klassent

I've only seen one "hacker" that I can't personally explain with game mechanics; Some fella that was running 20ft above the ground with a Mosin that fired as fast as an M4. He took out our group of five like it was nothing, but we were fully geared, had reached the point of boredom, and were en-route to the Cherno Shitshow to go out in a blazing hail of gunfire. As such, we didn't shed any tears, but it was a pretty shocking find since I'm always a skeptic when it comes to accusations of hacking. No series of glitches or bugs can help to explain that particular scenario, though it's the only time I've had reason to cry foul thus far in SA.

Count me among the converted KoS bastards. I've never played a proper "hero" as most people would classify it, because I'm too driven by self-interest. I suppose my best analogy (for any other PnP nerds) is being Chaotic Neutral on the classic alignment table. I don't even remotely dispute the claim that player interaction is what builds 90% of a memorable experience in DayZ, nor that player interaction in its ideal form should be more in-depth than just slinging lead at each other when popping into view. But, even with that in mind, my earliest habits of acting in self-interest still belied too much trust on fellow players. There was one point where I was still in the early stages of a character, having found some basic clothing and a Mosin (thanks, long barn!) but not a whole lot of survival oriented gear. I did, however, have some extra foodstuffs lying around and ran across a seemingly-friendly player that had plenty of water. It was in our mutual interest to trade a canteen for a bit of nutrition, though I think he took a liking to my Mosin, because even after extensive conversation that led me to believe he was well-intentioned, the last thing that went through my head was an axe-blade... I don't fault him for it, his survival strategy was clearly better-equipped than mine for that particular situation. I let my guard down, and as far as I'm concerned, he earned whatever gear he got from me by playing a smart social game. But each time something like that happens, it starts to paint an indication within the larger picture that it's a damn-near flawless model for success in survival. There's a cost-benefit relationship at work still, because strange though it may sound coming from a KoS player... The most rewarding KoS experiences/firefights will never be as awesome as the experience of player interactions and everything they can entail. Nuts, right? A KoS player admitting it's not the ideal way to play? Well, it's the truth. The sad reality, however, is that when I'm running around with half a mind to put a lead slug through someone's forebrain, the only thing that decides the outcome of the interaction is the gunplay skill of the players involved. (Or, y'know, whoever made the most recent blood sacrifice to the RV-Engine-Ballistics Gods. Same diff to the RNG.) I'll leave you with another interesting analogy I've been chewing over; I don't know just how applicable it is, but remember way back to Biology 101 when ya learned about simple Mendelian genetics, with them funny little Punnet Squares? Think of Player Interaction as a recessive trait-- in order for there to be any interaction, *both* players must be actively seeking a non-KoS engagement. Now, this isn't to also say 'hero' vs. 'bandit,' because there are definitely bandits that don't KoS as well. Holdups and robberies are still interactions, after all, so that's factoring into our little example. Assuming there are two types of players (KoS / Non-KoS) that are classified, that means that even if there were equal numbers of each, only one in four meetings would have a chance at anything other than a straightaway firefight. Miserable odds, yeah? Of that 25%, you still have a pretty good chance that the interaction is going to suck for at least one side, if bandits are involved... and it's even less of a guarantee that those 1-in-4 chances are going to end without a firefight-- it simply means it won't begin with gunfire. A shootout is *always* a possible next step at absolutely any point during an interaction. So tell me again why you have faith in your fellow man?... :: puts on his spraypainted tinfoil hat and grabs his M4 :: I'll be waiting. Over here. With my finger on the trigger. :|

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of confirmed cases where BattlEye has reported false positives? I have no idea if it's based on known applications or heuristics.

... Willingly. >:D

As a bit of a sidenote, what size are you considering for that kind of monitor? Having seen a lot of different specs out there, including 4K, my personal take is that there's a serious point of diminishing returns at anything under a 32"... Any less than that, the extra money you're throwing down on an HD+ display can often be better spent on beefing up some other component in the system. Just some unrequested words of wisdom. ;)

I heard at one point that AB blood types were bugged, and could only receive other AB types (as opposed to being treated like it has both A and B antigens.) I have not personally confirmed this, just throwing it out there for anyone that's got a compatibility test up and running to verify it's working as intended.

Reports also say he had "200 pellets lodged in his skull," which tells me it sure as hell wasn't 00 Buck. If you're using an antipersonnel load on an unarmored target, I daresay it's sure as shit lethal at point blank range.

