The War Z - Zombie Survival MMO

Solitude

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,567
the name is a serious play on the dayz hype. pretty much a cash grab on their part. I will be keeping tabs on this, though. signed up!
 

Ryan711

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,173
the name is a serious play on the dayz hype. pretty much a cash grab on their part. I will be keeping tabs on this, though. signed up!

If this delivers even half of what they promise, it will eclipse day-z in a matter of weeks. Day-z is too hard to get into, the interface is shit, it's buggy as all hell. Rocket missed his chance to capitalize on the success by announcing a stand alone, and then somebody else took the reins, and I can't wait for it.
 

Ryan711

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,173
Uhh...yeah, except he works for BIS and ArmA 2 has gone up 500%+ in sales...

I'd say they're capitalizing on the success just fine.

yeah, and they've done jack shit except sit there with their thumbs up their ass. This mod probably caused more sales than all total previously combined, and they, as far as a know, haven't even acknowledged it, at least not in any meaningful way.

Want to generate excitement, hype, and preorders? Announce an official game built on ARMA 3's engine with high quality, purpose-built assets, bigger maps, less laggy netcode, etc.
 

castun

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
2,637
They hired Rocket to work at BIS just as the mod started to get popular (from what I understand.) Dwarden releases simple DayZ installers for the community, for those that don't like Six Updater. And they're trying to patch the game like crazy to add more features and functionality to better suit the needs of DayZ. Not sure how you consider that jack shit.
 

EPOQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,071
DayZ is a good start but in my opinion that's about it. It has opened the flood gate per say, to potentially better developers using better engines and building upon what DayZ has accomplished in it's relatively short period of popularity. It's never going to be "all that it can be" on the ArmA 2 engine with the lack of dedicated development. They either hire a full development team to make a standalone game on the ArmA 3 engine or move out of the way and let someone else do the job. DayZ has a lot of cool ideas and it's popularity has shown other developers that there is a real market for a hardcore survival type multiplayer game. Smart gamers will know a cash grab when they see one, and avoid it. That's why we are seeing a bit of skepticism so far surrounding The War Z. It has sprung out of nowhere from a relatively unknown developer promising a large number of the same concepts as DayZ, plus more, as a standalone game that has supposedly been in the works prior to the release and success of DayZ. It won't take much to verify or debunk their claims. I wait patiently with cautious optimism that they are not planning a cash grab and in fact have a very cool game with lots of exciting features in store for us. Hopefully the beta they promised is right around the corner and we will know for sure.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
yeah, and they've done jack shit except sit there with their thumbs up their ass. This mod probably caused more sales than all total previously combined, and they, as far as a know, haven't even acknowledged it, at least not in any meaningful way.

Want to generate excitement, hype, and preorders? Announce an official game built on ARMA 3's engine with high quality, purpose-built assets, bigger maps, less laggy netcode, etc.

They've been continually pushing out new beta patches for OA (as well as the recently released official 1.62) and still working on ArmA 3. They've already more or less said it would be ported to ArmA 3, but as for a stand-alone game, who knows.

Sorry they're not catering specifically to DayZ players considering they got where they are by making milsims, but they are hardly "doing jack shit".

They hired Rocket to work at BIS just as the mod started to get popular (from what I understand.) Dwarden releases simple DayZ installers for the community, for those that don't like Six Updater. And they're trying to patch the game like crazy to add more features and functionality to better suit the needs of DayZ. Not sure how you consider that jack shit.

Exactly. And actually, Rocket already worked for BIS. DayZ was just a personal side project.
 

Ryan711

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,173
They've been continually pushing out new beta patches for OA (as well as the recently released official 1.62) and still working on ArmA 3. They've already more or less said it would be ported to ArmA 3, but as for a stand-alone game, who knows.

Sorry they're not catering specifically to DayZ players considering they got where they are by making milsims, but they are hardly "doing jack shit".

Which is exactly why they'll get overtaken by this game or another one. Plain and simple. They can do whatever the hell they want, but when your game has (probably) sold more copies based on a mod than due to the actual game itself, maybe it's time to do a little more than "push out some patches" and "more or less" :rolleyes: say that it will be ported to ARMA 3.

