Clans treating DayZ like ARMA?

[Warhoax 63]

The problem I have isn't where everybody wants to go, it's how they all seems to always be there. It makes me wonder how these clans and groups of players acquire this gear, since fully geared characters seem to be ubiquitous. 

It's often duplicated, not always though. But if you check their inventory, you often make some discoveries. 

[chickenmcfuggits 49]

You could make a game called "Pinkie Pies Popcorn Party" and players would find a way to mod in guns and create military organizations in it.

[rickyriot 1009]

 

What you guys are all basically complaining about is that some players are more organized than you.  That's a ridiculous gripe, the game shouldn't be changed because of that.  These players are going to exist regardless.  You take it down to melee only, and guess what, there's going to be organized groups with fire axes chopping you to bits.  Are you going to tell them to go play chivalry or mount and blade at that point?  My point will still stand, that you have more investment in dayz than even those games.

 

You have completely and utterly misrepresented the point I made. Re-read, digest, then reply.

[pillock 850]

There's too much ammo available, and server hopping is too effective. Those are the two most important changes that will alter player behaviour towards survival and away from combat for its own sake.

 

I guess the devs have decided on the current balance of loot (and its effects on gameplay) at this stage of the process for a reason - they must actually want a combat-focussed game, possibly in order to keep hold of a larger player-base for testing purposes? I don't know, but this'll surely be adjusted somewhere down the line, or else the game will probably just get swallowed up by all the other arcade zombie-themed shooter games out there and fade from people's attention.

[Quat 19]

It's an intriguing discussion which polarizes opinion.

It's been said a million times before but In my humble opinion there is no right or wrong way to play a sandbox game like dayz.

If you like playing the survival aspect of the game, get yourself out into the boonies ASAP. You can find all you need to survive comfortably in tiny towns and villages where you're unlikely to ever come across a group of armed militia assholes. Avoid larger towns / cities, especially those on the coast and obviously avoid military installations. It's relatively simple and probably quite realistic in some ways.

If, knowing this, you still decide to try to loot Elektro/Cherno/NW etc etc then it's on you. No room for complaints.

[Killawife 599]

Every time I've met a group of players that play together as a clan or group it ends in the exact same way. One guy is friendly and says they aren't going to kill me, then another shoots me in the legs or tries to cuff me or just kills me outright. Now I simply avoid them if I can or shoot a few for sport if they spot me.

[sachad 1016]

At the end of the day, I don't really mind. While I personally don't see the allure in playing like a military squad, I do enjoy their presence. Every time I see a group of 3+ people in full military gear, my heart skips a beat, and I go into stealth survival mode. I either book it or try to sneak past them. Just like how you wouldn't be able to dictate anyone's behavior in a real life scenario, I don't see why we should dictate people in the game. The name of the game is survival. How you do it is up to you, but as long as you're alive, you're doing it right. 

 

Let the environment dictate things. We are all just giblets in the meat grinder that is Chernarus. Right now, Chernarus isn't the danger. But once that is taken care of, and survival becomes a constant challenge, that's when the real sand box experience begins. I'll be very curious to see how these military squads hold up then.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Provide military weapons and you'll end up with a military simulator. Sadly they are in, and I can't really see a way of undoing that, nor can I see any real justification for them not to be.

Seems to me people are just biased against the stigma of "military" based content rather than actual power. Having content used by former organized government forces doesn't inherently make the game into some simulator where everyone is a soldier - that's poor logic. And you're right - there's no good reason the devs have to remove military based content from the game, especially considering that it would be far less realistic given the environment (are we seriously supposed to expect that not a single military object would be left behind in any of the military bases?)

 

We aren't playing a military simulator - we're playing a (currently incomplete) survival game based at some point in the future after a devastating "zombie infection" (caused by unknown means) has ravaged (at the least, possibly elsewhere) South Zagoria, an eastern region of Chernarus, which is itself a highly militarized country based on various Eastern and Central European nations that has suffered through several conflicts and dealt through all of the regards of the Soviet Union.

 

In said environment, you're going to have a large presence of military forces. And in the event that those forces and regions capitulate, a considerable amount of their gear (as well as that of the police force and civilian ownership) is going to be left behind. And that's going to include guns - powerful ones. With all of that stuff left behind it's quite likely that powerful and organized groups are going to get their hands on them and use them extensively.

 

That's what would happen in real life. We wouldn't all resort to becoming cavemen where the only guns we use are 5 round hunting rifles, especially not in a time where you can still find non-rotten imported foods and working electricity/vehicles.

