Evil Minion

The "Drink All" action seems pretty bugged anyways. Most of the time I use it I won't even go prone - because the action never ends until I cancel it.

Red deer do. And we got red deer - whose mating season (the time males roar) is autumn.

What about not going too hardcore but still making it challenging? Arguments like this are brought to us by people who want everything served at a silver plate and god forbid if you have to actually earn your reward. If you want the game to be easymode you are (hopefully) at the wrong place.

As there is an ongoing discussion about spawning at the coast versus spawing randomly all over the map I will start a poll to see how most people think about it rather than only the most vocal ones.

Well then: Not done by spawing everywhere as people would just move to the nearest towns/bases and most connections/path/areas between only serve as spawn areas. Having people already spread out over the map greatly reduces the incentive to migrate. You don't need to spawn everywhere to reduce this - just let people spawn away from other people. Killers will probably still watch certain places and in fact they make the game more challenging by posing a threat to your survival- Not done by decreasing the chance of getting killed and increasing the chance of getting (high level) loot next to the place you spawned. Hot spots are what makes the game interesting. And you would still get them - just in different places of the map. In fact places with lower quality loot would probably end up much more empty and leaving a hotspot would make less sense as other areas are "grazed" in just the same manner by people who happended to spawn there.I am not exactly sure why people think spawning all over the map would solve problems it does not - and in some cases it would even aggravate. In turn it adds new issues and makes for less diversie gameplay - why would you like this? (Probably because you rage about getting spawnkilled yet again or because you want to spawn at a military base to start your hopping spree faster.)

Its about empty servers not spawing loot as long as they are empty - thats especially a factor if central loot management was to be added. So your server spawns loot at a rate determined by the number of players on it but loot won't despawn. If you join a server its no longer empty - so it does spawn loot. However, it will not be stuffed with untouched loot items that spawned freely with nobody there to take them away. Still its true that this would hurt completely new servers so having loot spawning to a (fairly low) minimum threshold before switching to player count dependent spawns might be reasonable. Also more players should not mean an extreme increase of spawns - as written above your looting speed should not be vastly different whether you are playing on empty or full servers (on average, high population servers might have a greater variance according to the risk involved). The point is not to make empty servers unplayable but to make the average speed of gearing up independent of server population to give about the same chances to people who want to be left alone and people who like a lot of interaction. But the actual topic here is server hopping. However, its the same thing - people should not be punished for not excessively hopping between servers. Because thats actually abusing a game mechanic intended for other purposes (server switching) to get an advantage over other players. In the end it hurts everybody - both non-hoppers (lower gear level, less interaction away from key location and more onesided interaction at key locations) and hoppers (if their goal is to get geared its trivialized, if their goal is to play the game they will miss 95% and if their goal is to fight while geared they are probably better off playing a different game).

It seems like most players would be happy with a weighted spawn algorithm like: Pick random place on map. Check collision (if conflict -> 1.) Generate random number Compare with density at this spot (if greater -> 1.) Spawn thereThe density would either be static - every point on the map has its fixed value - or dynamic - when spawing the density will be calculated according to several parameters (e.g. player proximity, distance to nearest military base, loot density in surrounding area etc.) - and the random number would need to be a value between zero and the highest value of the density. This would probably work for both sides as you can technically spawn everywhere (as long as there is no collision conflict) but there are areas with a higher possibility of spawns causing a heterogeneous map and thus more dynamic and interesting gameplay. If done right ("good density") the penalty for death might not need to be overly harsh (though imo it should still be significant) as the chances of getting a "better spawn" are too small to take the risk.

I believe its simply uniformly distributed at the spawn points. So if we got 74 spawns and 3 per server the probability would be 3/74 ~ 4,05%. Edit: Actually if we can be sure that each spawn can spawn only one helicopter the probability increases to 1/74+1/73+1/72 ~ 4,11%. But thats not much of a change so about 1 out of 25 is probably a good guess.

I don't want to force people to do anything. I want the choices to be balanced out so people won't get a huge advantage from playing in a certain way like hopping between servers or playing on empty ones. Because that would be just a mild version of "forcing" as well. If playing on an empty server would keep your expected loot gain rate at roughly the same as playing on a full server its really only a matter of preference. Same with server hopping - if your cost (time+risk) is about the same for hopping servers and looting a single server people would not get an advantage. Now server hopping completely negates risk of travel and greatly reduces risk on destination (as you can pick your server) and every measure to increase risk would simply cause frustration (having a chance to delete your character, no server choice, the OPs suggestion etc.). So I think increasing cost by increasing the switch time is more reasonable. However the time needed here is higher than the appropiate time for server switch (done for other reasons) and thats why I suggested the ramp up model. The final time should be above the "balanced switch time" to counteract the few fast switches at the beginning. So you can totally keep server hopping but you would pay the right price for doing so instead of gaining a free advantage. Sorry, I don't buy the "I like to jump between servers instead of playing on the map" argument. I am pretty sure its either "I like the advantage it nets me over other players." or "I need to do it because otherwise I am at a disadvantage." - so don't argue with "anti server hopping restricts our choice of how to play the game" - thats not true, in fact its completely the opposite. Not doing something about server hopping is saying "play the game this way or we will punish you" (by being less geared at higher risk). And the "totally random loot spawn" is just a joke. This would just randomize the game to an unauthentic and luck based level. Having certain areas or buildings spawn certain types of loot is a good thing for both gamplay in authenticity. Same with coast spawns - they add to the game. DayZ is about survival in both PvE and PvP - if you just want to dress up without that risk better go play Sims. If you want to fight fully geared all the time go play CoD or Arma.

