Bal Sofs Tihl

I knew it! I needed one can of food in order to log out last night and I searched every single building in Electro' date=' but did not find anything. The general store had some ridiculous amount of guns, like 4 Makarovs, 3 revolvers and a Lee Enfield, but no food. Oh, what sweetness.

Yeah, I agree, but I don't think rocket does.

No, it is not the same. Zombies are reanimated corpses. If it is not a reanimated corpse, it is not a zombie. It is not the same, it just is not important. But it's not the same.

Zombies are reanimated corpses. Whether they are fast or slow or dumb or smart or whatever. A reanimated corpse is a zombie. This game has people who are infected, like in 28 Days Later. The name should be changed, yeah, but whatchyagonnado?

Yeah, there are no zombies in this game. I do not even know why it is called DayZ. Fast or slow, zombies are reanimated corpses. DayZ has people who are infected like in 28 Days Later. Not zombies. That probably should not bother me so much, but it does.

So, it seems like different people think DayZ is one of two different types of games. Some think it is a persistent, open-world, free-for-all first-person shooter, with a survival-horror setting. Some think it is a persistent, open-world survival-horror game with free-for-all PvP. These are very different. It seems to me that rocket wants to make the latter. I hope that is the case, because that is the game I would prefer. People who just want to group up and fight each other in a persistent world might have to find another game. Maybe they could even work it off of DayZ. Just call it "Day".

This has been suggested many times and it is still the single worst idea anyone has ever had about anything ever. You should feel bad for suggesting it.

Better idea: less weapons and less ammunition. Shooting at someone and missing should make you feel like you just got shot, yourself. Make people think before they shoot. Why is it that I can find thousands of dollars worth of guns and ammo in 2 hours, but am lucky to find one map or a single box of matches? Less guns. Less ammo. Less deathmatching. More survival. More authenticity. More fun.

YES Add slow melee attacks to knife/ax. Spawn with one of those instead. Make overall weapon/ammo spawn much rarer.

This is what happens when Reddit finds out about something. It gets rapey, homophobic and gay all at the same same time.

In efforts to curb consquence-free killing, it seems most people are resorting to artificially punishing players. This is bad. No one should be punished for doing the things they want and an artifical system for identifying bandits does not really fit this game, as has already beed discovered. You also do not want to limit the freedom for players to do what they want. This is supposed to be more a simulation than a game; so, things like artificially enforced safe-zones do not fit and are super lame. The preferable alternative is to incentivize and reward other playstyles. The rewards for killing on sight are obvious and lucrative. Grouping and cooperation do have benefits, but they are far outweighed by those of excessive banditry. Realism being a paramount objective in DayZ makes artificial gameplay mechanics undesirable. In the name of simulation, it can be argued that players should simply play in a more realistic fasion, regardless of game mechanics. Anyone who has been on the internet at any time ever knows this will not work. The majority of players will always maximize their gain and advantage as far as gameplay mechanics allow at the expense of immersion or role-playing. So, the goal should be to find some realistic, natural way to incentivize group play and cooperation to the point where the benefits in gameplay mechanics are competative to those of banditry. In this thread, D3lit3 suggested an idea where players are given a stat bonus when in proximity to other players. That thread is about other stuff, as well, and I think that this possible game mechanic should have a discussion all its own. So, lets evaluate this idea. First, realism: does real-life provide parallels that would justify this sort of game mechanic? I posted some of this information in the above mentioned thread: Negative effects of isolation. Social Isolation May Have A Negative Effect On Intellectual Abilities "After controlling for a wide range of demographic variables, including age, education, race/ethnicity, gender, marital status and income, as well as for physical health and depression, the researchers looked at the connection between frequency of social contact and level of mental function on the mini-mental exam. The higher the level of participants' social interaction, researchers found, the better their cognitive functioning. This relationship was reliable for all age groups, from the youngest through the oldest. " In a second experiment: "We found that short-term social interaction lasting for just 10 minutes boosted participants' intellectual performance as much as engaging in so-called 'intellectual' activities for the same amount of time," Social Isolation Kills, But How and Why? "Social isolation has been shown repeatedly to prospectively predict mortality and serious morbidity both in general population samples (2) and in individuals with established morbidity (3, 4), especially coronary heart disease (1). The magnitude of risk associated with social isolation is comparable with that of cigarette smoking and other major biomedical and psychosocial risk factors." Yes! Social interaction could be used to realistically incentivize cooperation and group play. There is real-life, scientific evidence supporting this type of game mechanic. Players do not feel the psychological effects of their DayZ life because they (hopefully) get all the social interaction they need to maintain their health when they log off. This is comparible to having having a character's blood regenerate when the player is logged-off and it is undesirable. Incentivizing social interaction would not only provide a manner in which to promote group play and cooperation, but it would even make the game more realistic. Now, we proceed onto the next part: balancing. The benefits need to be competative with the benefits of outright banditry. Current advantages to group play should be factored in when determing the impact of this game mechanic. The goal is to make this bonus as minimal as possible while still being effective. As mentioned above: "Social isolation has been shown repeatedly to prospectively predict mortality and serious morbidity both in general population samples (2) and in individuals with established morbidity (3, 4), especially coronary heart disease (1). The magnitude of risk associated with social isolation is comparable with that of cigarette smoking and other major biomedical and psychosocial risk factors." This provides a real-life parellel within which a bonus can be worked: health. The health management system in DayZ provides many avenues for explotation in designing this mechanic. Here are some quick and dirty brainstormed ideas: When in the proximity of other players: *Eating restores more blood *Characters stay full and hydrated longer *Effects of fatigue (hand shaking, etc.) are reduced *Effects of pain are reduced. *Effects of low-blood are reduced *Effects of low temperature are reduced *Character loses temperature slower *Temperature regenerates *Character movement speed is increased Obviously, some of those ideas are better than others and all or any that get used would have to be carefully balanced in order to achieve the desired results. The other link I posted also mentioned that socialization can have cognitive benefits. I do not have any ideas on how this effect could be simulated. In fact, simulation might not be necessary at all, as the real-life effect could possibly be seen in players' brain naturally by grouping. This is just the very begining of an idea. However, it meets criteria for a realistic and unintrusive gameplay mechanic which could add another layer of sophistication to the game and improve the environment of consequence-free killing without punishing anyone for how they choose to play or limiting a player's freedom to choose.

