Katana67

Constructable player settlements or player-secured zones. That is what the end-game should be. Not safe zones mind you. But, say I wanted to go to Petrovka... wayyyy up North, clear it out, and start my own settlement. I should be able to do so. Things like concrete walls, guard towers, enterable tents, underground bunkers like Rocket has alluded to, player-placed wells, should all be available to the player to secure a location. Likewise, if I just want to plop down in the middle of the Wilderness and make my own fortress, I should be able to. Player-enforced rules inside the fortress for conduct, stuff like that.

If I had a dollar for every time someone complained about people telling them this is an alpha, without that person having the intelligence to realize that they're just wrong... I'd be a very rich man.

I don't think zombies should have super-human vision, relatively speaking. They should have reasonable vision but shouldn't be able to spot you from that far off regularly. Personally, I haven't had this happen. I've been standing in a field, in front of three zombies 30m away multiple times in searching deer stands and no aggro in 1.7.2. However, that being said, the pathing and zombie movement REALLY needs to be worked on before anything like spot distance and aggro should be touched. I understand that it might be a flaw of the engine, but it doesn't excuse it as an existing problem that should be looked in to.

The advantage you have is leverage, which is a bullshit phrase to begin with... likely why you don't have a better word to describe it. The way you exploit it to your benefit, is skill. You need to go back to the 18th century, might be more befitting of your idea of aggressive action. Expecting people to engage you in equal circumstances is a really.... truly... idiotic assumption. You seem pretty mad to me there champ, no worries though, this forum looooves it.

You lost your life due to being vulnerable in Stary, someone exploited that vulnerability and killed you. Exploitation of a situation to benefit oneself is skill. I figured that was self-explanatory. Shouldn't have to wave at you in the middle of an open field for a Western-style duel to exemplify "Skill". Nothing wrong with camping. Please, go back to CS if you want to talk like that. Listen buddy, it's obvious that you're just really mad at the situation. Which is hilarious.

More risky than I really like. I follow roads, but in the treeline or beside it with some kind of cover if necessary most of the time. I bolt across fields all of the time, largely because it's expedient. But I don't do it without a bit of recon. To be honest, it's worked well for me so far. Only times I've been killed are in buildings and the usual high-risk areas like Stary and NWAF. Only once have I been shot at in the middle of a field, and I made it out unscathed.

Guy puts a picture of himself at a computer up, praises PC gaming and looks down on console gaming, and then derides someone on the internet for doing nothing more than being better than him at a video game. Priceless, THE quintisential idiot-faced gamer. The amount of "mad" in this is just... just... awesome. Feast upon tears forum, feast I say.

I think loot piles should respawn, say, within an hour of being ACCESSED. Not cleaned out. But maybe that'd lead to an overflow of loot, just thinking out loud.

Well, due to the way zombies move... you're more likely than not to get hit countless times during a life. It's often more expedient to just let them get on top of you and have them be stationary to kill them, than waste rounds trying to bean them on the move. Subsequently, if an "infection" thing were to be implemented... people would be getting infected left and right. Broken legs, bleeding, and sickness are already pretty unforgiving for those who are unprepared. It's a good idea though, just needs to be caveated by something like "X (insert very small number here) percent of the time when hit, you have a chance to get infected with the virus".

Looking forward to see what is done with this when Day Z becomes standalone and/or switches to a different engine. I'm sure most buildings would have to be enterable. For the purposes of now, I think there are two solutions to this. One is that, like you said, un-enterables need to be made more significant by adding loot spots around them. Perhaps use boxes? Akin to the medbox, so that the loot wouldn't get lost in the grass. Towns like Guglovo and Petrovka with one, or no enterable buildings is kind of a waste. The second, rather than having un-enterables spawn loot, just add a few structures to each town which needs it. One house maybe? Or add a few military camps outside a few more towns? Perhaps a three tent maximum size? Something to keep irrelevant towns in the loop and encourage people to move out of the ultra-campable military installations. Hell, it doesn't have to have high-end military stuff, just something.

I agree, ammunition is all over the place. However, I'm just speaking relatively. And I was ignoring the other hyper-rare weapons like the LMG's and L85 NWS, because that opens a whole other can of worms regarding balance which isn't the objecitve to discuss here. The magically filling mags are the biggest issue for me, Alt-F4 can be minimized by just blowing them away ASAP. But, it is a huge problem nonetheless. If anything, I think ammunition for certain weapons needs to be rarer... but more interchangable if you understand my meaning. For instance, a belt of 100 for a M240 should be really rare, but able to be broken down into other 7.62x51 NATO mags. Weapons like the AR's and AK's, I don't think the ammo needs to be made rare. It's fine the way it is now, barring the refilling mags bug.

