cuddly_rabbit

@ "Instinct and Human Behaviour Discussion": Hm. For sure I personally wish that players' actions in this game would be closer to what real people living/dying in the the DayZ world would be like. But: That won't happen. It is still a computer game. And there are many many people who want it to stay - what I would describe as - "shallow" and judge as "unrewarding". Just my own opinion, though. Discussing morality, social responsibility in a post-apocalyptic world, realism of self-preservation, realistic survival chance distribution for aggressive behaviour, etc with players who play the game as a high stakes PvP and whose motivation can range from boredom to grieving, from the wish to become really good to whatever it might be... It will not work. Even if you got all the scientific data right, it would not work because a game (luckily) is far from reality. I don't als think that our instincts is what guides our ingame actions. Therefore the distance between game reality and my own core of values and believes is too far apart. Too many layers of abstraction separate my gaming actions from what I would really do in a given situation. And that's good. You would not want to watch most things that your character does "just like that" in reality. Many actions I encounter in DayZ would destroy a real human being for life if you had to witness them in reality. On the game, however, you can decide consciously how you want to play this game whenever you decide to log on. I am a social player, I like playing with other and the most rewarding interaction is a talking one for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't sometimes log on and play differently and shoot much faster. If I was a dev, I would move the game towards the crowd that is not playing it as a FPS with high punishment when killed. I think it falls short of its undeniable potential if played that simply. Increasing the survival factor, discouraging PvP via portraying that these are untrained survivors and not trained supersoldiers could help.

@gwartham: You do understand that your style of playing it as a "high stakes FPS" makes it really hard for those to enjoy it who want to play it as something else, I assume. I also assume, you do not care about that. That's fine (actually, no, it's not) and a typical "on the internet" reaction. In my personal opinion, the player type who runs around gunning down random people is wasting the real potential of this game, which is sad, but your choice. It will be the task of developers to somehow combine the playing styles, because doubtlessly both will be in the final game and somehow belong there. However in the right amount. Right now, the amount of senseless, unrealistic PvP is just too high. But that's not even the players' fault, but it is due to the Alpha not giving people anything to do once you have a gun. I assume that will change. If it doesn't, this game will ultimately fail (at least for me). Anyway, I am curious to where this game is heading. And I would like to ask you personally to keep yourself from "You have no lives, you live in your games, etc..." statements. You do not know me, nor anybody else in here. Your statement is false, and can be taken as an insult. That's not what I made the thread for. It was made to have a funny, a little self-ironic look at what we are doing here. And to have a nice discussion about it. No need for the aggressivity your posts somehow convey (if I am not wrong in interpreting your statements).

Beans. That was good.

Yes, spread them more. Reasoning: The "Berenzino Madness". 1. Over-Centralisation of Action: All the action is focussing on just one hot spot, like the last few times "Lumber Mill, around the police station". 30 bodies (25 new spawns). 2. Stupid Spawn-rushing: You died. Your body is 5 min away. You will run there to get it. That's metagaming and plainly silly. 3. New Spawn Massacre: Dozens of new spawns with nothing to lose (3 min running time) dive headlessly into the bullet hail to loot the mountain of bodies. It's unrealistic, it promotes cheap playstyles and destroys immersion. I feel like a mass murderer and psychopath when I hear: "Hey, new spawn. I bet that's the geared guy trying to get his stuff. Shoot him!" 4. New Spawn Fist Charge: Nothing is sillier than a horde of new spawns punching their way to gear. A normal human would not do it as he has practically no chance and a lot to lose (his life). A new spawn doesn't care if he only loses 3 minutes running time and the reward could be being fully geared in less than 5 mins. 5. Cheap Pvp Arena: This game is not meant to be a mindless pvp arena. Centralising spawns has made parts of the map into this. Therefore spawn points should be spread over the complete map. There should be 20+ points with no easy possibility to suicide and try to get closer to where you died. Also a higher number of widely distributed spawn points would discourage the attempts to hit the right spawn point to do the corpse run.

I'd also prefer if they stopped adding new empty space to an already too big map. The challenges should be: > Filling that alreay existing empty space with interesting things. > Making the places feel unique > Attracting players to play there (and not in the known hotspots) Adding new cities/villages at the moment just adds new, empty safe loot locations and more time wasted on "The Jogging Simulator".

