DayZ Standalone Discussion

[colekern 1364]

Oh I have followed the devblogs, and I am very unconvinced. Basicly, what has been done, is "putting loot on top of objects and inside them", made the loot-distribution a bit more clever, added locations, made new UI, tweaked survival-elements and infection. Switched loot&zombiespawn handling to serverside, tweaked behaviour and made some new animations. Then add-in new weapons and ammunition system, with detachable accessories to weapons. Then some very vague mentionings of "crafting" and "bases" and such, with absolutely nothing more on them. All we can see from videos is some random people going through buildings and shooting Zombies that usually are moving very glitchy and bugged. Oh forgot the big thing; new clothes and motorcycle helmet.

 

Seriously. If this is all, then fuck it.

 

After one year of waiting, we have absolutely nothing on our hands. And, for me as a consumer, I am bored of waiting and seriously with all the quality gaming that is now riding the Zombie-theme DayZ:SA needs to deliver with a capital D to even be bothered with. From what I have seen SA is very far from creative, exiting and *FRESH* game. After playing hundreds of hour of DayZ and it's Mod-family, everything is ... well, old. 

 

 

The foundation DayZ mod was built upon was flawed. The developers decided to take a risk and focus on the foundation before anything else (the client-server architecture). Redoing the very foundation the game is built upon is a huge risk that most developers with much, much larger teams won't even risk. Sure, they could have focused on new features, but down the road, the engine would have limited them. That's the reason for the delays. They're planning for the future, and turning DayZ into the game it should be. They're fixing the fundamental problems the mod has.

Edited August 14, 2013 by colekern

[The Jackall 55]

bla bla bla. the game is doomed by dumbass designers and a small team. by the time the game gets released we will be in a real apocalypse

Edited August 15, 2013 by The Jackall

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

We're all doomed indeed.

[AP_Norris 1017]

If you followed the early development of Alpha 3 you'd have heard the devs acknowledge those mistakes (and lack of resources at the time to fix them).  What same mistakes are you referring to btw?  Arma 3 is infinitely better in every way to Arma 2 including optimisation and the SA isn't released yet.  Are we really going to pull BIS/Rocket apart based on an early development build of a game because that's not a very sensible conversation to have.

 

Regarding the mod & DayZero etc, well that's a different kettle of fish entirely.  Why not just ask Razor directly?  He posts here most days.  Also the community devs don't work for BI so I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything anyway.

You said alpha 3 and I though you were talking about the next COD game.

*Bum dum bum ting

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Haha, cheers, fixed ;)

[jonedwards05@gmail.com 29]

Yeah, I doubt the vehicles in SA will have PhysX support like in Arma 3... Which means like every vehicle in Arma 2, there will be random explosions, crashes, broken bones and more... Unless the team pulls a miracle

 

You have literally 0 evidence to support this claim. You're plainly just talking out of your ass. I don't understand why people like you are commenting on these types of threads. I mean, if you have such little faith in DayZ Standalone, why do you feel the need to thrust your uneducated, heavily ignorant opinion onto anyone else? Do you seriously have nothing better to do than talk shit about a game? If you don't like what Rocket is doing, go play some other game. Maybe try Infestation Stories (WarZ), maybe then you will see what rushing a game of this level of creativity and ingenuity turns out like. 

[FrostDMG 398]

You have literally 0 evidence to support this claim. You're plainly just talking out of your ass. I don't understand why people like you are commenting on these types of threads. I mean, if you have such little faith in DayZ Standalone, why do you feel the need to thrust your uneducated, heavily ignorant opinion onto anyone else? Do you seriously have nothing better to do than talk shit about a game? If you don't like what Rocket is doing, go play some other game. Maybe try Infestation Stories (WarZ), maybe then you will see what rushing a game of this level of creativity and ingenuity turns out like. 

 

No, I have little faith in vehicles in Arma 2 and I doubt PhysX will be implemented into the SA (I could be wrong of course). Arma 2 vehicles handle like shit (civilian ground at least) and it would take a ton of effort to fix them imo.

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

I'd definately like to see some more info on the future of vehicles.  We know that they're being fully overhauled at some point in the future and that the plan is to allow for vehicle customisation and swapping parts etc. as well as maybe crafting certain elements to aid that customisation.

 

Dean also said they'd like to add more specific and realistic damage models, individual parts being damaged etc.

 

I guess that's all a way off yet though so for now we can only speculate.  If the handling could be improved over the traditionally bad Arma 2 handling then that would be pretty awesome.  Time will tell I guess.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Fraggle

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

I just wonder exactly what folk are expecting the SA to actually *be*. I think many folks perceptions on this are skewed.

