Actual Constructive Feedback for 1.7.7

[killigon 3]

Unfortunately it often seems necessary to start new topics when attempting reasonable discussion. Squabbling kids inevitably descend into a "who is more right" pissing contest and derail almost every topic in these forums at one time or another.

I think that people are stumbling for the right concept when explaining features that don't fit into their game experience or derail it, with realism and perhaps authenticity not quite fitting the bill.

The quality that most promotes immersion in a game is plausibility. With a reasonable mix of credibility, context and familiarity, just about anything is more likely to be accepted without question. The weather varies, there is a day/night cycle, the stars are navigable when visible, birds burst into flight when disturbed, the sound of the sea announces the coast, vehicle doors clunk on entry and exit ... and so on.

When something suspends belief, it treads a fine line in terms of acceptance in a game. Immersion disturbance is a subtle but profound crime, one which players can struggle to explain and unfortunately DayZ 1.7.7 is a serial offender.

The Infection -

A certain death timer with a frustratingly elusive remedy, but for the wrong reasons and linked to the other immersion breakers. However, this offence is being addressed, so the jury is out until the attempted fix is also.

The Infected -

Yes, the zeds. There is no problem with smart, aggressive AI enemies, until they also disconnect from what is plausible. Our shambling cousins are guilty on multiple counts of immersion breaking implausibility.

Spawning to within a few metres of players anywhere on the map, out of sight or in peripheral vision, and in numbers. Just how heavily populated was Chernarus, eh? Why wouldn't that zed have been there in that open area when I just looked at it from 20, no 30, no 50, no 100 metres away? Like many others, I suspect, I had no problem with the system of wilderness spawning in 1.7.6.1 This has gone too far.

Why does zed player detection bear no relation to the audio and visual warning indicators any more? Why are players being detected and chased when they use stealth methods and tiptoe around on one bar? This is a terrible disconnect in environmental feedback and is not challenging, but an implausible immersion breaker.

The difference? Challenge has a solution which bears reward. Sneaking by walking on soft materials and reducing visibility should be rewarded with passing undetected and the feedback should reflect the action.

Zeds are walking through buildings. Great, no problem with that. They are detecting players through buildings and rampaging in after them. Not so great ... wait ... another Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment. Another jarring disconnect from plausibility. So, players actually manage to sneak around despite not knowing if they are stealthy (hallelujah), but are then sensed inside buildings and rampaged upon. No jumping out of windows in this game.

Zeds uncannily zero in on players even when they don't detect them. Another clumsy and obvious game mechanic, which joins the queue to break immersion and unbalance the challenge and reward cycle. Evaded the zeds, but why bother? They've magically turned in just the right direction and are following en masse anyway.

Quite a few zeds are appearing on loot spawns and not moving, though not in an "I'm loitering" fashion, but more of an "I'm a bit broken and have forgotten to move" kind of way. However, they will often and suddenly remember their purpose and aggro, but again in no relation to stealth indicators.

The Loot -

I would suspect there are many who have no problem with what the new loot spawn system is trying to achieve in preventing "farming" or "cycling". Who also have no problem with less loot less often. However, what kills the goose is bizarre randomness. Why oh why would a supermarket be full of ammunition, but not have medical supplies? Why on earth would heaps of medical supplies be in a barn outside a village? Who the hell stocks their workshops with knives, soda pop and toilet roll? Why would bloody great hangars be empty and small sheds full of gear? There is not enough logical expectation to target scavenging and it simply doesn't add up. I'm all for a challenge with scavenging, but not for some drawn out, random Easter egg hunt.

The loot cycle itself may be intended to deter farming, which is a worthy goal, but it may well just encourage a longer farming cycle and increased server hopping by hard core players, especially after restarts. One thing it will do is pummel casual and time limited players who aren't first on the scene and don't have several hours to kill, trudging round in big lazy circles waiting for loot timers to reset. I would wager that quite a few of the 1,737,741 survivors have other priorities in their lives, than out-waiting everyone else to get a clean shot at the next loot cycle.

