ZedsDeadBaby

I think as long as you stay alive long enough, it will go away. I got food poisoning shortly after spawning and by the time I made it to Berezino it was just gone. Maybe there are more "powerful" types though that will kill you if you don't get medicine, I don't know.

Yes, it's definitely still really asinine. The game needs to be playable, general public or otherwise.

http://feedback.dayzgame.com/

I definitely don't recall any such expectation, or any suggestion on the part of rocket that anything of the sort was planned. In fact, I recall very specifically him saying that he did not plan to artificially award or punish any play style if he could avoid it. Absolutely. Great idea. Absolutely not in a million years. You're dead. How would you know anything, let alone who killed you? If you want to identify killers, you need to witness them commit a crime, but survive. During the mod, I posted an idea for a player identification system which would allow for this kind of "witness and report" functionality, but it relies again on you surviving an encounter and passing on information. Knowing who killed you is an absolute non-starter for me. It should simply never happen and I am confident that rocket agrees. It is entirely too "gamey" for a dead person to magically know the name of their murderer and carry that information into a new life. I don't know what the words "hard" and "tangible" mean in this context, but it starts to sound a bit like you're suggesting punishing the wicked and rewarding the just, which is not what this game is about. Incentives should emerge from the design of the game, not be tacked on. The "skins" were tacked on. It's ridiculous that I should be forced to wear certain clothes because of my behavior. These are the sorts of features we should try to avoid and look rather for ways to build features of the game that offer players an opportunity to behave in certain ways over time in order to reap long-term benefits. For example, giving players the ability to "report" on the activities of other survivors would make being a hero really attractive. People would start to learn your name, recognize you, etc. and you would become a kind of savior among survivors, but do so through natural means - actions which beget word-of-mouth accolades, not some special hat you wear that identifies you as a "good guy." Incorrect. The consequence of engaging in violent action immediately upon seeing another player is that you, yourself are now exposed to violence. A player who constantly attacks other players violently is far more likely to die a violent death themselves than one who surrounds himself with friends and avoids contact with strangers. Not for me. No, rocket is not schizophrenic. Being good is and will remain very difficult. There will be no artificial rewards for just deciding not to be evil, nor will there be artificial punishments for choosing to be evil. Yes, being evil might get you more "stuff" but stuff stops being useful at a certain point in the game. This isn't WoW where you need to continually be getting better and better "gear" in order to keep being successful. You get guns and supplies, and that's about all you need. After that, you decide what to do with yourself and that can either be helping other people achieve the same, or doing your best to make life difficult for other survivors. The entire drama of the game is based on the fact that both of these decision are equally possible and can be rewarding in their own ways. Some people choose to be good because a. it's uncommon and they feel special and b. it's just fun to help people. Others choose to be evil because fuck it why not. If you start tacking on features to remove this choice, or make it "easier" to be good, you undermine the source of that drama. I just don't see the point. The game is infinitely more interesting, intense and scary precisely because there are people out there playing it like a "pure deathmatch" and you have to deal with their presence.

Balancing loot rates at this point is silly. The game has like 10% of the items it will have eventually. It's just not a priority to get the spawn rates "right" at this point.

It is neither an idea, nor a decision. It is a temporary placeholder because loot logic was slowing down servers. rocket is working on a "real" loot respawn system but it won't be released for some time. In the meantime, he plans to make balance changes to the current situation.

Yeah, no. That's not what you'll have. If loot doesn't respawn, you will have servers that last about 3 weeks before every bullet has been fired, every blood bag used and every antibiotic taken and then those players will quit playing and every new player will just be playing a glorified flashlight tag simulator. Seriously. You've got a good spirit, but no loot respawn is a completely asinine design idea.

