Changes regarding every topic! (tents, vehicles, loot/player-spawn, zombies, weapons, nighttime...)

[fuenke 10]

Hello DayZ community! :)

First of all, I'm not a native English speaker, so excuse me if I make mistakes writing this. If anything is unclear because of false use of vocabulary, please let me know so I can change it.

Second, I read the sticky which summarizes the ideas given by the community and some of the ideas might have inspired me and might be repeated in a slightly different form or even be repeated in the exact same form. Sorry if something like this happens. It's not my purpose to take credit for those ideas!

What I did here, was writing down all the things which have to be necessarily changed in my opinion. Many things are not very detailed. I will often write about chances, while I will never give numbers. I will write about positive and negative effects, while I wont say how they will exactly work. The reason for my impreciseness is less laziness than the reduction to the things that are really important for me. I want to give a basic construct and leave a margin for details.

After telling you all the reasons why you should not read my post, I'll tell you why it might be interesting to take a glance. Some of the ideas are new with certainty and well-conceived. And I belief the text has a good structure. I gave every idea a number, so please refer to them, when you want to discuss an idea. Another thing about my ideas, most of them are easy to implement in the game and won't use much resources. A few are only realizable through resources. Those are carefully considered. Many people on this forum come up with great ideas, but many do the mistake of not considering this factor at all. Sure, BF3 graphics, details and physics would be nice in DayZ, but lets be realistic :lol:

(1.) Player spawn, loot spawn, map

(1.1) Highly randomize player spawn points over the whole map.

(1.2) Highly randomize loot. Every spawn has a chance to contain every item. Low differences in chances between different spawns for the different buildings: military, civilian, farm, industrial.

(1.3) Give a map to starting equipment, which also indicates the type of the building.

>>> No use of maps out of the internet, like dayzdb.com/map.

>>> Action distributed much more all over the map, instead of being concentrated to the areas with extremely good loot.

(2.) Suicide

(2.1) Give option to self-kill.

>>> No problem being stuck anywhere. No abuse for better spawn point because of (1.1), (1.2) & (11.1).

(3.) Nighttime

(3.1) Take out night vision.

(3.2) Make nights always full moon.

(3.3) Make it possible to hold secondary AND flashlight.

(3.4) Make it possible to modify weapons (with flashlights).

>>> Encourages player to play at night without major advantages / disadvantages for some players. Gives a nice horror feeling to play at night, instead of a smaller view and a green layer over everything ;)

(4.) Weapon modifications

(4.1) Make it possible to find modifications for weapons or put them off of a weapon (optics, flashlights, suppressors & grips) to put them on other weapons.

(4.2) Make a easy system for compatibility.

>>>Adds realism and more layers between start and endgame.

(5.) Weapons

(5.1) Take out thermal sight.

(5.2) Make firearms weaker. No gun should kill a player with one shot to the body, if he got full blood. Instead add a great variation, so that the players have to measure out pros and cons.

>>> Doesn’t give major advantages to well equipped players.

>>> Doesn't produce a optimal weapon combo as AS50 + L85.

(5.3) Make military weapons way harder to find.

(5.4) Add much more melee weapons and low powered civilian guns.

>>> Gives the game much more layers till the end game!

(6.) Loot

(6.1) Make it hard to find useful stuff like food.

(6.2) Make bigger cities and every building walkable.

(6.3) Put possible loot spawns in every building.

>>> Even in endgame its always worth to really search for stuff by going through every spot, instead of farming a few extremely good spots.

>>> CQC becomes much more attractive, also through the lack of sniper-rifles (5.3)

(7.) Zombies

(7.1) Highly randomize zombie spawns. Let them never spawn near players.

(7.2) Make zombies much more dangerous.

(7.3) Randomize the following stats for every zombie: blood points, speed, damage of a hit and ability to recognize a player.

(7.4) Give zombies the ability of grabbing and holding a player. Zombie use this ability very rarely, but when they do, the player has a short time to press a button reflexively to free himself (ping must be taken into account). If he doesn't make it in time, another player got the chance to free his buddy by running to him and pressing the same key or shooting the zombie. The animation of the holding will allow to clearly hit the zombie in the head.

(7.5) If the player can't be freed, the zombie bites and releases him. The bite will give the player the virus. The virus has a randomized incubation time and will turn the player into a normal zombie after that time.

