Tek (DayZ)

I can handle the hate that comes at me. That doesn't bother me. It's the holier than though attitude that permeates these people who think KOS is bad and not how the game was "meant to be played" that gets me. I play as I want and I don't begrudge anyone elses game play. But people begrudge my game play because they "think" there way is better or more "fulfilling" somehow... whatever the heck there reasoning is supposed to mean.

Oh a "TRUE" bandit would do something this way, or that way, or... Mr. High and Almighty, never shoot someone if they could just rob them? This thread is a joke. As someone mentioned in a post speaking with Razor, people will play how they want to play. That is the nature of sandbox games that give you the freedom to make your choices on your gameplay. Just because you don't like someone elses style of play does not mean it is a/the wrong way to play this game. The object is to survive...nothing more, nothing less. If I survive by shooting your face off, then I survived and you didn't. The "holy grace by jesus almighty i'm better than you because I don't KOS or play bandit" is so insanely retarded that it just makes you closed minded about this whole "fun" factor. Play the game how you want! That is the beauty of this game! Don't want to KOS, don't do it. Don't want to be a Bandit, don't do it. Have fun! I don't begrudge anyone for playing a hero's role. But because I play a KOS bandit i'm begrudged because I somehow ruined your gameplay. Guess what, you didn't survive, I did. The end. Better luck with your next games life since you.... get to respawn!

How the game was meant? Nothing personal, but I call bullshit. The game is meant to be played however the player sees fit to play the game. It's open world sandbox mechanics gives the player the freedom to do as they see fit. I have yet to come across any in game mechanics/rules that dictate how the game is "meant" to be played. How you THINK the game is meant to be played is far different then how I think the game is meant to be played. That's the beauty of this game, play as you see fit with no restrictions other then what the game deems. And frankly, there are none. Well, you can't jump, but that's a hard code law within the game. If I feel like hunting down people at an airport, I will do so because the game lets me do so. If I don't feel like hunting people down at the airport then I won't. Not because you think that's how the game should be, but because I chose not to and decided to do something else. You're arbitrary rule set does nothing but hinder a game. You're red scarf wearing viewpoint does nothing but make you look small and insignificant because you can't survive in the reality of how the game is "meant" to be played. That is however a player chooses to play the game. If they want to shoot you dead they have that choice. If they want to let you live, they have that choice. The way the game is meant to be played is to survive... from everything! And yes, that includes other players. If you can't, well, that's not that other players problem, that is yours.

This thread is asking if the way people play in this game will translate over to real life? Seriously? This is a video game. It has no bearing on real life. How someone acts in this game does not mean that is how they are going to act in real life. No one will ever know how they are going to react in a situation until they are put in that situation. That is why the military trains so much, so that when you do get put in the situations you're trained for your actions will be driven by all the training you did. People not trained may lock up, may turn into a hero, may turn into a coward and run away. Know one knows until it happens. Video game =/= to real life.

I am all for playing with in the mechanics of the game, but server hopping was a dick move. And I don't throw that out there lightly. Your post is given two thumbs down.

That is the stupidest thing i've read in a long time. COD/BF are completely different games with completely different playstyles, that require a different approach both mentally, tactically, and strategically. I played COD for a long time and was pretty good at it. Not the best, but I held a pretty high K/D. While that game is fast paced and reaction oriented DayZ is slow paced position oriented. Your decisions about setup and movement get you killed, not because someone is slow at a traditional FPS game. If I played COD like I played this game I would get slaughtered. If I played DayZ like I played COD I would get slaughtered.

Hey, if you want to RP your dayZ life of being robbed, go ahead. I'm not stopping you. All I stated was that I cannot understand that mentality in this game. Me fighting back in no way detracts from the game experience. Me not wanting to "converse" with someone to rob them in no way detracts from my game experience. It does not make it less challenging. All you're doing is making yourself look like a high-society elitist snob thumbing your nose at anyone who doesn't live by your standard. So have all the fun you want RP'ing getting robbed. I'm going to have fun playing the game the way I want to.

I don't understand the "getting robbed" mentality either. In this video game setting I would never let anyone rob me. I've had people try to, telling me to lower my gun, but never succeed. If you are robbed in this game you're left with nothing. If you're killed (by zombies or players) you're left with nothing. If I let someone rob me I am guaranteed to be left with nothing. If I resist then I have a chance to keep my stuff, and in absolute best case scenario even upgrade. Why anyone would let themselves be robbed is baffling to me on many fronts. I play a bandit role in this game, and I rob people all the time however. But I make sure that they cannot walk away or log off when I rob them of their gear. I do that by shooting them, and then putting one in the head when I get close (regardless if I hear flies or not). This ensures I get to rob the person in this video game.

