Positronica

Your argument should be based around what is more fun, not what's more real, because ultimately that's what matters, and frankly there's a lot of people who find the game more enjoyable if they have the option of both first person and third person available in vehicles, depending on what situation they're trying to take-in and navigate. If it's that big of deal to you, the proper solution would be to request that the devs put a vehicle-first-person-only switch as an option for server operators, and then everyone who thinks first person is better but can't trust themself not to sometimes use third person, plus everyone who can't stand the thought that someone in a different vehicle is playing the game differently can all go play on servers with the restriction switch enabled.

I've been thinking something similar, and I think it's a good idea. I'd change it a little bit, though. The Walkers, Joggers, and Sprinters would be how your described them, but I would have the Runners go a little bit slower than the player. Why? Because they would still accomplish the same thing in the game, but would remove the immersion breaking experience of having a player kite a group of zombies over a huge distance but with no real risk or challenge. They should still be fast enough that if a group of them get on you in a city you can't just run 50 meters and be clear, but a player should have enough of a speed advantage that once you commit to essentially aborting your mission and just running away you're not stuck with just holding down W for a kilometer while you run to the nearest forest. There's no reason to have that occur in the game because there's no challenge and it's just a time sink with no interaction. The Sprinters, on the other hand, could provide a MUCH more challenging and interactive zombie chase situation. The Sprinters would be faster than a player, however they should be set to momentarily slow down or pause to reaquire their target if they momentarily lose line of site. That would create a situation where you could escape a Sprinter by running and weaving through obstacles, but only if you keep finding cover to duck behind at a fast enough pace, or if you don't want to run or can't find enough cover to use to your advantage while running, then combat becomes a must. This would contrast in that currently running from zombies is essentially 100% safe, requires no real strategy, and always leads to losing the zombies eventually. As for placement of the Walkers, Joggers, Runners, and Sprinters... the Chernarus back story should be that the zombie infection started at the coast, primarily in Cherno and Elektro and then spread from there. Places like the military camps and the NWA would have been the places where the last official strongholds made their last stand against the infection. The different speeds of the zombies would be explained that the fresher a zombie is, the faster it moves, thus the zombies along the coast, where players start out, would primarily be the oldest and slowest zombies, while the zombies at end-game locations, like the military camps, the NWA, and helicopter crash sites would be the freshest, and thus the fastest, most dangerous zombies.

I think that's a better option. Single tap R for normal reload, and double tap R for fast reload and dropping of the mag. That would help to minimize accidentally triggering the wrong option. If tape is lootable in the game, one of the options should be to tape mags together, a.k.a., jungle style, letting you do fast reload without dropping the mags.

Please, people need to stop with the "easy mode" nonsense. DayZ is a game. Weather or not something is "easy" or "hard" is completely secondary to weather it's fun or not fun. Random tripping or random injuries at night are simply not fun. On top of that, it's not even a proper "hard" mechanic. When it comes to adding any feature to the game, with the goal of making the game harder, you need to ask yourself some questions... 1. Does the new challenge require sufficiently complex planning, strategy, and/or reflex on the part of the player to overcome? 2. Does the new challenge involve a sufficient level of player interaction and control? 3. Is the gameplay reward for overcoming the new challenge sufficiently rewarding to the player? 4. Is the penalty for failing to overcome the new challenge appropriate when compared to the award granted for overcoming the new challenge? 5. Is the theme of the new challenge something that is engrossing and stimulates the player's imagination and desire to achieve, and does it add to the escapist nature of the game? 6. Is the new challenge occurring too often in the game so as to become repetitive? 7. Are the gameplay benefits of the new challenge worth the coding effort? The tripping mechanic proposed in this thread fails at ALL of the above questions. It doesn't require any depth of strategy or planning to overcome. The nature of the challenge involves random negative penalties, instead of direct player interaction. The only reward for overcoming the challenge is that you don't get saddled with more down-time between the prime focus of the game. The penalty for failure is increased tedium, and in the case of possible leg breaking, there's potential for catastrophic punishment. Simulated tripping is incredibly boring thematically, and it's not going to add to an individual's desire to take a break from the real world to "escape" into the world of DayZ. The new challenge, would be present all the time and be extremely repetitive. And the coding effort that would be required to add a tripping mechanic at this point in the game is no where near the benefits (if any) that the mechanic would add to DayZ's gameplay.

