bor-hjemme@hotmail.com

It is perfectly plausible. Before I learned that it is possible to check the server name by pressing I, my friend and I was going to play togheter. But he had no idea what server he joined :) All he knew were that there were 32/40 currently on the server and his ping. I listed all the servers by player count. and clicked them one by one checking the player lists. went throught atleast 10 servers before i found him ;) (only took about 1 minute). and this is with a list of 32 names.... if there only were 5-10 names each server would only take a couple of secounds. 50 servers = 2-3 minutes? and that is all 50 servers... Would probably not be too hard to find it before the dc'er had finished loading :)

I also really like the idea of non-lethal weapons. Maybe they could cause some kind of forced surrendering action? ^^

Yes, I am definitely aware that this has been suggested in many different shapes and sizes ;D Just wanted to throw my version out there :) I also do believe this is one of the obvious things in such a game (zombie survival with other players with intentions unknown ^^) and therefore probably is going to be implemented by Rocket sooner or later anyways.

This is an idea i got while reading thru Hoik's thread on the same topic. Link: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9949 Basically I believe everyone will agree on the fact that as this mod currently works now, killing other players on sight is the best way to go. As this will make sure they don't kill you and it is an easy way to get loot. I believe that it should be possible to get other players loot and make sure (to a certain degree) that they wont shoot you. Without implementing weird mechanics such as no friendly fire. Name of the solution: Surrendering! If you find yourself outgunned, ambushed or in any other situation were death is almost certain. You should be able to surrender. This is something I think will work and that it could also be used with the ideas other people have regarding player controlled encampments and trading posts (more on this later). I think the surrendering action should work kind of like this: - The surrendering player holstered their weapon and raised their empty hands into the air. - The surrendering player would make a sound (yell out: I surrender) so that the aggressor would know that their opponent was surrendering (even if they were hiding behind cover). -A surrendered player would act like a dead player regarding looting, so that their gear in both their backpack and in their inventory could be accessed and looted. -The surrendered player would stay like this for a minimum amount of time (let's say 2 minutes) so that the other player wouldn't need to fear getting shot by the surrendered player when he walked away. (I know this is unrealistic and all that, but there would need to be something like this to prevent the only way of making sure you do not get shot when looting/looking at their gear is to shoot them first.) -The time the surrendered player is in this state is very important. As I think it should be long enough for the other player to look through their loot and take what he wanted and to get a little distance between them when he is done looting/looking. But I think everyone will agree that too long will be boring for the surrendered and pretty pointless. the surrendered player should definitely be able to try and track down the looter and reengage later on. (Now with only the weapon(s) the looter let you keep (if any at all)). I know for a fact that in real life I would not be stupid enough to draw weapon while another guy was pointing a gun at me or holding it against the back of my head whilst searching me. no, I would wait with pursuing the bandit until I thought it would be safe. And now that I think about it. Un-holstering your weapon and shooting the looter while he is looking at your gear is perhaps even more unrealistic than an forced minimum surrendering time. Allowing the bandit to take all he could carry would mean that in most cases the surrendering player would be left with the lesser weapon and ammo. food and medical supplies that the other player needed (wanted) will be lost. This I believe to be the most realistically and unforgiving approach to this mechanism. If the winner of the engagement was a group of multiple people the surrendered player could possibly be left without any gear. In which case all he would "earn" by surrendering instead of getting killed would be their current location (could be far north). Whether or not surrendering players should be able to move around can be discussed but as I imagine it now they should stay stationary. Perhaps on their knees with hands behind their heads? This solution would also allow the surrender function to be used as a "strip search" option. allowing all the trade posts and player hold encampments i have read about being able to control what visitors bring into their camp. Simply by "looting" a surrendering player. This would also let this be used as a disarm function were players could take away the surrendered players weapon and take him hostage. This could potentially make for some interesting play when we think about clans/groups stealing each others members and such ^^ But for the hostage taking stuff. Players disconnecting would be a serious problem. (Could possibly be fixed with a disconnection timer and the disconnecting player doing an animation showing that they were disconnecting. (So many threads on this matter that i wont even bother xD)

I really like the idea of an surrender action. I do think it definitely should have an impact on the mindless slaughter fest going on now. But i do not think the mechanism of you dropping your gear is optimal. I think the surrendering action should work more like unmovingtarget proposed. The player would holster his weapon, stand up with hands in the air. Maybe even make a sound (yell out: I surrender) so that the aggressor would know their opponent was surrendering even if they were behind cover. A surrendered player would act like a dead player in that way that the bandit could take what he wanted from both backpack and inventory. As long as he can carry it all. The surrendered player would stay like this for a minimum amount of time (let's say 2 minutes) so that the other player wouldn't need to fear getting shot by the surrendered player when he walked away. Allowing the bandit to take all he could carry would mean that in most cases the surrendering player would be left with the lesser weapon and ammo. food and medical supplies that the other player needed (wanted) will be lost. This I believe to be the most realistically and unforgiving approach to this mechanism. If the winner of the engagement was a group of multiple people the surrendered could possibly be left without any gear. In which case all he would "earn" by surrendering instead of getting killed would be their current location (could be far north). This solution would also allow the surrender function to be used as a "strip search" option. allowing all the trade posts and player hold encampments i have read about being able to control what visitors bring into their camp. Simply by "looting" a surrendering player.