Dagwood

Making tasks more laborious might seem like a grind, but I think it would promote safer play styles (not coast camping, not blasting away at 500+ yard targets, etc). And having to work your way back to a distant camp in the woods while wounded would add a cool dynamic to the game.

^^^ sitting out in the woods is worthwhile in your own skin. Doing so in a videogame is a time-suck. But if I didn't regenerate health or heal a broken limb without resting or sitting tight for 15-30 minutes, I'd be more inclined to do it in a spot where I could craft (like you mentioned) and where I was away from potentially lucrative loot locations. Imagine if being hydrated and energized only stabilized your condition while on the move, and remaining near a bed or a tent was required to begin health regeneration. Of course we don't want to actually have to watch our character lie still for 30 minutes, so crafting would be a good way to pass this time.

Play on west coast hardcore servers where the officers and gentlemen do it right. No hackers. Good balance of play styles. And playing hardcore will be a challenge for you if you are more accustomed to playing in 3rd person or switching back and forth between both perspectives.

You ever paintballed?

Just because you died and if seemed strange (alpha) does not mean that it was a hacker. I've been called a hacker on 2 different occasions during my time on the mod. People don't like to think that you can sneak up on them and say peek-a-boo at point blank range before you M1014 them in the cranium. Instead they accuse you of teleport hacking. Also, the game is in fucking alpha. Should we really be presenting the end game anti hack to all of the hackers out there years before the game is completed? That sounds like a recipe for disaster and even more resources being devoted to an arms race with the hacking community. Don't be so near-sighted.

So storage units (tents and such) being persistent after server restarts has been confirmed. This has been discussed a lot and so it will undoubtedly be implemented. What I would like to discuss is loot spawns being persistent after server restarts and from day to day. To set the stage for this discussion, I will first need to mention two features that I am (fairly) sure will be implemented. The first is dynamic loot respawning. The way I understand this is that if a certain item or item type is repeatedly looted from a building or a cluster of buildings, (town?) that item will begin to respawn and be found in different locations around the map with greater frequency than it will in the original location. The second feature is the hive economy. This hive-wide feature is supposed to control the prevalence of certain items across the hive. Only 5 DMRs, 3 MKMODs, 2 AS50s and 1 FAL thermal on the entire hive (for example). What I would like to see implemented is a combination of these two features. Let me explain how I envision it working. As we all know, the majority of player activity is stratified around the southern and eastern fringes of the map (players minimize costs and down time by lingering around spawn areas with sufficient loot intensity). With my envisioned mechanic, these places would begin to spawn less and less loot as more people raided these easily accessible coastal spots (like how these towns are picked clean soon after server restarts on the experimental hive). BUT, this change in loot location and prevalence would be felt across the entire hive. You guys don't like how people can get geared up in electro or Cherno or balota on low pop servers while you scrounge across the interior of the map for your goodies on populated servers? Well as more and more people ransack these loot-bloated spots, less loot is available to them on every low pop server they join (as well as the populated ones). I think combining these two planned features in the way I briefly explained would end server hopping for loot as we know it and give players an economically efficient incentive to explore every inch of the map instead of only being concerned with who got to what barracks first. This might already be how the devs are planning to do loot spawning. But if it is not, I think this method should be considered, as it takes the power to metagame looting away from the individual, and makes it a community-wide problem/privilege. I'm jet lagged and tired, but this came to me and I think it could realistically be implemented. Thoughts? Criticisms?

I've seen people mention broken arms before but I have never experienced it myself. Is this a thing? If so, what are the side effects? And I like your list. Good tips for new and experienced players. I hope that as zombies become more difficult, lists of tips like this will become more common. Beans.

If there were even just 1,000 LR scopes on the hive, do you think you could even collect 100 of them? That's about how many you would have to hoard in order to noticeably affect their prevalence. Hive economy is confirmed anyway. And for your question about where items respawn: to prevent people from server hopping obscure locations with good loot, items would need to respawn in a random location for each individual server. So when elektro fire stations are being ravaged for loot across the hive, that gear would randomly respawned throughout quiet towns further north that haven't been frequented as much. Does that make any sense?

^^^not if you stay on those big hills right on the east coast between electro and berezino. Hence the setting for 90% of the dayz videos on the internet currently So sad

If you want players to utilize camping and roughing it in the wilderness, make doing so useful. Like KOS's post-combat recovery story. Imagine if setting up a tent, rolling out a sleeping bag, and building a fire before eating and drinking would increase the rate at which you recovered. Or maybe it would bring you to a "higher level of healthiness". This would give players an incentive to either pack their camping gear around with them, or to have static camps set up that they can retreat to when wounded. This might make the medical system a little less gamey than it is right now

By trying to be non-hostile. Interacting with an unknown and keeping yourself alive and maintaining the upper hand; that is what makes dayz worth playing. The threat of permadeath gets you high for awhile, but like all highs you build a tolerance. You gotta drag out that exposure to the other player you cannot trust like you extend the lead up to a good orgasm. KOS is like masturbating and finishing in 30 seconds. Meh.

