Spart248

Broken leg? Duct Tape Bleeding? Duct Tape Hackers? Duct Tape Win

Shooting arrows or bolts with raw meat strung to them is a bit arbitrary I feel. Aside from the impracticality of attaching heavy chunks of meat to delicate arrows or bolts, If having pieces of raw meat in your inventory only affects the attraction of zombies slightly, applying it to an arrow or bolt would be even less effective (considering you would have to apply insignificant amounts in order to keep the projectile somewhat on-target).

Destiny

Biplane

So... Gunna be running around chasing Bigfoot?

That is the exact issue that ruins authentism in the game. With so many different ways you could go about gutting an animal and all the outcomes that could come out of it, just making it a win or lose situation is laughably unrealistic and will ruin the immersion without a doubt. A very simple, primitive way to improve the situation you have would be (like in real life) depending on how large the cut is on the bladder, what angle the animal is on, and where the fluid from the bladder blows, certain areas of the animal would be spoiled and certain areas of meat would not be spoiled. The idea of "right or wrong" or "win or lose" is the exact and utter opposite of what Dayz embodies. It is about all possible outcomes and how those can be achieved. Not only achieved, but created by the player themselves. The environment should not be tailored for the player, but rather the player should tailor how the environment acts. And with this said, the environment must have many different options and outcomes paired with many different actions in order to sell the effect as authentically as possible to the player.

I have thought about this kind of things but these kind of "mini-games" are the things that can lessen immersion quite easily. They can not only become repetitive, but also be nearly impossible to feel authentic. It would be like playing those surgery ipod games or whatever the hell they are. The first step to doing something like this would mean that you would have to program it so that all faults are possible and many outcomes can happen when gutting the animal. Otherwise it would be akin to playing a surgery game with a dotted line guiding your knife. Some of the difficult things about an action like this would be programming such precisions like cutting too deep down the gut and nicking an intestine, bladder, stomach, etc. and part of the meat being spoiled due to the spillage. Just from that example alone, you can see many different specifics that would need to be met when making an action like this. Not only would one need to be careful with controlling the pressure and direction of their knife blade (or it would be a simple non-immersive click-and-drag), but they would also have to be able to make any type of cut when ridding of the membrane and connective tissue of the organs to dispel them. We can see how complex this could be to be totally authentic and not ruin the immersion. Not too mention the way the guts move around would have to be unique and different every time otherwise it would end up being "ok, cut this on the left, then that membrane on the right, then another one further to the right" over and over again, getting repetitive fast. Now don't get me wrong, I am completely for the idea of doing something like this and would love to help contribute, being someone who does this myself, but I would just like to put forth the fact that in order to not fuck it up, alot of work and precision would have to be put into the activity to make it work with the "simulation" and not make it feel simply like a "game". It could extremely increase the authentism and fun of Dayz, but it would need to be very well made, even possibly being 90% of an update simply because of the work that should be put into it.

Let's sue Greece for large amounts of money ....oh wait

Nope. Didn't notice.

OKHERESDAPLAN We will gather every single person on the planet, and bring them together to work like ants on this videogame! We shall bring the nations of the world together to contribute their national budgets to the world's most realistic videogame! North Korea can work on authenticating in-game concentration camps.

1. You are not being trolled. All the responses to this thread have been serious. Learn what "to troll" means before throwing it around and making yourself look like a troll. Nobody is trolling you. Everyone has provided a real opinion or feedback that is evidently serious (the opposite of trolling), whether it is an insult, a compliment, or whatever the hell you think it is. 2. "Time" is not "Money". It doesn't work that way. To start off, frankly, there are few men on the entire Earth that could even afford to make a game as you dream of within a somewhat reasonable time limit (we'll say in the next 10 years). And that is just an estimate of the amount of time it would take to code the entire damn thing. Now, that is assuming that we have the technology to make something that advanced. To literally make a game that simulates life down to the very damned particle level would likely require technology years, if not decades, beyond where we are now. Not to mention it would probably cost a king's fortune to afford it when it is just developed, along with computers to handle it. I am no programmer, but I can certainly comprehend the scale of what you are asking. Is that "easy to understand"? Now I am not trying to "stomp on an innocent's hopes and dreams" or any dumb shit like that. I told you in my first post, and I am telling you again that although Rocket (along with the entire community) would want a game that is as authentic and real as real life itself as you say, it is just not plausible, nor will it be for quite a long time.

