SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

Well, I agree with what you say, basically giving the less powerful weapons a slight advantage in that they tend to have internal magazines. But clearly as you said yourself, this was confirmed in the devblog released yesterday. So I guess I'm just a little confused as to why you would suggest a feature that already exists... but yeah. That's exactly how it works in the current dev build.

One time I was moving through Cherno with my friend. I had a brand new ak 74, my companion was also well armed, and I felt relatively good about the future; when along came a fresh spawn with a pistol, and about twenty zombies on his tail. I did a quick calculation, and decided that the threat he posed to us was actually greater than my value for his life. I shot him twice in the back and continued on my way without a second thought. The zombies began eating him so they didn't pursue us. My companion seemed appalled. I guess you just go numb after a while.

I'm just giddy that they are rolling ShackTac's movement fix. Crafting, too.

1- Go to 1:58 to avoid crazy combat bullshit- 2- Watch the gun fly out of his hand. 3- ???? Profit. "A round struck the tube by my hand of the 203 grenade launcher which knocked it out of my hands. When I picked the rifle back up it was still functional but the grenade launcher tube had a nice sized 7.62 cal bullet hole in it and was rendered useless." If the concept itself is in question here, I really can't see why. Otherwise, I agree the visual ques could use some improvement, but the concept makes complete sense. Imagine if a Taliban fighter had retrieved that rifle? It would literally be damaged because of his own actions. Cause, and effect. (Not to mention that the gun clearly absorbed the damage from the bullet, which probably saved his life. So there are more aspects to this feature than simply "mitigating KoS.")

You seem to have a lot of negativity. This is a work in progress and new features are bound to have some bugs, glitches, or be incomplete. Big game companies develop their huge games -which they love to cram down our throat time and time again - over years of development, usually with a huge team of developers, and an enormous amount of pre-media development. Take Skyrim for example. It had two whole years of development before the announcement trailer was even released, and then another year of development after that, with a team of 70 - 100 people, based on an engine that they originally wrote for Morrowind, then rewrote for Oblivion, Then did the same for Skyrim. On top of that, Skyrim didn't have to deal with any sort of multiplayer aspect whatsoever. Issues of desync and all that crazy stuff DayZ has to deal with aren't even present in those games. And look at the kind of team it took to do it. So I think it's fair to say that rocket and friends are coming along quite swimmingly. DayZ has a lot of challenges it has to overcome before it is going to constitute a well polished game. That's why they're calling it a PRE-ALPHA. As politely as I can put it, please have some sense, sir.

Where would you get the fresh primers, gun powder, and bullets to reload said casings? I like the idea of collecting them, as well as shells being objects (which would make tracking people down or locating a shooter's previous position a real possibility), but reloading is a difficult process that takes specialized tools, electricity, machinery, ect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkr1NS7bEUU You'd have to get all that machinery working before you could even think about reloading spent brass. Even if you got a primer in it and filled it with gunpowder, you'd still need a factory-grade projectile to work with your gun. The slightest flaw in a bullet and your gun could explode. Or the bullet might tumble and move through the air in unexpected ways, making said gun extremely inaccurate.

I guess if you don't have a backpack. Like Norris said, you'd be minus one hand, meaning your pistol would be less accurate, and operating doors, picking up objects, all of that would be twice as difficult with your hands full.

I would really like to know how you could hold a rifle while having your pistol drawn, and no sling to keep said rifle over your shoulder. Where would you put it? Unless you've got magic 4 foot deep pockets, the backpack (or a sling) is pretty much the only thing that could effectively transport a rifle on your person. I don't think the Standalone is going to have .50 cal sniper rifles, but if it does, they're going to be extremely rare.

Have you been living under a rock, man? That's all custom clothing.

What if not having a holster or sling meant you have to change weapons the old fashioned way - a.k.a stop, slowly put away first weapon, pull out second weapon. But if you have a holster or a sling, you can switch to that weapon while running or walking, like it is in the SA now. Seems like a very simple and authentic solution imo. In reality, without a sling you'd have to stick your rifle in your backpack, and it would probably require you to stop for a moment to remove it. A sling on the other hand, well that's right on your side, meaning you can remain mobile and therefore you have a slight tactical advantage. Same goes for a pistol. Have you ever put a gun in your pocket or your belt? It's significantly harder to draw, as the hammer and stuff often catches on your clothes. (also it can be dangerous since many people shoot themselves this way)

So like side effects. I like it. Also I think using morphine should make your gun sway in unnatural ways, for a little while.

Why are you so draconian and heated? How is finding a compromise "not helpful?" You're the one starting flame wars with people just because they disagree with you and your little poll, which I haven't even voted on by the way - so again, the source you present is clearly biased. It doesn't take into consideration compromises or "third options." I hardly call that helpful or constructive. It's a completely false dilemma.

Is it really this easy for a troll to succeed here? ARE WE NOT MEN?

