What dayz could have been without zombies

[Judopunch 523]

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.

I played a bit of Altis Life (someone brought it up). I could see some kind of mod for DayZ, involving only players, being VASTLY more successful that Altis Life. 

 

The major issue with Altis life is its artificial rules to force people to RP. Its not really a sandbox, its a RP fps mix. Throwing the "rules of RP" out the window, so to speak, would probably make it much more interesting. The challenge is to provide a meaningful experience BEYOND just shooting people and trolling them. The NEED in the game to be a part of a group, and to be discouraged from trolling. Altis Life tryes to do this with "no killing without an RP reason", its an honor system, and thats where it fails.

[bfisher 561]

I feel like realizing the engine doesn't support thousands of zombies is a bit late a year and a half into the development of a zombie survival game.

[gibonez 3633]

I played a bit of Altis Life (someone brought it up). I could see some kind of mod for DayZ, involving only players, being VASTLY more successful that Altis Life. 

 

The major issue with Altis life is its artificial rules to force people to RP. Its not really a sandbox, its a RP fps mix. Throwing the "rules of RP" out the window, so to speak, would probably make it much more interesting. The challenge is to provide a meaningful experience BEYOND just shooting people and trolling them. The NEED in the game to be a part of a group, and to be discouraged from trolling. Altis Life tryes to do this with "no killing without an RP reason", its an honor system, and thats where it fails.

 

Never got a chance to try altis life but it looks extremely deep for what it is. It also tends to have a good fanbase that will always play the game.

 

 

I feel like realizing the engine doesn't support thousands of zombies is a bit late a year and a half into the development of a zombie survival game.

 

The game engine is proably more than capable of supporting thousands of zombies but even if the game had the best zombies in any game ever it still is stuck with zombies and thats where I think the inherent flaw with dayz is.

 

It could have been so much more had it not been cursed with zombies.

[TEST_SUBJECT_83 465]

Zombies are awesome!

 

DayZ's zombies are not.

 

I would rather the devs leave them out until the final version of them are ready for testing, which would also free up a lot of resources for the devs now.

 

If they are just place holders and are getting a complete redo, then why do they get updates at all?

Edited April 29, 2014 by TEST_SUBJECT_83

[WrecklessMEDIC 129]

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.

I can't imagine it being better without zombies honestly. That would just be one less threat (albeit a mild one) that we have to deal with to survive.

Putting in bears or wolves would be the exact same thing. They would be just as glitchy as the zombies are.

It's much better with zombies IMHO.

[Capo 323]

 

The game engine is proably more than capable of supporting thousands of zombies but even if the game had the best zombies in any game ever it still is stuck with zombies and thats where I think the inherent flaw with dayz is.

 

It could have been so much more had it not been cursed with zombies.

 

In my mind the only issue with Dayz at the moment is that everything is placeholder.

 

It would be much better if the zombies were harder to kill, faster and more numerous in towns, cities and airfields. Not only that, but loot needs to go down (and become non existent on empty servers), disease needs to come in and weather needs to become more random and to take affect on the player. 

 

From what I can tell, zombies in their finished form, should work as an environmental factor that encourages communicating and teaming up with other players, if zombies are hard enough to be a significant challenge to a solo player, then the dev team has fucking aced zombies. I'm hoping that they get the ball rolling sooner rather than later. 

 

Gibz, I don't think the game would be improved by removing zombies, but you've been going on about mods since SA was released, so I'm sure when mods come out, some bright young spark will create a mod that removes the zombies, if you're lucky and server admins don't ruin it, you'll have your ideal survival game right there. 

 

 

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!"

 

 

 

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The way to stop players from deathmatching at whatever flavorofthemonth city constantly, would be to create accountability for players' actions, meaning - if you fire your weapon in a city, town, airport, or their surrounding areas, it brings a fuckton of zombies with it. Very simple, and if the consequences are severe enough, very effective. 

 

Currently the environment is impotent, and other players are the only real threat, what we want to see in the end is the players being a threat that is on par with the environment. Sadly I really don't think the game should have been released with so few survival mechanics intact, it's pulling a bad crowd (along with the good), creating poor habits, and forming shitty expectations of what the game should be.  

[tinroofer 23]

I often thought it would be nice if there were different versions of the Chernarus map set at different points in time. 5, 10 and 20 Year "Post Outbreak" or something along those lines. 

 

I always imagined the last 'period' would be one where the zeds were no more for whatever reason, and the gameplay would go from the walking dead to book of eli/the road, as animals start appearing in greater numbers and farming begins etc.

 

Anyway, I know this sort of thing won't be in DayZ's future, but hey...

