Dayzo

Credit card companies won't care what 'the situation' is when their customers ask for a chargeback. Players will just say 'I bought this game last month, and it is unplayable due to low quality'. So however correct you are that people should not complain about an alpha mod, the fact is that consumer protection allows anyone to claim their money back for their Arma II purchase.

At midnight, everything you own will turn into pumpkins.

Nice attitude. It'll be interesting to see if you have the same opinion in two week's time.

I'm fairly sure 'default' means 'ask the card how much VRAM it has'. ie. auto-report. The problem with that setting is that some cards don't report the right amount. However, if your card does report the right amount, 'default' is the best setting to use. If you think you're having problems with the default setting, then try the appropriate manual setting. No-one seems to be 100% sure, but it looks like: LOW = 256MB MED = 512MB HIGH = 1024MB V.HIGH = 2048MB (You have to bear in mind that the game engine is several years old - nowadays 2Gb would be 'med' or 'high').

If you've got 2gb of ram on your graphic card, then try video memory at 'very high'. If you get 'out of memory' errors, set it to 'high'. Also, if you turn down the effects/textures, I read that some rendering can be handed over to the CPU, so in some cases keeping a setting (Eg. shadows) at 'high' can improve frame rate because the GPU is used instead. Sometimes, on some cards. Keep anti-aliasing off or low. Set view distance to 1000m. Set resolution lower, and 3D resolution to 100% of whatever you choose (or lower if you can stand the blur it causes). You'll probably have to change the aspect ratio to stretch it correctly, and may have black bars at the sides or top/bottom. Lastly, when tweaking things one at a time, it's important to do exactly the same thing each test. Arma has this built in: Start Arma (not dayz), and in the single mission 'scenarios' choose 'benchmark 01'. It'll play an in-game cut-scene and tell you the average frame rate at the end. You can then change a setting, play the scene again, and see what difference it made (if any). Also, I think some server settings may override your own. Eg. landscape settings might be forced to 'normal' or 'high', so that everyone sees a similar amount of objects, bushes and grass. So you might be able to get slightly better results offline than online.

I'd have thought it would be logical to have more animals around farms, but it doesn't look like it.

I think the server increments your day regardless of how much you've been logged in. So a guy who has been playing 6 hours a day for the last week will have the same day count as someone who created a character a week ago but hasn't logged in since. So it's kind of a pointless metric. I really wish it only counted the time you spent playing.

Trying to hijack your car? Uh, it was far more likely that he was transported into the driver's seat by a hacker. :rolleyes:

The issue is not PvE versus PvP. It's survival game-style versus deathmatch game-style. Survival still requires some PvP, but at a low rate, since survivalists are much more into co-op. The problem is that if both styles are on the same server, the deathmatchers spoil it for the survivalists. But the opposite isn't true; nothing the survivalists do spoils the game for the deathmatchers. In fact the survivalists just give the deathmatchers easy cannon fodder. If the survivalists all left to play on a separate server, the deathmatchers wouldn't have any easy targets any more. That's why they bitch and moan about having separate game-play on separate servers.

Don't buy it for only the DayZ mod. If you like the military sim for itself, you'll get some fun out of the single player downloadable campaigns and missions. However, the Arma II online scene has already been and gone. The next military revival will be when Arma III is released.

You will be disappointed in the low resolution and low graphics settings you'll need in order to get 18-30 fps. Also research the rampant hacking and serious bugs described on this forum. If you wouldn't buy Arma II for itself, then you might feel you've wasted your money once you find out just how 'alpha' and broken the DayZ mod really is. Also, because the standalone has just been announced, don't expect the alpha to be developed into a beta and then a final; it is destined to remain a broken alpha. I'm not saying don't buy it, but do your research first to avoid feeling that you've wasted your time and money.

Do you actually have to spend 24 hours logged into the game to make the day increment?

Thanks. I often see people posting that they had a XX day old character, but that doesn't mean anything if it doesn't reflect how much time you actually spend logged-in to the server.

I'm glad of two things. 1) I'm glad that I bought Arma for itself and I like the single player campaigns/missions as much as I like the concept of DayZ, so I don't feel I've wasted my money like many folks in the forum. 2) I'm glad that in the moment of elation following my first hour in DayZ, I didn't then tell all my zombie-loving friends about the mod, because frankly I'd be embarrassed if they had wasted money and time experiencing the subsequent hacking, SoS and sniping that followed my first experience. Anyway, my main point is that the large bugs, gameplay and hacking issues that are killing the mod can't easily be fixed. Since Rocket has a good proof of concept for a best seller, he'd be a fool to continue to put resources into trying to polish this turd. That's why I think there will be no more major updates to the mod, and it will be left to dwindle whilst they put everything they've got into the releasing a standalone version.

In Arma II, you can carry an bazooka on your shoulder, and easily swap between it and the primary weapon - the rifle gets shouldered during the swap. I'm surprised there wasn't a way to make the hatchet a bazooka-class weapon so it could be shouldered, but with a mêlée action/animation. There probably is, but the devs didn't think about it at the time.

