Beizs

Not to get too invested in the science behind a video game (or, rather, modern zombies in general, which, ultimately, is sci-fi), but issues in the premotor cortex while the cerebellum remains mostly active could explain that. The premotor cortex is involved in things like logical thinking, language, fine motor skills, voluntary movement, personality etc. The cerebellum is also involved in fine motor skills, but either one being damaged/inhibited could explain the inability to use tools. The two work together to handle a range of motor tasks, but balance, to my knowledge (I'm not an expert, but I'm very interested in science in general, especially biology and human anatomy) isn't really heavily affected by the premotor cortex. I think that the functions of the premotor cortex (or their lack thereof) line up fairly well with a zombie in general. Then again, I could be getting areas mixed up or straight up wrong and shit, so don't quote me on anything. :P

Not really, sprinting is a basic function that requires moderately low coordination. They should stumble, etc, but they don't need to be constantly falling over. Most animals can sprint, but few can use tools and fewer still can turn a doorknob or climb a ladder. Holding and grabbing things with your hands requires fine motor skills. Sprinting does not.

Real life times are kind of irrelevant here, honestly. I know that it's a very involved process if you want to make anything half decent, but, purely for utility, you can knock something together relatively quickly. The game's not meant to be gruelingly realistic, after all. I'd say leave it for a day or two and it'll be ready. It's supposed to be for a long term supply rather than quick drinks, so you can probably handle running to a well for the first day or so. The main benefit of the beer/cider/whatever is that it provides nutritional content as well as the water, much like the cans that you can get. Unlike the cans, however, it can be stored in any water carrying container and stashed in barrels easily (though you should be able to pour any liquid in to any container imo - but then you'd have to loot beer cans as opposed to being able to make beer yourself). However, you don't need to boil the water to make the process safe. Boiling water sterilizes it. You don't need to sterilize water for homebrew, you can get away with sanitizing it, which can be achieved by keeping it at 45+ degrees Celsius for extended periods of time. This could be achieved by placing it in embers (no need for a smoky full fledged fire which you'd need for boiling water), putting even large amounts over a gas cooker (removing the issue of having to boil it in lots of small containers) or, on a hot day, even leaving it out in the sun in a black barrel (one of the mini festivals I used to go to had a tradition of making a large batch of homebrew, different every time, over the duration of the camp and sharing it at the end of the few weeks. They stored and sanitized the water for it this way, as they were all major hippies who wanted to live off of the land entirely, and there was never any issues - they also used the same process for the showers and even when it was mixed with the cold line it was real toasty). I agree that brewing could be a lot more interesting if they went a lot more in depth with it, but, purely as a survival mechanic for storing liquids and creating a renewable source of safe liquids with an added bonus of providing you with energy, a basic system would be sufficient.

Again, there are 1pp servers. The game, however realistic, is still a game. Rocket didn't want perfect realism. He wanted authenticity. Immersion is fine, but it's up to people entirely whether they want to be perfectly immersed or not. It's like saying 'I'm going to find a way to force people to use headphones with the sound turned up on DayZ. Realism and immersion, y'know'. Some people prefer third person. This doesn't affect you at all (and if it does, and that bothers you, it's your own fault for not using the 1pp servers). Why should they have that taken away from them because you think that'll make the game more immersive or realistic? If that's what you want, play it that way for yourself. It's not like there is a shortage of 1pp servers.

I eat beans cold... Then again, I'm a super lazy student, so my opinion is definitely the minority. :P But yeah, for the heating and increased energy (or, rather, decreased energy loss, but that's not how it works ingame, obviously :P), it's definitely a good idea. I feel like food is probably going to get a bit less common though either way, forcing more people to consider hunting and cooking, which I'd like. Rice should need to be cooked. Like, need to be (Lectin). Also want the ability to boil water once it becomes dangerous to drink from ponds and streams again. Lose a little bit of it (maybe 1dl out of 1l?), but y'know... Benefits of purification tabs without the purification tabs. I'd love to be able to set up small barrel reservoirs of purified water dotted around in trees near my bases.