FFS this game already has had nearly a million unique players and as far as I'm aware, Rocket is still the only one working specifically on the game. Really? Really?

Like the guy above said, it opened the flood gates. It showed there is massive interest in games like this, it gave some fantastic unique ideas that will be copied by games in the future, but they fucked up and didn't act fast enough and I don't have any loyalty just because this was the first game. I'm going to play the best game regardless, and this is looking less and less like it will be that game.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
Which is exactly why they'll get overtaken by this game or another one. Plain and simple. They can do whatever the hell they want, but when your game has (probably) sold more copies based on a mod than due to the actual game itself, maybe it's time to do a little more than "push out some patches" and "more or less" :rolleyes: say that it will be ported to ARMA 3.

FFS this game already has had nearly a million unique players and as far as I'm aware, Rocket is still the only one working specifically on the game. Really? Really?

Like the guy above said, it opened the flood gates. It showed there is massive interest in games like this, it gave some fantastic unique ideas that will be copied by games in the future, but they fucked up and didn't act fast enough and I don't have any loyalty just because this was the first game. I'm going to play the best game regardless, and this is looking less and less like it will be that game.

Then don't fucking play and stop whining. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what is your point? BIS primarily makes simulators and milsims. If someone else wants to make a different game on a different engine they are free to, and probably will. Until then, people can STFU and wait if they don't like DayZ.
 

Ryan711

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,173
Then don't fucking play and stop whining. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what is your point? BIS primarily makes simulators and milsims. If someone else wants to make a different game on a different engine they are free to, and probably will. Until then, people can STFU and wait if they don't like DayZ.

You went from arguing that they were capitalizing on the opportunity (which they aren't), which was my original point, to arguing that BIS is in a different business when you lost the first argument. So what's YOUR point?

The bottom line is that people will remember Day-Z as the original, but it will be quickly eclipsed by something else if they keep doing what they're doing (basically nothing).

This game looks and sounds fantastic, and I hope they can deliver everything they're promising.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
You went from arguing that they were capitalizing on the opportunity (which they aren't), which was my original point, to arguing that BIS is in a different business when you lost the first argument. So what's YOUR point?

"Lost" the first argument? Lol, okay...Sales figures don't lie.

MY point is that you sound like a spoiled child, angry that BIS isn't catering to YOU, a player of an ALPHA MOD for a MILITARY SIMULATION game. Your original point was that they "aren't doing jack shit"...clearly they are, because if you took a look at their forums they are highly active in the community and pumping out beta patches, as well as an official patch, at a crazy rate, fixing a lot of things specifically with DayZ in mind.

What I'm saying is that they're glad for the sales and they're making fixes but they aren't going to go out of their way to shift support to an alpha mod. If they put other developers on DayZ they are taking developers away from ArmA 2, ArmA 3, Take On Helicopters, Carrier Command...(yes, they do make other games). They already have a dedicated community of milsim enthusiasts, so it's not like DayZ is sustaining them. ArmA 2 and ArmA 3 have been in active development for way longer than DayZ was even a whisper.

Plus, this thread isn't even about DayZ, soooo.....
 

EPOQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,071
Soo.....same as DayZ, then?

Honestly, I think there should be some objectives of some sort. Random encounters with AI and whatnot. I think I would have liked DayZ more if there were.

Forced objectives take away from what they are trying to push as their overall objective - "staying alive". They stated they did not want to make objective based play as they didn't want to eventually run out of objectives and give the player the feeling that they have "won" or "beat the game". The point is just to stay alive by whatever means necessary. It's simplistic form is what draws me to it, honestly. We are so used to being led by quest NPCs on a blind meaningless hunt for X and Y. This type of simplistic design could be the kind of change from the norm many disparate MMO players are looking for.
 

