Day Z Feedback + Opinions.

[Vvisper 0]

Before I say anything else let me say this:

I love it.

I absolutely love that this mod is going so well, I love the wild success it is having. I love how it (hopefully) will inspire and challenge big name publishers to experiment and take risks. I love that a single person can make such an innovative mod, and I cannot wait to see what this mod will inspire in the future.

Thank you for reviving survival horror.

Now, after all, this game is in alpha, and I am sure what was once planned as a mild mod, has developed into a much grander project, and as such requires feedback.

First thing I will drop an opinion on is banditry. It seems to be quite a hot topic, will fierce people on both sides. And having recently had a banditry epiphany, I figure it's a good place to start. I have been a avid pc gamer since I was about 12, I have played most big name games, WoW, Eve, Cod, L4D ect ect. A trend I have observed, is that I like to be a dick. I like to camp, I like to try and gain power, simply to put other players out. Make them have a rough time. Most games however have a barricade against this, mechanics to stop this taking place. Which makes being a dick challenging, and now, that I have begun playing Day Z (been playing roughly 2 weeks now). A game that makes being a dick, not just easy, but beneficial. I have yet to kill a single player.

I am not sure why this is. Before I played, while I was reading about the game, I was like shit yeah, I am going to tear people up. Yet I got on and it took me 3 hours before I even saw the first person, and then we group up, and had some mild success before parting ways. I had a few similar encounters, the second time I was travelling with company we were killed by a second armed duo, despite calling peace. A day or so later I finally came across another survivor, this time armed. And yet I never pulled the trigger, I offered to travel together. I cannot explain this behaviour, I guess when being a dick is so easy, for me personally, I am not interested in being one.

With my banditry experience explained, I guess I should say whether or not I like the state of banditry atm. Not really. Banditry seems to be an integral part of the game, the possibility of such hostile and final interaction between players giving the game a startling amount of depth. But it also seems too rampant. And too easy. It's too easy to be a dick, it doesn't require brains, you don't need to outsmart anyone. Most of my encounters with other players, are either them getting the jump on me, and I am suddenly dead or me getting the jump on them, desperately trying to convey that I am friendly and then getting shot in the face.

I have been told not to trust anyone unless I am on skype with them. I think this is a silly idea. This game should be playable without the help of any external programs. Banditry shouldn't be so easy, straight up shooting someone in the face should be discourage. I am not game designer but a quick example of a mechanic that could potentially help relieve rampant banditry would be a blood smell mechanic. Say you get shot, your body releases a smell that attracts the ravenous dead for 3 minutes say. This would discourage people from shooting you in the city, we could possibly see groups being formed, then quickly shattering when leaving a zed populated area.

There are many ways this issue could be addressed but simply put, If I don't want to kill anyone, I should also not have to avoid everyone to survive.

The other thing I wanted to talk about was difficulty. Another volatile topic that seems to concern many users. With terms like cod kiddies floating around it apparent that the Day Z community is scared that the difficulty could be changed, it could become easier and we could lose the one hardcore game we have. I completely sympathise with that.

But the games difficult is having a negative effect. It is driving way potential gamers (and in the end, a bigger community is more fun) and causing allot of frustrating to others.

The game is too difficult when respawning, it comes down far to much to chance. Talking to a lot of other players, it seems people make mad dashes for the two big cities in hopes of getting in, getting vital supplies and getting out. Smaller towns are being avoided because apparently the loot vs risk is not worth it. I have always felt like Chernogorsk should be the destination not the beginning. I felt like you should give it a wide berth before coming into your own as a survivor. I felt like it was the end game. People desperately running in without any means to survive outside of luck is silly.

The pinnacle of danger shouldn't be at the start. It should build up through-out the game. Smaller towns should be more accessible to newer players, while the big ones less. Risking it all for Chernogorsk at the start simply because it doesn't matter if you die because you have nothing anyway shouldn't be viable. Newer players shouldn't be able to get near it.

Once you have matches, an axe, a canteen and a knife survival becomes too easy. You can roam the woods and survive indefinitely. Once you have a good gun and plenty of ammo, why go near Cherno? I would love to see some of that brutality from when your initially spawn, shifted into later content. So that surviving remains a struggle, and zombies a threat. I would like to see some smaller towns being better goals for initial players. I would like the game to remain tough but perhaps in a more streamlined manner. Uniform in difficulty rather then hard to medium.

I think I have said everything I have on my mind about this game. I really hope that some of my opinions help this game develop. And once again, thank you rocket for no doubt setting some sort of cogs in the game industry moving again.

[xJakeyy 6]

Once you have matches' date=' an axe, a canteen and a knife survival becomes too easy. You can roam the woods and survive indefinitely. Once you have a good gun and plenty of ammo, why go near Cherno?

