MrBrown (DayZ)

Some of that might be caused by patch 1.7.2.4, the video was taken with 1.7.2.3, you can tell that from the fact that he mentions that zombies are deaf due to a bug, but that bug was fixed in 1.7.2.4. But I'm not sure what of the stuff you describe is just random stuff, or stuff you have to practice (like using the hatched, I heard you need to learn to use it perfectly), or really stuff which was changed with the patch.

*SPOILER ALERT* (if you haven't seen the movie) . . . At the end the father dies, but the child gets rescued by another family which does NOT shoot the child and his dying father on sight! Instead, the other family stalked them for some time to be able to judge if they pose a threat to them, and then decided to approach them peacefully and offer company. Most of the people complaining about KoS in Day Z do not want to turn the mod into a Carebare Land, they just want a potentially positive survivor encounter once in a while.

LOL when I tried to put a blood bag into my friend's backpack so he could give me a transfusion, I accidentally left clicked and shot him in the face, even though the menu on the left side was still popped up. Never trust dat menu... ^^

When people glorify the totally brainless killing on sight, they usually want to paint a picture like that part of the official trailer here: Getting shot on sight when having nothing but a flashlight somehow fails to get that dramatic feeling of paranoia across somehow, but perhaps that's just me...

Yeah but usually you don't fill them in and throw them away, but keep them and fill them up over and over again. According to the DayZ Wiki a helicopter takes up to 600 litres, which would be 30 jerry cans. But that info might be outdated perhaps.

You have my beans, Sir! finally someone who understands that people in Ghillie suits explaining stuff isn't the same as a really fresh character with nothing but a flashlight showing how it's done live in the video.

I see what you did there... <_<

Yesterday I GTF off the coast and headed north from Kamenka. Suddenly met someone at the first barn north-east of Kamenka. He talked to me on VoIP, but I couldn't understand because I was surprised and didn't listen carefully enough. I'm pretty new to the game, so I thought "You better answer quickly", but unfortunately I hadn't configured my microphone for the game so far. So while I was trying to figure out what I could do to signal I'm friendly.... he shot me -_- I cannot even blame him, if some guy with a hatchet was standing in front of me and didn't react when I talked to him, I guess I'd shoot too. Well, but I definitely configured a key for direct communication now ^^

Well I have to admit, I didn't expect this reaction after I went for full confrontation in my last post ^^ Kudos for staying calm to you. And I don't claim to have to ultimate knowledge on anti-cheat, just sayin'. Perhaps right now the commercial cheat sites have the upper hand on PB, I don't know. But that's not permanent, so much is for sure. As long as a cheat isn't really kept private in a very small group of people, it's never undetectable. Still the commercial cheats are a bigger problem than public cheats you can download from YouTube descriptions of course, because of their sophisticated mechanisms to evade detection. But if a mole successfully supplies samples of the cheat to PB, these can be detected too. Claims of undetectable cheats almost never fail to enrage me, because these claims might be the last straw which breaks the camel's back to make someone start looking into buying a cheat. BTW, APB doesn't only use PunkBuster, but does also analyze the player statistics, like "40 kills but no death? That's suspicios!". But that's always a double-edged sword, sometimes it's very hard or even impossible to find cheaters using statistics without causing false positives. About BattleEye I really know nothing, I only know PunkBuster and VAC and the rough differences between them, but BattleEye is totally new for me.

This is true - just as true as the statement: Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it's useless! Yeah.... well... APB is using PunkBuster. So much for that... In the time before Battlefield Bad Company 2 was released, cheating was really bad in Battlefield 2. But that was because EA didn't pay PunkBuster much money any more, so PB just banned public cheats and didn't pro-actively hunt down commercial cheaters. But when PunkBuster lost Activision as a customer with it's Call of Duty franchise, they knew they had to show some muscle. When Battlefield Bad Company 2 was released, a lot of those cocksuckers who buy cheats from such parasitic assholes like 187ci got banned. Good times (although I'm aware PB doesn't always have the upper hand, that's life).

Obviously you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. After Battlefield Bad Company 2 was released, I was running my own server which streamed to PBBans. I closely followed how PunkBuster kicked the asses of a lot of commercial cheat sites with delayed, silent detections. Of course the parasites running the commercial hack sites try to detect PB updates. If any client running a cheat detects PB updating, it disables itself and reports it to the cheat's master server which then disables all the cheat clients until the PB updates have been analyzed by the cheat coder. So yes, this kind of behavior makes it hard for PB to detect them, but not impossible as history has shown. The cheat detects the PB updates by closely monitoring PB's activities - not because they're officialy announced. If you do know any AntiCheat system which does not suffer from this problem, tell me exactly how it does so, otherwise I call bullshit.

That's vastly oversimplified. For example, there are a lot of valid complaints by DayZ veterans who liked it better when there were Bandit skins. AFAIK Rocket didn't remove them because he thought that humanity/morale was a bad idea to begin with, but because he still has no idea how to implement it properly in ArmA II. This kind of complaining (often accompanied by ideas or suggestions to solve the problem) is absolutely valid and has nothing to do with "not understanding what it's about".

Which would still mean 50 jerry cans, not 100+

This means: The bug "Infected cannot hear weapon firing" was [FIXED] - so now they actually hear again.

