What dayz could have been without zombies

[gibonez 3633]

...but removing Zs would...? And what DayZ "evolved" into. Yeah. Evolved. *chuckles* because it was never this way. If never means always...

Zombies or no Zombies would make absolute no difference for the game experience you seem to want (and honestly I think that's the kind of game Dean always had in mind - with or without Zombies). - your problem (and the problem of the game of course) are the players....

If an Arma3-DayZ (and Z stands for Zero and not Zombie)-without-Zombies would come exactly like in this pictures, all that would be there would be an open-world-pvp without any environment danger, that isn't in DayZ as well...

 

Removing zombies for a mod of stand alone or arma 3 would allow them to focus on none gimmicky gameplay like survival .

 

Making the environment the enemy and not some tired old cliche from the 1970s would be a welcomed addition.

[Deathlove 2286]

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

What if I told you that Zs are part of the environment? An additional danger if you want? Call it "gimmicky" if you want and replace them with....wild dogs or just delete them all together, it wouldn't change anything.

And "non gimmicky gameplay"...what does this mean? Hunger? Thirst? Temperature? Weather effects like rain that makes you cold? ...because all these things are in DayZ already. So basically you want the Standalone just without Zombies?

 

And still: Even if everything you described in your posts in this thread (extreme survival aspects, "authentic" post apocalyptic scenario without Zombies, etc.), it would be an open world PvP. Players would just have one reason LESS not to kill each other...

Edited April 28, 2014 by LaughingJack

[hannibaldaplaya 1095]

Statements like this piss me off so much I want to break something.  Its a smoldering mature hate from the center of my being.

 

THE REDACTED ENGINE TO HANDLE 'SUCH A REDACTED ENEMY' IS BEING BUILT AS WE SPEAK. I mean are you REDACTED SERIOUS? How ignorant can you be to post this shit? you have 700 posts. DO YOU READ ANYTHING?

The fact you are going to respond to my post like that is astounding.

 

Surely you are mature enough to realize that outbursts of this sort don't help to get your point across...

 

The engine this game runs on, I said, is currently a hot mess when it comes to melee and zombie AI. Do I hope it gets better? Yes. Do I think it will ever be as refined as I want it to be? No.

 

Also, yes, I read a lot of things on the forum- You are making an /ignorant/ assumption, yet you are calling me /ignorant/?

 

Surely most can understand the RV engine was never built for zombies or melee combat in the first place, it was built to be a military simulation. Can you implement these things? Yes, but it isn't going to be a polished as you want it to be.

 

But, seriously, you really had to go full caps lock on me?

[TEST_SUBJECT_83 465]

Easy mod, be patient. 

[gibonez 3633]

What if I told you that Zs are part of the environment? An additional danger if you want? Call it "gimmicky" if you want and replace them with....wild dogs or just delete them all together, it wouldn't change anything.

And "non gimmicky gameplay"...what does this mean? Hunger? Thirst? Temperature? Weather effects like rain that makes you cold? ...because all these things are in DayZ already. So basically you want the Standalone just without Zombies?

 

And still: Even if everything you described in your posts in this thread (extreme survival aspects, "authentic" post apocalyptic scenario without Zombies, etc.), it would be an open world PvP. Players would just have one reason LESS not to kill each other...

 

I would want to replace them with Environmental dangers such as yes Wild Dogs, Wolves, bears, and the actual land and topography.

 

Imagine a world where the worlds apex predator humans were wiped out to less than 1 percent. Without humans animals would overpopulate and once again become apex predators we would be at their mercy.

 

The real danger would be staying healthy however, would need proper nutricion, would need to hydrate seek shelter etc.

 

Even if dayz gets all these and it really works out it will still have a gimmick and that is zombies.

[Whyherro123 2283]

I actually rather agree. The way zombies are implemented right now, they might as well not even be a part of the game, for all of the thought and care the playerbase gives to them. Getting chased by 4 zombies? Better book it up a hill in a zig-zag pattern to break LOS! There is no fear, only "how to avoid zombies in order to find phat loots".

