DayZ Build 1.6.0 Rolling Update

[mercuss 4]

Were the loot spawns changed? If I got into that factory north of Dolina I am finding much different stuff than before the update. Still have the car parts, but havent seen a single fence kit. Instead there is TONS of hatchets, piles containing hunting knives/smoke grenades, makarov ammo, STANAG mags, glock mags and chemlights. Maybe I never noticed it, but before the update I never saw any of that ammo, knives or grenades. Maybe occasionally food and drink.

Not only that is seems like ammo is spawning a lot more all over the place.

[WildStyleZx89 (DayZ) 1]

OK so this new system without the bandit/survivor thing. Is messing up the balance between players. Right now everyone can be a bandit without any consequences. Ive got shot more in the last couple hours than i have been in the last couple days. And most of the reasons are simply because they can now and they just want to know what kind of loot your carrying instead of asking they just shoot.

Imho bring back the bandit/survivor system it was way better balanced. You had a fighting chance. And there was the suspense of being friendly or not. Right now that feeling that you get when you spot someone is just gone and its simply kill or be killed. Theres no value to it anymore. This mod took a turn for the worst it had something going for itself but clearly its going to be just another one of those mods. Shame.... i had high hopes for it.

[Disgraced 1123]

OK so this new system without the bandit/survivor thing. Is messing up the balance between players. Right now everyone can be a bandit without any consequences. Ive got shot more in the last couple hours than i have been in the last couple days. And most of the reasons are simply because they can now and they just want to know what kind of loot your carrying instead of asking they just shoot.

Imho bring back the bandit/survivor system it was way better balanced. You had a fighting chance. And there was the suspense of being friendly or not. Right now that feeling that you get when you spot someone is just gone and its simply kill or be killed. Theres no value to it anymore. This mod took a turn for the worst it had something going for itself but clearly its going to be just another one of those mods. Shame.... i had high hopes for it.

Don't know if you've perished it, but theres an 80 page thread back and frothing this:

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3693

[Austex (DayZ) 5]

Not only that is seems like ammo is spawning a lot more all over the place.

I don't know if it was just a "good" day, but I managed to acquire 24 STANAG mags tonight (along with plenty of additional ammo for several of the guys in my group).

Also, in regards to the helo spawns, 2 different servers - 2 crashed helicopters : full military zombie spawn but no interaction, no loot, and a permanent minigun muzzle flash.

[carcer 8]

Incorrect. It's rocket's anti-game. I suggest you read up on what he's trying to do.

When rocket described it as an anti-game he was talking about the lack of balance and the challenge (unless my interpretation was horribly flawed somehow). No' date=' DayZ isn't supposed to be a "balanced game"; it's supposed to be difficult and unforgiving and harsh. I understand that and I think it's cool. I'm not asking for a game where the zombies arbitrarily scale to my character level, and I'm perfectly happy with a world where I will probably die frequently and frustratingly because some arsehole wants my beans or I just didn't find enough ammo; it makes managing to survive all the more rewarding an accomplishment. Those aren't things that I'm contending and they're what the whole anti-game thing is about.

What I am challenging is the idea that people should be prevented from, y'know, roleplaying. Being yourself isn't roleplaying. If a man wants to play a female character or a woman wants to play a male character for one life, that shouldn't be a problem; they shouldn't be discouraged from doing so, they shouldn't be denied that opportunity based on an arbitrary binary choice they get to make once. That's not difficulty or challenge, or a "hard choice", as some people have said; it's just a "fuck you". A hard choice is deciding whether or not to take the extra magazine or the extra food, knowing you're possibly choosing between starving to death or being eaten by zombies, and that's something that affects you for all of one character, one life. Being forced to make a choice which denies you the option to do something differently in the game for the rest of time is not a hard choice in the spirit of the game; it's just a completely arbitrary one. It is bad design, even when you accept the idea that the gameplay should be harsh and unbalanced.

The very fact that the choice is not even something which makes a gameplay difference (or at least, once it's all implemented fully and working, [b']shouldn't make a difference) is what makes the lock even more perplexing, because it cannot be a decision that was rooted in consideration of gameplay or difficulty. Rocket is already trying to move away from a system where appearance was dictated by earlier actions and give the players more customisability in how they look; it seems a massive step backwards from this to then introduce a new system even more rigid than the one he just discarded. The only reasons I can see for it are rooted in prejudice or the misguided notion that DayZ will become a world where the characters of the players ARE the players and behave exactly as the players really would in their situation, and that's simply never going to even be close to a reality.

There must be something about sleep deprivation that just inspires me to yak on endlessly, it seems.

