feriluce

You have a very distored view of reality if you think everyone is going to get the nearest gun and immediately shoot everyone they see. There would obviously be bandits in the post-apocalyptic world, thats a given. However I'd wager quite a bit that the majority of people would stick together with whoever other survivors they find. Apart from the whole psycological aspect of it, more people > more chance of survival.

Because in Somalia, literally everyone is shooting everyone else. That is why there's no more people left there. I've yet to see a single person want to remove pvp. Not a single one. Why do you people keep claiming that people want that?

So yesterday I played this game with other people for the first time. I jumped on the TS with my old TG arma buddies, and the ~10 of us had cherno on lockdown, allowing us to freely raid, the firestation, church, store and hospital. It was quite fun and I did enjoy myself, however it also made me realize something. We had free access to all the supplies we could ever want, we had basically "won" the game. The other other thing we could do would be to try and find a car or helicopter and fix it up, but why would we need it? This brings me to my main point. I think there is a lack of goals you can set for yourself, or content if you will. I feel that there needs to be more things that groups of people can work towards. It would probably also help somewhat with the deathmatch situation at the coast. We were shooting everyone in cherno because we basically had nothing else to do. If we had had something meaningful to work towards we might have done that instead. One example I can come up with off the top of my head would be to have the ability to build some sort of fortified base, with various benefits to doing so. Edit: Before anyone yells at me that this is just an alpha. You're right, it is, and stuff like this may very well be in the works. I hope that is the case, but I still want to bring it up.

It really is though. Mainly due to lack of other things to do.

Maybe they dont.. Maybe they realise they're not at a zombie apocalypse reenactment.... Reenactments are that way --> Thats where people wear silly hats and dresses and fire muskets loaded with nothing at... nothing right? MAYBE.. They realise they're playing a computer game and the most fun they can have is to deny you any. Maybe. You mad. [Also +1 to the guy who runs around with nothing. Thats balls of steel' date= even i wouldnt curb stomp you.. Well, maybe an ankle shot. ] What the balls are you talking about? I'm talking about the people who say "Lol, if it was the zombie apocalypse, like everyone would like just kill eachother." That clearly wouldn't be how it would go down.

Its kinda interesting to see how many people think that if the apocalypse were to happen then everyone would immediately b-line for the nearest gun and shoot everything that moves.

I wonder how much importance rocket puts on player feedback and suggestions. That could be a question.

Well that is a horrible idea. There is only what, 6-7 supermarkets on the entire map, and an entire 50 person server would be constantly trying to raid these in order to just stay alive. Think Cherno/elektro deathmatching is bad currently? Wait until everyone is trying to loot the exact same building in order to just stay alive. Especially new players, who wouldnt' have access to a hunting knife and only a single water bottle, will just flock to the coastal supermarkets. It would be like a shooting gallery.

There is definately some good ideas in there. However, the reason you have to eat/drink that often is not for realisms sake, its for gameplays sake. When you go through more supplies you're forced to put yourself in danger more often in order to regain those supplies. That said, however, I feel like the cycle currently is a bit too short as well. I do really like the idea of scaling adverse effects though. Seems really quite silly that you're either fine or spontaneously start bleeding if you dont get your hourly meal.

I'm not entirely sure what being new to arma 2 have to do with figuring out how to choose gender. The random frag is kinda hilarious though. What I mean is.... This isn't an MMO....you don't get to choose gender. Any more than you can choose gender on BF3 or COD. You really should read the patchnotes' date=' you know. Would make you look less stupid! * [NEW'] Players can choose to be a female survivor (once only per CD-Key)

mmm..... curious... i killed in the chest with only one shot... and not 1 time.... always... if the standard damage for crossbow in body is 2 shots' date=' then crossbow is useless as hell.... :( [/quote'] It always have been. For some reason the arrows from the crossbow seem to go on a random trajectory that has nothing to do with where you aim. I've had my crosshair exactly on top of a zombie at 15m and still somehow managed to miss.

I'm not entirely sure what being new to arma 2 have to do with figuring out how to choose gender. The random frag is kinda hilarious though.

And as we all know alpha is the time in the development cycle where you need to avoid any and all suggestions. Instead you must look on with complete passivity until release' date=' where you are then required to immediately start complaining about the bad things that has carried over from alpha because noone called them out. [/quote'] Could you please stop being conscendencing? It makes you sound like a A-hole with superiority complex. :D Normally I'm against the condescending attitude, but this time I have to admit it was totally justified. We ALL know this is Alpha, which is EXACTLY when we're supposed to be talking about stuff like this. Alphas are buggy because we're supposed to iron it out. We're removing the stuff that will cause problems on release. It's Alpha, report it and get back to testing. Again, some things don't need to be suggested, because it's obvious that rocket will implement or fix them. Why didn't you read the rest of my post? Why're you the judge of what is and what isn't pointless to discuss?

And as we all know alpha is the time in the development cycle where you need to avoid any and all suggestions. Instead you must look on with complete passivity until release, where you are then required to immediately start complaining about the bad things that has carried over from alpha because noone called them out.

The sun is actually shining quite brightly outside. ITs been light for hours here.

Might very well be that some douchebag was walking around in the debug forest shooting people while they loaded in.

You rarely aggro just one zombie, and even if its just one, it can still hit you even if you backpedal as fast as you can.

See this is a much better idea imo. You can still reliably fix yourself up solo but its not as effecient as if you had another person around. I still dont see what it would really accomplish though, but at least its better than the original idea.

And you can get food, water and wood by yourself. I guess I should have been more specific and mentioned that I'm talking about playstyles here. Well then what about adding something like a suture kit that is a somewhat rare spawn? Takes up two spaces, and enables you to stop blood loss on your own? Otherwise it requires a player to use a bandage on you? Edit: I really do no think that as the game currently is, encounters with infected people are dangerous. There needs to be a mechanic in place to make them extremely dangerous, or at least somewhat dangerous. I dont personally like the idea of a suture kit but if it balances the game well, then so be it. The idea of a zombie-esque game having the zombies be an after thought in the danger seems a bit off to me. The zombies really doesn't need to be anymore dangerous as long as they work like they do currently. At this point, there is no way to reliably avoid getting hit by a zombie without running into a house. If they're within 30m of you they will hit you, because thats is basically no way that you can predict their crazy evasion zigzag.

Why' date=' its dark, I grant you that, but then again it is night time... [/quote'] Because playing at night is not entertaining. People would rather not play than having to deal with raving around in the dark completely blind or lighting themself up like a christmas tree, which is the equivalent of painting a "Shoot me" sign and running naked through chernogorsk with it.