SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

So...... how's the alpha?

Who says they can't be devs? We all know you can easily change your nickname in Arma...

Hey, your name is on that server list.

Rocket has openly agreed that the major problem is the lack of things to do. So I think we can look forward to more content.

If you think that, then why did you just help bump this to the top of the list? Fucking genius.

It really is not that simple...

He said in the OP it would be a very small chance. Maybe this could only happen if a zombie knocks you down, and even then it's still a very low chance.

Yeah, perhaps you're right. Maybe they've already tested a majority of the components and stress tests are no longer necessary. I'm just getting antsy because I want to play the game. #DayZParanoia

I like it. I'd also like zombies to be able to inflict damage to your gear.

It's all good. Okay so in other news... There were not that many people running the game today. What's with that? The team keeps saying things like "testing is going great!" ect. But then I look at this and I'm thinking, well if things are going so great, why aren't they able to test with more than 14 players? I mean, the screens, dev chatter, rockets statements; it all seems highly promising. A 14 player test, however, is not. Come on Dean; let's see that "progress" you keep talking about so much.

Yeah I get it, it's just odd to me that the Australian government would ban violent video games but not violent or gory film, which is far more realistic than a game. You do get the Walking Dead in Australia, right?

The /s is there. I'm not assuming anything, you just misread my post. I was mocking said impatient people.

Okay but it isn't senseless if there is a point. Postal 2 is a game that contains "senseless" violence. Grand Theft Auto is a game with "senseless" violence. Killing an infected child who is trying to rip your throat out isn't senseless, it's completely sensible. It's not like this game even has gore. You just shoot zombies and bam, they fall down. There isn't even blood spray. There's hardly anything "violent" about it. This isn't Dead Rising. There isn't any "smashing" to be had. Just crappy melee combat which results in insta-death. You know what's senseless? Shooting an unarmed player with a sniper rifle from 500 meters away. Yet nobody seems to take any issue with that sort of violence. I'm merely pointing out the obvious dilemma you have when you start applying morality to fictional actions in a fictional video game. The only thing that is real is the way you interact with other players. Whether a zombie is big or small really doesn't matter, because it's just a graphic representation of a zombie. Moral arguments just don't hold up to me here. Adding children zombies would add a richness and context to the game that other games always shy away from. It adds to it because people like you have a problem with it. The moral dilemma adds to the context and realism of the game, in my opinion.

This guy has GREAT reading comprehension. /s The /s is for /sarcasm.

Man, I'm sorry but... lots of sissies on this forum. Shit. They're pixels for crying out loud. People act like they actually have to harm children to put them in a game. Morality does not apply to an artificial construct which is basically nothing more than 1's and 0's. As previously mentioned, there are zombie children in the Walking Dead - which shows them being killed and even mutilated in graphic detail - but that hasn't been banned. I don't get it. So in Australia, it's okay to watch people kill zombies in crisp, real-life style effects and gory details, but it's not okay to shoot one in a fake looking video game? And I thought Aussies were tough... Seriously people, rethink your values. It's okay to shoot a human player and totally ruin his experience, but a fake zombie child is just taking it too far? Really? That's like avoiding a dog in the road only to run over a person. Just fucking stupid.

Because rigging and creating new animation trees for tiny zombies would be totally painstaking and take up lots of development. Rocket also wants fat zombies, but the same issues apply. It's just not the primary focus right now.

Well it's the fifth and no Standalone. WTF rocket?!?! /s

The FOV is wide because it's on a monitor which is close to the player's face. If he were playing it as if on a console - sitting far away on a TV screen, the FOV would not look that way.

a: not always. Many bacteria and viruses can live in extreme situations. b: the major cause of death in the American Civil War was infection. Any kind of open wound is liable to become infected by environmental contagions, especially bullet wounds. Getting shot is not a walk in the park that people seem to think it is thanks to Hollywood.

Does it matter? If it's not the 5th, it could be the 6th, or the 7th, or the 8th. The speculation won't suddenly end just because rocket says the "proper" thing. It's easier to just say "We'll release it as soon as it's ready." That is the release date. When it's done.

I wasn't trying to be aggressive towards you. I'm simply explaining why a certain degree of media silence is necessary for a game developer. It's hard to imagine having more information on the game, when we just got a quote from Dean himself. Because that's the smart thing to do? It's better to let people down before the fact than after the fact.

Blurry vision in Arma sounds like you need to match 3D resolution with your viewing resolution. They are right next to each other in the video settings.

First of all, Dean Hall stated after the August dev-blog (which featured multiple people playing, ect. Which I presume you are saying "looks playable") that the game was in fact not playable and was having problems even allowing players onto a server. Clients were crashing, ect. Of course they are not going to show that in a dev-blog. It makes no sense to tell people about your game and show them all the things that are going wrong. You want to show people what's going right. Second, of course they can't replicate the scenario of a full release. That's quite obvious. But if the net-code isn't even stable enough for a server to run a game for 24 hours a day with a full player roster, then how in the world is it going to support hundreds of thousands of people trying to play all at once? Not testing before the public launch is like not bailing water out of a boat just because you're surrounded by it. It really doesn't matter how many people total are trying to play the game. One server only handles about 50 clients each. It doesn't matter if there's 1,000 or 1,000,000 people, because each server only handles 50 of them, so it's really not relevant. The relevant task is ensuring that a server can support those 50 people at all. As for transparency, I think you're simply asking way too much. People's expectations when it comes to games are extremely misinformed and tend to be very high. Anything the devs release gets picked apart and either criticized, argued against, or used by major media outlets to invent stories which aren't truly reflective of the situation. No matter what the devs do, they can't win with people. They release more content - "Oh the game looks like shit, blah blah blah" or "THE SA IS ABOUT TO RELEASE LOOK AT THESE PICTURES OF GUNS!" Hence, they don't release any information until it's solid and truly reflective of what they want for the game. Besides, rocket explained his media silence, and it's pretty clear that he was telling the truth about being in the final lap. What more transparency do you need? You wanna watch them like on C-SPAN just sitting at desks, revising code, testing, doing boring development shit, all day long? I certainly don't want that. Some things need secrecy in order to become developed. That's just how games are. Bethesda never told anyone about Skyrim until it was something like 3 years in progress. Why does this team have to follow some kind of "transparency code" when others don't, and clearly doing so is detrimental overall because people on the internet are generally fucking stupid?

I do not foresee finding six holosights in one play session. Your argument assumes that these things would not be super duper rare and therefore a complete treat when you do find one. I think you're forgetting to take into account the global item economy, which means there could literally only be 100 holosights in the entire game...

Well I would argue that gta 5 is not an mmo, and it had four years of development before you ever touched it. It's not really a comparable situation... Who knows about the state of the Standalone's servers? All I know is that they have been testing, presumably to ensure stability. The server monitors and steam database reflect this. So my hypothesis is that we will see more testing activity when the weekend is over, and sometime after that (probably within the next week or two) we are going to see the public alpha launch. This is just my speculation based on what I've seen from the dev team, rocket, and the test server activity.