DocWolf

The reason is fairly simple, and I'll put it at the beginning to avoid TLDR-syndrome: at the moment there's nothing to do in DayZ Standalone except PvP, and military weapons give a sensible advantage to players either in rate of fire, range or both. Now, the TLDR part. DayZ SA is marketed as a realistic survival horror (playable alpha) multiplayer videogame, with an heavy emphasis on: * "realistic survival" --> that means Bohemia wants a proper hunger/thirst system (we have one, but it doesn't work), a proper health system (we have one, but it's too simple to be "realistic"), a balanced loot economy/respawn system (we have one, but it doesn't work), a sensible item degradation system (we have one, but it doesn't work) * "horror" --> that means Bohemia wants aggressive infected people around (we have some, but they're too few) that are also dangerous in combat (at the moment they're not), with a good respawn system (we don't have it) and a good navigation system (we don't have it) * "multiplayer" --> that means Bohemia wants a large amount of people on their servers (at the moment we're capped at 50 in EXP, maybe 70 if things go as planned) interacting in a player-driven game experience (at the moment we can't because the map is too big and there's nothing to do except murder) So yeah, Bohemia is working on many of such things. For example, the "survival" part in Experimental is cranked up to eleven: you don't lug around three pistols, a sawed off shotgun and 4 round mags for your AK...you stuff your backpack with food, water containers, raincoat and spare clothes. But at the moment for many players what is the only thing they can do in this multiplayer game? Killing other players. Plain and simple. So, instead of introducing now more weapons (or items, or both), they should work on the game systems/mechanics that qualify this game as a legit "realistic horror survival game" and only after making that features work they should introduce more weapons.

The point of playing on private shards? Playing as a closed/controlled community: many clans/outfits are basically this. Or simply playing as an open community where people share a similar playstyle (ex. roleplaying communities, PvE or PvP only communities). Generally speaking: renting private shards means you will be able to play with know people (clans) or people who play like you (Roleplayers, PvErs, PvPers). If you play on public servers, like now, you play with people that probably you'll never see again and/or people who have very different game priorities/interests than you. As an example, you can see that by the sheer amount of KoS ragers on the forum: player wanting to interact/collaborate meets player wanting to PvP...one of the two dies. The other one rages on the forum.

True: at the moment melee and ranged combat are essentialy the only features fully implemented and more or less fully working as intended. That means players are bound to murder each others. Yes and no. Even in stable there was a sort of shift in playstyle after effects for hunger, thirst and body temperature were implemented. Another one when rain, wind and in general wetness started to interact with player health and clothes. In experimental we're testing an harsher calories consumption system, a more demanding item degradation system and even change in temperatures/wind/rain according to in-game season. The first iteration of EXP 0.50 was set in-game in december, and the energy consumption/temperature management were crazy difficult to master...current EXP 0.50 in-game is set in september, but it's stil much more demanding than STABLE 0.49. IMHO the first steps towards an harsh survival game are being done...when 0.50 will hit stable many people probably will complain: there will be another shift in playing style, taking players further away from continuous PvP. Player vs player will always be present in DayZ obviously, with KoS and banditry and so on...only it will not be the only thing present, unlike current EXP and STABLE versions. When your character can die quickly from cold, rain, hunger, thirst, its clothes fall apart and there are no canned goods around...well, running towards a military base quickly drop in the priority list. Not sure I agree. "Many weapons" is a good feature, IMHO. The problem is they are far too durable...in current 0.50 shoes degrade quickly. Weapons should do that, too: it's a game about post-apocalyptic eastern european hellhole. If dow jackets are "worn" by a simple rainstorm and shoes become "damaged" after 15 min of real-time running we should find A LOT more "worn"/"damaged"/"heavily damaged" weapons and bullets lying around. That's one probably the most galling problem about this (alpha version of the) game. It's marketed as a zombie survival game, and in october 2014 we're still blocked with a "placeholder" zombie respawn system, a "placeholder" zombie navigation sytem and a critically low zombie headcount on the servers. In current EXP 0.50 it seems (keyword: it seems) there are more zombies, but we're talking about 5/6 in small towns. At the moment they're not the alternative threat (other than the players) they should be. They should implement a 60/120 seconds waiting time when you log off a server and then log in immediately in another one when your character is actually in-game but you can't control it. Or, better, when you log off a server you can't log in another one for five minutes. Those mechanics/feature will not help creating group survival or constructive player-player interactions: they'll be here just for immersion, alternative ways to obtain items/food and so on. Group survival is, IMHO, a player driven behaviour and not a game driven one. You can't "force" or simply "motivate" players to cooperate...it's the playerbase that should start doing that. Positive player-player cooperation is possible even in 0.49, if someone wants to try. But people don't want to do that.

