Solo

[Day-Z 3]

Feel like its unplayable at times as a solo. I enjoy the extreme nature of it, its what brings me back to it but the reward is not worth it. With how long it takes to gather what you need for a base, to see a wall go down in one explosion is pretty poor but not just that with almost every one you meet theres likr 2 to 4 against you at times. Very rarely meet anyone on their own besides new spawns.

Base building is obviously pointless when you get 3 or 4 raiding your base. They oftrn have vehicles because theres 3 or 4 of them going loooking for them.

Do enjoy the game but unless youre playing in groups, it feels pretty pointless. Always dont mind losing loot and trying to survive again early doors but when you put hours into it to come up against a team of 3 or 4 either making it a near impossiblr fight or taking your base that you spent hours putting up to take it down through sheer numbers is meh.

Feel like there could be things done to increase travelling speed to make it a little better, like bikes for instance

Edited April 20 by Day-Z

[boggle 58]

I never got into Basebuilding. It looks way to time intensive for something so easily destroyed. No base is inpenetrable. It's only a matter of time. So I resorted to hidden barrels and loot crates. All over the map. I'd take screenshots of each one, have them labeled on izurvive. Anytime I'd get a good gun, I'd rush to stash it and keep my shit gun on me.

It became a game of micromanaging storage and trying to increase loot storage. 

This was not what drew me to the game in 2014. The brutality of getting killed and losing everything, is what makes the game great. If you can respawn and just restock to fully kitted in 20min or less, then it's just cod. 

Since I went back to no stashes and just surviving with what's on my back, it makes it more fun again. 

Regarding solo play, I rarely come across groups of more than 2. Unless I'm on a big server like northmen then yeah they'll have 5 man squads roaming. You know what's fun though? Killing one of them then watching the others search for you. If you're a ways off and just shoot once and don't get greedy and try to move, you'll probably be fine. Otherwise I did once wipe a squad of 4 or 5 guys at nwaf with a tundra and a vickers or whatever the hell dumb name Bohemia game it. The compact unsilenced version of the AS-VAL. 

As a solo you will learn to pick your battles. You can't engage everyone you see. Need to assess each situation and decide if it's worth while. THIS is what made early alpha great. Discord wasn't as popular back then and there was only official servers, so most people were randos and if they had a group it was likely over in game voip. 

I'd suggest playing nomadic, and just taking it slow. I love playing solo. Don't have to explain my actions or plans to teammate, don't have to compromise on where to go what to do. I do what I want and I can make split decisions more quickly and effectively. 

[Riddick_2K 193]

On 4/21/2025 at 4:33 AM, boggle said:

 If you can respawn and just restock to fully kitted in 20min or less, then it's just cod.

 

COD is when you arm yourself just to try to kill other players... it has nothing to do with getting supplies for survival.
Those who play for survival should try to get at least some supplies, just to ensure as much as possible to have consumer goods to continue surviving.
And try to survive as much as possible... that's the game... for this it's advertised and sold...
Otherwise just go back to the game from which it was "modified": ArmA
The bases should also serve that purpose, but in this game they are made too badly, from all points of view (too difficult to place, too fragile to break, too visible, etc...) completely the opposite of what they should be.
It seems that the programmers of B.I. do everything to make this game look like an "Arcade Shooter", just like programming and management choices.
And... not talking about the Wipes that are the DEATH of the game (of the real purpose of the game: to survive).

 

[boggle 58]

I guess my point is more that when you die in game and respawn, you should be starting over like we did early alpha. It's more realistic as a survival game that way. In my opinion. Dying and losing your life should be more consequential, it's what made dayz fun early on for me anyway. 

[Riddick_2K 193]

@boggle

If you mean that when you die, everything you've built and accumulated should disappear (if it's only your stuff and not shared with others), I could agree... but I'm afraid it's very complex to do... especially if you play with other people who don't die (obviously).
Since it's "just" a video game, you have to make do with some "imprecisions" (let's say that...).
If anything, a "block" (ban) from the game for a week, after you die... would be easier to do.
But if you play survival, you can't do without supplies and even bases... in fact... I would expand the concept of "base" to hidden shelters even among buildings (hidden and invisible attics, cellars under the rubble of destroyed/abandoned houses... for example) and in the woods (larger maps and hiding places like caves or crevices between rocks that can be camouflaged would be needed)... like a real survivor would do.
And to avoid the location being known, they should NOT be a fixed part of the map, but buildable shelters like turrets (but much less visible)... in any place you like... and almost invisible from the outside.
I think that something like this, in addition to being more in tune with the lore of this game, could also trigger other types of gameplay, such as following a survivor to see if and where he is taking refuge... or stalking a place, because it seems frequented, to try to find out where the survivor is taking refuge... instead of killing everyone on sight.
But reducing everything to: eat, dress, arm yourself and go try to kill someone... without anything else... is precisely the "nature" of CoD or Battlefield. In those games, moreover, no depot or base is needed, since you don't lose progress on equipment and weapons with every kill... it's another type of game.
This is exactly the difference between the two games... not only the features of the game itself (equipment ready at every login or stored in supplies), but of "game philosophy"... of the objectives (survive and defend yourself or just try to kill the next one).
Even if many players do not understand it and play DayZ only as if it were an "exotic CoD"... and the programmers "follow the crowd" and not the "lore of the game", with their management choices, worsening this "distortion of the lore of the game" even more.
It is precisely the management of these programmers that does NOT go in the direction of "survival" but of an "exotic CoD".
At this point, we might as well go back to ArmA, right?

P.S.
If you have been playing for a long time you will remember that there were servers without persistence.
I do not know why they closed them (I do not know well the "why" of so many choices of these programmers)... but for a game in "CoD style", perhaps they would be the most suitable.
Obviously with the DIFFERENT hive... even if I don't agree with the "blocks" of particular weapons, but it was easy to enter one of these servers, find the right weapon (without persistence it wasn't "blocked" by the "accumulation") and jump to another server.
Many nice things could be done by separating the hives and dividing the characteristics of the servers... at least the "HC" servers should be more "difficult" than they are now, with less food, more diseases and the Zs that kill again (another change that damaged DayZ).
We don't need other weapons, we need a "serious" and careful management of this game, according to its nature: "survive as long as they can, by all means necessary" (https://www.bohemia.net/games/dayz) !!!