mithrawndo

Sorry, I phrased that badly. What I meant was it becomes something fun and interesting to team up for, rather than being very normal. I didn't mean to infer that it was an incentive for players who otherwise distrust each other to team up. I believe that LRS Mosins are too common just now, but I'm not complaining because it's only a side effect of the public hives, fast rebooting servers and loot distribution.

Sniper rifles are great and should to my mind remain in the game. I would however like to see the number of optics that spawn drastically reduced - since the reintroduction of the tent spawns near military sites, it's not uncommon to find a handful of long range scopes in one looting session. A sniper rifle will hopefully, once the game gets balanced in beta, become a very rare commodity indeed. If this becomes the case a sniper would actually become a cause for cooperation amongst players to isolate their position and eliminate them.

"Obvious troll" is stupid. Once the game is finished and private hives are available. I would hope the zombie spawns would be entirely controllable by the host; set anywhere between zero and so many as to be unplayable!

Personally I'm happy to encourage people to leave the Alpha. They've paid their money, now let the people who actually want to try and contribute to the Alpha by testing and providing feedback do so, whilst everyone who misunderstood what they were getting into can go away and wait. Sounds like win-win to me.

At the very least, punching helmets and walls should definitely break fingers. Beans!

The irony is strong in this one... I guess you missed the fact that I was taking the proverbial out of you by mimicking your posting style there. I guess nuance is hard to achieve on a message board. The point, my good sir, is that you've added nothing to this thread. From your first response you've done nothing but criticise, offering no justification for your position nor arguments in it's favour. This leads me to infer that you're overly judgemental and possibly even hypocritical... and that any further input of yours can be safely ignored. Have a nice day! Edit: There's a post made by one of the developers on reddit speaking about the toxic nature of the community (purely in terms of useful feedback). Might I recommend you take a glance over in that direction? Last I checked it was at the top of the page with a thousand or more comments.

How is a pseudo-tooltip in the chat window any different to a tooltip above the clients head? It's just less convenient and therefore simply a bad design decision. If you're going to ask for full identification of players, don't water your idea down!

Nope. Why bother contributing if you only pick holes and add nothing? There's a word for behaviour like that.

Right here is the problem. Whilst most people who have made DayZ a success both as a mod and as a standalone by promoting it (and it is a financial success before anyone gets all alpha-nazi on me), the 2 million and counting players who've signed up for this are not veterans of Arma. We don't particularly care about military super realism and in all honesty looking at how standalone has been constructed so far, I think it's fair to say that BI might well be stepping out on a limb to ensure that the game doesn't end up feeling and playing like Arma. For evidence of this, look at sales of Arma 1, pre-dayz sales of Arma 2 and sales of Arma 3, versus sales of DayZ Standalone and post dayzmod sales of arma2. We've come from things like Project Zomboid and it's the experience we seek, not purely the gun play. This said, I'm 100% in favour of stopping weapon attachments having a multiplicative effect on dispersion: Having this leads to there being a best and worst attachment, and that's counter productive to my mind. Attachments should only add functionality (scopes, rails and maybe hopefully at some point straps), cosmetics and handling improvements.

I think that shooting your friend by accident should always be a part of the game, and this idea is a little too drastic. I do however like the principle, but I'd like to add a few caveats: Session based: You only remember the friends you've made during this session. Lose connection and lose your "friends".Invisible: There should be no visual clues as to who is friend or foeThe latter would require some serious thought to make work, but I feel that having a sure fire way of ID'ing your friends would break the game for me. One possibility would be a heart rate mechanic: When you see someone you don't recognise, your character's heart rate could audibly increase (perhaps even coupled with a little blurring around the edges of the screen and/or discolouration) to indicate the sense of fear such an encounter would likely create. This way you could ID people you knew because they don't cause a reaction in your character, but you could never be certain if that person you saw is your friend, or if it was simply someone you had met previously and walked away from. The game already provides ways for you and your friends to identify each other. My personal favourite? Wear the same hats!

They do when you apply comprehension rather than playing dumb. You know fine and well what that saying means, you're simply being a dilatant: It's far easier to tear down an idea than it is to create one.

