Evil Minion

So fire all artists and animators and replace them with programmers?

I hope so but you are probably not. Opposing an option because you don't want to use it? Why would you reduce the options of another if it barely affects you? Also you can't tell how people would react and you should not dictate it because you think you know. This game is about giving players a framework - options to choose from. The last thing we need is a "should not be ingame because only few would use it/its not high tier" mentality. The immersion breaking comes from not even having the option and from never meeting one of those select few. Key is everyone having the option. People will find a use for it - even if its merely being eccentric. Here most people not using something would actually make it a good choice if you want to stick out.

You should stop bashing CoD because thats a game that - as written above - does not have this design flaw. Also having a game where it is easier to shoot others doesn't make it easier - because all the other also have it easier to shoot you. This means the focus of skill gets shifted and thats about it. Same for DayZ third person: It is not easier to play because you are not the only one peeking. Maybe its even harder (its for sure harder if you decide to play in 1st person) - it just impacts gameplay in a very negative way and reduces tactical options (as well as design/balance options like vision obscuring helmets etc.). That was actually my impression in this regard. Another reason might be the unfortunate naming we had until a few patches ago. Calling third person servers "regular" and first person servers "hardcore" does (1) give the impression that third person is "the true way of playing the game" and (2) cause new players to avoid "hardcore" servers because they are afraid of a harder gameplay - which turns out to be a self-fullfilling prophesy if they get used to third person and then join first person servers - being used to third person gameplay and not being used to actual tactics,

I only ever play on first person servers (unless testing). I had no problems finding one but I noticed they either had few players on them or are close to being full. I think if there were no first person servers to join I would rather not play - because PvP is a big part of DayZ and PvP with third person enabled is just terribad. I believe in most games designed for first person and/or immersion/authenticity providing a third person option is a mistake. Same for games that actually aim for tactical & exciting combat. Peeking destroys all this.

Lets get this up again.

Not being able to change servers at will is a huge problem - its basically the other extreme to server hopping and just as bad. The flexibility from being able to switch servers is a good thing. Interaction with a fewer number of people/characters. More crude rarity limits on loot (e.g. a single server does not allow for 1in10 servers items). A smaller economy in general. A smaller game world in a sense of barricades etc. Server capacity limits may cause people to get excluded from gameplay* because servers are full. Technical difficulties may cause people to get excluded from gameplay*. Empty servers will fill up much slower as many people would have to start all over again. More possible characters might cause players to care less about a single one.Thats what comes to mind right now - maybe there are more things but as I said the loss of flexibility is enough. The all those things are no problem for some people thats okay - they can play on privates hives. But for others thats not an option and a fix is still needed. In fact something like a 5 hour server switch time would probably have similar advantages as private hives without many of the disadvantages mentioned above. And thats probably much more cost than actually needed. *Or start over.

And it would create much more. There are better solutions to deal with overpowered mechanics than removing them. Private shards with 24/7 daytime would not solve the server hopping and gamma exploiting but rather reduce their impact to zero. On the other side they also reduce player options and the overall game dynamics by a lot. So an actual fix is appreciated and for both things there are good ideas floating around.

Why would you want slow zombies? Would be boring as you could just run away all day long.

Sure but there are major differences. Lets divide all those aspects in "natural" and "cultural". "Natural" aspects should be hardcoded because they provide a framework to work in and players do not have control over them - they may interact but they won't change the way of how it works. Those are things like you described. "Cultural" aspects on the other side should not be hardcoded but rather originate from the players - thats where you should be able to define how it works although mainly as part of a community. Social interactions, trade, currency, morals - all those are "cultural" aspects that should not be defined and forced upon players by the game. Thats something players should agree on, enforce or even break. If I found coins I should not be sure about being able to trade them for something - because money is just a cultural agreement that may or may not find its way into the game.

