herbster

All I'm asking for is what you said below: "The Dev's develop and the Mods Moderate and the Staff look after everything that cannot be seen, this is the way it is and a good and wise direction to take." I wholly disagree with your comment below: "A Moderator that participates in a discussion with unbiased and honest "chat" can only be a good thing for the Forums and more importantly the community." A moderator thinking that they're providing unbiased and honest "chat" is wholly subjective. It's pretty obvious that a post from a Moderator will be construed as more offical than that of a normal user and will therefore carry more weight and give more bias to their point of view. Basically by allowing a moderator full use of their moderator account for personal views, you're giving them a soap box unavailable to normal users. This is WRONG and totally unprofessional. Equally, by not allowing a moderator a personal account but still limiting what they can say on their moderator account you're actually being unfair to them. Either way it's wrong.

I have no problems with a moderator being pro you Matt, I just expect them to use a personal account rather than an official account. A tad more professional don't you think? EDIT: To clarify it further. A moderator should use their account to uphold the rules of the website, not to comment on non forum based issues. We have developers and DayZ staff members to do that.

To be brutally honest, these forums are biased towards Rocket/BI. The moderators should use their moderator accounts purely to moderate. At the moment they are used for everything including being pro Rocket/BI. They should use personal accounts for that. We're in a situation now where the new release is delayed due to the need for the permission of Matt (in this case). Matt is an employee of BI. Both Matt and Rocket (both BI) have the largest say so in anything that happens on these forums and the development of the game. OK, it is a community project, but it's certainly not black and white. Far too much is controlled by BI for this forum to be impartial.

Not sure if anyone has posted this, but with .45 and 9mm handguns and smgs how about upping the damage a lot but also upping the damage reduction over distance a lot. This way they get the higher damage but only at close range.

You wait until you get to 999 and then get AS50'd.......

I'm not intentionally trying to piss people off. If you read my posts you'll see a fair amount of congratulations and praise. It obviously gets overlooked though! I guess my problem is that I get frustrated when people don't understand what I'm trying to say. In a lot of cases this is because I don't phrase my thoughts correctly! EDIT. Of course I do sometimes intentionally try and irritate people - hence the Plank comments ;)

I totally appreciate that changing tables etc to accomodate future features etc will take up a developers time. I also appreciate that this happens behind the scenes with the 'bigger picture' in mind. That's not my point though. My point is that by getting somebody to act as an interface between developers and the community would not only allow the developers to focus on development and hence get things out quicker, it would also allow the more interaction between the project and the community via the interface resource. This would allow greater understanding of what the community feels would enhance the project. I know that the project team is different now and totally appreciate that the changeover does take time. All I'm suggesting though is something that would make things easier rather than harder.

The original question didn't actually need an answer as you'll notice that after the question I outlined my retort whatever the answer.

So what?

Do you expect the new release within 3 weeks? If so, then I rephrase to 'more than a month' otherwise, I'll leave it at 'months'. Either way, waiting for a new release for something that was ill thought out isn't exactly good is it? Almost takes me back to my post a few weeks ago about implementing bug fixes etc 1st instead of new content...... What I will go back to however is you assign somebody to the specific role of Community Liason. That way you or another developer won't get sidetracked on feedback etc issues and you can concentrate on coding. We as a community get somebody to listen to our feedback about impending changes without having to get an account on a development site purely to get in the loop. Edit: In a business world, think of the Community Liason resource as a Business Analyst. If development projects in the real world didn't have Business Analysts distinct from the development team we'd be royally screwed.

The main mistake wasn't the weight system, it was the contents of the loot table. Deerstands became the red headed stepchild of spawn locations after the change. How about prior to implementing changes such as these you get feedback from players? Have you thought about the fact that as the deerstands offer no military weapons the tents, firestations, control towers and barracks are even MORE of a deathtrap as they are the only places (apart from crashsites) to get military loot. This will affect the solo/more PVE players more than the Clan/more PVP player. EDIT: You do understand why I suggest feedback prior to implementing changes? It means we don't have to wait months for a fix to come out in the next update.

Erm, did I ask that deer stands have a .50 cal rifle in their loot table? Nope, I asked that they have some military items. At the moment I'd say it's actually detrimental going up a deer stand ladder as the chance of decent loot vs 'open to being shot' doesn't bode well for the survivor.

