In my opinion this game should focus on melee combat

[therandomredstone 432]

It's got an extremely long way to go if it wants to be one of the best games of the century.  Like, an impossibly long way.  

well, atleast the potential.

[therandomredstone 432]

I'm not shitting on the game at all. I'm incredibly optimistic about it and, frankly, am happy enough with the game how it is already (though, obviously, I want it to be finished). Guns shouldn't be rare though. It makes 0 logical sense in any location, let alone a post-soviet, heavily militarized area. Guns and ammo should be incredibly common. There should just be consequences for using them (as in, you draw in zombie hordes).

 

Other than that, I agree with you, though I wouldn't expect it to be sold out on release as its going to have been out for probably 3+ years by then.

hmm.. you're right! i always treated Chernarus like any other ol' place when it comes to guns.

[Beizs 186]

hmm.. you're right! i always treated Chernarus like any other ol' place when it comes to guns.

 

Personally I'm not 100% convinced either way yet, though. I think that they need to find a good balance between gameplay and realism, especially with this touchy subject.

 

Though I do think that, assuming they can get hordes in who can chase you down if you fire a gun within a reasonable distance and don't GTFO, plentiful guns & ammo is the way to go. Imagine turning a corner in Cherno to face a horde of zombies, only to not even have a rifle to defend yourself. :P

Edited January 24, 2015 by Beizs

[Whyherro123 2283]

Melee combat needs to be improved. A lot. But ranged combat should be the main focus.

 

Why, you ask?

 

When the game is complete, the aim is to have zombies be the main threat. There's going to be hordes, etc. This makes close quarters combat obsolete. Run into a horde of zombies and, no matter how good you are at using your weapon of choice, you're going to die. Guns will be the only usable weapon - and that's what guns are going to be used for primarily. That's how they're going to increase players working together and decrease PvP. By making it so that you either co operate at least some of the time, or you die.

 

Don't get me wrong. Player interaction and fighting is and always will be a massive part of DayZ. But Zombies are supposed to be, too.

 

As for people claiming that guns or even ammunition should be rare, how does that reflect reality? At all? Guns aren't rare. Even military grade ones are common. The fact that Chernarus had a heavy military presence only amplifies this, but even here in the UK, where guns are virtually taboo, I know a fair few places I could get a gun in an apocalypse, entirely hypothetically, of course - I'm not much of a prepper (granted, many of these involve stealing them from people I know and dislike, but yeah - even here, they're not all that rare). It makes 0 sense for guns or ammunition to be rare. I also take issue with the rarity of clothing, backpacks, working vehicles and a lot more, but maybe that's just me. In the aftermath of civilization, with a massively reduced population, there's plenty of everything to go around. I don't believe that DayZ can focus on hardcore survivalism and be realistic as well as difficult. Its focus has to be player interaction and zombies if it wants to actually be realistic (though they've gone for 'authenticity', which I'm fine with).

I have no problem with there being a lot of guns. It would be realistic, especially for a region that just underwent what was essentially civil war in ARMA 2. However, think of it in terms of the "zombie apocalypse", and especially with regards to the sense that we (the players) have no idea how long it has been since society has collapsed and infrastructure ceased to be. I, personally, think between 2 weeks and a month have passed, while there is evidence suggesting years. Regardless, as soon as infrastructure stopped,  things like bullets, medication, canned food, fuel, pretty much anything that we would need to survive stopped being shipped into South Zagoria. The "supply" of items becomes limited to what we had in-country. The MASSIVE Cold-War stockpiles of ammunition, etc that exist in Siberian bunkers might as well be on the moon for all the good they will do us in Chernarus.