We should add in a chance for your character to randomly get cancer, too, 'cause that's real life. Getting struck by lightning should be a chance, too. Why don't we add a mechanic where every once in a while your character gets a leg cramp and you just fall over until you tap your mouse buttons enough to simulate rubbing your leg. It would be totally awesome, too, if sometimes when zombies were around your character would just sneeze or accidentally drop his gun or flashlight, just to like mess with you. Seriously, random tripping in the woods at night is a stupid idea. Has anyone ever once in this game been running a long distance across Chernarus at night and thought to themself, "hey, you know what would make the game more fun right now? If my character just started randomly falling down from time to time and maybe even breaking his leg so that I can just swear at my monitor and then turn the computer off and go play something else." I'd be willing to bet that if you asked most players to list the most boring parts of the game, one of the top activities would be running across Chernarus at night without NVG. The game play at that point pretty much involves just holding down W for fifteen minutes until you get to where you wanted to go. How does a tripping mechanic make that already boring experience any better? All it does is tell a player that instead of holding down W for fifteen minutes, he now needs to how down shift-W for forty-five minutes, otherwise he might get f'd. This game needs more engaging, and interactive gameplay, and not more tedium.

It's been pointed out many times before, but first person only servers already exist, and guess what? Virtually the entire playerbase ignores them and chooses to play on servers with third person as an option. And it's not like we're talking something like a 75% to 25% split between players on third person enabled servers and players on first person only servers... no, we're talking about practically a 100% to 0% split. Out of 5000+ servers there's maybe half a dozen at any time with less than 100 players total who are actively choosing to play in a first person only setting. What that means is that pretty much EVERYONE either enjoys having third person as an option, or is indifferent enough to it being an option that they make no effort to avoid it. It would make ZERO sense for the devs to put the effort in to remove a feature in order to cater to such an extreme minority of the playerbase, especially when it seems likely that first person only servers will still be an option with the stand alone.

Actually, plenty of us understand what this game is about, namely that it's a GAME, and that people play it because it's a more enjoyable pastime that doing something else, like watching TV, or playing a different game, or sitting on the toilet in your bathroom. Plus a lot of us, and hopefully the developers, too, understand that the enjoyment of the gameplay in DayZ ALWAYS needs to take priority over the realness or simulation factor in the game. Why? Because that's why people play a game. People "play" simulations of boring, non-imaginative, tedious, and/or minutia filled experiences for training. They play games because of the enjoyable gameplay. And I know it's trendy for people to say that DayZ is supposed to be a hardcore simulation of a totally realistic zombie apocalypse, but that's just nonsense. It's a game, first and foremost. If it was a super accurate simulation of what a real zombie apocalypse would be like, you wouldn't want to play it. Why? Because a real zombie apocalypse would be a pain-filled, excruciating, soul-destroying experience. It wouldn't be a fun experience at all. All you'd want to do is find a way to end or escape it, and in the case of a video game, that option is always there just by exiting the game, but that's the last thing a developer should ever want their game to make people do.

There should also be an option for group viewing of a map. For example, if I have a map in my inventory, I could right click on my map and one of the options would be "show map to others". Once I activate that option, other players near me could mousewheel over me and select "view map". They would then be able to look at my map with me, and I'd have a virtual pencil and pointer that I could use to communicate a plan or route to them with.

