No more Towns

[Jex 1104]

God damn it people,its Chernarus

ain't no god damn US city,its CHERNARUS! Own state,back in some 1990 shit,old school,and ya'll want god damn theaters? toy stores? whatchu some maniacs o_O ? God damn be this community ._. trynna make this game some super mario shit?

 

Nope what we want are some interesting buildings which has been stated in this thread had you read it. If you're happy with copy and paste boring cities spread all over the map making it boring we don't want your input.

[ZombinatoRR 18]

What you got  against pinao house ;) swagy buildin' ! i don't want no more shet in this game,every new town - lag af

[Capo 323]

The north and North west could do with some extra points of interest, that's fine with me. 

 

What I really want to know is where the hell are they going to place the large town in the center of the map? 

 

We already have Novy, Stary, and Vybor, I don't understand how they're going to fit a large town into the center without throwing off the wilderness dynamic. 

[GrumpyFragger 67]

If you wanna have wilderness I recommend playing Overpoch on the Sauerland map because by the the looks of it Chernarus gonna be packed with stereotype Towns/Cities/Villages in a few month from now.

[bfisher 561]

Why not make the whole map one huge city? Because that would be stupid, and wasn't what I was saying at all. Nice slippery slop, however.

But, for the most part forests are boring areas where nothing ever happens, there is never any player interaction and for the most part it goes completely un-used, and there is really no getting around that. You might think they're pretty, or whatever your reasons are for liking them. But they don't add much if anything to gameplay, except for being a pointless timesink.

Slogging through a forest is the DayZ equivalent of "Kill five rats".

 

 

I thought that was kind of the point?  Like you have this vast, mountainous forest to hide (and possibly starve to death) in.  If you want to run around crazy CoD style, then you can always visit the coast.

[Jex 1104]

Let's make signs and start walking in circles around the town square in Cherno "Save the Wilderness", "Squirrels need Homes Too!", "Zombies can't Own Homes, Stop Building More CIties!"

[DerrocK (DayZ) 39]

I welcome some more small villages to be added to north west.

And one bigger town somewhere in the middle also sounds interesting.

 

On the other hand we might be getting close to the point, where no other villages/towns are needed and yes, we need also some wilderness for hunting and RPing hermit and ofc hiding of the tent cities which will be hard as hell since those tents are huge and not very camo'ed (fingers crossed for underground stashes).

 

Fixed it for ya

Edited August 12, 2014 by DerrocK

[hefeweizen 254]

I thought that was kind of the point?  Like you have this vast, mountainous forest to hide (and possibly starve to death) in.  If you want to run around crazy CoD style, then you can always visit the coast.

 

I thought the point was survival in a post apocalyptic wasteland under the constant threat of attack from both zombies and bandits. Not "survival in a post apocalyptic wasteland under the constant threat of zombies and bandits, unless you feel like going on a nice relaxing hike, then you'll be fine." As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a safe haven from undead or bandits without doing a helluva lot of work.

In post apocalypse fiction, characters will often be forced into conflict with various antagonists because people tend to follow well worn paths, old roads, railways, trails. They do this not because of bad strategy, as it would be considered in DayZ, but because nature can often times be largely impassable, dangerous or inhospitable. With Arma 2, BI seems to have largely ignored this, all the forests have barely any brush, no downed trees, no steep cliffsides, no impassable rivers. Everything is as manicured as a golf course and trees are all spaced widely enough to allow easy passage, even in the deepest forests. Your character doesn't stumble when is traveling over rough terrain or foliage, there is no threat of spraining an ankle from a missed step, you can plow through pretty much any foliage you come across really, trees included. Traveling through a forest in DayZ is far less dangerous than traveling on a paved road, this isn't realistic at all and leads to a lot of unrealistic tactics being commmonplace in DayZ.

Unless they make some revolutionary choices in crafting the stamina, health, nutrition and disease systems I just don't see survival ever being a challenge in the forests of Cherno. Therefore, I don't think the bulk of the map should be made up of forests. I'd like to see most of the map covered different types of cities, suburbs, small rural communities, sprawling exurbs, commercial centers, retail centers, perserved historical neighborhoods with older architecture, entire towns that were burned to the ground. Honestly, limitless potential there. I would keep some forests on the map, but they really need to be as close to "hand crafted" as some of the newer cities are in addition to actually being more challenging to traverse than a mostly flat paved road.

[bfisher 561]

I thought the point was survival in a post apocalyptic wasteland under the constant threat of attack from both zombies and bandits. Not "survival in a post apocalyptic wasteland under the constant threat of zombies and bandits, unless you feel like going on a nice relaxing hike, then you'll be fine." As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a safe haven from undead or bandits without doing a helluva lot of work.

In post apocalypse fiction, characters will often be forced into conflict with various antagonists because people tend to follow well worn paths, old roads, railways, trails. They do this not because of bad strategy, as it would be considered in DayZ, but because nature can often times be largely impassable, dangerous or inhospitable. With Arma 2, BI seems to have largely ignored this, all the forests have barely any brush, no downed trees, no steep cliffsides, no impassable rivers. Everything is as manicured as a golf course and trees are all spaced widely enough to allow easy passage, even in the deepest forests. Your character doesn't stumble when is traveling over rough terrain or foliage, there is no threat of spraining an ankle from a missed step, you can plow through pretty much any foliage you come across really, trees included. Traveling through a forest in DayZ is far less dangerous than traveling on a paved road, this isn't realistic at all and leads to a lot of unrealistic tactics being commmonplace in DayZ.

