sniperdoc

I believe the jumping is related to their new change in how it does collision detection for the vault. Sometimes running directly in front of the thing you're wanting to vault as you're running will do, nothing... that's right. It's the way the client/server now recognizes if you're too close to an object for the vault. I think this is part of the wall glitching solution. Basically, if you're too close to something you can't vault it. On the flip side, this makes a few bathrooms in the the high-rises in Berezino useless (the ones that have the door caddycorner to the bathtub). You used to be able to get into those... no longer. Also, I'd want to see if the high-rises that used to be accessible through the elevator shafts and where you had to vault the rubble to get to the roof, whether THOSE are now useless. Funny how one simple change can affect a lot of different things. Also, some of the collision detection for humans now makes reaching some spawned items impossible. Similarly with Hardcore... the military barracks, where stuff spawns on top of the lockers, or the lockers in the control tower... inaccessible usually with hardcore mode. Same with items under beds in the barracks. Now, you'll have a PITA time trying to prone to get the items under the bunk beds. Hmmmm... that... just sounds absolutely wrong. However, I'm not doubting you.

Yeah... amazing isn't it? No wonder people are sniping with that. The FOV is partially why I'm a bit upset that the PU scope on the SKS can only be sighted for 300m. That rifle can shoot to 800 and even the iron sights has the capability to 800... :( People can zoom like crazy just using their FOV, and they're kneecapping a rifle that theoretically can shoot farther... quite reliably mind you... hrmph... I'd just like to preface that I vehemently hate the fact that the FOV does this. The only reason why I used it myself, is because other players would have an advantage if I didn't. So, at the moment there's really no choice. So, play ethically and be disadvantaged or unethically and even the playing field?

Curious everyone... was there an update on Friday? The version number didn't change but a friend of mine says he saw a 100MB update come across and since then the Infected are relentless, there's a lot of rubber banding, and cities seem more laggy now? I didn't have these issues before Friday? I understand this could be my perception, but I logged over 24 hours of DayZ this weekend on low and high pop servers. Clan servers and the default vilayer/gamerservers.com or whatever it is (like DayZ East, Central and Wests). Basically, before Friday: The game ran smoother and it seems worse in cities now.I had no problems changing weapons.Inventory was more responsive.I had no problems going prone immediately with firearms in my hands (now it seems I need to mash the prone key 5 - 6 times before it decides to prone).Some weapons seem more rare even on fresh started servers (a group of us was on a freshly restarted server, in over an hour there were no other players that joined and we had hit 3 military bases and 2 air fields and did not find a single M4. Before that server restart we had hit the three military bases which were not looted yet.)Rubberbanding has increased tremendously.And Infected really seem to be like people have described them since the initial change. Unrelenting basically and even if you use an axe on them, they now seem to head straight for you after they respawn even though you used a silent weapon.And certain clothing items seem to be harder to find now too...? Don't know if that's been discussed or noticed?I had none of these issues on hardcore or regular when the new Infected change occurred. But, playing this weekend... wow... definitely the most difficult time playing in a long time.

Yeah... it's ridonculous how much it zooms in... :(

While I agree with most of this, I don't agree with using a lower FOV outside buildings. Lower FOV should only be for sniping as it will put you on the same playing field as everyone else that's probably using that exploit. Higher FOV is more representative of human eyes' peripheral vision and allows you to basically see more of your environment. It was mentioned that you can't see people further away because of the clipping plane, but I don't believe this is correct... at least to my knowledge. So, as long as you zoom and look around once in a while, you should be ok. I think one would have a higher tendency to miss things out in the open if the FOV is set too low, as it causes a bit of "tunnel vision." I think that they just implemented FOV in an "easy way out" type of form. It's amazing that lowering the FOV makes the PU scope as effective in sighting/zoom as the LRS on default FOV. That, to me is a major issue that needs to be corrected. Aside from a lower field of view being an issue for people with motion sickness. The headbob, motion blur and FOV are some major triggers for nausea and vomiting in those unfortunate folks. That's what I thought myself. I still have to test this, but I think you might be correct.

Might be right... but I'm not 100% on that though...

Flight time of bullets? That's general ballistics there...? Which is basically cheating... :) But what is one to do... play fair while others probably do that as well? Sucks atm tbh. What I find a bit hard to swallow is the bullet spread. Even with a pristine scope, being dead on target, with proper range and what not, you still end up with deviation. While wind, elevation, humidity, front and rear sight alignment, improper eye relief, etc... many things can cause that, but aren't represented in the game, and therefore can't be corrected for... This SHOULD mean, that if you have proper ranging, the bullet should hit exactly where you've aimed it. Unfortunately that is not the case with Arma/DayZ... this completely randomized bullet spread is bogus and honestly, I think needs to go. If its not able to be corrected for, while using a pristine scope, or proper breathing... then it needs to be removed. Just my two cents.

