WhiteTigerShiro

Yeah, a fix like that is kinda what I was thinking, too. Something that would make loot piling a wasted effort because it'll take the same amount of time for the loot to respawn whether you do it or not. Doesn't fix the issue of people camping a single area when they should feel encouraged to move around and explore to find stuff, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

An exploit is when you take advantage of in-game mechanics to play the game in a way that was not intended. Sometimes it's through a bug, sometimes it's through a system that the developer didn't foresee I highly doubt that Rocket intended for people to just camp one area and leave large piles of junk next to a loot spawn so that we could wait for something good to maybe appear. In fact, the last sentence of your post is exactly what known exploiters tend to say to try and defend themselves; "Well I'm just doing what the game lets me do". Um... no. You aren't allowed to selectively decide when breaking realism is and isn't okay just to suit your own playstyle. So we aren't allowed to "travel through dimensions", but performing a ritual that just magically causes stuff to spawn is a-okay because it's something that you do. Right. It's a derivative of the word "Broken". Like "pwned" and "zomg", "borke" is a common typo that's been adopted as an actual word. Just because there are cons to it doesn't make it not an exploit. And a fix is already in the game, it's called scavenging one place, then moving-on to another place to scavenge. The only fix that's needed, if any fix is needed, is loot respawning at all when the same player is in the area. This isn't World of Warcraft, so players shouldn't be camping a single spawn for a chance at loot.

I would say "Yes", because you're taking advantage of the way that loot piles will respawn only when cleaned-out. That said, I'm not Rocket, so I'm just pitching-in my 2 cents on the issue.

Skip to about 21:00, when the one player digs in the other's bag for some ammo. They even comment on how his heartbeat is gonna mess with them attempting to be nice for once. Not sure what it takes to get the heartbeat, but I've heard people comment about how it's too easy to regain humanity when you've been murdering; so I dunno. Edit: Oh neat, and it auto-embedded from just the link. Loving the new forum set-up. :)

This is already implemented. If someone is shooting at you, they aren't friendly. If they aren't shooting at you, they are friendly (for now).

Not sure how often you go out at night, but a Full Moon is BRIGHT. Seriously, there have been nights where you'd almost think it's still daytime were it not midnight.

Except that it doesn't NEED to be more known. The devs know about it, that's all there is to it. It's not like this post is going to give them a sudden revelation that they need to work on something that they're already working on. Heck, that's why it's still in Alpha; because the devs already know that shit like that needs to get fixed.

Just give it a couple weeks, you'll barely even remember the old look. Believe me, I've been a member of enough forums to see format changes all the time. It's always looks like shit at first, but then you just kinda get used to it.

*Yawn* So I see that everyone is still intently ignoring my point about this idea destroying game balance.

Game is nearly unplayable until zed aggro is fixed. Earlier today I was sneaking through a town, when I look down the road to see a zed coming at me... "Fine", I figure "I have a crossbow, I'll just take him down quietly and-" then about 5 or 6 more come around the corner, all charging straight at me. Then there was the time I was proning through a field of zeds. Tricky, but nothing I hadn't done before. Just a matter of paying attention and knowing where is safe and where- suddenly a zed turns around, TURNS AROUND, mind you, and charges fill tilt at me. A zed that was a fair distance away, mind you. I've been closer to zeds who are facing me while moving around prone without them aggroing, and this guy just suddenly turns around and charges me. Esc -> Respawn. It was a brand new life, nothing worth the hassle of shaking zed aggro. I mean, sure, if I had messed-up and a zed spotted me that'd be one thing, but no point in trying to shake-off probably about 10 zeds that were in that field due to buggy AI. I'm all for making the zeds harder to sneak around, but there's a fine line between "gotta be careful" and "gotta not bother at all". Game isn't quite unplayable in this state, but it's pretty damn close with the way that there's no sneaking around zeds anymore.

The first option wouldn't work, since the zeds in this game aren't the walking dead, they're living but infected humans. So if their arm was broken in such a way that they could stab at you with the exposed bone, they'd bleed-out and die from the wound. And I believe that Rocket has said that he won't be adding any special zombies ever, anyway.