100% agree. It looks like, with the new rendering and physics engines planned for this year, they're focusing on increasing the capacity for optimization etc for the game. I assume that they'll be doing a lot of work server side too, and, with this, zombie numbers will increase. The fact that they're working on the zombies (roughly) at the same time as doing the engine changes speaks whole freaking novels, imo. I do really, really hope that they improve combat before they make zombies harder/more common, though. Can't imagine having to fight large numbers of even shitty zombies with the current clunk there is to fighting, especially melee. Personally, while I love the PvP element to the game, I'd be more than happy to see them cut the server numbers (not a lot - just max at 30 on all servers) to allow for more zombies ingame. I'm not entirely sure exactly how the DayZ engine and servers work, but, having experience in basic game design as well as a fair bit of experience in coding in general, I'd imagine that cutting of those extra 20 players (think the largest servers hold 50?) would open up a fair bit of space for zombies. I actually have more player interactions on lower pop servers any way as, on high pop ones, people tend to be ridiculously careful (or just go to the PvP spots). I imagine that, at the moment, the game is optimized for the 50 player range, which means that, even on servers with lower pops, there's less zombies when it could, realistically, handle a fair few more. I've never noticed much of a difference between the servers (other than in areas where high pop servers get the zombies cleared).

No. Realism? It's a game. It's nice for it to be realistic within reason, but true realism would be fucking terrible. How about sleeping for realism? You just have to sit and stare at a black screen for 1 out of 3 hours you play. Probably more, considering the amount of physical activity you need to do in DayZ. Or, maybe, as it's unrealistic to be able to log out, your character remains the entire time you're offline, asleep? You can't exist in multiple worlds at once, so every single server you play on has an individual character (actually almost genuinely agree with this one - I'm fine playing on private servers. Would annihilate server hopping. Allow the transference of a character through 'public' servers every now and again in case there's an issue with a server). There's a point where realism is just stupid. There's no real benefit to the game. Pollution? How about bodies, rotten food, natural pollution (stagnant sources are bad, most streams are bad) and other, similar things? The only purpose it would serve would be for teh lullz of da trollz. You can't even use the excuse of interrupting a fight or anything. If I'm fighting somebody, I can absolutely find the strength and willpower to stop myself taking a dump right there. Irl, it takes at least a day for holding it in to become genuinely harmful, which takes away that aspect - and I don't know about other people, but I can generally hold a turd in for at least a couple of hours without too much discomfort (car journeys etc), so there's no urgency in it. This kind of thing shouldn't even be considered until the game is almost entirely finished, anyway. There are far too many things that need attention before this.

Like that idea in general, dude. Would be nice to be able to craft handles from logs to get weapons like the fireaxe out of the 'damaged' zone (completely ruins the camo when sprayed :/). But yeah, more on topic, that's what I'd like for this, too. Like the idea about splitting a weapon in to two parts, too. Realistic and good for the game.

Yeah, I don't really see much of a reason to use a sword over a fireaxe - and it's even rarer than one, too. Maybe for splitting the damage done to your weapons and tools, but then why not just use a fireaxe and keep a splitter in your inventory (or even a machete)?

Possibly could work with minimal effort/strain on servers & client by simply making your health go in to the negatives. If it drops below a certain number, you can't be revived. That's a single if statement added to the defib code & a change to a variable. Then they test to make sure that a headshot deals enough damage that it always drops you below that barrier (assuming you've no bulletproof head protection) and boom, everything's great. Though, saying that, it's possible to survive a headshot if the angle & position is right irl. Assuming that they'll never truly factor that in, it'd be nice to make it so that the minimum damage a headshot can do puts you a little under the barrier, so that you can be defibbed. Shouldn't happen very often and adds a chance of salvation from a sniper a KM away. :P This system would mean that if you'd been shot too many times, even with low powered weapons (or even melee weapons) there'd be no chance of saving you, scaling it fairly well imo.

Assuming you're picking one direction and sticking to it, not touching the mouse at all in this time, it could be the fact that as you toggle in and out of look mode it changes your direction a little bit. Maybe if you're doing this a lot it's slowly turning you, making you go in a circle. If you're not going in one direction and never adjusting it, then it's human nature to end up walking in a circle. You adjust it slightly for whatever reason (I often find myself doing this, thinking, for no reason at all, that I'm not actually going in the direction I want to). You may make only tiny adjustments, but, over a time, it adds up. Compound the two together and you get circles. :P It's a good idea to pick a spot far off in the distance and run directly toward it. Keep your eyes on it for as long as you can, though this can be an issue when you're going through forests. Once you reach it, choose a new one and head on out.

+1 Would also be interesting if they made it impossible to adjust FOV and similar things without restarting the game. Can't really see the benefit of being able to adjust your FOV on the go (legitimate, at least). Like, you change the FOV, brightness or Gamma ingame and it shows the changes while in the menu, but you then need to restart the game for them to take effect outside of this preview. If anybody has any reasons you should be able to adjust your FOV on the fly though, I'd genuinely like to know them.

