Warped_Jack

I really didn't notice KOS frequency change at all before or after they were implemented, but maybe that's just me.

Beach party turned zombie apocalypse. (Yes I go to the beach in my army surplus gear.)

That's a throwback to the original Arma II engine, where you wouldn't be running from zombies. pun intended.

Here is one more thing with options to try. I don't recall using any in the end, as I did notice a sharp drop in visual quality for little performance boost, your experience may differ. http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/45835-ultimate-guideinformation-thread-to-increase-performance/

I would say start with everything at low or off, running at native resolution. If that runs okay (make sure to check by visiting a city!) then try upping some minor graphical bonuses. I doubt you'll be running with any AA or high shader settings, but anisotropic filtering and some higher texture detail might be fine. Though, if it doesn't run well enough, start decreasing the 3D resolution. I have to say, I do doubt it will run consistently fine except with everything on low. Personally I'd plump for having it run smoothly and look less pretty.

No, no no, it really isn't a terrible pc to run the game. It won't be good, or even necessarily okay all the time, but it will run. I run the game, albeit poorly and in tiny resolution on my old laptop with 2GB RAM, win XP, a dual core 2GHz CPU and only 256GB dedicated graphics memory. A PC with similar specs (Same CPU speed, same RAM amount) running Vista and with a 512GB dedicated gpu card runs things on low, but in a decent resolution. Yes there will be times of choppiness, but most of the time it's fine. That is, unless you've just been using a high end pc and then you'll notice every single minor judder. Though, in fairness firefights are... Interesting. Sometimes fine, but at night, in elektro, not so much. Edited for a billion typos

You'll need a dedicated graphics card, but depending on the make of your laptop, that might not even be possible. Upgrading laptops is annoying, and there is little scope to do so, compared to a pc.

Quite! Anyway... I'll admit right now I didn't read the entire opening post. However to first main points on player skills etc. 1) There already a limited version of this scenario in the game, right now. If you get your leg broken, and neither you, or your aggressor has morphine to fix yourself up, you have exactly the situation you are talking about, but with none of the extra effort to be implemented. Granted, morphine is (fairly) easy to get once you know where/how, so an added layer of complexity might be interesting. But it might also screw people a bit too often. I think your example of needing a medical trained member, a full outfit of proper medical supplies, and to first of all SURVIVE the gunfight in the first place, and then long enough to gather said supplies, could lead to lots of death. I generally like the realism angle, but perhaps there is a limit. (It would be interesting to see how far it can pushed, mind!) and 2) I can never decide about skills. If they're random at player spawn (eg. "You spawned as: The Mechanic! Get bonuses to vehicles!" or "The Medic: Get bonuses to healing" or "The Tramp! Get bonuses to finding food") then the moment you get a group together who find a chopper but don't have a pilot or someone to repair it, someone will suicide and keep doing so, until they get a pilot. (Or whatever they need at the time) If player skills are chosen before spawn, then a group would just make sure they have an even distribution of the "right" skills. The only way I think skills could/should work in this game (if at all) is a passive - subtle - increase. Or an idea I did like was the idea of manuals/books. Having a copy of Helicopter Weekly lets you fly that chopper right away! Find a copy of Top Gear magazine? Get better at fixing cars, making one line quips, and wearing jeans!

I still prefer when there were no bandit/hero skins. You shouldn't judge someone by their skin anyway, you can never know their story by just looking at someone immediately. But, that's a whole other debate so... What the last few posts already said. What you're suggesting is already in game, just a bit buggy at times.

Have my beans for being incredibly unlucky, but being a good sport about it. You inspire me to maybe, possibly, leave a spare tin of beans in a tent one of these days. Also, a mod - ie modification - is just a change/alteration of something already existing. A modified toaster, (Let's say I'll stick some blazing transfers on it, and neon lights on the timer) is still a toaster. Giving my car modified bodywork, still leaves it as a car. (Well, unless I give it good enough wings, then it might be a plane.) That one time I modified my PC, made it a paperweight. I mean uh, made it a better PC. And so - in case you haven't seen where this is going - modifying a game, will probably leave you with, another game. Of course it'd be possible to mod a game into a non-game. Lock out all player interaction except a play button, and it'd be a movie, or something. (But that's not happening in DayZ, so the point is moot, and just a single example of many modifications you could make, which would make it not a game) Point is, saying something is a "mod" is actually nonsense. It is either something new, or a modified version of something old. A modification itself is abstract, and applicable in many ways.

Was dubious, but read anyway. Completely lost interest at East side and West side. All this really does is add team colours, and encourages team deathmatch style gameplay. Which is fine, and already happens... But it isn't universal, and has evolved naturally between already existing clans and servers. Additionally, in the current form where you can't tell friendlies from foes easily, good teamwork and communication is heavily focused upon. Slapping team colours in will eliminate that somewhat. Not to mention it doesn't match the apocalypse setting in any way whatsoever So, no.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein had a cyanide pill option. Initially unbound in the controls, you could set it to any key, use it, and instantly die. I know of no remarks made on this. Granted, being a special agent in the second world war it almost had a reason being there just due to setting, but equivalently, in a zombie apocalypse setting Saving One Bullet is common notion, and wouldn't be odd to include. Anyone who does make a fuss of it would be laughed at by anyone who actually knows what they're talking about (which, let's face it, happens every other week now with video games) and rarely has any long lasting effect. Well, except for the free publicity.

I like the idea, at the very least just for the idea that zombie spawns should be toned down as more zombies are killed in a given area. Right now it's impossible to approach any situation with a sweep and clear attitude. Even a lone barn in the woods, if you go in all guns blazing to mop up the few zombies present to begin with, more keep phantomly coming. It makes no sense! Clearing an area (to an extent) should be an option. However, I think long term settlements and decreased zombie spawn rates in said settlements would be a rare thing to see. Other than the ghosting and other problems you'd have currently, it's often just not interesting enough to settle down for a long period of time in one place, especially up North. ... Though, maybe when combined with the underground bunker idea though, that could change

Oh yeah of course, disregard my previous post. Makes much more sense now!

I'm pro the realistic stance, but that's pretty ridiculous. Considering a ghillie suit does nothing to prevent zombie aggro, and sidearms aren't exactly the best choice for pvp, it renders the ghillie suit's strongest appeal (concealment from players in pvp) slightly void. (And is useless against zombies, where sidearms are most useful) It would still be useful for remaining undetected when spotting, or running around the edge of a town, but on entry you stick out like a sore thumb again, only this time with only a pistol or PDW for protection.