No Apologies necessary Nex - I didn't actually ask a direct question but rather implied one with those statements. Letting my mind run my mouth unabridged is a common fault of mine. The question was this: Why do online computer games cause an erosion of empathy amongst otherwise well adjusted people, and is this behaviour damaging to either the individuals or the communities they partake in? I have preconceived answers to this, namely Freudian sublimation (the satisfaction of socially unacceptable impulses in a socially acceptable manner) as I've made clear, but given the flack that the old codger's theories get these days I felt it advisable to open this up for discussion. For the second part, proposals like this (which pop up with alarming frequency) do seem to indicate that the behaviour does have a damaging effect on at least some members of the community, as evidenced by the fact that the OP has gone from rational to batshit in the course of three pages. I completely agree with you here, but that doesn't mean there isn't still mileage in this playstyle. Deception immediately comes to mind - I'm seldom friendly for example, but that doesn't stop me from acting that way - and the tension in such situations is more than palpable. Given that ammo is a reasonably scarce commodity (I don't beleive the ease with which it is currently acquired represents their vision of a final product), then surely the decision to pull that trigger is one that should have a larger influence on our attitude to the game? As I insinuate above, this is exactly why mechanics that force an element of doubt when considering hostility could be beneficial. The game's greatest strength is it's tension, and we risk losing that if murder remains the de facto form of interaction. Perhaps this issue will be lessened as loss becomes a greater influence (a la Eve Online), but given the way the game is designed, I doubt this. I know you're in favour of private hives, and I agree with you that this would resolve many of the issues I raise here. However Bohemia clearly have a vision of the public hives being worthwhile, and it is with this in mind that I raise these points. I've mentioned Eve twice so far here alone, and it's a great example of this mentality. Google my nickname and you'll find quite a few posts on the eve forums where I lambaste people for getting so caught up in a computer game that they feel the need to throw insults around and quit. Like you, it made me question their state of mind. The years however (I'm no spring chicken) have led me to question whether it was their behaviour or mine that was irrational. I'm still trying to answer that. Again, we return to sublimation. To continue your analogy, the rules of soccer have been changed under these circumstances several times in the last few years. We're on the cusp of goal line technology becoming the norm; Most professional leagues have instituted a pass back rule, preventing goalkeepers from picking up a ball returned to them (which directly discourages defensive tactics and encourages pressing football - a wonderful analogy for this thread's goal); UEFA declared "simulation" (diving, feigning injury) a bookable offence - again, an artificial addition to the rules to encourage the spirit of the game and to work around gamesmanship, something very prevalent in online games. Edit: These changes were all made after complaints from professionals and fans alike - much like the OP has a valid complaint in the original post and offers a solution. An unworkable solution to my mind, but at least he's making the effort!* I beleive they try to avoid shooting people unless they absolutely have to, as opposed to shooting people just because they saw them. The latter behaviour is, for the record, a self criticism. *It's easy to destroy something. It's a lot harder to create something.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was inferring that behaviour witnessed in this environment is seen because computer games (and their attached communities) are seen as a valid outlet for such behaviour. There is as yet no way to attach the social stigma present in regular day to day interaction without using a truly persistent environment (see the pariahs of eve online for examples of this) and genuine risk/reward game mechanics, and even then this is easily circumvented. I was therefore implying that this behaviour - which I myself often partake of - is in fact derived from the suppression of what are natural human reactions. In short, I was asking a question.

Nex at least I know has been involved in threads with me in the past, and can attest to the fact that I am no "carebear": I seek all forms of interaction in this game, be it in the form of simple conversation, outright deception or good old fashioned murder. I keep coming back to these topics because I believe you guys are actually missing out on a great aspect of games like this, and if you throw enough shit eventually something will stick. As for amateur psychoanalysis? Hells yes. If you have even a morsel of introspection in your character, you should be doing this on a daily basis anyway. The fact that you either do not (or masquerade in such a way at the least) casts a terrifying representation of your cultural upbringings. The responses guys like this get is sickening, and shows an utter lack of empathy - which doesn't even take a high school education in psychology to explain.