[Disgraced 1123]

Incorrect. It's rocket's anti-game. I suggest you read up on what he's trying to do.

When rocket described it as an anti-game he was talking about the lack of balance and the challenge (unless my interpretation was horribly flawed somehow). No' date=' DayZ isn't supposed to be a "balanced game"; it's supposed to be difficult and unforgiving and harsh. I understand that and I think it's cool. I'm not asking for a game where the zombies arbitrarily scale to my character level, and I'm perfectly happy with a world where I will probably die frequently and frustratingly because some arsehole wants my beans or I just didn't find enough ammo; it makes managing to survive all the more rewarding an accomplishment. Those aren't things that I'm contending and they're what the whole anti-game thing is about.

What I am challenging is the idea that people should be prevented from, y'know, roleplaying. Being yourself isn't roleplaying. If a man wants to play a female character or a woman wants to play a male character for one life, that shouldn't be a problem; they shouldn't be discouraged from doing so, they shouldn't be denied that opportunity based on an arbitrary binary choice they get to make once. That's not difficulty or challenge, or a "hard choice", as some people have said; it's just a "fuck you". A hard choice is deciding whether or not to take the extra magazine or the extra food, knowing you're possibly choosing between starving to death or being eaten by zombies, and that's something that affects you for all of one character, one life. Being forced to make a choice which denies you the option to do something differently in the game for the rest of time is not a hard choice in the spirit of the game; it's just a completely arbitrary one. It is bad design, even when you accept the idea that the gameplay should be harsh and unbalanced.

The very fact that the choice is not even something which makes a gameplay difference (or at least, once it's all implemented fully and working, [b']shouldn't make a difference) is what makes the lock even more perplexing, because it cannot be a decision that was rooted in consideration of gameplay or difficulty. Rocket is already trying to move away from a system where appearance was dictated by earlier actions and give the players more customisability in how they look; it seems a massive step backwards from this to then introduce a new system even more rigid than the one he just discarded. The only reasons I can see for it are rooted in prejudice or the misguided notion that DayZ will become a world where the characters of the players ARE the players and behave exactly as the players really would in their situation, and that's simply never going to even be close to a reality.

There must be something about sleep deprivation that just inspires me to yak on endlessly, it seems.

And.... The dev team knows all of this and still made the decision to do it their way. Maybe they want the players to identify with their onscreen character and push people away from the gender switched aspects of role playing....

L

[koenigscat 10]

I need your clothes' date=' your boots, and your beans.

[/quote']

I thought boots were clothes?

watch:

[partybooper 2]

Did you ever fill a test where they ask about your gender? It's the same here.

Now imagine yourself going o the guy after have delivered the paper' date=' asking: "Hey, may i change my gender after? Coz i'm not sure if i feel confortable with the current one".

C'mon, stop childish, and press the damn button, it's not that hard.

[/quote']

First of all, I do not quote you just to criticise you, but the argument that players should choose their gender "according to real life".

If that's the case, I demand correct age and correct physique per cd key. I want to be 6"4 tall and be able to carry three times the weight (I'm a workhorse, hehe) compared to the (probably very common) 4"6 tall (and way too young) player who shouldn't even play this game because of its content... Additionally, give me some kind of a Rock'n'Roll T-Shirt right from the start, my beloved outdoor chronograph and my size 14 shoes to smash some zed skulls when they crawl at me, cause that's how I roll in real life.

What I mean is that it's not going to work, because it's not the way a game works. Telling the community over and over again that DayZ is an "anti-game" or something like that ain't a logical reason for me to restrict such features, because after all, it's still a game. I'm sitting in front of a computer and it has simple game mechanics, and furthermore, it's fun to play (no delicious tears from me for most of the mechanics, it's just the good old ArmA 2 bugs which sometimes make me "Damn you!"). It's a game. You can't tell me to not have fun with it. Period.

That said, I made my guy look like a seventy year old hobo. Why? Because it's much cooler to see such an old bastard kick some zed ass and fight off people who want his beans. Right, HIS beans, not mine. This isn't me, this character isn't 6"4 tall and wears size 14 shoes, right?

Now to the linking of your character's gender to your cd key: A lot people said that it's fair for rocket to do as he wants since we didn't pay him a dime for this amazing mod he created (it really is amazing), but I think it's a bad decision to link a game feature to something which has a measurable value, in this case your cd key. 1 choice of gender per cd key it says, so I could buy me Operation Arrowhead a second time and switch cd keys. I'd have the option regular players wouldn't have because I paid money for that. That's where the real problem is in my opinion, linking a game feature to a certain price tag.

