noreaster

I know you announced it already, I stated that in my post. As far as releasing a game platform without support? I'm not sure what you are replying to there. It seems like you are trying to say that just because you offer multiple consoles as well as PC support that you are automatically going to succeed in keeping them all satisfied at the same time. This is a stretch to say the least. I don't think any PC gamer out there would give you a favorable response if asked how they feel about titles branching out into the console market and it's overall effects on the PC experience in the end. You are being intellectually dishonest when you say PC development is independent of consoles. It has never in my 30 years of gaming. One will always influence the other and it is almost unanimously console which winds up screwing up and dividing the PC community. This, because the console market is comprised vastly of legions of underage and immature children who spend their entire life glued to their cell phones and social media complaining about how things should be easier, 24/7daytime, militarized, max loot, spawn loadout, 1,000,000 starting cash. To see the cancer I speak of go browse through the comments of any of the official tweets you have posted. No one here believes this game will release as 1.0 this year. This is also intellectually dishonest. No one who has been here since the beginning believes this game will release in anything resembling a finished state this year. The term Beta implies that all your core development is done and mostly debugged. Beta implies that most of your content is in and is being debugged. Dayz does not have anywhere even remotely close to enough content to warrant the SEVEN YEARS we have already been waiting. Dayz doesn't even have officially supported keybind editing yet. No vehicles, no helicopters, no heli crash sites, no basebuilding, you destroyed the ADS and stance system which Arma 3 did perfectly already. What, 3 viable weapons? You think anyone here believes all this is going to be added in 2.5 months and also be polished in a way it can honestly be labeled a 1.0 release? Servers and clients crashing constantly with pervasive and crippling battleeye kicks that have been plaguing this project from day1 and your development team has admitted is likely resulting from your own core code. Yet here your team is with 2.5 months left in the year and you want to try and sell a shell of a game as a finished project to people who have been around going on a freaking decade because it's, 'A milestone we need to reach'. You aren't aiming for a 1.0 release this year. You are aiming for a Beta release this year and calling it 1.0 because the Dayz development and management teams have been a catastrophic failure throughout this entire ordeal. The whole console thing is the icing on the cake, probably the point in this project where every PC community member whether they admit it yet or not gave up on this project. Have a nice day!

I watched an interview about a year ago in which a dev said that 1.0 release has to be by the end of this year. Since then, with the official announcements of console and it's semi release I have gotten the feeling the the entire Bohemia lineup has changed it's course; console is now a main focus. It seems to me from what I have been reading, everything Bohemia is about to undergo a 1 to 2 year extension to deeply incorporate consoles into their titles. You can see this as clear as day in the way 3rd person is being pushed so hard on the PC version and how it's perspective has transformed into a stereotypical console perspective like any other title out there. This is all just a hunch on my part. I fully expect Arma 4 is going to be built around consoles. The only positive thing that is going to bring is that we are finally going to see good performance in Arma although probably a lot more crashes.

Your first statement was a personal attack implying I think the devs are singling me out, as if I am the only person who uses custom keybinds. Beyond that, needing a mod to streamline the ability to aim a weapon is not a reasonable solution in my opinion for reasons so blatant and self evident I'm not going to go into further. Beyond that, I still need to get in game to try and see if there is a combination which works fluidly; if I am able to keybind all the different possibilities at this point in time. As you probably read already I haven't ruled it out completely but under the current system that is definitely the way it's looking. There are a lot of people out there who don't even use custom controls who view this as a very clumsy approach to PvP interaction. Arma and therefor by nature DayZ already had a robust system for stances, readiness and aiming down sights. There was no reason to turn it upside, reinvent the wheel if you will. That is all i have to say about this for now, till I have had a chance to thoroughly work out various possibilities.

I explained the facts exactly as they are for my specific circumstance and gave an answer to the topic at hand directly from a feedback tracker admin. I am not sorry if that offended you in any way.

