Search the Community

You do realize there a tons of logs right? And that logs doesnt log what you describe it logs right? Ive worked with BE logs for a long time and if they are set up correctly they will only log malicious actions, like teleport, spawning weapons/vehicles. No location, inventory or health status of any player is shown in the logs at all, so it would be impossible to create a "piss easy" program like you describe. In the mod this "piss easy" program was using the database data, not the log data. What is sad here is that you refuse to believe it didnt work very well in the past, theres tons of evidence on this forum and on reddit to say otherwise. Like i said there was good admins, who didnt abuse the powers they had, and thats good, but there where more admins who did nothing but abuse powers. Just my 2 cent - all servers in the past were full access and it didnt worked. So you sir, have no idea what you are talking about tbh...

Just saying I hope that too much power for admins is not a thing in standalone. They just made the mod way to easy with custom military buildings, increased loot, increased vehicles and etc. They should only be able to kick, ban, white-list and have slight control over the time acceleration. I doubt they will be stupid enough to actually give them more permission like control over loot, but if they do to hell with them. It would just ruin the games true experience like the vanilla mod was ruined.

Is there a way to put origins vehicles onto an overpoch napf map? i will def donate to get the know-how to do this. i added them to dynamic vehicles.sqf but if i add to decription it hangs the server. Any help would be appreciated

I very much understand the concerns of players who experienced the mod. I was around at early stages of the mod and I saw it change. At some point more and more servers with *extra loot*, a lot of extra vehicles and other stuff appeared. Some servers were actually charging money so you could spawn with military gear. While I don't have a problem with that, I understand players don't want to be playing alone on the pure vanilla servers while everyone else is on the extra-loot-and-vehicles-server. My opinion is, admins don't need access to server files and database. They shouldn't be able to alter loot tables or increase the number of vehicles. I already stated what I would need as an admin: If you like to know why I would like to have these features and what I want to do with it, visit: http://dayzelysium.com/ Now my suggestion, to prevent abuse: After renting the Private Shard, admins must apply for those features with a solid written concept at BI. They should be paying for the time they (BI) have to review the application (>100€/$). I am sure a few serious server owners will be interested and willing to go through this process. If there is abuse, they get their admin rights taken from them and they cannot apply a second time. What do you think about that?

Holy walls of text, Batman. I'll be honest - I seriously do not have time to read through the 9 pages in this thread, let alone more then one or two of the OPs posts. What I'm seeing here seems to be a whole hell of a lot of text, and opinion - without actually saying much of anything, aside from being upset that vehicles are not ready yet. I will try and address the bullet point issues I see from the original post. You start off by citing the Wikipedia definition of an "Alpha milestone". This is a flawed basis of argument for several reasons. The first of which being that anyone that has worked in game development of any scale knows that milestone definitions can be fluid internally, especially on the publisher side. Case in point: Microsoft Game Studios (Now Microsoft Studios) frequently use a model of internal milestones similar to the following structure for 1PP and 3PP projects. First Playable: The title will launch, can crash - but it is possible to launch the application at a base level and at least reach the main menu Alpha: Title launches, crashes are limited to those that do not interrupt the basic gameplay loop. Very basic framework of what the title is is present. (User can enter gameplay, navigate the world at a base level, etc) Code Complete: All critical crashes are addressed, the core functionality of the title is present (large chunks of content however can still not be present) any non critical crashes are flagged as high priority fixes for moving to the next milestone Content Complete: Levels, artwork, music, the meat on the bones of the title is complete and in the build. No crashes should be present at this time, issues with content are allowed but must be addressed in order to pass this milestone. Release Candidate / ZBR: This is considered the final milestone, when high level final tests are run past the build - the title is checked for a complete play experience in all provided areas of gameplay. All design document functionality originally laid forth in the greenlight process must be functioning. Once past this milestone the title will proceed into certification testing for whatever platform it is intended to release on. Now, these milestones are just a rough example and can and have been applied to projects as short as six months to as long as three years. The specific definition of each of these milestones (and any additional that may be project specific) would be declared in that projects TLA, Contract, or internal project documentation (What works for Minecraft, might not work for Gears of War) Every developer and publisher will have their own way of operating, and their own naming scheme for their milestones. What is important to understand is the difference between what the consumer market prior to Early Access views as an "Alpha" or "Beta" and how these terms are used internally months, and sometimes years before a consumer would normally have the option to touch a build. OP seems to object to the definition of what these milestones mean for DayZ, and wants to hold them to how he believes they should be defined. To be fair, I have on numerous occasions spoke on this. OP is upset because he believes the active DayZ userbase is not being used as testers. This is partially true. There is a point in which you get diminishing returns from trying to use a public, opt in userbase of a project this visible as your testing group. This follows with the approach we take, which I again - have been very vocal on. While we do get some outstanding bug data from the feedback tracker, the core base of testing comes from a combination of internal QA, and smoke/stress testing on experimental. What Early Access offers us is something far more valuable than a large testing headcount. It allows us to not listen specifically to what the vocal users -say- and instead focus on what the active playerbase -does-. Early Access users of DayZ actively shape the design of the title as it is developed by playing the development builds. We track metrics, we observe how players interact with systems and adjust based upon this. We also actively parse community feedback for potential improvements to the experience. So OP is right. You are not testers. You are designers. OP believes the Steam store page is essentially a lie. Harsh language, for sure. The first thing I would like to do is quote a stickied post on the official steam forums for DayZ. Next I would like to point out why I feel OP is incorrect when it comes to challenging the statement that DayZ is an open and community driven development. We have weekly status reports giving you transparency into the development of the project that you just will -NOT- see outside of Early Access/Kickstarter like public development models. (Eg: Standup notes, communication from the leads directly) We have weekly dev streams on twitch (twitch.tv/dayz) - Every Friday (New schedule starts this weekend) We engage on our forums, on the steam forums, on reddit, and on our personal twitters. (I personally find myself answering random tweets regarding DayZ at all hours of the day and night) The people that work on this project work on it for love. This leads a lot of us to spend way too much of our personal off time stressing about how you, the consumer view the current development build. I can admit to coming into the office on many a late nights and weekends.​