(7.6) There is an antidote, which heals the player, if he uses it before he turns. This antidote is very rare though.

>>> No exposing position because of spawned zombies!

>>> In combination with (6.1) much more need to play with others instead of shooting at sight.

>>> Much more need to be always careful, not just in special areas.

>>> Since the problem of a zombie virus is the fast spreading, the possibility of spreading should occur in the game.

(8.) Food & Health

(8.1) Drinks and meals doesn't fill the bars fully up.

(8.2) Take out the possibility of getting blood through meat and cans. Get blood over time if your hunger and thirst levels are low.

(8.3) Make it possible to drink out of a lake without bottle

>>> Much more realistic health & food system.

(9.) Explosives

(9.1) Take out explosives.

>>> Use those resources for more important things like better animations.

(10.) Humanity vs Remorse

(10.1) Forget the old humanity system (no bandit/hero skins, no getting humanity through blood transfusion)

(10.2) Make a status called „remorse“. A fresh player starts a zero remorse. At a certain level a disadvantage kicks in. The higher it gets, the higher the disadvantage gets. Different disadvantages can be discussed. They could be obvious, like screaming randomly towards zombie that they can fuck themselves (which will attract them), as a sign of self-hatred and suicidal thoughts. They could also be just recognized by the player himself, like a lower amount of maximum blood. In the end it should be always a hard decision between killing a player instantly for self defense and loot, trying to rob him or to leave him alone. It shouldn't be always the best way just not to kill a player, because the remorse disadvantage would be that big.

(10.3) Remorse gets higher with killing a player which got a low remorse level, except he was infected.

(10.4) Remorse gets lower over time (but slowly).

(10.5) Remorse will reset with death.

>>> Much more intense situations like a robbery, instead of just everyone shooting everything on sight.

(11.) Hope

(11.1) Make a status called „hope“. This status is persistent over death. It gets lower with every death. Certain ways to make it higher can be discussed. Certain advantages which gives a high amount of hope can be discussed.

>>> No suicidal actions at the start to get some equipment, including trying to kill good equipped players out of a hopeless situation, which gives them no choice but killing you, raising their remorse. No abuse of the self-kill re-spawn option.

(12.) Play together!

(12.1) Put in much more actions which are needing other players like blood transfusion.

(12.2) Put in some items and actions which can be complementary. Example: If wood (and a hatchet) would be as rare as a box of matches, a player who only got a box of matches would ask players he meets if they got some wood. If yes, they might start a fire together, they both could cook their meet and they might build enough trust to stick together.

>>> In combination with (6.1) & (7.4) much more need to play together. (The example was bad, since I want some other changes for this case. But maybe someone comes up with other ideas.)

(13.) Hatches, matches, woodpiles

(13.1) Make hatches rare, make matches common, let woodpiles as they are.

>>> The woodpile is totally useless at the moment, since you find a hatchet much faster than a box of matches.

>>> EDIT: Crowbar is useless too at the moment, since you find a hatchet much faster.

(14.) Tents

(14.1) Make many different tents in size and color.

(14.2) Make it easy to get a bad tent (small and neon)

(14.3) A player can log off in a tent with an option shown as „go to sleep“. Only able to use 5 min after the last shot was given in a certain area around the tent.

(14.4) If a player logs off outside a tent, there is a chance that he starts suffering from a disease and every item he got on him has a chance to disappear.

>>> No logging out in fight.

>>> Major changes of tents below.

(14.5) Bind tents to player:

Since there are many different cases which has to be covered, i first introduce a complex concept, and explain it in easy words after.

• There are two different ways, a tent can be bound to a player. I call them type one (t1) and type two (t2).
  
• Every tent has only ONE of the two types of bonding to ONE player.
  
• bound t1: Only ONE tent can be bound this way to a player. The tent logs off with the player. Tent comes back on with player, no matter what server the player logs on.
  
• bound t2: The tent logs off with player. The tent disappears then for ever.
  

How the system works:

• If we set up a tent and we have no t1 tent at that moment, this tent becomes our t1 tent.
  
• If we set up a tent and have another t1 tent, this tent becomes our t2 tent.
  
• If a we log off outside our tent, every item in our t1 tent has a chance to disappear (the t2 tents disappear anyway).
  
• We can chooses the option „claim it“ on a t2 tent of ours or a t2 tent of any other player. This tent then becomes our t1 tent and the other player looses his bonding. Our old t1 tent becomes a t2 tent of ours.
  
