SystemiK

Occasionally for some (never happened to me), but for the most part, no. They definitely do need some work though, hopefully when the inventory system gets rewritten tents will be addressed as well.

I'm pretty sure this alpha had one other purpose but for the life of me I can't remember what it was....

You will only see that password prompt on the BIS beta download page when the server is getting hammered by requests for download. There is no passworded beta.

Did you know you can freelook without the mouse by holding down left Alt (or whoever recorded that clip)? Try it, it's a gamechanger.

Arma 2 does not factor carried inventory (other than primary/secondary weapon) into movement speed. What, or how much you have in your pack makes no difference. As I said above and in several other posts, my buddy who previously had this bug for 7 weeks, can finally keep up with me IF he stays in 3rd person view. The moment he goes back to 1st person I can crouch run circles around him when he is running at a full sprint. It seems not to work for everyone but if you are having this problem please try 3rd person. It's worked for 2 people who were experiencing this movement bug. Further discussion on this topic can be found here: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=24249

The only way I am aware of to fix this issue is a small Arma 2 mod called ST_Collision (which only changes a couple settings in the .cfg) but it does require support server side so you cannot currently use these settings in DayZ. Here is a very short clip of ST_Collision in action (also shows ST_Evasive). Look how smooth and fluid CQB movement is when the barrel does not clip structures.

Best. Forum troll. Ever.

By the way, if you can see clouds they will be moving east.

Been waiting for something like this to pop up. Thanks.

Your circular logic has got me going in circles...

Ugghhhh........respawn or uninstall. Pretty much your only options. If you can show me a popular MP game which does not suffer from hacking, I'll eat that can of sardines I've been carrying around. Might as well get used to it. It may get better but it will never stop entirely.

The forums are full of posts from people who can't seem to stomach the fact that this is a very difficult and brutal game. Seems every other new post is someone wanting to water down the difficulty a bit more, which would ultimately lead to this brilliant "anti-game" becoming yet another run of the mill, industry standard Zombie FPS. Suggestion: Create a single player mode for those who like the DayZ concept, but who refuse to accept the game as it is. Let them have their 'easy mode', hell let 'em have zombie picnics and rainbows and shit, they could pick and choose the dificulty from a list. But keep any single player character seperate from MP mode. With a bit of additional coding, it might allow a co-op mode where people who are so inclined can play DayZ with a few friends free of all the open world MP concerns which seem to piss them off so often. I really don't want a single player / co-op mode. But if it would placate all those people who are incessantly screaming for an easier DayZ experience I would be all for it. Given that the direction seems to be trending toward a standalone release, an SP mode would not be unexpected at all. Downsides: - I really don't think the experience of blindly jumping into DayZ as it is, can be beat. I certainly won't ever forget that first evening spent with DayZ. A SP "tutorial" option would greatly diminish the feeling which we all experienced the first time playing this mod, and it would completely miss out on many of the daily experiences which we all encounter. There is no way an SP version could recreate these and I would hate for people to miss out on them by only focusing on an SP version. - I'm sure some of the bandito's among us would regret many of their "fish in a barrel" noobs not being present for their daily target practicing enjoyment...but then again it would up the ratio of experience among the remaining MP players. I can't imagine that it would be a huge problem to code (though I'm willing to be wrong about that), and it should all be able to be handled client side without any server interaction. Honestly, I would never even suggest this were it not for the amount of rage on the forum between those of us that want a more hardcore experience, and those who want a more mainstream picnic. How about offering a divide where people have an option to go SP or CO-OP when MP proves to be a bit more than they bargained for (rather than heading straight to the forum to bitch about how hard it is or how they got shot by a complete stranger)? Any thoughts? Would the any of the people who seem so unhappy with the current mod be content to play an SP or CO-OP version and stop trying to water down what we have reached thus far?

