To Everyone Complaining About 1.7.7

[DotFreelance 15]

Lol this is whats wrong with 1.7.7.1, transversing a city full of zombies with little trouble it just doesnt seem right.

That's because you assume that everyone except yourself is a newbie. Hi, I'm the best player you've ever had the opportunity to meet. You're welcome.

[kumando 199]

That's because you assume that everyone except yourself is a newbie. Hi, I'm the best player you've ever had the opportunity to meet. You're welcome.

Im happy for you, i really am.

[JPWiser 251]

Tents cure infection? Rested at mine oh... I think I lost count around 30 times before my blood got so low I ditched all my gear in the tent and got as far away from it as possible before I died. I also failed to mention I spent about 10+ hours looting in complete stealth mode until one zed finally managed to agro me through the wall in the NWAF barracks when I was crouch walking, took one swipe and managed to break my leg, make me bleed and infected me with one hit that I didn't even see coming. Luckily I had morphine and bandages on me, and I would have been completely okay with the "one hit wonder" zed if it weren't for the terrible mechanics behind me getting hit. If I didn't have to wait outside every lootable building now while the endless train of zeds paths in and out of it, if antibiotics were even remotely reasonable to find, if the zeds didn't magically see me from the outside of a building when Im behind a concrete wall, and so on. People have said it over and over, too much all at once. The game could have easily introduced the new harder to deal with zeds without making antibiotics hard, sorry not hard, near impossible, to find. Or even make it so tents actually have a reasonable chance to cure your infection, considering tents are just as hard to find as antibiotics. Would the game be that much easier if loot was somewhat like it used to be? In 1.7.6 I could still go through a couple towns worth of residential loots and not see any antibiotics or a tent. And lets be honest you don't have a lot of time once infected to make something happen or your vision becomes blurred and your done. Harder zombies? Great. One hit and you die unless you quickly find a cure or a tent to rest in? Awesome. Zeds when agro'd are extremely hard to ditch? Perfect. That all sounds fantastic however taking away almost all chances of finding any sort of cure is absurd. If the zombies act like they do, then antibiotics are still going to be in such a high demand, even with the old loot system will still be extremely rare.

[Trizzo 632]

The funny thing is, with loot (in any form) becoming harder to come by, it puts more emphasis on shooting other people to take whatever loot they had. It becomes harder to group up with random strangers because the little bit of loot that you have may not be enough for two+ people if it's barely enough for yourself.

Since you are fine with pass speculation off as fact allow me to indulge. Less resources puts an empahsis on player cooperation because when resources are limited cooperation yields higher results for individuals (within a group) due to the fact that more loot will be found overall. Surplus is shared and indvidual needs are meet.

Lets think on the reverse. Does cooperation flourish in a world with ample loot, guns, cars, food, drink spawning everywhere, where an individual can look after every need by themsevles? (thinks about 5 patches ago and shudders)

And speaking from a bandit mentality (I do stalk on sight and shoot when the opportunity is there), it becomes far easier to take loot from someone who just left a town than risking your life in said town. See someone in town, wait till he leaves town, stalk, and pounce. Loot is now mine with no effort. I didn't have to risk infection, less chance of having to bandage (unless I made a mistake in the stalk) so less bandages used. Less bullets used to ward off zombies. Etc etc etc.

Because every firefight has an ideal outcome?

Now think about how how finding less ammunition (because loot is less) and adding serious zombies effects this scenario. Hordes (that will be added in the SA) that will be drawn to gunfire when their AI is finally fixed. In 1.7.7 (for the one session i got to play on it) i had a firefight with 4 bandits. Both sides run out of ammunition...it was hilarious. The final bandit had to run across an open field to use his last few rounds to shoot at point blank range because he was running so low.

Again we come to cooperation. Cooperation is better in low loot servers. One perosn is a mule to carry different types of ammo, different guns, nothing is left behind. Where a solo player passes over weapons that do not share ammo types groups pick them up.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Trizzo

[Fuzzy Wolfy 41]

Since you are fine with pass speculation off as fact allow me to indulge. Less resources puts an empahsis on player cooperation because when resources are limited cooperation yields higher results for individuals (within a group) due to the fact that more loot will be found overall. Surplus is shared and indvidual needs are meet.