 

In vague basic terms, it's essentially going to be a super refined "mega mod". (apologies devs)

 

If you look at the progress of any regular large Arma mod many have taken well over a year to "get out the door". I myself am involved in a couple and things move s l o w.

 

On the flip side Dean and the guys are churning out changes left right and centre, they're like machines. But, it will still take a little time before any release.

 

There's also been a large learning curve here involving bringing the team together being given super access to the game engine and learning all that's involved there. Again, a time consuming thing.

 

This is more a labour of love than a traditional game release IMHO and I'd personally rather it not be rushed to appease the squealing masses.

 

Still, if anyone doesn't want to wait then fine, there are other games out there and the game will still be published regardless.

 

I think posts spouting "facts" on how awful/lazy the devs are, are a waste of time and don't help anyone or anything.

 

Im only just a fingernail closer to the devs than the usual forum member, but what I have been able to glimpse is a vast amount of work.

 

I'm impressed and if you wait, I'll think you'll be impressed too.

 

As a player, it wont be like playing Dayz on some mythical Crytek/Frostbite engine in 4d with Smell O Vision, rather a tighter and far deeper coherent experience.

 

Plus, there'll be all the "behind the scenes" jiggery pokery that we don't initially notice as a normal player which will also assist our gameplay time in being all that it was envisioned to be.

 

Patience is what is needed. Make suggestions and constructive criticisms, just don't rant with out the facts.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[cautoad 216]

SNIP

 

Your posts are really easy to read, i like that  :beans:

[big_t 66]

....using a pre-existing engine and modding it further.....if the "standalone" is just a mod built on the Arma 3 engine you can count me out

 

 

Actually I think you may be even more disappointed because it is more like The Arma 2 engine or Take on helicopters engine, not Arma 3 engine.    I'm sure they have their reasons but it is kind of a shame it wan't built on the arma 3 engine because arma 3 looks and feels much better than arma 2. Also the night scenes and effects in Arma 3 are really fantastic.

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Actually I think you may be even more disappointed because it is more like The Arma 2 engine or Take on helicopters engine, not Arma 3 engine.    I'm sure they have their reasons but it is kind of a shame it wan't built on the arma 3 engine because arma 3 looks and feels much better than arma 2. Also the night scenes and effects in Arma 3 are really fantastic.

Well I'm glad people completely ignored my long-winded post explaining what game engines actually are...

I do agree with you about night time lighting though, we'll have to see how that turns out, during the day atm in testing it's looking far nicer than Arma 2/the mod especially when the weather rolls in and the sun gets low in the sky.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Fraggle

[colekern 1364]

Actually I think you may be even more disappointed because it is more like The Arma 2 engine or Take on helicopters engine, not Arma 3 engine.    I'm sure they have their reasons but it is kind of a shame it wan't built on the arma 3 engine because arma 3 looks and feels much better than arma 2. Also the night scenes and effects in Arma 3 are really fantastic.

 

Well I'm glad people completely ignored my long-winded post explaining what game engines actually are...

I do agree with you about night time lighting though, we'll have to see how that turns out, during the day atm in testing it's looking far nicer than Arma 2/the mod especially when the weather rolls in and the sun gets low in the sky.

Copied from Fraggles long-winded post:

 

 

It's not just re-hashed or ported content.

 

Exluding the map (which is having a LOT of work done on it, and we'll likely see new maps in the future) all of the content and most of the systems being implemented are completely new.  Every animation will be new, the player skeleton is newer than Arma 3's, every in-game object will be new.  Every weapon is being newly made and textured.  Later on they will record new sounds in the sound studio.  The weapon modification system is new.  The inventory system is new, the health system is new, the crafting mechanic is new.  The vehicle customisation system will be new.  Basebuilding that will follow later will be new.  The weather system is new. The wildlife will be new.  The disease system will be new.  The actual core of the game is new allowing them to do many things not possible in any mod.  I could go on.

 

NONE OF THE ABOVE IS MY BIAS FANBOY OPINION.  JUST PURE FACTS.

 

None of this is being ported from anywhere else, it is all being newly created for the SA.  Doesn't sound like a mod to me.  In fact there is simply no definition of the word "mod" that can be applied to the SA. 

 

As I explained at length in another post.  Every game you own is probably built on a pre-existing engine.  It is EXTREMELY rare for any game to use a new engine because they cost millions of pounds to develop.

 

I'll quote my recent post on game engines to clear up any confusion about what it is they're using and why using a pre-existing engine is common practice.  I made this post in response to somebody that was dissapointed that the SA was using the TOH engine as a base for the game:

 

"It's hard to define.  They used the TOH engine as a base but are making/have made sweeping changes to it.  TOH uses the RV3 engine as does Arma 2, it's just a newer version of it. 

