Huuwap 25 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) I see. I guess I don't see what the big deal is then...I always have two or three zombies tailing me, talking or not =/. I thought you were going for actual aggro from some meaningful range, not a walk toward sound. Are you going for dissuading people from camping and communicating or what? Maybe I need to re-read your OP and make sure I completely understand what you're talking about, because zombies aren't challenging if you keep moving and you'll always have zombies on you if you're moving constantly.I think I see more of what you're trying to achieve. If your sniper is on a hill 500 meters away and gets killed, you may not hear the gunshot and if he's dead how does he tell you he's fucked over? Would give a reason for often check-ins and radio silence...but I really don't see how it could be implemented. I do think that would be a cool feature...I just don't see a realistic way to make it happen. Edited July 26, 2012 by Huuwap Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerFeelgood 34 Posted July 26, 2012 .... so if eating or firing a rifle attracts zombies, then all player generated noise should increase zombie detection and contribute to the ear symbol threat warning including any sort of vocal communication....but lets move past that. I'm talking about voip giving telepathic communication ability. a player killed discretely should absolutely not be capable of warning his teammates to the threat. it completely invalidates anyones ability to play lone wolf/stealth survival character. If a hunter squad comes a knocking in your territory you should and you have the in game stealth capabilities to protect what you've scavenged, the hunters should not be given an unfair ability to circumvent your mad skillz... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chickenfeed 17 Posted July 26, 2012 but lets move past that. I'm talking about voip giving telepathic communication ability. a player killed discretely should absolutely not be capable of warning his teammates to the threat. it completely invalidates anyones ability to play lone wolf/stealth survival character. If a hunter squad comes a knocking in your territory you should and you have the in game stealth capabilities to protect what you've scavenged, the hunters should not be given an unfair ability to circumvent your mad skillz...Exactly what I was getting at, perhaps I explained it poorly.I think I see more of what you're trying to achieve. If your sniper is on a hill 500 meters away and gets killed, you may not hear the gunshot and if he's dead how does he tell you he's fucked over? Would give a reason for often check-ins and radio silence...but I really don't see how it could be implemented. I do think that would be a cool feature...I just don't see a realistic way to make it happen.As I said, the only possible way would be to encourage it with a Mumble/TS client set up for DayZ like it is for Project Reality. It is impossible to enforce it because all hell would break loose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerFeelgood 34 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) I see. I guess I don't see what the big deal is then...I always have two or three zombies tailing me, talking or not =/. I thought you were going for actual aggro from some meaningful range, not a walk toward sound. Are you going for dissuading people from camping and communicating or what? Maybe I need to re-read your OP and make sure I completely understand what you're talking about, because zombies aren't challenging if you keep moving and you'll always have zombies on you if you're moving constantly.I think I see more of what you're trying to achieve. If your sniper is on a hill 500 meters away and gets killed, you may not hear the gunshot and if he's dead how does he tell you he's fucked over? Would give a reason for often check-ins and radio silence...but I really don't see how it could be implemented. I do think that would be a cool feature...I just don't see a realistic way to make it happen.by writing into a code of conduct/EULA that you're not allowed to use parallel external real-time coms, and giving admins the authority to kick/ban offenders...having read the article linked above re comms/alt-f4 exploit behaviour, these rules would have to be handed down centrally (from the devs) and applied across the entire dayz serverscape otherwise the centralised statistic databse is completely irrelevent if it is sampling from a non uniform data pool... and people have discussed elsewhere the value of the central statisic model to the development of the mod...the more i debate this, the more hardened I feel my position becoming, I guess what I feel is missing here is a central written constitution/mission statement as to the purpose of the experiment/mod which we can all point to... this could be a living document... there seems to be a lot of confusion over what the aims are... for me a hyper realistic apocalypse scenario would be ultracool but may be commercially unviable... but I think the genuine anti-game following that has built up may be capable of supporting the project. I would hate to see commercial considerations dumb down the project...again fair beans to the boyz for attempting this project.... with the hackfest that seems to be going on at the moment i'm now unsure whether i will ever get to enjoy the true fruits of their labour :( Edited July 26, 2012 by JerFeelgood Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Swineflew 480 Posted July 26, 2012 by writing into a code of conduct/EULA that you're not allowed to use parallel external real-time coms, and giving admins the authority