Budiak

The military officer's most valuable skill would be the ability to write his own awards.

To properly add this mechanic I think you'd need to add several things. 1: Several new types of ammo for each weapon system 2: Weapon cleaning 3: Weapon cleaning kit-item, unlimited use 4: Oil- item, multiple use consumable 5: Weapon cooldown meter. Not that your weapon will overheat, but it represents the point at which your weapon is not effected by carbon buildup- while your weapon is still warm, it will fire reliably. Once it cools down, jamming will begin to occur. I wouldn't be against having a weapons cleaning kit, where you'd find a cozy spot and spend 15 seconds with the magic hands animation maintaining your weapon. I think also you could maintain a magazine with the kit, and you would effectively improve the quality of a magazine by spending time cleaning it and the rounds. The weapons cleaning kit would be multiple use, just like matches. If you don't have a kit or never take the time to clean your equipment, you suffer jams, just like in real life. Weapons would very slowly degrade over a period of time if not fired, like in real life. Weapons would degrade at a much more rapid pace when fired. Not necessarily a per-bullet rate. The thing about a dirty weapon is that during a firefight your weapon is not going to necessarily start jamming. The carbon mixes with the oil and acts as a lubricant while the weapon is still hot. It's after the firefight, when the whole system cools down that you get solidified carbon and solid deposits. That's when jamming happens. Usually you can get away with squirting some oil on the bolt to get by but if it doesn't get cleaned it will eventually jam constantly. Here's how it all comes together: So what I say, is that your weapon would get dirty, but you could clean it. You couold fire a gun once or twice at a time without making it notably unreliable. Once you start laying down fire, say, a few magazines worth over a few minutes time, it starts heating up. Once the gun cools back down, it needs to be cleaned. This represents carbon buildup followed by carbon solidification. Then it would need to be cleaned. In lieu of cleaning, oil could be applied before a firefight. This is a temporary fix with what I propose to be a multiple use consumable item. Once you run out of oil, you'd best look for a cleaning kit and a safe spot. I do not believe that every weapon should jam because well kept weapons jam far less than those that are never maintained. Characters who maintain their weapons will experienced a drastically reduced malfunction or stoppage rate. But like, oh, 99% of the suggestions in the suggestion forum, I'd rather this mechanic not be introduced at all. If it is, it should be done properly, meaning in order to stimulate genuine emotional reactions in the player instead of arbitrarily making the game difficult.

Backpacks are a sizeable target when compared to center mass of a torso. In fact, the Coyote and Czech packs are about the same size. Spraying Ak rounds at someone's profile would definitely result in damaged goods. Either way, well aimed shots would always be desired over hipfire or undelicate hosing. Durability could work. But shooting a grenade will ball ammo (the only currently available ammo type) won't make it blow up. And from personal experience, thank God almighty it doesn't make them blow up. Also, the idea of stuff turning into other stuff is a nice touch. Damaged beans becoming tin cans, weapons turning into scrap metal, etc. Stuff that a resourceful survivor may actually use.

OP is experiencing what is the number one obstacle to playing alone. This threat is the tradeoff for the security and freedom of movement that being a lone wolf offers. I go to great measures to only go into zombie infested areas with full health. I remember one hairy instance where I was in a church eating some beans, and startled a zombie when I walked outside because I let my guard down. I used all my bandages getting the hell out of that town and ended up at about 4k blood. If I had played with a group it would have been much different- but I would have had to share the beans. I'm not quite ready to share the beans. I really understand your frustration, I really do. But this is the nature of playing solo. Hell, once I had an M4A1 CCO SD, GPS, grenades, the whole nine yards. I was sneaking up on a town and was too focused on the zombies down the street. I ended up in the crossfire when a full blown streetfight between two groups erupted...I didn't make it. If i'd had a buddy pulling overwatch it wouldn't have gone down that way. Not zombies, no, but it ended with the same screen.

He agrees. What I like most about this is that it provides players with mankind's most valuable commodity: options.

True, but that's what the suggestion forum is all about, right? You never know. I enjoy the vetting process. Oh, Purgatory, so you say that if you are performing aid on a buddy that a scroll-wheel on the body would reveal the next medical action required? That's good.

Fair enough, Psycho. I'm saying that shooting the body should not result in the same outcome as shooting the pack itself. I didn't propose watering it down, merely making it more conducive to gameplay by simplifying it. It would have distinct consequences, but not every shot to the body would necessarily travel straight through into the pack. Maybe large calibur fired straight on. But smaller caliburs like 5.56 tend to change paths wildly upon entering the body, and they lose significant amounts of energy when they do so. Even AK rounds do that to an extent. Pistol rounds wouldn't go all the way through. That's why I suggested what I did. It's a streamlined version of what you suggested that retains both playability and the spirit of your idea.