 

I agree that using third party communication methods is sort of dishonest in a way, but unfortunately it's here to stay. Using advanced tactics is completely up to a group, but they're effective so there's no reason groups wouldn't use them unless they were roleplaying or the situation called for otherwise.

[gibonez 3633]

Hopefully when the game is complete the differences between arma and dayz are extremely apparent.

 

One surefire way to achieve this is to not include an abundance of military weapons and clothing.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Hopefully when the game is complete the differences between arma and dayz are extremely apparent.

 

One surefire way to achieve this is to not include an abundance of military weapons and clothing.

Do you mean as in large amounts spawning or variety?

 

The first one I agree with - second one I do not.

[gibonez 3633]

Do you mean as in large amounts spawning or variety?

 

The first one I agree with - second one I do not.

 Both

 

Drastic measures in order to ensure that Dayz enough of its own product over arma.

[Krawallkurt 118]

Clans are organised Bandids in my eyes. To see it from the survival game aspect.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

 Both

 

Drastic measures in order to ensure that Dayz enough of its own product over arma.

I dunno - content isn't really the inherently defining feature of the game.

 

Seems to me like defining aspects of ArmA are that you spawn with a set level of gear and are fighting against forces with equal capability who are also actively supplied - unlike DayZ where your loot is progression based. Adding rarer military guns just increases the amount of progression you undergo to get to the top.

 

They could have attack helicopters and tanks in DayZ and it still wouldn't be anything like ArmA outside of content if you were required to find the parts and fuel necessary rather than just having them good to go off the bat. Not that I necessarily want heavily armed air vehicles or tanks, but they wouldn't change it.

 

Regardless, the amount that spawns seems to me like it's far more important than the amount that's potentially available. Variety just keeps it interesting - and in fact one of the biggest things about ArmA is that you're fighting conventional forces who more or less use the same weapons, unlike in DayZ where there's a wide variety of stuff you're able to come up against. Limiting stuff would just make it more like ArmA in that regard.

[nexventor 429]

Ammo and weapons quantities have already been dropped remarkably since DayZ was first released, man I remember the good 'ol dayz runing around with 900 rounds, 3 x M4 60 mags and a M4 with all the trimmings, now I haven't even been able to find a M4 for months, except for on the dead body of I guy I killed with a hoe. The one thing I have garnished from frequenting these forums is you lot still aren't satisfied. I think you would be still complaining if that rocks were OP if that was the only thing in the game that could be used as a weapon.

DayZ has always been about PvP and always will be, you just need to what to the mod tools are handed out as it won't happen in vanilla.

[R Razor 9]

I think a good portion of the player base was just hoping that this game would be more about survival and less about the pre-pubscent 'ZOMG let's fight battles like it's a war game" type of game that attracts said pre-pubscents (or those that still act in such a manner).

 

TL:DR: We weren't looking for Arma with zombies.

Edited January 19, 2015 by R Razor

[SwitchSL (DayZ) 17]

I guess if your definition of being more organized means that they group up on a 3rd party chat program and hoard gear in a zombie survival game soley for the purpose of running around killing other players that may or may not be on a 3rd party chat program (I and a couple of friend utilize TS3) then yeah, that's what we're griping about.

 

But if you actually read what's posted, the larger complaint is (as someone else called it) the lowest common denominator folks that have successfully managed to turn a zombie survival game into a COD game (without those pesky opponents that are guaranteed to be capable of dishing out what they receive) and run around Bambi hunting or (as seen on youtube) using other players for ignorant science experiments and as practice targets to hone their super 1337 sniper skillz with their mosins and LRS's.

 

About the best that can be said for the game as it stands is that it didn't cost the full price of admission to play it. I'm sure it will get better and I'm sure the survival aspect of it will grow in importance, and until it does you just have to resign yourself to playing at the lowest common denominator level previously mentioned as most modern gamers lack the intellect to play anything more demanding.

You talk about a zombie survival game, so I need to ask you, where are these zombies that have you so frightened? 

 

It's been said over and over, there is really nothing to do in this game except get geared and then hunt players.

Edited January 19, 2015 by SwitchSL

[blacklabel79 949]

Id say ALL organized Groups use the "loot dublication" exploits.

