There is realistic speech, When you talk and if someone is listening behind the wall, the speech will slightly muffled depending on the objects in between the 2 people e.g. glass. Example: I am playing loud music in my car, windows are closed and so it is not as loud or slightly muffled for you as you walk past. If I open the window, it would be very clear for you to hear the music. Example, if you whisper then the sound can only be heard by the people really close to you. If I shout, then it travels further. If I want a long distance talk, I need a microphone or mega phone.

Ohh pretty nice! We need rubber ducks to play with lol.

Standard Bathtub by Jade: "Blyss" Bathtub by Jade:

I'd like to further a conversation. TLDR: A handicap stress system to manage damage dealt is not OP-AF nor is it RP-AF. So with the stress system being the attempt to curb random violence, how is realistically relevant in the aspect of role playing in a role playing game? (I understand it can be turned off on private servers and thank you for allowing that, but humor me.) The thing about violence is that's its a sometimes quick and powerful force causing fight or flight in a persons though process on what to do and how to handle the situation etc. Its sometimes so quick that the person has zero time to react or respond. Creating a handicap around that just doesn't seem to fit in an RPG like this that's focusing on levels of the recreation of the real world. I get that you want people to have fun and enjoy this gaming experience but experiencing it along side other people is half the risk isn't it? Not knowing what these other players will do at any given moment, and how they may respond to you when you tell them no regarding any number of matters where they want something from you and you simply choose not to comply. Lets take the classic scenario of being robbed. I'm minding my own business yeah? Having a stroll down a sketchy alley. I'm also a law abiding concealed carry owner as is required by the city. This guy jumps out from behind a dumpster, waving a pistol in my face, stress levels on both sides rise. I pull my gun and wave it in his face causing his stress levels to rise as quickly as mine is from his weapon. Then what? We're both just standing there pointing our weapons at each other? Yelling and biding time until one or the others stress level is high enough to cause instant death from a bullet to the face? Am I getting this right? What if a cat is just running his mouth, going on about what ever this troll wants to annoy people with for the day. After a bit of arguing trying to get this guy to shut up my mates had enough. He goes out and grabs the Louisville Slugger from the boot and proceeds to hit this dude over the head knocking his character out and effectively shutting up the troll. But what? My mates gotta threaten the guy? Wave the bat around a bit in his face until stress peaks enough to get in a silencing blow? Talk about breaking immersion from a situation. You guys aren't going the perma-death route so there's no need to nurf damage to players from weapons. Weapons should be threatening, weapons are threatening! What ever the platform may be. A gangster has a switch blade and a target to get rid of, he walks up behind him to stab him a handful of times but what? The target didn't see it coming so he receives little to no damage blowing all attempts at a clean get away never mind the success of taking down his target because now he has to chase him down the street until the targets stress level peaks so he can deliver the final blow or just hope that the target bleeds out? Hell, by now the gangsters description is passed on to who knows how many cops are in the area. Forget about it, there goes your role playing. I'll take it ONE MASSIVE step further. You're a hit man, you're on top of a roof, you're rifle scope is trained on your targets FACE while he has a chat out side of a bistro.... But remember, no matter how good of a shot, or a hit man you are... that's not a one shot kill because the handicap applied stress level was to low for the target. Better hope your second shot is equally good, it better be because now you're dealing with a moving target... Come on Dev's. Allow for cops to actually have to do their jobs. Having weapons being so damaging is going to force public safety making it so that cops ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE PROACTIVE in keeping random violence encounters to a minimum. But yes you are correct, there may not be enough police on the server at any given time to stop all acts of robbery, gang violence, fist fights, drug deals etc. And that's a good thing! It's a good thing because if you do get the cops involved in a situation, you're screwed, especially if other people get a description of you. Then guess what, an investigation is opened, then guess what? Your character is hunted. Making sure police players ACTIVELY have to police is going to make criminals think twice about causing random violence. Add the already peer judging/court sentencing/ jail system in the mix and you already have a system that is proven to deter crime. But not always, and that's ok. So to wrap it up here, and I know what some might be thinking, just join a server where the handicapping stress system is turned off, but the best RP cop players may not be in those servers and in turn, are just places where crime is rampant and any cop in it for a good game play experience isn't going to go in there. Since it is so early on, I am asking that the Dev's at least consider an alternative. Instead of the stress system dictating how much damage is received, make it so that the stress is a layer of interactivity between the character and the player. Making it so that the player is now having to fight with his or her character to keep them in that gun fight or brawl. Or while running away from an attacker, having to actively fight to pick their character up from the ground when they trip from their characters stress and nerves going through the roof. Characters hands shake from the spiked adrenaline in a gun fight if not used to conflict like that etc. I'm spit balling here that's a pretty mundane example but then what we're really talking about here is completely re-mapping how the character reacts to physical interaction with objects, people and the environment. Meaning lets say, my mate missed that trolls head with that base ball bat and ends up knocking him to the ground. That troll then is trying to either fight back from the ground or he's trying to crawl, roll, w.e to get up and away from that bat. My mate then just decides to knee cap the guy over and over until his knee shatters. That characters knee become useless, thus he's not running anywhere, especially from his attacker. This now opens an entirely new scenario because now that troll has to pay for hospital bills, or he sues my mate in court and now my mate regrets trying to shut this troll up because there goes his money that he was saving to open a store. Again the re-thinking of random violence occurs. Never mind the fact of having to explain that to a jury! "Well you see ladies and gentleman of the jury, he was being a troll and wouldn't shut up...so I tried to knock him out to shut the audio connection off between his mic and the character but when that failed I decided to settle on breaking his knee cap to damage his wallet through medical bills...to teach him a lesson that way...please don't send me to jail I'd like to play today and not have to AFK my jail time...." But anyway, then were talking about the entire redesign of a targeting system and even adding bone structures into the player models. Not something that's priority right now I'm sure. In my opinion, I think it sounds good in theory but when put to practical use would be more frustrating and immersion breaking than is realized. Anyway guys hopefully this will be met with interest and spark some lines of though. Let me know.

