dekartz

Have you ever had to stay really still for a really long time? Or even just had your nose itch whilst doing a particularly intense sequence in a video-game. I'm proposing this as a somewhat tentative idea. Occasionally, especially after long periods of motionlessness, your character will randomly scratch. The meat of my idea however, comes from blinking and blurry/watery eyes (and possibly needing eye-protection) This would become prevalent during extended periods of aiming down your sights or using the right-mouse-button zoom. Perhaps a little blurring around the edges of your screen, a bout of flickering for rapid blinking. As the disease system is expanded on, one could potentially spread pink eye because their character rubbed their eye, and touched the can of beans or can-opener he gave you. Thus, you're debilitated with intermittent bits of fuzziness and a searing hatred for the person who gave you pink-eye. Itching as well could be used as symptoms (that the player would definitely take notice of) of some form of disease and/or rash.

Not to mention, that DayZ really isn't the atypical game that one would host a server for. The fact that it touts itself as an MMO however means that (on the public hive) everyone should be playing by the same set of rules. Allowing server owners free-reign of the servers that they chose to and would have to agree to these rules to pay for would undermine this. No one's holding a gun to your head and making you host a server. Wait for private hives and you'll have all the control you want.

http://help.ea.com/en/article/bf3-rules-of-conduct/ That's one.

Also, to further expand upon your BF4 example. Last I checked (BF3) DICE had specific rules for "ranked" servers. As Main-Hive servers are the closest thing Day Z has to "ranked" servers, it's not that radically different.

What validates your feeling of entitlement over theirs? Because you paid money? They paid money for the game, didn't they? Also, in BF4 playing on a server with just your friends doesn't allow you to go onto another server with a significant advantage and then retreat to said server if you "lose" with said advantage to re-gear But yeah, this game has rules as to how you can host your server. Rules that you agree to when you decide to put up your server. Getting upset about the rules after you already agreed to them is silly. And if you don't wish to follow the rules? Then wait for private hives.

Air drop - Almost directly ripped from Rust. Not necessarily a bad idea though Convoy/transport - NPC's (other than zombies) are extremely unlikely and the idea of their implementation is not exactly embraced by the community. Fort -Ditto Heli crash - Was already a thing in the mod. Plane crash - Basically just a heli-crash with more 'stuff'. Ultimately, the ideas already stated by the developer: Making food harder to obtain, base-building (and establishing some form of permanency on a server), and just generally making surviving against the elements more difficult is more likely to cultivate more co-operative play than scripted instances. And never say that something is "impossible" to do alone in a video-game. Unless you make it literally impossible to kill the NPC/Zombies in these events with rounds from one weapon (and even then, dedicated solo-players would just swap back and forth between weapons to clear these events.)

Bohemia isn't in the business of renting/selling servers. They're in the business of making games. And like many games, they've applied a set of rules. If you can't follow them, then you won't be allowed to host a server.

No, because then you could reserve all but one slot on the server, or more than half. Giving your "community" a distinct advantage over those not in it. Even a 50% option would keep a particular clan safe in knowing that HALF the people on a server are in that particular clan. And while I can't assume that you would use this slot reservation feature as what is essentially a means of "pay to win" I can assure you that there are people who would. So as long as your server is connected to the public hive there would HAVE to be limits on how many slots you can reserve. Edit: I find it a little funny that you ask why numbers matter, and then cite the number of dollars you pay for a service. The context is different, but still.

Oh, I'm not saying they wouldn't complain. But it would be easy and simple to dismiss their complaints as being without merit. Plus, 3pp is liek totally cheating.

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/108983-beards/ Everything is coming together nicely.

It would ultimately be the player's choice to join the "Ironman" hives, thus people complaining about it would be quite silly. And they would still be free to create characters on non-"Ironman" servers whilst awaiting their timer to run down.

That covers the itching, but ones eyes watering and vision becoming blurry due to this is mostly an involuntary response. What are your thoughts?

I would be for this if the amount of "reserved" slots could be no more than 10% of the server's capacity. Meaning that on a 40 person server, there would only be "four" reserved slots. And it would work less so in that it kicks people and moreso that in it only lets 36 people who are not on this "reserved" list join.

It would definitely give a consequence to dying besides "I lost my gear". Though I imagine such servers wouldn't get much play.

