Dayz: the Road to Beta - PAX Aus Presentation

[edwin3 74]

http://www.twitch.tv/pax/v/23073628

 

starts around 7:50

Edited October 30, 2015 by edwin3

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

First person to RP Lady MacBeth wins!

 

[pillock 850]

7:50 is more accurate.

 

Otherwise you have to sit through 10 minutes of that foodfight bollocks.

[Tatanko 5591]

Otherwise you have to sit through 10 minutes of that foodfight bollocks.

I thought it was funny. Watched it for a bit waiting for Hicks' presentation to begin last night :)

[q.S Sachiel 470]

7:50:00 is more accurate...

[edwin3 74]

i tend to be less accurate ;P

[pillock 850]

I transcribed this bit of Brian's presentation to make sure I understood it correctly (07:59:30 ~ish):

 

 One of the things we moved to [initially, after the mod] is a global spawn [for infected]. That meant that we have a set quantity of infected and we have regions where they should spawn, and then the server doles them out and goes, "We'll put this many here and this many here." And that meant that, while the infected are asleep (because that's how the AI is written - if there's no players nearby to activate it, it's in 'sleep' mode so it's not taking resources) it's still counted against the maximum quantity on the server. So we might not be using all, say, 500 that are in the north, but that 500 is used in the per-server maximum of 1000. So you're only seeing, say, 500 down south, when, ideally, I'd much rather you guys be using all of the infected on the server where the players are. It'll look like there is a lot more: let's say if we cram 700 infected to where the players are and the players are only in 3 specific bubbles on the map, it's going to be chaos with the infected - that's an insane ratio. Say there's 20 people in each of those bubbles, and like 200 to 175 infected for those 20 people - that's a mess! It should be awesome.

 

 

(I'm still not entirely sure I get it)

 

So... Does this mean that if you are on an empty server, you get all of the maximum possible infected for that server spawning in your location "bubble"? And if the server is full, the infected are distributed in numbers according to the locations of concentrations of players? On the one hand, it's going to bring the infected threat to the forefront of the gameplay; but on the other, it seems that concentrations of infected will be able to be used by players as a gauge as to how many other players are in in their proximity "bubble" of the map - which is something Brian earlier describes as a "ridiculous" piece of meta-gaming.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Pillock

[WilliamTheConqueror 81]

I transcribed this bit of Brian's presentation to make sure I understood it correctly (07:59:30 ~ish):

(I'm still not entirely sure I get it)

So... Does this mean that if you are on an empty server, you get all of the maximum possible infected for that server spawning in your location "bubble"? And if the server is full, the infected are distributed in numbers according to the locations of concentrations of players? On the one hand, it's going to bring the infected threat to the forefront of the gameplay; but on the other, it seems that concentrations of infected will be able to be used by players as a gauge as to how many other players are in in their proximity "bubble" of the map - which is something Brian earlier describes as a "ridiculous" piece of meta-gaming.

There would need to be limits. I think what it means is there will be regulations on spawning. So the zombies are currently spawning evenly across the map, despite no players in certain areas. What this new idea is saying is that the server will prioritize spawning in areas that players are in. So on a server restart, the zeds are evenly spread out. With one guy, he kills a bunch, and the server will only spawn new ones in areas around him. Say he clears a town, but quickly leaves. No zeds will spawn in that town if no one is there. If that area is activated by a player, then they will spawn. This will not lead to 500 zeds in one town just because that is where the player is. Edited October 30, 2015 by WilliamTheConqueror

[derLoko 30]

"Properly displaying these skills is dependent on the new UI"

-Hicks

 

Do people even want to see the skills/progress in the UI? Personally, I'm fine with not showing any of that. No need to, it could do more bad than good.

 

 

edit: Don't get me wrong tho - i love the idea of skills and if done right, that could add a lot to the game imo. But maybe a system that runs "silently" in the background is more immersive and less distracting.

[pillock 850]

 

"Properly displaying these skills is dependent on the new UI"

-Hicks

 

Do people even want to see the skills/progress in the UI? Personally, I'm fine with not showing any of that. No need to, it could do more bad than good.

