question. If you were to ask how you'd like to see the weather system improved then; that would be a question.

I probably never replied to this comment in the first place because it appears to be a blatant troll but now as I've came back to the topic I'll do so anyway. The important thing is; the original idea was inspired by that game and the related quote is there simply out of context. As I go into quite a lot of detail without it anyway; which judging form the replies was probably a mistake but it has helped me to form a simpler take on this concept. Which I should perhaps state and leave it up-to the comment section to devise mechanics in-which it may be implemented.

Just a bit of an introduction: clear up some ignorance's floating around the forums Standalone Fact Client server architecture has been changed; so you can't rely on loot spawning in the places you expect it to because players no longer trigger loot to spawns. Also as loot no longer spawns in piles you can't even predicted; whether loot will have even, have been spawned. Standalone Fact Suggestion-Opinion Note I made to myself: Essentially you'd have two classes of loot: rare drops (which respawn a set number of items at every server restart and are not replenished unless item's are removed from the server, used or destroyed) normal loot drops (based on a timer, rather than numbers being depleted and replenished ((So there could be many times more loot spawns on a server than normal; its just dependent on their respawn rates and their depletion rates)); once an item is consumed "depletion rate" it sets off a respawn count down "respawn rates" triggering the next respawn ((which by the way should have no bearing on where the loot spawns)) The consequences of this would be as follows: rare loot wouldn't become super rare but since they're in short supply; would become a valuable asset. Normal loot in high usage would become harder to find in larger quantities and loot in lower usage would become easier to find but limited in supply. Wider implications of this are as follows: Reasons for changing the loot spawn system as suggested above: Why do this: Suggestion-Opinion If you don't understand this then don't worry; you don't need to, providing it be set up right, it'd make for a more survival like experiences. "sheesh" Throw in a few variables and people get all upset and confused.

Just a summary: You have a predisposed number set for each individual item type. If an item becomes too scares; you can increase that number until it is no-longer scares and do the opposite if an item is too plentiful. The server only replaces items; when they are consumed/destroyed or leave the server in a players inventory. If player brings additional items on the server; the server replaces them at a decreased rate. If more players join the server; the server increases the set values to compensate for increased looting. In conclusion: Items will never be any more scares than they are designed to be. Loot will never run out because there will always be more loot than the population of the server could possibly carry; how much more determines an items rarity. You can not feasibly farm specific items because items will only respawn when they are consumed or taken from the server and even then the respawning of which isn't tied to a players location.

You don't need to have "tiers" classes or ranks for any gear; to establish a linear progression system, this isn't a competitive shooter. DayZ's so big in scope that having clear gear boundaries is irreverent because the gear you have is only relative the situation(s) you find yourself in. Ok so not all gear is equal but quality is irreverent to quantity. All of this information can be possessed behind the scenes; luckily for Dean the tools and data are already in place. All he needs to do, is to take the data they've collected from the mod; decide which items are most valued/used an thus diminished and change the quantity of those items, so that enough are available. Once you have a set quantity for each item; you can change it dynamically at the server level as the player count increases and decreases and also as items are consumed or leave with the player. Essentially the server's doing a complex balancing act; changing the spawning of items to account for players use of them in the game. So there would never be a shortage of items; unless it was intended because the server would maintain a set number. The other system I suggested; is for items which are used regularly, like food and thus need to be repopulated continually to maintain a large enough supply.

I think these to things could be solved; if they move over from using a probability based system to action and reaction based system. In other words everything has a value and when the values reach a certain tipping point you get a reaction. So when you fall you combine the momentum with damage and durability; if momentum and damage top durability, you injure yourself. But crucially you could have different thresholds; so you might only be cut or bruised increasing to a small fracture to a compound fracture and of course; if you have an existing injury this increase the amount of damage a fall could do. Simply but effective; this way you can predict the likely hood of an injury and take different factors into account; even if you do not have the exact values

My take on the situation; was that either you could have rare items be one off's or (insert any number of limited amount) and common items would be limited by probability or perhaps vice versa depending upon how fettle the item is. But generally items in limited supply; would have a range of how many could exist in the world at any one time and the server would attempt to maintain a balance within that limitation, as said items join an leave the server. Example: if someone joins the server with an item; topping of the range limit for that item, then additional duplicates will not spawn, until either one leaves with the player or is damage/destroyed. This isn't to say you'd only ever have for sake of argument: 10 M1911's; the range could be changed to the tens, hundreds and thousands etc... Essentially this is almost like having constant items within the real world; except the server compensates for when the consistency in the item population is changed. This also allows for some clever trickery: in that you could dynamically effect the spawning of items; if the existing population of the server is hording a significant amount or the server is effectively being DDoS'd with new players and spawn fresh items. This way the scarcity would appear to remain the same and you could even allow for the scarcity to cascade towards the next server restart; simulating the depletion of resources the long the world is in existence.