@ OP: You are alive. So you did the right thing. Dying right there would not have brought your pals back. So... live to fight another day.

For a game like DayZ and in a world like DayZ, the caliber and the damage shouldn't matter, because it would not matter if the scenario was real. A hit by a bullet is either a harmless flesh wound/graze (that's the only injury we can portray and cure realistically with the medical system we have now), or a deadly/instant death wound. The size and speed of the bullet hardly changes anything as long we do not add high-tech ballistic protection vests that wound make a difference in reality when it comes to penetration. I wouldn't overcomplicate things in the damage/caliber aspect.

Delete that kind of military expert gear completely (practically all the M4 parts. Who the hell needs different buttstocks in a survival game?). This is not a mil-sim and the further we can distance the game from it, the better (at least in my personal opinion). The way how you hold your gun should not matter at all. For an untrained survivor who never had any military training, it very likely does not make a difference.

What you say might be true often. However, the game had its most rewarding moments (at least for me) when a chance encounter resulted in a 4h long trip with a complete stranger around the whole map. The attitude you describe is kind of boring, yet of course understandable. Still, more courage to go for unplanned interaction would benefit the game. At least I find "true interaction" (meaning: an interaction where I do not know where it might end) much more rewarding than interacting with my TS mates. The moments when you say: "Okay, we put our axes away now and move on, okay?" and both think: "Damn it. Is this dangerous now?" is priceless and adds a lot. You will never get that thrill of cooperating with someone you do not know with your TS mates.

How about you just let the OP say what he wants to express: he didn't want to do it and would have wished to act differently. It went wrong. Nothing wrong with voicing that, even though the victim will not likely read it. So what? It's a way of dealing with the incident for the OP. It's actually the strength of this game that an unnecessary/unwanted kill is something to think about later (okay, you guys in here stopped that 400 cheapkills ago, I know), but it is actually a positive aspect. _____ @OP: I can imagine the situation. When I do something I regret later, I just try to manage better next time I am in a silly situation. It's a learning process to know what happens when, which options are viable, what you can expect and what will not happen, etc. Enjoy the process and the thrill/buzz as long as you can.

@OP: Achievement Unlocked! Congratulation, Sir! You get a rubber duck!

"The Horde". Meaning: Huge groups of zombies that travel between places, searching for food. I am talking hundreds, the whole populations of the empty cities. They split into groups and then come visiting the place where players are, trapping some, chasing them away, etc. That would be awesome.

Beans for you, Sir, because when I started and survived for a few days for the first time and got everything I wanted, I did not dare playing any more for fear of losing it all. :D One gets a little more relaxed after a while. So... look at it as a process. Gearing, interacting, dying. Gearing, etc... circle of life. :D

I actually hope that the sheer number would make them dangerous. You would run out of ammunition, would need to send people to get more, or recklessly try to break a "siege", etc. I bet everybody here can imagine damn cool and tense scenes from Z movies. Having special skills that coop is also nice. Never thought about that actually. Rewarding teamwork by combining skill and thus increasing survivability + a common enemy would be good for this game. You have my beans :D

Same for me, as avoiding interaction actually makes you live longer. However, I would not say that it cannot change. Imagine you have that zombie hordes of... like...4 groups of 200 Z. They wander around from town to town, chasing players in front of them, forcing them to react, move, stay moving, etc... I think that players would meet more, because everybody would know where the action at the moment is. At least I'd move there and shoot myself a few ZOmbies and try to help out those that are trapped, etc.

I don't know. I hope that it will force players to cooperate. If - let's say - a group of survivors is locked down in a town center by... 100 Zombies, they need help. And I think there would be few that are trapped that go: "Muahahaha! Must pvp the other players!!!" Nor would (hopefully) the team outside go "Muahaha! Snipe the players on the roof!". I want to believe in players that they would do, what people in reality would do. Either run away, and not get involved, or follow the urge to help. A game, in which you would feel the necessity to help, but had the choice on whether it is worth the risk... that would be cool. So, I hope that a real threat from "outside" would make players play together more intuitively. However, I fear that by this time, the climate might already be too poisoned by cheap playing styles like "Kill them all" that it would be a difficult way towards a better gaming experience that is closer to (what I think could be) reality.

