Whyherro123

You actually pretty much never addressed the main issues I presented. Poor people are slim? Really? Maybe from where you are, but around here, obesity is a problem with the urban poor and the "food insecure" (Those that lack access to quality nutrition), pretty much for the reasons I listed above. http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/ Urban poor in my city are usually working two (or more) jobs in order to make ends meet. That leaves little time for both cooking and exercise. They might not have 30 minutes. Plus, exercise equipment (running shoes. Hell, just shoes in general.) costs money. I can't go drop $60 on a pair of trainers, and I have more disposable income than many of my fellow city dwellers. My athletic shoes are over 6 years old, and I am not going to be getting new ones anytime soon. http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/why-are-low-income-and-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-to-obesity/ Facts. Link to them. Finally, do me a favor. Eat nothing but canned food for a month. Tell me how you feel. Calories aren't everything.

Not really. By definition, when you have hypothermia, your body's "heating mechanic" becomes impaired/stops working. Changing into dry clothing helps hypothermia because when you are wet, you are losing body heat due to the temperature difference between the water and your skin , AKA same principle behind sweating (evaporation and heat diffusion). Dry clothing prevents this heat loss, but it doesn't magically make your body start generating heat again. In order to treat hypothermia, you change into dry clothing, THEN apply gentle heat, either directly to the core (administer warm beverages), or externally (through physical contact.). This last method can be dangerous, as the second person can become hypothermic as well, as you are essentially borrowing their body heat to warm up the already-hypothermic subject. This is why you stick both parties into a sleeping bag or blanket, to minimize heat loss to the environment.

I don't really understand the love for "staticism" in Day Z. It gets boring playing in an unchanging world. How does it take away from survival? Do you think suddenly there will be an abundance of food everywhere, and things will be all peaches and butterflies, and we will frolic through Berezino, wind blowing through our hair? Nope. Try growing a garden sometime. Now picture growing enough to feed you through the winter. Agriculture is hard. Humanity industrialized it for a reason. In Day Z, we (probably) won't have powered tools, nor never-ending supplies of artificial fertilizer. Instead, we will have backbreaking labor to scrape some plants from the dirt. People will actually have to grow the food first, and nobody ever said they had to share. Someone might have enough, but others will not. So, they raid the farm for food. The farmer fights back. Both parties kill each other, and the food rots in the field. Boom, neutral balance of food. Realistically, without agriculture of some sort, all the players would die during the winter from starvation/malnutrition. The canned food would run out sooner or later, and the animals would leave for better pastures. Starving to death sounds like such great fun. I'll take agriculture, you can keep your "arbitrary survival".

And....how is that any different from what I said? Besides being more xenophobic, denigrating, etc. Poor people eat cheap food because it is affordable, and probably because they have literally no other option. Look up "food deserts", it is an actual thing. Most of the urban poor lack access to grocery stores, where they can buy (probably out of their price range) quality produce and such. They also have less time to burn off the calories they intake, working most of the time, and many cannot afford gym memberships. The middle class can, both timewise and moneywise, but 2 hours/day and $10/month make a WORLD of difference to someone making $8/hour. Canned beans and canned spaghetti aren't exactly healthy, you know. A lot of quick sugars and protein, so you will feel full, but you aren't getting long-term sustenance. Same thing with fruits and vegetables. The sweetness comes from sugars, and they are mainly water (eat a lot of fruit, and see what happens). The only really long-term "healthy" thing we are eating is fresh meat, which would provide lots of calories from the fat. I resent that last comment,and ask you to stop stereotyping. I am lower-middle class, and I tend to eat pretty damn healthy, thank you very much.

Not... really. You can starve to death with a full stomach, especially if you are eating foods that are low in calories, or that require a lot of energy to break down, or if you are burning calories faster than you can take them in (AKA accelerated metabolism, which you get whenever you are stressed, or injured.)