How do you even play on it? I don't see any servers hosting a Utes map on the Six Launcher.

Haven't seen something this blissfully ignorant on these forums since......well, never. Rocket would love to do this and strives towards it. He even said in an interview regarding how far he would go with the authentism of the game and he said (roughly) "Oh yeah, I would let players die of sunburn if they sat out on the beach for too long if I could!". However, these are mostly dreams (what you are saying) simply because it would require years and years, possibly decades, to literally simulate real life in a video game. We may not even have the appropriate technology to do something like that. Well you certainly gave me a good laugh regardless of whether you meant to or not, so thanks :)

Found one on a dead guy with a ghillie on the outside second floor of the Elektro Schoolhouse. Picked it up. Went to climb up the ladder to the roof. Got shot to death while climbing...

Well bringing up Anders Breivik reminded me of what would probably clear up this conversation a little bit. As said before, I do respect your opinion, but I must ask, what exactly is your opinion? You suggest that any children under the rating (17+) of this game should not play this game because they are simply not mature enough to do so. I can understand that, but what exactly do you mean by "not mature enough"? I mentioned it earlier and referenced an example where a child (not mature enough to handle it) taught the word "nigger" might not understand the significance and then run around saying it wherever they go. That should be pretty clear of an example, however it applies on a more general basis of defining maturity and does not work with Dayz (or violent games in general). So I would like you to provide an example of your logic as to what exactly defines someone who is "not mature enough" to be exposed to something like Dayz. As a guideline, perhaps an example of what would happen if you exposed an immature person to this game. What would be the consequences and how would they play out. Regardless of whether you think it is bad because they will go around injuring people people they know no better, or because it will effect them later in life, I would just like to know so that the conversation could be cleared up a bit. But yea, if you do, I will thank you in advance.

Well that is quite a drastic assumption to put forth without any support or even a mere example.

I can respect your opinion on the matter and what not, but it is surprising that you seem to just not quite get it. If you are just voicing your opinion, that is fine, but it seem to me that you are more so questioning why a change is not made. It should not be that difficult to see. The reason that the forum does not ban those under 18 (let's just say they had a way to truthfully tell who was what age) lies in many different explanations, of which 2 seem most prominent (to me at least). The first is pretty obvious and just as well. In terms of banning people from the forums, it is simply too big a hassle for forum admnis/mods to bother with that holds very little benefit. People don't all see it the way you do, now will you convince many of your opinion(just as I am aware I may not be able to sway yours); so you should be aware of that. Now I don't know whther or not forum bans and age restriction are up to the forum administer or Rocket himself, bet when it comes down the actual game, I am pretty sure it is up to Rocket to try and make that possible. Not only may it not even be possible to go any further on age restrictions besides ESRB ratings, but it would be just plain stupid. Now unless Rocket really cares that heavily about the topic, it would be only logical to NOT cut the consumer base by like 1/3 or even 1/2 (assuming that's how many 18 under players there are). It would be terrible for the progress of his game and would surely be an extremely infamous person to all ages from doing this. It is simply not something smart to do. The second reason (and this applies on a more general basis) is that what you are proposing is, within its core, the notion of imposing one man's views upon the children of all parents. When you step back and look at it, that is all it really is. I am not trying to be derogative here, but you must realize what you are saying. As someone said earlier, kids cannot buy Arma 2 (or probably Dayz standalone) without the permission of someone 18+ (who is usually the parent). Now regardless of whether the parent lets their kids play this game because they feel they are mature enough to, or simply because they could care less and know it won't have a huge impact on them (unless addiction strikes), it is of dictator-like action to simply say that there kids have to follow a set of rules, regardless of their opinion, because of one man's view. Now I agree that a handful of people who play this game are certainly not of age or maturity to do so, but the fact is there is simply nothing you can do about it. Voicing your opinion is fine, but in a demanding way is a bit overkill. People all have different views, many of which come into conflict, however you just have to deal with it; right or wrong. As said before, one must just accept that they can't control everything.

