Originally posted by wayubb

Think he was referring to Ripperx and in his vid he killed the guy without hesitating and he didnt even know if he was a friendly or not just shot em.

Also yeah they did extend the alpha till the 30th and I guess the wipe occurs then.  We all get our gc restored.  Being they have about 3 weeks left to get t he rest of the features out and tested id assume every week the game will grow and become even better.(can only hope it d oes)

Seems with the new person they now have communicating to the community is much better then the other so we are now being kept a bit more informed as well to the status of the game.

Fair enough!  I can't comment on Ripper's playstyle, but I'll remember to put him in my clan or join his when the feature is in.  :)  

My idea is, everyone is infected with the zombie virus.  Every evil act you do (which apparently the only thing you can do in this game is scavenge and kill players and zombies) has a chance to turn you into a zombie, who can only shuffle about and moan, maybe able to attack people if you can make it to them.

This state lasts for a duration of time based on previous acts.  Even if you don't immediately turn into a zombie, your infection bar would go up and your hunger and thirst would require much more attention while the bar is up, based on how far up.

Alternatively (or additionally), players with clean records for a certain number of play hours could join a faction of enforcers that are alerted to evil acts, and given a time period in which they can then take revenge on the perp.   Acting outside the bounds of their oath would result in the same action taken against them.  But the benefit of such a role would be access to easier supplies and gear for dealing with aholes.

Hah, Bill Bill Bill...

You can call it beta all you want, but that doesn't make it so.  If they choose to call it alpha, then it is alpha.  You don't get to make that decision, they do.  I didn't know the definition of beta had anything to do with paying for it.

I'd like to point out that servers can hold 40 players, to be exact.  Since you were being vague.  I'd also like to point out that you can't buy revives, as they aren't in the game.  I'm not sure where you got that information from, because it's certainly not from actually playing the game.

I'm actually quite surprised that you didn't focus more on the massive amounts of player griefing, or PvP as one would call it.  The majority of the player base wants change in the form of punishment for excessive player killing, according to a sizable poll on their forums.  

But yes, while the game has some bugs, it's definitely addictive.  That is, if you can handle the inevitability of dying on a sonsistent basis and losing all of your items.

I have been playing for a few weeks now and even in the current state the game can be fun.  I have not felt this white knuckle tension since playing in wormhole space in Eve Online (dangerous NPCs, FFA PvP, and high risk).  But there are some glaring issues that could be a game breaker to some players. 

The first issue and the biggest IMHO right now is how prevalent hackers are.  My team of nine players, decked out in armor and good gear was killed in less than 5 sec by one player with an average weapon and an aim bot hack; he never missed a single shot in pure rapid fire succession.  I have heard others on the official game forums complain of similar issues, and the dev team is said to be addressing the hackers as fast as possible.  But it totally kills the experience when it happens to you.

The second issue is the map size, or rather the projected map size.  Even with about 60% of the map released you encounter players far too often on a 40 player capped server.  I cannot see 250 players on a map this size, when it is completed, working very well.  It will turn into a complete mess of pure PvP and race to item spawn locations.  So much for any immersion at that point IMHO.

The last issue I will talk about here is not necessarily a game breaker, maybe just how I see the game player base progressing.  Once clans and players are allowed to rent servers, mainly game worlds, we will see a migration from the open servers to those privately rented for the players who are tired of the non-stop, often pointless and excessive PvP (95% of the current player base is shoot first, don't ask questions, and take your loot . . . even if it is just a flashlight and granola bar you were carrying).  What will be left will devolve further into a death match-type game with NPC zombies who just get in the way, not a zompocalypse survival game.

If they can fix the hacking, rethink the server cap for this first map (I would cap it at 50-75 for Colorado when it is complete), and find a way to make PvP have balanced consequences and be more meaningful to keep everyone from just using private servers (perhaps a reward system for players not of the same clan who work together, maybe in the form of better loot spawns), then the game will be very good once all the content they plan on adding is implemented.

Edit:  I think the number of zombies should be 3-4x greater on a private server, than a public one to offset the lack of most likely hostile players.

Originally posted by DAS1337

Hah, Bill Bill Bill...

 

You can call it beta all you want, but that doesn't make it so.  If they choose to call it alpha, then it is alpha.  You don't get to make that decision, they do.  I didn't know the definition of beta had anything to do with paying for it.

 

I'd like to point out that servers can hold 40 players, to be exact.  Since you were being vague.  I'd also like to point out that you can't buy revives, as they aren't in the game.  I'm not sure where you got that information from, because it's certainly not from actually playing the game.

 

I'm actually quite surprised that you didn't focus more on the massive amounts of player griefing, or PvP as one would call it.  The majority of the player base wants change in the form of punishment for excessive player killing, according to a sizable poll on their forums.  

 

But yes, while the game has some bugs, it's definitely addictive.  That is, if you can handle the inevitability of dying on a sonsistent basis and losing all of your items.

