ZedsDeadBaby

I love the facial expressions and reactions. Also, I don't think I saw a single blink in that entire video. Invest in eyedrops as DayZ gets more popular.

This will be an eternal debate. I personally prefer the Winchester because it is quieter yet still very accurate at up to 200m. The Lee Enfield is accurate to 400m and more powerful, but it is very, very loud. Ammunition is plentiful for both so that's not a concern. My advice is that if you expect to engage players, take the Lee Enfield; but if you're planning to stick mostly to zombies for now, take the Winchester.

I'm not trying to make long-term predictions; the trend isn't even that dramatic. The reason it is significant is because it coincides with a constant din on the forums proclaiming the end of DayZ due to "constant deathmatching" and decrying the game for being "PvP only" and "not really about the zombies," etc., etc. "Bandit skins removed? Now everyone shoots everyone all the time!" "No more starting gun? Now bandits will camp the coastlines and murder people en masse!" "Remove sniper rifles the game is just a snipe-fest!" etc., etc. So, yeah, I'll admit on its own a 7-day gradual downward trend isn't particularly scandalous, but when held in contrast to the constant calls of doom and gloom here on the forums I think it shows that reality doesn't quite match up with the protests. I mean, I guess that shouldn't be surprising, but whatever. It is what it is. Well, that's kind of my point. If the game were a "constant deathmatch" or "just like CoD" as people are wont to claim here, then a massive influx of clueless players would be fodder for the slaughter and murder rates would go through the roof. But they're not, 'cause new players are generally stumbling around scared and alone and dying to zombies or environmental stuff, which is what these seem people seem to claim they want more of in the game...

Don't forget we already fucking covered that holy shit read the thread it's only one fucking page.

Uhh, that's not how sample size works. Two snap shots of millions and millions of data points does not equal a sample size of two. There were 2,788,199 survival attempts this week. That's my sample size.

Deaths by re-spawn are ignored. They are not counted among the stats. (Source) Obviously not since the "last players per 24h" stat has been going up, not down.

Or, perhaps like you he was on the look-out for bandits? They visit the NWAF for items, too, you know? Or maybe he was covering a friend's approach? An advance scout? Or just a curious person visiting the NWAF air field for the first time after getting lucky at a chopper crash? You murdered someone. That's fine. Don't try to justify it with some kind of Minority Report department of future crime bullshit. You were the bandit in this scenario.

I assume the ability to construct underground bases would be limited and require the efforts of many players, similar to the construction of a vehicle but far more complex and requiring more materials. Provided these materials are properly limited, and the resulting bases are destructible and decay after a time without being "used" (similar to vehicles), then I don't see servers becoming over-populated with them. As for their purpose, I believe it is to give players a more concealable, persistent base alternative compared to just stuffing tents into pine trees and hoping for the best. Structures would be fine, but larger structures are too visible from distance and vulnerable to ordnance like grenades, attack from helicopters, etc. I mean, this is precisely why people invented underground bunkers in the first place so it makes sense that their purpose is mirrored in DayZ.

1.7.2.3 feels consistent to me. I never aggro'd anything prone, crouch-walking seems to be about 20m, crouch-running is 40-70m depending on terrain and full sprint is 90-110m. Line of sight seems much more consistent now too. I don't seem to pull zombies through barricades quite so easily, and I can move more quickly when they are walking away from me than when they are facing me. I still occasionally feel like "Oh, no way!" when I do pull, but it's never so egregious that I would think it was a bug or "random." Not saying it couldn't use some more polish, but it doesn't feel broken or anything.

If you're dying with that many murders, it means you're spending your time seeking out other players and engaging in pretty dangerous game play. It shouldn't surprise you that your lives end violently more often than not. The stats show that not all players take this approach to the game (despite insistence by some on the forums that it's the only way people choose to play). Yes, since these deaths will increment your "Murder" or "Bandit Kill" count they are included. You don't have to deliver a killing blow provided you initiate a fatal wound.

The mod has gained like 70,000 players in the last 48 hours. Setting records every day for unique players per 24 hours. More servers than ever before. You are either filtering improperly, or something is wrong with your install.

Alive Characters: 468,530 Bandits Alive: 82,185 I'm no mathematician, but I don't think that's 90%. "Solutions" require problems. What problem are you trying to solve? Be specific. As for your ridiculous idea, I'm totally fine with it as long as survivors who die with 0 bandit kills spawn wearing this:

Harsh? Yes. But un-constructive? It may seem that way because I'm posting in response to ideas that, if constructed, would basically ruin this game. Sometimes the best way to be constructive is to defend what has already been built. I'll talk to you all day about improving PvP, adding more cooperative team play play mechanics, improving methods of communication, player identification, squad organization, vehicle functionality, base construction, player-driven systems of law and punishment, player-controlled bases and cities, etc., etc. Start talking to me about how the game is "imbalanced" and there are too many bandits and the designers need to "solve the PvP problem" and, yes, you're going to get a verbal boot up your ass. That's just how I roll.

So all I have to do is travel with one friend and anyone who threatens us is guaranteed to get automatically banned from the server? Forgive me but I can't help picturing a kiddie pool that's overcrowded. Like one of those inflatable WAL*MART deals that only holds about 4 gallons of water except right now it has 3 gallons of water and the rest is filled with old piss from the children who are in there playing. They run around in circles giggling but nearby there's a 350 pound middle-aged lady with a whistle just waiting to intervene if any of the kids "get a little too slappy" or splash someone else in the eyes. "Hey, that's against the rules! Out of the pool buster!" Haha. Do people who play on these servers actually think they're playing DayZ? Or do they realize they're playing a different game that just looks kind of like DayZ?