dremic

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
5,178
Forced objectives take away from what they are trying to push as their overall objective - "staying alive". They stated they did not want to make objective based play as they didn't want to eventually run out of objectives and give the player the feeling that they have "won" or "beat the game". The point is just to stay alive by whatever means necessary. It's simplistic form is what draws me to it, honestly. We are so used to being led by quest NPCs on a blind meaningless hunt for X and Y. This type of simplistic design could be the kind of change from the norm many disparate MMO players are looking for.

yeah; honestly the game is brilliant in terms of gameplay and its core idea. I think that overall its lacking 95% of the lack is graphic engine limitations though. fuckin a what i would do for some decent physics..
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
Forced objectives take away from what they are trying to push as their overall objective - "staying alive". They stated they did not want to make objective based play as they didn't want to eventually run out of objectives and give the player the feeling that they have "won" or "beat the game". The point is just to stay alive by whatever means necessary. It's simplistic form is what draws me to it, honestly. We are so used to being led by quest NPCs on a blind meaningless hunt for X and Y. This type of simplistic design could be the kind of change from the norm many disparate MMO players are looking for.

It doesn't have to be like that, though. There could easily be randomized mini-objectives, like "hunt down and kill this special zombie" or "investigate this area" with maybe increased loot spawns for completing an objective. Plus, all objectives could be totally optional.

I think of it as something like Hunger Games, where there is some loot that appears in a specific area, players are informed, and then they can fight it out or just ignore it. Could make for some interesting gameplay, and in no way interferes with the survival aspect.
 

EPOQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,071
It doesn't have to be like that, though. There could easily be randomized mini-objectives, like "hunt down and kill this special zombie" or "investigate this area" with maybe increased loot spawns for completing an objective. Plus, all objectives could be totally optional.

I think of it as something like Hunger Games, where there is some loot that appears in a specific area, players are informed, and then they can fight it out or just ignore it. Could make for some interesting gameplay, and in no way interferes with the survival aspect.

I'm all for random world events, it's just a matter of how they are presented. If they create 5 world event encounters and have them on some sort of timer, they will just get bland and boring over time since you know it's going to be the same thing every time. Now, dymanic events like GW2 that can have alternate outcomes based on whether you win or lose, or if enough people are there to complete the event, would be a different story. However; at this games current state of development with a projected fall release, I don't see them implementing any truly new and unique features that they haven't already mentioned.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
I'm all for random world events, it's just a matter of how they are presented. If they create 5 world event encounters and have them on some sort of timer, they will just get bland and boring over time since you know it's going to be the same thing every time. Now, dymanic events like GW2 that can have alternate outcomes based on whether you win or lose, or if enough people are there to complete the event, would be a different story. However; at this games current state of development with a projected fall release, I don't see them implementing any truly new and unique features that they haven't already mentioned.

Possibly, but I guess I'm not quite understanding the "bland and boring" thing. Sure, the quests could be repetitive, but what are you really losing over having zero quests? The point of DayZ, as it stands right now, is to survive and loot, right? If a quest gives incentives such as loot, then why not do it? Why else are you playing the game?

The GF and I were discussing DayZ a bit on a drive down to Seattle this last weekend, and I was talking about the issues with deathmatching and the "shoot first" mentality. She suggested some sort of "social" system where you are rewarded, and perhaps it is even required, to interact with other players. I was thinking maybe it would make sense that, with the current humanity meter, you would start to hallucinate/go insane if your humanity got too low, either by killing or by staying alone for long periods (which seems realistic, really, as people are inherently social creatures), and maybe you could regain humanity by spending time with, or completing these theoretical random quests with, other people. I think that would add a lot to the game dynamic and make it even more realistic.
 

castun

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
2,637
I've always thought that DayZ could benefit from random events and 'quests' such as escorting NPC survivors out of a city in exchange for food, ammo, or even a rare chance of a weapon or some other equipment. And bandit players could just murder them instead, with a chance of not getting anything out of it, losing humanity in the process.
 

EPOQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,071
I've always thought that DayZ could benefit from random events and 'quests' such as escorting NPC survivors out of a city in exchange for food, ammo, or even a rare chance of a weapon or some other equipment. And bandit players could just murder them instead, with a chance of not getting anything out of it, losing humanity in the process.

