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?

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.

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.

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?

I'll just say it. The hunger/thirst system is absurd. Nobody playing the mod was thinking "You know what this game is missing? An over the top, needlessly complicated, ridiculously overmodeled digestive system". Certainly nobody was longing for a eating/drinking system that took up all of their attention while they're trying to play a zombie survival game, much less one that requres him to eat every few minutes or die of hunger. Just stop. Give it up. The fixation with this eating/drinking system is ruining the game. With my last two characters, I fresh spawned and immidiately begain looking for food, and both times I died before I could find any. Where is the gameplay in that? Who do you think is going to want to play a game who's point is "Spawn, die of hunger. Spawn, die of hunger"? What was the point of this eating/drinking system anyway? Realism? What's realistic about a human having to eat every half an hour or die of starvation? There was nothing wrong with the mod's hunger/thirst system. The function of hunger and thirst in a survival game is to force players to go about trying to feed themselves. The mod's hunger/thirst system accomplished this. Overmodeling the system doens't add anything to gameplay except frustration. And hyper-fast hunger doens't accomplish anything but to make it all about finding and eating food. Fuck, pac-man ate less frequently than DayZ characters have to. DayZ was fun when food was something you had to do once in a while, not constantly. And if you were going to make it a constant eating simulator, the least you could have done was make the resources availible to accomplish that. Spawning, then immidiately dying of hunger despite your best efforts is just dumb. Nobody wants to play a game where you're going to die no matter what you do. What on earth made you think anyone would? So seriously, just give it up. Either go back to a simple system, or slow the hunger/thirst down by like 100 times. Because right now, this game is all about your stomach, and that's destroying what the game should really be about, which is zombie survival, human interaction and adventure. Either that, or re-label the game accordingly.

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).

ok, then how is a person disappearing from the universe then reappearing the next day to find his base destroyed either realsitic or authentic? What "feels" real about disappearing from the picture and having any number of things happening to your base when there's nothing you can do about it becuase you're not in the universe at the time? Authentic, realistic, simulation, you can split hairs about definitoins all you want, and it's moot because bases being vulnerbale when you're not logged in doesn't meet any of those definitions. And before someone says "Oh, well it simulates you being away from you base", no, it doens't. You actually being away from your base in game simulates you being away from your base, and it comes with a return - whatever loot you found when you were out, or whatever other goals you achived on your expedition. Offline time doesn't come with any benefit, yet if your base was vulnerable with you offline, you'd still be taking all the risk. People shouldn't be punished for being offline. Imagine the kind of game DayZ would be if you were. Imagine the kinds of losers who would prevail if that were the case.

Still refusing to address the basic point. Need I ask the same question a fourth time? As for "egos", I LOLed at you because of your pompous comment that amounted to "I'm a uber elite DayZ guy, why don't you get a clue, noob" - while not actually addressing the point. Now, address the question of realism and how it relates to characters disappearing from the world and coming back.

Why does a suvival game need the requirement to eat every thrity minutes in order to consitute a suvival game? It would still be a survival game if it had a reasonable hunger/thirst system.

LOL. And I'll ask again, how then does a player disappearing from the universe for a day at a time factor into this "simulation"? No, I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand the definition of the word "simulation". In this context, it means an attempt to maximize reasim. So I'll ask a third time, what's realstic about a character disappearing from the universe for periods of time, then coming back into the universe? I'll give you a hint: Nothing. There's nothing realstic about a property being left vulnerable becuase it's owner hase ceased to exist, but will return into existence in a few hours or the next day. As such, some measure needs to be devised to compensate for this unrealistic degree of vunlerability. Realistically, your property wouldn't be unprotected for those hours because you'd be there to defend it. What is so difficult to grasp about this?

How then is your disappearing completely from the universe for a day at a time realistc to this "simulation" (unless you expect people to literally have DayZ running in front of them 24/7, even when they're asleep IRL, which is completely unreasonable)? That's a very unrealstic factor, and as such, you need something to compensate for simulation's sake. There's nothing realistic about when you are offline. You can't call that "simulation". Not unless you expect people to be on DayZ 24/7, which is ridiculous. If DayZ were "RL", you'd be inside your property during the time when DayZ (the video game) sees you offline, and would beocme aware that someone was trying to break in. That means that "IRL", your structrue would have some degree of protection (that being you) 24/7 unless you were off doing something elsewhere. Adding offline base protection is a means to simulate that protectoin for when we're offline, since we can't all be logged onto DayZ 24/7.

Just make the barricade objects invincible as long as their builder is offline, and then turn their damage system back on when the player comes back online. I think that would be fair. And you could make the offline invincibility condition limited to say a couple of days. Storage devices shouldn't have any such artificial offline protection. It should be up to the player to adequately protect his items with barricades. In fairness to the raiders, you'd have to give some indication whether the structures are in invincible mode, so they don't waster their time trying to take down a barricade that's invincible - maybe a slightly different texture that objects switch to when they're invulnerable. As well, there would have to be some provision for structures remaining vulnerable after their builder has been killed. It wouldn't make sense if a player killed you in an effort to raid your base, then when you die, the base either leaves with you or becomes invincible. That would defeat the whole purpose of base raiding. As well, you'd want to devise some way to counteract people logging out to preserve their base from raiding. I like the idea plot poles. Place one down, and nobody can build within a certain radius except you. This prevents people from walling you into your own structure while you're offline. Where the plot owner is killed, the plot pole disappears. That way raiders can kill you for your property, and if you're killed while off adventuring, you can still come back and re-claim your plot (provided nobody got to it first). You'd also want to make it so that the player has to log off within the plot zone in order for the plot to remain persistent. Log off outside the plot, and the plot disappears, and property become vulnerable. Maybe you could add a second radius - like a "security zone" that warns you that another player is near your base, and that your plot pole will disappear (and your base will not become invincible) if you log off now, and which leave the damage system turned on if you do log off. Because making bases invulnerable when offline (either by making structures unbreakable or by taking them off the server) will be easily exploitable. Base under threat? Just log off <--- That needs to be prevented I think I'm making it sound more complicated than it has to be. -Plot pole put down. -Player who placed plot is now the only one who can build on plot. -Player logs off inside while inside plot and no other players are nearby, structures on plot become invulnerable. -Player logs off inside plot while other players are nearby, plot ownership disappears, structures persist but remain vulnerable to damage. -Player logs off outside of plot or dies, plot ownership disappears, structures persist but remain vulnerable to damage. -Properties that have structures on them but no plot ownership active can be re-plotted by whichever player gets there first. Any existing structures within the new plot become subject to the above rules accordingly. Now plot poles should be very easily craftable, since it's just a claim, not an actual building. The point wouldn't be to search around for the means to claim an area to start building on. And to stop people just dropping counless plots all over the map just to prevent others from building, you could limit the number of plot poles attributable to a single player.

If you can find one before you die. That's the problem.

So which is it?

Yet many seem to be arguing that there's no issue at all.