Virfortis

Yes, I read your post an its entirety, and it amounts to nothing because it's hypothetical. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. Hypothetically, on paper, in reality, seriously, common sensacally (no that's not a word, but I'm rolling with it) you're right. A sniper rifle is a tactical weapon and makes sense in application. There are likewise counters to the weapon, and the main complaint of its overabuse is due to duplicating. While intelligent (which, for all our faults, mine included, let's meet there) for sure, it fails to take basic game mechanics into play. Specifically, something I like to call the "Un-Rarity" effect, or basic economics if you prefer. Your statement is that by default, snipers have the following disadvantages: Rarity: The sniper rifle and its ammunition is, on paper, rare. Tunnel Vision: Easy to flank, easier to sneak up on if done properly. Shot-Leading: The longer the shot, the more skill required. You also go on to talk about tactical significance, support weapons, etc. On paper, in argument, and in theory, you are absolutely right. However, fundamentally and realistically, nothing could be further from the truth. Consider purple drops in WoW. Just how rare is it exactly? By the time you have one, odds are a few million others have one. In the smaller picture, they are indeed rare, but in the larger picture, when only one is enough to "slay the dragon overlord" then why was it so difficult? While the odds of getting the item is rare, it is still an infinite resource. This is why farming in games is a standard. They're not rare, they just have a low spawn rate. Hoarding and farming (to say nothing of duping, glitching, and hacking in weapons) inflates the amount of guns. If there were only a few guns per server, and those guns only respawned when the previous ones were gone (I.E. hidden in corpse) then you would have a point. To do that though, would mean to give up the HIVE. As for tactics, I call game mechanics. A sniper can fire once, relog, and join another server unobstructed. The maps, likewise, do not change. There are set piece locations in a concept meant to be dynamic, and sniper locations are indeed set piece. This sounds like it would make it even easier to hunt them, but consider that the average sniper can carry way too much (something we both agree on, weight is screwed) and they are able to move solo indefinitely. They can almost instantly pack up and move elsewhere. There's not enough sniper in the sniper to make sniping true sniping. Now, I will say that with enough time, yes one can circumvent a sniper. However, they can find you much quicker than you can possibly find them because of distance, and the second you have any hint of a tactical advantage? Alt-F4. Yes this is a fallacy of the game, but it is still a fallacy nonetheless. Game mechanics also turns the concept of tactics into child's play. Chess is tactical, laying on a hill or crawling around is simple common sense. The game caters to snipers because they can easily play "Where's Waldo" without being on a time limit. You, however, are. Last one I'm going to tackle: Compare the gameplay of a sniper versus the gameplay of a survivor. Consider the thought process of a survivor. Things I can think of off the top of my head: Survivor: Zombie aggro range Enemy positions Corners Spawn locations LoS vs. Mobility Escape Plan Safety Locations Enterable Buildings Sniper (disregarding tactical defensive/support snipers) Enemy position Movement See the problem? Again, another fallacy of the game (cry Alpha if you want) but still a fallacy nonetheless. For all our talk about not wanting safe zones and hating risk-free gameplay, we're quick to applaud a weapon that are used in zombie-free zones and are risk free until the first shot. Furthermore, skill? Sniping in DayZ is like an open book test with no time limit. The only way to fail is to be stupid. You're saying that being a sniper takes skill, and I agree in reality, but in a long range situation where nobody knows you're there until you shoot, it's easy to sit there and calculate as long as you want. Again, I call for zombies in the woods. Occasional, one or two maybe, and make them fairly deaf/blind, but they need to at least be a couple in the woods near hot zone cities. Why? To interrupt the sniper, or to pick off the lone sniper. While sniping may have a tactical advantage and be relatively counterable on paper, the pros are severely outweighed by the cons in application. This is not due to broad generalizations other than a kill-based mentality (walk around fire gun) and a general lack of will to survive combined with the negligence of the sanctity of life. Yes, that's morality, I agree. However, if we were to go balls out with all of this? DayZ would quickly become boring, not that I would hate having to scrounge for the last bit of food and water just to make it to the next day.

Glad to hear the debug monitor is going, next up we need to remove the leaderboards.

I remember driving a bus with a group. We all got in and got about half way before being ambushed. I switch to the passenger seat before getting out and we pile out, swarming 2 guys with the 8 we had. It was pretty funny, but hey they started it.

