The OP's post actually scares me. Not because of anything in game, but because there might be someone like him walking around, steaming under the surface with the inane and unenviable desire for a zombie apocalypse to come along so he can finish off the remnants of mankind himself. To respond to a list with a list... 1. Oh please. Sure, if at any time in real life, a zombie apocalypse just so happened to sweep through whatever homely town/city you happen to live in, I'm sure that supplies would be immediately hard to find, yes. Despite all of that, nature is one of the greatest suppliers of food there is. We don't all rely on canned food to get by in our day-to-day life. Animals/fruit/vegetable/etc are still all extremely viable means to get food. After the supermarkets were hit, I'd imagine that the farms would be next, only...here's the real kicker... farms are re-supplyable. Hell, they grow their own food. Unless the only survivors of the apocalypse were city boys with absolutely no idea what a shovel is, food would still grow, and it would still be edible. If we're talking in game... since when have supplies in DayZ been short? One supermarket, done. 3 cans of food and half a dozen sodas. Not bad for a half-hours work. After you get a water bottle, knife, matches, and hatchet, you can literally just live on cooked meat, and avoid civilization altogether. 2. Time and time again, human history would argue against this. We seem to have a fascination with the idealized 'hero' persona. What is a hero after all? A person that helps others, in its most basic of explanations, at least. The vast majority of people out there, when presented with a wounded individual, would rather give him a bandage than put a bullet in his head. 3. Trust? You're really bringing up trust? Let me guess, your parents were the ones who repeatedly, emphatically stressed that you should 'never talk to strangers', because they were more likely to be child molesters and pedophiles than kindly older grandfathers and grandmothers who are reminded of their grandchildren. Nothing, and I do emphatically emphasize the word nothing brings people together more firmly than a common enemy. I would feel that the looming and impending doom and utter destruction of the human race would be a very, very powerful motivator to help other people, rather than simply being another factor towards our eventual extinction. 4. This...well... honestly, I think I'd be saying number 3 all over again. 5. See 4. 6. See 2. 7.See 5, 4, and 3. 8. You are essentially arguing against your other points here. You spend the better part of your list saying how you would instinctively shoot other individuals on sight, yet now try to tell us that you would team of with other people who shot on sight? Would you not get shot on sight first? Would you not shoot them on sight first? Hypocrisy, thy name is Rogo Ignoscant 9. I hesitate to touch this subject with even a ten foot pole, but may I ask what society you grew up in? Is your libido so massive that you immediately become a sex-fueled beast at the mere sight of a woman? Women are likely to be no more rare than men after the so-called 'apocalypse'. They make up a good 50% of the population now, and they would still most likely make up a good 50% of the population afterwards. I can't help but laugh at the fact that you chose women in this point, when 'oppression' could have been used for so many different factors. Race, gender, religion, etc, can all be used as a base for oppression. Don't center on woman due to your own feelings on the matter. You say that you know it is sexist, and my response to that is this. Why say it then? You could have just as easily said something racist, but you chose not to. Afraid of being labeled a racist? 10. Okay... so you've shot someone... Now what? You have just another dead body on your huge plot of land, and nothing else to show for it. What if you had worked together with him? He could have been an engineer, or a plumber. An electrician, or just someone who really wanted to help other people. You might have slowly dragged yourself out of the slow, lonely death you have now given yourself. We all grow old, my friend, but those who grow old with others are inevitably the better for it. Love heals all wounds. A bullet hole... is just a bullet hole, and another dead body at your feet. tl;dr I disagree.

In list form, my thoughts. 1. Cannibalism. The issue I see with this is that it is a very touchy subject in a lot of areas around the world. Many people would be so repulsed/sickened by the idea that I fear it would eventually be a massive drain on the number of players. Don't get me wrong, I know that a lot of the design decisions so far have been anything but accepted by a large number of community members, but Cannibalism is a little extreme. Even for DayZ. 2. Reanimation. This subject has been touched upon many times on these forums. It's an interesting idea, yes, and could possibly be implemented within the game. Zombies are already attracted to dead player bodies, but there is still an issue inherent within the game's mythos. DayZ markets it's 'zombies' as more 'infected' than 'reanimated dead bodies'. Along this line of thought, the survivors we play as are only likely to become infected if they are attacked by a zombie, and not another survivor. Unless we had 'infected bullets' or some rot like that. 3. Inclement weather. To a small extent, this has been added already, with the implementation of the temperature system, where your temperature will drop at night or in the rain. It is not perfect yet, and Rocket has stated that he still has some changes to make to it, so we still have to bide our time. I agree with the fact that the weather was a major part of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. gameplay, and could, in fact, be a very interesting factor in DayZ as well, but we'll have to see Rocket's ideas, first. 4. Player maintained settlements. With the current spawn system of zombies/items, this doesn't seem like a possibility. At some later point in development, this might be possible, but right now, zombies will spawn around certain buildings in certain numbers, regardless of how many players are nearby. This would take some sort of new mechanic by the server itself that would have to recognize the fact that a large number of survivors are in an area, as well as to realize that zombies should therefore spawn elsewhere. Even with a different spawn implementation, this could lead to some serious lag/desync issues within individual servers.

Whenever asks me what I think of EVE online players... I cannot help but think of the events which transpired with the Guiding Hand Social Club (GHSC) and what they did to the ubiqah seraph corporation... They not only performed such an unimaginable task of griefing, which took more than a year to accomplish, and which fully destroyed $16,500 worth (in real money) of in-game property, but the game fully allowed them to do so. By the rules of the game, they had done absolutely nothing wrong... If you don't know what I'm talking about, I refer you to here It's a pretty good summation, and it gives links to the article in PCGamer

lol you think you do better ? do it Honestly, I think it's being done better the way it is. There are games out there that do the 'reward for x kills' very well, so perhaps you should play those and let DayZ remain DayZ

I have really no negative opinions on the matter besides to say that I really think this thread was a good idea. Sticky to keep the forums clear?

