warpoet

That's nuts - what were the zed counts like per building?

The last sentence shoots itself in the foot. If bandits are half of the community, then that's half of the potential money pool for servers. They are always going to have a place to play. Besides, you're building a strawman. The majority of complaints re these rules have nothing to do with bandits, it's the fact that server owners can't even guarantee themselves access to their own machines. They're not happy about it and I don't blame them. Here you contradict yourself again - you keep talking about "survival." How is "shoot anything moving" a smart survival strategy? You are guaranteed to get yourself killed eventually using this approach. Survival means picking your battles very carefully. What you are describing is a deathmatcher, not a bandit focused on survival. I couldn't care less if those people stopped playing as they add nothing to the "survival" experience - not that it matters, as the majority of servers will always be available to them. That's your opinion. If the experience I want is a 1-man server that I run and NOBODY ELSE is allowed to play in - where I play Will Smith from I Am Legend - what's the problem? It's certainly a hell of a lot closer to the "point" of DayZ - i.e. survival - than what most "bandits" do currently, which is run around like it's a Call of Duty FFA, hoping to bag two or three other survivors before they get shot, then respawning and doing it over again. If you're going to take exception to other people's playstyles, you should probably start with them.

First of all - who are you to make these pronouncements? You're saying that you're just another tester - so where do you derive the authority to say what kind of servers there will or will not be, or to tell others what they can or cannot do? There are already two designated roleplaying servers, by the way. US11/12. I stand by my prediction: it will not work without a filtering process. They'll be overrun with deathmatching the same as every other server and the admins will be constantly swarmed with he said/she said. The other issue that you are thoughtlessly overlooking is money. The lowest number I am seeing to host a reliable server is $50/month. That's more than most people pay for internet service - and I'm sure the average 50-slot server costs far more than that. So no, it isn't the least bit unreasonable for people to expect that their money guarantee them a spot on their own server. Hell, if I want it password protected to keep idiots out, that's nobody's business but mine. I'm paying for it. There is a legitimate case to be made based on the technical reasons rocket gave, but that's it. With that taken out of the equation, people should be able to do what they want with their own servers.

The vast majority of "bandits" are Call of Duty types who come here to deathmatch. Nothing more mature about it, and no interest in creating the kind of survival-oriented atmosphere this mod is supposed to be focused on. People can invent whatever rationales they want to justify it, but it's mostly about killing other players for fun and always will be.

He said somewhere in the comments that it was a mix of tracks he had taken off of some royalty free music site. You'd probably need to message him directly on YouTube for details.

It's not like someone playing solo or co-op is going to ruin it for anyone else. Most people are still going to be using the main servers.

Why? Some people prefer to play solo. The I Am Legend approach to surviving sounds more interesting than spending all of your time hiding from bandits, IMO. Like I said, a fixed zed count (or a script that lets you lower the number over time), and extremely scarce weapons and supplies that don't respawn actually sound more challenging. There are also other possibilities that open up when you don't have to worry about 50 players in one server. Maybe zombies wandering through the woods or migrating hordes. Stuff that is currently just not feasible. I don't know much about coding but I would have to think it's within the realm of possibility.

I have heard rumors that someone is working on bringing it over to SP. I really hope that this is correct. For me, a single player campaign with a fixed number of zeds and no loot respawns would be outstanding. Maybe make it a playable co-op so you can play with friends and not have to worry about deathmatchers, etc etc.

Anybody else seen this? I found US12 with the tag [roleplaying] in the title, and apparently there's another one out there as well. I think this is a great idea, but am interested to hear how the admins plan to treat this server any differently from the others. Will there be any filtering process to weed out the idiots? Are there going to be clear, regularly enforced rules regarding what is or is not acceptable behavior? Will people be allowed to just run around the coast deathmatching against other players, as many do currently? There were a lot of painful lessons to be learned from Sahrani Life, Chernarus Life and the other related mods. I hope the admins behind these servers have taken some of them to heart.

People keep saying this, and I just keep laughing at it. SURVIVAL is the key word here, which is a very distinct concept from DEATHMATCHING. The majority of killing that goes on right now is deathmatching. People run around the coast killing other players because they can, repeatedly putting themselves in danger in the process. They die very often, but don't care as long as they take someone else down with them. That isn't survivalism, it's COD type idiocy. Without rules covering this, an RP server isn't going to be any different than the rest.

