Jump to content
Server time: 2019-05-22, 03:54


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Country

    United States

LeviathanApsu last won the day on October 15 2015

LeviathanApsu had the most liked content!


5 h Beach Bambi

Community Reputation

14 Newcomer

Account information

  • Whitelisted NEW WHITELIST
  • Last played 1 year ago


Personal Information

  • Sex

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In an attempt to restore dropping ratings, Jordan Day's extreme survival show “Day Break” chose the unlikely location of Chernarus. Recent civil war depleting resources in the country, hostile bears and wolves left hungry by depleted game thanks to over hunting by unemployed natives, and the general sense of false tension they could apply to the show thanks to the military made it a more interesting spot than some of the other locations used in the past. The network convinced the Chernarussian government that the show would paint a positive light on the country and help perhaps draw much needed funds in the direction of it's economy. Jordan himself was mostly concerned with helping people learn survival skills in unfamiliar environments, so didn't concern himself with ratings or what the network was claiming. He was only focused on the minutia of the show. They spent the last week of April filming in the countryside, through the cities and even visited one of the military bases under escort. They had plenty to work with back at the network and the okay was given for Jordan and his film crew to begin the survival exercise. They spent most of another week preparing, then went deep into the northern forests of the country on May 2nd. One month in the wilderness of Chernarus, scavenging and only using what could be found naturally in his surroundings. He was not allowed to bring even clothing initially, though as with every episode, he would end up with something by the end. They finished July 2nd and were almost done with post filming wrap-up when the crew was attacked by a deranged man on the night of July 10th. Several crewmen were injured before they could subdue the man. The wrap up filming was concluded early and they went for the city to take their injured crew and the infected man (bound and gagged) into town. They traveled to Severograd and found chaos and death everywhere. Two of the injured crewmen volunteered to take the attacker to the hospitals, while the rest waited nearby. They never returned and after watching the city from a distance they realized why. One of their remaining crew began to show severe symptoms similar to the crazed attacker and began to degenerate quickly. He quickly went mad, trying to attack the others before being shot. While the last injured man wasn't showing symptoms, he was immediately killed by another crewman out of expectation that he would turn as well. The sound of the attack drew the infected from nearby to begin moving that way in mass and everyone scattered. Separated from the others, Jordan did the only thing he knew. He set about gathering supplies to survive. Live light and stay alert. Still, despite the violence of their parting, he wanted to see if he could find the surviving members of his video crew again. They were his friends, having joined him for countless hours of filming. He'd always thought of his show as surviving alone, but now he realized just how much he used his crew to maintain emotional stability. For the first time in years he was actually surviving alone.
  2. LeviathanApsu

