mooncabbage

If anything, the game isn't harsh enough. Afterall, if you've got mates nice enough to stick around and guard your body, you can run back and pick up your crap, no harm no foul.

The number of skins loaded is going to be a client side bottleneck, not server side. And most of the skins are already used for zombies. So it's not worth worrying about, performance wise.

Another problem is that with a limited number of spawning locations, it's all too easy for bandits to set up camps around places they KNOW you'll be.

Most of us need chemlights, flares, and other dumb shit, because even on bright moonlit nights, you can't see a godamn thing, unless you turn your gamma all the way up, like a fucking dick, and that doesn't work for everyone anyway. Infact, the reason nights are so dark is apparently because of assholes turning their gamma up.

Some people seem to want a Stalker MMO. Don't they know they're already making one of those?

Plus, there is a "Bad Suggestion" thread already.

I'd say an unlimited amount, since its lootable by all, and loosable by the player. Like tents it could disappear 2 days after a character dies.

You could just get a rocket launcher and blow the damn thing up. Or throw a grenade through the window.

I agree the crossbow needs work. I think there was already one in the base game, and so it's not like it was designed to be bad by rocket. Modifying it much might require a lot of work. The way I see it, every weapon in DayZ exists on some scale from Survivor to Bandit. Bandit weapons tend to be better at killing players, and typically have longer range, higher rates of fire, that sort of thing. Survivor weapons are quieter, shorter ranged, and have more plentiful ammo. A weapon that's useful for surviving against zombies, is going to be less effective against players. Take for example the CZ. It's your entry level bandit weapon. It's ridiculously loud and very difficult to use close up, making it absolutely terrible for disposing of zombies. On the other hand, you can take out other players long before they can even see you. The winchester is sort of in between. It has good range and accuracy, it's reasonably quiet, and the ammunition is abundant. It's not TERRIBLY effective against players, but you could defend yourself against bandits with it if you needed to. I think the crossbow is probably the ideal Pure Survivor weapon. It's quiet vs zombies, the ammunition is recoverable, and it does a reasonable amount of damage. Coupled with a good sidearm for when SHTF, a box of matches and a hunting knife, you need never visit a town again. However your chances vs a bandit are somewhere between squat and diddly. The point is, it's important to maintain this balance. A crossbow bolt is probably comparable in size to a magazine for some guns, if you laid the bullets end to end. Also, I don't think quivers would work with the bolt recovery mechanic. Given that it's never going to reach out and tap you at 500m though, I can see it being given a decent hunting scope, without upsetting the survivor vs bandit balance.

Or you could just remember. That way the cache only has to have on set of world coordinates. Anyone who gets close enough would have opening the cache come up as an option in their scolly menu.

I don't mind looting hiding spots, so long as they are server specific and lootable. That way people can take your stuff. Otherwise it's too carebear.

It makes sense to make 9mm pistols more common though. Atleast the basic beretta. They're very common sporting pistols, from what I understand. A standard glock makes sense too.

A lot of people are complaining that it's too hard to start at night. Part of that I think comes down to the difficulty in using flares. They're TOO bright, you can't carry them or you'll be killed, by zombies or players. Perhaps some of that might be alleviated if instead players started with a random pack of chemlights. Pro: New players will be able to get around without insta-agroing every zombie in the world (I was told chemlights don't aggro zombies). Con: Potentially more PKing, since chemlights are better loot than road flares, although I can't imagine it'd make that much difference as players already start with beans, and people kill them just for that.

I don't disagree with you, it's probably too easy to die from gunshots at the moment. I'd say that's a holdover from ArmA proper, where the second shot will kill you, if the first one didn't. My point is, the correct way to fix it is to adapt the wound/blood mechanic, NOT to add resurrection. Gunshot wounds should be debilitating, life threatening, but not instantly lethal. The reason they probably are is because being wounded isn't really a useful mechanic in core arma. It comes down to a balance between too low a chance of saving yourself, or being saved, and shooting being ineffective. I'd be annoyed if I shot someone, and they shot me back. Perhaps if when taking a large amount of blood loss, you became blinded by your pain (screen whites out and fades back to colour), then it might be acceptable to have guns be less lethal. Perhaps a large calibre gun like an AK or an Enfield could do 6000 blood from a body shot, plus some bleeding. A lot of stuff was stripped out of the ArmA2 medical system deliberately by rocket, including the ability to revive players who were seriously wounded. You could also pick up wounded players, or drag them. I would suggest that some of that stuff could be added back in, like the ability to carry and drag players, and the wounded animation (seriously wounded troups would lie on their back and writhe around a bit), could be added back for players with blood <2000. And if you're dead, you're still dead.

