saltedfish

Is there any way to differentiate between public and private if there is nothing in the server title? Should I assume no mention in the title means public?

Is this a bug or something that can be fixed normally? I logged out of server A, did some stuff, and came back to play more DayZ. Logged into server B, found all my htings were there but the server was too dark to see anything (no night vision) so I logged into server C to find that my character had been, ostensibly, deleted and I was forced to spawn anew. A few more attempts showed my character moving around. Apparently each time I connected I was forced to create a new character? Hopefully there is a fix for this. I'm posting this here and not in the bug forum because I'm not sure it belongs there yet. Edit - right after I made this post, I found this: https://dev-heaven.net/issues/36635. Is this the problem? The server title didn't say anything about a hive.

Interesting changes - glad to see things have been moving forward. There are now mods for the DayZ mod? I'm confused. Where can I see these mods?

I have no idea if this is the right place to ask this question, but here we go. I haven't played DayZ in close to a year - what's changed since then? I don't even remember where to start, I don't know what changes have been made or what's been added or taken out. Is there a.. repository of patch notes or a "current configuration" post that can clue me into what's happened in the past year? I'd like to get back into DayZ, but want to know exactly how things have changed since I last played, which was a very long time ago. tl;dr: how to i catch up to the latest after being away for a year?

This is the sad fact of the matter. Once you get a box of matches, a knife, hatchet and a water bottle, you're set for the rest of the game. The only remaining option left to you is to scavenge weapons and kill other players. I'm sure that as more content is released, this will become less so (I have happy visions of creating forts with other survivors and being besieged by zombies), but until then we'll have to wait it out. While that's somewhat melodramatic, it's also very true. I wonder just how many people would leave the game if the PKing gets out of hand. It would be a terible thing since this game has so very much promise, but as it stands it really is a deathmatch with zombies thrown in. It's not even a good deathmatch, frankly, since it's designed to be much more tactical than other games. Oh well, this is what happens when you forge a new path. It's hard and you stumble a lot. I just hope that the rest of you are as forgiving as I am.

I would sincerely hope that no one would honestly suggest removing all ammo from the game (I understand that it was meant as an example, I merely want to nip this one in the bud before someone else thinks that we're serious about it). Zeromentor is absolutely right, one extreme or the other is going to do no good whatsoever. A reducton, to a point, will surely reduce the majority of opportunistic kilings, but still won't dissuade the more persistant PKers from hunting other players. Honestly, that would be a solution I'd be okay with. As long as the players who would otherwise take casual pot shots at someone running by are turned off of their sport (the opportunisitic PKers), I would be happy. I would still, of course, have to contend with the more hardcore PKers, but as long as I knew that their numbers were drastically reduced, I'd have a much better time of it. I've been killed by player fire three times now. Even a 50% reduction (generous, I know, but let's roll with it) would mean that I would have only died once and managed to crawl away to recuperate later the other time (?). I think with a 50% reduction everyone goes home happy in one way or another. Us 'carebears' get griefed less and can focus more on survival rather than mindless scavenging for weapons to protect ourselves with, and the 'hunters' can still have their sport, although now they have to work a little harder for it. Much better than having PvP servers and Survival servers, which is the only other solution that comes to mind.

Let's keep the ad hominim arguments to a minimum. It might be that Amra doesn't support a "weight" value for the inventory system; as it stands space is fairly limited, and I believe that is what is intended to prevent people from carrying 435983749857349857 rounds for their rifles. I think we've all hashed over the fact that reducing the amount of ammunition very likely won't reduce the number of PKs. As has been pointed out numerous times, reducing the amount of ammo turns it into a desired commodity which will then prompt players to kill each other for more ammo. One could argue, though, that this might not be the case since while it is true that the scarcity would prompt players to want it and collect it, but then what would you be collecting the ammo for? Are you going to spend hours hunting down other players and scraping a mag together for your assault rifle, only to spend it in one burst at some guy on a hill? Seems like a waste of time to me. While it is true that since it becomes a valued commodity, demand for it will increase, there has to be a demand for it in the first place. As we've pointed out, the only reason one would collect large amounts of ammunition is to kill other players since the zombies themselves hardly pose a threat. Not sure where this train of logic goes, but it's worth pursuing I think. (On a side note, there is a little gray circle at the bottom of the posting field, and I keep thinking it is a peripheral vision dot.) Since at this point it seems ridiculous to suggest limiting ammunition as a means of balancing the game and reducing the amount of PKs, we're back to square one. I still think that us 'carebears' deserve at least some consideration; not all of us want a deathmatch. As Undeadsteak pointed out, this is supposed to be a survival game, and it's true that dodging other people is part of survival, but right now the game is horribly skewed in their favor and it ends up with a (at least in part) double whammy for those of us who just want to enjoy the survival.