I realise there are many topics on this subject already but non to my knowledge have suggested what I am about to. Intro: Gubbins to clear the air Lets get the obvious out the way. My suggestion: Meat of the thread Keep both (admittedly I have a bias opinion; I like both) but still i can see the problems they cause. If you are to "keep both" the associated problems need resolving. Recommendations: Proposed compromise: Third person is useful as a tool; as long as it isn't exploited to be used as the single which way to play the game. That's why I intend to propose a change; that would shape third person more as a tool. Feature Description: Idea I'm putting forward Hopefully this gives you a well rounded view of the proposed changes; I do realise I haven't covered the full impact of said changes. So if you do have any questions concerning which; please leave me a comment and I'll get back to you.

Well technically; if you tired 3rd person to "Alt" which is also free look, you lock the camera view whilst in 3rd person. So its still useful; you just end up playing more of the game from 1st person.

This does deal with that issues: first of all as in arma you can double tap pretty much anything to stay in 3rd person but as its tired to "Alt" which also allows you to free look. Essentially you wouldn't be able to turn from 3rd person and you'd either need to be static to fully utilize it potential or be moving in a relatively straight line; obviously you'd still have directional control via WASD but to use camera control you use 1st person.

No you most certainly do not need my permission to post in this thread but if all your doing is to shanghai the topic then that basically amounts to trolling. Though it does seam this time, on the other hand you have at-least raised something worth talking about. To answer what you said about improving 1st person: if you look at the last dev vlog, you can see the team has been making significant changes to animation transitions and it does seam that improving 1st person is a priority. I am not focused on 3rd person being a problem because its not; the problem of balancing two perspectives does however cause issues. You eluded to me breaking 3rd person, which isn't my intention; if I wanted to do that I'd ask for it to be removed. The changes I proposed would improve many aspects of the game; being able to dynamically change your FOV in-game would benefit both perspectives. What I intend to do is changes the default perspective to 1st person; so that when you interact with the game you do so from a more immersive perspective. So instead of aiming then being pulled back out behind the character; you can use 3rd person to gain a higher perspective literally and then be brought back into the immersion. You'd still be able to run around; turning your head from 3rd person to see what's behind you. As I said in the original post this feature balances the the two perspectives turning them into tools to be used tactically; using 3rd person to gain increased awareness and 1st person to loot or engage in combat. This is something you'll need to do more so now than ever; now that they have removed cross heirs altogether. What gets me killed most: are bugs, hackers and making mistakes usually whilst climbing mountains. If you know what you're doing regardless of perspective you can be successful; 3rd person just makes things easier.

Largely agree; you did a good job of summarizing peoples opinions. Though I have to say, the suggestions in my original post are not technically challenging in anyway, nor do I believe them to be clunky. The first half, my personal recommendations; aren't required and with the exception of features like: the FOV slider, free look and a maximum FOV, all are present in DayZ standalone, which would allow the second feature to work independently. Ok so we don't expect these features from all modern games but the point is; they aren't exactly making any technical leaps we might consider ground breaking. The 50% that is comprised of my proposed features; essentially breaks down to a simple control scheme. We already see these features present in other games combined with a keyboard toggle/mouse combination cross over. I'll even break down the individual mechanics: Tech requirements first: simple You need the ability to adjust the FOV in game via the mouse scroll wheel (this is a feature in use five or ten years ago on old Elder scrolls games) Free look (already exists in the Arma II engine and the updated DayZ standalone engine) You need the in game FOV button and free look button to be bound together on the same key "Alt" (getting really complicated now!?) Control side: so forward thinking; it was being used in RTS games since the year 2000 Hold Alt to turn head (difficult) Hold Alt + move scroll wheel to adjust FOV (two buttons; getting complex) Scroll to the maximum FOV to transition perspectives (so complicated only the pro Skyrim players can set their FOV on the fly) Letting go of Alt returns the player to the default perspective (look; no hands) Just poking a little fun; to demonstrate the elegance of this solution. This suggestion allow you to do more things with the existing controls scheme than is present in Arma II; whilst drawing you back to first person to engage with all the in-game interactions upon releasing free look.

Latest topic: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/124785-help-build-an-immune-system-system/

Disclaimer: Before I even get started, I just want to say: whatever you thing it is it isn't. I'm going to discuss features and use phases/word commonly associated in a different context. Intro: wake up _ _ _ follow the white rabbit Further detail: Condition Types: This is your _last chance_. After this, there is no turning back.....You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up and belive...whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill.....you stay in wonderland...and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Sorry if you need glasses after reading all this but I don't take any responsibility; read at your own risk.