Its clear to hear that you werent around when the mod started mate. Like Caboose stated, there was a HUGE problem with people charging money for acces to cheap loot, and at the same time changing the game around to make it more "Arma". I completely understand that each admin will run the server differently, but that doesnt justify changing the game away from the core concept BI has worked on and put time and money into. Just because you buy a game, doesnt give you the right to change the game core mechanics, and thats what will happen if you give people complete control. Doing that in a free mod, is "normal" as it was free and not controlled in any way, but it didnt stop people from actually trying to make money off of it. But can you please point me to a game, which you have to buy, that gives people complete control and let them change the core mechanics of the game, without any kinds of restrictions? Because ive never heard of it before. I still find it disturbing that you really want people with private shards, to do what ever they want. It will break up the community, exactly like it did in the mod, and it will turn this game into something its not, exactly like it did in the mod. BI should give admins great tools, theres no doubt about it, but it doesnt matter if its a public server or a private shard, there has to be some basic rules in place, to keep the game close to the vision they have. Just because its a private shard, should not give you the right to alter loot tables, change amount of vehicles, teleport all over the map or manipulate the database to spawn items/vehicles. Nothing good will ever come from that, and there will be more people abusing these tools, then actually using them for the good of the community and the game, just like we saw in the mod.

Those are being worked on. My point is that adding an AKS-74U is not getting in the way of vehicles or fortifications, both of which take far longer and much more people to do.

those are small things. there are significant things that need to be done that will take a lot of resources, like vehicles, barricading, base building, etc.

Considering the project that I spearheaded actually produced a fully ported terrain and over 30 enterable buildings, 20-30 unique character models/skins, dozens of vehicles, and dozens of loot items, (many of which you're playing with in the official mod) I find it fairly laughable that you'd paint me as some desperate fool who was dying to get on the official mod team. FYI I was a member from Apr-Aug 2013 approx. Initially all I did was try to contact 3rd party modders to see if the official dev team could use their assets. I got the permission to use Dslyecxi's addons, and approached a bunch of the derivative mods about integrating their changes. I also essentially told the modeller that was working on Sahrani to stop working on our assets and to work with the DayZ guys for his, their, and players benefit. I then configured all the finished models he produced. I also configured and created all the cans that were abandoned or never finished due to CanGate. I'm a fairly moody fella, and often state things in a more offensive manner than I intend. On a lot of levels, my previous post is just as representative of the toxicity that I vilify in it. Razor does tons for the mod, and has obviously dedicated tons of time and energy to it, and I'm not trying to slight him for that. I'm merely a little skeptical of the assertions that Dean/BI are uncontactable or ignoring anyone. I get replies when I mail my contacts at BI. I don't hold any resentment for being removed from the group (other than the sheer level of childishness to how/why it was done) if I was asked to rejoin, I wouldn't. But for the record I have since (and will always) offer up any of my work for anyone including the official mod to use... in fact I did the brick apartment buildings mostly with the idea in mind of sharing them with the official mod.... I would have already sent them the source, but they need cleaning up first, and I'm working on several other projects that have prevented me from finishing them to the standards I know the official mod would want.

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows of any Overpowered dayz overwatch/epoch servers? Maybe one with many vehicles and guns? Thanks!

