Pharmakon

SERVER: Chicago 51 TIME: Approximately 16:24 EST I was running through a field and a bus spawned directly on me and disappeared 2 seconds later. I thought it was a coincidental vehicle spawn, but 7-8 other players died (I had all my blood, so I survived) at the exact same moment, so it's definitely not a coincidence. A few minutes later two anti-air tanks spawned in a factory courtyard (I'm fairly certain it was in Kamorovo). I got in one of them (in restrospect this was probably a bad idea) and died almost immediately. I've never heard of cheating players having the ability to spawn vehicles on other players locations, this looked more like the sort of thing only a server administrator could do. I apologize for not having thought of taking screenshots, so there isn't enough evidence here (aside from logs) to take action, but I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced this sort of stuff on Chicago 51?

I've never heard of anyone hollowing out a tree in such a way. Did David the Gnome carve his home, or did he live in a naturally-occuring tree hollow? Hm, anyway, as Techercizer pointed out, "excavating" a tree can't be easy, I think it would be a lot less weird and much simpler if we could just bury things: that's how most things make stashes. (maybe different tools (hands< knife I'm not sure that this is altogether feasible. If everyone with a tool can dig as many holes as they please to hide every piece of junk they find, it might be too taxing on the servers. I do agree, though, we need to be able to leave items we can't carry out in the environment and fetch them later. In most post-apocalyptic games, everything is focused on your person, on what's currently on you, but this isn't relevant here. In most post-apocalyptic games you are a protagonist who has a set goal, to get closer and closer to the final boss: there are no stashes because there is no going back. In DayZ you are like the lost member of a hunter-gatherer culture, you are expected to go back to familiar meaningful places, to travel in circles on a long-term basis and to leave important, necessary things for you to pick up later. The solution: It would be less taxing on the servers if the stashes disappeared upon death. Stashes wouldn't be made so you can get your loot upon respawning , that's a bit cheap (the much rarer and riskier tents would serve that purpose). Their use would be to adapt your current inventory to immediate or planned needs : if you need to leave your sniper rifle behind to clear out a zombie-invested factory with an AKM, or if you don't want to carry your flashlight during daytime. However, the best use of stashes would be when scouring a town. When my backpack is full and I go out to search for loot, it is very annoying and dangerous to have to compare items I find to the ones I have, and to mess around with inventory slots. Realistically, I would just leave my stuff behind, go into the town and grab everything I can, and when I come back to my stash I would decide what to keep. I think it's fair to say that in most cultures (the same is true for burrowing animals) stashes are used for planning and prevention, and not to entice carelessness, which is exactly what letting them remain upon death would do. Also, since stashes would be underground loot piles (with a texture on top, maybe) and not actual 3D objects in the environment, it wouldn't be a problem if they were tied to players, who could access them in any server.