As a matter of fact, it is his fault that you died. This is a classic case of blame shifting. Not only is it his fault in the sense that he's the one that pulled the trigger, it's also worth noting that you going to that area in search of gear is a perfectly natural thing to do, it is the point of the game after all. Your decisions to go to that area have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the other player's choice to kill you beyond you simply being there. The point here is that the blame for PKs lies with the PKer himself. No one else. To argue otherwise shows you simply want to shift blame to the other people and say "they made me do it" to make yourself look blameless. No one made you take the shot, you made the decision yourself. Just like the other person made the (legitimate and not at all unusual) decision to enter that area in search of goodies. I don't mean this to sound like a flame or trollpost, but your naivete is astonishing. The lulz are the ONLY reason people kill each other. I sincerely doubt the times I've been killed were because someone was hungry or low on ammo, but rather the player saw an opportunity to rain on someone else's parade, and took it. I'm not going to toot my own horn, but I know people well enough to know that there is a large demographic of online players who will take a dump all over you simply for the 'lulz' and because they can. And I have no doubts that many of them play DayZ, and that is the what I primarily take issue with. Your comment regarding the 600m shot also doesn't support your claim that the majority of PKs are for the gear those people carry. Am I really going to shoot somone 600m away and then trek all the way over there? It's also worth mentioning that the removal of bandit skins (lack of clear targets, now everyone is fair game) and the removal of a starting weapon (thus leaving new players utterly efenseless) is just more proof for the fact that most PKs are just done for the 'lulz,' And just how much effect is changing the starting conditions going to have on PKing? Are you sure the increase in PKing was due to the starting condition changes, and not just more people playing the game? I'd take the opposite side, since it's not always clear WHAT people are carrying. You could spend your precious ammunition on someone, only to find their backpack is full of empty tin cans. Are there any statistics on where most PKs happen? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them happen in the cities. You might say, "well, no kidding." But if people are killing each other for the sake of replenishing their gear, which seems to be the argument you're trying to put forth here, then shouldn't most of the PKs happen outside the cities? As people leave the major hubs with their bags full of pasta and coke? That would make the most sense, and any raw data will either confirm or deny this claim. How can you seriously suggest this as a solution to this problem? This is a terrible idea, and you should be ashamed to even suggest it. It's horrible because it punishes not the person who does the killing but rather the person who is killed. All this would do is add insult to injury and make the game even more unpalatable. You're right, of course, that it would punish the bandits (provided they were killed), but since everyone else who dies would also incurr this penalty, how does this deter banditry specifically? If that is, indeed, your aim here. However, your point regarding the "not wanting to punish either playstyle" is totally valid, and I can get behind it 100%. I've said it multiple times, and I'll say it again: I'd hate to see DayZ lose some of its luster by removing the PvP aspect in it's entirety. All I want to do is curb both playstyles; allow each free riegn, but still allow players a chance to play their preferred way without players from the other way impinging on them. I just want to run around the countryside and dodge zombies. Honeslty, I don't want anything to do with other players beyond the friends I play with. For the sake of the discussion, I'll reiterate my stance: I'd like to see not only a reduction in the amount of ammunition present in the game, but also a finite amount that dwindles over time, and that is replenished with each server restart. I'd also like to see less military rifles and long range weaponry. It would probably also not be amiss to beef up the infected some, perhaps going to the classic model of head-shot only incapacitation, in the hopes of providing an alternative threat to other players.

I, for one, harbor no illusions that reducing the amount of ammo in the game will cause people to cooperate more. As has been pointed out, its actually more likely to cause players to save ammo for use on other players. I'll come out and be honest, I love the game and the fear response I feel when I play it. So I'm torn when I realize I hate PvP, since yes, it's not something I enjoy and it's not something I'm good at. I don't want to remove it completely since others dislike it; I merely want to put a brake on it and curb that urge in players to give the rest of us a break. Sure I rage when I die, but the game always pulls me back. I don't want that feeling to go away, but I'd also like to get to a point where I can just enjoy the survival without worrying about someone coming along and ruining all my work. The real problem here is what many other games face: reconciling two different play styles without compromising either. This is why I'm liking my idea to have a finite amount of ammo coupled with server restarts. Not just because it's my idea, but because it offers a solution that can please both camps. Right after the server restart the PvPers hop on, help themselves to the goods lying about, and run around for a few hours. After they've sated their bloodlust, and simultaneously diminished the supply of food and ammo, they set the stage for the survivors who come on later to poke about and enjoy a setting thats always a little different each time thanks to the efforts of the PvPers. The issue will be further lessened as more group activities (which Rocket mentioned in his vid) make it into the game, and this new content incentivizes cooperation. Pardon any mispellings. At work on my phone, heh.