Except that this isn't an MMO; it's a game that's focused around it's PvP. Adding-in the option for PvE servers would be like if Nintendo released a Super Mario game that disabled jumping (heck, even the RPG had some platforming in it).

That's why smart players use SD as a side-arm for a longer-range weapon. I've seen plenty of vids on YouTube where people are stalking a potential kill, and any zeds they needed to kill along the way were with the SD to prevent from giving their presence away.

No one has ever died from "not killing enough". That's almost as stupid as the OP's idea that bandits should just start bleeding for no reason.

Sadly, the thing they don't realize though is that bandits are already less than 20% of the people who play the game; and despite being such a minority, they make-up over 40% of deaths. So less than a quarter of the player base, and there's nearly a 50/50 chance that they're the ones dying when you see the "So-and-so has died" message. If anything, we need to buff banditry. ;P

And the biggest key to the survival part of the game is the other players. The zombie AI is terrible; and even if it was perfect' date=' it'd still be easy to work around. The [i']only reason that there's any threat to your survival in Day Z is because of the PvP aspect.

A flawed counter for two reasons: 1) That's part of the idea. Rather than killing people for no reason because they're bored' date=' this would encourage the idea of killing people because you actually need their loot. I don't know about you, but I feel a little better knowing someone killed me for the sake of his survival than because he's bored and spending his surplus ammo. 2) But at the same time, maybe you'll figure there's less chance of him having ammo [i']because it's harder to find now.

Day Z is specifically about the player interaction. Whether that interaction be friendly or not is 100% dependent on the player. I could dig around a bit for the exact quote, but basically this game is designed around the fact that you can always learn how to out-smart an AI, but you can't always outsmart a player who's capable of adopting new strategies on the fly.

I'm sorry, but you can't just stamp "It's realistic/unrealistic" on your suggestion and it automatically gets approved. If you don't want people to take your car, find a better hiding spot for it, that or recruit people for your group so that it can have more surveillance and thus be less likely to be stolen. In short, it isn't Rocket's job to safeguard your vehicles, it's your job. (( Also, how does a key system solve people who'll just shoot-up the car since they can't steal it? ))

This game is about PvP. I'm sorry if you came here expecting that everyone would join at the arms and skip down the streets singing "We're Off To See The Wizard", but at no point during the planning of this game was it ever not meant to have a lot of PvP.

So you want Rocket et al to waste their time on some pointless tag that marks you as an Alpha player so that you can have bragging rights towards some dipshits you'll never meet and probably only talk to once in your life via some internet forums? No.

I'm sorry, but if you're proposing that bandits just arbitrarily start bleeding for no reason, then your grasp of the concept of this game is so far-gone that you shouldn't be making suggestions for it. At least the other PvP whiners pretend to know what the game is about and try to disguise their ideas as something that seems plausible.

Alive Characters: 367' date='501 Bandits Alive: 67,750 Tell me, why should I bother reading the rest of your idea when it's based on a premise that is demonstrably false through stats posted on [b']this very website? This is pretty much what I was wondering as well after reading the first post. To get it into even more detail, while the Bandits are outnumbered big time, they also die far more often. Wait what? Yes, they die far more often. While almost 20% (18.44%) of the living characters are bandits, over 40% (43.15%) of the deaths in this game were bandits. This is likely to be caused by bandits engaging into fire fights & risk-heavy areas more often. Nerfing the smallest number of players that dies the most often is a bit of a double nerf, no? OMG you are fucking awesome! I think that player deaths (IE: whether you were marked as a Bandit or not) should be listed on the front page as well. Help give us more ammo against the PvP whiners (not that we need ammo, since Rocket and the dev team are smarter than to give-in to them). Still, as ammo or not, it'd be interesting to watch the percentage change as more or less bandits die. But yeah, I'd say that if there's a split of about 40/60 on bandits vs non-bandits dying, then balance is pretty well on. Especially when you consider that people spawn-hopping sways the survivor deaths a bit (makes me wonder if you guys track that?).