So I'd suggest (and that's what it is, just a suggestion, no demand) to remove the once per cd key choice of gender. Link it to your character's life like Spielburg suggested, make the players choose their character's gender (not their own) every time they die and spawn on the coast again. And hell yeah, I confess, I'd most probably try the female model at least once as well (yeah, yeah, I'm a selfish little chap, I know...).

On the other hand, what was the real reason behind the limitation, maybe I will understand it then. "This isn't WoW" isn't a valid argument because I cannot understand what this means, I don't play WoW and I never will.

So, what was the real intention behind it? A mature individual like myself expects a mature answer to such a question.

- B

[AlfalphaCat 66]

Incorrect. It's rocket's anti-game. I suggest you read up on what he's trying to do.

When rocket described it as an anti-game he was talking about the lack of balance and the challenge (unless my interpretation was horribly flawed somehow). No' date=' DayZ isn't supposed to be a "balanced game"; it's supposed to be difficult and unforgiving and harsh. I understand that and I think it's cool. I'm not asking for a game where the zombies arbitrarily scale to my character level, and I'm perfectly happy with a world where I will probably die frequently and frustratingly because some arsehole wants my beans or I just didn't find enough ammo; it makes managing to survive all the more rewarding an accomplishment. Those aren't things that I'm contending and they're what the whole anti-game thing is about.

What I am challenging is the idea that people should be prevented from, y'know, roleplaying. Being yourself isn't roleplaying. If a man wants to play a female character or a woman wants to play a male character for one life, that shouldn't be a problem; they shouldn't be discouraged from doing so, they shouldn't be denied that opportunity based on an arbitrary binary choice they get to make once. That's not difficulty or challenge, or a "hard choice", as some people have said; it's just a "fuck you". A hard choice is deciding whether or not to take the extra magazine or the extra food, knowing you're possibly choosing between starving to death or being eaten by zombies, and that's something that affects you for all of one character, one life. Being forced to make a choice which denies you the option to do something differently in the game for the rest of time is not a hard choice in the spirit of the game; it's just a completely arbitrary one. It is bad design, even when you accept the idea that the gameplay should be harsh and unbalanced.

The very fact that the choice is not even something which makes a gameplay difference (or at least, once it's all implemented fully and working, [b']shouldn't make a difference) is what makes the lock even more perplexing, because it cannot be a decision that was rooted in consideration of gameplay or difficulty. Rocket is already trying to move away from a system where appearance was dictated by earlier actions and give the players more customisability in how they look; it seems a massive step backwards from this to then introduce a new system even more rigid than the one he just discarded. The only reasons I can see for it are rooted in prejudice or the misguided notion that DayZ will become a world where the characters of the players ARE the players and behave exactly as the players really would in their situation, and that's simply never going to even be close to a reality.

There must be something about sleep deprivation that just inspires me to yak on endlessly, it seems.

I think most of the people like you that blather on about gameplay and what Rocket should do totally misunderstand the concept of "anti-game". He is not making a game at all. Or at least something that is not like any game that is currently popular with the masses. He is not here to cater to what you desire, but he is here to make you want the things you don't desire.

The one-time gender choice is perfectly "anti-game". The only problem I see is that some IRL women might have gotten bugged out of the choice. Something I see being rectified.

Think outside of the...

[carcer 8]

And.... The dev team knows all of this and still made the decision to do it their way. Maybe they want the players to identify with their onscreen character and push people away from the gender switched aspects of role playing....

L

So you're basically saying "Yes' date=' the decision is rooted in prejudice or a completely unachievable goal, shut up they know what they're doing?" In the latter case they clearly don't know what they're doing and in the former they're being wilfully prejudiced, in which case they deserve to be complained at most vociferously.

I also have issues with your assertion that people cannot identify with those of a different gender. I don't know about you, but my ability for empathy is not restricted to other men; there are plenty of cultural difference in how we perceive men and women in society which colour our development and how we think of each other, but they do not take away my ability to identify with a character who is much like myself simply because they have a different set of genitals. Also, the idea that "gender-switched aspects of roleplaying" are something that must be avoided is again rooted in prejudice. I don't see a good reason to try and stop people doing that, and people who have problems with it should get over it. If I'm not playing "in character" I don't care what the genders of the other characters in the game are and if I am being in-character then I do not care what the genders of the other players playing the game are. If someone you're interacting with is genuinely trying to mislead you about their actual IRL gender then they're being duplicitious, but that's not an issue with the game, it's an issue with the person and probably one you shouldn't get too worked up over. When I play female characters in games, I am never trying to make anyone think that I, the player, am female, and I always make sure to clarify if there appears to be confusion.