Lets think on the reverse. Does cooperation flourish in a world with ample loot, guns, cars, food, drink spawning everywhere, where an individual can look after every need by themsevles? (thinks about 5 patches ago and shudders)

Haha, no.

Unless you know the person, or have means to communicate with them before you two bump into one another, you're going to either get shot or shoot at him. Nobody in their right mind on this patch would just let someone with loot they could potentially need just slip by, not unless you hide and hope the player just moves on or are cool enough in that situation to try and make conversation while they have their gun pointed at you or where you're hiding.

Cooperation exists when you can both benefit from each other. When loot is rare enough to find on your own, sharing it will not benefit anyone.

Edit: Especially, antibiotics.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Fuzzy Wolfy

[JPWiser 251]

Since you are fine with pass speculation off as fact allow me to indulge. Less resources puts an empahsis on player cooperation because when resources are limited cooperation yields higher results for individuals (within a group) due to the fact that more loot will be found overall. Surplus is shared and indvidual needs are meet.

Lets think on the reverse. Does cooperation flourish in a world with ample loot, guns, cars, food, drink spawning everywhere, where an individual can look after every need by themsevles? (thinks about 5 patches ago and shudders)

Because every firefight has an ideal outcome?

Now think about how how finding less ammunition (because loot is less) and adding serious zombies effects this scenario. Hordes (that will be added in the SA) that will be drawn to gunfire when their AI is finally fixed. In 1.7.7 (for the one session i got to play on it) i had a firefight with 4 bandits. Both sides run out of ammunition...it was hilarious. The final bandit had to run across an open field to use his last few rounds to shoot at point blank range because he was running so low.

Again we come to cooperation. Cooperation is better in low loot servers. One perosn is a mule to carry different types of ammo, different guns, nothing is left behind. Where a solo player passes over weapons that do not share ammo types groups pick them up.

There is no way you can convince me that someone who doesn't know or care two shits about you, is LESS likely to kill you when loot is invaluably scarce. Especially when talking about basics like food and antibiotics.

Picture this scenario, you meet some guy on a server, team up and go looting. You come across a couple boxes of antibiotics. Is the guy more likely to stab you in the back for them if the loot is more or less common?

"Cooperation is better on low loot servers".... left me scratching my head that's for sure.

Pre-1.7.7 I would gladly stop and pick up some random guy on the road that needs a ride, or toss a new spawner a can of food and a water bottle, or answer someones call for help in side chat that needs a blood transfusion.

Post-1.7.7 I kill people on site and horde all the shit I can get, cause spending hours and hours going through empty buildings crawling on my belly risking a 1 hit wonder zed is not worth the time nor risk\reward.

Your theories of "less resources promote better cooperation" only work if there is actually enough resources to satisfy the whole. If not then only the strongest survive. And based on what I have seen and read there definitely is not enough to go around.

[Trizzo 632]

Haha, no.

Unless you know the person, or have means to communicate with them before you two bump into one another, you're going to either get shot or shoot at him. Nobody in their right mind on this patch would just let someone with loot they could potentially need just slip by, not unless you hide and hope the player just moves on or are cool enough in that situation to try and make conversation while they have their gun pointed at you or where you're hiding.

Cooperation exists when you can both benefit from each other. When loot is rare enough to find on your own, sharing it will not benefit anyone.

Edit: Especially, antibiotics.

There is no way you can convince me that someone who doesn't know or care two shits about you, is LESS likely to kill you when loot is invaluably scarce. Especially when talking about basics like food and antibiotics.

Picture this scenario, you meet some guy on a server, team up and go looting. You come across a couple boxes of antibiotics. Is the guy more likely to stab you in the back for them if the loot is more or less common?

"Cooperation is better on low loot servers".... left me scratching my head that's for sure.

Pre-1.7.7 I would gladly stop and pick up some random guy on the road that needs a ride, or toss a new spawner a can of food and a water bottle, or answer someones call for help in side chat that needs a blood transfusion.

Post-1.7.7 I kill people on site and horde all the shit I can get, cause spending hours and hours going through empty buildings crawling on my belly risking a 1 hit wonder zed is not worth the time nor risk\reward.

Your theories of "less resources promote better cooperation" only work if there is actually enough resources to satisfy the whole. If not then only the strongest survive. And based on what I have seen and read there definitely is not enough to go around.

