sabaka (DayZ)

If you're shooting yourself with a .22 pistol you should also be stabbing yourself with a butter knife. To make the comparison fair...

1- I (and everyone I play with) uses skype on our phones sitting in front of our keyboards in order to have separate and separately mutable mics (and uninterrupted communications regardless of latency spikes etc.) and so all speculation about preventing background voip programs from running is utter nonsense. 2- I posted this elsewhere but I'm reposting it here: Teamspeak (or skype or whatever) is clearly cheating. As stated it allows you to communicate without being in close proximity to someone. Additionally texting or messaging your friends to ask them if they want to play with you is cheating. Running places is a huge focus of this game. If you want to play with your real life friends you need to run to their house (in real life), let them know you're going to get on when you get back, then run home. Otherwise you alert them that you're going to be online, and possibly tell them where your character is in game and on what server, without letting their roommates or spouses or other people in their house hear you and what you're doing. This gives you a tactical advantage.

I have found hardcore to be more friendly overall and I have two theories why. 1 - children prefer 3pp. I have never run into little kids on hardcore, and in my experience kids are more likely to shoot you on sight then talk trash over direct because you didn't see them first while they were hiding behind a doorway using the magic periscope to see you. 2 - role players prefer 1pp. If you are genuinely treating this game as an immersive survival game you will not be using the magic periscope. If you're not using it you don't want it used against you so you play hardcore. This type of player is more likely to work together. Experimental servers are also friendlier than regular, because they require you to actually click 2 buttons to opt in so that filters out so many cod bozos. On experimental hardcore I'd say that the vast majority of my interactions, even while geared and armed, were friendly. I've even traded ammo and weapons with groups of people and no one started shooting as soon as the others turned their backs. 3rd person is also very obviously easier because it basically removes the need to actually understand tactical positioning or have any situational awareness. If you aren't sure how visible you are at any time just go to magic periscope, hold alt, and scout your own position. Once you're satisfied just camp, using the magic periscope to see others without exposing yourself. On this note I don't think that 1pp players are necessarily any more skilled, but I do think that bad players gravitate toward 3pp. Since there are so many more 3pp players it's hard to say which group is more skilled on average though. It's possible that many good players play 3pp just to gank the bad players that invariably play 3pp.

Literally every single solitary argument I hear for third person servers (it's easier for me, it's user friendly, mass market appeal, less restrictive AND ESPECIALLY you have your own hive so go play on it and shut up) would also be 100% true and valid if there were a set of servers that removed perma-death. "You died, respawning with full gear in 10, 9, 8..." The problem with that is that if servers like that were introduced more people would play them than would play regular, perma-death servers. It would be harder to find full servers the way you like, the devs would spend time and resources catering to that part of the community and fixing issues relating to their needs, AND YOUR GAME EXPERIENCE WOULD SUFFER FOR IT. Just because people have trouble with the harsh, cold reality of a perma-death game does not mean that they should be catered to. You have to decide what type of game this is. Is it a casual zombie shooter? If so then 3pp and respawning with gear all the way. Is it a hardcore survival simulator? 3pp makes no sense. On that last issue, the crux of the discussion is the question "What is Dayz?" To me it is by definition a hardcore game, not in the sense of 1pp only, but in the sense of the meaning of the word hardcore. It's brutal, it's unforgiving, it's immersive, it's "realistic" (as realistic as surviving the zombie apocalypse while sitting on my butt staring at a monitor has ever been) and it should be played in first person. Every time I can't find a full server, every minute a dev spends fixing graphics or any other type of bug that only applies to 3pp my game experience suffers because someone else can't handle the way the game was meant to be played. Rocket himself repeatedly says that hardcore is better, and I'm sure if he had a time machine he would go back and never create 3pp in the first place. In the meantime, however, you filthy casuals and your needs take away from the proper game experience (as according to Rocket) and no one has ever offered a coherent argument about why an immersive survival sim needs a magic floating camera in the first place. I get that many people like it, but many people would like spawning with guns. Many people would like perma-death to be removed. Many people would rather play legend of Zelda. All you 3pp people should be arguing just as hard for all of those things. edit: tl;dr 3pp is one of many things that makes the game more approachable. The fact that it is vigorously defended, and other ideas WHICH WOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME EFFECT such as no perma-death, spawn with guns, etc. are not argued for seems very arbitrary. Why draw completely random lines in the sand? Either go for making it as hardcore as possible or hey, lets go play planetside 2.