What has gone wrong in so many ways is not that 1.7.7 is too hard, but that it is difficult and annoying for illogical reasons that players cannot overcome by reasonable action.

These changes are implausible and break immersion, they suspend belief. Suddenly we can see the wires and the painted backdrops. It is ugly and it is not entertaining. Yes, that word "entertaining", sometimes related to fun, but not necessarily so and far more rewarding. This is what I suspect many are referring to when misguidedly using the word "fun".

Create challenge, by all means, but go that extra mile to ensure it is not clumsy, obvious or unbelievable ... or all that effort is unravelled along with everything that came before it.

Can we please get a highlight for this? With this post, RN_Max addressed every problem I and many more have with the new patch in a reasonable, logical and descriptive way. I think it deserves more than being halfway down through a comment section.

[WBK 176]

Playing on a night server used to be pretty hard due to the temperature dropping very fast

Yeah, nighttime in the eastern bloc would be freezing, that needs to be reinstated.

With this post, RN_Max addressed every problem I and many more have with the new patch in a reasonable, logical and descriptive way.

I for one love the new patch, but some points he addresses are legitimate.

Random spawning: this is a great feature, and has already stopped me equating zed presence with survivor presence. But it is annoying when they magically spawn 20 metres in front of you.

Zed player detection: RN_Max trumped this up. They have always been reasonably good at detecting us, but now that it's much harder to escape, everyone is up in arms. Although a few unrelated things do bother me. Zombie hearing should be roughly equivalent to human hearing. So it is frustrating when I run around on carpeted areas, completely silent, but the hearing metre measures two bars. On the other end of the spectrum, it also annoys me that when it's nighttime, the sounds you make are no quieter, but the hearing metre measures only 1 bar when during the day it would measure 3. Light doesn't affect hearing ability.

Walking through buildings: completely annoying, but unfixable. Stay away from walls is my best advice.

Zeroing in: This really needs to be fixed IMO. They will magically walk where I am heading, without having seen or heard me. This happens far too often to be a coincidence.

Infection: There is no big problem with infection although it does need a slight tidy up - which is well underway - and if you think it's an instant death sentence, well that's just your fault. Plain and simple, it is not. It's just a cop out for people who can't be bothered sustaining themselves for a couple of hours of gameplay until they find antibiotics.

Loot: Again, I have no problem with loot spawns. The randomness adds, not detracts. The apocalypse does not start when the server does; so assume looting had been happening prior. People would have left items in buildings, and taken them out as well. The less uniformity, the better and more plausible. I used to go into a supermarket knowing that I'd get at least an ALICE pack, several toolbelt items, pistol ammo - if not a pistol itself, and heaps of food and drink to keep me sustained. Now I'll be lucky to get an ACU and some trail mix. Seriously, the loot revamp is definitely for the better.

Edited June 16, 2013 by WBK

[Tehmedic101 16]

Light doesn't affect hearing ability.

No but heat does affect how far sound travels.

It would actually be significantly easier to hear at night, especially in a wooded area of the Czech, where it gets quiet a bit colder at night.

It is kind of funny how it's reversed in DayZ though.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Tehmedic101

[need matches 84]

There are other threads for this. Commenting on what we don't like about 1.7.7 in a thoughtful way IS constructive. I agree with you. But other threads are already doing this. This is an unnecessary thread.

Edited June 16, 2013 by need matches

[Tehmedic101 16]

There are other threads for this. Commenting on what we don't like about 1.7.7 in a thoughtful way IS constructive. I agree with you. But other threads are already doing this. This is an unnecessary thread.

This has already been stated, and I've linked to the main thread.

This is a useless post.

[moriak 35]

Could you please back up your point of view.

Please don't just place opinions.