Except that the default FOV value is PROBABLY the correct value for sighting properly with any of the range slopes or distance estimation marks on scopes Adjusting the FOV means that you've just thrown that part out the window, because the scope overlays were probably built at the default value... Using FOV to zoom in means that the PU scope, which has a "heavy post" marking for 500m, may now be sighted to 100m instead... (if you try to range a target on a PU scope, if a target matches the thickness/height of the horizontal posts on the left and right of the vertical, then the target is at 500m. If it's half height it sits at 750m, twice as tall as the post 100m. :)) That type of estimation will no longer be possible if the FOV has been modified. Essentially, really, the FOV adjustment in DayZ is being done incorrectly. FOV should not affect zoom. Not to the degree that it is now anyways...

The funny thing is... wasn't he almost right? y=mx+b? HAHAHAHA ( i know... that's just the slope formula...)

It's not just a small 5x5m spot... the zone could extend from 5m all the to a 100x100m... ;) Who knows? I don't have the exact numbers... but I have seen that the zones can span a large distance. Cities probably smaller and unpopulated areas probably much larger would be my guess.

I think, what some people fail to understand, is how some AI programming works. For example, with poor AI programming, in some RTS games, the AI actually needs to know where you are before the game starts. This gives it the ability to choose how to react to you. Call it an artificial knowledge how to react properly. It's not clean, nor is it really fair.. but most of the time the easiest way to program without overhead. Now, I'm not saying this applies to DayZ, because he're we're talking Line of Sight and Auditory queuing. But, buildings generally don't exist. They are an afterthought to the AI. So, just because a player can't see through a building, a whole lot of extra programming has to be done that essentially (and in a very basic form) says, this if the player is within the visual range/cone of the AI zombie: Is player in my visual cone, run towards player. Are obstructions between player and myself. How tall is the obstruction? Does it block a direct line from player to me completely? Is the obstruction supposed to block the view, if yes, do nothing. If no, run towards player. That doesn't even include zombies reacting properly to the obstructions. So, bear with the devs... they're working on it. These Infected are far from überpowerful and can be handled without firing a shot, or having to take them out with an axe. Is it inconvenient... for sure... but then again... that's the price you pay for trying to avoid killing them. :)

Well... I do know that just shooting Infected from a medium distance, such as 300+ meters, means that the killed Infected will respawn shortly after. near the area he/she was killed, in a designated zone for that Infected, of sorts. And in 100% of those instances... without aggro to the shooter. I could say that I have tested this with a friend from highrises in Berezino a LOT... ;) So, even the Infected aggroing the shooter after respawning... doesn't hold weight some of the time. But, I feel that particular areas have zones have n Infected respawning within that zone.

Only if you're in their designated spawn location after you kill them. Which all of this is just tentative.

The point is you're trying to apply logic to a fictional instance of what someone's concept of an infected person or "zombie" is. And that my friend, doesn't make sense. Did you see World War Z, 28 Days Later, or 28 Weeks Later? Infected people in these movies can look all messed up and don't need to necessarily have issues with their musculoskeletal structure. So, now I'm going to apply this science and logic that I was tought in Field Med school in the Navy... if you pump enough adrenaline into someone, you'd be amazed the feats they can accomplish, with broken bones and a host of other traumas. So standard medical/scientific explanations don't really hold up in a lot of cases. You mentioned rotting and infection... Who knows?! We don't know what infected these things... a virus... some bacteria... some weird mutation... we can not know what effects it has, on what once were human beings, in the game. This includes necrosis of tissue, aging, pain reception, cognizance, synapses firing, genetic changes, etc... do you see what I mean? I was merely trying to keep things short with my initial statement and yes... it included sarcasm. So, apologies. Aside from that... even I resort to using the term zombie, because ultimately are we really going to categorize what a zombie is?? Are we going to apply the term to only 1920's voodoo magic zombies or John Romero zombies? I think the genre has grown into a lot of variety of zombies... fast, slow, intelligent, dumb, etc... i mean there's a friggin' highschool sweetheart movie about a zombie kid that falls in love... I mean... there's no logic applicable to something that is fictional... and that is the point of my statement. And if you were trying to make a point, it definitely wasn't clear.