Along with that, I expect, based on what I've seen in Devlogs and in suggestions from the playerbase, that there will be little to no progression beyond "wilderness survival", which has to be both the easiest and least interesting part of a hypothetical collapse of society.

Think about it, in the first few weeks, up to a month or so, after a TSC event, what will happen? People will run around, loot abandoned places, group into gangs, build expedient shelters in the woods , gank other groups for gear, turf wars, or sheer S&G. I find all of that incredibly BORING. Mainly because we all know exactly what will happen. 

What I find far more interesting is what happens afterwards, during the bushcraft/homesteading stage of survival, when all the surpluses of modern life (ammunition, matches, canned/packaged food, medical supplies, machine-made clothing, etc) have run out, and the various bandit-gangs look at each other with expressions of sudden horror, as they realize that this is all they have left. I, for one, believe humanity will rebuild itself into new communities, building new farms and workshops out of the ruins of the world we left behind, while others believe that humanity will die with "not a bang, but a whimper", descending into cannibalism, barbarity, and ultimately, extinction.

Either way, I just find that far more interesting than the standard "loot, go PvP deathmatch in some city, die, loot, repeat" system Day Z currently, and what it looks like, will have. 

Zombies don't really add anything to that. They aren't even frightening, nor dangerous enough to make looting cities a risk/benefit decision.

Just my 2 cents.

[Judopunch 523]

The fact you are going to respond to my post like that is astounding.

 

Surely you are mature enough to realize that outbursts of this sort don't help to get your point across...

 

The engine this game runs on, I said, is currently a hot mess when it comes to melee and zombie AI. Do I hope it gets better? Yes. Do I think it will ever be as refined as I want it to be? No.

 

Also, yes, I read a lot of things on the forum- You are making an /ignorant/ assumption, yet you are calling me /ignorant/?

 

Surely most can understand the RV engine was never built for zombies or melee combat in the first place, it was built to be a military simulation. Can you implement these things? Yes, but it isn't going to be a polished as you want it to be.

 

But, seriously, you really had to go full caps lock on me?

No you said

 

'Firstly, the engine is not built for such an enemy. Removing them would remove the need to fix the current clunk we see, and would allow the engine to /shine/.'.

 

The engine is not yet built This statement is the kind of bull mainstream news outlets are pulling. Its unethical and needlessly inflammatory. It does not provide good information nor does it facilitate good discussion. You can do better.

 

Edit: Furthermore, your not being constructive. This was a good thread with an intriguing idea, im sure it WILL make a good mod. Yet you to post on how the zombies in this game arent finished yet. And continue to use that for the entire ground for your discussion and negative attitude towards this Alpha. If you have read almost anything from the dev blogs, or watched Deans speach about the roadmap for the game, you would realize that this is an Alpha not a game. Some major parts of its infrastructure are not in place. Zombies, ai, pathing, and balance are not even remotely done yet.

 

Why, instead of complaining about work CURRENTLY BEING DONE, can you not just stick within the topic: Imagine a DayZ without zombies. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by Judopunch

[hannibaldaplaya 1095]

No you said

 

'Firstly, the engine is not built for such an enemy. Removing them would remove the need to fix the current clunk we see, and would allow the engine to /shine/.'.

 

The engine is not yet built This statement is the kind of bull mainstream news outlets are pulling. Its unethical and needlessly inflammatory. It does not provide good information nor does it facilitate good discussion. You can do better.

 

Edit: Furthermore, your not being constructive. This was a good thread with an intriguing idea, im sure it WILL make a good mod. Yet you to post on how the zombies in this game arent finished yet. And continue to use that for the entire ground for your discussion and negative attitude towards this Alpha. If you have read almost anything from the dev blogs, or watched Deans speach about the roadmap for the game, you would realize that this is an Alpha not a game. Some major parts of its infrastructure are not in place. Zombies, ai, pathing, and balance are not even remotely done yet.