I expect to be trolled one way or another, but this is a topic I continually see raised and one that offers us a deeply disturbing insight to the human mind. The short answer to your questions is that people play a game that allows them to "piss people off" because they have serious mental difficulties with which they are unable to come to terms with. To whit, most of these people would have at one time been classified as suffering from Sadistic Personality Disorder, and although this is no longer considered a disorder in-and-of-itself, it's still illuminating to use as an example. SPD is often found alongside other common disorders, such as Conduct Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Anti-Social Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personal Disorder and many more. The last two are especially illuminating, as they run hand in hand with the archetype of the computer nerd living in his mother's basement. When you think you have discovered someone who behaves with the call signs of any of these disorders, your best bet is to completely disengage from them. All the above listed disorders allow for disassociation, enabling these individuals to no longer see their victim as a human being. It's an interesting theorem; if it's correct, then DayZ will fail as a social game. I hope it's incorrect.

I'm assuming the lack of an auto run key is probably a design choice with the long term in mind, specifically described by one word: Stamina Whilst it's not yet in the game, I can't imagine Bohemia avoiding this mechanic entirely and once added, it will render the use of an auto run key defunct as you'll need to rest dependant upon your fitness and health levels. I can only assume it's missing at present because one's stamina is tied directly to one's general health; ask marathon runners about their eating habits, for example.

If I may, I'll start with a short story recounting the events of last night. I play in a small group of 3 or 4 laid back players who spend most of their time in the western reaches of the map. Once we're comfortably set up we tend to roam around looking for interaction with a healthy balance of firearms on our side, casting a reasonably wide circle around Berezino (as we once did with Elektro) as we'd like to do a little more than just shoot and be shot at - though of course we do enjoy our share of conflict. However this post was inspired by another player we met at Balota Airfield in the small hours last night, on a server with around 25 players connected. What happened here? Was this just poor judgement coupled with a non english speaking player, or a player silently raging at himself for his mistake? Did I do something wrong that spooked him into trying to run? My transcript is, excepting a few corrections in prose, word for word. If you're still with me, thank you for taking the time to read this. In the interest of Becoming Better At Being A Bastard At Balota And Berezino (teehee!) I'd like to know what I could do differently in the future, and to do that I feel I have to understand the mentality that leads to the fight or flee reaction when a reasonable alternative is available. TL;DR: Go away or stop being lazy and read!

This has always tickled me. To take the example of the United States, the Miranda warning wouldn't cover this particular situation: Since 2010 the supreme court has ruled that the detainee must confirm they they are invoking their right to remain silent. In the United Kingdom you can actually be detained indefinitely if you do not identify yourself - countermanding your right to remain silent. Interesting trivia points, though obviously not strictly relevant to the topic at hand. Absolutely, the player had the right to remain silent in this situation if they so desired. However knowing this only makes their decision yet more irrational.

Thank you for the free advertising, Pilgrim! To clarify a little, my lack of understanding stems not from failing to understand why someone refuses to surrender, no matter the circumstances. I think this attitude is silly, but I can follow the reasoning through to it's conclusion and happily accept that some people are partisan in their position on this. I even respect them for it, to a degree - though moving a little off topic, I believe it's this attitude when applied from the perspective of the aggressor that lead to the vast majority of conflicts in the real world. An example close to home for me would be the British government's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists: Just because you've entered a dialogue doesn't mean you have to come to an agreement! As for myself? I have never been successfully robbed. I have been taken captive on several ocassions, but this usually ends in me trying to talk my way out of it, then drawing my weapon when I think the opportunity is there... and getting shot dead. Other times, I've been captured and set on my way with more food than I can carry. Maybe 1 out of 20 encounters of this sort, I successfully fought off my assailants. Usually because they were unaware that I had support nearby.

