Katana67

So, the point was that it's plausible. By being fiction alone, it is plausible. Using pure real-world circumstance doesn't help. Not to mention the possible circumstances applied in said fiction. Who's to say that NATO didn't play a role in the outbreak? That and Marines have used Magpul items before, much of it being (or previous to the dispute over PMAGs) up to the individual Marine and/or unit commander. Anything goes with MARSOC or FORECON as well.

Chernarus, a fictional country. Gives creative license. Zombie apocalypse, a fictional occurance. Also gives creative license. USMC, the western intervention force which was present in the canon of Chernarus in ARMA II. Uses AR-15's. Takistan, neighboring country to Chernarus also was the subject of a western intervention. Chernarus, based on the Czech Republic. The military of which uses a variety of Russian/Soviet and NATO/Western weapons. Assault rifles, not god's gift to man. Point being, by virtue of it being fiction alone the presence of NATO/Western weaponry is plausible. Nevermind that, in said fiction, the presence of these weapons is explained. Furthermore, you cannot purely apply real-world circumstance to dictate what is "right" in the game.

I mean, they haven't even capitalized "Standalone" in "standalone general discussion". /OCDrage I think they just wanted to get a simple forum set up for release, they weren't really concerned with it being 100% efficient. Now is the time to do that with the flood of feedback.

It's a problem of people generalizing about KoS. Rocket has expressed a marked interest in adding weight/consequence to KoS. That's what'll happen in the development cycle of the Standalone. He hasn't even come close to dismissing it entirely, but as it stood in the Mod, it was a consequence-less system. It is an issue, but not an issue of "Will we have it or not?"

It's more than just bugs though, general discussion is too (general! :D) broad to be used for suggestions/feedback. If anything, it'd just give the devs that extra partition to look at things which are (supposedly) suggestions/feedback. Rather than now, you have all that mixed in with the oozing stew of personal accounts/rants.

Sort of up to the people posting on said forums, rather than the divisions themselves.

Which sounds like a problem with unreasonable people and not anything to do with the processes of an Alpha or problems of DayZ. I don't like server-hopping because of the detrimental affect it has on the game. I couldn't care less about people's personal motivations for doing so. I care about the flaws in the system.

Glad to hear you all plan on addressing it. Solid.

I half-agree, haha. The first sentence I don't agree with, it's a problem which has to be addressed (sooner or later). Pretending it doesn't exist won't help. The second, meh, I'm not sure confining inquiry to the immediate needs of the developers is helpful. We have to consider all of the problems facing the game, not only the ones which are immediately relevant. The third, completely agree with.

Not a fan of the interface/inventory. Just seems like a legitimate version of the "debug" window. It sort of short-changes the potential for organic experience, rather than just relying on numbers and stats. The inventory looks bad, though. I'm sorry, but they've got a perfectly good character model to show off the clothing items. Why then put a redundant window with each individual article of clothing over that character who's ALREADY wearing said items of clothing?

Sure, but it's also (by implication in fixing said bugs) to add wholesome content. It's not entirely about bug fixing, but about fixing said bugs in order to establish/add sound mechanics into the game. The OP places a priority on such things, which is unnecessary in my opinion. But the problem itself needs to be addressed at some point, and now's as good a time as any to discuss it. It is a problem, the fact that we're in a testing phase doesn't change that.

Agreed on all points. I tend to take a more hard-line stance against this, simply because the act of being able to switch servers at all and have the same character/gear completely undermines many of the systems in the game for me. Timers are a horrible solution in my opinion. It shouldn't be about making server-swapping difficult/tedious to do but it should be about adding consequence and/or punishment to the player for doing so. If we're going to keep persistent characters, the system has to be amended and changed. It cannot be simply made "more difficult" to server-swap. For example. If they implement a 30 minute lock-out timer for server-swapping. I see a player-constructed base with players in it. I switch servers and have to wait 30 minutes. I log back in inside the perimeter of the base. It's still possible and the problems are still there, it just takes longer (which would probably be beneficial as there's a higher chance of said players having logged off anyhow). Resetting positions or server-specific characters are the way to go. Lock-out timers don't solve the problem.