Yea, exactly. It's supposed to be in open testing, but it's not. The last update was almost a month ago. The game is still in testing phase, but only internally. As an external tester we/us/the community has nothing to test. We have a build that has mostly gone through QA (which is questionable at best), with no objectives as to what to test. Is there some bug that is exceedingly hard to find that we should be looking for? No - we have no idea because no one told us. We can't even DO basic testing. We have no low-level information that could be used for performance profiling. Even basic stuff like a frame-rate counter is missing. Can we report on strange areas of that map that have abnormally high DP, poly count, shadow count, etc? No, because we don't have the tools. Could we report on crashes in detail? No, because the current log system is atrocious. I would love to do real testing, as an alpha 'early access' test would imply, but I can't since there are literally no tools to test with. What's worse, is that if I try to use 3rd party tools to get the information needed to properly test the game, I'd likely get banned because it messes with the renderer and would look like a cheat. Like I said before, I know it's not a full release, but the dev team acts like it is. There's no debug tools, there's no render info tools, there's no real logging, there's no frequent builds, and the builds that we do get go through QA. All of these signs point towards a game that the devs think is no longer in testing, but is instead a full release. How am I supposed to test the game in "open testing" without any of the tools required to do so? Ignore the comments on QA, but that doesn't explain how basic stuff such as water-bottle fainting got through it. If there was no QA, that would make sense. But there is, and they (should) have access to the internal change log. That log probably shows that something related to the water bottle changed, and as such, it should be tested. Obviously, that wasn't the case. QA should test for bugs, and a bug got through. If I've somehow missed what's going on, please tell me. But what I've outlined is basically what every studio does during development. Change happens -> Change gets logged -> logged changes get tested by QA. Yes, I'm aware that SC2 had 16k builds, that is a ton, and I wouldn't really expect any game to get that high. And yes, DayZ has tons of internal builds, again that's expected. However, what's unexpected, and quite frankly strange, is that likely 99% of those builds never see the light of day. Every single project I've ever worked on has had daily, or worst case weekly builds internally. However, in the case of DayZ, the testing team is supposedly the community (according to the steam page, rocket, etc.). Unfortunately, this testing team is almost always limited to monthly builds with zero in the way of testing tools, objectives, etc. The only explanation for not releasing a build is basically that it's completely unplayable. I.e. it doesn't launch, or fails to connect 100% of the time. However, that obviously can't be the case all the time. I can believe it happening every now and then, but not for periods so long that no semi-stable build exists for over a month. If you're really worried about a thousand posts of "this game doesn't even run", add a nightly branch to the game, and change the splash screen text to say so. That way, only the people who are committed to testing will actually run it. They won't complain about random bugs, since they're expected, and if the build actually comes with anything in the way of tools, they might give some very useful information. As for the SC2 video, I could say that your statement is just as wrong. In the first clip, he simply says that "they started with the SC1 units": he never says that they started with only the SC1 terran units. He then goes on to say they began to add NEW units, which started with the Terran team. Again, no where does he say that ONLY terran existed at this point; only that terran were the first to get new units. In fact, by the 2nd build, you can see that there are newly done terran and zerg units (1:08). Remember, features are not things like units, features are game systems. Even in that first build, they had unit movement, building, resource gathering. It's possible that they also had combat, but it's hard to say, since it wasn't shown. The only mechanical systems that weren't in at this point were the Protoss energy grid and Zerg creep. When he goes on to say that they started working on Zerg/Protos, this likely only refers to implementing new models/icons/etc. not the team as a whole, as like I stated before, Zerg units are clearly visible much earlier (1:08 in the video). Without the actual builds to play with, or at least a much more detailed explanation as to what was in each one, it is hard to make solid claims on what is in or not. However, you are most certainly wrong about when Zerg/Protoss were implemented in an initial form, just based off the evidence in the same video. As for my opinions, well, ok. I'll get some links. As such, you'd expect only the smallest of bugs to get through to the final game (keyword: final game)Yes, final game. However, the way DayZ is being treated, it feels like the dayz team thinks its a final game, or close to it. Why QA things in an Alpha? Why do art passes? Why add non-gameplay critical elements such as 40 different shirts when basic elements are still missing? These aren't alpha-stage things, these are late-beta things. What doesn't make sense is how bugs like 'passing out after drinking from a water bottle' gets through QA (Opinion).Not really an opinion. It's a known bug that you pass out (or at least collapse) after drinking from what a water bottle. What's the point of QA'ing a product if stuff like that gets by? You might as well just push without it going through QA. That way players get more frequent builds, and the same bugs will likely