Pretty much. "Energized" does not necessarily mean "full", by any means. "Energized" means your metabolic and nutritional needs are being met, while "full" merely means that your hunger is satiated. Hell, from a certain point of view, this could be why there is an obesity epidemic in the US. Food is cheap, but "good" (energy-rich, healthy, etc) food is expensive, while "cheap" (processed, high in sugar, which doesn't provide long-term energy) food is readily available. Thusly, people eat "cheap" food and get full, but their metabolic needs don't get met and their metabolism slows down. Thusly, they get fat. Granted, that is an extreme simplification, but that is the basic gist of what happens in real life, and could be happening in Day Z. A diet of canned beans and spaghetti isn't too healthy, nor will it provide all that much energy.

Oh, I definitely agree. It has to be long enough to be meaningful, but "fast" enough so that people won't willingly tough it out. I am thinking about "1 week real-world time" as a decent starting figure. That way, people don't have to play every day just to grow some beans. However, there should also definitely be some sort of "maintenance" included: weeding, chasing away animals, etc. Maybe if you don't weed the rows, you get severely lessened return, if you don't feed animals, they run away/die, or if you don't milk certain animals regularly, they get pissy and produce less. What sort of animals would people want to see? I am thinking: 1) Goats. Stupidly useful, with meat, hide, hair (a type of wool, or at least, usable like wool), milk (which can also be made into cheese), bone, dung (fertilizer), etc 2) Chickens. Eggs, meat and feathers 3) Rabbits. Meat, hide, fur and young (reproduce fast)

The big racks look to be rabbit hutches, the chicken coops are the little sheds with ramps going up into them. Relatedly, you can now find arrows in those coops, making the improvised bow a very viable weapon for almost all levels of play : ). Killed several zombies with it in Experimental today, and nailed a player who wouldn't leave me alone. Took him out like a pro

Really, pretty much any crop that would grow in temperate climates would grow in Chernarus. Various squash, peppers, onions, carrots, all that. Temperate climates are not all that restrictive, especially when they have coastal/maritime climates. If you could move the berry bushes (Use a shovel to dig up the root ball, then replant in an organized cluster), it would be a more effective use of your time than running around foraging in the wild. Finally, a greenhouse, properly implemented, would let you pretty much grow whatever you wanted.

Oh man, come play experimental! You.....will probably starve to death, no lie. Canned food is pretty scarce (found 2 cans within Solnichny and Nizhnoye, was still hungry after eating both). Relatedly, you can now eat until you are stuffed, and still be hungry, which is a dangerous thing. Makes you think long-term! And, in order to plant anything currently, you first need to till the soil (with a hoe or a shovel), then fertilize it with one of the thousands of bags of Lime laying about. If you kept animals, you could use animal dung, or build a compost heap. You can also only currently till the soil inside a greenhouse. A little restrictive, perhaps, but it works. I, too, am interested in what agriculture and animal husbandry can offer the game. Make it have a sense of continuity, rather than just "static Chernarus"

I speak a little German, and you just made my day...and my stomach hurt!

And if you die later on, because you didn't have enough ammunition to defend yourself, would you still think shooting that player is worth it? I wouldn't. See, when I said "loot spawns will be reduced", I meant "all loot spawns". Other players are equally likely to find nothing, so enjoy wasting bullets and getting nothing for it. That, at least in my book, is a poor exchange of resources. This is why I think alternative weapons like the bow and the crossbow will eventually come to the forefront of most PvP; most players will find a firearm, but little ammunition for it. (so, a shotgun with 12 shells is a great find, and you HOARD those shells, reloading them as you go. Or, you find an AKM, and a magazine with 17 rounds on a body. You save those bullets for when they are really needed (defending youself, etc), not wasting them needlessly). A SKS with 3 rounds quickly becomes a clunky club (or spear, with bayonets, which, when bayonets become functional, would give you a reason to carry an empty firearm, as you can still stab things), so you save those rounds, and bluff your way out of trouble with a loaded-or-not firearm. OR, you can make a bow, make some arrows, and loose arrows with reckless abandon, as you can always pick up the arrows and use them again. Add infections from uncleaned wounds, and arrows and bolts become as deadly as a bullet, even (especially) in the long-term, where you would have to remove the arrow/bolt before cleaning/bandaging/suturing the wound (note: this really could not be done in combat, and is quite painful and dangerous for the subject. You have to essentially push the projectile through your own flesh (GAH), break/cut off the head, then pull the shaft back through the flesh. While bleeding and in pain. Enjoy a loss of consciousness from shock and pain!)

