Rags!

Only Zuul.

The problem with the idea of icons is that it's an attempt to put into our knowledge statuses that are self evident to us in reality. I never had a problem with status messages that simply said I need to grab a Snickers. I would like the idea that icons don't appear until they actually show you're in need of something. There's no reason to see a status message about feeling normal, but all of a sudden if a translucent icon for water slowly became bolder and bolder the more hungry I got...that's be nice.

I don't have to imagine it. The new UI is absolutely garbage at the moment. It's impractical and extremely limiting and filled with immensely questionable design decisions. It just gives better frames so I put up with it.

I can understand why people could put faith into their religion, but I can't understand why anybody would put faith into a corporation.

Really fucking quick.

No offense to BI, but their confirmation of something happening at a certain time in the future is kinda meaningless at this point.

So, apparently shooting somebody twice with a 7.62x39mm round from an SKS in the upper body at ~25m is neither fatal nor incapacitating...after a fight I had in the NWAF tents where I killed three guys and injured a fourth, I really think that some of these people took too many rounds to put down with that SKS. A guy can hit me in the chest with a .308 at 250m and that knocks me unconscious in one shot even with my armor...but my near point blank double tap to the chest with an AK-47 round does nothing? I really need to get a look at some Symthic style damage models for this stuff, because wouldn't an SKS have a very slight damage advantage over the AKM due to about a 4 inch longer barrel? It just seems that the AKM has more potent bullets while the SKS simply needs more rounds to put people down. Maybe I am wrong! I dunno...it just seems that way to me. Could be other factors.

The safety is between your ears.

People who don't agree with you are trolls and differing opinions are "stupid ass rants". Gotcha.

It's annoying. Not game breaking.

No, but I'm sure you'll let me know. I don't have a problem with people who roleplay in DayZ. But showing a real conflict of morality for shooting animal shaped pixels controlled by computers seems a bit much. Or simple expediency. Doing those things to pixels in a video game has literally nothing to do with actual morality. When I kill other players, it doesn't make me a bad person. When I grief other players and make their survival difficult in a video game...that doesn't make me a bad person. Because those aren't real people and they can't feel real things and they don't have real thoughts. These aren't moral choices. There is neither human flesh nor are there puppies at stake here. It's not real. You won't really kill somebody and eat them. It's a pixelated representation of it on a screen. Nobody is getting hurt. This is a "transgression without a victim". Also, this isn't cheapening the game for me at all. I got my hours of enjoyment out of days ages ago. Everything has been icing on the cake for a looooong long time already. I'll go around and massacre whole herds of deer and I won't feel the tiniest iota of moral doubt. And neither should anybody.

If shooting animal shaped pixels in a video game about survival makes one question their morality, then one might consider needing to...what's the most polite way of saying it...grow up?

I had no idea this game had sheep. I was literally startled and confused.

It's a fundamental change that needs to happen. When you know the areas in which unprotected fresh spawns will enter the game there is nothing realistic about that as well. You shouldn't be able to predict where to go in order to find the most helpless targets because that's just where they spawn in. Spreading spawn points around the map will vary player movement and actually get players to go to places that they never do now. Being able to predict where the most helpless players are is not a good gameplay decision. Not knowing where from a player might come or how deadly they might be forces perception and decision making, as well as makes it harder for players to feel safe. Nothing is a more attractive player magnet than two simultaneous things: Where the best loot is...and where other players gather. Nobody goes up north because there is no reason to. You spawn far from it, players hardly ever traverse up that far, and by the time you were to make it there you'd have passed better looting places anyway. The most violent places on the map are the coastal areas where you spawn. The loot there is residential at best, nothing at worst. But...that's where people spawn in. That's where the player population is. So that's where all the activity is. It's a clusterfuck at the coast while cobwebs gather in many of the cities and towns that Bohemia has created for us to play in. They made cities and towns that have no reason to exist as of yet. Spreading out spawning would give those places a reason to exist.

