herbster

I think the last 2 updates are perfect examples. Whilst there have been issues fixed (hurrah!) with the updates, new content has introduced a whole can of worms. How about prioritising on fixing content before releasing new content? I would rather have a update purely for fixes and then wait for new content than wait longer initially for a single for an update for fixes and new content. You may say that different developers are working on different areas and hence the update won't be delayed, but that'd only be true to a certain extent. Proper testing, documentation, packaging etc etc would all be required for the new content and cause a delay. Also, when introducing fixes, it's better to ensure they've done the job through proper player testing before introducing new content that may cause further issues. So simply, have you learnt from the mistakes made in previous patches?

It should be either 'but' or 'yet', not 'but yet'. http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/01/27/but-yet-pick-a-coordinating-conjunction-any-coordinating-conjunction/

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.

I never said developers using a RNG is bad. It's impossible not to use a RNG!!! My point is that there should be boundaries to what a zombie can and cannot do. Sure it should be able to hit for an amount of bloody damage controlled by the RNG, but it shouldn't have a chance of a knock out shot. Why? Because there is no defence. If there was a helmet you could wear that stopped KO's then fine, you there isn't one. This impacts seriously on gameplay for a single user. Impacting gameplay is BAD NEWS for players. Now in answer to a few points made by posters above: "I fail to see what's so ridiculous about there being a small chance of getting one hit knocked out by zombies. If anything it makes sense for it to be there and should probably happen more often. " Because a single player has no defence against it. In a group environment at least another player can use an epi-pen to save their partner. It's a bit like how overpowered blood bags are for groups as they can't be used solo. Unlike a real life scenario when a zombie may very well be able to knock out somebody, the developers should factor in gameplay for all types of players. "Yeah I am going to have to agree that the very minimal chance you have of getting knocked out by zed should remain. To me it's almost like the bullets in game. I've been one shotted with a M1911 at full health and was TKO and broken leg. So basically my point being the zeds need something going their way and just pretend he slit your throat or some dumb shit when you get KOd. Also I have been driving vehicles in this game for awhile and it really is not that hard to keep it out of the zeds range. Maybe it's just me but I believe I have only been hit by one ever while driving and I didn't bleed or anything. I just pay attention and don't try to go on splatter sprees anymore." Firstly, I could be very wrong here but you only get a broken leg if you're actually hit in the leg, right? Also, what are the exact mechanics for getting KO'd? I'm sure that getting below 6K blood has an effect on it. Is I mentioned before, increasing damage (blood) is fine and maybe even increasing infection/broken leg chance (although the broken leg system is a bit pants as far as morphine is concerned). It's not about making zombies easier, it's about making the gameplay better. As far as driving is concerned, it didn't really matter before the last patch (1.6x) as zombies a) couldn't damage vehicles, B) couldn't damage people in or on vehicles, c) couldn't pull people out of/off vehicles, and d) didn't spawn when a person was on/in a vehicle. "Unfortunately to the people playing. RNG is a load of bollox. EVERYTHING in this world can not be predicted. there's these wonderful things called "chance" "luck" and the "Chaos Theory". in the real world if 1 guy hits you 30 times. the first punch MIGHT knock you out. OR chaos would cause it to be the 3rd hit." Rubbish. If you think that it's total chance when you knock somebody out or not you're an idiot. It's like saying that it's 50/50 between 2 boxers if they hit each other the same number of times. It's down to the right punch at the right time. Increasing the punch strength will obviously increase the chance of a KO, but there are many other factors involved as well, so saying it's just chance of the chaos theory is quite frankly pathetic. "LIFE IS NOT FAIR. the sooner everyone gets used to that idea, the sooner we can progress as humans and evolve. ALL games have an element of RNG, and the ones that don't, usually aren't very fun. Warcraft is 99% RNG based.... and look how many people play that? So RNG can't be that much of a bad thing." People play a game to get away from life. To play something that doesn't exist in life even. Most importantly, they play a game for enjoyment. Making a game unenjoyable by making it unfair is rather stupid. Don't know about you, but life is generally fair. You can be unlucky and get shat upon if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, but in most cases you get what you make of it. People who say life is all about chance and luck and are generally lazy fucks that try to make excuses for their own incompetence.

because if you are playing solo you are royally screwed - it's fine if you're in a group as somebody can use an epi-pen on you. Broken legs & infection are fine for solo players, but the RNG basically killing you with no defence is rubbish. It's a cheap, lazy and annoying way of making things harder. If you want to make things harder, make the zombies hit harder.

lol - I like how you now say "If he got hit by a zombie he was to close to it" instead of "Dont fucking run close to the zombies". Basically your posts have been feeble attempts to sound tough by swearing and making out that you've never run past a zombie. Also, had to laugh at you saying you're "an angry person". It's not big and not clever - a bit like yourself........