I agree with OP, pooping has no place in this game at all. It's a terrible, stupid, extremely juvenile idea. On top of that, it's a complete waste of developer time. There's a million different ideas for engaging and cool gameplay aspects that could be added to DayZ, and any time spent programming some ridiculous pooping mechanic would demonstrate a complete lack of priorities on the part of the devs. Seriously, maybe we should add a fingernail clipping minigame, too, or maybe every so often your character would get an itch somewhere on his body and you have to stop and press the right key to scratch it. Every player should have a remote random chance to get cancer, too, 'cause that would be totally real and awesome. F'ck spending time coding better base building, or more vehicle customization options, or better zombie AI, or an expanded crafting system, or more weather options, or more elaborate PvE locations, or better player customization, etc... What this game really needs is a f'ucking pooping mechanic, plus all the other boring minutia we can think of, 'cause that's what gamers are hungry for, right? I mean, I don't know about you guys, but whenever the topic of a zombie apocalypse comes up, pooping, and the strategy behind it, are the first things on my mind... thoughts about how you would get food, water, shelter, defense, and all that other jazz is just secondary to making sure you've got a good shit-taking plan in place.

I'm guessing the skins will not be in the SA, since that would seem to conflict with the fact that players can now change their appearance through a wide selections of clothing. What I think they should add, is some sort of karma system. It would work similar to the humanity system, but would be more developed. For example, killing another player wouldn't being a fixed penalty, but would instead depend on a variety of variables. First off, the system would need to be able to figure out who the aggressor is in a situation independent of who actually hits first. Ideally the system would be able to flag someone as an aggressor if all they do is fire at someone, even if the shot misses. A grouping mechanic would also need to be in the game, so that the aggressor flag could easily be spread or associated to a group of players that are travelling together. The aggressor flag would need to persist for several hours so that a griefer couldn't just keep using death to clear his flag. The system would then award or deduct karma points based on a bunch of different actions, such as... - Attacking an unarmed player = high negative karma - Attacking an unarmed player using a sniper rifle at long range = very high negative karma - Attacking a player that has been flagged as an aggressor against you = no negative karma - Attacking an armed player that you are in close proximity to and only just became aware of = minor negative karma - Destroying someone's tent (unless the owner is currently flagged as aggressive towards you) = moderate negative karma - Destroying a parked vehicle (unless the last person to exit the vehicle is flagged as aggressive towards you) = minor negative karma - Being near another player and not attacking them = minor additional karma (fixed max bonus per each unique player per server reset) - Giving medical treatment to another player = moderate additional karma - Surviving a day without ever earning the aggressor flag = minor additional karma - Accomplishing various PvE goals, i.e., repairing vehicles, clearing spawns, exploring different parts of the map = various additional karma A far as a player's karma score impacts them in the game, there would be several bonuses or penalties for high and low karma respectively... - A player with really high karma would spawn with slightly higher max blood and a slightly faster run speed. - A player with really low karma would always be flagged as the aggressor to other players, except for players he's grouped with. - A player with positive karma would who is killed would have an increased chance to respawn at a location closer to his corpse. - A player with negative karma would who is killed would have an increased chance to respawn at a location farther away from his corpse. ------------------- Regardless of what they do in the SA, though, there needs to be something to tone down the excessive level of killing on sight, banditry, and bambi hunting that's currently in the game. Anyone who says differently is either a griefer themself, or someone who plays on a low pop server. In a zombie survival game, the thing that kills players the most should be the zombies, but I'd be willing to bet that on the majority of high-pop servers, any players who's been player longer than a week gets killed by other players probably 10 times as often as by zombies. That right there is a problem.

I think it all depends on your server population. If you play on a high pop server, your chances of holding on to it long are slim. Your best option is to find a spot that's remote that's also not on a direct path between any two popular areas. If you can make some friends on your server who generally play at different times, then you can try to make sure that the chopper has round-the-clock guardians/users. Even if you can't find people you trust to take care of it 24/7, making it through your server's daylight cycle is the most important. Most server populations drop at night, plus anyone who doesn't have NVGs is going to have a hard time spotting your chopper parked somewhere anyways. You could also try shooting the windows out of it after you land it for the day, or at least try to park it with the fuel almost completely gone. This will make it more of a hassle for someone to steal. Just make sure that you have a tent setup within running distance where you can store a bunch of glass and full jerry cans, so that you can get the chopper up and running right away again next time you log in. You could also try surrounding your landing site with wire fencing kits. This won't keep out anyone with a toolbox of a vehicle, but a random player on foot who hasn't found a toolbox yet will have to put in extra leg-work to get to the chopper.