 

Of course, the CDF (Chernarus Defense Force AKA Army) and the Chedaki (Communist, Russian-supported Rebels) in South Zagoria would have made stockpiles of weapons, ammunition, medical supplies, etc for their own use, even before the "zombie apocalypse", but we have (feasibly) been dipping heavily into that stock for a while now, both "actively" (players looting airfields and military bases) and "passively" (finding things like firearms and ammunition in civilian homes. Granted, some portion of it would have been civilian, but I prefer to also think of it as a stockpile left behind by previous unseen survivors). That stock will not get replenished as long as there is no infrastructure: there is no magical "ammo fairy" dropping bullets for us to find because we are good little children. If this game wanted realism, or even authenticity, then the available ammunition supply would get lower and lower (and harder and harder to find) as the weeks and months went on. (Which, to my limited knowledge, would be relatively simple to do. Move various ammunition types "lower" on loot spawn lists. Probably not that simple, though)

 

This scarcity-of-ammunition-over-time would lead to decreased "PvP for the hell of it", as well as more hold-ups, bluffing with empty weapons, careful consideration of shots taken, etc.

[Whyherro123 2283]

Personally I'm not 100% convinced either way yet, though. I think that they need to find a good balance between gameplay and realism, especially with this touchy subject.

 

Though I do think that, assuming they can get hordes in who can chase you down if you fire a gun within a reasonable distance and don't GTFO, plentiful guns & ammo is the way to go. Imagine turning a corner in Cherno to face a horde of zombies, only to not even have a rifle to defend yourself. :P

Then you run. Run like the Devil himself was after you. Not the game's fault you derped through the largest (well, 2nd largest, but the point still stands) city on the map without a weapon. 

 

Really, IMHO, a city raid should take either careful planning, skill, or high levels of cooperation between players (preferably, all three). If there are 200+ zombies running at you from all directions, a 30rnd magazine will not save you, even if you make every shot. ( 6 other guys with 30 rnd magazines of their own to help you, on the other hand.....)

 

I don't know. I just hold the opinion that if a game gives you enough ammunition so that you don't feel afraid of anything the game has to throw at you, it is no longer a "survival game". Fear is a part of survival.

[chickenmcfuggits 49]

While melee does need some work, I don't think making firearms rare would be any kind of a solution. I have a feeling that in the context of DayZ this would mean 50% of the server pop running along the coast looking to hit someone with a splitting axe until they got bored and just quit playing. You shouldn't get a gun when you walk into any old house, but it should be reasonable enough that once you take care of the basics and head to the right places nearby you would have a good chance of arming yourself, even if its one of the lesser effective firearms in the game. Obviously, higher forms of badassery (incl melee) should be harder to acquire, with exceptions being places where these things rightfully belong, such as military bases.

 

Speaking of power progression and military bases, it would be interesting to see when they add more military weapons/vehicles to the game if they might add areas inside civilian areas where, say... battles were previously fought against the zombie uprising and there are combat vehicles and weapon spawns, as well as destroyed military equipment strewn about with the possibility of there being some, or none at all, working weapons/vehicles. If we think about what happened just as society collapsed in Chernarus and all the battles being fought, military tech would be spread around the country not only at military bases, but at chokepoints and civilian centers as well. I could imagine the stary/novy area might be one such chokepoint with its wide open and distant view as well as a sort of center for the civilian population, given the apocalypse was an infection you could also expect significant military presence near every major and even minor hospital, not only to handle zeds but for keeping an ever growing frantic civilian population at bay as well. Every major city and port could be expected to have some sort of military presence, even if its just remnants of a mobile unit; perhaps some of these would be NATO units called in to help as the disaster progressed, with the possibility of NATO loot spawning that currently only spawns on heli crashes, I mean if they are bringing in helicopters and armed teams they should have a base of ops at least somewhere in the country right? Currently the vast majority of high tier military equipment and presence seems to be at the military installations, as if the Chernarun government just didn't give a shit about anything when the zombies were rolling through their cities.

 

They could even use highly contested areas like elektro and throw in some battered military equipment there from a battle lost to the zeds to spur on players to fight for these areas even more, or try to spread the points of interest out a little more to naturally spread out players and make a small amount of higher tier gear availible to players who go to these areas.

 

Sorry I got a little off topic, but my brain started spontaneously working.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Chzy

[gibonez 3633]

I'm not shitting on the game at all. I'm incredibly optimistic about it and, frankly, am happy enough with the game how it is already (though, obviously, I want it to be finished). Guns shouldn't be rare though. It makes 0 logical sense in any location, let alone a post-soviet, heavily militarized area. Guns and ammo should be incredibly common. There should just be consequences for using them (as in, you draw in zombie hordes).

