perestain

So, after the new patch NOT killing fresh spawns will be the new griefing, preventing them from getting a respawn in a better position. This might be hilarious, people trying to be as annoying as they can to others in hopes of getting shot. Other than that, the spawns should simply be choosable. Its not helping anyone if people are forced to put a weight on the w key and wait for half an hour everytime they want to play with someone else.

Respawn button will be removed with the next patch, so this will not happen in the future.

the upsides are that death indeed is more dramatic, and you cannot kill yourself accidentally anymore. still its killing playing with your friends or forcing you to spend lots of time running on autopilot the server load issue has a higher priority right now though, i guess. doubling the amount of players on a server could be big.

bullshit. its not hard to wait while having something heavy depress your w key its dumb spawn should simply be chosable time is a limited ressource in real life. some people obviously don't seem to know what that is though...

so if i want to play with friends I'll have to put something heavy on the w key and do something else for half an hour now. alright...

So you come to a forum for an alpha modification of a military simulation game and tell people how you want something polished and easy to play? Are you sane?

That would actually make sense. It wouldn't really help with people walking around on autopilot but it would add some authenticity

No they don't. You cannot identify people, everyone looks identical. You cannot put up signs You can fortify all you want, people just server hop inside These are all unrealistic, unauthentic and artificial restrictions that could and hopefully will be changed. If you think gameplay and player interaction as of now is authentic and there is actual freedom to do stuff like defend safezones, you're delusional. Just because you are happy with just a deathmatch game, you're not entitled to tell people what to suggest beyond that and what not.

Then again, its great for people with serious ego-issues who like to have some space to live out their fantasies of skill and domination. Keeps them from doing uncool shit IRL, and creates a nice and tense deathmatch atmosphere in dayZ. The game was even better before that, I agree, but overall its a fair trade I think.

Respawning is faster than walking half an hour to the spawn thats closest to your next destination, so of course people do it. You don't have unlimited time in real life. A button to chose would be actually nice to keep people from having to spam respawn. There is no real way around it, if you add a respawn timer you will just get more people putting a weight on the W key while having to wait for half an hour for no reason before they can play with their friends - this would be even more silly and not improve the situation for anybody. You could make it so there is only one respawn, but that would get pretty crowded I believe.

Global* chat is immersion breaking and not helping. The problem is that people cannot be identified and told apart. You cannot find and punish a murderer as you can in real life, so there is no risk in harming others in this game -> deathmatch. Just look at how people behave on anonymous internet forums .. same thing. Also, 3rd party organized grouping is not the same as ingame cooperative play in this gameworld. Its a complete different thing. Skype buddies have no authentic reason to cooperate within the game-world. Their mutual agreement of cooperation is not forged in the game world but outside of it, completely indifferent from whatever happens in the game world. It is simply immersion breaking as fuck and completely static. People who suggest you should find skype buddies to get friendly play (and the depth that it brings such as trust, betrayal, doubt) don't even know what they are talking about.

Rather than disabling PvP in a zone, why not simply give players more options to fortify and defend an area where they want to establish CO-OP, trade, etc...? It would be more exciting, more worth it. And, the safe zone could be attacked, which would lead to interesting gameplay. The problems right now with this are - everybody looks exactly the same, cannot be identified or told apart from others, - you cannot put up signs etc. - most buildings or areas which would realistically make a nice fortification are very prone to server-hopping inside of it. - since it is a deathmatch game, nobody would ever assume there is a fort there, there is no real way to communicat it without radio, so you have to announce it in forums, which will inevitably attract lots of hackers/exploiters/griefers other random people who are bored with the game and only there to mess around.

You cannot as far as I am informed. If you're paranoid about stream-snipers, put an overlay over your name. Some streamers even block the chat and the area where your name is shown when the inventory menu is up. It looks quite silly, but the feeling of security has always had its price...

Zombies easily. I simply don't have the patience to completely prone around and walk the extra mile for them everytime, and every once in a while they pull a magical one-hit leg breaking move or a one-hit knock-out and from there its game over unless you have a friend nearby.

lol, so much tears and flames just because someone points out the obvious. Of course tents are mainly used to circumvent permadeath. That, and for duping items. Thats why they probably should be removed at some point. Rocket even stated in a podcast that he wants to make death more harsh.

Just because some players are too simple minded to grasp them doesn't mean game theory doesn't apply to games. Prisoners dilemma is a simple example from game theory, not originally from economics. Economics is just an application for it. You don't need to understand underlying mechanics to play, but it helps with educated decision making. Thats why some people are "mysteriously" more succesful than others in a lot of scenarios like this.

crawl back under the rock where you came from please

These weapons are most probably hacked. I wouldn't use them, the devs are not able to falsify that the hacker is a friend of yours and left them there for you and will likely ban you too if they look into it. Just raid a barracks or a crashsite and get a legit m107, as50 or l85 and you can have fun with other players, too. Heck even the enfield does a great job in this game.

erm ....no. People run around in tourist clothing for a reason. No. Not all military personnel have already killed people. Thats a very silly thing to assume. Other than that, there is no banditry in this game. It has been removed since a few patches ago. Right now there are no choices to make. You either play deathmatch alongside everyone else or you just die everytime you meet someone who is armed, except maybe for the 0,5% outliers. I understand that this is obviously exactly what military roleplayers who use 3rd party software for external organization and communication are looking for. But it is to be expected that people who played this mod in its original state will complain about it, simply because it is breaking immersion and removes the guessing and the choices of encounters. Also, when there is an abundance of ressources it simply doesn't make any sense that everone is hunting everone else down, taking unnecessary risks in the process. The game used to cover believable human interaction better when banditry was actually in the game. Only yesterday I had to shoot someone who was attacking me with a hatchet even though I was carrying an M14 and he could have easily avoided me. People like that are not bandits, they are simply proof that it is frag or get fragged, no matter if it is believable or not. Yes, from now on I will call it "frag" and not "kill", because that term fits it actually a lot better. I still think the game is a lot of fun, but then again, I also enjoyed playing lots of deathmatch in other FPS games.

