ZedsDeadBaby

I'm not sure what you think the difference is between the two. A bot needs AI to function. Otherwise it would just stand there doing nothing.

I act like that too. That's the reason I do it. If it didn't mean something, why would I bother doing it? You survive what? People trying to kill you. That's literally the only danger in the game right now. So basically you're saying that the only thing you accomplish in the game of note is possible only because of people trying to murder you. Without the wanton murder, what's survival? Loot a single inland town and you have enough food to last you a month. And water is everywhere. So you survive? Seriously, big deal? The only thing that makes survival even remotely difficult in the game right now is the "douchebags." Walk around the map, okay. That's actually cool. Except I played the mod for about 1500 hours and the map isn't that different. Cool new buildings, yeah. I've seen them all by now. Good for you! That's great. So why am I a douchebag if it's the focus of my game? Yes, that's exactly what you're saying. When you call someone a "douchebag" for doing something, you are most definitely saying that what they're doing is wrong. So instead of murdering people, torment and torture them? That's better, I guess? Less of a douchebag if I just shoot a defenseless person in the leg so they have to bleed out for 10 minutes before they can respawn. Somehow that makes me a better person in your world.

They're criticizing my behavior by calling me an asshole. I'm pretty sure that's a personal insult bud. Totally not personally insulting at all. You're right. I feel almost loved. How about vehicles, player structures, more weapons, ammunition types, loot spawn mechanics, more zombies with better AI to kill, etc.? If I wanted to "use my imagination" I could just close my eyes and imagine a zombie apocalypse. I didn't pay $30 for a glorified chat room in which to imagine fun things happening. I'm waiting patiently for more game features to come online, like every reasonable player.

There's a very obvious difference between killing an avatar in a game, and calling an actual human names. I'm not murdering you, I'm murdering your character. When you run to the forums or reddit to call me names, you're not talking about my character. You're talking about me as a person. So, no, it's not actually "part of the game." I think it's very telling that the "KoSers" are supposedly the immature, childish "kids" but 99% of the name-calling I see comes from so-called heroes calling people "assholes" or "douchebags" for "ruining the game."

...you say, in resposne to a 3-day-old post. Seriously? That's pretty shameless. Just say "bump" if you want to bump your thread. Or maybe put it in the Suggestions forums where it belongs. You've been plenty active on the forums these past three days, there's no reason why you waited this long to respond here except obviously wanting to push this dead discussion back to the front page.

Pick a mode and stick with it. It's really that easy.

I'm not mad, and it's not a matter of "disagreement." I am simply pointing out that you cannot claim on one hand to support different play styles and then in the next sentence call people with different play styles than you a variety of insulting names. You either support people or you don't. There's nothing personal about calling people neanderthalish, mouthbreathing tryhards? That's really your assertion? What are you talking about dude? Nothing in my post was a personal attack against you. If KoS is "fine" then why all the name calling? It doesn't make any sense. You either think it's fine, or you think people are neanderthalish mouthbreathers. It can't be both. You're not making any sense. Yes, it is absolutely two-faced to say that a style of play is "fine" in one paragraph, and then hurl a bunch of insults at people who play that way in the next paragraph. That obviously depends on the target. If killing you on sight doesn't take any skill, then that says more about you than it does about me. I've faced down plenty of people who were very difficult to kill on sight, because they were aware of their surroundings, had partners around, and defended themselves effectively.

No, not killing on sight does not make you a carebear. However, acting like everyone else should play like you and that because you find this play style more rewarding that everyone will find it so does make you a carebear. Your posts are two-faced. You claim that you're not trying to tell people how to play or argue for a certain play style, and then you immediately turn around and call people who play differently than you "neanderthalish" and "mouthbreathers" and "tryhards." Sorry, but that's arguing for a certain style of play. You can't say you're open to different styles and then viciously insult people whose style differs from yours. You either support all play styles or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Here, again. Play how you want, but it's "not smart" to play differently than you. You're the one who has it all figured out. Right, right. It's only suitable for smart people who aren't mouth-breathing neanderthal tryhards, right? Jesus, dude. Make up your mind. You either support other play styles or you don't.

I think the idea of contacts is an important one; Dean has said from the beginning that he wishes to put the power of law & order in the hands of players. The one major stumbling block to any progress in this area has always been an inability to recognize players you have seen before. It's impossible to hold player's accountable for their actions if all they need to do is change their shirt to get lost in the crowd again. I posted a very similar suggestion w/ respect to "Remembering" survivors' faces here: Player Identification & Classification System. It shares a lot with your idea (i.e., forget all your contacts on death, motivates players to survive as long as possible). One thing you don't mention is how masks affect the system. I think it's important to note that masks should make you unrecognizable even to your "contacts" so people have an option to hide their identity if they wish. The aspect I'm unsure of with your idea is "Sharing." I like it in theory, but it feels inauthentic. You can't just describe someone's face to another person and have them then be able to recognize that person as if they had seen them before in real life. I think it's important to mirror reality closely with a system like this, so I'm not completely on board with "Sharing" unless some system can be devised such as taking photographs.

No, that's not what that is. Why would they need to do that? They're not the ones selling the game; Steam is. It's not up to them whether to offer refunds or not. Steam would be the ones to make that decision. They have no say in it whatsoever. They put it up for sale to make money to fund the continued development of the game. They specifically said "don't buy it unless you understand what an Early Access Alpha is." Part of that understanding is getting that, while the ultimate goal is a game about survival, the current state of the game is unfinished, buggy and mostly about nothing but grabbing loot, goofing around and shooting people. Right. Because it's not yet.

I don't really understand why. He's clearly right. Dean has said the exact same thing (and I think he would know). The game doesn't have enough features right now to keep people occupied, so they resort to mass slaughter to keep themselves busy. What's to argue with? It's obviously true.