Think about the future, not right now in-game. There was a point in time during .50 experimental when players were worried about starving to death, much less finding "boxes of 5.56mm" ammo. The Devs have stated in the past that loot spawns will eventually be reduced. If you have only 10 rounds, are you really going to waste it on the very-high chance that the other person has little of value on them? Again, think long term, not short term. You can use bullets now, or you can save them for when they are really needed. Use the firearm, bluff, rob that player, but don't waste the ammunition. Hopefully, weapons that lack a visible external magazine (shotguns, revolver, 91/30 Nagant, lever-action repeater) would be really good this, as they wouldn't be able to tell with a glace if you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Why? Why waste the bullet, when there is an even greater chance of them not having anything you need? Now, you have 1 less bullet, and a dead player with potentially ruined gear. Think for the long term, rather than the short term. I literally cannot understand this line of thinking. "Gee, since there is so little spawning nowadays, I guess I better potentially waste ammunition killing other people that probably don't have anything. That will be an effective use of my limited supplies!"

I dunno, give me an axe, and so long as the door isn't made of metal, I can get through it with only a few swings. Proptip: use the poll, not the bit, and aim for the hinges (or where the hinges would be), and for the space just inside the handle/locking mechanism. You should either break the hinges/lock entirely, or rip the retaining screws right out of the door. Now, an outside-opening door will be more difficult to break than an inside-opening one, due to the lip of the jam. Honestly, I found it harder to break through an older, barred-style (AKA wooden bar across inside of door) than a modern one. Really, locking a door isn't going to keep someone out if they want to get in. Arbitrarily increasing the resilience of doors to "improve gameplay" isn't really going to change that. If I want to get into your building, and the door is locked, I'll take the door out of the jam (removing hinges, break the door entirely), go in through a window, or, hell, use a hammer, axe, or saw and go in through the wall. You can bust through modern sheet facing pretty easily, so long as you avoid the studs.

It depends on the type of door, really. An exterior door, made of wood? That can tank a couple of axe-blows, but it will still break. And interior one? HAHAHAHA

2) Wehrmacht =/= Nazi member. As a matter of fact, most German soldiers (and sailors, etc) were not members of the Nazi party, and were conscripted. Let us leave it at that. 3) Yes, the Atomic bombs ultimately saved both American and Japanese lives. However, the US DID bomb Tokyo and other civilian centers, with truly HORRENDOUS casualties. Look up "Firebombing of Tokyo". Can we get back on topic. please? If the thread continues in this direction, it will only end in pain, Godwin's Law, and mass-application of the mighty Banhammer.

Bad idea, for a game so aimed at realism/authenticity. In reality, using a torn-up bit of clothing as a bandage would stop bleeding, yes, but it would also introduce bacteria into the wound. I really wish the Devs would implement realistic first aid: to stop bleeding, apply direct pressure. This would, of course, necessitate you cease movement for the duration of treatment. Authentic in both the medical sense and in the gameplay sense, and would help freshspawns from freezing to death due to shirt removal.

Please, let us leave such loaded and ultimately entirely objective topics out of this thread.

