Whyherro123

FYI when dealing with an otherwise healthy individual here is a simple rule of 3's A untreated wound can kill you in 3 minutes Exposure can kill you in 3 hours Lack of water can kill you in 3 days Starvation can kill you in, wait for it, 3 WEEKS Food is actually your last concern. /quote The Rule of Three is for short-term survival. Day Z is attempting to emulate long-term survival, more commonly known as Bushcraft, where having enough food (and more importantly, the correct levels of nutrients) would become more and more important over time.

I have made the suggestion in the past to remove 90% of the water spigots found across the map. It would drive up the need for a safe water source, while simultaneously giving larger clans a resource to take and hold. Hell, the economy could be kickstarted by water merchants, ala Fallout 1. Hunt animals for meat and hides, go into town and trade for bullets and safe drinking water. As for guns, I would like to stay away from the manufacture of "modern" firearms, not because it isn't possible, but because of the sheer logistics involved, mostly with primers and smokeless powders. This might be personal bias, but I would like to see more black powder weaponry in the game, maybe even giving the ability to make your own (which you can, so long as you research the pressures exhibited by black powder, you can make a musket out of certain types of steel pipe) Hell, have those same clans use water power to provide motive force for metal lathes, in order to drill out bores for muskets, pistols, and eventually rifles. All of those firearms where made by hand on the US frontier, and are eminently capable of killing a something dead. I, personally, would like to have the technology in-game revert to something mid 18th century, which is where Western tech would fall back to in the case of a total societal collapse. Flintlocks, farms, and hand to hand combat, though I am not sure how agriculture would work in-game....

Because most people have empathy towards their fellow human beings? I don't know, that seems like a good enough reason to me.

Really? You do realize that labeling suicide as an "attention-seeking" activity is only right in a certain sense, and says something particularly disgusting about your views of other people regardless of how right you are? Jesus Fucking Christ

This. While I wouldn't go NEARLY as far as to say that getting KOS in Day Z could cause a suicide, I, in my own personal opinion, find something rather disquieting about just how much joy some people get from ruining other people's day, causing them frustration. I have killed before in-game, have shot people without mercy, yes. PVP is an integral part of the game. But I've only ever killed people after they started the confrontation. I guess I just don't understand why some people find KOS fun. I personally feel that it detracts from the game. Yes, play the game as you want to play it. It is your story. But, in my opinion, your story sucks balls.

I would like to see bicycles implemented. One of the most, if not THE most, efficient vehicles ever invented. It can carry you for a long ways at good speed with only a relatively small energy expenditure. Also, you can strap a ton of shit to it (Ex: Ho Chi Mingh trail in Vietnam).

In all seriousness, it is probably because the metropolitan areas we see in Chernarus are in actuality not that big. Look at Cherno, biggest urban area on the map. Based on the size of the urban sprawl and how long it takes to cross it by foot, it would appear to be smaller in land area than my home city, which is home to 90,000 people just within city limits alone. My home city does not have sprawling edifices like you describe above, what it has is rather modest in size (besides the harbor, being the largest fishing port on the East Coast of the US has it's perks) Face it,either the amount of land shown in Day Z is very small (which is isn't), or the developed areas are very small, which they are.

Actually, not really. In the event of societal collapse, there would be looting, murder, and rapine, yes, don't get me wrong. But there would be very few people walking around radomly killing, as they would be ostracized by what society remains. The, without a lifeline, they would die. And, unfortunately, those who have both physical and/or mental defects would be extremely unlikely to survive a societal collapse. Physical, because they were unable to fend for themselves, and mental, because they would not "fit in" with the new groups forming. I have talked about this (The reality of banditry/KOS in a "real life" situation similar to Day Z) at length before, so if you want the full version, PM me.

Hahaha I love doing the dock thing!