If anything, I feel that giving players more freedom in defining their character will cause them to become more heavily invested in the character, not less; you will always feel more deeply about the choices you actually got to make than the choices that were made for you. Players who do not care about their character, only themselves, are not going to be affected by whether or not their choice of gender is fixed permanently or malleable-per-character; it is only a negative thing for people who [b']do care about character in a more detailed way. It is a decision which only hurts the game; it does not enhance the experience in any way for anyone, only limit it for some of us.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

I think the idea of this game is you are YOU after a zombie apocalypse. Please correct me if Im wrong Rocket.

[Telo (DayZ) 0]

Loooow FPS

[Disgraced 1123]

.... words ....

I didn't say any of those things in the post you are responding to.

I clearly stated that what you said it fine, but the devs chose a different route, with a purpose.

Please, don't pull the bs prejudice card here. It's just... so off.

I could tell you lots of things, about my real life that would probably defuse your obvious picture of me as some kind of stuck-in-the-50s redneck or whatever. Trust me, I've deal with more gender issues that you do, on a daily basis.

PLease get off your high horse about gender switched players. Guess what?? THEY CAN PLAY A FEMALE IF MALE OR A MALE IF FEMALE. THAT"S ALREADY POSSIBLE.

This is not about ANY of that. It's about people trying to reason the dev team on THIS game out of a decision by citing what OTHER games did or would do. That's a useless argument, here.

L

[carcer 8]

I think most of the people like you that blather on about gameplay and what Rocket should do totally misunderstand the concept of "anti-game". He is not making a game at all. Or at least something that is not like any game that is currently popular with the masses. He is not here to cater to what you desire' date=' but he is here to make you want the things you don't desire.

The one-time gender choice is perfectly "anti-game". The only problem I see is that some IRL women might have gotten bugged out of the choice. Something I see being rectified.

Think outside of the...

[/quote']

Would you support rocket if he decided that when you first made a character you had to choose whether you had an M9 or a G17 as your sidearm and you would be stuck with that weapon for the rest of time? Would you support him if you had to choose whether your movement speed was run or walk, with all the advantages and disadvantages associated, permanently for all characters? Would you support rocket if your maximum health was randomly determined for your account and fixed forever for all your characters, so that some people would be juggernaughts and some unlucky few made of thin paper?

For a start, such decisions make no sense in the context of the world, but you could easily dream up some plausible decisions - such as, for instance, choosing whether to be a fast-but-light character with reduced carrying capacity but improved speed or a heavy-duty character who can carry more but moves slower - but forcing you to stick with that forever, never giving the option to try the other, would not be good design. It would be terrible design. If you're trying to say that rocket's objective is to design something that is terrible, then it is his prerogative to do so, and I'd predict that as he steadily makes the game more terrible less and less people will actually want to play it; but I don't believe that's what he set out to do. I believe that rocket wants to make a game that is fun but harsh, addictive but challenging as hell; an anti-game in the sense that it eschews the usual notions of a learning curve and balanced gameplay to throw you right into the thick of things and forces you to deal with it or die, without holding your hand and walking you through your first time with baby steps. I do not believe that he wants to make an anti-game in the sense that he wants to make something nobody would enjoy playing. If he does, then, well, that's a terrible idea, and this is me saying so, and I'll play the game for as long as it's entertaining and give up when it no longer is.

But I reject your idea that this is not a game. It is a game. It is described as a game and played like a game; the purpose is for people to play it. It is not a game with stereotypical mainstream appeal, because it deliberately rejects some things that would normally be considered good game design in order to create a very different experience. That still does not make it a good idea to reject ALL things considered good design, and rocket doesn't; he still optimises his code and fixes bugs, tries to ensure that what we have is something we can actually play.

I think the idea of this game is you are YOU after a zombie apocalypse. Please correct me if Im wrong Rocket.

Then again we return to the question of why I don't have a model my own appearance and have the gameplay adjusted based on my own personal attributes when I "create a character" to play this game, why I don't only get one go at it, and why everyone runs around as pretty much gung-ho arse-kicking motherfuckers when, in all likelihood, they'd crap themselves and die fast in an actual zombie apocalypse. We're not playing ourselves. Nobody is ever going to really be playing themselves in this game. There is nothing you can do to it to make killing have the same impact it ought to, to make death something as feared as it should be, to make people react as they really would to this threat and still have a game that anyone will actually want to play. At the end of the day, the very way that it is presented is that you get a character, you try and do as well as you can, and when that character dies you get a new one; the character is not you.

