shwat

This whole situation could be alleviated by allowing server-specific databases, locally hosted on the machines for those servers. It would allow hosts to run their servers as they see fit, it would alleviate stress on the master server, and it would be less work for the DayZ development team because they would not have to maintain the master server, enforce blanketing rules amongst their hosts, etc. All of that aside, it further promotes regular play on favorite servers, developing server-specific communities rather than a transient player base. It would vastly improve connection and load times for players, effectively addressing the "why am I waiting for server response" pissing & moaning. The only downside is that you couldn't swap between servers on a whim and keep all of your stuff, but that's not to say you couldn't swap between servers at all. Hosts that provide more than one server (such as Mojo's Chicago 1 and Chicago 20) would most likely have a single database that is shared between both server instances. Or you could go to a cloud system and allow servers to operate independently if they desire. All of this Nazi force-feeding rule bullshit is driving out the providers, which limits access for the players. Best way to kill your player base? Remove their access. [Edit] If that's not going to happen, then something needs to be done at the administrative level regarding these "rules" and server blacklisting. First and foremost it needs to be made clear that banning an individual from a single game server does not serve as a deterrent or a defense of database integrity. Because of the large volume of servers and the persistent, transient nature of characters, it is entirely possible for a rogue player to lower the quality of play on a specific server, be removed from it, and carry on their activities on a different server. There is no way for a single server admin to deny overall access to the mod at the server level, which means their individual actions in the grand scheme of things are largely inconsequential. Therefore, it seems to me that the rules provided (only ban for racism/abuse/hacking etc.) should only be considered as a minimum rule set required on all servers as a means to maintain quality of play that is consistent across all providers. Server providers that wish to go above and beyond this set of expectations should not be penalized for their actions, because their actions are inconsequential to the player base as a whole. It makes no difference if I am banned from one server, because I can go to any of the other 200+ servers and have essentially the same access & experience. If one server wants me to play a specific way and I don't agree with their expectations, I'm free to go somewhere else that fits my preference. Being banned from one server does not significantly affect my options. It's incredibly unlikely that all servers would ban me for something or another, unless I am an actively disruptive element on their server (in which case I deserve it). There is no reason for servers to be limited in their options for maintaining a standard of quality of play so long as it does not go beneath the minimum expectations of the master server provider, whose primary goal should be first and foremost to maintain database integrity, as this is critical for maintaining quality of play amongst the player base. Any action a server admin takes on his server does not affect database integrity unless it is permitting exploitation, hacking, or cheating, which no-one here is advocating.

If any other player were to record on your server, Codeusa, would you ban someone for interfering with their efforts? What makes your needs so special? The fact that you're still trying to shift blame onto the person you wrongfully banned shows you haven't learned jack and this whole episode will be repeated. How many repealed bans will it take before you realize the problem may not be the players?

Bad at administrating indeed. :( Can't even keep your dog in line. How are you supposed to run a 50-man server? The rest of you need to play on said server and become little sunshines. It's the only damn way you're going to become one.

How is that? Going to yell "are you friendly" at people? The logical answer is "yes" even if the honest answer is "no." You'll just be making sure they know where you are.

I couldn't find faces for Operation Arrowhead (the Takistan local faces) on the Armaholic link, though after some trial-and-error I found out that camo variants of their faces are formatted like so: Face##_camo#_EP1 The camo patterns are always the same for the same numbers (1 through 6), so I picked a camo pattern from the images on the ArmaHolic site, picked one of the OA faces in-game, and then added _camo# into it. It's easier to change your face this way as well. Pick the pattern you want, pick your face in-game, and edit the file.

In other news, the server is again going strong despite numerous setbacks. We are up, running, and available. Play it, enjoy it, come back soon. Witty admin commentary is a complimentary service!

TL;DR at end.

It's nice to know "Jim" won't be fiddling around with things he clearly doesn't know how to fiddle with in the future, at least on the Chi1 servers. Database corruption from poorly-managed servers, eh? That would explain why the server monitor is supposedly rebooting servers every 6 hours, yes? Even if they just automatically rebooted from a crash recovery shortly before, or so I've heard. What happened to the admins for these servers? Players notice when a server needs to be rebooted, because loot/zombie spawns become abnormal, desync occurs more often, etc. Do these admins just not give a shit, are they inactive, or are they busy duping stuff off in a corner? Is it just innocent inaction?

Let's hope so, Schaefer. That thing was game-breaking to the max.

Removing zombies means everybody can be stealthy all the time. Stealth shouldn't always be a viable option. How many players would you find if you didn't hear them shooting at zombies? What's to stop people from camping the major gear spawns when the only thing left to shoot at is other players? As it stands, you can't really camp major gear spawns indefinitely because of the zombies. They're not really a threat, but they are an inconvenience which will force you to reposition & engage them. The zombies force you to evaluate situations differently than any other type of enemy, which makes for an interesting and non-standard form of play. Without them, there is literally nothing stopping you from camping a tower and watching gear spawns all day, shooting anything that comes near.

Right, somebody disagrees with you on the internet, so what do you do? Ad hominem! Of course! Don't be a twat because people aren't jumping on your particular bandwagon. If you want protection for your storage, use the already-existing fortifications. Barbed wire, sand bags, tank traps. There's nothing wrong with those, they fulfill the same purpose, and they're already in the game (and they work).

That's not necessarily true. ACE managed to implement a volume & weight based ruck system before Operation Arrowhead introduced its own rucks, and currently the ACE ruck system works smoother and looks cleaner than the default OpArrowhead gear menu. It's a shame rocket doesn't want to integrate any other existing mods, but it doesn't have to be a copy-paste job. In Day Z I'm carting around more than I'd ever care to in ACE because there's no real penalty to carrying around 2 rifles, ammo for both, food, water, sidearm & ammo, etc. The only limitation is the number of arbitrary slots I've got. ACE gives you a "back" slot for a backpack/launcher/primary weapon, as well as your standard primary & launcher slots. The backpacks have a maximum volume, cannot hold primaries, and their contents display is separate from the rest of your inventory list. It's easy to move stuff around, and while you can potentially carry more stuff you're likely to carry less with ACE's stamina system. So it's a shame that rocket doesn't want integration. Maybe he'll go with inspiration instead.