Bororm

The problem with DayZ survival is it's still dependent on tools/items, that you need to find spawning (and loot spawn being "messed" up). There needs to be more improvised tools and gear if that's the direction they want to go. It's improved a bit but the fishing pole was a good example. It used to be basically a team effort to fish and make a fire, since you needed an axe and a shovel and the pole itself (have fun juggling those, now it's better with hatchets and what not).

I never wore shoes when I played. You lose health but not blood, as evidenced by my character consistently having a "weak pulse." You don't die from it however, or get knocked out etc. I'm a bit hazy on specifics of the health system, but I believe you only die when you have no blood. Having no health will knock you out. CharliePow's comment about it stopping at 1000 seems like it's probably accurate. Any ways, not really recommended as you'll likely get knocked out faster when you do take damage, but in and of itself it won't kill you.

You can blow up those white gas tanks, at least in some of the builds.

Permanently replace zombies with tumbleweeds imo.

So should the forums shut down? Because what else are we supposed to talk about? How perfect everything is in alpha? I see this sentiment a lot too, that people shouldn't make any negative criticism on this forum. In fact, I ate a temporary suspension for having a very minor (and pretty much 100% factual as all I was doing was quoting devs) negative opinion on the direction of the game. There's a difference between whining with no cause, and whining because something is legitimately wrong. It's even more valuable as testers for us to understand what the state of the game is through each other, than what the devs tell us. Because the devs aren't spending a cumulative million+ hours on the game like we all are. The OP of this thread, while making ample use of exclamation points, isn't saying anything outright ridiculous. He's frustrated at the state of the game, expressing what his scenario has been (which lines up with a lot of people's) and presumably looking for some sort of help. I don't see him any where saying he expects it to play like a complete release game. If you or others don't care to indulge in an actual response then just skip the thread? What's the point of excessive censorship. How bout people all take responsibility and don't indulge it if you feel it's not worthwhile.

The game's enjoying it's lowest population point since it's been released so you're not alone. Wait for the next patch, hopefully it gets better again.

Why do people say things like this. Why does it have to be extreme ends of the spectrum? How do you know how his play sessions even went? Just because your experience was/has been one way, doesn't automatically make him a liar because his is another. It's the same kinda shit that went on when the new loot system was implemented. Some people complained there was no loot, a bunch of people said similar shit about "no it's just an actual survival game now, you're doing it wrong" then a week later Hicks came out and said the system is broken, especially on private hives (which a lot of the complaints stemmed from) and the system was revoked to be fixed. This bias of playstyle and preference just leads to slowing development of the game, when people raise legitimate points but are shot down by people making assumptions to their playstyles. Not everyone is "doing it wrong."

I don't know why you are getting defensive about it. Do a quick google search on game budgets, you'll see marketing is a large chunk of it. It surprised me when I learned it too, but it makes sense. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. That just furthers my own, if it turns out to be true, that a portion of their budget is going to eventually go to advertisement not development. You are right that companies usually don't like to share their numbers, even the figures you gave are likely estimates. Here are some more estimates: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Most_expensive_video_games The halo game you mentioned was cancelled, so unless you can show me evidence that 90 million dollars was actually spent on it, because the term "budget" does not mean money spent, then I don't see how that's meaningful. You are the one who brought up the topic, I am just pointing out a flaw in the comparison. It is also up to you to prove that the entirety of the budget in the games you mentioned went to development since that was the argument and they are your examples. Any way, we are way off topic now but here's some articles you can check out, obviously you can do your own further research. http://kotaku.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-big-video-game-1501413649 A quote from the above http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/05/06/the-economics-of-game-publishing

Show me evidence that they spent that entire budget on development. A budget isn't the same as money actually spent. Saying they had a 90 million dollar budget means they intended to spend that much, not that they actually did. Look up pretty much every big budget game ever and realize what half that money is going to, it's marketing. It makes sense too when you realize how shitty all the games are and wonder why they cost exponentially more than better games 10-15 years ago.

To be fair like 50% of the money on those large budget games is for marketing, which DayZ hardly entertains. There's a lot of factors that go into it, and obviously the dayz team isn't receiving, let alone spending, the entirety of their sales on development but it's not really a good comparison.

