Don't add to much features

[jskibo 143]

I do think the post is a little vague. What is a feature? Is that equipment? Surely some more unique items would be interesting? Or maybe not... if so' date=' why?

Or are we talking about mechanics? And in which case, what level of mechanics? They work on many levels. What to one person is a great feature can be to another terrible. Also, some features can be designed to be optional to suit a particular play-style. Are these objected too?

I too have struggled with this concern. Some bugs take quite a while to fix or may be engine dependent. Until then, I can either generate new content, new mechanics - or I could just wait. I've opted to continue the experiment, adding things that I really wasn't sure would work but I find interesting - like the sickness system. It's got a long way to go before I think we can objectively assess it, but I think for the genesis of an idea it's not bad. It's simple, but it has a massive complex effect on a players thinking and engages them to the world.

I guess, in summary. What is do you mean by "feature"?

[/quote']

What about town and village streetlights for night? Might make it a bit interesting see the glow of lights, or rather avoiding the glow depending on how you play.

I thought I remember seeing some base areas lit up at night in ARMA.

[B00tsy (DayZ) 19]

I guess' date=' in summary. What is do you mean by "feature"?

[/quote']

Well maybe my opening post was not totally clear, but I thought I corrected that in my other comments :)

So yes with features I ment not over complicating things by adding to many steps to do something. Such as the example given 'finding a can opener to open beans and then also having to need a spoon and a plate to eat it'. The risk of adding to much steps is that it can become a chore to stay alive instead of the freedom you currently have, besides the factors of having to eat and drink.

Optional stuff that is not mandatory to stay alive is of course something else. I welcome more variety and more collectable objects in the game!

[thoxon 26]

Speaking of features, how harsh is the infection system supposed to be? My tempvalue hasn't dropped below 96 since it was implemented. Today, I was out out in rain for 30 minutes and it actually went up from 97 to 100. I thought rain was supposed to highest negative impact on tempvalue?

[css_god@yahoo.com 543]

I do think the post is a little vague. What is a feature? Is that equipment? Surely some more unique items would be interesting? Or maybe not... if so' date=' why?

Or are we talking about mechanics? And in which case, what level of mechanics? They work on many levels. What to one person is a great feature can be to another terrible. Also, some features can be designed to be optional to suit a particular play-style. Are these objected too?

I too have struggled with this concern. Some bugs take quite a while to fix or may be engine dependent. Until then, I can either generate new content, new mechanics - or I could just wait. I've opted to continue the experiment, adding things that I really wasn't sure would work but I find interesting - like the sickness system. It's got a long way to go before I think we can objectively assess it, but I think for the genesis of an idea it's not bad. It's simple, but it has a massive complex effect on a players thinking and engages them to the world.

I guess, in summary. What is do you mean by "feature"?

[/quote']There needs to be a finely tuned balance between how many things are actually incorporated, how much they affect you and how often you need to do them or what you need to do them etc.

I'm more concerned with you going over the top with intricacies within existing mechanics or adding new mechanics and getting overly intricate with them or actually adding any intricacy to them at all.

Adding firewood for example for a limited burn, that was fine but imagine if you took it a step further and made it so you had to have a pack of matches then for each fire rather than a basically infinite supply of them like now. There needs to be a point when these things stop and some things should just be regardless of if it's realistic or not.

I've seen people drone on about how the night vision goggles should need batteries to function, or the flash light. Or people wanting things on top of already getting sick to take place in relation to your body. Is getting sick, constantly having to drink, eat and maintain your blood levels really not enough?

I see this game as a house of cards, one foul move and it will cave in on itself. It's nice to experiment but there needs to be boundaries of what is simply too much. From my personal perceptions the game is borderlining that boundary as of right now.

[bondono 1]

Objectives and artificial limitations have no place in this game.

That said, the more details the better. Give us more and more and more so that the game never gets old. So that my goals and objectives, my play experience, could be entirely different from the next guy's.

[Spedunkle 5]

I can see why we would not want to have too many complicated features, in regards to clicking X, taking B and combining C and G in your inventory, then move that all together to eat a can of beans. That would be silly.