[Disgraced 1123]

I think most of the people like you that blather on about gameplay and what Rocket should do totally misunderstand the concept of "anti-game". He is not making a game at all. Or at least something that is not like any game that is currently popular with the masses. He is not here to cater to what you desire' date=' but he is here to make you want the things you don't desire.

The one-time gender choice is perfectly "anti-game". The only problem I see is that some IRL women might have gotten bugged out of the choice. Something I see being rectified.

Think outside of the...

[/quote']

Would you support rocket if he decided that when you first made a character you had to choose whether you had an M9 or a G17 as your sidearm and you would be stuck with that weapon for the rest of time? Would you support him if you had to choose whether your movement speed was run or walk, with all the advantages and disadvantages associated, permanently for all characters? Would you support rocket if your maximum health was randomly determined for your account and fixed forever for all your characters, so that some people would be juggernaughts and some unlucky few made of thin paper?

For a start, such decisions make no sense in the context of the world, but you could easily dream up some plausible decisions - such as, for instance, choosing whether to be a fast-but-light character with reduced carrying capacity but improved speed or a heavy-duty character who can carry more but moves slower - but forcing you to stick with that forever, never giving the option to try the other, would not be good design. It would be terrible design. If you're trying to say that rocket's objective is to design something that is terrible, then it is his prerogative to do so, and I'd predict that as he steadily makes the game more terrible less and less people will actually want to play it; but I don't believe that's what he set out to do. I believe that rocket wants to make a game that is fun but harsh, addictive but challenging as hell; an anti-game in the sense that it eschews the usual notions of a learning curve and balanced gameplay to throw you right into the thick of things and forces you to deal with it or die, without holding your hand and walking you through your first time with baby steps. I do not believe that he wants to make an anti-game in the sense that he wants to make something nobody would enjoy playing. If he does, then, well, that's a terrible idea, and this is me saying so, and I'll play the game for as long as it's entertaining and give up when it no longer is.

But I reject your idea that this is not a game. It is a game. It is described as a game and played like a game; the purpose is for people to play it. It is not a game with stereotypical mainstream appeal, because it deliberately rejects some things that would normally be considered good game design in order to create a very different experience. That still does not make it a good idea to reject ALL things considered good design, and rocket doesn't; he still optimises his code and fixes bugs, tries to ensure that what we have is something we can actually play.

I think the idea of this game is you are YOU after a zombie apocalypse. Please correct me if Im wrong Rocket.

Then again we return to the question of why I don't have a model my own appearance and have the gameplay adjusted based on my own personal attributes when I "create a character" to play this game' date=' why I don't only get one go at it, and why everyone runs around as pretty much gung-ho arse-kicking motherfuckers when, in all likelihood, they'd crap themselves and die fast in an actual zombie apocalypse. We're not playing ourselves. Nobody is ever going to really be playing themselves in this game. There is nothing you can do to it to make killing have the same impact it ought to, to make death something as feared as it should be, to make people react as they really would to this threat and still have a game that anyone will actually want to play. At the end of the day, the very way that it is presented is that you get a character, you try and do as well as you can, and when that character dies you get a new one; the character is not you.

[/quote']

Cut it out, your long winded arguments are facetious. Quit trying to equate other decisions with this one. Weapons are not on the table. This was the decision made here.

Why are you so passionate about people being able to switch back and forth? You keep arguing that people should be able to play the other gender from what they are sitting in their chair, but they CAN DO THAT.

You want to have it a changeable flag from time to time. It's not. I haven't seen one reaction post from rocket in here saying, "You know what, Carcer? I hear your pleas and that's a good way to think about it. I've changed my mind."

You are beating and beating and beating and beating and beating a dead horse.

L

[AlfalphaCat 66]

Yeah kid, you are looking for a game. You are looking for something that is a diversion from your sad reality. Making all those choices at the character creation screen just gives you some sense of control/power. Rocket wants to take all choices from you, and make you make the tough choices when you actually need to, in the moment.

Go outside. Go running around in the woods IRL. Live a little, don't let a virtual world be your life.

[WildStyleZx89 (DayZ) 1]

The More i think about it. The more i feel that Rocket is not going to achieve what hes trying to do. No matter how you look at it this mod will always be just a game. So people act like that as well as if its just a game. Hence why people just dont care about survivors or bandits. Theres less and less groups forming because there is no goal about being good or bad just survival.

The feeling you had when you saw a player and shouting in chat FRIENDLY OR NOT ? Is just gone. I didnt have that sort of feeling in a long time with a game since this mod. And thats gone now since the 1.6.0.1 patch.

