Evil Minion

Hackers (aka scriptkiddies as the real hackers don't bothe using them themselves) do it to troll and grief people. If you get mad their mission is successful. The only way to deal with them is to close the security gaps they are abusing and getting rid of the used accounts permanentely. So if you encounter a hacker shrug it off and in case its a new/unknown hack report it to the developers or security staff. Its very likely people will get caught and punished. Maybe it will take a long time and maybe the even stopped hacking by then - but its still justified.

But why are the AK and M4 buttstocks and handguards still in game then? Or the scopes? They all (unrealistically und unnecessarily) affect dispersion instead of sway and recoil. Also I believe I have seen bipods in the stable 0.49 version so they might still be around.

Adding extra items works perfectly parallel to AI and persistence. And persistence is required for both vehicles and base building so you can hardly call those core elements. In fact its impossible to start with them because they need so much to be done first. Persistence is core - and map development is arguably core as well. Then we got the loot econemy and survival elements - core elements that are worked on but still aren't done - thats why we got the "walking simulator" - to break your bubble: vehicles won''t change much here and average movement speed is likely to go down. Now as written above there are different team working on different things - some are more visible, some are less visible. What you are saying is something like "The art team should stop being productive until the much more complex mechanics that require lots of planning and basic elements to be done first are 100% done".

I guess we all know those issues: You are running around when suddenly a zombie starts chasing you. However it doesn't go for you in person but rather attacks some place of air (your hitbox) usually outside of abuildings you just entered. At the moment the only way to deal with this seems to be going back and "rescuing the hitbox". You are messing in your inventory but due to lack of free space an items drops to the ground. Usually not a problem as you can pick it up but sometimes items seem to get lost and often reappear at some different place.Now this is what happened to me: I ran around over fields when I came across a small shack - as I wanted to paint my AK buttstock I went inside to look for some spraypaint. I just entered the shack when I heard zombie voices and soon after I was hit. I went out to kill the zombie found it attacking my hitbox on the side of the shack a moved along before entering. After killing the zombie I went inside to use the spraypaint I found. Now by painting the AK buttstock it gets detached from the weapon and as my inventory was completely full it dropped to the ground where it... never arrived. I looked around in the shack and found nothing. Then I went outside and found the buttstock - right at the zombie corpse where it attacked my hitbox.

Thats why we are aiming for a reasonable amount of time here. It shouldn't be too easy as this would cut down most of the early game and also gives you a significant reward (meeting up with people you know you can trust) without the respective effort. If its too easy to meet your friends the DayZ community will most likely boil down to groups of friends who are hostile to everyone else reducing the amount of social interactions and the need to cooperate with strangers (though people are often more relaxed towards strangers with their friends nearby). So I think meeting friends should take more effort (on average) than getting your basic survival right - you should meet up for mid game or - if unlucky - for the second half of early game. However, it shouldn't be too hard either because in the end you want to play with your friends. So after a reasonable time having to deal with strangers you should be able to meet up. This should probably be easier than most of the midgame elements like traveling to the next big city or military base or looting through a significant number of towns. I think meeting friends should be about as difficult as finding a weapon with some ammunition (not tons). Thats speaking of freshspawns. With geared players involved there should be no benefits (other than knowing and communicating with a guy thats geared) - you shouldn't use friends as a failproof way to skip early/mid game. This means the difficulty of meeting your geared friend should be about as high as the difficult of meeting any other player with his distance to the spawn area. Now as most groups can communicate via TS/Skype its actually less but there shouldn't be any artificial help. This also helps making death a threat - because it would result in quite some work to get back together. Which is a good thing.

We need more towns in the northern and northwestern areas of the map. If you wonder why just visit those places. Elsewhere we don't need any but rather a few landmarks and maybe some dynamic places like the helicopter crash sites. To experience more wilderness reduce the running speed to more authentic levels as soon as we actually got something to do on our travels - more survival aspects, animals, more threatening environment in the first place, rarer loot/better loot economy, peristence etc. This would also add more value to the upcoming vehicles.

Looks more like the Airfield - I did not notice any round Medic tent at the Myshkino tents.

And up this goes - also added some pictures.

Good thing is that for proper Min/Max-ing you will need to survive for quite a while especially when military items are rare. Then the civilian/improvised gear will still be a transition for them but one they are stuck with for quite a while. You should not just end up in military gear but rather actively work towards it. Everyone else should either end up in a civilian look or in an apocalyptic one (depending on playstyle).