That's not the point, though. When it comes to immersion, the goal is to make the player feel like he is the character and not just someone controlling the character. Putting another layer that has to be worked through between what the player sees and what the character sees works against that goal. It also easily makes things very confusing. For example, let's so there's a player running along the bottom of a hill in the forest in third person view, and from that view he can clearly see the top of the hill, and everything looks clear, so he runs up there and suddenly there's a zombie right on top of him. Your explanation to the player would be, "Sure, you were able to see the top of the hill, but your character wasn't, so while we let you see all other stuff at the top of the hill, such as the trees and the rocks, we hid the zombie from you. That right there creates a clear break between the player and his character, and it's just not necessary. It's debatable weather it creates more or less. Players who are trying to avoid PvP can just as easily use the awareness granted by third person view to spot another player early enough to either run away or try to communicate before it turns into a surprise KOS situation. That's all besides the point, though, because PvP is already a mess as it is, and they definitely shouldn't be trying to fix PvP by gimping the PvE game. The proper solution to bandits taking advantage of third person is to enhance and expand the humanity system and to put in plenty of PvE end-game content to a degree that it significantly reduces banditry attempts, and not just their success rate.

Says you. Immersion is a subjective feeling. Myself, and others, find third person to be more immersive because we're able to associate the visual awareness of our character's body with the physical awareness you'd have in real life. We also feel that having to use free look or some sort of view rotation in first person in order to be aware of your immediate surroundings is a cumbersome way to handle something that you accomplish passively and almost effortlessly in real life.

No, a ray-casting restriction that hides certain objects in third person view only to have them pop into visual existence later is arguably just as immersion breaking, if not more so. That being said, if at some point the developers thrown their hands up in the air and decide that death match PvP and banditry is the only end game that DayZ is going to have, then a ray-casting based solution that hides other players only might be acceptable, but if it comes to that, then I'd take that as a sign that the developers have ultimately failed to make a game that's focused on zombie survival. And even then, the ray-casting solution presents problems. In real life if another person moves up next to me in my peripheral vision, but doesn't step directly in front of me, there's a very good chance I'm going to still be aware that they're there even thought they would be outside the tunnel vision ray-cast provided from the first person view calculation. Also, as I said before, the only time a player's choice to use third person view can negatively impact someone else's gameplay is in certain PvP situations. However, considering the way the game is already breaking down, then last thing they need to be doing is making design decisions concerning PvP at the expense of the already lacking PvE aspect of the game. And personally, I think for most players, having what you see on screen be what's actually there regardless of your view angle is more immersive than having some objects be hidden because of the view angle you've chosen to play the game in.

No, we know what immersion means. As far as games are concerned, the best definition would be "absorbing involvement"... or perhaps a better way would be to say that a game is more immersive if a player has a better sense of being in the game as opposed to outside it. As far as awareness of the world goes, a game is more immersive if the amount of awareness you're given more closely approximates the level of awareness you would have in real life. Giving a player too much awareness, or too little, can both detract from immersion, and it's merely an opinion, and not fact that first person view gives a more accurate level of awareness. In real life, I am aware of where my arms, legs, and the rest of my body are in relation to what I'm seeing. I'm also easily aware of objects and obstacles adjacent to me due to peripheral vision, quick eye movements, and stimulus feedback to my arms and legs. Third person view approximates that level of awareness in ways that first person simply can't, and for a lot of people, that makes third person view a more absorbing involvement in the game world. Granted, third person also gives you additional awareness that you wouldn't have in real life, however for many people, this slight increase in awareness is less detrimental to their feeling of immersion than the loss of awareness caused by being forced into first person view.

If they want rubble to make entry there unrealistic, then it should be a pile of rubble that gives the appearance of actually making entry through the door impossible. The small pile of rubble that's there now looks like something that would be easily surmountable in the real world, but due to bugs in the Arma 2 engine it's actually lethal. That's immersion breaking and stupid, and thus the rubble should be removed, or changed to something that's more appropriate in appearance.