I like the idea in general other than regularly having two ruined parts per gun found (or anything like that). Certain guns, like the M4, are fairly rare. It takes a lot of work to find these guns and, as such, having to find what could, potentially, be many more wouldn't be fun. At all. I've even had times where it's taken me ages to find a single, common gun. For example, for about three days, the IZH43 just didn't exist to me. Then I found one (and another the same day). Not seen it anywhere since. Having to replace parts on that, when I'd spent three days finding it, could literally take days if I'm unlucky. That'd be an added insult with the IZH, because it got me killed later that day thanks to its god awful clip size (yeah, I know, it's exactly right for what it is, but the fact that you have to go in to your inventory to reload it is awful. Speedloaders should speed up reloading. You should be able to hit R to reload either way) and its need of buffing. However, I do agree that each part of the gun should be individually damaged and require something different, as well as adding jams etc. Guns (along with most other items in the game) are a lot more sturdy than they appear in the game. There are plenty of working guns around from several hundred years ago irl. For the most part, you do just need to clean a gun to maintain it. However, I do think that damage to the gun (like its container being hit with a weapon or a bullet) should actually be a thing. Basically, if its container gets hit, there's X% chance that C component will be ruined. This then needs to be replaced. If you allow for a part of the gun to be ruined by wear and tear, well, your fault (actually mimics real life as, if you don't maintain guns, they can suffer permanent damage). However, so long as it's not ruined, it should be repairable with the cleaning kit. Backfiring (which should be added due to jams from damaged ammo or poor gun maintenance) should also destroy most, if not all, of the guns components (not attachments). This could work by simply tweaking the current attachment system. Have the main body of the gun (everything that's not detachable/replaceable without serious work) be one item then simply have every single other component (within reason) be an attachment and tweak the system for attachments being damaged appropriately. Gun cleaning kit would clean & repair all attachments, unless ruined, other than scopes and flashlights (think that's everything?).

This is it. Personally, I'll avoid killing if I can. I never snipe people (unless they're sniping me or others) and if I come in to close contact with somebody I'll either try to run away, talk to them or, in situations where I think neither is possible - and only then - engage them in combat. Generally, you'll be able to tell if something is going to go south if they try to keep to your side/back, get too close, refuse to lower their weapon if you've lowered yours (don't expect them to put it away - you could be baiting them so your friend can pick them off) and they seem comfortable standing out in the open (probably have a sniper buddy). If you're in a town/city of reasonable size, you can probably run away given a good chance. Stall for as long as you can, planning your escape route, then, the second they turn away from you even a little (or raise their gun), make a run for it. Zigzag and sprint. Try to run around a few buildings, jumping fences etc, until you find a door you can dip in to without their seeing you (set up the hotkey on the 'View' section to glance backwards to something easy to reach). Once inside, if you have a melee weapon, sit behind the door to the side you ran to it from so that they won't see you right away if they come in. If you have a gun with more than a couple of bullets, go to the next room and be ready to peek around the doorframe to shoot the second you hear them enter. At this point, do anything you can to kill them. If they've found you in the building, you're not going to get away - and the fact that they're chasing you shows that they're hostile. You might also be able to do this in more rural areas by darting around any cover you can - trees, bushes, hay bales etc. You'll have to have some kind of plan though. Eventually, they'll chase you down if you don't find a building you can hide in (you'll want there to be at least four or five close to one another to give you time to slip out or sneak up on them when they search another building). Make sure that you keep out of view through windows - though, if you can, you'll want to be able to see them through windows. Again, consider the direction they'll be running in and position yourself on the other side of the window so that they'll have to turn around to see you. If you spot them, you can either snipe them or duck out once they enter another building, though the former is probably safer. But yeah, the friendly interactions are definitely worth the risks. Just make sure that you're capable of defending yourself or getting away in case things go south. Keep full awareness, checking around yourself regularly (and use headphones!) so that you don't get snuck up on. Crouch around towns too - you're a smaller target and make less noise. Just be weary. Be ready to kill if you need to (only lower your weapon/put it away etc if they do it first and be ready to take it back out).

You can't see that far behind you. If somebody is as close as they need to get for you to see them, you'd know that they were there irl. There's absolutely no reason to remove 3rd person. On third person servers everybody gains the benefits of third person. On first person servers people can't use third person. If first person servers exist, what is the benefit in removing 3rd person? Like, really?

What's wrong with peeking (unless you mean 3PP peek exploitation)? Server login timers should increase a lot more than they currently do after maybe two or three relogs within 30(?) minutes, though it needs to take into account connection loss, restarts, kicking and the fact that you're logging back in to the same server sometimes. Then again, I play on a private hive and don't have any issue with server hoppers. :P Fast respawn, again, should see the timer growing longer and longer each time you kill yourself. I actually think that the first respawn should be reduced. 30 seconds isn't long until you're sat, waiting, counting it down. Not sure why there's a timer at all for that. But then, if you kill yourself again within 20 or so minutes, it absolutely should increase.