Holy crap my inbox exploded. It seems a lot of people agree that the plethora of ammunition is indeed a problem, which I think is a good thing. I'm also pleased to see that the trolling and flaming is being kept to a minimum. As I was reading the comments other people left, a thought occurred to me: As a possible solution, what if the amount of ammunition in the game was fixed every time the server restarted? That is, there is a decent amount lying around that is slowly depleted over time as the time since the last server restart increases and no more ammunition respawns (perhaps with the exception of one or two helicopter crashes). It would certainly model a true apocalypse more accurately, as I can imagine a frenzy of activity immediately after the start that dies down as stockpiles of food and supplies dwindle. It would also give people time to get the deathmatch bug out of their systems as the people who prefer PvP log on right after the restart, gear up quickly and kill each other, and the people who are more focused on survival wait a day or two for the excitement to die down. In addition, if corpses were persistant, it would also let the survivors pick over the bodies of the fallen. Suddenly, finding a body on the side of the road would become a boon for the survivors as it might be one of the bodies of the deathmatchers and thus have ammo, food and tools on it. Might add an interesting gameplay element. It'd be neat, I think, to have another source of gear aside from chopper crashes and houses.

I cannot agree more. Once you hit a certain level (as a point of fact, just last night my friend and I looted a downed chopper and I walked away with 6-8 magazines of subsonic ammo for my rifle), zombies cease to be an issue and the primary threat becomes other players. Here's where the troubles begin. If we want to keep DayZ from becoming just Call of Duty with an inventory system and zombies, I think there needs to be some way to limit the amount of ammunition present in the game. At first I did not agree with the OP at all, but his point, after reading his post, is valid: DayZ, at the right equipment level, transforms from a survival horror game to a deathmatch with zombies thrown in. This, honestly, is a perfectly natural reponse. In fact, those previously mentioned subsonic rounds weren't just for killing zombies, but self-defense. The zombies as they stand now are really not enough of a threat, even at the beginning of the game. With some practice, it becomes possible to avoid any and all contact whatsoever, and even with lesser amounts of ammunition present, players will still have surplus ammo to use on other players. The problem here is that the zombies themselves do not present enough of a challenge to make a suitable antagonist for the game (for mostly the same reasons that they would make a terrible antagonist in real life). The only thing that can legitimately challenge the players in the game are other players, but then that's not what DayZ was intended to be. In addition to limiting ammunition in general (or give ammunition an expiration date?), I think there really should be some way to toggle PvP on or off. I feel obliged to state that I can appriciate and understand the intent of the game in it's effort to be realistic enough to illicit a response from the player. The constant threat of being killed by another player is a unique addition (honeslty, there is no other game that comes to mind that lends the same degree of tension and fear, and I truely applaud DayZ for eliciting that response in its players, I never tought a game could actually provoke that kind of feeling), but the simple fact of the matter is that the player base, the PvP combat, and the overabundance of ammunition will all mix together to eventually cripple the game by producing people who prey solely on other players purely for the sake of killing them. Yes, you're absolutely right, it is realistic. Yes, you're absolutely right, there would be utterly nothing preventing people from kiling each other over a can of beans in a 'real' zombie apocalypse. Yes, I did watch most of the video, about 10 minutes in Rocket does touch on the subject of banditry and later on mentions (commendably so) that the intent is to preserve the core mechanic which is making the player feel nervous and scared. But then the intent of the game, as I see it, is to simulate a zombie apocalypse first, and shooting other people second. If I want to kill other people (which I don't), I'll go play Call of Duty. Killing other players needs to be relegated to 'oh by the way you can do this' status; as it stands now, the game may well careen uncontrollably towards a massively multiplayer shooter with zombies. Perhaps, to make the zombies more of a threat, return to the traditional model of headshots only? This would increase the threat potential of even one zombie from a minor annoyance (solved by two rounds center mass) to a slightly more involved and risky business. This, coupled with a scarcity of ammunition and a removal of player versus player, may well preserve the aura of nervousness while simultaneously eliminating the possibility of griefers and weeding out people who play DayZ for the wrong reasons (ie, to hunt other players). I'll conclude by stating I wish DayZ the best because it is unique and it breaks the mold and sets a new standard. When describing it to a friend, I stopped and realized, "this game might well be the first of an utterly new genre." I was incredibly excied when I realized that, and I hope that people reading this will understand my trepidation at the thought of DayZ becoming a game wherein highly geared players mow down new players a few hours after they spawn on the beach, and oh by the way there are zombies.