rickyriot

1 ruined round, not 1 pristine. Oh, of course, but it's all down to the amount of loot available. I didn't realise this was considered an "exploit" as to be honest it totally makes sense that an entire box of ammo wouldn't be ruined, only some. Same goes for ammo within a magazine. The mag might get damaged but that doesn't mean all the ammo inside would too. Out of interest, and not that I am doubting you, but do you have a link to where Rocket mentions this?

> steal gear from non-bambis > give gear to bambis making them non-bambis > repeat

I am holding a virtual candlelight vigil in hope your desire for petty vengeance is lessened. :(

No, no, not special... better... B)

I believe you meant to say, "but this fucking game is so Alpha", and of course if this is case you would be right. As for the ammo being ruined? Very rarely is all the ammo ruined. In fact I have never come across a situation where all the ammo is ruined. Normally it's just the one round. If you keep on splitting the ammo you'll find that on more occasions than not you end up with one set of pristine and one set of ruined. Keep on splitting and combining the pristine ammo until you get down to the least amount ruined. As I say, in most cases it's just the one round, sometimes a couple. I'm guessing you didn't realise this and just assumed as the ammo said ruined in the inventory that it was all ruined. It's not. It's also a similar thing to the bug that reports ammo as being empty (either in a magazine or box) when you view it, yet you take it into your inventory and lo and behold the ammo is actually full.

So, are we all going to just let this slide? WTF is jew killed, and do you seriously think that highlighting then using strikeout somehow takes away from some sort of insult?

I only play experimental (hardcore) servers, it's not because I want to bug test things, it's just that I am obviously a better person than those who don't.. ^_^ ..however I'll be honest it seems to be mixed. I've gone on some that are on 30+ players and have a backpack, food and some form of weapon within the first 10 minutes of play, yet equally I've joined a near empty and fairly recently restarted server and found next to nothing for ages. Swings and round-a-bouts. Obviously it's wise not to bother following the sheeple path, but then that's common sense. Thing is, surely the level of loot available will temper your gamestyle a little. If you come into a server where most of the loot seems to have been pilfered then the onus is on you to be more aggressive, or at least more engaging, with your fellow Chernarians.(or would that be Chernarussians?). Clearly if the loot is not in the houses then it's on the players and instead of simply picking things up off tables you'll need to work out a way of getting it off those players; fair means or foul.

The only problem I have with his videos is that he plays in 3PP. Sure it's more cinematic but still playing lamecore is the equivalent of having Hitler as your forum avatar..

Personally I don't really care either way, I've played tons of DayZ mod and lots of SA and yet to encounter the guy online, but the video doesn't do anything but try and join the dots. Surely in some ways they are pretty decent cases for it, but it's also not proof.

You see, that's just a daft argument, no matter whether there is any validity to it. If they edit them out then how do you know they were used in the first place?

I'll sell you the mod if you want.

mopa, do you have a Frankie poster on your bedroom wall? ;)

inb4 skill tree.

That's just circumstantial though, it's not "proof". Is his stuff highly staged? Certainly a fair part of it. Is that a problem? Not really. Is there evidence he has hacked? No, or at least none that I have seen. If you wish to show me the proof I am more than happy to look at it with an open mind; I am neither fanboi nor hater.

It was clearly spam, which you have now quoted, extending the spam. Please edit your post as quoting it is almost as bad if not worse than the bot posting it in the first place as you had a choice.

Is he really? Really? I don't think you can somehow suggest anything of the sort. I've given you my beans, but it's with a caveat. I think you are being a touch harsh unless you can provide that evidence. Everything I have seen has been circumstantial. However your last sentence I totally agree with and it's why my beans are with you. I liked his videos and they certainly enhanced my early DayZ gameplay, but I do recommend people go back and view them as they are perhaps just a little too staged in some parts. As I said in my previous post, I have no issue with that, it's like asking bands to only release albums that have been recorded in one take and that's never going to happen. You have to accept he tailors his videos but then that is the point, he wants to create a narrative, it's story telling.

