DayZ SA Modding: A New Map

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

Nicholas Cage flashlight 

 

I was reading the last few posts on this page today and decided to Google this. I am at a loss for words. Sort of like when I first saw the Macho Man Skyrim mod.

[CJ_14 105]

Raccoon City

[klesh 2423]

Hope for this to happen :beans:

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/106827-new-stalker-inspired-map-for-arma-3-now-in-development/page-6

 

 

 

 

 

NOVA ZONA was a map in development for ARMA 3 and is sadly now on hold indefinitely.

[WilliamTheConqueror 81]

How about the Mojave? Don't know if this was suggested earlier, but I don't want to flip through all of these pages.

 

But the Mojave would be an awesome area to play in. could include the edge areas of LA, or go north around Santa Clarita, Bakersfield, and the Antelope Valley (My home).

 

It is a very diverse area actually, in the hills you can have pine forests and snow during winter, and of course, deserts.

[pale1776 375]

Regional or rural South Africa. Map features could include buffalos and lions, open plains and hills with wild grass. Key locations could include a safari grounds, major cities, slums, an old concentration camp, an abandoned underground nuclear weapons silo, a gated town with heaps of civilian guns and tools and a diamond mine.

This. I would call myself Big Boss and run a PMC and diamond mine.

[dethorhyne 52]

I wonder how nobody mentioned this already.

One of the maps I played and loved the most in DayZ Mod was Thirsk for its simplicity. I'd love to see Winter Thirsk as a DayZ SA Map, maybe not in the original look but a bit upgraded so there'd be more places to check, but nevertheless, playing Thirsk once again would be my wish :)

 

It's about 6x6km as far as I remember in original edition so it's really a huge map, but still it was fun to play on.

 

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

I'm giving this a bump because I want to keep this going for a bit longer. Hope that's okay @themods.

[VahidkinG 192]

if there is one thing that i know, im sick of this old looking chernarus buildings.

i really like to see a map which first offers a modern town similar to what we are living with lots of modern apartments and some places with a big house with two yard with a mail box in fron and a pool in the back yard. second the jungles which has water falls and a field with so much flowers. 

[Zurvivalist 300]

Personally I will be looking into building two maps myself. 

The first will be southern states US. Small towns , dirt roads and lots of thick forest and caves, Think Skyrim meets DayZ . 
Later it will be one massive city, some mix between GTA and The last of us. 

[boneboys 7988]

Personally I will be looking into building two maps myself. 

The first will be southern states US. Small towns , dirt roads and lots of thick forest and caves, Think Skyrim meets DayZ . 

Later it will be one massive city, some mix between GTA and The last of us. 

Good luck !

 

Hint (same horse different jockey)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDjPzSuI8Vo&list=PLUiViqS-dLHruCtyGL_bHrYDgmgkNV2E5

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

I believe (I may be hugely wrong) that the original intention was to beable to shoehorn existing maps in once modding is enabled but with some obvious code tweaking, rather like Arma1 maps in Arma3.

 

However, this was before the SA "proper" so whilst i imagine it will be similar, it *may* well be more complex than the A1 to A3 ports, which while doable was certainly not just a case of copying over a few files and references.

 

If it's allowed I'd like to see maps from the Arma 3 franchise  (both fan and official) make it into DAYZ but AFAIK it's not "confirmed".

 

Also, as they are different games it may not be initially "allowed". I seem to remember ToH and Arma combos were initially not tolerated, so it's something to bear in mind.

 

RGds

 

LoK 

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

I wonder why they would care what maps we put in the game or what game they came from. If it were monetized, I do, of course, understand the issue there, but modders do what they do for free in all cases but that recent silly Steam paid mods debacle. What reasoning is there behind BI disallowing the Take On Helicopters and Arma combos as you mentioned? Is it related to not wanting to diminish the value of purchasing their other products or something like that?

[Tatanko 5591]

What reasoning is there behind BI disallowing the Take On Helicopters and Arma combos as you mentioned? Is it related to not wanting to diminish the value of purchasing their other products or something like that?

It's almost certainly a financial matter. Bohemia is one of the best publishers out there in terms of supporting the freedom of its communities (especially post-release), so I don't think they would impose such restrictions without the motivation of some concern for themselves as a company.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Tatanko

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

It's almost certainly a financial matter. Bohemia is one of the best publishers out there in terms of supporting the freedom of its communities (especially post-release), so I don't think they would impose such restrictions without the motivation of some concern for themselves as a company.

