Do you agree with modding in SA?

[Zeet. 101]

You do not understand how a mod operates.

 

You clearly don't understand how your fucking brain operates.

[zeroy 240]

DayZ was built on a Mod previously and so for me its got to have mod support in. Of course this should be away from the public hive, on private servers.

[Hikurac 115]

I love the vanilla game and don't ever want it to be thrown aside for mods that add crazy features. However I believe DayZ would have never existed without mods, so Rocket should allow them. It all comes down to player demand and supply. If the vanilla game is left empty because of people only playing the mods. Well then... it just wasn't good enough for them. Their choice.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Hikurac

[louist 163]

You clearly don't understand how your fucking brain operates.

Ah, profanity and personal attacks, the traditional last stand of the baseless argument.

I'll make it clear, though. A mod, by it's very nature, is optional. It isn't something you can be forced into playing. Your words have shown you to be someone who didn't understand that.

I hope that helped clear things up for you.

Edited January 13, 2014 by louist

[Zeet. 101]

Ah, profanity and personal attacks, the traditional last stand of the baseless argument.

I'll make it clear, though. A mod, by it's very nature, is optional. It isn't something you can be forced into playing. You're words have shown you to be someone who didn't understand that.

 

A well deserved attack. You made an assumption "Yuh dun understernd er mod hurrdurr" which came directly out of your cancerous inner bowels. I know exactly what a mod is as does most if not all who came into this topic. Clearly your intelligence comes into question when all you had to say was completely false, irrelevant, unintelligent, and hilariously based on your false assumptions that, as I stated earlier, came right out of your ass.

 

You do not understand how a mod operates.

[deebz1234 243]

i love forums...some of the responses...like come on people.

 

opening up SA to mods will definitely make "easy mode/guns/etc" or whatever the fuck that yahoo was going on about.

But at the same time it will give way to some really amazing things...think dayzero. That mod was OG as they come but just so much more immersive and no stupid gimmicks or quick PVP that so many hate (think overwatch)

[gingatsu 68]

In my opinion, any mods or add ons which is thought to be implemented should be "cosmetical" dunno how thats goin to work. BUT if the add on or mod is going to help you by shooting, or gives you a crosshair in veteran mode or such kinda things. I am totally against it.

[deebz1234 243]

it goes both ways...you will have shite cheater mods and great mods...or no mods...but its your choice in the end...

[soulfirez 901]

This, if you think otherwise take your money and GTFO back to the fucking mod.

Wow i guess rocket should just stop making SA cause well he wants to allow modding (when he is finished doing how he wants it)

 

A well deserved attack. You made an assumption "Yuh dun understernd er mod hurrdurr" which came directly out of your cancerous inner bowels. I know exactly what a mod is as does most if not all who came into this topic. Clearly your intelligence comes into question when all you had to say was completely false, irrelevant, unintelligent, and hilariously based on your false assumptions that, as I stated earlier, came right out of your ass.

Ok this is just offensive as well all he said is you dont understand mods nothing that deserved a personal attack ( i understand why he thought you didnt understand mods due to your hostility to them )

 

So lets run with you know what a mod is can you explain to me whats so evil about modding when the game started as a mod when the creator of the game is open to modding ( and does it in his spare time) instead of telling people to FO if they dont agree with you how about you explain why modding is bad and why rocket shouldnt allow it in a way that will make him change his mind cause its not us its him and BIS you need to say no mods to.

 

Cause as a modder i have 3dmax and blender already fired up moddeling ideas of things id like to see in game LOL

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Modding is allowed, so this whole thread/poll is moot anyway.

 

That's a little bit specious. The release will support mods, but there's absolutely no information on what the extent of those mods will be. It will be up to the team to decide how modifiable the base functionality is and how far off baseline mods are permitted to go.

 

Modding simply expands the amount of people that the game appeals to. I don't see the problem with making a mod that makes the game easier or harder, it just caters to different tastes and if you don't like that play style then don't play that mod. By allowing modding we aren't forciing you to play easy mode or hard mode, it's simply giving options, and if you haven't noticed in life yet, options are good.

