Wolfguarde

Not a bad idea. However, if it does get implemented, it will probably be a long way down the track, as this is essentially an immersion factor that is otherwise a drain on server resources. They're trying to optimise (which is to say, cut down on) the number of entities on the map to get server performance up to scratch - this is counterproductive at the moment. That being said, would be nice to be able to spawn in in a few years' time to find a beach littered with crap, and a few badly damaged but potentially useful items. If crafting comes in at some point I can see bottles and such being melted down for glass, at the very least.

This song. Particularly when bicycles are in. (Edit: Carefully note that film clip is fucking retarded, probably easier on your eyes/ears to just listen to the song)

There's a lot you will need to pick up as you go; the game throws you in the deep end as far as info is concerned, and you'll need to be willing to sacrifice a few lives' worth of stuff before you really start caring about your gear to work out how things operate. There's a few basics you will need to know off the bat: - The DayZ 101: If you start the game expecting people to be courteous, polite, or fair, you're going to have a bad time. A lot of us shoot on sight and quite a few are pricks to boot who will do it simply to piss you off. Treat every player you meet as a possible threat, moreso if they are armed. Moreso if their weapon is a gun. - If you find yourself getting frustrated navigating, look up one of the Chernarus loot maps on the net. A quick google search should find you what you need. This will tell you roughly where you are if you can identify major landmarks such as industrial or medical buildings in cities, or mountains and forests in rural areas. - Once you know the map, avoid the Chernarus Ghetto (the cities Chernogorsk and Elektrovadorsk, and their surrounding areas) at all costs. They are a meat grinder for players such as yourself, and snipers love to camp them to shoot people running around in the city. - This game is a hell of a lot easier with multiple people. You'll probably be well served sacrificing a few lives trying to interact with people, in order to find someone you can play with in the long term who isn't going to stab you in the back. As a general rule, most of the pricks who will kill you for your stuff will do so immediately or shortly after meeting you; the likelihood grows progressively smaller the longer they travel with you. If you make it to a few days playing with someone without them trying to kill you, you've probably found someone you can add to your contacts list and play with regularly. - Don't be too concerned stacking up on ammo. That's not to say don't pick up whatever you find; rather, be willing to drop some if you need food or utilities such as can openers and don't have space for them. Ammo is useful, but mainly for taking out other players. Once you know the melee mechanics, you'll get used to dodging and attacking zombies without taking damage. If you find a gun you think you'll keep, don't stack up on other ammunition unless you're trying to hide it or collecting it for a friend's gun. It's still pretty plentiful at the moment, and you won't need all you find. - Running, at least in my opinion, is the cure-all to all situations where zombies are after you. Crawling and crouch-walking to get past zombies tends to be tedious and a waste of time at the moment, as you can outdistance them easily while running and lose them by weaving between objects. The rest you'll have to pick up as you go, but this should cover at least some of the more critical basics. Good luck, and don't become too attached to your gear/progress. Everyone dies eventually.

You're correct in that a lot of people don't really know why they do it. I can explain why - I've actually made a couple of posts about this in threads where people are begging for measures to reduce/eradicate KoS. Here's the gist of it: - You have a very small group of people who do it because they like to piss people off. Given guns are involved, these players are able to affect the play experience of a great many other players, which results in: - A lot of players getting pissed off with being shot by snipers/street roamers with no inclination to communicate or interact in any other way. These players start killing others on sight reflexively as a defence mechanism, which leads to: - The KoS mentality spreading quickly through a community, effectively killing off most chances at meaningful interaction, as it becomes the easiest and most effective way to counter others doing the same thing. I was one of the second group of players when I first started playing DayZ, and quickly judged that it was a very bad way to play if I wanted to stay alive. Mind you, I am one of the terrible players you mentioned; I can't shoot for shit, and I have an annoying tendency to miss other players in my field of view whether they are hiding or not (on a side note, this is using third person view). But for me, killing on sight is a defence mechanism. It is the only way to keep hours' worth of gear when someone else shows up in my local area. That being said, a lot of my more interesting interactions have resulted from the exceptions. I have yet to decide to help/trust anyone who hasn't proven to be a worthwhile connection in the long run, and in multiple cases these players have wound up becoming clan members/allies on the server with whom I can trade things or call on for support in times of need. People are willing to help each other. The problem is that, like a thorny plant, people will defensively bite at anyone who tries to interact with them for the most part because it's what they need to do to survive ingame. Your best bet is to lend help where you know you can so safely and make yourself a decent reputation. Of course, in the standalone this is a hell of a lot harder, but it's still doable.

Nope. Even if the standalone falls to shit, Rocket made Bohemia a fortune through the creation of DayZ. He deserves a reward for that, in my opinion.

You're entitled to write off my post as a troll, so long as you don't mind me doing the same to yours.

