Edward b

My stance is that my survival is more important to me than your survival. If I think smell trouble, then I'm killing every fucker in the room. Of course you're justified :3

Double post :(

Problem: You're inexperienced Solution: Play the game The next time you spawn in, I suggest you grab a hatchet as soon as you can and head to Cherno or Elektro. Break into a hospital and grab as much morphine, bandages, and painkillers as you can carry (make sure you have enough room for food and water, of course.) Get the hell away from there and head to the Balota Airstrip (west of Cherno) and loot the hangers and control tower. If you're feeling brave, go into the army camp that you'll see just before the airstrip and take whatever you can from the towers. Head north from Balota, following the main road (stay inside the treeline with the road in your sight at all times) until you reach the next town. You'll run directly into a supermarket where you can find everything else you need to survive, but sometimes the supermarket is a bit glitchy (there will be, literally, nothing inside it.) Look around town until you find a canteen and then head back to the market if it was glitched to check up on it. If it's still glitched, I recommend that you change servers simply because this is a glitch that you cannot fix and can be a real nut punch later. Get offline, do something else for an hour, then get back on. If it's glitched on that server too then fuck it- you've got better things to do. At this point, it's best that you loot barns and other farm areas for equipment you'll need to make a fire so you can cook meat (in all, you'll need matches, a hunting knife, and a hatchet) from the animals you hunt. Keep moving around but try to stay north while hunting deerstands until you find a good military grade weapon such as the Mk Mod 0. Do not, I repeat, do not use an AK or a Lee Enfield unless you like dying. A Lee Enfield will kill anything you hit, but there's a reason it's called the Dinner Bell. The AK takes three shots to bring down a zombie- you don't want that for what you're about to do. You want an Mk Mod 0 because you get 100 rounds per mag and it takes down zombies in one hit. Go to the nearest castle and loot the fuck out of that place, but be warned: players will often hang out there. I recommend that you be on a low population server unless you're willing to risk your ass. Hopefully you'll get something useful (a map, a tent, binoculars, etc.) If you don't have a tent, get on over to the NW Airfield and loot the shit out of that place until you have one. Go tot he DayZWiki to see how to get there and not get a bullet to the skull. Find a remote(ish) location and set up your camp. It's best if you find a place near some bushes or other terrain that would make it hard to spot from multiple directions unless you were to walk directly on top of it. There's one place in a field near Balota that would be perfect, but the problem is that there is no marking terrain (it's a huge fucking field) that will help you figure out where your camp is once you set it up. This problem is rectified by finding a GPS. Above all else, you'll probably need NVGs. However, you'll probably get killed trying to find them. This is why I suggest you make a camp first- you probably won't lose everything. Put away all but the most basic equipment (you'll only need beans, bullets, and band-aids) and begin searching for a helicopter crash site. Try to find a low population server that restarted not too long ago; otherwise you only increase the odds that a (skilled) sniper will take you out. As stated earlier, be able to look out for subtle clues that indicate player presence- zombie spawns and dead bodies. If you ever come across a dead body, get down and head to the nearest treeline. Take your binoculars (or sniper rifle, if you found one) and search everywhere for the tell-tale signs of a sniper. Set your view distance as far as possible and put shadow detail on high. You should watch out for any movement- poor snipers will search for targets via their scope, thus causing their gun barrel and legs to move. A smart one will use freelook and so only their head will move (and just barely at that.) Above all else, you need to develope a KoS attitude. When you're in the North, the concept of "friendly" goes out the window. Their survival means more to them than yours- you need to adopt the same attitude. You don't have to kill everyone you see, but I strongly recommend that you kill anyone who is coming towards you (even if they don't see you) or is dangerously close to your camp. Don't kill someone who is in the general area of the camp- they'll know you're in the area and may come looking for you, and then may stumble upon it! Whenever you do kill, hide the bodies. It doesn't matter if it's an animal, a zombie, or a player. As far as you're concerned, only a player will cause the death of anything. Other players will have a similar attitude and you can expect they'll be looking out for bodies as well, so you need to hide them once you have what you need. Be on the lookout for zombies in random places- except for towns, castles, and deerstands, zombies will not spawn in the wilderness. If you see a lone zombie wandering about, then there's a good chance that a player just escaped them. I recommend that you head the opposite direction because you're unlikely to find the person and there's no use in risking getting seen- he'll probably be checking his back every now and then and may catch a glimpse of you. This leads to the most important thing of all: observe your surroundings. Abuse the freelook system- you're going to need it to survive. Maintain situational awareness by checking the area beside and behind you, or you may get a nasty surprise if you log out near your camp. I recommend that you don't keep more than one or two vehicles (if any), and I still recommend that you keep them away from your camp. Motorcycles get more leniancy because you can hide them near bushes. I also recommend that you keep spare parts- you never know when an invisible wall will take out your wheel. Personally, I don't even bother with vehicles at all. They make wonderful targets (it's hard to miss a fucking wall) and are zombie magnets. You can, however, troll people in Cherno and Elektro by honking your horn while driving slowly through the streets. Overall, just use your common sense. If you get killed it's probably because you were negligent, but that's okay- you learn every time you die. The biggest lesson you can learn is to not get attached to your items. No matter how cautious you are, you will eventually die and your camp will eventually be discovered. That's why, when I log out, I make sure I have my most valuable items on me (since no one can steal from your backpack if you're not in the game) if I can carry them. I also recommend that you go prone in the treeline near some bushes before you log out. You never know if someone will be waiting by your campsite. I hope that all of this helped!