I feel like an event that basically says "everyone go here" at once would turn out to be nothing more than a giant battlefield of players killing eachother. Part of the survival aspect of the game is being leary of other players and being ready to get the jump on someone who might be trying to kill you and take your stuff. Sending players to one point on the map for an event sounds like an all out war PvP bloodbath waiting to happen.
 

big_aug

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
2,183
Day Z does a great job of getting players to go to the same areas, but they don't force it on you.

There is one thing that Day Z does that no other multiplayer/pvp game has ever done for me... fear. Even with hundreds of square miles and only 5 people in a game, I always have that fear. Even when running in the middle of nowhere, it's there. It's unbelievable actually. Even if there are only a few people in a game, when you go into the major cities, that fear is always there.

Any time you need supplies, you have to go somewhere with a chance of running into other players. I've never had so much fun accomplishing so little in a game. It's like MGS, Deus Ex, Stalker, and Left 4 Dead all in one.

It really proves that you don't need massive amounts of people for a good multiplayer game. I don't htink an MMO is necessary really. Iron out the bugs in the mod. Really get it working well. It could be even more amazing.

God... just think if the game were on an engine that allowed for movement/stealth mechanics closer to Deus Ex. I'd just like better responsiveness and more moves like rolls and dives and such.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
I feel like an event that basically says "everyone go here" at once would turn out to be nothing more than a giant battlefield of players killing eachother. Part of the survival aspect of the game is being leary of other players and being ready to get the jump on someone who might be trying to kill you and take your stuff. Sending players to one point on the map for an event sounds like an all out war PvP bloodbath waiting to happen.

Which is why the humanity/social aspect needs to be expanded upon, making such behavior inadvisable. The root problem is that it's not even really like "being leary" of other players right now, it's already an all-out deathmatch unless you're with a personal group. Maybe making it so that a group of 2-4 is needed to perform certain tasks (like maybe, escorting NPCs, one NPC per person) would give rise to some sort of teamplay.

I understand that it's supposed to be something of a free-for-all, but you can't really tell me that in a realistic situation, everyone would just kill everyone else for no apparent reason. Even movies depicting an apocalypse aren't that far-fetched. However, in a game scenario like this, giving absolute freedom just leads to trolling and griefers, as we've seen firsthand with DayZ.
 

EPOQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,071
Which is why the humanity/social aspect needs to be expanded upon, making such behavior inadvisable. The root problem is that it's not even really like "being leary" of other players right now, it's already an all-out deathmatch unless you're with a personal group. Maybe making it so that a group of 2-4 is needed to perform certain tasks (like maybe, escorting NPCs, one NPC per person) would give rise to some sort of teamplay.

I understand that it's supposed to be something of a free-for-all, but you can't really tell me that in a realistic situation, everyone would just kill everyone else for no apparent reason. Even movies depicting an apocalypse aren't that far-fetched. However, in a game scenario like this, giving absolute freedom just leads to trolling and griefers, as we've seen firsthand with DayZ.

No, they wouldn't. Because that's their actual life they are playing with and not that of an expendable game character. So I see your point, there should be some factors that play into not easily allowing the game to become one huge deathmatch. I just can't see a definitive answer at this point. You have the right idea, but yes it does need to be explored further and expanded upon. Obviously with a game like this you can't make it as simple as NPCs turn KoS if you kill other players. Killing others should be a choice and in certain situations of life and death you are able to make that choice without suffering EXTREME consequences, but there should be SOME kind of consequence if not solely to prevent griefers.
 

