doctorbadsign

When I die, I'm not going to know why I died, I'm not going to know anything, I'll be dead

Hey at least you're getting a consistent framerate ;) thats more than most. In all seriousness, it is a poorly optimized game due to it being under development. Does your system perform well for other games? If so then its probably due to the aforementioned issue, if not then you want to do some testing to see whether you have got any bottlenecks going on etc. Bottlenecks would likely result in large performance drops whilst one piece of hardware is waiting for the other, rather than a consistently low fps. I'm not sure, use some hardware monitoring software and do some science.

They will always be zombies to me. "Infected" makes it sound like you're playing a sexual health clinic simulator.

My face when I see a fresh spawn with broken legs:

Silo, Mr. Moon and EireBornFenix are all pretty good.

I think that the Early Access program can lead to unrealistic expectations with regards to the timescale it takes to make a game. GTA 4 took over a thousand people 4 years to make, GTA 5 took about the same. Thats with a large team and huge assets. One of the problems with having it open to the public at such an early stage is the lack of patience. People want the finished product without having to wait years, but the problem is that it takes years to make a game. I'd hazard a guess that the team working on DayZ is a fair bit smaller than that which worked on GTA. It is a slow process, and not something that we should want rushed. If they rushed it, it would be a crap game.

Hazmat suits definitely.

I agree and to be fair, I've actually noticed an increase in performance and some bugs have been ironed out. Obviously there are still some issues, but I don't see any reason to believe these to be insurmountable. I suspect that performance will improve once the parts of the engine that are to be replaced have been replaced. Support for newer versions of Direct X for example is bound to help. If you are dubious about whether DayZ will ever get done, there's not much I can say. I suppose it is a legitimate concern, although I see no reason to believe it. Really that is the risk of the whole Early Access program, if you buy into it you endorse that and bear the risk. All I can say is don't get early access games in future if this is an issue for you.

I'm not sure what you mean. It would be so much more work for the devs to drop adding content and mechanics optimize the performance, and then break it again by adding content and mechanics that introduce bugs and performance issues.It doesn't matter what you want really, content before optimization is the logical way to develop the game. If you're not a fan of that, don't play until its done.

They're adding content first because there is no point optimizing everything or fixing everything until all the content us in. Every thing added could add bugs so there is no point going after all of them until the majority of content and mechanics are in place. Basically what I'm saying is: Alpha

Get off the coast. When I spawn I've taken to ignoring whatever town I am near and going straight inland. It doesn't take long before you get to completely unlooted areas, even on full servers.

For some unknown reason DayZ does not remember any changes I make in the options during the game. For example, I use a TrackIR whenever I load DayZ up I have to go into the menu and enable it under the controls section. It is also worth noting that if I subsequently change some graphics options say, it turns my TrackIR off again. These graphics changes will also not carry through restarting the game. Any ideas?

I don't often meet people, I tend to see them. Past experience has taught me to leave people alone if I'm playing by myself.

I think #1 should be implemented. As for #2 I don't see a reason for this. Either you've just spawned in, in which case dying is simply going to mean waiting to spawn again. Nothing gets lost Or you have relogged and should have done it carefully, if not you shouldn't be surprised if you get killed or robbed etc.

Really cool idea. It would be so much more realistic to survive in an existing building using it's existing facilities than to build your own out of plywood. The Epoch base building was fun and all, but really it makes no sense. I would never waste valuable calories building a huge base from scratch using salvaged materials, I'd just do up an existing house and maybe put a fence around it or something...

I'd agree if the rate of starvation etc was more realistic. Starvation IRL can be a drawn out process, in the game in can happen in under an hour (from spawning in hungry). If they compress the timescale on that front then I see no reason to compress the time it takes to get fit. Although as I say I would prefer an all round more realistic timescale, but not necessarily 1-1.

I think that stamina could be something that upgrades the more you run too. I know people are against having "skills" in the game, but often those same people are all for realism. I posit that it is not very realistic to run a lot every day and not increase your fitness and stamina.

Quite good odds really. As I said in a previous post the likelihood that people on a near enough empty server are going to risk going somewhere like the NWAF are quite high due to the fact that they believe there is less chance of there being someone there, and believe it probably hasn't already been looted because of this. It really doesn't surprise me at all the the only two people on the server are going to head to the North West Airfield.

I think the odds are probably way more likely than you would think. The sense of security that you feel being one of two people on a server would lead you to head to locations that you might avoid or be very cautious of on a full server. Put two people with that attitude together on a server and there is quite a high probability that you would end up at the same spot.

This is an example of where game play should take precedence over realism. In real life a box of matches does not take up that much room, however if we could carry a load of survival essentials without using inventory slots we would lose an important mechanic. That mechanic being having to decide which items you can take when your inventory slots are full. Choosing between a box of matches or one the burlap sacks you have been collecting to make a ghille suit for example should always be in place regardless of how unrealistic it is.

I creeped into the secret base at Pavlovo or whatever it is called. Noticed a zombie running into one of the barracks, so I waited on the hill behind. Sure enough a player comes running out. I'm not going to be the fool and act friendly in a military spawn zone so I open fire, a few shots, one shot hits. One more shot from my Mosin should do it. Click click click... Bang I'm dead. The moral of that story; Make sure your gun is fully loaded at all times.

I'd say get Arma 2 as it is currently a better game, both for the mod and for itself.

"When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose" - Bob Dylan

If the shit hit the fan, I'd hopefully grab a torch if I had to leave home. Then again I'd also fill a backpack with useful stuff. I'd like to know what kind of situation would lead to me only having jeans, a t-shirt and a torch. Maybe I am torch enthusiast who was discovered a rare handheld torch that runs off a 9V battery in a small post-Soviet state and decided to travel out there only to discover that some weird infection has hit right after I bought it and a plane hit my hotel so I can't go back and get anything useful.

Why would balancing the game change that? Balancing doesn't mean remove the risk, it means levelling the playing field so that all play styles have equal costs and benefits. If this isn't done DayZ will be a boring KoS fest as it is at the moment. The most insecure I have felt in DayZ is when talking to people and wondering if I can trust them, not through the threat of maybe being shot before I know what has happened.