Of course DayZ would boom with players. It would also make no money for all the effort put into it.

I recommend that you practice with it first. It's hard to use without any familiarity.

My internet goes via my phone and is somewhat unreliable at times. Would this be an issue, or would we be able to work around it?

You do understand that your argument falls flat, correct? Go back and read my argument- you'd notice that I kept the losses proportional. You didn't. Later in your post, you mentioned (incorrectly) that I used a straw man argument. I'd like for you to actually read about what a straw man argument is because you're using one now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument I never claimed that searching for parts is a waste of time. I said that the time spent searching for parts is wasted when the vehicle inevitably is gone. Sorry, but not quite. Did you missed the math that I posted, or was it too complicated for you? He would've had less vehicles, but not necessarily zero. If his losses remained proportional, he would have only one if he had a much more reasonable 5 vehicles and would've lost less hours. Your point is null and void because you're not actually replying to my argument. I ask that you keep the insults to a minimum. This is all on topic because it is your original point; you said that I was jealous but you cannot prove this. Therefore, I am justified in demanding that you admit that your point is wrong. Profiling is a very inaccurate application of psychology. http://www.cracked.com/article_18380_the-6-most-statistically-full-shit-professions_p2.html I do now. A straw man argument is where you reply to the opponent's argument as if their position were more extreme such that it is easier for you to respond to and harder for them to defend. For example... Person A: I believe we should lower the drinking age. Person B: I can't believe that you want nine year olds to drink! Obviously Person B is misrepresenting Person A's argument. However, I have not done this. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. I never said nor implied that it did. I'm starting to think that you're a fan of irrelevant points. That's one possibility. The other is that my vocabulary is greater than yours, which apparently consists of "fuck", "shit", and other vulgarities. Oh, and this is irrelevant as well.

1. No, sorry, you're avoiding my point. If you spend 20 hours gathering 10 vehicles, and all but two are gone, then the cost is enormous. No person or group of a normal size needs ten vehicles. Most groups of players are 2-4 people, and so you really only need two or three. The OP was wasting time hoarding vehicles that were unneeded (and likely to be unused), and all of the unnecessary vehicles were destroyed. He lost 4/5 of his fleet. He could've reduced the losses by simply having 5 vehicles- one is enough to shorten travel times for gathering parts and other needed supplies. Using vehicles risks losing them- it's best to risk as little as possible, which is the entire point behind my argument. The inevitable outcome of any situation is that the vehicle is gone for good- and the only benefit is shortened travel times. Having multiple vehicles only subjects your vehicles to greater risk due to transporting them and securing them. It is difficult to transport a large number of vehicles successfully (as the OP has indicated) and it is difficult to place them such that they will not be found. I'm consolidating this with point 2 and so the next point will refer to your point 3. 3. Admit it- your assumption was wrong. I'm waiting on you to admit that your point was wrong and that you don't know if I'm jealous or not. As you stated already, you cannot prove that I am jealous. Ad hominem. Ignoratio elenchi, or fallcy of distraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem I suggest that you read up on logical fallacies so you can learn to stop using them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies What do you want me to say? There's a problem with losing vehicles. The obvious solution is to either A. Not use them period or B. Don't use more than you need. There's not a whole lot else that can be done because we aren't the developers. If you were smart, you'd have noticed that the OP didn't put this in bug reports and instead came here.

My survival is more important to me than your survival.

This world isn't going to end any time soon for any reason whatsoever and I can guarantee that most of the people with a plan are just as fucked as anyone else. This is reality, not a video game.

He's exploiting alt+f4? Well, while we're making ridiculous claims... Conservapedia is the best source ever!

He never claimed that he was original. In fact, here's exactly what he said...

