AnarchyBrownies

Stability confirmed! Rocket looking so smooooooth

This has GIF potential.

Because I'm a reasonable person I'm always looking for small indications that Rocket and co. can't handle the task. Today it's: "all-signing" which I'm sure was supposed to be "all-singing." So probably not habbening ever.

Keep pluggin'! Good luck with further testing.

Haha I saw that 27 others gave me beans and I was like... that doesn't seem right.

Sometimes I'll just be sitting around, not doing anything... and I'll think of this GIF... and I'll go into hysterical laughter. It's just so well done.

I was under the impression that WarZ was a scam from the start and only very gullible people ever took it seriously as having potential to be a legit game.

You can wait for something for years? Most of the people on here are hanging by a thread just waiting 11 months. That's with a mod of the same game to keep them company.

We raid the hospitals for some prozac is what we do.

I think as long as you give players a reason to spread out it's fine. So making the coast and airfields less attractive or at least more equal to some of the internal cities.

Yeah, not cool, Katana. Not cool at all.

Yeah, I've never liked that type of argumentation. There are legitimate times to claim "it's just an alpha." There are also legitimate times to wonder if the development team is up to a certain task, alpha or not. I don't mean this for DayZ specifically, just for early releases in general. Having just bought Battlefield 4 I can honestly say that "it's a Beta" was never a good excuse back in early October when the BF4 beta was released. Despite there being some significant issues, the game was released clearly unfinished. It was immediately apparent that the game didn't have issues because it was in Beta, it was just never going to be ready for release. Sometimes it's not an alpha/beta issue, it's a developer issue and as consumers people need to demand more. As far as DayZ is concerned I'm definitely not worried about some axe animation in alpha. My impression is that right now the whole foundational code is being worked on and when that's done all the extras will come relatively quickly. You can't focus on the brand of the windows when you're just staring at a hole in the ground.

Did you learn something about jumping to conclusions today?

Nope, the only thing they need to do is get the server FPS up to 15 with around 50+ people. I think that's their goal anyways. Everything else doesn't matter. It's an alpha, not a full release.

No way, man, release is tomorrow. Sleep tight.

An inflation system might work quite well then... hmmmm

It's anarchy in here. You'll only be returning to rubble.

When you say "redistributed" do you mean like it would be taken off their characters or out of their unused tents and then spawned? Or do you mean like they would just start spawning more of that item? I think it would be a bad idea to start taking things off of people because they go on vacation for a week or two. But if those items aren't being used then maybe you could have 15 of that item instead of 10. And then if all of them are being used you go back to 10 and the extra 5 just disappear over time as players die with them on their bodies.

To a certain extent that's necessary because it's an alpha and people shouldn't expect much. People also shouldn't expect a fantasy. As long as we can find some sort of common ground on the perspectives then the discussion is good.

Grow up. No one is forcing you to read anything.

Of course this would mean the game has changed. Just because it still has problems doesn't mean it hasn't changed. The new problem is about how to manage the change. I think they've been talking about these issues for months though. This new loot system was announced back in May or June or something and these questions were asked. Don't know if they've provided an answer, someone else will have to answer that one. One thing I know is that the solutions to these problems are not limited to what I can come up with so unless I think of something really good I'm not going to speculate. You've already got a decent list.

That would be a cool problem I think. The good news is on a server of 50-150 people, that team probably couldn't wreak havoc on everyone. Unlike in a situation where there are 50+ AS50s in the hands of 50+ players. But it would be cool in that maybe that team would become a target for another team (or individuals). So stalking might become something that happens more often in the game, in order to find where players are stashing things. Another issue would be what if those players quit and the AS50s just sat there? *NOTE* I think we're both using AS50 as an example, I don't think there's a plan to have them in the game. But it works for the discussion. EDIT: I didn't completely answer the question about new players. But I guess it would depend on how rare each item is. There's no reason that new players should be entitled to an equal chance at loot. If the loot is taken, then it's taken. There's nothing wrong with that. But that would probably only be a problem for things like high-end gear anyways and they'd just have to find it stashed or kill whoever has that gear with a different weapon... or play without it. I don't think this issue will apply to survival necessities like food.

Quote below you still stands. Again, it has changed quite drastically. Going from a couple hundred zombies to thousands is a big change. Also, the amount of any loot can be changed depending on feedback from the alpha. So if it's too easy to do exactly what you described, the community can give feedback on that and push to have it changed. And it's not speculation. Dean has already explained that loot now spawns server-side and will be able to keep a cap on the maximum number of a certain item available. So not everyone can run around with an AS50. NOT SPECULATION.

Fundamental changes already have been made, what do you not get about that? It's not a question we have to wait to have answered. We already know there have been significant changes to core aspects of the game. I'm not having an argument that needs to wait until the alpha, I'm asking you to make a point that makes sense. You attacked people for thinking the game would play differently when they have good reason to think it will play differently. You, on the other hand, have provided NO reason to think it will be the same. Of course no one can no for sure until we've played the game but logically it makes sense to assume it will play differently. Epoch plays differently than vanilla for example. It will be like that. But epoch encourages more deathmatch because it allows you to hoard weapons easier. If you make the game basically impossible to play solo (because of zombie danger/ loot scarcity for ex.) then it will force people to cooperate more. So every change that gets made changes where gameplay is along the spectrum of Survival-Deathmatch.

No, again you can't have a discussion because you're choosing to ignore the changes that have been made. If fundamental aspects of the game have changed, it LOGICALLY stands that it is more likely it will play differently. You're choosing to ignore the changes and conclude it will be the same. So your argument comes from a complete unwillingness to look at facts, which is baffling to me. And if you DO acknowledge these fundamental changes then you're left with this absurd argument: The fundamental aspects of the game have changed, but it will be the exact same. If you're going to say something like that, you're going to have to come up with an argument of why, despite core changes, it would be the same. You haven't done that. Your best argument has been "people are hyped, and games have been hyped before and not been as good as advertised, therefore the game will be the same." That's not an argument at all.