Do me a favor and go to the front page and click on "What is DayZ?" Notice how PvP is listed before survival on your list of objectives? Do you think that might mean to imply that PvP will be a necessary component of survival in this game? Why did you ever assume otherwise? Who told you it was a survival game and not a PvP game? Your special little magic frog that you keep in your front pocket for just such occasions? Pretty much every post I've seen from you so far is bandying about this ridiculously bullshit notion that you're playing the game the "right" way and everyone who isn't playing like you has somehow got it wrong. I look forward to following you around the boards and pointing out your mistake time and time again. Otherwise, Zeromnentor has the right of it. "Go Play Left 4 Dead" because that's essentially what DayZ becomes if you disable or remove the PvP and add more zombie-based threats. It will just be small groups of survivors running around mindlessly gunning down crowds of zombies over and over and over again and that is what you do in L4D so the argument becomes if that's the experience you want why not just go get it since it's already available in a commercial, polished product that's quite popular?

Word of advice: Do not play on these servers.

Actually, no. That's not true. It often gets worse and better in fits and starts as new features come online and old ones are tweaked and changed. Just keep bitching about it, though. The more ridiculous verbal diarrhea you spew out of that shit-chute you call a mouth, the easier it will be to determine precisely to what degree your mental deficiency effects your ability to formulate rational human thoughts. Then we can all watch out in the future.

Yeah! Totally. It's not like there's any way BI could possibly assist him further in the development of DayZ especially when it comes to making it available on the Arma 3 engine. Yeah. No way it's a mutually beneficial relationship and every dollar to BI will aide DayZ indirectly because they have already demonstrated a willingness to devote resources to the mod by specifically devoting engineers who should be working on Arma 3 to instead fix very DayZ-specific issues in the Arma 2 engine instead. Just because he's not getting a personal check cut in his name, no investment in BI could possibly help him in any way... Anyway. Yeah.

Yes, how about it? Get to work, you ridiculous jackass.

Yes, ridiculous. Also, completely expected, 100% inevitable, and rather encouraging for the future of the game. To have so many people so rabidly devoted, hanging on every update and some of whom are inevitably disappointed when things don't land in specifically they way they had imagined for the game, it implies an active community and a growing, fervent fan base. Beyond that, what difference does it make that there's rabid hype and disagreements? So long as you trust rocket and the team he builds to make the right decisions about what to do and who to listen to and who to ignore, it's all just signal vs. noise. If you don't trust him to make that distinction, then you probably shouldn't be playing the game anyway because he's the one steering the boat. He's got the helm. It doesn't matter what the rabble shout at him he's the one who sets the course and if he runs us aground it will be no fault but his own, but I think most of us are pretty confident he's on course to discover some new territory and set up shop there.

So what you're saying is that it is good core functionality, but lacks polish and balance. Hmph. Sounds kind of like an Alpha.

Personal opinion. That's a ridiculous crock of shit. "Nearly everyone?" Could your glasses be any more rose-colored? You pine for a time that never existed. As to the OP, sounds like a hilarious, memorable experience. Obviously struck you as interesting enough to make a post about. How do you know the dude wasn't half zombie? So sorry he didn't participate in your personal soap opera. Some people act in unexpected ways not necessarily accordant with your personal will or expectation. That's pretty much the entire point of this game.

Yes, and why not? Care to explain? Help me understand. Why can't you use low walls, rocks, and buildings for cover? Why can't you study the terrain and travel laterally along hillsides and slopes to protect your flank? Why can't you read the map and minimize your time in the open by crossing fields and clearings only at their most narrow point? Why can't you travel almost exclusively in the forest? Why can't you move in a zig-zag pattern when you are in the open, minimizing a player's ability to snipe you? Why can't you play on servers with nametags and map waypoints disabled so players cannot effectively range you on short notice? Why can't you acquire a vehicle so you are a faster target, harder to hit and with more protection from shells? I have to say, Lumber, I am unsurprised to find you in this thread. In one breath you're calling for punishments for bandits and in another I find you asking for the big bad nasty guns to be removed so you don't have to worry your pretty little head about getting shot quite so often. You need to grow a fucking pair, son. Or ovaries if you're a lady. You need new sexual organs is what I'm saying. As to the topic at hand, it's all bullshit. If you follow this rationale to its logical conclusion we will all be using slingshots. It's ridiculous. If the guns are so fucking awesome, go and get one and you can rule the world too! Like magic, right? Asinine tripe.

I'm fairly certain rocket has already acknowledge the spawn mechanics are not ideal but are the best he can manage with the existing engine without sinking performance. He's experimenting with other methods (if you played the experimental 1.7.2.1 patch you would notice zombies don't despawn anymore), but I think for the foreseeable future we have what we have for a good reason. I expect ARMA 3 DayZ will have a different system altogether. As for the military loot, you're actually far better off hunting for helicopters than you are spamming Stary, so I don't really think your critique is accurate. There is no loot bottleneck. My team and I never loot the NWAF or Stary and we have a backlog of SAWs and sniper rifles to last us a month (until 1722 probably wipes us all of course). If you do want to go to Stary for the "easy way out" without actually searching the fields or using fuel to hunt for choppers, then I say you deserve to face whatever military-grade combatants await your arrival. It's a natural trade-off between quick & dirty and slow and methodical. But here, again, I don't think Chernarus is the planned final map for DayZ so quibbling over specific spawn locations and spawn rates/balancing is not really appropriate at this juncture, apart from acknowledging the pro's and con's of limiting high-value loot to a small number of loot piles (there are pro's no doubt).

Yes. As we all know companies are well known for giving away money without a pre-existing contractual obligation to do so. That's why I always hang out around Citigroup and Goldman Sachs HQ. They come out on the sidewalk every couple hours and toss me $100's. You ridiculous goober.