You both miss the point so hard it hurts. I'll make it simple. When does one benefit benift more from sharing? In times of glut (when they don't acutally need it) or times of need? (when they do nedd it)

*Loot is hard to find as one person

*Two people can cover more ground to find more loot

*Two players can share loot that one person can't hold (i have a maky, he has revolver, i pick up his ammo).

And the strong survive? Well groups that cooperate have histroiclly done better than those that don't, no matter the scarecity of resoucres. I've given away antibiotics before...heck i colleclted ammo i didn't need in 1.7.7 to give away to people when i found them. No need to do that in any prior patch when most guns spawned with 4-5 mags.

And yes 1.7.7.1 is piss easy compared to 1.7.7. Thats a fact. And in 1.7.7.1 loot is not terribly scare, especially food.

Cooperation exists when you can both benefit from each other. When loot is rare enough to find on your own, sharing it will not benefit anyone.

Even you agree with me, even if you don't know it. Just examine what you said. You agree there there should be benift in cooperation (lets not even bring up altruism), this makes sense in terms of your chances for survival.

Well....I have a technique to double the your chances of finding loot (which helps surival) for no extra input! Crazy! Who'd of thought you could do this...it's called cooperation. You only have to share any surplus you find after both your indvidual needs are met.

It appears that the thurst of your counter argument is the belief that you benefit less from cooperation when you need it more. <_<

There is no way you can convince me that someone who doesn't know or care two shits about you, is LESS likely to kill you when loot is invaluably scarce. Especially when talking about basics like food and antibiotics.

Scareity and how this effects banditry is a seperate issue from the merits of cooperation but i'll take it up with you. Riddle me this, are you more likely to survive a firefight (because bandits are trying to steal your valuble stuff) or recover quicker in a group or with a teammate?

Edited June 25, 2013 by Trizzo

[machiavelli 38]

You only have to share any surplus you find after both your indvidual needs are met.

Scareity and how this effects banditry is a seperate issue.

Those two statements are your problem. You are naive and give too much credit to the human race (even less is deserved to the internet population).

And they are not separate issues but are entirely hand in hand.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Machiavelli09

[Trizzo 632]

Those two statements are your problem. You are naive and give too much credit to the human race (even less is deserved to the internet population).

And they are not separate issues but are entirely hand in hand.

Naive? Only if you think by saying "cooperation" i infer rosey fields of flowers were heros frolic merily with bandits who both offer a helping hand to bambis. Cooperation doesn't imply morality or a good ethic, just a desire to survive. History has demonstrated that groups that tended to cooperate were stronger as a whole, think colonial settlers vs indigenous populations, homo sapien vs neanderthal. Indiviudals and or smaller groups of with strong indviduals lost out to the stronger groups with weaker individuals because diversification, specialisation and increased output steamrolls individuals.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Trizzo

[Tek (DayZ) 95]

Since you are fine with pass speculation off as fact allow me to indulge. Less resources puts an empahsis on player cooperation because when resources are limited cooperation yields higher results for individuals (within a group) due to the fact that more loot will be found overall. Surplus is shared and indvidual needs are meet.

Limited loot does not lead to more cooperation. It leads to less cooperation, as I explained. What you speak of happens with groups of players who trust each other and are willing to work towards the objectives of the group as a whole. Less resources being shared between two random people are a recipe for disaster. If I am searching for supplies I am in dire need of, and come across another player I do not know who is also looking for supplies, what do you think think is going to happen? Us pairing up is not going to magically make us have more supplies. It is going to put more strain on the supplies/resources we currently have. If I break my leg is that random person going to give me his hard sought after morphine? Or is he going to save it for himself? A clan member is going to gladly give up his morphine, because he knows I would gladly do the same for him, because we are working towards the groups goal. Someone who is out for himself is not just going to give up his supplies.

With this encounter you have four possible outcomes. 1) Both parties meet, and form a team. Great! They can survive together and scrounge for the same amount of loot that would be available to the both of them if they were single (there would not suddenly be more loot available, that is bad logic). 2) One person wants to be friendly, but the other guy wants what the friendly guy has. Does take a rocket scientist to figure out that one of these people is going to be shot by the other. 3) They both try to take each other out because they both want the others resources. 4) They both run away to survive and loot another day in peace.