Because those people would totally not have to start from the beginning if servers had private characters. There are several possibilities here (using "waiting time" as cost - there are other ideas as well): Limit each character to a single server: A big "fuck you!" to server hoppers, people looking for a better server and everyone above the population cap. No connection means a smaller loot economy and the world is basically limited to a single map. A high (fixed) cost for server switching: The little brother of the one above - a major annoyance to server hoppers and people looking for a better server. Not for people above the population cap as they can just join the new server right away - still they might have friends or stashes on the full one. As there is a connection the loot economy is big and single maps are like islands you can travel between. A increasing cost for server switching: Does allow switching but the cost goes up rapidly - so after one or two servers you better settle down or enjoy waiting times in limbo. In terms of world and economy size this offers about the same advantages as the second option but limited server hopping and switching is still possible at a relatively low cost. Excessive switching (for whatever reason) gets costly however. A low cost for servers switching: Thats what we got now. Moving to another server is quick, low-risk and high-reward. Specifically the "road" between NWAF on server A to NWAF on server B is much shorter and much less dangerous than the road from NWAF to Vybor military base on server A. Its like different floors in a big building where all rooms are connected by elevators. Good for: people who want to switch for a better server, server hoppers, ghosters, combat loggers. Moderately good for people above the population cap as their stuff might still be on another server - though they can switch there quickly. Bad for people who actually want to play on the map for some time.I think the 4th option offers way too much mobility (its like a free "plane shift" spell for everyone) while the first option offers too little. So instead of aiming at the extremes that both come with huge downsides it might be better to go in between and chose an option that discourages excessive server switching while still providing the connectivity needed for a big world and economy. There is not only 0 or 1 - and the most radical solution is usually the worst.

You can have this without completely separating the servers (which comes with other issues due to the limited economy size and capacity). To do so simply attach a fairly high cost - like some significant waiting time - to server switching (especially rapid switching). Hopping would still be possible but not really viable and very boring. This way servers are no longer parallel planes you can shift between by a mere sidestep but more like islands that are separated but you are able to travel from one to another if really want to. With working persistance more people might decide to play on one particular server but in contrast to completely separated servers you are not forced to play on them - and you can meet up with friends who started playing on a different server. And for gameplay reasons the world would be much larger allowing for a more diverse gameplay and more gameplay options. Server hopping for gear is just like teleporting around the world to make a fruit salad. You jump around until you have everything you need - but nobody does this in the real world because teleporting is impossible and the alternative (traveling from tree to tree all over the world) is way to costly (and your fruits will probably go bad in the meantime). So what do we actually do? We let someone else pick those fruits and then trade for them. But that would be impossible if we created impenetrable barrier between them. The problem is the quick and no-risk travel between servers not the connection between them.

I seriously expected your post to elaborate on the title - in fact to me it seems like you approve of the new locations. But maybe I am just very bad at detecting irony or you have one of those strange fetishes where "shit" is a good thing. Anyways I like them especially the Cherno and Elektro spawns. Before you could wander those cities without ever meeting anyone or only a few geared guys. Elektro is plain positive while Cherno takes away from the western areas - however it gives more in return. The only one I do not like is the Novodmitrovsk/Cernaya Polana spawn - technically not that different from Cherno but its simply not a coastal spawn and also gives you too much of a head start - it also reduces the value of traveling to Novo from Svetlojarsk etc. Oh - and the Vybor spawn. This one is crap. Should be removed.

Binoculars - other than that I tend towards (pristine) helmets and Jungle Boots as well as some fabric to cover my face (Bandana Maks or Balaclava - no masks).

It doesn't - unless it would be too easy to reclaim the gear afterwards. I don't like the idea of separate and discrete hubs - its probably better if people would spawn at random points throughout the spawn area weighted by several factors. When spawning with friends I would just apply the same method but make the players spawn somewhat close to each other. For example by choosing the first sawn point as usual but the other spawn points limited to a certain area. To avoid large groups having too much of an advantage the area should increase with group size: First player spawn area is the global spawn area.Second player spawn area is limited* to a 1 km circle around the first player.Third players spawn area is limited* to the union of the 1 km circles around the first two players....So if you join with 10 friends chances are that two of you will spawn up to 10km apart from each other which somewhat mitigates the "huge sqzad spawns in one place" effect but still makes it easier to meet up with someone. For this purposes any personalized weight factors (like the place where you died before) should be applied to the whole group to make it harder to play "suicide>spawn>reclaim" with someones gear. *Players may not spawn outside the global spawn area.