Do they still have their stupid respawn mechanic, where as soon as they die they respawn/auto reaggro? Or can you actually kill them all and be done with it.

Ultima Online is the greatest game ever made, and over 17 years later no other game has bothered to compare which is amazing to me. DayZ is pretty good though, my steam review was that it's the best game since UO. I'm not sure if I'll still feel that way with the direction it's possibly headed with Rocket gone but we'll see!

Essentially they forced persistence on, which had to happen sooner or later, but coupled it with their new loot economy system at the same time. Leading to a situation of increased instability and strange loot tables (no assigned loot locations except guns, so for instance, grenades in outhouses etc) which a lot of people find unappealing for obvious reasons. Next patch is supposed to be this week or next, and hopefully fix at least part of those problems. This thread in particular is about issues related to persistence in regards to servers dropping off, in all likelihood due to lack of server pop honestly (I know my home server suffered the same fate) and how the server architecture isn't very conducive to long term play. An issue I've seen with other games sharing the same sort of set up, such as Life is Feudal or even Rust. To bring this back around, I agree with what's been said. I originally hoped to only play official servers with DayZ SA to avoid that sort of problem. Hacking issues make that not an option at this point unfortunately. I suggest finding a strong private hive community that will last. I would also really not bother with persistence in any serious degree till they hammer out all the issues.

But tents don't fill themselves. A tent is like gearing up twice, thrice and beyond.

A pristine shirt (clothing item) can soak an entire shot, it matters a lot. I dunno, that's exactly what it does. Clothing in the SA in the current state is essentially armor. A regular vest may as well be a ballistic vest. Even the t-shirt you spawn with can make the difference between dying in one hit or two, which is pretty huge.

So the latest status report is here and I was looking forward to it because I feel in general the team has taken a turn and are heading this game in a direction that worries me. I'm a huge fan of DayZ, it seemed to be one of the truest sandbox games in a long time. There's no ridiculous systems to punish you for playing how you want. "This is your story" is their slogan, and Rocket was often quoted as saying he wanted to just give players the tools to do what they want. Not dictating the player experience, not telling us how to play, not deciding what's right and wrong. That is what a sandbox is and what I wanted DayZ to be. I've noticed some bias from the team leaking into the development of the game for a while now. When ever snipers were brought up they were quite scornfully regarded by some of the team in typical sarcastic remarks of "1337 snipex0rz" and what have you. Sniper rifles kept being said to be developed and then pushed off till the "central economy" was in place. That in itself isn't bad (making sniper rifles some what rare is great, gives you something to look for) but the reason behind it was very apparent to be that they just don't want people sniping. Why is that a factor when AKMs and drum mags are out there in abundance? This was the first obvious sign of the devs choosing a particular playstyle to discriminate against to at least some degree. Then there's the latest patch with all it entails. Some good some bad, I didn't personally see much issue in finding loot when I checked it out but obviously a lot of people have. Here's a quote from the status report: The emphasis is mine. He contradicts himself in the same sentence. Who is the team to tell me what the "real dayz experience" is supposed to be, when they've been saying all along it is my story. Why is fighting or just playing on the coast suddenly an invalid way to play? People who don't understand are just going to take from this that I'm whining. That I'm upset because I can't pvp on the coast or whatever. The truth is I haven't fought on the coast in ages. I do like to pvp but I'm not only for pvp, I truly believe good pve compliments pvp and vis versa. The best game I've ever played and imo the best game ever made is Ultima Online. That was a sandbox experience, you could play however you wanted. It worked because you could be a crafter perfectly happily, but still have to deal with pks. Or you could be a pk but still need to trade with crafters. Everyone had their role, that they chose, and played the way that was fun to them. Another quote: What's wrong with that? If that's how some people want to play, then what's the big deal? (This is not how I played to be clear, but if people want to I don't care. If I don't want to deal with them, I can go inland of my own accord. If anything that's a way better motivation to get off the coast than suddenly deciding loot doesn't spawn there) Saying any type of behavior is better than another, that any playstyle is more valid than another is exactly the opposite of what I want the devs of a sandbox telling me. It just oozes bias by the team against particular types of players. It's changing things simply to try to avoid scenarios, while at the same time grossly ignoring the underlying motivations people have that do this sorta stuff. This isn't a decision to those types of people. If I have 5 bullets and I see another player, I'm going to shoot him because I do not care if I die. If I have no bullets, I am going to try to axe him. Forcing me off the coast isn't going to change that, so why try to curve that behavior even to begin with, especially when it goes against the core principle they're trying to promote. This is disappointing. I still have hope for the game, but it's something I was afraid would happen when Rocket left. Rocket may have had a vision of what he wanted this game to be, but I think he understood very well not to let his personal opinions influence his development. That his way of playing wasn't the "right way." This was especially evident when he said he'd only ever actually killed a single person in DayZ and felt terrible about it, yet he didn't do anything to try to curve that type of behavior. The team can try to mask these decisions as just trying to make it more of a "survival" game but their bias oozes through, they can't hide that. And don't get me wrong, I am impressed with all they've done but it would have just been nice if from the start they'd told us they wanted this game to be played their way. To wait till now to tell us there's a "real" way to play DayZ just blows, quite frankly. TL;DR: In an attempt to clarify/condense my thoughts. I don't care about the game becoming hardcore survival, what I care about is the team trying to dictate my experience and the motivations behind changes/development. Make loot (just as an example) rare because it should be hard to survive, not because you don't want people fighting on the coast. Make sniper rifles difficult to find as a luxury, not because you don't want people sniping fresh spawns. Don't try to curve behavior with mechanics.