"DayZ was designed to be impossibly cruel, dark, and brutal. It was not designed as a game it was more of an experiment, I prefer the term "anti-game" - in other words the mechanics are not designed to be balanced, or offer a way out for different situations." - rocket

"So the DayZ world has gone to shit? Good. We're on track then. Because its a fucking Zombie Apocalypse." - rocket

[tiger_widow@hotmail.com 10]

snip

Interesting points you make on authenticity, suspension of belief and immersion. A commendable post, beans have been thrown.

I could argue though, that immersion is equally broken by the predictability of certain loot appearing in certain places time and time again. I think by now there would be no guns left at military outposts, the hospitals would be very devoid of blood, the supermarkets long ransacked and the houses dry and barren. Anything you may find by now should rightfully have curious reasons for their location.

Indeed, why is there a pile of medical supplies in an old barn on the outskirts of a village... Is it the last remnant of a failed survival attempt. An abandoned stash, the owner all but lost to the horrors abound. The unpredictability of loot, to me, makes more sense, adds more of a framework for your mind to piece together some kind of narrative. Compare that with the 20th trip to the military tents in cherno for that 15th AK, before the hospital to dive in to the never ending supplies of blood, then up to NW to fix up that reliable helicopter, and why not loot a crash site on the way, they seem to be dropping like flies in an equally never ending supply.

Is this an actual apocalypse, or some kind of ground hog day purgatory?

I can see what you're saying about the Zs though, they do feel a bit broken and I agree they need to be tweaked, but again i think it's down to perspective, it's not to much of a stretch to imagine some in context possibility as to what these observed changes are about. I mean who's to say the infection isn't changing, maybe the surviving Zs have become more stealthy, more deadly, heightened senses... Who knows? we certainly don't, the one thing we know for sure is we have no answers and I prefer that I don't. To me it's more interesting that the enviroments changes, the Zeds remain unpredictable, the loot stays elusive. If everything was set in stone and a definitive patch ended the little tweaks, I feel before long the game would become very predictable and boring.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Parodax

[tajjuk 65]

Unfortunately it often seems necessary to start new topics when attempting reasonable discussion. Squabbling kids inevitably descend into a "who is more right" pissing contest and derail almost every topic in these forums at one time or another.

I think that people are stumbling for the right concept when explaining features that don't fit into their game experience or derail it, with realism and perhaps authenticity not quite fitting the bill.

The quality that most promotes immersion in a game is plausibility. With a reasonable mix of credibility, context and familiarity, just about anything is more likely to be accepted without question. The weather varies, there is a day/night cycle, the stars are navigable when visible, birds burst into flight when disturbed, the sound of the sea announces the coast, vehicle doors clunk on entry and exit ... and so on.

When something suspends belief, it treads a fine line in terms of acceptance in a game. Immersion disturbance is a subtle but profound crime, one which players can struggle to explain and unfortunately DayZ 1.7.7 is a serial offender.

The Infection -

A certain death timer with a frustratingly elusive remedy, but for the wrong reasons and linked to the other immersion breakers. However, this offence is being addressed, so the jury is out until the attempted fix is also.

The Infected -

Yes, the zeds. There is no problem with smart, aggressive AI enemies, until they also disconnect from what is plausible. Our shambling cousins are guilty on multiple counts of immersion breaking implausibility.

Spawning to within a few metres of players anywhere on the map, out of sight or in peripheral vision, and in numbers. Just how heavily populated was Chernarus, eh? Why wouldn't that zed have been there in that open area when I just looked at it from 20, no 30, no 50, no 100 metres away? Like many others, I suspect, I had no problem with the system of wilderness spawning in 1.7.6.1 This has gone too far.

Why does zed player detection bear no relation to the audio and visual warning indicators any more? Why are players being detected and chased when they use stealth methods and tiptoe around on one bar? This is a terrible disconnect in environmental feedback and is not challenging, but an implausible immersion breaker.

The difference? Challenge has a solution which bears reward. Sneaking by walking on soft materials and reducing visibility should be rewarded with passing undetected and the feedback should reflect the action.

