finnpalm

Can it be camo-painted?

It's a sickle, but yeah. Now both will be in game. ;)

I've been thinking for a while now about the different consequences of the different available playstyles in the game. Here is what I've come up with so far, but I'd really like to hear your input on this. Please understand however that "I did this once and that happened" is not the kind of consequence I'm talking about (that's a consequence of action). What I want to talk about is the "I play like this all the time and almost all of the time this results in that" experiences (consequence of playstyle), so let's try to keep this somewhat pseudo scientific, please. ;) Oh, and do understand that anything we come up with here is subject to change as the game development goes on and the game changes so this is only relevant to the current build of the game. Let's start with being friendly: When I play "friendly" I avoid people. Why is that? Because I'm aware that the majority as of now shoots on sight, which means my chances of survival are slim if I approach them, even unarmed and hands above my head. So basically if I see someone with a gun I'm getting the hell out of there. Even if I am armed as well. If I see someone with only a melee weapon or unarmed I will just keep my distance, and if they get too close I back off to keep that distance. When I don't see people I'm still extremely paranoid, and peek around every corner. I run short distances at a time and stop, hide and scan the surroundings before I move forward, basically avoiding people preemptively. And I kind of like it like that. The paranoia. It's one of the things about zombie movies I really enjoy, since I'm normally not into horror movies with their prevalent jump scares, and zombie movies that mostly build on uneasiness and paranoia is an exception to that. Consequence: I get to interact with very few people. The few times I get to interact at all (not counting shouting "don't shoot" over the VOIP and running away) it's usually very brief, exchanging a few sentences and maybe trade an item or two, and then split ways. Because of the paranoia I really can't trust a person even though they're friendly initially. Now let's look at killing on sight or "KoS" as it's usually abbreviated: This is a playstyle I have yet to try all out, so basically I'll instead analyze my experiences from getting shot at on sight (note that I do not include people stalking me for a long time before opening fire into this. You may argue that I can't know if that's the case or not, but as I know under what circumstances I have been shot at, I can say with certainty that the people attacking me have not been following me for a long time. They either happen to see me and decide to shoot, or they have been waiting for someone to show up that they can shoot at). This playstyle can be adapted for several reasons. Of the more relevant to this discussion, I'd like to point to a few. The above mentioned paranoia often makes people open fire reflexively and afterwards saying "Sorry, you scared me" and then turn out to be friendly people. When I'm ambushed on the other hand, the people shooting at me are clearly out to just kill. Not interested in getting any loot from it since they ruin it with their shots. In the latter case the people ambushing me seldom interact at all. Only once so far have I been spoken to, by someone who opened fire at me, and what he said was "Hey dude" or something like that, and then shot me dead. Apart from that time no-one that have shot at me (no matter if they've managed to kill me or not) have said a word. It doesn't seem to matter if I speak to them either. I never get any replies and even if I did I'd still be on my way out of there, or dead. Consequence: No interaction. Next I'd like to look at banditry, but as I have yet to experience getting properly robbed without being executed, or being captured and tortured, I can't really go into detail on this one. Consequence: n/a. Summary: I'd like to add that when playing friendly I often fight the urge to start shooting other players. This urge is clearly a product of them shooting at me, and it's not that I feel like shooting indiscriminately. It's that I want revenge, payback or to get even. This does not apply when I get killed, which would obviously make me a griefer, and I prefer to keep my character lives separate in my mind. Anyway, my observation when it comes to this is that killing on sight spawns more killing on sight, because that's currently the most safe way to stay safe. The likelihood that someone you see will kill you if they see you is so high that you're often in the right if shooting them preemptively. My second observation, and arguably most important, is that interaction between players in this game is going down the drain. Since the majority is hostile people stop interacting, even when they have nothing to lose, and instead play with their friends over teamspeak or the likes. This creates a "we or them" mentality separating players, as opposed to a "we or them" mentality separating players and zombies, with the "psychotic murderer" players being the exception. --------------------------------------- Anyway, I'd appreciate if you would discuss this and preferably add some notes about banditry to fill out the list above. My guess is that playing as a proper bandit (not murdering people) is among the more difficult playstyles to pull off since holding someone up most likely results in them trying to run away, and after you cuff someone and take their stuff, if you release them most likely ends up with them attacking you since they will "have nothing to lose". Oh, and please do not derail this into a "KoS sucks" thread. Try to stay objective. Thank you.

Ok, thanks for the advice. I will post here when I have more experience to base observations on.