I feel that it is time to evaluate our conception of the role of stealth as of update 1.7.0, which removes the Makarov from the spawn inventory. (I will digress a bit, every topic leads to another) Obviously, not having a gun forces players to use stealth, seemingly the opposite of a firefight. However, I would say the Makarov was rather complimentary to stealth than opposite to it. As a mediocre short-ranged weapon, it was generally used to kill off zombies who had been chasing you because you got detected while sneaking. It was a bit like in Splinter Cell, where you only pulled out your weapon (or reloaded the game) if you accidentally got spotted. Unless they can zigzag up a steep hill to put some distance between them and the zombies, or lure them off a cliff, newspawns usually have to start all over again if they get spotted once. This might seem "hardcore" to some of you, but really it's just a chore: the average lifespan is 32 minutes, and the first 32 minutes are usually the least interesting part of a good run. And so, stealth needs to be deeper and more interesting, because it's the only tool newspawns have until they find weapons: 1. Characters have to stop standing straight up ("Ms. Survivor, would you stand up, please?") when they pass through a doorway or bump into a 5 cm change in terrain while prone. I'm not joking, this bug (or rather oversight) has gotten me killed more often than anything else. 2. Zombies should not be able to use doorknobs. I'm not sure if the developers are capable of making doors destructible, but this is definitely worth looking into. Players who are getting chased could close doors behind them to give them more time to escape or prepare. 3. Zombies shouldn't be able to identify your footsteps as being those of a survivor. This irritated me a lot in Splinter Cell and Thief: why does the guard IMMEDIATELY presume my footsteps are those of an intruder and, y'know, not just the sound of one of the dozen other guards milling about? In DayZ it's even worse, because we're dealing with zombies who should definitely not be mentally capable of telling footsteps apart, and upon hearing them they get aggressive, as opposed to just suspicious or curious. Footsteps should get zombies attention. Upon hearing a light step, they should turn towards its position, and if they see nothing, resume their shambling. If they hear louder, or running footsteps (granted, they're not used to hearing running) they should go to the last known location of the sound. Every game that isn't an run and gun action shooter needs to have more AI states than "oblivious" and "aggressive". 4.This suggestion isn't as important, I feel, but I think it would be neat if there were different levels of aggressivity. I suggest that zombies who have been shot at would pursue over longer distances, and would be more willing to break down doors. Likewise, zombies who merely attack because they have spotted a nice meal would be a bit less "angry", as even their basic instincts would tell them it is not worth spending all their energy to catch a prey. This means that upon being spotted, players could decide against firing their weapon if they can think of more clever strategies. 5. Players with lighter packs should be quieter. This is my favourite idea here, and It is pretty obvious: there is a reason why it's called a light step. Even if ArmA II does not track item and character weight, it would still be possible to adjust a player's noise proportionally to backpack type or item count. This would especially have an impact on players who are moving prone. Realistically, if I have a 30kg backpack and an M240 in my hands I would be making a lot of noise dragging my body against the ground, whereas if I had nothing but a czech vest pouch and a knife I could move prone without having any other part of my body than my forearms and feet touching the ground (it wouldn't flatten too much foliage either). I think such a change would have terrific results, as sneaking would be easier for newspawns: it would shorten the time (and risk) necessary for getting all the basic essentials needed for more worthwhile adventuring. It would also guide players towards adopting specific playstyles: if you want to carry car parts and machineguns around, don't expect to be able to tiptoe through a zombie-infested town. This would effectively be a handicap, but one that is both realistic and voluntary. If possible, the developers could even make it so players with lighter pack can get from the prone to the standing position faster. However, to go back to the starting point of this text, I think the biggest impact of the removal of the Makarov is on cooperation. Every time there is a change or suggestion, we need to think, first and foremost, about the way it impacts the way people play together. I generally agree with the decision to remove the Makarov: before that, players often decided to forego scavenging entirely and just spent their 32 minutes trying to get the jump on someone with better gear, making the game even more of a "loot treadmill". However, the downside is that unarmed players aren't useful in instances of cooperation. As I mentioned, when playing a solo non-player-killer, the Makarov is only useful for self-defence when stealth fails. But with multiple players, it can effectively be used to engage zombies. The underlying idea of this post is that many small changes should be made in order to decrease the amount of time/attempts it takes for newspawns to get into the game proper, as most survival features can't be experienced within the current average lifespan. Spawning unarmed generally means it taking more time before being able to get into the most interesting aspect of the game: interacting with others. Even if you meet the friendliest band of survivors, or the dastardliest gang of bandits who are looking for a new member, you won't be able to contribute to the team at all if you aren't armed. I'm definitely not saying the change should be reverted. I simply (or not) think there should be more ways of interacting with players that don't require fireweapons. Right now, cooperating (aside from PvP) generally involves sticking together to clear a town of its inhabitants. It's a bit like Left 4 Dead, which is a good game (judging from the demo), but I feel DayZ, as a dynamic, nonlinear and generally unrestrictive game, can be much more than that. My suggestions were all about solo stealth, but maybe there could be ways it could be cooperative (having one person sneak through one side of town while a friend scours through the other is more of a separation of tasks than an instance of interdependant cooperation). I can't really think of anything too specific right now, but as an example of what I mean, imagine that a player has to draw the zombies to one end of a village (while his friends search another), with a speaker powered by a manual crank set at a safe spot. Or that a player has to use a spotlight at night to guide another player, while making sure not to point it directly at him. These examples would probably be a bit hard to integrate into the game, but they illustrate what I mean: players should have nonviolent (suicidally attracting every zombies to yourself doesn't count) means of cooperating that make them INTERDEPENDANT. This would add more depth to the game and to player interactions, and remove the very strict need for weaponsas a precondition to actually enjoying the game.

