septuscap

As has been said a million times (confirmed by rocket), deaths within the first few minutes are not included in those stats. If you don't know what you're talking about, just stfu.

Fixed.

So when a local area has a disaster and society as a whole is still functioning normally, people still go ape shit. What do you imagine would happen if there was no social order at all? Of course the map is smaller than the real world, but I imagine we would see tribes staking out territory and mercilessly dispatching outsiders except for rare cases (unarmed civvies, white flags, etc). Of course with the fragmented servers of DayZ this doesn't exactly work. You can't impose your will on a player who can just hop to another server. I'm sure you'd see far more structure in an EVE-like world where talented PvP'ers would control vast swathes of territory and tax others to "farm" it for them.

I think the poll is sort of mis-worded. I voted for "less than 25% it's just a game" but I definitely think the game delivers on the emotional front. Fear, suspsense, relief, and remorse all delivered in a zombie package. When I said "it's just a game" I meant it is an experience I can put down when I want to go do something else. It's not a real life that I'm stuck in 24/7, I can just log off and return to the safety of RL.

One of the primary elements of the game is competition over vehicles, and resources/territory in general. Maybe when you're older and suck less, you may understand. Not everyone in a sandbox is after socializing. I'm sure base building and the like will give a better venue for those playstyles, but it would be a mistake to sandbag the most popular feature of the game (sandbox PvP). 700k users and rising. If not for the "nut sacks," there would be zero real threat in DayZ. If you're dying to zombies, you're a moron, plain and simple (or bored and trying your luck). The reason players use caution, check their surroundings, and feel FEAR, is because PLAYERS are out to get them. Zombies, like food/ammo/drink/etc, are a vehicle to ratchet up that fear. You need food, but that means going to high traffic areas. You need to dispatch that zed, but it means some one might hear you. You're afraid of THE PLAYERS. The 1 or 2 videos of roadside robbery are anecdotal -- that time never existed in DayZ, and you're just as likely to encounter it now as you were then. Frankly I wouldn't care if you re-added bandit skins, but you'd just have players continuing their stupid behavior of running out in the open to greet an armed stranger (likely a would-be bandit that hasn't gotten his "stripes" yet) just like they do now. Why don't we put THAT kind of behavior on trial?

The issue is if a SURVIVOR opens up on you, you defend yourself and kill him, and thus become a bandit. I think the solution is to use a simple murder count instead of humanity, a la Ultima Online. If you have 5+ kills, you're a bandit. Every X hours of gameplay, you lose a kill count until you're back under 5 and become a survivor again. This would have to carry over into new lives or else a player could just respawn and have his friends gear him up again.

No the problem is that friendlies want to be able to be WORSE at the game and still not end up dead. If you don't want to KOS, that's fine. Keep your distance, stalk people you see and avoid them, keep cover. Even if you initiate conversation, KEEP COVER. You don't have the right to just run around like an idiot and have the game cover you by punishing bandits. Make a steam group for friendlies, trade with each other, socialize with each other; eventually use base building to create player safe cities. But be vigilant.

I had the same problem recently, not sure if the beta patch corrupted the files or what. Some one recommended deleting C:\users\xxx\AppData\Local\Arma 2 OA\BattleEye\BEClient.dll (just cut/paste it to a backup folder so you can put it back later for future patches or whatever) and that seemed to fix it. Not sure if that's allowed by BIS but once a game starts crashing every time I try to enter a server and load, I tend to do whatever the fuck I can to fix it.

Obviously I play this like a game b/c I can respawn, log off and come back to the real world where there is relative security, etc. IRL I would try to reconstruct civilization, as I think most people would do. I think more people would do that in-game as well given the option. I'd imagine a wild west sort of game world given the appropriate mechanics, but it's extremely hard to do when you can't identify players, deal with people logging in behind your defenses, etc. It'd definitely be interesting to have cities to trade gear with other players, socialize, meet & group up with other survivors, etc. Maybe even let players make posters advertising their city and posting it on bulletin boards around the world (I know survivors tend to be about immersion, and cry when they have to check a forum to find out about player cities on any given servers).

I don't think a single person I know will be getting ArmA3, DayZ or not. I'm glad DayZ has finally put full loot sandbox gaming back in the limelight, but anyone I talk to is beyond annoyed with ArmA (can't say enough good things about DayZ ofc).

why would any individual tell you where the shit was instead of just taking it all for themselves?

This forum is just a cesspool of retards, I don't need your praise.

Yea it's so fun to hide in a bush whose foliage isn't even rendered on your opponent's screen. Large maps aside, everything about ArmA is broken, from security to environmental interaction to UI. I'm sure they're going to go with ArmA3, but you can expect DayZ to fail by doing so.

Your mom's a moron.

That video showed ghillie suits which came after bandit skins were removed you moron. They were just bored, and the player in question was a new spawn that posed no threat so they fucked with him. Just stop talking.