 

Why, instead of complaining about work CURRENTLY BEING DONE, can you not just stick within the topic: Imagine a DayZ without zombies. 

 

Can you not pull things out of your ass?

 

Read my whole post, there are plenty of suggestions in there, and it is CLEAR for anyone to see that zombies are nowhere near finished in the game, and I was just pointing out this is probably due to the engine.

 

Plus, I mean the RV engine, the one this game is being built on, the engine that they are modifying.

 

I was not complaining, I was keeping on topic, you are the one causing issues by continuing to derail the discussion by pulling one single line of my awfully long post and using it to insult me and make even more /ignorant/ assumptions, by saying I haven't done this, and if I had, I would see this this and this, etc etc.

 

Can /YOU/ get back on topic?

 

If you're going to reply to one of my posts, by the way, acknowledge the whole thing instead of pulling one little fragment of it out. The RV engine was never built for zombies, can it be modified to work with zombies? SURE, my point is that I'd love it if they stopped working to make the engine support zeds so that we could have a more post apocalyptic title.

 

God.

[Judopunch 523]

...SURE, my point is that I'd love it if they stopped working to make the engine support zeds so that we could have a more post apocalyptic title.

 

The RV engine was never built for zombies, can it be modified to work with zombies? Sure.....

 

 

Respectfully, is English your native language? Because what you are saying and implying, are not what you are saying and implying.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Judopunch

[hannibaldaplaya 1095]

Respectfully, is English your native language? Because what you are saying and implying, are not what you are saying and implying.

 

STOP.

 

INSULTING.

 

ME.

 

I am getting sick of this!

 

CAN YOU NOT SEE MY POINT?!

 

If you were, to, uh, realize what I am saying, I am simply saying-

 

The engine could support decent zombies after a /LOT/ of work, but I don't think it is worth the work.

[kichilron 8550]

STOP.

 

INSULTING.

 

ME.

 

I am getting sick of this!

 

CAN YOU NOT SEE MY POINT?!

 

Can you not pull things out of your ass?

 

 

You have not been conducting 100% perfect as well. Let's all take a deep breath and calm down before carrying on.

 

 

Respectfully, is English your native language? Because what you are saying and implying, are not what you are saying and implying.

 

 

At what point does it matter what someone's first language is? English is not my first language and it's the same for many other moderators and a majority of our members. You don't need to assume it matters on forums where the majority isn't English.

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

I would want to replace them with Environmental dangers such as yes Wild Dogs, Wolves, bears, and the actual land and topography.

 

Imagine a world where the worlds apex predator humans were wiped out to less than 1 percent. Without humans animals would overpopulate and once again become apex predators we would be at their mercy.

 

The real danger would be staying healthy however, would need proper nutricion, would need to hydrate seek shelter etc.

 

Even if dayz gets all these and it really works out it will still have a gimmick and that is zombies.

 

And in that case....that gimmick is THAT bad? Yeah Zombies have been overused, especially in the gaming industry (and DayZ is for sure to "blame" for this, at least a little bit)

Just my guess: Dean added Zombies in the mod not to make it interesting for the Horror-gamers but to add something dangerous to make survival harder and force players not to only to kill each other. Well, in that case, I hate to say it, he failed, just because of 2 reasons: a) people are deep down egoistic assholes b ) in games, people are even more egoistic assholes. Sure he could have replaced it with an overpopulation of bears, wolves (even if they do not attack humans normally) etc. but in the end it would have bee the same.

 

The problem is....make a Chars life more valuable: People shoot in fear that they will get killed. Make it less valueable: well, you see at the moment what happens. #YOLO PoS-festival, running straight to the hotspots to join the Deathmatch. Make resources rare? Kill others for their goods.

 

Gimmick or non gimmick...the problem is, without "factions"/teams whatever, something non-realistic that forbids them to kill some of the others, people will always do that...and that's DayZ. And not only DayZ, that's every open world sandbox game with weapons ever.