Hmm... on the server you're on, have you tried putting different characters into your name? Things that would normally be banned by a special character filter? Just curious as to whether it's a blanket coverage or someone's blocking those specific characters.

He didn't say the sun. He said sunbeams. The rays filtering through the trees that make every day look ridiculously photogenic and unrealistic in DayZ.

Postprocessing effects, I think.

Chuck Norris is the only living thing to have a real-life killcam. It's going to stay that way. Side note: Rocket's reasoning probably related to the fact that it's hard to properly implement realism without something that actually puts you into the game. Like a virtual reality console/implant, or some such.

Try standing up (if you still can with broken legs in the standalone) and using the 'step over' button. Works in the mod.

This wouldn't really keep clans off a server, it would just keep you from using the brackets in your name. If people see a heap of names starting/ending with the same word, they'll get the picture. Is this showing up on all servers, or just a specific set? It seems to me like something that might have been overlooked when the filter was implemented.

I'd like to see template rulesets for weapon rarity. So, for example, you have a military ruleset, in which military/other high-grade weapons are less rare than they would be in other rulesets, and vehicles and helicopters are in good supply around the map; a civilian ruleset, in which military weapons are very rare, civilian-grade guns and maintenance kits and land vehicles are rare, air vehicles are disabled and most of your maintenance items/kits are hard to find or obtain; and a survivor ruleset, where military guns are roughly the same rarity as ye olde Stratholme mount drop from WoW, civilian guns are a godsend, and people are going to try to beat you to death for any maintenance kits you might have. Vehicles will seem like a ray of light from the heavens when you find one, no matter the condition, and their spawn sites will be hotly contested battlegrounds until someone manages to get it away and stash it.

Trying to shut people up about this argument. Since the war thread has been largely ignored for a couple of weeks, the pro-FPP players have been spreading out and trying to link shit that has nothing to do with the argument to third person view. I find it extremely annoying. They're trying to drag people into their argument for the sake of having someone to argue against. I honestly don't think most of us want our threads being derailed for the sake of a minority's war against one of the game's features. The argument about servers is valid at the moment. However hardcore winds up going, it is the fix you have. One of the later posters has added that hardcore will be expanded into a different featureset to normal, likely including the modified server view you guys are looking for. I have to restate this question in light of that information: How does our server ruleset, in the long run, affect your playstyle? Edit: I realise server availability is a valid issue, having said this. That being said, by beta/open release I would expect a lot more servers of all sorts to be opening up. Availability is an issue at the moment, but it will not necessarily be one in the long run. There's bound to be other Australian players who want the same style of play that you do, and where there's a market, there will be people to exploit it. I could easily counter with: Why should we sacrifice the field of view advantage simply because a small core of gamers dislikes it? I enjoy the advantage third person view provides - no, not because it gives me an advantage in PvP, I'm still fucking terrible even with third person view enabled - yet I acknowledge that first person view is a more challenging way to play. Each has their strengths; one for immersion, one for PvP. I don't see either as being better than the other, or exploitative to the point that it should be nerfed or removed. There is no problem. Third person view provides an advantage. Nobody is arguing that. My view on things is that it's a feature enjoyed by a significant number - I would go so far as to say majority - of players, who are indifferent to the fact that it provides an advantage. It makes the game more enjoyable for those who feel restricted by first person view, just as those who play first person do so for a more authentic experience. I think we can both agree that ultimately, if we're honest, the real argument between people on this issue is one of preference and opinion. I and those like me like the game the way it is; you and those like you do not. Whatever other reasons we bring to bear, it is a matter of how we want to play the game. The 'problem' is exactly that; hardcore, in any game, should be more realistic, gritty, and/or challenging. And third person view can easily be seen as part of a 'looser' ruleset designed for more casual or easygoing players who want the experience without the added difficulty of hardcore mode. You've justified your viewpoint on why first person view is better; you've proven that first person view is more realistic and challenging than third person view. All of you. I'm not arguing that, and I think you'll find a lot of the people who are arguing its superiority are doing so because your calls for change threaten to remove an element of the game they enjoy. So yes, this boils down to hardcore versus regular. You want a more authentic experience where nobody is capable of making use of the advantage provided by third person view. That, in my opinion, is a feature that should be hardcore. Nerfing third person view or locking us into first person is not the answer. Hell, even just having it as a variable at server creation would be fine. Let server popularity give you the results you're looking for, rather than polls or the like. If first-person-only servers have less players, it just means the majority will die off and you'll have a more condensed community playing on the ones that stay up, who have more of a vested interest in keeping those servers going. Out of curiosity, could you provide a link to the discussion where the planned hardcore features are mentioned? I'm interested in seeing what else they have planned.