Limited loot does not lead to more cooperation. It leads to less cooperation, as I explained. What you speak of happens with groups of players who trust each other and are willing to work towards the objectives of the group as a whole. Less resources being shared between two random people are a recipe for disaster. If I am searching for supplies I am in dire need of, and come across another player I do not know who is also looking for supplies, what do you think think is going to happen? Us pairing up is not going to magically make us have more supplies. It is going to put more strain on the supplies/resources we currently have. If I break my leg is that random person going to give me his hard sought after morphine? Or is he going to save it for himself? A clan member is going to gladly give up his morphine, because he knows I would gladly do the same for him, because we are working towards the groups goal. Someone who is out for himself is not just going to give up his supplies. With this encounter you have four possible outcomes. 1) Both parties meet, and form a team. Great! They can survive together and scrounge for the same amount of loot that would be available to the both of them if they were single (there would not suddenly be more loot available, that is bad logic). 2) One person wants to be friendly, but the other guy wants what the friendly guy has. Does take a rocket scientist to figure out that one of these people is going to be shot by the other. 3) They both try to take each other out because they both want the others resources. 4) They both run away to survive and loot another day in peace. Out of those scenario's, you have a 25% chance of teaming up. Then you have the problem of spreading your resources thin because they are so hard to find. That is where a balance needs to be found. But this game is based on survival. It does not represent real life. There would be more cooperation in a real life apocalypse, but there would also be groups that take what they want by force. It's called Anarchy and Chaos, and with no repercussions from breaking laws, people will do what they must to survive. Every fight does not come out to the ideal outcome. But for me, and how I play and approach situations, I will always try to put myself in the best possible position to have the best advantage to give myself the best chance at that ideal outcome. People running out of ammunition is not painting a picture of a very sound engagement from both sides. Sounds like very poor shooting by both sides. I think I explained above why low loot does not equal cooperation.

The funny thing is, with loot (in any form) becoming harder to come by, it puts more emphasis on shooting other people to take whatever loot they had. It becomes harder to group up with random strangers because the little bit of loot that you have may not be enough for two+ people if it's barely enough for yourself. And speaking from a bandit mentality (I do stalk on sight and shoot when the opportunity is there), it becomes far easier to take loot from someone who just left a town than risking your life in said town. See someone in town, wait till he leaves town, stalk, and pounce. Loot is now mine with no effort. I didn't have to risk infection, less chance of having to bandage (unless I made a mistake in the stalk) so less bandages used. Less bullets used to ward off zombies. Etc etc etc.

I feel the need to post my opinion because I have watched in other games where people proposed ridiculous idea's that would change the way the game is played that the devs then changed because they "thought" that is what the majority wanted, without looking at the consequences it would have on the game. Subsequently those games went on a death spiral after that because it changed the concept and design on what was supposed to happen within the game.

I think this is a different debate all together. I view dayZ as a game, because it does not simulate real life. I view a simulator as being something that would replicate real things. Flight simulators, for example, let you fly with all the characteristics that flying would entail. Arma2 would be a simulator due to it replicating battlefield tactics. DayZ on the other had is about a zombie take over, which is not realistic. There for the mod has become a game due to the nature of the environment the game takes place in. Plus simulators, while can be fun, are meant to teach, and let people learn. This mod has people that are playing for fun... and to a certain extent not learning (my opinion) what it takes to survive in this environment due to all the crying about KoS and PvP and DM references. To me this game is not about a zombie apoc, but a survival game set within a zombie apoc. Survival from anything and everyone. But at the base of this survival aspect is the means to find fun and enjoyment. And people are going to do that by playing with friends, on TS or any other VOIP program. Realism does have differing degrees. However, since i've explained my stance on why I think this mod is a game and not a sim, I am a firm believer that you cannot have realism just for the sake of realism. There has to be an ability to play the game. People being told they cannot use TS is a realistic feature that is just not attainable for a variety of reasons. Right now I only have a set period of maybe 1-2 hours to play the game per day. So when I get in game, I want to meet up with my buddies and run around doing god knows what. Does not mean I am going to be able to due to distance, equipping, or another of other things. But I don't want to get on and wonder, "Where are my buddies?" and then hope I stumble across them. I am going to get on TS, ask what server they are on, then where they are on the map. Then i'm going to determine if I can join up with them. If yes, then we're going to go PvP, loot, fix vehicles, or whatever it is we feel like doing. And if we PvP, we are definitely using TS (whether we die or not) to help us communicate and execute our tactics to the best of our ability. If this were a simulation then it would take a lot longer to fix vehicles, heal, even run across the map, much less put a long rifle inside a backpack with containers of ammo, and then run like you had nothing. This is a game.

