exnihilo

Set Video Memory to Default.

I'm no professional, so I'm sorry to tell you I'm not sure how much of a performance difference there is between DDR3 and GDDR5. If someone would like to elaborate, that would be welcome. I need some sleep, but here's a some results from a quick search: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230111 These two seem to have nice graphics cards, but I think the CPU and RAM are lacking: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834214904 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834214694

I use the Asus G73JH. Based purely on the specs, either the Lenovo Y580 or the Acer Aspire V3-771G. You may have to take into account other factors, such as the company brand. For example, recently Asus customer support has been horrible with their service, based on multiple reports such as RMA failure, downgrading submitted notebooks, large repair delays, etc. I do not inform myself too much about Lenovo and Acer, but I have heard some negative reports on Acer's laptops. Of course, this is only one individual's experience. Edit: You might also want to pay attention to the GPU offered in both of these laptops. Both of them offer a NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M, but I haven't found out if it is the DDR3 or GDDR5 memory version of the 650M. You want to get the GDDR5 memory version.

The following laptops are estimated to run the the these games smoothly at the listed settings: Lenovo Y470 Amnesia: LOW - ULTRA Diablo 3: LOW - HIGH Arma 2: LOW Acer Aspire V3-771G Amnesia: LOW - ULTRA Diablo 3: LOW - ULTRA Arma 2: LOW - MED Remember that these are estimations. If you "need" high settings to "enjoy" dayz is personal preference. I have a laptop that runs Dayz on medium settings. The difference between medium and high does not bother me.

Here are some suggestions that seem to match your preferences: Lenovo Y580 -$800 ~ $1000 (In my area) -15.6" display -Amnesia: LOW - ULTRA -Diablo 3: LOW - ULTRA -Arma 2: LOW - MED Asus G73SW -$850 ~ $1200 (in my area) -17.3" display -Amnesia: LOW - ULTRA -Diablo 3: LOW - ULTRA -Arma 2: LOW - MED Also, can you confirm your original laptop with the video card named "NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M 2GB" actually has 2GB? I can't seem to find information on an alternative version of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M that has 2GB. I might suggest a few more if I have time.

The laptop you listed is estimated to be able to run the following games smoothly at the following settings: Amnesia: LOW - ULTRA Diablo 3: LOW - HIGH Arma 2: LOW - MED If you could provide further information such as price range, size preference, weight preference, style preference, etc. I could provide some suggestions for laptops. If you don't have a preference please state so. The more specific you are the better suggestions I can provide. You can also ask the individuals here for more suggestions: http://forum.notebookreview.com/what-notebook-should-i-buy/ Be sure to copy and paste their posting guideline for the best feedback: http://forum.notebookreview.com/what-notebook-should-i-buy/29271-what-should-i-buy-form-must-read-before-posting.html

shadows? Remember reading somewhere: Shadows: Normal - uses CPU Shadows: High - uses GPU

I disagree, good sir.

Did you try clicking edit or double clicking the name...? Press the backspace button?

Based on the specs I found, you won't be able to run dayz with a lenovo g550.

1. Find a cow. 2. Wait. 3. ??? 4. Profit.

I believe it's multiple factors, but I'll just guess one. Tents wiped, people trying to find new tents, people meet, and pew pew?

I've done a small amount of testing and it seems to only occur on certain servers. Forgot which server I tested on, but whenever I logged onto that one specific server it would make me pass out. Logging onto another server would let me stand up.

And... what was the "variety" before this?