Unless they make some revolutionary choices in crafting the stamina, health, nutrition and disease systems I just don't see survival ever being a challenge in the forests of Cherno. Therefore, I don't think the bulk of the map should be made up of forests. I'd like to see most of the map covered different types of cities, suburbs, small rural communities, sprawling exurbs, commercial centers, retail centers, perserved historical neighborhoods with older architecture, entire towns that were burned to the ground. Honestly, limitless potential there. I would keep some forests on the map, but they really need to be as close to "hand crafted" as some of the newer cities are in addition to actually being more challenging to traverse than a mostly flat paved road.

 

There is the chance you might just instantly die from touching a rock!

 

IME , I wouldn't say that forests of the Northeast USA where I grew up are particularly dangerous, inhospitable or difficult to traverse.  And I assume the forests in the former Soviet states are similar.  This isn't a Brazilian rainforest.  What makes a forest dangerous is that it's not near civilization.  If you don't know what you're doing, you have a pretty good chance of getting lost, running out of food or other critical supplies and starving/freezing/dying of heat stroke before you find your way out or get rescued.  I like that the forests in DayZ (mostly) don't feel like you are constantly in someone's back yard. 

 

 The problem with DayZ is that you can log off.  IRL, you wouldn't want to sleep unprotected in a woods full of zombies (not to mention bears, wolves, squirrels and snakes).  Not to mention the rain, snow, sleet and sun.  If zombies roamed the map instead of loitering around the towns and the elements played more of a factor, it would create more of a decision of going into town to find shelter and supplies and risking bandits and rival clans vs hide your shit deep in the woods, but possibly die from mother nature.

[rickyriot 1009]

There is still an awful lot of open space on the map (as you can see) so including new towns doesn't bother me.

 

What does bother me is that new towns tend to be badly optimised and coupled with the rubbish engine I find myself slowing to a standstill when in the middle of them. That and I would hope that the creation of towns isn't sidetracking other (what I would consider) more important work.

[hefeweizen 254]

There is still an awful lot of open space on the map (as you can see) so including new towns doesn't bother me.

 

What does bother me is that new towns tend to be badly optimised and coupled with the rubbish engine I find myself slowing to a standstill when in the middle of them. That and I would hope that the creation of towns isn't sidetracking other (what I would consider) more important work.

They aren't badly optimized, they're just more complex than the terrible Arma 2 cities, this will be fixed after they upgrade to DX11 and no they aren't sidetracking other work. Any time you have the thought that one piece of work is taking away man hours from unrelated work, it isn't. In all situations pertaining to the development of DayZ.

Hope that answered your questions.

[LouisK 85]

God.. I really do hope the devs read this thing, there are some suggestions which are pure gold. Some extra clean landscape along the north and the west would be awesome, put more unique structures, such nuclear powerplants, bunkers, circuses, small shopping centres & sewers. I really love the idea of removing the ocean and instead making it a river with a new landmass with place for more stuff, this way it would be incredibly unique.

 

Imagine using the sewers to go in between the river, having unique towns textures for each town.. 

[captain_finnish 134]

It is very simple. Just stop spamming new towns and make old ones more interesting. They all look kinda same. And maybe add some barricades to some small towns so it would look like they have been someones last stand.

[jubeidok 495]

It's easy to ask for/demand stuff.

[captain_finnish 134]

It's easy to ask for/demand stuff.

It is also easy to ask full price from game that is not completed yet. Anyways, we are just suggesting things so devs can make the game even more awesome. I think that everybody who has bought DayZ can say his/her opinion. We paid for it.

[LouisK 85]

It's easy to ask for/demand stuff.

 

You know I'm all in for the developers but we're the customers after all too.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Not sure what the issue is,  I've just spent the past three hours trying to get back to civilization running through the forest and prairies in the north.  I am completely lost and slowly running out of food and drinks.

[svisketyggeren 662]

I think they should open up the houses that are on the map, and not add more houses

[solodude23 649]

It is also easy to ask full price from game that is not completed yet. Anyways, we are just suggesting things so devs can make the game even more awesome. I think that everybody who has bought DayZ can say his/her opinion. We paid for it.

True, except you didn't pay full price.

 

Anyway I don't think a few more towns in the North/Northwest would hurt anything. Maybe one big one and the rest a bit on the small side. After that they should mostly work on diversifying existing towns.

Edited August 15, 2014 by solodude23

[captain_finnish 134]

True, except you didn't pay full price.

 

Anyway I don't think a few more towns in the North/Northwest would hurt anything. Maybe one big one and the rest a bit on the small side. After that they should mostly work on diversifying existing towns.

 

I actually did. DayZ has been on sale already so I dont think that the price of it would go any higher.

[solodude23 649]

I actually did. DayZ has been on sale already so I dont think that the price of it would go any higher.

The price will increase when the game hits beta/retail. That's assuming they stick to their original sale model. Also, BI had nothing to do with any sales as far as I know.

Edited August 15, 2014 by solodude23

[pilgrim* 3513]

  Let's do it like this

  then we won't have to pretend there's any wilderness in the game

[Molishero 0]

Weren't they also supposed to add Utes to the south east of the map?

[billyangstadt 272]

I have to agree. Hiding tents and camps was already near impossible, with more and more possible foot traffic, it will be near impossible.

[Hopix 44]

Could not disagree more. Wilderness for the most part = Unused map space. I'd say put as many cities as you can on the map.

 

What a horrid suggestion.