 

The danger arises with completely new players who might think they want a certain experience. Someone who has never played "true DayZ" might not know what the experience is really like and immediately assume it's not their thing because of some articles or online reviews they read, so they immediately flock to modified servers and never give the base game a chance. Perhaps if they had tried it out they would have found it to their liking after all, and changed their mind about the base experience, but given the range of mods available never actually play the base game. That's bad in my opinion.

 

It has the ability to do both. It can expand the player base, but it can also limit it in certain ways.

 

I support mods, but I think they should be limited in scope and type. I do not feel that players should have the option to play on "100 vehicles, all rocket launchers, no gravity, glow-in-the-dark underpants" servers, or "all thermal snipers, 10 million player health" servers, etc.

 

At some point it becomes a question of brand integrity. rocket/Bohemia surely want the DayZ brand to mean something in the industry. Controlling what that brand means to players and the media is an important part of building towards a future that includes games that are more hardcore, like baseline DayZ. I would like to see them maintain the integrity of the name by not allowing people to drag it through the mud with insanely ridiculous mods, or goofy changes to the game's basic premise.

 

Mods I would like to see would be things like:

More powerful zombies

More numerous zombies

No loot respawns (or 24 hour cycles)

Temporary bans on death

Tournament play (think Hunger Games)

Faster day/night cycle

Less ammunition

New maps, locations, buildings

Clan vs. Clan with stats

Slower health rengeration

New items and weapons

 

Mods I would hate to see would be things like:

Tons of vehicles

Tons of ridiculous weapons

No PvP, "Friendly only" 

Vehicles galore!

Goof-around changes to gravity, friction, player health

Kill cams, nametags, map waypoints (like old recruit servers)

No hunger/thirst/sickness/weather

Unlimited ammo

Clown suits for everyone!

Global chat

Edited January 13, 2014 by ZedsDeadBaby

[OrLoK 16185]

A well deserved attack. You made an assumption "Yuh dun understernd er mod hurrdurr" which came directly out of your cancerous inner bowels. I know exactly what a mod is as does most if not all who came into this topic. Clearly your intelligence comes into question when all you had to say was completely false, irrelevant, unintelligent, and hilariously based on your false assumptions that, as I stated earlier, came right out of your ass.

The personal insults stop now, or youll be taking a long holiday.

 

your recent posts over the past day or so are NOT acceptable here.

 

L

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

At a much later date, definitely.

[soulfirez 901]

 

That's a little bit specious. The release will support mods, but there's absolutely no information on what the extent of those mods will be. It will be up to the team to decide how modifiable the base functionality is and how far off baseline mods are permitted to go.

 

 

The danger arises with completely new players who might think they want a certain experience. Someone who has never played "true DayZ" might not know what the experience is really like and immediately assume it's not their thing because of some articles or online reviews they read, so they immediately flock to modified servers and never give the base game a chance. Perhaps if they had tried it out they would have found it to their liking after all, and changed their mind about the base experience, but given the range of mods available never actually play the base game. That's bad in my opinion.

 

It has the ability to do both. It can expand the player base, but it can also limit it in certain ways.

 

I support mods, but I think they should be limited in scope and type. I do not feel that players should have the option to play on "100 vehicles, all rocket launchers, no gravity, glow-in-the-dark underpants" servers, or "all thermal snipers, 10 million player health" servers, etc.

 

At some point it becomes a question of brand integrity. rocket/Bohemia surely want the DayZ brand to mean something in the industry. Controlling what that brand means to players and the media is an important part of building towards a future that includes games that are more hardcore, like baseline DayZ. I would like to see them maintain the integrity of the name by not allowing people to drag it through the mud with insanely ridiculous mods, or goofy changes to the game's basic premise.

 

Mods I would like to see would be things like:

More powerful zombies

More numerous zombies

No loot respawns (or 24 hour cycles)

Temporary bans on death

Tournament play (think Hunger Games)

Faster day/night cycle

Less ammunition

New maps, locations, buildings

Clan vs. Clan with stats

Slower health rengeration

New items and weapons

 

Mods I would hate to see would be things like:

Tons of vehicles

Tons of ridiculous weapons

No PvP, "Friendly only" 

Vehicles galore!

Goof-around changes to gravity, friction, player health

Kill cams, nametags, map waypoints (like old recruit servers)

No hunger/thirst/sickness/weather

Unlimited ammo

Clown suits for everyone!