Speech should be incapable of traveling through walls, as-well. The primary issue with a lot of role-playing games, specifically "ARMA 3", revolves around the notion that an individual could hear 100% of a court case by merely standing outside of the building's brick wall, which is extremely unjust and unrealistic since subjects should not possess access to confidential or sensitive information through an entire brick wall. Speech should be realistic, indicating that "whispers" should not be observable to individuals within a reasonable distance while yelling could only be heard as a light muffle through a concrete wall.

We have Researched, But Thank You Good Sir

I'm new -waves at LuckyDuck-

Thanks so much for the reply!

You will have speech bubbles in Identity. Perhaps not at the initial Town Square release, but shortly after. This is a system we've used a lot in the past; I coded this mechanic in Mortal Online and it's existed in many games prior, including the very first mass-market MMORPG, Ultima Online. Infact, even World of Warcraft has this feature but I'm not sure if it's on by default. We agree that it's far more immersive this way than having to look down at your chat box when speaking with someone in front of you.

I want to preface this by mentioning I didn't read your entire post, but just these scenarios. Given our current design, the first scenario would not play out that way. Because the robber had his weapon out, his stress level would be maxed out as soon as he equipped the weapon. Therefore, he's immediately vulnerable. You on the other hand don't have your weapon out, and thus you have a decision. With the weapon aimed at you, your stress is going to rise very quickly. You have only seconds to respond. If you were to surrender (put your hands up), your life is no longer at risk but you can be robbed. If you decide to fight back you become immediately stressed by unholstering your weapon. Chances are that you'd be shot before you had time to fire back, if he was already aiming at you. If you took cover and then pulled it out you might have more luck. A melee weapon, as is mentioned in your second scenario, works similarly (but might not raise stress quite as quickly). That is, when he pulls out a melee weapon in front of the other guy, that guy has only seconds to make the same decision. He can run (which causes stress to go up faster) in hopes of getting away but also making himself vulnerable, surrender to save himself or fight back. The goal of the system is two fold: first, to reduce random player-killing, and second to give you the option of fight, flight or surrender.

1. It won't be Free 2 Play. Because those games ruin the entire game by allowing people to make multiple accounts and hack or just in general. 2. The Full game will never be free. The only reason the full game retail price will be as high as $45 is because steam takes a big chunk of the money. 3. Having the packages be bought if the game was free 2 play then you are just asking for a pay to win game instead. This game is different and this company is different. The Company making this game is not making the game out greed for money by having the game retail price so high but it is because like all companies, they need profit in some way. They also want/ need to grow their business. 2 of the developers already don't take a wage as because they want to use it for funding other things. This company also don't like Pay 2 Win. They only have cosmetic Items for the in-game shop so that they can keep updating the game after the full release. They are doing everything right with Identity, but changing things to these ideas would make the game and company like every other game company with their games aside. I get why you want these ideas to happen but IMO, I would not play the game if it was 1. free 2 play, and 2. if they made it pay to win. I supported this from kickstarter and these are the changes I would never support as my personal opinion. However everyone has different opinions and are unique to what they like. The price of the game is not a lot. It really isn't a lot, it might be a lot for you but if you really want to play then you will pay the price you get. If you notice everyone will pay the price if they really want a game.

I am sorry but this must be the dumbest question I have ever heard.

Oh, lol thanks. I was really confused

Here's the thing. Sure: you don't like it and that's fine. You are welcome to like whatever you want and I have nothing wrong with that. However, this does not create an excuse whatsoever to be telling other people what they should and shouldn't like. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it's not a game. There are many different times of games out there. Some will be complex and some will not. Even when it comes to games like EA. It's okay to not like EA and a lot of people don't, but as soon as you start telling other people they shouldn't like EA, how would you like it if someone told you you shouldn't like Identity or Skyrim or something like that? Original ideas do not necessarily mean they are completely original. With how many games that are out there now, this would be next to impossible to do. This is the case with anything creative. Therefore, originality usually involves combining an older concept with a newer concept. Therefore, PUBG is an original idea by that definition.

Well.. After some time. Someone will buy the game. and put it for Free 2 download in some website. With it's updater program. Like Garry's mod.