You read that Cracked.com article, right? It's absolutely true what they say, in a post-apocalyptic setting absolutely EVERYONE would have a bike. The thing is, this is one of those elements of realism that actually makes the game easier. Realistically, there would probably be one bicycle per household, so survivors probably wouldn't have to make much effort to find one. Bicycles are also remarkably faster than even the hardiest of zombies, so it would be extremely easy to kite them: you could probably even put enough distance between you and them to hop off, fire a few shots, then get back on. And once Rocket fixes the fact that zombies magically always know your location (and never relent) when they detect you, it'll get even easier. I think this is a great idea, but it has to be fine-tuned: players should get knocked to the ground if they get hit when they're on a bike (so kiting zombies is riskier), and all except the rarer mountain bikes should slow to a crawl when they aren't on a road (players will have to choose between laying low in the bush or risking it on the road). BIG problem: we would have to be able to walk alongside our bikes. When you have to go up a steep muddy hill, you obviously don't leave your bike behind!

Thanks! One question though: do the matches spawn more often or do they spawn at more types of buildings?

So will we get another hotfix to patch the err... "temperature matrix"?

In short' date=' keep the zombies hard because we want it, but namecalling is childish and uncalled for at best, and is downright appalling as a public statement. [/quote'] I think you are taking it a bit too seriously; I'm willing to overlook Rocket's attitude because I know he works so hard, he never asked for all this attention, and he usually does end up listening to the community (bitterly). But I generally agree, saying "salty tears" or "carebears" whenever someone dislikes gameplay changes is like saying "U MAD" and "butthurt lol" whenever someone expresses a complaint. It's just a way of intimidating people who disagree: it's a very poisonous and contagious attitude on message boards and it has to stop. This is very irrational, since the entire purpose of this alpha is to get players' responses. On these boards I have participated in some excellent discussions about this game, where people didn't resort to these sort of tactics at all: I think Mr. Hall needs to do the same and show a bit of maturity, and respond to his fans' queries and worries with patience and respect, even when they don't do the same. I very rarely see developers or artists who treat their fans in such a way, it's not only unpleasant, it makes us fairly worried about the future of the game knowing that the developer might act irrationally.

The idea that removing bandit morphing will contribute to realism is preposterous. The core lack of realism in this game stems from the fact that it is set over multiple servers, and that its players do not play 24-7: people can disappear and reappear in an alternate reality that is identical, but populated by different people: these "metaphysics" annihilate any chance for “realistic” interpersonal identity references. The fact that this game is set over multiple servers eliminates GEOGRAPHY: in the real world, geography is what allows us to think of each others personal identities despite the fact that it contains 6 billions holders of multiple intersecting identities. The proximity among us allows us to know who is more important to us, and the distance between us is a necessary limit on the amount of people that we have to care about : but in DayZ, I could spawn next to ANY of the 75000 players, and I cannot possibly remember the word-of mouth reputation (an institutionalised reputation system could easily be abused), as well as the physical appearance of so many people. If DayZ was realistic, no doubt the murderers would be geographically ostracised, and would eventually form a discernible culture (or discernible lack thereof). But because players TRANSCEND geography, identity must also be TRANSCENDENTAL, through a system of morality. This game is lauded by PCGamer and RockPaperShotgun for its player-driven STORIES : a game that makes for good stories is a game with variables (Dwarf Fortress is the best example of this), and although a binary form of identification is sub-par, removing bandit morphing removes the only in-game variable of identity, it turns tentative interpersonal relations into an unknowable: decisions will initially be based on impulse or a purely mathematical calculation of gain and risk: eventually these mentalities will turn the game into a free-for-all deathmatch as people would realise there is no reason not to be a solo-killer: in fact, there wouldn't be any reason why new players WOULDN'T think the game is intended to be a deathmatch. The bandit skin (and video game morality systems in general) is arbitrary, but it is a necessary SIGNIFIER. Analogy: language's root words are inevitably arbitrary, and they are imposed with authority: yet without these imposed signifiers, our capacity to communicate and appreciate the objects of our decisions is severely hindered, so we are most assuredly not free. The alternative to geography relations or relations based on criteria imposed by authority is the network-based relation, which takes shape outside the game through voice chats, forums or circles of friends. I do not think the game should depend on external applications to be worthwhile: to compensate for this imbalance, the developers main focus should be on creating variables within the game that allow interpersonal relations to flourish: this is the task of anyone developing a player-driven game. PROPOSAL: Bandit-morphing is far from perfect, but it is not at all as broken as Rocket says it is (I wonder if he'll remove “bandits killed” and “Step 2: kill bandits” from the front page). It is definitely better than nothing, but it absolutely needs to stay until he can come up with a better idea: the people who complain about it most are the ones who don't have the patience to wait for their humanity to recover (if you've only killed one person it is fairly quick): instead of laying low they place themselves in situations where they may have to kill others to survive. If it's kill or be killed for the bandit-skinned right now, it'll be kill or be killed for everybody if we remove bandit-morphing. The main complaint is that you shouldn't lose humanity when defending yourself, whether you are a repentant bandit or a survivor defending one's self from an upstart bandit. But for the game to know whether you are defending yourself, it would be necessary for it to be able to know who shot first. However, bandits could overcome this by trying to kill survivors who are firing at zombies, so the game would have to know not only who shot first, but also towards WHO the players are shooting: this seems like a complicated thing for the servers to keep track of, but when you play against AI, the NPCs know when they are getting shot at, so the code to make the game know who is shooting at who already exists, it just has to be applied to players. If that is not possible, I think the only solution would be to have multiple skins to create a broader spectrum of trust-related identities: -Bandits could choose to repent, this would give them a different skin (until they become survivors again): anyone who kills a repentant bandit would lose a little bit of humanity (maybe 800 or so). Repentant bandits who are killed by a survivor regain their humanity upon re-spawn. Repentant bandits who do not hold their promise and shoot a survivor anyway would get a massive dip in humanity, accompanied by an even darker, uglier bandit skin. These solutions sound like they could work, there is probably some loophole I haven't thought of though. What do you think, guys?