The PVP vs. PVE debate has been raging here for quite some time now, and many people on both sides of the issue are championing the idea of having seperate servers for both types of gameplay but there is a point of view here which I rarely see mentioned. Primarily, it fractures the community into groups, while the purpose of this whole experiment is to explore a singular group dynamic. Rocket "wants" a PVP dynamic present in the final game. But how is he supposed to evaluate the effects of new gameplay mechanics and even more subtle game play tweaks if all the PVPers are on one set of servers and all the PVEers are on another? As far as an alpha test goes, this does not support the stated goal. If Rocket is going to be able to fine tune the interactions between PVP and PVE he absolutely needs both groups playing in the same space. Any other options will only make any changes to the game more difficult (if not impossible) to evaluate. It would be like developing and balancing two seperate games at the same time, when all he really desires is one game comprised of both. Furthermore (as already mentioned many times) if you are going to have this split you have to PERMANANTLY keep both sides seperate. You cannot have people loot farming on the PVE servers and then PVPing on another server with said loot. In my own opinion, if Rocket decides to do something like this in the future, well...whatever (I hope he does not) but now is definitely not the time for it. People think of what we have right now as "the game" but it's not even that. It's an idea and a loose collection of game mechanics under evaluation. Right now, we have no idea of how the finished game will play out. Everyone needs to relax and stop demanding that Rocket abandon his plans for the game in favor of yours. Give him a chance to explore the game he started out to build rather than the one that YOU want him to build. You might find yourself surprised in the end.

7 weeks I've been waiting to find a ghillie suit, and tonight two of them were lying right next to each other in a place I would have never expected. What a beautiful sight. Just wondering if anyone else has seen them drop in pairs before.

Good to know, V3. There are times I definitely don't want to look like a bear.

I'm putting my money on Monday July 9th as the soonest possible date for the new patch. With Rocket being in the UK for Rezzed this weekend, I really doubt he would release in the middle of all that. Hoping there are some surprises in there that will explain the silence...

Bottom line. They are not going to fracture the server base and / or hive into seperate gameplay mechanics while they are in the middle of an alpha test. It's not going to happen and they have said as much. Hell, they are not exactly big on the alternative server settings we have now. As far as everything they have said publicly, there are no plans to break out PVP into a seperate style of play. And rightly so, not only is there massively reduced overhead between developing two alphas concurrently, but they can remain focused on the core design which they have set forth. If at some point in the future they have more time and resources to throw at an easy mode well it would make much more sense then. For all we know, that plan already exists for a later stage of development. What we do know is that they have said no to the idea numerous times. Here are your two options: Wait and see.

Heh, well to be fair, they kind of did...(though not intentionally).

Well it seems you've kind of answered your own question there haven't you?

Hell they are still trying the get the backend up to snuff (while still adding new mechanics regularly) and you want them to concurrently develop an open platform for modding an extremely young alpha? Seems like you would have the developers far in head of themselves, but I guess I dreamer's gonna dream...

Northwest Airfield.

From what I've read on the BIS forum, it needs to be enabled on the server side as well.

It's not a matter of whether hand to hand would be cool etc., it's a matter of the Arma 2 engine not supporting it in the first place. For it to be in any way realistic or acceptable it would need new animations, new damage models etc., and a hell of a lot of code. Even if they somehow managed to cobble some cheesy hand to hand combat mechanic together, it would be a complete joke compared to other games where this had been designed into the engine from the ground up. They are not building a game here. They are building a mod, which has limitations and constrants of what the engine can and cannot do. There are plenty of cool things that would make this game better, but they will never happen because it would take a large team of devs several months to build and perfect. Until the day that they announce DayZ as a stand alone game supported by a full staff of devs, we are pretty much limited to the 'easy' things that can be done. Most of the ideas people are putting forth are simply not possible for a small mod team to achieve.

Sorry, I seem to have confused you with Marek who wrote the original post. But still, you are saying that zombies zig zagging makes no sense and I am simply saying that they run that way because it was the only way they could be made to function. It was never a feature of design, it was a feature of neccessity.