There's really no need for that type of tone from both of you. First off, I'm just guessing, but he's probably at work or school, or truly overseas where a proxy blocks all game related content and youtube videos. Very common. Also, in response to Sgt's questions... because this isn't the place to post general instructions how DayZ works. That's what the wiki is for. In response to mil-dot scopes, I'm sure they'll probably be in here eventually, however, I find the ACOG and SVD type scope much easier to sight with in games than a mil-dot scope... which, the mil-dot might be better when you start including wind, weather and elevation... :) ((target height in m) x 1000) / height in mils = range to target in meters ((range in hundreds divided by 100) x wind velocity (mph)) / target range constant = minutes (lead in meters x 1,000) / range to target yuck... hated that... Guess that's why I was content being the Corpsman... xD

Wrong... The ACOG is a special situation and is kind of similar in relation to the ranging method to the Russian SVD scope with the range slope. The ACOG sight's vertical scope has horizontal lines. Those horizontal lines indicate an averaged shoulder width of an individual. To get a range ON the target, you line up the horizontal lines to the approximate width of the targets shoulders, which gives you your range. You then range your weapon, the M4 in this case, to that range, and use the central carrot as your aim point to where you want to hit your target. Obviously you there's still some guesstimating if the target isn't exactly at range for those bars, or if the target has smaller or larger shoulders than usual. The SVD scope uses a range slope in the lower left to accomplish the same range acquisition and I think it uses the height of an average person. Which for some countries I think varies. But, I think on an SVD scope it is 1.8m? I don't honestly remember. Scout Snipers are actually trained to remember sizes of various objects of their opponents military arsenal for proper range acquisition (if no laser range finder is available or ill advised). They'll remember things like average doorway heights in the country of operation, or vehicle tire sizes, etc... Snipers also keep something called a range chart of their surrounding area for easier range estimation and target acquisition. OH... just read that someone posted the answer up above and what he said is absolutely true about the FOV adjustment. FOV in this game is ridiculous. Adjusting your FOV adjusts the zoom but does NOT adjust the scope. Thereby shoulders that WERE at 600m, if you lower your FOV, now look like they're at 50m. Very much needs to be addressed. I tried the FOV change and it literally blew my friggin' mind... a PU scope with FOV adjusted is as good as a LRS at default FOV.... mind blown... :( :( :( The only problem is that range acquisition becomes useless, or rather, very erroneous.

Look we have a medical expert trying to explain a fictional concept... how awesome is this... xD The bottom line is this. According to Dean, these are Infected, not Zombies, not some 1920's Voodoo zombies flick of ultra lame, slow and useless zombies. From the looks of it, Dean is going the route of 28 Days Later/28 Weeks Later. Either way he takes the Infected... whether slow or fast... it ultimately doesn't matter. It's HIS vision of what they should be, at this moment and time. He's listening to constructive criticism from EVERYONE to find out if people like his solution. If this will change his view on what his vision is, that's up to him.

First off... No, you don't. You don't have to kill them. Lead them away from town, then run back. Does that mean it'll possibly expose you to bandits, ABSOLUTELY! While I agree infinite Infected isn't necessarily the way to go, but when do you draw the line and have completely cleared out places? I think the way the respawn speed is now is a bit overboard... HOWEVER, they're just testing it and even IF it stays the way it is... I'm completely content with it, considering a lot of other things have yet to get fixed, such as visual and auditory reactions by the Infected, collision detection and what not. All of that will change the way they respond to you. They'll also change WHERE they'll spawn... my guess, inside buildings away from prying eyes. I do think that there should be a mass of Infected. Just spawning 4 - 6 Infected in Balota and then having the respawn mechanic start up in 4 hours is NOT the way it should be. 1 - 2 Infected per building every 30mins maybe? As a developer you have to consider what type of environment you have to create and that it is not just 1 individual playing the game. While you WANT realism, sometimes you have to bend the rules a little to maintain gameplay. On a side note... Would it change the ESRB rating of the game to have Infected kids? Is that out of line? Would it draw too much criticism? Would that add a bit of "realism" or "morality" to the game? (Knowing what kind of sadists play this game, probably not) Would be interesting to see the stats though... "1000 players killed 458,000 Infected Children!" -- achievement - Child Killer!

Curious what this proves? The guy is running around in the open, no obstructions... he's stopping short of the zombies giving up, and then he's firing a weapon? I'd say nothing unusual here? First off... if you kill Infected, once that particular Infected respawns, it'll head straight for that last location of where the individual shot it from. Secondly, if you don't run away long enough, then yes, the Infected will continue to chase you. But, on at least separate 10 instances on Regular and Hardcore, I've run away successfully from Infected. Third, if you fire your weapon and if it's within earshot for the Infected to hear, you'll draw them in. So, nothing surprising in the video...? I think a game that had that feature was the original S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? Zombie Stalkers out in the fields with weapons that they'd randomly fire? Don't remember... it's been too long since I played that exquisite game. EDIT: Edited for rephrasing of statement.

My friend and I both did it several times Friday night and Saturday night... so... whatever your deal is... I don't know. And I by no means said I'm a badass or talking down to others... you can stop being a troll any minute.