[gibonez 3633]

I can't imagine it being better without zombies honestly. That would just be one less threat (albeit a mild one) that we have to deal with to survive.

Putting in bears or wolves would be the exact same thing. They would be just as glitchy as the zombies are.

It's much better with zombies IMHO.

 

Zombies are not bad for the game because they are glitchy atleast not for me.

 

They are bad because they are zombies .

 

They are bad because they have been done to death in soo many games over so many years, it turns dayz into yet another zombie game instead of a post apocalyptic

survival game that could have been a breath of fresh air.

 

 

I often thought it would be nice if there were different versions of the Chernarus map set at different points in time. 5, 10 and 20 Year "Post Outbreak" or something along those lines. 

 

I always imagined the last 'period' would be one where the zeds were no more for whatever reason, and the gameplay would go from the walking dead to book of eli/the road, as animals start appearing in greater numbers and farming begins etc.

 

Anyway, I know this sort of thing won't be in DayZ's future, but hey...

 

Once modding is added someone is bound to do that.

[WrecklessMEDIC 129]

Zombies are not bad for the game because they are glitchy atleast not for me.

They are bad because they are zombies .

They are bad because they have been done to death in soo many games over so many years, it turns dayz into yet another zombie game instead of a post apocalyptic

survival game that could have been a breath of fresh air.

Once modding is added someone is bound to do that.

But a lot of people really like zombies. To take them out would make the game far less interesting.

The reason DayZ has become so successful and the reason it was the most popular mod in Arma 2 was because of the zombie hook.

Without them I'd expect people would get bored quite quickly.

Edited April 29, 2014 by WrecklessMEDIC

[bodybagger2430 59]

 

 

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The way to stop players from deathmatching at whatever flavorofthemonth city constantly, would be to create accountability for players' actions, meaning - if you fire your weapon in a city, town, airport, or their surrounding areas, it brings a fuckton of zombies with it. Very simple, and if the consequences are severe enough, very effective. 

 

Currently the environment is impotent, and other players are the only real threat, what we want to see in the end is the players being a threat that is on par with the environment. Sadly I really don't think the game should have been released with so few survival mechanics intact, it's pulling a bad crowd (along with the good), creating poor habits, and forming shitty expectations of what the game should be.  

Wrong. Because no matter what you have people who will shoot on sight, then turn to the conga line of zombies forming and open up with the M4 while zig zaging to make sure they cannot be hit by them. Will it cut down? yes, I will concede on that point. And really that is all we want. hopefully once the new CoD or battlefield 295 come out the KoS CoDsuckers will leave and we can get back to a real post apocalypse instead of CoD blackops 3: minecraft

 

I do however agree on the second point this NEVER should have been an open alpha. People have no regard for what an alpha is, and how to work with it. Alpha testing should be done by invitation only, and by the dev team only. They have a focused plan that is in play in an internal and can make surgical strikes at the problems without people going onto forums and raging, and thus causing more chaos and confusion as we are now. The team is overwhelmed with both good and bad communication from the public, and it is making their jobs harder, thus bogging them down with development and making things go slowly enough even Gabe Newell and valve is giving them funny looks.

 

Dear God, can you imagine if half life 3 was early access and how slowed it's metaphorical development would be?

[Capo 323]

Wrong. Because no matter what you have people who will shoot on sight, then turn to the conga line of zombies forming and open up with the M4 while zig zaging to make sure they cannot be hit by them. Will it cut down? yes, I will concede on that point. And really that is all we want. hopefully once the new CoD or battlefield 295 come out the KoS CoDsuckers will leave and we can get back to a real post apocalypse instead of CoD blackops 3: minecraft

 

My bad, I edited out the part where I said I don't want a complete removal of KoS. I agree, I want KoS to be more refined, intense and measured instead of the pew pewing twelvies we have now.  

 

TBH I totally understand a good portion of the KoSers. Dayz offers something that CoD and Battlefield don't, consequence to dying, a rush of adrenaline during combat, and a feeling of power when you've defeated somebody, the other games don't offer that, because when you respawn in CoD you start off with that gear. 

 

I'm happy with that, that's fine, and I feel it too (maaaaaaaannnnn), all I want is the environment to pose as much of a threat as the players, so that killing people isn't all there is to it, so that the adrenaline rushes and power trips are intensified, because when you've spent 3+ hours getting geared, and generally staying alive and healthy, that's when killing or being killed is at it's most heart pumping, blood gushing best. 

 

TL;DR/Too randomly written - I don't want a removal of KoS, I want a removal of short-life deathmatching in my Dayz, combat is way better when you don't think you're going to get shot at, not when you plan on it. 

[napalmdog 71]

You know, this is a good argument for modding SA, this whole "No zombies" affair. Wait til it gets full release and play grand-scale anarchy all you want...

