goblinshark

Thanks, I agree with that. The proximity one I have been experimenting with and I really enjoy it. But like I mentioned in an earlier post, I see the benefits of a server-based chat as significant. It's great for on-the-spot assistance from other players, as well as organization. However, I can also see that element of era that you guys are trying to create here, so I understand why not having one is also beneficial. I suppose from a interface-based / practical standpoint I would like to see global / server chat, but from a lore / aura / aspect / game immersion perspective it is better not to have rampant scrolling text on your screen.

Well I mostly agree with the above two posts, but in their own context. A lot of those games you are referring to have corporate pressures. Blizzard, for example, is publicly traded and there are not just "fangs" but investors pushing them to make deadlines timelines and requirements. This is generally a "behind-the-scene" influence that you don't see but you definitely FEEL. That's where games like counterstrike, and in this case DayZ, come to light. The game isn't fueled by cash, pushed by investors, changed by non-gamers. It's community-based and there's a small number of people working to fix it, and these people, or in this case person, directly communicate with their fans to maintain a game that is directly based on community requests. I think that with money not being an issue, people like rocket are less inclined to take the teenage "I WANT REALLY EASY SHIT" recommendations and instead shove them into the ground. That's where I almost see a problem with the game becoming officially endorsed by BI. That's when more people are involved in how the game is created. More CONTRIBUTIONS is better, more physical influences, is not. By that I mean taking the input of thousands of players into mind when crafting the game is key. But having to adhere to timelines and requirements set by suit-wearing pricks that don't even play games ruins them.

Hello folks, I wanted to take a second to compile my thoughts. Currently I'm at work, and I'm highly anticipating getting back and playing the game. I heard about it from friends for 12 hours straight at work the night previous, and was so anxious to play. I was downloading and installing the game right as DayZ version 1.7.1.1 released - it created a LOT of frustrating issues. I have followed every guide, read through hundreds of posts, and tried a lot of different things. I finally managed to get into a server MINUTES before having to come back to work. And as such, I have a few questions regarding compatibility and the process of getting the game as clean as it will run for now. DayZ: Does DayZ need to be on 1.7.1.1 to run? It seems like the servers in-game are split between 1.7 and 1.7.1.1 I HAVE updated to the most recent one, and ironically it won't let me on a lot of the servers. Arma II: When I highlight a server in the list, I can see "version" down on the bottom right of the server profile. For MY version, it says 1.60 But MANY of the other servers show 1.60.XXXXX. It becomes confusing, because my Arma is updated, my DayZ is updated, yet some servers are running 1.7.1.1, but are running a DIFFERENT version of Arma II? Are the 1.60.x.x.x. versions non-beta versions? I get off work in about 12 hours - what are the odds of a hotfix or some sort of compatibility being sorted out before then? My ultimate goal is to get into this game in the next 13 hours and finally play. Sorry for a long-winded post, but I'm sitting here rotting on shift work and need some interaction. -Goblin:huh::huh:

That definitely clears a thing or two up. I have seen that error-kick message a few times now, thanks for the clarification. I suppose I'll stick to the earlier beta version and see how it runs, since most of the errors seem DayZ based anyways, depending on hotfixes and patches.

Great idea! Make it so that survivors can enable and/or disable friendly fire. Whereas choosing the life of a bandit enables a forced open-fire rule, where you cannot turn friendly fire off. However, I would assume there would be more players that would seek to have friendly fire on, for a safer living environment. To combat the imbalance, a third faction, "contractor" or "rogue" could be offered. These people are not faction-aligned, and thus don't receive the benefits of being in one. However, they have more maneuverability and can possibly form temporary alliances with either side, whichever they see fit. This would take a great independent and socially capable players to keep from dying. But, we cannot forget that this is a zombie game. And as such we should state the benefits / negatives of joining a particular faction in regards to survival. The shining benefit is that you have access to more resources and teammates for scavenging the cities. A rogue player would need to take up temporary refuge to truly be beneficial to his or her self. I really like this idea and I think it would harbor more player-interaction and teamwork to survive on this massive map.

