chrithu

The ONLY way this could be possible at all is to contact Steam's support. They will either say it isn't possible or will ask you to verify that both accounts indeed belong to you. May I ask why you needed a new account at all??

I'm just gonna repeat what I wrote often times during the past year of me not playing: The plain and simple reason I don't play anymore is because for every part DayZ consists of there are numerous games doing it actually better than DayZ. Survival is done a lot better in Don't Starve, The Long Dark, Project Zomboid and Neo Scavenger. Fighting Zombies is a lot more fun in 7 Days to Die, the Left for Dead Series, Project Zomboid, Plants vs. Zombies. Crafting and Base building is a lot better in 7 Days to Die and Ark. Some of those games started development well after DayZ and made a lot more progress in that time. The only thing DayZ has left going for it are open world PvP with realistic damage model and physics as well as the overall look and feel. That isn't enough for me to keep playing it.

Like I said in another post: Go revisit Dean Halls' old posts from 2012 and 2013, he always talked about diseases, weather, hunger and thirst becoming a serious challenge similar to Project Zomboid. And back then the crowd in these very forums asking for that was a lot bigger. The reason we are so few giving still input on that stuff is that ultimately the Mod and the Standalone still fail to deliver on that side of the content, while at the same time more than good alternatives to DayZ were developed when it comes to survival game mechanics. And the way I perceive things this is not because the devs follow a trend in their playerbase. It has ever since been due to shortcomings of the engine. Thus naturally they deliver more guns, outfits and vehicles because that's what the engine was used for ever since. This is an chicken vs. egg problem. DayZ delivers more PvP content because it is easier to get done with that engine, hence the PvP playerbase grew and grew while the survival game playerbase shrank due to lack of fun game mechanics. On another note: Paying with your char's live if you fail to find medicine or fail to find enough food or grow enough crops to keep your hunger sustained indefinitely is the very definition of a survival game. If the only real danger to your live is another player with a gun the game is NOT a survival game it is just a First Person Shooter. And frankly if you judge DayZ just as that (as a FPS), one has to ask what actually makes DayZ stand out above any Arma 3 mod that adds persistence and gun modding? Answer: NOTHING. In the end I think it's worse than Noctoras said. DayZ will not lose players, it pretty much has already lost a chunk of it's players.

True indeed. But in my view that's to no small part because that's the easiest parts to get done with this engine. What I mean to say is that if you read Dean's old posts on where he wants the mod and later on standalone to go his vision always sounded like Project Zomboid with decent FPS graphics and decent player interaction (including combat). Trying to do this on the Arma Engine though slowed him and the team severely down on developing any content that the arma engine didn't support out of the box. The game (mod and standalone) for the majority of it's existence so far did offer very little for survival game enthusiasts. So of course as of now the playerbase consists mainly of PvP folk that wouldn't care at all if the survival stuff was removed again altogether, because the game still has the survival stuff poorly balanced and by now there are some pretty awesome alternatives to DayZ in existence that do great on the survival front so people simply migrated or never even got into DayZ I am a survival game fan. Funny enough DayZ mod was the game getting me into this genre. But the lack of progress on the survival mechanics front pretty much drove me and the group I used to play with slowly away from DayZ. I mean that routine of running to the same old place, getting guns, and then going to the hills over electro to snipe unsuspecting new spawns is only fun for so long (a year and a half somewhere in there). We ended up playing arma 2 coop missions before finally just disbanding. I ended up playing 7 Days to Die and now Ark since a few weeks. But honestly I'd love to have a lot of their survival mechanocs and balancing in DayZ/Arma Engine, because from an audiosvisual point of view no game is as realistic as DayZ, it just looks and feels pretty awesome.

I dunno. Again like I said before, that's you guys' perspective on it. There are harsh games out there, that take several two hour evening sessions to get anywhere and they are played by casuals and working people just as much as hardcore gaming teenagers that have complete afternoons and evenings of time after coming home from school. Overly realistic mechanics in a game are a thing. I mean it isn't by coincidence that among the first made and most downloaded mods for both Fallout3/NV and Skyrim are mods that add hunger/thirst, weather survival and harsher inventory limits that made the game deliberately harder and slower paced. Saying nobody would find that fun is just wrong. There are a lot of players out there that actually would find it very fun. Which brings me back to the point that what DayZ needs is a solid and well implemented modding support. There is no way in hell the Devs are able to find a balance that pleases all kinds of players. We guys discussing here are just living proof I don't see us agreeing on the matter unless we are able to each have the ability to play the game the way we like best.

