Tehdark

Yeah, that's possible. There is a value known as "Stomach" which is how much food your stomach can hold before throwing up. I don't remember the exact value, but it's something like 2000 energy. All you need to do is wait for your food to digest and your stomach to empty, then eat some more. This is what it will look like when you are regenerating / healthy:

Have to admit, I really like the above inventory mock up. The thirst and hunger indicators (while rocket has hinted that they will be removed) are actually really creative. You could apply a whole range of visual effects to them in order to illustrate the status of the player. That being said, I know it will look and feel far too "gamey" for a lot of people. Also, to the people throwing the "its an alpha, it will improve" thing about, these guys are doing exactly what they should be in an alpha. Generating suggestions and illustrating possible ways in which elements could be improved. I love it, it's great to see both the creativity of people, and the ways in which the game could develop.

Yep, this is correct. This is something that was confusing me for a while as well. In order to get what the game refers to as "Low Regeneration" you need to have your energy (food) over 3500, and your water over 3000. To put that in perspective, an apple will give you 69 energy and 172 water. Tuna gives you 475 energy and 144 water (As I understand it, that is from the entire tin, not just one use of it). You need to eat a LOT in order to start regaining your blood and health. Heck, to gain "Full Regeneration" you need to have over 5000 energy and 2500 water. So basically, if you are having issues with low blood or health, just cram your face with as much food as possible. Don't worry about over-eating, you will get a warning before you cause any damage. Just stop pigging out when you start getting "I feel really full" messages. Hope that helps.

As others have said, I hate how often zombies cause these rediculous injuries. I mean, do they constantly manage to slit my wrists / throat? Or how the hell do they even break legs in the first place? I would personally nerf this break / bleed% into the ground, and maybe just up the base damage. Don't get me wrong, I like a challenge, but this just comes off as plan annoying.

I thought it was solid. It's a first impressions show, his first impressions were very similar to mine. Especially the problems he had with his inventory, they mirrored mine when I first played, I had no idea what I was doing. Let's be honest here, the inventory system isn't very intuitive. Also he explains where he got his Makarov from, he says he found an AFK player and took it out of his backpack.

Yep. It was a feature added in the changelog.

Because new players do not have the experience or knowledge that seasoned players do. They will have no idea where balota airfield is, why they should go there (Or other loot spots), or how to effectively sneak. Their experience will be "Yeah DayZ this looks awesome, I wanna have experiences like I saw in the videos / articles" they will then spend a few minutes learning the controls and dicking about on the beach. As soon as they see a building, they will head for it. (I remember my first time playing, I ran right into the first town I saw and killed zombies as I saw them. I didn't know better). All that will happen now is they move to a building, aggro zombies, have no way to fight back, not know how to loose them and probably die. How are they to know better? I'm not against the change, but it is completely understandable why new players will hate the change and die an aweful lot.

Ugh. This just punishes players with legit tent contents. Why not wipe tents located outside of the map? Or wipe tents who's owners are dead? The ones with tent cities will just move all their stuff into their trucks and cars, and remake it as soon as you're done wiping it, all this will do is punish anyone who stashed anything in a tent. Please reconsider.

Anyone who has ever tried programming knows you hardly ever code anything perfectly the first time. The whole point of an alpha stage is to add those features and iron out the bugs, test how the features affect the game and so on. Complaining that things a broken, or that adding new features breaks things, makes no sense. That's exactly how it is supposed to be. You're right, come back in a year when its a full release and you wont have to deal with this. Because it will be a released product, and complaints about the existence of bugs will be valid.

This isn't supposed to be a fun game?! What kind of jumped up crap is that? That's the whole point of gaming, to enjoy the experience, of course it's fun. Sure part of the fun is the simulation and difficulty, but it's still a game, it's still enjoyable to play. Some people need to stop worshipping the idea that this is some sort of ultra realistic, death simulator, that is supposed to kill you over and over, probably unfairly, and not be fun to play. Stop covering up problems with the game and self-fellating over how "hardcore" this is and how "hardcore I must be to play this, unlike those pathetic CoD noobs". Challenge is fun, difficulty is fun, hell, even dying can be fun and heart pounding. Unfair mechanics or inauthentic mechanics just subtract from the experience. People shouldn't be chastised and berated for suggesting improvements.