be in there. Use the public as QA, since that's what they signed up for. DayZ Development progress makes no sense (Opinion). Well no, it doesn't. That's my whole argument. You don't QA an alpha. You don't art pass an alpha. You don't road marks from Q2, then continue to miss them throughout all of Q3. It should go Q2 -> Q3. Instead, it seems like Q2 stuff was missed ('advanced weather', world containers, fast-time servers) and was then pushed aside for Q3 stuff - which was also missed (multi-core, central loot, fixed zombies, advanced animals, barricades, basic vehicles, mod support, player stats, horticulture). Now were in Q4, and I honestly doubt we'll see those three Q2 features in by the end of the year. Everything is behind schedule, and there's been no update to the road map to represent this. If you want things to make sense to me, and probably most of the community, we need transparency. Why did those three Q2 features slip? What's the status on them? We got a vague mention to horticulture 2 weeks ago, and that's about it. Maybe update the roadmap on Steam, or really anywhere, that outlines what we'll have and when we'll have it. Firstly, this isn't a "this game is buggy" post. This is the exact opposite of this: it's a look at how the devs are handling the game, and how their actions don't fit that of a game that IS in alpha (Opinion)Ok, the first bit where I can agree it's an opinion, but one with valid backup. Since you didn't 'opinion' flag the definitions of alpha/beta, I'm going to assume that we both agree on what those are. So, if the game is in Alpha as you, the steam page, and basically everyone claims, I have a few questions. Firstly, why are art-passes, such as re-textures, new barrels, new hangers, etc. all happening in Alpha? Alpha is, as per the definition which you seem to have agreed with, mostly used for grey boxing. However, beta is for art passes: that's conflict #1. Next we have the whole thing of 'feature freeze' and 'optimization'. Feature freeze occurs first, since if you optimize and then add features, you'll almost always break features. But again, we're getting things like code optimization, animation optimization and stuff, all while in alpha. Conflict #2. Why do we have so many weapons? Are they all really so unique that each one has a totally different game system that must be tested? Why are new pants/jackets/etc. always being added? Do those also contain new mechanical features that we haven't been able to test? Again, the answer is no. Conflict #3. I could go on, but there's really no point. Things are happening in Alpha that should happen in beta, and things that should happen in Alpha haven't happened yet. The later is fine, but it's somewhat annoying when it appears as if it's being delayed by the former. Look at the new Unreal Tournament pre-alpha. I can download and play it right now, and almost all of its weapons/hud are right from UT3. The maps are grey boxes. Meanwhile in dayZ we have these nicely polished assets with bug-tested and optimized code. This isn't an alpha. So, we now understand what alpha and beta phases are - so, which is DayZ? Well, it's an akward limbo between the two(Opinion)This is basically the same as above. Actions which should only occur in Beta are happening in Alpha. Things that should be happening in Alpha have been pushed out to at least next year. An alpha, by nature, SHOULD be full of bugs, since fixing them isn't the top priority. Beta is when you remove bugs and increase usability. "Bow animation polishing" - I don't even need to comment on this(Opinion).Again, same thing. Anything along the lines of 'polishing' should be in beta, if not late beta - not alpha. And yes, alphas have bugs. That's not really an opinion. Lastly, I want to bring up something that everyone has been asking for for a long time: vehicles. The approach taken on this also makes very little senseThis isn't how you would do an alpha feature implementation(Opinion) Well, it doesn't. Here's a nice post from someone who worked on Crysis 3, and it shows how they developed their game. As you can see, the level starts off as a mostly grey box with extremely low quality art. Then once they were happy with it from a mechanical standpoint, the art was tuned. Here's a thing on the new Unreal Tournament, which also shows dev progress (they post tons of stuff, it's great). In UT, you can hear him talking about how everything (elevator move speed, item placement, etc.) is all super temporary, and that's he's still messing around with it. But regardless of it being incredibly unfinished, I can still go out and download the current project - which is often updated several times a week. But instead, if we look at the latest dayz change log, all we get is that vehicles are in early prototyping. That's good, but what does it mean? Can we see any of the car models placed around? Are any of the parts pickable yet, even if they are trash? No, none of that is available, because as Rocket said, the dayz team is going to 'one-shot' it, and put every single mechanism in at once. The road-map agrees with this, as it says that initial, "simple vehicles" would be in by Q3 and more complex vehicles with upgrades would be out in Q4. Neither of that has happened, and the differentiation of the repair system, part-swapping and the vehicle system is never made. No where does it say "at first vehicles will be super basic, with no repair system", it's just "at first we will have bikes/card". Like I showed above, that's not how anyone does it. You would release basic vehicles as static art first, then as drivable, then maybe as repairable/refuel-able and then finally as upgradable. From a logical standpoint, the first feature which is required for testing is vehicles(Opinion).I don't see how this is an opinion. For any of the vehicle sub-systems to work (repair, refuel, part swap), vehicles need to exist first. I can't test the repair system without a vehicle to repair. However, this