Whyherro123

Not unrealistic. While I wouldn't build a wattle-and-daub hut like the guy in the above video did (that took him 9 months , with 1 month of actual labor), I would build something like a lean-to or A-frame I could build something like that in a couple of hours, even alone. It would be as warm as a house, with plenty of space, and much more difficult to find. Remember, if they can get there, it will be found. Every "house" in the game-world has a road to it, even a dirt one, and all it takes is for one guy to wonder "where does that road go"? to stumble across your base. Meanwhile, that A-frame doesn't need a road. It doesn't even need a clearing in the woods. I can build it right next to a tree, and, by using natural materials, it is going to blend in a LOT better than a tent, and it is much smaller than a house. I can effectively hide away in some little corner somewhere, while you effectively have a big honkin' highway running right up to your base. If you haven't yet guessed, I prefer "stealth" to "fortifications". I think part of the problem is that your character doesn't stay in-game when you log out. Bases are only places to store equipment. In other games, where your body stays in-game when you leave (ARK and Reign of Kings, especially), you become MUCH more aware of that vulnerability, and take measures to protect yourself. No matter how awesome your base is, how well fortified, if it can be seen, it will be raided. Meanwhile, my clan has a small shack off in a mountain valley, never been raided. While I definitely have issues with staying in-game when I am not playing ( IRL, I would totally wake up if someone was raiding my base), I think it actually adds a great deal of ..... verisimilitude to the game. Plus, being able to construct "primitive" shelters and the like would allow players to store gear (when persistence actually works -__-) without having to rely on a (frankly, quite stupid and unrealistic) tent spawn. (IRL, I wouldn't store anything in a tent I wanted to keep, nor leave a tent set up for longer than a couple of days). Should they take a lot of work, time, and "raw natural materials" (logs, sticks, leaves, etc) to make? Of course. It takes a while to make a debris hut in real life. But, they should be construct-able. The only thing tents should offer over more "primitive" shelters is portability. If you think someone has found your base, you can load up all the gear and strap the tent to your backpack ( why we can't do this, and have to carry the damn things in our hands, I will never understand. I can strap a RL tent the size of the in-game tent to my pack with no issues) and be "out of dodge" in a few minutes. You ... can't really pack up an A-frame. http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/225446-primitive-shelters/

Not ...... much, in my opinion. The Standalone really needs to be its own game, to "stand on its own feet", as it were. And I really don't want much more from a military simulator anyways.

A good multi-tool is the base of my "belt survival kit". On it, I have a sheath knife (Mora Heavy Duty Companion), a whistle, a firesteel, a flashlight, and an emergency blanket. Plus, 100+ feet of cord.

Good. If they can't handle actual difficulty, then they need to leave. Right now, the game is "hard" (AHAHAHAHAHA) for about 15 minutes. If bullets actually, you know, killed people, or at least incapacitated the target in a realistic amount of bullets, as well as injuries requiring actual medical knowledge (suturing, tourniquets, what/when/where to inject medications, treating blood loss, etc), instead of the current "tank 5 bullets to the chest, bandage up, take a saline and eat some peaches" thing we have going on, people would actually play it carefully in combat. Right now, with saline (which is everywhere) and enough food and water, you can go from "nearly dead" to "100% ready to go" in about 30 minutes. In "my perfect Dayz" making sure the person wouldn't die would take 30 minutes of work, on top of an extended healing time. Healing from injuries SHOULD SUCK. It should be MORE than inconvenient. All to prompt the player to avoid getting injured as much as possible. With that in mind, they would change the way they approach combat.

Or .... keep the amount of guns, but decrease the amount of ammunition. After all, there are no more bullets being produced, so the "stock" of bullets will rapidly decrease. This would lead to more "bluffing with an empty magazine", hold-ups, or melee-with-firearms (bayonets and butt-strikes), etc.

Or over-foraging. In my perfect Day Z, plants (as well as apple trees and berry bushes) would not have the stupid , Random success/failure mechanic it has now. Instead, each plant would have a finite "inventory" of foragables (cattail rhizomes, stalks, and pollen-heads, berries, apples, etc). Once those are gone, they are gone until a certain amount of time has passed, preferably equal to the amount of time it takes crops to grow (which also needs to be extended, HEAVILY. Like, a week of real-time for crops to grow would be nice). That way, you actually have to be like an actual hunter-gatherer, and have to move on to a new area when you pick an area clean of edible plants. Or, kill all the animals in an area.

