Whyherro123

I would too, but if the game is going to be set in late summer/early autumn, then the resources available during those periods should be there. If they are not, in the name of artificial difficulty, I will quit and uninstall the game in disgust. For a game that prides itself on realism when possible, and authenticity when not, that would be a low blow, in my opinion.

Just to continue along with "foraging", I would like to see some form of food preservation implemented in the future, as it is rather unrealistic that we can run around for what effectively days with opened cans of peaches and beans in our backpacks. There are many ways to preserve food: Canning: where food is stored in an airtight container and sealed. Look it up, the process is actually rather cool.Dehydrating: where excess water is removed from the food. Best with fruits and vegetables, and food with a high water content. Pretty simple, just slice thin and leave exposed to sun and wind.Smoking: where smoke is used, alongside salting or drying, to add an antimicrobial/antioxidant layer to foods. This prevents degradation, and is usually done with meat and fish. AKA jerky, which can be done with any meat, not just beef.Salting. Rubbing salt into food removes excess water. Also, packing anything in layers of salt, sugar, or honey will preserve it, just wash it off well before use.We could also make sausages from meat, flour from pretty much any starchy vegetable (potatoes and corn actually make good flour), and apple "chips" from sun-dried apple slices. In fact, food preservation is essential to any long-term survival.

I disagree about foraging. In real life, hunter-gatherers could meet their weekly metabolic demands with about 15-30 work-hours per week. Granted, this is a game, so it should be different. Foraging should allow you to survive quite handily. It should, however, take a shit-ton of time, as edible plants tend to grow in patches, and once you wipe clean one area, you have to move on. I would be perfectly fine spending an hour or two of my "real life" time foraging for wild food, because then I can play for a while without worrying about it, and if I get hungry again, it would be easy to walk through the woods and "top up", as it were. Some players might not like that, and prefer to scramble from town to town, looking for cans. Or, make foraging require trial and error, or involve skill, because not every plant you find is edible, or they might have detrimental effects. RL example: I can survive in the woods off of what I find for some time, while a new Scout in my troop can barely identify trees from each other. An important thing to realize is that, in real life, "foraging", "hunting" and "farming" weren't mutually exclusive. Look at the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. They would have (extensive) agriculture, enough to meet nutritional needs, but they would also hunt, as well as using wild plants as a supplement to agriculture. In Day Z, even in if I have a decently-producing farm (which, once properly implemented, will not be constantly producing food. You get to harvest the crop once every week or so, and either hope you have enough saved up from last time, or you hunt and forage in the "down time"), I am not going to ignore that deer wandering by, nor pass up that patch of berries. I would instead mark down where I spotted them, and come back when I have some downtime to hunt (hopefully, an animal corpse provides MUCH more food in the future, as well as providing more "resources") or would like to supplement my farmed produce. You shouldn't be FORCED into cannibalism. Make other methods viable, and leave cannibalism for those who don't want to forage for wild food, hunt, or farm.

With that, however, there should be the ability for us to actually forage for food, both from agricultural plots and from natural sources. In reality, there would be plenty of food for us to find, it would just require lots of hard work to get. Many players might not want to "waste" time foraging because of this, but let us survive if we want to put the work in. Canned food and drink should be extremely hard to find, and animals (Big game, mostly. Small game should be relatively easy to catch, but provide much less energy. In actual survival, you hunt big game and trap small game.) should be difficult to hunt (seriously, I can basically run up to a deer. In a video I posted on my "Arrow/Quiver" thread, it took the guy 3 days of sitting in a tree for a deer to walk by). So, you could either move from town to town searching for cans, or sit in the woods and collect edibles. Make foraging require time and effort, but make the effort rewarding, in the sense that the player now has enough food to survive (or even thrive, in real life, hunter-gatherers had it better than early farmers until plows were invented). However, foraging for enough food to get there should take a WHILE. Because of the amount of effort required to forage successfully, and the lack of canned goods, people might then turn to cannibalism. Make it so someone can only eat another person if they are already starving. That way, it is actually a survival mechanic, and not merely another way to fuck over someone.