Well DayZ caters to the casual crowd, you've got to expect this to happen. Kudos for trying to stop it though.

With all due respect, I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that statement. Whether you die or not is up to another player, and never in your hands unless you simply do not play at all. If someone else has a gun, they will kill you because that's how points in this game are earned. This isn't some survival game, it's another call of duty killbox designed to give casual gamers a sense of power because they're trying to be something they aren't. DayZ is for casuals, if you don't believe me, watch the video again. It was hidden behind the open world/niche market tag for a week, but the casuals now dominate the PvP scene. This video is evidence of it. If you KoS and Deathmatch, you're just another casual cunt.

Yes, the kiddie easy mode fun-toy needs to be left in so the insecure bandit can get their panties rubbed from the recoil. Next you'll be wanting no zombies, and snipers to be in safe PvP-free zones, because that's just as realistic as there being infinitely respawning 5 foot long guns. Let's not forget that weapons respawn, and because of that, every gun has near zero "rarity" as it were. Yes the arsenals are controlled by clans (If you ask me, that's carebear mode right there, having tents) but there's still tons of the guns. The reason fancy/high tier guns need to go is because they're not rare, not from an economics sense. It makes sense in WoW, those raid drops are only very rare in comparison to you, but everyone has them before long. Yes, I went there. DayZ is the WoW of the FPS: Caters to the people that just want an ego rub, makes failure pointless, and is all about causing grief to other players. Under the guise of "no balance" the hardcore is naturally being pushed out to make room for the EZ mode clans and casual FPS gamers.

Sorry, but that post is horribly one sided and provides no reasoning at the end of the day. However, you posted it so I can imagine you think it's perfect, but if you want to play Infantry Only Battlefield in DayZ, I guess more power to you. I thought this was more than a generic FPS, but I guess people like you can't see the complete lack of "point" of the rifle other than so someone can stroke their ego with a BFG. That's it, that's the entire point of having sniper rifles in a video game. Not tactics, not covering buddies, those are real world applications. In a video game, it's a killing fun-toy for kids.

The bandit skin is fair for sure. Anyone that bitches about it should reconsider their ability to play as a bandit. I.E. Now that KOS has consequences, learn to deal with them or become a survivor again. A long and tedious road to recovery, yes, JUST LIKE THE REAL WORLD.

The irony is that DMing is the easy way out of situations in DayZ, so in effect, the Carebears are more hardcore than the DMers.

Simply put, no. Gamers and society in general, specifically American society, have grown up with a catered to golden rule: Gun is for shooting people. When was the last time a gun in a movie was used sparingly as a form of self defense? It's always the bow, or a sword, or something else, but the guy with the gun always goes on the offensive in all the "macho man" movies unless there's some political backstory to it. In video games, when was the gun a defensive weapon and not a simple mechanic for watching points wrack up? I have yet to see them, yet people want to somehow insist that a gun is for self-defense in reality. DayZ proves them dead (pun intended) wrong. The gun, as the gist of society knows it, is a tool of destruction, not a method of safety. It's an embedded psychological issue that would take a solid generation to repair. Ask anyone from the UK and they'll probably (mostly) say they don't "get" what it is with American's and their guns. Now, ask them about known personal defense weapons (you know, the "girly" pepper spray stuff) and they're likely to applaud it. This is apparent in video games as well. For too long, the gun has been less of a symbol of defense and more a symbol of power. This harkens all the way back to before Contra, and FPS gaming has never matured past the "walk around, fire gun at noobs" stage. This is why DayZ is a total fallacy as a game, not because of its idea, but because of the society it was created in. It makes a good griefing ground though, given the total lack of morality in the internet. I dare say given a gun and the licence to kill, many people that act tough would go nuts just so they could hide their own insecurities. That's the core of the issue, nobody will man up and actually live in DayZ, they feel too insecure and hide behind the pathetic screen door of shooting everyone for lulz. DayZ is a victim, and the KOS situation (and yes it exists, twisted statistics be damned) is a symptom of the larger cause: Gamers won't grow up. Guns are always for fragging noobs, and anyone that wants to mature and socialize is a big casual/carebear wuss. In gaming, manliness is equated with immaturity and killboards, whereas in the casual crowd, manliness is seen as having the ability to properly interact with others. The "hardcore" farmtown players are generally disregarded in the casual crowd, why? Because they take the game too far. In general gaming? The "hardcore" (laughable, all things considered) is praised and awarded with attention, in spite of them being not much more than a big dick. So what has the internet, and subsequently online multiplayer become? A dick comparing competition to help shield the insecurities of boys that won't grow up .