Out of those scenario's, you have a 25% chance of teaming up. Then you have the problem of spreading your resources thin because they are so hard to find.

Lets think on the reverse. Does cooperation flourish in a world with ample loot, guns, cars, food, drink spawning everywhere, where an individual can look after every need by themsevles? (thinks about 5 patches ago and shudders)

That is where a balance needs to be found. But this game is based on survival. It does not represent real life. There would be more cooperation in a real life apocalypse, but there would also be groups that take what they want by force. It's called Anarchy and Chaos, and with no repercussions from breaking laws, people will do what they must to survive.

Because every firefight has an ideal outcome?

Every fight does not come out to the ideal outcome. But for me, and how I play and approach situations, I will always try to put myself in the best possible position to have the best advantage to give myself the best chance at that ideal outcome.

Now think about how how finding less ammunition (because loot is less) and adding serious zombies effects this scenario. Hordes (that will be added in the SA) that will be drawn to gunfire when their AI is finally fixed. In 1.7.7 (for the one session i got to play on it) i had a firefight with 4 bandits. Both sides run out of ammunition...it was hilarious. The final bandit had to run across an open field to use his last few rounds to shoot at point blank range because he was running so low.

People running out of ammunition is not painting a picture of a very sound engagement from both sides. Sounds like very poor shooting by both sides.

Again we come to cooperation. Cooperation is better in low loot servers. One perosn is a mule to carry different types of ammo, different guns, nothing is left behind. Where a solo player passes over weapons that do not share ammo types groups pick them up.

I think I explained above why low loot does not equal cooperation.

[jubeidok 495]

It's funny watching the haters keep this thread alive. The OPs post must have really hurt. I seriously don't get why this discussion is still taking place though. They ran their test, gathered some data, reverted to retard mode to keep the LCD playing. They have done it before in patches. Like the one where the food and bandages were really scarce, gathered the data/feedback and instantly reverted in a hot fix. They will continue to do this up until release of the SA. The goal is to keep a larger community playing all the way up to release, so they will be more inclined to buy into the SA if they are still liking what they are getting out of the mod. They don't have to do this for the "hardcore" crowd, as the game was sold to us as soon as a SA became a reality.

We do have options though, like still playing on 1.7.7. You say you want it hard, but don't support the harder version. This I don't get. Come on, guys! Join me on 1.7.7, 1.7.7.1 is so freakin boring!

Oh yeah, and one more thing to add. Let's just hope they end up separating these two crowds into Normal servers, where players can run around like retards and not have to even think about the zeds, and Super Duper Hardcore servers, where if a zombie gets a hold you, you're fukt!

Edited June 25, 2013 by JubeiDOK

[Trizzo 632]

A clan member is going to gladly give up his morphine, because he knows I would gladly do the same for him, because we are working towards the groups goal. Someone who is out for himself is not just going to give up his supplies.

SOoo... a clan works together for whatever goal they have a goal in mind. But two people, we assume are interested in survival, must have have no potential to be able work together because they are just going to kill each other? If this were true how and why were clans formed?

More importantly why doesn't every clan end in betrayl and bloodshed due to scarcity? This has to be true if your if all of your arguments are correct.

In a broader social sense if individuals have no incentive to cooperate how was human civilisation formed? Why is there social cohesion?

And in your example, and in all of them, our two strangers have no capacity to build trust. That is how most relationships are formed. You build it through shared experience. This includes clans, where new members need to earn their keep. There is of course potential for it to go awry.

And as for your rule that people who are out for themsevles don't give away supplies I give away antibiotics, morphine, ammo, weapons regularly. Since i specalise in this (and you banditry) i am rarely betrayed and know what to look out for.

With this encounter you have four possible outcomes. 1) Both parties meet, and form a team. Great! They can survive together and scrounge for the same amount of loot that would be available to the both of them if they were single (there would not suddenly be more loot available, that is bad logic). Out of those scenario's, you have a 25% chance of teaming up. Then you have the problem of spreading your resources thin because they are so hard to find.

Argh…you miss every point teaming up doesn’t give you more loot it just lets you search for more. It lets your specialise. Making up random statistics like 25% of X time…what is this

That is where a balance needs to be found. But this game is based on survival. It does not represent real life. There would be more cooperation in a real life apocalypse, but there would also be groups that take what they want by force. It's called Anarchy and Chaos, and with no repercussions from breaking laws, people will do what they must to survive.

