Ham_Sandwich27

1) Who "acted like" people won't use ghillie suits to camp? 2) So what if people did that? They don't want people getting shot in DayZ? Simple solution - remove the guns. 3) What happened to the game being "a simulator" or "authentic" as people so often like to say?

Yeah, I'd be down with that. Changing magazines involves removing a magazine from your weapon, putting it in your gear, pulling out another magazine and inserting it into your weapon, so it makes sense to have players do that through the inventory. And I don't think the characters in DayZ are meant to be trained soldiers, so quick, insitctive mag (i.e. one button) changes should be off the table.

Not to mention the stupidity of having to search for that one invisible spot on an object that enables the action menu item, then you have scroll around and find it, and hope you don't accidentally choose another option - one that will cost you dearly (like your life or an important item in your inventory). It's like playing russian roulette every time you want to interact with something. There's areason why there's no other games out there with UIs like this.

That's good news. The action menu is one of the more clumbsy aspects of the ArmA series' intefaace system. It's deinfitley got to go.

I just lost a 75 round drum while trying to open a door because of the stupid scroll menu. Tried to open door, clicling MMB cause the wrong item to be highlighted just before click, no 2x2 slot block in inventory open for 75 round drum, it disappears into the gorund somewhere. Utterly stupid. If people want to change magazines on the fly, that's what the R key is for. If they want to change mags for administrative reasons, that's what the inventory screen is for. The "change magazines" option in the hot menu is only ever in the way. It's one thing to lose rare and useful gear to legitimate gameplay, it's another to lose it to clunky interface features and game bugs.

AIA M-10 B2, 7.62mm.

Is that known or are you just assuming that's the case?

Too bad the bushrag (cape) and top are incompatible with backpacks. I hope they change that. If you made a ghillie cape for yourself IRL, surely you'd just drape it over your backpack.

Do the radios work yet?

Or maybe some people are just opportunists who would take advantage of the breakdown of society and turn into bad guys as soon as it became viable for them to do so. We see this in real life all the time. During the Katrina crisis murder, rape, robbery all skyrocketed due to the absence of law and order. A hockey game can cause a riot that turns people into violent animals in a city like Vancouver - beating fellow citizens near to death and tearing a city apart simply due to diffusion of responsibility and by extension, a removal of the belief that there are legal consequences for one's actions - no "partial zombie infection" required. Take away law and order and many people will turn into bad guys. And not even due to desperation per se, simply because for many people the only incentive to not harm others is the fear of legal consequences. The above examples are just two of many. If a truly apocalyptic scenario came about and people could kill for no good reason with no fear of consequences, it would be just like it is in DayZ. It would start with a minority of truly bad individuals killing unnecessarily, then a wider range of people would become distrustful of others and begin killing people they come across out of fear, and then it would settle into a "don't trust anyone" scenario just like it is in DayZ. Honestly, you don't need to invent a zombie infection narrative to explain assholes killing others for no good reason. This would occur in a real wold apocalypse without the help of any zombie infection, guaranteed.

Now show me ONE post where anyone said anything even remotely like that. If people didin't want to worry about surviving, they wouldn't be playing DayZ. You're taking comments suggesting that the hunger/thrist should be toned down and twisting that to mean those people don't want any survival mechanics whatsoever because that's the only position you can argue against, and that's an idiotic way to argue. People are syaying that having to eat every half an hour is over the top, not that they don't want to have to eat at all, and you know it. Stop with the bullshit straw-man arguments.

I never suggested a true to life hunger system. I suggested a reasonable one. Dying half an hour after spawn if you don't find food is not reasonable. And besides that, feeling hungry and dying of hunger are two very different things. You can go 2-3 weeks without food before you die.

Where did you get 48-96 hours from "reasonable hunger/thirst"?

That's reasonable. The problem however is that if you're alseep in your house, you're probably going to be awoken by someone trying to smash your barricades down. So still, being logged out is more analogous to having ceased to exist than it is to having gone to sleep.

You're going to make the "but it's a simulator!" people's heads explode. I have to disagree about the dispapearing items though. I think they should perist, but should be safe so long as you left the structure protecting them secure. Ther problem with disappearing loot bieng, it pretty much make base raiding pointless if all a player has to do is log out when he realizes someone's trying to raid his base. Or worthwhile at all. There will be little point to going to the effort of base building if it's just going to be gone next time you log in. Having said that, the Rust model is reasonable. You can put in the effort to upgrade your structures ot the maximum level of strenght, as which point it's almost pointless for other players to try to break in (something like two hours to break down a wall or door).