xBlackCat

All you have to do is create a first person weapon skin with two hands. The third person animations wouldn't have to be anything special, even if the second pistol didn't shoot in third person, I doubt many would notice. I still think its a terrible idea, but it wouldn't be that hard to put in.

Just for discussion: There is obviously the potential for trolling here. I'm not sure if anyone would care much, but i expect at least some people to fill their diary with swear words or generic complaining that "you killed me". On the other hand, humanizing the other players has a small chance of decreasing banditry by a tiny bit.

I hate to use the catch-all expression that "it's alpha," but... The purpose of alpha, at least for rocket, is that he is not finished putting all of the features he wants into the game. Part of that process involves testing features and seeing if they are fun. Temperature was one of the big issues not so long ago, and when it got added in it was so aggressive that players were forced to focus on staying warm constantly. After a bunch of complaints that it was just annoying, it was muted to the point that unless the player is standing still in the rain, or running around at night while wet, its not much of an issue. It is now an interesting facet, but more in the scope of what seems right for the game. This process is going to repeat many many times and it is up to us to offer support and respectfully point out flaws in the new additions. Asking rocket to just quit improving his game this early on is just wrong.

On the other hand, it seems like it would be really annoying to put all of that effort into repairing one just so anyone on the horizon could take it down for the lulz.

If the OP isn't trolling; no one in his right mind would ever dual wield. Even if you had to do something like suppressive fire, you would be better off putting one pistol on target, emptying the mag, and then switching to the other pistol to do it again. Firing two pistols at once, it would be impossible to keep more than one of them on target.

I think the reason he decided to make it into a weapon is the logic that "if you're carrying a hatchet, you would use it." But the basic idea in this thread i also agree with. Instead of making two versions of an axe, why not put it an item that takes up the old use of the hatchet? Put in a camp saw or something similar. Survival knife could also take up the job in addition to skinning; a survival knife is all you really need to split wood with the help of a baton that you can make with the knife as well.

The potential problem with melee weapons i see is that it would be an easy and inexpensive way to kill a zombie without making noise, and it would eliminate the fear of running out of ammo, which is a strong driving force. But, the possibility of being in a position with no offensive options sucks. If implemented, it should be high risk. More of a last ditch option, rather than a "I want to be quiet right now" option.

There are night scopes, but only from helicopter crash sites, so the goggles are actually less rare. On a side note, the DMR scope can be used with NVGs on.

Yeah, G17 really changed my opinion of the night quite a bit, it also seems to be quieter than the .45 pistols.

That's pretty much what i meant by pitch black lol

The population of the earth is several billion, yet if you ask 60 people if they are a boy or a girl, you will likely get pretty close to 50-50. With a truly random selection of the full group, once you have 30 results in all possible outcomes, then it is most likely beyond the point where the results are just a coincidence. Due to the fact that this is not a true random selection, but a survey of people who come on the forums, and who went ahead and did the poll, the results are likely skewed, but are most likely still relevant. Attempting a truly random survey is obnoxiously expensive in the real world, and not often done. The reason important surveys are done so extensively is because they want to be within a percent, or a tenth of a percent. I have no such requirements. Anyway, the very page you linked me to says "a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance". Based on what I said above, to the best of my knowledge, these results are easily significant within a reasonable doubt. And because it is significant, reasonable claims made that are supported by the result can be called reasonably valid. Finally, I think we have derailed this thread; all I was trying to point out is that a large percentage of the player base do like to play at night, they are just less vocal than the people who come on here to complain about how dark it is.

When a group is larger than 30, it can be assumed that it approximates normal distribution. That's a general rule of thumb for statistics, and the most basic of the basic. I don't see how listing three somewhat related wikipedia pages and making zero references to anything in specific shows any personal understanding of the topic. You have said nothing of why this number is insignificant, it seems simply that you do not agree, so you want to discard it. Other than the group I myself flagged, the smallest group is 75 members. If you're so fluent in these matters, please educate me why standard conventions don't apply here. I'm not even claiming to have a precise measure of how things are, just the trend. The general ratios are good enough for what I'm trying to claim. I'm not expecting a group that is 20% to go up to 50% nor down to 5% no matter how many people you ask.

Its possible, but another explanation could be that people who play at night tend to be the kind of people who just avoid others at all costs; which would mean they would spread out more, rather than join a half full server. Also, the largest group was still the people who prefer daytime in general, with players who only play at night almost non-existant. About 1 in 5 claimed no preference at all. If you want the raw data: http://www.pollsb.com/polls/p2203166-time_day_prefer_play_dayz#results Only 377 people voted in that poll. That makes it statistically insignificant in the extreme, might as well have made the numbers up. But yeah, the night is dark and server population is low during the night. It will be adjusted in due time. Statistical significance starts at 30. All options have been picked at least 30 times save "only night". But due to the number of overall votes, it is easily enough to say that "only night" is a very small group, and the rest of the numbers are likely correct with respect to each other. Please do not act like an expert on statistics if you barely know the basics. The only real flaw here is what the poster above noted, that this is not a random survey, it is a survey of forum-users.

Its possible, but another explanation could be that people who play at night tend to be the kind of people who just avoid others at all costs; which would mean they would spread out more, rather than join a half full server. Also, the largest group was still the people who prefer daytime in general, with players who only play at night almost non-existant. About 1 in 5 claimed no preference at all. If you want the raw data: http://www.pollsb.com/polls/p2203166-time_day_prefer_play_dayz#results Edit: another potential cause of the discrepancy is that if most servers are on actual server time, then most servers would be night during the time when the most people play. That would cause the people who prefer daytime to pile into the less common inverted servers. No idea if any of this is true or not, just throwing it out there.

Actually, i created a thread with a poll, and while most night servers have less people, overall, the day/night players weren't that unbalanced. Most players preferred a full-moon, but only 21.5% out of 377 voters claimed they only play at night; less than the nearly 25% that said they PREFER the night.

Having wilderness outside of the map is cool, though I think extreme cases of it are pretty exploit-y. Having an invisible wall or something a few km (1? 2? 5? I have no idea) beyond the edge of the map seems like a fair enough balance between the two sides of the argument. It would leave quite a bit of space out where no one would be otherwise interested in going to, without having the issue of bases 20 KM out in a random direction.