There's a difference between wanting an aspect of realism, and wanting everything to be realistic. Obviously, game-y things like respawning and not taking a shit every so often are going to be inherent in the game. That doesn't mean things like realistic wildlife, spawns, weapons, etc should be overlooked. I hate logical fallacies. The persistent characters are already unforgiving enough.

Yeah, ever since I died with my M107 and FAL, plus all the usual goodies... I've been taking it slow and just surviving with my M4, haven't had any real use for a toolbox so I haven't been looking for em'.

If the access box was a lot wider to take them down, I doubt we'd see them up for so long. Unsure if toolboxes are spawning, died with my last one and haven't been to many industrial building since.

Key word, "Higher". Doesn't mean the DMR is a smoothbore musket. DMR's mil-dots can be used accurately out to 800m, which represents probably 90% of the engagements in Day Z. If you're a sniper, in Day Z, surviving is the objective. Same as everyone else. If you miss, or do not kill in the first shot, then you've got 19 rounds to make up for that mistake. Not so much with the M24. Point being, the DMR is more forgiving than the much rarer M24.

Yeah, personal experience is for sure a factor. I'm sure there are people that never find DMR's. But, when you consider that STANAG / 5.45x39 / 7.62x39 mags are used in -roughly- the same weapon, it sort of differentiates it from the M24 vs. M21. The STANAG mags are used in AR's, bottom line. Pretty much the same weapon, no matter if it has a CCO or Irons, it's pretty much the same thing. Same goes for the AK's. Whereas with the M24 and DMR, these are weapons with vastly different qualities and capabilities. So the ammo commonality has a larger effect than on the others. Unfortunately, you can't combine them into FAL mags. I wish you could, or that FALs were on the regular loot list. Bone-stock, iron-sight FALs should be able to be found in deer stands and military installations, they've no reason to be an ultra-rare spawn.

I'm saying that the DMR ammo is too common for both. I find DMR mags more often than STANAG mags, and the fact that it can be recombined for M24 rounds makes it all the more necessary to make rarer... because you can find M24 mags anyhow. EDIT - You still need a rare-ass rangefinder to remove all guestimating from the M24. I'd rather have a zoomable, but fixed mil-dot interface that I can memorize easily rather than fumbling through PAGE UP and DOWN to zero the damn thing when I still have to guess at the range (If you're not playing on a weak Regular server with auto-rangefinding when you just look at something). The DMR's Pro's outweigh the M24's by far, that doesn't mean one can't slay bodies with the M24... but the main crux of the issue is the commonality of the DMR.

Should just be tweaked a little. I've been playing for two months and have yet to find an M24. I've found countless DMR's in that time though, three in three subsequent deer stands in a row on one day. Anywho, I don't think the M24 should be removed. M24 needs to be more common and the DMR needs to be rarer, ammunition included. DMR Mags are EVERYWHERE.

To be honest, I'm down with this. We've been pretty fortunate not to see a ton of character wipes. I think it'd be good for everyone to set the clock back to zero every once in a while until Day Z moves out of Alpha.

The guy may have a misplaced opinion or be misinformed, but you are terrible at refuting him. "Do your research and get an education dude" - Ad Hominem AND straw man fallacy in the same sentence, didn't think it was possible. Typical internet dribble.

Rocket has been offline for three days, and people are already whining about not being updated fast enough? How do y'all cope when your spouse/parent goes away for more than 48 hours if you can't cope with Rocket being offline for two or three days? Have you followed ANY other game/mod development process? Battlefield 3 went months without hearing shit of an upcoming patch, and that was relatively short compared to many other game development cycles. Shut the fuck up, Rocket keeps us overloaded with updates and details. Hell, most developers don't even TALK to the community on a regular basis, much less DELIVER patches. It's Alpha, you're spoiled, be happy. EDIT - Oh yeah, god forbid the guy has a life, right?

Well, I don't this this would be a good idea for one reason. It encourages new people, or just lazy people, to stay on servers where this option is available. Rather than, like you say, gradually transfer to a higher difficulty server, people tend to stay with what's familiar to them... I think this would discourage that movement. Plus, I have never seen this happen, people stay on the server they choose at the beginning of each login or if they've chosen one because they've got tangible interests there. Their preferences don't change over time, or rather, over the time that they play. They simply accept the options they're accustomed to as normal and don't deviate. Succinctly put, I think it has to be all or nothing, it can't be an option.

"There are two kinds of people playing DayZ - COD kiddies and hardcore elitist wannabe" So which one are you?