-AoXo-

I can only speak for myself, and I am quite adament on this point, that people who play for the sole purpose of "killing other people" ruin it for me. My friend and I were discussing and he always comes back to "I just want to kill people". I ask him why "That's the point". Is it? It seems like the rest of the game (the zombies, the survival) is negated, why not just play some other shooter? "Because I want to do it in that setting" In my opinion it's that sort of thing that ruins the game for me. I'm not against sniper rifles or bandits, but I'm against the senselessnes of it, or the people who go into it where that's their only goal - to kill others and ruin the game for them. My friends rebuttle is always "learn to play" or some other thing where the shift of blame is put on to me, but no matter how much I scout an area or watch other players or avoid them in a game like Arma being a sniper hidden somewhere is incredibly easy. At that point "realism" usually gets thrown into the argument, but imo holds no water when people are way too flippant in games compared to real life and you can't tell a persons intentions or reason with them just by looking at them. As we all no doubt know even 2 legitimate friendly survivors may open fire on each other just because of how unintuitive communication can be - throw in to the mix a bandit who doesn't care about the sanctity of the experience of the game and all control is lost from the player trying to "write his own story", But whatever. I don't see this issue being fixed. I'm really only here to discuss ideas behind/around the games design because I find it more fun than actually playing it.

How would I check his backpack for items if he's standing a ways off from me?and anyway I said it wasn't the items but the time wasted walking

Would depend on how long I had been playing and what items I had. I would have left the area immediately if I had no gun, but for arguments sake, I'd probably leave the server just because I don't feel like walking for another 20 minutes.Edit: I actually find that kind of sad. I honestly wouldn't be worried about my life, or items. If I was heading somewhere I just wouldn't want to have to re-do the trek (or an even longer trek).

Night is TOO dark for me. I love it in games like STALKER where I can still sort of see and having NV or a flashlight helps tremendously. STALKER also has other light sources. But in DayZ it's just black - no fun.

I usually try to avoid people, but on more than one occasion I've walked right into someone. Since they haven't shot I usually say hi to them. One time this happened to a guy I thought was prone. I nearly shot him but then he asked me for help. He gave me his matches, and I went and chopped some wood and found some meat and I helped him restore his blood and health over about 40 minutes. I gave him some morphine and it was a pretty fun experience. But it was the only time something like that happened. I've had lives where I avoided people for about 20 hours and then some guy uses a hatchet through a wall, or just kills me for no reason despite me a) not having anything particularly useful and b ) clearly posing no threat to them. To answer your questions: 1) I always take pot shots at the zombies and try to help. Usually people end up dead or just run off without even acknowledging me so I probably wouldn't even bother anymore. 2) I kill him. I know he's only going to end up killing me anyway. 3) I take the ride because my parents never taught me any better. :P I ran into a guy where this happened. I figured if he was going to kill me he had the chance already, and if he's going to "kill me later" then it's no skin off my back. He might be sitting there getting his jollies off thinking he's decieved me, but I've become far too detached from my characters to care about death anymore.

I've thought about the bandit issue like this: tl;dr: if banditry is a problem it's something that needs to be dealt with as a game mechanic. Making the game "more difficult" won't stop the mentality because the mentality will exist regardless of the environment. It's not the game. People liked to see DayZ as this big social experiment thing and then put on their faux-high brow caps and monocle and proclaim "It's what would happen for real!" Well, whether that's true or not it has nothing to do with a realistic simulation of social dynamics in a lawless environment. If any of you play FPS regularly, especially on the PC, you may have found yourself sitting around waiting for a game to start (via a warmup round or something else). You may have been on a server where people were doing "melee only" rounds, or to be more broad, you may have been the perpitrator or victim of team killing. Team killing is something that happens a lot, and it has nothing to do with "realistic" situations or scenarios. In the warm up round scenario it's usually players who have weapons and can use them, but the objectives are locked down. In a competitive setting you might kill other players to establish dominance on a map, but when the game is just going to reset in a couple of minutes people kill others out of boredom, because they want to do something. In the melee only setting you eventually find people who will shoot other players because they don't want to play alone (it's almost always obvious that everyone else is using melee weapons only and they feel the need to just ignore that fact). The same can be said for DayZ. Killing other players happens not out of strategy, but boredom, "dickhole syndrome" or some other reason that does not stem from need or game mechanics. If you've become a bandit it's almost never out of necessity. My point is that this sort of lawlessness, the senseless killing happens in all video games, it's just that in other games, eventually, the game calls for it or is moderated. In DayZ neither is true and there's no way around it. If banditry is a true problem, if it is truely detrimental to the experience (and, in my opinion, the way in which we see it happening in DayZ, it's quite a problem) then it needs to be dealt with at the game mechanic level. It's difficult to simulate realism on one side of things if the natural balance from the other side cannot also be simulated (namely the human quality, the visceral detail of a real world environment, human senses, etc)

From about 1:01 onwards is why that map would be terrible. It looks great if you're up in the sky flying around in a helicopter (the map is from that helicopter game Bohemia did), but the stuff on the ground lacks no detail. DayZ needs a map designed for DayZ, not an Arma map, not a TOH map, not a remade-Arma map (what DayZ will ship with). It needs a proper map designed from the ground up for DayZ.