Zeds are walking through buildings. Great, no problem with that. They are detecting players through buildings and rampaging in after them. Not so great ... wait ... another Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment. Another jarring disconnect from plausibility. So, players actually manage to sneak around despite not knowing if they are stealthy (hallelujah), but are then sensed inside buildings and rampaged upon. No jumping out of windows in this game.

Zeds uncannily zero in on players even when they don't detect them. Another clumsy and obvious game mechanic, which joins the queue to break immersion and unbalance the challenge and reward cycle. Evaded the zeds, but why bother? They've magically turned in just the right direction and are following en masse anyway.

Quite a few zeds are appearing on loot spawns and not moving, though not in an "I'm loitering" fashion, but more of an "I'm a bit broken and have forgotten to move" kind of way. However, they will often and suddenly remember their purpose and aggro, but again in no relation to stealth indicators.

The Loot -

I would suspect there are many who have no problem with what the new loot spawn system is trying to achieve in preventing "farming" or "cycling". Who also have no problem with less loot less often. However, what kills the goose is bizarre randomness. Why oh why would a supermarket be full of ammunition, but not have medical supplies? Why on earth would heaps of medical supplies be in a barn outside a village? Who the hell stocks their workshops with knives, soda pop and toilet roll? Why would bloody great hangars be empty and small sheds full of gear? There is not enough logical expectation to target scavenging and it simply doesn't add up. I'm all for a challenge with scavenging, but not for some drawn out, random Easter egg hunt.

The loot cycle itself may be intended to deter farming, which is a worthy goal, but it may well just encourage a longer farming cycle and increased server hopping by hard core players, especially after restarts. One thing it will do is pummel casual and time limited players who aren't first on the scene and don't have several hours to kill, trudging round in big lazy circles waiting for loot timers to reset. I would wager that quite a few of the 1,737,741 survivors have other priorities in their lives, than out-waiting everyone else to get a clean shot at the next loot cycle.

What has gone wrong in so many ways is not that 1.7.7 is too hard, but that it is difficult and annoying for illogical reasons that players cannot overcome by reasonable action.

These changes are implausible and break immersion, they suspend belief. Suddenly we can see the wires and the painted backdrops. It is ugly and it is not entertaining. Yes, that word "entertaining", sometimes related to fun, but not necessarily so and far more rewarding. This is what I suspect many are referring to when misguidedly using the word "fun".

Create challenge, by all means, but go that extra mile to ensure it is not clumsy, obvious or unbelievable ... or all that effort is unravelled along with everything that came before it.

A great post.

Something I tried to explain in other threads about this patch. Zombies needed fixing before they were buffed and dialling up the difficulty to 11 does not automatically create a better game.

There is a difference between chore and challenge, spending hours upon hours looking for simple loot is not challenging it's simply boring.

Having zombies completely ignore the laws of physics is not challenging it's game breaking.

Hopefully the infection changes will make this patch a bit better. i think most people don't disagree with the tone of this patch, loot was previously a bit easy as were zombies but I think the changes have gone too far and they are a bit too simplistic.

- Zombies not a threat? we'll make them super strong & fast, they knock you down in one hit and constantly infect infect you.

- Loot not scarce enough? turn all the loot tables right down and make everything really rare.

Edited June 17, 2013 by tajjuk

[Cadian412 31]

My ideas I posted in a different thread:

I don't really care about less loot and stronger zombies, I think those are good ideas in general (although they can still use a lot of tweaking: the infection situation is obviously a huge problem, and there should be a little more melee weapons, and less ammo and smoke grenades/flares which I'm finding virtually everywhere).

The big problem is just the ridiculous aggro of the zombies and the cheating they do to find you. You can try sneaking as much as you can, but with the stupidly far sight and hearing of the zombies means it's near impossible not to aggro them eventually. Even at night they will still randomly aggro you when not visible and not making sound. The spawns are also ridiculous. I'm constantly seeing zombies spawning literally on top of loot. And they tend to just stand and sit there forever.