The weapon duplication glitch has been reported and the devs are well aware of it. It is currently labeled "Acknowledged" on the feedback page.

I use this: http://www.issteamdown.com/

And do you ever rob people in-game, in the way I think of banditry? Or do you shoot first, and maybe take their stuff later? See, I'm testing out currently how to go about playing as a bandit (gotta try different things to know what you like, right?) and although I haven't been at it for long, I'm having a hard time figuring out how you get into a firefight unless you approach a person or persons openly, out of cover. Either if you try to rob someone you would want to get up from one of their dead angles and tell them to not move. Alternatively if you play as such that you shoot first and then maybe loot them, you would want to stay at a distance. Either way, I don't see how a bandit (my definition) gets into firefights. Now, if having a KoS-like playstyle I can totally see how one would get into a lot of dangerous situations. Since you'll probably take more chances to attack someone than a bandit (again my definition) would. If you're after loot, you'll choose between the people you meet and might not bother trying to rob a fresh spawn, while if you're in it for the kill thrills you'll pick a fight with more people.

I think you're right. Most of what they're doing right now are changes or fixes that only have a subtle impact on the visual part of the gameplay, unlike the visual differences that new items have. What I mean is for example, if you as a player don't experience a lot of dsync and they make that even more stable for those who have problems with it you won't really notice. And it will seem to you as if the new patch only had more hats. We as humans use our sight as our primary sense of perception, and that means visual changes resonates more with us than for example audio. I mean, I'm pretty damn sure most of us spun around to see where that zombie was at many times before realising the zombie sounds on experimental were bugged. The sound made sense in the context. Something that frame skipping doesn't do. So we react to that immediately.

Oh really? I was under the impression that DayZ uses the Real Virtuality engine 3 (with snippets of code from 4 so one might argue that it's really Real Virtuality 3.5). Real Virtuality 3 was used for Arma 2, was it not? Or do you have some inside knowledge that you'd like to share on why that's wrong? You don't have to tell me what it is. I studied the method as late as before christmas so I'd say I have a fairly good grasp of the method. :) It's often written in all capitals even though it's not an acronym. Sure, maybe unconventional is the wrong word, but I used that with regards to more conventional methods like "waterfall"-methods, which are, as far as I know, still the most commonly used methods, although agile methods are gaining a lot of ground. It is used to fast track projects though, although I don't know if that's how Bohemia is using it. Either way, since you already know about it you probably agree that the work process can look somewhat disorganized from an outer perspective when using Scrum. And that was my point.

Not only are you blowing it out of proportion. You're also splitting hairs. You know perfectly well what I meant and in that context it's irrelevant if the engine is optimal.

Wait a minute. Is it not built from scratch at all, or mostly not built from scratch? Make up your mind. The comparison was with the mod. Yes, they used the engine from Arma 2, and probably a few other things that worked. It's like saying to someone who is putting a car together that they didn't build it from scratch because they didn't mine the metal needed for the chassi.

It is though. The foundation is built from scratch, even if the content later imported will be mostly built. Of course it won't, but a disclaimer is a disclaimer. They're using a project method called "SCRUM". Do you know about it? It's a very unconventional way of project management, and mostly used to fasttrack projects or parts of larger projects.

Well, of course you're right, and children develop at different speeds, and the "age limit" on movies and games are guidelines for parents that are supposed to know their children best (even though that's not always the case). The problem here is that someone who has cybersex with someone underage but who's willing to participate in it would be doing it unknowingly. In real life a court can decide whether or not the underage person could have passed for legal age. In a game such as this there are few ways to tell how old a person you meet in game is. They can be changing their voice to sound different and whatnot. It's a delicate matter for sure. But as I said earlier in this thread, and this goes for all the people who find it "fun" to rape the bodies of their dead victims in the game as well:

Isn't there an age limit on this game? I know plenty of younger people will play this game anyway, but that doesn't mean they should.

I haven't told anyone to fuck off. If you're looking for information you can find it. That's all I'm saying. If you don't want to have to search for it, then that's up to you, but expecting someone to serve it to you without any effort on your part shows a spoilt sense of entitlement. Telling the devs that they should grow thicker skin and deal with the hate is sort of confusing. Wouldn't it be your job to come off as reasonable to make them talk to you? Isn't that how it works in real life? When approaching a person with criticism you need to use a certain sense of tact. You need to present it in a nice way. It's your job. If you don't, you can't expect them to neither take you seriously, nor reply at all. You're behavior is what dictates if the person you're speaking to will want to have anything to do with you or not. You may be on the internet right now, but these are real people you're speaking to. This is how we humans interact with each other. I'm assuming you have learned this, but seemingly forgotten it the moment you got on the internet. That the timeline for creating the foundation for the game closed with the alpha release is simply not true. All that the release meant was that they released something that was playable. As in, would run at all. You're just making stuff up. They decide when the foundation is ready. Not you.

