Whyherro123

How so? While I agree with you on some of his ideas, like pantsing the dead and derping about, I like the idea of being able to break a zombies leg in order to run away. I also like the idea of them bleeding out in the same way we do. It adds "authenticity", if you will.

I'd like to see them "behave" more like players as well, in the sense that I want them to be more "human". They should suffer the same damage as we do, ie, broken limbs, bleeding out, consciousness issues, etc. It would make combat much more interesting than the simple "spam machete until dead". Imagine breaking a zombie's leg, chaining it to a post, and using it as a sort of "guard dog".

... A bo-staff is literally just a shaft of wood or metal. You would be far better off attaching a blade to the end and using it as a spear.

Yeah, pretty much. People seem to have this idea that weapons just were magically developed, appearing perfectly in the course of a day or so. In reality, it took decades, if not longer, to develop, test, and perfect a new weapon. Hell, it took us THOUSANDS of years to progress from "rock" to "rock on a stick".

Yes, actually. (I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are serious, then, yes, that is what they did.)

A real world self-bow (which is what this bow in-game is going to be) takes a while to make. You have to find a straight piece of wood, preferably already dead, that is free of knots and twists. You then shave off the sapwood, leaving only the heartwood behind. (not with a longbow, however, although if they try to put a longbow in-game, I will quit. Using a longbow takes years of practice and strength training.) Them you find the mid-point of the stave, and shave down the ends EVENLY until they both bend equally (this is far, FAR harder than it seems.) Then, you string the bow SLOWLY, to ensure that it won't explode under pressure. Oh, and I forgot the whole drying process. You want to dry out the stave completely before doing any carving. By "completely", i mean "let it sit for a couple of weeks at least, a couple of months would be better). If there is any moisture in the shaft, when you try to bend it, it might explode. This happened to me. I strung the bow, drew back to examine the pull. The whole thing exploded, sending inches-long splinters into my hand, arm, and face. 5 months of work down the shitter, because I was too impatient to wait another month for it to be completely dry. IB4 "you can totally make a bow out of just a stick and string, LOLZ"....yes, yes you can. It will have little power, next to no accuracy, and fall apart after a couple of shots, however.

Which is rather funny, because that is not how you build a bow AT ALL.

Agreed. Boats are an awesome logistical multiplier. They let you move extremely fast, with little effort. A single person sailboat can be taken upriver, and can easily be modified with oars to add muscle propulsion if needed.

The freshspawn Mike-Tysoning out a guy is probably a bandit looking to get back to fuckmurdering people up in Berezino. Put a bullet in his back, but the bush-wookie deserved to die for letting the freshspawn get withing punching distance. The two players are still armed, and combat effective. Unless I am sure I can end the fight quickly, there is too much risk to myself to really justify taking them out. Not even including the fact that they probably don't have anything I need, so I would be wasting rounds by killing them. Avoid them. Why would I even try? I play solo (sadface : ( ), so I would get lit up like a Christmas tree after taking one out. They are probably far better equipped, prepared, and tactically-minded than I am, and again, they probably don't have anything I need. Avoid like the Plague.

A bulletproof vest worn by police, etc will most definitely NOT stop 5.56mm rounds. Hell, the hard ceramic plates used in modern combat armor can only really stop 1 or 2 rounds. Edited, so people won't get the wrong idea.

In all seriousness, this poll is pretty foolish. I don't think you realize just how much a psycological effect hunger has on the human mind. In my survival program, I've had people who were ostensibly vegetarians at the start of the week eating jerky and bouillon soup by the end of the program. They were too hungry to care.

1) Yes, you would switch over, or you would die. No arguing with that. 2) Again, I don't see any ignorance. You just seem rather touchy. Relax.

My word. This is supposedly a "hardcore survival game". Now, I doubt the veracity of that moniker sometimes, but regardless, what benefit would there be to adding a motherfucking TANK to survival? Where are you going to get the diesel, where are you going to get the oil, do you know how to maintain such a vehicle? Not even touching weapons! I hate this statement with a burning passion, but....."ARMA and all the other fps'es are that-a-way" I don't even want CARS in game (for logistical reasons) why would there be a working tank? I don't entirely agree with helicopters either, but at least I can put a bullet in the main rotor assembly and ground the thing! Jesus Christ.

Quick question: how it that ignorant? It is a personal observation, and a decision made on the observation. He finds meat tasty, so he has no moral dilemmas about hunting. I just can't find that ignorant in any way,shape or form.

Ugh... I have an extreme dislike of Twitch and it's users. Anecdotal, and YMMV, of course, but the one time I've watched a Twitch stream was when my friend showed me a stream of some girl wearing very little clothing playing "The Binding of Issac". People were offering to buy her stuff in the chat. She was drinking Mountain Dew, and playing up every stereotype of the "Gamer Gurl" as far as she could. Sorry, but that just ruined it for me. Plus, why would I watch someone else play a game? So, no, I think I'll pass.