No offense OP, but your suggestion is a waste because it's an attempt at a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. Third person view as it currently exists in DayZ is not a flaw in the gameplay that players need to somehow be weened off of. It's a perfectly acceptable way to play the game that a huge number of players find to be very enjoyable. It's not cheesy or cheating or somehow less real. The problem with your post is that from the very beginning you make the statement that first person is somehow more immersive than third person as if it's a fact. The truth though, is that for a lot of players, first person is actually LESS immersive than third person. The reason being that in first person you lose all spatial awareness of your character's body, your peripheral vision is far more restricted, and your ability to keep track of what's at your character's feet and how his body is positioned in relation to adjacent objects becomes MUCH more difficult. For a lot of players, those negatives towards immersion more than offset the gains that first person provides, and for those players, adding punishments or inducements that try to encourage or force them into first person view leads to LESS immersive gameplay, which is something that should be avoided. As for other suggestions in this thread, such as keeping certain objects hidden in third person view, those are just poor ideas, too. It's hugely immersion breaking if a player can see a part of the world and that area looks clear, but then suddenly another player or zombie just pops into existence. The only reasonable restriction on third person that has been presented in any thread is having the camera pull in on your character if your up against a wall or other such obstacle, however such a feature would only be acceptable if it was extremely fluid and bug free, but ultimately it's still a waste of programming time when there's so many other useful, game-enhancing features that could be added instead. I mean, let's be real, the only time another player's choice of first person vs. third person affects you or impacts your gameplay is sometimes during PvP, and frankly this game has WAY too much PvP as it is already. Ideally the game will focus much more heavily on encouraging players to cooperate against PvE threats while expanding the humanity system to punish random ganking and panic KOS behavior. If you take PvP out of the equation, then the whole first person vs. third person debate becomes moot, unless you're obsessed with the fact that some players are enjoying the game in other ways than you are, or if you're convinced that they just don't know what's actually more fun, and that if you force them to play your way, they'll eventually thank you for it.

I did read the whole thread. The OP wants to take some high traffic areas and force first-person only in those areas, like it's some kind of compromise, but it's a compromise that doesn't need to be made. I just checked DayZ Commander right now. Out of over 5000 servers, only THREE! are first person only, with less than 40 players total amoungst them. Being able to play the game in third person is not a problem that needs to be fixed. Nearly the entire playerbase routinely chooses to play where third player is an option. The absolutely miniscule portion of the playerbase that can't have fun unless everyone is in first person already has a solution to their "problem"... it's called playing on a first person only server. The only reason all these anti-third person proposals keep coming up is because a very vocal minority knows that they don't have the numbers to support barely any servers on their own, so they keep trying to force their preferred playstyle on everyone. The OP's proposal is just more of the same. It's based on the idea that third person is a net negative to the game, and that anyone who doesn't play only in first person is somehow cheating and not playing the game fairly. It doesn't matter that he only proposes to "punish" players who prefer third person in only a portion of the map. It's still elitist, and completely unnecessary.

Every new anti-3rd person post is just beating a dead horse. Here's the deal... tons of servers have chosen to turn off crosshairs, tons of servers have chosen to turn off name tags, tons of servers have chosen not to hand out guns in your starting gear, and tons of servers have chosen not to flood the map with vehicles and extra loot spawns. The point being that despite having plenty of options that could be used to make the game cheesier and easier, plenty of servers, and the players that play on those servers, have chosen to restrict certain options in order to lead to better gameplay. However, the number of servers that are first person only and manage to attract players are not even a blip on the radar. The only way anyone can argue for mandatory first person play at this point is if you think the playerbase, excluding you, is too stupid to know what's good for them in a game, despite the fact that they've clearly made hard-vs-easy value judgments when it comes to other optional features. It would be one thing if a large chunk of the servers were already selecting to be first person only. You could at least then make the case that it's an acceptable restriction that a large number of players would get behind, but the fact that virtually every server out there and virtually all the players are actively choosing to play on servers that allow third person makes it pretty clear that the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't have an issue with third person.

An accelerated night/day cycle should definitely be an option. The argument that a 24 hour cycle is more "real" is a completely pointless argument, because virtually no-one in the game actually plays through and experiences the 24 hour cycle... and it doesn't matter how real a game feature is if players never actually experience it. For the standalone, Rocket should do some data analysis on some current popular servers, and try to figure out how long the average daily session is for a DayZ player. The default in-game night/day cycle should then be set to cycle through during whatever that time period is. This would create a situation where the average player would be able to experience one full day in game, and all the survival elements associated with it, during one real world day's playing session.