    Make DayZRP great again

    1. Remove dynamic groups This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If the problem is that official group members are using it to bypass consequences, the answer seems to be that you put limits on the use of dynamic grouping by anyone in an official group, not to remove dynamic grouping entirely. Personally, almost every group I have been a part of was dynamic thanks to my unpredictable hours. I have been in several situations where my dynamic grouping was the only saving grace. I can picture dozens of situations where dynamic grouping would be highly useful to creating interesting and fun stories without abusing the system. Please consider modifying this rule. 2. Require a character page for all characters Gotta say, not a huge fan. I don't hate it persay though. I enjoy making characters and developing backgrounds. As long as players could have multiple characters to work with, I would be okay with it. If we could only play one character at a time until that character was perma'd, then it would really put a damper on some of my fun. I like to pick my character based on mood and time I have that day. Being able to swap out clothing and be another character for a while can also be helpful when things get really intense with a character and I just don't feel up to the emotional baggage that a character sometimes has. 3. Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction I seriously dislike this, but I suppose it depends on the nature of these 'groups'. If one group is literally just 'random survivors', then I suppose it just replaces dynamic grouping for all intents and purposes. How easy is it to move between groups? If all of the options are intensely regulated groups that fit very rigid ideas (UN, CDC, etc) rather than people being allowed to just be a person, then I would be deeply against it. 4. Require all hostile actions to make sense (for real now) Sure, I guess. Where do you really draw the line though? If a person with an M4 has another member of their group who needs an AK, are we saying no? Better supplies is so relative. What about a well armed group who hasn't found food in a week. They are desperate and come upon a guy with a massive backpack munching on a can of peaches. Are we going to say they can't rob him just because he is using a Trumpet? To me, food and ammo are two of the most likely and logical reasons to rob. Until you've initiated, how are you even going to know if they have those two things? It becomes a catch 22. Believe me, I am the last person who wants endless initiations. I hate stupid robberies where the RP is blah and all they ever do is want to 'torture rp' as if they somehow are managing something amazing and unique. It's not particularly fun unless the player doing it is really skilled. Even then it is often just tiresome. Still, drawing a line in the sand means we cut of huge swaths of potential quality RP. 5. All groups must be approved (again) and award those groups that make a change and have positive influence on RP I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm fine with groups getting approved for play. Having a bar to reach should make sure endless torture gangs aren't all we see. I'll probably not make heavy use of it, but others would. 6. Categorize and balance groups Again, no strong opinion. I think neutral groups and/or dynamic development has its place, but since I rarely play in a group, I don't have a pony in the race. I'd say give it a little flex for groups to change and that would be enough. 7. Get rid of TS metagaming Pointless rule. I'm certainly down for people needing an IC radio object. I personally love that and make a point of not trying to pretend radio contat unless I have one. That said, only morons are going to get caught breaking this rule. If they plan to talk to their buddies, they are going to talk. Most probably have their recorders set to not pick up on TS chatter, so you won't find it in their evidence videos. They'll probably just go to a private TS and chat freely regardless of any rule you put into place. There's no way to enforce this. Not really. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, I just don't think it can be made plausible. 8. Make dying actually matter I got excited by the title of this one, then just shook my head and shrugged at the actual words. Oooh, ahhh.. 5 minutes. So? The system already forces a 2 minute wait anyway. That just gives me time to go refill my drink and take a bathroom break. That's not a consequence. That's a reward. To me, a consequence is something like you can only die to another player 5 times before that character name is locked out.. or maybe max 10 deaths and your character bit needs to be a new character/name. At the very least, dying locks you out for 24 hours unless you are playing as another PC entirely. 5 minutes is nothing and won't really create a sense of real consequences unless the servers are all maxed out and have long wait queues.
  3. @Roach I met you by chance through another friend. A chance invitation to play on a game that disappeared shortly after. We'd had minimal interactions at that point, but they had been positive and I decided to come along with everyone to begin on DayZRP. My interest in DayZ had been waning. In large part, due to the KoS mentality of public servers. I craved deeper interactions and more immersive play. The venue provided the means, but you helped provide the continued motivation. We had fun, we developed characters, and when you began doing videos, everything came together. It allowed for a sense of meaning in the ongoing struggles. Not just for my own fun, but for something even larger. Through your videos, I've been able to explore aspects of the characters I play with a greater sense of continuity. A feeling like I don't need to re-establish myself with every scene. You speak of me as a pillar, but know that the only reason I am still able to love this game has been because of your own actions and the actions of those you surround yourself with. Thank you, my friend.
  4. With the end of Roach's Season 4, there is a finality to many of the events that played out. I wasn't able to participate in the Live Q&A that went on tonight. Since my character was one of the more mysterious of the regular characters to appear in the videos, I thought there might be a lot of questions left unanswered. Much of his development was lost to the cutting room floor. With this in mind, I am opening the floor for any and all of your questions about Trader Jack. What were you wondering about him all this time? One question was already asked: Q) I noticed you have the helmet since season 1 with Quin Bauer. Why do you wear the helmet? How did that come to be a thing for you? A) I originally wore just about anything I came across, as long as it had trade value. The reality however, was that very few people were ever in the market for headgear unless it was a special order. Eventually, I decided to stick with something from my days prior to DayZRP. I used to wear motorcycle helmets on public servers because they didn't look military enough to be tempting, but more than once saved me from instant death via head shot. That carried over so that once jack stopped changing head-gear, he went to a green helmet as his standard. I looked up a model that was very similar to the game design in-game and realized it was set up for speaker/radio connection. I played on this to have my in-game radio wired under my clothing up to the helmet. My character never advertised that though. When asked, he always pointed out that motorcycle helmets didn't look threatening, but had saved his life repeatedly. With almost no one wearing bike helmets in DayZRP, it made it really easy to stand out as Trader Jack, even at a distance.
  5. LeviathanApsu

    When can we use our KOS rights.