[/quote']

To me, this just seems like it's how people want to play this game. Rocket has said a few times that he likes people to play how they want to play. And if people want to camp in the woods, eat beans/animals and fill their water up all day, who is to stop them? I'm happy there's less people shooting me in the back around cities :D

[Vvisper 0]

And fair enough, I love that people play how they want. Each finding his own niche in an otherwise scary world. But why does getting to this point of security feel more like a gamble then anything else. And why when people ask for the the initial difficulty to be toned down is it met with insults. I think that surviving in the woods is fine, but really there needs to be a draw, to Cherno or something, to make things more interesting. To give the make a little more variety. Perhaps a bunker or something, crowed with zombies where stealth isn't an option. The only way to get in is with guns blazing and support from a chopper. Make great rewards, this will encourage people to group up, it make surviving in the woods, and building up your supplies have a reason. Simply existing in the woods is boring, by all means allow people to do it, but lets also give them a reason not too.

[Kageru 18]

The propensity to PK probably becomes greater once the novelty of the game ambience wears off, your equipment improves (so you have less to gain and risk more from trying to cooperate) and you realize the zombies are a limited threat. Getting killed yourself would probably encourage similar thoughts. Some sort of game progression would probably help provide another avenue, but that's a lot of work to produce and not currently in the game.

There are mechanics that force you to go to Cherno, broken bones and infection being the two most obvious. Plus there's not actually anything of interest or value out in the wilds. The good loot is all in towns and the good / military loot with high spawn density is a large part of what makes certain places hot spots.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Good post overall. I want to address some of your points.

It's too easy to be a dick' date=' it doesn't require brains, you don't need to outsmart anyone. Most of my encounters with other players, are either them getting the jump on me[/quote']

Okay, you contradict yourself. If someone gets the jump you, they have already outsmarted you - either because they were being smart, or you were being stupid. It does require brains to "get the jump" and it requires brains to avoid being jumped. You need to play more carefully and always be aware of your surroundings - not just your immediate surroundings but the larger picture too. This might mean, say, not playing alone for example so someone can hang back and watch your flanks while you loot a building or crawl through a tight space where your visibility is limited.

If bandits are being "stupid" then you can only be killed by them by being stupider. If bandits are being smart, well, then you've got yourself an intense challenge which you seem to welcome so it seems win-win to me.

I have been told not to trust anyone unless I am on skype with them. I think this is a silly idea. This game should be playable without the help of any external programs.

As new communication features are added, it will be moreso. But, then, Skype and TS will always be valuable so I would advise using them. Your enemies will be and they will use it to outsmart you (there are those brains working again).

Banditry shouldn't be so easy

So make it more difficult for them. Team up and play tactically. Avoid their traps and set traps of your own. The game designers are not going to come along with magic wands and "discourage" PvP. If they add a mechanic like blood smell it's going to effect peaceful survivors the same way it does bandits. Once you make something like that "only on murders and not bandit kills" then you're breaking everything that makes DayZ great.

But the games difficult is having a negative effect. It is driving way potential gamers (and in the end, a bigger community is more fun)

Nope. In this case especially I would much prefer a niche community of dedicated enthusiasts who are willing to put up with the difficulty rather than a huge crowd of casual gamers attracted by efforts to water-down, dumb-down, and simplify the challenge that DayZ offers.

Let the AAA publishers like Activision put out games for the "potential gamers" who are driven away from DayZ by its unique challenge. They have enough games already. Let us have one, okay? Just this one.

The pinnacle of danger shouldn't be at the start. It should build up through-out the game.

What, you mean like every other game ever made?

Why can't DayZ flip the status quo on its head and do something different? I love the way the difficulty feels. Just starting out you're helpless, lost, alone, scared and likely to die. Later, as you gather supplies and grow in power you begin to feel a sense of peace, safety and eventually power. It's an awesome progression and its almost unique in the industry so please lets keep it, okay?

[Kageru 18]

That's not unique. If what you want is the thrill of small group tactical combat there's this game called ARMA-II that specializes in doing it. Seen from that perspective the uniqueness of Day-z is that the sides aren't even in numbers, gear and playing with the same goal (some of them think it's about zombies lol!) like they are in an Arma-II match.

[Hazzer (DayZ) 0]

Personally, I enjoy the challenge, fear and paronoia that banditry offers; and feel that watering down the PvP aspect of the mod would detract from the tense experience, making it far less enjoyable and more casual, which is exactly what I've come to DayZ to escape from.

I'm in agreement with ZedsDeadBaby when he says he'd rather avoid a casual crowd flocking to the mod. If they dislike the difficulty and hardcore style of the mod then they should simply uninstall it and seek something that pleases them, I'd rather not have irritating "noobs" plaging the community and would prefer a tightly-knit bunch of experienced gamers.

[Vvisper 0]

"Okay, you contradict yourself. If someone gets the jump you, they have already outsmarted you - either because they were being smart, or you were being stupid. It does require brains to "get the jump" and it requires brains to avoid being jumped. You need to play more carefully and always be aware of your surroundings - not just your immediate surroundings but the larger picture too. This might mean, say, not playing alone for example so someone can hang back and watch your flanks while you loot a building or crawl through a tight space where your visibility is limited."

If bandits are being "stupid" then you can only be killed by them by being stupider. If bandits are being smart, well, then you've got yourself an intense challenge which you seem to welcome so it seems win-win to me.