[hefeweizen 254]

*sigh* Hipsters are hating zombies now? When did that start being a thing?

Yes, some things are popular and a lot of people try to replicate those things in order to cash in on their popularity. That's not a valid reason to sh*t all over them.

 

Zombies are classic. Mutants, or animals, or I dunno cannibals would be fine too, but DayZ is one of the first of a new type of open world perma-death sandbox and I think it is kind of ridiculous to pick apart certain aspects of it as "done to death". What other zombie survival games are there? WarZ? Please. Then what the hell is wrong with DayZ filling the role it was advertised to fill?

It sounds like you want Fallout: Online, or something close to that. That is fine, but there is no need to belittle all the people who enjoyed DayZ: Mod and the standalone specifically because they have zombies, and like it or not that is exactly how your OP sounded.

[captain_finnish 134]

Zombies are awesome!

DayZ's zombies are not.

I would rather the devs leave them out until the final version of them are ready for testing, which would also free up a lot of resources for the devs now.

If they are just place holders and are getting a complete redo, then why do they get updates at all?

Yes!!! It is shame how zombies ruin the game right now :( It would feel lot more complete game without zombies. I like zombies too I guess, but DayZ Usain Bolt all over the place zombies are just gamebreaking. I prefer slow Walking Dead zombies.

[gibonez 3633]

*sigh* Hipsters are hating zombies now? When did that start being a thing?

Yes, some things are popular and a lot of people try to replicate those things in order to cash in on their popularity. That's not a valid reason to sh*t all over them.

 

Zombies are classic. Mutants, or animals, or I dunno cannibals would be fine too, but DayZ is one of the first of a new type of open world perma-death sandbox and I think it is kind of ridiculous to pick apart certain aspects of it as "done to death". What other zombie survival games are there? WarZ? Please. Then what the hell is wrong with DayZ filling the role it was advertised to fill?

It sounds like you want Fallout: Online, or something close to that. That is fine, but there is no need to belittle all the people who enjoyed DayZ: Mod and the standalone specifically because they have zombies, and like it or not that is exactly how your OP sounded.

 

People realize that zombies are detrimental to the game. Atleast for what could have been an amazing outdoor survival game that was devoid of tacky elements.

 

That being said I am sure a mod somewhere will pick it up and run with that idea if not a game is bound to be made where the environment is the main opponent and the real fear and terror in the game comes from being far from your home and shelter and being afraid to not make it back before sun down and instead having to face hypothermia.

 

The real fear should be the environment and other people aka the cannibalistic, murderous, and untrustworthy people that are sure to populate the game but they themselves are trying to survive just like you.

 

 

That being said I actually have alot of faith in the devs over at Bohemia heck I have been playing their games since I was a lil kid making bullcrap missions in Operation flashpoint 1 powering that up on a Riva Tnt 2 , 32 mb card.

 

I have faith eventually Dayz's zombies will have some role in the game a role that is not them being there simply to provide the player with annoyance.

[audax 207]

Yes!!! It is shame how zombies ruin the game right now :( It would feel lot more complete game without zombies. I like zombies too I guess, but DayZ Usain Bolt all over the place zombies are just gamebreaking. I prefer slow Walking Dead zombies.

So you can do all of your call of duty deathmatch without problems?

 

Im sorry man, but zombies need to be a real trouble for a player.

 

If not... Just play wasteland.

[captain_finnish 134]

So you can do all of your call of duty deathmatch without problems?

Im sorry man, but zombies need to be a real trouble for a player.

If not... Just play wasteland.

Come on dude :P If only thing you see in this game is zombies, then it makes you more call of duty player than me. Cant you see anything else in this game other than zombies? Like human interactions, looting, survival, base building, etc. Off course I want zombies to be a challenge, but not gamebreaking and glitchy as hell.

[kander 80]

Well, it would be just be called 'Day' for a start. Game changer.

[gibonez 3633]

Well, it would be just be called 'Day' for a start. Game changer.

 

Well I got an awesome name for it.

 

Pandemic

 

 

medical : an occurrence in which a disease spreads very quickly and affects a large number of people over a wide area or throughout the world

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Well get on it then.  Go build your survival game and get back to us when it's complete.  Until then, the majority of us with still be playing DayZ

[gibonez 3633]

I am actually quite surprised at how many people here dislike zombies.

 

I was half expecting I would get flamed for having such a controversial opinion on zombies.

 

Yet most of the people in the thread despise zombies and rather they not be there.

 

Perhaps Dayz should have a 3rd option for servers once private hives are in.

 

A no zombie feature that will probably give people a better frame rate too.