While I would agree that saying something that he did is bad because it basically destroys his credibility, it is not because he is childish. It is simply because he does not, yet, understand that people look down upon phrases like that. So although it was bad of him to do that, I would not blame him for it. From now on, he probably won't do that if he reads these posts. But either way, it is rather harsh of you to say that every person is as mature as their age. Sure, most younger people are generally less mature than older people, but that does not necessarily mean that they are all the same. I have encountered kids of various ages. Some younger, yet more mature than older ones, some less mature than their age. It is unfair to set it in stone like that, because it is simply not that way. We all had fairly squeaky voices and half an education at that age, but it is not those that matter when it comes to maturity. It matters on how you use the information and knowledge that you have. Like I said earlier, most kids 14-under usually are not very aware that there is an extremely large amount of information they have not learned yet about the world, and thus they go about talking as if they know everything about the topic. Whether or not you want to blame them for this, most people get pissed off at it (or laugh). Now I have met many children like this, but I have also met a handful you are very aware of their surroundings. It is not like they don't talk about anything, it is just that when they do, they are not so cocky about it, saying random shit and assumptions about the world based on their half-done education.

Well as much as I appreciate your reply, I think it is quite inappropriate to take what I said completely out of context. I am assuming you read the whole thing (if not the rest of that paragraph), however for those who didn't, I will quote the whole idea that I stated. So frankly, it depends on the age, maturity, and personality of the child whether or not I would care about him/her being exposed to content you are suggesting. I may not want to know about it, but in the back of my head I would be aware that he/she may have already came across content like this, whether it be from friends, the internet, or wherever. If I felt they are not capable enough to deal with the type of material you suggest, I would certainly do what I could to keep them from being exposed, but I would not try to control every aspect of there life. I understand, though, that there are certain things that I just have no control over. You lost credibility (to me) with that. I don't give a damn what statistics you can pull up from the depths of the internet on some miniscule benefit from playing video games. The fact is that you can benefit infinitely more from doing something more productive than video games. Whether you be 30 years old, or 13, we would all be better without it. However, they are here and we do it regardless simply because we, being humans, like to have entertainment of the highest quality possible (which happens to be video games for many cases). That does not mean we should be ignorant about it, though. Be aware of what you are doing, whether it be good or bad. Most people assume this because it is (for the most part) true. Most kids (14 and under) do generally have high-pitched voices simply because they have not/are going through puberty. They are generally ignorant as well. Being in middleschool/early highschool, they likely don't have a full understanding of how things work in the world around them outside their daily lives. It is not a derogative statement; all people go through this. It is not their or your fault for not being in a higher grade, It is simply something you have to deal with. What makes it "bad" to many people is that these children are not afraid to voice their opinions, which often have faulty logic due to not being highly educated on the concept (especially when the dialogue pertains to politics). Of course, as logical it may seem to them, to others who have a higher education, it usually seems ridiculous. Once again, I am not simply trying to bash you and your friends, but rather just explain to you the situation. A "right of passage", if you will, could be a way to describe it I guess. Perhaps not so much that as just part of "growing up". Now I am sure we were all similar (in terms of attitude, education, and maturity; not the games we played) when we were 14. I can, personally, relate to the description I just stated above. And although not all of us may admit it, most everyone likely shared a trait described above when they were 14 or younger. It is simply a part of life, not much else to say. You will probably be saying the same stuff about the next generation of kids when you grow up.

