Noctoras

No offence, but this in a similar wording is posted by the same few people over meanwhile more than 5 months from the last experimental. I'm far from this hype train by now, we're more than 9 months into 2016 and have seen ONE update so far. Yes, it's the enfusion engine and yes, some things take time. I just don't really feel confident for the whole project anymore. Zombies are no threat since ages, vehicles will be removed now, survival has not seen anything new since farming, we basically have a survival game without survival, medical system is underdevelopped at best, skill system will only be a slight speed bonus, apart from PvP there currently is nothing and PvP mostly means a sniper bullet in your back. Yes, this is the negative side of things, but since I've only seen the "yay, hooray" comments so far, I feel the need to shed some light on the dark side of things. :) Good night :P

The Torchia that has meanwhile left the team, lectured about the team. Alright, next please? They might have adjusted to some extent, nonetheless, the company does not just produce for fun - and that's what a SIGNIFICANT team expansion would mean. If they spend 5% of the additional revenue on two additional people, that's an econoomically well managable placebo on the other hand. I sometimes really wonder about the people who think that BI proiduces and hires for love and honor ... it's a company. It needs and wants profit in order to expand, fund further development and even prepare for a fail .. sooner or later there is a game bound to fail. But you may believe whatever you want.

Hiring more team members would just mean reducing their profit. Given the early sales, there hardly is lots of sales potential left. So every investment likely is a loss for the company. So I understand perfectly well, why they did not expand the team. It's not their fault, that everyone jumped on the early access band wagon. If I paid you for your life's work in advance no matter the future performance, you would not clock extra hours at work every day either, right? Sometimes life is very simple and straight forward. The only incentive BI might have is to use it as a blockbuster generating revenue for further games. For the blockbuster aspect, the reviews and the press comments got too negative, though. To me it is as understandable as frustrating that resources allocated to DayZ SA are limited. From a business point of view, investment in DayZ exceeding the existing commitment is dead capital.

Dustin, is that you? ;)

We will see, feel free to remind me of this thread in case I will be wrong in the end. I doubt that I will ever be called on this thread again, though. And Beef, numbers might "shoot up" for some weeks before the game goes into obvlivion again, this time for the final time...

True, sai, to some extent I can even relate to the devs. The game has been outperformed by other games and it probably will not draw back the big crowds, so a lot of work would be futile. That's early access for beginners. My first early access game and my last early access gane. I clocked some hundred hours, so yes, I got my money's worth and I also learnt a lesson.

hm, in a way it's a good reminder and a good warning NOT to buy into early access. ARK has made a turn for the worse as well from hearsay after a promising start (I don't play it), DayZ ... no need to elaborate. Hardly any early access game really matches the expectations. Whatfor, 90% of the revenue is already generated. I am looking forward to BF1 now, where I can have my PvP action without having to run and loot for an hour before - as for survival I still have no luring no-EA game, but time will tell... DayZ so far to me is neither. Survival is in name only and PvP, well, too clumsy, I can have that action in less than an hour of jogging. Sorry to be rude.

This is not correct, you have to calculate the time either from experimental to exp or from stable to stable. Counting from the first Exp build of 0.60, we are more than 5 months in now. The last update was 6 months, so we might look at about the same timeframe. I for one am looking forward to different games right now, DayZ feels like beating a dead horse at the moment, so ..

Just as every "good work devs" post in here. Opinion is opinion. And opinion as such won't get you further, so consider the whole forum apart from the bug report area a waste of people's time ... And true, devs don't owe us ... but we don't owe devs either, so again, opinions are fair game, positive as well as negative.

And since we are at it, the whole "survival" part is why I lately decided to write a - negative - review. It simply should not be advertised as any sort of survival game, because to me it is moving away from a survival game at an enormous pace. Sucks, if you bought it as a survival game. Pretty much everything which has been added over the last year has been pretty much designed to optimise the PvP aspect. The introduction of (never needed) farming is back how far? one and a half years by now`? Since then, apart from the needed player controller all I hear is: - gun sounds, weapon sway, damage box, loot economy (mostly related to which gun is where), vehicles and how to shoot from them, barricading and how to use it in PvP, obviously new weapons and ammo, gun jamming, reloading animations. I never hear about: - rework or expansion of the medical system, the rudimentary skill system they maybe want to introduce (if I only can chop wood quicker, better leave it out anyway), ways to actually make guns /ammo / food more rare. Now, I have clocked hundreds of hours in this game, yet after the first 10 hours I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER died to a zombie, hunger, thirst or anything survival related. As long as a zombie means to run 200 meters and be safe, no matter what, is it a threat? Dying of hunger or thirst is an achievement and dying of hyperthermia is easily avoided if you don't feel the dire need of walking around like a fully armored yeti. Yes, I know, zombies are still in the works, other aspects of the game as well. But a review can only encompass past experience and realistic outlook. Currently, as you say, we have a jogging simulator with no real threat apart from the bullet in your back. Now, if I want a PvP-only game (can't call it FPS for obvious reasons), I choose a game where it does not take me 3 hours of walking to actually get this PvP. If you get it at all, sometimes after 3 hours of walking you get a "you are dead message" - whether that is a sniper, a sheed or a stair doesn't matter too much to me. If I want a survival experience, I would definitely look elsewhere. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy playing it every once in a while. But I would not recommend buying it. And personally I will refrain from early access in the future. Just my 2 cents.