[Smokey420 (DayZ) 74]

How are zombies a "Gimmick" when it's a zombie survival game??

 

 

lol @ you calling dayz a zombie survival game

 

just lol

 

OT: that looks 10x better than dayz. i'd be fine if they removed zombies

Edited April 29, 2014 by Smokey420

[hefeweizen 254]

So have you actually ever played DayZ without zombies? 'Cause those servers exist in the mod, and they're terribly boring camp-fests. Its amazing how many places you can go prone and snipe from for hours when you don't have to worry about zombies.

[gibonez 3633]

So have you actually ever played DayZ without zombies? 'Cause those servers exist in the mod, and they're terribly boring camp-fests. Its amazing how many places you can go prone and snipe from for hours when you don't have to worry about zombies.

 

I was not aware those servers or mods existed for Dayz.

 

I would assume that it would be boring not because of the lack of zombies but because of the lack of other gameplay mechanics to substitute zombies.

 

The lack of survival systems to realistically prevent someone from sitting out in the cold and in the rain for hours without seeking shelter .

 

The lack of an adequate health system in which you must eat, drink to meet your nutritional macros in order to not get any vitamin or mineral deficiency.

 

Perhaps if these type of things were added to these zombieless servers people would have more fun.

[hefeweizen 254]

I was not aware those servers or mods existed for Dayz.

 

I would assume that it would be boring not because of the lack of zombies but because of the lack of other gameplay mechanics to substitute zombies.

 

The lack of survival systems to realistically prevent someone from sitting out in the cold and in the rain for hours without seeking shelter .

 

The lack of an adequate health system in which you must eat, drink to meet your nutritional macros in order to not get any vitamin or mineral deficiency.

 

Perhaps if these type of things were added to these zombieless servers people would have more fun.

Noobclear Warfare server is the most prominent regular DayZ server I can think of that has absolutely no zombies, however many many Epoch servers have zombies that only walk and never run, effectively removing them from the game for the most part. It is pretty bad. Honestly, I don't see any way to prevent it from becoming a camp fest without adding unfriendly NPCs.  Unless you wanted to make players unrealistically fragile when it came to the elements. Snipers sit in trees for days waiting to take the right shot, no reason players couldn't do that anywhere they liked were it not for unfriendly NPCs.

 

As it is zombies serve the purpose of limiting the locations snipers can set up shop in, which in turn helps to balance out the effectiveness of long range vs. medium/short range combat, I.E. you can check those six or seven good snipers spots in Elektro before moving around to loot the city. Hell, with the mechanics you suggested it would probably go like this "Find cold weather gear, find food, go prone in the middle of a city between a fence and a shed. Scan in 3rd person and wait for someone to walk by." Sure this is what a lot of people do now, but they're mostly limited to the various high traffic corridors in between cities and hopefully in the future open areas free of buildings won't also be free of zombies.

I just don't see how this game could even make any sense without unfriendly NPCs, especially on a European style map like Chernarus. Sure, if DayZ took place in New Mexico with a dumb ass U.S. style highway and bedroom community system, plus super light population density before the apocalypse it could be interesting. But without an enemy that normal people couldn't easily rid themselves of, why wouldn't whatever population remained in Chernarus just reform society in the hospitably temperate cities they still have access to? I mean, you said what if an illness killed about 9/10ths of the population. Well that has happened a lot to mankind, like way more times than you'd think and it doesn't lead to lawlessness, if anything is usually leads to the exact opposite, a police state.

Now, maybe you could do an interesting perma-death sandbox without NPCs on a map that was completely inhospitable to man. But that map isn't Chernarus, you'd need it to take place somewhere where mankind can't easily survive without the aid of modern technology (A desert, a turndra, open water) and you'd need it to take place somewhere that didn't have much at all in the way of population density before hand. Because even if there is just a few dozen people left in a city, they're just going to reform into a civilization anyway. It is part of what made man the top dog on Earth, our drive to live interconnectedly with other people in massive groups for safety is an evolutionary trait and it wouldn't just go away because there are suddenly less people. Hell, most likely that urge would get much stronger.

 

I suppose you could ignore the fact that Chernarus devoid of most of her people would have no reason to break down into post apocalyptic lawlessness. You could ignore the abundance of flora and fauna, the easy access to shelter in her many buildings, the gentle climate, the soft grass in which to lay around in for hours, the many streams and ponds from which to get water from and the large supplies packaged of food that would no doubt be left over. But that would probably be even more silly than asking if a game called DayZ really needs to have any "Z".

 

TL;DR Chernarus is a good map for a zombie apocalypse, would make absolutely no sense for a Mad Max/Fallout style apocalypse.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Hefeweizen