WhiteTigerShiro

That's 100% subjective. Plenty of people get geared-up just fine without needing to go into Cherno or Electro. Isn't that true of pretty much every game ever? In short, stop preaching to Rocket as though you speak for the entire 600k unique players who play the game.

It's a very slight bit better than people who will server-hop during a battle to run to a better position to flank the opposing side. The only saving grace is that it's completely circumstantial, and it isn't like your friends are going to NOT warn you about people being close to your spawn location. I'd say it's something of a wash, over-all; so long as you aren't specifically planning for it, of course.

The difference being that the devs are okay with people using Teamspeak/Vent/etc, but have specifically said that disconnecting from a server to avoid dying is an exploit.

So wait... it's the victim's fault that KoS has gone up because they shoot you for digging through their backpack?

That's the idea. If you spawned with a way to kill zombies, it would encourage an "I'm supposed to kill zombies" mindset. The goal of the game is just survival, so by spawning with nothing, it gives the "Being able to kill is a luxury" mindset. By forcing you to play without weapons before you find them, it teaches you to sneak around zombies, and only kill then when you really need to. There will never be PvE zones, nor PvE servers. PvP is a big part of what Day Z is about. Rocket himself (the creator of the mod) has stated that having to worry about other players is the biggest part of what puts any tension in this game, since zombie AI will be able to be worked around (no matter how perfect it might get).

It sure is. And it's also a place where people are free to nay-say any idea they don't like. Seriously, I love how people respond to criticism towards their ideas with some kinda "But this is the suggestions forum", like that somehow invalidates the point of the person who negated their idea. And even when this game is finalized, the developers will STILL have better things to do with their time than to help inflate your ego. So if you can present a piece of evidence that explains how this is a valid issue to work on beyond a few people having a dick-waving contest, then by all means let's see it. Just don't tell me what forum this is again, because I know what links I clicked on.

The developers have enough on their plate without worrying about helping to inflate your ego. If getting the "high score" is so important, then just get out of the truck and shoot them.

You know, I love how one minute people are crying that there's not enough incentive to group with other players (even though there is), then the next minute someone comes along and gripes that we need to remove incentives to group-up with other people. Being able to loot your own corpse is just meta-gaming; and being in a group that can guard or loot your corpse so you can get your gear back is just part of the advantage to having (or making) friends to play with.

After a bit of time with it, I say spawning without a weapon is for the best. It helps to emphasize that survival is a key part of the game. When spawning with a gun, a player it more likely to just open fire on any zombie they find. When spawning without a gun, it forces the player to think "Okay, so I might not always have a weapon, gotta learn how to play around that." So a player spawning with a gun (or even a melee weapon) is going to learn bad habits, where the player without a gun is going to learn that he needs to know how to sneak around zombies.

I guess that since millions of people download pirated video games, it must be okay. Is that how things work in your world? Next time I get pulled over, I'm gonna say "It's okay officer, everyone speeds, so it isn't really illegal".

See, it works like this. You just defeated yourself. I don't even need the rest of your post (though there's so much gold in there I can't help but mine it). The simple fact that you had to so blatantly misinterpret the situation is mere proof of the fact that you know it's an exploitative looting technique. Why else would you need to that kind of misdirection unless you knew that you were in the wrong? If you honestly felt that loot piling was legitimate, you'd just explain your point without the need to try and twist my words into something else. Tell me about it. ;P Seriously though? There's no need for that kind of talk. If you feel it's legitimate, then just defend your point. Between the misdirection and blunt insults, you're kind of defeating your own point. Why the need for insults unless you're trying to distract me from the main discussion? And why try to distract me unless you know you're in the wrong? The difference is intent; which is all the difference that's needed when discussing exploit vs legit. And I don't even need to go into detail on the intent because you already know the intent based on how rashly defensive you got in the above two posts.Edit: Also, I love how you bring-up the supposed "risk" in loot piling without bothering to explain how it puts you at any more risk than doing anything in this game. No, I call it an exploit because, as stated by someone a couple posts above yours, "If you don't want to loot cycle you don't have to, but you will probably have shit gear." That is the very definition of game-breaking. When a single tactic turns into "Use it or lose to it", it needs to be fixed. Also, again with the needless insults. You really need to work on your poker face. If you want to defend a clear exploit, go for it; but at least try and make it look like you feel it's legit.