While I do think Australia might be a little far and uninvolved here the Australian Army seems to use equipment that is very popular around the world and thus has a very high probability of ending up in Chernarus as well (by NATO troops, trade etc.). Weapons not yet on the list that might be possible: Browning Hi-Power (9mm Parabellum)H&K USP (9mm Parabellum, .45 ACP)Remignton Model 870 (12 gauge, 20 gauge, .410 bore)FN Minimi (5.56x45mm NATO)FN MAG (7.62x51mm NATO)AI Arctic Warfare (7.62x51mm NATO, .50 BMG)

Thats similar to a humanity system: It should not be ingame because it hardcodes mechanics that should rather develop within the game dynamics. Players should decide on their own what to use as currency and how trade should work just like they should decide on their own which moral codex to follow. If others agree they might put up some trading community. Key is such mechanics being player driven instead of hardcoded within the game.

Its more likely to find a longsword or sabre. Samurai swords are more likely to be found in the US because in the aftermath of the Second World War many were collected from the Japanese. But behind the iron curtain its a much different story. Sure it might be a possibility - but extremely rare. Other things worth considering are polearms and a real sling (which turns out to be quite effective in the right hands - ask Goliath). A scythe obviously as you will find them almost everywhere and they can be effective (though cumbersome) weapons as well. Then a broader collection of knifes as both weapons and tools: razor, pocket knife, ballistic knife, dagger, switchblade, meat cleaver, butter knife, letter opener, balisong, scalpel, throwing knife etc. An then there are air guns - which are not gunpowder weapons as well.

Well "anti-game" is less like "not a game" and more like "not like the usual easymode pc games". Also its not meant to be boring - its still meant to give you an exciting experience - which may include phases of "nothing happens" - because this leaves you in the dark whether or when something is happening. Those phases might also serve as cost attached to certain decisions (like camping a spot and waiting for victims). And the same way you should be left in the dark about morals - no "humanity stat", no artificial reward for "good deeds", no artificial reward for "bad deeds" - because all those things would just hardcode a certain moral codex into the game. Instead morality should originate from the game and its dynamics. What do we need for this? Player/Character recognition (face, body etc. - no magic)NO hardcoded moral codexdifferent ways of communication:direct speechindirect speech (e.g. Walkie-Talkies)written notes (that stay persistent for some time)drawings (both on notes and wall etc.)Other things that help are a challenging environment (more reason to get/provide help, a "common enemy" to fight), cooperative goals (more reason to work together) and a high variety of items (clothes, weapons, roleplay, vanity etc.).

I believe a recent dev stream said something like: They have talked about it and settled on very low priority. Its not like clipping of character model and clothing is a non-issue. It has to be resolved anyways and the solution may or may not allow for hoods.

Telefragged by a steak?

Is it possible your MacBook does conflict in one way or the other with your Windows 8 installation? Like not using parts of the hardware?

Poor programmers always get the hard work.

Limitation of technology - I would like to have a single permanent poll but I can't include enough questions and options (also they change as options change).

Lets say the overall loot in an area (including the loot you already own) is the price and you meet another player. Lets say you could only play hostile or friendly then the possible outcomes are: Both players are hostile. The expected payoff is your expected improval of gear times the probability of you winning the fight (can be negative if you lose valuable gear during the fight and do not get compensation!) minus the value of your gear times the probability of you losing the fight. Call it X.Both players are friendly. The expected payoff is roughly half the the expected improval of gear from looting alone plus the expected improval of gear from trading. Call this T.One player is hostile the other is friendly.The expected payoff for the hostile player is the expected improval of gear both counting killing the friendly player and driving him off. Call this WThe expected payoff for the friendly player is somewhere between zero and the value of his gear depending on his chances of getting out alive. Call this LNow from the above we can surely say that W>X as a fight between hostile players increases the risk of death or gear destruction for both of them and T>L because T>0 and 0>=L. We can also expect W>=T because the possible price includes more items and the hostile player will not have a rival in looting. Trade might make it more difficult but we will assume the expected payoff from killing to be roughly the same as the expected payoff from trading. Thus we get W>=T>0>=L. Assume the area holds some items interesting for both players - which we possibly can - we can go on with W>T>L. If we now get L>X we have a Hawk/Dove situation. If we don't have this we got a Prisoners Dilemma. This might depend on the gear status and the chance to survive such an encounter as a friendly one. In the end its much more complicated as we usually got asymmetric situations that are iterated with multiple different players - here the distribution of playstyles has impact as well - and there are way more playstyles than the pure strategies "hostile" or "friendly" and as they interact the community "evolves". This also shows some reasons for friendly behavior and thats why I think that is is absolutely vital to be able to recognise specific individuals ingame via non-changeable aspects like face or body shape (or even name though I don't like this because it feels unimmersive). However, I do not agree with tracking and publishing stats or "karma points" as I consider this meta-gaming. And I totally disagree with giving ingame advantages for following a specific moral codex. Who knows which values will develop within (groups inside) the community if they are not imposed upon the players from the outside?