Honestly I don't want freshspawns having a "free" spawn in the west. If you want to get there you should move your ass and avoid getting shot while doing so. Your reward would be getting to the good loot areas. Having spawns limited to a certain area makes it a little bit fairer - though there should be tons of individual spawn points distributed instead the spawn area as few spawn points tend to get camped more easily. I also think a heterogeneous map is more interesting and adds to the gameplay (given server hopping gets fixed). Instead of having about the same gameplay in every corner of the map with the only difference being the landscape and town layout you got areas where gameplay is vastly different because of the proximity of player spawns alone. This might actually increase the travel as the spawn areas would have a high density of killer and a low density of valuable loot. Spawning all over the map would reduce travel as players are more likely to spawn in a "nice" area with more available loot and low killer density - also traveling elsewhere would be less worthwhile simplay because there are players spawing in this area as well and thus getting the good pieces before everyone who has to move there first. The possibility of getting lucky spawns would increase the suicide rate - if not countered this basically moves the spawn areas to high yield areas further reducing travel and keeping the rest of the map empty. And if countered... you either got a horrendous penalty for death - which adds a lot of frustration for people who got killed by others - or you have to balance out the map so no spawn is "better" - which leads to even more homogenous and uninteresting gameplay and to even less map travel. Why would you like to spawn all over the map? To avoid getting spawn killed? Weighting spawns according to player proximity would probably work better than spawing anywhere.To have the chance of getting lucky with your spawn? Thats actually an anti-argument - as written above.To have more diversity? A heterogenous map layout offers more diversity in the long run as the map plays differently depending on your location.To avoid repetition? Same thing here - spawing all over the map will not significantly change your "early game" - and it will probably offer more repetition in later stages.To be unsure about your location? Well, this would probably end in two ways: Frustration (you don't manage to find your way) or low challenge (you do manage to find your way). It also replaces a dynamic and interactive challenge (getting first scraps of loot in a killer-infested area) with a passive and noninteractive one (figuring out where you are and finding the next town) - hardly an improvement.

As there is a lot of crying about zombies lately and some people seem to be outright helpless I will outline some of the basics of how to deal with our undead friends. First the basic equipment rules: Get healthy. (You can take more hits and both blood and health will be regenerating - which also means you will bleed out slower) Get clothes in good condition. (Better condition means higher protection and they won't be ruined nearly as fast) The Sewing Kit is your best friend. (Use it liberally - you don't want any clothing below worn condition, repair asap) Get a melee weapon - preferable a Fire Axe. (The faster you kill zombies the lower the chances of critical hits) Get a vest or Chest Holster. (It offers more protection and can also store items) Get bandages or rags. (There is always a chance that you will start bleeding)Now about tactics and movement: Draw your axe as soon as possible. (Otherwise you might get hit while putting it out) Never ever stand still when a zombie is attacking. (Even if he doesn't face you he will still hit you) Do not move in a straight line, zigzag instead. (They will hit you when running in a straight line) Fight zombies on open ground. (Plenty of space to move is plenty of space to dodge) Engage zombies by letting them charge you and sidestepping/circling. (Moving directly at the zombie will get you hit) In melee circle around the zombie - but not too close. (This way you avoid getting hit) To attack stop for a very short moment to aim for the zombie. (Greatly improves your chance to hit - but think of point 2!) After attacking keep circling - even if you killed the zombie. (Zombies might still hit you after going down) Avoid movement in narrow spaces like buildings and around obstacles like closed gates or fences. (Your hitbox might get stuck and zombies will hit it while your are elsewhere) If zombies damage you but are nowhere near you go back the way you came from and kill the zombie. (You left your hitbox behind and its about to get eaten - save it!)And general tips: Avoid time consuming actions in/near towns and military bases as you might attract zombies. When looting cities or towns close the doors behind you - but only if not already engaged in combat. Sudden cut off sounds are most likely bugs - quieter but not cut off sounds are most likely real zombies. Kill all zombies around you and make sure of it before starting to bandage yourself. If you suddenly take damage and everything below your waist is ruined its most likely not a zombie but the leg breaking bug (which might not always break your legs). Do not shoot zombies for other reasons than target practice.If you got criticism, questions, corrections or your own tips feel free to post! :) Happy slaughtering! :)

Had one today. Left the server, joined another one, got my old character back. But seriously why are there still so many servers with restart times of 4 hours or less? First kicked me out of a firefight, second kicked be out while looting a military base, third kicked me out in the middle of a city...