The only chance that people would not try to kill each other, without adding something fictional like "teams", is to make the environment so dangerous that people actually need to work together or die...but well, that fine balance between this status and "unplayable" for 90% of the time is hard to find...

 

 

 

Aradia & Judo: Shhhh. Everything is good. And now play nice or you get no Icecream.

[Judopunch 523]

The engine could support decent zombies after a /LOT/ of work, but I don't think it is worth the work.

I was not insulting you. 

 

The flaw in your logic is you say 'the engine could', directly imply that the engine is finished. They are still building it. When it is finished it will be able to handle zombies well. 

 

At what point does it matter what someone's first language is? English is not my first language and it's the same for many other moderators and a majority of our members. You don't need to assume it matters on forums where the majority isn't English.

 

If English is not his first language than I can understand some of the inconsistency's with his posting, apologize and politely point out that the game is not finished yet.

 

I find it offensive that so many posters on these forums have no clue what an Alpha is, and that MAJOR parts of this game are still being developed and are not included with what they are JUDGING as the 'game'. The reason I am so upset, is because posts and reasoning such as I have highlighted pollute any and all decent conversation. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by Judopunch

[liquidsnake 275]

I feel like we'll need Chernarus 3.0 if we'd go into the realistic apocalypse direction. We can't simply remove zeds and add something else, other forms of apocalypses are a lot harder to simulate. Believe me when I say SA will be a whole lot more fun when the zeds are done and actually dangerous.

I would've preferred a more realistic apocalypse, though.

[liquidsnake 275]

I was not insulting you. 

 

The flaw in your logic is you say 'the engine could', directly imply that the engine is finished. They are still building it. When it is finished it will be able to handle zombies well. 

 

 

If English is not his first language than I can understand some of the inconsistency's with his posting, apologize and politely point out that the game is not finished yet.

 

I find it offensive that so many posters on these forums have no clue what an Alpha is, and that MAJOR parts of this game are still being developed and are not included with what they are JUDGING as the 'game'. The reason I am so upset, is because posts and reasoning such as I have highlighted pollute any and all decent conversation. 

I don't understand your problem with his post for a second. He's saying it takes a lot of work to make the engine compatible with zeds, and you say it isn't finished. Where did he ever imply it is finished? If anything, saying work is needed to make the engine compatible with zeds implies that it isn't finished.

 

Sorry for double post, dear God don't ban me, I beg of you

Edited April 28, 2014 by The End.

[WrecklessMEDIC 129]

This cool reddit post shows us what a game like dayz could have become without the gimmick of zombies and a more post apocalyptic survival route.

Here is the reddit post .

http://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/244w51/the_plague/

Pretty cool seeing what could have been. I would play the crap out of that a Survival heavy game where law and order is gone and no gimmicky janky zombies reinforcing old post apocalyptic stereotypes.

This feels fresh.

Idk it looks cool and all, but zombies are what drew me to DayZ in the first place. Without zombies I probably would never have even noticed it.

Most of the people I play with probably wouldn't being playing either since I'm the one who introduced them all to it.

[PhillyT 554]

Yeah lets toss the zombies and just call it Day.  Great idea...

[WrecklessMEDIC 129]

The fact you are going to respond to my post like that is astounding.

Surely you are mature enough to realize that outbursts of this sort don't help to get your point across...

The engine this game runs on, I said, is currently a hot mess when it comes to melee and zombie AI. Do I hope it gets better? Yes. Do I think it will ever be as refined as I want it to be? No.

Also, yes, I read a lot of things on the forum- You are making an /ignorant/ assumption, yet you are calling me /ignorant/?

Surely most can understand the RV engine was never built for zombies or melee combat in the first place, it was built to be a military simulation. Can you implement these things? Yes, but it isn't going to be a polished as you want it to be.

But, seriously, you really had to go full caps lock on me?

Never go full caps lock :P

[Dontstealmycheese 118]

This cool reddit post shows us what a game like dayz could have become without the gimmick of zombies and a more post apocalyptic survival route.