The game will be about survival when it's actually a game. Right now it has less than 20% of the planned final features so it's currently not really about anything at all. Want to know what else "the homepage clearly states?" Please be aware that our Early Access offer is a representation of our core pillars, and the framework we have created around them. It’s a work in progress and therefore contains a variety of bugs. We strongly advise you not to buy and play the game at this stage. So, yes. Really. Yeah, silly Fanyboys and their ability to read. Totally with you there.

Yup! I mean, you know. Either that or they will learn to play and survive for more than 20 minutes at a time. Either way, I don't care. I play the game for me, not you.

This game hasn't boasted about anything. Quite the opposite. The creator said "Don't buy it yet." DayZ today has absolutely nothing to do with what the game is going to be when it actually has planned features. Yes, it's basically a free for all at the moment because there's fuck all else to do.

If you have 5 bullets and I have 5 bullets I'm going to spend 1 of my bullets and then I'll have 9. Neat, huh? Next brilliant idea? How would that make any difference? 90% of the people would be bad according to you, so everyone would still look the same and still shoot everyone else. Nothing would change except player appearance.

I've literally never seen anyone make that claim. Nobody in this thread said there wasn't a problem, and I've never seen anyone on these forums or elsewhere make that claim. In fact, I very commonly see the opposite - people admitting that no solution is absolute and that hackers will always be present. It's an ongoing effort to keep hacking to a minimum, but to think it will ever be eliminated entirely is foolish. During the late days of the mod, I would be impacted by hacking at least once per day. In the Standalone, I've logged over 200 hours and played every day since launch, and I haven't seen a single hacker. I'm not saying they're not out there, because they obviously are, but it's "counter productive to believe" that the steps Bohemia and the team have taken so far have not had a very noticeable and significant impact on the prevalence of hackers and hacking in DayZ. You can put "protected" in quotes all you want, and pick your troll forum name proudly, but really don't act like you alone are aware of the issue and educating the stupid masses who are ignoring the problem. The players are aware of the problem and clearly so is Bohemia and it's very obvious that the introduction of VAC has made a huge impact on the hacking community.

Or use autohotkey to bind it to a mouse button.

Dean specifically said the current system is a placeholder and will be replaced by appropriate respawn mechanics.

Enjoy that while it lasts mate. Once zombies are actually in the game and functional, you might change your tune.

I have about 250 hours in the Standalone and I haven't seen one yet. They're out there, but obviously in numbers much, much smaller than the mod.

It seems like you are of the opinion that someone must be personally affected by something in order to have an opinion about a game feature or mechanic. I neither understand nor share this opinion. I wouldn't personally be affected if people wanted to run around wearing faerie wings, singing show tunes and tossing handfuls of glitter into the air either, but I would certainly suggest that perhaps it is inappropriate for ​the theme and setting of DayZ. Like I said in the OP, Dean disabled the Respawn button for a reason. People were overusing it in order to decide where they wanted to spawn, and Dean wanted that to stop because he felt that the game feels more authentic if you play the hand you're dealt and do your best to survive. I happen to agree with this opinion. Whether it affects me or not doesn't really enter into it. The game, as a whole, feels more authentic if massive piles of dead bodies aren't heaped up at the base of every water tower on the coast.

I didn't address it because I don't understand how it's relevant. Nothing about this suggestion stops you from killing yourself. You can kill yourself as often as you want in as many various creative ways as you see fit. The only thing my suggestion does is not assign you a new spawn point every time. It doesn't prevent suicide, it just prevents spawn point selection by suicide. It doesn't restrict your freedom in any way. It just removes what I feel is a rather artificial excuse for suicide. Killing yourself should be a serious choice - not one to be made so flippantly because you would rather die than have to go through the trouble of running a mile down the road. I'm not sure what you mean by "so much." This change is rather simple to implement and has very little impact on game play. It's not like I'm up-in-arms or pissed off about it. Just a simple suggestion to make the game feel slightly more authentic. As to why, I address that very clearly in the OP. You may not agree with what I said, but I definitely think I explained pretty well why I think this change would be appropriate:

If you read the OP, you will notice that I talk about appropriate forms of suicide ("It should be a last resort for incapacitated, starving or hopelessly lost survivors who have given up"). This isn't about ending all suicide, it's specifically about ending spawn selection suicide. If you've broken a leg and you're beyond hope, okay. If you can't find food or water and you just want to "give up," fine. If your best friend died in your arms and you're heartbroken and want to end it all, okay. These are all "authentic" forms of suicide and I'm perfectly fine with that. They're all things that, incidentally, aren't likely to occur within an hour or two of spawning. But, sorry, arguing "realism" when it comes to people pitching themselves off of water towers by the dozen because they want to be instantly reincarnated on the beach a few kilometers away to save themselves a couple minutes of running is a tiny bit of bullshit. Killing yourself because you're too lazy to walk two miles is not, in my opinion, what the trailer is attempting to depict.

A pretty ill-conceived idea at the moment, since the game contains probably less than 10% of the final planned items. We're going to need that space a lot more in the future than we do now. Also, the idea of "countering" KoS by starving people of resources is simply not going to work. The standalone has already demonstrated that people are perfectly willing to beat each other to death with their bare hands before they have any inventory space or any ammo. This is of course assuming you even believe KoS is a problem that needs to be countered in the first place, which I won't get into here but will say that not everyone sees it that way.

I would politely ask you to read the list again. Only 8 of the proposed 43 leader boards have anything to do with player kills. That's slightly less than half. Nearly as many (5) require zero kills. You will notice the word "unique" attached to most of these leader boards, which means you cannot simply "repeat." Healing the same person over and over again confers no benefits.