 

Other than that, I agree with you, though I wouldn't expect it to be sold out on release as its going to have been out for probably 3+ years by then.

 

Should it however ?

 

Post soviet Russia is a pretty restrictive nation when it comes to firearm ownership.

 

There are 8 guns per 100 civilians in Russia.

 

There are only 226,000 rifles in civilian hands.

 

Russia ranks 68 when it comes to firearms per 100 civilians.

 

So no firearms should not be very common

[chickenmcfuggits 49]

Should it however ?

 

Post soviet Russia is a pretty restrictive nation when it comes to firearm ownership.

 

There are 8 guns per 100 civilians in Russia.

 

There are only 226,000 rifles in civilian hands.

 

Russia ranks 68 when it comes to firearms per 100 civilians.

 

So no firearms should not be very common

 

Isn't Chernarus a fictional sovereign nation though, they don't necissarily have to have Soviet or Russian laws or statistics. According to lore they split off when the USSR fell, I guess making it even more likely they would have different laws. Compounding that even more, small nations that are eclipsed by larger ones can tend to be on the militaristic or rebellious side, either way everybody got lots of guns. Also, some of the highest firearm per capita countries in the world appear to be in the vicinity of where Chernarus would be.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Chzy

[therunningmanz 255]

DayZ is meant to be an authentic survival game? I don't know if being able to Parry/block is in line with that is it? If there was an apocalypse tomorrow and I had a fire axe to defend myself against someone trying to kill me with something similar. I'm pretty sure I would be swinging the axe! I'm not a Samurai, I would have to hit him before he hit me.

I don't think advanced hand to hand combat belongs in the game personally.

Edited January 24, 2015 by TheRunningManZ

[Heatofbattle 49]

Evil beware. We have doughnuts. And guns. Lots of guns.

Presently melee combat makes me puke, and Dayz has always been about firearms anyway, so while I think melee is good, I feel as if taking those melee weapons and giving them uses, like spraying with fire extinguisher, would be better then adding like 50 new ones.

[PhillyT 554]

There are millions of fire arms in Russia. It's shortly after the start of the outbreak. Melee combat is garbage.

Guns are a perfectly acceptable inclusion.

[Avant-Garde 229]

DayZ is meant to be an authentic survival game? I don't know if being able to Parry/block is in line with that is it? If there was an apocalypse tomorrow and I had a fire axe to defend myself against someone trying to kill me with something similar. I'm pretty sure I would be swinging the axe! I'm not a Samurai, I would have to hit him before he hit me.

I don't think advanced hand to hand combat belongs in the game personally.

You know, a parry is any moviment you do with your melee weapon to avoid your opponent melee weapon. I belive even monkeys parry lol. Now seriously, I'm not talking here about adding incredible medieval moves and shit, parry is something you would do by instinct in a melee fight, maybe even feinting too, not spamming retardedly and circlestrafing, this doesn't even exist. How can this game even call itself realistic when melee fights lacks for example the basic concept of initiative?

 

Gud melee makes survival more authentic.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Avant-Garde

[Evil Minion 943]

This is DayZ not DayZ Knights.

I am getting really tired of this crap "argument". People suggest more depth in some areas and other just say no because of... reasons I guess? Why not have a complex melee system? It's not like adding more depth in area X does reduce gameplay to area X and not adding depth to area X "because it's only a small part" is the road to a far poorer and less enjoyable game that is reduced to other more developed areas.

 

Even with a very complex and good melee system (which I would support) the game does not become "DayZ Knights" as survival and actually finding the equipment would play a much greater role. And even if you manage to do this there will be people with vehicles and guns laughing at your little outdated sword.

 

If it was possible within the resources I would like a complex and authentic melee combat system as it would greatly increase the experience when fighting zombies or during the first part of the game.

