bazbake

Maybe the dogs that survived are either ex-military and ex-police dogs that you could train to help you out or feral dogs that are untrainable? An ex-military or police dog would already be trained for scouting, recovery, and tracking and have problem attributes trained out of her. The dogs you can't train joined into packs, the ones you can train have already been trained to work with humans in crisis situations and are badass enough to survive the apocalypse on their own.

So you want bandit scarfs. But only as an option for players who aren't bandits.

How exactly do you know if a goat was murdered and who they were murdered by? There's no goat-killing skin. And you can't see players' names until you're within five feet...and only on regular. I think it's the fact that goats don't think you're going to kill them when you walk up to them and hit them with a hatchet. If goats could actually recognize the people who kill goats on sight, the goats would have a chance. Unfortunately, the limits of the game are such that goats treat people like they're just any other character. Until goat-killing is recognized by the code, there's nothing you can do. I guess if you stumbled upon someone who killed a goat, then that wouldn't be an issue. Except, the code calls you a murderer if you shoot someone who has already killed a goat unless they shoot and wound you first. So what incentive is there to fight against goat-killers? And by then, if you wait for them to shoot so that you won't be called a murderer, you're probably going to die from a one-hit kill because the guns are so overpowered anyway. I don't know what the solution is...but I do know that changing the code in any way that gives goats an advantage against goat-killers by letting them run when they see goat-killers is not the solution. It ruins the immersion n braekz thu gayme.

There should definitely be some intermediary stage between ATTACK and SPRINT and back again. It'd be nice if when sprinting holstered your rifle, you would have to do some action in order to get it out again. That would give value to the difference between running and sprinting. Definitely thumbs up on the pistol holstering. Every weapon should have not just a lower action but a holster action that makes rearming take an extended period of time.

Weapons come in clips that degrade. Getting a new flare doesn't add flares to your current supply of flares, it just gives you a new magazine of flares. They would have to provide a "combine" option. Like "combine X arrows into quiver" so that it would combine your arrows into a magazine form like the 2 round slugs.

Being able to loot up on your main and then screw around on a secondary would remove a lot of the risk from the game. Plus, a lot of people would be on their mains while someone is harassing them on their secondary risking none of their best equipment.

Get rid of tents and vehicle storage.

Not really. File that under an urban legend. Now, in theory, the exaggerated tumbling should make a big wound, but it's not really any worse than a 5.56 mm. The tumbling only makes a temporary cavity that quickly seals over because muscle is elastic. To do real damage fast you need permanent cavitation, like that caused by a big fat bullet from a 9mm or a .50 caliber. Like I said. Rifles don't deliver energy to their target. They deliver energy through their target. This is a common misunderstanding and the real reason why this discussion isn't going anywhere. Deforming soft-tipped/hollow-tipped high-caliber rounds cause the most trauma to soft targets. Not rifles. Modern assault rifles are great because they're accurate with high firepower. But a 5.56 or a 5.45 is pretty much just a .22 that shoots a lot of bullets a lot farther and straighter.

Not really. File that under an urban legend. Now, in theory, the exaggerated tumbling should make a big wound, but it's not really any worse than a 5.56 mm. The tumbling only makes a temporary cavity that quickly seals over because muscle is elastic. To do real damage fast you need permanent cavitation, like that caused by a big fat bullet from a 9mm or a .50 caliber. Like I said. Rifles don't deliver energy to their target. They deliver energy through their target. This is a common misunderstanding and the real reason why this discussion isn't going anywhere. Deforming soft-tipped/hollow-tipped high-caliber rounds cause the most trauma to soft targets. Not rifles. The rest is just misguided gun porn and flawed numbers geekery. Modern assault rifles are great because they're accurate with high firepower. But a 5.56 or a 5.45 is pretty much just a .22 that shoots a lot of bullets a lot farther and straighter.

5% of the energy from a .50 caliber gun would affect the internal organs of a target due to conservation of mass. The .50 caliber bullet would expend most of its energy traveling through the target and maybe dump it into a few walls or the ground once gravity overcame its flight path. The best example I can think of is the tablecloth pulling example. Imagine a bullet is a tablecloth and your organs are the a stack of champagne glasses and the table around it. The slower you pull that table cloth, the more you disturb those glasses. The faster you pull that tablecloth, the less you disturb those glasses. Faster bullets go longer distances and have deeper penetration. But they make smaller holes and transfer less energy to the surrounding tissue. People die from blood loss, not invisible shockwaves exploding their heads. The only way the speed and energy of a bullet matters is if the bullet can't make a hole. But if two bullets pass through a body, the bigger bullet kills, the smaller bullet wounds. As for the rest of it: doesn't matter; physics! Okay, maybe if a Cajun mutant with kleptomania throws the bullet and then all of the energy in the bullet explodes on impact. Then maybe the energy of the bullet means more damage to the target. Otherwise once that bullet goes in it's size. Slugs don't do much fragmenting. They do more hole making. Which makes them very poor sniping weapons but very excellent at killing things. Actually, it only has 10% more mass than the slug. But...DM;P! DM;P! No it won't. It'll leave a hole the size of the bullet and then go through the wall behind it. So...DM;P! This is quite true. And that's why .50 caliber weapons are used as anti-material rifles. Because they are powerful enough to put holes in cars and have the stopping power of a .45 caliber pistol. ... That's it. But I have conveniently explained how bullets work, so now you know that longer barrels don't make bullets cause more trauma.