The best thing to do now. Is completely remove all weapons you start with. Make it harder to find weapons. So that people will have to team up again. Being a loner in a post apocalyptic world is just not real as far as i know.

[jonryan32@gmail.com 2]

If you're trying to say that rocket's objective is to design something that is terrible' date=' then it is his prerogative to do so, and I'd predict that as he steadily makes the game more terrible less and less people will actually want to play it; but I don't believe that's what he set out to do. I believe that rocket wants to make a game that is fun but harsh, addictive but challenging as hell; an anti-game in the sense that it eschews the usual notions of a learning curve and balanced gameplay to throw you right into the thick of things and forces you to deal with it or die, without holding your hand and walking you through your first time with baby steps. I do not believe that he wants to make an anti-game in the sense that he wants to make something nobody would enjoy playing. If he does, then, well, that's a terrible idea, and this is me saying so, and I'll play the game for as long as it's entertaining and give up when it no longer is.

[/quote']

Well Rocket is always welcome to jump in and say I'm completely wrong as this is just my interpretation from his posts, most specifically the one about the greatest movie he's ever seen.

He doesn't give a shit about your fun or your enjoyment. What he cares about are evoking emotions from you. Forcing you to question the norms that you're force fed every day. He wants people to really stop and reevaluate things about gaming in general and themselves. Here's a quote

So what do I want to do with my life? Well' date=' something unconventional. I want a game that makes people think, about game design and question things about themselves and explore stuff. A game where people are arguing about it in the forums, talking about it on twitter, having an opinion on it.

This is a project for people who want to try something different, have some different experiences, feel some real emotions in a game. For anyone who doesn't, have some of this and this.

So he's imposing a choice on you that normally you don't even give a second thought because you can switch willy nilly. Certainly sounds within his gameplan doesn't it?

And please stop trying to push that prejudice bullshit. It comes off as you not being able to come up with reasons to back yourself up so you're pushing for shock value or what have you with it and it's pathetic.

[carcer 8]

.... words ....

I didn't say any of those things in the post you are responding to.

I clearly stated that what you said it fine' date=' but the devs chose a different route, with a purpose.

Please, don't pull the bs prejudice card here. It's just... so off.

I could tell you lots of things, about my real life that would probably defuse your obvious picture of me as some kind of stuck-in-the-50s redneck or whatever. Trust me, I've deal with more gender issues that you do, on a daily basis.

PLease get off your high horse about gender switched players. Guess what?? THEY CAN PLAY A FEMALE IF MALE OR A MALE IF FEMALE. THAT"S ALREADY POSSIBLE.

This is not about ANY of that. It's about people trying to reason the dev team on THIS game out of a decision by citing what OTHER games did or would do. That's a useless argument, here.

L

[/quote']

What I said was that the only reasons I could see for making the decision that they did were either prejudice or hopelessly misplaced optimism. I explained why I thought it was a bad idea and why the alternative was better. In one breath you agree with what I have said and in the other you tell me that it's not, in fact, the case, because this is DayZ. You cannot have this both ways.

I have no impression that you're a throwback redneck and, not personally knowing you, I do wish you the best in life but I have no interest in how many gender issues you apparently deal with. Since you don't know me either I'm not sure how you can assert you deal with it more than I do, but that's not really relevant to the argument. At this point all I know about you is that you support a decision I feel is flawed for reasons that I feel are flawed, and I make no assumptions about why or how you arrived at that reasoning, nor any ad hominem attacks on your character.

Yes, it is possible for men to play female characters and vice versa. However, they're permanently locked to one gender and rocket is on record, in this very thread, telling people that they should choose their character gender to match their own, albeit in far cruder terms. I think it is fair to say that is discouraging people from playing characters that are not of the same gender as they are; that's not a pedantic, weaselly interpretation of his words.

I didn't cite any other games in my argument. You suggested they want the players to identify with their characters and I explained why I do not think that the choice prevents players identifying with their characters and why, in fact, having the choice would allow some to invest more heavily in their characters. Throughout my posting I've made no argument that rocket should do Thing X because Game Y did it that way, or because Game Z has plans to do it. I have argued from the basic reasons of why I think certain things are a good or bad idea, with no relation to how they've been implemented or executed elsewhere. I'm thinking, and talking, about DayZ. Not any other games.

Cut it out' date=' your long winded arguments are facetious. Quit trying to equate other decisions with this one. Weapons are not on the table. This was the decision made here.

Why are you so passionate about people being able to switch back and forth? You keep arguing that people should be able to play the other gender from what they are sitting in their chair, but they CAN DO THAT.

