Ken Bean

@op I don't really know the problem is. You commited at least 3 hostile acts (trapping, urging, wounding). Why should he talk to you? To get hostile act number 4 and 5 and 6? Maybe try friendly next time. ;-)

So, I think I'm out of this pseudo discussion. Yeah, you are right, all is fine. All kill each other, no one trust another. shhh shhh

So nice, cool, the virus spared you and your son. Now you are going climping sniperhill and shooting everyone in his face. Wait, what the heck are we talking about? *looks at topic again*

Why don't you want to accept that these needs are there for every human since 3 billion years? Mankind is used to deal with it by grouping, sharing and division of work. What we do today is nothing different. It's just on a way higher level.

Thanks god you are better than the rest.

First of, your family is gone. (hypothetically in that scenario) Second, where do you get that I'm naive? I'm just not that all black painted bastard you want me to be. However, the egg timer ticks for everyone anyway. See, the end-contract already has been signed. All you can do is trying to stay nice. Strangers btw would need to work together. (If not then, when else?)

The question is all for what. I doubt that the few survivor would decimate themselfes all too much. If life becomes rare, you are not gona destroy it without a reason, unless you are somewhat crazy. A scenario would be that they meet in the woods, outside the cities and found smaller communities which give themselfs rules and order and that are able to defend themselfes. Skills are getting very important. Doctors are needed, some kind of law enforcer as well ... and so on.

You will die anyway. Everything has an end, only sausages have two.

You are clear that not everyone would kill for beans? You are clear that even the the hardcorest of the hardcorest serial bean killer sooner or later questiones himself what he did and - more important - why? Some actually act because of reasoning. And not everyone nails his "my ass is golden" over everything he comes across. Some just say, lets call it a life. World turned to sh*t anyway. I wouldn't try everything under every circumstances and I think many people would react depressed in the very first place, given what has gone lost. Important to understand is, that what you said, how an apocalypse would look like, only happens in your imagination. Please don't call those things in your imagination the standard procedure for such circumstances. Can we agree with that?

So you are saying, in a zombie apocalypse, where many people turned into zombies, thirsty for your blood, not being able to talk to them, unstoppable hunters of your own ass, you discover, in this situation, your neighbour - which is no zombie - as being an - if not the - enemy. Now after you decided, that the zombies are not a threat but your neighbour, you initiate a personel war against him, because of ... ? But not only that. You decide, just shooting everyone into the face is not adequat enough. Nope, you are initiating your little terror nightmare regime on top of that apocalypse. You gain ressources and what not only in order to capture and spread terror in the minds of not infected people. Because somehow, you thought "that's the pressing thing right now" and you are such a supersoldier, that no zombie or someone else could stopp you. You need no help, no social contacts. A group is just something which holds you up. Yeah, sure, everyone turns into that. :rolleyes:

Dude, hunting people, being an ass is luxory. You only have enough time for it in an "easy going apacalypse". A long grown culture of violence is just this, a violent culture. Not apocalypse. Rape and murder are there today. These things surely will rise, but not be standard. I never said that all would be fine, I think I clearly said that some will definitely lose the plot. But that's clearly not the majority. People are different, ya know? But thats not the point. Some just don't want to see that they play a straight Battlefield player versus player first person shooter in an zombie apocalypse. This would not be to expect. Period

War has a clear concept. The concept is to use brute weapon force to defeat the enemy. You seem to confuse this. Just being ultimate deadly and cruelty is not what makes you survive, this is a often used strategie in war to defeat the enemy (demotivation). It however is not standard in human interaction.

But some things just not gona work. That's the point. If everything would work then every survival strategy would succeed and everyone survives. That guy that in such situation just doesn't care his own ass, went up the hill and snipers away stranger people which didn't mean any harm to him may happen, but this just is not a concept that is gona work. It's just some crazy nonsense one may have seen in a movie or whatever. Then some come and say: "That's the shit, that's how you do apocalypse." And the game went downstairs.

See a situation which happens apocalyptic, meaning out of the blue, abrupt and with overall chaos is nothing a human mind can handle so easy especially when it means that everything what has been your life before has gone away and will never return. It's a massive struggle. Finding other people to group is the very first instinct and the first step to "go back to normal".

What I tried to say is that in such a situation, they either die almost immediatly, get away and find a group or ... it really wasnt that bad.

