Valadain

Realism is not served, so this just becomes a pointless mechanic that holds no value other than annoyance. The person can still go to their group made base and pick up the items that their friends tagged to keep from despawning. There really isn't a middle ground here. This game is simply not perma-death, no matter what everyone wants to believe. It isn't possible in a multiplayer game with a persistent world. In a single player game you can just full-on delete everything about the world and regenerate the world. In a multiplayer direct connection style game, you can kick the player and not let them back in until the game concludes (and deletes and rebuilds anew). In a persistent multiplayer game, the world stays, the stuff they do stays, the other players stay. You can't kick people out as it would pretty well have to be forever. So any sense of "new life" will have to be RP and likely will be a vastly small minority of players who are willing to give up all ties to their friends on death until they happen to re-run into them again as a new spawn.

I would absolutely love them removing the ability to see over walls. That isn't really in question. I just don't agree that it is in any way a priority and want the implementation to be entirely seamless. To those saying "nothing should be expected to be perfect", you are missing the point. What we have now is perfectly fine. It is a threshold for this particular functionality being discussed, not a blanket threshold for every other possible thing that might be added. If I logged in tomorrow and my third person view couldn't see around or over stuff, but the cost was players materializing in front of me or behind me and being invisible when half covered or behind non-solid objects, I would not consider it a win. In fact, I'd probably hang it up for this game, simply because I don't think such problems will be solvable. I think they would plague the game for years to come.

It makes no sense, particularly if you are part of a community or group. Death doesn't remove you from the time-line. It doesn't retroactively destroy your interactions with the world. And having half a structure you built with a friend disappear makes no sense at all. The bottom line is that a multi-player game in a persistent world cannot be perma-death. You carry your experiences, you know where you put stuff. Your interactions need to persist. The people you play with are still there. DayZ is not a perma-death game, it is a "lose all your stuff" game. And that is fine.

Sorry, I may have over estimated your computer building experience. I don't mean that as an insult. When you spoke of buying an Asus, I assumed you installed it and plugged the processor in yourself. If you don't have experience with this, you probably don't want to start taking it apart. If the processor was installed in the board when you got it, the pins are most likely fine. It still could be loosely seated, but you could end up doing more damage than good trying to do it yourself if you haven't done it before.

If it starts up and then shuts down, my wild guess would be to check the power supply. It may either be unreliable or not putting out enough power for the new parts. Most things wrong with parts on the motherboard would give you beeps, not random resets. A poorly seated CPU can give you random resets, so you might try popping it out, checking the pins, and re-seating it.

Yeah, if you want to go ridiculous, the Desert Eagle is only close, not full-on. Full-on is the Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Express. The Bullet (pictured next to the 5.56 on the left) The Gun:

Hah, persistent base building isn't really going to work for you 'eh?

You still have the problem of the gun being glued to your body at a 90 degree angle, which isn't realistic. You can swing and point a gun relatively quickly in a particular range, it is only leaving that range that difficulties really arise.

Personally, I'd say that you should do what you want. The only thing a server hop would avoid (assuming you don't loot it up in the process) is someone shooting you while you are spawning in, which is, quite simply, a douche move. The worst your action would do is deprive someone of, what I would consider, an illegitimate kill. There's no realism to it. Not to mention, based on the developer road map, I would guess that the future holds "no spawn" zones that will kick you to the outskirts coming in the future. So you'll just be temporarily travelling to the future.

See, now here's the problem. You call it a "dumbed down server" but then recognize that night is completely broken right now. That is important to understand. Modding is only a threat if the base game completely fails to deliver. So, right now, night fails to deliver. It is too dark in general. There is an easy way to cheat, which creates an unfair advantage. There is really no good way to play night "right" at this point. But, they are working on it. If they don't deliver a decent to play night, however, yes people will choose not to bother with it. If you remove all but two guns per server, forcing people to use bows or flailing FPS melee, yes mods will kill the vanilla game. If you require someone to hop twenty servers to get the parts to repair a car, yes, mods will kill the vanilla. See a pattern? The base game needs to offer a challenge, but still fun game-play. If it doesn't, mods will take over. Challenge can absolutely be fun. It can also just be completely annoying. So finding that balance will be key to keeping people playing the vanilla game once competition is available.

It isn't an exploit. It can be turned off completely, so the fact that it wasn't is a development decision. That is, this particular feature apparently is the intention of this game, whether you like it or not. There exists a mode in which you can have what you desire. If you focused half as much passion trying to get people to play on those servers, there likely wouldn't be a problem. A hint, maybe try starting with not calling all regular mode players names or accusing them of being cheaters. Might be a start.

A lot of people bought this game because of Epoch. You can't have it both ways. A game with millions of players, but one that doesn't appeal to most of them.

You should really watch the road map discussion. Modding was being looked at Quarter 4, which is basically, around release. That isn't early development. Personally, I think modding will enhance the game, but yes, it does bring a democratic element to DayZ. That is to say, what is popular may not be what you want in DayZ. Maybe not what I want either.

