u/Texas_Shepard

I know it's supposed to be COD's responsability, but I see so many player see cheaters and just back out to lobby without reporting.

Spam reporting get them shadowbanned and most of the time banned.

And i know you guys think oh they can just make a new account but DMZ is annoying with unlocking levels and getting that rook skin etc.

Cheaters actually hate getting banned cuz it takes time to get cronen squeals etc

Do you think we can make a discord or a some kind if chat where we all spam report cheaters.And i talk about blatant cheaters with 0 doubts.

The game was almost perfect as it was, it just needed more depth, more reasons to grind, some reset here and there, and overall just more support as they did the 1st year.

It didn't need none of that bs trying to copy arc raiders and tarkov on bringing gear fear and all that crap.

DMZ already had a bit of gear fear.

Changing dmz too much will kill it's identity.

Or are gun in compaign act completely different from multi-player.

I played the soap mission on the oil plate-forme with a fennec.

And that gun had 0 sideways recoil, i was wondering if i could replicate that or if compaign guns are different.

Let's not be naive nor overly negative.

COD always sold tons of bundles and i don't see why they would not try to sell more next year.

We saw how last dmz was used to sell some bundles.

But now without insured weapons, why would soemone buy weapons bundles? What is their market in-game strategy to give us intend into buying new weapons when you can loose everything like in tarkov.

I can't see poêple spending 25$ for a weapon to use it once.

Not even spending in-game cash to use it.

I see a lot of people hyped up for DMZ and so im i tbh, lots of good news but i personally believe getting rid of insured weapons as it was in the beta was a bad idea.

-they could've kept it and made a big ass grind towards you crafting your own guns. (collect x amount of to insure x weapon, now collect this to insure it's attachment etc etc) Instead they just copy pasted most successfull extraction shooters like tarkov and ARC.

While i agree introducing some gear fear was needed for DMZ, they could have introduced that with other part of the load out (backpack, armor, lethal, intel) While keeping 1h wait guaranteed for a grinded weapon slot.

Now i feel DMZ is just called dmz for the sake of the name but from all the news I read, the game looks like tarkov And other from the same genre.

Now I could be an outlier and should just STFU, but im curious about old DMZ fan reception of it, do you guys just wanted to play ARC raiders with COD gunplay? I just wanna know what poêple think and have a casual discussion

The main thing i love about DMZ is the insured weapons and how we can grind the other slots and duration. Do you guys think we should expect a big change in DMZ where they modify the core gameplay.. Anyway im excited, played arc raiders had a lot of fun but it wasn't as good as the fun I had grinding DMZ missions

How do you guys turn off your contrôler. Before it took a single click on the Bluetooth on/off shortcut on win 11. But now i think our only way is holding for 10 sec wich seems annoying to do after every session. Anyone came up with a faster way of turning it off?

Je m’explique : souvent, la politique se retrouve dans une opposition très « noir ou blanc » et ca se joue parfois à seulement quelques pourcentages de votes. Ce qui peut sembler injuste quand presque la moitié du pays est contre certaines politiques.

Ce que je vous propose reste purement théorique et demanderait énormément de réflexions ey d’améliorations pour être applicable concrètement, mais je vais vulgariser l’idée pour faire simple :

Serait-il possible d’avoir un système hybride qui responsabilise davantage le vote des citoyens ? Par exemple, les personnes qui votent pour une immigration massive pourraient davantage subir les conséquences possibles de cette politique, comme une hausse des loyers. À l’inverse, les personnes qui veulent moins de taxes pourraient avoir moins accès à certains services publics. Les gens anti-police pourraient être moins prioritaires pour certains services policiers ou appels d'urgence, etc.

Et évidemment, les bénéfices des politiques fonctionneraient aussi dans l’autre sens. Par exemple, une personne opposée à l’immigration pourrait ne pas bénéficier aussi facilement des avantages liés à cette immigration, comme certains services ou secteurs soutenus par cette main-d’œuvre. J’ai pris des exemples volontairement un peu extrêmes pour illustrer l’idée, mais évidemment ce ne serait pas quelque chose de simple à appliquer du jour au lendemain. Une dimension géographique entrerait probablement aussi en compte. Mais vous comprenez l’idée générale.