No... however the times they are "at ease" in the movie when facing zombies tends to be a rather small portion. You're saying the entire show is this way, and it is far from it. Mind you people build barricades to keep them out... Besides... who said DayZ was modeled after The Walking Dead? This is Dean's Infected... not your preconceived notion of what they SHOULD be... ;) I've respawned plenty without issues this weekend. So, you're saying that you actually have to work at being a newspawn? Hmmm... Imagine that... Can you be a bit more clear as to wth are you referring to? From what I read in your comment there, you didn't even spend any time reading what I posted. I had no problem with the difficulty of the Infected and furthermore, thought they needed to be harder. Since we have THAT out of the way, in the original comment I quoted you spoke from a position of knowing that the majority agrees with you. While your general content was ok... I was merely addressing your "assumption" like you knew what the rest of the DayZ world thought... ;) I hope that this clears up the confusion like I'm trying to state the Infected are too hard... which, if you read my post, I didn't state at all. Besides... aggro them all over me if you want... a few minutes of running and they give up anyways... so no love lost. <3

Why don't you go ahead and watch the pilot and tell me again how it is other people that are the major threat?

:) Hmmm... 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Wreck, Quarantine, Dead Snow, and World War Z just to name a few... :)

Here's my executive summary (I read somewhere that they're not Zombies, but rather Infected, so I shall refer to them as Infected)... Pros: Infected speed makes the more of a threatRespawning Infected is good and keeps on the pressure to be observant of your surroundings Cons (which I understand is mostly just because some things aren't fixed/put in the game yet): Infected respawning near players and in line of sightInfected line of sight/reaction to noise is ridiculous at the momentWalls don't block line of sight to InfectedInfected have limited collision detection to wallsSo here's my long and short of the positive side of things: I love that the Infected are faster because their speed makes them a valid threat now. With the Infected respawning while playing on the server, it heightens the need to have situational awareness. Since this is just a new implementation and not a finished product, I can understand why the Infected spawn randomly in front of you... rather, that they have specific spawn spots, which in my opinion is fine. It's not optimal, because it breaks immersion, but I'm sure even this could be fixed, making them spawn inside sheds/buildings and walk outside (like they did in the mod). I noticed that I didn't bleed every time an Infected hit me, so that's been a nice change. I think the randomness with which I am made to bleed by an Infected attack is decent right now. Now, here's my assessment of the negative parts: A lot of the buildings still don't block the visual cone of the Infected and that is something that needs to be addressed BEFORE the Infected are made more difficult. It seems that either their auditory or visual cone is quite large and may need some toning down. I'm not a fan of the Infected ruining player gear in one hit (just reading on the forum of this occurrence even though I haven't had this happen myself). If this is the case, it should definitely be toned down, unless we can start using duct tape and the sewing kit to start fixing things like ballistic vests, backpacks and other gear. I also feel that the damage to gear inside pants/jackets/backpacks/vests should also be limited by Infected melee attacks. Crap... I really have to go pinch off a loaf right now... brb... more to follow 10 minutes later... Ok... back... A thought that would make the game even more interesting... Make the Infected health higher so that it takes 2 - 4 body shots and a single head shot (except for the Infected wearing helmets) to take down. I noticed that I was a lot more careful about where and when I used my rifle and was actually running out of ammo scrounging around in cities, thereby making ammunition much more of a commodity. Kudos on that effect, because it really helps with the "survivor" immersion aspect. Something else worth evaluating, and I don't know if it is possible... If a player or group of players decides to camp out for an extended period of time, and makes a lot of noise, a detection system should be put in place to spawn an Infected horde close to their group. I don't know what a reasonable amount of time is, and I don't even know if the engine allows for it, but my thoughts are that a horde should spawn within a 100m radius of the group after they've been at a particular location for longer than 20 - 30 minutes. This means people camped out in/on the hospital, or the 4 story office building, even in the woods under some trees... the longer they camp there, the bigger the spawning horde of Infected. Overall, I love the direction this game is heading... you guys (developers) are doing a great job, even though at times it might be a bit confusing to those on the outside and out of the loop... keep it up! Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to be an ass here, but don't blanket your statement with "how the majority of the community feels" as you certainly don't speak for me and I'm sure you don't speak for a lot of others. You are not an authority that "has all the numbers" and I also don't believe that you've done any polls allowing you to speak for everyone with any sort of authority. What you are presenting is how YOU feel and what YOUR perception is. ;)

I'm sorry... I don't usually resort to uncensored curse words... but: FUCK YEAH!!!! .43 update :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Love the speed of the zombies. They're much more of a threat now. HOWEVER... I am currently fully armed. I could imagine that newspawns starting out are going to have a b*tch of a time trying to evade them, find food, weapons, gear in general. I couldn't even imagine trying to hit one with an axe at the moment. I would say, save these zombies and how they work now for when the buildings actually block their line of sight and collision detection. But otherwise, I would say they're MINT!