Like many video games, this does appeal to some of our instincts, but these do not make up our "basic human nature". When I started playing I told myself I would play ethically, but as I accumulated more and better items, I started having second thoughts about this (although I have managed not to kill anyone yet). It was not because I felt bolder and more powerful, but because [/bold]the more I had the more afraid I was of losing it. When I was a newbie on the beach, I was not afraid of walking up to people and taking risks: I was fine as long as I could find a can of beans from time to time. The more I had, the LESS I felt free: this is a theme picked up by Machiavelli and to a lesser extent, by Rousseau: the rich are primarily motivated by fear, and their desire to accumulate to consolidate their status is endless and pointless in the long run. Aristotle posited that those who lived apart from civilization would have to be gods or beasts, but in DayZ these are essentially the only options: cooperation is not assured by structures, it is a vanishing affair that ends at a whim: I could live off hunting in the isolated forests, or I could be a brute who mugs people in towns, but the game has no relevance to reality because the two options are permitted by the fact that this is only a video game, and the third option is inevitably absent because a bunch of faceless anonymous strangers on the internet cannot have the common culture that is necessary (and always present) for forms of coexistence that go beyond simple calculation of personal gains. Despite these ponderings, one would need to subscribe to the liberal conception of humanity to think DayZ has any anthropological signification: the individualistic war of all against all as developed by Hobbes is an absurd bedtime story: Marx would refer to these hypothetical liberal scenarios as "robinsonades", as they featured individual men in improbable situations of isolation: they have long since been disproven by anthropologists, who discovered that even the most "primitive" peoples always shared a sense of community; sociologists, who noticed that people in dire situations look out for each other despite personal risks (especially after natural disasters); and psychologists who understand how deeply our environment affects us, how we truly depend on those around us: they make us, they allow us to think ourselves: collectivity is IN the individual, much like language allows us to shape our thoughts: collectivity and altruism aren't any more "illusions" or "constructs" than individuality and egotism. To make a brief reference to Foucault: one should not attempt to find essences of meaning in scenarios of origin that simply do not exist, as there is absolutely no such thing as a "pure subject". There is no hobbesian "in the beginning", and much less a post-apocalyptic "after it is all gone". Even in a world of zombies, people would not simply spawn on the shore. (sorry if I made mistakes I wrote this quickly past my usual bedtime)

CABuildingParts error means it isn't loading CO properly. Follow this guide to get it to run CombOps: if you follow it correctly it should launch Arrowhead and say ArmA II-PC and @DayZ on the top-right corner. Make sure both games are patched and unmodded otherwise. http://i.imgur.com/PFkn5.jpg And holy s**t, don't skip school because of video games.