The whole issue with implementing "proper" wilderness survival in a game is the fact that you necessarily have to detract from either one in order to make the other side work. Either make wilderness survival realistic, and spend realtime hours wasting your time checking empty snares (which is why I carry mousetraps for small game. 100% success rate, motherfucker!), spend hours building a shelter, constantly feeding a fire, throwing up from perfectly safe water (yes, you will get "sick" from water that is ok to drink, due to differences in water chemistry. Not deathly ill, but still nauseous.) etc. This would leave very little time for loot/PvP/ standing around in Berezino with your dick in your hand (American saying, meaning "doing nothing productive" heh). Realistic, but not very fun to probably 99% of the gamer population. Or, cheapen the survival in the name of fun, and you get people running around with no pants, punch-out battles between newspawns, being able to RUN FOR DAYS, and stupidly accelerated hunger and drinking mechanics Fun, but not very authentic In summation, actual survival isn't all that much fun. I consider myself pretty well trained (and yes, it is something you have to be extensively trained in. Wilderness survival =/= camping in any way. Most of the training involves stress and panic-management skills, things that help in almost every aspect of life, so if you have the means, I recommend WS training.) and I am pretty pissed off when I have to use my skills in an actual situation. It is very stressful (in every way) to have to rely on yourself in such a hostile environment, and I am in a temperate forest, one of the more hospitable environments to man! This is why I stress group training, and try to promote group activities in Day Z (farming, communities, industry) as much as possible.

Technically, unless we are talking long-term survival (and, with the current build of Day Z, we aren't. Long term means weeks and month, with agriculture and infrastructure. Bushcraft and homesteading is a whole nother animal from wilderness survival), food is pretty much going to be the last of your priorities. The average human in average physical fitness can last for about 3 weeks of moderate physical activity before starvation really begins to take it's toll. In a wilderness survival situation, shelter, fire, and a safe water source are your numero uno priorities. Also, realistically, Chernarus wouldn't be all that difficult to survive in. A temperate oceanic climate means the temperatures will not be too extreme, edible plants will be plentiful, fresh water will be readily available, etc. The only issue with Chernarus is that it appears to be the middle of Fall (Autumn, for our British cousins), which would mean there could be a temperature drop at night. However, that could be managed by the proper clothing, shelter, and a fire. And, there are also plenty of animals and plants ready for the picking at this time of year. However, I agree with you. Loot is far too common in this game for it really to have a "hardcore survival" moniker. This is partially caused by a lack of timeframe we have about the societal collapse. Based upon my experience in disaster mitigation, relief, and preparedness, Day Z looks to be in "Stage 1" of collapse, ie, within a few weeks after the SHTF. Buildings are still clear of vegetation, streetlights (were, in earlier builds) still work, cars are relatively clean, etc. There still would still be a bunch of stuff from human development lying about, because I don't think you realize just how much STUFF we all have. Therefore, there would be no problem finding stuff. However, I've seen some people purport that Day Z is actually set several months or even years after the SHTF. There is little to no evidence to support this, as above. Besides the fact that people would have banded together and started to rebuild shit by this time. So, there would be less "packaged stuff" lying about, but far far far more "scratchbuilt stuff", like reloaded ammo, fresh produce, cloth, and even freaken towns to buy/trade for said stuff. Just my two cents.

It would most definitely not ruin the gear a person has. Gasoline vapors burn off rather quickly, and the liquid evaporates at a relatively low temperature, thusly, only stuff that is really flammable will be damaged. Anecdotal: I soaked (I mean left-it-in-the-liquid soaked) a cotton rag in gasoline on a normal-temperature summer day. By the time I had gotten a lighter out to light it, the liquid has already mostly evaporated. I was able to light it, but the flare-up was over almost instantaneously, and only the edges of the cotton cloth caught on fire. The rest of the rag was pretty much fine. In order to start a fire with gasoline as an accelerant, you need a lot of stuff with a low flash point or a low volume/surface area ratio (ie, paper or wood shavings), so that the high temperatures generated by the vapors catching fire have a chance to catch. Gasoline is actually my least-preferred method of firelighting. I prefer birch bark or petroleum jelly. Not as hot, but burns for far, far longer.

Yes, I understand you can (and our ancestors did) get meat from hunting. What I was referring to was the fact that, even with hunting, meat was not regularly eaten in today's quantities. Meat (fresh meat, at least) was scarce, a luxury, reserved for religious meals or the wealthy. A farmer wouldn't slaughter his cow just to eat it, he would slaughter it so it wouldn't take up so much resources (grains, mostly) during harder times, like winter. And far more animals were kept alive than were slaughtered, generally only the males were slaughtered and dressed. Also, a farmer would very rarely have the time to go hunting. Farming without the benefit of electricity and vehicles is a whole-day job. Besides the fact that farm animals were worth more for other byproducts of husbandry (milk, cheese, wool, skins, etc), than for their meat. All I was saying was the fact that meat was a small portion of our ancestors diets. Was it eaten? Yes, but not a lot. Our plates were mainly grains (and grain products, like bread), vegetables, beans and dairy products. Meat was a very small portion of our ancestor's diets.