Servers run by said deadshits generally don't stay popular for long. The mods were messy because the ARMA II engine was messy. Short of the engine being fully reworked for DayZ, we will probably wind up with at least some similar issues - the new engine has some easily recognisable duplicate issues from the original one, so some of the same bugs and restrictions are bound to carry over. As for the PvP-centric mods... well, again: that takes all us PvP-loving gun nuts away from your authentic, immersive survival servers, doesn't it? So I don't see why this is cause for complaint :P

I don't think you understand the subject, son. One does not simply 'say no' to beards.

There's plenty of cities off the coast. Most of the more profitable ones are inland. People stay around the ghetto because they're lazy. Simple as that. Nobody wants to spend an extra twenty minutes running to avoid the meat grinders... despite the fact that it's usually going to save you hours of fruitless grinding and dying.

I'm almost certain the modded variants of the mod will carry over. The modders are likely waiting for an API or a certain level of stability in the vanilla game before they start working on it... Alpha/Beta is never a good time for modders in any game. Constant updates repeatedly break your mods and leave you putting in nearly as much work as the game's developers to keep your product running. Ideally, we would see the mods start coming over to the standalone sometime toward the later end of the beta... a lot of core features, such as bases, weapons, and zombie AI, will be implemented and therefore stable enough to be built on by modders. It'll make their jobs a hell of a lot easier. Awruk... no. Just no.

Fair enough. I get where you're coming from, and I possibly did the same thing I criticised you for in polarising your viewpoint. To clarify something I didn't properly expand on... I suspect that one way or another, KoS will wind up resurging after countermeasures are taken. The zombie threat will deter a lot of the people who are doing it now - until the seed group I was referring to works out how to grief people with zombie aggro mechanics, and survive doing so. The training you see in a lot of MMOs will seem like a dream in comparison to the bullshit we're going to have to deal with once that starts happening, and I fully expect that griefing technique to spread as quickly as the kill on sight mentality did. Rarer guns/ammunition will simply make their jobs easier, in allowing clans to monopolise high-grade weaponry and the ability to use it while killing off other players with impunity. And there will always be melee griefers who get their kicks out of charging up to someone and belting away until one of you dies. The word I should have used instead of 'completely' is 'consistently', I think. The kill on sight mentality is like an invasive weed on a wide plain. Short of bombing the field, there's not much you can do to keep it from sprouting back up. I'm very much looking forward to the blow it's going to take from the zombie AI when it finally makes it in, but it's going to be nothing short of a miracle if it proves to be a permanent mitigator.

If the devs are planning on implementing a third person view 'fix', then fine. Honestly, if they're arguing about it, they're probably trying to work out the best way to shut people up about it without risking community backlash. I have no problem with the fact that you can see around obstacles/corners with it. It is an advantage, yes. It also gives you an alternative to first person, which I find to be frustrating and annoying as a perspective. Yes, third person view gives you an advantage. Yes, it means people can see you when they wouldn't be able to in first person. That's our problem. The third person perspective players. It does not affect you unless you make the choice to play on our servers. The main justification I've seen for first person perspective players arguing against third person view as it currently is is that some of them can't play in first person without becoming nauseated. No doubt there's a number of people with a legitimate issue here, but I honestly think half of you are saying it simply because it's proven something that's hard for people to argue against. You're pushing whatever points you can to get third person nerfed because you simply do not like it. I also think this is more an issue of video settings than one of viewpoint... or possibly just a result of being too close to your monitor. I used to get the same thing, albeit in other games, and it turned out that having the monitor too close/far away was the problem in each case. Of course, that might not be relevant to your issue, but all the same: try it and see if I'm right. You might save yourself a lot of grief. *** I find the general argument about first and third person perspective ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First and foremost is simply that each group has their own servers. The problem, such as it is, has already been resolved; the hardcore players simply aren't going to be satisfied until everyone has been converted to their playstyle. Again, I'm going to leave a reference to the Dark Ages and let you work out why I'm bringing it up. Second is that you're arguing for first person perspective as if this game has been advertised as a first person shooter with third person perspective. It has not. It has been advertised as a horror survival game. It happens to have guns in it. It happens to have multiple perspectives. One of those perspectives happens to provide an advantage for players who use it. The advantage or disadvantage provided by your perspective is entirely dependent on your preference. If you don't like playing in third person, then you forfeit the extra visual space you would have with it in exchange for a more immersive experience. It is your choice. It is not something that should be forced onto other people. I say all of this as someone who is utterly indifferent to the outcome. I just find the fact that people are still arguing over this bullshit fucking annoying. It has been resolved. You have seperate servers and will eventually have seperate hives to keep third person loot hoppers off your servers. Yet you're still arguing as if people playing on other servers has any impact on you at all. If you don't like third person, don't play on servers with it enabled.