I don't think the zigzagging can be fixed - but the speed I am pretty sure can be changed and should be. Yeah, there are many ways to deal with them, but they're still too fast. You're in trouble if you try engaging even ONE runner in the open. You will usually just waste bullets until they stop to stand in front of you, at which point you'll have already taken damage. It shouldn't be THAT hard. Enough of them in the open, say three or more, should be serious cause for concern, but one or two should not be such a pain to deal with. tl;dr - slow em down!

Support this.

I lol'd

If it were limited to just a handful of AI at any given time, I would imagine it could be feasible. A heavily armored convoy would be pretty neat to see (although there are the roadblocks to take into consideration). Even something as simple as jet or helicopter flyovers would add a lot of atmosphere.

Survivor guards are a possibility. Not sure about how the coding would work for determining friend vs foe, though. Plus, ArmA's combat AI really leaves a lot to be desired. People will probably be able to outmaneuver the NPCs pretty easily. Worth considering, however.

There are some reasonably sized ponds where fishing could be feasible. I do find the lack of streams and rivers in Chernarus rather perplexing, though. What about foraging? I think more options for food is generally a good idea.

To all of the people talking about how this "breaks the realism" and how players have to "enforce" security on their own: Have you ever played an open-world, full-loot PvP game before? It never happens. It only works with coded protection from PvP. Period. You are coming to trade. That means you are taking the time to gather the supplies you are going to trade, the person you are trading with has done the same, and you are transporting it to the site of the meeting. You are putting all of that time and effort on the line. The a-hole who is going to camp the meeting area and kill you? He's risking nothing. All he needs is an Enfield or a Winchester. Hell, maybe even a pistol will cut it if he's lucky. The point is: the amount of risk he is taking is extremely low compared to the potential rewards for killing you. If he's unsuccessful? That's fine. He just needs to respawn, find another weapon and try again. He could be back at it in 20 minutes. Why shouldn't he? He's not risking anything - but you are. In a real-world apocalypse, a trading post with self-enforced security would be feasible. It would have dedicated, full-time guards, the protection of the community, and the knowledge that attacking it would render anyone who did so permanently dead. This is not such a situation, even though the game has made great efforts to emulate one. If a centralized trading area is created without hardcoded protection from PvP, it will be overrun by opportunistic PK'ers and fail immediately. I guarantee it.

I am a solo player who stays in the wilderness and rarely (as in, basically never) sees other players. So I don't really have a dog in this fight. HOWEVER: It should be noted that pretty much every single MMO (granted this is not technically an MMO, but still) that allows rampant, full-loot PvP has either implemented something like this or become a deathmatch. What the OP proposes is basically equivalent to Ultima Online's statloss system. I am on the fence about this because we are talking about a post-apocalyptic world. It is different when dealing with games that are supposed to simulate functional, living societies, because rampant killing doesn't make sense. Someone can't just sit on a building in a living, breathing Chernarus and shoot everything that moves. The police/military would kill them. That doesn't exist now, though, and there's no law or order except what players make. On the other hand, I really kind of chuckle at people who say that the only way to stop PK'ing is for players to "band together and hunt [the Pkers] down." Sorry, but this never happens. Not in any game where developers expect it to - ever. Why? Simple - because there is nothing to be gained from it. Other players are not going to risk getting themselves killed to hunt down PK'ing douchebags who will just respawn and keep PK'ing regardless. The risk for doing so is extremely high - much higher than trying to loot from zombie areas - and the reward is comparably low. It is much easier to simply avoid the PKers and take care of yourself. There is a legitimate point in the OP. While violence, theft and a generalized lack of morality make sense for this kind of a world, deathmatching does not. There are players who do nothing but spawn and kill other players. They aren't killing other players because they want the gear. They're killing them because they're bored, because they can, or because they like screwing it up for other players. These people are a nuisance and I would not mind seeing some kind of measure implemented to punish them specifically, but I don't know if that's possible.

I don't know how feasible this would be, but it'd be hella cool. They would need to be buff AI though - the kind you don't want to mess with. Otherwise people will just kill them for the gear. Should be a rare event IMO - they show up in force and kill whatever is in their path. Smart players stay away.