Ken Bean

@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.

If you want to contribute to the development progress, then bugs should be reported - not be complained about like cray on the forums. I also doubt that ranting about it does anything good. As said countless times, they are developing most parts of DayZ new. That means they are not just "copy and pasting" old code. We get new models, new textures, new game mechanics and step by step new sounds, which currently are placeholders. Developing things new is a very time consuming job and in regards of source code, the progress is not exactly "visible". Yeah, people want some fancy new stuff and they want it now, but that's just a question of time until we get it. I'm not the one who says that, but I sometimes actually do play the mod myself. It helps to see the differences.

Not sure about everyone, but in general you should be right. Well, just a thought, is it really the right way to complain about everything folk comes across in a quite rude manner (as seen so many times)? Thing is, no one has something about constructive criticism. But this angry posts full of exorbitant (and often pointless) demands that screw over everything positive that has been done ... I can't see how that could help. That crying about bugs ... in an alpha ... :rolleyes:

I run into maybe 15 Zeds by now and they gave a good fight while I was using a shovel, a machete, baseball bat or a splitting axe. Surem they are tougher now, but still managable.

I see, you played 500 hours, didn't ever touched the gfx setting ... :D ... and then you have a messed up setting, you don't even think about touching your gfx settings? Sounds cool.

Yeah dude, another rant. Let me guess: you set the blur and the fov to max and now you are complaining because it's blured and has a "DAMN STUPID" optic. As said, this is how it looks to me. "I've only been on SA for 500 hours..." Maybe you also should spent some hours to tweak your gfx settings?

2) shoulder weapon - head/shoulder position 3) Aim weapon The blur comes in-game with the aimed position (for added realism) So where is the shooter's head now, in relation to his gun? Somewhere off the end of the stock? check the 1st and 3d pics to see how crazy this is. Same aim, at same tree, at same point. xx pilgrim I really don't know why you are complaining. In real life such a sight is ought to be a close combat sight when you need to be fast. Also your fov setting is a bit overdone. To me it looks like this: If you look closely, you can actually see that the red dot is in the center of the screen. For the immersion fanatics this means that there doesn't need to be the little white aiming crosshair. -> less HUD, more immersion :-) A longer range sight is the gog, still looks like this: I hope you can see that your little rant was quite a bit pointless. Next time just think it through before posting. Edit Hopefully they are going to redo the barn textures with more high-rez textures. Especially from outside it can look very ugly.

I really appreciate the patch. Some things that have been reported here I couldn't verify. (e.g., dropped my pants at various occations several times and they didn't vanish.) However, I can confirm the shoe sound bug. No steps are being heard upstairs in barns with Jungle boots. The tuna is invisible in my backpack too, the Rasputin Kvas drink won't empty. Having some experience with loading up mods myself, the latest update makes a bit the impression that it has been released a little hastily. Folks, calm down, no reason to go mad, happens to times. ^^ I'd also like to add that the current patch not necessarily reflects the current state of development. In other words: Probably they are working on content which wasn't yet complete enough to be released at this point. Edit Also it takes a considerably longer time to close the game. From the main menu to desktop may take round about 15 to 30 seconds, way longer than before.

Okay so there's that guy, who can't play in 1st person. So he only can play in 3rd person. Now he goes mad because he's playing in 3rd person but he can see things he could not see if he hypothetically would play in 1st person??? Err... nope. Don't buy this. I'd like to see the attest of the 3 people who can't play in 1st person - and the same time complain about the 3rd person view. This, to me sounds like having really strange issues. Two things come together which in this case quadruple all problems possible. It's just like using common sense. If I were unable to play in 1st person view, I would be like: "Holy shit, there's 3rd person view, a.w.e.s.o.m.e!!!" Nope, I wouldn't start complaining about "3rd person view = cheating". Definately not. But I indeed would think that someone who argues unfair, who desperatly tries to make every point he thinks what would be justified, who even would play this card... might come from that direction.

Sure I have rtesponded, made them all green. :D Did you read all my posts? Did you respond to all of them? No? ... That's fine, problem solved. Errr, what's your problem with 3rd person then? Shouldn't it be disabled on 1st person server? Edit I knew this would convince you. ;) There's no sword sharper than Eli's sword. :thumbsup:

But your points are all lame, rubish, irrelevant and even more absurd. So if 3rd person is the the mother of all evil (lame stuff and so on) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . why don't you play on 1st person server? Maybe 1st person server are too hard for ya-self, hmm? *btw: is this a contest who's more harder or sth? In this case I'd request a no person view, the zero vision, like in the film The Book of Eli.