I would like to direct your attention to this thread. http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/175690-a-public-service-announcement/ (SAS;DR version: Don't go to Elektro)

It will happen. I'm fairly sure they've confirmed that mod support will be added at some point down the track, and in any case, one would expect a project started by a modder to be moddable in its finished form. Bullshit. Mods made the original mod. DayZ in its pure form was good. The mods were even better. And keep in mind that not everyone wanted the feature-set that was provided in vanilla DayZ. The mods would not have reached the level of popularity they did if people were satisfied with the initial mod... and in any case, it does draw a massive chunk of the KoS crowd off to other subsets, so where's the problem? How, in any negative way, does it affect you?

Server restarts are necessary for other reasons as well. You get issues like memory leaks in the code that can gradually eat your RAM and slow the servers down. And eventually, once enough crap is spawned on the map, you get the same result. Server restarts have to happen sooner or later, and somewhat regularly, to keep your game running smoothly.

Hmm. Let's see... - Herd/Tribe development: common foe in the form of predators and competing individuals/groups. Significantly improved odds of survival and chances to breed, resulting in collective growth. - Most historically relevant wars: common enemy in the form of another faction, group, or country acting to the detriment of one's own people. Eventually resulted in the unity of large bodies of people as nations of varying size. Resulted in growth, the mixing of ideas, and an enforced degree of tolerance for most integrated groups. - Both our world wars: common enemy found in the form of a threat to culture or right to freedom of choice. Resulted in a near-complete unity of diplomatic standards and international opening of borders, allowing people to intermingle and blur the borders between races and cultures alike. All of these cases play on your point about us being coded for war, and this is not necessarily an incorrect statement. But the idea that we have never banded together against a common foe is sweet, lovely bullshit. It is the easy path to act as if humanity has never done anything for itself when the truth is that every major step we have made throughout history (a great many of which I have skipped over) has involved us helping one another. War is something we're very used to in our collective culture. But to go to war, you need a number of essentials, the most important of which are allies and enemies. You're not taking into account a few factors. There are people who, unconstrained by society, would be violent and possibly psychopathic. There are things that cannot be detected or treated by psychology, even with everything we've learned throughout the course of that field's development. Take into account the mitigated sense of responsibility/morality, and - most importantly - the distinct moral and spiritual damage, and shock, of discovering that the world has quite literally gone to hell. Losing not just your local comfort zone/material goods but everything you know and take for granted would take a massive toll on your sanity... both in the initial realisation and over the course of time should you survive. This isn't to say you're completely wrong, of course. You're right in that a lot of people would still cling to the tatters of civility and band together where they can. It is human nature, as you or another poster has said. But there would be a lot of people who would kill or rob other survivors for the clothes on their back or the goods in their pack if they got the opportunity. What's more, given the lawless state of most of the world, most of them would probably get away with it. Bandits and zombies would be equally dire threats. People would band together, but even some among those would kill given the chance, or possibly crack and kill or wound as many people as they could before they get put down. The shock and hellish state of the world would take its toll on your mental state, and in all honesty, I think you would find a lot of people cracking or outright shattering under that pressure. Especially if they've lost family or partners over the course of time since the apocalypse took place. No, it isn't. And this particular dead horse needs to stop finding its way into other suggestion threads. It stinks. Now, onward to my response to the OP... DayZ is indeed about the trials of survival in a world overrun by zombies. However, you need to consider that one of those trials is the aforementioned bandits, psychopaths and lost folk whose circumstances or decisions have led them to lose their sense of morality or compassion for other people. It would happen. I mean no offence when I say that to expect otherwise is naive at best... there is good in humanity, but there is darkness as well. Of the two aspects, the one by far more suppressed in most people is darkness. Some of those would wind up getting themselves killed off by others like them or survivors who manage to get the better of them. But in a lawless environment, you have the freedom to do whatever you can get away with. That's dangerous. The moral fabric of society might look stained and fragile as it is at the moment - life knows, none of our hands are clean in the world we live in - but when you consider what people are capable of when they don't have rules binding them, you'll understand. We have stood the test of time and survived intact thus far. If that were to snap, the world would change. It would become something unrecognisable. Which is not to say that change would be permanent. We would lose our cohesion, our unity... but as another poster has pointed out, our natural tendency is to band together. We would start to recover after a time, once survivor groups begin to consolidate their resources, secure their living boundaries and establish communications with one another. Weird as it might sound, we would stand a very good chance of recovering from an event like this. It would take a lot of time to completely eradicate the threat and restore ourselves to our current state, but it would happen. Lastly, as someone else has said, the game's missing a lot of features. Once the zombie AI is completed and implemented - which, by word of the developers, is a fair way off - I can easily see people having a much harder time deathmatching. It will simply be too difficult to do so and get away alive. If the zombie AI is fleshed out the way it should be. SAS;DR version: Forget I said anything if you can't pay attention for five minutes to read the damn post.