I wear my blood type around my neck. Thankfully nobody's ever needed to look at it. I understand the severity of the situation you're describing now. Hm. You know, it could work, actually. The ability to, in effect, bring someone back from the dead, would in fact require all of that stuff. I was speaking about the situation where you get shot or hit by a zombie and go down but get up on your own. Now I don't think it's all that crazy. Another inherent risk to playing solo as I do, or even in an unorganized group, that is not an artificial burden, rather a very real one. It would be just as difficult to travel with that much equipment. Players could even specialize in being a medic. If a player's pack was filled with that medical equipment and he was murdered, whoever loots him would have a serious decision to make: keep the extra weapon, ammo, food, and tent in his pack or ditch it for the suite of medical supplies. It would be the price to pay for preparedness. If the equipment isn't available, you would have to choose to die and respawn. I kind of like this now. Would you suggest a menu system that would only allow certain treatments based on the injury sustained, or would the player need to know beforehand?

As an Infantry Sergeant, I understand exactly what he is saying. This is exactly why I like the game- authentic emotional responses. It already has that in spades and anything that damages that sentiment should be tossed. Invoking these responses is the goal and purpose of a simulator, regardless of the actual realism of the game. Another post recently proposed a lengthy process for applying field aid to a fallen player. What most efficiently creates the response of urgency and fear: having to remember the lengthy process and posess a number of special yet realistic equipment, or merely having to patch up your comrade in a hurry with the threat of his death? Gotta use Occam's razor on that one.

Thank you. My whole proposal was that the human is a creature of habit, and most of all, is an adaptive organism. Play a certain way and that is what you will be. It would not impose anything on the player, rather, the game is responding to the player's personality. It could also work if it, as well as the rest of the suggestions, were not implemented at all.

All I know is that one day we took a few 12.7mm rounds to the MREs and .50 SLAP ammo that was on our Stryker. Protip: don't eat those MREs, and certainly don't load those rounds. I actually think that if the equipment damage were restricted to shots that hit the backpack specifically that this could work. Shots to the body would not effect the contents, regardless of calibur (not realistic, I know- another game-ism for the sake of maintaining playability). I am dead-set against any suggestion that "forces" players to do anything because of a manner of play that is perceived to be superior than another; close quarters as opposed to sniping, robbing as opposed to straight up murder, teamwork as opposed to going it alone.

I'm sorry, I found that quite difficult to understand. Are you saying that this mechanic would make lone wolves unable to manipulate the situation to their advantage? Everybody does that. Lone wolves, full squads, and two-man teams alike. That is what all playstyles have in common. It doesn't change the fact that this mechanic would specifically punish one of those styles.

This is about as feasible as the average person fixing and flying a helicopter. Oh, wait... My main contention with this idea is that it verges on a medical simulator. It adds so many minutiae to a process that at its core could be very simple. Such as: You get shot, are unconscious, with broken bones. Blood is down from 12k to something like 4k. Step one is, of course, control bleeding. Your buddy bandages you. Still bleeding. Your buddy applies another bandage. Bleeding stops. Buddy administers Morphine. Buddy administers epi-pen. You stabilize and awake. You stand up and immediately ask for a blood pouch. Buddy shoots you and takes your coyote pack for using up all of his supplies and not thanking him. In all seriousness, I think that grievous injuries should require additional medical attention but I don't think that such a protracted series of actions with 15 slots of specialized equipment is necessary to effect your proposition. I understand that your scenario was for a particularly dire situation, but for the sake of the game, it would be more viable if simplified.

I know he mentioned the medication, but there are plenty of things that require you go into hotspots. There are also plenty of ways to avoid hotspots in order to sustain yourself, such as deerstands, hunting, and ponds. Requiring certain players to go to a hospital or military installation to get medicine to treat an artificially imposed affliction is a truly unfair mechanic forced upon those who choose a certain method of survival. Lone wolves are lone wolves because they want to be.

I find your readiness to accept constructive criticism quite refreshing.

Why is it so acceptable to attack the lone wolf class and not the bandit/survivor class? If I am not mistaken, Rocket wants no discrimination of any play style. This is a deliberate attempt to place unfair burden on a valid style of play. I'm a lone wolf player and this is another game breaking mechanic in my opinion. I've never teamed up with anybody and I've done just fine so far. Introducing this would force me to do something I really don't like doing, and would change the game into an awkward dinner party where I don't know anybody and it's quite possible that one of them will murder me. If a system like this had to be introduced, let me propose this. Every single person starts out with a stress meter at, say, medium. You stepped onto shore scared and alone. As you do certain things, like shoot zombies or survivors, it goes up. The more you do that thing, it goes down. If you are alone, it goes up. After a while of being alone, it goes down. Then the more you shoot zombies and even other humans, it stays down. Here's the tricky part. If you are accustomed to being a lone wolf, and you are in close proximity to other living people, your anxiety meter skyrockets. It would make your playstyle have consequences, making it a serious decision to accept a blood transfusion from a stranger, make a trade, or team up on the fly to loot. Yes, this could even effect your ability to even be in the same room as somebody, even if you intend to kill them. Merely being around other people makes you nervous. On the other hand, if your character is part of a group, killing zombies or other persons outside of the group would cause the meter to go down. Introducing new players to the group would cause it to rise slightly, then lower once again to simulate a level of trust and comfortability with that person. However, if you are separated from the group, your anxiety level would rise steadily the longer you are alone. If your buddy is killed and you find yourself alone, it skyrockets. A lone wolf meeting somebody and a survivor losing somebody and becoming alone are both traumatizing events. You could, however, successfully make a transition to either style- over a long period of time. If you avoid contact with zombies, shooting one would make it go up. Being around them would make it go up. If you constantly walk through town avoiding zombies, it would stay steady. If you never sneak, then trying it would make the anxiety level rise. I think that this a much more viable and most importantly, flexible way of implementing an anxiety meter, which would not serve to punish any playstyle, but actually distinguish playstyles.

