Valadain

I'm sure it will be per server, it would be confusing as heck to have copies of your stuff on every server.

They are looking at persisting all items always, nothing to do with the character, so I don't see how death would have any impact at all on persisted items.

Agreed on crafting. For base building, I wouldn't mind something a bit more based on scavenging than Epoch, but I do think people should be able to claim a place as their own (for however long they can hold it). I'd be fine if this were existing buildings that you can re-inforce and alter. I do like the current lose all your stuff and respawn far away on death. I don't, however, subscribe to the "perma-death" concept, that you have to lose all interactions you've made in the world on previous lives.

That's very fake and gameish and pointless too. Persistent storage would just let you chuck your stuff somewhere off of yourself, then you kill yourself not harming your gear.

What you describe isn't anti-game at all. If 90%+ of the population where to be killed over a very brief (couple of months) period, there would be plenty of food and guns everywhere. The limitation of the spawns, in my eyes, is just to handle the part of the game that extends beyond what can be realistically portrayed (a finite and diminishing supply and the need for the game to be a fairly static experience for people playing now or people playing a year from now). So the one-can-of-beans scenario (and yes, I get this impression too, that some people really want that level of... fun?) would be a game, not an anti-game mechanic.

Maybe people are using this word in a manner contrary to the definition that would come from the actual words. Anti-Game would mean, decisions on things being put into DayZ would be based on realism or authenticity always, over game-play. That doesn't mean making things "harder", it means making things "real", whatever that might bring. So, on the list indicated, none of those things are particular anti-anti-game. Military buildings really just depend upon the story for what is "real" for the area. Some areas have more, some less, completely up to the developers. Realism isn't impacted by their decision. The healthy status is realistic within the confines of the artificially accelerated mechanics. That is to say, if they made sickness, hunger, and thirst truly realistic, you wouldn't be bothered by them for many, many play sessions. Because they are accelerating these to have them make a real impact in the average play-session, it is fair to also accelerate the natural healing ability of the body to match. That is where authenticity wins over realism, the understanding that you have to work with something less than a true 24 hour cycle as people can't play 24/7 The threat to the anti-game are things that include the word "nerf" or "balance". Discussions of purposefully pushing players towards a particular play style are a threat to the anti-game. Making things artificially challenging is a threat to the anti-game. Making things artificially easy is a threat to the anti-game. But at the end of the day, it will be extreme shades of grey as the inherent limitations of technology will force a lot of decisions to be made. A mouse and keyboard will never allow the true complexity of making a bow or fixing an engine.

I don't know how these rifles are treated in other countries, so I couldn't say if this is true. In the US it is just another semi-automatic weapon in most states. From where I am sitting right now, I could have one or two within a twenty minute walk. Generalized from wherever I might be in my area, I'd say it would take me half a day to get one (assuming the world was over and I was walking). I wouldn't bother though, it really isn't worth the weight and effort unless you are having to regularly deal with armored threats. With the mechanics in the game, I think they could fairly well limit the over-usage of the weapon. It is heavy, rounds are hard to find, the rounds are heavy so you can't carry all that many. Taking too many quick shots with it is going to leave you shaky for a while. You can't very effectively use it except from prone.

I'd rather any weapon be left out of the game than ever have the word "nerf" used in conjunction with this game ever again.

I would have confirmed it, if I hadn't, you know, said that this isn't a role playing game. It is a sandbox game. You might role play in it, certainly. But you don't have to. There are definitely arguments to be made about how 3pp works, but it isn't meta-gaming. All the info you are working with is coming from the game.

That and the fact that ammo wouldn't exactly grow on trees. It is pretty expensive and isn't kept in as high stock as more common ammunition. The main point I was going for was that you have to stop the "anti-game" talk when you start the "do this for game-play" talk.

No, you are applying a particular way that you want to play a sandbox game, then calling anything outside of that "meta gaming" which is false. Under your rules there, you need to stop using the inventory screen as nobody can just immediately know where everything is in their backpack and pockets instantaneously nor can they magically swap two things at the bottom of their backpack without messing up the rest of the contents.

AS50 maybe, but not a .50 cal rifle in general, which is really what people take issue with.