Kathrina was no system collaps. This just was 1) "Whoa, dangerous, I need to get away. - and maybe need that Waterbottle - such a pity, the vendor already run away, lets take it" -> I don't really see this as anarchy. Just a reasonable decission. 2) "Whoa, chaos! Great chance to get this TV. I sure need that later in my lifing room. If I'm quick, I may get away." -> Also not really is anarchy, just thiefs logic. 3) "Omg, omg, omg... Don't what to die. End of ages, we all gona die...! -> Not anarchy, just panicing. Sure I forgott something. But that's not really anarchy. Most will realize that if a situation is going bad, really bad, they are just going to save themselfes first. Yep, they totally forget that TV, just running away. Maybe stumbling about someone, not really caring, just getting away. Some help and risk their own lifes in order to help complete stranger, do what they can, but the rest just... Untill they calmed down. Then they are starting to think and talk about it. Did you see.... and so on. Now they have something to talk about, they are almost friends. :-D

Yeah, sure thing, some are old and stuff. But frankly, we had this kind of anarchy situation most of the time in human evolution. Organisations like countries just exist maybe since around 10.ooo bc. There will be some immediate craziness, that will go away by time. Just a fallout of a just broken civilisation. The chance for every average Joe to become king. There are a few who play last man standing, they are taken out sooner or later, they'll not succeed. Humanan life just regroups, founds social groups or fails. That's how it works since its beginning.

This probably means that 75% of the player you meet ingame kill you right away - and the remaining 25% later. ;-D But does folks really think that this is how a zombie apocalypse works? I mean aside from Kathrina? (where obviously everyone shot his neighbour and his dog in the face to not to ruin his fancy pants)

Most of us have experiences with the mod and with kos. And I doubt that this game has anything to do with reality. However I don't know why some folks - if you dare to criticize PvP interactions - always understands "ban pvp". It is an appreciated aspect of the game. But you clearly can see that it got so oppressive, that effectively players just avoid each other - or join the death match club around Berenzino to play some capture the flag without even having a flag, currently. Now some may criticize that oppressive playstile, and others just defend it as it would be critically endangered. The game needs more survival aspects. "Go camping in the woods" is a nice task and we'll see this ingame hopefully quite soon as well.

I think that most DayZ freshies once had the faith (maybe even you) and didn't expect a total pvp deathmatch. As said, we have a constant row of bad pvp experiences that constantly outweights the positve. That's why most people who are fresh to the game and don't know nothing at first actually try to team up. Just try to understand this. If you were in such a situation in real life, you most likely would be glad to find another survivor in the very first place. Grabbing a gun, heading to town to take out other survivor basically is just insane - even in a zombie apocalypse. Yes, it's a game, and therefore you don't need to justify your actions. But tell me, what are you doing in a zombie survival game if you don't really play it as such? Wouldn't you be better catered with Arma 3? Better engine, more weapons, folks meet there to fight each other... You would at least not ruin a zombie survivor's game.

Sorry, to whom you are talking to? I don't really see the connection. The game however as it is now has flawes. Maybe encourages a certain playstile too much. Eventually a survial mechanic would suit a survival game well. At least, also in LA Riots and Katarina, not forget the other rest of the world, like Fukushima or India, most people still managed to stay normal. Some lost the plot, but not even 10%. And they certainly had not your fabolous k/d ratio, nor did they respawn, nor do they still "rock the place".

What are you talking about? Where the heck you got that from? I dislike how the game - which is ought to be a survival game - does provide too much space so that FPS folks can run around as survival wouldn'd be any serious problem. And besides of that, I personally do dislike people who behave like baboons. Is nothing personal. I just know there are times when it is unappropiated to discuss things with a baboon. Good news, atm we still are talking.

What are you trying to say? Do you want to troll me with stupidity?

Now we almost reached the entry point of the discussion. ;) Maybe a true survival game is impossible to be made. "Wait, oh shit I died (**shortly enrages**), lets try again. That's a sandbox, life does not provide. But please, we don't need to go into detail. My point was, please don't give those young adults all the excuses for being rude and whatnot because you believe, this is how things are ought to be. We have the choice, no one is forced to be a dipshit. Nature is cruel, but has no such intentions.

Yet we can go on on with the discussion that the impetus of the FPS crowd, which hangs around the Airfields or bigger "hotspots", is anything but self-preservation.