First off, I'm pretty sure I know what your point is, but stating that the game is a simuator inside a simulator is not an argument. It needs to be defended. It is merely the state of things. If you have an opinion, air it. That is what the forum is for. That is what communication is all about. If you are attacked, defend yourself. That's part of the debate process. Remember that you did already state a starkly negative view of those who disagree with you, while attempting to appear aggreable. Faux pas. You discounted your opposition before making your own statement. Second, you deride those who post their ideas for improving the game while avoiding giving your own ideas, because you feel they will be attacked. If they are attacked, so what? You might have some ideas that get implemented. That's why this particular forum is so active. Good ideas are noticed. Also, you should avoid telling people how to respond to your post. It comes across as elitest and pompous. Third, I agree that it is a simulator. I do not agree that it needs to be 100% realistic because the more realistic it is, the more it becomes work and not a game. This is explained perfectly in Kolchak's post, two before my own. The purpose of the game, irrespective of Rocket's dystopic vision of a vicious play experience, is and always will be to entertain those who participate. When the game ceases to be entertaining people will stop playing. It's as simple as that, and Rocket knows that. That's why simulators created for entertainment purposes always feature bits and pieces of distinct unreality. The problem here is that, given what my argument was, your post would suggest that I'm most likely a kill-for-fun bandit who has no respect for the game. Do you think I appreciate that presumption? Finally, I appreciate your venture with the video series, and I DO think that the game could still be viable if everybody were to start as you did. In fact, I think I may do this on my next life.

Eh. I've seen plenty of flash and I'm still around. A lot of times you're just shooting at muzzle flash. The only thing I find funny about games is that you can pick up any POS gun and shoot it like a pro without zeroing it. We're all like snowflakes in this regard. Our positions and postures and head sizes and fingers are all different, so people tend to have different zero settings. You can generally rely on Kentucky windage, but only after a few rounds to get a feel for it. Regardless, the weapons are just fine the way they are. Having fatigue-shake, breathing, time in travel and bullet drop is just about as much realism as I care to have in a video game. Not making a shot that I've steadied for and calculated and compensated for because the weapon has a random pattern like a machine gun's beaten zone would infuriate me.

I think that a good weapon would be a freshly baked cupcake. You could offer the cupcake to someone, and he would be temporarily disarmed. While he enjoys an oven-warm red velvet cupcake generously frosted with gooey buttercream you could stick your .44 magnum between his shoulderblades and blow his lungs into his lap for the cold can of beans he has in his fannypack. Brilliant suggestion, as well, OP.

Those AK and AKM mags are excellent. The color is just about perfect.

I'll poop on you with my DMR! The only survivor here is me, man.. (unintelligible) Thanks man, now you understand Killed you in cold blood just to get your beans, man! You need to work on vocal confidence. It doesn't sound like you believe in your own raps. I think that it made certain parts hard to understand. Ever heard the Fat Boys? They were pretty big back in the day and they were worse than you! But they had confidence. And a huge supply of Hostess cakes.

I would never play again if it were a per life fee. Every time some jackass shoots me on the beach, he's taking money out of my pocket. Also every time I cross paths with someone in a dark forest and we shoot at each other out of surprise and fear, if I kill him, I just imposed a very real financial burden on him? I don't think so. The game is frustrating enough already without having real-world effects on others in the game. Everyone who wants to play buys in at a set price. The whole idea of per-life payment can pound sand, on mere principle alone.

I know you're an artist, Rocket, but I really think you need to charge what your game is worth. The market is a fickle beast, and I would not place my livelihood in its hands, especially with the potential this project has. There is nothing ignoble about making a living and supporting your product with a fair price. Me? I once paid 300 dollars a month for a parking space. Is that any clue as to how much I'd pay for a game that doesn't require me to move my car?

If you could blast a zombie from afar and send him into a rage without injuring him, wouldn't that have some distinct tactical uses? I think nonlethal is a pretty decent idea. The sap or knockout melee weapon makes me wonder, however. If zombies are living human beings, even though they seem to be impervious to pain, would they also be impervious to unconsciousness through traditional means? Wouldn't a stiff blow to the back of the head or temple still knock out a zombie? He'd just wake up hungry like he always does. I suppose that this would also make them vulnerable to the triangle choke hold and the dreaded Million Dollar Dream, as well.

You can just toss a camo net over a vehicle when you park it. You'd have to remove and pack it before you drove off, though. I think it's a pretty good idea, even if it's just for automobiles. You'd have to find one, of course. Camo netting would be available in this type of scenario as well, since it can be used to make civilian hunting blinds as well as the obvious military applications, but it would probably be best left as a rare spawn on the military table.