Uh... no. It's definitely going to be a standalone game.

Ya... no. More like being pissed off that Barbie doesn't release a darker-skinned doll to appeal to a non-white audience when you have a darker-skinned child. More like, although it's still a stretch. It's easy to appeal to both sides with a game like this, as all it takes is a few quick changes that don't place financial risk on the game designer.

I'm a picky Aspie. 5m/s is 18km/hr. 5km in 15 minutes is 20km/hr. 5m/s is the absolute fastest a player can run in a straight line over level ground. There's no way you can make 5km in 15 minutes without a vehicle. If it was a straight line it would take 16.6 minutes. It's almost never a straight line, so I'd assume closer to 20-25 minutes, depending on the specific terrain you're running on/around. If you're running a full 10km to meet with a group, it can easily take an hour with a couple minor detours/other players around, and will obviously always take more than 30 minutes. Personally, I find this irritating. I like grouping with a friend of mine and one of his friends. It doesn't happen every night, but the game has enough glitches/random bugs that connecting with another player, especially if not using a map, gets extremely boring when it does happen. All it takes is a single griefer shooting you as you run by to put you 30 minutes away from any enjoyment... maybe it's just something I'll have to wait and see... if the game is changed to a way I like or if I'll have to change games.

If that is to be taken literally, then I doubt I'll be around for very long. Someone else is bound to come up with something similar and with more features. He's got the lead time and the market to actually go somewhere right now, but if he genuinely doesn't care about making something most people [i say that because I came to DayZ hoping for much more PvE i.e. 'survival/horror', and most people want fun in their games] will enjoy, then so be it. It's his baby to play with. People are playing now, but I've already gone from frustrated to just bored with the constant KOS. I don't think 'bored' is an emotional reaction that he was looking for, either. Counterstrike is much more frustrating for me, at times, and it's a far superior shooter (imo, but it helps that my comp can run CS with good FPS, too haha)

Anti-hero is one of the few uses of 'anti' that doesn't mean 'opposite.' Antichrist isn't the 'edgy' version of Jesus. If all you mean by 'anti-game' is that it's really hard, then it's a stupid word. Just use 'frustrating game.' Super Meat Boy is not an 'anti-game.' Anti-hero only has meaning because there's already a word for the opposite of a hero- a villain. There's no word for the opposite of a game.

Not really. Most smart companies cater to everyone they can make money catering to. If it takes a few hours to code in the options for PvE-only or PvP-restricted servers, and profits go up enough to justify the hours of coding, then a smart company would do it. Catering to the minority is very good business, when the minority wants something that doesn't take much time to add. In Counterstrike, you can block certain weapons on a server if you don't like them. You might be in the minority, but you can do it. It think our issue with the OP is that he seems to be saying that ALL servers need restricted PvP, which is silly. Restricted-PvP should be an option, however. It would keep people like myself playing and paying. The only reason not to do it is if the programmers are already busy doing things that will make even more money, and hiring more programmers is not economically sound.

I have met 1 player who did not shoot at me when he had the chance. Every other player, and there have been many, either opened fire immediately or claimed a friendly status and then shot at me shortly thereafter. There is no aspect of uncertainty when I play. I automatically assume every player is hostile and shoot them. There is no strong incentive to do otherwise.

Makes no sense. It's a game. The point of a game is to be fun. If this were really trying to not be fun, then hackers would not be considered an issue, and you would randomly die from time to time and lose all your stuff, or the 'anti-game' would be locked at 5 FPS, or you could only turn to the right. It's a game. It's got a different set of rules, and it bills itself as 'edgy,' but it's a game.