I'm the first to admit my ignorance on shotgun / pellet dynamics, so I'll have to preface this with a couple assumed physics considerations: First, a choke shouldn't have a noticeable effect on muzzle velocity. Even in tapering the barrel, the inherent gaps of air in the pellet group ought to minimize any impact on restricted air flow through the choke-- this also applies to sawing the barrel, which is effectively nothing more than a choke modification (at least insofar as the ballistics are concerned.) Second, the only significant impact of a choke is shot spread, which the ideal grouping is strictly a matter of preference and shooter confidence. One aspect that heavily favors choosing a shotgun over a rifle is margin of error. In using a rifle, accuracy errors are pronounced, where a misjudgment of even six inches can mean that your shot entirely fails to hit the target. Conversely, shotguns are much more forgiving, where even if your aim is off by a foot, it's possible that at least a handful of pellets will find their mark. A tighter choke will result in a tighter spread, which to my rudimentary understanding of shottie chokes, doesn't have any real tradeoff aside from reducing the likelihood of scoring a hit if your shot goes wide. General rule as I interpret it: If you're a solid marksman, confident in your aim, you want the tightest choke to keep the most pellets on your properly-aimed course. However, if you've opted for a shotgun because it's more forgiving, then a wider / looser choke (Not sure what the proper terminology is) will help ensure a wider shot dispersion, meaning that you'll likely hit fewer pellets on target even for properly aimed shots, but you won't whiff any shots when you're off target by a moderate MoA. Aside from the obvious differences in physical size, my best consensus is that a sawn-off barrel behaves no differently than a stupidly-wide choke. Shouldn't have any more, or any less of any ballistic factor. Same velocity, same mass, same kinetic energy, the resulting pattern just starts fanning out much quicker, and more exponentially, than their full-size counterparts... Feel free to correct any misinformation contained within, though. :D

The "believable" timeline for the game really depends on what kind of server population we're looking at in the future as well. I agree that the setting and environment points to that 1-2 year minimum, the level of upkeep suggests no less than that (Rusted metal, broken windows, moderate overgrowth) but player density right now makes it feel like a little longer. From what I understand, the development roadmap plans to allow for higher capacity server technology, so my personal feeling is that bringing it up to 80 or so players will help bring that in line with the 1-2 year window. And the point's open to interpretation, obviously; perhaps Chernarus was sparsely populated to begin with, but it just feels like there would be more human interaction in the suggested window. That's really the only factor IMO that doesn't fit into the timeline, though there's obvious room for disagreement even on that one point. ;)

I really don't find the aesthetic to be out of place at all... I mean, from a realistic standpoint, I work in a building that's been around since the turn of the century. We really don't do a whole lot to maintain it, the only real work we've had to put in was resealing some of the sills around our windows, as rain was starting to sneak in during high winds. Aside from that, and miscellaneous roofing tar-jobs after hailstorms, you really don't have to do a whole hell of a lot in the way of preventing a dilapidated structure. You don't mean to tell me that some of you folks have an annual chop-off-the-vines-growing-on-my-house ritual I've somehow lucked out of undergoing alll these years, right? ;) As far as overgrowth goes, I could see maybe bumping up the foliage growing around the foundations of some buildings, but I don't really think it has to be excessive-- I haven't seen too many well-manicured lawns as I wander around the expanse of Chernarus.

This raises an interesting question; do BattlEye and VAC cross-report?

Yes, it's annoying; I don't dispute this. I similarly know the excuse gets thrown around these forums a lot, but this just isn't a priority issue during an Alpha phase... The development lifecycle places emphasis on mechanics and content at this point-- not a polished gameplay experience. Introduction of features, ensuring the underlying systems function as intended. Don't misunderstand me, because I'm all for the discussion of issues, bugs, glitches... But let's face it, everyone knows hacking is an issue already. It's been identified and acknowledged as something that should not make it into the retail release. It may be the sort of unpopular opinion that know counts me amongst the ranks of what I can only presume are seen as "Those Elitist Alpha Assholes," but seriously, a dead horse can only be beaten for so long.

... I WANNA MEET THE TRAVELLING BOOK SALESMAN! :D

Oh dear... It seems a lot of replies here don't know what a Mexican Standoff is! :( Your cliche lesson of the day: we're not talking about a tense moment of indecision between two individuals, or two groups. The term refers almost exclusively to three parties, which brings the unique scenario that firing first is almost NEVER in your best interest. Assuming the shots are lethal and accurate, being the first to fire means you'll take down one of your two opponents, but the remaining baddie will usually get the drop on you before you can acquire your second target. Of course there are exceptions, and sometimes if you've got a real pair of stones you can pull it off-- but by and large, being the first to open fire still ends up putting you in a grave.

Hahaha, once you lose sight of the others in your group, it's a straight no-win situation! I recall on one occasion during an ambush, my group was so concerned trying to avoid friendly fire that we'd try to IFF every target before we pulled the trigger... "Red backpack, brown pants, aviators-- friendly? FRIENDLY?!" ... Sadly, it meant that we were so hesitant to take the shot that when it WAS a bandit, they got off the first salvo, and we summarily died. Of course, if we HADN'T been so careful, every shot would have landed on a friendly! Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right? :P