SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

Exactly. I saw videos of people building things in space, which was a total fucking lie designed to cheat me out of $20. That video is over LAN, smart guy. And as previously stated, Red Faction does not have nearly the same map size as DayZ, nor does it have any persistent character features which require massive amounts of network communication.

I paid for that game and it sucks absolute dick. Like a whole bag of dicks. Features in that game were total fabrications in many cases, and it's performance is pure shit. Please shove off. They aren't comparable projects. For the record people, you seem to be overlooking the glaringly OBVIOUS problems in comparing these games which have destruction engines. They don't have persistent inventories. They don't have a nearly 300 square kilometer landmass which the server has to keep track of at all times. They don't spawn hundreds of thousands of loot objects and thousands of zombies. They don't use the RV engine, which makes the entire fucking argument pointless. This engine =/= other engines. They aren't capable of the same things. Pure and simple. Sure, "but bf4 has physics and pooticle effects and buildings that fall down (in a pre-scripted manner)! Why can't DayZ do it?" Well, quite simply, DayZ is not bf4. If you like that game, go play it instead. It still can't get even close to the same size map as DayZ. It doesn't have a persistent inventory database which the server must constantly handle and upload to a central hive. It doesn't have to deal with all sorts of complicated LOD situations like looking at a hill that is literally 5 km away.

Lol. These threads remind me of kids writing letters to Santa. "Dear Rocket, I know that you have your own whole life to deal with and you're on holiday. Also I'm a nameless nobody on a forum but could you do me a big personal favor and release the patch regardless of it's state or what you happen to be doing this second. I know you read every single post on this forum that mentions your name. PLEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSE? Love, Jimmy."

Okay 1: Wrong. Most holsters, if they do hold a mag, only hold one extra. One. I have two pistol holsters and I can prove this. 2: Making the holster work over a vest or whatever would mean re-modelling it for those items so yeah... We're talking about a video game here, which requires development. Also as that guy said, it would restrict the use of your vest pouches.

Um, no. You can just slot a pistol in your vest. And seriously, what else do you expect a holster to hold, other than a pistol? That's like, the definition of a holster.

For those of you who were to lazy to click on Fluxley's link there... GUNSHOT TEST (BALLISTIC HELMET, .45ACP) 0:00 Subjects 1 & 2 are equipped with a Ballistic Helmet Subject 1 is shot in back of the head at close range Subject 1 is unaffected Quality of helmet degrades from Pristine to Worn Subject 2 is shot in the face at close range Subject 2 dies instantly 0:01 Subject 1 is shot in the head at close range Subject 1 is unaffected Quality of helmet degrades from Worn to Badly Damaged 0:02 Subject 1 is shot in the head at close range Subject 1 dies instantly Quality of helmet degrades from Badly Damaged to Ruined Conclusion: A pristine Ballistic helmet will protect the visibly covered area from approximately two .45ACP rounds, before becoming ruined and completely ineffective. GUNSHOT TEST (BALLISTIC HELMET, 7.62x54mm) 0:00 Subjects 1 & 2 are equipped with a Ballistic Helmet Subject 1 is shot in back of the head at close range Subject 1 dies instantly Quality of helmet degrades from Pristine to Ruined Subject 2 is shot in the face at close range Subject 2 dies instantly Conclusion: A pristine Ballistic helmet will not protect a wearer from a 7.62x54mm round, regardless of the place of impact. GUNSHOT TEST (BALLISTIC HELMET, 5.56x45mm) 0:00 Subjects 1 & 2 are equipped with a Ballistic Helmet Subject 1 is shot in back of the head at close range Subject 1 is unaffected Quality of helmet degrades from Pristine to Badly Damaged Subject 2 is shot in the face at close range Subject 2 dies instantly 0:01 Subject 1 is shot in the head at close range Subject 1 dies instantly Quality of helmet degrades from Badly Damaged to Ruined Conclusion: A pristine Ballistic helmet will protect the visibly covered area from a single 5.56x45mm round, before becoming ruined and completely ineffective.

Hates on OP military weapons... Proceeds to list tons of OP CoD military weapons. LOL!

You cannot know if someone is aware of another person or not! What if your screen is displaying another player, but you, as a flawed human being, failed to notice them? I've got an idea, if you are such a programming genius, then go and make the program that you are proposing. How do you define an "act of aggression"? There are many different ways of being aggressive. This could be a refusal to provide medical assistance to another player. In certain situations, that could be an act of aggression. You simply cannot account for the millions, nay, billions of variable combinations that factor into an interaction between two people alone. What happens when you have to deal with three, four, or more people interacting all at the same time? The system would not work. It would ultimately be a waste of time to try and predict and judge human behavior in that way. There's a reason that in real life you have to be prosecuted for a crime and a real person has to examine the evidence available and use their best judgment. If computers could figure out human nature, we wouldn't need judges or juries now would we?