 

noone can tell me they go on loothunting/serverhopping everyday to get 5+people equipped with the "finest gear". Or to say the least make them all look the same.... ( 7+ dudes with pressvests and exact same gear with exact same backpack Contents ect ect... )

 

Also, most abuse Servers where they kick you instantly anyways...henche why all those figgets Need to be reportet.

 

go figure....

Edited January 19, 2015 by {Core}BlackLabel

[deebz1234 243]

 dayz is to be played how you see fit as an individual, OP you are on drugs if you think roaming militia would not be present.

[gibonez 3633]

I dunno - content isn't really the inherently defining feature of the game.

 

Seems to me like defining aspects of ArmA are that you spawn with a set level of gear and are fighting against forces with equal capability who are also actively supplied - unlike DayZ where your loot is progression based. Adding rarer military guns just increases the amount of progression you undergo to get to the top.

 

They could have attack helicopters and tanks in DayZ and it still wouldn't be anything like ArmA outside of content if you were required to find the parts and fuel necessary rather than just having them good to go off the bat. Not that I necessarily want heavily armed air vehicles or tanks, but they wouldn't change it.

 

Regardless, the amount that spawns seems to me like it's far more important than the amount that's potentially available. Variety just keeps it interesting - and in fact one of the biggest things about ArmA is that you're fighting conventional forces who more or less use the same weapons, unlike in DayZ where there's a wide variety of stuff you're able to come up against. Limiting stuff would just make it more like ArmA in that regard.

 

You are talking about gameplay differences I am talking about aesthetics.

 

Dayz and Arma if dayz continues to have an over abundance of military weapons and clothing will just continue to look like arma.

 

Especially true when the games share nearly every other aspect from movement to rendering engine.

 

For this reason alone drastic measures in the art department should be taken to ensure each game is different enough.

 

Alot more of this

 

and far less of this would help

 

Edited January 19, 2015 by gibonez

[Grimey Rick 3417]

I generally just blunder around in a green raincoat with a green boonie hat. It offers some camouflage, but still retains the civilian look. I always use a Mosin with scope and a Magnum. If I'm approaching an area and I see 3-4 players in military gear, I FUCKING LOVE IT. I can almost 100% guarantee they'll all be taking a dirtnap in the near future.

I personally don't use military gear very often, but I'm glad it's there. I love the fact that people can dress up like soldiers and play the part of an improvised militia. There most definitely would be a military presence in an apocalypse, whether it's US Marines or the guys from down the street after looting the army surplus.

DayZ, for me, has always been about PVP. It's always been very easy to survive in both the Mod and Standalone. I enjoy the tension that a zombie can cause as it runs directly at you while you're attempting to remain unseen as that very same group of geared players moves through an area. Without the threat of these groups, this game would be EXTREMELY boring.

The environment is not challenging. Why do so many of you post here (probably as soon as you're out-gunned) complaining about other people playing this OPEN WORLD game the way that they want to? Do you think it'd be fair for me to create a thread bitching about how lame I think you people who sit in the north "living off the land" and "battling" zombies are? I honestly think I'd have a better gripe than what you're complaining about.

Not everyone wants to live in your little world where everyone makes friendly contact and sits at a pixelated campfire together as you exchange socially awkward banter over the internet as to how you "survived" that horde (probably three) of zombies just before you got wet and had to build a fire to dry off. Some people play games for ACTUAL stimulation.

If all you want to do is hippy it up and meet people, then I'd suggest joining an ACTUAL social club IN REAL LIFE. Video games like this are reserved for those who want to make-believe-murder everyone they see, because, y'know, we can't really do THAT in real life, now can we? It's nice to have the option of NOT killing someone when I'm feeling happy, or when I want to hold someone up, but that's about it.

And let's try to stay away from the psychological part of the discussion where you try to point out that "in real life, people would band together in a survival situation". Of course they would. There's no debate. BUT THIS IS A VIDEO GAME. I'M SITTING IN MY $1000 CHAIR ON MY $5000 COMPUTER EATING A CAESAR SALAD AND DRINKING WINE. Right...? Right.

Stop wasting the bandwidth of those who are embracing this PVP survival video game.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Grimey Rick

[sloasdaylight 129]

I guess if your definition of being more organized means that they group up on a 3rd party chat program and hoard gear in a zombie survival game soley for the purpose of running around killing other players that may or may not be on a 3rd party chat program (I and a couple of friend utilize TS3) then yeah, that's what we're griping about.