Has it been reported on the feedback page? It's a floating placeable after all.

It's about expectations. You clearly have more true to life expectations, while many people expected more. Wow. You really didn't get anything of what I wrote about constructivity, did you? That "deal with it" attitude might be "cool" to fling around among your internet buddies, but in real life that's not how things work. I'm sorry to sound like this, and I'm gonna regret it, but it's about social skills. And it's not about them going to reddit and twitter to hear what they want to hear. It's about them going there to not have to put up with incessant whining and ignorant complainers who spew hate over them because of what they think is going on, rather than to ask politely for an explanation as to what is really going on. All those people who complain about things they have no understanding about. That's what they're avoiding. At least I know I would, and I don't blame them if they do. And yes, the game is built from scratch. Sure, not all the content is, but content is not what an alpha is for. It's about creating a stable foundation. Then comes the content.

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/177017-pending-changelog-experimental-branch-042116002/page-104#entry1855885 They need physics first to make vehicles work at all. If it's not worth playing for you at the moment, then I understand. I have several friends who feel that way. What do they do? They don't play. I suggest you follow suit. Good luck. The group working on the hunting is not there, so this is filmed before they were hired. Also it's possible that other people work from other places than that office. An approximation of the current work force would be between 40 and 50 people. I actually thought it would be more shit than it is. Based on videos I'd seen on youtube and word of mouth from friends. No, the excuse for their so called short comings is that making a game from scratch is pretty difficult, and shit happens. Bugs show up, and have to be dealt with. Your complaints are still not constructive. And never will be. It's in their nature. I can totally understand why the devs choose to not wade through the sea of excrements that is this forum. If people were a little more interested in understanding the game development process, and behaved in a more mature way about it they probably would still show up here from time to time. But the current state of this forum, and the behavior of the members give the devs all the reasons to not come here. This place is a fucking mess, and people are behaving very immaturely, spewing their hate to the left and right. When I need information on the internet I search for it until I find it. It's almost never where I want it to be, and usually not all collected for my pleasure in one convenient place.

Well, don't you agree that many of the posters here seem to need some sort of counseling? ;)

I've seen those videos too, but I almost never meet another player that is alone. :(

You're reading me wrong. I'll try to explain my point of view clearer. I never said it can't be played as both "us vs zombies" and "us vs us". I'm trying to point out that it's a bit slanted at the moment, which brings me to your other point. You're assuming I think there is a "right" way to play the game. Read through my post again. Do I ever say that? Is that my point of the thread? Or was I interested in discussing the consequences of different styles of play? The latter obviously. With "proper bandit" I mean a person who actually robs someone. That's banditry. If your definition of "bandit" is anyone who shoots people, then you have a looser definition, which is obviously fine. But what I'm talking about when I talk about bandits are those who do hold-ups, and either rob people and let them go, or rob them and then kill them. Sure, you can argue that shooting someone first and then taking their stuff constitutes banditry, and you can be right about that. But that's not my definition. The second observation I did in my first post about interaction should give you a clue to that. I don't really care how you choose to play, other than I would love to hear what consequences you have experienced in-game due to your choice. Please don't be defensive, and please don't assume too much about my point of view and whatnot. It's easier to ask. Because if you just make up points that you deem me having and then argue against them, you're making a strawman argument. ;)