What I have found, from a dev on the feedback site is that I had swapped my controls profile from 'dayznew' to 'dayz'. I forget why but iirc it was because I wasn't able to bind things that made the game playable, coming from the perspective of someone who uses 95%+ customized controls. For instance I use right mouse button to move forward. Toggling ready stance has been removed in the new dayz controls profile and will be removed altogether from the game soon. This is now a press and hold function only. Without going to in-depth here as I have already typed out quite a bit at other areas of the internet; it's starting to look like this new system is going to exclude me from playing this game entirely as there does not seem to be a way to streamline this functionality when you take into account all the different possible variables in a heat of the moment firefight. I can't at all comprehend why if I hit a keybind to aim down sights, it won't raise the weapon to my eye ready to fire. This is a long standing historical staple to first person shooters and even when strayed from historically it has been left mostly intact by having some form of toggleability usually related to stance. tldr; toggle raise/lower weapon is being deprecated. That is why it doesn't work correctly.

I made a report about this issue. If anyone has anything to add please visit the feedback tracker and comment on the report. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T131533

I tried looking for duplicate binds and none exist. I also tried various other keys. The issue persists. As one might imagine, this is a disaster for any kind of PvP interaction.

I have the same issue with g key. I had planned to investigate other binds as other poster mentioned. maybe tonight. same issue on .62 Keep in mind though keybinding is still not officially supported.

3rd person is completely unrealistic. It is an immersion breaker but that isn't really my top reason for not using it, though for many others it is. If I had to try and explain exactly why I despise 3rd person I guess it would go something like this: 3rd person puts 100% of the advantage into the hands of the people who already had an overwhelming majority of the advantage to begin with. Example: people who snipe and or people who camp. Whether you are a sniper or a camper you gravitate towards finding the best strategic spot and waiting there until someone unsuspecting comes along. Now let us talk about strategy for a moment. If you are a camper or a sniper you will almost entirely be looking for high ground, looking at low ground where the prey has as little cover as possible. So, as a camper or a sniper you are going to have the higher ground to your prey, you are going to have more cover than your prey, you are most likely going to be far more geared then your prey. Let us call this a 50% advantage to be conservative. 1st person is the great equalizer here. Because to see your opponent you absolutely must expose yourself, which by nature is also exposing yourself to any other player in the area. The moment you go behind cover your prey can duck for cover, there is a good chance you won't see where and they may flank you. Whereas in 3rd person, you risk nothing here; you can just sit in your secure position, risk nothing and only pop up for the unsuspecting kill when condition are 100% in your favor. It is absolutely my opinion that 3rd person should be completely removed and replaced with something like a virtual dressing room so players can still have the benefit of checking out their characters in a 3d game world. I do play every aspect here: I camp occasionally, I snipe, I assault, I play solo, I play with groups, I help people, and I play the bandit. I'm not bias. This is only a suspicion comprised of my person experience but I suspect that the overwhelming majority of people who prefer 3rd person are the people who follow streamers. I don't think anyone would argue that the majority of streamers prefer 3rd person for better entertainment viewing. So these hordes of players who have nothing really vested in the actual game play follow 'their guy' around and so 3rd person servers come naturally to them because it's what all the streamers play with the added bonus of making certain styles of game play incredibly easier. You don't see them here voting in these polls because they are not staples to this game, they are only playing this game because they follow their guy around to whatever he happens to be playing that week and imitating his routine. Next week they will be on a PUBG binge. You can apply this exact same inference to the overwhelming complaints about night time game play, survival being to hard(who wants to watch a streamer walk around and loot apples?). I suspect that streamers are driving the overwhelming majority of public opinion. So where it seems like you are outnumbered, you really aren't. You are really just going up against a handful of streamers who have a legion of viewers who will express an opinion which is aligned with their guy on any and every possible subject. Streamers are an incredible source of free advertisement and so the two combined provide a very bleak outlook for the lone-wolf player or group who play the game to play the game; not to imitate their guy.

I use / to raise sights. I once found a way to manually change the console bind to something else, I believe using the physical address. I can't locate the page I got that information off anymore so I'm wondering if maybe someone else has an idea how to do it.

Turns out this is called, "Chat" in keybindings now under multiplayer and you can freely rebind it now.

You can't do that anymore. Games are marketed for the steam audience now, where the overwhelming majority of people are hard-line simple minded toward getting good at a single map and playing only that map EVER AGAIN. Dayz and all it's spin-offs are a perfect example of this. Another example is Dust2 for CS:GO.