Making the infected more of a threat is definitely something that I agree could help promote cooperation. Firing a gun should be a weighty decision, because you know the human will not be the only problem you have to deal with.

That is great to hear. I am not opposed to having only headshots be one-hit-kills, but for that to be feasible, the crossbow needs improvements. I am hoping the incoming update is successful.

I like this idea. I think the current infected spawning mechanic is probably to simulate fully populated cities. The servers couldn't handle just having that many infected present all at once, so it keeps re-spawning them. This provides the same effect without requiring insane hardware to run it on. However, having infected pop into existence right in front of you is kind of silly. Having them spawn a small ways off or maybe inside an empty building or maybe even give them an animation so that it looks like they are coming out of the ground...or something, haha. Anything would be better than their current magic act. Also, combine this with more dangerous infected. I think they are too easy to kill and don't cause enough damage and have too low a chance of causing an infection (infected can do this, right?) Increasing the threat from infected would improve this game significantly.

So, I was trying to walk through a door and was having some trouble. I managed to wiggle through, eventually, then went prone because zombies. That took half my blood and broke my legs. Is there a way to avoid this? Do I just need to be further from the building or something? This is the second time this has happened in this same life.

I think punishing people for their playstyle should be avoided. Negative effects for killing would be bad. However, rewarding people for their playstyle is good. Killing everyone you see already has ample rewards. That much is obvious. Adding competing incentives to group play is really the way to go.

No. The game is supposed to be immersive' date=' disconnecting character's psyche from player's own pretty much ruins the immersion. Any artificial effects/incentives are to be removed or denied. [/quote'] Except you can just log out and get all the social interaction you need. That is like if logging out restored your health. Simulating the psychological benefits of social interaction would make up for this short coming in the simulation, while promoting teamwork and making people less likely to shoot everyone they see as soon as they see them. Win-win. This game is supposed to be a simulation. This is an aspect of real life that could be incorporated to both boost realism and improve gameplay. I am not surprised that a "lol WoW" person would be unable to understand that.

Social Isolation May Have A Negative Effect On Intellectual Abilities "After controlling for a wide range of demographic variables, including age, education, race/ethnicity, gender, marital status and income, as well as for physical health and depression, the researchers looked at the connection between frequency of social contact and level of mental function on the mini-mental exam. The higher the level of participants' social interaction, researchers found, the better their cognitive functioning. This relationship was reliable for all age groups, from the youngest through the oldest. " In a second experiment: "We found that short-term social interaction lasting for just 10 minutes boosted participants' intellectual performance as much as engaging in so-called 'intellectual' activities for the same amount of time," Social Isolation Kills, But How and Why? "Social isolation has been shown repeatedly to prospectively predict mortality and serious morbidity both in general population samples (2) and in individuals with established morbidity (3, 4), especially coronary heart disease (1). The magnitude of risk associated with social isolation is comparable with that of cigarette smoking and other major biomedical and psychosocial risk factors."

Negative effects of isolation. It would fit right in with the desire for realism in this game.

Wow, that #2 suggestion is actually pretty tits. You could even implement an entire "morale" stat that is effected by your interactions with other people. Could make it give bonuses to other things besides just health as well.

"Underarm? LOL GIRLS!" The next Mark Twain.

The problem is that, in real life, you would spend most nights sleeping. A realistic passage of time would work great in a single player game where sleeping accelerates time. That way you could sleep through nights unless you needed to use the darkness. That doesn't really work for online multiplayer and no one wants to play a sleeping simulator. I think the best solution would be to make the days last 4 hours and sync them up with prime time hours. So, dawn is at 6pm, dusk it 10pm. This way, most people will start playing during the day and end early in the night. This would be similar to the way real life works and it would be better for gameplay purposes.

In some thread there was a suggestion that you only replenish blood when you are totally full up and in the green on both food and water. I like that idea. Of course, the rate at which you can starve to death in this game is probably the most unrealistic thing about it, including the zombies. So, if everyone is so set on the realistic flow of time, that should probably get changed. Unless we are all infected with the virus, but a small percentage of the population gets turned into Joey Chestnut instead of zombies.

If your status does not deteriorate while offline, the person who plays more will have to eat more food, but he is also going to find more food. The person who plays less will have to eat less, but he will also find less to eat. He will also find less guns and ammo and tools and etc etc. With offline status deterioration, the person who plays more and person who plays less have to eat similar amounts, but the person who plays more is going to find substantially more food. So, in the first scenario, there is no advantage - both players are on equal footing. The latter scenario gives advantage to people who can play more.

In real life, the cities would be populated with a lot more people than the servers can currently handle in numbers of zombies. I imagine the spawn rate is the way it is in order to simulate fully populated cities within current technological limitations.