-Gews-

Not meant to be realistic picture of a dark night. It's even bright for old DayZ. But I've never boosted gamma and brightness in this game because they always gave us (more than) enough moonlight to make out where we're going and what we're doing. Not realistic to have moon all the time. But realistically, people sleep at night. If you end up on a server and can only see, maybe outlines of treetops, and the rest is pitch black, that's hardly playable. Old renderer typical night: Old new renderer typical night:

Most players would like no gamma exploit + old night. At least, most players actively posting on forums or subreddit. Most players DO NOT LIKE no gamma exploit + unable to see. I've seen popular 1st person servers like DayzUnderground sitting at high or full, and a few minutes later when I refresh the list drops to low... what? Oh... it must be night. If so many people don't like something it's a clue there may be room for improvement.

That's a bug, happens with muzzle flashes at distance.

Not tonight, no. Spent a long time with this stupid server browser tonight, only crashed my game once on the browser, so an improvement. After a few tries I gave up and just went for a a random medium-pop server rather than reloading 3000+ community servers each time it fails to connect. By the time I finally got in game on the server I didn't particularly want to join I didn't even spawn with the character I'd specifically set up a few minutes earlier. I ended up chasing a fresh spawn around for a few minutes as he wasn't interested in 'interaction', and then, after asking myself if I wanted to do this for a couple more hours, threw myself off a bridge, closed the game and went to play something different. I cannot believe the server browser is still in such shape.

Technically speaking, you can't have frags without player interaction.

Nonono, this isn't 0.62, you want a knife, and a NO STAMINA server. A lot of those servers spawn you with a knife, too. You can run up and do the old stun lock. I thought everyone would be doing this, but apparently not everyone's familiar with it or fast enough to avoid it, because I win just about every knife fight. Hitting them from the side works best, doesn't push 'em as far away so you can cut till they drop. Cut 'em enough and even if they do break free, they'll have too many wounds and lose too much blood to bandage at all. On a normal server you're on more of an even playing field... opponent has an opportunity to fight back... yuck. Stun lock allows you get more of those early frags and gear. No stamina, more frags.

1. No 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Don't know 5. No 6. No 7. Yes 8. Don't know 9. Don't know 10. Don't know 11. Yes 12. No, no, yes 13. Don't know

Since it was announced, we always knew this was the plan. But I thought in the 5 years since, and especially in the last few months, that they would have abandoned this idea. I can't imagine anyone would react well to a 30% price increase given the current state of the game and the time it's taken to come out. It looks bad to suddenly charge so much more at this stage IMO.

You don't need all those slots. Dump some stuff. I wear stupid clothing all the time just because. You don't need the weapons either. Slots and weapons just makes things easier. Yeah, the end-game stuff is most all military. That's what most people expect, though.

You will probably see this feature, but I don't think it's a good idea. Shoot someone in his base... he immediately respawns in his base and picks up or replaces his weapons. It's like he never died. Repeat, ad infinitum. Better if you have to at least suffer the run back to your base and find a safe time to unlock the door.

I'd rather not go back to attempting to decipher a game's worth by peering at the box art. What reviewers think of a game typically has a major impact on a game's success. These reviews don't tell me anything I didn't already know, but they're going to have an impact on the future of the game.

They are fair. I was in a Discord server when I fired up 1.0 for the first time. I can show you my reaction to it, as I typed in real-time, trying to play the game. I'm used to DayZ and its bugs. I like DayZ. Like I said, once I got in, it ended up performing very nicely. But that initial experience was awful. And imagine someone coming from your average polished AAA games. By the way I checked the timestamps. First message, 7:56 PM. Last message, 9:03 PM. That's over an hour from initial server browser to stable server experience.

Wouldn't matter if everything was fixed and finished. The devs aren't interested in adding main battle tanks or any type of heavy armoured vehicle. Wasn't even in the official DayZ mod. The game's been in development for years now, they've been clear on the general direction they want to head, and it doesn't include tanks. Mods, sure, anything is possible given enough time and jankiness, on PC at least. But you could mod a Star Destroyer or a Gundam, too. The rest of the stuff on the OP's list is more reasonable and rocket launchers are confirmed. But I think mortars are another you'd never see.