The bandit skin adds a necessary penalty in a world of fantasy. It's a fantasy consequence (arbitrarily being labelled as a KOS player) to counter a fantasy advantage (respawning) This is basic accounting stuff man, for every credit there is a debit.

I think a generic "sponge cake" could be in the standalone, but they can't use actual Hostess Twinkies.

I think, ultimately, loot is too common. It's not like WoW where there's tiers of loot, a bullet is really a bullet period. In short, everything is "purple" quality, and needs to be treated as such. Everything needs to be super rare, then maybe tents won't be as big of a problem.

Bear in mind that this is all hypothetical talk, and is thrown in with the core of the argument because some people can't understand a line of thought. If there is no right way to play DayZ, then obviously there is no wrong way. Yet, we all say hackers are doing it wrong, so there is a wrong way. By logic, there is then a right way. The right way is metagame free, and that much is obvious. Yes we need to push for better radios, it's Alpha, give it time. Why is metagame free my (supposed!) "right" way to play? Because it is the one that sticks closest to Rocket's goals. In earlier posts, he came out and said he wanted DayZ to make players feel and think, yet they don't need to if their buddy can watch corpses and talk on TS. Tents have no problem storing respawn gear for the ghost of the player running back from the graveyard of the shore. Just a thought: It becomes kinda pointless to put in a system where your character can steal a dead man's clothes and impersonate them (by stealing their username temporarily, more realistic version of what the Spy does) in order to infiltrate them, if they can just ask over TS if they're there or not. However, random DMers obviously think every other playstyle is wrong, else why would they spam carebear on anyone that isn't looking through CoD-tinted glasses? They get a fantasy advantage, namely the ability to respawn without penalty, and then don't want a fantasy disadvantage in the form of a bandit skin? It's a double standard, trying to point the spotlight away from them so their playstyle remains the easiest. And THEREIN lies the core of the issue. There is no right or wrong, but there is DEFINITELY the "easiest" way. Metagaming, DMing, DCing, Server Hopping, things of this nature, all make the game easier. It lowers the difficulty standard, and these people aren't looking for a challenge in the first place. So while there is no right, or wrong, there is definitely an easy or hard. An easy mode in DayZ is counter-productive to DayZ's vision, and of course the people taking this easy mode are going to bitch, moan, ragequit, QQ, and cry tears of hate the moment they have to deal with a few difficulties to curb their exploit of games not requiring feeling/thinking. Let's not forget, when the outside-of-the-map exploit was fixed, these same people flamed rocket for caving in to carebears. Everything they don't like, or would make THEIR game harder, they write off as a carebear feature and move on. Meanwhile, they're playing ArmA2 with a zombie theme.

People who play DayZ to not play DayZ are the clans with VOIP, the sniper kill farming, the item duping, hacking, etc. I'm sorry if you're used to talking with your buddies, but do it in Direct Communication, and push to have Rocket introduce group radios with channels. Any form of metagaming just makes the game easier. So in essence, the carebears are actually the ones who hoard loot to circumvent the permadeath and metagame via TS/Vent so they don't have to deal with being actually IN DayZ. If your mentality of DayZ is that "it's just a game" you're doing it really, really wrong. DayZ is an experience, and boiling yourself down just to make the game's intellect requirement easier does nothing but hurt you, the player. CoD is a game, WoW is a game, DayZ is an experience.