1. Make sure the Bi-plane spawns in. Its a cool change from the helicopters and fits in the setting. 2. Take some of the mid-tier loot away from the coast and move it to inland locations, so that players have a greater incentive to explore. 3. If you have a large enough number of players, take some of the high end military loot out of the NWA and put it at a few other locations. This will give late-game players a greater variety or places to loot and PvP at. 4. Try to organize some admin ran events from time to time. For example, get five or six players together, spawn in three Urals, and announce that a convoy carrying weapons and supplies has been spotted and then give regular updates on the convey's route and location, and then let players fight over the convoy. 5. From time to time, create massive zombie hordes and encourage the players to team up to face them. For example, every once in a while you could spawn in a C130 full of nice loot and a few empty UAZs parked near it at the NWA. Then spawn in an extra 200 zombies surrounding it all. Then make the situation known on sidechat and let the carnage begin as the players fight the zombies and each other to transfer gear from the C130 to a UAZ and then driving it out of there.

A lot of people like to blame the PvP/KOS mentality on Call of Duty console gamers and what not, but I think that's a pretty minor reason. I think the real reason is more complex, though, and probably comes down to a lot of factors being added together... 1. DayZ is built upon a first person shooter engine, and the only things there are to shoot at is zombies (which for the most part is pointless) and other players. All of the most polished mechanics in the game are based around combat, so it's only natural for players to spend their time making use of those mechanics. 2. Almost all the high end loot in the game is a wide selection of various firearms. Once players get that loot, their only options for using that loot are again to shoot at zombies (which mostly pointless) or shoot at other players. Players aren't going to want to collect fancy guns just for the same of looking at them. They want to use them on something, an using them on other players is one of the few things they're good for. 3. There's no real consequence to being a murdering psychopath. The humanity system, due both to game engine limitations and lack of development, doesn't really mean much to most players. The consequences for being a KOS, bambi-hunting bandit are minimal, while at the same time the rewards for being a friendly, non-murdering hero are also just as minimal. 4. The consequences of losing at PvP, i.e., death, for a late-game player are minimal. After you've got the early game figured out, and once you've got a camp or two set up and stocked with gear, all that dying in PvP means is that you gotta jog to the nearest stash of supplies, rearm yourself, and then you're right back in the PvP endgame. 5. The hardcore nature of DayZ, along with it's open PvP element, maximizes the amount of grief and hardship you can inflict on newb players while minimizing the effort you have to put in. Every multiplayer game has a percentage of it's playerbase that derives fun by inducing rage and grief in other players. DayZ, by it's very nature is more accommodating to such players than a lot of other games. 6. DayZ does not have a lot of in-game tools to allow players to convey a non-hostile attitude or position. Our characters all look pretty much the same, which makes it impossible to identify a friend unless one of you speaks first, and by default everyone is running around with a weapon cocked and loaded in a combat stance with their finger on the trigger. There's no reason in the game to ever not walk around with your weapon ready for an immediate snap shot 7. The tactics new players have to use in cities in town to avoid the zombies, i.e., crawling, moving slow, keeping your axe out instead of a gun, and standing still often to examine your surroundings are the same tactics that make a player very easy prey for another player. Until you've played the game for a while and learned just how much you can run and gun around zombies without getting into too much trouble, you end up being cautious around the zombies, and ultimately making yourself easy bandit bait. 8. Bambies and advanced players repeatedly get thrown or pushed towards the same regions of the game. Sure Chernarus is a pretty large game world, but a lot of it is pretty much void of really interesting stuff. Unless you're looking for higher end military spawns, there's really no reason you have to leave the bambi filled coastal areas, unless you want to. There's no special loot beyond the military spawns that can't be found in Cherno or Elektro. That all being said, here's some ideas on how the KOS mentality in the game could be helped somewhat... A. Add additional game mechanics that aren't first person shooter related. A crafting system and new loot associated with it would give advanced players other activities besides PvP. A more advanced base/camp-building system would provide more non-PvP endgame content as well. B. Add more PvE elements that required firepower to overcome, and give players meaningful rewards for overcoming these PvE obstacles. This would give players something useful to do with all their guns besides killing other players. C. Improve the humanity system drastically. Killing other players solely for sport should have meaningful consequences next time you respawn. The system should also be able to gauge just how egregious your player-killing was. For example, killing an unarmed player at range using a sniper rifle should give you a massive hit to your humanity, whereas panic shooting an armed player the moment after you stumble into him at close range shouldn't penalize you as much. The penalties for having low humanity need to be more severe as well, such as being relegated to poorer, more out of the way spawn points, or spawning in already hungry or thirsty, or already low on blood. The rewards for high humanity need to be better, too, such as respawning closer to your corpse, or getting a character that can run faster and has higher starting blood, or perhaps spawning in with some food and drink already in your inventory so that your recovery time from death is reduced. D. More clothing options and other ways for players to make their identity more distinct, so that players on the same server might eventually be able to start recognizing those who are regulars, removing some of the anonymity from PvP. E. Change some of the loot spawns so that things are spread out more over Chernarus. Remove most of the mid-tier loot from the coast and make better use in the inland cities. This would push players who are playing the PvE game into spreading out more across Chernarus, and would make it harder for bandits to camp the few high traffic locations.