So, I'm a survivor. Pure survivor. I don't shoot on sight, in fact, in most circumstances, I don't shoot at all. Yes, that means if you put a bullet in my head, I'll stand there and take it. Because I can, and because I simply don't play like that. All that aside, I am looking for some other survivors to play with. I would appreciate it if you were more of the cautious, silent type, as opposed to those that prefer running around and losing LOS by circling a house. I don't enjoy making noise, and I especially don't enjoy noise around other players. Gunshots attract other players even more than they attract zombies, and if they decide to run into where you are, your chances of not attracting zombies begin to slide very, very quickly. If you're interested, my IGN is Raven. I don't exactly have a specific server I play on, as some seem to work better than others at given times. -Raven -Currently just south of Vybor. Equipped with ALICE Pack, M104, M1911, Map, Binoculars, Flashlight, Watch, Hatchet, and Hunting Knife. Really, really want a box of matches...

I'd be glad to help as much as I can. If you add me on skype, we can see about arranging somewhere to meet up... I'm currently a bit low on blood, but I'm still alive.

Is not really much of an appeals forum as it stands... Couldn't it just as simply be re-named to the 'Flame against Banned Users' Forum? Mostly, the threads seem to be used to scoff and jeer at the user that has been banned, whether he has presented evidence or not.

So would you prefer it if the ban appeals threads were locked to the banned used and the admin of the server he's banned from? I'm considering making this into a poll...

I'm sorry to post this as the first (or second, but it's the first I can see), but all of these grievances have been brought out and aired in other threads as well.

Um.... I'm not sure why all of these complaints about bans/global bans/the individuals who have received said bans are suddenly here. I only made this thread to have a discussion about the actual purpose of the 'Ban Appeals' thread.

I've personally never had any issue with the sixupdater program, but personally, I use Worrom's DayZ Installer...

Now, this is not a suggestion thread, just something I've noticed... In the last 48 hours, these following threads have ALL been posted in the suggestion forum, having to do with humanity/bandits/the KOS mentality. I'm not stating an opinion here as much as I am worrying about the sheer number of threads about the same topic. Would it be possible to create one giant sticky thread or something for this discussion...? http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18690 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18572 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18534 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=16406 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=17371 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18228 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=11008 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18208 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18353 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18139 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=17832 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18055 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10927 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=17932 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=17104 http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=17485

Either way, I've changed the title of the thread to make it a little easier on the forum readers who don't actually want to read the posts. Also, these are just the threads over the last few days in the suggestions forum... This doesn't include the number of threads in the general discussion and new player discussion forums.

Perhaps I should be a bit more elaborative, or change the title of the thread. Personally, I have no issue whatsoever with bandits. I accept that they're part of the game, and I really couldn't care much less if they shoot me. Usually, they won't get much. I only made this thread to point out the number of duplicate threads that people have made on the subject, in an effort to get them moved into one thread to clear up some of the clutter on the forums.

Easy? No, DayZ has never been easy. Not for me, and not for a lot of other players. Despite that, we continue to press onward, because we are intent on helping the developer make this the best game/mod that he can. I have certainly been lucky so far with 1.7.1.5, but there are also those who have been quite unlucky. Please note that I died several times before I got to where I am in my current life.

Sometimes, it's just the luck of the draw... I had a character that I'd kept alive throughout the 1.7.1, 1.7.1.1, 1.7.1.2, etc etc times. I had a fully stocked M104, a camo suit, M1911, Knife, map, watch, binoculars... I found a crashed chopper and went to check it out. Making my way away from it, I spooked another survivor who popped me twice in the legs, and then shot me in the head at close range. On respawn, I made my way into a town, found a barn, and found a CZ-550 with 10 rounds... Unfortunately, I was mobbed by about 10 zombies as I crept through a house fifteen minutes later. On my second respawn tonight, I found a ghillie suit and an AKM with two mags within ten minutes of spawning... Luck... pure luck.

Gah, I posted this, then completely forgot about it. Skype is karasu_ookami.

This isn't exactly my suggestion. I've seen it referenced before in other places on the forums, but... What if (hypothetically) It was only visibility that gave zombies the 'true' aggro (i.e running, screaming, spasming beings of spaz zig-zags and teleportation attacks). Audibility would still be implemented, but it would act like throwing a tin can, or the other player actions besides walking. Zombies would be curious, and be attracted to it, but they wouldn't instantly aggro until they had LOS. I realize that to implement this at the moment would probably cause performance issues due to the type checking the game currently does for zombie AI, but is this a possibility for the future?

EDIT: But yes, Zombies seem to have auto-lock hearing. They hear footsteps and they either think "It's just another zombie, why should I bother?", or "Survivor! FOOD"

Thanks for the bump~

...That made me laugh. In all seriousness, though, what would it take for this to be implemented? I realize with the way zombies check for noise/visibility right now, this change might come with a drop in performance, but is there a way for this to be changed.

My point. Eloquently put, sir, eloquently put.

Actually, the ratio of males to females ingame seems extremely low at the moment, both because there are a higher percentage of males playing this mod, and because switching to the female skin is bugged, or at least it was until recently. I haven't heard anything about it being fixed fully... Anyway, my point is that if this was implemented, it seems like it wouldn't so much support homosexuality in-game as much as enforce it, at least with the current ratio of males to females playing. Forced Homosexuality isn't really better than nothing at all, so for now... I say leave this suggestion out...