Global chat

 

See zed we actually agree on some things i agree on alot of what your saying to a point but hey atleast this time the differences in our views dont really warrant a response of any great nature( see i dont intentionally antagonize people LOL) merely hope for them to make reasonable responses even if i do or dont agree with them you have my beans....

[louist 163]

In response to ZedsDead:

I don't see why it's bad for a player to play a mod and not the base game. People generally have enough sense of their own desires to find the games they would enjoy, and to ignore the ones they wouldn't. I had never played Arma 2 when I started playing the DayZ mod, and that did nothing to diminish or devalue my enjoyment of the mod.

Saying that it would be bad for people to play a mod of DayZ SA without trying the base game also invites the argument that it would be bad if they never played the DayZ mod, and Arma 2 before that, and Flashpoint before that and Quake before that. If you see what I'm getting at. It's a slippery slope.

I also don't enjoy such things as advanced weaponry, 24 hour daylight, and global chat. But mods and servers that incorporate such don't affect me, and don't diminish my experience. It simply doesn't matter that other people enjoy a different version or view of the game than I do, and saying that they shouldn't be allowed to, simply because I don't like it, is rodiculous. I say let people enjoy whatever version of the game that suits them best.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

In response to ZedsDead:

I don't see why it's bad for a player to play a mod and not the base game. People generally have enough sense of their own desires to find the games they would enjoy, and to ignore the ones they wouldn't. I had never played Arma 2 when I started playing the DayZ mod, and that did nothing to diminish or devalue my enjoyment of the mod.

Saying that it would be bad for people to play a mod of DayZ SA without trying the base game also invites the argument that it would be bad if they never played the DayZ mod, and Arma 2 before that, and Flashpoint before that and Quake before that. If you see what I'm getting at. It's a slippery slope.

I also don't enjoy such things as advanced weaponry, 24 hour daylight, and global chat. But mods and servers that incorporate such don't affect me, and don't diminish my experience. It simply doesn't matter that other people enjoy a different version or view of the game than I do, and saying that they shouldn't be allowed to, simply because I don't like it, is rodiculous. I say let people enjoy whatever version of the game that suits them best.

The problem is when those servers become the norm and the base game ends up being and empty shell because, hey, it's easier just to log into a server that's going to hand everything to you on a silver platter and those who wish to enjoy a harder game get screwed with empty servers.

[louist 163]

The problem is when those servers become the norm and the base game ends up being and empty shell because, hey, it's easier just to log into a server that's going to hand everything to you on a silver platter and those who wish to enjoy a harder game get screwed with empty servers.

The problem I have with that argument, though, is that it ignores what, to me, is obvious: that such a trend exemplifies the fact that, to the vast majority of players, those mods represent a more enjoyable experience, a superior product. Those mods fall more in line with what a majority of players want from a game.

Denying modders the means to improve upon, in their view, DayZ, is a rather backwards attempt at protectionism. For people who enjoy DayZ as it is, there will always be the base game, just as for people who enjoy Arma 2, there's always Arma 2. Denying people the ability to to create, share, an play mods, simply to ensure they stick to one specific mode, one single vision, is, in my opinion, wrong.

Yes, mods will pull people away from the base, and yes, those mods may end up being more popular than the base game. But that speaks to the fact that people want and enjoy those mods. Just as people wanted and enjoyed the DayZ mod. At the end of the day, people creating, sharing, and enjoying an experience is always a good thing. No one suffers, not the least of whom is Rocket, who will still be selling copies of DayZ.

Edited January 13, 2014 by louist

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

The problem I have with that argument, though, is that it ignores what, to me, is obvious: that such a trend exemplifies the fact that, to the vast majority of players, those mods represent a more enjoyable experience, a superior product. Those mods fall more in line with what a majority of players want from a game.

Denying modders the means to improve upon, in their view, DayZ, is a rather backwards attempt at protectionism. For people who enjoy DayZ as it is, there will always be the base game, just as for people who enjoy Arma 2, there's always Arma 2. Denying people the ability to to create, share, an play mods, simply to ensure they stick to one specific mode, one single vision, is, in my opinion, wrong.

