tiger_widow@hotmail.com

Is the server locking up bug still a problem? Eugene said it had been fixed, but I see a similar issue unfolding again today, most of the official persistence servers seem like they're hanging again.

Balance is a beta concern.

This is just postulation, but the wipe may be due to the clearing of whatever bug may have caused the server hangs. Some kind of bug in the persistence code, that had "infected" the persistence items by association. Since the problem has been rectified, the 'bugged' items may have been wiped by-proxy.

It's actually a bug. The servers with persistence enabled are locking up. I posted about it on reddit and Eugene noticed the thread. He's got on it pronto and said they should be coming back up soon. Linky

Do you follow the development much? All of your questions have been answered millions of times. But for your benefit. Wall problems take time to fix. They're slowly updating collison objects for all buildings on an ongoing basis and are implementing them into the game oover time. Seocndly, the amount of zombies in this build has been drastically cut down due to server strain, while they fine tune and analyze and optimize the server architecture in a real world scinario. The amount of zombies is deliberately tiny because of this, which, like the first point, take a long time to get in to a state applicable to public release branch. If you had been following development you'd know these things already. Just because something isn't in the game 'right now' it doesn't mean they're not working on those things, this is an alpha, what you get to play is about 5% of what they actually have in house, as a series of branches specific to different mechanics. patience man, and do a little reading up about the alpha you've chosen to participate in before deciding to post stuff like this in future. It gets a little tiring explaining this type of stuff to hundreds of people that are too lazy to kep up to date on whats going on.

The Alpha has been out for less than a week... Everything you want will happen in time. These things don't happen over night. Do you understand what an ALPHA is? It is a work in progress. That means certain features are either not in the public build yet (that doesn't mean they're not in the internal testing builds). It also means that certain aspects of the game that are already in retail build are switched off at the moment, and will be turned on in steps over the next couple of weeks/months. This is done gradually to test each new function in a live enviroment carefully. Most of these features are also going to be works in progress and will change, update or be removed based on tester feedback (that would be people like me, and you considering you bought the ALPHA). You need to get it out of your head that the dev team 'owe' you anything. There are multiple disclaimers in various places about the work in progress state of the alpha, bfore and after you buy the game, and every time you log in. Right now it isn't a game. It's is an exprimental work in progress. The 'retail build' we play publically, but that is about 5% of the physical, logistical and intellectual content that is currently in existence regarding DayZ. There will be lots of very busy people working on many many things at once, several of which you have mentioned, these will all be dealt with in time but you're crazy to expect some kind of magical 'working product', considering that this isn't even a beta. Game development is hard and it takes a long time. Seriously, come to terms with this not being a game, realise that what is happening right now is that the dev team have opened up their game to the public while they continue to work on it. It is not intended to be a functioning, working product, it is no where near finished. You have the choice of participating in the early access public alpha testing, giving feedback and contributing to the ongoing development of what will be at some point in the future, this game, you wine on about wanting right now. Stop trying to play it as though it's a finished game, stop thinking about it as though it's a finished game, don't complain about things not working or being implemented, go and read up on what an ALPHA is in game development and either understand your intended relationship with the alpha as a person that chose to participate in it, or go and play something else. You didn't buy the game, you bought the ALPHA, which happened to allow you to recieve the final 1.0.0 build when that arives with no extra charge so really, stop complaining! The game won't be out for a very long time and there's a lot of work to come before that day arives, do us all a favour and put some effort in to understanding what you've actually bought in to, because you're coming across quite misconcieved.