My take on answering those questions: My "perfect" DayZ would be balanced in such a way that waiting in ambush for a "wealthy" victim to pass by would come at the serious risk of starving/dehydrating along the way if it takes a certain amount of time. Weapons and Ammo would be rare and degrade at a rate that would make you seriously consider whether to try and kill another player or keep the weapon and ammo i order to hunt an animal or fend off Zeds. Food would degrade at a rate that would make it impractical to carry around more than the bare minimum needed on a loot run, while either preserving a stash of food at a base or hunting animals for food on a daily basis. Basically the player should never be able to reach a state at which he doesn't have to worry about the basic needs on an ingame-daily basis: Get food, get water, get wood for the fire and only use what little sparetime/daylight you have left for looting cities or finding other survivors. Weapons and ammo should be both very rare AND hard to get in terms of fending off zombies so the player isn't tempted to waste ammo on another player that may or may not have what the killer needs instead of using it to kill an animal for food or protecting himself from Zombies while looting a town. That way you encourage coop play because after you formed a group you can divide the daily errands among the group: one guy get's and cooks water, one guy hunts animals for food, freeing up time for a third and fourth to go to a city to get medical supplies. PvP would happen only mid to endgame on a group vs group level when groups have established bases and a steady supply of food, water, medical stuff and ammo. I really hope modding support and server settings will allow for that kind of custom balancing. Because that would erase the need for the devs to find a middleground that kind of pleases everyone. Instead it would enable everyone to setup the game in a way that suits his preferences.

You don't like those things. Doesn't mean that most people don't like it. Be careful with such assessments, because if that was true in the sense that you mean it (read: not enough people like such a game for it to be successful), then there simply is no explanation why games like Project Zomboid, like Rust (which you mentioned yourself), like FTL, like Don't Starve or any take on a Roguelike for that matter are as successful as they are despite being deliberately designed to be a pain in the players' ass by killing them in many different ways. There is a group of gamers out there that actually look for exactly that: a game that challenges them, rather than being little more than an interactive movie. And besides: Unless something has drastically changed in the vision and design for the final game you will have to deal with diseases, hunger, thirst and weather survival on a serious level.

True indeed, Orlok. But in my view it's hard to generalize. You know in my experience there's EA and then there's EA. Steam's Early Access program has some shining examples of EA done and used the right way (from my point of view) and sadly for the most part is full of games/devs that are barely more than tech demos far away from a state that could be called an alpha worthy of public testing. There are some EA games out there that are a lot of fun to take part in because updates hit the players with as little bugs as possible and as much feature changes as possible. Those shining examples do not use their user base primarily as a QA department but actually for feedback on features, and that's what EA should be about. Having to sift through a shitload of bugs first to then give feedback on the actual features is what tires a lot of people out. Devs gotta learn that those crying for faster updates do much less damage if kept waiting than those people being flooded with buggy barely playable release after buggy barely playable release. Those are the ones that will at some point start expressing their displease through negative reviews on Steam.

Woah they are some pretty different games except for sharing the Zombie aspect. Project Zomboid as a design pillar is out to kill you on it's own and as such incredibly hard with a very steep learning curve. It emphasizes the survival and PvE aspects whereas DayZ is designed around player interactions. As one of the influences that inspired Dean Hall while he made DayZ though, Project Zomboid is great to show off what a difference it makes if the survival aspects (hunger/thirst/tiredness/illness) actually play a large role in gameplay. It pretty much shows by example what people on this board mean if they say that DayZ's survival gameplay is still a ways away from being just that, survival gameplay. I haven't done much online in Zomboid, but as I understand it most people play that game coop and not PvP, because frankly you neither have the ammo nor the safety from zombies to concentrate on PvP.

Yes they increased the damage that zombies do and that was too much in the view of some players and too cheap an attempt for others. But that's actually an issue of balancing/difficulty setting. The problem is that it's too easy to avoid getting hit by zombies, because they know only one strategy: choose target, follow target, launch attack at target if close enough, which in all fairness is the same thing they do in 7 Days to Die. Knowing that attracted Zeds will come at you in a straight line makes it easy to dodge them. Then there is the fact that you can outrun the zeds as a last straw. That's one point that 7 Days to Die handles better, if the zombies run at night they do so faster than you do and aren't restricted by stamina. Another thing that makes Zombies feel more of a threat in 7DtD is that you have roaming hordes that are magically drawn to your base even if you're away and they can damage it. Have yet to see a Zed attack a tent in Dayz, speaking of which the base building in DayZ is still pretty barebones compared to 7DtD. And last but not least DayZ always had issues with Zombie respawn after a city was cleaned out. 7DtD has them relentlessly respawn in cities so fighting them will never end. Having said that, I am aware that the guys at Bohemia know that Zombies need work and they are working on it. So the final game will have Zombies that are a threat. No question about that. In the end it comes down to one question anyways: Do you want good and deep PvP? Then you need to go with DayZ quite frankly. I have playtested a lot of the alternatives and if we talk just the combat mechanics and the interaction between players possible, DayZ hands down is the best of the bunch by a large margin. But if base building, character progression, a deep, resource gathering based crafting system and cooperative PvE survival is more your thing (which as it turns out is the case for me) then 7 Days to Die is at least worth a look and for me personally the better game for that.