So does that mean they really are going to accelerate the time? :-/ can we have a different more blueish overlay instead of greyish-white for these distant landscapes? or do we already have seasons in experimental :o! for reference: http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/215ak9/suggestion_change_the_color_of_the_distance_fog/ Looks like a LOD / texture "issue". Probably a typical alpha feature, since the lod usually is not generated in the very first place, because changes will still be made and so on anyway.

Yep, I believe for example implementing vehicles definately is a bigger one which takes it's time and still there most likely are plenty bugs to expect. Meanwhile they'll have to test, optimize and fix a lot. Mind, other persistent things are yet to come. Yeah, of cause sometimes I feel like being impatient too but I have faith and know things can take a while. I see the progress and think they are doing a great job. Don't know what to say more. ^^

Okay, they say there's a problem. Let's see... Small things are thrown in frequently. Bigger things come in bigger time frames. Development is going forward. Yes, there are bugs. Yes, they are going to be fixed. It's a work in progress. They decided to go beyond the limititations of the mod, so they have to code and create a lot of new stuff. ... So far so good. Err, where the heck the problem was?

Frankly, there's an ongoing argument for years now and I think it's quite save to say that those who constantly attempt to break and sabotage the 3rd person view while accusing 3rd person players for cheating etc. are so narrow-minded, that they won't accept another opinion than theirs in the foreseeable future. In other words: I doubt that there's any way to open the minds of those who are not willing to accept the simple choice that both - 1st person and 3rd person server - are being available. Why should anyone accept the twist of the burden of proof (which would be on you) only to be ignored and ridiculed all over again and again - like in all of those looping threads?

I like the idea of some kind of fire system. Of cause it's unrealistic to burn an entire wood in this scenario but a dry field... As long as it looks beatifull, why not?

Exactly. Two seperated hives => two gameplay stiles available to chose from => both won't affect each other => folks can play what they enjoy most (or for the extremists here: Yes, you can chose the playstile which definetely is the one and only justified way to play a game) as they wish. Problem solved, everyone is happy - well except the tiny but vocal "there-only-can-be-one-thing,-because-choice-is-the-mother-of-evil-minority". To them I say: You demand challenge? You are the hardcore of the hardcorest? - Then face the most terrifing thing on earth: c.h.o.i.c.e.* * successfully confuses 1st person only purists since the 3rd person view has been invented Now I see some still demand more, so... - Nope, the 3rd person view is not unfair. Everyone can use it. - Nope, 3rd person is not an exploit. It's game design intentionally built in to be used by everyone who wishes so. - Nope, 3rd person is not broken. It's a very well working game feature. - Nope, 3rd person is not less immersive. The clumsy and limited 1st person view breaks the immerson more effectively. - Nope, you can't prove that 1st person is the only legit way to play the game. It's just your opinion, because you personally may favour one over the other. - Nope, the restricted and imperfect 1st person view alone is not more realistic. - Nope, breaking the visual consistency does not improve the game. - Yes, the game intends to be more than a death match. Seeing your character doing survival stuff actually helps to create a survival feeling. - Yes, peeking around a corner without being seen can be a tactic to get into advantage over someone or to avoid certain situations. It's a real life tactics, not unrealistic. - Yes, there already is a very well working solution for those who feel threatened by a game feature like the 3rd person view: 1st person only server. - Yes, you still can have "only one". Just ignore the other choice completely and play what you prefer most. No one forces you to play both ways. - Yes, the playerbase already is split. In tiny server nibbles of around about 40 player currently. There won't ever be a united playerbase where everone plays on one server anyway. - Yes, I absolutely mean what I wrote. I read the points, watched the explanations, played the game both ways and I'm absolutely not convinced that the 3rd person view "needs to be fixed". - Yes, I know that whatever you say or do, you can't please everyone anyways. Some are not willing to accept certain things for the sake of winning the discussion. - Yes, giving chocolate lovers chocolate and strawberry lovers strawberry is a valid, working and confirmed successfull practice to solve such differences of opinion. :thumbsup: Protip for those who like chocolate and strawberry: Play on 3rd person enabled server and use numpad-enter frequently. Edit Added some points.