 

Most "new" engines in games are just different branches or iterations of a pre-exsisting one.  You could say Arma 3 used the Arma 2 engine as a base and so on, so really it's just the "DayZ" branch of the RV engine now, the number is irrelevant.  It's very rare to see a truly new engine being used in any game at all.

 

To use two common examples, Call of Duty has been using the same engine (IW) as base for all of it's games since 2005 and GTA has been using the RAGE engine since 2008 (or before if you include a little known table-tennis game) and that engine itself evolved from the "Angel Game Engine".

 

People that are getting hung up on numbers/versions etc and think the SA is using the Arma 2 (or the TOH) engine don't understand much about gaming engines in my opinion.  Using their logic you could say that Arma 3 is using the original OFP (RV1) engine from 2001 where as those of us with eyes can clearly see that's not the case.

 

There are just different versions of the RV engine for different purposes, including the ones the militaries use for training purposes.  Those versions of it are referred to as the VBS (Virtual Battlespace) engine and cater to the needs of the militaries that use them but essentially they all come from the same place.  

 

So really names and numbers are only really useful to describe the core engine at a very specific point in time."

 

Got your back fraggle.

[FrostDMG 398]

Just a quick question to the people who've played the recent SA build, how would you say the stand alone fairs against screenshots below?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenies were taken from Arma 3's Zoombies mod, everything maxed (FXAA 4x, SSAO maxed) - with quite a respectable framerate of 30 (respectable for Arma that is ;) )

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Well you can answer that yourself by looking at the screenies released with the last devblog :/

 

Here you go:  http://rocketkiwi.tumblr.com/post/57212375532/dayzdev-screenshots-from-todays-multiplayer

 

They weren't taken on highest settings but give a solid idea of the current build.

 

Maybe as a player of that mod you could answer a question for me:  DX11 lighting aside - Gameplay-wise, how is that mod significantly different to the current mod?

Edited August 16, 2013 by Fraggle

[FrostDMG 398]

Snip

The character movement is much more fluid than in Arma 2 - i.e you don't get your weapon stuck on walls and the animations are more refined.

The vehicles handle much much better thanks to PhysX and don't explode upon small bump into a lamp post. This also applies to helicopters - they feel more "fluid".

Apart flom lighting, the sound is fantastic. Gunshots are heard from a considerable distance which adds to the scale of the map, you hear the wind rustling the tree canopy... Just adds that extra level of immersion.

Graphics generally feel more crisp than in Arma 2, but that's to be expected.

Gameplay wise, the mod is miles behind DayZ in some aspects, but surprising on par in others. For example eating, bandaging and tent planting are all done using the mouse scroll - you can misclick. Picking up thrown chemlights will also crash your game.

However, zombies are no worse than in DayZ. Though the spawning mechanic isn't working 100% imho.

Overall, the major advantages Zoombies has over DayZ is the engine. This is why I am disappointed DayZ isn't taking advantage of it.

P.S. Attachments.

Written from my phone, post is probably riddled with grammatical errors.

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Cool.  I guess when I said gameplay-wise I meant how it actually plays differently.  The things you mention are progress for sure.  Exluding PhysX and DX11 lighting though the other things aren't unique to that engine, they're just general progress much of which is already taken care of or on the cards for the SA.

 

Don't get me wrong, of course in an ideal world I think we'd all initially loved to see the SA using the Arma 3 engine (RV4) but there's many other things to consider especially from a development point of view and we also need to understand that would introduce many new issues and lengthen the development progress even further.  The point I've been trying to make for the last few pages is that they just used the TOH version of the RV3 engine as a starting point (as did Arma 3).  Adding thing like PhysX is not out of the question.  A number being assigned to an engine just represents that iteration of the engine at that point in time.

 

The engine for the SA is evolving, to keep calling it the Arma2 or TOH engine is already innacurate, it simply isn't that engine any more because there's been so many fundamental changes.  When they started dveloping the SA they needed a solid base to work from, the RV4 engine was/is not that base as it's still in heavy development itself.

 

Don't forget they have people on the team that built the engine itself and helped produce Arma 3 so I can't help but think you may be under estimating what they're capable of if given the time and space to do so.  These guys know what they're doing which is why I find it slightly ironic sometimes when people compare the SA to a mod using the RV4 engine.  The fact is the same people built or are building both.

 

There's already been so many core changes to the SA that it's a different beast entirely now.  It may not be apparent just yet but when the fundamentals are squared away and you start to get hit thick and fast with new content you''d have to be a very stubborn cynic not to be impressed.

