Ken Bean

Yep, that's sad. It's one point why this game doesn't cater a survival experience. The doctor bills wouldn't be a huge problem, the untreated wound indeed. You don't seem to feel obligated to the rules of surviuival.

Animals most of the time just run away and stay hidden. There's no reason to fight unless you feel invincible or you have a really good doctor. If they go to confrontation, they don't "fight to kill", impressing the opponent can be enough. Goal is self-presevation, not last man standing.

No, it's not that way. Just infinite respawning loop is not this particular game is about. The problem is that people are really sensitive. They know it is just a game, no real consequences follow, so they play it as a game. So yes, people spawned wrong, so they climb an object, fall to death, and hope they find a better spawning position... *No one would do this in real life (*well, add almost, one has to be cautious with such statements). This however goes against what I thought this game is about.

The point is we have many primary instincts, only one of them is aggression. What you did was just given those jung male adults - lets call them that - the perfect excuse for being rude, agressive, selfish and an sociopath in its pure form. That is not the usual and normal way things work, neither in human society nor in nature. Aggressive persons doesn't act reasonable and indeed are a problem themselfes. Even animals don't always "fight to kill" (basically only if it is a pray). Otherwhise, "engaging" (attacking) "enemies everwhere" is a danger, not only for a population, also for the invidual itself. The primary instinct is self-preservation. This can be reached by many ways. You don't need to "f*cking fight everything". That Battlefield "shoot & respawn" playstile not only is very unrealistic, it also looks like being way off of the game. Do we really want that? But anyway, thanks for proving my point.

Well, kind of glad that he managed to impress you. ;-)

Most humans and animals are not even able to self defence in the very first phases of their lifes. Calling agression or self defence the "most basic instinct" in my book can be falsified and would be very counter constructive. However in later llife phases it gets more room. And in many cases, the most agressive animals don't protect themselfes, but their children. It's pretty counter productive for every population to just to be always agressive and kill everone. Those have no future.

Yeah, of cause, but mine would be that I get it the way I like, meaning hard, tough, vanilla dayz unforgiven with rare items. If some like that and realize by time that the server is reliable, they come back. In return I'd gladly like to block server from my server list, because for example the admin kicked me because we were in the same area that he wanted to loot himself. (Yep, actually happened)

From a players view my opinion is having a well performing server running without annoying issues should be your best bet. Server admins that f*ck around with the server, which kick player and abuse their power are not very enjoyable. And those who try to lure with loot are the ones I avoid first. My question in return would be: Why you need a full server? Is that somehow important?

I don't really like the 'got my shit back' part since you obviously died. It's a bit a pity seeing this. However it's probably impossible to change that as you play with mates.

Dude, having good equipment makes the difference in extreme situations. Yes, gear is something worth if you think your life is something worth. But as I see, only from that little sentence, you are playing a completely different game. What's worthy gear for you? That Mosin or that M4? However the game claims to be a survival game and this somehow includes tools and really pressing problems you have to solve with said tools.

I wonder how they are doing it. If they need to do it in such a way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztzoEXTDrYk Then it might take a bit. However, the Creation engine is completely different. What you see here is an interior cell, sth what doesn't even exist in DayZ. But it may illustrate that things really can take loads of time.

Me too. I love the vast wood areas. On the other hand they are aiming for 100 player server with 1000s of zeds, I believe. So only having a few hotspots would be a true mass sloughter house. Idk how this is going to be. Think about helicopers and vehicles in general... Isn't the map too small for such an ammount of hostile player + zeds? Anyway, besides of all presuming, we'll see how that works.

Hmm, such suggestions already have been made. I always thought this wouldn't change much. Most likely some folks (including "hacker") would discover thas as awesome tool to troll fresh spawns and streamer.

This is probably because the Real Virtuality 4 Engine looks and feels sexier. But please lets not discuss such mash ups like BP. Didn't play it myself but I'm pretty sure that most stuff they used is somewhat ripped. (Otherwhise they would have needed more time) It's a bit like comparing fast food with self-made.