1. So what did they get into the game this past year? Prototypic vehicle crafting and driving. More guns. More Outfits. More Backpacks. Agriculture. Have to disagree with some of my preposters: As far as Zombie/survival Games go DayZ is definetely NOT the most complete of the bunch. 7 Days to Die is. And at the pace the Fun Pimps add new working features to their alpha build they are gonna be in quite a lead by the end of this year. 2.: The Zombie aspect never was fun as long as this game (mod or standalone) existed. They never were a challenge. As some here mentioned right now they aren't even in the game. 3.: Well go watch youtube: best way to play DayZ is get a group and basically be as much of a douchebag as you can be trying to trick other players into giving you stuff and then killing them or just straight out go and kill other players. I am not calling this PvP on purpose. 4.: Not actively playing at the moment. To be fair though: In order to have a chance to ever perform better than the Arma 2 Mod they had to make significant updates to the engine which took them quite some time, whereas 7 Days to Die for instance is based on modifications of the unity engine that existed already and had this type of gameplay in mind. Truth be told though: Right now I wouldn't recommend to get DayZ Standalone, at least not if you're looking for a game that's playable/ (nearly) complete. If you want to get a feel for how the finished game will probably feel get Arma 2 and the DayZ Mod for it (also have a look at the spin off mods, DayZ Origins was a fun attempt at adding sort of story content and also has a nice vehicle crafting and base building system). If you like that consider getting DayZ standalone now because the final release will be at a higher price. If we talk Zombie Survival Games in general though I gotta point at 7 Days To Die again: Besides aiming at a similar feature set as DayZ they also plan for mod support, which shows right now in alpha already: there are numerous servers with custom rules, custom features and custom balance settings. And they are planning on adding Steam Workshop support to make using mods as easy as possible. The only real advantage of DayZ over 7 Days to Die that I see is that combat and especially PvP combat will be a lot better in DayZ because it is based on a tactical shooter engine, whereas 7 Days To Die uses a Voxel engine mod of unity, which comes with heavy restrictions as far as number of supported players goes. In all other aspects (zombies posing a threat,equipment progression, base building, performance, pace of development) right now 7 Days to Die is the better experience, while sharing some shortcomings with DayZ (survival aspects outside of combat are too easily overcome [Hunger/thirst might as well be patched out in both games the difference would be barely noticeable]).

Same here. Currently playing ARK and 7DTD while waiting, both having working PvE parts.

Yeah that's exactly my feelings too.

Yes. And Scrap iron armor out of scrap metal gained from car wrecks and iron armor made from iron mined in mines. As far as crafting goes 7 Days is clearly more sophisticated and more detailed at the moment. Weather system coming next update to 7 days. Temperature - Character interaction planned feature. And yes you can hunt. Heck you even need to hunt and grow crops in order to get quality food that keeps your wellness up. Which is true for Don't Starve as well. 7 Days to die has a lot of PvP going on on the public online servers. It's just less of an occurance on some servers, because the game can't yet support as many players as some DayZ servers. On the flipside as I said before 7 Days to Die has actual working Zombies that are a threat that needs to be considered and depending on the setting is more dangerous than a player could be. And when it comes to your list: Next thing you'd mentioned would be vehicles? Coming to 7 Days next update. Illness? Infection from Zombies, Food poisoning in 7 Days, compared to what? Food poisoning and catching a cold in DayZ? You tell me if one of the games is more in depth there. I think they're both still lacking in that department. What else could be on your list? Hmm weapon modding. Granted 7 Days doesn't have that. Then again it features a varying quality of guns since the last update and will introduce skills in the update after the next, making guns only craftable if you invested time "learning" how to do it. Again differences there, one system being more detailed than the other? I wouldn't say that. See I am a huge fan of DayZ exactly for the points you mentioned about graphics and detail and realism. But I had my doubts from the beginning that the Arma Engine was the right basis for this kind of game with the feature plans outlined by Dean. And the problems the game keeps having since it's days as a mod simply has me worried that the decision for trying to repurpose an aged engine for things it was never intended to do might bite BI in the ass. And as I said there are some games out there that aren't just plain copies, doing some things better and adding things they are missing in comparison to DayZ. And in the past year I have seen them progress a lot faster than DayZ did. Plus judging games by their potential is a dangerous thing. You're out for dissapointment that way because it builds expectations that often are not met by the finished game. Some smart guy whose name I forgot said a while ago: Tell me about a games potential and all I see is a severe lack of features it should have to be complete. So as far as the Thread's question goes: Greatest game ever? Right here right now: NO! Potential to be? Sure. Then again that is true for a shitload of games I've played and a lot of them never lived up to it.

Ok fair point, 7 days to Die broke some things and got a little softer in the latest updates. Still I think they are much more on track on being a survival game where survival is an actual challenge outside of PvP encounters than DayZ is. They have a Zombie AI that at least works. One of the VERY stagnant things in DayZ. I mean the Zeds as a challenge/threat are basically defunct ever since the mod started. Well at least the vehicle and illness stuff is slowly finding its way into DayZ, though also a lot slower than expected. And talking about survival actually being a challenge there are more games out there besides 7 Days that do it better than DayZ, like Don't Starve, Project Zomboid and Neo Scavenger.