Sorry not gonna happen; I'd love to have a place that i could make semi secure for the same purpose but Rockets already stated he will not be introducing any such artificial safe zones, like in the game that shall not be named cough "WarZ" Anyway you really don't want them in the game anyway; trust that people have already been burnt by snipers camping the safe zones on W___Z

Yes but in mathematics; they attempt to describe as many variables as possible to get the most accurate result . In this game you get sick or you don't get sick. The best way emulate sickness: is by having factors, that will eventually reach a tipping point; infecting the character. So in other words you need a myriad of events to unfold to get sick; this systems is better because its predictable to a point and as people aren't subject to the exact figures plus add in the fact that certain events are unpredictable, you end up with a very real system.

Well yes it does always come to the same conclusion and its different from your opinion; it that generally everyone is divided on the matter. But then again this thread was never about whether 3rd/1st person should stay or go; it was about making changes to the existing game concept, so that 1st person is a more viable option and 3rd person can be a useful tool without being the be all and end all on how to play. Thanks for supporting me.

Every time I see a post that starts "chance of" "chance to" I immediately think of some potability based bullshit frustration that has no place in games. (and no this isn't going to get better) Normally I look at even these posts to which my initial reaction is as reads above and then I try to come up with a reasonable considerate response with some sort of constructive criticism; as opposed to just bashing an idea. On this occasion I just need to state my aversion to this terrible idea and leave..... ...This is but the only thing I can muster; perhaps the "more" :(so active participation, not random chance) a player participated in warped activities the less distress, feelings or emotion the character would display toward such activities, then if you take it far enough your character may start experiencing the physiological affects of insanity such as: shakes, sweating, twitching or begin showing enjoyment, to revel in traumatic events. All of this mind, would need to be completely aesthetic; it can have no real affects on character performance. The only thing that has a place impacting game mechanics is the sweating; you'd need more water and it would make you colder. (That's it; that's the most constructive thing I can come up with, do me a favor never ever become a coder or games developer.)

If you prefer 3rd person only; then you have nothing to add of value, same goes to people who only like 1st person and want see 3rd person removed. This is a thread discussing how a better balance could be struck between the two perspectives; if you're not interested in discussing a compromise between them, leave. You've been aloud to cheer-lead your preferred perspective; you've discussed its benefits, there is nothing more you could possibly say to convey your appreciation of either perspective (in your case 3rd) so stop repeating yourself, go voice your opinion, vote on a poll, support your cause in the appropriate place. Lets be clear here: I like 3rd person; I'm not about removing it, I'm about striking some middle ground between perspectives. There is certainly an issue: in the mod there does seam to be a sense that 1st person isn't a viable option in game and or supported by servers owners and I think most people, including myself and I believe also Rocket would like to see a better balance struck between 1st and 3rd person. By that I mean a couple of things, which were also mentioned in the original post; in that 1st person need a boost and 3rd person need to become more grounded. At the moment: there's a disadvantage to using 1st person almost at all times; what i want to see is a role reversal were 3rd person can be used tactically but allowing 1st person to still be a usable option for players, I think my suggestion allows for both without destroying or removing 3rd person at all.

Yes Standalone is supposed to have an FOV slider but I'd much rather see you being able to change it on the move without having to enter the in-game menu; over-wise there's almost no point in having one because everyone will just use the maximum FOV all the time anyway.

Hence the begging. If you had read my post; you'd have realised this isn't another debate on whether it should go or stay its an actual suggestion on how to change the mechanics of the game to suit DayZ into standalone.

First of all this is an entirely new game; there's no pretenses about what it should be, as is the title of one of Rockets post "Whatever you say it is, it isn’t" The only changes you can expect are based on the opinions of the designer and as Rocket has said a few times; he doesn't want to get rid of 3rd person, (though he would if he felt it necessary) He can however see the benefit of 3rd person but 1st person is still the primary focus. The ideas I have put forward are in my opinion on track with what Rocket wants to see come of DayZ. I have stated my opinion in this post; I have a bias towards keeping both perspectives but I would like to see more emphasis placed on 1st person. So I would expect nothing less from others; than them to push forward their own agenda but this is a place for people who feel its in the interests of the game to discuss new concepts outside of the existing structure. So unless you have some constructive criticism or intend to build on something wrote in this thread then go to a place that wants to campaign against change and support them. There are people from both sides of the table leaving their likes and want here; those completely for removing 3rd person and those completely against even changing it and the only fair honest opinion out of anyone I've seen, are from people who don't have an aversion to either or.

I think you and some others have completely missed out on what the meaning of immersion is; immersion is almost the polar opposite of seeing more of the world, when its more about feeling apart of it. An as we don't have eye suspended above our heads; 1st person id closer to the reality those being more immersible. 3rd person doesn't surround you in immersion; it opens your perspective up makes you more aware. Definition of immersive (of a computer display or system) Generating a three-dimensional image that appears to surround the user.