This whole discussion, subject, issue, debate, is pointless and useless. There is NO WAY to enforce such a policy. And there is NO REASON why I should not be allowed to talk with my friends playing this game (whether they are in the game or not). Any form of trying to prevent third party VOIP is a form of censorship and will end badly for all parties involved. To the people who think that third party VOIP programs break realism, if you want realism, go out in the real world and play games. Paint-ball, hunting, fishing, camping, target-shooting. You cannot get more real than that. For a game, realism is great, but only to a certain point. After a certain point, realism starts affecting game-play ability. You want realism in this game, then repairing vehicles and choppers will take you DAYS/MONTHS to fix. Healing from a gun shot will take MONTHS to heal properly (not to mention a broken bone). So please. STOP THINKING that this would be good for the game and let this non-issue die.

Why would I worry about that? I had nothing to lose hence no reason to be disappointed.

So because you can see the zombie not in range, yet knocks you down, makes the bug irrelevent? Let me say this again. It does not matter if you are in 1st or 3rd person. A zombie knocking you down from out of the zombies hittable range is the real problem. It does not matter what view you are in. The bug is there. Stop making this about type of view when it has no affect on the real problem.

This has nothing to do with a player playing in 3rd person... it does not matter if a person is in 3rd or not 3rd. And 3rd person is an irrelevent discussion.

Having a high field of view has the potential to be detrimental to your survival. Having wide expanses to scan increases the amount of area and angles that you can be seen from. And while each area is situationally different to each other, I always try to have an area I want to watch, and then limit the amount of area I can be seen from. For example, if i'm sniping from inside a building, I stand as far back from the window as possible while still being able to see the area I need to cover. If in the wilderness, I try be between two tree's, or rocks, to help shield from the sides, and rear if possible. If none of those options are available, I will tuck up under a tree, or crouch in front of a tree. Silhouette's are your worst enemy when trying to not be seen. If on a hill with no cover, I will try to not be at the very top so that I am not silhouetted. If you didn't fire a shot, then something else is giving your position away. Either you're not concealing yourself properly, or your entry is being noticed. It's not always just being concealed in a spot. It's also getting into that spot in as sneaky a way possible. Are you setting off some zombies? If you're in a building, you'll have zombies wondering around outside, so if someone is coming into town and notices the zombies are not in a "just spawned" state, then they will know that someone else is around and may seek you out. What area are you setting up in? I don't want you to tell me your hidey holes, but if you're setting up in high-traffic area's, then people taking you out may know that the area you set up in are likely sniper spots. It could be that they were sneaking through the tree's looking for an unsuspecting sniper (sniper hunting). I generally don't brag, but while I have bad days, and do get taken out, I am pretty highly successful in my PvP in both sniping, medium-range combat, and CQC. You have to learn to have eyes in the back of your head. One simple tip that I suggest is to try to use your alt button to free look all the time. Running from spot to spot... creeping or crawling. Even when you're stationary under a tree, use your free look. It doesn't move your whole body, so the you have less movement when you're looking around. And that can be a huge factor on being seen or not seen.

There is a huge difference between people changing the design/vision of a game and fixing bugs. Crying and forcing change how something was designed in a game because someone does not like it is what I was talking about with that particular statement. Zombies are bugged, they weren't designed to warp through walls.

You know what this game REALLY is? A SURVIVAL game in... oh my... a Zombie apocalypse. You have to survive from.... well... zombies... yourself... your environment... and.... *gasp*... PLAYERS! Who would have thought? I know, I know... it's too much to take in right now, the fact that you have to survive from other players. You know... the ones who want to steal your guns, your beans, your can of mountain dew. Just so that they can survive in this survival game set in a zombie infested world. If all we had to do was survive from zombies, and not other players, then the ONLY weapon you would need is a hatchet. That's it... end of story. You would not need any other weapon to defend yourself. If this was just about surviving zombies, then why even have guns? Why even let us shoot at each other for that matter? It's a survival game. From zombies to players, to rain giving you hypothermia, to infections, to broken bones. Survival from peoples own stupidity.