Well there are two situations here, are you sure they are connected. In the sense the people you "spared" how do you know they were the people who killed you? Anyway, in terms of the quandary; "should I have killed them", it's all down to experience. You say your mate is more experienced then I assume his decision was based on the amount of ammo you have, the weapons you have, the condition you were in, the amount of food/water/meds you have, the location you were in, how close to cover you were, how busy the area was (both zombies and players) and not least of all the level of your and his abilities. Sounds like a long list and I'm sure we could all add more to it, but to be honest, once you get used to the game running through all those shouldn't take you more than a second or two.

While I don't agree with the idea, I don't disagree with it. Tell you what though, how about I throw this little grenade into the thread... What if you couldn't respawn into the same hive while your dead body is still within the game? Sounds harsh when you think of the number of times you respawn after being unlucky in a fire fight and you just want to get "back on the horse", as it were, but then on the flip side I still have an existential problem with people being able loot their own corpses.

Yeah, a lot of the issues are anecdotal just now. I tend to play on my own (not because I have no friends, just because.. well.. people) and I have no idea what my body is actually doing in that time between I log off and the server logs me off. I'm guessing that the moral of the story is to not log out during a fire fight, and being pinned down by a sniper pretty much comes under that category. In fact logging out while under attack pretty much comes under the definition of combat logging even if it's done without any attempt to gain an advantage (or more, not to suffer a disadvantage). In short? Don't log out in a fight, but you do raise a good question about what the character does in game when you are no longer connected to it.

You are not making the separation between what can offer the most immersive experience and what levels of immersion are experienced by the player. One of those is objective, the other is subjective. Ok, let's deconstruct the argument. Sorry if this all sounds high brow but it's obviously necessary as several people have confused the premise I put forward earlier. I can't argue that people don't get immersed in a game. that's not what I am suggesting, however if you were to ask to me, for example, "Which provides the most immersive experience Mario Bros or Battlefield?", you would rightly say Battlefield. Those are almost polar opposites of game genres; one being a two dimensional cartoon based platformer, the other being a first perspective, three dimensional battle 'simulator'. Can you say that someone doesn't get immersed in the game play of Mario? Of course not, as that is all about the player being removed from their contextual environment and focussing on the virtual environment. The OED defines immersion as "Deep mental involvement in something" which is generally what is happening when someone plays computer games. Still with me? Good, so from that last paragraph we can assume all computer games can offer immersion, the amount based on the players involvement whether physical or emotional. Now let's look at which offers the most immersive environment. The OED defines the word immersive as, "(Of a computer display or system) generating a three-dimensional image which appears to surround the user." That's obviously lacking a little in definition as perhaps we could apply that still to Mario as the brain, simply in the way it works, applies three dimensions to Mario (because that is the reality we experience ourselves), however we can see from that there is a clear difference between immersion and immersive. Now if we take that one step forward, and introduce DayZ and it's perspectives, which provides the most immersive environment between 3PP and 1PP, then we get to the heart of my comment. As you experience everything in real life from a first person perspective (sorry for stating the blindingly obvious, but it does need to be said in order to clarify the point) then to offer that same perspective within the game offers the most immersive environment. When playing in the 3PP you are viewing the player (and in sense, you) from an "unnatural viewpoint" and thus, abstracted from reality. So, what does all that psychobabble actually boil down to? Does it mean the player cannot be immersed in 3PP? No, but then that is not my point, and it seems that some people have read it to be so. In fact my point is quite clearly that in order to provide the most immersive environment then you choose 1PP. This is a metric, it's not subjective, it's objective based on what I've laid out above.

I used to enjoy watching Frankie's videos. Then I learned how to play the game and realised he's just not that good. Sure he's experienced and is certainly not bad at the game but I feel he relies on 3PP way too much for everything that and the lack of experience of his "victims". I don't mind that he edits his stuff to make him look good, that's fair enough, but people should understand what we see is only a tiny fraction of the game he plays. Although I do get a little annoyed with the fanboi stuff regarding him. I'm not a hater, I realise he can't control other people's opinions (and in many cases fawning) and if he makes money from being "famous" in computer games then fair play to him, well done, however he does seem to enjoy adding that sort of stuff into the videos which irks me somewhat.

On the subject of McConaughey, does anyone else think he's done a great job of turning himself from shitty rom com muppet into a really good character actor? Dallas Buyers Club, Mud, True Detective (which reminds me I need to go watch the last episode). I used to hate McConaughey in stuff, now I can't get enough of the guy.