new Rocket quote...

[siddhi 0]

I was very happy to read this...

Hall also offered a few details on how he plans to flesh out the gameplay beyond its rather primitive foundations.

"I think the group dynamic is really important - that's going to give more incentive for people not to just kill everyone else on sight. That's a very important thing to tease out, and that also gives some longevity to playing," he explains.

"Right now, once you've survived those first few days it can get a little bit boring. Maybe you could have more choices - you could be a lone wolf and go off and build a cabin somewhere, or maybe there's a large group of you and you want to take over a city and you end up fighting with other groups over resources. You know, elements that provide more of a meta game. Expanding that is really important. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-06-08-the-future-of-day-z

Very glad that we might move away from the this absolutely random P2P environment. I was sniped 3 times in one night recently, while it is fine to have bandits I think we need to put the breaks on the random killing sprees that just muck the thing up a bit and which frankly have no connection with real-life morality (unless the bandits are themselves demented....nice) I would prefer more Zombies (often only 500 or less on server - way too little) to encourage cooperation, otherwise it is less attractive to work together anyway.

Also, I LOVE the idea of a persistent operational-strategy environment on top of the tactical, where individuals can join into teams or clans, and potentially take over towns or manufacturing etc. The question would have to be however: how would a persistent game world like that look like, without overpowering it for new players?

Suggestions?

[Katana67 2907]

There will still be banditry.

Sure, facilitate group play to minimize the deathmatching.

But, if anything, banditry will become MORE irritating the less commonplace it gets.

As an example, you've been sniped 3 times in one night. Imagine being sniped just -once- in a week... when you've got all that uber loot you've been salivating over. That is far more devastating than getting thwapped a few times in a row inside Cherno.

Group mechanic and player controlled settlements will be lovely. Bandits need some love as well.

[thygrrr 1]

All my loot is in my tent.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

That was my idea ;) It's so cool that he agree's that team work is the answer to massive PvP

There will still be banditry.

Sure' date=' facilitate group play to minimize the deathmatching.

But, if anything, banditry will become MORE irritating the less commonplace it gets.

As an example, you've been sniped 3 times in one night. Imagine being sniped just -once- in a week... when you've got all that uber loot you've been salivating over. That is far more devastating than getting thwapped a few times in a row inside Cherno.

Group mechanic and player controlled settlements will be lovely. Bandits need some love as well.

[/quote']

Is this a bad thing? the game is suppose to play off your emotions.

and I'm sure Cherna and Elektra will always be PVP hot spots.

[aragos 1]

You could easily end up with organized 'bandit' gangs owning towns, etc., ala Mad Max.

However...the real 'bandit' type character is more a lone-wolf type than anything. Murder/kill, take stuff, rinse and repeat. The difference would be if you were making this a persistent MMO sort of game; then it pays to do more than kill/steal.

To some extent, IMHO, we are all testing the combat/movement portions of a partially visualized game. So right now, it is all about better weapons, etc. than long term play.

[gerow1337@hotmail.com 27]

any problems or buggs in this mod are 100% user generated.

[Katana67 2907]

That was my idea ;) It's so cool that he agree's that team work is the answer to massive PvP

There will still be banditry.

Sure' date=' facilitate group play to minimize the deathmatching.

But, if anything, banditry will become MORE irritating the less commonplace it gets.

As an example, you've been sniped 3 times in one night. Imagine being sniped just -once- in a week... when you've got all that uber loot you've been salivating over. That is far more devastating than getting thwapped a few times in a row inside Cherno.

Group mechanic and player controlled settlements will be lovely. Bandits need some love as well.

[/quote']

Is this a bad thing? the game is suppose to play off your emotions.

and I'm sure Cherna and Elektra will always be PVP hot spots.

No, it's a wonderful thing. But I'm saying, those who are anti-bandit will only make things worse for themselves by advocating against it. It won't be as frequent, but it will be every bit as devastating. Which becomes a gameplay change to hone banditry and group play alike.

Now, trying to improve the way the game plays, is a great thing. But using emotion to determine that doesn't make sense to me. In other words, don't use how many times you've been picked off as a justification for change.

[Deuzerre 64]

Banditry is legit.

Just as any other form of gameplay.

I love the fact that some people just want to kill.

I don't like the current "Kill or be killed".

[siddhi 0]

As an example' date=' you've been sniped 3 times in one night. Imagine being sniped just -once- in a week... when you've got all that uber loot you've been salivating over. That is far more devastating than getting thwapped a few times in a row inside Cherno.

Group mechanic and player controlled settlements will be lovely. Bandits need some love as well.

[/quote']

good point :) however, it has happened also I was killed BECAUSE I have that loot by someone who makes a clear decision...shoot the guy (in the back) rather then cooperate. now when I have total gucci kit, why the blazes should not EVERYONE shoot me? that is the question. the bandit Id is to make people more careful in making those choices, not remove them from gameplay altogether...

[aragos 1]

Bottom line, trying to force game-play (e.g., all PvP or all survivor) will kill the entire concept of this game.

I'd like to see more things that can only be done by groups--vehicle repairs, building repairs, et al--but I really, really don't care WHAT kind of group it is. A group of 'bandits' get a helo going? Cool. A group of 'survivors' get a hospital fixed? Neat.

