Hunting, vehicles, multiple maps, hordes, wow

[deebz1234 243]

Consider SA has been in development for how long?

Breaking point arma 3 is only about 3-4 months older than the SA public alpha release (if i recall correctly)

 

Also they are using Arma 3 as a base...which is a perfect base in my opinion.

 

Do you think the SA dev's should have maybe used a bit more resources from Arma 3?

 

Do you think they have done enough given what they started with?

 

Basically breaking point has:

vehicles

more and better weapons

realistic and fun ballistics

zombie hordes

better performance

3 fucking maps! (altis, thirsk snow, thirsk summer, stratis)

hunting

etc

etc

etc

 

Look at what happens when the modding community gets involved! Imagine what people would do with SA if it was opened up a bit.

 

This video shows off some amazing things in BP a3, they have come a very very long way. kudos to them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwo38OYWlqo&list=UU9orSxnBRPy-fBLgv2JeWKA&feature=c4-overview

Edited March 4, 2014 by deebz1234

[papazombie 25]

Dayz dont need more maps. They have to improve Chernarus.

[papazombie 25]

Double post

Edited March 4, 2014 by papazombie

[papazombie 25]

Triple post :-(

Edited March 4, 2014 by papazombie

[antonioajc 500]

AAAALLLLLPHAAAAAAA

 

:3

 

Also, I think this post is just bragging about that breaking point mod. So I don't see this is supposed to be a general discussion of DayZ.

Edited March 4, 2014 by AntonioAJC

[Leo Balzac 190]

Go play Breaking Point then. No one is forcing you to play DayZ SA. I will answer your two crappy questions though:

 

1) I have no idea what state the ARMA3 engine was in when DayZ SA development started. Is the ARMA 3 Dev Team larger than DayZ SA? Who cares what anyone thinks the dev team SHOULD have done, because what's done now is done. It won't be changed. (Engine wise)

 

2) Enough of what? What did they start with? A hybrid ToH/ARMA2 engine? I don't get what you're driving at here. Do you want better gfx? better AI? I can't figure out what it is you're complaining about, but you're definitely trying to complain about something.

[deebz1234 243]

wow dudes...discussion

 

not the typical alpha, etc

 

Notice I made bolt these 2 points of discussion, jesus christ read and opine

 

Do you think the SA dev's should have maybe used a bit more resources from Arma 3?

 

Do you think they have done enough given what they started with?

[deebz1234 243]

FANBOYS wow

[kichilron 8550]

Basically breaking point has:

vehicles

more and better weapons

realistic and fun ballistics

zombie hordes

better performance

3 fucking maps! (altis, thirsk snow, thirsk summer, stratis)

hunting

 

 

The difference is that Breaking Point is scripting those things in not changing about the engine or base of the game, which is what the DayZ Devteam has been spending most of the time on in the beginning. That is why they're now adding in more content. Have you watched the DevBlog of what's going to come up soon?

 

Pretty much everything of what you have mentioned.

 

Oh, and not to mention: Breaking Point hasn't created any of the maps you mentioned above, while the DayZ Dev's have completely reworked Chernarus themselves. Pretty tedious to compare them.

 

 

 

Do you think the SA dev's should have maybe used a bit more resources from Arma 3?

 

Do you think they have done enough given what they started with?

 

1.: They have, you just don't know

 

2.: No, they've done just fine.

Edited March 4, 2014 by kichilron

[antonioajc 500]

They had to start from scratch using the engine and the map. Breaking point is merely a mod on a finished product. DayZ is a product itself being developed, so, yeah, it takes WAY more time.

Edited March 4, 2014 by AntonioAJC

[deebz1234 243]

^ thanks for actually replying in a non fanboy way lol

 

much appreciated discussion

[hozzdutch 49]

didn't I read somewhere that they are re-writing the engine for SA?

Hardly fair to compare it to a mod that being written to take advantage of a finished game.

[solodude23 649]

Can't say I liked the look of that based on the video. Seems as though one of the few zombies in DayZ puts you at a greater risk than a horde in that game so far. And a humanity system....ewwwww.

 

I'll stick to DayZ.

Edited March 4, 2014 by solodude23

[antonioajc 500]

didn't I read somewhere that they are re-writing the engine for SA?

Hardly fair to compare it to a mod that being written to take advantage of a finished game.

They had to rework the whole engine to fit the DayZ style. And, this isn't the Source Engine we're talking about here, this is the Real Virtuality Engine 3, which is A LOT harder.

[deebz1234 243]

they borrow some elements from a3, but not others...

 

the amount of complaints regarding ballistics, zoom and weapons so far (gews has pointed out many flaws).

Taking a few more bits from a3 would have been a great start.

 

That is one element I would have love to see in SA (ballistics and weapon performance)

 

In terms of vehicles and other stuff, the scripted naure is what they are trying to stay away from in SA. Rightly so for a standalone game.

 

It is pretty amazing all of the features though in BP.