OK, I'll go through your post and translate it: "Dont fucking run close to the zombies" The OP didn't mention running close to zombies. Purely the fact that he was hit by a zombie. "cos they might dickslap ur face as u run past them and ur leg will be so disgusted by the zombiedick raping ur face that it will spontaneously break and u die." Not sure how to translate this - maybe a kindergarten teacher can help..... "NO PLAY FUCKING SMART NOT RETARDED" So you think the OP is retarded because they are hit by a Z. "Now shut up and dont start a fucking thread every time u lose ur gear" Has the OP started a thread everytime he has lost gear? Now that I've gone through your post I hope you can see why I think you might be a future Darwin award winner.

Your post was 'unintelligent'. Not sure how you can consider it otherwise when not only is the meaning utter garbage but also the spelling, grammar and prepubescent use of words like 'dickslap'.

Sheesh, I forgot that if you ever get hit by a Z you are retarded. I would politely suggest that you're the retard for posting like a tosser.

How about looking at it slightly differently and introduce and incentive to live longer. A lot of the PvPers don't actually care if they die as long as they get to kill some people, so by introducing an incentive to stay alive, it might reduce the number of suicide killers, Incentives might include a getting better accuracy over time - i.e. a new player always has the shakes to a certain extent making sniping very very hard, but over time these shakes will diminish and after being 20 days old will have the shakes reduced to what is standard now.

Personally I agree with the OP. It's absurd game design that allows for a NPC to basically one shot a character in a PvP game. The stupidity is doubled by the fact that the NPC's are buggy as hell. Honestly, think about it, do you think it's actually good design that players can die due to the RNG? Broken legs or getting infected are fine as they can be resolved by a solo player, but incorporating a chance feature that basically means death for a solo player is piss poor. It's 'features' like this that make people stop playing the game. It's nothing to do with the game being hard, it's solely down to bad design.

Thanks for understanding what I meant! It's a shame he just quoted that and not the edit at the end though......

Who was the one mentioning PR? You! Sorry to burst your bubble, but while Rocket might be the main man behind the DayZ standalone, it's a BI product. If you think BI are investing time, money and resources into a one man band you're sadly deluded. Funnily enough, what do you think is more professional PR, a bunch of guys being happy and excited about what they're doing or ones getting frustrated with time/budget contraints and all the other stressful parts of development? Maybe you're more hooked by the "non-existant" PR than you like to believe. EDIT: Just what to emphasise that by "one man band" I mean a single person with no remit.

By paper communist I mean, utopian - i.e. great in theory but not in practise. An yes it IS utopian. I don't disagree with the sentiment, purely the reality behind what you said. And yes, it might be the current state of affairs as far as the mod is concerned (and unsurprisingly issues been brought up) , but if you think the SA development is running along those lines, you're way off the mark.

Basically it's about the following: 1. People saying "it's all about the cans *bawl*". 2. Other people saying "hey, it's not about the cans but more about communication and the bigger picture" 3. Goto 1 It's quite pathetic really!!!!

Sounds a bit utopian to me tbh, are you a paper communist?

Another thing I find strange is that any budding developer, project manager, tester or any other key role in the development cycle of a game should be biting the hand off the person who offered them a role in the development of this mod. ***********It has had 1.5m players********** What a great asset to a CV!!!

Is there a reason why software houses or even internal IT departments have project managers and/or producers to control the various aspects of game/software development/update control rather than developers? Yes, it's because the majority of developers are pretty crap at the mundane things like QA, managing time, understanding the end user requirement and/or communicating with the end user. Hence the requirement for project managers and business analysts etc. But hey, sorry if a lot of you pink and fluffy people take offence to what is the case in reality. The solution...find some people to act as the interface between the development team and the community to determine what are the key areas that players deem as needing improvement. EDIT: And that's not having a go at the development team at all, it's purely a case of utilising the best resources for the job in hand.

Why is the DayZ mod still an alpha? The standalone is use a different engine and already has features not available in the mod. So what exactly is it an Alpha for? The reason I ask is after reading a post earlier (that was locked) regarding a problem with the update and the main response was that it's still and alpha and to expect problems. There was even the following: "The updates usually do get tested before releasing to ensure that it works properly, however this may of been a last minute thing?" I'm astounded that this guy thinks it's OK to just 'usually' test updates. This kind of attitude hardly instills confidence.

To be fair, the OP actually posted which sites the pollsters came from and it was pretty all round.

Sorry if I was a tad harsh. Bad afternoon.....

If you read the actual questions, you'll see that THAT particular question was multiple choice, not ALL the questions. If you also bother to look at the answer statistics, you'd see that there is large variation between the figures for each negative answer.

Nope, it was a multiple choice.

Can you give me your server details so I ensure I never ever use it please.

Did you read the OP? Did you read countless other posts within this thread saying it wasn't the actual cans that were the underlying problem? As you obviously didn't, I'm surprised you complain about the lack of maturity......