While these reasons are significant, other main reasons include the lack of a need to ever cooperate and the fact that survival is so easy it's basically nonexistent. People just get bored. Combat is fun. I don't think this would be productive, though I see the reasoning behind it. It doesn't make sense from an "authenticity" perspective, though to be fair...when somebody advocates for something in terms of "realism" I always raise a brow and put on my scrutiny glasses. Long guns in this video game are not necessarily even more powerful than handguns. I'd take a Red 9 or a Glock over a Winchester any day of the week if I had to only choose one. But some weapons already only spawn in Police Stations and Military Bases, and that aspect of the game only needs fine tuning and balancing instead of total overhaul. It just doesn't make sense from a realism or a balance perspective to remove long gun spawns from the coast. I do not support this idea. That sounds like a retarded law designed to give criminals more safety when they break into your home by making it harder for you to access defense when things go bump in the night. But back to DayZ, I think that having safes spawning in places would be a good idea and having lockpicks to open them would be interesting. Gun safes and such could be treated like dynamic helicopter and police car spawns and would show up in X number of residential houses or garages across Charnarus and swap out ever X minutes. Safes could be of varying sizes, yes...so long as not every safe was a jackpot and some were certainly better than others. I support this idea. I think the better solution would be to have guns be fairly common but to make ammunition much more rare. I think it would be more interesting from a gameplay and interaction perspective to know that somebody -might- be deadly, but you don't know for sure. I think that food availability will be reduced dramatically in the future, too. However, in regards to gun/ammo availability...I think Bohemia will continue to experiment as development progresses forwards. 1 - If all the highest end loot is still in the same place, then going to those places will still be how to get fully geared. This will not impact how quick it will be to become fully geared, but it will impact how long characters float around in the Moderately Geared limbo category. Taking that spawning area Magnum or Red 9 to the military base would get you geared to the top just as quickly as before. 2 - I have more of an inclination to think that there won't be less killing, just that it wouldn't be on sight and would be more backstabbing to make those headshots with bullets count. 3 - Perhaps, though when a zombie comes for me I just lock them in a building since it's normally quieter and safer than engaging them in wonky silly melee combat. But you're right that people would use less ammunition on zombies as they are now. 4 - Yes. 5 - This would have no impact on that at all, only that there would be more melee combat and pistol combat. Violence on the coast is a byproduct of the poor idea to have people spawn there, among other smaller factors. The coast would be just as violent. 6 - This is just a reworded #2. 7 - The pistols that you want to appear around spawning zones are far better than all these weapons anyway, so there would be no change in people deciding to use these "shitty" weapons. The magnum and the Red 9, for instance, are both far more potent than all the ones you listed here. Just because it's a pistol doesn't mean it's less potent than a rifle is in the DayZ world. The problems with these weapons are the fact that the .22 LR is a very weak bullet, and both the Trumpet and Sporter have issues with fire rates and magazine availability respectively. 8 - That's more related to sheer food spawning and the continued balance of calories vs. expenditure of energy. Hunting for deer and juniper bushes shouldn't be a need, but an option. Especially since I haven't seen a deer in months. Making it a need to rely on animals will be a nightmare until Bohemia makes their numbers able to sustain more players. 9 - The only people smiling about Kuru are the ones who have it. Even then, I never found eating a human being to be something that was a survival need, seeing as you'd have to have access to a dead body, be able to cut it up, be able to start a fire, cook it, and then consume it. That's a lot to do when there have always been better options. In fact, I was never a fan of even having it put in as a mechanic in the first place.

American Helicopters have lemonade Smoke Grenades.

Winchester rounds will spawn in residential buildings as well as deer stands, both in loose piles and in boxes. They can also appear in snaploaders, which I think spawn in at the same locations.

That's not a very Canadian thing to say, snowflake.

Every time you engage an enemy, there's a risk. A risk that somebody hears the shot and comes to investigate, the risk that your target has nearby friends that you don't know about, the risk that you miss him and he retaliates unexpectedly...of course there's risk in fighting other people. It's ridiculous to say there isn't risk to fighting other people. It's not stupid behavior. Just because you don't like it as much as I might or somebody else might doesn't mean it's stupid. Wandering around saying hello to strangers in a video game is hardly the passion of scholars. It doesn't make anybody more or less intelligent or well rounded if they want to play a game to shoot players for the thrill. I don't ride a roller coaster to talk to the lift operator about his fucking feelings. I get on a roller coaster for the thrill of riding a roller coaster. Because killing everybody is fun. If it's not fun to you, then...I dunno...go and talk to people and look for tires. . I think running around in a post apocalyptic Soviet satellite state filled with zombies and angry survivors is a pretty fun thing to pretend to do in a video game. But if you want to run around and talk to people, you don't even have to pretend. Oh, joy! Go down to Starbucks or whatever you Swedes have and talk to people. It works both ways. Can I pretend to kill people? Sure. Can I do it in a video game? Yea, I can. And that's far more thrilling and fun. Can I do it in real life? Yes, but some might consider that socially improper. I have around 914 hours in this game and talking to people isn't interesting anymore. I've done plenty of it. Meh. It's boring. It's dull. People are generally boring and dull. I've already made my friends and I don't want any more. And I don't play DayZ to count down the seconds until somebody decides to stab me in the back because I didn't shoot him right off the bat and instead said Hello. I don't play DayZ to remember my player deaths or even my kills. I play DayZ so that in the moments that I do fight somebody or am tense that I could be attacked, there's a very in-the-heat-of-the-moment sensation that no other game can replicate for me. I don't play DayZ for the memories. I play it because I want to have fun with my friends and enjoy myself. Memories are byproducts. That's because the game isn't done and killing people is the only thing that's remotely interesting. And if you don't like how much killing is central to an unfinished WIP DayZ...well, can't you just pretend it's not?

I think that it needs to be said is that people, however many there are, who basically always KOS like me don't do it because we hate other people or because we're just nasty human beings. People like me do it because right now in the current point in development there's little else that's even remotely interesting, challenging, or engaging as fighting other players. The more boring and easy DayZ is as a survival game, the more I'll find my personal thrill in killing other players and the risks that are associated with that. And it's certainly no less meaningless than wandering around assembling a sedan. After all...

Or...or. Or. Or. Or... http://dayzdb.com/map/chernarusplus

It probably combat logged when it saw you coming.

Brianstorm.

All of them.