jafit

Commonly found in barns.

Vanilla Arma 2 CO comes with lite versions of the BAF and PMC expansions which includes low-res skins and weapons of the units and equipment in those expansions. If you want high-rez textures then you have to buy the full expansion. I don't know which clothing you're referring to so I can't help you decide which one to get. The clothing looks fine to me.

I'd say it is. You're bypassing the restrictions of limited/shitty resources and spawns. The idea is that if you hit that barn and there's nothing worthwhile in there, you'll have to go find another barn. Why bother walking when you can just slide into another server where the same barn might have better spawns? It's simply meta-gaming around ingame restrictions, and that's cheating.

Haven't seen a thread about this yet. Please move or merge as/if appropriate.

Maybe you should go to the BIS forums and bitch about your problems with Arma2 there, where people who can do something about it might actually read your self-entitled petulant whining. I mean who wouldn't want to bend over backwards to please someone who has played a zombie mod for a few days and found some problems with their very long established niche military simulator game.

When you see people asking whether an item is hacked or not, you have to start questioning whether or not said item should be in the game at all.

It's okay, thanks to preserving our character across all servers, we can simply meta-game around any intended game mechanics and restrictions. Why bother finding a toolbox, you could just server-hop to a world where these obstacles don't exist?

I'd prefer it were an MMO, single unsharded world, or us/eu servers, very big map. That way you can actually have persistent character inventory without having to worry about the metagaming that is possible with having so many servers Monthly subscription. Independently developed because I think that a big studio will be too tempted to turn it into hello kitty zombie adventure, scaling back the hardcore PvP in favor of pleasing anti PvP whiners

Date: Today and Yesterday Version: v1.7.1.5 Server: happens on different servers, last server I was on was UK8 System Specs: Pretty old What happen: Due to some encounters with zombies I am down to around 4,000 blood, and I can only see the world in monochrome. I have devoured the cooked flesh animals and many cans of beans and pasta in order to replenish my blood and have gotten it up to where I can see colour again 3 times, but when I log off and log on again I'm back down to my lowest level of just over 4,000 blood. I currently have a Ghilie suit equipped, I had low blood at the time that I put it on, and when I put it on there was a fair amount of teleporting involved. With the low blood and alll, changing clothes was a very spiritual experience. I also duplicated myself and saw myself running down the road. Perhaps it keeps reverting because of that?

Yeah the problem with building things and locking down towns, is that players can just meta-game around any ingame fortifications you build, by simply server-hopping to a server where these obsticals don't exist, and then hopping back in when you're inside the boundaries. Another reason why cross-server inventory and location preservation is a mistake

Disregard guns, you want a hatchet. You can run through a town looting as much as you want while silently dispatching any zombies that cross your path without drawing agro from a hoard. It's kind of ridiculous. As for guns you just need to know where to look. I started off on the western edge of the coast, which is nice because there are tons of deer stands around there which regularly have guns in them. Though I hit about 5 of them and most of them only had a pick-and-mix selection of random ammunition. It was a pain in the ass not having a gun, but I eventually found an M16 in one of them. I also can't seem to go into a barn without finding one of those friggin crossbows. It's nice that they're silent, and I'd use them if only the ammo didn't take up so much space.

Instead of a DMR and a ton of ammo you get APCs and an F-35

Being able to carry items and retain your ingame location across different servers is causing a lot of gameplay problems by allowing players to meta-game around intended ingame checks and balances. It has effectively turned DayZ into some kind of weird 5 dimensional game where if you can't get around a problem in your current world, you can slide into an alternate universe where the problem doesn't exist anymore. This applies to everything. You can bypass shitty spawns when scavanging for basic supplies or for high end gear. You don't have to deal with other players or zombie agro if you can just server-hop to where they aren't after you anymore. I also think it limits PvP greatly in that it's too easy to disappear into the aether of hundreds of other servers, so rivalries between different groups of players won't really emerge. A player should be invested into their game in one world/server. If you join a new server you should start on the coast with nothing and only retain your progress within that one server. By keeping your gear and location across multiple servers it seems like DayZ is trying to be a bit of an MMO without actually having the right infrastructure to support it.

I'm sorry but global persistence is the major draw of this game and what separates it from a lot of other gaming experiences. Is the system currently easily exploitable? Yep. Is it a problem? Sure. That being said you don't just trash an idea because the end user is using it in a bastardized manner. The onus is on Rocket to try and work a solution that will at least dull the effects of the problems at hand, and I'm willing to give him all the time he needs. Your solution is far too drastic and kills the spirit of what's been built here. You could think of all kinds of contrived gameplay systems and mechanics to try to mitigate the abuse caused by the exploitation of a meta-gaming tactic, but they can have unforseen consequences and open up new avenues for abuse and griefing. I think it's so much simpler and healthier to simply close the loophole altogether. But how about a compromise: Make cross-server characters a local server option. Servers that allow a global/multi-server character are the same as the servers we have now. Servers that don't allow global characters make you start a new character without affecting your global/multi-server character. This is making sure of course that there are clear indications on the server selection screen as to which kind of server you're joining