 

 

edit: Don't get me wrong tho - i love the idea of skills and if done right, that could add a lot to the game imo. But maybe a system that runs "silently" in the background is more immersive and less distracting.

 

 

Definitely.

 

We don't need to know how many skill points we've accumulated in the UI (though doubtless someone will mod in a display). It's best if players don't even notice any difference until they die, and then they realise how crap their newspawn character is at doing the tasks they'd improved on in their past life.

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

OH. MY. GOD.

 

Infected spawning based on regions actually occupied by players. I have no words for the level of excitement this induces. I feel like I did when I was 8 and I woke up and realized it was Christmas morning within seconds of gaining consciousness.

[Yuval 221]

OH. MY. GOD.

 

Infected spawning based on regions actually occupied by players. I have no words for the level of excitement this induces. I feel like I did when I was 8 and I woke up and realized it was Christmas morning within seconds of gaining consciousness.

 

i can feel the orgasm you had while writing this post. you expressed it so deeply in your reply.

 

I'm quite sad they cut off the QnA in the middle and I felt Brian said something nice when they cut him to that baldy twat

Edited October 31, 2015 by StanleyWasHappy

[VVarhead 185]

I hope when a group of people clears out a village the zombies won't instantly respawn once another player enters the bubble and the group left.

 

Would kill a lot of immersion and is kind of a persistence flaw.

 

Once a zombie gets killed in a specific bubble, zombie-respawns should be deactivated in said bubble for at least a few hours, so players can actually encounter zombies killed by others, or a village which has been cleared of zombies.

[OrLoK 16187]

What happened at the end of the Helicopter story??

 

This is worse than the last episode of The Sopranos!

 

L

[Yuval 221]

What happened at the end of the Helicopter story??

This is worse than the last episode of The Sopranos!

L

Or the last episode of House of Cards...

"Frank!"

"Yes"

"I'm leaving you."

and boom. Rip in pepperonis it's the end of the show.

Edited October 31, 2015 by StanleyWasHappy

[puppetworx 474]

 

I just checked in (after 18 month absence) to see how progress is going. After seeing this video I'm actually feeling a bit of hype for the beta.

 

Actual fucking hype.

 

There is so much that looks great, but the new renderer and interruptible/time-based actions are foremost for me. They're exactly the type of polish this clunky game needs and it inspires confidence that development is going in the right direction. I'm beginning to believe (again) - I cannot wait for this beta.

 

What happened at the end of the Helicopter story??

 

One shotted it with a Makarov.

[SMoss 2101]

I transcribed this bit of Brian's presentation to make sure I understood it correctly (07:59:30 ~ish):

 

 

(I'm still not entirely sure I get it)

 

So... Does this mean that if you are on an empty server, you get all of the maximum possible infected for that server spawning in your location "bubble"? And if the server is full, the infected are distributed in numbers according to the locations of concentrations of players? On the one hand, it's going to bring the infected threat to the forefront of the gameplay; but on the other, it seems that concentrations of infected will be able to be used by players as a gauge as to how many other players are in in their proximity "bubble" of the map - which is something Brian earlier describes as a "ridiculous" piece of meta-gaming.

I'm not so sure that's exactly how it'll go down. Brian mentioned a maximum number of 1000 per server, then a bit later on said something along the lines of "... let's say if we cram 700 infected where the players are, and the players are only in, I don't know, three specific bubbles on the map...". Then again, I can't tell how the final design and implementation of the infected will look like.

[TerribleTomato 15]

^ sounds like a good way to combat server hoppers to me, or maybe a start to that idea...

[Konfucious K 183]

Progress is looking nice and I see the haters have quietened down a fair bit. I think this conference finally put to bed a lot of concerns and arguments amongst the fan-base.

 

Just hoping the patch will deliver a semi-stable experience with new infected numbers. Not expecting anything, just more desire really. On a side-note, does anyone remember when they were talking about 2500 infected per server?

[sneakydudes 278]

This video was very well done by hicks... Especially the part F its as long as my arm lmao :)

 

I enjoyed it, very refreshing and informative on the road map.

 

Thanks Hicks

Sneaks