dutch_miller

First, I wasn't talking about DayZ. Of course you can have more than one gun in DayZ, do you think I'm that stupid? I'm talking about how in a real apocalypse, nobody who has any small amount of sense in their brain would carry an anti-material rifle around. Secondly, Fun with Flare's point was their shouldn't be American weapons there in the first place, which is completely different from the dev's point of view. "I see no issue with 1HK weapons when all guns can 1HK with headshots." Anyway, let's clear up why anti-material rifles shouldn't be in DayZ. 1. Realistic impracticability. You cry realism as the reason it should be in the game, and fail to realize how ineffective it would be in a real scenario; which is what DayZ is emulating. If you want to make it realistic, you're going to be one slow bastard. 2. Unnecessary. There's really no reason for a .50 cal weapon to be in the game. Any servers you play where you are having problems with armoured vehicles and helicopters is missing the point of DayZ anyway - and I don't give a shit about those servers. In vanilla DayZ, vehicles, especially choppers, are difficult to find, repair and get working. I didn't see a chopper for well over a month when I started playing. You really don't need anti-material rifles just because you want to destroy everybody's work as fast as humanly possible. If you disagree with that, you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole and don't actually care about this conversation. Not only that, for how rare those weapons should be I call bullshit that anybody with one only uses it to defend themselves from choppers. However, I do think the weapons on choppers should be removed and the ability to fire your weapon from a chopper implemented (see Dyslecxi's Arma 2 Little Bird mod). 3. Game Balance - DayZ Standalone is a fucking game, get over yourselves. It's not realistic, nothing can ever be close to real life. You can be authentic, like adding and removing things that make sense in a real apocalypse (see point #1); but it's a game, and like all other games, it needs to be balanced. I don't care that people are bandits; in fact, I like bandits, because the game would be boring without them. But what I don't like is that the bandit playstyle is by far the most effective and most viable playstyle. Sniping with an As50 is definitely one of the easiest and simplest ways to play the game, as well as one of the best ways to live in the game without hiding in the woods and doing absolutely nothing. I don't like that at all; I'd like to see playstyles that require co-operation between players become as equally viable and effective way to play the game. Having a rifle effective over a kilometer that kills in one hit is the epitome of imbalance; and you complain about choppers.

You mean in DayZ or real life? In DayZ it's a bigger water container that automatically keeps you hydrated instead of you having to drink. In the real world it's very useful for biking, running, hiking, etc. - where it's very difficult to drink out of a water bottle and keep moving.

I'm not sure how many camelbaks you would find in Chernarus, but I do know the US military and likely many other armed forces use them - so I suppose they could be a common find in military spawns.

Bullshit.

More like 30 or 40 pounds, and the magazines are a few pounds each themselves. Your point still stands though.

I don't think that's true. There will always be people like you but I'm more interested in the average player, who currently is forced into KOS'ing because it's the most effective playstyle. If you change that, and making other playstyles more effective by offering incentives to work together with other players, then you solve the problem.

That doesn't disprove his point, it's just more examples that he's correct... Nobody in their right mind is going to lug around a .50 in an apocalypse. Anybody stupid enough to do so wouldn't know how to use the damn thing.

Most people suggest adding a skill or trait system to make dying a bigger deal because you lose your character instead of your gear. I have mixed feelings about that idea.

It won't be negligible. Just because it doesn't make sense to you that somebody would grind just to get the highest number out of anyone doesn't mean people won't do it. They will. Kos'ers do exist, and the goal is to reduce the number of them; leaderboards will absolutely make more people be bandits just to get a higher number, especially if they can show it and brag about it. Already people take screenshots of their kills and negative humanity and show them.

I think you're drunk and didn't read the OP: "Everythings is perfect but I don't like when the character is speaking or running"

Been suggested a LOT of times.

What?

What Chabowski said.

That silhouette dude has some major fuckin calf muscles. I'll be honest, I'm pretty jelly.

I think he will sell it... on steam.. for money...

Are we actually arguing whether or not to call them zombies? ...Really? ...For real?

Precisely. Isn't DayZ about letting you play the way you want to play? Nobody is making you use skype or teamspeak, but those who want to play that way should be able to.

Sure, and Shogun 2 Total War lets you have 40,000. Comparisons are pointless in this discussion.

In some ways I agree. But in one, very important way, I disagree. Like Rocket said, I like authenticity more than I like realism. Realism can mean different things to different people. My example here is the spawning system. I'd like to be able to create a group with me and my friends or my brothers that I play with, so we can spawn in the same vicinity. Due to the size of the map, it could take hours to meet up; and chances are, someone will die on the way there and the process starts over ago. Now many people would argue that's not "realistic". And others, like me, would say why not? Why wouldn't I, in an apocalypse, travel with some people I know and trust? I'm not sold on the not being able to shoot each other, because that's realism that I think is necessary; friendly fire. However, DayZ is a game, and by no means a perfect, glitch free one. I've shot and been shot by friends simply because of flawed game mechanics - such as if I'm trying to heal someone or go into their backpack and the action disappears. That's the only reason I would support not being able to shoot people in your group. The final reason I like the idea is that it really does encourage co-operative play. The idea that once you're in a group, that person is effectively trustworthy and you can trade and do whatever with a potential stranger without worrying about him killing you after he gets what he wants from you I like. I understand that a lot of players won't like the relative safety and won't feel the tension and fear of not knowing what a player could do; but to be honest, I'm not one of them. I could live without that aspect of the game.

I think you can only go so far into saying what is an exploit and "ruins the immersion". You have to remember it's a game, and just because some people don't like it if I use skype or TS doesn't suddenly mean DayZ is more than a game anymore and is more important than wanting to talk with my friends and my brothers when we play. I don't want to spend god knows how long wandering around the fucking map, hoping I run into one of my friends, hoping he recognizes me and doesn't shoot the hell out of me because we could only use direct chat. Now, back on topic, this idea (along with journals) has been suggested hundreds of times. It's a good idea, which I guess is why people keep bringing it up.

There's already plenty of them...

The point of the zombies are to be a threat and a huge deterrent from just running in and looting. Even now when they do run they aren't that much of a threat. Slow zombies would require hundreds or thousands more zombies on the server at one time, something I'd rather not have and I'm sure the devs wouldn't want either

Here's an idea that I like: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/142192-dayz-mod-suggestion-zombies-eating-players-make-bodies-disappear/