liquidsnake

It's because it isn't a school, but rather an office building. The walkable interior might be small, but the hospital isn't. And my condolances for your mother, I've been there with other family members. More walkable interior definitely would be cool.

Wait no longer, for here it comes Well, yes there is. There are, as you hopefully know, good and bad arguments. If you use sophisms, logical fallancies or any of the sort, your argument is invalid. The list of logical fallancies and sophisms actually are the list of "donts" in a discussion. If you use one, you basically show that you have no sensible response left. Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, that very much is the way to do it. If you use sophisms, your argument is invalid. And I can tell you right now that quoting loose words from a text and binding them together without context, is a sophism. You completely change my point by doing that. You'd be arguing against an argument you created yourself, not against mine. No, not really. There are no different definitions of the word interaction, there can be only one. It's about the context. It's just that there are many things that qualify as interaction. If you actually read my post, you would've known what I meant by interaction, from the context. It's just stupid to ignore the context and just apply your own "definition" of the word, which would completely change my point. To clarify, by 'balanced' I didn't mean a perfect 50/50 ratio, I meant that there was a healthy balance between them. Approx. 30% of all players were friendly, which I deem as a good balance between the two. In SA, maybe 5% is friendly, which is just plain wrong. Yes, there was KoS, but there also were friendlies (and quite a few of them). Now, virtually none. My argument still stands. There are two million copies sold, I'm extremely unlikely to ever encounter one of the friendlies from the forums. Even if there were only 100k players I'd probably not bump into any of them. And as I said, if 12 of them were to enter a 40 man server with me, I'd still likely not see them. Another stark example of your spectre arguments. I never said everyone should RP. In fact, I can't fathom how you could ever come to that conclusion from my post. Is it because I used the term RP? Are you doing your trademark 'taking loose words out of a text and making a ghost argument' thing again? So, you agree that the number bandits and friendlies isn't correctly balanced? Did I get my point across, at last? @shrub I agree, bandits belong in DayZ. Without them, the game would be boring as hell. It's just that there are too many of them now.

Most of the times I get it is when loot respawns. After I'm expelled, I immediately join the same server, which is usually a bit emptier after the error, but not completely empty like when it restarts. When I spawn in, I notice that most loot is the same, though some has changed and empty spawns are filled with new loot. That's why I chalk it up to the loot respawn system. Also, restarted servers can't be joined for a couple mins, while most of the time I can immediately rejoin the server if I get the session lost error.

Loot respawning is in exp, but every time you're relatively close to an area which is in the process of respawning loot, you lose the session. Really annoying

Blasphemy!

Let the hunting of man commence :lol:

1. Well, for starters you can learn how to argue. (little tip: taking a handful of loose words out of a text isn't the way to do it) 2. Learn to read and/or go back to school. The word prove can be used in various ways, if you didn't know already. 3. I need not assume anything. From the context you should be able to see what sort of interaction I was getting at. Someone who says that there's too much KoS in the game and also says there should be more human interaction, isn't going to mean "your" kind of interaction. I hope you know that interaction can be a multitude of things, because you seem to assume"your" interaction as the actual definition of it. 4. Again, learn how to argue. There is no such thing as words being "worthy" of a quote, especially not loose words. 5. No, they haven't. In the mod, there were friendlies, KoS'ers, bandits and heroes. All in a nice balance, in term of players using the playstyle . The only playstyle in SA is KoS, the other ones basically aren't even present. In the mod, I could befriend randoms, that isn't even possible in SA. Hell, it's rare for a player to even talk in SA, let alone be friendly. 6. There are two million copies sold. There are maybe a dozen "KoS whiners". If all of them were in a 40 man server, I still might not see any of them. 7. Maybe we do, but there aren't enough friendlies or even bandits. The balance is off, heavily. There's so much KoS that you can't even see any bandits/friendlies/heroes. To be good at any of the playstyles, you need a certain degree of intelligence. As you said before, KoS requires a decent strategical mind to master. 8. For someone who's seen that argument a plethora of times, that an incredibly poor response. How does the country being fictional affect the behaviour of the players? All players RP as inhabitants of the mystic land of Chernarus, where everyone mindlessly kills one another? Besides, Chernarus is designed to be a run of the mill post-Soviet state bordering Russia, loosely based on the Czech republic. The inhabitants are fictional, but ordinary.

Really uncalled for to start bashing OP out of nowhere. This is a fine topic :blink:

I, uh, use my index finger :unsure:

Sorry for the lame numbering method, but as I'm not on PC right now, it's difficult to separate the quote. 1. you still seem to solely focus on the word, rather than my point 2. love it how you ignore the second part of the sentence, where I say I'm assuming it for now, until you prove otherwise. You could've just said tthat you meant otherwise. 3. Not sure why you have to point out to everyone that it's my opinion, as it seems to be pretty clear that it is. And I'm pretty sure you know what I mean by interaction. 4. I see you've now moved on to quoting two words out of an entire post. You'll get there someday, properly paraphrasing. You also still don't seem to get my point. It's a call to all, to not kill everyone and thusly get the human interaction back. To think before you kill, so we get more sane players, rather than psychopaths who dastardly kill every living thing on earth. It's not something I'm enforcing on every player, just something I think more players should be like. You don't have to justify your actions to anyone but yourself. It's just that players in the mod would justify it from within the game, while SA players seem to do so from outside of the game. SA players in general: it's just a game, kill 'em all. Mod players in general: is he a real danger? Do I need his gear? Is he a hero/bandit (what's his intent)? etc., until the conclusion of killing, avoiding or talking to him. A lot of mod players would even apply their own morals to the game. All of that made the game a whole lot more versatile than most other games, if not all. There was a lot more depth to the mod because of the uniqueness of players' behaviour. Your playstyle definitely isn't dumbing down the game. It's what I love about DayZ: you do anything you want. Versatility in players makes or breaks the game. The problem is that there's too many of your kind as of right now. We need more friendlies to even it out. Furthermore, I agree that every playstyle requires a degree of intelligence to master, but I sense that you once more missed my point. I was saying that the game was more intellectual, not a certain playstyle. If you have a game with friendlies, bandits and KoS instead of the KoS-only crowd, wouldn't you agree that the game as a whole will be more intellectual? 5. So in the event of a zombie apocalypse, you think it's logical to kill every other human being on the grounds of them being capable of ending your life? You really miss the point if you quote a few words and ignore the rest

Exactly. 9/10 players will gladly take advantage over your surrender. Some will even torture, when given the chance. I do agree that in most cases, running/fighting is the viable option. However, when you're properly cornered, you should give up. For example, if a player comes waltzing in with a drawn weapon while you have yours holstered and there's no cover near, accept your defeat. There's no way out, not even a slight chance of survival. If a clan of four yells "come out with your hands up" when you're looting the jail, make a stand. Kill as many as you can, since there is a chance of survival. I also keep an eye out for quirky behaviour on my captive's part, like the long pause in comm. It's happened to me before that teammates arrived, trying to kill me. Surprisingly, the last time that happened I killed all three of them, since they carried out their attack very poorly.

Oh right, forgot about the effect of side wind

I can't imagine that drop being considerable enough to make for a substantial difference between the times. The resistance of the wind (not sure if saying right) surely can't affect a streamlined bullet to a great extent?

Context. You're just taking one word out of my entire post. You didn't even bother to paraphrase me to twist my words, you just took one word. Wow. When did I ever say that this was about moral justification (which I'm assuming you're talking about)? No, there is no place for morals in this game, I agree. I was talking about logical justification. In DayZ, players should interact, not just kill. It's what makes DayZ what it is. Without it, DayZ would be a mere deathmatch. Playing DayZ by killing everything with a pulse for no reason is not playing DayZ. It's like playing chess with only the pawns, it just becomes a game of checkers (though slightly different, but you get the point), doesn't it? There's much more to chess than the pawns. In fact, the other pieces are what makes the game so much more layered and intellectual. Therefore, I implore you to justify your killings. First ask yourself, why would I risk being injured or even dying? If you don't want his gear, for example, why engage? Is he really a long term threat to me (if I just avoid him, will I never see him again)? If not, talk to him or avoid him. Things like that would greatly improve the game and use it to its full potential. It'd make the game as intellectual as it once was. More interaction, less murdering. btw, are you implying that killing every human being you meet to "survive" (regardless of his gear, or even his intent. Even going out to search for people to kill) isn't a crooked vision of survival?

No, it's just my english at its worst. It's not my native language, you know. I meant killing for no valid reason whatsoever.

On regular, my char doesn't save, on hardcore it does.

Frankly, a log out sound doesn't sit well with me. I never combat log and if my adversary has the strong upper hand, I wait it out. I'd just hate to have every player in the vicinity drawn to me upon logging out. Even though I've also been CL'd against, I think a sound isn't the answer. A timer like the good old times would be better. Not 30 secs, but 5 mins after being attacked or attacking.

Small fix, there

Again, this crooked vision of survival. Quite sick of it, really. There is the odd situation where it can be justified, but 90% of the time it actually can't be and is classified as unreasonable killing. You think all of Chernarus is a king of the hill game, with the last one being the "survivor"? Justifiable: you see a fresh-ish spawn in elektro, you KNOW he'll follow the Elektro-Cherno-Balota routine, as will you. Thus, you are actively competing for loot AND dangerously close at all times. The logical thing to do is kill him (or attempt to befriend). You: you see another player in your vicinity. Kill him to survive. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

This. It's all about the first move. Whoever has it, controls the situation. He has choices, the adversary doesn't and has to wait before he can react. If done right, breaching is a mighty tool. A decent breacher always walks away the victor

I remember they used to gather around a body in the mod. About a dozen, so looting the body requires you to expose yourself by ridding of them.

I've done this a few times as well. It just isn't necessary to kill everything with a pulse. Especially with this suicidal mentality going around, I believe players who accept them being outgunned by raising their hands should be royally rewarded for not attempting some bizarre escape/kill. People who raise their hands make this game more fun. The last one received a fully kitted FNX with 3 mags. If I knock you out in a gunfight, however, I'll cuff you, saline bag you and think of a fun way to end it for you.

I'm intrigued. I remember seeing signs on the red brick building and the piano house. Wonder what those say... And the "school" always struck me as an office building, but perhaps it's a post office? I love these small, useless facts, I really do :D

Binos have vanished from under the sun, in experimental. No-one finds them anymore, it seems

An experienced breacher will get you most of the times, or at least even out the odds if you're in a great defensive position. Don't underestimate the power of breaching, dammit!