And, as per usual, it's the atheist camp, first posting about "shitting inside of churches" and then when someone points out that that just makes him sound like an idiot responding that anyone who believes anything different from themselves is "making an ass of himself" and lacks any "semblance of human reasoning" and using "kid" as an insult, despite the fact that the majority of internet superhero vocal atheists are between 15 and 19 years old.

This attitude is my primary problem with atheists. It seems that a majority of them subscribe to the circular reasoning that "I'm smarter than theists because I'm an atheist and atheists are smarter" Atheists are neither smarter nor dumber than theists, they just believe something different. The smartest person I know is an atheist. The stupidest person I know is also an atheist. Plenty of theists are brilliant and plenty are complete dolts. The same goes for atheists. Having grown up in a religious household I'll be the first to admit that religious people are often guilty of telling anyone who disagrees with them that they're just wrong and not being willing to listen to arguments or analyze facts, but I've never noticed the degree of intellectual condescension that comes from the atheist camp. Theists believe people who disagree just happen to be wrong, atheists tend to believe that people who disagree are stupid. It's baseless, irrational, and irritating.

basically just this.

That would be a brilliant fix to serverhopping. Instead of timers and whatnot just allow people to join 2 servers per hour. On the third join 25% chance character wipe. Fourth join 50% then 75% and finally 100. Do ya feel lucky, serverhopping punk?

This is an M44. I would feel like a man unloading this into anyone.

This happened to someone I was playing with. He has terrible desync and often when he runs every time he changes direction little ghosts continue straight (like the halo hologram). He ran up a hill, desynced, "you are dead". Middle of the forest, no possible way he was sniped, just dropped dead. In his case it was almost certainly elevation and desync related, so yes, it happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Adi5agLSRwk#t=6151 I'll just leave this here.

NWAF is most certainly haunted. I was playing on the experimental US hardcore server 0-2 the other day, 45ish people 4 hours after server reset. Zombies everywhere, no sign anyone had been there, doors closed. North camo building: not looted. Fire station: not looted BUT all of the big red doors were opened. I climbed the tower and when I got to the third level I heard 1 sks shot and the bullet hit right above my head. I heard and saw it. None of the zombies even reacted, and I spent 20 minutes slinking around checking everywhere for people. Nothing. Finally decided the shooter was gone and looted all the hangers. No problem running in the open like an idiot. South barracks not looted. Went south from there to the Vybor military base. NE barracks building: all doors closed. NW barracks building: front door closed, inside doors open, Kitted M4 on the ground in a weird way so I'm pretty sure it didn't spawn there (unless they spawn with MP parts and optics in experimental?) I guess someone was sniping at NWAF and got bored and went to Vybor and killed someone there mid loot then hid the body but left the gun and shut the one door but not the others? Why would you let someone you had trapped in a tower escape though? Also why open all the big red doors but not take anything or do anything else? Why would you leave a pristine component M4? Why would you not check the other barracks? Maybe someone is just screwing with people but it all seemed weird.

I'm too lazy to read 16 pages to see if other people are saying this also but OH MY GOODNESS THIS!. You realize that new games cost $59.99 these days right? You paid less than $30 for a game that you clearly like enough to register forum accounts so you can discuss when you're not playing. I've played about 150 hours and gotten way more than $30 of fun out of this. If it closed up shop tomorrow, the servers went dark, and that was it I would not regret a single penny I spent on it. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for additions and fixes and changes and I can't wait to play a finished game, but I think people are overreacting just a tad. If you're at a point in your life where the loss of $30 is devastating to you and causes you feel like you've been cheated or someone has "stolen" from you then you don't need to be spending $30 on video games. Have you never spend that much money on movie tickets on a date only to have the date suck? Gone to see a play that was terrible? Was that theft too? You bought into a game, you play the game, that's how it works. Just because you don't get everything exactly the way it played out in your head when you spent the money doesn't mean you can accuse people of stealing and pitch a crying fit.