I think that the GUI is kind of a mess in general at the moment. Of course, it's something that they'll probably work on much later in development, as in, just before release, but yeah. IIRC (I generally just use the config file rather than the GUI) there isn't even a windowed mode option in game, despite the fact that it runs absolutely perfectly in windowed (other than the fact that if you set it to nopause in the Steam launch options it doesn't pause but only updates every few seconds, which is a pain when I'm multitasking and playing DayZ. Probably shouldn't, but shh. :P). Mouse position does get reset too when doing certain things, which isn't much of a problem. Just slightly frustrating.

Think they should have them both on the main screen. Make it easier to see and people should be able to figure it out from there. You don't need them to be the same though. You just need to set the UI res to your screen resolution and then you can set the rendering res to anything you like.

What about scopes/ironsights etc? If you don't lock them out, there's not much of a point in doing it at all. If you do, it's a terrible idea.

At the moment, zombies are not fun to kill. But the fighting systems and the zombies aren't yet finished. The zombies are one of the main focuses for this year (though I've not seen anything about improving fighting mechanics, which worries me as they're talking about making zombies more difficult to kill, which is a terrible idea until fighting actually works). But yeah, as it is now, I find myself just thinking 'well, this is mildly annoying' when I get zombie aggro. No worries, no fear. At worst I'm worried that they'll hit me once and somehow ruin my military grade shirt or leather biker jacket as has happened to me multiple times this week. Really just frustrating and annoying than anything. Though, again, that's going to be changing.

Its description is 'Faithful replica of a medieval sword.' To me, this implies a sword made in the modern day, like, an actual sword, in the style of a medieval sword. As for the training, you clearly to not understand the way DayZ works. There aren't meant to be hard skills etc in game. What if I actually know how to sword fight - but my character uses swords like shit and there's nothing I can do about it? It makes more sense to make everybody able to do something than nobody able to do it. Also, using a sword to kill somebody isn't a massive task. Sure, if two people had swords and there was the ability to parry etc, it'd take more skill in real life, but walking up to somebody and stabbing them with a sword doesn't take skill. You can't complain about accuracy of the swing, etc, as that's not the case in DayZ. As for the actual topic, they spawn in all of the castles. The castles, to my knowledge, have the exact same lootspawns with the exact same frequency. Unless you'd found literally like 20 swords in one place and none in any of the others having searched each one under the same circumstances, just because you find a certain item in one location and not another, similar one means nothing. The loot spawning is done by categories, not specific locations.

First, you got annoyed originally because you got hungry and thirsty? What? It's a survival game. That's a feature, not a bug or an issue? You just start hungry. The game is being built from scratch on an improved engine compared to the one the mod (and Arma II) was made on. That's why it's a step back from the mod in some ways. It's also a massive step forward. You're not looking at it from the right angle. It's nowhere near finished. They're rebuilding all of the systems that the mod had (and more) from scratch so that they can make things better overall. The loot system is ongoing, though generally, loot is not that rare. You were probably on a persistent or bugged server which wasn't respawning the loot. That's being worked on right now though. The game isn't a step backwards at all. It's just earlier in its development as the mod used all of the systems directly from Arma II, which meant that they were already complete, even if they weren't well suited for the game. They've laid the groundwork for a massive amount of work now - and I'm incredibly excited about the next year of development. This is where it'll start really improving over the mod as they work on zombies and get the loot systems finished along with the new physics and rendering engines.

Why would there be a lot of destruction, though? I'm actually bothered when I see everything smashed up, with cars that look bombed out etc. This is set (can't remember where I saw this) roughly a few months after the zombie apocalypse began. Sure, there should be blood in the occasional house, as there is, and there should be some signs of looting, but the majority of cars should still be in reasonable condition, the majority of buildings shouldn't be falling apart etc etc. There's just no reason for everything to be completely wrecked. Why would it be? Even if it was years after the zombie apocalypse began. Then it'd just be standard wear and tear.

As somebody who died today losing a fair bit of top level gear due to having to manually reload my damn sawed-off IZH43 during an intense firefight, I absolutely see where you're coming from with this one (was packing light as I was doing a run to try to find a new Mosin. Never ever use that shotgun. Seriously. It's awful.).

Yeah, I saw the benefits of black powder after I reread your OP. Assuming that ammo gets less common, it'd definitely be a viable option. I really like the idea of the surgical procedures, but as a lone wolf I'd be absolutely shit scared of needing one. :P