Solitude
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,566
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!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
Rocket missed his chance to capitalize on the success
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.
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.
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" 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wheres the link for the beta signup?
I was excited until they announced the game the engine would be based on, absolute shit.
I guess I missed that? What engine?
War Inc. Battle Zone