 

remember in BP they did a full custom sound pack, working with a sound guy.

amongst many other things from the ground up. I used to follow the devs but not anymore, it was pretty amazing the amount of stuff they were doing from scratch

[antonioajc 500]

they borrow some elements from a3, but not others...

 

the amount of complaints regarding ballistics, zoom and weapons so far (gews has pointed out many flaws).

Taking a few more bits from a3 would have been a great start.

 

That is one element I would have love to see in SA (ballistics and weapon performance)

 

In terms of vehicles and other stuff, the scripted naure is what they are trying to stay away from in SA. Rightly so for a standalone game.

 

It is pretty amazing all of the features though in BP.

 

remember in BP they did a full custom sound pack, working with a sound guy.

amongst many other things from the ground up. I used to follow the devs but not anymore, it was pretty amazing the amount of stuff they were doing from scratch

Well, news flash, DayZ isn't developed on Arma 3, it's developed on Arma 2. (Arma 3 uses the Real Virtuality Engine 4, while Arma 2 uses the third one.) This is why the developers have chosen Chernarus, an Arma 2 map.

Edited March 4, 2014 by AntonioAJC

[DerDuderich 149]

Obviously you are not a programmer and never touched a line of code.

 

"Taking a few more bits from a3" - seriously, what do you think this is? You can't just copy something from A3 and paste it into DayZ. It's damn hard and one single bug can keep you busy for weeks if you don't know where exactly it is.

 

The game alltogether has thousands of lines of code (x2 because client & server). That is hard as hell and those guys do a great job.

 

Seriously, people that think they can compare real programmers to a couple modders really piss me off. So they made a custom soundpack? Big deal! Let THEM try to implement a physics engine, and I guarantee, they WILL fail.

 

Modders are not programmers and NO, the can NOT help make DayZ better.

 

Modders just use existing tools to modify what is already there (MODification). Modding is not a big priority at the moment because as long as the base isn't complete modders can't do anything.

Edited March 4, 2014 by DerDuderich

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

BP is pretty amazing...but you can see its limits already.

And to be fair: vehicles, ballistics, weapons - all taken from arma 3 or based on their models.

The sound...well, I'm not so into it, that I could say it absolute fact, but I guess soundfiles were just recorded and changed with existing ones...so, yeah, great that they did it and good for BP, but again, not a big invention.

 

You see, BP can already see its limits regarding what can be done (same as the DayZ mod  saw the coming), because it uses again an engine, that wasn't built to support the game in such a way, but to be a military simulator.

 

Somewhere I read this analogy which fits imho real good:

Imagine ArmA 2 as a small house with a shower (the Multiplayer) in in the second floor. Somebody started building a bathtub there (DayZ).

The inhabitants were absolute happy, but soon demanded more and more, it should be bigger, have more things, made out of marmor etc. etc. But the stairs were too small to bring the things up, so a crane was put on top of the house and a hole was broken into the side of the house to bring it in. So the bathtub was getting bigger and better, but the house wasn't made for that and it became cracks and the water pressure destroyed the pipes, the floor was hanging through and nearly breaking and the neighbours brats were inserting nasty things in the pipes, since they had to be made outside the house...

So, since there was no way to make the bathtub any bigger without completly destroying the house, a new house was built. This time with a bigger stair, hardened, waterproof floor, better pipes inside the house etc. etc. But the inhabitants only saw the bathtub, that was brought upstairs and as soon as water was running they demanded to bath, even if they were told, that it was not as comfortable or shiny or with all the funny extras they knew from the old bathtub, hell not even the roof of the new house was finished and sometimes it was raining straight into the bathtub.

But since they were begging and begging, they were allowed to bath - and they complained about the missing of the shiny things they were used to, the cold water that sometimes came out, the rain that fell through the roof, and that these idiotic brats still were able to get to the pipes, because some windows were missing. But you could see that now it would be nice, because the bath would be bigger, better without destroying the house.

So saying using the Arma 3 engine is saying "Well someone built a new house, very beautiful with a very nice kitchen. I want my bathtub in there."...whereas it has the same things (small staircase. Pipes on the outside. floor that can't handle the weight. etc.) as the old house.

 

 

To make it short: Yes, it would have been better if they would have gone with the ArmA 3 engine. But no it would not have been better, because until they would have finished reworking the whole engine to fit DayZ, ArmA 4 would have been out and this whole discussion would have started again with different numbers...

 

 

Edit: Also what the dude said. Beans for him^^

Edited March 4, 2014 by LaughingJack

[DerDuderich 149]

Well, news flash, DayZ isn't developed on Arma 3, it's developed on Arma 2. (Arma 3 uses the Real Virtuality Engine 4, while Arma 2 uses the third one.) This is why the developers have chosen Chernarus, an Arma 2 map.

 

Actually it is based on Take on Helicopters (hwich uses indeed a modified Arma2 eingine though).

[antonioajc 500]

BP is pretty amazing...but you can see its limits already.

And to be fair: vehicles, ballistics, weapons - all taken from arma 3 or based on their models.