You want to have it a changeable flag from time to time. It's not. I haven't seen one reaction post from rocket in here saying, "You know what, Carcer? I hear your pleas and that's a good way to think about it. I've changed my mind."

You are beating and beating and beating and beating and beating a dead horse.

[/quote']

I'm arguing it because I think it was a bad decision and because changing it would have absolutely no negative impact on the experience for many people and for some would have a positive effect - not because it makes the game easier, or anything, but because it would allow them to actually care more about their character.

Yeah kid' date=' you are looking for a game. You are looking for something that is a diversion from your sad reality. Making all those choices at the character creation screen just gives you some sense of control/power. Rocket wants to take all choices from you, and make you make the tough choices when you actually need to, in the moment.

Go outside. Go running around in the woods IRL. Live a little, don't let a virtual world be your life.[/quote']

It's nothing to do with a sense of control or power. It's to do with actually investing in the fucking game. It is about making it possible for some people to care MORE about those tough choice they have to make, for it to have more impact when you have to make a call in the moment because you're actually more invested in the character you have created. Why do you seem to think it is a negative thing to enable some players to involve themselves more deeply and to immerse themselves more in that moment? For it to actually matter more to them? I feel like you're simply ignoring what I'm actually saying in favour of what you want to think that I'm saying.

For people who don't get in character at all when they play this game it will make no fucking difference. Locking their gender doesn't make them invest more heavily in their character, or identify more; it really will make no goddamn difference to them. For people who do get in character it will make the game more significant. Many people have already posted about how such a simple thing as their choice of the character's face made them care more about the character and keeping them alive; why is it bad to extend those options and enable more customisation?

[gregor (DayZ) 95]

There is only one role - survivor.

[carcer 8]

Well Rocket is always welcome to jump in and say I'm completely wrong as this is just my interpretation from his posts' date=' most specifically the one about the greatest movie he's ever seen.

He doesn't give a shit about your fun or your enjoyment. What he cares about are evoking emotions from you. Forcing you to question the norms that you're force fed every day. He wants people to really stop and reevaluate things about gaming in general and themselves. Here's a quote

So what do I want to do with my life? Well, something unconventional. I want a game that makes people think, about game design and question things about themselves and explore stuff. A game where people are arguing about it in the forums, talking about it on twitter, having an opinion on it.

This is a project for people who want to try something different, have some different experiences, feel some real emotions in a game. For anyone who doesn't, have some of this and this.

So he's imposing a choice on you that normally you don't even give a second thought because you can switch willy nilly. Certainly sounds within his gameplan doesn't it?

And please stop trying to push that prejudice bullshit. It comes off as you not being able to come up with reasons to back yourself up so you're pushing for shock value or what have you with it and it's pathetic.

And I've repeatedly stated that I think the game will be more effectively able to evoke emotions in many of the players if they're given a little more control at the start of the game to define the character they're going to play. If you are more invested in the character then you will care more about what happens to them. I understand that this makes no fucking sense to you because you are not the sort of person for whom this would be a thing, but then having that toggle makes no goddamn difference to you, so why do you argue so strongly that it should not exist?

YOU may not give gender a second thought. When I make characters I think about the character. I do not choose things at random for shits and giggles. Locking in those choices does not make me think more deeply and make the game better, it makes every character I will ever play be the same and that is boring and it makes me not care about what happens to the character. It makes the game less effective at rocket's stated goal of getting me to feel some emotion.

Regarding the prejudice thing, the point is that a lot of people are against the idea of even having the female characters at all because they don't like the idea of men playing as women. There is prejudice in that, either gender-shaming men for being "girly" or transphobia about "men who want to be women", or in some cases simple sexism alleging that women don't have what it takes to survive the zombie apocalypse or implications you ought to be able to have sex with them for there to be a point. Rocket said you should stick to playing as your own gender, and I feel that is a stance which is wrong and has its roots in that prejudice if not a misplaced hope about how the players will behave.

[.:14A41:.Pvt.p4lztZ 3]

Being a loner in a post apocalyptic world is just not real as far as i know.

Oh it's real. And for me it will continue to be real (if we are talking about real as in the game world).

I can careless about groups or even co-op. It take's too long and just want to what I do. Not have to wait around, get on some voice prog. wait around some more. Go frolicking in the forests with my buddies and having to share my survival skills/goods with them (If I happen to run into someone though and I have something extra I'll let them know in case they want to trade a bit.). If you like that, that's cool, but don't kill it (by making every fucking thing needing a group) for the people that actually prefer to be loners. I mean if that's how rocket wants it then w/e. I'll be on my way. No worries. Just saying. :P

[WildStyleZx89 (DayZ) 1]

You guys talk about how he wants to evoke emotions. And let people think twice about what they are doing playing this mod. But as far as i can tell since this new patch there haven't been any of those things. Its just like any other game now ''Ah shit i died oh well respawn and try again'' Thats the kind of feeling i have now which i didn't have before this patch.

