ColdAtrophy

I'm curious too. Escape from Tarkov seems to be a completely different kind of game.

Late next month to Experimental or late next month to Stable?

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe people watched this: And didn't immediately think of this: Don't get me wrong. I love me some Battlefield. I've got 1300 hours on 4 alone. But using DayZ as a vehicle for constant PvP is like using an adjustable wrench to change a tire. It might do the job, but is it really what the tool was intended for? Conversely, couldn't it be used to do other jobs that a lug wrench couldn't?

I agree. Unfortunately, most of the playerbase would obviously disagree with us. Putting yourself into gunfights constantly is not something someone who has a primary goal of continuing to live would do. I'd also argue against your point that PvP should not be everywhere. I think there should be no breaks in tension. You should be terrified for your life 24/7/365.

I agree, but I think this is the primary reason for never leaving the coast. People do what they can to avoid feeling attached and therefore, grief. Who cares if you lost an AK that you just punched some random guy to get?

Arma 3 offers the same PvP experience of DayZ minus the survival aspects that the SA is currently not flush with anyway and which is primarily ignored by the majority in favor of coastal rinse, repeat bullshit. You asked me to name another game that offers the whole package, but what I'm saying is that people are ignoring survival almost completely so what difference does that really make? That's why I said, "if people embraced both sides of the spectrum, I wouldn't be having this conversation". I've been to NWAF on a Saturday on a 50/50 server and witnessed a ghost town. The best my buddies and I could figure is that either 1) people are afraid to go there when the population is high or 2) they are still on the coast. A trip to the coast confirms where the population is at. People don't leave the coast, generally speaking. Your idea that going to mil zones means organic, emergent PvP is simply not true. Furthermore, I'd like to see more mechanics and objectives that support PvP popping up just about anywhere.

I think there was a breakdown in communication somewhere. I get the overwhelming feeling that you have missed my point completely.

Choosing to PvP on the coast non-stop in a rinse and repeat cycle fundamentally rejects survival so I'm not sure what you mean. If people embraced both sides of this spectrum, like you suggest, then I wouldn't be having this conversation.

If the goal is to never evolve past spawn, die, repeat in the same strips of coast that people have been PvPing in since 2012, then I guess I misunderstood what a survival horror MMO is. I'm not suggesting that DayZ is going to die because of this prevailing playstyle. I'm actually saying that it's damn near dead because people who want PvP can get it much faster and without all the bullshit that SA offers. If this project cannot move past that, then this game serves no purpose other than as a griefing tool. PvP has been done better by hundreds of other games.

I'm not against PvP. I'm all for it being an organically occurring part of the game. I hate the PvP seeking behavior that causes 90% of the map to be devoid of players and any real form of interaction, discovery, or opportunity. When movement dries up, so does your game.

Arma 3, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.

I have had two public servers on my favorites list switch over to private servers since the beginning of .59.

It's just the prison building that has no military loot. This applies to all instances of the prison building structure.

Right, right. I remember reading about the Eden update a little while back. There was a post about it on the main menu feed of Arma 3. I think it has to do with the scenario editor being much more in-depth. Not very sure about Apex. Off to Google I go. Hope I didn't come off sounding like a dick, btw. I was just genuinely bewildered. EDIT: Apex is a content expansion including a bad ass looking new South Pacific map. I'm already excited about a DayZ port of this map.

I've had it twice this patch. For me, I actually had to restart my PC completely. The black screen persisted even after hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del.

What the hell does this mean? When is Arma 3 switching over to Enfusion from Real Virtuality? Why would they change the engine for an already released game?

This was confirmed many months ago by Hicks directly.

Nothing spawns in there because the current player controller (not 100% sure what that means, just regurgitating information) allows people to glitch into the walls. As a temporary measure, loot spawns have been essentially removed...apart from like a pack of tomato seeds. No loot means no one has anything to gain by going in there and glitching into the walls. So, if you are lamenting the loss of prison loot, cross your fingers that the new player controller gets added in soon. None of us know when we are going to get updates. We just get them, do a sweet heel kick, and get to DayZing.

https://feedback.dayz.com/view.php?id=29228 https://feedback.dayz.com/view.php?id=29276 https://feedback.dayz.com/view.php?id=28977 That last one shows an acknowledgement, but it was from before the last hotfix update so...I have no idea if they are aware that the issue still exists. I hope so.

How sure are you about this? I destroyed a V3S in Novo and it respawned in Novaya Petrovka skipping many spawns in between.

In that latest interview video with Hicks: he said that enforcing the server rules was not particularly pertinent to development at this time so I'm guessing that they just don't really care about it right now. Hopefully they will eventually try harder to get this kind of abuse in line. We get to 15 players during peak times, sure. But I don't always play at peak times. Sometimes, I'm the only person on. Not usually for long what with hoppers and all, but still. Sometimes we don't have more than 5 players for several hours. I don't want my looting experience shit on because of some admins that are breaking the rules. That's all I'm saying here. Sorta defeats the purpose doesn't it?

You missed the point of this. We are discussing the public server owners that kick anyone who tries to join so they have an entire server to themselves that they can use to gear up in peace. The rules that need to be enforced are these ones: https://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/158966-dayz-standalone-server-hosting-rules-server-reporting/

I don't think you understand what I'm saying pilgrim. I play on one of two servers. One is a public 1pp server. The other is a 3pp server that my friends own. 99% of the time, I am on one of these two servers. Neither server ever seems to become very populated although we are working hard to develop a regular player base on the 3pp server and starting to get some regular traffic. Under your system, after a few weeks of play when I have multiple camps and stashes set up on the server and there is still no one around, I will end up with the following scenario: - Loot is now scarce - New players to the server will be driven away by said scarcity - I have nothing to do on my server, nothing else to quest for and little hope of ever increasing the population - This server is now, for all intents and purposes, dead - In order to continue playing, I must go to a higher population server and play there, all the while hoping that the population nevers dips, the server doesn't go offline thereby losing any and all accumulated gear, etc. Your idea disincentivizes the rental of a new public server. Why would anyone EVER rent a public server at that point? Until they get a decent population going, loot will be abnormally scarce. I absolutely abhor this idea for these major, game breaking reasons, none of which have anything to do with having a "safe zone" to loot or abusive behaviors. I think I can recommend a much better idea for fixing the problem you aim to address. BI needs to pay someone to enforce the rules. I can't imagine how it would take more than one, possibly two employees. They also need an option to report servers from the server browser. They could even cut out the middle-man and have those reports go directly to the GSPs.