The only reason I would want NPCs in the game is because there are too few players (IMO) to adequately flesh out the map. With 40 player servers, each player has 225km2/40 = 5.625 km2 to themselves (Ex; an area a little bigger than Cherno proper) With 75 player servers, each player has 225km2/75 = 3 km2 to themselves (Ex: pretty much Berezino) With 100 player servers, each player has 225km2/100 = 2.25 km2 to themselves (Ex: Pretty much Svetlo) Which is still a LOT of empty space, not even including the fact that players will cluster around "good" loot spawns. With NPC's it would 1) Make the map feel a little less empty (YMMV, but IMO, a lot more people would've survived a TSC. 40, hell, even 100 is too low) 2) Make player-driven economy a possibility. With actual players, nothing you do will necessarily make them listen to you (log off, kill themselves out of spite, etc) With NPC's, things like slavery, small villages, etc are far more possible than with "only" 40/50/100 players.

Link to your "factual" information, please. Fact =/= allegory, although based upon your above story, I highly doubt you would believe the findings of an actual peer-reviewed research study on human psychology, and believe what you want to believe. In actuality, your entire allegorical reference reinforces my earlier point. Did the employees turn into rampaging monsters? No, they went home to connect with their family units, and probably checked in with extended family. Do me a favor, read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html It will explain the reality of human interactions far better than you or I will.

Please, describe some of these scenarios. The two major "SHTF, total collapse of society" that I can think of would be the Bronze Age Collapse; where there was a major volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean and worldwide trade of tin (necessary for bronze casting) was stopped, and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. In both cases, things weren't actually that bad. In the Bronze Age Collapse, people generally went ,"Well, fuck, no more tin means no more bronze......fuck it, guess we gotta use these iron tools (many Bronze Age peoples made use of iron on the side, at least past the first part of the Bronze Age). Whatever...." And the WRE collapse wasn't so much a "societal collapse" as it was "say goodbye to the old boss, say hi to the new one". Arguably, the "barbarian" (by Roman standards. They were pretty much the start of later medieval feudal kingdoms, and the Franks even had a literature Renaissance!) kingdoms were as effective, if not more so, at keeping the peace and upholding society than the Romans were. The Roman Legions were already heavily Germanicized, as well as the Emperor being a German (tribal, not modern state German) Literally everyone not living in a city was already living in a feudal system anyways, so literally people would just change leaders. Never. There has actually been more riots in the modern era than in antiquity. Why shouldn't it be? The game aims for authenticity, not staticism. A static game is a poor one, almost as bad as "railroading".

And that is the problem with Day Z right now, at least in my opinion. The game supposedly aims for realism/authenticity, yet because there is no penalty to death, people kill others with reckless abandon. Hell, people kill themselves to in order to possibly get an arbitrarily "better" spawn, usually so they don't have to run as long in order to get back into PvP. I've always supported a "death timer". Die in-game, can't play on that server for 10/20/30 minutes. In the grand scheme of things, that won't affect you that much, because you can go play on another server. But, it would prevent "YOLO BAMBI FISTS OF FURY", as well as people being unduly reckless in combat, and at least hamper spawn-related suicide.

But.....that is what I am saying. We didn't "evolve our society in mostly peaceful conditions". Human society has, for the most part, been focused on internecine warfare. Up until the last 500 years or so, what was the most "honorable" profession for a man to have? A warrior/soldier. They were a warrior, and a farmer/craftsman/priest/etc. Greek city states? Warrior Roman? Warrior Medieval Europe? Warrior Ancient Japan? Warrior Native Americans? Warrior Neolithic Peoples? Warrior, at least the grave goods (stone battle-axes, shields, spears, and bows and arrows) suggest so It was actually during the Neolithic period when more human skeletons were found with war-wounds than skeletons found with evidence of old age.

That is the city in general, as well as being one of the largest cities on Earth. Urban centers in general are going to behave differently than the population at-large. And, even still, we have groups forming up, even during that Blackout. Neighborhoods and related gangs formed up to fight off invaders and looters. Not all that much different from what I mentioned above, is it?