Freyar

If positive survivors get a "range" of blood at start, and a certain "range" of hunger or thirst too. Meaning, nobody starts out in perfect health with perfect gear. A subtle influence may be acceptable, though it goes against my "deterrent, not punishment" approach.

Perhaps later, but as it is I just save the zip files into ../steam/steamapps/common/arma II operation arrowhead/@dayz/addons/ and just "extract here" anyway. No more difficult than say.. Team Fortress, or even any source mods out there.

This whole thread was made of win with the viscosity of gravy.

Gotta fire off those pellets for some reason, why not for shits and giggles?

There's two sides for sure. On one hand, there are other games out there to satisfy the zombie survival need (and if there's a nuance that they don't.. well, perhaps a few Kickstarter projects might be worth looking at). ARMA II is a small community compared to the likes of World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Left 4 Dead, and others, but that doesn't change the fact that changing the basic ideology behind the survival portion of the game and mechanics (by separating PvP and PvE) is the proper direction to go. You hear of "veteran" World of Warcraft players complaining about how casual the game has gotten. Well, to be fair, there's go tto be something that sates the niche for those types of players.

I hate the first person view because it's restrictive, first person animations are not really that good, and movement feels significantly more sluggish. 'sides, I can't get good screenshots without a third person view.

I thought it represented (temporary) hearing damage as a result of a round passing too close to your head or something.

Getting banned for 30 minutes is counter to what the game is supposed to be. If someone chooses to shoot someone else, that has been said to be a decision that should be available to players. You are punishing while deterring players from taking shots at other players. That said, it would end up with a huge amount of hostile player-to-player actions would become laced with a "do I want to risk being penalized by a meta-system?" No, you completely misread and misinterpreted. Others understand the difference between the words "punishment" and "deterrent", though they are frequently confused for each other. There is a problem, and I understand some people don't like being shot. Fair enough. Banning players, and making aggressive players unable to function like other non-aggressive players is NOT the way to go.

The.. mod is compatible with Steam releases?

No, a reflection of behavior is a good step towards adding a deterrent, though the mechanic should be tweaked some.

Never had a problem with ladders. I just take them very seriously.

Man are you sounding more and more hostile regarding ANY negative criticism of your ideas. Sounds like a bad movie, really. Gene Talmon turns to Bill Everette, "Calm down mate.. you see those zombies? They can smell your fear." My assumption was that the zombies were completely dumb. They don't smell, they detect based on sight and sound. If Rocket's interested in fleshing out his zombie concept, that's all fine and dandy and would probably allow me to accept and piece together some biological and physiological changes that happens to these zombies to begin with. How do you turn this into a deterrent rather than a punishment? One only changes after the fact, one will make that decision to pull the trigger a massive problem for the shooter. Increased auditory detection is certainly one option. Better yet, maybe better visual detection with higher heartrates as a result of combat in combination with the sights and sounds of gunfire that lasts for a small while after shots are fired. You dismiss my aversion as "You like deathmatch" without giving my considerations a second thought. "You're a dumbass for not knowing about pheromones and sweat and things!"

What is this? APB? [/shiftyeyes]

What exactly makes one player that's been around guns, medical supplies, car parts and whatnot more "desirable" to zombies than another? It does pass judgement simply because "You shoot human, you therefore are penalized for doing so" despite the circumstances. Audio needs to be redone I think. As it is rifles don't attract enough attention. (Hell, imagine if a rifle attracted half a city?) Does it impact PvE players, sure.. but it would end up needing to pull up a bit closer which increases risk of detection between players. The zombies are dumb. There, I said it. They're moronic. Even if they were more prone to being set into an alert stage, they're still pretty ineffective, despite dangerous. More in cities, changing when damage applies (IE: before the animation plays as suggested in another thread), and other ideas would work better. If the zombies weren't dumb they'd be more desirable targets, especially if there were something worthwhile on them beyond just an empty tin can. The whole "Rage" system is pretty gamey. I don't see why two different playstyles need to be interpreted by zombies differently. You're meat, the guy shooting at you is meat, only you're standing in front of me shooting in front of my face at the guy shooting you two blocks down. A deterrent would be more preferable to a punishment. Something that would make the act more difficult rather than punishing after.

Watched through the whole set. I learned something this morning, hooray.

Eh.. if you can't deal with the possibility of hostile players, then perhaps this isn't for you. Perhaps you'd be more at home with a system in place that prevents PvP of any kind. Perhaps you want a DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE all together which is not the mod's fault. I mean, work with me here. I play very defensively. If I don't know you, I'm likely to shoot you. What should I have to overcome, or should I have to consider with a greater concern, when that decision becomes mine? For all the "I don't want to play a game that has PvP in it" (because that's what you are saying here), there's been no ground given by YOU in this matter.

I have to ask.. why do you implicitly trust people not to shoot you? It's likely to happen, so why do you ever expose yourself for that option? DC will help this a bit (as I've tried to be nice, but it's certainly bit me in the ass), but in the long run, people are too chaotic to trust unless I know them out-of-game enough. The game doesn't have much in terms of any form of progression. Equipment, health, and survival time are the milestones at which it seems "pure PvE" players try to measure themselves with while those that don't have a problem shooting someone for defense, or (and there are some that see it this way) just for the hell of it have Equipment, Health, Survival Time, and Murders as well. Are you looking to build a fortress? Not really feasible right now. You want to craft something? Not really likely to happen either. You have a few ways to play this. Go from place to place scavenging for things that will help you extend that Survival Timer, or try to get decent equipment, and stay that way. The zombies aren't too interesting-- they're a risk, but they aren't interesting and I'm not too sure that they can manage to be interesting without becoming overpowered and without the possiblity of building better defenses. Frankly, we'll need to wait and see how the other features are put in first. (Sandbags are a step in that direction.)

I like what I see in the OP. I'll be happy to see it included.

I run a bit first if I can to generate some lead time (can happen in town, or if there are hills near by). Once I have enough I'll get up there, but I've never really ended up panicking going up or down a ladder.

When you spawn, it's a clean slate. Should stay that way.

I prefer not having such an easy time to escape. Ladders may buy you some time, but that's all they should buy you.

Nope, they just do it manually.. or at least I have.