Yes, mods will pull people away from the base, and yes, those mods may end up being more popular than the base game. But that speaks to the fact that people want and enjoy those mods. Just as people wanted and enjoyed the DayZ mod. At the end of the day, people creating, sharing, and enjoying an experience is always a good thing. No one suffers, not the least of whom is Rocket, who will still be selling copies of DayZ.

Those mods represent a vision where they win more than the original. A better experience, it is up for debate, most player desires tend to be very subjective about their definition of fun, with little regard to what the game is trying to achieve or how their changes interact with the rest of the game.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

I don't see why it's bad for a player to play a mod and not the base game.

 

Look at it this way: if you were a new chef trying to make a name for yourself in the world of culinary excellence and you opened a restaurant offering a signature dish you designed yourself, you would want diners to taste it as you envisioned and as you prepared it.

 

You would probably not be very happy if a bunch of wannabe chefs showed up and any time you served your signature dish one of them ran over and said "Hey, good choice! But, it's definitely better with a ton of barbecue sauce. Here you go!" *splash splash*

 

Yes, you can argue the analogy is flawed because in the case of playing on modified servers, it is the player's choice and not the modder's. Maybe they like barbecue sauce? Maybe the dish even tastes okay slathered in barbecue sauce. Thing is, if they never taste it without, they won't know what they're missing.

 

I also don't enjoy such things as advanced weaponry, 24 hour daylight, and global chat. But mods and servers that incorporate such don't affect me, and don't diminish my experience.

 

 

This is what I keep reading, but I disagree. I think there are a variety of ways that, especially long term, the persistent presence of modified servers could have an effect on your experience of the game.

 

First is the most obvious: population. If more and more modifications become popular, it will become increasingly difficult to find populated vanilla servers. Especially in the long term as server owners start taking their servers offline or adopting mods because they aren't seeing activity on their vanilla setups.

 

Second is less obvious but more serious: development priorities. If Dean & the team look at the player population and see that most people are playing on custom maps, what motivation will they have to modify vanilla Chernarus? If custom weapon packs and vehicle packs become the norm, why would the team dump a lot of resources into creating their own? Eventually, they could come to rely on modders to "take care of content" while they just focus on game features. That works great for everyone except people on vanilla servers, who get no new weapons/vehicles/map updates because the team has handed that torch over to the mod community.

 

Last is as I said before: brand integrity. DayZ initially went viral because of the things it does differently than other titles: permanent death, unrestricted PvP, open world survial, etc. If Dean can build on the game's success then it will be proof that there is room in the industry for hardcore, niche features like this. If the media and industry executives instead see most people abandon vanilla DayZ for "lol rocket launcher party" servers, then they will just see it as confirmation of long-standing industry norms. "People don't want hardcore games, so let's just go ahead and make Left 4 Duty 6: Nazi Dance Revolution."

[louist 163]

Zed: in terms of the chef analogy, you're forgetting the fact that that chef's signature dish, and indeed the entirety of his success and growing name, is due to his doing the exact same thing to another's dish. He came in to another's restaurant and said, "Wow, this is great and all, but it would be a lot better with this and that." And people agreed with him. A lot of people did. So for him, after achieving such success, to

Turn around and declare that no one is allowed to change, and possibly improve upon, his dish is more than a little hypocritical.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I've had time to think it over fully.

Edited January 13, 2014 by louist

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Modding is fine as long as it adds improvements to the base game such as graphics, sounds and animations. Adding extra weapon and vehicle spawns takes away from the whole survival aspect of the game. Sadly, most players choose the least path of resistance which will then force me to play on these modded servers or just stop playing altogether. Which is what happened with the original mod

[assassinofkings151 38]

As many others have said here similarly, im a strong believer in the fact that this game unlike Arma 2 is not some script kiddy playground where mods can be installed and created by whim through lines of code. If you want mods and your own personal Day Z experience I highly recommend you buy Arma 2 and play the mod there.

 

When I heard about the SA I clearly gathered that DayZ was going to be heading in a central direction of development, towards enriching the experience so many others had at the start of playing the vanilla version of the mod and expanding upon it.

As well as this, I also think if the dev team were to allow so much freedom in the modding community for the SA as it had in the mod at this stage particularly, It would affect the development process especially in Pre-Alpha or Alpha itself. I think its really vital there's a focus on the core game development before mods for SA are even thought about.

