PermaDeath

[Sneakers O'Toole 57]

Brilliant! But I think it should be moar hardcore: When you get shot in-game, Rocket should send a sociopath to your house to murder your dog, then your family, then you get raped anally, then you shot in the face with a rocket launcher.

Then you get put back together, reanimated and raped again, then this time tortured for 100 years, then brutally murdered, raped as a corpse, then finally sent to Hell so you can suffer for eternity.

FFS, its a computer game that you pay money for. Get it in perspective.

[[email protected] 98]

People create these little fantasies in there heads regarding video games and they try to make that little vision of theirs come to life, however once they get that idea out there, no one likes it and they realise that they really did have a god awful idea.

e.g. this thread.

[terrvik 2409]

What if the game knows the location you died and always spawn you as far away from that point as possible, with some randomness still?

[[email protected] 98]

What if the game knows the location you died and always spawn you as far away from that point as possible, with some randomness still?

As far away as possible? What.. So they'd always spawn on the very edge of the map? Haha. I don't think it'd work :P

Edited October 28, 2012 by Rammfisch

[terrvik 2409]

As far away as possible? What.. So they'd always spawn on the very edge of the map? Haha. I don't think it's work :P

Haha, no of course not. There would be general areas where you spawn, as is now, and the game calculates where the farthest away spawn point is and that is where you spawn if you die. With a bigger map and more varied spawn points it could be a step towards making a death a little more severe and also stop people from rushing back to their bodies or rush back to take revenge on their killer.

Of course this could be abused. Want to get to the other side of the map quickly? Kill yourself and respawn there. So I don't know. :)

[[email protected] 98]

Haha, no of course not. There would be general areas where you spawn, as is now, and the game calculates where the farthest away spawn point is and that is where you spawn if you die. With a bigger map and more varied spawn points it could be a step towards making a death a little more severe and also stop people from rushing back to their bodies or rush back to take revenge on their killer.

Of course this could be abused. Want to get to the other side of the map quickly? Kill yourself and respawn there. So I don't know. :)

Meh. Making this type of gametype is not worth it IMO.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

No, you obviously don't. All you want is positiv feedback, as soon as someone says that your idea is bad you go crying about how they are a 'douche' or how immature they are. The truth though is that you, same as many other people who post on this section of the forum just can't handle negative feedback.

Also I'm not going to write a 500 word essay on a suggestion that is bad for very obvious reasons. I might have a lot of time on my hands but I'm cerntainly not going to spent them doing that. Maybe next time you think before you post an idea? Thank you.

Seriously? You created that whole situation in your head. The OP has been completely civil in all of his posts. He made a joke about the negative replies being the same people who KOS, OH NO! You on the other hand made a negative reply with absolutly no reasoning behind it. Perhaps you think it's "very obvious" why this wouldn't be a good change, but open your fucking mouth and let the rest of us know what you're thinking. You clearly don't understand how douchy it looks to say "NO that idea sucks!" and add nothing else to the discussion.

--------------

@OP Don't get discouraged with these replies, they all just voice their fear of a change like this. It's not a bad idea, it's just a bad idea TO THEM. Not everyone likes an extremely punishing and hardcore set of rules, but some of us do.

@Smash_AU Why would people camp the spawn points to kill an unarmed person and play on a server with less people? You imply that removing someone from a server just for the sake of removing someone from the server, is desirable. Perhaps this would be true to some, but I don't really see people camping spawn points for hours to remove a couple people.

Even if this did mean more people spawn camping, that seems like incentive for me to play better. It's not like there is only 1 spawn point.

@WarZ doing this... yes and no. They did intend to lock out the player for 24 hours, but changed it to 1 hour. BUT, they locked out your character, and you get 5(?) or so. The OPs idea was to lock you out of 1 server. NOT ALL OF THEM.

Edited October 28, 2012 by bad_mojo

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

This is just going to result in players camping spawn locations until the server is empty.

EXACTLY..

if theres one thing that Dayz has shown with it s"anti-game" ideals its that it will attract the VERY worst asshats out and allow them the freedom to destroy others gameplay..

giving the KoS crowd even more power by forcing a respawn timer/lockout would just feed their QQ tears needs to hieghts unseen yet.

this idea isnt just bad its hyper BAD !!!

[[email protected] 98]

Seriously? You created that whole situation in your head. The OP has been completely civil in all of his posts. He made a joke about the negative replies being the same people who KOS, OH NO! You on the other hand made a negative reply with absolutly no reasoning behind it. Perhaps you think it's "very obvious" why this wouldn't be a good change, but open your fucking mouth and let the rest of us know what you're thinking. You clearly don't understand how douchy it looks to say "NO that idea sucks!" and add nothing else to the discussion.

--------------

@OP Don't get discouraged with these replies, they all just voice their fear of a change like this. It's not a bad idea, it's just a bad idea TO THEM. Not everyone likes an extremely punishing and hardcore set of rules, but some of us do.

