Evil Minion

I think this topic can't be resolved as it is more a matter of preference than anything else. "Endgame" just means so many different things to players. For some its maintaining high gear status and surviving as long as possible, for some its playing with those toys you got and finding new ways to use them, for some its building "civilisation" (for lack of a better term) in cooperation with other players and for some its the thrill of hunting and fighting other players. I started a poll on this to see how the DayZ community is composed (slightly flawed as the poll only covers the main preference completely ignoring any other nuances) - and it turns out most people are either into exploring or gearing/up survival with the main preference of fighting running close third. So the developers should definitely add more aspects to interact with the environment especially in regards to later stages of the game (cooperative goals, finding locations/items and also PvE aspects). Still PvP will be a big aspect as seen by the number of clubs.

Fixing is not removing. Adding something like a global loot management system would count as a fix as well. The issue with server hopping right now is that by joining an empty server you can easily gear up and find rare items and then join a populated server with a head start compared to the other players. Its the low-risk/high-reward aspect that is the problem and less the "import items from another server" part. However I believe switching server should have a noticable cost attached to it - in fact significantly more than just walking to the next town or even military complex. Lets call it "travel time". Just to prevent players from changing servers like crazy and make it feel more like real traveling from one area to another. And of course to make actual traveling viable in comparison. This way a server-hoppers won't be guys looking for a cheap and fast way to gear up but wanderers in search of rare items. And the way its done would be more akin to "today I will join this server and go through multiple towns and bases in search for treasure" instead of "I join an empty server, run to balota, loot, switch server, loot, switch server, loot... until I have found what I was looking for, switch to high pop server, kill lower geared players, die, switch to empty server, run to balota...". TL:DR: Server hopping should not be worth it for simply gearing up but only for finding exceptionally rare gear. Thats what I call a "fix".

Clothing should not be intrinsically different between survivors and zombies. You should be able to wear almost everything zombies do - however most zombie clothes might be flithy*, low tier and in bad condition making it more of an emergency choice. On the other side it makes sense to find clothing worn by zombies - the former inhabitants of Chernarus - in residential loot spawns as well. Conversely zombies should probably sport the currently available survivor clothes as well. Its pretty strange to have two sets of outfits in Cheranrus: The "wear when the zombie apocalypse hits" outfits (current zombie clothes) and the "keep at home when the zombie apocalypse hits" outfits (current survivor cloithes). For example female zombies are clearly wearing skirts. Did they burn all other skirts bthey had before being zombified? Why? Does it help spotting survivors? *Might carry the risk of infection until washed/desinfected. Maybe there could be an additional stat for clothing overall: Clean (no change), Dirty (marginally increased risk of infection), Very Dirty (moderately increased risk of infection) and Filthy (significantly increased risk of infection). Dirty clothes might be cleaned with water but filthy clothes would require medical supplies like alcohol and desinfectant spray.

While it does matter camo suffers from grass disappearance at a certain distance. And it will probably stay this way unless they find some way to embed player models into the environment at greater distances.

Hopefully not as it goes against the concept and the idea of an open world game. DLC works best on singleplayer games and microtransactions on arena-like multiplayer with discrete matches (classic FPS, MOBA etc.). DayZ is neither of this and this kind of content would probably affect gameplay far to much to the point of basically destroying it (buyable benefits would definitely do this).

So basically the AK's are full auto only because the the implementation used in the M4A1, Blaze and Shotgun was not satisfying? What about changing fire mode similar to the action key (t>scroll>t or t>scroll>f) and showing the state via inventory ("Inspect") just as done with the syringe.

You can use those as fallback gear in case your initial set gets destroyed. Right now they are "useless" because you can still store items inside ruined gear and because death is so cheap its not worth surviving if your gear status gets reduced below the respawn level. But back to topic - I would like to see smaller underwear that covers less of your actual body (like briefs/bra+panties) and a separate slot for shirts. This way sleeveless clothing becomes possible without looking ridiculous. I would also like more color options for underwear (less of an issue for the male survivor but the female survivors pants might not be everyones style). I wouldn't go as far as implementing full nudity because many cultures might have problems with that (which is extremely stupid/nonsensical - but we have to deal with it) in one way or the other. Most people voted against an underwear clothing slot (if someone voted solely because he/she didn't want nuditity: you failed) so the best option is probably to just change the starting setup to a less restrictive style and let players choose the color (maybe even the style in question).