Ceasefire is ceasefire - a completely man-made truce. It doesn't matter what deity you believe in. Its just you and your morals with nothing to hide behind.

Or... you could just meet up by actually meeting up in game and actually earning the benefits the group gives to you. Because suiciding until you get a good spawn doesn't really sound like overcoming obstacles. Its not that much of a deal if you all just started with a new character but once some of you got geared or you are using this to get back together when someone got killed its getting very abusive. Maybe restrict "spawning together" to freshspawns (all players have to start with a new character) and just spawn them in the regular spawn area but relatively close together (~1000m maximum distance). You should not be able to spawn closer to your geared friends though - thats just skipping obstacles/challenges.

Current stable is probably set in late autumn temperature-wise. And it seems you won't be able to go hyperthermic no matter how hard you try. Current experimental is much warmer - but I did not get into dangerous areas yet - only "Hot" with the help of a campfire.

German (most Germans should be able to understand basic English though):

I forgot to make the vests more visible - should be easier to see what you are voting for/against now. There is Urban Camo on the list but its a darker digital pattern. That being said I decided to add A-TACS to the list and use your picture as reference.

Its not - tomatoes growing faster has something to do with the format - its still a game after all. I would still like to see them taking much longer - maybe a day or two. Running speed on the other side has immediate effects: people will sprint straight for "better" locationspeople will sprint to their corpse/tentpeople are much harder to hit even without using coverzombies have to be Usain Bolts as well (otherwise you could run away all day long)I think its not the vehicles but rather the loot economy (including server hopping fix) and same other survival elements (especially in the wilderness survival area) that are required for the running speed to be scaled down. Because vehicles won't be something the majority of the players would have so while increasing the maximum speed the average speed would not change that much. Now a lower average speed would probably help the gameplay: the map appears biggermore players "on the road" instead of "on location"wilderness (suirvival) becomes more importanthigher difficulty level for getting to good locations or finding dynamic locationsmeeting up with friends is a much greater rewarddeath has more impact (making it harder to get back together, reaching your stash etc.)things like hunger/thirst/cold don't need to be as pronounced to have an impactzombie speed can be toned down without making them trivial to handleits more immersive as less people would sprint around at full speedwith people easier to hit cover/concealment is more important and combat becomes more "natural"small villages in the middle of nowhere have a much greater use...Though this would require you to actually have something to do - right now the environment is low threat, you can finish "early game" in your spawn city and its perfectly possible to have everything you ever need after visiting your second city - reducing the rest of your travel to mindless running. And because thats true for most other players as well you will not even encounter many of them until you reach your destination.

First: DayZ is not set in a war. Second: You know this war. I guarantee it.

I often see zombies chasing or killing animals which can be helpful at times. This generally happens because of the lack of proper AI on both sides - zombies aggro over huge distances while animals only flee when danger is kissing them and even then only a very short distance - and animals currently being very easy to kill (you can kill a stag by shooting its leg with a Repeater). With the implementation of animal/zombie AI and after giving them proper toughness this should get very rare.

Thats temporary - for many social applications you would need permanent or semi-permanent elements as well.

Lets see if I got this right: Upon meeting a player you have the option to "group" with him just like you would check pulse. Then his current state is saved and used for further recognition. The confidence is then determined by actually being this person, having the same character model , wearing the same clothes and distance? Good thing of this suggestion is that it is (contrary to what the title suggests) pretty unbiased - it does not give you some definite friend/foe, hero/bandit or a priori (like recognising your steam friends etc.) information. However, I think this would require quite a robust algorithm working in the background with the final result being something you could also achieve by actually giving people the tools to make themselves distinguishable and letting the players own brains do the actual job. This would probably be a little more challenging as you have to use your own memory instead of the algorithm telling you that you should know something - I think thats a good thing as it adds another layer of skill (and gives players more customization options). Other thoughts: Teamspeak/Skype: Its not the same as ingame recognition as you still have no clue who is who unless told. And telling can be harder than you think. You would need your own mental skills and some discipline here as well. Risk of misidentification: Thats actually a good thing because it makes you hesitate to shoot or just take the risk. You have a choice to make and live with the consequences. Social and mental skills help doing the right thing - again something the PC should not do for you. Clothes: Thats only temporary - great for firefights and other group actions but not enough on the long run. If stripped of everything there should be enough clues to identify a player in most cases ("clone probability" should be below a certain percentage). Here you need things like face, skin tone, body shape, eye color and even hair color and length or tatoos. Something that allows for "thats definitely not Paul" (we probably won't get "thats definitely Paul" - because thats not even that easy in reality).