[Grimey Rick 3417]

I disagree OP. This game needs to focus on cheaters/exploiters and upping the difficulty of survival.

 

 

Wait... maybe that's their plan... maybe the cheaters are like Agents, sent here to make the game harder...

[Beizs 186]

Should it however ?

 

Post soviet Russia is a pretty restrictive nation when it comes to firearm ownership.

 

There are 8 guns per 100 civilians in Russia.

 

There are only 226,000 rifles in civilian hands.

 

Russia ranks 68 when it comes to firearms per 100 civilians.

 

So no firearms should not be very common

 

Chernarus, to my knowledge, isn't part of Russia.

 

But even if civilians have that few guns, the fact is that there was clearly a very heavy military presence in Chernarus. There'd be a lot of guns left over and a small number of people left to take them.

[gibonez 3633]

Chernarus, to my knowledge, isn't part of Russia.

But even if civilians have that few guns, the fact is that there was clearly a very heavy military presence in Chernarus. There'd be a lot of guns left over and a small number of people left to take them.

I'm using Russia as the example since he used it as the reasoning why there should be plenty of weapons.

[akirakurosawa 0]

Hey guys, well I believe this would help greatly to reduce the deathmatch factor of this game if it shift its focus to melee combat then ranged. Firearms impose little threat to the one wielding it against its victim, even more if said victim is unnarmed. The risk in ranged combat is way to low. Now if firearms become rare as fuck and the great majority of survivals start using melee weapons, the risk in killing someone is a lot bigger, one single hit you take can make your arm broken, or make you bleed etc and no longer simply having the drop on someone means you can easily kill the person.

But to make this happen, we would need a more robust melee mechanics, adding parry/block, making the windup/release/recovery and range of each weapon something much more important and as consequence, melee fights will no longer be a straferun spamfest and will actually requires some strategy and skill, adding depth to the game and making melee fights something fun. I mean, the way I see it, this will only bring good things to the gameplay of DayZ AND will make it different from all the other survival games out there.

I really don't know how viable this is due server/internet mumbojumbo, but imo would do a lot of good to this game. So, a good and complex melee system is a must imo, because is something that will change a lot how things play.

...sounds good to me. Imagine an eye to eye fight (first person), with a knife or even bare hands. 'Private Ryan' comes to my mind.

The one or the the other would think twice.

With the melee implemented they could reduce fire weapons spawn.

Great idea that would give the gameplay a new thrill.

Edit:

In the topic it says 'focus on melee'. I think melee should be the first choice.... till you find a ranged weapon.

That's why I think with a nice melee mechanic (perhaps even QuickTime vs. QuickTime ) they could reduce the rifle spawn.

B.t.w.

Perhaps this should be posted under suggestions...

Edited January 24, 2015 by akirakurosawa

[sachad 1016]

Ugh, no quicktime events please. A simple block/parry option with some variety in attacks (swing/stab/overhead) would be nice. Like a simplified version of the combat system in Chivalry.

[akirakurosawa 0]

...I understand your concerns. QuickTime could be too much console.

On the other hand with QuickTime you could realize a real VS. mechanic that would last till one or the other player gets lacy (or weak). Eventually it could be the last phase of the 1vs.1 gameplay you suggested.

I have to say that I think that this QuickTime stuff would only work for player vs. player melee (don't want a telltale walking dead).

One player has to press a random key/ button (provided by the system\ mechanics), the other player can react to this by pressing the right (random) button. So even a weaker player has the chance of winning the melee fight depending of its reaction time.

That reactiontime could perhaps be reduced for a wounded\ hungry\ sick character.

Edit:

Imagine watching that player vs. player fight as a neutral 3. person.

Edited January 24, 2015 by akirakurosawa

[Avant-Garde 229]

...I understand your concerns. QuickTime could be too much console.

On the other hand with QuickTime you could realize a real VS. mechanic that would last till one or the other player gets lacy (or weak).

Perhaps I have to say that I think that QuickTime stuff only for player vs. Player melee. One player has to press a random key/ button the other player can react to this by pressing the right (random) button. So even a weaker player has the chance of winning the melee fight depending of its reaction time.