Sound like something that should be tested though I am unsure if it would really cause the desired effect simply because different players would define their "center" in a different way. But maybe it would, just because of this.

I don't agree with "no more towns" but I agree with "more and more interesting wilderness". However, having a lot of empty space does not make for interesting gameplay so there should be some aspects worth going there: semi-random locations:helicopter crash sitesother vehicle wrecksdeer stands and other small buildingscavesetc.wild animals:to gather resources from (e.g. by hunting)as potential danger (e.g. bears, vipers)as potential companions (e.g. dogs, horses)wilderness as source for some of the rarer natural resources:food (e.g. berry bushes, mushrooms)poisons and drugs (e.g. berry bushes, mushrooms)crafting materials (e.g. special kinds of wood, leaves or herbs)

And as the game (or better: your current state) progresses this will - naturally as you aquire more and better tools for survival - become less challenging while the player interaction part will get more important. Now player interaction is not limited to mindless deathmatch but if your power level reaches a certain limit you will find the only way to "lose" is by either doing something stupid or getting beaten by another player. Which totally includes getting killed by the environment after someone reduced your power e.g. by breaking your legs inside a zombie infected town or by stealing your gear.

Ah - then I got this wrong as I thought switching in and out of a shard was possible. Then we can see server hopping "fixed" in this regard (and only in this).

I can see some issues with this as long as the shard stays connected to the central hive: "Friendly" servers spawning highly geared players rampaging on the other servers"Friendly" servers draining friendly players"PvP" servers draining gear and hostile playersAlthough if server hopping gets fixed (= more difficult/elaborate to pull off) those aspects might balance each other. Still it removes the more extreme players from "default" servers taking away from the experience.

He didn't though. I still meet people using it. All they did is removing the spawn points which does nothing in terms of hacked magazines. The only method to get rid of leftover items is a global (whole hive) character wipe.

I feel its different depending on the aspect which is probably caused by the "work in progress" property: items stay "pristine" way too long but degrade too fast from "worn" to "ruined"ruining items by shooting someone is a good thing, howeverworn clothing gets ruined too fast when shot (should stay longer in "damaged" or "badly damaged" state)ruining clothing should not ruin all items inside (instead it may cause them to get dropped)blunt/piercing melee destroys clothing and the items inside too quickly (depending on the items in question)sharp melee is generally fine but suffers from destroying too many items by ruining the clothesfalling damage is too destructive to clothing (destroying some more vulnerable items in your inventory is fine though)

A know issue right now - something is wrong with the melee hitboxes. Fortunately you can work around it by running away (watch for jump attacks)figuring out how the screwed hitboxes work (e.g. Fireaxe requires you to aim at his right foot roughly said)shooting the zombie (I recently switched to .22LR weapons) Most likely desync. Happens quite a lot - had this from the target side a few days ago. The guy clearly shot me with his Magnum but it seemed like the shot just passed my body without doing anything. Also there are "fake shots" sometimes that play the sound and animation but don't deal damage and don't consume ammo (had this with a chambered Amphibia S and a sawnoff shotgun). Seem like you got shot. Gun sounds are pretty quiet right now resulting in only hearing the bullet impact over longer distances. Also sometimes it seems like they just don't play the sounds for other players at all. The ballistic helmet currently doesn't protect against melee attacks so its the same as wearing nothing in terms of melee knockout - two punches to the head will do the job. If he only needed one its probably because you were low on blood. Not a bug but bad luck or planning from your side. You probably just relied too much on your "educated guess". Try to get to a place with a good view on the surrounding area and also look for roads. Just running forward might cause you to miss places.