On an aside, this is an utterly foolish topic, for the reason that I am willing to bet that almost none of you have ever actually been in a survival situation, where your instincts will attempt to prevent you from starving. There are no morals when it comes to survival, at least when it comes to animals and food. Anecdotal: I spent 3 weeks up in the "100 mile Wilderness" up in Maine a couple of years back. I chased down a squirrel and ate that bastard raw, because I was craving fresh food hard enough! I then gorged myself on dandelions and dock leaves, so I think I developed a vitamin deficiency as a result of eating too much processed food.

In the real world, eating a relatively large amount of meat is a recent development in the Western world, dating back to only the mid-to-late 1800,s with the industrialization of the beef industry, which made fresh meat far far cheaper and thusly, much more available to urban populations. Before the Industrial Revolution, meat was only eaten rarely, and most food was in the form of grains, dairy, and vegetables. If Day Z eventually goes about reenacting the rebuilding of society, I fully expect animal husbandry to be the long and difficult process it actually was. Thusly, more corn, beans, pumpkins and potatoes on your plate!

Have you ever cooked meat before? Hell, cooking a steak takes a while, and it isn't the whole body. Bodies are WET. They contain WATER (and water-based liquids). Water impedes FIRE. Not even including the fact that gasoline is only an accelerant, it won't fuel the fire on its own. In order to burn a body, you would need a fire already burning hot. Pouring gasoline on something and striking a match would just singe the clothing and burn off the hair. I disagree with the current hiding of bodies mechanic. Want to hide a body, and its associated gear? Drag it into a bush or the woods, and cover it with leaves. You aren't going to be digging any holes or building any fires when the wrath of the infected comes down upon you like a wave of death.

You have found your way to the Debug Plains, my son. Be careful, for the Blue, the Blue is calling.

Which "primitive weapons would you like to see? By Primitive, I mean "not chemically powered", ie gunpowder I basically would like to see: -Spear: one of the oldest weapons made by humankind, and for good reason. Effective, multipurpose (equally good for hunting and self-defense), and easy/cheap to make, use, and train with. Gives you about 10 feet of reach (assuming a 7 foot infantry spear), and can penetrate many forms of armor (Saxon spears could punch through mail armor relatively easily) -Hammer: again, one of the oldest purpose-made weapons, in the form of the mace. Easy to use, cheap, effective. Can't break, nor ever needs to be resharpened. A claw hammer is multipurpose, capable of prying open doors, then bashing heads, then hammering closed doors in short order. -Sling: again, one of the oldest weapons. Surprisingly effective, capable of concussing (is that the word?) through armor/helmets, breaking bones even without penetrating. Ammunition is free, and with lead shot, capable of reaching out to 300-400m. Only drawback is ease of use; slings are ridiculously hard to master. Easy to pick up, hard to get proficient with. However, once you get good, you can take down (apparently) both game and people with ease. -Self-bow: I am rather leery, concerning the amount of work one must put into a bow in order to make it effective (accurate and powerful enough to be worthwhile). A stick and a string would work, but not be very effective, nor last that long. A purpose-built selfbow would be much more effective, but take some time and effort to make. Any more suggestions? I just really want spears and slings....

The timing part is actually pretty simple, so long as you don't spin it too fast. Experts on the forum I referenced earlier recommend that you actually sling it rather lazily, as it is the centripetal force conferred to the rock that makes it so deadly, not the speed at which it spins. The main difficulties I have with using a sling are: 1) estimating trajectory. Once the sling is released, the projectile will fly off tangentially to the point of release. Estimating this arc is difficult, because you have no real "aiming point" like you do on bows, where you can aim down the shaft. 2) Aerodynamics of the projectile. Rough rocks fly anywhere and everywhere, smooth rocks are semi-accurate, and lead shot I can put through separate windowpanes from 50 paces. This is due partially to the trajectory mentioned above (lead shot is all the same weight, so it will follow the same flight path, dependent upon point of release) and aerodynamics (rough rocks have induced drag (air resistance) that seriously affects accuracy, round rocks have less, and glandular lead shot has the least, plus lead shot isn't nearly as affected by wind, due to it being of higher weight and density than most rocks) I seriously recommend picking up slinging as a hobby. It is fun, dirt-cheap (free rocks, and lead is given away by tire places in the form of wheel weights), a workout (yes) and, most importantly, FUN. There is nothing like making sonic booms with nothing more than a bit of woven cord and your own muscle power. Plus, there is the fact that it is pretty much unregulated, at least in the US. You can't get arrested for making, owning, and using a sling, like you can with bows and firearms. Using them within city limits, yes, but don't be that thick and you will be essentially left alone.