I appreciate the system the devs seem to be creating: nutrition, temperature, weather, item condition and so on all interacting in order to influence character health...at the moment, even after those crazy builds like the first 0.50 hunger meter (DayZ: Extinction Event) and the current nonsensical item degradation (DayZ: Bloody Stumps), IMHO this is a very enjoyable game even if it's an Alpha. But honestly, I'm more and more puzzled by the priorities of the dev team...footwear degradation? Ok, fine, it's immersive and stuff. But...is it seriously worth of their time considering the current game development level? There are many, many other things in dire need of major tweakings or even a complete overhaul. IMHO, of course.

AlfalphaCat hit the core of the issue, I think. While I understand why so many people want to see permanent (or semi-permanent) player bases in DayZ, IMHO that's not the direction the developers are heading towards. AlfalphaCat is asking a very meaningful question: are bases going to be hard-to-break "safe zones" where you can regroup, organize and stash your items like in Epoch? Or are they going to be temporary hideouts you use to defend yourself or to gain a temporary tactical advantage? In EXP 0.50 we're testing the first iterations of "reinforcing" buildings: when you lockpick a door previously "locked" by another player, you don't waste 10 minutes to do so - and certaintly not an hour. If you don't have a lockpick you can "force" it open with brute force...some punches, a single hit with an heavy melee weapon (axe, maul, machete) or a single shot from a firearm. You don't need to pry it open with time, sweat and noise. This suggest me the developers are looking at player bases as something extremely situational/temporary; not something more or less permanent where you can hide your stuff and organize your group. As a side note, I'm still sure that in a game like DayZ the best "permanent base" is a simple camping tent. You can stash some items inside it and keep it way, way, WAY off the beaten path. RBeing able to elocate it often in different, hard to reach places is an invaluable asset from a security point of view. But I understand why single tents or small encampments aren't really interesting for many players...a secured, boarded house have more visual grip and looks more badass.

I think you're looking at the issue from the perspective of someone who can play on private servers: an organized real-life community that plays the same game in the same server. A clan, an outfit, a guild...something like that. While having lords of Grishino and barons of Pavlolvo in such an environment could be effectively funny and interesting, in public servers wich are usually the largest part of the servers avalaible at launch? Not so funny. That would end with disorganized mobs of casuals against organized groups of players holding key areas...resulting in a very poor gaming experience for the majority of people playing. I agree however with you about the mid/end game possibily being the creation of in-game communities/clans and more or less permanent bases...either fixed like boarded buildings or mobile like "tent cities".

Not sure about that...the potential for griefing is too much. In EXP 0.50 we're testing a calories consumption system/stomach capacity/weather temperature mix wich is very demanding. The various builds/patches are progressively going towards an hard survival game...think how the playstyle changed with the simple introduction of consequences for prolonged exposure to elements. DayZ is slowly becoming a game where, unlike 0.47/0.48/0.49, you're not always energyzed/hydratated merrily sprinting around with a backpack full of pristine stuff. Considering this idea, I find the concept of "hard to break" fortifications very worrysome. People will be hungry/starving for most of their playing time. And you can't really advocate large groups cooperation with 50 or 75 player servers...this is not a MMORPG, it's a multiplayer game. That means if "hard to break" fortifications are implemented, there will be groups of people having strong advantages in certain servers, advantages that, once acquired, other people will find quite difficult to balance. If my organized group of 10 people "holds" a strategic building for three or four real-life days that means we have a lot of time to reinforce it, making the possibility of a raider break-in progressively unlikely. Not impossible, of course...is it realistic? Of course it is. Is it funny or enjoyable? No way. It's not even remotely funny. The only way to have "bases", then, is to create "easy to break" fortifications. In this way you're not holding a base to hoard items like in Epoch, but you're holding it to gain some kind of strategic advantage. Or, as in vanilla DayZ Mod, you can choose to actually hoard things, but choosing mobility over defence. Pop up a tent in a secluded area and hope for the best.