So far from 'Geez' on the Feedback Tracker the quote above: "This is currently a work in progress and the values will be tweaked for the future versions to be optimal" I have only two concerns here, I think: 1. Someone, I assume, thought this change was progress, when it's two steps backwards. In addition, I can not recall yet seeing any correct ballistic values from the dev team, and I've been playing standalone since day one of release. Now, this is not a priority and was not a priority, this is minor details for OCD folks like me, so maybe they didn't do what they would consider a thorough ballistics pass yet, but it means I've only seen placeholder values, values taken from ARMA 2 and 3, or wrong values. And that means I don't have confidence in future tweaks. Lack of confidence in future improvements means I feel the need to complain / give feedback, so they can get it right. It's not like I want to bash the devs for some wrong numbers that aren't even finalized, which it feels like, but given evidence so far I don't think this is unreasonable concern that future version may not be 100% correct. It wasn't correct (to my satisfaction) in A2 either, nor in A3 (although a lot better than A2). 2. I may not agree with some of the choices, even if ballistics for those choices are correct. For example, I believe the 5.56 should be using a 62 grain 'green tip' bullet. This is standard military ammo for most major 5.56-using nations since the 1980s. Yet according to the configuration, it seems they are modelling 55 grain ball. This corresponds to the in-game ammunition box. I don't care about the in-game box artwork. They often don't make sense for realism or balance and sometimes the box doesn't even correspond to the ammo models that come out of it. In my opinion it's just pretty pictures, and I would prefer to base ballistics on most common or most suitable type of ammo for the game and its setting. But others may disagree.

Polygon review came out: https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2018/12/21/18149309/dayz-review-pc-1-0-release Unfortunately, their review is pretty much how my first night of 1.0 went. For me that was an epic struggle with the server browser, multiple crashes to desktop and attempting to join community servers for almost half an hour. It had great performance once I got in, but getting in? And staying in? That was a battle. On the server browser: "For the rest of the evening I logged into a dozen servers claiming to be running daylight. Every time I showed up, it was dark. I closed down the program. I rebooted my computer. Nothing worked. I was trapped in an endless, impenetrable night even when it should have been day." On melee combat: "Trouble is that using melee weapons in DayZ is like trying to hammer a nail into a wall with a piece of cooked spaghetti. The animations are perfunctory, with the shambling dead and the player flailing at each other like a pair of pinwheels. Hits are slow to register, with zombies flinching a half second after you connect. The only way to tell if you’re being damaged is if the whole screen flashes red. It’s absurd that a game that’s this high stakes, where one mistake can mean the loss of hours of playtime, has combat that feels this awful." The review concludes: "So I died. A fully-loaded firearm on my hip. A pristine blunt object slung across my back. Both useless because of a compass stuck in my hand, and a game so unfinished that it was unable to help me do something as trivial as put something into my pocket. I died in the dark with my screen flashing red. I couldn’t see a thing."

That will never happen.

Calculated appropriate numbers for a few different shapes of 147 grain 7.62 NATO ball. All hover around -0.00100, while in DayZ they now have it set to -0.00018. More than five times too low. It used to be set to -0.001006. To go 1 km the .308 should take 2 seconds, and used to take 2 seconds, but in 1.0 it would take just 1¼ seconds, and arrive with half the drop it should have, and would have double the energy it should have. If DayZ had wind drift, or if this 1.0 bullet could be replicated in real life, it would have almost 8x less.

As you can see in this quote, the new ballistic values were so crazy that I thought I might be wrong about this, at least in part, but I did some testing, and unfortunately, I'm right. The airFriction works the same as it always has. Whoever put the new values doesn't understand how they work. For my test I set up in the offline mode, with an SVD and an M4A1. I then fired 11 rounds from each weapon at a target well over 1 kilometre away. I recorded the times between shot and impact, and compared it to the time of flights I predicted beforehand. For the case of the SVD, predicted time of flight vs average recorded time of flight differed by 0.007 seconds. For the M4A1, predicted time of flight vs average recorded time of flight differed by 0.003 seconds. You'll note that a 60 fps capture only has a resolution of 0.0167 seconds. Therefore, as far as I am able to tell, time of flight matched my predictions exactly. By the way, the SVD took over 3.3 seconds to hit the target, and the M4A1 just over 1.4 seconds. One much too long, one much too short (and ironically at the distance I tested, thanks to new crazy ballistics, the M4A1 would have more damage than the SVD! That's assuming they didn't change how damage varies with speed from 0.62. Even worse if it were real life, since the crazy-five-five-six would at that range have almost SIX TIMES the energy). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why would you change stuff if you don't know what you're doing? Someone took a look at the values in 0.62, and decided to replace them with utter nonsense. Some of those values needed improvement, but others were solid, realistic values. All of them are replaced with nonsense. Why? Change for the sake of... what? Change itself? Why would you touch the stuff that doesn't need touching? Utterly perplexes me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyways, I took look at how some of DayZ 1.0's ballistics would fit into the real world. Put the values from DayZ into a ballistic calculator and got the following at 800 m, for the .308 ball... ELEVATION 4.2 MIL WIND 0.4 MIL Tried to find a round that could match that lack of wind drift, but even the .375 CheyTac fell way short. Finally found one that could hit 800 m with just 0.4 mil wind drift... the 76.2 mm PaK 36(r) firing a 7,6 kg shell. I think in real life this has better ballistics than a .308... Then I checked out the new .357 Magnum ballistics... Wow, it's aerodynamic. Really aerodynamic. The ballistic coefficient beats 5.56... it beats the .308... it beats the trendy 6.5 Creedmoor in both 140 and 147 grain flavours... it beats a 250 gr .338 Lapua, and beats .50 BMG M33 ball, too... Not sure how realistic these new .357 ballistics are... G1 ballistic coefficients taken from real life, except for the .357 softpoint on the right, whose ballistic coefficient I took from DayZ. Does this look right to you? Did I mention they fixed buckshot? Kind of? Changed airFriction back to -0.005 from -0.05, because that actually did affect the gameplay. Should be more like -0.008, though. I'll be pleased whenever this whole issue gets fixed to my satisfaction... don't think it will happen for a good while since this doesn't affect the basic gameplay. In some games I've even killed people with straight-up hitscan weapons. Imagine that!