Alpha is a stage in game development in which core mechanics and features are still being dreamed, developed and implemented. Beta is a stage in game development which most of those features have been realized and fine tuning, polishing and optimization begin. We are in Alpha. This thread and any like it are simply absurd and could only be derived from someone who doesn't understand the concept of game development. The game is not meant at this stage to be a fulling polished experienced. It is a chance for you as the player to try the game, give suggestions, help with bugs etc... The game in no way is complete or polished or meant to be balanced. If you follow along development and what is planned for the game you would know that the scope of this project has changed and expanded dramatically with the end goal of easily being the most comprehensive, realistic and potentially hard-core survive game ever made. Which is what makes this pre-beta post complaining specifically about content so silly.

History has proven over and over again that modding is almost exclusively tied to making things easier, adding in fun things that destroy immersion etc... Pretty much all the things which are antithesis to the DayZ mission statement. There is a massive hoard of ultra casual gamers out there who blindly follow around their favorite streamers and play whatever game they tell them to. These people don't care about your game, it's long term viability, the cultural origins of it and it's original player base. They come in, in legions and they flood social media, forums, review sites and they complain about this or that and they want things easier and they want Apache helicopters and .50 cal's and one streamer can say one thing and suddenly you have 50,000 people begging for $1,000,000 starting cash, max vehicles and high power snipers spawning in outhouses. Over time, historically, this ultra casual approach to gaming ALWAYS consumes the direction of the game and I absolutely expect without any doubt whatsoever that the official servers will migrate to pander to that player base because, like I said, they are legion and there is money to be made there and let's face it. This is all about making money. Skyrim and Fallout are single player games. The fact they are mod capable doesn't apply as it does to DayZ. Stalker did have multiplay capability But it is an incredibly simple shooter with no comparison to the MMO nature and level of difficulty DayZ has and so I don't think that can be compared in any way either.

I think what we have come to discover over the last 5 years is that modding all but universally boils down over time to mean: 1,000,000 starting cash max vehicles XTRA LOOT FRESH LOOT XTRA CHOPPER SPAWNS etc..etc I absolutely expect to see 99% of modded servers taking the survival aspect out of the game completely and setting the tone for the duration of the game's existence. Steam being tied inherently to any game now suffers the same fate of ultra casual, lazy and immature people who want everything given to them with little to no effort at all.

I remember the days when having your own server was something you did if you had the means to do so. It wasn't a money making thing. It wasn't a I put up a server now everyone else pay for it kind of thing. You have all the retards running around spending thousands on servers to try and compensate for a horrible engine which is impossible. The things which break the game for DaZ and mods are hard coded into the Arma engine. The servers run smooth as silk up to 25-30 players, then it drops off into oblivion immidiately after. Why would you even want 70 players on chernaurus? That is so fucking retarded it is rediculous. The only logical explanation for that is the server admins are trying pump as much donation money as possible out of each server instance. Rocket has created an absolute nightmare with this game. He is going to have a hell of a time trying to fix all these issues by simply releasing stand alone. The game and it's community are literally cannabalising in a cycle or circle. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and they are willing to throw his game in the toilette to get it. The game has become so fractured and repulsive no one I know even plays any more or cares when standalone is released. The donating. The scripting. The complete lack of attention to hacking in general (bandaid fixes, one after another). The stuff as many people into each server as possible. The 30 different mods spreading the players out to thin. The kill on sight even if unarmed. The moral of the story here as far as the thread topic go's is stop donating. Let the people who can afford to run servers run the servers. There is no reason in the world why a group of a couple guys can't afford to host a game server without the whole not only donations, but REWARDS for donations thing. Cut this cancer off at the source before it spreads any further.

Let's stop being rediculous shall we? Without going to far down the road...The game was scheduled for a tentatative release date for last December. The head honcho went so far as to say the game would be a failure if it wasn't. Eight months later I don't think it is out of line to be expecting more progress then what we have. The game isn't even anywher eremotely close to a release candidate. It isn't even REMOTELY optomized. Do you have any idea the collective man hours and money the community has dumped into this game to give rocket FREE publicity? Personally I have never seen anythign like it. Time to shat or get off the pot. Times running. So many possibilities out there. Shit, just take A3 for tiny little example of what is on the horizon. Honestely...I have already let go of DayZ. Between the script kids and the the dev team dragging their feet on SA I'm already looking for the next generation of gaming. Pefecty content to wait it out till then. Might even pick up A3 when it is officially released. Adios DayZ.