PvP has its place, but it gets pretty tiresome to have KOS as my only [realistic] option when interacting with strangers. Many people have said that players who want PvE should go play Left4Dead et al. These games are not much like DayZ. They do not have a gigantic world full of realistic terrain, with zombies roaming about and all kinds of fun loot to try to steal. They don't require the player eat and drink and assemble vehicle parts etc etc. Why should the devs make strong PvE options? Because if they don't, the competition will. If the competition offers more for the same price, who will want DayZ? Counterstrike has surfing servers, servers for huge numbers of players, and 5v5 tournaments [just using counterstrike because someone brought it up]. You don't get the 5v5ers complaining constantly that other players who just want to surf have that option... It's not asking much. Just promise [you don't even have to implement it immediately] that a goal of the devs is to build stronger PvE, and then get there as the alpha turns into beta turns into the final product. "The zombies are too easy to kill for PvE to be fun." Well duh... so ramp up the challenge of the zombies. Make them soak bullets and swarm in numbers. Limit our ability to run, the supplies of guns and ammo, and the amount of light indoors. There's plenty of room for improvement in the PvE area without compromising the fun of PvP. "It's supposed to be a realistic sim." That might be the claim, but it's not. It's a game. It's not even close to realistic, and it never will be. This is a good thing! Games have someone designing them; real life is just random and unfair and unfun. If you made a truly 'realistic' game, nobody would play it. You couldn't shoot accurately, and nothing would respawn, and you'd probably go insane from boredom because you couldn't log out to go take a shower. So piss off. There's no such thing as a 'realistic' sim in the sense you're using it. The only thing that's realistic here is the physics engine, and even that has issues. I happen to enjoy a fair bit of PvP, but I'd like it more if it was organised around clan fights, rather than negging [killing people who have just spawned], as the majority of PvP seems to be at present. Fighting over good items that don't respawn, or for pieces of valuable territory, like forts, is great. Sitting on a hillside 1km away from Cherno and shooting un- or lightly-armed people as they forage for food is just masturbation. "But you could just shoot back." Ya... I could be forced to play a certain way because someone else insists on being a dick to me... but I guess that's not really the 'play the way you want to play' mentality of a sandbox. And frankly, my system [gpu and cpu] isn't the best, so I have trouble running Arma2 at settings high enough for effective PvP combat. What I CAN do is sneak about. If I get the drop on someone, I can shoot them. Otherwise, not a chance. So I'd appreciate having more PvE that I could do with my friends, where the emphasis is on competent handling of a problem I KNOW how to solve, rather than the randomness of some douche logging in and shooting me from a spot I've already checked... I'm not angry, though. The only thing that has me annoyed is the hacking issues my home server has been experiencing lately. US914 has seen people hacking in items and vehicles, esp/aimbotting, and mass-teleport-followed-by-slaughtering. Otherwise, I'm just waiting to see what will come next. If another game [on a better engine?] comes along that offers what DayZ doesn't, I'll switch. If Rocket doesn't want my money, that's fine by me!

Used my first L85 today. The scope is powerful, but not overpowered. It has a narrow field of view, and sees little that is not already visible to a player with any other gun. The main difference the scope makes is that it illuminates targets against the background, which makes spotting targets much faster. Considering that this is only worthwhile if the player has a sniper working with them, I don't see a significant issue here. Anyone saying that because 'this is a mil sim' it's fine to have unbalanced weapons can piss off, though. Real life doesn't have spawn rates and random loot. It's a game, however much it wants to emulate realistic physics/combat, and the first rule of a game is that it must be fun. (Yes, yes, I know... 'antigame' is a meaningless phrase. Sorry, Rocket.) I could see a nerf to combat weapons in general, but it would have to be part of a comprehensive update including significant improvements in the PvE elements of the mod.

I'm not sure if this is really 'lucky,' but I found 4 double-barrel shotguns in the same barn the other day. The spawn rate is decent on the gun, but 4 is pretty unusual.

They are barely a threat. On my first spawn the other day I immediately aggro'd 4-5 zombies and simply ran in circles until they vanished. You can't be caught by zombies while running, and they don't corner well,

The stats are misleading. Many many people commit suicide if they spawn unfavorably. I suicided at least 5 times a couple nights ago, after dying to a bandit, in order to get closer to my friends. On some servers I have seen the same player commit suicide a dozen or more times.

I can't believe I made it so long before a troll posted! You so silly!

:P Well duh, of course it's an alpha. They are asking for my feedback. If they had said they weren't planning on making changes, then I'd love it 'warts and all,' but they are making changes and reading the forums, so I'm happy to comment! Thanks :)