You're right, but even "erasing" boarded buildings from the loot spawn table could mean griefing other players if the boarded construction is hard to break...imagine boarding a police station in a small town, or a fire station. You're effectively cutting that building off the spawn table, meaning in that server the area where you dug in will see fewer XYZ item spawns. Now imagine an organized clan boarding up strategic buildings and cutting off their loot...or, imagine such clan boarding up key building and setting up sniper nests, creating a small no man's land. Such areas would be a no-no for anyone, because the more time pass the more "reinforcements" people can add to buildings...meaning more and more time and resources would-be raiders would need to put the defences down. As I said, it's realistic...but that does not mean it would be funny or even enjoyable in a game. The solution (IMHO) is allowing "weak", easy to break boarded/reinforced buildings. You can still cut off important buildings from the spawn table, you can still force people to avoid your carefully planned network of bases...but you also know that those advantages are temporary at best: all that is needed to circumvent that chainlink fence is a pair of pliers. All that is needed to break in those locked doors are lockpicks or a few swing of an axe or a maul. All that is needed to balance your advantages (unpassable walls, solid cover and such) is a little time and common items.

The problem with "hard to break" boarding/renforcing is simple: players will use this feature to harass other players. Like, for example, boarding up good loot buildings or strategic vantage points...yeah, it's realistic, I get it. But how it will translate in gaming experience? Not in a very good way, I fear. On the other hand, "easy to break" boarding/renforcing is much easier to manage: you can fortify buildings, and have a base for your operations with solid walls, a roof and plenty of space...but your base is fixed, and with the right tools (lockpick, axes, mauls) anyone can break in with some time. For example, in EXP 0.50 word of the street says that if you "lock" a door with a lockpick you can reset it to "open" with several hit of a melee weapon, or simply "unlock" it with another lockpick. The other option for base ownership are persistent tents: easy to redeploy in hard-to-reach areas, but offer no solid protection like walls, fences and such. Such solutions have the merit to keep the game fluid, and avoid most of the players' abuse other systems could allow.

This. At the moment in Experimental I've encountered more people inland and very few on the coast...when 0.50 will hit Stable we will see a different playstyle and a different dispersion: energy/calories consumption is faster than 0.49 (A LOT faster), stomach capacity is smaller...that means spawn zones will be picked clean, like in EXP servers. This will force players to head inland, planning with care their trips - good clothing is scarcer too, and the weather is inclement. Long story short: there will be less sprinting up and down the map and a lot more slow-paced travel, meaning players will bump into each other following more or less predictable avenues and will stay longer in towns/cities.

Or to keep it mobile. Like, for example, using a tent and relocating it often in hard-to-reach areas. Anyway, I'm skeptical about all this fixed/permanent base rage: I know the devs said they were going to work on them, but I can't see how they can make it work without spending way too much time researching, implementing and testing new features to avoid exploits by players. IMHO the most simple way to have "bases" is to temporarily reinforce pre-existing buildings and having permanent tents around. With the first option you have a sturdy (but fixed) base that can be breaked in if found. The second options offer the advantage of mobility (you can relocate the tent wherever you want) but it will be effortless looted the moment is found. Building new structures, permanently reinforce/lock already existing ones...I don't know, IMHO does not seem viable options at the moment.