My first job was as a control systems engineer in the manufacturing industry. While I've never specifically programmed or worked on the machines in a power plant I would imagine that a nuclear or hydro-electric power plant would run for a very long time without any human intervention. The machinery I programmed and worked on in giant manufacturing facilities could happily run for weeks without any human activity required. I can tell you this for sure though, as long as you live somewhere near a nuclear or hydro-electric power plant the lights will be on long after you stop finding fresh, non-rotten fruit lying around.

Why is everyone caught up on how loud this stuff is? Your character isn't wearing ear protection. You go shoot a rifle in 5.56 OR 7.62x39 OR 7.62x54R a couple times in real life without ear protection and then tell me how well you're hearing environment noises. Is an M4 "loud" compared to a hunting rifle in .308 or a hot loaded .44 magnum revolver? Not really. Is it plenty loud enough to wreck your hearing for the next few minutes if you blast off a full magazine in full auto? Yes. None of the guns in game are "realistically" loud because ear ringing after repeated shooting without protection isn't a thing. Also you can fire a hundred rifle rounds INDOORS and not be choking and deaf. I'm assuming they'll fix sound overall but until then who cares? Also even when they fix it it won't be realistically loud enough. Also also the M4 is still a better weapon than anything else in game and if the game were properly balanced it would win every firefight assuming reasonably comparably skilled shooters. If you want balance go play a pvp oriented game. This game isn't about balance.

The weapons should be (and sort of are) about realism, not balance. The M4 is categorically a better weapon. I don't think if you offered any modern soldiers a straight up trade, their M4 for a 125 year old bolt action Russian rifle they'd take you up on it. You're free to not use the best tools available if you'd like, but don't whine when you choose not to and then die by them.

lol @ magic periscope constantly looking around corners or trees and over walls and brush. This might have been intense on a 1pp server. edit: from 12:29 in the second video you completely destroy the intensity of the experience by being able to watch everything and remain invisible. Think of how scary that would have been if you had to crouch to see.

You should add Modes: Play as zombie. You are required to remain within small area around spawn point unless there is a player within X meters, at which time you may run and melee. You may also make screaming noises over the mic.

camo bandanna and rocket aviators are tied and this is exactly why.

1 - Airfields are PVP zones. Everyone knows this. 2 - +1 on report that server. Admins like that ruin the game.

Camo bandanna + aviators is the mark of a true professional. and my character in experimental. He's more of a park ranger type:

This forum has numerous M4 vs. Mosin vs. SKS threads, and even unrelated threads often get comments about M4 accuracy, or viability, or which gun to choose. How does this make any sense in a game with a premise of realism with respect to ballistics and weapon physics? I admit I may be biased because I happen to own a Colt M4, but I just don’t understand how this can be a serious discussion in a “realistic” game. In many games with a variety of weapons the developers buff or nerf certain weapons to achieve balance, and if that’s the end goal here that’s certainly fine (there’s even a poll about it on this forum) but I’ve never seen anything posted to the effect that that is a goal. In the responses to that poll there are numerous comments about how each gun is situational, and in certain situations each gun is best, etc. This seems to be true in the current game. -The Mosin was designed in 1891. It has an effective range of 500m, 800m with optics, a 5 round magazine, and a rate of fire of 10 rounds/min. -The SKS was designed in 1944. It has an effective range of 400m, a 10 round magazine, and a rate of fire of 35 rounds/min. -The M4 was designed in 1994. It has an effective range of 500m, magazines obviously are extremely variable (the game has numerous 60 rounders) and a rate of fire of hundreds of rounds a minute. The M4 is 100 years more modern than the mosin, 50 years more modern than the SKS, and in use by modern militaries all over the world today. The only possible reason to carry one of the other guns in a real life situation would be ease of finding ammo or spare components (if you’re in Russia when society collapses carry an AK, America carry an AR-15, etc.) but that isn’t the case in game. Ammo and guns are basically equally easy to find. Nobody sensible should have anything but an M4 (unless roleplaying or specifically looking for a challenge) but the game doesn't seem to reflect that reality. Why is that? Additionally, why would you carry a bolt action gun, knowing that some encounters may end up up close and personal and you may not be able to do anything about it? I own a Remington 700, beautiful optics, bipod, 7.62x51, most accurate gun I own, but if I had to live in a world like dayz and could only have that or the Colt it would be one of the easiest decisions of my life. The only exception to this is if you always play in a group and someone else has the M4, but for solo play it's really silly. tl;dr The M4 is a modern military weapon. The fact that a modern military weapon is not categorically more powerful than antique civilian weapons makes no sense in the scope of this game and its quest for realism.