I see several newcomers have joined the discussion over the last couple of days. I'm now gonna hit you with a wall of text. You'll have two choices. The first is to not read it, and come off as impatient or illiterate. The other is to read it, and try to comprehend, and if you don't, please ask. I'm going to start off by explaining some simple things, that I'm sure you would have thought of yourselves if you had spent a little longer considering the current situation with DayZ before posting. Sometimes we all get stuck in our own thoughts however and discussing something with someone else helps us move along in our thought processes. "We want fancy stuff. Fix the bugs later." Now this doesn't work at all, because one fancy thing that is implemented might spawn more bugs than was there before. If they only implement content instead of sorting out the bugs, they will eventually have so many bugs that the code won't even run at all. If that happens it is actually easier for them to just start over from scratch instead of trying to fix it. And we don't want that obviously. "Bug fixing is for beta. In alpha you add the content." See above why this is not possible. This is not how game development works. First you need to have a stable foundation to build on. Then you can add stuff. It's like building a house. If the foundation is bad the house will fall apart, regardless of the sweet solar panels you have placed on the roof, and the fancy internal vacuming system. "The fanbois are cancer." Well, some of them are, and some of them are not. The problem is that many of the people who come here to complain about something they feel is wrong about the game (instead of posting on the feedback page or upvoting and commenting on a previous report on that problem) see people that say "This is nice". Of course those people will seem blind. You come here and want to voice your opinion on something you consider to be a problem and when you do, people go "Oh shush. This game is sweet" Surely that would blow anyone's lid. Well, here's the secret to why people are behaving like that. We already know about the problems you come here to talk about, because many of us frequent the feedback page and report bugs we find. Once a bug is reported and we've given the devs all the info we have on the matter it's out of our hands, so we move on and wait for it to be fixed. "It's taking too long." Well, when it comes to bug fixing, some things are easy to figure out and fix in the code and can swiftly be dealt with, and some bugs are elusive and it can take figuratively speaking forever to just find the damn bug. Then once it's found it takes even longer to fix it without interupting something else that is affected by that particular piece of code. Unfortunately some things take a long time. Is it too long for you? Well, that's obviously up to you to decide, but the devs will work on the bug in their pace and it's not much we can do about it. It's not constructive to flame them for the time it takes, especially if they're already working as fast as they can. If you yell at someone running as fast as they can possibly run, they will just get angry and stop. If you push them they will instead fall. We obviously don't want either of those two, so we make it clear to the devs that we understand that it takes time, that we take their word for it, and allow them to "run at their speed". "This product is broken." That's because it's not a game yet. It's not done. Once it's done it can be called a product or a game. As of now it's not. It's a work in progress. Someone (NuckFuts I believe) even said that the negativity might help the game become good. Unfortunately it won't. The absolute worst way you can encourage someone to improve on their work is to be negative about their work and focus on the bad things. Of course you shouldn't leave out the bad parts completely, but you might only mention it once, and then focus on the good things. Fundamental pedagogics (and I've said this before) teaches you all this. There is nothing constructive in being negative. Many years of research has shown this. That's why pedagogics exist today. It is the result of all that research. "We are free to criticize the devs on their shortcomings." Well, you are. But it's not constructive. See above for the answer to why it's not. Even though you're free to do a lot of things doesn't necessarily mean it's constructive to do them. I'm sure you know that, and this is one of those things. If you want to relay you opinion in a constructive way, go to the feedback page and write a report about it, or if it's already been posted there, upvote the previous post and maybe comment on your own experiences with the issue. Then you'll truly be affecting the work of the devs. They get the info they need to fix the bugs that you experience. Win win. Now, in closing I'd like to thank you for taking your time to read through my wall of text. If there is something in here that you have a hard time wrapping your head around, please feel free to ask. And I ask of both the "whiners" and the "fanbois" to keep it mature and polite. It's so much easier to communicate when the language isn't riddled with insults. ;) EDIT: On development time, I'd like to add that they have estimated that they will be going into beta at about the end of the year. It's March now. That means this mess we're playing in currently, will be going on for some time yet. Think about that for a bit. March.. End of year.. Now, do you want to put up with the current state of the "game" for that long? Or is it better for you to take a break, and play something else while you wait? Either one is fine obviously. I have friends who bought the game, and stopped playing. Other friends refrain from buying the game now because it's "too much alpha at the moment", and me. I play the game to get a feel for what I can expect, and to find bugs that I can report on the feedback page. We all have our different reasons. Is your reason allowing you to play as it is now without pissing you off royaly, or not? Best regards.

Maybe it's just my playstyle that is contradictory. I want to stay alive as long as possible, so I sort of stay away from people, but I want to interact with people at the same time. Maybe I just need to make up my mind. :lol: I'll give it a go to risk it every time I see someone from now on. The game is in alpha anyway, so I might just as well get killed a couple of times now, rather than later. ;) Thanks for all the input guys. I think I'll try changing my playstyle around a bit and see where that takes me. I would like this discussion to go on a little longer though, so how about you tell me what the consequences of your playstyles have been? Are you generally managing to stay alive through encounters where you interact verbally with others?

Welcome to DayZ. Not for the faint hearted. :) When you hold your flashlight in "hands", press space to raise it like you would a weapon. Then the cone of light will be in front of you. Good luck.