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

I've definitely noticed the difference! The biggest improvement seems to be with fences and gates currently; ever since the ninja-patch that overhauled it, I have yet to have a zombie clip through a fence after I vault it; they always seem to successfully pathfind around it to an opening, and it doesn't break LoS. Truly phenomenal improvement, the only phasing issues I've seen are with some walls, and even then, I've got about a 25-50% success rate that zeds will actually find doorways. I haven't observed if it's tied to specific building architectures that they know how to path, or if it's just an inconsistent behavior, but the current state of affairs is an across-the-board improvement from the initial alpha build!

The VSS really isn't a sniper rifle to begin with; it's intended range seldom exceeded 500m. It fires subsonic rounds, and 9x39 is a heavy load to boot. Haven't had the pleasure of firing one personally, but I would imagine ballistics drop starts becoming an impermeable factor at much beyond that.

I'd like to see more rifles, personally. No, no, not assault rifles-- rifles! The iconic Winchester 1894 in .30-30 sprinkled around farmhouses, maybe throw in one of Marlin's many .22LR models as a more common find in residential areas. I'm all for having a variety of firearms in the game, but I still want it to feel like a post-apocalyptic, SHTF scenario. If Chernarus has a storied history of military presence then by all means include plenty of guns that fit that bill; but I think it's just as integral to see the civilian market represented... especially if that means you have to start making conscious decisions about which types of ammo you're gonna start lugging around, and if it's really worth building up a stockpile of NATO 5.56 when you're creeping around the apartments of Cherno. :D

Hopefully it's done with surgical precision. I could see where there's something to be said for the last surviving member of the Brotherhood's willingness to take the hostages out with him, after seeing his brethren fallen in battle. ;)

I avoid them right now, simply because they give away my position moreso than if I weren't wearing them. Mark my words, though, if there's ever a full-black face mask that gets released, I guarantee I'll wear it whether it makes me a bandit or not. Blackout camo during night ops is just too damn helpful to evade detection.

Strangely enough, I agree; I consider it MORE suspicious when someone doesn't act guarded / on-edge. After all, they have no more reason to trust me than I have reason to trust them. Then again, I also don't make it a habit of teaming up with strangers in the hostile lands of Chernarus, so most of my interaction is limited to short exchanges for trade or aid, and once that business is concluded, I expect us to peacefully go our separate ways. If, however, someone seems to have a blatant disregard for their OWN safety while we're working out the finer points of a trade, the paranoia in me starts screaming they have a friend on overwatch that's about to ruin my day.

I would only foresee it becoming an improvement if you have desync issues even on lightly populated servers. I think most folks' experience mirrors mine, in that low-pop servers are much snappier to respond and with fewer desync issues, but it becomes more and more noticeable as the number of players increases. I doubt it's much of a LAN issue as opposed to a server optimization issue, so it's just a waiting game until the server code gets the needed overhauls. There are things that need to take priority on the technical food chain, though, so I would hardly call it urgent-- especially since optimization is a pretty fucky little beast, and it takes someone with equal parts patience, programmatic knowledge, and intense familiarity with an engine. Basically, the game development equivalent of a unicorn. ;)

The only hack I've yet been victimized by has actually cropped up on two occasions, where someone has managed to turn their Mosin into a machine gun with seemingly unending ammo capacity. There have been some other suspicious incidents, but I can only point to them as suspicious as opposed to blatant hacking, and in any case, I'm more than happy to have them burn all their tricks during the alpha, before the retail launch. It's annoying that I have to plod back through servers and make the NWAF gauntlet run, but I can't call it the ruination of the game; it's an annoyance, plain and simple. If it means they show their collective hands while the game is still in early development, I'm willing to put up with the frustration. :)

I'll just copypasta my response from another thread, which rather handily sums up my contact hierarchy: Since writing that, I will admit that even some of the times I've tried to help out fresher players have turned sour on me, choosing to fisticuffs me whilst I'm digging around in my pack for any potential goodies I can lighten their day with. It's left me a bit on the salty side, probably skewing my perspective for some future engagements, if in no other way, maintaining more distance than usual. Regardless of how I perceive your attitude up to that point, if I'm trying to keep a respectable distance that you insist on closing, you'll probably get turned into swiss cheese; once bitten twice shy and all that...

Well, the only tried-and-true rangefinding mechanisms that I know about all boil down to visual recognition in some form or another. Depending on your preferred optics, your experience may vary, but if you have a hard time eyeballing raw distance to target, you can make some quick-and-dirty adjustments once you have target acquisition. General approaches involve getting a feel for a target's size profile in relation to varying stages of magnification. This isn't quite as easy given the way the LRS is currently modelled, and most of my sniping experience from other games utilizes discrete magnification steps: 4x -> 8x -> 16x and the like. The 'infinite' precision on the LRS means that unless there are some hotkeys I don't know about, it's difficult to know when you're at precisely 10x zoom for example, but you can still compare target profile with minimum and maximum zoom for a relatively reproducible result. Sit down with a buddy at some point, and bring a load of ammo with you, 'cause you're gonna put plenty of lead downrange to test. Have your trusty assistant stand near a wall at such a distance so that his shoulder width takes up 1/4-width of the optics, try out your best-guess on a zero range, and pop the wall a couple feet to the left at head height. Once you get it properly zeroed for that range, you then have a fairly reliable range estimation whenever your target width fills that portion of the scope. Rinse 'n' repeat for 1/2 width, etc. at varying zoom levels. At this point, you can probably see where having discrete magnification stages really helps to give you a concrete starting point and a little more variety/precision for range estimation, but the underlying procedure remains the same. Also note there are varying schools of thought between using target width vs. target height, and it all comes down to the targets you reasonably expect to engage. I personally don't care for using height as much, because most of the time I'm behind a long rifle, I'm on counter-sniping duty. As such, I might expect to see a variety of positions, anything from standing/crouched/prone/leaning and any combination thereof. On the other hand, if you're lying in wait to ambush someone plodding down a lonesome road, it may be a much more useful measurement in your case. Adjust procedure alongside common sense and you'll be fine. One last parting word of advice, if your target is partially silhouetted or you otherwise can't get a good read on their profile, you can cheat and use a nearby residential door for reference. Just remember that people are slightly smaller than doors, so try and visualize that inner 80-90% as your reference target, but I generally recommend aiming center-of-mass whenever you introduce even more inconsistency than the usual estimation errors. Happy hunting! :D