Rocket wants to reflect real life situations into this mod. Thats how i interpret his goal for this mod. But he purposely destroyed that with this patch in my honest opinion.

.:14A41:.Pvt.p4lztZ:

I am a loner myself in the game. And i liked being a bandit. But right now everyone is a bandit and can shoot who ever the fuck they want without real purpose, maybe for the sake of killing or just because they can now. I liked the mod because it gave the thrilling feeling when you meet up with people to see what their intentions where you where always cautious. But for me thats gone now since everyone can just be a bandit or turn around and be a friendly person.

[jonryan32@gmail.com 2]

Well Rocket is always welcome to jump in and say I'm completely wrong as this is just my interpretation from his posts' date=' most specifically the one about the greatest movie he's ever seen.

He doesn't give a shit about your fun or your enjoyment. What he cares about are evoking emotions from you. Forcing you to question the norms that you're force fed every day. He wants people to really stop and reevaluate things about gaming in general and themselves. Here's a quote

So what do I want to do with my life? Well, something unconventional. I want a game that makes people think, about game design and question things about themselves and explore stuff. A game where people are arguing about it in the forums, talking about it on twitter, having an opinion on it.

This is a project for people who want to try something different, have some different experiences, feel some real emotions in a game. For anyone who doesn't, have some of this and this.

So he's imposing a choice on you that normally you don't even give a second thought because you can switch willy nilly. Certainly sounds within his gameplan doesn't it?

And please stop trying to push that prejudice bullshit. It comes off as you not being able to come up with reasons to back yourself up so you're pushing for shock value or what have you with it and it's pathetic.

And I've repeatedly stated that I think the game will be more effectively able to evoke emotions in many of the players if they're given a little more control at the start of the game to define the character they're going to play. If you are more invested in the character then you will care more about what happens to them. I understand that this makes no fucking sense to you because you are not the sort of person for whom this would be a thing, but then having that toggle makes no goddamn difference to you, so why do you argue so strongly that it should not exist?

YOU may not give gender a second thought. When I make characters I think about the character. I do not choose things at random for shits and giggles. Locking in those choices does not make me think more deeply and make the game better, it makes every character I will ever play be the same and that is boring and it makes me not care about what happens to the character. It makes the game less effective at rocket's stated goal of getting me to feel some emotion.

Regarding the prejudice thing, the point is that a lot of people are against the idea of even having the female characters at all because they don't like the idea of men playing as women. There is prejudice in that, either gender-shaming men for being "girly" or transphobia about "men who want to be women", or in some cases simple sexism alleging that women don't have what it takes to survive the zombie apocalypse or implications you ought to be able to have sex with them for there to be a point. Rocket said you should stick to playing as your own gender, and I feel that is a stance which is wrong and has its roots in that prejudice if not a misplaced hope about how the players will behave.

Well YOU might find attachment in making decisions that you can change on a whim, but a decision that I can't change is something that will always be more important to me then something I can go, "Well I can just change it later if I dont' like it."

As for the prejudice thing. So wanting a player to play as the gender they associate with is prejudiced? If you honestly believe that please see my previous statement about you and your insistence on bringing it up.

[rocket 16567]

Wow quite a read here.

I wanted to try out the female model purely to see what issues were associated with it from a technical standpoint (I mean, this is Alpha after all folks!). About halfway through i realized somehow the players were going to have to select it. I also realized that selection is a complex process, that places some demand on the database. So I very quickly put a basic dialog together and slapped it in the middle of the authorization process. This is neither a neat or elegant solution, and as such, I didn't want people changing their minds all the time and further overloading a system that is already near capacity most of the time.

So please, every second post seems to be putting words or thoughts in my mouth and saying "clearly rocket thinks this", or "he intends to do this".

Quite simply, I wanted my little sister to be able to play DayZ, and I don't think my sister is alone in wanting to play DayZ. She wanted to be able to play as a girl. There are a bunch of cool effects and interesting data that may come out of it, but don't read too much into the implementation I made.

I was surprised to hear that people want to play as a girl or a guy differently each time, because there is only a visual difference and I figured that not many people would really be interested in it. I certainly didn't expect it to spawn an entire discourse on sexuality in gaming, but now that it's here - sure why not. It's an interesting topic to explore because no studio wants to be caught dead dealing with this.