They added it in, with the intention of it working the way it does. Then it was also included, as it was originally designed, in Stand Alone. We know it can be shut off, but it wasn't. Intentionally. I'm not saying that you don't like how it works. I'm not saying that Stand Alone won't change how it works. I'm saying though, it is working as it was designed. It is not an exploit or a bug. It is how the mechanic was intended to work.

It's not an exploit. It isn't a glitch or a bug. These things have real definitions. A feature working as it was intended when programmed does not meet those definitions. It is a mechanic in the game. One you don't like, which is perfectly fair. But you don't need to falsely label it to justify the removal. These incorrect designations are being used only to be able to denigrate a section of players, playing the game by using a mechanic as intended, even if you don't like it. I don't like it either, but I like the suggested fix less right now for two primary reasons. One, it is likely not going to work as expected with the current problems of the server not knowing where one player is much of the time, let alone the relative position of two players with regards to obscuring obstacles. Two, because I firmly believe that implementing and then perpetually fixing the mechanic will turn into a development sink-hole. Get people to play hard core. That is the answer.

There would be legal liability issues with extending the scope of any enforcement beyond their own EULA.

I think people are entirely missing the essence of what Dean was saying. Other players being the tension isn't code for KoS. It means that dealing with others, not knowing their intentions, will always be tense. It will always be the thing that separates DayZ from Dead Island. It is the core of the game. Yes, KoS plays into that as you have to watch your back, employ tactics when you are moving about and heading into populated areas, and be very careful moving through buildings. Zombies will never create that kind of tension. How do I know Zombies will never create that kind of tension? Because people here complain like crazy when they are killed by a player, but nobody really cares about being killed by zombies except when it is through a bug. The fact that people hate KoS so much, indicates that they place this sort of kill higher on the annoyance and stress meter than any other type of death. Dying to a player feels different than dying to the environment. It creates far more tension. Still, it needn't just be KoS. It could be that the player is luring you into a trap or waiting for you to turn your back or will rob you or will betray you after they get gear. There are a myriad of bad possibilities when grouping with others.

Continue... Continue playing... I don't know how many times I have to say that my concern isn't "right now". It is early alpha. I recognize this and am certainly not maligning the work going into this game right now. My concern is a sink-hole feature, the lack of which isn't causing anyone not to play the game. Well, that and the attitude that many 1PP players here have with regards to their fellow 3PP players.

I think you are entirely missing my point, which is fine, as your derogatory language towards those who don't agree with you indicates that there is no communication to be had. I'll only respond here to the point about the game getting it's feet under it. That wasn't a business assessment. From a business standpoint, the game is entirely a success. They've sold plenty of copies and made plenty of money. They done good. My concern is that people continue playing. That is the area where the game hasn't gotten its feet under it. And it is completely understandable as the game is in early alpha. It is my opinion that this feature won't give people that drive to continue playing. And I suspect that it will be a huge development time-sink based on my many years in the field of programming.

See, it is comments like this that pretty well make me want to argue to keep 3pp as is, so that I have a place to play where people who make comments like this won't play.

Unless diverting resources to do this means eternally janky zombies going through walls, no vehicles, no decent base building, and no reasonable depth of play. Then everyone is unhappy. If this game is going to get its legs under it for the long haul, it needs to start progressing in the coming months. Messing with perspective is just a "nice to have" at this point. Giving players something to do other than find inventive ways to commit atrocities on each other is kind of critical in the very near future.

Yeah, I'd give it some time. I'm doing that myself. I think the unintentional failure was in adding all the terrible ways to screw with other players almost from the start, but offering little to no constructive play as of yet. They basically set out a beacon for the sociopaths and not much else, so even reasonable people are defaulting to annoying game play out of boredom or frustration at what is happening to them.

Yeah, I think the better discouragement will be making a lot more items a lot more useful, so that inventory space becomes the reason you don't carry a dozen full magazines. And particular valuable things that you might be carrying would be a good reason not to get in a fire-fight unnecessarily and risk them getting ruined by getting shot.

Chernarus is fictional, so it is entirely up to the developers to build the story and indicate the laws. There are some countries that have tight controls and some countries with lax. I'm not sure why it would matter if a 30-30 was in as a particularly rare spawn, considering you wouldn't find ammo except on a very rare spawn in those particular areas as well, but I honestly don't care that much. I was just really pointing out that there are ways that the developers can add things to explain the weapons that they want to add into the game. I like variety, but I certainly don't need every model of every gun in game.

Considering the US is the largest exporter of arms, not sure why you'd think it wouldn't make sense. If the game took place in the US, I would expect every type of weapon to be around. The Mosin and the semi-auto AK are prevalent as heck around here. As are Glocks, Barettas, SKS and Makarovs. Do keep in mind though, I do like the idea of spawns being weighted towards the local fare of weapons. Whether realistic or not, I prefer the feel of having generally Russian and Eastern European weapons as the most common. I just don't think they need to be the only weapons.