Katana67

So does not having seasons. The implication here is that time passes (in-game) as you play, but it really doesn't outside of a 24 hour cycle. It's a finite map unfortunately. I know literally nothing about corn, but I assume that there's some sort of natural growth that can occur without human intervention (hence why cornfields themselves can get overgrown and hence why corn is a plant). Plus, I doubt many people would be like "Oh damn! This cornfield shouldn't be here! Immersion! NUUUUUU". You'd have to be pretty well in-tune with corn cultivation (i.e. the entire population of the midwest US, so you could have a point there :P) to see this as immersion breaking.

I speak for myself in the post which I made under the name "Katana67".

I'd love to see cornfields. And ones like this, not the sparse sunflower gardens we've got now. Thick swaths of corn in which one could actually hide/get lost/lose zombies. This along with more pervasive underbrush in forests should be a top goal of the terrain designers. I could care less about cities in the north, I want my Chernarus to stay rural. Although, I don't necessarily mind if there's more urban areas, I just want the wilderness to remain wild.

But the issue isn't whether we should -demand- regular information or not. It's that people are demanding it when we -already- have a ton of information, and that people's definitions of "regular" are unreasonable (or just subjective).

Still no address to the potential lack of "wilderness" in the game (specifically in the north) now that they're putting settlements up there.

When did the PR of a game become mentioned in the same thread of legitimacy as whether or not the game itself will be good? I remember when "hype" was only used to promote boxing matches! It wasn't used as some sort of vague qualifier (used by imbeciles) for whether or not a game will be good or not. If the developers "hype" their game up, people will say "Oh my god! This game was all hype and didn't deliver". If the developers are silent, people will say that "Why aren't we getting information? This game is going to fall flat because nobody cares about it". What bearing, in all honesty, does the information we receive PRIOR to release have on the quality of the game or the release itself? I'll answer that, none. Yeah, it's a bummer that we're not receiving a ton of information at this particular juncture. Yes, other developers communicate with their community. They also let down their community as well, just like everyone else. So what? People place ENTIRELY too much importance on pre-release information. And, surprise, it's not like we don't know what we're getting. We've had a year's worth of information and a relatively consistent level of contact with the developers. Remember the devblogs? Those exist and are still there for your viewing/reading pleasure! Remember the treasure trove of information provided by Rocket on Reddit (which, for the record, only really petered out a month ago)? Remember that whole DayZDaily thing that we're posting on a thread about? That still exists...

Have more of a hard-on for Rocket.

Console release imminent #conspiracytheories

I know what you should say...

*takes one look at the pile of cash* So... you're telling me we can make it rain, in DayZ? Eeeeeeexcellent...

If DayZ were to release now, I would drop BF4/GTA V in a heartbeat. Not to mention that a human being can play more than one video game at a time. That, and anyone who's buying BF4 for current-gen is wasting money, even if it's only ten bucks. Waiting for next-gen. No matter what people say, whenever SA is released, all those "naysaying", "disinterested", and "all my friends are tired of waiting for Dean to get his act together" people are going to come flocking back in a second and the community will be a shitstorm anyhow.

Like I said, I'd rather rely on stealth to avoid problems in the first place. I have no doubt it'd be more -convenient- for me to use melee weapons, but that's just not how I like to play.

I won't, trust me. Not because it'll be more significant in-game, though. If I have to rush someone just to hit them, I'd rather just not attack or lose them entirely if they've seen me. Not to mention I hate endorsing Romero-esque melee weapon tropes, I like my firearms no matter how rare they are. :D

I'd just love to know what was tackled in the so-called "Sprint". Was it zombies? Melee (which I could give a shit about)? Release dates don't matter to me as much as just knowing what's going on. But, as long as they're truckin' ahead, I'm content.

/facepalm

So, my off-color joke was entirely correct, if live-action shots count as #DayZDaily, why not Walking Dead episodes?! Muahahaha. Can I has game now?