We'll see. It's too early to say that. They are working on it and hopefully they get them nailed. However, I'm glad that they expanded the staff. Regarding BP, that's a whole different thing. I think they just ripped out some Arma 2, DayZ mod stuff and other content and threw it into Arma 3. You can not really compare that.

I hope so. The game only could benefit from that. (A survival game without female would be very unrealistic and rather pointless, I'd say. :-/)

@op Interesting read and I would agree. One thing I'd like to add to the paradox: DayZ, as it currently is, is an infinite restarting loop. There's nothing to progress but your equipment. And as soon as people reach the state that they consider "well equipped" (could be bare fists), they are going to war, which actually means: losing all the stuff and starting allover again. At the bottom line, I have the impression that DayZ attracts a bit too much of the shooter audience and doesn't cater it's survival aspirations. There's nothing really to achieve in this game, no progress of the ingame world or sth like that. All what is positive or negative - what is going beyond the given environment - only can be created by player interaction. Negative player interaction however by far outweights the positive. Yes, it seems to be a psychopath's game. (And maybe the only progression what takes place is feeding and growing the little psychopath in ourselves.) That's not quite true. Zombies could be many and so hard to fight - while most of the time sitting on the very rare loot - that player would have a very hard time. But if the game reaches that point, we'll see massive complains from the player base - as seen in the mod with patch 1.7.7. This currently it is how the survival mechanics boils down: You want to survive? Avoid other player. However, there are rare occasions where "positive people" team up, which makes them worthy even more. By "positve people" I mean folks which basically is not destructive and regressive, as the game seems to attract most. edit loads of typos

Apocalyptic fashion trends are unisex all the way.

I'd like to see a non lethal weapon as well. Sth like a JM Special 25 for example: Would be nice.

@Hetstaine This most likely has sth to do with garbage collection. It depends on how programs work and utilise the RAM. Pointer, references and stuff are "created on the fly" while a program is running. They get their address in RAM and they stay there until they get "destroyed" e.g. by a garbage collector. That's why the used RAM usually tends to "built up" until it's beeing freed again. When this happens depends on many factors and the garbage collector usually kind of comes when there's time.

Depends, if you call "needing a few more hits to kill a Zed silently" useless, then maybe. I for myself wouldn't go so far.

Yeah, many games use an already existing game engine as foundation. Even big companies (EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc) that frequently develop tripple A titles are not always developing an entirely new engine for every single new title. For example EA uses the Frostbite 3 engine not only for BF4, also for NFS etc. In one thing I have to agree: Yep, would have been cool if they would have taken the Arma 3 engine as foundation. But, that's being said, we would have almost the same situation by now. They would have needed to develop loads of stuff new to fit DayZ's needs, which are just different from Arma, because it's another game. The inventory and items system is good example for that. Don't exactly know why this decission has been made and I also don't have the insight. As long as they push the engine far enough to be state of the art, I'm good with that.

Yeah, you are right, yourself are saying "adds". Adding to something existing, like adding new buttons to an existing Jacket. It's not exactly the same Jacket than before, it changed a bit, has been "modified", it's not entirely new. The stand alone however intents to develop most, if not all, important core elements new. Actually I'm glad that they decided to do so. The point is, I gladly wait for new developed stuff. Do you want them to just throw Dayz-Mod assets and Arma2 assets together? I don't want that.

I didn't say that it is fast. I said developing everything new takes way longer than throwing existing things new together. Basically you are saying that an entirely new Jacket that consists of new material, new buttons, new lining, new zipper and so on doesn't is a new Jacket because the stile already has been used before?

? ACE is an Arma 2 mod and is heavily built on Arma 2. It adds tons of new stuff and changes some existing, but yep, it's still a mod. Also the DayZ-Mod is heavily based on Arma 2. Btw: "BP" (I'm not gona advertise it) just re-uses existing Arma 2 and DayZ-Mod assets modded into Arma 3. It's important to understand that just taking existing stuff is way faster done than developing new content.