 

Here is the reddit post .

http://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/244w51/the_plague/

 

Pretty cool seeing what could have been. I would play the crap out of that a Survival heavy game where law and order is gone and no gimmicky janky zombies reinforcing old post apocalyptic stereotypes.

 

This feels fresh.

Looks like it could be exactly that still but with zombies! Your post is fail like usual. My hope is that one day you just stop posting here because you want a game they are NOT making. Go play and post elsewhere.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Dontstealmycheese

[Judopunch 523]

I don't understand your problem with his post for a second. He's saying it takes a lot of work to make the engine compatible with zeds, and you say it isn't finished. Where did he ever imply it is finished? If anything, saying work is needed to make the engine compatible with zeds implies that it isn't finished.

 

Sorry for double post, dear God don't ban me, I beg of you

Thats the entire point. For the statement  'engine will take a lot of work to be comparable with zeds" to be true the engine would need to be finished. The game DayZ SA, as well as the engine that will run it, are not yet finished. The fatal flaw is he is talking about DayZ SA as if it were a finished game. It is not.

[bodybagger2430 59]

Can it be shifted from PvP? Yes, easily (actually probably not engine wise). Should it be so drastically shifted, nah. How do you do it? Weapons no longer hurt players, only zombies. 90% of the playerbase disappears, mass and rampant screaming for refunds, dayZ burns in a ball of fire, and we have Minecraft with zombies only and people find OTHER ways to grief each other.

 

The only way to prevent rampant KoS'ing and PvP is to have "safe zones" or "safe servers" like in games such as WoW. You enter the area and boom weapons no longer can be fired and people can no longer be harmed, you have to leave the zone in order to do it. I'm sorry but if that happens and is part of the game, I would hunt dean down personally and demand a refund. The PvP and fear of the KoS raiding JACKWADS who have no sense of accountability for their actions and just want to play call of duty, are what add to the atmosphere of fear in this game, you remove that and make everything safe, and it becomes boring. It's like sitting in a save room in resident evil and going "look how much fun I am having!"

 

It MIGHT work to make another game without zombies, and just focus on the human aspect, but it would have to be done RIGHT, and there is a fine line. Just like there is for dayZ. Those guys focused on pure apocalypse and may they have as much success as dayZ and fallout and such, but dayZ focused on zombies. Sitting around saying "should have, could have, would have" does nothing but irritate people on both sides.

 

...how was this topic related? now that I think about what I've been reading, it seems to only be here to say "this game sucks, and you are all idiots for playing it"

[WrecklessMEDIC 129]

Thats the entire point. For the statement 'engine will take a lot of work to be comparable with zeds" to be true the engine would need to be finished. The game DayZ SA, as well as the engine that will run it, are not yet finished. The fatal flaw is he is talking about DayZ SA as if it were a finished game. It is not.

I agree with the others on this. Nowhere did he mention or even imply the engine for DayZ SA was finished.

He said it needs a lot of work. Which means it's not done. You must've misunderstood him.

[Judopunch 523]

I agree with the others on this. Nowhere did he mention or even imply the engine for DayZ SA was finished.

He said it needs a lot of work. Which means it's not done. You must've misunderstood him.

no. He said 

 

 

 

Firstly, the engine is not built for such an enemy. Removing them would remove the need to fix the current clunk we see, and would allow the engine to /shine/.

"the engine is not built for such an enemy". The engine is not built for, implies that the engine is built.

 

He than says "removing them would remove the need to fix the current clunk we see". This directly implies that the clunk in the engine (remember its not finished yet, thus why its clunky) would help the engine be better. This is contradictory. To fix the clunk we see we need to finish the engine. When it is finished it will shine. And than we can talk about whether or not they did a good job.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Judopunch

[gibonez 3633]

Idk it looks cool and all, but zombies are what drew me to DayZ in the first place. Without zombies I probably would never have even noticed it.

Most of the people I play with probably wouldn't being playing either since I'm the one who introduced them all to it.

 

Absolutely it lured you in but you can see now that the game could evolve into something else something unique that would be far better off without zombies.