You have a problem with your logic. Being that zombies are terribly bugged due to the mod/engine, it is ILLOGICAL to increase the difficulty to a point that makes the game unplayable. When you get hit from extreme distances by zombies, have zombies warp on you (and through buildings), agro for no apparent reason, have such a random path to you as to make tracking difficult, you have a problem that is compounded by increase in difficulty. Part of the difficulty now is dealing with the buggy nature of zombies. My answers in red to your bullet points. I find the aggro argument particularly funny. You used to be able to fart in a Zombie's direction and lose him. Now it actually takes some thinking and persistence. It still requires thinking, planning, and patience in everything you do to avoid zombies AND players. You have guns, use them. Overcome your fear of players and use the guns that you just spent the last hour trying to aquire. Stick and move. And let everyone and their mother know you're near by? Including zombies? I only shoot when required, and I try to keep it down to a minimum. If you fire a few shots off on one side of town, by the time you circle around to the other side of town it will be nice and quiet. Unless you have a silenced weapon, you'll just have a line of zombies following you to the other side of town. How long does it take to get to lvl 60 in a game like WoW? Are the forums filled with posts where people whine about not having the time it takes to get to lv 60, so please reduce the amount of time it takes to get to lvl 60? This isn't a quick fix popcap game you play while you have dinner cooking in the oven. It's a grinding, time waster type of game like an MMO. If you don't have the time, it's not the game for you. WoW is the wrong game to compare this with. WoW dumbed down MMO's to the point of making MMO's damm near irrelevent. A lot of you are playing the game for the wrong reasons. The responses to 1.7.7 and the constant modding of the mod in private hives leads me to believe that a lot of you are playing the game in an attempt to be part of the "In" crowd. Wrong reasons? Really? And you have the right to tell people the reason they are supposed to play? I play this game because I enjoy it. I play for a variety of reasons, the foremost being to have fun. If you play this game strictly to kill other players, you are playing the worst, most boring, and slowest deathmatch ever made. Why? Why? Because I feel like it? Because this game is an open world sandbox game where twitch skills do not reign supreme as they do in COD and BF. In this game it is about your decisions, tactical savvy, ability to out think your opponent, positioning, recognition of advantages and disadvantages, ability to execute your plan to ensure success. I have to use all my senses and instincts in this game to be successful, where in COD/BF I just have to have the best system with best reflexes. They can only infect you if they get within arms reach. And yet, bugged zombies hit you from beyond arms reach. Maybe they broke through the stucco and drywall? For people wanting realism, do you think this is realistic? For them to just bust through this stuff using their arms, legs, and head? I don't see them carrying sledgehammers around. No one ever complains about the bugs that make things easier. I'm on a hay bail, I'm king of the world! I'm all for bug fixes, of any kind. If they found a way to fix the buggy zombies in the mod then I would be ok with increasing the difficulty to a much higher point. Notice how many bad stories start with; We went to Cherno/Elektro and..... You know the expression, don't feed the troll? It means don't keep using the bridge and keep giving it your money. Stop using the bridge and the troll goes away to find another bridge. By the vary nature of Chernarus, Elektro/Cherno are magnets. However, in my opinion, you need player interaction to make the game thrive. Whether that be friendly, neutral, or hostile interactions, just the fact that there is interaction is what helps add depth to the game. However, Chernarus forces that interaction to take place in small area. That's why I like Panthera and Lingor so much. The interaction is spread around the map. I don't crawl around and take it slow and I still survive. Might be because I shoot zombies, might not. Probably is. I don't go slow through towns either. Because I know the threat is going to be other players, rather than zombies, regardless of difficulty. I go as fast as I can through towns, while trying to aggro as little as possible. Even in SA, the greatest threat will still be another player. Why? Because the human mind will always be greater than a programmed AI. It's still too easy. I'd like to see infection be more like a 10 min countdown. You got 10 minutes to find the cure before it takes hold, no slowing, no blood drain. Save the last bullet for yourself. This whole idea of community game development needs to stop. It will never work. Take an EA sports game for example, you can no longer expect to be playing the same game 3 months after release. Sometimes from week to week even. They release game, get a wave of complainers, make a change to appease the complainers, new wave of complaints, new changes. It's an endless cycle and you never know what game you're going to be playing any more. Developers need to have a vision, stick to and deliver that vision, and then let the players decide if they like it or not. Period. I partly agree with this. There have been a lot of games that I enjoyed when they came out, but due to the incessant crying by carebears and crybabies, the games were nerfed into oblivion. SWG and POTBS for example (MMO's) If devs would stick to their vision and designs, things would go better. But it's this attitude of "have to cater to the crybabies so they don't leave" that hurts them more in the long run. However, in this game, since it is a mod, there needs to be some input, at the very least just constructive criticism that the devs can digest. Looks like all the whining worked, as we now have 1.7.7.1 - return of the pathetically feeble zeds. You can now go back to sitting down in the middle of an aggro'd hoard for some tea and crumpets, get up and run off to go heal yourself. No worries. Maybe if the zombies weren't bugged from the outset of the mod, the difficulties could be increased to your liking without worry about zombies magically hitting you from 10m away through walls.