This isn’t even an answers to the question, which you conveniently avoided. It’s a non-answer filled with irrelevant factoids about a real life apocalypse.

Every fight does not come out to the ideal outcome. But for me, and how I play and approach situations, I will always try to put myself in the best possible position to have the best advantage to give myself the best chance at that ideal outcome.

You were on the cusp of understanding why using an ideal outcome as an example is a poor example to use in support of a wider argument but just ended up back at the same outcome. Good stuff!

I think I explained above why low loot does not equal cooperation.

No you didn’t and even gave examples of people working together for the sake of benift. It’s a strange way to argue against the benefits cooperation by giving examples of why groups work together. Eventually you might not draw an arbitrary line with clans.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Trizzo

[BigJames89 11]

It is not so much the damage or the health of the zombies (hell I'm for them being only kill-able by headshot), the loot or the fact that there is a new threat of infection. It is the buggyness that I was so excited that this patch (both patches 1.7.7 and 1.7.7.1) were to fix. Instead they got worse, way worse. I'm not talking about the script errors, I'm talking about the glitches and the retarded pathfinding of the zombies. Whether it is server-side or mistakes by developers, the problems need to be fixed. May you refer me to the servers that you stayed alive on, because even sneaking attracts zombies 20-30m away on most servers.

Edited June 25, 2013 by BigJames89

[tajjuk 65]

Some stuff.

Trizzo, you keep repeating this opinion about the more difficult E bringing people together but simply my experience and many others does not support it.

You say it's speculation, it's not it's what is actually happening in game, hell yesterday a guy shot me whilst I was holding an axe when he had 10 zombies trailing him and he was bleeding. I might have been able to help him, but despite doing the friendly wiggle he shot me. He died because of it as well.

Harder E, particularly the loot is leading to less.co-operation in my experience.

[Inception. 9443]

There are two sides.

The first being that the lack of loot and increase of zombie difficulty will bring players together in order to survive better.

The second being that the lack of loot and increase of zombie difficulty will make players kill others more often, in order to acquire the better gear, in order to survive better.

Ultimately, both instances will occur all of the time within DayZ.

[v3c1c 86]

There are two sides.

The first being that the lack of loot and increase of zombie difficulty will bring players together in order to survive better.

The second being that the lack of loot and increase of zombie difficulty will make players kill others more often, in order to acquire the better gear, in order to survive better.

Ultimately, both instances will occur all of the time within DayZ.

second one is soo wrong.

people will fight together If zeds will be so hardcore that soloing will be near impossible.

In Arma even tank will not save you if you are alone against infantry and some one have bazuka. Only thing what really works is teamwork

[Trizzo 632]

Trizzo, you keep repeating this opinion about the more difficult E bringing people together but simply my experience and many others does not support it.

You say it's speculation, it's not it's what is actually happening in game, hell yesterday a guy shot me whilst I was holding an axe when he had 10 zombies trailing him and he was bleeding. I might have been able to help him, but despite doing the friendly wiggle he shot me. He died because of it as well.

Harder E, particularly the loot is leading to less.co-operation in my experience.

Yes i'll clarifiy. As Inception says these two ideas are not mutally exclusive, they are perspectives but there are truths supported by history and the games experience.

What is true is that cooperation will always trump the lone wolf in terms of power, specalisation, survivability. Being a lone wolf is fun but being a lone wolf is pretty much just that. You can certainlly have an effect on the world but your strength in no way compares to that of an organised group. Neither your resilience, longevity, physical capabilities, capacity to recover when injured. Any negative impact that can happen to a player is worse for a wolf.

Teamwork on average is preferable, in a survival sense, to being a lone wolf. History shows this. The most consistentlly powerful, well armed, healed, healthy, equipped 'individuals' in DayZ are always part of a group.

What is open for debatable is whether this means people will actually cooperate in a dynamic sense. It's not impossible to gauge player cooperation levels but nobody has tried. I suggest for obvious reasons that cooperation if attemped would benift people players beyond the short term gains they get from killing. BUT this is where we all diverge. Some people have a low tolerance for stress or a low respect for others.

