tolk

Nice come back, really proved your point. I'm out of this one, hope the info was of use OP.

Lol at the rage. ( a ) He never mentions the word "buy" or "buying", he says he's "getting" which doesn't mean he's already bought it, it might be he's decided to buy one but hasn't put the money down yet. ( b ) It's irrelevant, he did ask if his laptop would be any good for this, so I took time to explain how it would perform relative to other options, rather than just spout inane crap like you. Your laptop does not compare to his laptop in anyway other than name. That's like saying "My Jack Russell will fuck up your Rottweiler because they are both dogs". Back to the OP, if you want some evidence of what I've said and you are a reasonable person who will take the time to read and understand, and not assume they are always correct, unlike the **** above: This review has benchmarks for "Stalker Call of Pripyat" running at native on your laptop, which is probably a good comparison to DayZ as its a similar style of game made at a similar time. They got less than 30fps average on medium settings, which isn't great for smooth playability: http://www.trustedre...d-gaming_Page-4 However, as mentioned you can run the game at less than native resolution and get good results as demonstrated below. This is with BF3 running at a lower resolution but with high settings. However you will have to put up with a slightly blurred appearance due to not being at native resolution (this may well not be too noticeable): I stand by what I said before, I think you'll still be happy - its a good machine and will play the game, but just not as good as a dedicated gaming machine would.

Least helpful post. I'm not saying Macs aren't good for gaming, I love Macs and was brought up on them, but some people are just unrealistic with Apple products and can't accept that they are designed for a specific purpose and audience. The retina display Mac in particular won't be a great gaming machine because the display resolution is so high. This is good for photo editing etc. where you don't need results in real time but do care about image quality, but not good for gaming. To put this into perspective, the old mac book resolution required a GPU capable of rendering just over a million pixels, the retina display mac book will need the gpu to render over 5 million pixels if you want to run it at native resolution - it will run on the included chipset, but you'll need something a fair bit beefier (like a desktop GPU) to run the game in high settings at playable frame rates. Having to run a two year old game on a brand new machine at low settings would just be disappointing. You could run the game at a lower resolution than the native display one, but this will make things look blurred and you might find the game would actually look nicer running natively on a lower res screen. If your main use is gaming, I would say don't bother with a Mac as you just make it difficult for yourself and end up paying more than you need to. If you've already bought it/Have other uses for it then don't worry you'll still be happy with your purchase as its a quality piece of hardware.

True to some extent, you can get specific "gaming" laptops that will do a reasonable job. But its border line calling them a laptop unless you like being crushed and having radiated testicles.

Load of people getting Macs only to install bootcamp, so that they can run Windows to play games. Seriously, get a windows laptop and save yourself £1k for equivalent specced machine in the process. The new retina display Mac's screen is nice, but your not going to be running any modernish game at that resolution on a mobile graphics chipset and high settings. So for gaming its not great.

Make it so zombies spawn near user placed buildings (though a few meters outside so they don't spawn inside fences/walls etc., then walk toward it) after a certain amount of time. The more buildings in an area, the closer to existing towns/settlements, and the longer its been there then the more zombies spawn. Would mean bases would only be able to get so big before they would become troublesome to manage, or people would have to pack up bases periodically and move around (which requires a fair bit of resources, vehicles etc.). You could have some placeables as non recoverable, so that moving has a cost to.

Can anyone give me a rough explanation of how zees sense stuff in 1.7? I was sniping a zee yesterday who had a buddy right next to him from about 300-400m. Hit him with a head shot and hid buddy keeps wondering around without having detected me. I snipe his buddy too with a head shot and then all of a sudden about 5 zombies from about twice as far away auto target me and come blazing towards me. Seems funny that the first shot none got alerted, in comparison to the second shot where they were much further away and out of LOS. Anyone else experienced this?

Being remorseless, having no shame etc. etc. wouldn't make you a good survivor. Human have naturally evolved to be survivors, and in our case the average is to cooperate and work together so that we can build resources to survive more easily. If the opposite had been true then during our early evolution, when we were surrounded by many animals far more powerful and dangerous than ourselves with limited to no technology (somewhat analogous to DayZ), we would have all been psychopaths and human society would have turned out very differently. Instead we repeatedly find evidence that humans cooperated and worked together in groups and the ones that didn't... well they mostly died out of our gene pool.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole' date=' but a lot of you really miss the point here. Your character is starving, and in the cold. You will happily go to lengths ingame to rectify this. But anything else that impedes your ability to wantonly murder complete strangers is considered a gamebreaking impediment :huh: killing somebody should be a big deal. it should be a threat to triggering zombies, it should be a threat to wasting ammo, a threat to alerting other bandits, a threat to your own characters mental state. if you think you're going to survive the zombiepocalypse by shagging jack, joe and zeke, then good luck to you! some of us embrace the false hope of possiblities of factions, alliances, trying to re-establishing order, trade, and all of that. that's what the future of the game is pegged on, not just DM. a bit of psychological mindfuckery. not just 'shit, that guy is gonna kill me. may aswell alt-f4' [/quote'] I agree, maybe the solution is to change existing game dynamics so that random murdering without reason is less easy. Make ammo scarcer, make zombies more alert to sounds (though not auto target style) add some element of danger to having to use deadly force. That way people will do it when they need to; for food, water, weapons etc. but avoid it when they don't. You can then still choose to be a bandit and live solely by stealing from others, or you can be the honest man and only ever loot from houses, and anything in-between. I think the main issue at the moment is that killing someone for no reason, not even for looting, is just too easy. There's no tension, drama, only camping in a spot waiting for a newbie to run by you.