Lol, that. Exactly that. Although it'll be more difficult to pass that kind of information on once global chat is gone. And like Pandejo said, there is no obligation to be in Cherno or Elektro. Everyone knows to avoid the major cities in a zombie apocalypse anyway. Additionally, it should be taken for granted that you will die atleast once as a noob before you start to "get it". If you can't handle that, this is not the game for you, and better you find out early than when you've crawled for hours on your belly to Stary Sabor to get an AK.

It took me hours to find a hunting knife and matches. It wasn't a PITA, it was an objective. In a sandbox game, you need a goal, without it, there is no game. Plus I can't see how a tiny little tin of spam is going to be any more nutritious than a tin of beans, or frank and beans, or spaghetti. Tinned soup might be fun though. Just be glad you don't have to find a tin opener to eat canned food.

You could buy the game on a second steam account, that might work. I disagree about multiple user accounts though. In the future I'd like to see your GUID tied to an account you can't easily change the name on. It's too easy right now for bandits to change their names to avoid a bad reputation and revenge, especially now the bandit skins are gone.

I think there are already enough negative effects for low blood. And this has been suggested elsewhere.

I don't want to see TOO much basebuilding stuff added. DayZ is a sandbox, but that doesn't make it minecraft. Some kind of limited basebuilding system would be great though. I propose an alternative degradation system for placed structures. Two basic, similar options: 1) Structures will despawn if a player has not been within x radius of them in y period of time. For example if I put up a wall of sandbags, and noone comes near it within say 60 minutes, it despawns. This way, other people can take your fort and use it, and it's also less complex than having to remember who owns what, server side. 2) Structures have health, which decreases when noone is nearby, and increases when people are nearby. If it reaches 0, the item has not been properly maintained and succumbs to the elements, despawning.

Thanks for your considered reply HardTarget. As it is, the idea behind the blood system does everything people in this thread seem to want, without allowing magical resurrection. If you do die in game, it's because you've taken a lethal gunshot wound, or been torn apart and eaten by zombies. Anything more than 0 blood, and you are not dead. Your friends can bandage you, they can give you blood packs, etc, and nurse you back to health. Defibrillators and other tools are not required for the system to work. What you could add, is the ability to carry a severely wounded friend to safety, or drag him while holding a pistol. I believe all the animations are already there in ArmA2. Also I don't think gunshots are integrated into the blood system, which could be causing some of the problems. If a gunshot did a certain amount of instant blood loss, + x bleeding per second, it would work better with the existing health system. I don't know, maybe it does that, I've never been shot and lived long enough to find out. I believe that's the correct direction to move in, not this. Not resurrecting the dead. Even if it's possible in the arma engine, it's so.... BF2. It's not realistic that a pair of paddles are going to heal your gunshot wounds and trauma. So not just no, HELL no.

I like the idea of variable length chem lights. Some of those last 12 hours. They'd be a great way to mark a trail for a friend to follow, or to lure curious survivors into a trap (assuming you can place them down, I haven't tried my chemlights yet).

It's really just a variation on the already broken bandit system. Visual queues don't work. The fact is, it's too hard for the game to tell the difference between a griefer, a player who kills from need, and a player who kills in self defence. I propose an alternative system. Get a piece of paper and a pen, and keep it next to you when you play. When someone kills you, or someone else, or uses VoIP in a public channel, write their name down. If you see them, kill them.

Everyone should start the same, or atleast have the same chance to get any gear, regardless of humanity level. You're on the right track, with incentivising cooperation rather than punishing banditry though. The more there is to do in the game, the less people will turn to banditry out of boredom, which is really the problem anyway. As it is, you already benefit from cooperation when it comes to building bases, building vehicles, and gathering supplies, as well as fighting off hostiles. More activities like this would encourage greater cooperation. I had thought that maybe more variable starting equipment might encourage cooperation, like, my map and your compass kind of deal, but when I thought about it, I realised it'd probably just lead to more spawn area PKing. Also remember that cooperation and banditry are not mutually exclusive. I can play with 4 or 5 friends, cooperate, build a car, fortify a forest hilltop, and STILL murder you and all your mates. Infact, it'll be easier, because I'll have backup. The point isn't to eliminate the PvP element, it's to eliminate the SENSELESS PvP element, people killing other players not for their equipment, but simply because they aren't used to sandbox games and can't think of anything else to do.

Well, I wouldn't want to START at night time, but daytime is certainly more bandit friendly. You have to be real careful when and how you move.

Argh no drugs. The game would be banned in Australia faster than a DayZ zombie can chew your face off. Because noone over 15 plays games and drugs are bad mk.