 

Its a definite that there will be private hives coming, everyone knows that. Will they have as much freedom to develop as last time? I don't know yet we'll just have to wait and see...

[zaphodity (DayZ) 41]

Yes. Because it provides greater variety.

 

No. Because it encourages hacking.

[djporternz 644]

The problem is when those servers become the norm and the base game ends up being and empty shell because, hey, it's easier just to log into a server that's going to hand everything to you on a silver platter and those who wish to enjoy a harder game get screwed with empty servers.

Sorry, but that is a specious argument. It's no good setting up a straw man like that just so you can cut it's legs out from under it to prove your weak case. There are no mods for DayZ ATM, so claiming as you do that they are generically going to 'hand everything to [the player] on a silver platter' are grossly premature. And, IMHO does a great disservice to the majority of modders out there.

 

There is no compulsion to play on a server running a mod. Do or don't, I'm not bothered. The fact is, if the vanilla experience is not what a player wants, then there will be options. Some of these will be harder, some easier. But most will simply be different. This is simply how these types of games evolve, and especially ones based on the RV engine which is a true modders engine.

 

Okay, so now I'm going to head off at a tangent, but follow me if you care to.

 

Case One: We know already that we are going to be getting some sort of shotgun in game eventually, but for arguments sake, let's pretend we aren't. If someone was able to add a mod today that added a shotgun, what impact would that have on the game? It's going to make it a little easier to find a gun for sure, unless they re-balance the numbers across all guns. It would add a little more complexity to crafting your loadout and inventory, but it wouldn't not be in keeping with the game.

 

Case Two: I seem to recall that we are also due one of the AK variants, but let's pretend we aren't again. Tomorrow you wake up and half the M4 spawns have magically changed to AKs, with the corresponding ammo, mag and attachment spawns changing to match. As long as the total numbers are not changed, then I'd contend that the game just got a little bit harder.

 

Case Three: Cosmetic changes in the form of simple retexturing. Just looking through the current mods for ArmA II, and who wouldn't want to have MVD & Spetsnaz SURPAT or US Tigerstripe cammo with your own national flag on you characters sleeve. These aren't going to affect anything. Clothes are more than plentiful in game ATM. And apart from having the time it takes to search for that particular commo'd pants and top ensemble, isn't going to detract from anything and can only enhace the overall experience for everyone. But not just for commo. I just want a nice tie-dyed tee....

 

Case Four: There's no way around it, these are going to break the game as we know it ATM. Maybe 'break' is too strong a word here, but you get my intent, hopefully. I'm going to leave this one alone, and let Rocket and the devs work out how they handle this one.

 

In conclusion: Mads can break a game, sure, fair point. But at this stage it is not conducive to say for this reason that all mods should be disallowed. There are great modders out there whose only intent is to add to the base game and have the requist intellect and skill to be able to do so.

[piru 13]

Anyone who voted 'no' can go look into the mirror and repeat "I'm a hypocrite selfish ba%¤#d" a hundred times. >:(

PC gaming should always encourage modding when possible. That's how good things like DayZ are born!

 

I don't really care for the current dayz 'clones' that much, but to say that anyone else should not enjoy them is just absurd.

[Zombie Jesus 723]

Let the game develop on its own for quite some time and after full release I would love to see modding. It could extend the life of the game and allowing creativity can produce some great experiences. There is a downside (1000+ YoloSwag server with full sniper loadout self bloodbag x-ray vision server), but the upside is giving the game a far longer lifespan and far more content for the players. I think the pros outweigh the cons in a long term debate, but in the short term I would love to see the developers get a shot at staking out their vision for the game. Plus I find it sad that gamers are so happy to give up modding in favor of corporate control of gaming (damn I sound like a hippy), this is the reason every game has DLC and real money marketplaces. I am glad there is still a small slice of gaming that allows for outside innovation and I would hope it would expand to more games and not contract. Sure you have to put up with some terrible mods, but it is worth it for the gems that are often produced outside of the traditional avenues (like DayZ mod itself). 

 

Bad_mojo pointed out that a map editor at this point in development would be a great addition and I have to agree. It is win win for the developers as well, they could allow for extra maps without having to waste development time on making them. Sure a good amount of them would suck (cough Fallujah), but we might get some great additions like Lingor and Namalsk.