@Smash_AU Why would people camp the spawn points to kill an unarmed person and play on a server with less people? You imply that removing someone from a server just for the sake of removing someone from the server, is desirable. Perhaps this would be true to some, but I don't really see people camping spawn points for hours to remove a couple people.

Even if this did mean more people spawn camping, that seems like incentive for me to play better. It's not like there is only 1 spawn point.

@WarZ doing this... yes and no. They did intend to lock out the player for 24 hours, but changed it to 1 hour. BUT, they locked out your character, and you get 5(?) or so. The OPs idea was to lock you out of 1 server. NOT ALL OF THEM.

If the majority of us don't necessarily like the idea, then why would anyone ever consider making this type of gametype when NO ONE WOULD ACTUALLY PLAY IT?

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

If the majority of us don't necessarily like the idea, then why would anyone ever consider making this type of gametype when NO ONE WOULD ACTUALLY PLAY IT?

The majority of DayZ players like name tags, side-chat and crosshairs, does that make those things the best options for DayZ? Do you think rocket will enforce those things on us in standalone?

Let's just throw out some suggestions, discuss them, and then let Rocket and his team decide what should or shouldn't be added. There's really no need to get all upset over the possibility of something being added that you dislike.

[SmashT 10907]

@Smash_AU Why would people camp the spawn points to kill an unarmed person and play on a server with less people? You imply that removing someone from a server just for the sake of removing someone from the server, is desirable. Perhaps this would be true to some, but I don't really see people camping spawn points for hours to remove a couple people.

People are jerks, same reason some cheat and nuke entire servers. To piss people off.

Edited October 29, 2012 by smasht_AU

[[email protected] 98]

The majority of DayZ players like name tags, side-chat and crosshairs, does that make those things the best options for DayZ? Do you think rocket will enforce those things on us in standalone?

Let's just throw out some suggestions, discuss them, and then let Rocket and his team decide what should or shouldn't be added. There's really no need to get all upset over the possibility of something being added that you dislike.

Those things are already being used as there is so much demand for them. It's called using a private hive. If someone want's to implement something like this, and they have enough support, it will eventually happen. It may not be official, but it'll probably happen. Whinging to Rocket about it won't do anything.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

People are jerks, same reason some cheat and nuke entire servers. To piss people off.

I don't understand how the death bans would make that problem any worse. Mass teleporting and nuking servers gets a response out of people, they freak out and scream over the chat. Killing someone who then gets banned is just playing the game. Who cares if some people get their jollies out of knowing people have to join another server, it's not like the one being killed is any more pissed off, he knew what he was getting into the minute he joined such a server. I dunno, maybe I'm not seeing it clearly.

Those things are already being used as there is so much demand for them. It's called using a private hive. If someone want's to implement something like this, and they have enough support, it will eventually happen. It may not be official, but it'll probably happen. Whinging to Rocket about it won't do anything.

They're being used because DayZ is an Arma2 mod and Arma2 comes standard with those options.

From the Rocket Q&A...

Q: I hope this means "regular" difficulty options like Nametags (except with the possible exception over very short distances with people you've physically shaken hands with - i.e. would recognise facially) and GPS maps will also be removed.

A: Gone, gone, and more gone

My point is that features aren't being kept because they're popular. At the same time, potential features shouldn't be ignore just because the majority dislikes the idea.

Edited October 29, 2012 by bad_mojo

[[email protected] 98]

They're being used because DayZ is an Arma2 mod and Arma2 comes standard with those options.

ArmA 2 was built to be able for the users to code and create their own maps to their preferences. Yes, they are being used because those options are available, however due to this ability to be able to code so freely, it's also possible for the OP's idea to work as well, and just as easily as some of the things that have already been implemented into DayZ have been.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Rammfisch

[[email protected] 450]

Seriously? You created that whole situation in your head. The OP has been completely civil in all of his posts. He made a joke about the negative replies being the same people who KOS, OH NO!

Should I quote you what he replied to my post again? lol

He called me a douche directly, I don't see how that's created in my head. Maybe you should stop making things up in your head?

You on the other hand made a negative reply with absolutly no reasoning behind it. Perhaps you think it's "very obvious" why this wouldn't be a good change, but open your fucking mouth and let the rest of us know what you're thinking. You clearly don't understand how douchy it looks to say "NO that idea sucks!" and add nothing else to the discussion.

I state my honest opinion. I'm sure that's something you're incapable of doing. I'm not obliged to do more.

You clearly don't understand how douchy it looks to say "NO that idea sucks!" and add nothing else to the discussion.

As if I would give a rats ass about what people on the internet think about me.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

Should I quote you what he replied to my post again? lol

Yeah, my mistake I see the post now. I don't know how I missed it the first time. Sorry.