dekartz

I'd say the rate of development has actually been pretty quick. Also, consider that Dean Hall really hasn't been doing much of it (his team, which will still be here has)

He's stepping down from lead developer, but does that mean he won't have some form of advisory position that allows him to give some input towards development while not actively being in charge of it??

With that said, from what I understand it's far more common to see the M4 or M16 being employed in semi-auto than fully-automatic (at least in the ranged battles one often finds themselves in DayZ) and is a damned accurate weapon (especially for a semi-automatic rifle). It would be nice to have the option of switching my M4 over to semi-auto and engaging targets out to 400 (about the best I can do with iron-sights in Arma II) that, or include an AR-15 which would be locked to semi-auto and have (some) interchangeable parts with the M4.

And I'd argue that the M4 being better than the Mosin at close-range is the closest thing to "weapon-balancing" in the game. Further "nerfing" of the M4 would make it essentially useless.

The mosin has a lot more power than the M4 and is far more accurate than the M4. The only advantage the M4 has is the amount of fire it can put down (inaccurately). If you had stayed calm, lined up your sights, and took your shot you likely would've killed the guy spraying at you without taking a hit. But no. Everyone who says anything different to you is defending their "crutch" weapon (even though there's an almost unanimous preference for the Mosin amongst those replying) and your death can't possibly be your fault

This is more an idea for stand-alone but after the first day and every day you survive afterwards (or it could be broken up into increments of five or ten) your survivor/bandit/goodguy grows a beard(even female models). As days pass the beard grows longer. A means of identifying a grizzled survivor would be the owls nesting in his beard (available after 100 days). It would also be one of the ways to differentiate your friend from the bandit who happens to be dressed exactly like him. That said, I imagine that some people won't like walking around as bearded woodsmen of the apocalypse, for them shaving kits would be introduced into the spawn-tables, making it so they can disguise their days of survival behind the fresh clean-shaven face of noobery.

Where did he make an Ad-hominem attack? In stating that you made one?

Well there you go. That's why you don't have friendly interactions. Not because there aren't any safe zones.

The whole point of an apocalyptic game is that civil order has collapsed. If you want civil order in an apocalyptic game, (which is a contradictory idea in itself) Enforce it yourself.

"Your Story" applies to everyone. Meaning that everyone is free to choose what to do and how to do it within the game. Zombie movies are purpose-built narratives, they lack the random element of this game because they're one person or one group of people's perspective and narrative. Also, almost every zombie movie and series tends to have human antagonists. With the zombies providing a backdrop/setting rather than being the primary antagonist.

Incentive is largely subjective. For some people, friendly chat is in itself incentive.

That's no more empirical evidence than the videos are.

Lets break this down now. Does camo work on zombies? No. Does one need a fully kitted rifle to kill zombies? No. Does camo work on people? Sometimes Does one need a fully kitted rifle to kill people? Admittedly no. Is someone with a fully kitted rifle more threat to someone without one than a zombie is? Yes You show up looking like a threat, people are going to take you as a threat. And of course you have those with the "To hell with it" mentality who will attack you for the chance of getting your gear. Does the fact that people are attacked preclude the fact that there are friendly interactions? I wouldn't think so.

Wait. So the opposition's logic here is, that 90% of players aren't friendly. So we should make safe zones to protect that 10% and force the 90% to be nice to them? So what you're saying is that the design-path of the game should change to cater to what is (by your own statistics) a vast minority within the game. That makes your request sound even MORE selfish: "Despite the fact that most players play this way. I want this in here so I can play my way."

I live in New York. I'd say about 7/10 times if I approached a random person with conversation, I'd at the very least be ignored, though more than likely that person would make it clear they don't want to speak to me and try to shoo me away. That's in a society with rules and consequences. Meaning that this person isn't constantly fearing for their life nor are they (likely) armed. When shit hits the fan. People get jumpy. Strangers are already something that make people jumpy. Jumpy armed people tend to kill people.

That's a distinct lack of trust on your part. Clearly, there are like-minded individuals here who wish to have "safe zones". Instead of asking Dean and the dev team to do it for you, I'm simply suggesting you do it yourself. It'll be hard It'll be frustrating It'll be far more authentic than if one just magically pops up in a patch.

That's a failing of the zombies to provide a threat. That doesn't mean that there should be safe zones where guns don't work. Also, if there really was a zombie apocalypse, people would be killing each other for all sorts of reasons. Chief amongst which is fear, fear of strangers would definitely coincide with a "KOS mentality" Furthermore, ad-hominem attacks aren't really necessary. I'm being civil, I would appreciate that you at least attempt to do the same.

And there are positive social interactions within the current iteration of DayZ. To say there isn't is just flat-out wrong. Or you're calling everyone who's claimed to have a friendly interaction a liar.

Stalker's a singleplayer game. L4D is a purely co-op game. Dead Space is a single player game. None of these games are sandboxes nor would design conventions for them apply to DayZ. And in most zombie movies and/or shows. Those "safe" places turn out to not be that safe.

1. It's funny you facepalm. Because that's a slightly modified quote from Dean Hall. So yeah, you may be in the wrong place here. 2. Yeah, that's a possibility. Or it's a legitimate safe zone. That has far more chances for emergent gameplay than the engine-enforced safety of this "barter-town". You could bring the player-run safezone down with mere misinformation rather than directly assaulting it and there would always be that element of "this might just be a trap."

Ah. So basically, the game should change because this isn't how you think the apocalypse would go? That's rather conceited.

Arguably, in it's current state you can make a safe zone in DayZ. Here are the steps. 1. Take a small-moderate sized town. 2. Clear zombies from said down. 3. Clear loot from said town. 4. Set up sentries and/or patrols to protect said town. 5. Using Pen + Paper, write rules for the town. 6. Enforce rules for town. 7. Repeat upon server restart.

Exchange Dark Souls with DayZ.

I think the current path does provide a place for safe-zones. You make a base. You declare it a safe zone for newbies You police that safety or it devolves down into chaos. Those experienced players didn't become experienced players by accident. If someone decides they want to educate newbies, that's fine, and if they don't that's on them. But as it stands, all the tools to facilitate this are already in the game. Plus, I (personally) think it's better that new players learn the game on their own (with all the deaths and frustration that come with that) so they're better prepared for the day that they lose everything because they got outsmarted.