If anything, the medical system needs to be changed, and made more complex. Get slashed with a knife? Sew that sucker up, some rags aren't going to help! Get stabbed with a bayonet? Enjoy internal bleeding and organ destruction/failure. Get a scrape from a zed , or climbing over a fence? Not too bad, bandage it up with some Triple-A cream and keep it clean Get shot? Nothing can save you from a 6"+ permanent wound cavity, with the accompanying immediate blood loss, shock, and organ failure. Yes, that sounds extreme, but what does that mean for the gameplay? 1) Play would become much "slower", more deliberate, with less running around and YOLO-ing. 2) Would promote group play, in a sense. Very few people would be able to suture their own wounds closed, much less fish around inside their body to pick out shrapnel and assorted "bits". 3) Related to the above, add "value" to a character. If someone knows how to do minor surgery, you are gonna want to keep him alive, just like you would in real life. Or, if you know you could get seriously injured, you would be more careful, or even fall back from a confrontation if necessary. 4) Finally, it would change combat to more accurately resemble real-world combat, as in, how most warfare in human history was fought: Guerrilla-style. You strike from the flanks, from surprise, at night, when the enemy isn't able to hit you back. The risk of injury is too high otherwise. As opposed to stumbling across each other in the street and blazing rounds at each other.

It is explicitly a "replica", meaning "roughly sword-shaped object sold to stupid tourists and LARP-ers". You aren't finding an actual Oakeshott Type XII in a castle ruin. This also means it will be very poorly balanced for use as a weapon (if balanced at all), made of mild steel (if made of steel at all), with no actual edge geometry. So, if you hit someone with it, you could reasonably expect to break bones, but it isn't actually going to slice people open. PS: for all the "sword > ax" people out there, the reason all of out fantasy protagonists have used swords has been due to a culture-wide "hard-on" for swords, and therefore, a bias against other weapons. In reality, the sword (up until the 16-1700s, when steel became cheaper and thusly, more widely available), swords were mostly used by the nobility first, and the wealthy second. In most European kingdoms, it was illegal for anyone not of the nobility to own a 'cruciform" sword (AKA knights sword, AKA the in-game sword). Most lower-class combatants carried a falchion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion), or an axe or mace. The last two were much cheaper than the first one, and therefore, much more available. And even amongst the owners of swords, they were really a symbol or rank and used as a sidearm. The majority of fighting took place with spears/related weapons (halberds, voulges, billhooks, lances, etc), axes, maces/warclubs, ranged weapons, etc. Think of the sword as the modern pistol, and the spear as the modern rifle, and you get the idea.

This game won't be a "survival game" until the environment is an much of an enemy as the other players, you actually have to work to keep yourself fed and hydrated, and players actually have a reason to band together, as opposed to clusterfucking in Elektro with brooms and dresses.

1) Why would getting wet "damage" the towel? 2) Where are you getting the electricity to power this hair dryer? 3) Why would you dispose of a rag you use to dry yourself with? It's just wet: nothing wrong with it. You can stay dry by ..... not going into water? Seriously.

No. Just cosmetic.

Weird. I was using the MP-133 just yesterday, in a little tussle in Elektro. Got two scalps before eating it, both from respectable (probably 20+ meters, both "up-hill"). I saw blood spurt from all parts of their body (assuming from the pellets striking different areas), and each kill = one shell.

In a "survival situation", you don't climb trees. You just don't. The potential for falling and hurting yourself is just too high, for too little gain.

I would like to debate your point that "shotguns are quite inaccurate". Now, it depends on shot load and choke, but you can easily hit a softball-sized target 30-40 meters away with plenty of buckshot. Compare these shots. That 40-yard shot would be deadly, quite easily. Buckshot "deals damage" rather like a pistol round (12g #00 is 9 balls of 8.38mm, essentially a 9mm round), the only thing is, there is a lot more of them. Take 9 (or even 5-6 9mm rounds to the chest all at once, and you will be hurting pretty bad at the very least

You do realize he is a forum mod,right? In fact, the forum administrator? You ..... aren't going to win. You just aren't.

What do you think duct tape is going to do to a cracked ceramic plate? Duct tape will also not "repair" the fabric of the vest itself, where the "bulletproof" properties of which are due to the incredibly-close weave of the fabric. As soon as that weave is disrupted, no duct tape nor sewing will fix it.

That is ..... actually rather creepy looking

Whoops. 33,000 feet. Been a while since I read the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87 Still impressive.

Land parallel to the ground, and you will rupture something inside. Good as dead.

You do realize that a 10 foot fall is easily lethal in real life, right? And this is with modern medical treatment. Hell, you can die via cracking your head on the ground tripping on a roadside curb. Humans are weird in the sense that we are both very tough (woman survived 100,000 foot fall from an airplane) and very fragile (punch a guy too hard in the head, and he dies) at the same time.