    Staff has further clarified things within his appeal process. Their response there may be an answer to your own question about the situation. http://www.dayzrp.com/forums/topic/80833-ban-appeal-ruleplay/
  6. LeviathanApsu

    When can we use our KOS rights.

    "You did have KOS rights, but you should not have used them in this situation." In my years of staffing for MU* games, ambiguous rules that allowed for vastly different judgement calls of a situation were the bane of RP. The fact that there is a standing rule in place that allows for this situation at all says there is a problem with the rules that needs further hammered out. I'm not against giving some wiggle room for staff. That isn't a problem because there will always be people who are clearly skirting the edge of the rules to do harm to the game for their own benefit. The problem is that the rule qualifier is not being used as a last resort to stop rule snakes destroying the fun, but instead against a person who had both a legitimate KOS right and who acted in accordance with sane self-preservation. To my thinking, the key justification here is the firefight. It was a fight with the allies of the one shot. Only minutes after departing, he returns to the ones who harmed him (now armed, visibly with melee, potentially with a grenade or gun provided by his allies) as the firefight is still technically ongoing. One member of the group was already dead from this fight and had no reason not to expect anything but an attack. A person in this situation might think "Oh, he is still disarmed. We are safe." and use it as a tactic to negotiate a cease fire. The same person might also think "Oh crap, this guy got weapons from his allies and is going to try and kill us by pretending to still be harmless." Neither thought is illogical or wrong. Either case might be true. How would the report have differed if the hostage had come up and been allowed freely close? Best case, I figure the former hostage distracts them and someone else gets shot from the side or behind. Worst case, he drops a grenade among them and manages to slip far enough away to avoid the blast, without also drawing their attention to think something is wrong. Both probably result in a report where he is called out for killing them after they tried to talk in good faith. Staff might call NVFL then, but beyond that, the blame would be placed at the feet of the men who didn't use their KOS rights. Something like "You had KOS rights and chose not to use them. Your own actions resulted in your deaths, so no rule violations on the part of the ex-hostage." are likely to be what is answered. I suspect most of the sane players here would have killed the man also. It just doesn't make good sense to leave a member of a hostile team alone as they come up to you when that hostile team is currently engaged in combat with you. From the outpouring of comments, I am guessing my suspicions are correct. If the ruling had been that there was no fault in the KOS, I don't believe much of anyone would have stood up and put themselves out there to defend the one who got shot. Why? Because it makes sense and doesn't feel like someone was using a sub-clause of a rule as a shield to take an unwise action. It would instead feel like the logical outcome of some idiot (no offense to the individual, just pointing out how it would be perceived) running up into active combat involving his friends while the opponents had KOS rights on him. I almost never get involved in combat, but now I am torn between a desire to absolutely never go anywhere near hostile RP or to go walking up into it happily with a grenade in my pocket. In the case of the former, I avoid getting caught in a ruling that comes solely from opinion rather than from a clear rule. In the case of the latter, staff has made a ruling (set a precedent) that I can't be killed if I don't seem hostile even if I am a potential threat. Even if I have no logical reason to go anywhere near them. Even if I am directly tied to the people who are engaging them in combat. In the middle of a firefight, with KOS rights, they still have to instead initiate on me and endeavor to avoid my undue demise. I have a small chance of killing them, but a really good chance of shifting the combat in favor of my allies. That's my takeaway from this situation and I know there have to be others who are taking that same lesson away. What was clear cut combat has now become far more complicated. At least, if this ruling stands. If it gets overturned and the rules reclarified to avoid ambiguous gray areas, then things return to simple calls of logic when under high pressure situations like combat. These are my initial thoughts on the matter. Full disclosure: I know and play with KW, but this is the first time I have felt compelled to comment on something involving a friend and the rules.
  7. Selected. Thanks to each person who answered.
  8. I was really pleased with how the composite of my character turned out and wanted to share with those who don't go through the character pages regularly. I did not do the compositing on this, for the record.
  9. I just went to pull up a guide and realized that a ton of them are gone. All of the ones I wrote and several I remember finding very useful don't seem to be listed in the guide list any longer. Trying to do a search for them directly pulls up nothing. Did they get deleted out for some reason or is there some sort of glitch causing this? Addendum: I just found a way to locate the links to guides I have written in my activity list, but the search doesn't seem to pull them up. At least I know the guides are still on the site somewhere, even if I can't find the ones I am looking for.
  10. I'll see yours and raise you a picture of Rick Grimes as the Joker sporting a Winchester.
  11. Wanting to make a difference folks? He does have a Patreon account and a direct donation link. Donations are the only way to earn for him right now thanks to the new Youtube rules. More donations = more ability to produce the amazing content regularly. Just saying. If a third of his fans offered a dollar a month, I suspect there'd be nothing stopping a steady stream of content continuing.
  12. This reminds me of a situation on a text based game I used to play. There was a player there who spoke fluent Japanese. Her the character she chose did the same. She added phrases here or there as flavor text and sometimes would switch entirely to typing out her talking in Japanese. Great, very realistic. The only thing was, she never included typing the words into the game's language system. Players who didn't read Japanese were out of luck. That's fine if they didn't know it in character, but many players had some level of fluency in the language in game and should have at least caught some of what she was saying. The player adamantly refused to use the system for much the same reason the OP states. She felt that if you want to play a character who speaks a language, learn at least some of the language. The reality is, that is inherently unfair, especially in this setting. There isn't an option to play in a different country. We are stuck (at least for now) in this one. It becomes increasingly hard to justify playing an endless string of people from every other country but this one and its neighbors. People want to be able to play locals. At the same time, most players don't have a ton of time. People might pick up words over time, but when someone only gets a few free hours a week, they don't want to spend it studying language for a month before they can go in and play. They want to play. Sure, it's nice to say a phrase or two and that doesn't take much, but it's pretty dickish to say other people need to spend time studying for their fun time. Accept when someone doesn't speak a language oocly, that you will have to confine use of that language to text chat as something like the following: John Doe speaks in Russian "" That's not a huge concession to make. If that breaks your immersion, find a Russian server that happens to do RP to play your Russian speaking character on. You are choosing a server where the commonly agreed on language is English. It means you'll have to allow that many of the players with limited time are only going to be speaking languages they already know. No harm. No foul. Text chat isn't exactly hard to manage.
  13. Assuming I didn't somehow come in to late again, why not. Sign me up.
  14. LeviathanApsu