Meh, it's kind of getting tiresome though. Plus I don't get that self-satisfaction of knowing that everyone reads my posts as I did in the "Round-Up" threads. That's just my own ego talkin', but it sort of plays into the sense I get of "pissing into the wind" in terms of futility in commenting on everything. I expected the release to bring the clusterfuck back to the forums (this thread is not that), but I didn't really expect people to still be so silly about the Alpha. They really need a dedicated "Feedback/Suggestions" forum, rather than just a clusterfuck "General Discussion" forum.

A lock-out timer still allows for loot farming, it just would take longer. I don't really like the idea of a lock-out timer. The only viable solutions that I've seen (through long debate) are as follows (in order of my personal preference)... 1. Lock the characters down to the server. No more persistent characters. It undercuts far too many systems to be further accommodated/worked around. 2. Upon switching servers, have all gear (or certain high-value gear) disappear entirely. Stats (such as kills, blood, etc.) are persistent. 3. Upon switching servers, the player's position is reset to the coast. Every time. 4. Make tents (whenever storage is implemented) disappear on a server swap. The only problems I see are servers which fall out of favor and/or become outdated. The former would be less likely i everyone was forced to play on one server at a time. The latter seems to be a non-issue with the ease of updating to a new version of the game. In my opinion, having persistent characters completely cheapens major systems of the game. Including loot, any possible construction/storage mechanic, and vehicles. Likewise, it cheapens the experience in combat where one constantly is unsure of what happened (i.e. Did that player combat-log? Did I get killed because he server hopped? Hacks? Lag? Bug?) Granted, it's Alpha and I don't foresee this problem being addressed anytime soon. But it will have to be addressed one way or the other.

Sure, but I'm saying that it's not as much of a hard duality between "people who offer feedback" versus "mindless fanboys who dismiss all critique because it's Alpha". There are people who offer feedback in an idiotic and libelist manner, and there are people who offer feedback that is well-reasoned. Likewise, there are "fanboys" (whatever the hell that means) that use Alpha as a shield against critique, and there are those who readily welcome feedback. There are idiots everywhere, so trying to fit them into irrelevant categories and label people with generalities doesn't really advance an understanding of what's going on.

The problem is that very few people actually know how to properly give critique, illustrate problems, and just generally behave with civility. Most of the people experiencing "backlash" for highlighting problems with the Alpha, from so-called "fanboys", are expressing themselves in a profoundly inflammatory manner. Very few people can highlight a problem without assigning blame or somehow being inflammatory. Crude Example... Player 1 - "The zombies don't work! Dean lied to us!" Player 2 - "The zombies don't work! Devs look into X, Y, Z to fix them!" Player 1 - "Devs! Hacks already happening! WTF? You promised it'd be gone!" Player 2 - "Devs, I've seen some possible evidence of hacking. What is the status of this? /readsthestatementproducedbyRocket" It's very simple, Player 1 just had to not say the last bit in the first example in order to remain non-inflammatory. But, so goes the internetz. Developers are on top of things it seems, I don't really care what the post-release rabble has to say. That and I agree that the Alpha is not above critique simply because it's WIP.

+1 New people /rolleyes

Server swapping affects more than just combat logging and using it to gain a tactical advantage. I couldn't care less about ALT-F4. It hampers much of the loot system (being able to farm loot on empty servers and then transport it to whatever server you wish). It also affects any server dependent systems (like construction, storage, etc.) It also cheapens many of the more nebulous things that make DayZ great. Example - "Oh, there's a doctor in the Elektro hospital on US 4450, let's log out there on CA 65 and kill him/her when we log in". Or, "I heard there's a crazy man with a hatchet underneath the bridge at Vybor on US 4450, lets not go to that server... or let's log out there and camp the spot with LMGs".

I'd love some sort of system simulating terminal ballistics in the human body. That said, I think we can do okay with the simple damage model we've got now. It's just that it needs to be tweaked and reworked, just like everything else. Of course, I was merely suggesting that we've got a relatively simple damage model currently. So, the cries of "OHK = realistic" don't really apply, as much more than that factors in. Likewise, that terminal ballistics aren't accurately portrayed in any other way than the very nebulous "damage", which is a problem in my mind. For example, in the mod, the M16 does 3300 blood per hit whereas the FAL does something closer to 8000. So, it's a bit silly (from a standpoint of the current paradigm) to dismiss all notions of balance/tweaking (ironically) and just have all weapons be relatively the same.