I do however support adding more things into the game. For example, what is the real goal of a bunch of people in a zombie infested world? The goal is to create a livable shelter, a place to call 'home' and a place you can feel safe in.

Eventually it would be a really nice thing to see players who can build little 'forts' for themselves. There are obviously things that need to be considered on this but it's a really great idea in it's own right.

This idea is possible, just like it's possible to build a trench, or a machinegunners fortification in Arma2.

So, I agree, let's not make things require A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H and I to function, let's leave that to the obviously complex things like building a helicopter, or as my example, a fort. But let's keep adding features which emulate the real world and how we interact with it.

[Bandit Hunter 29]

I'd like a sandbox, its boring in the woods when your trumping all over the "time survived" average.

[n7snk 13]

Objectives and artificial limitations have no place in this game.

exacly. it will be way better to have more toys to play with and possibilities like build something, form improvised factions and such around cti and rp gamemodes mechanics, but without making it mandatory. just to be able to do more stuff in game, to give people who geared up and can survive more reasons to stay other then deathmatch. but again. nothing scripted that force to behave one or another way.

[rocket 16567]

My main aim is to say "hey I really want this feature" but to say "I want players to be faced with these situations, or these emotions".

So, for example, the infection mechanic is more about the social consequences within your group. You're in a group of friends, you know each and trust each other. But what do you do when one of you gets sick? I want people to experience these troubles and dilemma's, they are very personal experiences. And I think that means the outcomes are extremely personal and maybe even you explore yourself a little. Maybe not, but I guess that might happen.

The wood mechanic is more about putting a finite resource on fireplaces so they can't be everywhere, and also to encourage people to have too look for specific items in specific situations. It was way too easy to light a fire before, now (especially when firewood stops being just loot) it forces you to go on the move again somewhere heightening tension. It also means not everyone will have a fire, so maybe it might encourage some emergent gameplay around people gravitating to fires.

It's still an early mechanic, and probably there will be some mistakes with complexity. I am implementing a bear trap, i was think of having it so you had to find the parts for it too assemble it, but possibly that is too much?

[prospekt 8]

I think that NEW features are great, but yeah, features adding intricacy sucks.

[Wuper 0]

Would the bear trap be mostly offensive, defensive or for gathering food? Once you've assembled the trap would it be reusable? Would you be able to bait the trap somehow?

You could make the bear trap a complex item to acquire but the pay off would need to be satisfying enough to justify it.

[dogsbd 12]

The wood mechanic is more about putting a finite resource on fireplaces so they can't be everywhere' date=' and also to encourage people to have too look for specific items in specific situations. It was way too easy to light a fire before, now (especially when firewood stops being just loot) it forces you to go on the move again somewhere heightening tension. It also means not everyone will have a fire, so maybe it might encourage some emergent gameplay around people gravitating to fires.[/quote']

This bothers me a bit. I don’t care for aspects of any game/mod that sacrifices realism in order to force people to play in a certain manner. Realistically there should be firewood all over the map, especially in the forest areas. I camp quite a lot in Real Life, I generally find all the firewood I need in the woods themselves, not in barns.

I would much prefer that firewood not be made such a rare commodity so as to force people together, because number one firewood is not rare in the woods and number two people should be able to play solo or in groups at their own discretion. Let us decide, don’t create artifical means to prod us one way or the other.

Just my opinion. Thanks for all your hard work Rocket!!

[trav 11]

My main aim is to say "hey I really want this feature" but to say "I want players to be faced with these situations' date=' or these emotions".

So, for example, the infection mechanic is more about the social consequences within your group. You're in a group of friends, you know each and trust each other. But what do you do when one of you gets sick? I want people to experience these troubles and dilemma's, they are very personal experiences. And I think that means the outcomes are extremely personal and maybe even you explore yourself a little. Maybe not, but I guess that might happen.

The wood mechanic is more about putting a finite resource on fireplaces so they can't be everywhere, and also to encourage people to have too look for specific items in specific situations. It was way too easy to light a fire before, now (especially when firewood stops being just loot) it forces you to go on the move again somewhere heightening tension. It also means not everyone will have a fire, so maybe it might encourage some emergent gameplay around people gravitating to fires.