castun

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
2,637
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting events that gave a global message telling people where to go, just random stuff you can stumble across when looting towns and such, similar to the random chopper crash sites. Could even have unconscious NPCs you have to give medical aid like bandages & blood to wake them up, and give them food and water so they can follow you in the first place.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
No, they wouldn't. Because that's their actual life they are playing with and not that of an expendable game character. So I see your point, there should be some factors that play into not easily allowing the game to become one huge deathmatch. I just can't see a definitive answer at this point. You have the right idea, but yes it does need to be explored further and expanded upon. Obviously with a game like this you can't make it as simple as NPCs turn KoS if you kill other players. Killing others should be a choice and in certain situations of life and death you are able to make that choice without suffering EXTREME consequences, but there should be SOME kind of consequence if not solely to prevent griefers.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at with the social/humanity meter thing. Have it be where if you kill other players continuously, you lose humanity until you get to a point where you start getting "insanity" effects, like maybe vision blur, harder to aim, etc. You can regain humanity gradually over time by not killing players, and/or by grouping up with other players (maybe being in proximity?). Obviously this wouldn't solve the problem, and it might just cause griefers to team up and grief harder, but at the same time it would promote a level of teamwork that could add a lot to the game.

There's really no easy answer, as you pointed out. Just kind of trying to come up with some ideas as to how it might be improved. :)

Another fun idea might be to have players be able to find radios, and broadcast to each other, as well as being able to intercept "transmissions" that might lead to mini-objectives.

In retrospect, I agree that announcing to everyone a single objective could cause a deathmatch, but if the consequences for killing players and dying were greater, it shouldn't matter as much. That's really the main problem, is that the consequences for doing such are not great enough.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
Yeah, that was what I was getting at with the social/humanity meter thing. Have it be where if you kill other players continuously, you lose humanity until you get to a point where you start getting "insanity" effects, like maybe vision blur, harder to aim, etc. You can regain humanity gradually over time by not killing players, and/or by grouping up with other players (maybe being in proximity?). Obviously this wouldn't solve the problem, and it might just cause griefers to team up and grief harder, but at the same time it would promote a level of teamwork that could add a lot to the game.

There's really no easy answer, as you pointed out. Just kind of trying to come up with some ideas as to how it might be improved. :)

I think that's a very good idea.
 

EPOQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,071
Yeah, that was what I was getting at with the social/humanity meter thing. Have it be where if you kill other players continuously, you lose humanity until you get to a point where you start getting "insanity" effects, like maybe vision blur, harder to aim, etc. You can regain humanity gradually over time by not killing players, and/or by grouping up with other players (maybe being in proximity?). Obviously this wouldn't solve the problem, and it might just cause griefers to team up and grief harder, but at the same time it would promote a level of teamwork that could add a lot to the game.

There's really no easy answer, as you pointed out. Just kind of trying to come up with some ideas as to how it might be improved. :)

Well, we can team up and have our own "Griefer Griefer" clan that goes around and hunts down griefers. Start a forum thread on the game forum when it goes live and hunt down serial PKers people post about (assuming they allow such a thing) :D
 

Monkey34

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
5,135
I have high hopes, but why do I think this will just degenerate into pvp the new players as soon as they spawn......oh wait....
Your lifetime in DayZ got longer.....now a whopping 49min long.:rolleyes:

Boy THATS fun right there.
 

EPOQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,071
The devs are currently holding a contest on their FB/Twitter pages for sharing/retweeting their current status to get over 10k likes (which they have already accomplished as I'm typing this). They are saying they will pick some random people that share for guaranteed beta spots later tonight.
 

Ticker305

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
1,077
I was excited until they announced the game the engine would be based on, absolute shit.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
War Inc. Battle Zone

Ah...guess that makes sense. Watching some videos of it it doesn't look awful but it's certainly not on par with newer games being released today, so we'll see.

Not sure how an FPS will work, though, since it appears War Inc. Battle Zone is a third-person game.
 

Buxaroo

Gawd
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
729
After playing DayZ, this better have sanbox mode, theme park AINT going to work. Period.

ps, the above comment was made without actually reading up on the particulars of the MMO, just a stated fact that any zombie MMO better be better DayZ.....
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,173
Still looking forward to this, but I don't really care for how they're doing beta invites. "Get 25,000 Facebook likes and we'll give out 100 beta keys!!!!11" :rolleyes:

Just fucking randomly select people from everyone who signed up via email. That's what that sign-up was for, right?
 
Top