That reactiontime could perhaps be reduced for a wounded\ hungry\ sick character.

Edit:

Imagine watching that player vs. player fight as a neutral 3. person.

Imo quick time would be worse to implement because it takes away control from the player, there is no skill involved and the fights can get really predictable.

 

With the tracer system that we already have, they would just need to change melee weapons timings so they get readable and add a parry funcion (that imo would be better if you could not hold it down, but had to time it right, so you can trick your opponent in parring early/later and also, this helps to avoid that every fight will be attack/parry/attack/parry until someone runs out of stamina). Add this to multiple directional attacks and fights will get really unpredictable/dangerous/fun, gives the player a lot of ways to bypass your opponents parry. You see, to parry attacks efficiently you would need to be good at reading weapons timing/direcion and all that, its something more to master in the game which imo is always a good thing.

[akirakurosawa 0]

...I edited my post by adding that QuickTime event as the final chapter of a player vs. player fight (if the stats come close).

No skill involved!? I believe it needs skill to react. What could be more direct than a 1vs1 reactiontime game, that calculates with your stats (sick,...less reaction time).

I have seen 1vs.1 melee in traditional ways...it looks and plays ridiculous. A lot of jumping and strafing. No fun to play or watch (for me) but sure, its more 'direct'.

Edited January 24, 2015 by akirakurosawa

[Avant-Garde 229]

...I edited my post by adding that QuickTime event as the final chapter of a player vs. player fight.

No skill involved!? I believe it needs skill to react. What could be more direct than a 1vs1 reactiontime game, that calculates with your stats (sick,...less reaction time).

I have seen 1vs.1 melee in traditional ways...it looks and plays ridiculous. A lot of jumping and strafing. No fun to play or watch (for me) but sure, its more 'direct'.

Hmm I understand what you are saying. But Tracer system is also pretty different from the traditional ways melee was always done. Take a look at Chivalry for example, these are some really really fucking good players dueling in it:

 

Notice how the fight got initiative, you can't simply spam in this game or you are DEAD. Imo it looks quite good, never seen any other melee game that the combat looks better, but this is my opinion only man :)

[akirakurosawa 0]

...hmm, OK. Doesn't look that bad ;-)

Reminds me a bit of ' dark messiah'. Like the counterparts.

But they are using long swords. Still a lot of strafing. Imagine that with a knife!? Bare hands!? Ugly.

I liked zeno clash for melee fight. Or look at the new dead island. The best 'direct' melee mechanics I have seen so far.

[Evil Minion 943]

Chivalry is a good example for melee mechanics even though there are some small issues especially if you want it to be authentic (Chivalry doesn't):

1. Attacks are usually overly telegraphed and swung. In Chivalry it has the consequence of lots of players hitting lots of things they actually do not want to hit. It also results in some pretty unauthentic combat situations. Though at least telegraphing is usually needed in a computer game because otherwise you had no chance of parrying in the first place (especially with ping).*
2. Your weapon is not really present as a solid object until mid-swing. Before and after it can neither hit an object nor be parried or blocked. Also your attacks pass both allies and enemies without slowing down or even stopping.
3. Parries work as a generic box that gets activated by pressing the parry button. They are not directional and cannot be held in position and every weapon got the same hitbox (that is about as big as a tower shield - blocking drains stamina based on the weapon used though). Also attacks cannot be used to deflect your enemies blows - weapons just pass right through each other resulting in a hit trade.

Still it offers good combat flow and control and at least the first point would in fact be less of an issue in DayZ as random survivors are probably not trained melee fighters. M&B is good as well but feels a little stiff in comparison (and while I like the holdable parry I do not like holdable attacks).

 

Strafing on the other side is actually realistic, although many melee fights in reality would often end in tackling and grappling - something that is probably a pain in the a*s(*) to implement in a satisfying way (quicktime events are not).