• We can choose the option „claim it & sleep in it“ on t2 tents, which has the same effect as „claim it“ and additionally logs us off.
  
• We can't claim or sleep in a t1 tent of another player.
  
• If we die, our t1 tent becomes one of our t2 tents.
  
• If we interact (take items or put items in) with a t2 of another player, this tent becomes our t2 tent. The other player looses his bonding.
  
• We can in a certain time only put a certain number of items out of another players t1 tent. I will refer to this as the „cool down“.
  
• Every tent can be packed up and taken. The items remain on the ground. If we pack up the t1 tent of another player, a blanket remains, which is bound to the other player like a t1 tent. The items on the blanket have the same cool down to us and other players besides the original owner like they would be in a t1 tent. The items won't disappear, till the other player (original owner) logs off.
  

>>> This system seems kind of complicated, but is necessary to cover every possible case.

>>> Every player has one tent (after he found one and set it up). It spawns with him when he logs on a server and disappears if he logs off.

>>> This has the advantage, that a player doesn't have to choose a specific server to play on. He doesn't have to fear, that the server may be wiped. It also limits the space a player has to store stuff. No extreme hording like before. The biggest advantage is, that no one can rob you, if you’re not online, if you haven't got the chance to defend your stuff.

>>> If someone wants to move his tent, he can set a new one up where he wants it to be, transfer the stuff and make the new tent his „main tent“ (t1). But having two tents at the same time (due to such a transfer) is also dangerous. Cause only one tent can have that kind of safety option, that no single person can loot everything at the same time. This option is there for a simple reason. If a fresh player finds your t1 tent, he cant just put a tent next to yours, transfer all the stuff and log off.

>>> Another problem, that a tent just disappears right in front of you, is solved by two mechanisms. First of all, a player logs nearly always off in his tent, because of the loss of items and health. So you won't see t1 tents disappear, instead you see the owner coming, which gives you the possibility to stop him from going to sleep. If he decides to Alt+F4 after you shot at him, he will be punished by loosing some stuff. And t2 tents won't disappear in front of you cause as soon as you interact with them, they are bound to you.

>>> If a player dies, he has the chance to save his tent. But if anyone finds it before this, he can take all the stuff or even claim it and log off with it. So dying might but not have to end with loosing all your stuff.

>>> With the variety of tents, it becomes a aim to get the best tent (camo, or like ghillie) as it is a aim to get a good gun. Hiding a neon tent is very hard. But you don't have to hide it in the wild necessarily. Making a old factory or a house your base (maybe even with cat wire and tank traps) becomes due to (1.1), (1.2) & (7.1) and the fact that your tent won't be there if you log off a much better option, which is way more realistic, then hiding in the woods. As you might kill players to get their weapons, you can pack every tent you find and take it with you, or claim it right were it is. But if your tent got stolen, you still got the chance to rescue your stuff or at least find out that it got stolen (because of the blanket), rather than wondering if it bugged away.

(15.) Vehicles

(15.1) Take out helicopters.

(15.2)Make it easy to get a civilian car, which should be very slow at grass

(15.3)Running over zombies will damage the car or might even stop it.

(15.4)Zombies should be able to break the glass and damaging you after.

>>> Again, take the resources away from the possibility of air travel to better animations or bigger and more detailed maps. The setting of Dayz is much more like „28 Days“ or „Walking dead“, rather than „28 Weeks“ or „Land of the Dead“. We haven't build a big and secure base, where the remaining humans try to build up society again. And we aren't the army which tries to stop the virus. We are survivors which wake up in a world without any society, looking for food. I highly doubt anyone of you can repair or fly a helicopter. They are a overpowered way of travel anyway.

>>> On the other hand, it should be very easy to find a car in a zombie apocalypse. If really every player would have a vehicle (if he wants to) and if they would use the roads (if only very rare cars can drive properly on grass) it would make sense for bandits to put up roadblocks and rob people driving by. This would again lead to a decision between traveling fast and unsafe or slow and safe (running through woods, which actually becomes with (7.1) & (7.2) not that safe at all). Cause making decisions and developing an individual play style is what makes this game so great.

>>> Vehicles should save on the servers as before.

Thanks for your attention! Please reply and discuss this ideas! :)

Edited October 27, 2012 by Fuenke

[Solitude 42]

This thread is amazing! Really good job!