I can understand taking gear from someone else's camp for yourself, because that's all about survival and it fits the theme the game is going to, and I can even understand destroying someone's stashed vehicles, because due to the limitations of the game engine, a stashed vehicle limits the number of vehicles spawning in the world... but destroying someone's tents and gear that you don't want or can't carry just to grief them is completely out of place in the world that DayZ is trying to create. In a real post-apocalyptic situation, if you came across signs that someone else was successfully rebuilding civilization, you wouldn't just destroy it and laugh, you'd instead be excited that their might be hope of eventual recovery from the nightmare of the apocalypse you were living in. (The exception would be if you knew it was the camp of an enemy or someone who had preyed on you in the past.) That all being said, I understand that right now in DayZ, PvP is the endgame for most people, and as such, taking out other peoples' supplies is a valid tactic, but you should still see the whole thing as a sign of a flaw concerning a lack of content in DayZ when it comes to the later survival game. If the game was ideal, the endgame would primarily involve a player or a group of players using a wide variety or loot and crafting to slowly build an oasis or sanctuary in the middle of the zombie wasteland, and the game would include a proper humanity system that punished other players who went out of their way to thwart attempts at rebuilding civilization.

Another strategy besides destroying everything is to only take a little bit at a time and leave the camp alone. If the owner(s) of the camp don't suspect that it's been discovered, they might keep stashing stuff there, which means you'll be able to keep dropping in to take a little bit here and there. Plus, most players keep their very best stuff on them, so take a look at what's in their tents and cars, and figure their personal gear is a step up from that. If you're a bandit type then, you might get lucky one of the times and find them at their camp, and have chance to take them out and get their better personal gear.

Another piece of advice is to not cluster your stuff all together. Whenever I find a vehicle hidden in the woods that I think is part of someone's stash, I always search the immediate area, and I'll often also find a tent or two and maybe another vehicle nearby. For my own camp, I always have two or three tents and two or three vehicles, with at least several hundred meters between each object. Also, once you've got multiple vehicles and tents, don't segregate your gear. For example, DON'T put all your weapons and ammo in one tent, and all your food in another, and all your car parts in a third. Instead, say you've got two tents and two vehicles. First off, you need to figure out what stuff you're going to be putting on your character for when you log out. That should be your most important stuff. Next you want to sort your remaining stuff into four equal piles, one for each tent and vehicle. Each pile should have at least one good primary and secondary weapon in it and the associated ammo. Each pile should also have some food and medical supplies in it, as well as an assortment of the essential tools and a few car parts. Try to put an upgraded backpack in each pile, too. The goal should be that even if three of your four stashes are found, you'd still have at least one complete load out ready for you in case you need to recover from a death in a hurry.