Sorry, but here you sound like a typical "I spawn on empty servers gear up and then join a full server to kill others" server hopper. Also having no loot spawning on empty servers does not mean there will be no loot. For this to happen people would have to loot it empty without anything spawning in the meantime - which is pretty unlikely as the server is big enough and in case you got many looters more gear would spawn. So most empty servers would still have plenty of loot on them - but they won't drown in it making looting them a little more involved. Again - a good thing. So if you like to play on empty servers you will have to search around putting effort into search that you would have put in surviving otherwise. The whole concept balances out the risk/reward aspect which is pretty nice. High risk/high reward on high population servers and low risk/low reward on low population servers. Seems fair to me. There is no reason to advocate low risk/high reward empty server looting - it just hurts the game and all players (people who do it will miss most of the game getting bored pretty quickly and others will be up against highly geared players more often getting frustrated quickly). Now back to server hoppers: Server switching in general should have some cost attached to it (as its just like a path between places on the map, and a pretty save one at that). In general it doesn't have to be that much - 5 minutes waiting time is annyoing anough that you would rather not switch but doesn't really hurt. Now after several switches the "hopping penalty" should kick in. I like the "double time" idea as it keeps ramping up instead of hitting with full force after activation (as written above a "normal player" could get unlucky). The "spawn elsewhere" aproach probably hits other more and does not really affect server hoppers that much (they just walk over and then loot the place).

You could add some kind of restriced matchmaking where people are only allowed to join servers with players on themthe server they played on lastthe last 5 servers where they interacted with persistent items (storage, vehicles, etc.)an "overflow server" that only gets available ifall servers in its "area" are empty or every non-empty server its "area" has more than 80% of its maximum number of players This way there is only a limited number of servers available to play on making hopping harder to accomplish. Still there should be a penalty for excessive hopping - I still think the best way to do this is to have a significant switch time (it should be somewhat annoying but not completely crushing for "normal" players who want to join after their friends etc.) that skyrockets if you switch too much. Example: The first one or two switches are "free" - no additional penalty but thereafter switch time doubles for each switch within two hours and halves until back to normal if you did not switch for three hours. So if the base switch time is 5 minutes (nobody can argue its too long - a "ready button" would help as well) a person who switches two times would wait a total of 10 minutes (come on thats not that crippling), a person who switches four times would wait a total of 40 minutes (starts to get impeding) and a person who switches ten times would have to wait 640 minutes (after the seventh switch the switch time will not increase any further as its longer than three hours) - nobody would like that. Now maybe one or two switches before penalty start might be a little harsh. Make it four, reduce the time frame for increase to one hour and reduce the time frame for reduction to two hours and we still get a quite powerful system. Now switching after being kicked or server restart should be excluded from this calculation altogether and count as simple joining not applying any of those penalties (not even the fixed one). So a player who switched twice then got kicked then had a server restart will get no waiting time but if he switches again within the time frame he has to wait according to his third switch.

Lets add an example here: The AKM using a simplified system that doesn't take into account the weight of every attachment but requires a screwdriver to add or remove attachments. PSO-1 Scope This one just adds zoom. Good for long range encounters especially with the rangefinder but might end up clunky in close quartes. Plastic Buttstock The lightest buttstock provides the highest sway reduction but also the lowest recoil reduction. Wooden Buttstock As a heavier buttstock it offers less sway reduction (still significantly more than without buttstock) but is the best for reducing recoil. Folding Buttstock In general a little less effective than the wooden buttstock but increases Dexterity (turn rate) and can be folded to reduce the weapon size for less inventory space and even more Dexterity increase (losing at slightly more sway than an AKM without buttstock). Plastic Handguard Following the pattern above the plastic handguard offers good sway reduction and increases Dexterity because of its lightweight design. Wooden Handguard Less reduction in sway and no increase in Dexterity but reduces recoil instead. Rail Handguard Similar to the wooden handguard but with even less sway reduction. In exchange it can attach Bipods, Flashlights etc. 30 Round Magazine Allows for fast reloading and slightly increases sway when attached. Drum Magazine More capacity allows for higher firepower but comes at the cost of increased sway and less dexterity. Bipod Increases sway when attached but greatly decreses sway when firing prone. Now this allows for multiple viable versions like: DMR version (PSO-1 scope, Rail Handguard, Plastic Buttstock, Bipod, 30 round magazine) for long range precisionLMG version (Rail Handguard, Wooden Buttstock, Bipod, Drum Magazine) for heavy fire supportUrban version (Plastic Handguard, Folding Buttstock, 30 round magazine) for close combat in and around buildingsAssault version (Wooden Buttstock, Wooden Handguard, Drum Magazine) for a spray&pray approach at closer distancesSkirmisher version (Plastic Handguard, Plastic Buttstock, 30 round magazine) as mid-range all-purpose variantetc.instead of having only MMORPG style straight weapon upgrades. This way you not only get better feedback of your attachments but you can balance/customize the attachments to fit your playstyle instead of hunting "the one best piece of gear" for a low profile passive effect you hardly ever notice by itself.