What for? This is like developing the steam engine when you have electric and diesel engines. As long as everyone has a gun after some minutes, no point in melee.

Indeed it should - and it also should be possible to "clear" a town of zombies as opposed to a constant respawning system.

This "quick guns for everyone" approach I dislike with a passion. I do know that opinion is divided on this, though. Thus I leave it at that as a personal matter of preference. And 2 of these 3 "more loooot plz" people have just registered for this thread. Go figure ...

the tech (enfusion, eden) has and will change(ed), though .. but I don't think Brian is interested in a map extension, it would make quick PvP even more complicated.

No, I won't. What I do feel like bashin, though, is that fact that there is no content apart from phew phew related content and no other content in sight either. Vocal minority

double post

Yeah, I didn't mean to say DayZ is bad either, but I do not like the current focus at all. Pretty much everythin since 0.55 was about increasing the efficiency of the PvP machine - vehicles, tents, loot zones, technical updates have been the means to get there. No the new renderer doesn't cater specifically to KOS or so, so there might be space for other ideas - with some hope I could tell myself these iodeas will follow now, since there was no point in adding entirely new ideas into an old engine. However, dev communication and the way of the updates make me a realist, who thinks that it's probably just about some more ways to quickly go PvP. Melee, farming, electricity, skill system, medical system, trade systems, there would be LOTS of ideas to turn this game more into a sandbox, I just don't think the devs will go this way.

That's why they treat us with ever more gun varieties, work on weapon sway, Audio engine to precisely locate a shot, work on a heli to haver another mobile shooting base, implement shooting from vehicles ... yes. Sounds like a lot of survival stuff to me ... NOT. Loot zones as dicsussed in another thread making everyione go NWAF and phe phew is neither sandbox nor survival. It's a cheap king of the hill with the disadvantage of the map any way to NWAF being too large. I don't see the devs AT ALL in any survival corner. You and me havent played DayZ 1.0 yet. True. This is the arguments commuinists used for decades. You cannot judge on communism, we still hav not reached communism 1.0. I think this way of trying to avoid any criticism is sketchy, really sketchy.

Your logic, Sir seriously irritates me. Basically we could abolish democracies. No voter has a complete understanding of the process top to bottom, so voting and criticism on it is not valid. The person in charge obviously must never chance, because everyone else does not kniow it top to bottom either. Maybe his son would be best. You are talking like straight out of the dark ages. Not even The Third Reich could have been criticised, since noone but the inner circle knew it rock to bottom. You get my drift... Let me just make that very clear: It NEVER should be necessary to understand a subject rock to bottom in order to have an opinion to it. Opinions might help devs to sway decisions which might improve gameplay for us all. Constructive cirticism and bug reporting can do a lot more for development that praising every finger move by a developer. An environment without constructive criticism will be very bad in improving. And actually much of the often complained about downfalls of the game seem to be due to the devs rather playing their own game instead of listen to the communicty or them listening to their beloved streaming crowd, which is by no means representative for the community. If you have good points and voice them prominently, you run the risk to get the "vocal minority" tag attached. This basically is a good means to say "I listend but will not act on it, because I have another preference" - and since you cannot track numbers and lack surveys, you will be labelled the "Vocal minority", implying that the majority of course would prefer the dev way. I never thought the day would come when I would diametrically oppose your view, because I like yout style of posting, but here we go. I just cannot see any reason why there should be no criticism. a game NEEDS criticism. "can't wait for packs in 0.61" won't change the game. "I think packs might bw good if they span here and there for this or that reason and suboptimal zombie spawning has told us that we should do this different here" might give an impetus. People complaining about being geared with M4s in 30 minutes are helpful, people saying they cannot open lids of barrels under conditions are helpful This triggers change. "Love the new R56678-super-railgun" on the other hand will not trigger change, even if it is the 200th gun implemented with the game still lacking relevant content apart from phew phew. So go on people, DO criticise. No need to know the lines of code rock bottom. Just don't get personal and insultin. Regards Your Vocal Minority.

Same, I think it might be easier to skip reporting bugs at present. - I am not allowed to post the full bug / glitch on the board - I for one was unable to open a new thread in the bug section - and to conclude the fun, the exp thread is closed, whilst I was playing on the exp branch finding out about the glitch It becomes as challenging as reporting an abusive server (hopefully not as pointless ;) )

I tend to agree. Loot zones, loot spawns, player spawns is all designed to make us move inland and to kill each other at NWAF, Tisy or Myshkino. Not my cup of "sandbox". But obviously most people appreciate it and granted, it doesn't kill gameplay, so it's probably a fair deal ;)

Yep, I think it is a newbie sniper pritection - given the amount of spwans in Novo it probably made sense to extend the fog to Novo. But true, a fog only at the coast and permanently there has something surreal

there is a glitch in the new Cherno hotel building at the stairs and lobby . To be on the safe side and not run the risk of being kicked from the forum I refrain from posting anything further, but it should be reproducable easily with a little patience.

Granted, a refined melee system is useless, as long as guns are as easy to obtain as smarties in a supermarket. I don't like it, but I do understand the reasoning.

Indeed. If they release beta in 2016, it translates into "we just skipped a lot of content in order to release the game" This might mean waiting forever. Communication is not what they are best at.