>and then you shoot them in the face, which is exactly why people need to act hostile. by your logic (semantics really) you don't need to do a lot of stuff in DayZ, but defending yourself to survive is one of them and this isn't the kind of game where defense comes after being attacked. Either you attack first or you die. There is a lot of conjecture on his end. When someone says "a game has been in development" that can mean lots of things. That doesn't mean that it was a working video game with finished assets. "In development" can mean the earliest of early concept phases - it can mean a bunch of business or development heads sitting around going "should we do a zombie game?" for six months. So yes, WarZ could very easily have been in development for 2 years, or longer (fuck, people have ideas from 20 years that are worked on but don't seriously come to light until a few years from actual release). He also ranted about it using assets from their previous title. Well we know that DayZ will be doing the same thing for a start, so he's just being a prick there, but he's also ignoring the fact that MANY video games not only use place holder assets during production, but that they often reuse assets in the final game. (Many of Valve games share assets such as sounds). He also bitched about website and twitter accounts not being created until recently - well video games don't always have names early on. I know with book publishing the title authors suggest don't always get chosen, so it'd be ridiculous if an author went around making websites for a book called "Thunderpussy" if the publishers decided (and have every right to if it's in the contract) to change the name. They'd have to go and recreate the website and everything. I can't remember many other details as I watched the video yesterday, but he spent a good amount of time saying he wasn't a fanboy and then proceeded to rip on a game for a bunch of issues that is complete conjecture on his part. Even if he's correct the practice isn't knew to creative design and he's acting like a child because something he likes is "being copied" (welcome to the real world buddy). This guy is just a self-contradicting dickbag ranting for the sake of it without presenting a fair argument.

It depends on what "dangerous" means. Having super fast 1-hit killer zombies isn't on the same level of difficulty as having a huge horde of weak slow moving zombies who could wear you down over time. I'm curious to see how they are made to be more of a threat and if they can be threatening enough to cause a shake up in the way players interact.

1) Choices and freedom is fantastic, as long as there's a balance. At the moment there's no balance and the "play peacefully" choice doesn't exist because you're forced to play in a defensive, often hostile, manner due to the overall tone of the playerbase. 2) Who cares what WarZ is doing and how it's doing it. "Originality" has never been a sacred concept in creation let alone business. The question is whether it can add to the industry/genre and do some stuff better than DayZ. The Crysis-style on the fly weapon modifications for example are fantastic. They may be a blatent rip-off and they could stand to go over a visual overhaul to differentiate from Crysis, but they are visually intuitive and the system itself is very handy to have as a game mechanic. No other game has this sort of thing (that I know of) so why not use what works and apply it to a different game? Did they invent it? No. Did Crysis invent the first person shooter? No. Did Microsoft create the windows style interface for operating systems? No. There are plenty of popular titles out there that are essentially "rip offs" but it's how you set them apart. WarZ may have a far more intuitive and user firendly environment. It might offer everything DayZ does, but just be more accessable. What's wrong with that?

Why does it seem so difficult for you (and others) to consider that we're just discussing the very core aspects that make up DayZ? It's not strictly about the technical aspects of the mod, or Arma, but about the core ideas presented in this mod. Arguing "what would really happen" is a moot point, and we've done enough of that in this thread. "what would really happen" was just a way for me to try and justify the game mechanics as they are/could be, and all discussion on that front is pure conjecture (though it seems quite a few people seem to be selfish and have so little faith in their fellow man that it's no wonder such terrible things happen in this world). The point I was trying to get across in all of that discussion was that people do actually want to work together in peaceful means, but have been forced to, due to the actions of others, to reject such gameplay. It nagates the comments that DayZ is "what you want it to be" because clearly the game is being run by a specific mentality, and due to core game mechanics there's no way to really get around that without sacrificing a lot of gameplay and probably several characters for 1 good gameplay experience. Your statement would have little bearing if the same discussion could be had for the stand alone product, if you're suggesting a mod can't have substantial quality. The fact is these exact same issues are going to repeat themselves in the stand alone, but it's really up to people to change the tone of the game: unfortunately I and others don't see that happening which causes other elements of the game to become background motifs while combat and pvp take the foreground, which not everyone wants. the game certainly provides the means for the former playstyle, but it's over ruled by the overall mentality of the player base. It's certainly something worth dicusssing, but if you don't see the point or you're not interested then fuck off. Why are you in the thread or on the forums?

1) Can you elaborate on what "whatever you want it to be" actually means? DayZ has a lack of features which means it's not what I want it to be (in fact my post pretty much makes it clear DayZ isn't what I want it to be and is severely lacking in tha department). 2) You might want to actually research "that place in the US that got flooded" and figure out what really happened - most of it was sensationalised due to panic and misinformation. 3) Your answer was incredibly stupid.

I've never factored skill into DayZ. It's never been about the skill of other players, but rather what they are doing.

It's not particularly simple to switch servers and do all that nonsense. What items exactly are you doing all of this for that you can't find yourself?

That is WAY too much effort for anything availabe in the game. Would prefer to just go find it myself. do people really go to that much effort?