You do realize that the poll specifically said "After pathing is fixed", right? ;P Walking in buildings is not intended. I don't know the specifics of it, but it's a glitch with the engine or something. In any case, the zeds will eventually move at full speed inside buildings.

The noise would be interesting mechanic. Makes it so that wearing a ghillie suit 24/7 after finding it is a bad idea. While raiding cities you'd have to switch to Civ or Camo clothing so the zeds don't hear you. As for the temp, I don't think there's any in-game downside for getting too hot, so that wouldn't do anything right now.

This game couldn't even begin to be playable with a controller. This isn't even a Mouse vs Analog Stick thing, there's just too many controls to have to bind to so few buttons.

Semantic bullshit. Zombie, zed, shambler, walker, etc, etc, etc. The origin doesn't change what it is, they're all zombies regardless of whether they're undead or infected.

Because that's a classy way to reply to people who disagree with your opinion. You need to broaden your horizons a little. Not every zombie is the living dead. Case in point: Day Z. This is the same reason that dead survivors don't get up as zombies when they die, because the zombies in this game need all their vitals intact just as much as a non-infected person.

Not really. Right now you're paying for alpha access. Besides, it's possible the game will be free to play. Or at least, Rocket has expressed an interest in it.

I love how all the PvP whiners think that you have to gut and butcher a person to pull a can of baked beans from his backpack.

Well, if it helps you sleep at night, you're technically testing simply by playing. A part of why Rocket put the alpha to public testing was to see how the servers would handle the load.

Just because you're unable to offer an unbiased opinion doesn't mean an entire fanbase is unable to. I've asked for opinions on a game on its own forum plenty of times to "so so" replies, and objectively made points on why I might or might not like it.

That depends on your tolerance for bugs. Day Z is in Alpha testing right now, which means new things getting added and bugginess aplenty. It's also worth mention that getting the game running takes a bit of doing the first time around (once you figure it out it's easy, though). Over-all it's a great game, just very unpolished since it's very far from being complete.

And this is baaaaaaaaaaaad. And no, not in the "It's okay because it's balancing" way. In the "This has to get fixed or people will just stop playing" way. Take Diablo 3, for example. Every time anyone found an exploitative way to farm loot in a safer and more efficient way, but was more boring, people would gripe about how "Apparently this is how we're supposed to play" because it was the fastest way to gear-up. It undermined the way the way the game was supposed to be played, and people who felt obligated to do so quickly got tired of it and just stopped playing. Meanwhile the exploiters who were getting gear the easy way were excelling. The more efficient loot piling is seen to be, the more that people will get burned-out by how the way you're "supposed" to play Day Z is to just sit in one place camping a loot spawn. People who don't loot pile will quickly get aggrivated when they play the game properly because they're always getting sniped by people who "probably got their gear by loot piling", and people who grudgingly give-in and start loot piling will just stop playing because they don't like how a boring exploit is the only way to play the game. Before long, the game will degrade to the point of everyone in a server just camping the good loot spawns, with the occassional newer player stumbling upon them and getting killed right away. See, the Pro side likes to talk-up the risks of loot piling like it's a legimite balancer, but that's just it. If loot piling was as risky as you guys like to hype, people wouldn't be doing it. They'd say "Screw this, it isn't worth the risk, I'll just look for loot somewhere else". But they don't think that. And why? Because loot piling, while risky, is less risky than going from point-to-point to look for loot. Loot piling is no more risky than being logged into the game in the first place. Being in Day Z is risky. That's just how the game is. The only thing that doesn't have any risk attached to it is exiting the game, but even that has the associative risk of having to log back into the game without knowing if someone will be right there.

Hiya. I bought Arma 2 just for Day Z, too. I still want to see the game ported over to Arma 3. Why? Because what's good for the game is better than what's good for a single selfish twat who would rather see the game held back for his own good than to be moved onto greener pastures where it can be better refined. You do realize that laying down a bottle (traditionally) is what you do after you've emptied it, right? Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but it just sounds like you tried telling him to drink in order to save money. xP

Agreed x10. It amazes me how often developers will leave things out of the patch notes because they felt it was "too minor to be worth mention" despite all the times that people have complained about a change they noticed that wasn't mentioned in the patch notes because the developer felt it was too minor to be worth mention.

Tell that to all the families who have had a loved one murdered, and the killer go un-found.