 Er, no. They can call it whatever they want, but in software development terms, it's technically 'retail/released'. Like Bill mentioned, he was stretching the term 'beta' to its limits as is.

Basically, this is the developers lying about the state of the game and the fact that they need more funding to try to finish it.

- Call of Duty version of DayZ.

- The Community is 100x worse than the DayZ Community.

- Basicaly 3D Dead Frontier, which is also shit.

- The lead Dev talks so much shit it and tries to cover up his dirt so hard its pathetic.

Why anyone will pay more for nothing is a surprise to me.

Originally posted by spawn12345
well its very early beta. most of the features arent in yet and there are alot of bugs and balancing to be done, so this is expected. But the core game is great!

Beta is where you test all the features for release.  If it is not in Beta is most probably will not be there at release.  So when you say that most of the features are not in yet, then you can pretty much expect they won't be in at release either.

This game is really not even in alpha stage yet, to call it Beta means the developers don't have very high expectations nor should you.

When you throw money at half finished games, you just encourage other developers to do the same.  This game is far from release ready and really should be sent back to internal testing until the annouced features are at least working,  Until then this game is just another developer scam, attempting to jump in the xmas season and get their money quick.

Originally posted by eric_w66

Originally posted by DAS1337

Hah, Bill Bill Bill...

 

You can call it beta all you want, but that doesn't make it so.  If they choose to call it alpha, then it is alpha.  You don't get to make that decision, they do.  I didn't know the definition of beta had anything to do with paying for it.

 

I'd like to point out that servers can hold 40 players, to be exact.  Since you were being vague.  I'd also like to point out that you can't buy revives, as they aren't in the game.  I'm not sure where you got that information from, because it's certainly not from actually playing the game.

 

I'm actually quite surprised that you didn't focus more on the massive amounts of player griefing, or PvP as one would call it.  The majority of the player base wants change in the form of punishment for excessive player killing, according to a sizable poll on their forums.  

 

But yes, while the game has some bugs, it's definitely addictive.  That is, if you can handle the inevitability of dying on a sonsistent basis and losing all of your items.

 Er, no. They can call it whatever they want, but in software development terms, it's technically 'retail/released'. Like Bill mentioned, he was stretching the term 'beta' to its limits as is.

Basically, this is the developers lying about the state of the game and the fact that they need more funding to try to finish it.

Not true, just because you are buying the retail version and in return get access to the alpha it doesn't suddenly change the game to retail. They said themselves they want it to work like Minecraft in a way.

I have bene playing everyday since the first day. I agree there are issues but im still having fun, but i do run with 1-3 other people at a time. I have soloed and been ok and even got my loot into the safe zones without being whacked.

I have encountered hackers, I have seen zombies bugged out.(that seems to be fixed now,in the last 4 days not a single bugged out zombie)

I seem to find loot ok even a uzi m16 m4 and tons of shotguns and 9mm pistols. Plenty of back p acks to help carry what you find on the way.

I totaly agree the map is going to be way to small for  200-250 players and needs to be like 50-75 cap. and even that maybe a bit much, will just have to see when they get the rest of the map out there.

They also definately need to do something to discourage random pking as its rampant and everyone preetty much whacks you now for what ever reason.

But im still playing and still having fun.

You can call it alpha, you can call it beta, you can call it whatever you want.  Basically there is a game to purchase and play and so I think it's fair to judge as is. All mmo release in a state of change and all make promises for the future, so how is TWZ state and other mmo differ other than their developers saying it's alpha/beta/whatever.

Complicating things is the pvp nature, and the world of cheats, aimbots, hacks, etc that are rampant in pvp games.  See APB if you need to refresh your memory.  This game will be killed off by the players and is probably not long for this world, though the idea of TWZ is compelling which is it's biggest draw.  But an idea is not enough; there must be skillful implementation, sufficient funding, and a sense of self preservation in game design that this game's devs lack.

Originally posted by revy66

Originally posted by eric_w66

Originally posted by DAS1337

 

 Er, no. They can call it whatever they want, but in software development terms, it's technically 'retail/released'. Like Bill mentioned, he was stretching the term 'beta' to its limits as is.

Basically, this is the developers lying about the state of the game and the fact that they need more funding to try to finish it.

Not true, just because you are buying the retail version and in return get access to the alpha it doesn't suddenly change the game to retail. They said themselves they want it to work like Minecraft in a way.

 

 Semantics, you're paying for the game as it is now, since 'release' is some unknown date in the future containing an unknown set of features. Will you get a nice shiny box copy when 'release' happens? Somehow, I doubt it. If you do, then great, you paid for early access to a beta. Calling it an alpha is a joke however. Alpha's are internal for the most part, with beta being where 'friends and family' start to see it, and then expanding from there.

Where I work (and develop), we don't charge people for 'beta's' (we're happy they're willing to test possibly buggy software, and they're happy they get to have the change they wanted finally usable). Alphas are never used by anyone but the devs/testers. Sure, these are business applications, but hey, the terms apply.