[starwarsfan@gmx.de 450]

Most of those are garbage the other ones are already being worked on for the standalone or have already been suggested in more well though out threads.

[fuenke 10]

Most of those are garbage the other ones are already being worked on for the standalone or have already been suggested in more well though out threads.

As i said in the introduction, most of the suggestions are not very detailed, because I just think they are necessary, while I don't care how they will be implemented exactly. I leave open space. If they are worked out in detail already by others, that’s fine with me, since I'm not here to take credit, rather to try to bring the game in a better direction

If you think an idea is garbage, feel free to tell me the number of the idea and why you think this way, instead of being a dick. It might end in a constructive discussion. Those ideas are very well thought out by me, but instead of writing a 10.000+ words post nobody will read, I decided to wait for critic to explain further details. So if you are willing and able to express your thoughts, please try to do it!

Edited October 27, 2012 by Fuenke

[Rastamaus 323]

As i said in the introduction, most of the suggestions are not very detailed, because I just think they are necessary, while I don't care how they will be implemented exactly. I leave open space. If they are worked out in detail already by others, that’s fine with me, since I'm not here to take credit, rather to try to bring the game in a better direction

If you think an idea is garbage, feel free to tell me the number of the idea and why you think this way, instead of being a dick. It might end in a constructive discussion. Those ideas are very well thought out by me, but instead of writing a 10.000+ words post nobody will read, I decided to wait for critic to explain further details. So if you are willing and able to express your thoughts, please try to do it!

Allow me illustrate why I feel that James Ashwood is not, as you so angrily put it, a dick!

I can see how his wonderfully economic post might indeed leave a little confusion in the mind of a person for whom English is a 2nd language, I hope he'll forgive me if I presume to elaborate for your benefit my understanding of his accurate and to the point observations.

Most of those are garbage the other ones are already being worked on for the standalone or have already been suggested in more well though out threads.

A fair few of your ideas are bad ideas, as this is a forum dedicated to finding good ideas they don't really need to have any more time wasted on them., in the bin they go.

There are some excellent ideas here too, so good in fact that they are already being implemented in the standalone.

The rest have been suggested before, they have been discussed and debated at great length and if you feel you have anything new or original to add then the threads are out there awaiting your input.

edit - could have saved yourself a lot of time if you'd used just a fraction of what you must have invested in putting together this beautifully presented and beans worthy thread on researching your ideas instead.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Rastamaus

[Serious Stan 202]

Very good. i didnt read all about the tents, but i like the rest...

Hope it gets harder in SA

[fuenke 10]

What I think James is trying to say is this.

A fair few of your ideas are bad ideas, as this is a forum dedicated to finding good ideas they don't really need to have any more time wasted on them., in the bin they go.

There are some excellent ideas here too, so good in fact that they are already being implemented in the standalone.

The rest have been suggested before, they have been discussed and debated at great length and there is no real need to go over them again.

edit - could have saved yourself a lot of time if you'd used just a fraction of what you must have invested in putting together this beautifully presented thread on researching your ideas instead.

I love how you wrote the exact same as James, although in a much nicer way, giving zero contribution to the topic. Again, if ideas will be implemented, thats great.

BUT: This sub forum has 360 pages. So what can you do to inform you about the current status of the discussion? You read the stickies. I did that. And I saw that many importend things that have to change in my opionion to get rid of the biggest problems in DayZ just do not occur. On the other hand I read in the sticky and on the first page of this sub forum many many many ideas, which just try to add more features. But thats actually the easy thing to do. I think about an item, which isn't in the game (and since there are a shit load of items in reality which aren't in DayZ this is quite easy) and say I want this in the game. I could think of thousand new features which would make DayZ mor realistic, but those won't help with the problems DayZ has today. Those have to be solved first, before you can think about new stuff. So I summarized those things that have to change necessarily in my opinion. If some of those ideas came up before and the people didn't like them, it doesn't have to mean that those were bad ideas. It could be that the person which came up with the idea just had not the right arguments to show that the idea is actually pretty good.

What I want to say: Instead of just telling me that my ideas are shit, have the decency to give me just a little hint, which ideas are shit and why. Good and bad is always subjetive. So give me the chance of defending my ideas with MY arguments.

[fuenke 10]

Very good. i didnt read all about the tents, but i like the rest...

