Zetal

If you're using a timer for 'unable to fight' it should be separate from the current one so that people in pain can still use ingame chat.

<3 this system. I'm surprised it only has us 3 commenting on it lol

I definitely like it. =) @Hitboxes: These are generally quite manageable in most systems, and Arma already seems to have a basic one built in, ie headshots, broken legs, etc. It simply needs some polishing and additions, and I believe we'd quickly be on track for a much more authentic game. On the 1 in a million chance that Rocket actually reads this... Well, I'd like to think you could make up your own mind on these kinds of things, but for clarity: Include this!!

I would much prefer the blood loss magnitude system you propose. On Organs: If you're implementing limb damage, such as Arms + legs, then (in my brief experience making games- I'm not familiar with the Arma engine) it's only a few more short steps to add more hitboxes for 'organs' that are placed inside players bodies. Alternatively, the game could simply detect 'torso' shots, and then randomize a chance for an organ hit, I guess.

I understand that this is a very controversial topic, and many people approach it in a very explosive manner. However, I feel that it needs to be discussed anyway, since I don't think (no search results) this was suggested before. I suppose we'll see if anyone proves me wrong. xD On to the core topic at hand, I believe it would be prudent to allow for a trade-in of Arma 2 in order to receive the Standalone copy of Day Z for free, or at a discount. I sincerely doubt that the 'free' option would ever occur, since monetary gain is still the driving force behind large game companies creations, but I don't think a large discount would be entirely unwarranted. There's many different opinions on the following, but for this topic, it needs to be stated: A huge number of people purchased Arma 2 explicitly FOR DayZ, or with DayZ in mind. Myself, and 5 friends, are among this group. We've tried Arma 2, and I'm not going to say it's 'bad', but it's definitely not our type of game for reasons that we don't need to go into. The point here is that we do not enjoy Arma 2, and, therefore, purchased DayZ, not Arma 2. I know people will disagree, but regardless of any technical terms, this is how we see it. I know Rocket nor Bohemia has any sort of responsibility to deal with this, but considering that a large majority of their recent purchases were for DayZ, it would be great for public image to offer, at least, a discount in exchange for their purchased copy of Arma 2. In this way, standalone DayZ would be like a 'patch'. Thoughts? Please try to keep discussion on DayZ pricing, and not on Arma 2. Ciao.

So, I just want to clarify- would weapons still cause an instantaneous loss of blood, or simply trigger bleeding? If so, then I'm all for it. Would be more realistic, and make medical aid more useful. One question, though: does this system ignore organ shots?

Perhaps that is a valid point of view for someone who purchased arma 2 for arma 2, but in the case of many of my friends, its much more like purchasing an early alpha version of nhl, then being told that I would need to pay again to access the full content. I understand this is not the case, as legally speaking, I purchased arma 2 and not dayz, but personally speaking, I knew I would not enjoy arma 2 when I was buying it. Ciao!

It would be nice if we did have as much time as you say, but most recently, I think rocket has said he expects standalone, if he gets the rights, by the end of the year. Also, @trolls: I said nothing about feeling entitled, and even went so far as to acknowledge that BIS is not required to provide a discount. I simply believe doing so, in the $10 range, would score a lot of brownie points with dayz fans. I understood dayz was in alpha when I purchased it, but I had no way to know I would need to purchase it again later at the time, as standalone had not begun being discussed yet. If I had known that development would not continue on arma 2, it would have been more safe to simply save the money and wait, no? Thanks for reading. Ciao!

Do you guys think the primary slotted bag would go well with a 'Defibrillator' secondary weapon idea?

1st person already has peripheral vision built in, and the arma manual admitted that it was the more realistic option. Please stick to legitimate arguments, not this FOV crap. It's overkill, even if the FoV is wrong. That's like saying that no water should be consumed when we drink from a canteen at all, because we shouldn't consume the entire canteen. It's too much. 1st should just have a small FOV increase, and have headbob disabled. Simple, easy, clean, and most importantly, fair. Also, just for the record, DayZ is a self-proclaimed 'anti-game', not a game. Rocket doesn't care about your sensitive eyes, he wants realism. Or, that's what I expect that he wants. Who knows, I guess. =\ Giving servers different option choices is an awful idea for gathering data, especially since there are so many 3rd person servers compared to 1st only. I'd love to play on 1st only, but there's only like 3 with decent ping, and 2 are out of date. Awesome.

