doctorbadsign

I agree. Some games feel like they are designed to play in first person. Neither Arma 2 nor DayZ feel like this. Again this term 'feel' is kinda subjective and I cannot really argue against someone who says the opposite. Once I go into 3rd person the game feels like it was meant to be played like that in my opinion. If they removed it without making 1st person feel better I doubt I'd want to play it as much.

I get the arguments in favour of first person, and I don't really have anything objective to use against them. My quibble with it is a personal one. I like my games to look and feel nice. Personally playing DayZ in first person looks bad and feels awful. If they could get the game to look and feel right in first person I'd play it like that, but to me third person is the more visually pleasing and seemingly less clunky way to play it, and to be perfectly honest I'm not going to play a game in a way that makes me dislike how it feels and looks just because other players don't like the advantages it gives. I realize this is not a good argument for third person, its more of a personal thing, but I thought I'd give it my justification anyway, and I don't care if you disagree. I understand the problem though, it does give an advantage over someone in first person. Thus I think separate servers is the fair thing to do. Either that or implement some kind of system where by players, loot and zombies cannot be seen over a wall when in 3rd person. I don't want the option for 3rd person removed however, at least not until it feel better to play in first person.

No. Can you imagine the whining you'd get on here about people getting killed whilst asleep? Its bad enough as it is with KOS... Also some people don't play for weeks (I haven't been on in ages) the longer you don't play the higher the change that you will be robbed and killed, so its not really fair on people that don't/can't play often.

I've killed on sight because it seems like the best option in those split second decisions. You get the jump on a guy with a gun, and you have but a few moments to decide whether to shoot them or not. The likelihood is that they will shoot you so, you do what you have to in order to survive. Killing on sight is fine and justifiable under such conditions. Thus it is an important part of the game. I try to keep it down to a minimum however.

I think people who want to play PvE are entitled to do so on their own private hives. In the current system, however, it is not workable. People will be able to use them to gear up safely, then hop onto different servers. People will use them as safe servers for their ghosting maneuvers and so on. I'm sure there are other reasons why PvE servers are not workable until there are private hives. As for not getting a refund, it does seem harsh, but then if there are conditions upon being able to receive a refund, and setting up a server that kicks people for killing violates those conditions then one cannot really complain.

I don't like the idea of giving players hints as to the nature of other players at all. You need to be able to judge people for yourself. Holding the players hand and saying "this guy is bad, kill them, or run away" is stupid. You can use your real intuition when interacting with a player, why do you need to simulate it?

I am sure they will implement a temperature system whereby players without adequate protection will get extremely cold when it rains. However I think there should also be a new state of degradation that applies for certain objects. These states could range from 'damp' to 'saturated'. For example a player is wearing a hoodie and carrying a box of matches. It rains and the player does not get in shelter. Their clothing becomes saturated meaning even if the rain stops they will suffer from cold until they dry out or die, but what's more their matches will be soaked too and thus unusable---meaning it will make it very difficult for them to warm up and get dry (especially at night). In a real survival situation, getting rained on and cold without adequate protection, and without taking appropriate action would be a death sentence. I think adding this level of depth to the weather system could create some incredibly tense gameplay. Players will have to pay attention to the skies and you might find yourself in a situation where you need to find or steal a raincoat before it starts raining, or get to shelter. With all players heading to the nearest buildings to get out of the rain you would also be forced to defend and stake out the building you occupy. I think it would be cool, if rain wasn't an inconvenience, but something that required us to change what we are doing in order to come out the other end unscathed.

Well you could get items such as bin liners which you could choose to line your bag with perhaps, then you could also find a waterproof backpack.

What are my thoughts? They probably just got fully geared out and wanted to give their guns a go. Balota is a high traffic area, so they thought it would be a good place to wait for someone. When I high traffic area, I make sure that I do so very very carefully. For example I went to Balota last night, and I didn't run straight through the usual way, I went to the hills around the back, waited for a while to see if there was any movement around any of the buildings, or any snipers nearby (as the hill is the kind of place they would camp). I then proceeded cautiously making sure if at any moment I did see a player I could get into a good position to defend myself. Whenever I go across open ground I run in a zig-zig pattern and take cover in trees when going from point A to point B. Sure there may not be any threat in some random field that is miles away from any high traffic area, but it is good to get into the habit of always doing it. I try to ask myself at all times whether there are any positions that people might be able to kill me from easily, if there are I move to a better position. I think people are too impatient and thoughtless whilst playing DayZ. They don't spend any time looking to see if other players are around before they sprint in wearing a bright orange backpack and loot the place. Then they come here and make a thread when they inevitably die. You can cut out a huge percent of the times you get killed just by thinking about what you are doing and being a bit patient. Don't just rush into a place looking for loot. Keep a good eye out and make sure you're not going to get caught with your pants down. Edit: Also, my tip of the day is setting your default character to be wearing green jeans and the beige or green t-shirt. If you want to survive don't go for the aesthetically pleasing look, go for what keeps you less visible.