isn't how the devs are handling this(Opinion).Two quotes above show that this is exactly how it's being handled. Vehicles will be added in basically one big 'patch', which adds all the features. There's no breakdown of sub features which will be released one at a time. It's either nothing or everything (and then more vehicles). They instead want to one-shot the ENTIRE vehicle system, with repairing, fueling, combining parts, etc. This is NOT how you do an alpha(Opinion).Again, not an opinion. Quotes show vehicles will be done all at once, and the stuff from Unreal/Crytek shows how that's not how you do an alpha. You would first add grey-box vehicles, then basic-functioning ones, and then ones with proper sub-systems. I can get even more documents showing that you never do development all in one go, and that it's broken down into sub-systems, but I really hope that's not necessary. So where does this leave us? Well, it leaves us in a situation where there's realistically very little hope of the game being even feature complete any time soon(Opinion).Road map said Q3 for vehicles. It's Q4 and we don't even have Q2 features. If we're lucky, we'll hit that point at the end of 2015(Opinion),Currently, the road map has been wrong by about 100%. Features that were supposed to be in by Q2 are (at best) going to be in by Q4. That means 6 months = 12 months. Most of the Q3 features aren't in yet, and likely won't be in during Q4. Extrapolate that and you end up with end of 2015 for the completion of 'Q4' vehicles. Will that be 100% accurate? I don't know, I don't have a time machine. But unless you feel like making a 100%, unbreakable, set-in-stone promise (with some sort of consequence) that vehicles will be 100% complete BEFORE the end of 2015, it's not really a false claim. meaning that it'll have taken over two years to get out of alpha. However, this shouldn't be the case(Opinion)I very much doubt that alpha began the very day that DayZ was put on steam. The first version was released on December 16th, 2013, and that was version 0.28.113734. The current version, 0.48.124737 was released on Aug 8, 2014. That gives us a 235 day time span in which the game incremented by about 0.2 in terms of versioning. Now, that transition isn't linear, obviously, but it's a good scale to use. Remember that a long time ago, rocket said that the alpha would be released in December 2012. For that claim to make any sense, development had to have started by then. So that gives us a year and 3 months to work with. Interestingly enough, if we use that 235 days = 0.2 version increment, and scale it back by the entire 0.28 version history, that gives us about 329 days. Subtract 329 days from the actual December 16 release date, and you get January 21, 2013. Not too far off from the initial estimate release date. So basically, we have two separate confirmations that development must have started in 2012, exactly when is unknown, but 2012 is pretty much assured. That means that by the initial release, dayz had been in Alpha for pretty much a year. By the end of this year, it will have been two years. And, again, unless you want to make a statement that guarantees the community fully, complete vehicles by the end of 2015, that means we'll still be in Alpha at year 3 (two years of public release). Why should this not be the case? Well, the main factor is that games, even games as big as DayZ, don't take 3 years to get out of Alpha. World of Warcraft, which even at release, was a bigger game than DayZ, took 4-5 years to go from concept to release. Minecraft, which is the same in many respects, started in May 2009, and was released as 'official' in Novemeber 2011 - that's 2.5 years. In addition, pretty much every commercial game takes about 3 years to make. So yea, taking 2+ years to get out of alpha shouldn't happen. Adding new features, such as vehicles, should not take all that long to implement.See above. It's almost certain that any other major dev studio would have an internal beta by now, assuming development started in late 2012. As it stands, the current Steam page is a lieWARNING: THIS GAME IS EARLY ACCESS ALPHA. Well, it's not. I've covered why. PLEASE DO NOT PURCHASE IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT. Well, i'd love to. Too bad I have no tools to do any supporting. Again, covered above. PREPARED TO HANDLE WITH SERIOUS ISSUES. There aren't any, since builds are so sporadic, and since it goes through QA. It states that DayZ is "in alpha" and that you shouldn't buy "unless you want to actively support the development of the game". Neither of these statements are trueIt's not in alpha, I've covered that. And I'd love to actively support the development, but I can't because everything is QA'd, everything is locked down, there's no debug tools and logging is non-existant. As shown above, the devs (somehow) belive that DayZ is in BETA, and they do NOT want people actively supporting the devlopment of the game, short of giving them money(Opinion) Prove me wrong. Art passes and polish are for beta, you yourself agreed to that definition. And like I said, I'd love to support development with more than just money, but since there's literally no tools, and 3rd part tools would get you banned, I literally can't help you. Just give me something half as good as RenderDoc and I can give way more detail as to why the game runs horribly at random times. Give me wire-frame and comment on models. Give me network logs, and network people (not me) can comment on that. Give me access to lower level game settings, and I can tweak them to make the game run better. Literally anything would be better than what we have now. If the statements were true, we would have far fewer guns/shirts/hats and the initial stages of the vehicles available for play(Opinion).Yes, because grey-boxing is what happens in Alpha, as does system development, and not art passes. Hope that covers everything. If you really want links... sure.

