catgut

I've seen plenty of literature showing that lower temperature increases inter-person transmission rates of airborne diseases like influenza, but not that lowered external temperature has an adverse effect on the human immune system directly. I'm not calling it BS, but would you mind finding a journal or academic source to back that up?

How?! Bullets often overpenetrate, especially high-power military FMJ ammo. Players are already carrying a lot of things that don't stand up well to being shot.

I like this idea. It makes sense, isn't grossly unrealistic by any means, and doesn't directly punish banditry but does discourage shooting random people for their beans. The one problem I see is that it might not be possible to use locational damage to determine whether or not the backpack is in the line of fire, but it would still be usable. It would also make highway robbery much more practical...

I tried to make this distinction- there's a difference between things that are realistic but not in the game' date=' and things that are in the game but not realistic. Since there isn't any real-world link between outside temperature and infection, it's a mechanic that's fundamentally unrealistic. So why does it exist? Is it solely to make the game more difficult for an invented reason? The daytime temperature is 42C, and the nighttime temperature is 35C. If that's meant to be your body temperature, you are a dead man walking already. 42C is just under 108F, that's more than lethal, and 35C is 95F, right on the other end of the spectrum. The temperatures are already very weird, but since fluctuations of 10 degrees C are not instantly lethal I can't see how they can be body temperature and not external temperature. Either way, if it's so hot during the day that either internal or external temp is over 40, unless you're in the desert it won't get terribly cold at night. Just because it's an ex-Soviet nation doesn't mean it's hideously cold at night.

I like all three ideas. The morale bonus in particular strikes me as a practical but subtle benefit, and it's realistic and logical to boot. Being able to give a wave, combined with holstering or slinging weapons, would make non-violent initial contact a lot easier as well.

The main obstacle to large-group behavior that I see is food scarcity. You'd be hard-pressed to keep ten to fifteen people alive in an airfield unless most of them are constantly out foraging. Even three or four can be difficult to keep supplied and fed while on the move.

The crossbow could simply be changed to use quivers as magazines, and have reloading be changing the quiver you're drawing ammo from. That might not permit retrieving the bolts, but it's a start.

In real life it's a lot easier to maneuver indoors, even with a long rifle, than is portrayed in the game. The game seems to assume everybody keeps their weapon locked to the shoulder all the time, and if there isn't enough clearance they'll just stop moving instead of raising or lowering the weapon to get by. Stairwells are not difficult to sweep by any means, yet the game engine makes them tricky at best. I think the OP has a very valid point.

It tells you where you are when you spawn, and every town has a sign, plus there are road signs all over the place. Pull up a map of Chernarus in another window and it's a piece of cake.

Personally I'd love to see more zombies, and more dangerous zombies, and especially have them go faster than they currently do indoors- but I'd also very much like to see them move directly towards the player, instead of the weird tangential spasms they currently perform. I'd rather die to fifty zombies coming straight at me faster than I can line up and shoot them down, than to five zombies that imitate MC Hammer at 20mph and are impossible to hit.

Wasn't me personally, but last night a friend I was playing with tried to go from crouched to prone on the edge of a roof. His character enthusiastically did the usual lunging-forward prone animation, hurling himself off the building and resulting in a prompt death.

What alternative do you suggest? Because since the update I've yet to run into anyone who didn't shoot first. Right now there is very little to be gained by cooperation, a lot to be gained by killing and looting, and a lot to be lost by getting shot first instead. Trusting people you don't know is taking a huge risk for minimal reward. The problem isn't solely player attitude, it's game mechanics that directly reward deathmatch behavior to an unrealistic degree and make cooperation pointless. The only way deathmatching will stop is if the game mechanics provide a reason to think having another person along is just as valuable as killing them and taking their stuff.

So being a mass-murderer is a legitimate playstyle that shouldn't be punished and is rabidly defended, but being a torturer is horrifically sickening and has no place in the game. That's an interesting, and completely arbitrary dichotomy there.

Players already have no qualms about killing other players. Giving them the option to get less loot and leave a living and probably annoyed victim isn't much of an incentive.

In real-life disasters' date=' most people don't kill other people on sight from hundreds of meters away. People aren't always armed, either, and not everyone is carrying useful supplies, which means if you were to shoot some random person you might not even get anything out of it. Neither modern Somalia nor the Wild West circa 1880 were no-holds-barred deathmatches where people shot each other left and right to loot their corpses. The unrealistic aspects of the game already strongly benefit shooting anyone you see. I would say the same to people who feel that shooting everything that moves is the way to go.

I'd like to see more dangerous zombies, but only if they weren't at literally every town. Right now in order to get supplies you have no choice but to deal with zombies, and having a single alerted zombie mean 10-20 rampaging death machines chasing you down every single time you look for supplies would get old pretty quickly. Having the choice to keep on going to possibly find a more deserted town would be much more interesting.

I am all in favor of bringing bandit skins back. If you want to treat the game like Call of Duty and shoot anything that moves, you should expect people to recognize this and treat you the same way in return. No, it's not 100% realistic, but going Rambo because you have mediocre gear and can always respawn isn't realistic either, nor is people aiming guns at each other all the time because they are physically incapable of putting them away so they can talk. Since the skins were removed, the only people I've ever been able to work with and not be shot on sight by have been personal friends. The survivor mentality is downright unplayable to a ridiculously unrealistic degree.