I love the new starting gear, and I actually like the zombie LoS, it feels more realistic. The two big problems I have are: 1) The big thing for me is zombie spawns. I did a quick experiment, I took the rather loud m14 to the edge of a barn area (About 200 meters away) and started picking zombies off. I watched as new zombies spawned right in front of my eyes, heard the gun shots, and came after me, it was like a constant tide of zombies. Eventually I swapped to my pistol to stop making so much noise. You should be able to clear an area / town. I would say zombies cannot spawn within 100 meters of you, minimum. Plus give buildings a respawn timer, they can only spawn zombies every 5-20 minutes. Harder zed's are great, and a nice challenge, but at the moment it feels as though I'm being screwed over by unfair and cheap mechanics. 2) Zombies should be either AS fast as you, or slightly slower, so you can actually gain ground on them. The new zombie range / damage / LoS is fine, but it's completely pointless if you can't outrun them and loose them, as they are basically right on your ass the entire time - it makes the LoS mechanic completely moot as there is no way to put (Aside from going in a building) an obstacle between you and them. If you aggro from afar, they catch up in no time, you should be able to keep some distance between them. I'd say definitely a step in the right direction, but lots more tweaking is required (As is expected in an alpha of course).

I think you have to consider that as the game ages, and people learn how to play, what to expect from zombies, people and so forth, survival times will naturally rise. I mean, if you were to look at my survival times, it would be a steady curve upwards, leading to my 18 day survival. I would assume it is the same is for most people?

YES Give it a try. This is an alpha right? Experiment with ideas, see how it affects the game. You can always revert the decision, or maybe expand it. Experiment with other equipment / ways to fight or survive initially.

Sure, it would be a fun change. I'd love it as an option. I would probably play Chernarus far more, but yeah, it would be fun to try.

I've found 2 so far, I use them as cover near my tents. If you have an entrenching tool, they create a waist high wall, about the same length as a wire fence (you can 'v' over them). Useless against Zeds, but they provide adequate cover against players.

I think players are probably beginning to learn what is where. I mean, to me, Berezino was basically a playerless cherno / elec, minus a firestation. Still, it's infinitely safer than it's other coastal bretherin.

I'm just waiting for the inevitable brain-dead comment about CoD or carebears... On topic though, yes, it is extreme and kind of broken. I've literally fallen down dead walking off some stairs in a barn, sliding down a 3-4 foot hay pile and watching in dismay as my feeble 70 year old body looses conciousness and bleeds to death. Not to mention suicide by door. However, I'm obviously such a scrublord with no l33t pk skills who needs to l2vidoegame. Obviously.

I think this thread shows exactly why it is a customisable option in the first place, and why it should remain such. People have such wide and varying views on the subject (Although mostly third person it seems) that removing any of them will just piss off a significant part of the community. If you so passionately hate any of the options, play on a server that has them disabled, it really is that simple. I personally am ambivalent on all of the options. I would rather a third person server given the choice however. I find it convenient, immersive, pretty and less boring (When travelling). I don't do much PvP however. I can kind of understand bandits getting annoyed about it, but honestly, it doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially when both parties have the ability.

I've had this, I play with the same person numerous times, sometimes he runs faster than me, sometimes I run faster than him, even if we're running in the same stance. It's odd. It could just be a latency re-sync kind of thing I suppose.

As long as it has 3rd Person, I don't really care about the rest. I prefer names to be off however.

Well, the thread was working under the assumption that the day night cycle causes so many people to ignore night servers, and crowd onto day servers, that it causes performance issues. That's how I understood it anyway.

I'm not sure you know what a logical fallacy is... Anyway, the most simple solution does seem to be Lev's suggestion, it certainly seems the most apt and fair. Shorter nights also seem to make sense. Though if I'm honest, I've never really seen the current system as a real issue, personally. I also doubt the actual impact it has on the server load, you would really need to analyse traffic statistics to get a real answer who's connecting where and when. Anything else is just conjecture.

Absolutely zed killings should affect it. The more you kill the more it would affect you, maybe you get used to it and killing becomes easier. A person could choose to avoid them and play stealthy, but then when he finally comes into conflict with one, the effect is more pronounced. There is so much you can do with it. It shouldn't be strictly related to player killing. Imo anyway. Edit: A clockwork orange (Film / Book) demonstrates the use of the classical conditioning which LeYuno was mentioning, hence the reference.

That's just semantics. Your "punishing" is another man's balance. Though I do partially agree, there should be some effect to your "first kill", perhaps more pronounced the longer a player has survived without killing someone. If a player has gone 2-3 days surviving without killing anyone, then he does so, that should be a pretty significant event.