 

I kinda figured as much and I respect their right to do so. My question was out of pure curiousity. I haven't played too many games that even have solid modding support since I've only been on PC for gaming for about a year now. Really only Skyrim and Arma 3 truthfully. I still am learning new things about the culture of modding, rules or guidelines, and so on. 

[Yuval 221]

There's a difference between an indie game developer and a triple-AA title game published by some richass company. The pure intentions of the indie developer is to get their game known. That's why mod support is a thing that is more common with in indie games and indie devs. DayZ made the ArmA franchise atleast 3 times bigger than it was, and it happened purely because a modder did it - not a developer (you can say rocket was a developer but it happened afterwards).

 

Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield and etc do not support modding because they make big money from DLCs and mod support will demolish any DLC they release by thousands of downloads because that's how it usually is. Mod support brings much better content to the game while the developers take care of the engine and gameplay related stuff - IN THE CASE OF ARMA ALONE. Other games may have restrictions.

 

ArmA has always been about modding - there's a nice operation flashpoint (The first ever "iteration" of arma, which is back from 2001) modding german site which I forgot its name but the banner of it reads "OFP WILL NEVER DIE" and it has some mods being developed to this day.

 

Things like this is why I think modding is very important for dayz standalone. I do understand that the current build will be replaced by the new render and the current way of adding content to the game by theory will be changed totally. But, once the new renderer is in and iterations to the content reading or whatever is going to experience no major changes - mod support NEEDS TO BE THERE! I know "fracturing" the community is one thing rocket worried about but the truth is - modding will bring soooo many players into dayz - new and old. Just imagine the difference between ArmA 3 with no mods or mission making at all and ArmA 3 with mods - it's a total different experience.

 

The "vanilla experience only!!111!!!11" arguement is one hell of a retarded statement, sorry for saying it like that mods - lok pls no hid me post

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield and etc do not support modding because they make big money from DLCs and mod support will demolish any DLC they release by thousands of downloads because that's how it usually is. 

 

I've always heard this argument and agreed with and to a point I still do. However, I was thinking about it one day and a particular thought struck me. 

 

It isn't really that people won't buy the DLCs. I bought the DLCs for Skyrim even though I also played a bunch of modded content. Happily, I paid the extra $40 for the two large expansions plus the whatever it was for the house plot stuff. Worth every penny to me, although YMMV. So what makes Battlefield, another series I play, not comfortable with doing modding? I think that the answer is fairly simple. Modding doesn't diminish the value of DLC inherently. It makes it so that you cannot take the easy way out and do something like Second Assault for BF4 which was just some maps they ported over from BF3. Maps we all (most of us anyway) technically already owned and played to death. It becomes much easier to shit out whatever is most convenient for the developer (whether that content is quality or not is almost secondary) when you disallow modding since that is literally the only fresh content the player base can possibly experience. Whatever you slap together, people will buy if they are really into the game because they almost have no choice in a sense. Bethesda made some top notch unique pieces of content that took effort, design work, art assets, and more. So their contributions to the "extra stuff" pile stood out as being noteworthy. Second Assault, just to continue this example, would have likely already been made, likely even with community influenced improvements, long before they had even been ready to announce it.

[Yuval 221]

I've always heard this argument and agreed with and to a point I still do. However, I was thinking about it one day and a particular thought struck me. 

 

It isn't really that people won't buy the DLCs. I bought the DLCs for Skyrim even though I also played a bunch of modded content. Happily, I paid the extra $40 for the two large expansions plus the whatever it was for the house plot stuff. Worth every penny to me, although YMMV. So what makes Battlefield, another series I play, not comfortable with doing modding? I think that the answer is fairly simple. Modding doesn't diminish the value of DLC inherently. It makes it so that you cannot take the easy way out and do something like Second Assault for BF4 which was just some maps they ported over from BF3. Maps we all (most of us anyway) technically already owned and played to death. It becomes much easier to shit out whatever is most convenient for the developer (whether that content is quality or not is almost secondary) when you disallow modding since that is literally the only fresh content the player base can possibly experience. Whatever you slap together, people will buy if they are really into the game because they almost have no choice in a sense. Bethesda made some top notch unique pieces of content that took effort, design work, art assets, and more. So their contributions to the "extra stuff" pile stood out as being noteworthy. Second Assault, just to continue this example, would have likely already been made, likely even with community influenced improvements, long before they had even been ready to announce it.

 

Call of Duty players keep buying the next DLC and next title because that's their only addition to gameplay. If they had mods - they wouldn't need to buy a new game (that is recycled anyway..) because they have mods to download and try out - new maps, weapons or what so ever appeals to COD players.