This is the reason because, at least IMHO, there will not be "bases" in DayZ Standalone. At least, not the "bases" in the DayZ Epoch sense of the term. In 0.50 we're now testing a sort of lockpick that let you "lock" a door. You can either lockpick it to "open" again or hit with a melee weapon enough times to forcefully reset it to "open". Maybe in the future there will be the option to "board/reinforce" doors with hammers and wood, and the option to "clear" the boarded doors with hammers or "break" them with brute force. IMHO that's all what we will see: temporary reinforcement of a pre-existing building, but nothing too fancy or permanet. There is no way to actually create realistic/workable game mechanics* that circumvent the problem of log-out, enter the reinforced building in another server, log again in the original server and raid it freely...the only way to prevent it is to make the "reinforcement" part extremely temporary. Like, for example, locking a door that can be opened again easily with another lockpick or with some swings with a maul or an axe. * almost every suggestion that starts with "it shouldn't be hard to..." is, actually, pretty hard to introduce in the game architecture. Introducing for example "forbidden areas" around barricaded buildings where you can't log-in or respawn is extremely hard if you look it from a developer point of view. It's a whole new feature that need to be coded in an already working architecture. It's not exactly an easy task.

When people talk on the forums about realism, they always discuss game mechanics and features. Almost no-one ever talk about the feelings and psychological aspect...you landed what is truly a perfect description of a "true" day for a survivor of the Chernarus apocalypse. What will happen if one day I will not find enough supplies? Where I'm going to find water? It's cold and raining hard, and I can't find ANYTHING to wear over my shirt. Will I know how to shoot effectively this gun when the time will come? Will I be able to understand it's the right time at all? How can I trust strangers if I have things they need to survive? Am I going to play friendly and look for trade or talking instead of shooting is a naive risk? Very good post. Very, very good indeed.

Balancing issues, I think - they have to present some irrealistic choices for the sake of playability. Even insta-healed fractures or starvation after 10 minutes from the last can of beans consumed aren't exactly "realistic". Anyway, everything I wrote come from my personal experience in playing experimental - wet/soaked wool jackets seem to stop warming my character. I don't have access to hard data, so take what I wrote with a pinch of salt.

Not on EXP builds. I've been damp/wet/soaked when wearing tactical shirts or gorka stuff - they seem to be slightly water resistant, as in they take some times to register the "damp" and then "wet"/"soaked" status...but they're not waterproof. The only proper waterproof item is the raincoat: tactical/gorka shirts seem to be simple soft shells/windbreakers.

Bandit, hero and survivor are meaningless terms in DayZ standalone...they're just a nostalgic throwback, at best. As other players already said, in SA there's a fluid playstyle - if someone perceive another player as a threat, there will be a shootout. If not, small talk or simply avoidance. Yesterday I opened up on a player: two shots, sadly slightly off-mark. I missed and he ran away: was I trying to KoS him? No, I actually tracked him for a while just to decide what to do with him. Was I trying to play bandit? No, even if looting his corpse was a possible outcome. He was decked out in military stuff, running around with a scoped rifle in his hands. I was low on supplies and bandages and we were going towards the same town - an area where I was sure there was some food I needed badly. I tried to kill him because his posture was aggressive, and because he was a possible competitor in my hunt for food and supplies. Does that make me a bandit or a KoS? No, even if from his point of view the two shots came out of the blue. This happened yesterday. Today I could play friendly and talk with another guy who don't endanger me or even help him. Am I a survivor? A hero? A bandit? Who cares, this is not the mod. I'm just playing, and I'm just reacting to other people playstyles.