I play this game however I feel like at any given moment. Some times I KoS, some times I help dudes, some times I hunt, fish whatever. If some one's "story" is that they like to run up and down the coast in a dress with a fire extinguisher, then great. Who am I to say losing that style of play is a good thing, which clearly is the connotation of hick's quote above. That playing on the coast is some how the "wrong" way to play. Completely ignoring all the non-KOS reasons you might have to stay on the coast as well. But no, get off the coast ya coastal scrubs. The "real dayz experience" is only inland. Again my issue is them saying that's the wrong way to play. Not "in order to succeed" but because it's obvious that they just don't like that style of play. They're trying to curve a behavior that they personally don't like. That way of thinking is not conducive to creating a sandbox.

I don't mind if the game reflects that either. And again, I'm not complaining about making the game hard or more survivaly. I'm complaining about the motivations behind the changes. If they want to create a better map flow, great. The mod had great map flow as people went inland for high end military gear, then brought it back to the coast to shoot people. Don't make less loot on the coast just because you're trying to get people to stop fighting there. Give incentive to go inland, don't force people to and definitely don't tell me I have to because it's the "real dayz experience." It's the bias from the team that I take issue with. When sniper rifles aren't added because they don't want you sniping fresh spawns yet you can go spray them down with drum mags and shotguns. I could care less if there were only 5 sniper rifles per server, it would be a goal I could work for, but for the motivation to be that there's only 5 so that everyone isn't out shooting people on the coast is just stupid. What players do, and how they behave within the confines of the game should not have any influence on design decisions in a sandbox.

I am looking forward to modding now, when I wasn't before. Though honestly I am probably looking forward to whatever Rocket is cooking up more so. The game might very well become something I don't really want, the disappointing part is that it has taken a sharp turn in the middle of development away from what they've been saying it was all along. It is fast becoming a "game" rather than a "sandbox" where the experience and goals are influenced by the devs rather than left up to the player. I'm still hoping that Hicks and some of the others are just shit at expressing themselves though, and it won't be as bad as it seems.

There's some mass graves around. There's zombies. It seems reasonable to just assume a lot of people died/turn to zombies and the rest just got the fuck out. I picture it basically as players we're the only ones still around for whatever reason, where everyone else has pretty much evacuated as things got out of hand.

I think the radio stations would be cool. I also think walkie talkies essentially becoming global chat could/would work. It does in arma 3 epoch. There's just some stuff they'd have to do to get all that going. Not least of which would be doing something about the inventory space they take up. I think there's a few items that no one who is experienced is ever going to bother to grab as long as they take up valuable space (walkie talkies, maps, compasses) and that some sort of tool belt/something could give those purpose. That's why people continued to grab some of this stuff in the mod, because it really wasn't inconvenient.