It's still an early mechanic, and probably there will be some mistakes with complexity. I am implementing a bear trap, i was think of having it so you had to find the parts for it too assemble it, but possibly that is too much?

[/quote']

[petko 0]

My main aim is to say "hey I really want this feature" but to say "I want players to be faced with these situations' date=' or these emotions".

So, for example, the infection mechanic is more about the social consequences within your group. You're in a group of friends, you know each and trust each other. But what do you do when one of you gets sick? I want people to experience these troubles and dilemma's, they are very personal experiences. And I think that means the outcomes are extremely personal and maybe even you explore yourself a little. Maybe not, but I guess that might happen.

The wood mechanic is more about putting a finite resource on fireplaces so they can't be everywhere, and also to encourage people to have too look for specific items in specific situations. It was way too easy to light a fire before, now (especially when firewood stops being just loot) it forces you to go on the move again somewhere heightening tension. It also means not everyone will have a fire, so maybe it might encourage some emergent gameplay around people gravitating to fires.

It's still an early mechanic, and probably there will be some mistakes with complexity. I am implementing a bear trap, i was think of having it so you had to find the parts for it too assemble it, but possibly that is too much?

[/quote']

I think I partially understand your goals, or your way of thinking on the game concept.

Your main goal is to induce emotions and make the player immerse in a situation. A real multi player RPG, where "role playing" keeps its classical meaning (book, pen, dice games), and not the mainstream and abused definition of MMORPG, which has nothing to do with real role playing.

On the other hand, IMHO I think just inducing emotions can't be the main goal of the game. The main mechanism always has to be some kind of dynamic decision making process, with multiple outcomes and also rewarding ones which can induce satisfaction. Inducing emotions can only be an extension to this goal to make the decision making process more colorful, more stimulating, more interesting.

If the main decision making process gets too narrow, with just a few options, you just reach the currently mainstream AAA games, which are as good as an interactive movie. These are also inducing lots of emotions, but without any player choices it’s not a game. It's just a movie.

If even though there are lots of options, but the outcomes are easily cognizable and the optimal choice can be found relatively fast, the game gets boring and looses the ability to stimulate the person. This will be the case, when there are no dynamics in the parameters.

And if there are no satisfying rewards, there are no optimal choices which can be sought after, the game gets frustrating and no enjoyment in playing it.

If the only reward is to not die by taking care of multiple requirements, it can also cause some frustration. This is not rewarding. And if the game’s only goal is to induce emotions, especially bad ones ( fear, despair, hatred etc.), and force the player to choose options with equal utility, this can be a bad game which causes pain instead of joy.

Also you should not forget that the role playing factor can only work if the player is playing "alone" without any real life friends. If a group of friends is connected on teamspeak, and they play together, all the role playing situation will be messed up, and the game will ultimately turn into a pragmatical, unaffective game.

I just wanted to say that please don't forget about this mechanism, and the game flow with rewarding outcomes. Look at this thread with my suggestion to extend the game flow: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4359

[milancz 10]

I disagree with OP. First off avg. lifetime is very misleading as its being lowered by cherno/elektro deathmatching derps who don't need to care about anything except point and click in the first place and just spawn over and over again.

On the other hand, when you got some hours under your belt, you can survive for days and then you start pondering what more you can do. Build a base, reinforce a house, raid, hunt, repair stuff, etc. The more you will be able to do the better. Hell even implement the need to take a crap or a piss according to how much you eat/drink and make the possibility of digging a hole for it first or to do it in a bag that you'll bury so the smell wont give you away to bandits or zombies :D

But I'm all for not adding too much stuff until the existing features will get fixed, like tents and vehicles.

[-AoXo- 24]

My main aim is to say "hey I really want this feature" but to say "I want players to be faced with these situations' date=' or these emotions".

So, for example, the infection mechanic is more about the social consequences within your group. You're in a group of friends, you know each and trust each other. But what do you do when one of you gets sick? I want people to experience these troubles and dilemma's, they are very personal experiences. And I think that means the outcomes are extremely personal and maybe even you explore yourself a little. Maybe not, but I guess that might happen.