I SO wanted to post this, but felt like being nice and avoiding off-topic posts. Beans

I support the idea of persistence, loot hoarding, and making stashes, but I don't like the idea of using tents to do so. For anyone who has not used a tent in real life (go camping you unenlightened people!), a tent is far from secure, both from other people and the outdoors. Firstly, one has to recognize that there is nothing on the planet that is waterproof. You can set up a tent with a ground cloth and a rain fly, but "eventually" water will percolate through the tent material, especially if there is contact between two fabrics (groundcloth and tent, rainfly and tent, tent and tent, etc). Leave it up long enough, and water will find a way. Secondly, tents can and will be damaged by inclement weather. The wind can get up under the floor and groundcloth. and lift the whole thing up like a kite (stakes can only hold so much, which is why better-made tents often have guylines that can be staked/tied out farther). Tree limbs can fall down and open a massive gash in the fabric. Etc. Tents are rather flimsy, which is why I have next-to-stopped using them in real life. My Troop makes shelters while camping now. Faster, simpler, and as-or-more effective. Thirdly, tents are not lockboxes. They are of a very unnatural shape, making them easily visible to the human eye, and are often of bright colors. Generally, if your tent is the least bit visible, it will be found. And there is no stopping people from getting in there if they want to. I would like it better if there were persistent "loot stashes" like in the mod: Take a shovel, dig a pit, and stash some stuff. Small stashes can hold a few items, but no weapons, while big stashes can hold a single longarm. You have to access them regularly and maintain them, or else they will collapse and you will lose the stash. In addition, if you don't "rotate" gear out of the stash, it gets damaged by water and deteriorates in condition. Or, persistence could be locked to a particular structure that a player "claims" (Not sure about the process). They "claim" a house, room, or building, and can stash whatever they please in the location. They can "save" new stuff by adding it to the room, then logging out. This does not prohibit other players from entering the location, but merely prompts persistence to update for that location. Both versions are reasonably realistic.

Don't shoulder the door, it is a good way to damage a very sensitive joint if you impact wrong. http://www.wikihow.com/Kick-Down-a-Door

I am not attacking him for sharing his thoughts per se, I am commenting (a bit aggressively, I admit, but it irritated me.) on the fact that he apparently wants to take the focus off of survival and focus on interaction (Based upon his later comments, he apparently means PvP). In a survival game. He already admits to running straight to an airfield after spawning, and only really exploring coastal cities, which coupled are pretty much his whole problem. If he stops running straight to airfields, and leaves the coast, he would find more than enough food (Hell, with the current loot SNAFU, there is an abundance of food almost everywhere. Not saying a glitch is reliable long term, however). He also uses a map ( I am assuming this is an external map, like DayZDB which shows loot locations), which means he feasibly knows where food has the greatest chances of spawning. He also knows where the "alternate" food sources are, like apple orchards and water spigots. To me, his problem sounds like a personal one, not a game mechanic one. No need to eliminate the "survival" of "survival game" because one player wants to be able to run to military spawns easier.

Mate, it takes only about half an hour to run across the entire map. If you need food or drink, stop in the smaller towns and loot up. Stop running directly to military bases/ PvP zones as a freshspawn.

Do you have survival training? Yes, you can live for up to three weeks without food, and 3 days without water, depending on personal condition, metabolic processes, etc. However, you will not be enjoying yourself. By the end of those times frames, you will be a literal near-mad, wasted-away lump of flesh. Are you inferring that it is too hard right now to find water or food? If so, I kindly suggest a different game. You can safely drink from ponds and streams (to find them, look at the bottom of hills, in valleys), and you only "need" to drink from ponds if you can't find a soda, which I find improbable. Same thing with food; it is literally everywhere. If you can't find any cans (again, improbable), eat what you find from apple trees, berry bushes, etc. As for the uncertainty of being a newspawn, it is both part of the "experience", and a background part of the story; We actually don't know when our characters last ate when we spawn in. For all we know, we could already be starving for 2 weeks when we generate a newspawn. .....wait. You are saying that you find "survival" (which is what having a source of food and water is, essentially)....boring?....Do you know what game you are playing? Survival is the main focus of the game here. Finding and interacting with other players is only an aspect of that. "It's really boring to drink and eat even though it is essential in a survival game". Boo fucking hoo. I enjoy it, so do a lot of other players