Uh just letting you know. You are probably talking about Dayz Standalone and not the mod. And to let you know in the past status report they have said they have begun work on vehicles. So we may see it sooner or later.

Er, no. The dayz derivative mods were never approved, or authorized, and further, they are totally unrelated to the Official Community Mod. I'm not sure of the exact timing, but I'm fairly sure the first of the derivative mods actually came out before the official mod was handed off to the community development group, although I COULD be wrong. The external mods were a result of someone reverse engineering Dean Hall's Mother Hive system, and re-writing it from scratch, then modifying the DayZ Client files to create a variation of the mod (dayzland.eu taviana). Players tend to mix several topics: 1. Derivative Mods - These are all the variations of the original Mod by Dean Hall, they can use any version of DayZ, Origins for example used the last version of the mod that Dean Hall updated, and then never updated to any of the versions made by the community development mod. 2. Public Hive - This traditionally refers only to the "official hive" where all character data is the same regardless of server logged into. HOWEVER, LOTS of the derivative mods and even server hosting companies offered either/or "public hives" or "shared central hives", where all servers of the same mod on the same host would have common player data. 3. Private Hives - these are servers where player data is local to ONLY that server. It was ONLY on this level of hosting that you see the lowest common denominator garbage like 1000's of vehicles and load out malls. This is such a flawed mindset "hardcore DayZ mod supporter"... All you are doing is limiting your own playing experience by being snobby like that. Now that the DayZ Mod License is public, it's clear that the derivative mods are totally allowed within A2. Your fears for modding in SA are totally unfounded, there is almost NO chance of BI or DayZ SA team opening up access to the hive or even server software... so what you will likely end up approved mods that alter the client files only, with possibly a webpage interface to alter SOME server settings... IF even that. IF we end up in a situation like we did with the mod, where someone reverse engineers the hive system I think you'll see BI pursue it legally if there is ANY attempt to use DayZ SA Content on it. I think saying that the community developers got "shut out" by Dean/BI is both hyperbolic and inaccurate at best. When I was contributing to the mod we experienced a similar delay, and a public "raking over the coals" of Dean Hall for it, and he was neither happy about it, or AWARE of the update. Sending ONE email to Dean Hall or Hicks ONCE and then waiting for a reply isn't exactly the best strategy. I have no idea if they changed that since, but it was FOR SURE the methodology being applied at the time. "Handing over" the official mod is a MUCH more slippery slope than anyone here is outlining as well. DayZ is a wholly owned property of BI/Dean Hall, so they are legally responsible to ensure that nothing included in the mod updates presents them with unwanted legal exposure. As far as hosting the public hive, that's something I'm SURE an ISP would be willing to do for free in return for being promoted as the "official" server host for the mod... but again you are then talking about something that BI Lawyers will need to get involved in. IMO Dean/BI allowing modification of DayZ files in A2 at all is awesome... having kept the public hive up for so long has been ENORMOUSLY generous. I for one, prefer their focus being on SA. In regards to SA's development I'd say you're looking at what is an obvious progression of development upon a pretty predictable timeline... The ONLY (imo) major failing was/is the failure to properly communicate the development timeline... and it's been a repeating problem. At least Hicks has laid it out above... I'm only disappointed that they are essentially writing off 2013 for having been a year that happened.... They announced SA development and dropping the idea of "Super Mod" in Sep of 2012 for god's sake.... by april of 2013 I was sending emails advocating a more aggressive development approach. I had hoped that was already happening but this whole assertion that we're only 11 months into development pretty much clarifies that they were mainly busy counting money in 2013 lol. All fun poking aside, I'm still fairly confident it's going to be a great franchise/game eventually.