I used to be really excited about this game, and I actually pre-purchased it yesterday and gave it a try for about 10 hours.  That said however I am already trying to get a refund (made a ticket, waiting to hear back).  If you are someone interested in this genre I would advise to hold off and at least see how the stand-alone Day Z game is going to be.  I played Day Z first and I really enjoyed it, so when I heard about War Z being an MMO-style zombie apocalypse type game I was thrilled.  The giant red flags that I am already seeing are listed below.  Also keep in mind this is not a Day Z vs War Z post, although I will make comparisons for those that haven't tried War Z yet. This is just what I see wrong in War Z (DayZ has tons of issues too)

1)Hacking is extremely out of control.  Back in August Sergey their Executive Producer said they had all but squashed all hacks.  Here is his exact quote 

"We've fixed speedhacks, teleports, and people who basically kill players from other side of the map first. We also have fixed all small hacks like setting spread for guns to zero, negating effects of recoil, etc.

We've added layer of defense by running part of the client in safest low level "ring" of windows, encrypting memory areas - ie making it's extremely hard to create new hacks.

And it worked ! We basically emilinated all major game ruining hacks."

This is totally wrong.  Speed hacks/teleport hacks/shoot through walls, these all exist and are being abused.  Just read their forums.  Also they are pretty quick to lock any thread discussing them as if they don't exist.  I personally was killed numerous times by players teleporting around.  This is a huge issue in a FFA pvp game with full loot, not to mention if you buy something in the cash shop you can lose it to a hacker that one shots you through a wall.  No refund have a nice day.  This is my #1 reason for wanting a refund, if they can't stop this it will destroy the game.

2) There are a lot of features that have been promised by the developers, but until I see them in game I won't hold my breath.  Fool me once sort of a thing, game companies do this all the time.  As of right now there are no Strongholds, no player missions, no skill customization, etc.  Right now the game plays just like Day Z, which is not a big deal in and of itself, except these are features that are hyped by the developers that aren't in the game yet, and it's supposed to go live very soon.

3)Zombies are kind of a joke and are more a nuisance than anything.  In Day Z you tried to avoid zombies, but fought if you had to.  In this game once you get the most basic melee weapon (hammer) you pretty much just walked right up to the zombies and bashed their brains in, and once you get guns it's ridiculous.  Don't get me wrong, that's fun the first few times, but it quickly turns into a game with zero challenge from the environment.  The real challenge comes from other players, and unfortunately that just means this is a FPS with a zombie theme.  This also sucks for reasons #1 and #4.

4) There is zero incentive to be friendly to other players or to help them.  There is a reputation system in game that labels you as either a Bandit, Neutral, or Lawman.  The vast majority of players are Neutral, meaning they haven't killed other players *YET*.  Let me describe the levels:

Lawman - You only shoot Bandits, and never shoot Neutrals or other Lawmen.  The two problems with this is there is no visual indication on who is a Bandit and who isn't.  There aren't nameplates (yet), and there is no mask/glow/etc that would give away the person you are looking at is evil.  So your only recourse is to assume they are neutral and ignore them.  This means if they are a Bandit they will just shoot you first, or if they are Neutral they still might shoot you first.  Even if you get the jump on them you can't shoot, even if it's clear they are running at you with the intention to kill you there still isn't anything you can do except let them shoot first before you can defend yourself.

Neutral - The vast majority of players fall into this category.  If you are new you automatically fall into this category.  Also if you shoot at everyone you eventually kill enough bandits to increase your reputation back to Neutral.  Neutral means Lawmen can't touch you, so if you find a "good guy" that's clearly well armed and has lots of good gear you can literally walk right up to him and head shot him with your POS pistol you found and take all of his equipment.  Honestly this restriction is the biggest problem with this system.  Bandit/Lawman is clear enough to deal with, but the Neutrals throw the whole thing out of balance because you cannot defend yourself against this tactic.

Bandit - Unfortunately as you wise up to the system and defend yourself against everyone including Neutrals you will eventually find yourself with this label.  Now you are the "bad guy" because you shoot first and ask questions later.  The game has already devolved into that mentality so 90% of the time if you see another player expect a shootout.  They may actually be friendly players, but they have to assume you are a bad guy too so rather than lose all of their equipment they will just shoot at you and not risk it.

There are still some good things about this game, but honestly they really need to address these issues or they will hemorrhage players.

Originally posted by revy66

Not true, just because you are buying the retail version and in return get access to the alpha it doesn't suddenly change the game to retail. They said themselves they want it to work like Minecraft in a way.

 

I can call a tomato a grapefruit but that does not make it a grapefruit.  If you could find me a definition of "alpha game" that includes charging full price to get in and involves allowing all paying customers to get in, I would say we could have a decent argument.  Sadly, all you have is the developer calling it an alpha.  The developer can call it whatever they wish but a tomato is still a tomato, even if they call it a grapefruit.