At the moment on stable builds ALL servers have the same "month/season" setted as default - if people freeze could be the well-know bug that affects every non-Vilayer server. Allegedly only Vilayer-hosted ones have a working as intended temperature system, others run some kind of bugged version. Allegedly. EXP 0.50(1), also called The Extinction Event, setted the month/season on december/winter...and everyone everywhere died quickly and painfully. EXP 0.50(2) was a little more forgiving and setted the month/season on september/autumn. Current EXP 0.50(3) allegedly is set in august/summer, but it's only slightly less cold than the previous one. In EXP 0.50(2) and 0.50(3) you can survive easily with a raincoat in the backpack and a simple wool jacket or a wind breaker (tactical shirt or gorka military jacket) on your character. In EXP 0.50(1) anything short of a pristine/worn dow jacket was suicide. If the various experimental bulds we're testing on EXP Servers pass to stable, this could be a decent clothing-warm scale: long sleeved shirt/tracksuit (only slightly better than t-shirt)hoodie (useful if you don't find anything heavier, but there are better items)tactical shirt/gorka military shirt (essentially soft shells, the tactical one seems to be slightly better waterproofed but don't quote me on that)wool jacket (warm, but 90 times on 100 hideously visible from kilometers and useless if soaked)dow jacket (very warm but useless if damp or soaked)This, of course, if you simply want to stay warm: if you want good camouflage or good storage space the priority list changes. On a more general note, in EXP builds a good survivor now brings AT LEAST one more clothing item in the backpack: the raincoat. On the dreaded EXP 0.50(1) set on december/winter I was prowling Chernarus with a dow jacket on my character, a raincoat AND a wool jacket in the backpack and everything needed for a fire on me. Very little space for tons of ammo, drum mags and all that silly gizmos - priority was warm clothes, then food, then bottles/canteens, then stuff to open tins/cook food/make a fire, then eventually some ammo. But deciding between another can of tactical bacon and an additional box of ammo was easy: food first. If those experimental builds pass on stable expect another shift in playing style: with all those changes on calories consumption, stomach capacity and temperature surviving is becoming more and more important.

Considering in the last experimental patches military rifles, magazines and attachments are as rare as an honest politician...I seriously doubt they will add rocket launchers, tanks, IFVs and such. More military hardware and 0.46/0.47/0.48-style PvP doesn't seem the direction the dev team is going towards. If you want that silly mix of ARMA and zombies install the mod.

Sounds good - and maybe let some of the first aid items your character use be visible for a short time. Bandaged arms, splinted legs and so on.

With the introduction of weather and body temperature systems the usefulness of many items have been redefined. Previously, having a raincoat in the inventory was basically a waste of space; dow jackets or wool coats were useless, and hoodies were used only to craft rags. Wearing them was a cosmetic choice...now they're useful items - without them there's hypotermia and then death. Rain coats are the only items that let you navigate the countryside of Chernarus with (almost) no problem from rain and cold. But what about the backpacks? At the moment the backpacks are in the same situation jackets were prior to weather/body temperature introduction: you choose them according to inventory space or, for the more tactical minded, according to their high/low profile and colour. What about an overhaul of those items? Suggestions: Improvised courier bag/improvised backpack/leather sack Those items are haphazardly crafted with burlap or untreated leather, rope and sticks. They're useful because you can create them easily, have a low profile and subdued colours. But they should be easy to damage and they should offer very low protection against elements - rain should soak them quickly, and damage them accordingly. Items stored inside them should take damage from rain/prolonged exposure to humidity. Child briefcase Easily found around Chernarus, with low profile and sometimes dull colours - they're some kind of stopgap until you find or craft something bigger; should be easily to damage, and offer minimal protection against the elements. Inventory space should be decreased. Taloon backpack It's the most basic version of a professional backpack, used often thanks to a good amount of storage space - the drawback is a poor color choice, all of them are very bright and flashy. Should come with an integrated "raincoat" for the backpack: there should be an option to deploy it and cover the Taloon, in order to offer moderate-to-good protection against rain...much like the option "close lid" you find on a compass. Should be moderately difficult to damage, considering it seems to be a 24h hiking backpack Hunting backpack Favoured by players because it offers good item storage, good camouflage and low profile. It should be sturdy and very difficult to damage, but it shouldn't offer protection against rain - seems to have a very old design and use old school materials (leather and canvas), without integrated raincoat for it. Mountain backpack The go-to choice if you want to carry around everything. The drawbacks are, as for the Talon, extremely bright and flashy colours and something extremely important: an high profile. Its shilouette is easily spotted even from afar and if you play of first person servers it impairs your vision when looking behind you. It should offer exceptional protection against rain - as for the Taloon, there should be an integrated raincoat that covers the backpack and shoul be sturdy enough to avoid easy damage. Seems to be a professional mountaineering backpack, after all.