Combine Sticks and Rags. Patch your leg with the splint. Worked for me before the last patch and "cured" something that seemed to be not a fracture but also not a healthy leg.

I think it is more likely linked to the server I am playing on. There are some on which there is near zero problems, and some are really bad.

@OP: There is no need to be in military gear. Loot a random town off the coastline and you will likely have everthing you need to play with your friends. There is no need for pristine camo clothes and pristine fully-kitted M4 to play. Raincoat and shotgun/blazer/... work, too, and you get them in 10 min when lucky, 20 when not. The difference between camo and green is negligible anyway. And you still die from 1 hit. So... why waste time on getting everything and then die in a second? Adapt your playing style for less time comsuming gearing. That's what I did and the game became 10 times more fun.

Was looting in Stary with a friend, and suddenly he starts screaming "2 Zombies!" and a second later: "4 Zombies!" and things got really hectic, and damn cool. It ended in a real shootout, at close range, 2 players vs. 6 Zed in the end, and in our hasty retreat from Stary. 4 of the old Z would have not made me scream into my mic. I would have taken the axe and said: "Wait, slightly delayed. Zeds. <yawn>". So, despite all the bugs already pointed out, and all the undeniable problems with Zeds, they add something: they are dangerous. And thus more interesting than the old ones.

This looks awesome and exactly what I have been looking for. Finally I seem to have found a group of people who also understood the full potential of this game. Kudos for your set of rules. I did not find a single one I found questionable. Good job!

Zombie one-shot killing a player should not happen. (reasoning: you can't avoid being hit sometimes by glitchy Z + killing a man in 1 hit with bare hands is rather unrealistic) And they should also not be able to break your legs that easily. (reasoning: breaking bones with bare hands easily is rather unrealistic) Ruining gear is also too fast. (reasoning: gradual item degradation makes sense. They tear your worn shirt to damaged. But ruining it in 1 hit + all the items in it: no; too much consequence for too little mistake you made) They are running a little too fast now. (reasoning: running for your life should be a way out. At the moment, you get hit even more easily by their jump attacks; also running with a pistol in hands should not make you slower than they are) However, the general health of Zeds atm works rather well when using the fireaxe. (the other weapons are pitiful, though) It's a fight. It's dirty. You might suffer a bit. And Zombies are an issue again that can get you into trouble. That's what it should be. I also like that it is now a valid strategy to just shoot them to reduce risk. I have a sawn-off shotgun with me to dispose of dangerous Z-situations (more than 1 are now dangerous, so I shoot them). Pistols and sidearms in general have a point now. My 9mm serves no other purpose than to clear out zombies while I move around. Continuing on that "shoot them" thought: Z die a little too fast on being shot. 2 hits at least? 2-3 body hits with pistols would be cooler. 1-shotting them is a little too strong, in my opinion. It is also cooler when you have to fire a few more times as it makes it sound cooler and attracts more attention.

Did some night hunting yesterday and it was kind of cool. However, the Gamma stuff is just really really bad. Dimly lit grass planes became "black player runs on light grey/almost white background" killzones. And the game looked outrageously bad! When playing at acceptable gamma, doing an anti-zombie neighbourhood watch patrol, it was atmospheric and pretty tense. We even had one of these girls in the group who always had to put on the flashlight... like when you do a night walk with a class. :D And then suddenly, when I was already shouting at him to turn it off, the cone illuminated a Z that was right 1 meter to my right. We all went "SHI....." and then gunfire erupted like mad. So... night has potential. But: I won't play against players at night when Gamma abuse puts the one who wants a nice experience at a huge disadvantage.

This. I never find magazines for my pistol. They would make for a nice 2nd tier defense weapon before you move on to the 1st tier guns.

The more shots miss, then better the atmosphere of the standoffs. A gunfight is not tense when it ends in second 1. It however is tense when you hear the close misses and when you can stay in it for a significant period of time. How it is done (via movement of the sights or deviation) I do not care much, to be honest. Gun damage... I do not know. It can never be made realistic. You cannot "heal" a gunshot wound like we can. You cannot survive most hits by a gun under the circumstances we have in DayZ. Do we want the game to be that deadly? Bleeding to death internally after being shot? Permanent disabilities after being maimed? There will always be a degree of lack of realism. Gameplay demands it somehow,