The wood mechanic is more about putting a finite resource on fireplaces so they can't be everywhere, and also to encourage people to have too look for specific items in specific situations. It was way too easy to light a fire before, now (especially when firewood stops being just loot) it forces you to go on the move again somewhere heightening tension. It also means not everyone will have a fire, so maybe it might encourage some emergent gameplay around people gravitating to fires.

It's still an early mechanic, and probably there will be some mistakes with complexity. I am implementing a bear trap, i was think of having it so you had to find the parts for it too assemble it, but possibly that is too much?

[/quote']In regards to the bear trap it's a relatively simple task so it shouldn't need multiple steps to get to it. However, personally what I feel makes things interesting is using simple things with other simple things. For example, maybe down the line you can add wooden barricades which use the same wood as fire wood, but when combined with scrap create a barricade, when combined with matches create a fireplace, when combined with doors create a bordered up door way. Perhaps going further hunger and thirst could have different effects, but drinking and eating at the same time could do more than just reful those stats and add extra benefits on top of that, such as resistance to disease or something.

As far as using the fireplace for social environments, well, I don't really see that happening. As someone else said a lot of people who play together do so via external means (Steam, TeamSpeak, etc) so they know who to trust. If I found a fire out in the woods I wouldn't flock to it out of fear it was a trap. If I lit one I wouldn't let a stranger come up to it in case he was a bandit.

I don't know. Maybe I am missing the point of things. Who knows!

[bondono 1]

The wood mechanic is more about putting a finite resource on fireplaces so they can't be everywhere' date=' and also to encourage people to have too look for specific items in specific situations. It was way too easy to light a fire before, now (especially when firewood stops being just loot) it forces you to go on the move again somewhere heightening tension. It also means not everyone will have a fire, so maybe it might encourage some emergent gameplay around people gravitating to fires.[/quote']

I could not disagree more with this mechanic.

One of things I like about this game is the realism. I'm sorry, it's silly that I instantly get cold and sick. It's even sillier that I have to leave the woods to enter town and find... wood. This makes me want to bang my head against my keyboard.

Don't sacrifice believablility and realism for silliness. You want to create tension? Fires give out a lot of smoke and light. Having a fire is a risk. What if there are bandits out there? What if it attracts the dead?

Not "Ohnoes! I'm freezing to death because it started raining 5 seconds. Better run into the nearest city and loot some sticks of wood out of a house." Absurd. Come on, man. You've got to see that.

[sephirotic (DayZ) 1]

if the stuff added is realistic and basic i don't see why it shouldn´t be implemented. Things like meele, stamina, ammo breakdown, removable scopes, stashes etc should be implemented.

[B00tsy (DayZ) 19]

The wood mechanic is more about putting a finite resource on fireplaces so they can't be everywhere' date=' and also to encourage people to have too look for specific items in specific situations. It was way too easy to light a fire before, now (especially when firewood stops being just loot) it forces you to go on the move again somewhere heightening tension. It also means not everyone will have a fire, so maybe it might encourage some emergent gameplay around people gravitating to fires.[/quote']

I could not disagree more with this mechanic.

One of things I like about this game is the realism. I'm sorry, it's silly that I instantly get cold and sick. It's even sillier that I have to leave the woods to enter town and find... wood. This makes me want to bang my head against my keyboard.

Don't sacrifice believablility and realism for silliness. You want to create tension? Fires give out a lot of smoke and light. Having a fire is a risk. What if there are bandits out there? What if it attracts the dead?

Not "Ohnoes! I'm freezing to death because it started raining 5 seconds. Better run into the nearest city and loot some sticks of wood out of a house." Absurd. Come on, man. You've got to see that.

Yep I feel the same about that. I 'personally' think that simple things should be kept simple. Half the map is a forest and in village area's there is always a crate or pallet around that you can use to make fire with. To have fireplace 'ammo' is 1 step to much. It's the same thing with a beartrap which sounds as it's gonna be a fairly common object. Now for fixing a car or a chopper it is logical to have more steps to fix it that should be more of a team effort.

One other problem you have with all the extra things you need like 'wood' it fills up your already small inventory. In my inventory I want every free slot to be used to store ammo and other essentials, not for wood and cold medicine etcetera, you would need 2 backpacks then to survive and kill Zeds.