Every FPS developer who does it differently than this... ...should get a new job! Perhaps in ArmA this... would be acceptable, as it limits unrealistically high turn speeds. But there is no freaking reason for this shit: It's especially frustrating considering how easy it would be to fix it technically.

THIS! The tent duping completely prevents proper loot balancing currently.

If most of the kills would be a product of that mindset, I wouldn't complain. But that's NOT the reason why most bandits kill in DayZ, and it's really obvious. Many people gear up on empty servers, and then hide somewhere around Elektro and join a full server to snipe people, like "Aaah, finally I got my standard shooter equipment, fuck that survival shit. And how easy it is to annoy all those people here now, TROLOLO so funny!" If the game would really give me the feeling that my death enabled somebody else to survive longer (in the "zero sum" sense, not in the "I need to shoot first to not get shot" sense), it would be a different story. But that's simply not the case in DayZ currently. Theoretically, if food and equipment only respawned on a server reset and servers wouldn't get reset every few hours, and you couldn't just take your stuff from one server to another - THEN we could start talking about "zero sum". But currently? Not so much! I was talking about shooting the first person you see in a long time in the face without talking a single word before. Not about constant human interaction which goes wrong until you're finally fed up with the people. Just because the problem is hard to solve, doesn't mean it's not worth to try. Perhaps not bandit skins. Perhaps some more stuff like blood transfusions, where you need a friendly person to survive. Whatever. Quoted for truth

I prefer Mumble, because contrary to TeamSpeak it's open-source and server hosting is completely free, no matter how many users or servers you want to run. Mumble had low-latency and high-quality audio years before TeamSpeak3 was ever released as a beta. Unfortunately the audio configuration is much less forgiving than TeamSpeak's, especially with voice activation. So a lot of people waited for TS3 while still using the crappy TS2. Which is a pity , Mumble deserves much more attention IMHO. But in the end it's just a tool. Look for a community you want to join, and then install the voice chat program THEY are using. Most of the time that will be TeamSpeak3 as it's the most popular. Depends on the number of people. As long as there are only a hand full of people in the channel, voice activation can be fine. I personally use voice activation but I have a "Push to Mute" button in Mumble which I press when eating snacks :P

This is a very important point to consider, especially for those people who say "Don't care about fixing the zombie A.I./pathing so much, the endgame is PvP anyway". Because it shows that the PvP challenge can be circumvented even easier than any stupid A.I., which leaves the zombie A.I. as the last resort which keeps the game from becoming too easy.

This quote is exactly the reason of the common confusion, because it is imprecise. The question is: Did the new 1.7 mechanic replace the old mechanic, or was it placed on top of it? In other words: As long as I didn't die after placing a tent, do I still have to use it every 7 days to keep it active?

Pretty much this. I don't want PvP to be removed from the game, but PvE only servers would definitely help new players to get into the game. If the hardcore PvP crowd is correct about PvE getting boring pretty quickly, the newbies would join the PvP servers soon anyway, so there's no reason to be afraid that PvP will die out, right? Imagine if you make your first experiences in an environment where directly hurting other players isn't possible (or at least severely punished). People might actually learn to like the benefits of cooperation and make some friends. And then they might join the PvP servers as a survivor group - instead of getting into the "If I don't shoot first, I die" routine before even considering cooperation. Of course this would raise the bar for griefers, as they'd have a harder time finding totally clueless victims, so I guess they gonna hate...

Does anybody know if Rocket would like to make it possible to just put your shotgun/assault rifle on your back - like your character already does when you switch from the gun to the flashlight for example? Or to phrase the question differently: Is the current limitation a technical or an intentional one? I hope it's just a technical one which could possibly be resolved. I see no reason to handle the hatchet differently than the flashlight.

I still consider the amount of shooting on sight very unrealistic. IMHO a fist fight during a evacuation cannot be compared to that. I can imagine long queues at the gas station causing stress because there are so many people at the same spot, too many people, too few resources - but that's a totally different situation. People in DayZ don't shoot each other because somebody cut the line at a crowded supermarket. I guess some survivors in a real DayZ scenario wouldn't have talked to other human beings for days or even weeks. Imagine someone visiting Tom Hanks on his island in Castaway just to get stabbed in the face by him. Quoted for truth That's pretty much the point I wanted to make. The player still knows where the tent is which his last character placed. The player still knows that his last character got shot in the face on sight. And this influences the game in an unrealistic way. IMHO some mechanisms to counter that should be implemented, even if they are unrealistic too then. I don't know how it was when you got a bandit skin for murdering people, I'm pretty new to the game. If that idea was scrapped because it just didn't improve anything, I can accept that. If the idea was scrapped because it was considered "unrealistic", I'd find that a pretty stupid decision.

Yeah... because in reality, normal people have no inhibition threshold to murder other people. And in reality, you can also die five times and learn that it's better to shoot on sight if you wanna survive after respawning. So it's totally realistic! If anyone finds sarcasm, feel free to keep it.

I'd like some kind of PvE endgame. Like, if survivors build up a base (perhaps some day we can build cooler stuff than tents), and if it reaches a certain size there will be the chance of zombie horde attacks at night which you then must defend against.