You clearly don't know how smoking (or science, for that matter) works. If you smoke, then you put yourself at risk for cancer. That does not mean that it will happen, just that the odds are against you. Exceptions to the norm are not going to disprove science. Stop being angry over being wrong. Here you are questioning the validity of the source instead of providing evidence that the source is wrong. You cannot do this and expect to be taken seriously. If you smoke, you are probably going to pay the consequences. I don't understand why you're disputing a fact- it's making you wrong.

I want you to stay on topic because you are notorious for claiming victory about things that are not relevant to the topic at hand. I thought it was clear. I never stated that what I said was always on topic initially, but I can guarantee you that I haven't said anything further on it. 1. And I never disputed this (show me where I have, please.) I simply stated that having less vehicles leads to less losses. 2. His losses would not have been worse. He would've spent less time tediously gathering parts only to lose all that effort. Let's say that he put 2 hours into repairing a jeepand he has ten of them. Let's say he loses eight. That means he spent twenty hours getting parts and sixteen hours were thrown away because those vehicles are now gone. Assuming that he has three other friends to play with, that means he needs a grand total of ten one jeep to transport everyone, but of course backups are needed to he has an additional three in reserve. So what if he loses those three? He only loses six hours. This is ten hours less than the hours lost if he lost 8 out of ten, which means he can spend ten hours replacing those vehicles lost...which only takes about 6 hours if he replaces all three. Therefore, he loses four hours less than he normally would by having less vehicles (but only if we assume that the OP won't replace the 8 missing vehicles. If he does replace the vehicles, then the OP would take an even smaller loss by replacing those vehicles.) 3. I've already addressed that your claim was wrong (if you had read my posts you'd know this), but I really want you to admit that you were wrong. I have not contested your quote, only that you have not proven that I am jealous nor admitted to being wrong. I hope that making it stand out helps. In your third statement, you only provided evidence that you acknowledged the possibility of being wrong. However, you have yet to admit to being wrong about that claim- I urge that you prove that I am jealous or admit that your assumption is baseless and incorrect. You have shown zero evidence that I am jealous, and therefore I can continue pressing this point until you prove your point or retract it.

The only reason I would target a medic is if I watched that medic help a person I shot. Other than that, it is unacceptable.

Disagreeing with facts makes you wrong.

Most of the people who are snipers have an AS50, but a majority of the people who aren't snipers don't have one. There's a reason why they aren't snipers and it's because they don't have an AS50. If the AS50 were any more common, then everyone would be a sniper.

Problem: you didn't get the kill Solution: be a better shot

Pyro_Marine, I'm asking that you only include what is relevant. I'll wait for you to repost your arguments without fallacies :) I'll link you to the fallacies that you've used... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi (also known as a Red Herring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Remember to only include things that are directly relevent to the topic at hand. If you've forgotten the topic at hand... 1. The OP took a huge loss in losing his vehicles (otherwise he wouldn't have posted here) because he hoarded them 2. If the OP wasn't hoarding any vehicles then he wouldn't have lost so much 3. Your assumption that I am jealous of the OP is wrong

I was looting a supermarket in Zelenogorsk earlier and there was nothing in there or in the surrounding area. I thought nothing of it and got off for an hour to take care of some other things. However, I log back in to another server and...the same thing. Is there a special trick to looting supermarkets, or am I just having some really bad luck?

Alright I'll get on tomorrow and try out your solution...hopefully there will be some loot in there. If not, then SHiNE's post is correct. Both times there was absolutely nothing in the supermarket.

