Dagwood

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

^^^ every player enabling wall hacks and invincibility also puts you on a level paying field, but that doesn't mean that it offers the same quality of gameplay as playing without those hacks. Idk where you are from, but there was this thing called segregation in the United States in the 20th century. Separate but equal. It was abolished because one side was clearly ruining the "game" for the other, and it caused/maintained a schism between the two communities. Quit being a racist ;)

1st person is more realistic because fences and low buildings actually block your vision. In 3pp, you can't help but see into every single yard in town when standing in a fenced off yard of your own. Even when trying not to "cheat" by peeking unrealistically, the high camera makes it impossible not to get super human vision. And raise your field of view and learn to use the free look. The hardcore players manage to play the game with those blinders. Are you suggesting that we are all just better than you at this game? Edited for word choice

If the game becomes harder (likely from more dangerous zeds) 3rd person will make it easier to survive these zeds, and attract more players to 3rd person servers since people in this community think easier is always better. It will still lead to underpopulated hardcore servers and tenaciously butthurt assholes like me insulting you day to day. I'm so sad :(

^^why not just play in first person and avoid all of that intensive programming when this game is already biting off as much as the devs can chew? You want to see your character? Use the inventory screen or logout and play Barbie there.

When survival gets harder, these players that whine about new, difficult features being "annoying" will play different games. Survival is going to be a full time job and not just part of the gearing up chapter of your character's life. This will result in players valuing the life of their character more than they do currently. When people care about their avatars more, they will be less likely to engage in frivolous firefights out of boredom. Snipers lying on top of buildings in 3rd person will never end. Because of this, the survivalists will migrate from 3rd person to 1st person to avoid these sadistic mouth breathers. IMO, the biggest reason 3rd person servers currently rule the day is because it's where the armed combatants (the game's only challenge atm) do their wall staring. If the majority played 1st person, it would be lopsided in 1st person favor. Just give it time, my man.

Over the top zombie growling and grunting can scare newer players too. I was rendezvousing with a new player and stood outside of the garage he was waiting in making those noises for easily five minutes while he frantically asked the rest of the group (waiting and watching from the nearby cluster of trees) what to do. After they had him convinced it was a glitched out bloodsucker, I charged in and knocked him unconscious with a few crowbar swings to the head. Good times.