puppetmasterjjk

All of those points are things that I and a lot of others like about the zombies right now.

Right, but it's built on a simulator's engine. Unlike most games, the player in this is basically a character model that you have full control over with a camera stuck on it. Everything you see in first or third person is actually there and happening. I suppose the mod devs can do a truckload of work on new animations and such to make it play somewhat more like the mainstream shooters out there, but many of us like the charm of the milsim engine as it is. Plus, that would mean the mod (I don't like calling it that, but oh well) would have to be made into much more than just a simple mission. One thing that could make first-person a lot more tolerable for people would be to turn down, or off, the 'head-bobbing' option. It's not all that realistic anyway to have that much head-bobbing, and same goes for the motion blur when looking around. Another thing you can do is turn down the "free-aim" setting.

It's a military simulator.

It has been clunky like that since OFP. A big part of it is to simulate real life, because unlike most games today, you aren't just a floating camera and gun. The other part of it is that the engine is just clunky feeling because that's what they had to sacrifice in order to make such a great milsim. Anyone who has played a lot of Arma/OFP has learned to love it, as the clunkiness is still a lot closer to real life than other games have achieved.

No, you didn't claim that you represent anyone, but you do share opinions with others on that side of the argument. What I'm saying is that I don't want any of the others, who have great arguments and make good posts, to be associated with you and looked down upon like you are now.

Anyone disagreeing with my views are welcome here to argue, just as they give me the same courtesy. You, on the other hand, have resorted to flaming/troll posts, and as Freyar mentioned, you've shown that you clearly don't understand the matter. I hope everyone on the "PvP side" (as if it could even be simplified as that) understands that Turkey doesn't represent the rest of those that are from the other camp.

Yeah Turkey, if you really believe the situation is like that, then you shouldn't be here discussing it with us, because you clearly don't understand it. Just because you're upset that it's been pointed out that can't handle an intelligent discussion anymore doesn't mean you have to resort to flaming. Edit: It should be added that that kind of behavior only hurts others that are on your side of the argument.

If we treated the mod right now strictly by the 'alpha test' definition you posted and didn't make suggestions to fix the gameplay issues that we find, then there really wouldn't be much to discuss. As far as errors go, there aren't many left to mention. Currently, changes to the gameplay are being added in daily, so players are expressing their opinions on the changes that they're testing as well as pointing out any bugs that are found. I'm sure the developers appreciate any input they receive from the community.

"Survive" being the key word there. I know it's easy to push a topic to one extreme or the other in a debate but what a lot of people are forgetting (or ignoring) is that we are basically all in love with the same mod here. The very pro-PVP side likes to suggest that *anything* should be permitted *anytime* against *anyone*' date=' in the name of "survival". The anti-PVP players, and I really hate that term because I don't think any of us would really want PVP removed, simply want something to reign in the potential for mindless violence, especially the more established players against those new to the game or just respawning. You actually did a fantastic job outlining what must be done and what effects it might have... I just have an issue with the word "survive" always being used to defend whatever. [/quote'] You're exactly right about the use of "survival" to justify everything that is 'PvP'. (I hate using that term because it has some MMORPG implications that don't really match what goes on in DayZ). I guess my choice of wording was wrong there, but I don't think players who have the best weapons and such should just go out of their way to kill other players. What I meant more was that since they've gotten to such a point, they're now powerful enough to get their actual survival needs quickly and easily by picking off easy player targets. Since they're powerful enough, they don't need to consider approaching other players so much to join their group. It would be too much of a risk to their own group to chance encounters with others. Sometimes the player on player action is completely out of desperation, sometimes the murders are done by players completely for fun or to be assholes, but I would argue that most murders are done for a quick and easy survival fix - it's not completely necessary, but is more convenient than alternative means of survival. To explain, a player can be presented with a situation like so: You are in the woods at night with a friend and enough supplies to survive for a short while, but you're not desperate. You know that it is a long way to get to any towns, however, and it would be a pain to go loot them at this hour. You come across another survivor who is hanging out right next to his campfire, an easy target at night. Your options are something like this: You can be friendly with the guy, inviting him to trade or join your group, hoping that he is safe and that maybe he has some extra supplies to help you out. If he joins you, then you can reap long-term benefits. You can be neutral and avoid him, betting that he could be dangerous/desperate/a hindrance and the risk of approaching him doesn't seem worth it, nor does killing him and possibly alerting any zombies or hostile players. You can be hostile yourself, murdering and/or robbing him, knowing well that you will need the supplies in the future and getting them from town can be a gamble, so getting a quick fix now and easily is very tempting. Going the hostile route is probably so common because of how convenient it is. Most of the time you don't need to add more players to your group, since surviving the zombies and environment as of now, is pretty easy without more than two or three people, and a quick fix is all you and your group need. This is where the changes to zombies come in. If the environment was more dangerous to players, like with zombies spawning everywhere, gunshots alerting them from further, etc. Then perhaps more people would choose the friendly or neutral routes. Friendly, because it's a lot easier to handle a more widespread and dangerous zombie horde with more group members. Neutral, because risking gunshots can mean certain doom to those involved - especially at night and in the middle of a forest infested by zombies, like this situation.