to kick/ban offenders...having read the article linked above re comms/alt-f4 exploit behaviour, these rules would have to be handed down centrally (from the devs) and applied across the entire dayz serverscape otherwise the centralised statistic databse is completely irrelevent if it is sampling from a non uniform data pool... and people have discussed elsewhere the value of the central statisic model to the development of the mod...the more i debate this, the more hardened I feel my position becoming, I guess what I feel is missing here is a central written constitution/mission statement as to the purpose of the experiment/mod which we can all point to... this could be a living document... there seems to be a lot of confusion over what the aims are... for me a hyper realistic apocalypse scenario would be ultracool but may be commercially unviable... but I think the genuine anti-game following that has built up may be capable of supporting the project. I would hate to see commercial considerations dumb down the project...again fair beans to the boyz for attempting this project.... with the hackfest that seems to be going on at the moment i'm now unsure whether i will ever get to enjoy the true fruits of their labour :(Your attitude and stance on this really bother me for some reason, I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's the fact that you claim there isn't documentation on the direction or the purpose of the mod which is clearly not true, there are a few stickied posts dedicated to things Rocket has said.You aren't going to eliminate third party communications, it just won't happen. It's become ingrained in online play. There are ingame ways to punish alt+f4 players.I just don't understand how this is the issue that is turning the game into a "hackfest".I see it as a non-issue, but if Rocket does see it as an issue he has to work around it, because eliminating it isn't an option. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerFeelgood 34 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Your attitude and stance on this really bother me for some reason, I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's the fact that you claim there isn't documentation on the direction or the purpose of the mod which is clearly not true, there are a few stickied posts dedicated to things Rocket has said.You aren't going to eliminate third party communications, it just won't happen. It's become ingrained in online play. There are ingame ways to punish alt+f4 players.I just don't understand how this is the issue that is turning the game into a "hackfest".I see it as a non-issue, but if Rocket does see it as an issue he has to work around it, because eliminating it isn't an option.Sorry, the hackfest comment was in no way related to the discussion, just an adlib reference to all the hacking being complained about at the moment on the forums...re centralised documents, yes there are stickies, and random posts sprinkled through the threads from the dayz devs. I was simply saying that a single centralised living mission statement posted possibly to the site page rather than buried in the forums may show a more cohesive direction to the project....re comms issue: just cos a certain style of play is "ingrained" in the playerbase does not necessarily mean that it will contribute positively to the goal of the project. the parallel voip comms gameplay has evolved from a generation of games that have led gaming in a direction that the mod was deliberately designed to rail against i.e. rocket saying the game is not intended to be fun. I think that this element of the gameplay feels completely counter to my idea of an apocalypse simulator, which is what the goal of this mod is in my opinion.What seems to be the case at the moment is that there are those who are involved as part of the hardcore apocalypse simulator and those that are here to corrupt that goal... as I said in the OP, has the experiment merely shown that gamers are homicidal maniacs in their virtual lives?I've had a good chance today to spin off into a lot of other threads, and some of my OP points have been raised elsewhere in much more depth in the forums, but this is the only one so far i've seen that's discussing the corrupting/exploitative influence of the comms issue...and maybe I should have said this earlier, but these are simply my own ideas on which mechanics *I feel* would be detractive to my gameplay experience...*edit* just re-read the last line of your post, your staement re squashing external voip not being an option... I would argue that it is very possible and achievable as the effects of parallel comms are so easily observable in the game environment from an admin observer mode... maybe just not in the interests of commercial success as it would be a gaming paradigm shifter and people always resist the need to change their behavioural norms.... Edited July 26, 2012 by JerFeelgood Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerFeelgood 34 Posted July 26, 2012 okay, just read this thread re game commshttp://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23-acre-support/It would seem that a lot of people from the arma community are in favour of a strong in game comms system (voice and radio), and rocket has said that he is very supportive of in game comms though the ArmA ACRE radio system would be difficult to implement.so that just leaves me the question... is the use of external comm software to talk *telepathically* an exploit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Djestr 5 Posted July 27, 2012 Enable groups, and group chat. That would help eliminate the need for TS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