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=341&pid=2941#pid2941

This is my expansion upon the current "temperature" mechanic. The "realism/authenticity" explanation: There is a new epidemic. It does not have a name. Those who contract it are merely referred to as the Infected. The Infected were once human. The remaining survivors are human. Being from the same species, the survivors are still vulnerable. The reason the survivors have not transitioned into rage filled monsters is due to their resistance. Overexposure to the infection may lead to undesirable effects, but not transformation into one of the Infected. The reason for this mechanic: There are a couple of actions performed by the players that may or may not be approved. Some of them share common qualities such as lurking in a specific area for a long period of time. For example, server hopping and farming loot from a high yield loot spawn. This mechanic will hopefully provide a possible idea or inspire other deterrents. How the mechanic works: -Areas that spawn loot increase your exposure rate to the infection (since all infected seem to hang out around loot it makes some sense?). The specifics of the area would be up to the developers to decide. -Military loot spawns have higher exposure rate. (If I remember correctly, military areas usually have dead bodies plus Infected. This increases the exposure rate) All other loot spawns would be lower and can vary from location to location. The specifics of exposure rate would be up to developers to decide. -Exposure rate can decrease normally, but only if it hasn't passed the exposure limit. In the simplest example I can describe, from an exposure rate of 1 to 3, one being "healthy" and three being "unhealthy," exposure rate will decrease when away from exposure areas only if the exposure rate is less than 2. Once an individual reaches an exposure rate of 2, exposure rate does not decrease. Military loot spawns will easily increase exposure rate up to the exposure limit, or in this case "2." -To decrease the exposure rate after reaching the exposure limit, a rare item would be needed. Antibiotics could work or a new item can be implemented. The specifics of this item would be up to developers. -The side effects of increasing the exposure rate is what I'm not sure about. What side effects should occur? Something already implemented such as blood loss, unsteady hands, slowed speed, occasionally passing out, heavy breathing? Something new? When should individuals start experiencing these symptoms? Should individuals die if they reach the maximum exposure rate? Final note: My plan was to balance the rate/area/effects so that one clean run through a military loot spawn on one server would be more beneficial than farming multiple servers. Feel free to leave suggestions or hate.

I throw tin cans at them.

Multiple concepts. Power would probably be my main guess. Same hypothesis applied to rapists. Majority of the rapists want control over another individual( aka empowerment), not sexual pleasure. Majority of the players want control (aka empowerment), not your beans. Anybody is a potential rapist. Given the opportunity, anybody can become a rapist/pker. Source: Criminology class. =/

An inventory full of tin cans. And a backpack full of tin cans.

I support starting with no gun and ammo. Reducing ammo, even to just one magazine, will not stop individuals such as me from going "gunho." Reducing the ammo just means I won't bother shooting infected on my tail and I'll get closer to other survivors to ensure I land the shots. I attempted this by dropping all but one magazine. Ran up to an unsuspecting survivor with approximately 50 infected behind me. Shot a couple of shots to get the person to bleed and then started dropping the aggro onto the individual. Stalked him, dodged zombies, and waited for him to bandage. By the time he started bandaging he was probably near dead. I just fired my remaining shots and he fell to the floor. Quickly took his weapon and finished him off. Give people a chance for a convenient start and they will attempt it. If this is possibly about map wide loot spawns, I support reducing the spawn chances for all items. I don't know if this is just purely my own "luck" or if this occurs often, but I find an abundant amount of weapons. For example, on a few occasions I found three Lee Enfields in one building. Also, for me the number of individuals with an AKM is surprisingly high. During the early stages of playing, I decided to keep the AKM because of the reliability of gathering AKM magazines from other individuals.

- (E3) 1 week of no change allowing people to acclimate to the flow of the game? - The spread of "Kill on Sight" accusations, the so-called "exaggerated" response, resulting in the rise in "clan" formations"? - Spread of "head north" messages diffusing the populace across the map; less contact? - The abuse of "alt+f4" use, corrupting others to follow suite; extends lifespan? - The spread of loot information, sniping locations, vehicle locations, tent placing locations from external sources; results in less guess work, more safe coordinated activity? - Portion of griefers/spawn campers/hackers have expended enough effort into their "performances" to desensitize themselves from the "enjoyment" achieved from their mischief? - Coincidence that a portion of players are lost in the middle of no where? - Increase in servers; spreads out population; less contact?