Why didn't he just wait and evade the players? It was night time, so he wouldn't be easy for them to spot if he was patient. That's too bad that he gave up on an opportunity like that, but I guess that style didn't really suit him, it is a pretty thrilling way to start. Is he going to log back in and get to somewhere safe?

Thank you, Panzerfaust, my thoughts exactly. It's good to see that Rocket wants the same thing out of the game that I do, however I find it unfortunate that the bandit system is even in place. It does not represent what the player has chosen to do, but rather tells everyone what the player has done. If the bandit model/other models were put in place as a simple menu choice that players can make, then it would actually somewhat reflect their style without automatically alerting whoever sees them about what their attitude is. This, instead of the current humanity system, which gives players a predisposition toward bandit-modeled players, as if you can somehow know how many people someone has killed or their intentions by how they look. Real human emotions come out in the mod from having no idea about what the other person's intentions are, except from what you've observed by their actions. The bandit system is counterproductive when it comes to bringing out real emotion from players.

Oh wow, check out how fast the bandit population blew up. It went from a hundred or so to most of the community in just a few days! Extant, your explanation of why the system is broken is right on with what we're all thinking, but I don't think your idea for a new system would be all that effective. It's probably best for no system to exist at all. That way, each player goes back to treating everyone else the same, based on what they actually observe, rather than having a predisposition based on what the magical nametag or player model tells them.

Or, better yet, disable all chat that isn't direct until people find radios.

The issue really needs to stop being treated like the game is an MMORPG. Although I can see the comparison with EvE in that you have huge risk/reward, the games should not be treated the same way. The difference is that adding anti-PvP mechanics like we're playing an MMORPG and not a simulator will not benefit the mod. and will take way from the organic nature of the gameplay that makes it so great.

Casey, you have an odd classification system for realism in games. Why bother putting the "unrealistic" in front? Does it just represent the fact that it's still a video game and not real life? Wouldn't making a game more realistic be the same as making it more "unrealistic realistic" - whatever that means? Regarding third-person view, I preferred having the option to use it (is it turned off on all servers now?). I'm not at all against using third-person in a mod like this, but it is perfectly possible to function without it and most of the time I prefer first person both for immersion and for its advantages.

From the sound of it, many of you aren't quite used to Arma yet. By the way, the third-person view being off is a server setting to "expert." Basically, it is a more realistic and immersive gameplay setting that varies from server to server.

Even if the humanity system wasn't so bugged, or it had perfect self-defense detection, it would still simply be creating a PvP faction, and make even more people want to go around killing each-other - as you can see displayed in this thread.

Anyone can get a car, they just have to try hard enough. Also epic reddit memes bro xDDDDD

The risk of encountering other players is the thing that keeps this mod alive and made it so popular. It's not "teamkilling", we aren't playing Left 4 Dead, it's survival. Sometimes you benefit most from grouping up with a person you come across, but sometimes they may seem too dangerous to even go near. Other times you want to kill them. Either out of greed, or desperation. Tip: Smart people don't often want to group up with those dumb enough run around out in the open or stand right in the middle of a light source at night. (Hopefully a new zombie spawn system makes these people more cautious, since they obviously aren't learning from people it seems) This is the only realistic zombie/survival simulator out there and it doesn't need to be monitored by magical anti-PvP systems. In real life you don't need to be in designated areas or worry about your magical humanity score changing when you decide to do something. Naturally the game already supports risks and consequences for every decision you make.

Hopefully everyone reads this thread. The tips may be extremely obvious to anyone with some sense of survival, but you'd be surprised how many people just get caught out in the open and killed/robbed and then complain about the game's PvP being broken.

Haha, yeah. I think I'll make a suggestion/fix thread of my own pretty soon.