Louis13245

Most other 'half-baked' ideas aren't optional. They're direct changes to gameplay that would be mandatory to all players. There's a difference between a change and a choice to change.

It would make reliance on blood bags heavier, and hence encourage co-op with other players more. Not by much, by something's better then nothing. It's a good idea.

Instead of dropping the radio, why not right click it and scroll down to turn off radio?

I'm not too sure about poison, as there seems to be very little point. Ammo is common enough, though I would agree that having a silent murder would be useful in some situations. I'd think, however, that the poison should last over a period of time, such as blood loss kicking in after an hour or so of gameplay, losing 12000 blood over the course of 6 hours. That way, time enough is given, and the murderer isn't instantly shot on the spot when the victim realizes they've been poisoned. Of course, this removes the use as an immediate kill, but you've got a gun and a hatchet for that. I like the idea of tranquilizer guns though. It would be useless against the infected, but it would be a silent non lethal way of taking out someone. That way you can take down a group without bring noticed.

Maybe the time it takes to build something should be directly proportional to how many people you have working on it. So like a completion bar that fills up as each person works on it. That way, having more people means more structures and faster repairs, hence a more solid community via mechanism rather then punishment.

Would you really describe a human as an apex predator if we couldn't use tools? No. In fact, we kinda suck at everything execept complex manipulation and higher intellegence. Strip away that, and you have a slow clumsy being. Even if humans were augmented by the virus/infection, it would be limited by the original body structure of the host. Not all of them are going to run like Usain Bolt, especially the infected who may of had a couple two many pies during their life. In fact, the fast majority of them don't have the muscular, nor skeletal structure to propel them at the speed seen in the alpha. To be honest, the infected dogs would probably be the apex predator. Humans are not apex predators. Not naturally anyways

I don't see why they would hamstring themselves by limiting the choices that their consumers have available. More variety means a larger fan base and, generally, a more content fan base. I suppose it really depends on your definition of sandbox. I understand that meeting people who you don't know and are likely to kill you is a thrill and a social statement at the same time, but that doesn't mean that it should get in the way of accesability to a wider audience. I honestly believe that with the option of creating a PvE server would lead to more people joining and more people staying. In turn, it means more revenue. It all depends on how popular those PvE servers would be.

I'd like to see the player stripped of everything except a torch. I'd leave the torch in only for viability reasons. The likelihood is, no matter what your situation, most people would get their hand on some sort of light. Maybe give one battery for the torch instead. This way, people who start on night servers don't face impossible odds. At least until the night is toned down to more realistic darknesses.

There's a simpler model for getting people through the door and hooked onto the game. Steam does it quite often. Allow for a trial period of a day or two where anyone can play the game free of charge. If they then wish to continue after the trial period, they pay the full retail price. I'd also speculate that your method of pay by life might also put strain on the number of transactions occuring at one time, as one transaction would be split into what is essentially multiple transactions. Not too sure about that, but its a consideration.

Too many potential issues. Customer support would be flooded with complaints with unfair deaths. There's a reason why no online game that I've heard of runs on a purchase life based system. They are subscription based, true, but not in a way that dieing directly causes the consumer to have to pay more money.Legally it would also be awkward. By purchasing that life, you purchase the right to use that life in whatsoever way you wish. If another person were to kill you, it would essentially be destruction of property. Obviously, it would be stated in the terms and conditions otherwise, but a developer would be opening themselves to no end of trouble. Finally, its a system that punishes newcomers with heavier fees, while giving lower fees to veterans of the game. This in turn would lower revenue as you've increased the barriers to entry for the game. I know that this might not apply to all newcomers, but I've no doubt a significant majority would find that system repellant. People want to know that they're going to get their money's worth when they purcahse something, and this system simply does not allow for that. While it is true that it might add slightly to the game by makeing people value their lives more, the same can be acheived through various other means of addtional content, rather then a outside force of financial commitment.

In the current state, there wouldn't be much of a game left if a PvE server was created. But in future, when the standalone comes out, who is anyone to say what others find interesting or not? You might. I might. Others might not. There's nothing forcing you to play, there would be little negative effects on PvP servers assuming the accounts are kept seperate. If people want to play a game in a way that you consider boring and doesn't affect you personally, just don't play on the PvE servers. People aren't going to trust the opions of another until they've tried it. Expecially if the medium of communication is as anonymous as the internet. Give it a trial run, and if there is enough support for it in the standalone, then leave it there. It's appealing to a wider audience while not alienating the original fan base. Or something like that in marketing terms.

Banditry is important to those that enjoy that aspect of the game. It's also important to make a dilute social statement, but thats beside the point. I'm assuming this is in the standalone version when the zombies are a major threat. Thus it would be a 'I'm really might be eaten by zombies if I don't find people fast' zombie world. I'd believe that a PvE server would encourage people to be more cooperative with each other. Also, I find your pro tip strangely ironic. I wonder if you do too. Meh, it's an option which would function mainly on the idea that there are two seperate accounts for the PvE servers and the PvP servers.