What purpose would a tank serve in a survival game? Do you know how to operate a tank? Do you know how to maintain it? How much fuel they use? (The current iteration of the US Abrams burns 20 gallons to the mile.) In my opinion, it is bad enough that there is a possibility that we can maintain and operate helicopters, even nonmilitarized and unarmed ones. You can learn how to fix a car, or a truck, but a helicopter, full of expensive and technical avionics? HAH. No. Go play ARMA.

I still want to know how we attach the axe (or shovel, or hoe, or sledgehammer, etc) to our backs. If anything, pull the head off the axe, and use it as a stick for a backpack. In reality, a splitting axe would be a pretty shitty weapon anyways.

Just because a city is bigger, doesn't mean it is the capital of a region. Hell, look at New York. New York City, for those not in the know, is not the capital of New York State. That title is claimed by Albany, which is a comparatively (and in actuality) pretty small city of 97,000 people. That is the same size as my home city of New Bedford, MA, which in turn is only the 7th largest city in MA. You also need to understand the difference between a "city" and the "actual land area" of the city. Example: Boston MA. The actual "City of Boston" is minuscule, but the effects it has on the surrounding community (also known as the "Metropolitan Area") is massive. It has been public culture in MA for a long long time to refer to the entire Boston Metropolitan Area as "Boston" (or "The City", or, more egotistically, "The Hub of the Universe" [Not joking]). The Boston Metropolitan Area (AKA, people commute to the city for work, live in the suburbs,etc), stretches from the middle of Maine to the north, Providence RI to the south, and Springfield MA in the west. It essentially is the capitol of "New England", but the rest of the states have their own capitols. They just wish they were as awesome as Boston. I am from the city, can't you tell? So, let us talk game-wise. The actual "City of Chernogorsk" is pretty small, but look at the surrounding communities. It has 3 massive housing subdivisions surrounding it (probably lower-class housing, for industrial workers), the surrounding towns probably house middle-class workers that travel to the city for work. Most of the regional businesses probably have their regional headquarters in Cherno. Don't forget about the Harbor/Shipyard and the Rail Facilities. Chernogorsk has levels of infrastructure that Novo lacks. Now, I am not saying that Novodmitrovsk isn't important. It, in all seriousness, probably was the "county capitol" (For those not from the US, or lacking a similar system, the US is divided up in Federal [whole US], States [Duh], and Counties [smaller subdivisions of states, with their own regional governments and officials]) of a subdivision of the South Zagoria Region of Chernarus. The "Town Hall" supports this. Hell, Chernarus could've been divided up into two "counties", with Chernogorsk being both the "State" (South Zagoria Region) capitol as well as the "County" capitol for "South Oblast", while Novodmitrovsk was the "County" capitol for the "North Oblast". Works for me.

I like your snark, sir. Beans

Or jump down 5 feet with the pack on. Or whirl around to shoulder a rifle (balancing is a bitch). Hell, I want them to walk carrying such a load. While hiking, I stop every 20 minutes for a 5 minute, pack-on break. Every hour, I stop for at least 20 minutes, take off my pack and boots, and usually change my socks.

No, but the rifle slung over your shoulder, all those magazines in your carrier, and all the stuff in your pockets can move about and rattle. Currently, there is no adverse effects to carrying easily 80lbs of gear. There should, as a nod to realism, be at least some noise effects, as well as an agility/response penalty.

Now now, I actually kind of enjoy using a release aid with my current fiberglass flatbow, because I have rather dainty, soft hands, and I would rather not lose my fingertips to my handmade bowstring. However, I am currently working on a beech flatbow (I am actually looking to make a Holmegaard-style bow), and I kind of want to make a bone thumb-ring to go with it.