Why would anyone not want that? They need as many cooking recipes as they can have imo.

You know stuff like fishing and farming is broken right? (I know you didn't actually mention these, but the point is some of the survival mechanics are straight broke) You also know why the majority of people play video games is because they're lazy right? You also realize that killing other players is a perfectly legitimate way to get food in a game without any sort of morality, because it's a video game and not real, right?

So a few weeks ago I found my first sword, I'm serious when I say I felt compelled to check Zub on a particular log in. Some how I knew I was going to find it. Up till that point I hadn't consistently looked for them, but I had checked every castle I'd come by and besides one particularly shady person weeks earlier I'd never even seen one in game. So of course I did what anyone should do when they find such a rare weapon and dedicated my life to the sword. It was short lived but fun. My initial encounter was with this guy: After hitting him once, he shot me in the chest: Some how I survived with minimal damage and my friend knocked him out and I subsequently executed him when he awoke. He had been shot at least once by an aug before I hit him, shot again to knock him out after I hit him and then hit once more to kill him. The point there being, that even with 2 gunshots of 5.56 a combined sword hit didn't kill him. After that little bout a friend of mine fell off the stairs in Zub and I logged in to go get his stuff. Interestingly enough he had found a sword of his own, two in a couple of days, I thought perhaps the patch had made them less rare. As I got to the castle there were two players looting his stuff, so I did what any good feller would do: I hit this guy twice, he ran off and ended up shooting me, killing me in one shot. After that I searched the majority of castles, multiple restarts a day for the following week not finding another sword. In the few weeks following my efforts have deteriorated but I've still made more than the average point of checking castles. I play on a private shard and the restarts are consistent, I know I'm hitting them before other people. The sword is still extremely rare. I have found a decent amount of maces (some where around 5 in 3 weeks) but the mace has its own set of problems. The point here is that these weapons (mainly the sword) is ridiculously rare for what it is. I think there's some novelty to that, and when you find/see one it is a bit of an event, however the ease at which you can lose these things and their lack of practicality are a bit off set. The sword is rumored to be about equivalent damage to a splitting axe, it's two hits to kill a zombie (unless headshot) and clearly 2+ hits to kill a geared player. The mace is on par with your average useless melee weapon, where if you aren't getting headshots you may as well not bother. Neither weapon serves a secondary function, you can't even chop kindling with a sword. The mace takes up inventory slots as it can't be put in your melee slot. From a practical standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to use either of these weapons over a fireaxe. If you can't tell from my screenshots and story, I don't especially care about being practical =P All that said I think the sword could stand to be slightly less rare, perhaps as rare as the mace is currently. I think damage could be improved a bit. I'm not one to believe an item has to have a clear advantage, it's a sandbox and I enjoy a challenge, but I think a two hit kill on average is reasonable for a sword against the typical kind of gear. Obviously kevlar, helmets and what not should play a role there, but it is a weapon designed for a single purpose which is melee combat and we're hitting people in clothing for the most part. Any ways, discuss your sword experiences and thoughts. I could do without the "swords shouldn't even be in dayz its stupid" comments that are likely, but to each their own, they are already here.

From my story in the OP =P So this patch is obviously something. One interesting thing is that "rare" stuff isn't so rare as it can spawn every where now. I haven't played much, but when I did I got chopped up by a guy with a chainsaw, and more relevant to this thread a sword. Now, the chainsaw I think had no gas or sounds were just bugged because I couldn't hear it. Either way, it one shot KOed me (unconscious not dead). As to the sword, it was a guy who claimed to be friendly that I didn't trust, but I was having a chat with him. I asked if the sword was better now, and he said it was. When he subsequently betrayed me (I honestly didn't mind, I was kinda tempted to ask him to kill me just to see the damage) it took him around 5 wacks to kill me. I was wearing the police uniform pants, and a beret, no shirt as I was a fresh spawn and tore it into rags. The damage was pretty atrocious. Since I never really managed to kill anyone straight up with one before the patch, I dunno if it was nerfed in the "weapon rebalances" in the notes or if it's the same. Any ways, with them being easier to find I was hoping to reinvigorate this thread and see if maybe people were having more experience with them that they could share.