They get all the blame as far as I am concerned. People know this game now. They know what to expect. Someone getting shot is NEVER the fault of the shooter that was intending to shoot that person. The blame lies solely on the person who was shot. He made a mistake somewhere and paid the price. Whether it's by a tactical mistake, ignorance, or being naive makes no difference.

Oh really?? I play it how ever I feel like playing it. Who are you to say who's playing it right/wrong when it's a sandbox game that allows people the freedom and choice to play as they see fit? Great answer! Except for one problem... the mod. Zombies are a buggy mess. When you can get hit from zombies through walls, or zombies warping through buildings, or hit you mysteriously from 5m+ away, or any number of other buggy messes, how does one AVOID getting hit? Move slower you said? Ok... you go crawl through town slower than a snail crossing a road and we'll see if you survive from anyone who happens a long that town and starts glassing it. Or the fact that sometimes, no matter how slow you go, you draw aggro. There is adapting, and then there is point where no amount of adapting will help. When zombies are already bugged to shit, why would the developers make them over-the-top difficult? It makes no sense. I don't mind difficulty from the environment, however, when I get hit from a zombie that warped through the wall and then subsequently knocked the fuck out, I tell myself it's only a game. But at some point the game has to be PLAYABLE. You can't just increase difficulties when those you want more difficult are buggy as shit. It's faulty logic. But thanks for your attempts at being the end-all-be all authority figure on how I (and everyone else) are supposed to play the game.

More crying about badits KOS? Robbing people might be a viable option if people didn't have the ability to combat log, or log off in general when they're being robbed. It's a futile endevour and always makes me laugh at people who think that is how bandits are supposed to play the game. I will play the game however I want. Although, you could say I rob people all the time, except I make sure they're laying face down on the ground with a bullet in their skull.

I don't understand... you shot him in the chest because you don't bother with headshots, and then are surprised/upset that he alt-f4'd? Alt-f4'ing is the worst of the worst people can do in this game (outside of hacking). But you have a viable means to prevent that person from surviving and alt-f4'ing out. I almost always go for a headshot when sniping. One shot one kill. Certain situations will dictate other shot placements, (broken legs anyone?). Even a makarov will kill with a shot to the head. Generally though if I have a SMG like the MP5, i'll fire a 3-round burst at the persons legs and then run right or left of them and then pop em in the head.

This is the wrong path to take in this game. It's ironic that in a game that has permadeath, people would be upset over being killed in one shot. That says a lot more about the people doing the crying about the 1-shot kills from these .50's. I used the .50's when I found them, but really enjoyed the challenge more using the M24 & M40A3. Getting headshots with those for those (gasp, 1-hit kills) quick kills were a lot more satisfying. Where I came to enjoy the .50's is hunting choppers with them. Nothing like catching a chopper landing or hover, and putting a couple into the rotor and watching everyone flail to the ground. The people that complained about the .50's 1-shotting them are going to be the same people who will still get sniped (whether it's 1-3 hits does not matter). They will get sniped and cry because they do not realize (stupidity? Ignorance?) how important TACTICS are in this game. The approach to utilize cover. The movement to not be an easy shot. Not zig zagging when going through an open space. SIMPLE things people should have learned in this world of DayZ where you have to ASSUME there is a sniper. A sniper has an easy shot on a target that is stationary. Stationary for too long allows the bullet time to get there. Moving targets require lead, require anticipation, and luck. On an 800m shot where there is a time difference between shooting and impact, a little zig one direction in that instance and the sniper misses his shot. But these people who cried about the .50's do not do these simple things. They do not LEARN from their mistakes. They EXPECT survival. Heck they expect that just because they are a fresh spawn that they are EXEMPT from being killed by another player. These same people will eventually move to the next biggest "perceived" threat. DMR? NVG? Rangefinder? M4's? Other sniper rifles? It does not matter WHAT kills them. The only thing that matters to them is that they were killed. So they want that weapon removed or reduced. They will start crying about something else and want it removed/fixed. Knee-jerk reactions to imaginary problems.