What "2000" people? Name them? If they want first person so badly, why don't they play first person servers? They exist. I've seen many first person only servers, but they're all empty. It just doesn't add up. If 60% of all the people playing DayZ wanted first person only, then wouldn't 60% of the servers BE first person only? Your argument makes no sense, as it's based in zero fact and mostly just hearsay and internet polls from places like Reddit. The problem is that your sources are naturally biased. The people who are more likely to vote, or voice their opinion, are the ones with something to be mad about. Do you have any idea how much stink would be raised if this game had 100% forced FPV? The riot would be ten times any metric you can present for your case. How do I know this? Because again, even people like myself who enjoy playing in 1st person, still use 3rd person in certain situations. The fact of the matter is that this whole viewpoint thing is getting sliced up into a completely bipartisan debate, like there's absolutely NO OTHER SOLUTION or compromise the developers can make to provide more balanced gameplay. If you think about it, isn't that the whole point of this ridiculous argument anyway? You want FPV because you think it's "lame," "for noobs," or somehow exploitative to the nature of DayZ. I would agree with the latter conclusion, anyway. Currently, it is highly overpowered. Status effects don't affect 3rd person camera. You can rotate your head almost indefinitely in third person which makes all sorts of wall peaking completely natural and easy. Not to mention the camera is practically two feet above your head, so you've got Tim Duncan vision despite the fact that your are prone. All of these things are what make the 3rd person camera such a lethal instrument. But to say that it should be removed entirely and everyone should be stuck with a jiggly, sometimes awkward, first person view all the time is completely draconian. Let's not forget that if you want to look over a short wall, you'd have to stand up completely. Maybe if they implemented the stance system from Arma 3, then I'd be okay with it. But the fact still remains that it is a game, and it can only simulate TWO of your five human senses (and only 3 of your thousands of possible stances and body positions), meaning that first person view is actually very limited in terms of simulation value. All I'm saying is that there can be a compromise. Third person can be repaired to a point where it is less exploitable, making first person play a feasible option on a 3rd person server, for example. And it is a pre-alpha, for goodness sake. As in, subject to change even after initial release which will still be an ALPHA. So let's all just calm the fuck down.

What is the difference between a duck?

Why wouldn't it be possible in the standalone? It's possible in Arma 2. It was possible in Arma 1. It is possible in Arma 3. Obviously rocket can see that some people do like forced FPV servers so the developers literally have zero motivation to remove that as a server option. It doesn't make sense to assume that 3rd person view will be mandatory in the standalone. Servers still have control over certain options.

Don't get me wrong, I think more defensible locations in forests is actually a good idea. But haters are gonna hate, even if they are totally misinterpreting you're idea. What I think you are asking for generally is more map development that players can take advantage of, and I think that's a great idea. People have already made a great case for why erecting structures is both unrealistic and can be extremely glitchy, so why not add a nice little farm, cabin, or maybe even an occasional residual "fort" or something ever now and then? Also it's worth remembering that 95% of structures in the standalone are going to be enterable, and eventually defensible by the looks of it. Which means fortifying existing structures and things is going to be completely feasible.

"I am not a crook!"

I really wish they would bring Atlis to DayZ. It's the perfect map. It could easily support 100 - 150 players, in my mind. But before it can be successful the devs need to perfect a seriously robust "network bubble" to make it feasible. The servers running it would have to be powerful, indubitably. http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/screenshots/ Just look at that!

Ap_Norris, I don't mean to condescend, but please. An M1 Abrams has a 1,500-horsepower gas turbine engine. No civilian vehicle has comparable power. Haven't you seen the episode of Mythbusters where they actually armored cars with phone books and shot at it? The weight of the phone books alone slowed the vehicle dramatically. I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to armor our cars, but you're comparing apples to oranges my friend. But before we get armoring, I'd really like to see a simple "duck" mechanic for people inside a vehicle. I want to be able to crouch down behind the steering column to avoid being shot straight through the window. Maybe ducking as the driver would slow your steering response time to make it harder to control, that way you can't just drive around ducking all the time.

I agree that we need a condensed day/night cycle. 1 hour of daylight? That is just not enough. I think servers should be able to choose from a template of different day/night cycles, but all servers should be forced to have nighttime at some point. And no, zombies shouldn't "gain power" from the dark. They aren't magical. They are infected human beings who have similar limitations to non-infected human beings. If anything, it should be easier to sneak around them at night, just as it is in the mod right now. That's one of the very few incentives to operate at night time. The cover of darkness and the fact that the server population might be low, (a.k.a people are sleeping, which would be the case in a real life scenario) means that you can scavenge with relative safety at night. But of course the darkness can make navigation harder, and of course encountering another player in the dark can be an especially stressful event. So it has it's advantages and disadvantages.

It's not a terrible idea, but it's kind of unnecessary. If someone or a group of people want to set up a trade post, then they have that ability. They just have to find a good spot, get sandbags, wire, tools, tents, probably a vehicle or two. Then they have to build their camp, and run scavenging missions to surrounding towns to hoard supplies for trade. Then they have to defend said position and make the trade post location known to other players. They'd probably need a good sniper, or two, to enforce neutral interactions. Not to mention they would have to repel raiding bandits. As far as locations go, castles could easily be turned into trade posts. The walls make it defensible. Green Mountain is a very good, centrally located outpost. With a decent sniper and that tower, you could control the area pretty well. Also there are locations the the Factory, just south of Berezino, which has walls and a very nice large factory building which could be occupied. Just put some wire on the hole in the fence and control the gate and it's yours. I guess my point is that this is already feasible in the mod. What it takes is motivation, manpower, and materials.

Only on the DayZ forum would "flare gun" get the most votes.

Well, yeah. I thought a toolbox item seemed obvious? I'm just saying realistically you'd need a hammer, which would be in a toolbox. Really? I have a feeling you overestimate the durability of a pistol frame. You'd be better off just picking up a stone off the ground.

What are you doing to the game I love? I want this game to grow and change, and become a richer, more in depth, and more difficult experience. Stop trying to stifle its development with your opinionated bollocks. I for one like the direction the dev team is taking and I think it has serious promise, especially with some more thorough development. I want this game to be different from the mod. If it was the same, why would I buy it? I'd just play the mod. Idiot.