It's almost impossible to lose zombies quickly now. You can try running up hills and through large building (which makes for really boring and tedious gameplay) but even then when you lose them they still often manage to magically track you down. You can run far away from a spot, but they will still know exactly where you went, even when lying prone and out of sight.

Here's what I would like to see:

-Get rid of the bloodhound ability: if you've "trapped" zombies in a building and are 100 meters or so away from them, you should have lost them.

-Introduce additional and easier ways of losing zombies: the current system is just a terrible bore, it's not exactly hard, zombies aren't even able to kill you as long as you're running, It's just an annoying waste of your time and makes the game a lot less fun

-Reduce detection/aggro: doesn't have to be a whole lot, but looting is either just way to tedious or often impossible. Moving them further away from the loot would ameliorate this problem as well (I've also noticed what I presume is a bug, with zombies sometimes just endlessly standing in a loot location).

-Some minor changes in the knockdown ability: seem to be incoming.

-Major changes in the whole infection mechanic: seem to be incoming as well.

Things like zombie damage, zombie hit points, überzombies, knockdown and other status effect chances don't even have to be touched (with exception of the infection rate), and could even be raised to compensate. Current loot levels wouldn't need increasing as well.

That's why it's perhaps better to focus on decreasing the aggro. Decreasing that won't allow you to suddenly run carelessly through zombies, yet it would make sneaking around them much more of a possibility than it is now.

And why not introduce certain items that can deaggro them, that would deal with the annoying chase in a different way. Drop something on the ground which they will focus on and leave you alone. That item could be disposable so you can't use that tactic time and time again.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

It feels just like vanilla dayz is no longer for casual players

Things are shaping up nicely then.

[sarkasm0 109]

Things are shaping up nicely then.

Good to see you are a nolifer then.

[gutt3rz@gmail.com 4]

I completely agree with RN_Max.

For me a lot about this game and the way I get sucked into it is believe-ability, and in saying that I just don't get how a zombie seems to have amazing hearing, speed and an extra sense of following my exact path.

I find it hard to follow a player through Cherno, why shouldn't the zeds.

I believe the zombies are decayed humans; the 'living dead' shouldn't they be slower and weaker than us, not super-human??

I love the added infection, but tip-toeing in a building and then 3 zombies from outside running in after seems unrealistic, and its not like I can push through them out the door, I have to fight them and when you're a fresh spawn going into a house looking for a weapon, sometimes you can't.

Just my two cents.

[moriak 35]

I believe the zombies are decayed humans; the 'living dead' shouldn't they be slower and weaker than us, not super-human??

they are not zombies or living dead.. they are people infected with a virus and only referred to as "zombies" because of the similarities between their behavior and the zombies we know from fiction.. it seems that the virus enhances some of their senses and abilities, which is also hinted at at the DayZ about page:

"Realistic "Zombies" with custom animations - These once human creatures will act and behave as if they have a heighten sense of hearing and smell but less sight"

Edited June 18, 2013 by moriak

[bca quattro 44]

they are not zombies or living dead.. they are people infected with a virus and only referred to as "zombies" because of the similarities between their behavior and the zombies we know from fiction.. it seems that the virus enhances some of their senses and abilities, which is also hinted at at the DayZ about page:

"Realistic "Zombies" with custom animations - These once human creatures will act and behave as if they have a heighten sense of hearing and smell but less sight"

totally agree!

[boatie 34]

Things are shaping up nicely then.

Elitist nerd bs. You always need a constant flow of new players into games and servers otherwise it dies. A normal 50 ppl server probably has thousands of people cycling through to keep it full. If new players are not coming it, the server will die out. The game should be fun for everyone, not just survivalist fanboys.