No. It cannot. A computer can't comprehend VON chat between two players. It cannot know what is happening in a situation the same way a human can. Approximation is not good enough. False positives would be rampant. Everyone would be getting the same negative side effects for murder equally. It doesn't make sense. You can't "know" if a person is aware of another person. What if they are 500m away and I spot them out of the corner of my eye? So what if I'm approaching another player with a gun? You can't possibly use a program to know my intentions. I keep a gun out for my own protection. My ultimate intention could be friendly. Maybe I'm only approaching them to talk to them and maybe give them some free stuff (as I often do). Do you think I'm going to run around with a can of fucking baked beans in my hands? Ridiculous. How would a computer be able to know what a person is planning to do, or why they did something? It's simply impossible, and stupid to even try.

Man, I love compat loogin.

No.

For the millionth time. Punishing players who kill other players is absolutely, 100% NOT the way to go in this game. The only thing that will balance people's motivations is adding a more difficult environment and long-term objectives which require player cooperation. People kill each other all the time. They don't instantly become insane from it. It's fucking preposterous. If that were the case, people in Sudan, Darfur, Somalia, ect., would be having hallucinations every god damned day and the entire human race would self-destruct. From the beginning of mankind, all the way back to primitive tool users, people have been killing each other. It is literally a fact of everyday life. Punishing player killers is just plain stupid, not to mention gimmicky. What happens when a player has to kill someone out of self-defense? How can a computer program simulate human psychology? It simply can't. Stop suggesting this. It's the worst idea.

Holy shit... A 5 poster with a decent attitude about death in DayZ?

Oh, no. I was just agreeing with you and covering my bases.

I never said it was a "problem," did I? However... Go to 14:30 I quote. "Hopefully it will go some way to changing the Kill on Sight mechanic." And if you read my post 3 minutes before your own, you would see that I don't think it would change much. It's just a realistic feature that would add a lot more to the game, which is preferable to some gimmick like a text announcement.

Actually, I like that this feature can be avoided, mitigated, and have false positives (players looting a body they didn't even kill and getting blood on them, for example). It isn't supposed to be a cure-all. It's just a realistic factor that would make the game more interesting.

So... Literally touching a body isn't in the "spatter zone"? Exactly how close do you think you have to be to get bodily fluids from another person on you? Do I have to penetrate the fucking corpse? And yeah, you're right. Blood isn't safe. Which is why it should also transmit diseases from player to player. It's only realistic. Just like PvP is realistic. Just because it is technically allowed by the game doesn't mean it is necessarily encouraged by the developers. Similarly, just because gay marriage is legal in a place doesn't mean you have to be gay. Rocket specifically added item destruction to try to curb some of the mindless deathmatch mentality. Try to argue your way out of this hole you've dug, please. It'll be good sport.

My favorite part of this poll is how each option has a subjective little tagline straight from the author, implying that if you vote for that particular issue, you agree with that particular subjective assessment of the problem. You might as well make a poll that goes: "How do you feel about the standalone?" - I hate it! - I really hate it! - I hate it so much it makes me want to kill babies! - I wish Dean Hall would contract AIDS!

Why not make people's clothes bloody when you injure them, and also make your hands bloody if you loot a bloody body? You could also wash blood off with water from a well or a stream, or even a bottle. Seems pretty logical and realistic to me.

I have a book of 101 elephant jokes. I'll give you a few examples of this comedy gold. "Why did the elephant fall out of a palm tree?" A hippopotamus pushed him out! "What's the similarity between a plum and an elephant?" They're both purple, except for the elephant! And last but certainly not least - "Why do elephants have round feet?" To walk on the lily pads!

Dean already mentioned that he would like to do this, but it requires serious work. I wouldn't expect it any time soon. Equip your compass and then look at your inventory screen. In the "hands" pane, the compass model changes dynamically to show which direction you are facing. This also works well to use the compass while running and in third person.

HAHA. I didn't even notice the correlation. Your name must have slipped the idea of a brownie into my mind subconsciously. Or just accept the fact that t his is a fictional video game and sometimes, you will die. "You walk outside, you risk your life. You take a drink of water, you risk your life. Nowadays you breathe and you risk your life. You don’t have a choice. The only thing you can choose is what you’re risking it for." Some of us choose to risk it for an entertaining interaction. Others choose to risk it for fictional loot in a fictional video game that has a high likelihood of disappearing randomly anyway; and then they get super butthurt about it. Ask yourself, what is the more emotionally healthy option here?

Oh great, another one. I'm going to give this one the same treatment I give presidential elections and OPT OUT.

Nobody said it wasn't your choice, genius. It doesn't change the fact that it's ridiculous. I could choose to shove a brownie up my ass. It doesn't make it a sane fucking conclusion.