This is another core issue. It's not very authentic that I am forced to go outside of the game world and join people with third party VOIP/Add-ons/Maps etc. just to be expected to survive for some time. DayZ's greatest moments don't happen anymore, the moments where players bumped into each other and were happy to just see another lively face. Metagaming really kills the immersion and authenticity of the game, and I know I'll hear a lot of fanboy bitching about that, about how "OMG it's a game!" To that, I point to STALKER, the most immersive survival type series out there that I know of. That is what we should be aiming for, not Halo:Zombie edition where everyone has the sniper rifle and hides up in "that" spot because it's zed free for easier kills. Less CoD, more STALKER, that's what the problem with DayZ is. We need people willing to play as Wolf, the Trader, the Scientists, instead of the military day in and day out. Think about it, would STALKER have really been that good if everything was hostile? It's funny how we talk about America being free and yet, its society has all but crumbled. It seems people can't handle the responsibility of freedom.

It's not a zombie shooter, it's a one sided PvP match. If you're in Cherno for supplies and not to be on the edge hunting said supplies hunters, you're playing it wrong. and no, you can't tell other people how to play, that's wrong, you just have to snipe on a hill and camp bodies because that's the only way real men play. See the problem there?

Your argument is that the best way to counter a sniper is to have a sniper, a weapon that, legitimately obtained, is super rare. Being in Cherno and getting shot from someone that does not have the same worries as you IS a problem. I ask this to every sniper and they tell me the same thing: They snipe because they don't have to deal with zeds. Hell, I snipe so I don't have to deal with zeds.Once zombies, a potential interruption, are eliminated, there is simply you and another player that is bogged down. It's a gun that eliminates more than half of the shooting factors, and while realistic, is about as authentic as laser guns in a WW2 game. (yeah yeah wolfenstein, whatever) To further counter this argument, you're saying that to avoid a sniper means to not go into a city, which is the only place where there is actual gameplay aside from running. Then I ask, what is the whole point? Is DayZ really such a game that to counter the easy mode (and forget about the no skill argument, pre planning is a pittance in this map, I speak from experience) is to take the game from survival to walking sim. We're not talking 10-20 minutes here, I've taken upwards from an hour, even if I admit I was being very slow. In that hour, a sniper logged in, already setup mind you, and started popping peeps. Last, snipers do not shoot unless they have to. Your story about being saved by overwatch is precisely what tactical sniping is, but they're not a kill farmer, they're in a team on defense. The biggest gripe is someone that packs 6 mags of AS50 and sits up on a hill raking in kills for lulz, gaining nothing but imaginary points for doing so. A concept which DayZ was fundamentally against, but now seems to almost support. I thought we were all tired of the gung-ho guns and guts shoot em up, but if we're supporting this kind of behavior, clearly we're not. This is not tactical gameplay, this is a shooting gallery. So, yes, if a sniper is in a team and playing the defensive/protective role, that's what they were designed to do. Yes they can play tactical offensive as well, but in any authentic situation? A sniper doesn't worry about how many kills, but who they kill. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just tossing my opinion out there, no matter who hates it.

WoW has...how many? Doesn't mean the community is nice. There's a difference between a game being a financial sinking ship and a black hole in the argument that gamers have decency.

Well that settles the "nighttime is too dark" thread. Looks like I was right.

Yet another rat who doesn't understand what a sinking ship is. It's the community dealing the death strokes, at the end of the day. They're so easy to rile up that even "I find this broken feature broken" leads to tears and butthurt that someone would dare speak sacrilege against the perfect brokenness of DayZ. Hacks, Griefing, bugs, yeah it's Alpha, but this stuff doesn't get fixed without some major overhauls that we have yet to see. All I see is more griefer helping in the name of anti-balance.

The goats are the least afflicted of the animals, cows are practically discriminated against. I think they need less meat to drop to compensate...that way people will shoot them less.

Sorry, but if this DayZ has taught me anything, it's that a standalone DayZ is going to need some griefer protection and admins with powers.

I have yet to experience any heart pounding except for my first day. After that, the magic of the game was lost. With everyone being a hostile, I don't feel strained anymore with wondering if someone's friendly, I know they're not. Also, I've got so much winchester ammo that zombies are an annoyware at best, an annoyance which I can avoid by just staying in the woods. It's not like I need anything anymore, camping out near a lake and watching the bandit groups come back and forth. They occasionally make water runs near where I'm camped, but I don't mind because they don't care, because they can easily just bring their chopper in and pickup anyone that dies.

Actually, I don't see why admins can't see who killed who in an out of game log. Admins having no powers means the servers go unchecked, I think the price of dealing with admin abuse on some servers would far outweigh the price of letting hackers roam free on all servers.