 

Modding will demolish games like Call of Duty who'll have mods - they release a new game every year. If there's a good mod for a certain title - people will get attached to it and attempt to skip buying DLC and next titles. Call of Duty has a playerbase of atleast x10 from those who play ArmA. It sounds fictional but it's true. Modding for Call of Duty will do more harm than good for the publishers of these games - it's a dick move but in the end these companies don't really care for the community because they don't have to - people will play Call of Duty on a regular basis with or without the developers listening to them. Indie devs can't take that risk. Besides that, the developers are way more involved with in the community here and money ISN'T the main motive around here.

 

DayZ wasn't a concept of income and it started as a non-profit mod. The devs invest a lot of time for us although we do not pay extra money ingame and once you bought the game - you get a full experience and no need to pay extra money.

Edited October 29, 2015 by StanleyWasHappy

[Irish. 4886]

Be nice to have real urban area somewhere.

 

This. And this again.

[igor-vk 909]

Hello there

 

I believe (I may be hugely wrong) that the original intention was to beable to shoehorn existing maps in once modding is enabled but with some obvious code tweaking, rather like Arma1 maps in Arma3.

 

However, this was before the SA "proper" so whilst i imagine it will be similar, it *may* well be more complex than the A1 to A3 ports, which while doable was certainly not just a case of copying over a few files and references.

 

If it's allowed I'd like to see maps from the Arma 3 franchise  (both fan and official) make it into DAYZ but AFAIK it's not "confirmed".

 

Also, as they are different games it may not be initially "allowed". I seem to remember ToH and Arma combos were initially not tolerated, so it's something to bear in mind.

 

RGds

 

LoK 

I once saw short video of Namalsk map ported to DayZ standalone. Or was it only few screenshots. Im not sure any more. So it is posible. I hope it will be posible completly, and with all comunity made maps. I like Lingor and Taviana (Origins version). 

 

EDIT: I found video from pirated server. Its definetly Namalsk map in dayz engine and it has strange mix of Arma2 and SA items and weapons.

Edited October 29, 2015 by igor-vk

[St. Jimmy 1631]

I once saw short video of Namalsk map ported to DayZ standalone. Or was it only few screenshots. Im not sure any more. So it is posible. I hope it will be posible completly, and with all comunity made maps. I like Lingor and Taviana (Origins version). 

Porting anything won't likely be too much of a work unless things will change more. Making the map functioning in DayZ like zombie spawns, AI, loot and all that is likely another thing.

[OrLoK 16182]

I once saw short video of Namalsk map ported to DayZ standalone. Or was it only few screenshots. Im not sure any more. So it is posible. I hope it will be posible completly, and with all comunity made maps. I like Lingor and Taviana (Origins version). 

 

EDIT: I found video from pirated server. Its definetly Namalsk map in dayz engine and it has strange mix of Arma2 and SA items and weapons.

Hello there

 

Whilst it is *possible* now to do such naughty things, we dont know what issues are caused when doing so.

 

One can easily stuff A1 maps into A3 for example but with tonnes of rpt errors, graphical glitches and other bugs the same would likely apply with DAYZ and any other map.

 

But remember, we are still only at a relatively early stage and as we go along in the dev process the DAYZ fork will differ more and more from it's roots and while it may well be possible now, we simply dont know what the future will hold.

 

Also, dont forget, pirate servers wont really have as high QA as anything official.

 

That said, Im hoping for the pre existing maps to be allowed to be ported (pending official go ahead from bot BI *and* the original creators) bit I still believe it will take some work to do correctly.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[igor-vk 909]

Hello there

 

Whilst it is *possible* now to do such naughty things, we dont know what issues are caused when doing so.

 

I did say it was posible. I didnt say it instatly works 99% perfect. Check that video and you will see it works quite well. 

But, if it is posible and devs give us all server files needed it will work eventualy. 

[The Gent 20]

They are perfectly legal to own if you have the money/patience. It's actually a very easy process, just have to get permission from your local sheriff and send the feds a couple hundred bucks for the tax stamp and wait for it to arrive. Then you have to shell out big bucks for the rifle cause civilians have to pay roughly 10x what the military does for an m4.

Why do civilians in America need an M4?

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

Why do civilians in America need an M4?

 

They don't. It's based on fear and a wild misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment to our constitution. That being said, we really don't need this to turn back into a debate on guns as it was a few pages back.

Edited October 29, 2015 by ColdAtrophy

[ScipioII 176]

Why do civilians in America need an M4?

We don't need it. We want it and have the freedom to do so. That is why I moved here.