You won't be able to fill your inventory with tons of magazines, let alone drum magazines. And for each two slots filled with 5.56mm round you need three slots filled with 7.62x39mm rounds. There is a possibility that other factors also play a role in damage: body part hit (confirmed)clothing (confirmed)distance to target (unconfirmed)Maybe the AK-101 only seems to be stronger over greater distances because of the higher bullet velocity (you are more likely to hit where you want to hit).

Can totally be represented by decreasing some qualities (e.g. damage, speed) and give a reason not to cut the handle if you don't need to.

So: AKM - more damage - can use the drum magazine - easier to find ammo for AK-101 - less recoil - slightly easier to hit distant targets (higher airspeed) - can carry more ammunition

Melee got some kind of temporary solution as the tracer system ran into some issues. For me it works just fine (can't drag anymore though) so the problem might be people not using first person.

Where did you get those values from? Did you test this? Because it seems to me like nobody really did true tests on weapon damage and everyone is just guessing from experiences and/or citing the same (probably wrong/outdated) values.

I don't want to stop people from switching servers or limit them to only a few of them. I also don't want to prevent people from "looting sprees". I want them to use the ingame paths to do so. Right now its quite a journey from NWAF server A to Balota server A but a pretty quick path from NWAF server A to NWAF server B. In addition its pretty save as you can't get shot during travel. So looters will just take the quickest and easiest path - switching servers. By attaching a cost to server switching you will make this path more costly and more people will decide to use the ingame paths instead. This way their gameplay is more risky but also more interesting, they won't suddenly spawn nearly as often, they would actually play the game in order to get rewards, travel paths on maps would be more populated, you would see more players who are not freshspawns or highly geared etc. If someone still decides to go the less risky path from NWAF server A to NWAF server B he should play the price in the form of longer waiting times. Only then the path is not better. People may still server hop but they need to invest time to do so. Or they could use this time to just play - causing more risk but also more exciting and fun gameplay for everyone involved. The argument that longer switch times only hurt the other players is bullshit - everyone who can play DayZ is able to wait for 5 or 10 minutes. If you don't switch excessively you won't have to wait much longer and you can still switch to another server after you took a break from playing the game (or when kicked). The only ones really hurt are the ones who switch servers excessively and 95% of them are server hopping looters who just chose this path because its faster, easier and less risky. You can't take away that last aspect but you could hurt the first one - in fact you should. Maybe also add a penalty in form of calories and water to avoid cutting your needs of supplies by server hopping, hurting the second aspect as well. Off topic but I need to clarify something for the one who posted above: "stuffed" does not mean you consumed enough. You want to be bright green "energized" (after reaching this you can store about 5 times the calories you have in yourbody making for plenty of time before you starve to death) bright green "hydrated" (in contrast this is close to maximum and ) and "healthy" (meaning you are at full health and blood - while "healing" means you are at full blood but not health). Then you won't starve quickly or die from sickness in a few minutes. The system is reasonably decent but your gameplay is just not.

Met one in a town north of Cherno. Helpful little fellow - distracted the zombies so I could loot undisturbed.

To be fair there are many good reasons why you would like to spawn where you logged out. I think server hopping should be fixed by different methods. Also keep in mind this poll includes spawning on the same server as well.

The challenge for the developers is to avoid/punish excessive server switching (server hopping) without making regular server switching (to meet friends etc.) a pain in the a.... Restarts, getting kicked und such things should probably go by a "no penalty here" policy. Losing connection on restart already seems to work this way. Now a "normal player" will visit only a few servers per day (one in the best case) while a "server hopper" will visit plenty of them. So it might be reasonable to increase the penalty in dependence of the number of switches rather than adding a fixed penalty for every switch. However a fixed penalty would also help as it prevents needless switches ("lets just switch once and loot that base again before going on") and hits server hoppers more by adding up. So the most simple solution is making the first switch timer just a little bit too long (so people only like to switch if they got a good reason) and then increasing the timer for each subsequent switch (making it "not worth it" to hop between multiple servers).

Calm down. Read something about development.