Improvised leather sacks, messenger bags and backpacks are, as the name suggest it, improvised. That means their manifacture is far away form even the most basic quality standards and, therefore, there are probably ill-fitting links/stitches and whatnot on them. Holes, maybe, considering that in game you skin animals with kitchen knives. Canvas itself is not waterproof - Using canvas that is already waterproofed for hunting and other things is normal nowadays, but old-style backpacks like that need to be waxed in order to keep water out. Anyway, just to cut off the argument I agree with you: the hunting backpack should be waterproof. Also, I love how basically everyone is gleefully nitpicking on easily modifiable examples instead of commenting on the general idea of creating an interaction between backpacks and weather system, similar to the weather-jackets relation. Seriously, WTF <_<

It's not broken indeed, the slight inventory reduction was intended as a possible way to further individualize the various backpacks. The core of my proposal is not, however, about item storage: it's about a better interaction with weather, exactly like clothes. As I said, according to the in-game representation, the hunting backpacks seems to be an old model. Not a vintage-looking backpack, simply an old eastern european backpack made of leather and (maybe waxed, maybe not) canvas. If you think those kind of stuff is waterproof in heavy rain you're mistaken - they're not. And that's what the core of the proposal is: interaction with elements. A light drizzle shouldn't soak such a backpack, but rain or a storm should.

Is this still a discussion about a videogame? If not, feel free to disinstall DayZ - it clearly holds too much sway on your life. I hope you're aware people who kill other players not necessarily server hop or, generally, exploit game flaws. If I were a malicious person I'd start thinking this was a clumsy attempt at gaining the moral high ground...you know, arbitrarly linking a legitimate in-game behaviour to cheating and all that stuff. So, basically you're saying that 2 times on 3 KoS is "ok" because it "play a part in DayZ experience". What. WHAT. Do real people seriously use 30+ years old D&D slang to define their behaviour? Are we seriously speaking of your mod experiences on the standalone forum? Do you seriously think telling another player he's not worthy of the title "survivor" actually means something? On a more serious note: you seem to be a roleplayer. Are you seriously telling me it's not "realistic" roleplaying someone who will not take any chances, and will kill on sight fellow survivors? Or someone with PTSD who will see any survivor as a potential infected? Or, you know, a simple murderer? Because you seem to be awfully quick in painting anyone who will not fit your personal view of roleplay as a cheating, griefing player who will soon loose interest in DayZ.

Personal choices. Kill on Sight is (fictional) murder, I agree. But, honestly? * Why shouldn't I murder on sight someone who conceal its character face with an evil/creepy looking mask? There are no visible nametag, no real character customization...DayZ is already dehumanizing enough fellow players, but this people choose to wear a creepy mask. Who are them to me? Just competitors with a creepy mask. They compete with me for resources, so they're a threat. They choose voluntarly to wear a creepy mask, so they want to be seen as a threat. (Fictional) Bullet to the (fictional) head I say. * Why shouldn't I murder on sight someone who takes time and resources to loot military areas? Firearms both in 0.49 and 0.50 are useful in dealing with players - not infected. They're personal protection against other human beings...and in order to be protected a simple SKS or an humble .22 sporter are enough, and much quickly/easily looted. But no, some people need to have an assault rifle...that means they are seeking problems, not trying to avoid them. Again, (fictional) bullet to the (fictional) head. Just a couple of examples explaining why sometimes is advisable killing on sight. If you kill me out of the blue while I'm running in a forest in the northern part of the map...maybe. But even then, maybe I have some kind of item you need in order to survive - and you're forced in a nasty choice: me or him?

Some players report that fires in buildings are ok if they're on ground level, but from the first floor upwards they're bugged and produce no heat. AFAIK fires inside garages and/or barns produce heat: but I'm not sure they're treated as "buildings" by the game engine, and I never tried lighting a fire above ground level.