The number of players on a server has not even changed, it has been 30-50 the whole time. trust is not even a part of the game. You don't need to trust people in skype, you know they will not betray you. And you cannot trust people you meet ingame since its deathmatch. Lets just say I highly doubt that these numbers are valid and were carefully collected. I have made very different experiences. Probably not. I guess if you want to shoot everything that moves and is not part of your skype, then it doesn't even matter if the game enforces this type of play or not. So its probably understandable that you didn't notice any decline in player interaction diversity. If multiplayer interaction consists of KOS or group based KOS I'd consider that deathmatch/teamdeathmatch. Even if it has some tactical elements to it. It doesn't really matter if there are other ways to die in the game. Again, I don't believe you. Using 3rd party voice communication is not ingame and killing is not interaction. So tell me, where was the ingame interaction there despite killing people on sight? When you kill people they don't react anymore, so it is not interaction. And talking to some people on skype after your little deathmatch intermezzo is hardly something that happened ingame. I don't wanna discuss feelings here, but I can assure you I play alot. Three days ago I picked up some random unarmed dude in one of my vehicles and drove himm around a bit, then proceeded to drive across whole chernarus. Two days ago I fought in a supermarket with a friend on skype against random people although there was more stuff in it then we all could carry. Yesterday I fortified a survivor base in cherno, but since it was nighttime after a reset and most beginner players do not carry NVG like me and my friend, in the end nobody actually came. After all interaction is more shallow than it used to be. Mindless shooting over an abundance of ressources simply doesn't make any sense. Trying to establish friendly interaction with lots of effort and without authentic ingame motives doesn't make that much sense either, it feels forced and unnatural. The game needs INGAME incentives to open up non-deathmatch player interaction and diversity. Killing people needs to be a decision where you weigh something against something else, not some standard procedure, like it is in deathmatch. It was a decision when people had survivor skins and you could be identified as a player killer eventually. You had to weigh killing someone potentially innocent and being outlawed and getting new equipment against possibly helping each other out / getting backstabbed.

Nah, the game used to be a lot more than that. BTW if you just wanna shoot people without decision making theres far better games, without laggy, glitchy and bugged aiming and movement mechanics. Some even can be played competitively. Right now it is - a deathmatch mod with some diablo-esque item pickup elements. - tactical shooting without ingame player interaction. - No elements of trust, doubt and betrayal whatsoever: People in your skype are friendly no matter what, even if there is no ingame incentive for it, all others are enemies no matter what even if it doesn't make any sense. Immersion breaking to the max. Its pretty onedimensional compared to how it started out, but still addicting as hell (probably because of the item collecting part) and sometimes fun.

In a real apocalypse, civilians running around scavenging wouldn't know much better either, so is actually authentic. Other than that, dayZ is not a mod targeted at war hipsters so Its probably normal that people do not care that much about weapon terminology.

I guess its for a reason though. If I wanted to write an article concluding that gamers tend to mix up ingame and real life this forum would probably be a goldmine. Just look at the threads who deal with combat DCing.

Agreed. But they would also struggle with all those things AFTER they had been paying chinese child workers to grind skill points in a videogame for them, so thats not an argument in favor of skill points, really. Thats pure speculation. A skill system breaks immersion to a great deal, because you play an abstract, number based version of a character. In roleplaying this works because roleplayers do not behave on the basis of authentic motives, they imagine a story, often to cover up pretty shallow item or stat grinding. I don't want to "imagine" in DayZ, I want to play the game, experience authentic situations acting upon real motives and incentives, not try to get my skill x to value z while pretending some imagined storyline in the meantime. I hate RPGs, or better I am done with them for more than 10 years now. They do not offer authenticity.

I agree completely with the OP. The current game forces you to play deathmatch. Despite what most people advise in this situation, I would not advise to join a clan though. Clans stink. It is immersion breaking to cooperate with people ingame because of out of character allegiances. It basically removes doubt, paranoia, betrayal and trust. Because you don't ever need to trust someone when you're sure he will not betray you since you're in the same clan. Its also not believable in the slightest. Shooting all people on sight, except for some people you magically trust without any ingame motives or doubts is just bullshit and not immersive. Then I'd rather be a lone wolf and be fully immersed in a world of zombies and homicidal psychopaths... The game needs ingame motivations for CO-OP. Clans are not a solution, but the demise of the original CO-OP game experience. Bandit skins were better, since they initiated CO-OP. If someone was not wearing a bandit skin, you were at least aware that you might shoot someone potentially innocent if you pulled the trigger, so killing someone involved a decision you had to make. This initiated a lot of interesting and intense player interactions. Nowadays its just deathmatch and KOS without any form of decisionmaking, because there is no basis for any kind of player interaction. It is pretty obviously deathmatch, kill or be killed, there are no survivors, no bandits, no innocents and no murderers. Its just a tactics simulator, not a social experiment anymore. The game is still great though, despite losing one of its greatest assets. The term banditry should not be used anymore however, it has no meaning in the context of the game, as the OP clearly stated.