Get off the coast then, the map is over 200 square kilometres, instead of running into Kamenka or Solnichniy to get shot up, try running over those hills and further into the map. Literally never a problem. You get killed? That's DayZ. You get killed every time shortly after spawn? That's you. Sounds like you guys want them to keep a bunch of zero-pop servers so you can head in there and loot by yourself...

Spat out my coffee Already there, always there. Don't see it changing. Same as 3PP proliferation, I guess, but... uh, more understandable. Sometimes I see popular servers with low-pop... look at details... oh, it's night. Of course. And to be totally honest, if I see two servers, one day, one night, I'm heading for the day one. I like to see people, so I can go and kill them, or vice versa (or I guess more acceptable desire would be so I can run up to people and say "hello, good sir!" in my most roleplaying-est roleplaying voice). Either way day = more interaction and night = less, and I have limited free time.

Official response: No one is banned for using non-hack programs (like Fraps, overlays, etc.), picking up or using hacked in-game items, weapons or vehicles, being on a server at the same time as a cheater, or other passive non-cheating activity. https://www.battleye.com/support/

4 times the size, I believe (944 vs 236 km²). But the landmass itself is only 1.5 times bigger (270 vs 180 km²). Map isn't too big but has too many points of interest for the player count.

Submachine guns have mostly been made obsolete by compact assault rifles, compared to which they have low power and short effective range. Compared to an M4A1 the best submachine guns in game, the MP5K and the UMP45, look pretty pathetic: (based on real life, not in-game silly values) Not to mention the pistol rounds would be easily stopped by any body armor, whereas the rifle rounds would go through soft armor like it wasn't there. They could still have some advantages, though... Noise: most fire smaller cartridges and should have lower noise, having a smaller sound radius and drawing less zombies compared to an assault rifle, whether suppressed or unsuppressed. To increase the advantage the pistol suppressors could be a lot easier to find than the rifle suppressors. Size: most submachine guns are smaller than full-sized assault rifles. And when you look at the very smallest submachine guns, it isn't even close. Smaller size can mean more maneuverability, as well as easier storage. Rarity: being lower-tier, some submachine guns could be made easier to find in coastal locations than assault rifles, thanks to the police stations. As we don't have civilian .223/5.56 or 5.45mm rifles, the ammo could be easier to find as well, with the exception of the 7.62x39mm. Weight: on average, they're lighter. But not always by much. If you look at some of the loaded weights: UMP45...........................3,0 kg MP5K.............................3,3 kg M4A1.............................3,7 kg AKS74U..........................3,2 kg And if you add two magazines to that, the difference gets smaller... UMP45...........................4,4 kg MP5K.............................4,4 kg M4A1.............................4,7 kg AKS74U..........................4,2 kg Advantages submachine guns should not have... Comparing the largest pistol cartridge, the .45 automatic, to the least powerful assault rifle cartridge, the 5.45x39mm, the .45's damage should be less. Full stop. Some people think a .45 would be more effective because it fires larger bullets. They're wrong. Even fired from the tiny AKS74U, the 5.45mm beats the .45 auto by almost 400 J and 1500 feet per second. The 5.45 and 5.56 have smaller bullets but they make bigger holes. This is the one that bugs me the most, as .45 was given hit = 9, while the much more powerful 5.45 (2.5-3x more powerful) and 5.56 (3-3.5x more powerful) were given hit = 7.2 and hit =8, respectively. They have more values now for shock, health and blood damage of different rounds, but the hit values remain the same. As far as recoil, some games give SMGs much less recoil than rifles just because they're SMGs, but in reality they may or may not be easier to control vs an assault rifle, depending on the cartridges, designs, weights, mechanisms, and muzzle devices. Depends on the weapon. tl;dr: submachine guns should be easier to get hold of, but inferior to assault rifles, except in certain niche situations, such as a sniper wanting a smaller backup weapon, or someone requiring a quieter suppressed weapon. Which for the most part is actually the case. So it's just that pesky UMP45 hit value bothering me. I haven't yet tested .45 damage in 0.63 but this bothered me previously and while extra values would seem to affect it, the base hit value is still higher than the 5.45 and 5.56.