At first I was going to make a snarky comment about "Without the 1000 vehicles or spawn loadouts" but then I thought better of it. However I do like the "Ironman" mode idea in the sense that if you make a character on the "Ironman" hive and die, you're not allowed to make another character for 24 hours.

Also, all that burlap would make your rifle more absorbent... To diseases and stuff. I'm not implying Mosin is the new quicker-picker-upper.

Because a "Sandbox" game and "High Scores" don't really go hand-in-hand. Also, out of all of your listed playstyles the "Asshole Bandit" seems to be punished for his play-style while others are given something that add to theirs. Punishing one playstyle in favor of another is generally a bad idea in a sandbox game.

I don't think the game or any system within the game should judge a player's morality or perceived morality. I do think that there should be more clothing variation that would help differentiate "bandits" and "heroes". Perhaps make med-packs visible on a character's person. Have the ammo-pouches on some of the assault vests reflect whether someone's fully stocked on ammo or not. Sure, these aren't any clear indicators of anything other than something someone might be carrying and may be more resource intensive, but the more details that can be gleaned from a person by looking at them (IE: If someone's loaded up for an extended gun-fight or if they're a walking ambulance) the more informed decisions a person can make in how they approach a particular situation. Even with just more "regular" clothing options this would be available. For example: It seems to be a popular sentiment amongst the community that anyone wearing the "Payday Masks" is a bandit. Sure, there are people who wear the masks and aren't bandits and there are people who don't wear the masks and who are bandits. But more "aggressive" clothing options are more likely to appeal to someone who wants to intimidate their enemies than others. As would clothing with a bit more specific utility: Vests that specifically hold extra magazines or bandoliers, or wearable medical-kits.

Would there be an inherent risk of infection (like with prison tats) and the potential transfer of blood-borne illnesses? Also, could I knock someone unconscious and brand them? If so, I'm on board.

In a way, DayZ is like/reminds me of/I would hope aspires to be like Dark Souls. Dark Souls is definitely not a game for the casual gamer. It's considered to be one of the most difficult games in recent history, it has very little tutorial, and though it allows co-op it doesn't allow you to plow through the whole game with a friend. In fact, in playing with other friendly players one is forced to allow potential PVP invasions of your world. You can't have one without the other. And while Dark Souls wasn't a game anyone could pick up, it garnered a loyal following and has a sequel coming out this year. It proved a game can be "hardcore" and "successful". This establishes a precedent that DayZ doesn't need to dilute the intended experience for the sake of a group of people who want the game to be something that its developer never envisioned. With DayZ being of a genre and milieu that some might say is far more in demand than that of Dark Souls, it can be argued that Bohemia could see comparable if not greater levels of success by staying true to Rocket's stated ideals rather than by being like "other games" with easy-modes or non-pvp servers or "stable engines" (I say-I say boy that's a joke... And this is a foghorn leghorn reference). And yes, this is a business. But Dark Souls (along with various other games) have proven time and time again that you can have a viable business model without sacrificing the ideals of your creative team. Which is ultimately what adding a non-pvp hive would to do Day Z. In a way, yes I would be harmed by the existence of "PVE" and "PVP" servers. Because no one on either type of server would be playing Day Z anymore... And isn't that what we're all here to do?

That it wouldn't, but it would affect my confidence in the developer of the game.

As someone who has watched people learn to shoot... I disagree. Also, while I admit to having no first-hand experience, the sources of second hand experience I have tell me that shooting (and hitting something/even holding a weapon properly) on a range and shooting (and hitting something-etc) in a situation where your life is on the line are two different things. As someone who had learned (sort of) to shoot. I disagree, I know for a certainty that I could not shoot a .357 with the level of accuracy and speed that I'm capable of in the game, especially the first time I fired one. Admittedly, I could just be a/have been around clumsy/uncoordinated individual(s).

I appreciate the cut of your gib, sir. HAVE BEANS.

It being a separate topic does not negate it being your stated beliefs. Your comments on a particular topic do not exist in a vacuum. Anyway, may I ask what the purpose of the original post was?

I'm willing to admit to the possibility of being wrong. In most circles, this is considered a good trait. hy·poc·ri·syhiˈpäkrisē/noun 1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform Your behavior (namely this thread) does not conform to your stated belief that one should not "come running to the forum" in the event things do not go the way they want in DayZ.