My experience (subjective) I certainlly felt the need to cooperate more in recent patches than i have for months because trying to meet all of my needs as an individual as a lot harder when loot is scare. I found plently of surplus stuff but particular items eluded me.

I was part of a clan for one week. Never again...not my style...but even that causal brainless clan could horde more shit than any of us could ever use...and they always will this as close to a DayZ truth as you will get.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Trizzo

[Inception. 9443]

second one is soo wrong.

people will fight together If zeds will be so hardcore that soloing will be near impossible.

No, it isn't "soo wrong", because it actually occurs in DayZ. Some players lack the ability to think ahead, and thus they kill players for their gear, as loot is rare. Essentially it is merely killing on sight, something that will always occur in DayZ.

[v3c1c 86]

No, it isn't "soo wrong", because it actually occurs in DayZ. Some players lack the ability to think ahead, and thus they kill players for their gear, as loot is rare. Essentially it is merely killing on sight, something that will always occur in DayZ.

well imagine situation were every one knows that zeds are super strong - you are alone near small village with 20 zeds and you spot player with pistol or double barrel.

I think in this situation you will try to cooperate.

In Dayz as it is now you will KOS him not because you need something but because it is "FUN"

[Inception. 9443]

well imagine situation were every one knows that zeds are super strong - you are alone near small village with 20 zeds and you spot player with pistol or double barrel.

I think in this situation you will try to cooperate.

In Dayz as it is now you will KOS him not because you need something but because it is "FUN"

Of course. The said hypothetical situation you have provided, when the setting is in real life, would be different to the situation in the setting of DayZ.

[kumando 199]

It's funny watching the haters keep this thread alive. The OPs post must have really hurt. I seriously don't get why this discussion is still taking place though. They ran their test, gathered some data, reverted to retard mode to keep the LCD playing. They have done it before in patches. Like the one where the food and bandages were really scarce, gathered the data/feedback and instantly reverted in a hot fix. They will continue to do this up until release of the SA. The goal is to keep a larger community playing all the way up to release, so they will be more inclined to buy into the SA if they are still liking what they are getting out of the mod. They don't have to do this for the "hardcore" crowd, as the game was sold to us as soon as a SA became a reality.

We do have options though, like still playing on 1.7.7. You say you want it hard, but don't support the harder version. This I don't get. Come on, guys! Join me on 1.7.7, 1.7.7.1 is so freakin boring!

Oh yeah, and one more thing to add. Let's just hope they end up separating these two crowds into Normal servers, where players can run around like retards and not have to even think about the zeds, and Super Duper Hardcore servers, where if a zombie gets a hold you, you're fukt!

I think you pretty much nailed it in this post my friend.

[DotFreelance 15]

So I definitely find it easier to run full sprint through cities now, because players aren't nearly as much of a threat. The only way you're going to make the game a real challenge is by allowing what is the real threat: the players. Doesn't matter how hard your zombies are... if you think the zombies are the challenge, you're a scrub. No way around that.

The rest of us are pissed off because the zombies have been changed. Not because they're harder with new abilities, but because they're more janky and they can see you through walls as well as teleport through walls. They're unreliable, at one point moving slowly while crouched will aggro a zombie from down the street, other times running full sprint across the street doesn't make them move at all.

Earlier today I was playing and I snuck into a small building to take out a single following zombie. After that zombie died silently to an axe, an entire horde moved slowly toward the shed and through the door only to aggro upon walking in and seeing me: well hidden and unmoving around the corner. I don't think that's intended. I counted the zombies on the ground after and there were 13. 13 zombies that just randomly decided walking toward the door in that building was appropriate, all at once. This seemed inconsistent with the usual behavior zombies exhibit, investigating small sounds or moving toward idle players ( because I wasn't idle. ) This seemed a lot more like multiple groups of zombies spawned nearby and immediately began walking toward the doorway for some reason.

If you don't think this patch has messed things up, you're a newbie. There's no better way to put this, because you simply could not possibly get around the game without experiencing the problems unless you were a newbie.

The other stuff makes the zombies pretty wicked, and I hope it stays. I just hope, next time, they spend more time making the mod work correctly instead of shoe-horning in features that just wreck gameplay.

Edited June 29, 2013 by DotFreelance