Not to be one of those annoying people that instantly shouts 'Alpha' But I imagine that once more weapons are added, it will be easier to get this kind of stuff in cities. I mean I already found a few revolvers in the office/school building, so I should think once the full range of weapons are added, going to a military base to get kitted up won't be so necessary. On a side note, being able to craft armour would be wicked. Maybe a really crude vest that you make from sheets of scrap metal that makes you hard as fuck, but really slow.

You made a mistake, why not learn from it instead of moaning about others for capitalizing on it? (I highlighted your mistake in bold)

Really? How is that a great idea? I don't understand. If you're in the harsh world of the apocalypse, do you have some magical sixth sense that goes 'watch out dude there is bad guys around'? No you don't. What you have to do is get to a safe vantage point and observe for as long as it takes to ascertain whether someone is in the area. If you can't bring yourself to do this in the game, you deserve to die, over and over again until you learn. DayZ is not, nor should it ever be a game that holds a players hand. You just need to get better at it. Jeez...

I do not combat log, no matter how shitty the person is attacking me, even if I'm a fresh spawn and they're hacking at me with an axe like a douche I take it and die like a man. I do not server hop unless the server crashes or something similar. Hopping for loot or to escape zombies is for the weak. I do not kill fresh spawns or anyone who is not a threat to me.

No. How does this have any basis in reality? Dying because you have killed someone? Fuck that. How does it distinguish between self defence/aggression anyway? So you're basically saying the game should hold the hands of people who are shit at it? Again, fuck that. If you're good at the game you'll know whether bandits are roaming the area or not. If you don't then you shouldn't get any help with the situation, you should fight or die like a man. There doesn't need to be a karma system of any kind. But frankly your suggestion is ridiculous.

Why make it harder? You could also make it beneficial for people to use it

I agree that there should be a solution for deaf players. Global chat is not the way forward at all, not just because everyone finds it annoying, but it would also put said players at a disadvantage. The kind of communication the OP is talking about, I assume is the kind of communication non-deaf people use TS for. Broadcasting tactical information, details of location and stuff to all people on the server is making huge bait out of yourself. Has anyone checked to see if there is any software out there that would do the trick?

I agree, but one would have to be careful to make sure that it is a last resort. I.e: you'd rather eat that rotten orange than kill a new spawn. If it does not affect you adversely the game will be broken completely by it's addition.

Given that cannibalism is known to cause disease, it should come at a cost to the player. Perhaps not a definite risk, but a risk of sickness should be there. If not, it would just give people an actual reason to camp out and kill new spawns.

There are a motherload of topics about this...

I think they should add NPC helicopters that kill everyone who kills on sight. [i am kidding of course]

I think its all about being friendly, but having no trust to begin with. What do I mean by that? Is that not a contradiction? Well what I mean is, help people out, but do so with them restrained, whilst looking at them down the barrel of a gun. If they are compliant and come across as trustworthy then you can begin to let your guard down (a little bit).

No there should not be a pre-defined back-story. Firstly because everyone here would argue for days on end in about 67 different topics about what they don't like about it. Then you'd have another 4 topics for each of the 67 moaning about people moaning about the story... Secondly because if you had just gone through an end of the world type scenario, you're not really going to know what has gone on. The news is down, most of the people you'd share gossip with are now flesh eating monsters and the rest are going to shoot you in the back for your beans. If there is any kind of back story it needs to be extremely fragmentary and open to interpretation and contradiction, spread via player interaction. There should be no page on the DayZ website or blurb on the Steam page. EDIT: Okay so I should have read more of the post than the title and question... I understood it to mean back-story to the events in Chernarus... I shall leave the above anyway. I think having a back-story is cool for your character and I'd definitely like to see this implemented in RP servers. If everyone did it though you'd just get people coming up with stupid stuff. But then if that did not affect my gaming experience at all then fair enough.

I don't think it should be everywhere. Everywhere would make less impact. But if it was something you stumbled on very occasionally some apocalyptic gore might be very effective. Imagine finding a random group of broken/weathered tents in the woods, one containing a child's bed covered in blood... With the parents hanging from a tree nearby... That is a bit dark, but finding stuff like that very rarely would have a huge impact, whereas if it was all over the place it would just be a part of the background.

Yes and how cool would it be to be able to craft a tracking device from a gps?

To be honest dude, you were at an airfield. You should have killed the guy despite him saying he was friendly. And you definitely shouldn't have stood around waiting for them to shoot you in the face. I tend to be friendly most of the time. If you're armed though and a threat to me, I'll kill you if I can. I know some friendlies might get shot this way, but the risk is too high.