Only speaking of expected extrinsic reward here. But its true that KoS is encouraged right now - however, the payoff matrix is actually more like the one from the Hawk/Dove game as being hostile has a risk involved as well.

I don't think it should go that far. You should not be able to spawn with higher value clothes. Randomizing between basic clothes might be possible though: Take the T-Shirt/Jeans/Athletic Shoes set as reference and randomize sets in a way that their overall utility (protection, inventory slots, crafting material) is about the same or worse (I don't think people would suicide because they were given Tracksuit pants instead of Jeans). Would help making freshpawns more diverse without buffing their strength and add some additional uses to low tier items. Also I think starter clothe should not be pristine but randomly given a state between "worn" and "badly damaged".

Not so harmless as they have nothing to lose. Trying to knock out geared players to steal their gear is common as all you will get when you fail is a mere 30 second waiting time and a teleport elsewhere. I would call this playstyle "Grazer" - because the ecological role is pretty similar to grazing animals. Gear is usually gained by looting and they often (but not always) tolerate other survivors. Might react aggressive when he feels unsafe not unlike a Rhino or Buffalo. Also the main prey for players who kill for loot. There is also a similar but more social version who seeks out (friendly) contact with other players. In general less aggressive than the type described above but might end up in a "safety-by-numbers scenario" - generally much more tolerant towards other "Grazers" and does not tend to hoard loot. Basically halfway between the "Grazer", "Medic" and "Hero" playstyles. Typical kleptoparasitism, knocking out others, holding them down etc. Sadly the playstle is hurt by lack of player recognition (if you can build up a reputation not to kill/take everything people are more willing to play along) and cheap death (players often choose to fight and die over sacrificing some gear). I would actually spilt those into three. "KoS'r" doesn't fit in my opinion because many of the other playstyles (aside from the medic and the "Social Grazer" I described above) are also prone to KoS for various reasons. The main difference here is that the following playstyles are predatory meaning they actively hunt down other players and get most of their loot from kills (at least the first two). Hunter - This one does also loot but prefers taking from others. Mostly motivated by the thrill of the hunt this player type stalks and kills geared players for their stuff. Lower geared players and freshspawns are usually not on the menu as long as they leave him alone - they are simply not worth the effort and there is no challenge in killing them. Murderer - This one is not into looting. What he needs is gear to kill other players - preferably taken from corpses. This one enjoys killing more than the reward or a challenge. Sniping bambis is just fine and killing geared players is even sweeter - not for the loot because thats only interesting if it allows for more killing - but for the cries. Two-faced - This one starts out as a Grazer but once geared will go on an all-out killing spree just using his weapons on everything that moves. In my opinion symptomatic of the current weaknesses in game dynamics (easy gearing up, server hopping, lack of cooperative goals, low environmental challenge). Differs from the former two that he is actually not a predator at heart but might enjoy PvP.

How do you avoid to KoS people based on name? You will always see them long before you will know their names...

No - thats not how morality works. If you do good because you expect a reward or fear punishment you are not a good person. And if you only ever do good if you are rewarded you are a bad person.

Keep believing that. In fact the bow deals more damage than the fireaxe (which is quite deadly if aimed right) and the Sporter .22 is like a more accurate, fast firing bow. With all three weapons you better aim for the head (which results in a oneshot kill).