Yes. no gun and no ammo at spawn. Spawn camping the coast? a 225km coast? Wait I remember a tip you gave us.... oh yea STAY AWAY FROM THE COAST.

Recently, there have been many concerns over the increase of the "shoot first, ask later" mentality. These concerns come in other forms such as the "electro/cherno team death match arena." Personally, I have exclusively exercised this mentality. I have either engaged every player I have come across or been initiated upon. No questions asked, no warnings given, no hesitation applied. Why is that? In my perspective, the "shoot first, ask later" mentality is not the issue. The issue is the decision making behind advocating this mentality. As of now, the simplest and safest decision is to "shoot first, ask later." Personally, I believe it is too simple. The advantages of going solo overwhelm the advantages of teaming up with a stranger. Advantages of solo: 1. You gain the initiative in a possible upcoming confrontation. 2. One less probable proximate threat. 3. Loot. 4. Survivors do not need a companion for a majority of the time. Food, hydration, meds, and ammo can easily be collected by an individual. Survival is as easily accomplished by an individual as it is accomplished by a group. 5. Partnering up with a stranger exposes people to possible betrayal at any time. Food, hydration, and meds might be require some sharing, depending on what type of contingency is established. 6. It is easier to avoid detection by going solo. 7. No need to worry about the safety and decision making of a partner. If a partner is wounded people might feel inclined to save that partner, or aka risk their lives. No need to worry about an idiot partner shooting an unneeded flare attracting unnecessary attention. 8. No need to communicate. Decisions can be made without group consent. 9. There are rarely, if any, threats that would require an extra gun. Another survivor? Shoot or avoid. Group of survivors? Avoid. Zombies? A joke. From my experience, the greatest threat has been ladders. I'll stop there. I had several more, but I'll try to shorten this. To specify, "banditry" is the simplest and safest decision most of the time. How to solve this? Make solo more dangerous. Balance the advantages and disadvantages of soloing and teaming up. Here is my take on "fixing" the supposed "problems": 1. Increase the "effectiveness" of zombies. (Sorry for the lack of a better term). Killing another survivor takes priority over alerting the horde because the zombies are rarely a threat. It is too easy to run away and kill leftover stragglers due to the animation or the apparent movement. This will make decision making a little more complicated. Is it worth eliminating this possible bandit and alerting the "new effective" zombies? --OR-- 2. Increase the number of zombies in large towns, increase the "alert range" and --(MAYBE)--reduce ammo out of large towns. I believe this may "fix" the "electro/cherno" TDM. Want to shoot another suvivor in this crowded area? Better hope there is enough ammo in the bag. This also complicates the decision making of going solo. Need supplies in town and sneaking is too difficult because of new "alert ranges"? An extra partner may provide enough ammo to fend off any unfortunate accidents. --OR-- 3. Just remove any weapons provided at spawn. I don't exactly think this is a good idea, but whatever. Oh yea, the people killing for shits and giggles? People won't be able to change their thinking process without implementing some absurd mechanic or punching them in the face irl, so let them be. It's fun to mess around sometimes anyways. I didn't really think through the "solutions" thoroughly, but I have a list of benefits and disadvantages in soloing and grouping. Feel free to discuss. Edit: Oh right, forgot to mention. This won't prevent bandits from being bandits, therefore this won't alienate part of the population. Bandits just have to be smarter and start using "survivors" to their advantage before shooting them in the back. This will also stop the TDM arena in starting areas... maybe?

I see, sorry to add unnecessary attention to an false problem. My bad. Although I have no clue as to what type of "social experiment" Rocket is performing, I believe if this really was to simulate this "scenario of zombies," there would be a larger threat when it came to "zombies" because currently they are only a nuisance. As of now, my perspective shows me a simulation of a secluded area low on supplies filled with a group of survivors.