Hope it gets harder in SA

The tents are actually the reason why I wrote this post :lol:

[Rastamaus 323]

I love how you wrote the exact same as James, although in a much nicer way, giving zero contribution to the topic. Again, if ideas will be implemented, thats great.

BUT: This sub forum has 360 pages. So what can you do to inform you about the current status of the discussion? You read the stickies. I did that. And I saw that many importend things that have to change in my opionion to get rid of the biggest problems in DayZ just do not occur. On the other hand I read in the sticky and on the first page of this sub forum many many many ideas, which just try to add more features. But thats actually the easy thing to do. I think about an item, which isn't in the game (and since there are a shit load of items in reality which aren't in DayZ this is quite easy) and say I want this in the game. I could think of thousand new features which would make DayZ mor realistic, but those won't help with the problems DayZ has today. Those have to be solved first, before you can think about new stuff. So I summarized those things that have to change necessarily in my opinion. If some of those ideas came up before and the people didn't like them, it doesn't have to mean that those were bad ideas. It could be that the person which came up with the idea just had not the right arguments to show that the idea is actually pretty good.

What I want to say: Instead of just telling me that my ideas are shit, have the decency to give me just a little hint, which ideas are shit and why. Good and bad is always subjetive. So give me the chance of defending my ideas with MY arguments.

I wish I had that kind of time to burn dude, I really do

[fuenke 10]

I wish I had that kind of time to burn dude, I really do

You had enough time to reply twice. And since you are so deep into this topic and since you have so many reasons stored in you brain why my ideas are shit, how long would it have taken to pick the first bad idea you come across and write in 20 words why it wouldn't work?

I just read the edit on your first reply. I understood James' reply pretty well and wasn't confused at all. You two just need to get off your high horses and start reading carefully what I write. It seems both of you just don't have the guts to criticize my ideas in a way it could possibly become a discussion. So you just assault me under the cover of your arrogance... Really poor way to treat newbs!

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

you just don't have the guts to criticize my ideas in a way it could possibly become a discussion.

If you had read the stickied topics, as you had stated, this could have been avoided.

Have a good suggestion? Before you post it PLEASE USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION at the top of the page to make sure it's original. If there are already threads about the same suggestion please contribute there instead of starting a new one.

Don't blame others for not wishing to discuss topics which have already been brought up 20 times or more.

You're still new here. Give it a week and you'll feel the same.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Chabowski

[Rastamaus 323]

You had enough time to reply twice. And since you are so deep into this topic and since you have so many reasons stored in you brain why my ideas are shit, how long would it have taken to pick the first bad idea you come across and write in 20 words why it wouldn't work?

I just read the edit on your first reply. I understood James' reply pretty well and wasn't confused at all. You two just need to get off your high horses and start reading carefully what I write. It seems both of you just don't have the guts to criticize my ideas in a way it could possibly become a discussion. So you just assault me under the cover of your arrogance... Really poor way to treat newbs!

OK, you asked for it

Where do I begin? hmmm, I know, seeing as how these will be my very last words on the subject I'll take on your very first suggestion -

(1.) Player spawn, loot spawn, map

Spoiler

(1.1) Highly randomize player spawn points over the whole map.

The reason I think that this idea wouldn't work is because - characters spawn on the coast and only on the coast due to the the games back story scenario, the characters are shipwreck survivors so spawning at the NWAF for example would be, using your favourite word, shit, or as James so eloquently put it - garbage.

edit - you wanted 20 words? there's ^^ 40+, keep the change but i'll be having those beans back sir

Edited October 27, 2012 by Rastamaus

[fuenke 10]

If you had read the stickied topics, as you had stated, this could have been avoided.

Don't blame others for not wishing to discuss topics which have already been brought up 20 times or more.

You're still new here. Give it a week and you'll feel the same.

The big difference between my post and a "how about tanks!!!!???" post is, that I took about 40 ideas in 15 topics and combined them. I didn't wrote 40 posts, because I'm pretty sure nearly every topic has been handled separately, I don't have to use the search function to know this. But those ideas combined give a whole new situation. I want to discuss every single idea in the context of all the others. If someone doesn't wish to discuss my post, then he shouldn't reply!

And since this forum isn't any different from all the other forums, with their arrogant veterans and mentally retarded newbs, I don't think my opinion will change much in a week.