Well, it would be significantly more difficult loaded out with gear. That could be a tradeoff: have more equipment, make more noise (significantly so. In my opinion, we don't make enough.) With less gear, you make less noise. Footwear would also have an effect: hard soled shoes will make more noise, while soft soled ones will make less. However, hard soled shoes last longer, and protect your feet better/offer more ankle support.

Nope. "Ghost Walking" as it is put above, is mechanically different from merely walking slowly or crouching.

Damn straight, it just kind of faffs out of the barrel in a loose cone.

I've thought for a while that there should be three "tiers" of arrows, as well as 3 "tiers" of bow. They would increase in "effectiveness" as you go up the tiers. Arrows: Tier 1: field-expedient arrow, with sharpened wood tip and duct-tape fletching. Quick and and easy to make, but low damage, light bleeding, and worst "accuracy" (raw dispersion) of all the arrows. Tier 2: improvised arrow, with a metal ( ) or glass ( ) heads, and glued-on feather fletchings. Good damage and bleed (just watch that video I posted above. That deer is dead in literally seconds), and average "accuracy". Best arrow you can make on your own.Tier 3: Composite arrows. Smallest realistic "accuracy" (raw dispersion) Only found as loot spawns Bows: Tier 1: Stickbow. Take a stick, carve it down (couple of minutes game-time?), and attach a string. Lowest power, worst accuracy, smallest range. Tier 2: Flatbow. Take a log (piece of firewood?), carve it down (should take significantly longer than stickbow) Decent power, decent accuracy, decent (at least 30 meters) range. Best bow you can make on your own. Tier 3: Compound bow. Only found as loot spawn. Highest damage, highest range, highest power. Also, you shouldn't be able to draw a bow and hold it back as easily as we do. With the exception of compound bows, which "take" most of the draw weight, using a bow is usually "aim, then draw and shoot quickly", because you personally are holding a lot of weight. Compounds are more of "draw, aim, aim some more (using sights), then shoot).

I meant "impractical" in the sense of "hard/impossible to replace parts in a post-apocalyptic world". A compound bow requires steel cable and cams, while a flatbow/recurve/longbow can be made from wood (well-seasoned wood, but wood nonetheless), and the string made from sinew, twine, or even grass. I tend to view equipment as "effective" mainly if it is sustainable, not just if it is powerful, etc. A compound bow might be more powerful and easy to use than my flatbow, but if that string breaks, you are boned, while I will probably have a couple of spares on me. And, I agree with you on the "carrying" thing. Really, you should unstring the bow after you are done using it, as it is little more than a green branch. Leaving it strung 24/7 will cause it to set in that strung position, and become useless as a bowstave. Bows get their power from the limbs, not the string. I seriously hope a more in-depth bow is implemented. A stick-bow (which is what the in-game bow is, even if it is a poor example) is really only effective at taking small game, at close range. If you want range, power, and accuracy, you need to carve the actual stave from a limb/stave split from a log. As a slightly related aside, I have become really interested in Neolithic technologies lately. The precision and knowledge that went into their crafts and tools was astounding. Many people think anybody living in the past, especially "cavemen", were stupid brutes. They actually were literally the same people as there are today, with all the intelligence and inventiveness that implies. They weren't dumb, they just didn't have metal, electricity, or the Internet.

I agree with that. Apparently, our in-game characters shake like a crack-head on a 3-day low. I don't know about you, but when I use my bow, the arrows generally go where I aim them, not 6 feet to the left. Today, I was literally 10 feet away from a cow, and I missed with 7 arrows. SEVEN! Should arrows be lasers? No, but they should fly "generally" where you aim them. As for accuracy and lethality, take a look at this video. Flatbows (which are the "simplest" bows to make. Recurves are much more difficult, and compound bows are impractical for long-term survival purposes.) are capable of pretty decent accuracy, speed, and damage, as shown about 3 minutes into that video. Guy shoots a deer with a 50 lbs bow, the arrow (obsidian-pointed, so no high-tech here!) punches through both sides of the deer, and it dies within 30 seconds. Sounds plenty lethal to me!

You also do realize that you can change your in-game Day Z handle, right? Pretty easily?

Yep. Not even including the chances for infection.