tolk

Nice come back, really proved your point. I'm out of this one, hope the info was of use OP.

Lol at the rage. ( a ) He never mentions the word "buy" or "buying", he says he's "getting" which doesn't mean he's already bought it, it might be he's decided to buy one but hasn't put the money down yet. ( b ) It's irrelevant, he did ask if his laptop would be any good for this, so I took time to explain how it would perform relative to other options, rather than just spout inane crap like you. Your laptop does not compare to his laptop in anyway other than name. That's like saying "My Jack Russell will fuck up your Rottweiler because they are both dogs". Back to the OP, if you want some evidence of what I've said and you are a reasonable person who will take the time to read and understand, and not assume they are always correct, unlike the **** above: This review has benchmarks for "Stalker Call of Pripyat" running at native on your laptop, which is probably a good comparison to DayZ as its a similar style of game made at a similar time. They got less than 30fps average on medium settings, which isn't great for smooth playability: http://www.trustedre...d-gaming_Page-4 However, as mentioned you can run the game at less than native resolution and get good results as demonstrated below. This is with BF3 running at a lower resolution but with high settings. However you will have to put up with a slightly blurred appearance due to not being at native resolution (this may well not be too noticeable): I stand by what I said before, I think you'll still be happy - its a good machine and will play the game, but just not as good as a dedicated gaming machine would.

Least helpful post. I'm not saying Macs aren't good for gaming, I love Macs and was brought up on them, but some people are just unrealistic with Apple products and can't accept that they are designed for a specific purpose and audience. The retina display Mac in particular won't be a great gaming machine because the display resolution is so high. This is good for photo editing etc. where you don't need results in real time but do care about image quality, but not good for gaming. To put this into perspective, the old mac book resolution required a GPU capable of rendering just over a million pixels, the retina display mac book will need the gpu to render over 5 million pixels if you want to run it at native resolution - it will run on the included chipset, but you'll need something a fair bit beefier (like a desktop GPU) to run the game in high settings at playable frame rates. Having to run a two year old game on a brand new machine at low settings would just be disappointing. You could run the game at a lower resolution than the native display one, but this will make things look blurred and you might find the game would actually look nicer running natively on a lower res screen. If your main use is gaming, I would say don't bother with a Mac as you just make it difficult for yourself and end up paying more than you need to. If you've already bought it/Have other uses for it then don't worry you'll still be happy with your purchase as its a quality piece of hardware.

True to some extent, you can get specific "gaming" laptops that will do a reasonable job. But its border line calling them a laptop unless you like being crushed and having radiated testicles.

Load of people getting Macs only to install bootcamp, so that they can run Windows to play games. Seriously, get a windows laptop and save yourself £1k for equivalent specced machine in the process. The new retina display Mac's screen is nice, but your not going to be running any modernish game at that resolution on a mobile graphics chipset and high settings. So for gaming its not great.

Make it so zombies spawn near user placed buildings (though a few meters outside so they don't spawn inside fences/walls etc., then walk toward it) after a certain amount of time. The more buildings in an area, the closer to existing towns/settlements, and the longer its been there then the more zombies spawn. Would mean bases would only be able to get so big before they would become troublesome to manage, or people would have to pack up bases periodically and move around (which requires a fair bit of resources, vehicles etc.). You could have some placeables as non recoverable, so that moving has a cost to.

Can anyone give me a rough explanation of how zees sense stuff in 1.7? I was sniping a zee yesterday who had a buddy right next to him from about 300-400m. Hit him with a head shot and hid buddy keeps wondering around without having detected me. I snipe his buddy too with a head shot and then all of a sudden about 5 zombies from about twice as far away auto target me and come blazing towards me. Seems funny that the first shot none got alerted, in comparison to the second shot where they were much further away and out of LOS. Anyone else experienced this?

Being remorseless, having no shame etc. etc. wouldn't make you a good survivor. Human have naturally evolved to be survivors, and in our case the average is to cooperate and work together so that we can build resources to survive more easily. If the opposite had been true then during our early evolution, when we were surrounded by many animals far more powerful and dangerous than ourselves with limited to no technology (somewhat analogous to DayZ), we would have all been psychopaths and human society would have turned out very differently. Instead we repeatedly find evidence that humans cooperated and worked together in groups and the ones that didn't... well they mostly died out of our gene pool.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole' date=' but a lot of you really miss the point here. Your character is starving, and in the cold. You will happily go to lengths ingame to rectify this. But anything else that impedes your ability to wantonly murder complete strangers is considered a gamebreaking impediment :huh: killing somebody should be a big deal. it should be a threat to triggering zombies, it should be a threat to wasting ammo, a threat to alerting other bandits, a threat to your own characters mental state. if you think you're going to survive the zombiepocalypse by shagging jack, joe and zeke, then good luck to you! some of us embrace the false hope of possiblities of factions, alliances, trying to re-establishing order, trade, and all of that. that's what the future of the game is pegged on, not just DM. a bit of psychological mindfuckery. not just 'shit, that guy is gonna kill me. may aswell alt-f4' [/quote'] I agree, maybe the solution is to change existing game dynamics so that random murdering without reason is less easy. Make ammo scarcer, make zombies more alert to sounds (though not auto target style) add some element of danger to having to use deadly force. That way people will do it when they need to; for food, water, weapons etc. but avoid it when they don't. You can then still choose to be a bandit and live solely by stealing from others, or you can be the honest man and only ever loot from houses, and anything in-between. I think the main issue at the moment is that killing someone for no reason, not even for looting, is just too easy. There's no tension, drama, only camping in a spot waiting for a newbie to run by you.

Sort of half related to this; if rocket maintains the humanity system it would be a interesting test to change it so that loss/gain of humanity is based on your current state of being. For example. If you are hungry, thirsty, have no food or water in your inventory, ill etc. and you shoot someone for supplies - although I wouldn't consider this a humane act - you may be able to justify your decision in your mind (self survival is your prime objective). So you should loose less humanity. Likewise, if you are hungry, thirsty... and you give your last can of beans to someone else. You should gain a ton of humanity (self sacrifice). I think it would make the system more interesting and dynamic than the static -x for kill survivor +y for kill zee.

Interesting concept, I think it would be quite hard to incorporate something into the game that could fairly represent this. It also doesn't consider group dynamics; i.e. an individual in a group may deem it morally correct to kill an individual of another (or no) group even if they are of the same species, given it promotes the survival and continuation of their own group - the reason behind most wars. Even group dynamics change significantly with group size. Again, all of this would be very hard to represent. Doesn't mean its not worth thinking about though.

YES - within reason See this thread for suggestions by myself and others, some of the later were quite good/interesting: http://www.dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10906&pid=101853#pid101853

Agreed the title could be better but that's not the point of this thread (seem to have to keep repeating that) its to discuss changes that could expand potential game play' date=' not exclude it. Its meant to be a sandbox after all. Quoting rocket is good, he seems like a smart guy :P, but that particular quote is out of context and as he keeps repeating its an alpha, expect changes. Why not have a go at helping contribute to those? [hr'] http://www.dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=11015 Might as well post here now instead.

Pretty sure hackers killing people in droves (supposedly sometimes entire servers at once) would decrease' date=' not increase expectancy. [/quote'] The difference between the life time of someone killed by a hacker and the average normal life expectancy is probably fairly small. whereas the difference between a hackers life and the average is probably extremely large i.e an outlier. The mean average could be affected significantly depending on this difference and the no. Of hackers.