Do new Walking Dead episodes count as DayZ news? I saw some player farms! Confirmed! /tease

Still think we need to talk about player housing though... B)

A few issues with this... One, I cited testimony from a well-known former SFOD-D operator (Paul Howe) who mused in Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down about how the 5.56x45 NATO rounds they were using were ineffective and required multiple hits to bring Somali OPFOR down. So, it certainly isn't unheard of. Bear in mind, that this is an intermediate assault rifle cartridge with a much higher velocity and energy than the 9x18 Makarov round fired by the Makarov PM. If a basic search is conducted, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that one can still continue to engage targets after being shot. It's based on a number of things, not just "I shot you in where it hurts, therefore you should be down". There are a ton of competing factors to dictate the overall "damage". Two, simply because ammo (in general) will be rarer in SA, doesn't mean that the same level of rarity will apply across the board. Pistol ammo may not, and probably won't, be as rare as assault rifle ammo. Five shots? Probably a bit much, sure. But it's not as black and white as you are making it seem.

I was saying that I think the damage is fine where it is (with a few exceptions), but that the damage in itself is merely one symptom of a larger problem. On a personal note, I wouldn't necessarily -mind- if damage was higher. But I think it's fine the way it is now.

The "Enter" key is strong with this one...

On the ground? Maybe? Depending on where they're hit. I don't think it should be a given though. I tend to take the middle ground approach, where gunshots should drop folks... but also should leave room for error. Take the current debate on whether 5.56x45 NATO is a round worth keeping. Sure, the tales out of Somalia in the 90s by Delta (Paul Howe specifically) suggest that 5.56x45 is basically a needle zipping through targets, allowing them to continue the fight without putting a few more rounds into them. I tend to believe the general gist of these stories, but caveat them as more anecdotal than anything, and see them as marginally exaggerated. 5.56x45 is a great round, which kills people, I'm not sure that the problem is so severe that it warrants dismissing it entirely. This situation is analogous to DayZ. Certainly people should drop when shot in places which are critical, generally the torso and the head. But consider that not all hits are straight on, some glance, some have to travel through more tissue, individuals have different tolerances, certain rounds cavitate differently inside the body, etc. Not only that, but the onus of "surprise" is already high enough. Rarely does one get to fight back in DayZ, having to bandage mid-fight is certainly a hindrance to that, and getting knocked unconscious is cumbersome at best. Because of this, I tend to think that the damage in DayZ is acceptable (with pistols and shotguns being slight exceptions). But the circumstances surrounding combat in DayZ mask what would otherwise be a solid combat mechanic. The presence of graphical exploits, a lack of dynamic cover in the woods, a readily available supply of high-powered weapons with optics, a readily available supply of ammunition, all contribute moreso than damage to what some consider to be a flawed or broken system. EDIT - This seems like an appropriate place to discuss random issues. Rather than the typical "when's it coming out?", and "GRRR I HATE ROCKET" posts. Seems more healthy to debate different aspects of the game at hand. EDIT 2 - I also think, that, yes... if someone is shot, at the very least the place where they were shot should be marginally disabled. Meaning, if I shoot a player in the arm he/she should be less accurate. If I shoot a player in the leg he/she should be less mobile.

I will reiterate, there's a spectrum between constructive feedback, taking a critical viewpoint, griping, complaining, bitching, and being inflammatory. People are allowed to disagree with you, labeling them as "fanboys", simply because they're defending something puts you on the "inflammatory" end of things. So, I'm not sure why you're expecting a more measured reaction, when your viewpoint is profoundly un-measured. As an aside, this forum used to be a bastion of feasting upon tears. When did we all go soft?

Then stopped doing so in June when it was made clear to all of us that development of the network bubble was no longer an indicator of release. And that every time he made a vague prediction, people took it as hard fact, so he stopped making predictions.

Do... do... you not remember him apologizing vehemently? Intricately giving his reasons for doing so, and then promising never to make the same mistakes again? When "predictions" are made, he's a dirty liar. When no information is given, he's neglecting his community. I now see why we have insane asylums.