(a) Is it too much as ask that the loot table be modified to include more military weapons/items because at the moment they're not worth visiting. (B) Why did you carry along the line of 'the loot table does include military loot' when you knew he didn't mean ammo then?

Alhough deerstands do spawn military loot it was pretty obvious the poster was referring to weapons, not military ammo (which forms the majority of the military loot subset).

You guys dissing the OP should honestly Foxtrot Oscar. Maybe you should call for the banning of the people offering medical services on the forums too. The guy is bleeding and unconcious and it's 99% sure doesn't run with a team where in comparison it's easy mode. He's not in the middle of a firefight asking for a gun, ammo or a bloodbag so get of your 'my little pony' and stop being a little jocky twat.

Anyway to retract a vote? I went for the last option too quickly!! The 1st half I agreed with but the last I didn't! There's no option for 'Think the standalone team have missed their window, would love to know what exactly has gone behind the scenes though.'

It's a travesty that it's still classed as alpha. The mod is being played by 99% of people as a proper 'live' game and people are paying hard cash to provider servers. Only the developers and forums mods view it as an alpha.....

There are many games that are progressing with new content and features that have been 'live' for years. Eve has been live for 10 years I think.

Bravo, you've understood that I was trying to ensure previous mistakes didn't occur again! Obviously if you think implementing countless (and a mean a LOT) of new features won't in anyway delay implementation of fixes to existing problems then I retract the 'Bravo' and suggest you actually change your name by deed poll to 'PLANK'.

I'm amazed that major fixes such as Z pathing aligned so well timewise with the additions to the mod!!!! Like previous posters you fail to get a grip on what I'm saying. All I'm asking for is that fixes get implemented 1st. New content is great, but it actually makes sense to only introduce new content after existing content is stable.

If you have a look at the patch notes for every update you'll see additions and fixes. All I'm asking is that the fixes get prioritised over the additions. Is it really that hard to understand? Do you think implementing fixes should be delayed due to new additions being implemented alongside the fixes? The Z routing is far better now, but I bet we could have got it earlier if it wasn't included in a patch with a load of bling. You managed to jump on the 'I'm not going to read what he wrote but comment on it nonetheless' bandwagon, similar to Plank.

Razor, I'm not trying to diminish what you do or the time and effort that you have put into the progress of the mod. You and your team should be applauded for implementing the changes to the Z AI and the resolution of other bugs. My gripe is that things have been done that haven't been constructive to the development of the mod. It's not worth going into specifics as it'll end up being finger pointing and when it comes down to the crunch, people do it for free. All I hope for is that past failures don't become future failures. Still labeling the mod as alpha makes it open to abuse though IMO. If it's never going to go beyond a certain state, it's either binned or release IMO. As far as the cans are concerned, I really don't care whether a can says Heinz or Razor, the concern I had was whether it was a suitable addition considering the prevalent issues at the time. Considering the problems with the 1.7.5 update, maybe the PR machine wasn't working as intended........we're a fickle lot!

Is it really that much to ask that you read what I posted?!

You utter PLANK (the name fits), instead of trying your best to get a brown nose, how about reading what I posted? Strange Idea I know!!!

Did you read my original post? As it looks like you didn't I'll quote it: "I do find it increasingly apparent that the term 'alpha' is used as an excuse to prioritise new content over resolving old issues. God knows why it's still referred to as an alpha release anyway - 99% of the userbase play the game for enjoyment, not for alpha testing." Did I say there were was a list of bugs? NOPE. An example of what I was saying about prioritisation was Z movement which has been an issue since dot, yet a decent solution (as good as we'll get with the engine probably) took until 1.7.6 to put into place. Now considering that we're talking about an environment when the NPC adversary is a Z, I'd rate their movement/AI quite high on the priority list, yet it has taken a long time to get it resolved. Maybe if resources were more focussed on it earlier it would have been resolved earlier. Yes, I would like things to be perfect, but I'm a realist and know that it;s highly unrealistic to expect that. I do however expect proper prioritisation. Make sense? Oh shit, it's an alpha so lets fucking forget documentation, prioritisation, putting things forward to the userbase prior to implementation etc etc etc.