I just have a hard time buying that. If I were 200-300 hundred yards away from a clone of me who had access to my M4 or my Remington 700 (a modern bolt action rifle with a "pristine" scope) I would much rather he have the R700. Assuming that someone sprinting full speed is hard to hit your chances are just so much better against 5 shots coming a couple seconds apart followed by either single shots with moderate gaps or 5 more shots after a long gap than against 30 shots as fast as he'd like followed by a 2 second mag change and 30 shots as fast as he'd like etc. Plus if there are any line of sight issues the bolt gun with the bipod and scope is really obnoxious to use standing so he'd have to reposition and lie down again if you could get a tree or shed or anything in between the two of you. The M4 shooter just needs to step and then stop and he's good. He could even shoot while moving if he wanted. Sure you'd rather he hit you with 5.56 once than 7.62 once but after you get hit with 5.56 once you're going to get hit a lot more because being shot will affect your mobility. The M4 shooter could just sweep across you and once he hits you once and you stumble he can just blast you 5 more times in a second or two. Also if that 5.56 hit is a direct center of mass hit then once is all it takes, which the game seems to fail to take into account.

Should I be able to sprint up a hill with a full pack on my back? No. Should I be able to sprint for 10km straight with a full pack on my back? No. If I'm fit enough to sprint forever with gear then I should be able to sprint up a mild hill. Either buff hill running or nerf regular running but it's idiotic that I can literally sprint without stopping for 30 minutes but I can't climb a 3% grade at any pace faster than a walk.

That's fine. The thing is that if this is the case then the M4 has acceptable accuracy right now but the Mosin is outrageously too accurate. The whole point from the beginning was that if I go pick up people randomly off the street and give them a Mosin and an M4 and ask them to shoot targets at varying distances they will fare better with the M4. I'm perfectly fine if my character can't sprint 10km and then turn and blow someone away at 200m 10 seconds later with an M4 from standing. I'm not fine with that being the case BUT somehow the Mosin is magically different. Last week (right before I started this thread) I was playing with a friend. We were entering Stary from the north at the same time as a group of 3 came in from the east. M4/Mosin vs M4/SKS/Mosin. We saw each other at about the same time right by the grocery store. The M4s traded fire, and we took off up the hill into the bushes while 2 of them used the store and the other stuff around there for cover. I had an M4 with pristine everything + acog and we traded fire at around 100m for a few seconds. Neither their M4 guy or I could hit anything. Meanwhile my friend headed up the hill to try to get an angle on them. Their Mosin guy sprints fists up from the store to the green house on the west side of town, sprints upstairs, gets the gun out, and standing (because he was in the window) lands a headshot on my friend. Literally 10 seconds after he entered the house. I watched him enter (not even bothering to shoot because at that distance what's the point?) and 10 seconds later my friend is screaming that they shot him. If I'm not even bothering to take shots with an M4 because there is ostensibly 0 chance to hit then the Mosin should also have ostensibly 0 chance to hit, but that isn't the case. Watch youtube dayz sniper videos. I don't care if we spawn as Craig Harrison or if we spawn as a New England liberal who thinks guns are the devil's work, I just don't want to be an elite sniper while holding a Mosin but an average Joe while holding the M4, or alternatively, I don't want EVERY Mosin to be a supremely accurate sniper quality specimen and every M4 a surplus junk rifle. Like someone said earlier, guns in this game are situational and that's stupid, especially considering that reliability and cleaning haven't even been incorporated yet.