bbilbo1

Just clicked join and added my info. Take some beans.

If rocket considers combat logging an exploit, i think being able to see who disconnects would help in the naming, shaming, and (after some violations), banning.

Why did you buy Arma 2? Specifically to play DayZ. Why did you play DayZ in the first place? I wanted a unique FPS Zombie game that wasnt just "Shoot every zombie onscreen. I wanted Survival. And the multiplayer aspect really sold it. How did you find out about the game? From Kotaku.com What motivated you to buy Arma and dl the mod, and what did you think it was about before buying it? It's amazing how a mod could breath new life into an older game. I Thought this was a Zombie-themed Survival Simulator Did you know it was full-pvp and that you could get shot at any time by anyone and lose everything? Yup! However. I foolishly thought PvP would be Survival-related and not, "Let's play deathmatch!" (see link in sig) Was it clear enough on the websites where you looked for information about the game? No. It says "KILL BANDITS!" but there is no practical way to discern friendlies from bandits since the skin change "fix."

I used to have one of those. I played Team fortress Classic with it. And to be quite honest, it was spectacular for sniping. To look around, I would whip the ball in a direction, then stop it with my finger. That optical trackball was crazy precise when you were looking through a scope. It actually felt a lot more precise than manually moving the whole mouse around. You can line up a shot with just the slightest movement from your fingertips.

Hmmm...

Oh, And there's also:

Actually there should be options http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-3XbeRzISc

Good idea! But... inB4: Sniper locations sniper locations to snipe the snipers. Sniper locations to snipe the snipers' sniper. Deep Woods

So, you're admitting to combat logging?

Even sandboxes need to be tweaked from time to time as I mentioned earlier in this topic.

I agree and disagree with that statement, actually. I, personally, have played many Sandbox games. My first was Ultima Online in the late 90's, and that's just one game in a list. I'm very familiar with the open-world, do-what-you-want-when-you-want, freedom of such genre of game. And while the developers generally try to step back and let player sort out their problems themselves, there are definitely situations where staff have had to directly intervene in cases where gameplay degrades: Hacking, Exploiting, Unbalance General re-evaluation of what is "fun" or "within the accepted scope of the game" For instance, if the gameplay community discovered that one feature was significantly more advantageous, resulting in a massive shift of player focus to only one aspect of gameplay (gee, does that sound familiar?), the developers would investigate and come up with a plan to tweak the game to be a bit more balanced. Hopefully without breaking anything else. So in a nutshell: Regardless of sandbox or not, sometimes fixes need to happen so that all the players aren't overcrowding the same corner of said proverbial sandbox. I think the common line of thinking for the majority is: we're fine with dying. A lot if necessary. we're fine with perma-death, we like the survival elements! Contrary to popular belief, we're actually fine with the game having PvP elements. But at the moment, PvP is eclipsing every other feature and the general scope of the game. It's so disproportionate, it's the point where you say. "You know, If the main thing players wanted to do is ignore zombies, and kill other players, you'd think they'd go play a multiplayer deathmatch shooter." Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Yup. We might as well be asking for the game to dispense cookies from the disk tray.

That's a good point. One thing is for sure: When it comes to tweaking and balancing a persistent multiplayer game, you don't fix bluntly with a hammer, you do it finely with a brush. And as always, thanks to everyone for adding your input and thoughts.

[removed]

[Removed:] Misunderstood.

If I may contribute... I, personally, have played many Sandbox games. My first was Ultima Online in the late 90's, and that's just one game in a list. I'm very familiar with the open-world, do-what-you-want-when-you-want, freedom of such genre of game. And while the developers generally try to step back and let player sort out their problems themselves, there are definitely situations where staff have had to directly intervene in cases where gameplay degrades: Hacking, Exploiting, Unbalance General re-evaluation of what is "fun" or "within the accepted scope of the game" For instance, if the gameplay community discovered that one feature was significantly more advantageous, resulting in a massive shift of player focus to only one aspect of gameplay (gee, does that sound familiar?), the developers would investigate and come up with a plan to tweak the game to be a bit more balanced. Hopefully without breaking anything else. So in a nutshell: Regardless of sandbox or not, sometimes fixes need to happen so that all the players aren't overcrowding the same corner of said proverbial sandbox.

Hmmm... Yes. I give this whole topic four face-palms out of five.

If it's the result of a buggy server, then chalk this up to "alpha being alpha." But if it's an admin resetting player's progress because other players took their stuff, then it should really be reported. Do admins have the power to roll-back servers?

I see. Are you saying that you are seeking enertainment independent of Rocket's intended Zombie Survival-themed gameplay?

Discussed HERE

I'd like for you to expand on that, if you don't mind. Can you be more specific? Here we have a Zombie Survival Simulator game. You say that the thrill you get comes not from the ever-present zombie threat, and not from the survival aspect of food/drink/exposure/bloodloss. But you get your thrill from simple act of shooting other players and engaging in firefights to the death. Some would say that there are a whole plethora of other games that exclusively offer that gameplay... and even does it better than this game does! Tell me why you're opting to play this game instead of one of those. It seems akin to buying an entire car, just to have a radio.

That's a good question! When you kill, is your action directed at the in-game avatar on-screen, or is it directed at the person on the other side of the keyboard controlling that avatar? I personally feel like that's the most distinguishing factor.

Understood. This is, after all, my interpretation of the game. And I made sure to note my interpretation with the technicolor annotation as well as with the disclosure at the bottom. Ultimately, unless Rocket gives his opinion on this list, we're left guessing and speculating on what we think is the "right and wrong" ways to play and kill each other, aside from the vague "Don't hack, dont kill in the debug, and metagaming is fine." I just wanted to propose all this to the forum masses and see how they respond. BTW thanks for the feedback, everyone.

I'm sensing some entitlement issues here. You paid for Arma II. Go play it. This is a free mod. More importantly, a free mod that's in alpha. The entire point of playing an alpha is to stress-test, discover, and report bugs for the actual release. If you don't want to deal with the rapidly changing versions, play something else and/or wait for the finished product. Wanting to revert back to an earlier version is counter-productive to the work that's being done.

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/28979-psa-do-not-wear-alternative-clothing-in-172/