The reason I think that this idea wouldn't work is because - characters spawn on the coast and only on the coast due the the games back story scenario, the characters are shipwreck survivors so spawning at the NWAF would be, as you keep putting it, SHIT.

The shipwreck story sucks! All players on the server where washed ashore? Like in "Lost", really? But not everyone at the same time, right? So the natural way of going to land is by wrecking his boat? Nah... why not just waking up disorientated in the woods? After the outbreak you were running away in panic and broke down due to exhaustion. Bam! A 10x better story.

Or are you refering to the fact, that NWAF has by far the best loot? Then please read (1.2)...

EDIT: Waking up in the woods leaves you actually disorientated, since its much harder to find out where you are. Waking up at the coast doesn't take more than 2 min to determine your position and start your standard roation of farming loot spawns...

EDIT2: From the disorientation results a loss of time to find your body after you died and if you read the part with the tents also those, which would lead much more likely to loosing some stuff. Also the range between your spawn and your dead body / tent becomes unratable, while now this can be unrealisticly taken in consideration.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Fuenke

[metal_fingers 2]

I agree with your idea to make zombie spawns more random, I think you should randomly stumble into zombies while running through the woods. I don't think they should be completely random though, it only makes sense that a city or military base would have more people in it and thus more zombies.

On making them more dangerous, I don't necessarily agree with that. Instead, I think there should be more zombies - maybe a 10-25% increase. The flip side of that is that I think they should be slightly slower than you, enough so that you can outrun them over distance but still enough for them to give good chase. Something like 5% slower than a player can run. This will lead to more situations where large numbers of zombies pour into a building chasing a cornered player, which are truly terrifying and an absolute blast to play through, and less situations where a player is chased for 5 minutes by that one zombie in the white shirt and the beret despite cutting through 3 barns and a couple fences too.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

since this forum isn't any different from all the other forums, with their arrogant veterans and mentally retarded newbs, I don't think my opinion will change much in a week.

Maybe give it a couple of weeks if you're retarded, buddy. ;)

I took about 40 ideas in 15 topics and combined them. I didn't wrote 40 posts, because I'm pretty sure nearly every topic has been handled separately, I don't have to use the search function to know this.

The fact you have more than one idea in the topic makes no difference. None of your ideas are new.

I'm not here to attack you personally, I don't even know you. But your topic is a prime example of "not particularly useful", and it doesn't add anything.

There was a time when people could find a worthwhile suggestion on this page. And DayZ development may well have benefited from these topics.

Now the suggestions section is full of repetition and people who think this is their personal blog.

The pinned topics are there for a reason, to keep this section user friendly.

I very much doubt Rocket, or anybody else, would want to trawl through hundreds of the same topics, there's a good chance some of the best suggestions on this forum are now lost to the ages.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Chabowski

[fuenke 10]

I agree with your idea to make zombie spawns more random, I think you should randomly stumble into zombies while running through the woods. I don't think they should be completely random though, it only makes sense that a city or military base would have more people in it and thus more zombies.

On making them more dangerous, I don't necessarily agree with that. Instead, I think there should be more zombies - maybe a 10-25% increase. The flip side of that is that I think they should be slightly slower than you, enough so that you can outrun them over distance but still enough for them to give good chase. Something like 5% slower than a player can run. This will lead to more situations where large numbers of zombies pour into a building chasing a cornered player, which are truly terrifying and an absolute blast to play through, and less situations where a player is chased for 5 minutes by that one zombie in the white shirt and the beret despite cutting through 3 barns and a couple fences too.

Of course there should be some areas which are more likely to spawn zombies!

But I wouldn't make them slower as the player, since then it's always just possible to run away and you would need a shitload of zombies to create a danger for the player. I'm thinking more about the zombies as in "28 Days later", if you haven't watched the film I recommend you to do it. If you think it's not necessary to make zombies stronger, please watch for example the situation in this video at 22:00

5 zombies running around him, hitting him, and he is not concerned at all!

The fact you have more than one idea in the topic makes no difference. None of your ideas are new.

I'm not here to attack you personally, I don't even know you. But your topic is a prime example of "not particularly useful", and it doesn't add anything.

As I said before, the tents are the reason why I wrote this post. I couldn't find any similar in the forum. Did you read and understood it?

[koze 113]

(5.) Weapons

(5.2) Make firearms weaker. No gun should kill a player with one shot to the body, if he got full blood. Instead add a great variation, so that the players have to measure out pros and cons.