For me, it's much more than making the process difficult to initiate. It's about making it difficult to live once you've done it. The immediate tactical exploits of server swapping don't concern me as much as the larger implications for loot distribution and a lack of consequence. That, and in my opinion, you can't have a wholesome construction/storage mechanic and keep cross-server characters.

I've had plenty of spirited debates on this subject in the few weeks before release. I'd rather them just lock characters down to the server. Server hopping absolutely undercuts everything in my opinion, even in areas which you wouldn't expect. That or reset the character's position on server swaps to the coast. Or, only carry the stats of the character and not the gear.

Not sure about overall models, but they said they were working on different hair.

Yep, as others have said they're in that big plaza which the supermarket used to overlook. Don't forget to check out the two-story police station next to them as well, great loot in there. Again, not sure I'm cool with the added barracks (and continued endorsement of highly-centralized, high-guarantee military loot in barracks).

This is where I think there is a piece missing from your argument, which I get and to an extent sympathize with. You cannot/they have not yet simulated any of these things that we're describing. Your argument is hinging on a scenario, whereas mine is hinging upon mere ballistics and the current simplistic damage paradigm. There are no internal organs, there are no detailed ballistics properties, there are no fragmentation models, none of these factors are simulated in DayZ. We have a very simplistic and traditional damage model, whereby round X takes away Y amount of blood if it impacts Z body part. There is no in-depth and "realistic" simulation of how a round actually impacts the body and the damage that it causes to the organs, which would thus result in a fatality. There's not even a "rate of blood loss" simulated, which would be a very simple way of demonstrating the increased lethality of certain rounds. Until that arises, we're going to have to deal with the simple damage model we've got now. Which, inherent in its flaws, requires balancing. I think we're both on the same page that when you shoot a player, they should die. I've never really had trouble killing folks in DayZ, and I really like unforgiving damage models. But it's still not that simple even in a realistic scenario. Take your comparison between .22 LR and .50 BMG. I reject the assertion that they both have the same level of lethality. A .50 BMG round would blow off a limb, or a chunk of flesh causing severe bleeding regardless of where it hits. .22 LR would probably get lodged inside of you somewhere, and would cause a minimal amount of damage in terms of cavitation (which doesn't mean that it's not lethal at all, it merely imparts far less less energy on the target). Hell, the round could be wholly deformed by one of your bones (as the majority of .22 LR rounds have un-jacketed lead bullets). It doesn't carry anywhere the same kinetic energy as a .50 BMG, and thus inflicts less damage on the target. There's a reason why .50 BMG is used to take out cars and .22 LR is not. People used to get arrows lodged in their chests in the Middle Ages and survive with moderate (and often poor) medical treatment. Granted, that's a different example. But by virtue of rounds having different ballistic profiles, they have a gradient level of lethality. Regardless, there is no medical/body/internal organ backbone to support such a mechanic as you're describing. Now, I can appreciate the argument that, in a survival situation, if you get shot you're probably going to die no matter what happens. It makes sense. But that shouldn't be simulated by having the person die outright. It should be simulated by the person attempting to heal his/her wounds in-game, if he/she escapes and/or kills the other player, with a marginal amount of success. There's a logical gap inherent in the approach you're advocating. Likewise, you're short-changing any possible medical mechanic that may have been intended for trauma wounds in DayZ. Ultimately, it's a question of reconciling DayZ's emphasis on "realism" with prudent simulations of realistic scenarios, as well as the current damage paradigm.

Okay, so there's an issue people are missing. Regardless of whether the "military/high-end" loot is spread out, it's still based upon highly-centralized locations (i.e. barracks). I've found more barracks than I can shake a stick at in the Standalone. Therein lies the problem. They've spread the loot out yes, but they've added to its availability by including more barracks. Rather than removing the explicit guarantee of high-end military loot at the barracks, in favor of a "higher-chance of military loot at barracks", they've just kept barracks as the main spawner of military loot. Now, I've found some military loot (i.e. weapon flashlights) in residential buildings and I've found an M4 in an office. Which is good, and a step in the right direction. I'd much prefer the loot to actually be spread out (i.e. distributed) across the map, so that even residential houses have a minute chance of spawning mild military loot. Barracks/tents should be places where military loot is likely, but not wholly guaranteed to have spawned.