Thanks for the input. I agree. Matter of fact, the spawn timer is a terrible idea, and I don't think people should have to wait to play because they successfully killed numerous amounts of people. Maybe an alternative suggestion can build off what you said. So, the more people you kill, the less "adrenaline" affects you. Your blood loss is not as bad, maybe you aren't as vulnerable to malnourishment and dehydration. HOWEVER, that would seem like a reward, and to keep the system balanced, when you DO finally meet your maker, you actually go back NEGATIVE. You start with slightly less health / food / hydration / supplies than you normally would. If there's going to be enhancements and effects for player-killing, they need to stay consistent with, "should I really do this?" And less with being some opportunity to exploit. These are entry-level preliminary thoughts though, and we have a lot of room to build on them before submitting our ideas to rocket.

I agree that the "few" in communities like this trying to contribute are VASTLY outnumbered by those trying to be funny and fill voids in their personal lives. However, I don't agree in that we cannot regulate, at least to some degree, the trollism that occurs. As I said before, ignoring it is often the best avenue. Trolls are mutually exclusive with attention, and the less responses we give them, the less exciting it is to troll. Take, for example, this entire thread. Billy-bob-trollmeisture the 4th is trolling along the information troll highway in the eve of night. He stumbles upon this post, which is complaining about trolls. At this point in time, his senses are heightened, "oh! a trolling opportunity, now I can fill that void from getting dumped at school today." Billy then procedes to troll the shit out of you and everyone else who responds to him. By showing a complete lack of acknowledgement that he even exists, he'll dissipate like a flame without oxygen. Continue pushing out good words and products, and the community will become closer. Some suggestions: community managers and more moderators. I, for one, suggest that Rocket or another leading source hires volunteers to moderate the official community site(s). These people will be screened and interviewed either in person, or on a video voice chat client. These players will have established a positive history in the community already, and are not so much hired by their level of skill or time in the game, but more so on their morality and ability to justly and fairly moderate the game and convey popular issues to the developers as a medium for fan communication. These mediators can scour the forums for trolls, nonconstructive postings, and other musings to keep things fluid. Ban people on site that deserve it. I really do think there's a lot of potential with this mod, and I would love for it to succeed.

As a bandit, I enjoy this post. I love nothing more than a good tough competition. Running around slaughtering people, regardless of stature or skill, is fun. But like-minded survivors with an uncanny skull for hunting and tracking, now that's a new game to play. Come on down the road, friend, and we will dance the dance of blood and metal amidst the harrowing echoes of enraged zombies.

Opinions on sound: Proximity-based, player-activated voice is a great idea. If you don't want to deal with it, you can simply turn it off. I think more people than not though wouldn't mind having it on, so long as the proximity of the voice is fairly close. Chat, however, I should be more broad. We're in an online video game, with a rapidly developing community. It's nice to be able to talk to people on the fly and ask for assistance with my zombie-slaughtering nights. It's also great for communicating an aggressive player-killer. Blindly running around the map hoping to run into other human beings, and if so, having to player Russian Roulette with whether or not you should fire upon them, is not fun. Suggestions: As said above, close proximity voice chat, directional, as listed in the OP's post. 50m or less, if anything, and it must be enabled by both parties for either party to hear it. A server-wide global chat that players can optionally join or leave. This facilitates communication among people so they can coordinate groups and find griefers, hackers, or other issue giving characters. Voice chat is imperative, and I think something more games need to do is get it implemented into the client. I know that this is not easy, but having a clean in-game interface for managing voice chat capabilities is GREAT for "pickup group" player interaction and organization. Imagine, you log on and run into an arbitrary group of 4-5 other people in Elektra. You guys band up, hop on voice chat, and are suddenly exponentially more powerful. You roll into town like you just paid the lease on it and take shit out like it's owed to you, zombie matter scatter about. Hell yeah.