However you play the game--short of hacking or exploiting--is legit. I don't do the bandit thingy, but have never had a problem with those who do. They paid for their copy of Arma2 just like me; they have every right to enjoy it as they please.

I just don't want to see it imbalanced toward one side or another. A good Survivor-based game would be single player, IMHO. A good PvP game...well, there are a lot more of those out there already, so it's a bit overdone. The hard part is mixing the two.

[Time Glitch 453]

Glad to know that the survivors are going to get some incentive to ACTUALLY SURVIVE.

This game has needed the ability to settle down and defend an area for a long time.

[aragos 1]

IMHO, it would be awesome to be able to keep a place cleaned out from spawing Zeds based on player actions. Example: NW Airfield. If players have looted the area, then it will NOT respawn Zeds or gear until humans are at least 1 Km away. Would stop gear farming.

Now...what would be even cooler...if you could get the control tower functioning again, and para-dropped supplies started spawning instead. Whoever controls the tower could control resupply...

[Deuzerre 64]

Looks like some people calling others retarded and "It goes against what Rocket Said!" have been proven wrong.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

No' date=' it's a wonderful thing. But I'm saying, those who are anti-bandit will only make things worse for themselves by advocating against it. It won't be as frequent, but it will be every bit as devastating. Which becomes a gameplay change to hone banditry and group play alike.

Now, trying to improve the way the game plays, is a great thing. But using emotion to determine that doesn't make sense to me. In other words, don't use how many times you've been picked off as a justification for change.

[/quote']

all I can say is that, The Game should provide content, that provokes real life emotions. We should feel bad, if we killed someone who saved our lifes. We should feel bad if we kill someone who we've been grouped up with for a couple hours.

through I don't really understand what you said so I'm not sure if this post is relevant.

[siddhi 0]

i think the fact that people clearly differentiate between "survivor" and "bandit" already proves the point that we need to have a "bandit" identifier, based on whatever circumstances.

to get back to the point of the OP...

clearing and "holding" area...how would that exactly work? how would a new player be able to interact in an enviornment dominated by clans, or similar? limit the size of the land that can be held? make it all local server bound?

[Soldier of Failure 14]

A new player would just need to avoid the faction, or try to make friends with one. I highly doubt a faction would be large enough to claim such a large area, and guard it that it would end up with many coast spawners murdered.

[ryansongy@hotmail.com 27]

Some kind of consequences need to be added for killing, or people need to at least be dissuaded from killing straight on sight. There needs to be a trade-off. The decision to kill a player needs to be a heavier decision than it is right now. Right now the choice to kill someone is an extremely easy choice to make, because there are literally zero consequences.

You need to have to actively choose to kill someone, not just shoot everyone you or your group meets. Im glad rocket for the most part agrees with me there.

[hoik 415]

Some kind of consequences need to be added for killing' date=' or people need to at least be dissuaded from killing straight on sight. There needs to be a trade-off. The decision to kill a player needs to be a heavier decision than it is right now. Right now the choice to kill someone is an extremely easy choice to make, because there are literally zero consequences.

You need to have to actively choose to kill someone, not just shoot everyone you or your group meets. Im glad rocket for the most part agrees with me there.

[/quote']

I think rather than concequences for killing other players, the other players should inherit (by a game mechanic) a value that is important to all players in the game, so that by killing that person you directly affect yourself and those around you.

My solution would be to implement a way to make the collective actions (murders vs amount of time alive) of the players of a server have a directy effect on the quantity and quality of items spawned in the game. This would create an system in which every person murdered and every day survived will be evolving a highly dynamic environment influenced purely by those that play within it - every persons in the game will have a definate value in regard to each other.

If your intrested in this idea visit: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10295

[xeaglenec 13]

Glad to see rocket sees the rampant pvp cod style meta game as a problem to be fixed.

I would like to see snipers gone too. Close encounters are much more fun than getting sniped or sniping people out of a hill, safe from everything. Sniping people from hill doesn't feels dayz to me. Feels much more like Battlefield or something... If people want to play Deathmatch, they should go back to COD or something.

[Friend-or-Pho 0]

Thing is, when it is said that incentivizing teamwork will make it OP compared to solo, that is how it should be. In reality a group of people can accomplish more than a single person any day, so why should there be artificial limits on how useful it is to team up.

Currently there is no reason not to kill every single person you see. How is that good for the game in the long run?

I would like to see snipers gone too. Close encounters are much more fun than getting sniped or sniping people out of a hill' date=' safe from everything. Sniping people from hill doesn't feels dayz to me. Feels much more like Battlefield or something... If people want to play Deathmatch, they should go back to COD or something.

[/quote']

Abosultely not! Simply because you prefer to fight up-close-and-personal is not grounds for removing every scoped weapon from the game. They serve an invaluable service, they allow my group to detect and engage threats at range.

[Deuzerre 64]

Semi-automatics rifles might have to be removed though. They are "too easy" killing weapons.

A sniper is supposed to be good as long range, especially in support. Semi-autos are all range weapons without any real flaws.

[Friend-or-Pho 0]

Semi-automatics rifles might have to be removed though. They are "too easy" killing weapons.

A sniper is supposed to be good as long range' date=' especially in support. Semi-autos are all range weapons without any real flaws.

[/quote']

I don't honestly believe any weapons need to be removed from the game.

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10468

If a system like that were implemented, and made awesome weapons harder to find, they wouldn't be an issue.