The fact is that it is mostly a matter of opinion, and that opinion changes from person to person, not only because they are different people with unique thought processes, but also they all have different children. When it comes down to it, the sooner you can expose your children to themes, ideas, and experiences (for lack of better wording) like these, the better. It is nothing special, by learning it, they become not only smarter, but also more aware of the world around them (which I shouldn't have to explain the importance of). However, there are certainly drawbacks. Children exposed to these "concepts" must be mature enough to handle them properly and almost fully understand them. A simple example to express this would be if you taught a 5-year-old the word "nigger". Even if you tried to explain that he shouldn't use it, the fact is that he will likely end up saying it in the wrong place at the wrong time because he does not fully understand the meaning or significance of it. Now with that said, there are so many approaches to how children are confronted by these concepts and aspects that affect how they learn it. Many parents all have different feelings because of their own life experiences and their observations of their child. Some are extremely religious and feel their kid should be "kept pure" for as long as 21 years after birth. Some just feel loosely about the topics and think their kids won't be affected by things like these. Many families in places around Europe are rather careless about exposing their children to sex themes, but very strict on themes surrounding violence. It is often the opposite in the U.S. Many parents (and children alike) also don't exactly want to sit down and have "the talk". Nowadays it is usually considered kind of awkward and unnecessary. Most parents have realized (and are justly to do so) that their kids won't learn or be influenced solely by them. Another (and possibly largest) influence would be that of their school environment and friends. The fact is that the children, regardless of parental word, will likely learn many of these concepts such as sex and violence and whatnot from friends. That got a little bit off topic, but to sum up in short, why parents let kids play these games, I would say the following. Parents simply don't care, and they are fairly justified to do so. They cannot control every aspect of their child's life and the sooner you realize that, the better, more understanding of a parent you will be. They see nothing really wrong with it with the view of "it's just a game". However, to a degree, they are probably right. Although it may have a effect on someone's life, unless they become one of those WoW addicts, video games really don't have a large affect on children. If you want to throw the bullshit argument of "oh well someone killed someone else and then said they did it because of a game!", then go ahead. If you can't realize that the reason that person did that crime was because he had some kind of mental stability issue, rather than because of a video game, then you, too, probably have a mental issue. tl;dr-Games don't "encourage" violent behavior.

To all the jackasses out there complaining that this thread is useless, try using your brain for once. Regardless of whether or not the OP meant to do this, the fact is that this thread could be very useful for one source to look at to gather information on exactly what are the main problems in Dayz currently and how many people they affect. Rather than sifting through and counting the hundreds of threads there are complaining about each and every topic, if people all vote on this thread, Rocket would have the opportunity to see just what are the issues that needed to be tended to first, and what should be tended to after. So please don't just be an asshole to OP'ers just because you think their thread is useless. Whether or not it is actually useless, your comment within itself is just as useless and thus you are a hypocrite.

How do you put Dayz in window-mode? I have been wanting to do that for a while now.

OP's response to Arma 2 My response to OP

You don't need your character to get anxious or stressed out. The game does that to you already.

Quit being a drama whore. You are not the only one. Plenty of people are pissed and plenty have also left. The majority, if not all, are simply coming back when the standalone comes out and there are almost no hackers or bullshit glitches. Don't expect everyone to give you sympathy or feel sorry for you. Just leave the mod and come back to the full game, it is not a big deal. This is not a "Goodbye Forever" kind of thing. So just chill your ass and come back later. And you are a jackass to generalize everyone who gives the "it's alpha" speech as a hacker. The correct generalization would be that they are all retarded. That is because being Alpha is no excuse for the game to be full of hackers. The only excuse Rocket has for this (though it is a good excuse) is that the mod is free (not to mention that it is NOT EVEN HIS FAULT; the engine itself of Arma 2 is the main problem that there are so many hackers and that is not fixable until the standalone is released with a new engine) . That does, in essence, let him do whatever he wants, seeing as it is free to play and there is no obligation from players to do something, as they have not spent anything towards the game. Neither is Alpha an excuse for the game to have a shitload of game-breaking graphical glitches that are not fixed almost immediately after they pop up. However, simply because it is free, like I said, Rocket can do whatever the fuck he feels. However, that will certainly not be the case on the standalone, I am sure of it.