OP is right - usually residential homes will have exterior doors that open into the house while official buildings will have doors that open out (or in both direction). The reason is the different purpose of those doors: Homes are build for getting in and handling from the inside. You simply have more control over your own door if it opens in and you don't have to leave your home in order to move the door. Official buildings are build with escape in mind. If a panicked group of humans tries to get out they are more likely to push than to pull (and sometimes pressure from behind makes it impossible to pull at all). A convenient side effect is that groups of people have a harder time getting into them by sheer pressure as well (if you want this - some buildings avert this by doors that open in both directions). On the other side control and handling from the inside is a non-factor because those buildings are meant to be visited by many different people.

This bug actualy helped Alpha gameplay a great deal. Before you could find tons of M4A1 carbines all over Chernarus resulting in the weapon becoming commonplace. Now it got moved to helicopters and the other assault rifles are limited to military areas. However, the "excess rifles" from 0.44 or before are still around to some degree. But with helicopter crashsites not spawning their numbers are dwindling. A good thing as it eliminates their abundance without having to go through a complete character wipe.

I don't like it because this kind of customization options should be available for everyone - to the point where every player looks (with a high chance) different. Having many "generic" survivors and a few "special achievement" survivors conflicts with the spirit of the game in my opinion (thats why also I believe the concepts of DayZ/Sandbox and F2P cannot work together). You should give all options to all players.

Those places were probably looted. You may also find weapons in city buildings and barns. Oh - and UAZ/police car wrecks!

I actually enjoy shorter edited videos like this or this as well as commentary especially if its useful. However jumping right into the action (as done with the OP videos) makes me feel like I missed something - why are you shooting these guys exactly? Just gameplay footage is seldom worth watching for me because I can have this by starting a game on my own. And music usually makes the video unwatchable because of the media censorship in my country.

True - as long as that glue-a-rifle-to-my-back-magic persists there is probably not much reason to downgrade the Mosin. Mabe if you got another rifle and don't want to move around with two clumsy longarms. The shorter barrel and lower weight might make it more flexible though - so if you don't find any other "close combat" weapons you might cut down a second Mosin for close quarter use.

They are basically included in the camouflage patterns UCP, MARPAD, Multicam and US Woodland as we already got the clothing pieces implemented (Tactical Shirt/Jacket, Combat boots etc.). In this case its more of a color variant with minor modifications - including those would bloat the list without adding anything new.

You got a concealable and more mobile full power gun with a five shot magazine. Might have its uses. I doubt this more or less improvised weapon will be nearly as accurate as the Longhorn. It might also be louder and more difficult to handle - hwoever damage might be comparable and it shoots faster. Probably more on a mid-range sidearm with effective ranges between Magnum and Longhorn.

Its pretty common to label certain enemy tactics as "cowardice" - especially when their usage puts you in a disadvantage and you cannot or refuse (for whatever reason) to use them on your own. Appealing to "honor" is an attempt to make your enemy cease what hurts you and instead meet you on your own terms. For example in Ancient Greece the "honorable" way of fighting was armored close combat - because the ruling class was well trained and educated in close combat and could afford much better equipment. Instead of crying "coward" after getting sniped you may admire their patience and/or their skill to remain unseen until they go for the kill (as well as actually killing quickly).

Not necessary as you could still provide plenty of incentive to work together. However, players will reach a point where they can deal with most things the environment throws at them - probably not on their own but surely by cooperation. At this point your main villains are other players and the PvE elements will be minor obstacles on their own - but might make the difference in combination with those villains. You can and should have other goals still but without villains its only a matter of time and effort whereas villains make it a real challenge by making it possible to "lose". Sure - I believe most people want this. However its simply not possible for PvE to stay challenging for a well equipped and coordinated group of survivors without making it certain death for single freshspawns. At some point you will have the supplies and the means to survive in your hostile environment - you will still have to care for getting your food, drink, ammo etc. but it won't be as difficult as before - unless you have to deal with rivals that want your resources or enemies powerful enough to destroy you. This way you will probably not stay in "endgame" forever - just as an empire rises, has its glory days but gets crushed by barbarian attacks in the end. If its done right PvE will stay challenging because other players push you back into the dirt pretty soon. Not easy is not the same as challenging. As a lone wolf or small group its entirely possible you will never reach the point where survival will become easy. Bigger and well organized groups however...