It so funny that the opinion above was the Arma 2 fanboys' opinion of dayz players when it first came out. So many of the Arma 2 fanboys were raging that dayz players were coming in and taking over their favorite game and the sooner these guys leave, the better for their beloved game. Now we got these dayz fanboys wanting to kick out everyone who is not a true believer. You fanboys should go back to last year and read what the arma 2 fanboys were saying about you. Then you can cut and paste their comments and post it here as your own!

Edited June 18, 2013 by boatie

[tiger_widow@hotmail.com 10]

Elitist nerd bs. You always need a constant flow of new players into games and servers otherwise it dies.

This is toxic logic. Any game worth it's salt should be kept alive by it's core demographic. You can tell if a workplace is run badly if there's a quick turn over of employees, likewise if a game is kept alive by a constant supply of new gamers, then it only stands to reason that there isn't enough content or ingenuity within the game concept to keep players of any kind around. While it is true that the majority of games are played through and put on the shelf, games that can be called 'classic' as it were are those that have truly won the test of time through having an active and dedicated core player base even sometimes decades after release and/or secession of official support. Quake 2, Halo 1, Sim City 4, to many but a few. These games have gained such success because they were original, built well, targeted a niche and were developed 'truly/purely' to the ethos of the gameplay style they were aiming for. They did not allow the central concept to be watered down in an attempt to please the majority, that may have been at the time consisting mainly of 'quick fix' gamers, as is the general trend with games of all kinds during their 'media focused' time around release. We have seen this time and time again where true concepts are lost in translation between the developers in open betas/alphas and the noise floor of the non-specific cross section of gamers that are involved in feedback.

It is the mark of an integral dev company that can stay true to the original idea and see to it's fruition, where history has also shown that this most reliably ensures a well built game that does true justice to the underlying conceptual ethos the game is attempting to portray. A game built along these lines will always end up successful because the developers have a clear idea of what they are making, and they are strong enough to deal with the flack of people that have enough interest in it to pay attention, yet are realistically not the right type of person to truly understand the meaning of the concept. If they were to truly listen to these people (like a lot of games companies have done, Battle field, Elder Scrolls e.t.c.) they would lose that which makes them unique and essentially alienate the people that have enough genuine interest in the game play concept to stay with the game for years. This is always a bad idea.

A normal 50 ppl server probably has thousands of people cycling through to keep it full. If new players are not coming it, the server will die out. The game should be fun for everyone, not just survivalist fanboys.

A normal 50 people server, that is popular will sure have a lot of people running through it. which will indeed make the server look more populated than it 'really' is as it seems the majority of people play on high population servers, because they are high population, which is a kind of positive feedback relationship. Though if you have ever spent enough time on a single server, you will get to know who the regulars are, and it is these people that signify the true population of that server. Again thise can be seen as a bit of a case study in the two different 'gamer mindsets' that you can arguably split gaming culture in to. The 'quick fix' gamers; and the 'purists' that are truly interested and dedicated in their particular niche. The latter are always the ones that keep games afloat, while the rest hop on over to the next 'in thing' endlessly chasing the next ego fueled adrenaline high.

Following this logic, it only makes sense that games should rather, never 'be fun for everyone' as attempting this will inevitably sacrifice that games longevity by failing to serve, or at least largely watering down those elements that would appeal to, the core purist demographic.

It so funny that the opinion above was the Arma 2 fanboys' opinion of dayz players when it first came out. So many of the Arma 2 fanboys were raging that dayz players were coming in and taking over their favorite game and the sooner these guys leave, the better for their beloved game.

What you say here is very relevant to what I'm talking about. The Arma series is a very well built game series, that is very focused on a specific gameplay concept, that has been designed well; and therefor has a very dedicated and long term, core player base which you so eloquently call 'fan boys'. Of course there is going to be flack from them when a sea of 'quick fix' (from their perspective) gamers appear that seem to really not understand their beloved game. Arma will continue to be successful regardless of Dayz because it has the integrity of support from it's player base. It has this because it was designed well and stuck true to its central concept, thus pleasing those people that will naturally be inclined to be interested in that game the longest.