Well, this isn't a role-playing-game, but assuming it were, it still isn't meta-gaming. If it were a fantasy game, and I had a spell called "read mind" and I used it to find out info then use that info, it wouldn't be meta-gaming. This game intentionally implements a third person view that allows visibility over objects, so the use of this mechanic (much like the above spell) is gaming, not meta-gaming.

The short answer is that people want a particular experience when they play, which in a sandbox game, requires others to participate as expected. The shorter answer is, those people don't actually want to play a sandbox game.

I don't mind if the AS50 and/or thermal scope are left out, so long as those pushing for the exclusion stop using the word "anti-game". An "anti-game" does not balance or focus on "fun". It simulates reality and lets the chips fall where they may.

Nope, that's something else entirely, not meta-gaming. It could be called "out of character".

Third person is not meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is using knowledge gained external to the game or tools external to the game to provide an advantage in the game. Third Person does not fit this definition. It is a mechanic in the game. Pushing your camera through walls isn't even meta-gaming, it is "exploiting". People are trying to define "unrealistic" as meta-gaming, which isn't the case. If there was an intentional mechanic in the game that let you fly in the air and auto-shoot other players, it would be entirely unrealistic, but not meta-gaming. If there were a USB controller that allowed you to do that, which the game never intended, that is meta-gaming.

People would just stop using in-game chat entirely, set it to another line and forget it. Or stop playing the game entirely.

I agree, but people would hate what that entails. You would basically need to make the radios work just as well as any external voip, including having the ability to have a private channel that spans the whole map. It would also mean spawning with a radio. If it is high quality, easy to use, and offers pretty well the benefits of a third party voip, people would be more inclined to use it, even with the fact that you talk in direct as well. If you have to hunt for a radio, share channels, and have a limited range... Yeah, nobody is going to bother except for fun.

I don't see any value to the VOIP always on argument. It wouldn't work for the community as a whole (not all of us get to game alone, in a sound controlled environment). So that would mean a "server option", which as we've seen with hard-core, means high-volume complaining because not enough people want to play that way. There is really nothing you can do about meta-gaming in general.

The problem is that people are trying to have it both ways. Yes, you can make a bow or crossbow out of trash, but it will be only mildly effective. People are posting, however, what a cross-bow can do, using the most modern and edge-case bows and crossbows, to show effectiveness. If they make the bow effective to 50 feet and fail to penetrate thick clothing, sure, realism for home-built bows. If they make them effective to 200 yards and able to punch through body-armor, they better be rare professional bows/crossbows and arrows, that aren't improvised. Personally, I prefer the game as one of primarily scavenging for survival over unrealistic crafting.

Yeah, I can explain (most likely, since I don't get to see the code itself, I'll be making a few assumptions). There are three positions you have (really a lot more, but conceptually three). Your Client. The Server. Another Client. The same problem that exists between your client and the server to determine your positions occurs between your client and the server to determine someone else's position. Generally (here's the assumption), to keep animation somewhat smooth, your client will predict to some degree the position of others when it doesn't know for certain (if it only ever put them where the server says they are, you would get movement like being under a strobe light as this information isn't instantaneous). So, the player's position can desync from the server position which can also desync from other clients rendering the player. If the client predicts movement (which is my guess as you get that player-running-to-nowhere thing happening, common in MMOs that do predictive movement, where not knowing the position it just keeps the animation running straight from the last data taken), then you get rubber-banding on both as the server always wins.

Money, yes, but not for the sake of money. Early access allows a game that is going to get some traction to turn into a funded project. I doubt BI expected the response they got with the game. I think they probably expected to make some profit and get the game development funded. I absolutely agree that people should be able to speak their peace on the forums. In a constructive way. I think responses of "alpha" should only be acceptable on things that are clearly just place-holders or bugs. The response of alpha to suggested features or changes or criticisms of the direction a functionality is taking, should be considered non-responses.

I think you will be disappointed. I'm fairly certain it is "permadeath" that will bend as it really makes no sense in a multi-player online game in a persistent world. Permadeath requires a world erase, which isn't an option.

Ok, then how about, the idea doesn't take into account clans or base building? You can't have things randomly disappearing in active bases just because people are dying.