This is toxic logic. Any game worth it's salt should be kept alive by it's core demographic. You can tell if a workplace is run badly if there's a quick turn over of employees, likewise if a game is kept alive by a constant supply of new gamers, then it only stands to reason that there isn't enough content or ingenuity within the game concept to keep players of any kind around. While it is true that the majority of games are played through and put on the shelf, games that can be called 'classic' as it were are those that have truly won the test of time through having an active and dedicated core player base even sometimes decades after release and/or secession of official support. Quake 2, Halo 1, Sim City 4, to many but a few. These games have gained such success because they were original, built well, targeted a niche and were developed 'truly/purely' to the ethos of the gameplay style they were aiming for. They did not allow the central concept to be watered down in an attempt to please the majority, that may have been at the time consisting mainly of 'quick fix' gamers, as is the general trend with games of all kinds during their 'media focused' time around release. We have seen this time and time again where true concepts are lost in translation between the developers in open betas/alphas and the noise floor of the non-specific cross section of gamers that are involved in feedback. It is the mark of an integral dev company that can stay true to the original idea and see to it's fruition, where history has also shown that this most reliably ensures a well built game that does true justice to the underlying conceptual ethos the game is attempting to portray. A game built along these lines will always end up successful because the developers have a clear idea of what they are making, and they are strong enough to deal with the flack of people that have enough interest in it to pay attention, yet are realistically not the right type of person to truly understand the meaning of the concept. If they were to truly listen to these people (like a lot of games companies have done, Battle field, Elder Scrolls e.t.c.) they would lose that which makes them unique and essentially alienate the people that have enough genuine interest in the game play concept to stay with the game for years. This is always a bad idea. A normal 50 people server, that is popular will sure have a lot of people running through it. which will indeed make the server look more populated than it 'really' is as it seems the majority of people play on high population servers, because they are high population, which is a kind of positive feedback relationship. Though if you have ever spent enough time on a single server, you will get to know who the regulars are, and it is these people that signify the true population of that server. Again thise can be seen as a bit of a case study in the two different 'gamer mindsets' that you can arguably split gaming culture in to. The 'quick fix' gamers; and the 'purists' that are truly interested and dedicated in their particular niche. The latter are always the ones that keep games afloat, while the rest hop on over to the next 'in thing' endlessly chasing the next ego fueled adrenaline high. Following this logic, it only makes sense that games should rather, never 'be fun for everyone' as attempting this will inevitably sacrifice that games longevity by failing to serve, or at least largely watering down those elements that would appeal to, the core purist demographic. What you say here is very relevant to what I'm talking about. The Arma series is a very well built game series, that is very focused on a specific gameplay concept, that has been designed well; and therefor has a very dedicated and long term, core player base which you so eloquently call 'fan boys'. Of course there is going to be flack from them when a sea of 'quick fix' (from their perspective) gamers appear that seem to really not understand their beloved game. Arma will continue to be successful regardless of Dayz because it has the integrity of support from it's player base. It has this because it was designed well and stuck true to its central concept, thus pleasing those people that will naturally be inclined to be interested in that game the longest. And now we get to the main point. Yes DayZ does also have a core demographic. The interesting relationship between the core Arma player base and the core DayZ player base is simply down to DayZ being built off the same engine, so the cultures have a proximity effect. That aside. DayZ is in it's own right a very unique game (regardless of it's proximity to Arma). It has a very unique mixture of gameplay concepts with high potential for success. It is at heart meant to be a very hard post apocalyptic survivalist simulation; and right now we are witnessing the age old interplay between the Devs, the purists, and the quick fix gamers, all complete with their predictable stances in this interplay. From my perspective i think it is very important that 'the devs' always have in mind what this game is 'supposed to be', what will appeal to those most closely interested in a hardcore post apocalyptic survival simulation as a gameplay concept, and always make decisions in the interest of this game becoming very purely what it was always supposed to become. The people that don't like how hard it is becoming, or that it isn't turning in to what they want it to, can hoestly go and find another game that suits them better. This game especially, should appeal to a niche, and any deviation from that in part of the Dev's reacting to the quick fix gamers is a dent in the integrity of DayZ's potential. This game should be horrifically hard, should piss you off, should be unfair, should be a chore in some aspects. Because it is (and should always be) a very complex apocalypse survival simulation, which isn't much of a walk in the park. The people playing this game are playing it because they are looking for a challenge. They are looking for an unpleasant, anxiety filled, hair on the back of your neck stood on end, experience. In that respect, anything that makes the game harder, that increases authenticity, and makes clearer the experience of 'what it would actually be like if I was in this situation', is a step in the right direction in my opinion. And when people speak out to defend the integrity of this as an authentic experience have every reason to do so. If to you they can be simplified down to a simple labeling of 'fan boy' then to me it seems you don't really have the game's best intentions at heart. Because it by proxy signifies you would prefer a confused collage of mechanics pasted together to please the utter non consistency of feedback any Dev in this position would be recieving. I think it's important to understand the nature of games, gaming culture, demographics and player bases. Because if you don't tread carefully, you may inadvertently screw up what has the potential of being amazing.

Interesting points you make on authenticity, suspension of belief and immersion. A commendable post, beans have been thrown. I could argue though, that immersion is equally broken by the predictability of certain loot appearing in certain places time and time again. I think by now there would be no guns left at military outposts, the hospitals would be very devoid of blood, the supermarkets long ransacked and the houses dry and barren. Anything you may find by now should rightfully have curious reasons for their location. Indeed, why is there a pile of medical supplies in an old barn on the outskirts of a village... Is it the last remnant of a failed survival attempt. An abandoned stash, the owner all but lost to the horrors abound. The unpredictability of loot, to me, makes more sense, adds more of a framework for your mind to piece together some kind of narrative. Compare that with the 20th trip to the military tents in cherno for that 15th AK, before the hospital to dive in to the never ending supplies of blood, then up to NW to fix up that reliable helicopter, and why not loot a crash site on the way, they seem to be dropping like flies in an equally never ending supply. Is this an actual apocalypse, or some kind of ground hog day purgatory? I can see what you're saying about the Zs though, they do feel a bit broken and I agree they need to be tweaked, but again i think it's down to perspective, it's not to much of a stretch to imagine some in context possibility as to what these observed changes are about. I mean who's to say the infection isn't changing, maybe the surviving Zs have become more stealthy, more deadly, heightened senses... Who knows? we certainly don't, the one thing we know for sure is we have no answers and I prefer that I don't. To me it's more interesting that the enviroments changes, the Zeds remain unpredictable, the loot stays elusive. If everything was set in stone and a definitive patch ended the little tweaks, I feel before long the game would become very predictable and boring.

I think the point is that KOS banditry debases the gameplay experience for everyone as it's essentially boring, thoughtless behaviour lacking creativity. The larger the cross section of the community that plays this way, the comparatively more predictable the game becomes. This is always a bad thing. What sets this game apart from others is the potential for such a high level of unpredictability in meeting other players. A problem occures when the majority of players become very predictable, it makes the game less enjoyable. Yes the game is designed on being able to play how you want to, so if the majority of players have ended up playing in such a knee jerk, common denominator un-creative fassion, what does that say about the general mental capacity of people who play this game? What else is there to do but make a point about boring actions begeting a boring experience? If game experience is generated by player input, is it not our responsibility as members of the player base to at least attempt vanguarding the quality of experience we put in and get from the game? That may translate in to 'QQing' on forums because firstly, chosing to personally play more creatively isn't going to have a major impact on how every one else plays, and secondly, there isn't any other way of making a point about the current social trend thats hurting DayZ. This has all been talked to death already anyway so meh