Now we got these dayz fanboys wanting to kick out everyone who is not a true believer. You fanboys should go back to last year and read what the arma 2 fanboys were saying about you. Then you can cut and paste their comments and post it here as your own!

And now we get to the main point. Yes DayZ does also have a core demographic. The interesting relationship between the core Arma player base and the core DayZ player base is simply down to DayZ being built off the same engine, so the cultures have a proximity effect. That aside. DayZ is in it's own right a very unique game (regardless of it's proximity to Arma). It has a very unique mixture of gameplay concepts with high potential for success.

It is at heart meant to be a very hard post apocalyptic survivalist simulation; and right now we are witnessing the age old interplay between the Devs, the purists, and the quick fix gamers, all complete with their predictable stances in this interplay. From my perspective i think it is very important that 'the devs' always have in mind what this game is 'supposed to be', what will appeal to those most closely interested in a hardcore post apocalyptic survival simulation as a gameplay concept, and always make decisions in the interest of this game becoming very purely what it was always supposed to become.

The people that don't like how hard it is becoming, or that it isn't turning in to what they want it to, can hoestly go and find another game that suits them better. This game especially, should appeal to a niche, and any deviation from that in part of the Dev's reacting to the quick fix gamers is a dent in the integrity of DayZ's potential.

This game should be horrifically hard, should piss you off, should be unfair, should be a chore in some aspects. Because it is (and should always be) a very complex apocalypse survival simulation, which isn't much of a walk in the park. The people playing this game are playing it because they are looking for a challenge. They are looking for an unpleasant, anxiety filled, hair on the back of your neck stood on end, experience. In that respect, anything that makes the game harder, that increases authenticity, and makes clearer the experience of 'what it would actually be like if I was in this situation', is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

And when people speak out to defend the integrity of this as an authentic experience have every reason to do so. If to you they can be simplified down to a simple labeling of 'fan boy' then to me it seems you don't really have the game's best intentions at heart. Because it by proxy signifies you would prefer a confused collage of mechanics pasted together to please the utter non consistency of feedback any Dev in this position would be recieving.

I think it's important to understand the nature of games, gaming culture, demographics and player bases. Because if you don't tread carefully, you may inadvertently screw up what has the potential of being amazing.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Parodax

[Jamz 253]

I agree with pretty much everything in the above post. I also think that a game/mod like this needs a high level of natural difficulty to counterbalance its lack of endgame. Beating the odds and surviving for as long as possible should be a viable form of endgame in itself.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

The game should be fun for everyone

No game can ever be fun for everyone. That's an idea that has ruined many video games.

In fact, DayZ was born out of rejection of that idea. Rocket tried to sell his game idea to big companies and was told nobody would play it. Well, he made the game HE wanted to play, the way HE wanted it to be, and look, over a million players and counting.

I may be a huge fan of DayZ, but don't get it twisted, I'm no fanboy. I'll be the first person to criticize something I don't like about it. Just because I want the game to be more difficult doesn't mean I look down on people who want it to be a casual game. To each their own.

Edit:

-snip-

Very well said, sums up the whole situation nicely.

Edited June 21, 2013 by bad_mojo

[boatie 34]

snip

I don't agree with alot of your argument but it was good and thoughtful, beans to you dude! Only thing I can say is that, rocket might have a vision, but that doesnt mean he's always right. I am pretty sure that he is as shocked as anyone that dayz grew so popular. Dayz, unlike arma 2, is not niche. It has a chance to be mainstream and that's not a bad thing. We need another vision of fps to compete with css and cod. It's aint arma 2. It's dayz.

In regards to the "game has to be fun for everyone." What I meant was that it should fun for all the different types of people who love dayz and, as is very clear on this forum, there are many, many different types of players who play and love dayz.

Edited June 22, 2013 by boatie