Ken Bean

This probably means that 75% of the player you meet ingame kill you right away - and the remaining 25% later. ;-D But does folks really think that this is how a zombie apocalypse works? I mean aside from Kathrina? (where obviously everyone shot his neighbour and his dog in the face to not to ruin his fancy pants)

Most of us have experiences with the mod and with kos. And I doubt that this game has anything to do with reality. However I don't know why some folks - if you dare to criticize PvP interactions - always understands "ban pvp". It is an appreciated aspect of the game. But you clearly can see that it got so oppressive, that effectively players just avoid each other - or join the death match club around Berenzino to play some capture the flag without even having a flag, currently. Now some may criticize that oppressive playstile, and others just defend it as it would be critically endangered. The game needs more survival aspects. "Go camping in the woods" is a nice task and we'll see this ingame hopefully quite soon as well.

I think that most DayZ freshies once had the faith (maybe even you) and didn't expect a total pvp deathmatch. As said, we have a constant row of bad pvp experiences that constantly outweights the positve. That's why most people who are fresh to the game and don't know nothing at first actually try to team up. Just try to understand this. If you were in such a situation in real life, you most likely would be glad to find another survivor in the very first place. Grabbing a gun, heading to town to take out other survivor basically is just insane - even in a zombie apocalypse. Yes, it's a game, and therefore you don't need to justify your actions. But tell me, what are you doing in a zombie survival game if you don't really play it as such? Wouldn't you be better catered with Arma 3? Better engine, more weapons, folks meet there to fight each other... You would at least not ruin a zombie survivor's game.

Sorry, to whom you are talking to? I don't really see the connection. The game however as it is now has flawes. Maybe encourages a certain playstile too much. Eventually a survial mechanic would suit a survival game well. At least, also in LA Riots and Katarina, not forget the other rest of the world, like Fukushima or India, most people still managed to stay normal. Some lost the plot, but not even 10%. And they certainly had not your fabolous k/d ratio, nor did they respawn, nor do they still "rock the place".

What are you talking about? Where the heck you got that from? I dislike how the game - which is ought to be a survival game - does provide too much space so that FPS folks can run around as survival wouldn'd be any serious problem. And besides of that, I personally do dislike people who behave like baboons. Is nothing personal. I just know there are times when it is unappropiated to discuss things with a baboon. Good news, atm we still are talking.

What are you trying to say? Do you want to troll me with stupidity?

Now we almost reached the entry point of the discussion. ;) Maybe a true survival game is impossible to be made. "Wait, oh shit I died (**shortly enrages**), lets try again. That's a sandbox, life does not provide. But please, we don't need to go into detail. My point was, please don't give those young adults all the excuses for being rude and whatnot because you believe, this is how things are ought to be. We have the choice, no one is forced to be a dipshit. Nature is cruel, but has no such intentions.

Yet we can go on on with the discussion that the impetus of the FPS crowd, which hangs around the Airfields or bigger "hotspots", is anything but self-preservation.

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.

Jep, alpha = bug adding stage of the game. (Also some game mechanics might be added, but that's just a side effect) Once, when bugs have been added enough, the beta phase starts with fixing and polishing them.

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. :-/)