00dlez

I think boosting zombie prowess too much makes banditry a better option, and is not something that (IMHO) should be encouraged. What is better is having zombies spawn in more locations and more random locations to keep the hill sniping bandits on their toes... as well as survivors who are too used to blindly running through the woods. I know personally I've blundred into zombies by a deerstand I hadn't spotted and has given me a jump, woodland zombies would improve this type of encounter

Putting the meat into unhidden tents for any passer by to take and eat. In the spirit of the post I'd like to give you a steak, but my bens will have to do.

I believe forest spawning zombies is already in the works, so that solves that.

I'm on the same side of the age bracket that you are, sir, but stats are stats.

The reverse of this is also true. I think it's a great concept I've not seen discussed before... I would be fine with humanity depleating over time as well, slowed by being around others and flat gains/drops based on helping/hurting others. EX: 2 bandits muck about hill sniping n00bz around cherno like 1337 pr0z, but because they are constantly proximate to one another and occasionally help eachother with blood etc, they loose their humanity at a rate of 1*X. 2 survivors muck about cherno looking for supplies and getting the eff out of there like 1337 pr0z. Because they are constantly proximate to one another and occasionally help eachother with blood and every so often have to kill a hostile bandit, they loose their humanity at .75*X A lone survivor hangs out in the extreme north, staying away from anyone and anything that moves. He hits a few barns and supermarkets to get buy, has a hidden tent in the woods, and is stocking up to repair some vehicles like a 1337 pr0. He occasionally has to kill a hostile he encounters, or bumps into a friendly and then gets the eff out of there to avoid a confrontation. Becuase he is almost never proximate to other players, rarely gives/recieves help, and occasionally kills an enemy on top of that, his humanity is lost at 1.25*X In order to restore humanity (other than killing zombies and blood transfusions), add in a "pills" item. Without these pills, once a player reaches 0 hummanity, they start to shake in the same manner that one experiences when needing pain killers. (yes, I know 0 humanity is an unrealistic number at this time, but humanity scores and things that effect them can be tweaked, as can the hummanity floor... shut up.) Thoughts?

Agreed with the other posters, I don't think AI survivors would add anything to the game. While you might find the 70% running boring, I feel it contributes to the vast, lonley feelings the game can elict. When I finally DO spot another survivor, the situation immediately becomes more tense and exciting.

Either batteries or needing to be charged, as from a car battery or a gas powered generator.

False. This game is played by 18-24 year old males who enjoy playing violent video games and shoot things for kicks. It's not a social experiement because of a) consequence free, internet anonymity changes behavior and B) extreme sample bias

Write it on a spare map and leave that.

Just pretend that it is called "DayZ 2: Modern Warfare Reskinned" and shell out your money happily

No to the abberations/ghost idea, it's completely unfounded in the setting and would be very distracting. This is supposed to be based in reality (as much as zombies can be) and abberations mucking about soundly breaks that. The hummanity topic is already heavily debated. The two sides are (simply) advantanges/abilities based on humanity score (in both directions) or completely ignoring it.

It's pretty much concensus at this point that giving players visual ques as to whether another player is a hero or bandit is a bad idea, ruins much of the tension. Moreover, what about a sniper member of a medic clan, he happens to take all the shots and rarely gives blood... should he be marked as a bandit?

Link fixed, I think. Even in group spawns, they don't stand a chance. Zombie swarms maybe, but it depends on what they develop in terms of zombie spawn locations/rates as well as zombie AI

+1 for booby traps. In one of my threads I encouraged being able to harvest more environtmental items for more minecraft-y creative building, this fits right in.

Case in point why I believe that PVP needs to have some tangible drawback: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80389-nl-1320-marvel-are-you-butt-hurt/ If you don't go to read, the short version: Because of something the admin did to the players IN ANOTHER GAME, they came to his dayz server, camped all new-spawns and shot them to try to kill the server. That's the social experiment/immersion we all want, isn't it?!

Take your 8th grade drama BS somewhere else. Just have your mommy buy you another CD key or something.

It's not really the social experiment that people crack it up to be. We are all* 18-24 year old males who enjoy playing violent video games. As such, the deafult is to shoot people rather than hole up out of sight and sitting around all day doing nothing every time we log in. If the challenge to survive was cracked up substantially so that the focus of gameplay was back on survival rather than finding military grade assault rifles and ample food within the first 10 minutes and never giving it a second thought, then the game would have more replay value. As it stands now, I'm afraid many players will leave because there is no endgame beyond PVP, and there are a lot of games folks can play that support this type of action. * I know not all, shut up.

So long as this is the case for all players, not only those with low humanity, then I agree that more situational/natural/realistic indicators would enhance the game No. There should be no visual que as to what another survior may or may not do at any given moment. What about the counter-sniper in a medic/helpful clan, who is always on overwatch and kills a ton of bandits... should he be "branded" for helping the good cause? The GPS is already a stretch, I think this is a bit too far. If the standalone features more cocnerns about electricity and battery power for things like flashlights, NVG, Rangefinders, Thermals, etc, then I might be convinced... Might.

Then start arguing for ways to challenge the play style more, and it wont be the easy button default that it currently is

Because for every player bitching on the forums there are six more who have dayz on their laptop with AS50 thermals scoped in on the barracks door while they play COD on their xbox, left clicking when they see something move and stroking their peen over it.

I agree with you in principle, but when people say "the game needs people who do evil" (which I agree with) they don't realize that because this is the internet that is the default setting, and there are far more people playing this way than not SOS. It's propagated more by the fact that there is no downside to shooting everything you see, which I think needs to be fixed or a lot of the player base won't stick around

Nothing. But death has few/no consequences and an established player or clans can re-gear immediately and be back at it 15 minutes later. Moreover, the ratio of hill snipers to hill sniper hunters is skewed towards the campers.

The point is, no one comes to the forum saying "I was on a server and all anyone did was move from town to town scavenging supplies, this is terrible". Currently, the easiest and least challenging way to play is to sit on a hillside and snipe into well traveled areas. In terms of the long term survival of the standalone version, I think that without a check against this play style, many people will stop playing and the game will die. I do not think PVP should be prevented. I do not think that playstyles should have extra benefits or specific penalties (unless some sort of a class or achievement system is added, but this is a different discussion). I do think that there needs to be a challenge added to the hill sniping / new spawn slaying lifestyle, or else the game will quickly die.

over 1 million alpha players + $5 discount = $5 million of lost revenue for Rocket/Devs ... Right.

This adds nothing to the game. For some prespective: In Skyrim there are lots of plants you can harvest and eat. Some are beneficial, some have negative effects like poisoning the character. HOWEVER, these poison plants can then be used in poisons and potions later on, having some in game use. Having a plant that is poison and has no other use might be a good one time mistake for new players, but then will never serve another purpose in that players career of potentially hundreds of hours of game play. Sure, it'd be neat, I wouldn't care in the least if it were added.... But it wouldn't enhance my experience one bit, and I'd rather spend that rendering power, coding, and time on something that does add to my experience.