5% of the energy from a .50 caliber gun would affect the internal organs of a target due to conservation of mass. The .50 caliber bullet would expend most of its energy traveling through the target and maybe dump it into a few walls or the ground once gravity overcame its flight path. The best example I can think of is the tablecloth pulling example. Imagine a bullet is a tablecloth and your organs are the a stack of champagne glasses and the table around it. The slower you pull that table cloth, the more you disturb those glasses. The faster you pull that tablecloth, the less you disturb those glasses. Faster bullets go longer distances and have deeper penetration. But they make smaller holes and transfer less energy to the surrounding tissue. People die from blood loss, not invisible shockwaves exploding their heads. The only way the speed and energy of a bullet matters is if the bullet can't make a hole. But if two bullets pass through a body, the bigger bullet kills, the smaller bullet wounds. As for the rest of it: doesn't matter; physics! Okay, maybe if a Cajun mutant with kleptomania throws the bullet and then all of the energy in the bullet explodes on impact. Then maybe the energy of the bullet means more damage to the target. Otherwise once that bullet goes in it's size. Slugs don't do much fragmenting. They do more hole making. Which makes them very poor sniping weapons but very excellent at killing things. Actually, it only has 10% more mass than the slug. But...DM;P! DM;P! No it won't. It'll leave a hole the size of the bullet and then go through the wall behind it. So...DM;P! This is quite true. And that's why .50 caliber weapons are used as anti-material rifles. Because they are powerful enough to put holes in cars and have the stopping power of a .45 caliber pistol. ... That's it. But I have conveniently explained how bullets work, so now you know that longer barrels don't make bullets cause more trauma.

I cannot overstate this enough. The only way to kill someone with one shot without them turning around and putting a bullet in you is to hit the medulla oblangata at the base of the brain. This disables the target completely and kills them. It's the size of a thumb. Anywhere else may cause someone to pass out from pain. It may bleed them out in less than a minute. Combining both of these may be enough to kill someone with one shot eventually, over time, if they don't get help. But the only way to kill someone instantly and guarantee that they don't turn around and shoot you right back is to hit a target the size of your thumb located at the base of the human skull paralyzing the human organs and stopping involuntary reflexes. And guess what, we have game mechanics for bleeding and unconsciousness, which means there's no reason for any weapon smaller than a shotgun shell (which includes...oh, that's right, every gun that is not a shotgun) to guarantee death with a shot to the head. This whole mindset of arcadifying the weapons in the game has trivialized PvP and turned it into team deathmatch because people die a lot more easily from weapons from a lot farther away than they would in real life. It's unrealistic. It's unbalanced. It's uninteresting. People should have to make serious choices between range, stopping power, and fire rate. Right now they just grab the sniper rifle, hide in the trees, and shoot people in one hit. But they shouldn't be guaranteed a kill at that range. They should be forced to choose between a gun that gives them a guaranteed kill at point blank or a gun that gives them, at best, a possible kill and disabling at 1.5 km. Like the real world.

Why not? The CZ550 is easier to find than the M1014 but it does more damage with greater accuracy from 10 times as far away. So we're clearly not concerned about game balance. So what else is there? "We're not talking about realism." Good, because it's not realistic. "We're not talking about game balance either." Good, because it's overpowered compared to what it...wait, what are we talking about? "We're just saying that sniper rifles are awesome and we want to keep them in the game because they make us feel awesome." ...That's...not an argument. That's just people talking about how much they like a gun. And of course they like the gun...it's overpowered. If they added a tactical nuke to the game, people using it would enjoy it too. If they added ray guns to the game that go through walls, people would love those too. It wouldn't make the idea of realism and game balance any less ridiculous, though.

Real bandits will use stealth and combat advantage and bandit IDs won't matter. "Bandies" will of course be forced to learn to shoot or gtfo.

You made this same comment in another thread and provided data that contradicted yourself. Last two weeks? Player population went up 31.8%, bandit population went up 36%, murders went up 51%. Not only is the bandit population growing faster than the regular population, but the amount of murders those bandits are committing is going up even faster because of how easy it is to get away with it.

Seriously impressed over here. Although ArmaII's damage tables have shown to be useless for this kind of game.

Found an ATV once. 5 steaks, two boxes of matches, hunting knife, map, two watches... Nightvision FN Fal, FN FAL, 2 CZ550's, Lee Enfield...