I am not saying I have a problem with this personally. Nor am I saying bandits are stupid. I thoroughly survey my surrounding, but that doesn't stop a bandit from walking out the bush right as I go for loot and shooting me in the back. There are situations where no matter how aware you are, you get jumped. Some bandit could run over a mountain and get you on your way out. You can be infinitely careful but still get jumped. It often comes down to luck, yes you can minimise the chance with proper observation but you can't nullify it.

"So make it more difficult for them. Team up and play tactically. Avoid their traps and set traps of your own. The game designers are not going to come along with magic wands and "discourage" PvP. If they add a mechanic like blood smell it's going to effect peaceful survivors the same way it does bandits. Once you make something like that "only on murders and not bandit kills" then you're breaking everything that makes DayZ great."

I feel like your taking my post a little too personally, which is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I was really trying to avoid the whole "HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT THIS GAME SHOULD BE MADE EASY" attitude a lot of players have. I don't think this game should be made easier, I think it should be made fairer. I think if I want to not be a bandit, I should also not have to have to team up. If I play smart and alone I should be more efficient against bandits. I am saying that I feel like personally the playing field between bandits and survivors should be made more interesting rather then a quick shot to the face.

"Why can't DayZ flip the status quo on its head and do something different? I love the way the difficulty feels. Just starting out you're helpless, lost, alone, scared and likely to die. Later, as you gather supplies and grow in power you begin to feel a sense of peace, safety and eventually power. It's an awesome progression and its almost unique in the industry so please lets keep it, okay?"

You make a great point here with the progression. And I agree whole-heartedly. That despair you feel initially is vital and probably the reason the game is so amazing. But as you gain power and supplies, you leave it behind. From my own (admittedly limited) experience I have found that as I got more power it did become easier, and though I haven't gotten to the point where I can reach that level easily, I can imagine that if I got to that point too often, it would become boring. So yeah, lets keep the beginning super tough, let also make some more dire threats for more geared players. When you start out at you have a hard time contending with zombies and bandits. Later on bandits are the true threat. Do you think this is how it should be? A pvp game with that punishes people who have just respawned? I think their should be goals for survivors further along in the game that aren't simply "outsmart bandits" this is a zombie game after all.

People seem to be assume I am asking for a watered down, easier version of the game. This is not true, I am not trying to start a case for a casual audience. I am trying to encourage a bit more diversity to the game, a few more options for people to enjoy. From the news I have been reading this seems to be the way things are heading anyway. I have heard talk of no zombies later on! Please stop taking every constructive intended post that questions the game like a personal insult and get up in arms.

"Let the AAA publishers like Activision put out games for the "potential gamers" who are driven away from DayZ by its unique challenge. They have enough games already. Let us have one, okay? Just this one."

I want this game as much as you do man. But you look at the mod popularity already, the premise is very appealing. And people are fascinated. Stop acting like an elite gamer and realise that this game can inspire the survival horror genre back to life. But not if everyone acts like a smug elitist. You should open your arms to wider community.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

There are situations where no matter how aware you are' date=' you get jumped...yes you can minimise the chance with proper observation but you can't nullify it.[/quote']

So what you're saying is, the game elegantly combines tactical play with an element of chance that means you can gain an advatange through strategy, but never be completely safe and always on guard for that unexpected ambush that takes you by surprise? More or less like it would be in reality? I mean, can we agree that basically sounds awesome? Why are we talking about it as if it's an issue that need be addressed?

I don't think this game should be made easier, I think it should be made fairer.

The game is 100% fair. Everyone starts the same, everyone has the same access to the same map and loot, and nobody has any special magical equipment to protect them from bullets. We all die just the same when we get shot.

I think if I want to not be a bandit, I should also not have to have to team up. If I play smart and alone I should be more efficient against bandits.

No. This isn't Rambo. Groups are more effective than an individual. Basic tactics. Why do you think the Navy Seals work as small team instead of sending in single guys to complete missions? 12 eyes are better than 2, 12 arms are better than 2, and 6 guns are better than 1.

You don't HAVE to group up; you can play solo. But don't ask to be magically made as effective as an organized group of players. That's fantasy-land bunk.

People seem to be assume I am asking for a watered down, easier version of the game. This is not true, I am not trying to start a case for a casual audience.

Okay. You said "But the games difficult is having a negative effect. It is driving way potential gamers (and in the end, a bigger community is more fun) and causing allot of frustrating to others."

I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret that. If you don't want people to think you are trying to make the game easier, you shouldn't call out the high degree of difficulty as having a "negative effect" on the game...

I'm just responding to your words.

Stop acting like an elite gamer and realise that this game can inspire the survival horror genre back to life.

That's just it. I don't WANT DayZ to bother trying to "revive" the survival horror genre. That just ties it to existing conventions and reinforces the notion that the game needs to be more like this-game or that-game that defined the survival horro genre in its heyday.

Let DayZ make its own place. Somewhere in the great void between Rogue, EVE, Counter Strike and Resident Evil, DayZ is setting up camp. It's something new and I would rather let it stay there than try to herd it into an existing model for the sake of some misguided quest to reclaim a 'dead' genre.