Does this program include the hack which automatically tapps w a thousand times per second to give you infiniite sprint?

Do you want your compuer to explode?

The harder the better in my opinion. The harder and more brutal it is the longer and more satisfied people will be over a period of time. The sort of "entitlment" mentality (for lack of a better word) is self destructive in every single game I have ever come across. Hardcore and very capable players have always paved the road for the gaming industry as a whole. This game isn't even released yet and so it is really unecassary to start catering to casual players not capable of keybinding and the like. The only purpose that will serve is to drive away the hard core players who made dayz possible up to this point. Eventually when the game is well developed and it's time to move on to new engines it will become more casual friendly as all games inevitably do. I was a noob too at one point. I joined up with a knowledgable squad and they showed me what to do. The rest is history. You also have to remember that the sa in and of itself is going to make some aspects of the game inherantly more easy or fluent. That I think will play a big factor on percieved difficulty when interacting with other players or NPC.

There is no denying it. Sniping is simply to easy at this point in time. My personal opinion is to remove the sniper rifles all together. It is so much more fun playing on private hives without them. There is nothing more retarded or frustrating then walking along minding your own buisness and being shot by some sniper 800-1600 meters away who you never even see or hear. That is just a retarde dmechanic. Especially when you come to realize how rediculously easy it was for that player to make that shot. Sniper rifles as they are right now are far to efficient for banditry. You need a weight system. You need ACE mod characteristics. You need to make it so these little douchebags can't log out right after firing their weapon. At the very least remove the snipers for SA until you can implement this stuff. I'm a rare breed. I deliberately shy away from using specific weapons because of how rediculously overpowered they are, including sniper rifles in general. I like to have a challenge. I wish there were more people like that in this game. I can't tell you how annoying it is to play with people who want to do nothing but find the most over powered weapon possible and sit on a fucking roof to camp with it. I think ultimately money talks, irregaurdless of what Mr. Hall has stated. Money caters to the largest base. So if you all want this retardation with the sniper rifles to stop you better start speaking up fast.

I disagree with most of what OP said. In fact I don't think OP offered up a single logical explanation to his thread title. I do think this game will not live up to the hype however. Rocket should have stuck with his base game plan in my opinion. It should have been released back in december like he said it would be for 100% certain, and allowed to grow in the 'minecraft' model. Instead here we are in April with still no release date, no real idea of what is going on, and as a whole having spent many millions of dollars buying arma keys, renting servers, donating to streamers etc....etc....etc... This game has literally been played to death. It's old news now, overwhelmingly attributed to the brilliant ideas and actions by the community, rather then the developers. I had a great time playing DayZ Mod, and the mods that spawned from it, but the season has come and gone for the whole zombie apocalypse thing. I'm sure I'm commign across to many of you as being a dick, or what have you, it really isn't my intent. I'm just being realistic here. Mr hall & Co. had a great idea and they offered up countless hours of gameplay to us. They had the bull by the horns and they simply let go of it. What I'm saying here was put into very easy to understand terms by Dean Hall himself speaking before an audiance. The video is readily available all over the internet and I couldn't agree with Dean Hall more. He really messed up by letting us all down with that December release date and never even commenting on it until it had long since come and gone. For this game to be even remotely as sucessful as it could have been, the whole thing would need to be remodled and repackaged from the ground up adding years to a potential released date. I had a boat load of fun with this game, but now after coming back many months later and seeign that heads have still not been removed from asses and there is still not even a release date... It's time to move on. Lots of interesting games comming out with technology vastly superior to anything a game based on the Arma II engine could ever hope to offer, Arma III script injecting or not. Dean Hall, if your reading this you really should drop what your doing right this second, Pickup DayZ for Arma III and completely repackage, rebrand, and remodel it. You will be rewarded handsomely.

I wonder if server 1 is down for the migration to Origins 1.6.

DayZ - Origins. Careful though, You'll probably not look back...