In the real world, sniper rifles aren't one-shot/one-kills and shooting people from closer away with a rifle as opposed to farther away causes less damage, not more. If I sneak up on you and you spin and pop me with a sniper rifle, that gun overpenetrates. That means it makes a tiny hole and then goes through the wall without stopping. If sniper rifles were as deadly as the gamers in DayZ think they are, the military would use nothing but sniper rifles. Instead, there are only a few hundred snipers in the entire US military and they're mostly used for reconnaissance. You can't argue realism in one breath and then game balance in the other breath when sniper rifles are neither balanced nor realistic in this game. Let me emphasize this for people who still refuse to acknowledge it. Your belief that sniper rifles should kill in one hit comes from VIDEOGAMES AND MOVIES. You are basing your entire defense, reliance, and beliefs about the weapons on works of fiction. The only rifles that should even be close to one-shot/one-kills are the .50 caliber weapons. The others are standard NATO rounds (they can barely stop someone in the first place, that's why modern weapons shoot 3-6 of them in a volley...because one isn't enough!) and 7.62s, which still do less damage than pistols. The reason people are annoyed at sniper rifles is because the other weapons do less damage and no one seems to know how guns work! "BULLETS! HOW DO THEY WORK!" If the game treated sniper rifles and pistols and shotguns like they work in real life, no one would give a crap about anything smaller than a .50 caliber. You'd sit in a nest adjusting for windage, eventually get a shot on a moving target, and he'd go down. And then he'd get back up and you'd get another shot off if you're lucky and he'd go back down. And then he'd get up and you'd get another shot off and he'd go back down. Then he'd turn around, fire about 15 bullets in your direction and ruin your day right quick. Eventually you'd be like, "Screw this," grab a double-barrel shotgun, a weapon with some REAL stopping power, and chase him down. Or maybe next time you'd move it out to the tree line where he can't shoot back at you because THAT'S WHAT SNIPER RIFLES ARE FOR. Sending normal-sized rounds with normal-sized damage really, really far so no one can shoot back. They're not for shooting magical disintegrating lasers PEW PEW style a mile away. They're for increased engagement range favoring penetration INSTEAD OF stopping power. Sniper rifles aren't designed to kill in one hit, they're designed to wound in one hit from really far away. That's real talk. P.S. Your knowledge of guns is bad. Your argument is bad. You should feel bad. (But not too bad, don't kill yourself or anything, just sulk in the corner for a while.)

EDIT: Here it is. http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/62881-what-has-changed-the-dayz-player-mentality/page__st__40#entry602372 Scroll up for the actual data.

@xXI Mr Two IXx Banditry is easy mode. You know this for a fact. That's why you're so afraid of bandit IDs, because you can't handle actual PvP. If you believed this, you wouldn't care about bandit IDs -- survivors would never see you because of your ninja leetness. But we both know you don't. The fact that you're still arguing instead of shrugging and going with bandit IDs is proof that all you have is anonymity and the survivors' fear of a murder tally for shooting you first. @JulieMeyers 1/4th of the players are bandits. The number of players increased 31% in two weeks. The number of bandits increased 36%. The number of murders increased 50%. Not only are bandits increasing at a faster rate than new players, the number of murders that bandits are committing is improving even faster. People aren't just converting to banditry at a rate faster than new players can replace them, they're killing even more people. Truth.

The damage tables are bad...and they should feel bad. Although I don't know why you mentioned bolt-action unless you're bringing Videogame LogicTM into a discussion of Real World Physics. EDIT: Unless you mean maximum range...

@ZedsDeadBaby [sorry, BeanAHolic, not meant for you] Actually, murders are at a high. The percentage of bandits per living players has dropped, but one look at the change in player population makes this obvious why. In the last two weeks [EDIT: sorry, read the chart wrong on dates], the player population increased by 31.8%. In the same two weeks, the number of bandits increased by 36%. And the number of murders went up by 51%. Banditry is increasing faster than the player base.

Those shouldn't be counted as murders at all. Search for "bandit/survivor/humanitarian" I had a new idea for a murder system based off of threat. Threat tags: drawing a weapon, raising a weapon, or swapping out an item raises a threat tag. (think an immersive PvP tag) If you're either unarmed or your weapon is lowered for four seconds, your threat tag goes away. Harming someone who is not a threat costs humanity. Killing someone who is not a threat is a murder. Bandits are always a threat. Under this system, you would never have gotten a murder in the first place. So instead of attacking bandit IDs because a broken system gave you a murder, ask for amnesty and a better murder system and recognize that bandit IDs are the only way to make sure banditry isn't easy mode.

Telling other people to kill for you wouldn't lower your humanity in this system!

Want to make sure people value life more? Get rid of storage. The skill tree system has too many opportunities for abuse (favoring playing longer instead of playing smarter...also, it makes grinding a game option, and grinding is the soulless end to gaming). If you get rid of storage, then you get rid of hoarding. You get rid of mindless killing. You make older players and metagamers wary of danger.