welcome. cars are not a priority as we are in early alpha, expect them to come in around christmas (these vehicles will be moto bikes, bicycles, and other small things.) private hives when the game reaches beta.

You wish. In 2 weeks, there'll be 9 threads on how running is broken, 3 on on how great it is, 2 complaining it wasn't on the road map, 5 demanding vehicles be the top priority, 2 complaining zeds are too fast and OP as well, 1 about sprinting upstairs in fire stations breaks your legs and 1 from you complaining scope sway when walking and aiming is unrealistic.

Zzz... Bows already suck, stop trying to butcher them more for the sake of "realism". If I had my way with realism, there would be broken down cars and working vehicles with empty fuel tanks everywhere. That's an apocalypse. But then there will be the people qq'ing saying it should be endgame content only. You really can't win it all.

Yup thats great news. I am not sure why they are waiting for vehicles to implemented when they could have nailed the player movement speed early on. It is not like vehicles will be so wide spread to have any meaningful effect on the average player.

This thread is still going? Impressive. No, we are completely justified in complaining about bugs. QA exists purely to stop bugs from getting into the public version of the game. In any AAA, or really any mid-sized studio, they'll test out the game on a bunch of hardware/software setups, with a bunch of different in-game settings. As such, you'd expect only the smallest of bugs to get through to the final game. Again, calling back to the Company of Heroes 2 bugs I found with a friend, those bugs were so insanely obscure and hard to reproduce (yet still game-breaking if done), that it took nearly an hour specifically trying to replicate it once. That kind of bug I can accept getting past QA, since it requires testing way outside of what anyone would do in-game (a normal game lasts ~20 min). What doesn't make sense is how bugs like 'passing out after drinking from a water bottle' gets through QA. This is something that everyone does in-game, and requires zero setup: just get a water bottle, and drink it. Or, if you paint the fairly new AK-folding buttstock, it causes it to disappear. This list goes on. These are all very easy to reproduce, and all of them should have been caught by QA. However, they weren't. By definition, QA is supposed to stop bugs from getting out, and in this case they didn't - which means they failed. If, however, that QA team didn't exist, it would mean two things. 1, more frequent patches as they wouldn't need to go through QA, and 2, a legitimate reason to not complain about bugs. Just take Firefox for example: there's the regular build and a nightly build (as well as few others). If I find a bug in the regular edition, it's incredibly annoying and Mozilla failed to deliver a decent product. If I find a bug in Nightly, well, that's the point of Nightly. If DayZ wants to put out a nightly build beside the current build (some kind of extra-experamental build) then yea, I'll hop on that asap and never complain about bugs again (or, at lest until mid/late beta). I'd have to disagree there. The StarCraft video showed a much better development process. The difference here is that StarCraft 2 never had a paid/open Alpha. While the Alpha existed, it was only for a very select few (high-level professionals, etc.). DayZ on the other hand has a paid/open Alpha which is pretty much all anyone has to go on, and is, as such, the only thing we can compare to. Firstly, look at the number of builds. In one year, SC2 had about 1300 different builds available - at a constant rate, that's about 975 in 9 months. DayZ has had 17. And, to avoid the whole "but DayZ is actually open", just look at Planetary Annihilation, which had 20 different builds in the span of 6 weeks during its initial alpha. Then we had the way they implemented things. The first thing Blizzard did was add the SC1 stuff as a starting point. DayZ kind of did this, but ignored things like ARMA2/3s gigantic weapon list, vehicles, and so on. Then they went on to add other major features, like cliffs and lighting (since it was a new engine). Right now, we haven't even reached a build comparable to the 2nd clip in that SC2 video. DayZ SA still doesn't equal the mod in terms of features, while the SC2 build had all the features of SC1 implemented (although much more rough). And then yes, the last thing they did was tons of optimizing at the end. As far as I'm aware, this is how every studio does things. As for the call-back to my OP, I would like to hear what misinformation I posted, or what opinions I presented as facts. Everything I posted was based upon the current public version of DayZ, as well as my experience with game development.

That is exactly why. They handed over the mod to the community and look what happened. Over run by bastardized versions of DayZ called Epoch/Overpoch. 1000's vehicles and self blood bag ftw, right?

I like the current speed of sprinting (so getting around without vehicles isn't extremely time consuming). However, I agree with this statement: The shock condition could last 5-15s or so depending on the cartridge.

Like Caboose said, you are renting it, not owning it. Its exactly like renting an apartment and being told animals arent allowed. If you own it you can do what ever you want, but if you rent it, you have to follow the rules of the "landlord". That being said, theres a distinct difference between private-shards and private-servers. A private-shard is a "piece" of the database, closed off to other servers, but this means you can have multible servers running on the same shard, so communities can have several servers, where characters transfer between. A private-server is a completely private, and self controlled, installation of the server pack, with full acces to server files, server logs and database. Exactly like we see in the mod. Agreed, nobody needs this to be a good admin tbh. Acces to certain logs is not a bad idea, the question is what logs are really needed? Changing of server setting is also not a bad idea, but i really doubt we will ever get any kind of option to alter gameplay drasticly (turn pvp off, alter amount of loot, zombies, etc.) I think the server settings will be identical to the public servers. Getting players unstuck is BI's problem, not the admins. In order to unstuck people you need database acces to change the coordinates of the player. Teleport is just a no go tbh, nothing good ever comes from a teleporting admin. When you write admin map, do you mean a map that shows the location of all players and vehicles? If so, no way.... The cons far outweigh the pro on this matter. No good can ever come from magicly having a map of everyones location. I want to add, that all the people who say "change server" or "why do you care" doesnt understand this issue at all. If we dont play by the same rules and nobody cares how the servers are run, it will become the same mess that we had in the mod, which had a VERY bad effect on the mod and the community in whole. This is not a matter of "you can do what ever you want, once you get a server". This is a matter of giving admins tools to help them run a server, while at the same time not giving them tools they can abuse. Most of the tools we have in the mod, are being abused like crazy by thousands of admins, every day. We need to prevent that from ever happening in the standalone, or the game will go down the drain. I want to play on private shards for the obvious reasons. Having a community and playing with the same people on it. You cant do that on a public server. I still dont understand how you can be so careless, when people are fucking up your game? Instead of not carring, what about not giving the admins tools they can abuse? You can be a good admin without database acces and without having a magic map, you can see people on.