No, I didn't miss that part. That money was likely invested in a. the last 16 months of DayZ standalone development and b. launch and marketing of ARMA 3. Many of those players have moved on and not all are guaranteed to return. I also didn't miss the part where there was clearly pressure to release DayZ standalone. rocket himself said he didn't feel it was ready for release, so obviously he's under pressure to start generating revenue. Which he did. But 200k sales is not "mind blowing" by any industry standard. It's a lot, and a lot of money, and that's great for everyone involved, but it's not enough to keep the game going indefinitely, especially if word-of-mouth does not spread like it did with the mod. I suppose. If you want to call it an "indie" game, feel free. In my opinion a truly indie game is one w/o a major financial backer influencing the development process and managing the distribution of revenue. In the case of DayZ, Bohemia paid the bills to develop the game, and is also in charge of what happens to the revenue. If they want to take half the money DayZ makes and invest it in ARMA, they can. They're also in charge of the development. If they disagree with rocket on something, guess who wins? BIS. They own the product and they get to say what happens to it. So that makes DayZ's "indie" label pretty weak if you ask me. A truly indie game doesn't have anyone to answer to. So, yes, "prohibitive difficulty" is great, but if BIS decides the game isn't making enough money and the reason is nobody wants to play a game that involves shitting yourself to death in the woods every 10 minutes, we're in a bit of a pickle.

No, it's not. BIS is a 14-year-old studio.

No, it really doesn't. 200k copies sold is a nice start, but it is by no means "plenty" and considering that there is no subscription fee, the game needs a steady influx of new players to continue to function.

So you just randomly happen to be hanging around Balota airfield during one of the 6 restarts of the day? So you're either camping there and never moving, or just randomly happen upon it at the right time. In either case, your experience is not relevant to real players.

I've played only on full servers. Been to Balota ~12 times. Never found anything but pants and shoes. So you're either playing on a completely private server, or entirely empty ones (or you're completely full of shit). In either case, your experience is not relevant to real players.

What's broken?

That is not an AKA. You can play lone wolf or not, new player or otherwise. It's your choice. Anyone can find a group of people to run with. If you want to be alone, that's your decision.

There's already a really effective built-in mechanic for making the game more difficult for "geared up" players. Shoot them in their kneecaps and then take their gear. Trust me, it works.

What descendants? When was the last time you had sex?

Literally anything you want except bitching. Neat, huh?

It's the apocalypse, son. If society does return, it's not going to be for another 2,500 years or so. If you can hang on to your rubies until then, more power to you.

Yeah, i know. And rocket said he hated it and wished people would stop saying it like a year ago. But, people still insist on using it as some misguided insult. It's stupid. CoD is one of the most successful games in the history of the industry. Any game should be happy to grab some of its market share, and there's no defining characteristics of a CoD player. There are tens of millions of them, and they are all sorts of different people. So using it as an insult is pretty much just stupid. Stop doing it, okay?

No, sorry bud. Rare metals and jewels are valuable only because they can be exchanged for other valuable things. When the world is ending nobody is going to give a flying fuck how pretty your diamonds are. The only valuable things are going to be: 1) Humans, especially ones with expert knowledge (like doctors) 2) Food 3) Weapons The same idiotic logic is behind the whole "Buy gold because the economy is going to crash!" nut jobs. If the economy really does collapse, gold is going to be as worthless as anything else. Wheat? Rice? Fresh water? Those will be the new diamonds.

a. This game would do well to attract a few "cod kids" and keep them around. rocket personally hates that phrase, and so do I. CoD is a decent game, and has plenty of decent players and if you think you're better than them just because you don't play CoD then pretty much go fuck yourself. b. The game needs players in addition to money. If 50% of the people who buy it stop playing it, it's going to fail no matter how much money they have. A company will not continue to invest in a failing product. They will invest the money elsewhere in other products. Remember, DayZ is still a Bohemia product and they are not obligated in any way to invest DayZ revenues in DayZ. They can do whatever they want with their profits.

There is of course a balance to be struck between your desire to have an awesomely difficult game and the reality which is games need money to continue to exist. This cash injection has really helped, I'm sure, but it's not enough to keep things going for 2 or 3 more years. Dayz needs players so if you're confident there's enough people out there willing to put up with "prohibitive" difficulty, then I say go for it. But, if there's not then we're in big trouble.

Gold, gems and jewels would cease to have value once the world starts ending. Unless you find a way to eat them or turn them into bullets.

You know there's no suggestion forum, right?

Right. Which means pointing out really annoying bugs is even more important. Right? Seriously, what's the fucking point of this post?