 

But if you actually read what's posted, the larger complaint is (as someone else called it) the lowest common denominator folks that have successfully managed to turn a zombie survival game into a COD game (without those pesky opponents that are guaranteed to be capable of dishing out what they receive) and run around Bambi hunting or (as seen on youtube) using other players for ignorant science experiments and as practice targets to hone their super 1337 sniper skillz with their mosins and LRS's.

 

About the best that can be said for the game as it stands is that it didn't cost the full price of admission to play it. I'm sure it will get better and I'm sure the survival aspect of it will grow in importance, and until it does you just have to resign yourself to playing at the lowest common denominator level previously mentioned as most modern gamers lack the intellect to play anything more demanding.

You mad? You seem mad.

The "lowest common denominator folks" bit is the most ridiculous thing in your post, if for no other reason than that it's completely off base by assuming that these players 

A) Can't play the game in a survival type manner

2) Won't want to play the game when it gets to full release, and

III) Lack the intellect to play a more demanding version of the game, which is not only hilariously neckbeardy, but also flat out insulting.

Newsflash buddy, those clans who are streaming themselves sniping bambis at 800+m with their Mosins and using TS to raid a town or kill another group of players are the same clans who will have elaborate bases built once base building is incorporated into the game. They're the same ones who will set up farms once horticulture is included. They're the same ones who will raid other players' bases and farms, and they're the same ones who will control an economy in game when that comes to happen. And why, or probably how, you're asking yourself? Because they're organized, and have a common goal. That's all this game boils down to from a multiplayer standpoint: Do you and your team have the organization necessary to pull off your required goal? If you do, you'll do well on average. If you don't, you won't.

Edited January 19, 2015 by sloasdaylight

[Chaingunfighter 917]

You are talking about gameplay differences I am talking about aesthetics.

 

Dayz and Arma if dayz continues to have an over abundance of military weapons and clothing will just continue to look like arma.

 

Especially true when the games share nearly every other aspect from movement to rendering engine.

 

For this reason alone drastic measures in the art department should be taken to ensure each game is different enough.

 

Alot more of this

 

 

 

Well then you'd agree that it needs to be more of a balance rather than intentionally detracting from one side in order to create some false differentiation. That doesn't mean "don't add the AK-12", but moreso "if we add the AK-12 then let's put in a hunting rifle and over/under shotgun to counterbalance it - so the spawning weight of weapons overall favors the civilian ones."

 

That way you can differentiate from ArmA in quantity, variety, and aesthetics - no inherent limits on anything but far fewer military objects spawning and an overall larger amount of them available so you feel like you're actually improvising from across the board rather than just taking a 100% civilian or 100% military approach - balance is key.

[rickyriot 1009]

Seems to me people are just biased against the stigma of "military" based content rather than actual power. Having content used by former organized government forces doesn't inherently make the game into some simulator where everyone is a soldier - that's poor logic. And you're right - there's no good reason the devs have to remove military based content from the game, especially considering that it would be far less realistic given the environment (are we seriously supposed to expect that not a single military object would be left behind in any of the military bases?)

 

We aren't playing a military simulator - we're playing a (currently incomplete) survival game based at some point in the future after a devastating "zombie infection" (caused by unknown means) has ravaged (at the least, possibly elsewhere) South Zagoria, an eastern region of Chernarus, which is itself a highly militarized country based on various Eastern and Central European nations that has suffered through several conflicts and dealt through all of the regards of the Soviet Union.

 

In said environment, you're going to have a large presence of military forces. And in the event that those forces and regions capitulate, a considerable amount of their gear (as well as that of the police force and civilian ownership) is going to be left behind. And that's going to include guns - powerful ones. With all of that stuff left behind it's quite likely that powerful and organized groups are going to get their hands on them and use them extensively.

 

That's what would happen in real life. We wouldn't all resort to becoming cavemen where the only guns we use are 5 round hunting rifles, especially not in a time where you can still find non-rotten imported foods and working electricity/vehicles.

 

I agree that using third party communication methods is sort of dishonest in a way, but unfortunately it's here to stay. Using advanced tactics is completely up to a group, but they're effective so there's no reason groups wouldn't use them unless they were roleplaying or the situation called for otherwise.

 

 

All this is completely wrong.

[sloasdaylight 129]

All this is completely wrong.

 

You should captain your school's debate team, with logic like that, you'd never lose.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

All this is completely wrong.

Care to explain specifically how each word I said was wrong?

 

What you've said tells me nothing other than that you disagree with my viewpoint. At least justify it.