Most of you are talking about two extreme points: giving admins complete control and giving admins no control. But there is a big grey area in between. I think, admin shouldn't have: - access to the database - the power to spawn items/vehicles But we should discuss granting the power to: - access the logs (maybe not full access, but enough to enforce their gameplay rules - as stated in the above mentioned devlog from August 1) - change server settings (accelerated time, PvE/PvP) - teleport (getting players unstuck, setting up events, finding hackers/dupers/glitchers) - see the admin map (to catch hackers who teleport/speedhack)

hi guys first up cheers rocket its awesome i love the detail and depth but game play is lacking if its a game put some game in it and if its a simulator then don t restrict people cause people would make whatever they have to work maybe take a leaf out of epochs book man one kiwi to another swallow that pride (however deserved) and realise 1. tents or something yeah safes are a bit unrealistic but hey so is not having anyway to set up camp/homebase you always go on about realism well camping and tents are more real than zombies 2. take another lesson this time from state of decay shit game but you can barricade existing buildings once again pretty real and probably what most people would do 3. epoch again AI nuff said 4. I know you dont like vehicles once again realism i get it petrol goes bad real quick and cars would not be an option really quickly but everywhere in the world ive been there are bikes everywhere and what about horses? on a more supportive note love the ideas i was reading somewhere that you want to make zs affected by hunger level injury etc fucking brilliant and you have gone a long way to make their paths more realistic the leaping at you is lame and the fighting system is a step bacward from the mod though also idea for building just put in padlocks and adjust the sheds everywhere to lock make them breakable though not trying to be a dick here but theres one thing you cant tweak and that is people and in real life people woud hoard spend some money on a psychologist as a consultant possibly? ive played this mod since the beginning ive seen many fail on the way and i think numbers dont lie epoch wins not because its exactly what people want but because they try to make it more open not try and make everyone polay the same way zombies rule nz rules .......standalone .....not quite there yet yes i realise its an alpha

Dale does have a point that SC2 as an example (and all sequel/franchise based games) have both a solid brand to launch from, as well as previous resources such as textures/balance data/models/story/gameplay mechanics/general code... the list goes on. While DayZ incorporates elements of FPS, open world mil-sim from ARMA games and other elements of MMO etc, the scope and functions as a whole are from what I can tell, mostly new. Other games & developers can sidestep this issue, as imagining, creating and executing the way things work are mostly if not wholly pre-existing. Take some imaginative sandbox games such as minecraft and terraria as another example. They all incorporate elements of this or that, and at the end of the day you're just laying down textures and objects but the idea and vision and execution are so far beyond other games before them, that the challenge is quite immense. I'm not saying DayZ is some groundbreaking messiah, though i do love it, but lets have some consideration for both the professional and artistic aspects involved in the game's creation :). Kids pick up trigonometry with general ease now-days. Could you imagine being pythagoras back in the day and saying FUCK ME these three sided shapes have a predictable nature that I can exploit, they even apply to circles. Aren't they all pretty and curved? Discovering Fire? Inventing the sandwich? It's all well and good to look back on the trail that others have blazed and say 'that's easy watch me do it' but to be out there threshing takes a degree of effort that is not always acknowledged. Also, I'm guilty of providing analogy here or in other similar threads too, but we've really got to move away from the software-physical product analogies as the two are so far removed... software and coding is like pulling planets from the cosmos (ANALOGIES!!) it's so abstract and imaginative/creative that the two do not really even compare. As an aside: again it changes from territory to territory, but incorporating real-world products (such as pepsi/coke/Heinz and brand-name weapons) in a free modification of another product is a far cry from including those copyrighted and trademarked items in a dedicated, stand-alone product that you sell for money. If you make no monetary return most people overlook it. The second you start making money, those companies start to consider whether the attraction of your product is based upon the brand-power that their product(s) have built, and they start demanding compensation/just payment for said use of their names/images/performances. This is why games like GTA made by big big companies do not list badges or model names of the vehicles they include (but still mock them in their hillarious sarcastic ways).

I agree with you...servers should not be locked and statuses should be checked daily to enforce the rules. But unless people like you and me make the effort to report them then it will continue to happen cause lets face it....enforcement will never happen properly. Once private shards are implemented then servers can be locked and whitelisted but for now, locked servers are an abuse of the server agreement. All in all though, I still stand by my previous statement...admins simply need more powers to deal with hacks! The abilty to see who's killing who, who's teleporting etc and it needs to be done before base building, tents and vehicles are added or it'll be a repeat of the mod all over again. I don't rent a server these days as I got fed up with the hacking on the mod and the constant stream of players notifying me, just took up too much of my time trying to trace evidence etc, but the leader of the clan I now play in does and runs it strictly in accordance with the rules. Its good admins that need the tools to deal with this and provide a good playing experience for the servers player base.