Maybe something like remove the M107 or AS50 would be a better statement, because DayZ is based off Arma 2 which is a millitary simulator. Which means that almost everything in the game is meant to be realistic. In case you didn't know, if you were to be shot in the upper leg with a .50 cal bullet the impact would shatter your bone (even if the bullet didn't hit it), blow a massive hole in your leg or blow it off completely depending on the ammunition. Now you're probobly thinking that getting shot in the leg wouldent kill you, well it would. Unless you have immediate medical treatment, otherwise you'd die of blood loss.

Now what I was getting to is that if you were to be shot anywhere in the upper body this would happen in a much larger scale, since there are more major organs and bones there, so you'd die instantly.

In my opinion, and I'm sure alot of people would agree that weapons don't do enough damage. Weapons such as sub machine guns, shotguns, pistols and some assult rifles were heavily nerfed a while ago. An mp5a5 for example, it used to do 1389 damage, now it's 889. It doesn't seem like a huge difference, but it now takes 14 shots to kill someone at point blank range (body shots only) and I'm not sure if it's the terrible iron sights on the pp-19 or if its just me but I swear at a long distance it takes two headshots to kill a zombie.

Anyway back on the .50 Cals, the only way you could stop guns from 1 hit kills is if you completely remove the high powered rifles. But DayZ is set in an envoronment where there are millitary camps everywhere, and in a zombie appocolypse you'll never know what you'll stumble uppon if you're looting a millitary barracks or scavaging a crashed helicopter. Theres always a possibility that you can find a .50 Cal in some barracks, though it just has to be super rare in the game.

I like your ideas, nice effort. :beans:

[borntobewild 31]

Very good. i didnt read all about the tents, but i like the rest...

Hope it gets harder in SA

4.bp.blogspot.com/-MXjwTiNCh9Y/T7DuAonjP-I/AAAAAAAABK0/ZbId5wAzqWk/s320/darth-vader-didnt-read.gif

Edited October 28, 2012 by Born to be Wild (PL)

[fuenke 10]

Maybe something like remove the M107 or AS50 would be a better statement, because DayZ is based off Arma 2 which is a millitary simulator. Which means that almost everything in the game is meant to be realistic. In case you didn't know, if you were to be shot in the upper leg with a .50 cal bullet the impact would shatter your bone (even if the bullet didn't hit it), blow a massive hole in your leg or blow it off completely depending on the ammunition. Now you're probobly thinking that getting shot in the leg wouldent kill you, well it would. Unless you have immediate medical treatment, otherwise you'd die of blood loss.

Now what I was getting to is that if you were to be shot anywhere in the upper body this would happen in a much larger scale, since there are more major organs and bones there, so you'd die instantly.

In my opinion, and I'm sure alot of people would agree that weapons don't do enough damage. Weapons such as sub machine guns, shotguns, pistols and some assult rifles were heavily nerfed a while ago. An mp5a5 for example, it used to do 1389 damage, now it's 889. It doesn't seem like a huge difference, but it now takes 14 shots to kill someone at point blank range (body shots only) and I'm not sure if it's the terrible iron sights on the pp-19 or if its just me but I swear at a long distance it takes two headshots to kill a zombie.

Anyway back on the .50 Cals, the only way you could stop guns from 1 hit kills is if you completely remove the high powered rifles. But DayZ is set in an envoronment where there are millitary camps everywhere, and in a zombie appocolypse you'll never know what you'll stumble uppon if you're looting a millitary barracks or scavaging a crashed helicopter. Theres always a possibility that you can find a .50 Cal in some barracks, though it just has to be super rare in the game.

I like your ideas, nice effort. :beans:

I'm aware what a .50 cal can do to a body. But as you mentioned, there are many guns in the game which only do around 900 damage, so taking 14 shots to the body to kill a player. How long do you think you would stay alive if I shot your upper body with a G17 just once, without medical care? And I mean real medical care performed by a doctor with the right gear!

What I want to say, the whole damage per bullet situation is unrealistic at the moment. But it has to be if you want a proper gameplay. So nerfing the only realistic weapon in a highly unrealistic but usefull weapon damage concept to make the gameplay even better? Sounds consistent to me.