Do people who play this game not play other tactical shooters? Or shooters at all? I have to admit that this is my first "Indy game" like this. I'm used to AAA titles and the like. In almost all of the shooters I played I was playing in first person. Nobody complained (not that I frequented any forums before this one). It seems many of the complaints about the fpp characteristics in this game would apply to most games (if you took time to change the terrible default settings to widen fov and reduce head-bob). Do a lot of people just not play fps and stick to 3pp enabled games exclusively? If so, the devs are going to force them to adapt when they remove 3pp; and subsequently receive a lot of flak from that portion of the community.

I've broken this "you have your own hive, why do you care?" argument before, and I'll do it again. Listen closely. You claim that players on 3rd person servers, while having access to a massively game altering mechanic, are all on the same playing field. I agree. This is true. So you ask, "y'all have your own hive? Why not let us play our way and you can play your way?" A valid question. The answer: because teenage boys make up the majority of the population that plays this game, and they will choose the route of least resistance. When learning to play dayz, doing so on 3rd person is easier. Therefore, more beginners play regular servers and ultimately more total players play regular. The reason the "hardcore" players dislike this trend is because of supply and demand. Say what? Let me explain: I want to host my own server but I don't want to play just by myself, so I need to implement features on my sever to attract other players. In the mod this lead to "pay to win" servers, 10000 vehicle servers, etc. would you put a lot of work into building and hosting a server that nobody played? Nope. Unsurprisingly there were hardly any fpv only servers. I wanted to play fpv only servers, but I didn't want to play by myself. My demand for player interaction was higher than that for fpv only gameplay. As a result, I played on 3pp enabled servers. It's like if you were playing cs or battlefield and half of the servers had no anti-hack of any kind, and linked sites that supplied free hacks. As a result, 90% of the player base uses these hacks and plays on these servers. "Hacks/mods are allowed on these servers, it's not cheating". True, but the gameplay is mutated from the way it would be played without these hacks. And because 90% of the player base uses these servers, the majority of the developer and server hosting resources are expended on catering to these players' needs and desires. In reality, battlefield and counter strike DO have hacking protection and the player base happily plays without them. Separate but equal could only be equitable if both parties had access to the same resources. As I mentioned in an earlier post, segregation proved that this policy doesn't work when power (or in our case population) is unevenly distributed between the two groups. Yes, we have our own hive and can play how we would like. However, in our opinion (which we have logically been able to defend), the community as a whole would be better off if new players were not confronted with this segregated cyberscape. Think about it. How many times have you seen a thread titled "tried fpv, never going back!"? Probably a few. "Tried 3pv for the first time today: screw fpv servers!"? A baby born addicted to crack will cry for more crack. A baby who hasn't tried crack won't cry for it. We are trying to unite the community and improve the gaming experience for everyone. If the devs have agreed with us, how can you deny our logic?

He lives in a different region than you and has access to different servers. Don't be mean.

Bicyclists use rear view mirrors mounted on their helmets to see behind themselves. This would be a compromise. I know my fight is the good fight. But to win the war, you have to lose the wrong battles, and win the right ones. It's like knowing when to pop your head out to see what your opponents are doing and where they are going. But you would have to play hardcore to know about that.

Can't you see your gear on your character in the inventory tab? Or the main menu? It's like me arguing that I need the ability to fly to properly appreciate the landscape; no matter the game breaking consequences. If peeking is not why you demand 3rd person, why not make an alternative to the 3pp that doesn't allow "peeking"? Someone above suggested that the floating camera be placed in front of the character facing backward instead of how it is currently. Not only would this eliminate peeking, but it would give the added bonus of a much faster way to check your back. Would this satisfy the G.I. Joe fanboys?