The post itself is ironic in that it embodies exactly what you are complaining of, a loose community. As Ghandi and any other great person of history would hint towards, only contribute towards the positive, and move forward. Instead of posting something that sheds light upon the negatives of the community, its sole focus should be on improvements the community can strive for. You mentioned that the game looks like it's filled with "13-15" year-old kids. Well, in all likelihood it probably is. This is an online, free mod to a fairly popular simulator. And in recent weeks this mod has gained a lot of momentum. The larger a crowd you invite into an online forum of gaming or discussion, the harder it becomes to regulate, given the differences in people you have. This isn't a community, like sports, where like-minded people are congregating to discuss things they enjoy. It's a video game that involves killing things, fighting zombies, and surviving. The absolute best way to combat a downhill train of negativity and shit community, is to only contribute positive feedback. Provide recommendations you feel would improve the game, the interface, the play value, or otherwise make this a more fluid experience. Every single person here has something they can bring to the table; some people can program, some are great artists, some are computer-wizards with moving things around the intellectual highway and databases, some people have a wonderful way of wording things to make for excellent guides and recommendations on game improvement. Take whatever YOU can bring to the community, and start offering it! With a mod-based community like this, the players really have a LOT of power governing the game. This isn't a corporate-ladder fueled shit-fest like Diablo III or Battlefield 3, where the goal is to siphon your cash. This is a game fueled by passion and love for what it is. Please, we can player-kill one another and still contribute to one another's play value.

Why is a "punishment" system even in question for "bandits?" Firstly, I don't think labeling players who kill other players for gear "bandits" is even appropriate. This is a post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested slug-fest. It's all hands in, it's a fight for your life, the best of the best, survivalist, man vs wild, all summed up. The mod, described above, in addition to all of that, is a war simulator. The game is about simulating a given set of circumstances as realistically as possible without sacrificing basic game mechanics and play value. And as such, it does not seem reasonable that players who are surviving, at ANY cost, even the cost of other player's lives, should be punished in any form. Game-enhancing effects: this is a possibility. Instead of punishing the player for a player-kill, alternatively, the player's experience is changed. An adrenaline mode could be engaged, in which the player's adrenaline and senses are heightened dramatically, increasing the rate at which they dehydrate, and become malnourished. If there's bloodloss involved in a player-kill, the player may lose blood at a quicker rate, and possibly suffer diminishing abilities with firing weaponry. You don't want to PUNISH players for killing other players in an online survival game where the goal is to live as long as possible under any and all circumstances. I shouldn't feel scared to attack someone with gear that can benefit me because I'll lose playability. However, I should have mental queues alterting me to think twice before killing someone. "Shit, those NVG's look great, but I don't want to risk attracting zombies whilst under a state of decreased firing capabilities and rapid blood loss." Another alternative, is to implement something that affects the player-killer once he or she has died. For example, for each player killed, 1*.5 you gain a spawn timer when you die. You aren't being "punished" for the actual kills, but as a player-killer, you gain more benefits more quickly, but at the risk of suffering deeper consequences when you finally die. It's risk balancing. Is the kill worth the risk of dying? This, as opposed to simply being punished no matter what as soon as you kill someone. I welcome criticism and constructive intellectual thought on improving the game that we have come to love and enjoy.

This is an optimization and coding issue, not a hardware issue. I have a $2000 tower I built for games like BF3 on ultra with AA maxed, and it runs over 60FPS(680's in SLI). I hop on DayZ, and my FPS tanks below 40. Just stick it out until the people running the show behind the curtain get it oiled up for us.

Try going into your sound manager, whatever it may be, and switching between the different sound options. 5.1, 7.1, 2.1. I eventually managed to get my sound working. Also, it was server-specific. Some servers simply would not allow me to have sound. Others worked on the first shot without even having to adjust anything in any direction.

Hello folks, So I heard about this at work, and I was so excited, and in such a rush to play with everyone, that I hopped online and bought the game directly from Bohemia Interactive, instead of on Steam. I read some installation guides while it is downloading, and I'm seeing some issues. 1) Do I NEED Steam to make all of this work? 2) Do I NEED to download BOTH Arma II and the expansion, or does just downloading the expansion include the entire game? It's about 6g. Thanks everyone!

pooley, Thanks for the quick response. I purchased both Arma 2 and Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead. What I am mainly concerned with is that I didn't purchase them through Steam, I used the main developer's website, Bohemia Interactive. Although I purchased both, right now I'm only downloading Operation Overhead. I can't download both at the same time.