PS: Take a look at nearly every shooter! This is a problem you can't solve without ruining a game

PPS: Sniping in reality is much harder as it is in the game. Combined with realistic damage scales (one hit kill) for sniperrifles it becomes the prefered kind of weapon. I personally like assault rifles much more, but am forced to carry a sniper rifle at least in my backpack at any time. Making sniping much more realistic (and therefore harder) will ruin the experience for many not that skilled players. So I think the best compromise is to nerf the power of those guns!

Edited October 28, 2012 by Fuenke

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

As I said before, the tents are the reason why I wrote this post. I couldn't find any similar in the forum. Did you read and understood it?

I took about 40 ideas in 15 topics and combined them. I didn't wrote 40 posts, because I'm pretty sure nearly every topic has been handled separately, I don't have to use the search function to know this.

PLEASE make your THREAD SUBJECT short and *specific* like "Suggestion: More ways to make fire!"... Not "Here is a bunch of stuff I want"

[fuenke 10]

@Chabowski

Believe me or not, it actually took me some time to think about this problem. I read the sticky and still decided to name my post "Here is a bunch of stuff I want". Why? Because the tent idea only makes sense in combination with all the other ideas and I didn't want to mislead the reader!

I love how forum rules nazis like you, rastamaus and james pick on me, because I haven't done it the exact way you want it to be, although you can clearly see that I put some effort into this.

I bet none of you even read the part with the tents and therefore read the whole post, but still you reply and critize me. Thats just lame. I would like to hear one argument against my ideas. Rastamaus tried, but failed hard since he is nothing but a rocket fan boy. Same for james, it wasn't in this post but I can see this from other replies.

Sorry if I'm mean, I don't want to hurt your feelings. Maybe you're all really nice guys in real life. But you should try to improve the way you treat other people on the intertnet! :)

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

I love how forum rules nazis like you, rastamaus and james pick on me, because I haven't done it the exact way you want it to be, although you can clearly see that I put some effort into this.

Though you seem to think you're above such trivialities, the recommendations in the pinned topics aren't just there to fill up space. You should consider applying them to any future suggestions.

I, in fact, did read your section regarding tents.

I concluded that it would have provided ample discussion fodder in its own topic, with relevant tags and a clear title.

You're obviously oblivious to that point.

This isn't primary school. You don't get a gold star for regurgitating old ideas.

If you put some effort into thinking about the purpose of the "suggestions section" instead of trying to defend the mistake you made here, you might get a smiley-face sticker.

Chabowski - The Nazi

[fuenke 10]

If the lights are red and there is no car comming, I cross the street. I hope you just didn't wet your pants reading this, but thats just how badass I am! The rule was made for the immense amount of people making one single suggestion but use a title which gives absolutely no information, while there would be a fitting title (this is the point). If you have more than one idea, make more than one post. BUT: If you have worked out a concept with many ideas that are connected and therefore have to be written in the same post, what would be your solution? You seem to deny the fact that the tent idea would be taken out of context without the other ideas...

[indominator 95]

this argument is not productive is just drama and counterprodutive, fuenke, in every forum that is one scheme of win for example theres mikhail, ruarz and the original make dayz harder thread, these consist of focus on topics, tackling key elements or problems we see, no generalization. Going in depth to call some possible solutions for each of them, and some people have tried to go very in depth in almost all elements, so try to be original.

[fuenke 10]

this argument is not productive is just drama and counterprodutive, fuenke, in every forum that is one scheme of win for example theres mikhail, ruarz and the original make dayz harder thread, these consist of focus on topics, tackling key elements or problems we see, no generalization. Going in depth to call some possible solutions for each of them, and some people have tried to go very in depth in almost all elements, so try to be original.

I'm repeated this 5 times, but since I'm not getting tired of this its your lucky day and I will explain it a 6th time. The post was made out of two perspectives:

1. In my opinion, instead of thinking about new stuff, which could be added to make the game better, we should focus on solving the problems that are currently in the game. I mentioned those problems which I think need the most attention and gave some basic direction where I want to see the game going. I didn't give detailed solutions, because I'm looking for like-minded people rather than I try to provide some new, fancy & mindblowing ideas.

2. The tent idea is pretty new and detailed, the other stuff crossed my mind after I developed it. Nevertheless, the tent idea has to be seen in connection with the whole concept. Retrospectively I should have put the focus on the tents, instead of treating the ideas as equal. That would have saved me a lot of trouble. I think its too late to edit the original post. All the replies and discussion below would loose their relation.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Fuenke