The sound...well, I'm not so into it, that I could say it absolute fact, but I guess soundfiles were just recorded and changed with existing ones...so, yeah, great that they did it and good for BP, but again, not a big invention.

 

You see, BP can already see its limits regarding what can be done (same as the DayZ mod  saw the coming), because it uses again an engine, that wasn't built to support the game in such a way, but to be a military simulator.

 

Somewhere I read this analogy which fits imho real good:

Imagine ArmA 2 as a small house with a shower (the Multiplayer) in in the second floor. Somebody started building a bathtub there (DayZ).

The inhabitants were absolute happy, but soon demanded more and more, it should be bigger, have more things, made out of marmor etc. etc. But the stairs were too small to bring the things up, so a crane was put on top of the house and a hole was broken into the side of the house to bring it in. So the bathtub was getting bigger and better, but the house wasn't made for that and it became cracks and the water pressure destroyed the pipes, the floor was hanging through and nearly breaking and the neighbours brats were inserting nasty things in the pipes, since they had to be made outside the house...

So, since there was no way to make the bathtub any bigger without completly destroying the house, a new house was built. This time with a bigger stair, hardened, waterproof floor, better pipes inside the house etc. etc. But the inhabitants only saw the bathtub, that was brought upstairs and as soon as water was running they demanded to bath, even if they were told, that it was not as comfortable or shiny or with all the funny extras they knew from the old bathtub, hell not even the roof of the new house was finished and sometimes it was raining straight into the bathtub.

But since they were begging and begging, they were allowed to bath - and they complained about the missing of the shiny things they were used to, the cold water that sometimes came out, the rain that fell through the roof, and that these idiotic brats still were able to get to the pipes, because some windows were missing. But you could see that now it would be nice, because the bath would be bigger, better without destroying the house.

So saying using the Arma 3 engine is saying "Well someone built a new house, very beautiful with a very nice kitchen. I want my bathtub in there."...whereas it has the same things (small staircase. Pipes on the outside. floor that can't handle the weight. etc.) as the old house.

 

 

To make it short: Yes, it would have been better if they would have gone with the ArmA 3 engine. But no it would not have been better, because until they would have finished reworking the whole engine to fit DayZ, ArmA 4 would have been out and this whole discussion would have started again with different numbers...

 

 

Edit: Also what the dude said. Beans for him^^

Listen to the guys. When DayZ (Mod) was released, it already had things Breaking Point has. Things you always have to remember is, that softwares and its modifications are totally different things in terms of development.

Edited March 4, 2014 by AntonioAJC

[toddmh 2]

lololol ...You are a baaaaad guy, you shot the Russian !!! made watching half that vid worth watching

[Eight Ball 26]

Look at what happens when the modding community gets involved! Imagine what people would do with SA if it was opened up a bit.

Except it's not the right time for that.

BIS gave us the opportunity to buy the Apha to help them on the game.

If they had allowed mods from the get go the forum would be a total mess, with people complaining about mod-related issues and not the game itself.

 

And there would be a high risk to turn off the modding community since each update could potentialy broke mods and they'd have to continually tweaks their work.

 

Patience...

[antonioajc 500]

Except it's not the right time for that.

BIS gave us the opportunity to buy the Apha to help them on the game.

If they had allowed mods from the get go the forum would be a total mess, with people complaining about mod-related issues and not the game itself.

 

And there would be a high risk to turn off the modding community since each update could potentialy broke mods and they'd have to continually tweaks their work.

 

Patience...

"OH MY GOD, MY GAME DOESN'T TURN ON, WHAT IS GOING ON?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"

"The weekly patch came out, the mods no-"

"BS, DEAN I WANT MY REFUNDS, I WILL SUE YOU!!!!!!1111oneoneone"

Edited March 4, 2014 by AntonioAJC

[Irish. 4886]

Consider SA has been in development for how long?

Breaking point arma 3 is only about 3-4 months older than the SA public alpha release (if i recall correctly)

 

Also they are using Arma 3 as a base...which is a perfect base in my opinion.

 

Do you think the SA dev's should have maybe used a bit more resources from Arma 3?

 

Do you think they have done enough given what they started with?

 

Basically breaking point has:

vehicles

more and better weapons

realistic and fun ballistics

zombie hordes

better performance

3 fucking maps! (altis, thirsk snow, thirsk summer, stratis)

hunting

etc

etc

etc

 

Look at what happens when the modding community gets involved! Imagine what people would do with SA if it was opened up a bit.

 

This video shows off some amazing things in BP a3, they have come a very very long way. kudos to them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwo38OYWlqo&list=UU9orSxnBRPy-fBLgv2JeWKA&feature=c4-overview

 

You did not seriously just reference Broken Point did you? LOL :D

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Played BP for 2 mins, said, meh, half assed rip off.  Turned it off.  Turned on Dayz for 3 hours, went, ahh yaaa!!.  Personally,  DayZ's graphics look way better than Arma 3