I've broken this level playing field argument before, and I'll do it again. Listen closely. You claim that players on 3rd person servers, while having access to a massively game altering mechanic, are all on the same playing field. I agree. This is true. So you ask, "y'all have your own hive? Why not let us play our way and you can play your way?" A valid question. The answer: because teenage boys make up the majority of the population that plays this game, and they will choose the route of least resistance. When learning to play dayz, doing so on 3rd person is easier. Therefore, more beginners play regular servers and ultimately more total players play regular. The reason the "hardcore" players dislike this trend is because of supply and demand. Say what? Let me explain: I want to host my own server but I don't want to play just by myself, so I need to implement features on my sever to attract other players. In the mod this lead to "pay to win" servers, 10000 vehicle servers, etc. would you put a lot of work into building and hosting a server that nobody played? Nope. Unsurprisingly there were hardly any fpv only servers. I wanted to play fpv only servers, but I didn't want to play by myself. My demand for player interaction was higher than that for fpv only gameplay. As a result, I played on 3pp enabled servers. It's like if you were playing cs or battlefield and half of the servers had no anti-hack of any kind, and linked sites that supplied free hacks. As a result, 90% of the player base uses these hacks and plays on these servers. "Hacks/mods are allowed on these servers, it's not cheating". True, but the gameplay is mutated from the way it would be played without these hacks. And because 90% of the player base uses these servers, the majority of the developer and server hosting resources are expended on catering to these players' needs and desires. In reality, battlefield and counter strike DO have hacking protection and the player base happily plays without them. Separate but equal could only be equitable if both parties had access to the same resources. As I mentioned in an earlier post, segregation proved that this policy doesn't work when power (or in our case population) is unevenly distributed between the two groups. Yes, we have our own hive and can play how we would like. However, in our opinion (which we have logically been able to defend), the community as a whole would be better off if new players were not confronted with this segregated cyberscape. Think about it. How many times have you seen a thread titled "tried fpv, never going back!"? Probably a few. "Tried 3pv for the first time today: screw fpv servers!"? A baby born addicted to crack will cry for more crack. A baby who hasn't tried crack won't cry for it. Do you need more analogies? Tell me how I'm wrong!!!

I've broken this level playing field argument before, and I'll do it again. Listen closely. You claim that players on 3rd person servers, while having access to a massively game altering mechanic, are all on the same playing field. I agree. This is true. So you ask, "y'all have your own hive? Why not let us play our way and you can play your way?" A valid question. The answer: because teenage boys make up the majority of the population that plays this game, and they will choose the route of least resistance. When learning to play dayz, doing so on 3rd person is easier. Therefore, more beginners play regular servers and ultimately more total players play regular. The reason the "hardcore" players dislike this trend is because of supply and demand. Say what? Let me explain: I want to host my own server but I don't want to play just by myself, so I need to implement features on my sever to attract other players. In the mod this lead to "pay to win" servers, 10000 vehicle servers, etc. would you put a lot of work into building and hosting a server that nobody played? Nope. Unsurprisingly there were hardly any fpv only servers. I wanted to play fpv only servers, but I didn't want to play by myself. My demand for player interaction was higher than that for fpv only gameplay. As a result, I played on 3pp enabled servers. It's like if you were playing cs or battlefield and half of the servers had no anti-hack of any kind, and linked sites that supplied free hacks. As a result, 90% of the player base uses these hacks and plays on these servers. "Hacks/mods are allowed on these servers, it's not cheating". True, but the gameplay is mutated from the way it would be played without these hacks. And because 90% of the player base uses these servers, the majority of the developer and server hosting resources are expended on catering to these players' needs and desires. In reality, battlefield and counter strike DO have hacking protection and the player base happily plays without them. Separate but equal could only be equitable if both parties had access to the same resources. As I mentioned in an earlier post, segregation proved that this policy doesn't work when power (or in our case population) is unevenly distributed between the two groups. Yes, we have our own hive and can play how we would like. However, in our opinion (which we have logically been able to defend), the community as a whole would be better off if new players were not confronted with this segregated cyberscape. Think about it. How many times have you seen a thread titled "tried fpv, never going back!"? Probably a few. "Tried 3pv for the first time today: screw fpv servers!"? A baby born addicted to crack will cry for more crack. A baby who hasn't tried crack won't cry for it. Do you need more analogies?

Dayz forums in five words or less: what is an ad homonym?

But attacking him does nothing to strengthen your argument. Yes, he called you a name. Be the bigger man and don't sink to his level. Or ignore him and refute MY points. I haven't been hostile and you've simply ignored my arguments. You flock to his trolling/immaturity like flies to honey.

What if... Pistol mags aren't that rare, but people just run through too quickly to notice them tucked away :O It's the smallest item of value in the game currently. Makes sense that it's hard to spot.

UN anti-anarchy propaganda tool

It's more sad that people complain about 1st person advocates being hostile, yet ignore the arguments that aren't overly aggressive or offensive. Instead, they attack people like weedz; who initially/responsively attacks them back. I've never seen anyone even attempt to refute the points in the video piste above. I've seen it in easily a dozen threads and it usually goes ignored? Why? 3rd person advocates like karma-pig use tactics that circumvent even marginally fair fights to ensure that they won't lose (sound familiar?) Don't like my finger pointing? Disprove the video's points in a logical, cohesive argument an I will repeal the insults I spat in your general direction.

Faith in humanity lost