I don't believe I was demanding an interaction, I was simply perplexed at the lack of survival instinct. I gave our target the opportunity to talk his way out of the situation rather than simply gunning him down, as is seemingly the norm in a military loot spawn area. I made it clear his position had been compromised and that escape was unlikely at best - in his shoes I would and have tried to talk my way out. When that fails, I would have attempted violence. The person here elected to ignore the first option, trying for the impossible escape and then, once this option was removed again ignored the opportunity to talk his way out of it and tried to draw his weapon. By refusing to interact, so the player chose their own fate. This thread would not exist if the player had even simply replied: "Go fuck yourself" as they tried to sprint away across the apron. Similarly, if they had opened fire I would not be asking this question - but to do nothing to attempt to save his own life? Fair play to you, sir. Your reaction is exactly the one I would have had if the tables were turned; I would have tried to gather intel on my situation rather than blindly believing my assailants, and likely attempted to fight or talk my way out. The player in the original post did neither, and it is this seemingly nonsensical action that led to this discussion. I absolutely do understand the "No surrender" philosophy, though it's one I don't personally share. "It is better to live one daty as a lion..." is such a popular quote for good reason, and I would not be asking these questions if the player had acted in fitting with this philosophy - but in this instance, they acted seemingly without reason. Poor judgement on his part is what I was inferring in the original post. As you say, you would not have tried to run straight out the door and across the apron given the circumstances. You likely would have tried to find a way out without giving in to my demands, but not like that! As for poor judgement on my part? In hindsight, probably. Pertaining to both this and your next response, in future I will definitely be looking for the player to holster their weapon rather than entirely disarm themselves. Our intentions were to ensure the safety of our group. We were at the Balota airfield having scoured round from NEAF to NWAF and down past Zele, trying to find an ACOG for one of our group. This player was armed and as such a risk factor, our actions here were to ensure that the risk factor be mitigated as much as possible. The best way to do this of course is to silence him, but that in itself brings it's own risks: A gunshot is far louder than a conversation, and likely will draw attention from other players. If the threat can be disarmed without risking this, so much the better. In every sense, I was the hostile party in this encounter. I have made no attempt to veil this truth from you, nor from the player in the original post. I also never once stated that I was friendly, nor did I ask for him to come out of the building. Our ideal play here would have been to keep him pinned down in that building without having to take a shot, whilst we assessed any further potential threats and tried to find that ACOG our group member desired. The reason for this thread is to understand why someone would refuse to converse when facing a "life threatening" situation and offered an option, and when the options of remaining concealed or retreating were removed from their arsenal. Letting the player leave the encounter without assurances was never an option for us: If I had been in his boots and had made the bizarre decision to run into the open, I would have hit the nearest cover and flanked around, trying to gain the tactical advantage and assessing if murdering the potential hostage takers was necessary to ensure my future survival. As for learning English? Right back at you: The word "dialogue" in this context actually comes from the North American vernacular English (which, assuming by your spelling is your native or adopted form) and is a verb, not a noun - it means to take part in a conversation, the goal of which is to resolve a problem. Your reaction is typical, but it is not the reaction of the player in the original post. Had the player reacted as you propose, we would not be having this conversation - instead they acted irrationally, and I inferred from this that the player simply wanted to avoid any interaction at all.

I finally understand: Despite having sufficient time to ruminate, rather than applying their intellect to the situation the individual in the original post instead relied on instinct and feeling. Thank you!

I've heard two analogies for this game that fitted: Firstly that DayZ is like fishing: You sit* around with your friends, chatting away doing nothing particularly interesting. Suddenly there's some excitement (got a bite!), but before you know it it's all over. Secondly that it's a "Trust Engine". With this one in mind... In a nutshell? Yes. The logic that because I am hostile I must be untrustworthy is flawed. It's a logical fallacy, specifically the false cause fallacy. I respect your viewpoint, but arguably this makes you, not your captor, the hostile party. Discuss :) * You don't actually sit, but the analogy stands besides this! Edit: Forgot to add my footnote

As far as I'm aware, only the 0.28 server files have been leaked, and I'm equally unable and unwilling to verify their authenticity. We're now on 0.44 anyway. Also there are more than two companies renting servers. Off the top of my head Multiplay, Gameservers and Villayer all host DayZ - and I'm sure there are more. I agree in principle with you, but these companies will have signed a NDA with BI and whilst in theory you could sign one too, it would be a hell of a lot more difficult for them to enforce their NDA if they opened it up to so many parties. By restricting who can host the game, they can keep their IP a little safer - albeit by using a flawed principle of security through obscurity. Similarly, it protects their probably bad and buggy alpha server code from being easily exploited - again, a flawed principle but nevertheless it still remains effective.

Not really. We did solve the situation with no deaths. He logged off whilst unconscious (confirmed by checking his pulse - when a player logs off their name is replaced with "unknown entity") despite having bandaged him and offering him salvation. As for unpredictability? At no point in the encounter did we do anything other than what we said we were going to do. When he logged on to a new server he would have had no gear and very little blood, but he was alive. It didn't need to be that way. Phoenix777 - thank you for your post, It's the most enlightening addition to this thread since page 1!

I believe the spawns have been changed to allow for more testing in areas that weren't getting much love from the player base. Remember that right now this isn't a game, we're alpha testers of a game in development.