You do realize that your body stays in-game for 30 seconds, right? Enjoy logging back in to a fresh-spawn. It's just food, man. You can get that anywhere. Now the whole forum knows you as a combat-logging scrub.

Sorry, how much survival experience do you have, again? All of the survival guides I have in front of me state that: yes, while the chance remains for you to get infected via a parasite or some microorganism if you eat raw meat, you can eat meat raw if you be careful, stick to lean meat, cut it thin, and eat only freshly-killed animals. Risk vs reward and all that. And, yeah, no shit, animals can have parasites. But those parasites aren't going to make you vomit up the meat. Can you eat meat raw? Yes. Should you? Probably not. Never said you should, just said it was possible. Not the "guaranteed food poisoning" we have in Day Z.

Yeah, yeah, I knee-jerked on "lobotomization", I know.

1) you got me on this one. However, animals and bicycles can carry more weight with much less effort and resources involved, and also might provide other resources. You can't really plow a field with a zombie, or milk it (I suppose technically you could, but the implications of forced breeding and milking are ..... unpleasant) 3) Intelligence =/= sapience, or even sentience. Does an animal "submit to capture" when you point a gun at it? No, you either have to domesticate it (over many generations), or beat it until its will is broken. Either way is inefficient with regards to the infected. I also am assuming that the infected are undertaking "survival related activities" due to the game taking place at least several weeks after a societal collapse, and the fact that they don't just appear out of holes in the ground. They've existed for this long, and are capable of sprinting down and beating to death a survivor, so they must be doing, at the very least, okay, food, water, and exposure wise. For all I know, they could be eating humans. They just don't eat each other. Why could be due to some engine thing, or due to the fact that they might not feel threatened by each other. Both the game in general, and the infected in particular, are not even close to being done. For all we know, they could be eating, drinking and congregating in buildings to get out of the weather in a couple of patches. Hell, you can break their legs and make them crawl in the next patch, so they aren't just automatons. 4) Good thing this isn't the mod, then? Also, see #3 above. 5) You "exploit" an animal for labor/resources, but you also have to take care of them in return. They require food, water, shelter, and care (both medical and mental), and if they don't get these things, the labor/resources stop. NOTE: I am against "factory-farming" animals, if this makes my feelings clearer. I am not a vegetarian/vegan/animal rights activist, but I prefer to source my meat from reputable sources, and overwhelmingly prefer to hunt for my meat when possible, to ensure it is healthy and the animal was taken "properly", as opposed to "factory-farmed" methods. I also am against most forms of animal testing, with the exception of medications. And, in the case of medical animal testing, the "needs of the many" (not just human medications are tested on animals, but "animal" medications as well) outweigh "the needs of the few." If you lobotomize a cow and stick it in a barn to produce milk, expect a hefty fine at the least. And, yes, I expect you to treat a human being with more respect than an animal. However, this doesn't mean you need to actively treat animals like shit, either. If you need to eat, well, you need to eat, but make the kill quick, clean, and as painless as possible, and don't kill things just to kill things. If something needs to die, respect that. Note that this also extends to culls and such, where animals (usually overpopulated species, or those suffering from a disease) are subject to a kind of "mercy killing", where death might be viewed as more preferable to slow starvation or wasting away from disease. What is kinder? A quick bullet to the chest, or death via exposure over weeks? What do you think the person the zombie was would prefer? I also "feel sorrow", for lack of a better term, even when animals are killed in self-defense, as overwhelmingly these attacks are due to human encroachment into their territory. Being a Biology major makes you understand just how much we effect the environment, both for the good and the bad. I also expect you to treat the dead with respect. In this case, respect the memory and humanity of the "previous" person by not using their remains as lobotomized slaves? This is why I don't really understand the whole "zombie" genre, because while others are going around shooting them in the head with no qualms, I am imaging what their lives were like before they turned into some kind of rabid animal. Not that I can't kill them, or defend myself if attacked, I just find the whole thing rather sad. And then people suggest tying them up, and lobotomizing them to use them as labor. I also just kinda knee-jerked as soon as I read "lobotomize". The procedure and outcome is horrific, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy Being shot and bleeding out is more merciful than a lobotomy. Being bashed in the head is more merciful than a lobotomy. Being set on fire and dying due to smoke inhalation or suffocation due to lack of oxygen (which is actually how most fatalities related to fire happen, as opposed to actual burning) is more merciful than a lobotomy.

Nothing wrong with animal husbandry. Would be awesome to see it in-game, in some form. What is wrong, is casually suggesting chemically/physically lobotomizing someone to use them as physical labor. Shit, we don't do that to animals.