We're trying. ;) It's on the 'To Be Implemented' list. Day Z does pursue realism, and it will continue to do so, I think, even to the point of possibly turning players off from the experience. As Rocket has stated multiple times, Day Z is not a game, it's an 'anti-game' that is an experiment in human behavior. Realism should be pursued, no matter what. In realism terms, having an island safehaven that hasn't been obliterated multiple times over either by the spread of infection or by desperate bandits is unrealistic. In gameplay terms, having a safehaven would ruin the feel of desperation that currently permeates the servers, and, in fact, devalue anything that the players can accomplish, since "Well, the NPC's can do it too.." It's really just not fun, and unimmersive.

I think that eating your own food should not increase humanity, but sharing it is something that is "Out of the way" for most players, and more logical to increasing humanity. I'm not sure how hard that would be to track, though.

It's so great to have a suggestion OP with a brain that treats feedback logically. =D

There does seem to be quite a lot of confusion regarding what you're talking about, hm? You may want to consider adding a 'disclaimer' at the top of the OP to avoid this kind of thing. xD To let people know that directly linking players to zombie spawns isn't what you want, you know? Anyway yea, Player A spawning zombies should be avoided. Server A spawning zombies, your idea, is great. =) (btw, I don't think any given server will become too completely overrun- remember, KILLING zombies increases humanity already. Not as much, but it's an ambient event that could help save a town, and gives meaning to killing the zeds)

Ah, good point. Well, in that case, I see no reason not to implement this. =)

One thing I'm worried about, though, is the technical aspect of this suggestion. Keeping track of constant server additions (ie whenever anyone loots, kills a zombie, or anything else) might be a strain. Does anyone know whether the Hive already collects this data, or not?

Side/Global Chat was far too immersion-breaking. http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/54090-failure-to-communicateparanoid-deathmatch/page__hl__shout This is much better. =P

This is one of those unique ideas that would actually fit with Day Z. It doesn't limit players, or even really affect the ones that take the actions, it affects the world. I think that successfully starts to mold the 'player driven world' that Rocket wanted. +1

We should really just let this drop off the front page. If everyone would kindly stop posting... xD (wait, crap..I'm about to. Oh well.)

So hey guys, I've been in the Suggestions forums for a few weeks now, and I've seen a lot of great suggestions, some downright terrible ones, and a lot inbetween, but I still consistently see very similar errors in this forum. Does this look familiar? Person A: "Fix the bugs and hackers!" Person B: "It's an alpha bro, add features, then fix bugs in beta!" While Person A's very brief and ignorant reply isn't exactly useful, it is, in fact, true. Now, before everyone grabs their pitchforks, let me explain. In the normal Alpha stages of development, a game does undergo very rapid expansion of features, ignoring the aftermath of what is produced. However, in this case and many others, this is a publicly available Alpha. Rocket himself has stated that he is interested in collecting Data from the Hive on multiple occasions. In a public alpha, it's general practice and, also, in Rocket's best interest to iron out bugs and hacks to create a more usable testing and data gathering environment. To sum it up, (tl;dr)

Complaining about bugs is unacceptable, I agree. However, creating topics that suggest methods of fixing, working around, or changing an exploit is not unacceptable, and never will be. Yes, people repeating topics because of their refusal to use the search bar is annoying, but that's a separate topic entirely. If people believe they have an original idea for fixing a bug, "It's an Alpha" should not be a legitimate argument against it.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Badjr. I did not mean "deal with the bugs" to mean "fix the bugs." It was more meant as a way of saying "Suck it up." You know? As well, this post isn't meant for Rocket, not directly. It's meant for everyone giving suggestions. The hope is that a more informed group of suggesters will be a more effective group of suggesters.

I very rarely see the situation you're referencing. Maybe once in a blue moon, but very rarely nontheless. The one I described seems to be much more common, in that someone suggests a feature that would attempt to solve a given bug or exploit, and everyone says "It's an alpha, deal with the bugs."

No thoughts on this? Not even a single view?

The only way this could ever occur is if Nighttime servers were "Worth it" so to speak. Increased loot drops, decreased zeds, more vehicles...something to make nighttime servers more viable for players, rather than "Yup, I can't see unless I make myself a giant target with a road flare. Better switch servers."