I suggest that you read my entire post before you start a reply; it should help you figure out how to debate. Also, I suggest that you stop using ad hominems; if you keep using logical fallacies then I'll point them out every time you use one. If you had read my entire post you'd notice that I already responded to this. You must have forgotten the issue at hand: the OP has lost his vehicles. He whined about it. I offered a solution. I never said a damn thing about what was fun or not. I proposed a solution to his problem: don't hoard vehicles so you take less of a loss when something unpredictable happens. I've said this once, twice, three times, and now I've lost count. There's no way I can drill this into your thick skull, is there? I don't know where this came from, but I can assure you that it's irrelevant. And then I mentioned that having less vehicles would make losses easier and that you stating this only reinforces my point that vehicles attract theft, and that less vehicles results in less theft, and that less theft results in less moving, and that less moving results in less accidents. I have the feeling that you're going to ignore this, though. Oh Allah...you're quite a piece of work, aren't you? I highly recommend that you go back and read your initial point that I was jealous, and that you (still) haven't proven it. All you've done is regurgitate arguments that you've used already and claim victory when it's obvious that the claim that your entire argument is centered around is false. The OP complained about losing a bunch of cars. I gave him a solution. You have not shown that my solution does not work. Sorry, but I don't understand how you not proving me wrong is a defeat. My only fault is responding to morons such as yourself. You didn't answer my question. Stop avoiding it: what is harder to hide, four jeeps or ten? I'll answer it for you (in fact, I did this already): four. Four vehicles is easier to hide than ten. If his vehicles were stolen, then it was because they were hidden improperly. This goes back to the point that it's much easier to hide something when you have less of it, and therefore the solution is to not hoard vehicles. My point, once again, is proven by another piece of evidence. It's not looking too good for your argument. Yep, it's confirmed: you've never taken a course in psychology. It's clear that I've proven my point and that you've failed to prove yours. The only reason you posted in the first place is because you're a shit head to thinks arguing when there's nothing to argue about is a good thing. See? I can make up stuff about what you call "psychology" as well. I would like for you to debate the subject at hand. All you've done is insult and belittle me, but you haven't actually responded to my points that the OP's problem could be resolved by simply having less vehicles. Here's my point, in case you missed it: 1. The OP took a huge loss in losing his vehicles (otherwise he wouldn't have posted here) because he hoarded them 2. If the OP wasn't hoarding any vehicles then he wouldn't have lost so much 3. Your assumption that I am jealous of the OP is wrong There is my stance. Here is the evidence to back it up: I told him to not hoard vehicles because it causes more problems that it solves (i.e. you spend days getting parts then the vehicles get stolen, invisible barriers eat your tires, etc.) and all that effort is wasted. My solution was simple: only have as many vehicles as needed. Four vehicles is easier to hide than ten. If his vehicles were stolen, then it was because they were hidden improperly. This goes back to the point that it's much easier to hide something when you have less of it, and therefore the solution is to not hoard vehicles. I proposed a solution to his problem of losing vehicles: don't hoard vehicles so you take less of a loss when something unpredictable happens. And...the last one. The fact that most people complain about vehicles shouldn't concern you, especially when I clearly stated that the problem was having too many vehicles and that the solution was to have less of them. It was not a safe bet to assume that I was jealous because I was subtley saying that lots of vehicles cause lots of problem shouting to the world that more vehicles attract more issues. If you don't refute my points and my evidence then the following is clear: 1. You have no idea how to debate (hint: insults and refusing to acknowledge points isn't how you debate.) 2. You are unable to refute my points and evidence 3. You are wrong 4. I have no further reason to listen to you I suggest that you read my entire post before you reply. If you don't refute my points and evidence then it will be clear to an objective third party that you've been soundly shut down.

It's fine. Sniping takes a degree of skill not found in another games, and the only exception to this rule is the AS50. However, it's rare enough so that most people won't have ready access to it.

I honestly can't tell if this is trolling or not anymore.

As stated earlier, your solution is to a problem that is not present. I have asked that you show where I was jealous- you have not done this. I told him to not hoard vehicles because it causes more problems that it solves (i.e. you spend days getting parts then the vehicles get stolen, invisible barriers eat your tires, etc.) and all that effort is wasted. My solution was simple: only have as many vehicles as needed. I'm honestly not sure why you think reasoning equates to jealousy. Telling me that I'm wrong and me being wrong are two very different (and usually opposite) things. I ask you: what benefit is having a fleet of vehicles if a clever player blows that fleet to pieces? Or, better yet, what is the benefit of having to move all of them and risk them being torn to pieces? What benefit is there in spending days of effort that can be wiped away instantly? Do tell me the benefits; I'd like to hear them. I'm also unsure of why you bring up a history of debating- I've been debating subjects that are not so frivolous as vehicles in an online game for years now and that doesn't help my stance any, and I'm having trouble understanding why you think it would help you any. If you have so much experience in debating, then why would you bring anything up that doesn't matter? Here you are further illustrating my point (that too many vehicles cause too many problems.) Allow me to ask a question with an obvious answer: what is harder to spot, four jeeps or ten? It's simple reasoning: four jeeps will be spotted less often. One probably wouldn't even need four jeeps; although back ups are always nice. Although, I don't really understand why I'm even bothering to respond to this point- you've only helped out my argument that too many vehicles cause too much trouble. And...the last one. The fact that most people complain about vehicles shouldn't concern you, especially when I clearly stated that the problem was having too many vehicles and that the solution was to have less of them. It was not a safe bet to assume that I was jealous because I was subtley saying that lots of vehicles cause lots of problem shouting to the world that more vehicles attract more issues. I don't understand why you're even coming back for more at this point.