Lady Kyrah

Any mechanic that is so easy to manipulate by players, is not worth having. That's all I'm gonna say.

Isn't this a newtonian dynamic diagram? If it is, it's correct.

Precisely, sticks and stones. So far 99% of the suggestions for new items are "fallen of the truck" survival and it makes me sick how unimaginative people are. In a survival setting you would try to be resourceful, taking an item that might not work or that you might not need and turning it in something useful is a valuable survival skill. It doesn't have to be all the way to unrealistic mcGyvering but still, you can make due without relying on sporting goods store or care packages.

then people will stuff their backpacks with junk, same as in neverwinter nights, people would stuff their inventory with pebbles because they could carry a shitload of them and thieves would have 99% chances of getting a pebble, instead of something of value

They are missions you set to yourself, just do that in the game?

That's probably why it works this way. You shouldn't be able to skirt around the system by doing this kind of thing.

No you don't understand, the way secondlife is setup is as a huge shared world with multiple "land owners" the reason i gave up the project was that i could not prevent land owners to use their administrative rights to bend my game rules into whatever they saw fit. They may not be able to modify the game i created, but they still have control in the end due to administrative powers. And to a degree that's exactly what those "join and be banned" servers do. Example: they could remain in control of the base they host indefinitely by kicking/banning everyone who would try to challenge their ownership of the base, or by setting the land around the base to "group members only" preventing any other player to try the capture. And in the event of a capture, they could just delete the base in a "if i can't have it my way, neither will you". This is a bit of the same with server owners, you can have any rules you want that they have to abid to, at the end of the day they can still do anything they want, because they can always "flip the switch".

There was a trick used in some old game for this, you could forage in an area and when you did the server would place record where you used the foraging function and it would deny anyone to forage in a radius around that point. Each point had a timestamp attached to it that would tell the server when to clean it up.

I'm gonna give you an example of a game prototype i wanted to setup in SecondLife but ultimately gave up. It was a tribes kind of game but instead of using a fixed map i would provide a devkit for whoever wanted to host a base and they could plop it down on their terrain in sl if they wanted and it would be added to the global territory control map. The reason i gave up on it was because of the conflict of interest between players and terrain owners. I simply couldn't ensure that a terrain owner would play fair. Between ban lists, automated security scripts and restricted access, there was just too many ways for a terrain owner to advantage his own faction. And you have this on pretty much every persistent game structures. It's just too damn tempting to setup the situation so it's all really designed to cater to the home team.

Well you have two sides, creative control and modding community, the devs will have to pick one. Frankly the reason i keep coming back is that dayZ has something strange and unique going on,i don't want to see it modified, adapted to "suit other people's needs" and turning into a mere shadow of itself. And yes, the way other people play matter to me :)

Considering the devs don't get a cut from rental i don't think they exactly give a damn whether people rent servers or not to be honest. I've said it before we only need enough servers to soak the peak amount of players, and you'll certainly find enough people willing to do this. We don't "need" people whose ambition is to run their own little world/mod/rpg on top of DayZ.

Server hopping is a direct byproduct of metagaming "how can we get as much loot as we can with as little exposure to other players as we can" People who rent servers need to get into their thick skulls that at no point do they ever "own" the server they rent.

Well i'll just disagree there. I think devs have a right to steer players toward what is the expected play experience. Server hopping in DayZ is clearly not part of the expected experience.

Something that takes a while for players to accept in DayZ is very simple. You are not a hero (or anti hero), nobody is in this game. You are literally the filler cast of an evolving story. Only a few players will ever get to live anything that resemble an "heroic adventure".

You mean the CCP that had numerous staff members part of BoB?

While i agree with you, I'm a graphist and i can tell you that every display is different, from the shittiest to the most expensive, all of them need some degree of calibration to display colors properly. Saying that, it doesn't mean that you need that option to be accessible during a play session, as long as you can adjust it at some point.

Well as has been stated before time and time again there is no such thing as private servers in DayZ.

Sigh... locks only keep honest people out.

Well understandably the devs do not wish to release the server binaries publicly so that's the best way they can still allow people to fund servers. I completely understand if the dev team want to remain in control. Curbing cheats was the argument presented in the mod before and we all saw what it led to.

Ummm nooo?

How about a noose?

too small, unreadable.

It's called meta :)

I sincerly don't think the game will evolve to a point where you can just "go pickup your buddies" and basically make distances irrelevant.

Mentalities do not change overnight. And we have a lot of cleaning to do on our own doorstep before we can even begin to pretend to have the moral high ground. As for tolerating them or not, well what do you want to do? Invade their country? Arrest their leaders and try them under rules they where never bound to? and then expect the people to just take your own flawed value system as their own? It doesn't work that way. What good is your "superior value system" if you have to force feed it to them?