I think that the concerns about lag and unreliability from servers are unreasonable given the inherent buggy nature of the game and mod. - You can break your legs by closing a door. - You can instantly die for no reason by walking on rocks or rubble. - You can be spawned inside of a hill or out in the middle of the ocean for no reason. - You can log onto a server and find yourself up in a tree, which you promptly fall out of and die. (happened to me once) - You can lose your weapon and all your ammo if you try to put it directly into your pack instead of putting it on the ground first. - Zombies can glitch through closed doors and other obstacles - You can even accidentally hit the 'respawn' button instead of the 'options' button in the menu - You can drive a car over an object like a bike and explode into a firey deathball - You can try to swim across a body of water and lose all of your equipment. - A patch could, at any time, make a certain aspect of the game harder and you could starve or be eaten by zombies, as happened in the last few patches where zombies could see you through walls and food became very scarce. And of course there's one of the problems we have currently which stems from server-hopping which is: - You can get killed and lose all of your progress to a bored server-hopping endgamer with a DMR and NVGs which he got by meta-gaming around the limitations of a single instance of the game. Now lets go through some of the problems with a player being tied to a single-server: - A Server could be unreliable or laggy: This means a temporary loss of access to your progress, not nearly as bad as anything listed above, because being forced to start again on another server while you wait for it to be fixed isn't as bad as losing all your stuff forever. If a server is constantly unreliable then you probably aren't going to acquire much progress worth losing anyway - Admin drama: You have to find another server and start again because the admins are dicks and abuse their power. No worse than being killed by anything listed above. But at least admins can't abuse their power to duplicate items and then go ruin a bunch of other servers. So I still don't really see a valid case for having cross-server inventory and locations.

Progress towards what? What is this promised land that you are on a pilgrimage to? In DayZ it is not the destination, it's the journey... mostly because there is no destination in DayZ.

I do think that DayZ suffers from being slit across so many different instances, or servers. PvP is limited somewhat to chance encounters and targets of opportunity. You can server hop to escape problems and obstacles in one server and just continue playing rather than trying to work together to overcome the obstacle. Plus due to a player's ability to just disappear into the aether, it's harder to have any real lasting rivalries emerge between players or groups of players. So while I do enjoy DayZ PvP, it's far from being the best PvP game ever.

I agree that it is a problem, and I think it's caused simply by those endgame players having nothing better to do with their gear. But being a newly spawned with nothing but a flashlight and a bandage, that's not what you described in your other post, you said you spend 3 hours collecting stuff and you get shot, well surely you have something worth taking after 3 hours? Are you saying you can't accept being killed by other players for any reason? What's the difference between being killed by players and being killed by zombies? I will say that it does suck to get shot in the back without even getting a chance, but that's just the nature of the game. Engagements in vanilla Arma and even a lot of other FPS games are like that a lot of the time.

Why are you playing the game then? Wasn't that 3 hours fun? Wasn't the process of gathering that 'loot' fun? Or are you grinding through the tedious process of scavanging and evading zombies with the hopes of finally reaching some kind of fun promised land after you've finally amassed enough gear? Because spoiler: There is no endgame in DayZ, it's pretty boring and repetitive if you aren't struggling to survive. If the process is fun then what does it matter if you died? You could have died to zombies at any time, you still had 3 hours of fun. If it's the latter and you hope to encounter fun at some undefined point in the future, then maybe you should lose interest in DayZ because you're not doing it right.

I think that the op is right in trying to reduce the amount of name-calling that could happen in a debate such as this, however I tihnk he should remove the offending names from the thread title. I think it's a good idea to avoid namecalling because it overly simplifies the issues, and a lot of nuances are lost. For example off the top of my head here are 5 different scenarios where someone might 'shoot first'. --- A player is being chased by zombies, bumps into you as he runs around a corner, panics and unloads his handgun into your chest before being swarmed by zombies and dying of blood loss. - Excellent, DayZ is working perfectly. A player sees you, you are pointing a gun at him, he perceives you as a threat and he shoots you before you shoot him. - I think that this is a perfectly valid and sensible course of action. A player sees you but you don't see him, you are trying to scavenge for supplies, he shoots you to take the supplies from you that he needs to survive. -It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, I think this is valid. A player who befriends you, accepts your help and shoots you in the back for fun and to generate tears. - Some men just want to watch the world burn. I think these kinds of players make things more interesting, in small numbers. A well equipped player killing newly spawned players on the coast who are not a threat and have no way to fight back - I think that this is the only problem scenario. It's shitty behavior, but I think it's a sign of boredom. These players have won the game of survival and don't need to spend their time searching for their next meal. The endgame consists of nothing else for players but aimlessly gather the best gear, then use it on the less well equipped. This is a problem rooted in boredom, caused by the game, the game which can theoretically be fixed. --- So if you were to label anyone who shoots first as a 12 year old mountain dew addled COD and Halo playing scumbag, then it's not really very constructive, and it glosses over a lot of nuances in player behavior. Even if you don't use name-calling, lumping all bandits in with bored endgamers as Virfortis did in his previous post is still glossing over a lot of valid game tactics.