OK, thanks for clarifying. I must have just had a run of bad luck. :emptycan: :emptycan: :emptycan: :emptycan:

You could download Networx. Free, accurate, small, and there is even a portable version that doesn't require installation.

Is it possible to make some kind of macro key binding to put the axe on the belt and take the shotgun out of the bag?

I have been trying to go on low population servers because I hate the deathmatch 'shoot-on-sight' mentality that IMHO spoils the potential of the game. However, can I ask you lot something about low population servers.... It seems to me that when the server starts, there is a ton of gear spawned. The server becomes full and the map is raped of it's loot by players. Then people leave the server because of the lack of loot. Later we see it with just a handful of people on it, join it, and then find it more difficult to get any good gear or food, since it was already taken when the server was full several hours previous. Is that reasoning sound?

Apart from having a friendly teamspeak, and not killing respawns or playing 'shoot on sight' as a squad yourselves, does this 'friendly policy' mean you're going to actively kick other players who just snipe Cherno/Elektro or rack up lots of unnecessary player kills? I'd love to play on a server which emphasised the survival and co-op aspects of the game, rather than the brain dead deathmatch mentality which exists on 99% of the servers (in my opinion being forced to 'shoot on sight' totally spoils about half the potential of the game). Rocket is never going to put anything in to help regulate the amount of unnecessary PvP, so I guess it falls on server admins to enforce their own policies. You'd get a lot of flak and complaints for kicking deathmatch players though.

Whatever you do, rent, don't buy! I reckon the property prices in Cherno are about to plummet (probably due to the zombie infestation).

I couldn't change the size of the window by mouse or in the config file. It's ridiculously small.

I get a loading screen hang 3/5 times when trying to join a server. Sometimes I can get to desktop easily (alt -tab) and can close Arma/DayZ. Sometimes I lose my mouse cursor and can't get to desktop either, so I have to mess around trying to get to task manager in view (ctl+alt+del) and try to exit using keyboard only. However, if I keep trying to join servers, eventually I'll get onto one. For that reason, in my case at least, I don't think it is a ban. I think it gets stuck because it can't contact the hive, or perhaps there is a version/file mismatch, or maybe the server is overloaded. Very annoying.

I think most players believe that killing large numbers of survivors for absolutely no reason spoils the spirit of game. Of course there are legitimate reasons for PvP kills, but in a 'normal' game of survival, there are sensible boundaries as to the number of survivors you need to kill, and I think most people would like to see those boundaries enforced. So my suggestion is to link PvP killing with an exponential 'kill counter'. For example: kills points 01 = 10 02 = 20 03 = 40 04 = 80 05 = 160 06 = 320 07 = 640 08 = 1280 09 = 2560 10 = 5120 · When your kill count reaches a certain level (Eg 10,000), your character is killed. · After a kill, your counter starts slowly returning to zero. · When it reaches zero, your kill count is also reset to zero. · If you make another kill whilst your counter is not zero, then you are attributed another kill, and have the appropriate points added to the counter. So, imagine the automatic decrement of points is set to 1 point per minute: kills time to reset kill count 01 = 10.0 min 02 = 30.0 min (10+20) 03 = 01.2 hrs (10+20+40) 04 = 02.5 hrs (10+20+40+80) 05 = 05.2 hrs (10+20+40+80+160) 06 = 10.5 hrs (10+20+40+80+160+320) etc So you could still comfortably kill 3 people in an hour, and you'd just simply need to avoid killing other players for an hour or so afterwards to prevent incurring further point penalties. But if your emphasis is on just killing instead of playing the game of survival as it was intended, you'd find it more and more difficult to reset your kill counter as you continued your spree, and soon enough your character would be reset (and automatically kick-banned from the server!?). Maybe this 'kill count' could be an option for servers to set or not, so that PvP games could exist as an admin choice.

uh, that's 3 or 4 PvP kills per hour, not in total. And that's just an example rate anyway - the developer could obviously set it differently if they think that's too low. The important thing is to introduce a way to control the rate of PvP on a server. There are obviously two types of player in this game: · The PvP guys who just want to get tooled up and then shoot as many people as possible. · The co-op/survival guys, who would rather trade with others, help each other out, build bases, explore the map, scavenge their gear, and mainly only kill for a reason. At the moment the co-op guys are being dictated to by the PvP guys: 'The way you're playing is wrong. Just shoot on sight like us. You must be crap at the game if you play it any other way. Tough shit if you don't like it'. And the co-op guys don't have any comeback - there's nothing they can do to counter it, except to reluctantly shoot on sight too. Well, I'd say that the developers are very short-sighted if they only cater to one style of play, when the concept is obviously also very suited to co-op. So the 'kill counter' suggestion is about opening up a CHOICE. How can choice be a bad thing? If you want PvP, then you'd join a server without the 'kill counter' configuration; it would be as simple as that. So I don't get why there is so much aggression for the suggestion. It would let co-op guys get on with what they want to do, and it wouldn't affect the PvP players at all, except that you'd be up against other PvP players rather than picking off easy targets who don't want to shoot on sight.