Yea and the overwhelming consensus was "interesting niche, buggy piece of shit."

You're right, in real life they'd kill you and then rape your wife. Thank god for videogames.

First off, that's only half the equation. You know YOU'RE friendly, you made no effort to find out if THEY'RE friendly. On the flip side, just because you SAY you're friendly doesn't mean shit to that group. You could just be waiting for an ideal moment to backstab them for all they know -- leading them into a trap, killing them when they're all looking the other way (or looking for some outside sniper while you dome them all), giving their location away to your actual group, etc. Also the marginal utility they gain from +1 to their group is almost nil. Once you have enough people to give overwatch, buddy system, etc, there is no real benefit to adding another player, and only risk when that additional player is a stranger. Head over to survivor HQ and see the cool things that are being done. And don't be stupid in the future.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

His post made complete sense. The video the OP linked showed one of the bandits getting KILLED b/c he tried to mug the guy instead of just killing him when he had the chance. Why should the bandit take that risk? This isn't a civilized world where mugging carries a lower penalty than murder. In a lawless world, I'd expect bandits would just kill the men, rape the women, take the supplies, and move on. (sort of in line with human history) Rocket has said lately that he wants vigilante justice, and to that end he may add a more discreet form of bandit skins (he mentioned scowling faces), but bandits won't be MUGGING you because it's plain retarded to do so. Adding artificial penalties doesn't help, you just get the previous consequence of survivors turning bandit in self defense (ie. giving a tool to griefers -- and by griefers I don't mean PK's, I mean people who game a broken system, ie. making you kill me to turn you bandit). With regards to vigilantism, the issue is friendlies are, on the whole, less organized than bandits, and from what I've seen, worse at the game in general. They cry about how they just get "shot out of nowhere" as if that's the game's fault. That bullet didn't come from nowhere, it probably took a good couple of minutes to get in position and line up that shot -- you were just OBLIVIOUS to what was happening around you. Your fault, not the game's.

This is an absurd argument. I could say the game punishes you for running in the open shooting into the air for all to hear. And it does, RIGHTFULLY SO. If you just run up to random strangers and go "HI ARE U FRIENDLY?" you deserve to be shot in the face. If you turn your back on some one with a fully automatic weapon who you don't know and hasn't said a word to you, you deserve to be shot in the back. Use cover when conversing with some one you don't know. Have a buddy on overwatch while you test the waters and poke your head out to greet him. Try and see from his behavior whether he'll be hostile. Is he trying to get a good shot on you? Does he sound honestly glad to finally meet another friendly? I cba'ed to find the quote, but rocket has basically said that right now, the bad guys are winning. And while he will implement cool end-game features for social/friendly players (base building, etc), it will be up to you to defend yourself.

I'm sorry but I find that the CURRENT behavior is to just run around with a train of zombies on your ass. Where as previously you could dispatch one or two zeds, now one or a hundred makes no difference. Just run around like a moron until you find a gun. You *used* to not want to run around like a moron b/c you'd just get shot in the head by another new spawn. Perhaps (although I doubt this is founded on fact, I'm sure zombie trains + axe murderers replaced them), but spawn camping is now completely unchecked. When I started the game, I made it a point to find the asshole camping with a full kit on the coast, sneaking up on him, and doming him for all his loot. It was a great way to gear up. Now I see all these youtube videos where people are just slaughtering new spawns with flash lights, it's idiotic. If you wanted less spawn rushing, it would've been easy to lower the amount of starting ammo. Now the coast is practically a sniper's playground.

Fanboys basically defend the most asinine shit, you honestly should have just made a poll. Most people realized starting without makarovs is idiotic, and I'm sorry for anyone who doesn't have a group + tents to re-arm at. You basically had a bunch of idiots saying it would create teamwork between survivors, and it did the opposite -- more trolls camping the beach b/c you have no way of fighting back. I've literally seen people just driving along the beach killing newbies b/c there is zero threat. When I started, you could usually outwit a beach bandit and get all his stuff with a well placed headshot, now the coast is just littered with flashlight corpses. (probably not even counted in the stats, hopefully rocket refines the stat collector so he can tell when people respawn vs get shot at spawn)

Rocket didn't need this many testers. He's gone out of his way to focus on optimizations in order to facilitate the huge groundswell in popularity b/c obviously it's in his (and the mod's) interest to let players play it. But if you think he gives a single fuck about some one who is annoyed that an alpha is buggy, you'd be wrong. You didn't have to buy this game yet, it is clearly marked ALPHA. At best, this can be considered a "pre-order to get you into beta" (buying ArmA2 in order to play-test DayZ), nowhere were you promised a finished game.

The "dead while standing up" bug has been here forever. Same for inventory bugs. I hate the "it's an alpha" retort but when you're crying about bugs it clearly applies.