Sort of half related to this; if rocket maintains the humanity system it would be a interesting test to change it so that loss/gain of humanity is based on your current state of being. For example. If you are hungry, thirsty, have no food or water in your inventory, ill etc. and you shoot someone for supplies - although I wouldn't consider this a humane act - you may be able to justify your decision in your mind (self survival is your prime objective). So you should loose less humanity. Likewise, if you are hungry, thirsty... and you give your last can of beans to someone else. You should gain a ton of humanity (self sacrifice). I think it would make the system more interesting and dynamic than the static -x for kill survivor +y for kill zee.

Interesting concept, I think it would be quite hard to incorporate something into the game that could fairly represent this. It also doesn't consider group dynamics; i.e. an individual in a group may deem it morally correct to kill an individual of another (or no) group even if they are of the same species, given it promotes the survival and continuation of their own group - the reason behind most wars. Even group dynamics change significantly with group size. Again, all of this would be very hard to represent. Doesn't mean its not worth thinking about though.

I've seen allot of post complaining about the removal of bandit skins meaning that everyone shoots on sight. I thought I'd try to start a positive and possibly helpful for rocket (though I imagine he has his own ideas) given that this is an alpha. So; suggest your ideas for preventing people from shooting on sight. Keep them a reasonable length and realistic (not too much work to implement), and try to list the pros and cons. Here's mine: Everyone is sick: Everyone is infected with the "zombie" disease but survivors carry a different strain. This strain does not zombify them, but as with the normal strain becomes active immediately after death. Exposure to recently killed survivor bodies (looting) increases your sickness level and has side effects (blurred vision, coughing, shaky hands ... take your pick) that get more severe the more contagion you carry. The amount of contagion decreases over time, so if you come across a body you did not kill yourself (likely it has been there some time), you may be ok to loot it. Side sickness decrease slowly over time and side effects can be countered with a rare military level drug (only found in dangerous places) that wear off over time. + Prevents people killing excessively to steal gear + Punishment for self defence kills is optional; you can choose not to loot the body and stay well or risk looting the body for good gear but you may get sick + Bandit play is still possible though more difficult; you either deal with side effects, have to raid dangerous places for drugs, or target well equipped players (more dangerous) who are likely to be carrying the drug - Doesn't discourage killing for fun, only killing for loot - Some people may be annoyed by not being able to safely loot attackers - Bandits become drug addicts

YES - within reason See this thread for suggestions by myself and others, some of the later were quite good/interesting: http://www.dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10906&pid=101853#pid101853

Agreed the title could be better but that's not the point of this thread (seem to have to keep repeating that) its to discuss changes that could expand potential game play' date=' not exclude it. Its meant to be a sandbox after all. Quoting rocket is good, he seems like a smart guy :P, but that particular quote is out of context and as he keeps repeating its an alpha, expect changes. Why not have a go at helping contribute to those? [hr'] http://www.dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=11015 Might as well post here now instead.

Pretty sure hackers killing people in droves (supposedly sometimes entire servers at once) would decrease' date=' not increase expectancy. [/quote'] The difference between the life time of someone killed by a hacker and the average normal life expectancy is probably fairly small. whereas the difference between a hackers life and the average is probably extremely large i.e an outlier. The mean average could be affected significantly depending on this difference and the no. Of hackers.

Agree. I think the problem with this is to do with implementation. I would guess the reason why zees spawn near towns is that the game doesn't track them when there are no players around and instead despawns them to save on resources. I could be wrong though. If this is the case i guess you could workaround by spawning zombies nearby gun shots based on some probability. Nice thought.

I agree completely. Would be nice to come up with an idea that doesn't immediately identify people as one or the other. Hence my original suggestion punishes too much banditry on a personal level but doesn't allow other survivors to identify them on sight. @Handsome interesting idea, has one problem that it prevents people from being able to sneak up on you. Having some kind of sixth sense is an interesting concept though and adds an extra level of realism; we make judgment calls about people at first sight based on appearance, posture etc. Which are usually surprisingly accurate but not always. So maybe adding a degree of randomness would further improve this so you can never be sure if the judgment is 100 percent accurate.

Sorry if you got the impression I was talking down to you, though I find that comment slightly hypocritical (maybe I have misinterpreted too). My point is that I'm not trying to prevent one form of playing. I am trying to encourage new forms of playing. At the moment the game funnels people towards "kill or be killed". It doesn't have to be as discrete as you make it out to be; either all the carebares quit or all the bandit quit. There is a middle ground where you can satisfy both styles to some extent without promoting one or the other. Again, I don't mean to offend but I find your post slightly arrogant because: a) You assume there is no right answer. The truth is two fold. We either don't know the right answer, or you are correct and there is no right answer but there is a "best" answer. b) "Please try to understand this" - I am quite capable of understanding your comments. This statement implies your comments are de facto correct, when they are actually your opinions and obviously differ from mine. Please try to understand this :P Anyway, I do appreciate the feedback. I was really interested in other people's suggestions rather than criticisms.

Please read carefully before posting. You miss the point of this thread; that in real life their are down sides to killing people, which explains why not everyone goes around murdering everyone else. Usually these are psychophysical reason such as maintaining your mental stability. People put in violent situations normally have issues dealing with them (though sometime delayed - i.e. post traumatic stress). In a video game you do not have this level of connection so there is no incentive for someone not to kill someone else. It's not an issue for me on a personal level, I can still choose not to kill someone if I wish. But from the POV of game mechanics, this does not lead to fun, or realistic play in the context of a survival game. Sorry but no end thread for you.

Correction; there's no KNOWN easy realistic solution. Hence the point of this thread - to brainstorm for the best fit. @Tyrog - another very constructive comment, cheers :D

Rocket already said he has plans for the humanity system when he removed Bandit skins, it would be nice to help come up with a solution that compromises for both play styles rather than useless comments like these.