    An open discussion about possible rules for settlements

    The reality is, no one is going to ICly leave their base without defenders except in very odd situations. At the same time, our initiation rule flies in the face of self-preservation for someone who is a raider. Someone pointed out to me that having times of day where raids could happen means that people in odd time zones would never be protected, etc. Additionally, looking at some of the other suggestions, much of it is something difficult at best to really police. So how about this suggestion; Anyone can raid at any time on any place. The only rule is that you must treat it as an event, giving the settlement the chance to work with you on setting up a time. This allows the settlement to have itself realistically defended, but also means they are never fully safe from raiders who can at any time come at them. As an event, all parties agree that within the period of time set for the raid, there is an assumed initiation on both sides, allowing for tactical attacks. Thoughts on this? It offers up a really great raid experience to both sides, keeps the rules minimalist, mirrors a realistic setting, and could easily keep both sides happy.
  15. LeviathanApsu

    An open discussion about possible rules for settlements

    It's a hard balance to strike between the need for security and the need to allow for the possibility of attack. Without any rule in place, making a settlement is an exercise in frustration at best. As soon as you get a few people together and a few supplies, there is a non-stop stream of raids and attacks, as well as more subtle thieves sneaking off with supplies. Creating a settlement should lend some advantage, but instead creates a greater disadvantage since everyone knows where you are and where your things are located. On the other side of the coin, making it a no-attack zone would mean a ring of attacks around the edges, endless reports and a number of people refusing to ever leave the settlement at all, allowing for stagnation. That isn't any better. Has anyone considered the idea of a rotating system? During low periods, settlements are no-raid. This encourages people to congregate and interact during low traffic times of day and means supplies would be left alone as would be the case if they had all of the settlers around in a realistic situation. During peak hours or perhaps randomly chosen days, settlements become 'fair game' and anyone is free to come attack. This would allow a greater number of the settlers to be around (encouraging a better experience for both sides) and would mean that a settlement wasn't entirely safe, especially when there is a lot of activity on the game. I think both sides get something they want with that sort of breakdown. Settlers gain some measure of security and a chance to defend their things when more than just one of their players is around, but hostile players get to act in a logical IC manner as well. Bonus, the high pop times are the high conflict times, so there is a lot more interaction to be had on everyone's part. Win/win.
  • Create New...