I think that it's a great idea for the standalone game. The concept of being able to identify people and record them for future reference is something I'd been thinking about for a while. But the idea of memory fading on death and the argument that it make life more precious really hit home. If the gear situation is as you claim it to be, then this would make me value the life of my in-game character more. I also really like the idea of photography. I really want to be that person with a camera, crawling around and snapping shots of untoward bandits to share with friends. It'd give another niche gameplay style. To build on it I've got a couple of suggestions: I don't know if it would be possible to implement, but the tagging process should only really be possible if you've got a view of the face. While other features are important, we really remember people by their facial structures. So maybe you can only tag people once you've seen their face for a set period of time. After that you can tag them regardless of whether or not their back is turned, though you still have to have a direct visual. Equally so, to identify someone previously tagged, you have to be able to see their face afterwards, you can identify the person without the face as long as you don't lose sight of him for more then a minute or so. I'd tend to say that face coverings don't stop this identification system for the sake of functionality, but thats really up in the air. The idea of 20m or so with the eye, more with optics still stands though. For photography, the photos should be able to share identities. However, the production of such photos should be difficult. 1. I'd like to believe that all the digital cameras in the world all mysteriously ultra combusted, leaving only cameras that relied on film left. This would make these cameras a lot rarer. Since you need film for these cameras, the film would probably also be pretty rare, with only 5 or so shots per roll. (Unrealistic but maybe these rolls of film have degraded and you use only the usable parts?). 2. Then comes the shooting. Obviously, the light needs to be of a certain level, no idea what that would be but it should be considered. Also the photo needs to be of the person's face, not just the back of the body. Depending on the camera type, there may be little or no zoom, so you might have to get close and personal with your target. Also, since it isn't digital, you can't see the photos until you develop them, so you don't know if you took a good photo or not. 3. Finally, you'd need to develop the film. To do this, you'd need the tools and the chemicals which are consumables and pretty rare. Then, the photos need to be left to develop for a long period of time, say 5 hours or so. Thus a good photo to build up a person's memory of people is a valuable commoditiy which only skilled players with some help can produce. Also, I want to be the paparrazi in a zombie world. That would be pretty neat. You'd probably also need a storage case for the photos, otherwise they degrade. Ultra rare shiny cases with hideously small storage. A reverse TARDIS if you will except without the time-travelling and the Doctor. All of that would probably be hell to implement, but I'd hope to see it in the standalone, if for the sake of a more passive playstyle.

Not bothered if you're a bandit or not. It doesn't change how I'll view your argument. If you avoid other players, you're actions tend to lean towards the creation of a PvE server. After all you are doing the same thing as what the PvE server would enfore, except with more time spent. However, if you enjoy the excitment of outwitting the bandits, fair enough. Some people don't. Let them play in their own server, with their own seperate stats so the PvE server's aren't abused for loot. Removing PvP ruins a large aspect of the game, I admit, but it doesn't destroy the entire game. The other aspect of the game is the zombies which is currently ruined though I do expect it to get progressively better in the standalone. I don't expect to see a PvE server during the alpha stage to be honest, I'd expect it more during the standalone production of DayZ.

Or perhaps after consuming the player auto drops an empty can or tin. Maybe it can have the same fly buzzing as the dead player for some time after being dropped. Frankly, I wouldn't be too worried about the enviroment in a zombie apocalypse, I'd just leave it or reuse it.

So more formal words were used instead of 'participant' and 'creator'. Doesn't change the fact that the mod is in alpha and requires the participants to voice their concerns over certain aspects of the game. True, some may see it as whining or complaining amongst other more unsavoury terms, but it's still an important part of the game's development. Call it a devil's advocate or something. All it requires is for the reader of the post to ignore the negativity and focus on the issues which are very real. You're right with the fact that calling other's 'ass-licker' is uncalled for. But just as a small side note, your wording made me wince. While I respect Rocket for creating the game, claiming that he has done something for a lot of people is a bit over the top. You make it sound like he's changed people's lives for the better. Leave that type of wording for people who actually help others. Instead, something like 'respect for someone who has created a popular innovative game from a old and tempermental game engine in a short time, a greater acheviment than you or I have, or perhaps ever will'. Otherwise, I agree with you on this point.

At this stage in the development, I don't see the reason to have a PvE server as there is little enviroment to fight against. Maybe in the standalone when zombies become less bugged and more of a serious threat, a PvE server would make more sense. If it appeals to a certain type of gamer, then so be it. Claiming that bandits is a central aspect of the game is a viewpoint and a stance on how to play the game. Some people prefer to see the game as a zombie survival game, with a focus on the zombies. Others would prefer to see and combat the more variable aspects of another human player. By allowing both types of servers, you serve the interests of different types of gamers. I don't see how the fact that this is a game affects anything. Some people would prefer to die to the game rather then to another human. Call it pride or whatever you will, it's a matter of personal preference. Allowing the option of no PvP allows both preferences to enjoy the aspect of the game they wish to focus on, be it the zombies or the bandits. Incidentally, 'most' bandits don't camp the coast. This still means that there's a minority that do. Looking at the amount of complaints and considering the large population of the mod, it seems that there's still a significant number of people who do camp the coast.