I don't think they do. Recently, whenever I come across somebody, and let them know I see them (seriously people, don't run in the middle of the road. I, from the treeline just up the hill, can see you from farther than you can see me), they plunk their ass down and combat log. At least try to talk to me! : (

Oh, yeah. Forgot about those : P They were deemed completely impracticable though, due to the blast range being far larger than the effective range of the launcher : D

That 20-30 inches is completely unnecessary. If you haven't stabbed everything you need to stab in the first 4 inches, why put more steel through them? A 12 inch blade is the perfect length for a survival knife. You can stab with it, you can chop with it, and you can slash with it. With a Bowie-style blade, with it's forward heavy point, you can sever some pretty thick stuff, without requiring some stupid special draw. Plus, it is thick enough to take serious abuse, and the edge is hard enough to break shit steel knife blades over (I've done it, in my Boy Scout Troop. Kid was not happy : P) That Bowie would be on my pack for mainly survival purposes. My main CQC weapon, suspended from my belt, would be a carpenters hammer.

As for whether I am proud to be the only country to use nuclear weapons: Yes, actually. Using them prevented hundreds of thousands of death, on both sides, as well as pretty much preventing them from ever being used again in today's age. I am willing to bet that a nuclear weapons will NEVER be used (by a nation state. Terror organizations are up for grabs) due to the horrible precedent we set 70 years ago. A price well paid, in all honesty. As for the duel, did you not read above where I would refuse to face you in a "fair" fight? If your fight is fair, you've already lost. As a soldier, you should know that. You do everything in your power to make the fight as unfair as possible. I wouldn't expect you to stand in the middle of the street and challenge zombies to an honorable duel. Don't expect me to do the same.

Oh, I quite understand. I personally own a Bowie with a 12in blade. Thing is a beast, fully 1/2 in thick. I put it through a car door once, just for kicks.

Day Z: Elektro Boogaloo

Uh, yes? That has been what I've promoted throughout this entire conversation. Did you not understand that?

What is a tactical nuke? A hypothetical weapon that has never, ever, ever been used in battle? Seriously, do you even know any history? The ONLY TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS USED IN WARFARE WERE THE ONES DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI. Tactical nukes don't exist, they probably will never exist, and will never be used even if they do exist. Wishful thinking to the contrary is foolish at best, and criminally incompetent at worst.

Aren't those things pretty much a bolo knife? I might be thinking about the wrong blade... ANyways, most of the machetes you find in a sporting good store are worse than useless. Too thin, made of shit steel, and needlessly heavy. In the type of environment Day Z takes place in (temperate deciduous forest) a machete is the completely wrong type of tool to use. Machetes are for thin, springy vegetation. You want either an axe, or a particularly large knife, like a Bowie, Seax, or Bolo.

That's...what....she....said?..... I'm so lonely! D :

In all seriousness, a fire extinguisher would be a great weapon, if you had the gorilla arms necessary to swing that bastard. One hit to the head or chest and you would be done. Personal experience : /

Yeah, sorry about going off-topic. I just saw the stupid and had to respond.

A katana is approaching 3 feet long, that isn't a short melee weapon. A carpenters hammer is roughly 8 inches from butt to head. I guarantee that I can bring that weapon to bear faster than you can draw out your penis replacer, especially since I don't have to put it in a sheath to protect the blade. Plus, I can drop it to grapple with you in hand to hand.

Haha, gotta love anime. His sword would shatter most likely (driving shards of metal into his face), and the bullet wouldn't just disappear. Even if the sword deformed the bullet, his FACE IS STILL IN THE WAY.

Swords were carried during this time period, but were rapidly becoming symbols of office. The only ones to carry swords were officers and cavalrymen, who used carbines rather than not. Swords became the symbols of the officer class. The most common melee weapon used during this time period was the bayonet (a spear, essentially), then a rifle butt (HAMMER), then a knife, probably. So, swords were issued, but most likely not used all that often (there were exceptions, I know.) As for the artillery reference, I was bringing up the greatest killer on the battlefield. Artillery, "The King of Battle". Why were swords not so titled? BECAUSE THEY WERE OBSOLETE.

Vikings threw JAVELINS. Romans threw JAVELINS. They are not the same. Besides being roughly the same shape and function, they are completely different weapons. This is amusing. To give you something else to drool over: Who says I am going to face you mano-a-mano in the middle of a street, dueling-style? Can you draw that katana in a confined space, spin about and slash me before I lay you upside the head? I am willing to bet money on a NO. So far, my weapon wins in ambush. My weapon wins in confined CQC. Your weapon maybe wins in an open space, where I just draw my gun and put a bullet in your chest. So, I win? Yes.