louist

I am entirely against any long rang tags, even with a mouse over. It negates hiding in bushes, and allows for easy spotting. But close range tags, say within a meter or two, where you couldn't fail to see someone, would be nice.

Knowing their names, with the ability to recognize them, would allow for fun rivalries.

Like others, I keep my weapon out when I am around a town or other area frequented by players, and stowed when I am traveling through a forest or remote sections of the map.

I prefer the mosin. It's easy to find, ammo is plentiful without resorting to server hopping (I'm looking at you, guy I killed who had 200 odd spare rounds in addition to 3 fully loaded double clips), and is usually in pristine condition. It also incapacitated or kills in one shot, is very accurate, and it's attachments spawn in residential areas. I also don't like my enemies getting within a few hundred meters.

What about those people who have a negative interaction with? Would you not what to know who they are?

I think being within a few meters, showing the player's name could be akin to seeing their face, and doing so again would be like recognizing them. Right now, there are what, 4 different faces per sex (or skin tones, rather), and every one of them is otherwise identical, physically. Such a limitation means that I could interact with the same person a dozen times without ever realize they are the same person. There are people in my neighbourhood that I've seen fewer times than that, and from a distance, whom I can still recognize.

But if the odds of an M4 (or comparable) is, say, .5% in a house, yet 15% in a military structure, farming that out of the way town wouldn't pay off very often, even with loot respawning. But for the average person coming across one at random, that's a little bit of awesome. Keep in mind, too, that the farmer doesn't just want an M4. He wants the attachments and the magpul and the ammo and the expanded capacity magazines, to say nothing of the military clothing. With a properly weighted distribution, that should force him to check hundreds, if not thousands, of houses, as opposed to dozens of military buildings. This would keep a lot of those looking for military gear around the military bases, while still rewarding, if less much less frequently, those players who take the time to check out individual houses. Risk versus reward would be maintained, as those who brave the PVP hotspots would receive the military gear they're looking for, while those who are afraid to, or who would simply rather not, would sometimes find odds and ends, with little promise that they would be what they were looking for, or even of use. But the chance, however slim, would still make searching houses more interesting than they currently are.

A weighted distribution would keep the military locations the preferred target of those looking for military goods, but the current system, where specific things spawn at specific places (the gun in the top room of the school, in the stairwell and top room of the office building, and so on) is currently too easy to exploit. When I enter a city, I know exactly where to go to get what I want, and I ignore all the other buildings because, quite simply, they are a waste if my time. I'd like to see that change.

Last I heard they only restored half the blood of a blood bag.

Are you being sarcastic? Or not? Because those items listed (perhaps not the axe... Or rather, I have yet to find one) all currently spawn in the school. For that matter, why wouldn't rice and oranges be found in a school?

Personally, I don't think any items in your backpack should be allowed in the hotbar. At least with out some animation/delay. Retrieving an item from your backpack, weapon or not, should require some time. Keep the hotbar for items in pockets/tactical vests and weapons slung over your shoulder. You know, things you would keep at hand exactly because you want immediate access to them.

What the devs are and are not aware of is a matter of some debate. As someone pointed out in an earlier thread, Rocket was wholly unaware that a number of houses don't spawn items during one of his streams. Though that's only a single, if glaring, example, user input is still a good thing, and using "alpha" as a blanket invalidation of criticisms, concerns, and questions defeats the purpose of holding a public alpha in the first place.

With an alice pack in the mod, you can carry two rifles in your bag. That is not at all unrealistic. If anything, the inventory system in the mod was more realistic, in that any time you wanted something from your backpack, you had to crouch down and go through the clunky menus to get it out. The hot bar system in SA, while convenient, is not at all realistic. Pulling a bandage out of a medkit, which is itself inside my crammed backpack, in less than a second is in no way realistic.

I'm wary of using the fresh kiwis and bananas as any sort of evidence. Their existence suggests that the apocalypse happened within a week, which doesn't jive.

The simple fact of the matter is that camouflage clothing provides an advantage that everyone, bandits included, can benefit from. Unwanted attention is something everyone wants to avoid, and camouflage helps mitigate that. Equating people in camouflage with bandits is silly.