 

I respect all of the modders this community has (lets not forget that Rocket is/was one of them), they've kept the game alive but I honestly believe people that think a mod ported into the RV4 engine will be able to compete with the SA n terms of genuine progress and how we play the game are either missing something or in denial.  Any mod will suffer the same problems, run into the same dead-ends and likely face many more bugs.  

 

That is the VERY reason Rocket moved onto the SA so quickly.  Modding can only take you so far, I believe most of the DayZ spin-off mods have already reached their potential and are now just scraping the barrel trying to innovate where they simply can't due to the restrictions of modding a pre existing game.  It's not a criticism of their talents it's just that they are severely limited as to what they can do within the confines of a mod.  Adding some sexy new shading does not change the experience in the long term.

 

The only version of DayZ that can now make any real progress is the SA itself.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Fraggle

[TheMachine 803]

SA has already went almost a year past it's original 'release date' and still doesn't have a timeframe for release.

 

I know the fanboys and suckups will get up my ass for saying this, but this is pretty much the definition of vapourware, whatever your opinion on it is.

 

The dev team are seriously taking the piss not even announcing a tentative release date. 
Either they should call the project off or tell us when it'll be released. 

 

This sort of thing happens all the time in the games/tech industry, the scope of the project expands (and keeps expanding) until it gets to a point that the product will basically never be 'ready'. 

Sooner or later the company/team runs out of money and resources for the development and it's cancelled.

This, I believe is what will happen to DayZ.

 

I remember it happened on kickstarter, team asks for $400,000 to make a game, they get over 3 million and decide to expand the scope of the original project instead of just making what they originally planned to make, before they knew it they were over budget, had spent themselves into a corner and the project was cancelled. 

 

At present, I don't believe, nor is there any evidence whatsoever, that DayZ will be released as a standalone product.

The fact that they won't even give a release date tends to suggest to me that even now, we're at least 6 months out. And who knows, maybe after 6 months they'll add MORE things to the project and it'll be another 6 months?

Release early, release often - If the staff behind dayz can't operate by this philosophy then I don't think we'll ever see a game. 

 

 

[Rage VG 4033]

We have plenty of input from behind the scenes to ensure that there ARE things at work and to assure us that it will eventually be ready, even if it is getting to be a rather tedious wait.

[Death_Dealer 3155]

It's frustrating because many people don't realize making a (quality) game isn't something you can do on the fly.

 

It takes quite a while, especially when you don't have many people working on it. Rocket worked his tits off making a free mod that we play; he doesn't owe us anything. 

 

Just be patient :)

[TheMachine 803]

We have plenty of input from behind the scenes to ensure that there ARE things at work and to assure us that it will eventually be ready, even if it is getting to be a rather tedious wait.

 

A failed release, then a years wait and the complete absence of any release date are indicative of vapourware.

 

My concern isn't that the team aren't doing anything, my concern is that they've fallen into the most common trap in software development and expanded the scope of the project to such a degree that they can't realistically ever release it.

There's no other explanation for the YEAR long delay and their point blank REFUSAL to tell us even a 3 month timeframe when we can expect to play the game.

[Inception. 9443]

...And? I don't really see the point in this, other than saying the game won't be released [how many times has that been posted?], the team isn't doing anything [which is obviously incorrect, hence the content within the devblogs], blah blah.

 

 

he doesn't owe us anything. 

 

This. 

He can take as long as he wants, regardless of the December release date that wasn't even totally confirmed.

 

I mean, haven't you already made a topic saying that the Standalone is going to fail/not be released? 

Edited August 17, 2013 by Inception.

[TheMachine 803]

...And?

And I don't understand your question.

[Rage VG 4033]

A failed release, then a years wait and the complete absence of any release date are indicative of vapourware.

 

My concern isn't that the team aren't doing anything, my concern is that they've fallen into the most common trap in software development and expanded the scope of the project to such a degree that they can't realistically ever release it.

There's no other explanation for the YEAR long delay and their point blank REFUSAL to tell us even a 3 month timeframe when we can expect to play the game.

This is why they aren't giving out estimates; the last time they did, everyone went around shouting their heads off "OH MY GOD IT'S GOING TO BE HERE AT THIS TIME FOR SURE" and when they decided they wanted to rework the project, everyone yelled about how they promised it'd be out when it was just an estimate and no promise was made. I'm assuming that this "failed release" is also that december release estimate, and it just proves my point that people will take any hint and solidify it into fact and then get incredibly pissy if it's not met. I'm pretty sure they don't want to give a release date specifically because people will hurl shit if something should mess up.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Rage VG

[Inception. 9443]

And I don't understand your question.

 

Sorry, I expanded.