 

*That's why in Chivalry the most basic attack is actually an overhead strike where you look at your opponents feet to speed up your attack. You can see this in the video as well.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Evil Minion

[Avant-Garde 229]

There are fist fights and daggers aswell, and the smaller the range of your weapon, the less you will be able to "dance" on your opponent. Strafing will aways be there unless its quick time event OR 2d combat. Even in real life fights there is a lot of strafing ;-)

 

Problem is, in DayZ you ONLY strafe and spam lmb, there are absolutely no other tactics to apply in melee combat, lacks depth and it only gets worse on the PvP side of things. Quick time events are way to different from what the game is imo, and we already have the tracer system on which is the basic concept of the combat of Chivalry so, would be kind of a waste of work to make the tracer system then put quick time events. I believe its better for us to expand uppon the tracers, make it complex, deep.

 

 

 

Chivalry is a good example for melee mechanics even though there are some small issues especially if you want it to be authentic (Chivalry doesn't):

1. Attacks are usually overly telegraphed and swung. In Chivalry it has the consequence of lots of players hitting lots of things they actually do not want to hit. It also results in some pretty unauthentic combat situations. Though at least telegraphing is usually needed in a computer game because otherwise you had no chance of parrying in the first place (especially with ping).*
2. Your weapon is not really present as a solid object until mid-swing. Before and after it can neither hit an object nor be parried or blocked. Also your attacks pass both allies and enemies without slowing down or even stopping.
3. Parries work as a generic box that gets activated by pressing the parry button. They are not directional and cannot be held in position and every weapon got the same hitbox (that is about as big as a tower shield - blocking drains stamina based on the weapon used though). Also attacks cannot be used to deflect your enemies blows - weapons just pass right through each other resulting in a hit trade.

Still it offers good combat flow and control and at least the first point would in fact be less of an issue in DayZ as random survivors are probably not trained melee fighters. M&B is good as well but feels a little stiff in comparison (and while I like the holdable parry I do not like holdable attacks).

 

Strafing on the other side is actually realistic, although many melee fights in reality would often end in tackling and grappling - something that is probably a pain in the a*s(*) to implement in a satisfying way (quicktime events are not).

 

*That's why in Chivalry the most basic attack is actually an overhead strike where you look at your opponents feet to speed up your attack. You can see this in the video as well.

1) I believe this is kind of a necessity, really. When you thing about good gameplay X authenticity, good gameplay should AWAYS prevail. But, that also doesn't mean we need those over telegraphed animations that chivalry has (its a really fast game after all), UNLESS DayZ devs think its a good idea to add feinting. Then it MUST have over telegraphed attacks so you can tell the difference between a real attack and a feint.

 

2) Thats something DayZ wound't need. In fact, imo not even Chivalry needs the weapon to colide only during release but these more are devs decisions, and not really a limitation of the whole tracer system melee I think. The last part I believe we go into the authenticity X good gameplay again, where that is good gameplay for Chivalry but I do agree that it woudn't be nice to have in dayz

 

3)Parries in fact are directional, the parrybox is indeed huge but you can bypass it with either a slash, a overhead or a stab. Some attacks you have to really turn to your sides to deffend or else you take to the face. I agree about the huge parrybox being kinda bad, imo it should be done with the model of your weapon (at least in DayZ). Clashing would do GREAT to Chivalry's gameplay in order to avoid forcing hit trades.. Maybe Chivalry 2 who knows.

 

Holdable parry I think its a bad idea, make feinting and delayed attacks useless + requires less skill so it would kind of dumb down Chivalry's gameplay if it was implemented, because that game is all about timing. You need good timing, good reflexes and get creative to bypass that huge parrybox lol.

 

The most important thing I believe is that Chivalry uses this gameplay mechanic as something competitive, doesn't need to be realistic. DayZ don't have this huge limitation of balance, so it can be even more brutal. What I'm eager to see in this game are the bare basics of parry and multiple directions of attacks. Who knows maybe even comboing attacks or feinting!

 

I have no idea how a game can add in a good way grapling and all that, it AWAYS suck dicks when they do this. One thing I cant stand man, is the game playing itself for me, "press A to watch you opponent die while you do nothing but press A".

Edited January 24, 2015 by Avant-Garde