I cannot tell whether you are confused, or if you're being purposefully contentious. To begin, a viewpoint is a statement. "Survival is its own reward," for instance, is both a statement and a viewpoint, as well as being a statement of a viewpoint. And while a statement can be true or false in a narrow sense, when it comes to human subjectivity, such distinctions approach meaninglessness. Truth and falsehood are subjective in most areas of human existence. I could say that eggs go horribly with ketchup. It's certainly true, within my subjective experience. It is a statement of fact, The thought of it alone makes me queasy. But does that make it true for the millions of people who enjoy them together? Not at all. To them, that statement is false. So let's return to DayZ. The statement, the viewpoint, that "survival is it's own reward" is true for a lot of people on these forums. It's also false for a lot of others. Instead of continuously and blindly telling others they are wrong, why don't you tell them why they are wrong? You know, engage in the discussion. Contribute.

I don't buy the argument that only bandit/KoS people wear camouflage clothing. ANYONE looking to go unnoticed would be wise to wear them. It doesn't hurt, either, that the camouflage clothing tends to have a number of item slots. But taking the other side of the argument, myself and those I play with tend to embrace the KoS mindset, and while one of us does look like a special forces reject, another wears a pink beanie, red jacket, red canvas pants, and violet trainers, with a purple backpack. I myself currently wear an orange backpack, UN beret, and a payday mask. I've passed on ballistics helmets and other less visible articles of clothing simply because in combat, it's much more useful for us to be able to tell at a glance whether we're looking at one of our own members as opposed to an enemy. I hope some sort of system is put in place to be more able to tell people apart (though I have no idea what form this could take), because, as it is, everyone is essentially a clone of each other barring those of us who choose not to wear green/camou. No game can truly replicate our ability to differentiate each other at a glance, but some effort should be made.

I don't have an issue, per se, with addressing combat logging and server hopping. It is an issue for the game, but one that I don't think needed to be addressed just yet, when so much more needs to be put into fundamentals. What I do find odd, is that so many cosmetic and novelty features are being added. Sure, I enjoy having a wealth of choices when it comes to clothing options, and the ability to paint my mosin, but those aren't necessary when we still have so many bugs to contend with, in addition to the partially implemented medical mechanics and so on. Yes, there are staff working on art assets, and they will need to continue doing so while other features are completed, but given the numerous bugged out structures (seriously, passing through Gorka last night right after server reset, only 2 or 3 of the dozen or so houses were actually spawning loot), they are just adding clutter to the game right now. And the painted mosin bug shows that the features are not just unnecessary, but are adding to the number of bugs. I'd much rather see the priority given to building the foundations of the game. As some people have said, server hopping and combat logging are issues for the game. That's true. But it's a gameplay issue for the players, an annoyance. We don't need to deal with annoyances in an alpha. We need to get the mechanics working.

How is it not a legitimate part of the game? The devs knew what it would do, and included it. It was intentional; they were not unaware, and they have made no mention of changing it. That sounds like legitimacy to me.

At what point have the devs ever said it was an exploit or an unintended feature? It had been part of the mod since it's inception, and part of the Arma series before that. It is a known and accepted part of the game. Disagreeing with people who use it I can understand. But calling it an exploit? That's the kind of truth-molesting Fox News has built an empire on.

Calling it a cheat (or an exploit, as many others have) doesn't make it one. It's a setting provided to the player. Use it or don't use it, but recognize it for what it is: a legitimate part of the game.

There are so many generalizations being made in here. I've lost a little of my faith in the community.

Who says KoS isn't the "sense" of the game? It has always been a major part of the mod, and one which Rocket never tried to remove or limit. Hell, his inclusion of .50 sniper rifles wasn't aimed at killing zombies. Just because you disagree with a particular play style doesn't mean it isn't a massive part of the game, and even an expected part of the game.

I'd like to see a greater penalty to being shot. Myself and two friends got into a three-way firefight last night involving at least 8 people, or rather, we counted 5 corpses afterwards, though it was a little hard to tell with all the shots flying. While two of us made it out unscathed, our point man with the M4 took at least three hits, and still managed to sprint to cover and bandage up, which just seemed ridiculous to us. Sure, his vision was blurry, but after some saline transfusions and natural regeneration, he was good to go. There should be some sort of serious impairment to reflect the trauma of being shot. Whether that should be impaired movement or terrible aim, I don't know. But as it stands, small calibre rounds are just too easy to shrug off.

I don't say it enough, Gews, but I love you.