rickyriot

Peaches are by some margin the best food item in the game if you compare the calories/water values. Only a bag of rice will give you more calories but then it dehydrates you while peaches are almost as hydrating as a can of soda. It really needs to be bumped down quite a bit. In fact I think all the food/veg needs to be rejigged quite a bit.

Pfft. Fish, boar, deer and beef! Free range, freshly cooked, that's the stuff!

Never believe anything on THC, it's normally if not exclusively full of shit. In terms of how long unmanned power would last it depends on the actual equipment that is being used. Technically nuclear could run for years as it's all automated. Well maintained coal or oil or gas fired plants would last as long as they have resources. You would expect those resources to be two staged; local storage and resupply. Clearly resupply would be ruled out, which leaves the local supply. Again it's too difficult to properly judge as there are large oil (or gas, but they don't contract/expand so I think it has to be oil) tanks on the map but not near the actual power plant. So... ultimately THC simply couldn't work out a figure and just made it up, pretty much like the rest of their output (you can tell I am not a fan). In regard to the actual question, the problem we have is the contradiction of the place looking like it's not been inhabited for several months, yet there is fresh fruit lying about. In fact I think I'll start a new thread about that. However if you removed the perishables I would say a couple of months since the "event". Which rather annoying does tie in with the THC idea, but it's based purely on the state of the environment (evacuated but not overgrown).

If you are stuffed and hungry then fruit or veg is not the answer, they contain too much liquid to sustain your calorie requirements. There is a table here detailing the values: http://dayz.gamepedia.com/Food_and_Drink As someone alluded to above, very low water content but high calorie food is what you need; rice, milk powder. In your current state I wouldn't eat that potato and while you are hungry you are clearly some distance from death as I see colour in your screen (not the inventory, the screen). I've sprinted for 10 minutes (in game) while the you are "dying of starvation" message spammed me and still managed to turn it around. If you are wondering how easy it is to get into the state you are in? Very easy. Spawn, plant tomatoes, eat all tomatoes grown and you'll still be hungry, but hydrated and stuffed.

Clearly you don't read the forums that often then, as you are wrong in your assumption. You seem to be presuming there is some sort of elitist minority that frowns upon anything easy when that simply isn't the case, or at least if there is then that is not what I represent. I would suggest there is a majority, not a minority, of players who look forward to the expansion of both the environment and the survival aspects, to dismiss it as 1% is frankly laughable. There are already many games that cater for FPS PvP and while that will always be an element of DayZ (and an element I certainly wouldn't want to remove), there is so much more potential to the game that it would be a crying shame to see it pander to the lowest common denominator. I am going to use a word which might sound like an insult but it's not, it's just the most suitable word I can think of to describe what you have written. "Vanity" IMO, and of course this is all about opinions, the game shouldn't be about getting the highest quality equipment but survival. Naturally you could argue the case that having the best equipment is akin to a survival strategy and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that, but to go from being unarmed to having some of the best military equipment within, say, 20-30 minutes of spawn seems a little too easy and negates any threat the zombies have. When people first played the mod the average survival time was something like 20-30 minutes. Granted that increased as the players learnt how to interact with the environment better, but I would certainly like to see that level of steep learning curve return. Some may say that will stop people from adopting the game or spending time learning it, but on the flip side (warning, old man rant coming) modern society seems to expect everything delivered to them on a plate and in quick time; this seems to have moved into the gaming environment with things like P2W (not that I am suggesting DayZ is that, just an example). Your character should be something you spend time building up, and the negatives from losing those items should balance out the game play within the virtual world. I don't think we are necessarily that far apart in our opinion, you know. I do prefer an ultra realism, extremely hard game, and I am on record as saying that for some time now and you are right in the sense that adding more to the game will "even out" the game play while retaining the gun balance as is. However I don't think it's unreasonable, though, to ask for the levels of guns in the game to be regulated as it forces players to be more creative (crafting weapons and even traps) or to use strategy to a greater extent. At present loot and weaponry is so easy to attain that most players don't think twice about waltzing into a town if they are semi-geared up when in reality (and here is the bug bear of many, "realism") in the circumstances the game puts you in you would expect people to be far more cautious.

Loading up a new patch to find the FPS had dropped. I have a decent enough rig yet the game runs like a dog no matter the amount of tweaking I do, and at present I really am just running on the limit of what is an acceptable FPS if it comes to a fire fight. With each update there is the chance that the performance tips the balance either way. It's when I load up a new update and find that I'm running sub 20 FPS in cities, and this has happened on several occasions in the past - less so these days, then I just give up and go play other games until the next update is released.

All fair and well, but the question I would ask is what is your prime objective within the game? That is not a trick question so I can somehow talk down your game style, it's a genuine one. I have no problem with admitting I would prefer there to be hardly any guns in the game, and that most weapons are crafted ones, but this is neither from some sort of hipster extremist viewpoint nor is it a complaint about being shot. I started playing online FPS with Quake 1 in the late 90's and in my time have been a member of some of the best clans in the EU/UK for games like MoH:AA and CoD. Being part of a point and shoot collective no longer interests me, if anything it bores me. This is why I play DayZ, because it is different and because of it's potential to differentiate itself from the plethora of mainstream dullard first person shooters. I think it would be a massive shame for it to develop into something similar.

In isolation, no, in context it very much is so. You seem to think my ideas represent just 1% of the DayZ community, you couldn't be more wrong. On the flip side if you just want to run around with guns and shoot people, go and play other FPS games that are primarily designed for that exact experience. It's clear DayZ is more than that. So what you are saying is that the environment should have no back story, no items should be in context, that there is no timeline or reasoning for the immersion? That is an incredibly narrow minded view of the game which has gone out of it's way to develop all those things; context; timeline and back story. To complain that people are discussing the pros and cons of these things, and to discuss them in exactly the place they should be discussed, borders on the strange. You are not forced to read or reply, and to be honest I really don't understand why you would frequent an open public forum if open public forum debate is so frustrating for you.

ISS you say?

While not Russia I have spent months travelling Eastern Europe, including the Black Sea. The picture you show is represented to an extent in the SE corner of the map. Lingor was a bit of an aberration in regard to the DayZ back story though. As if someone wanted to play Vietnam but in Arma.

Perhaps I was too harsh in my previous reply, but we do definitely seem to come from different ends of the spectrum here. What is this "problem" you keep mentioning. I hate to ask you to state the obvious, but if you think that the killing is the "problem" I have, it's not. Killing will always happen even if you just armed people with rocks. It's the "realism" (that word again) element that I have issue with if you have guns so readily available, and even more so if ammo was equally if not more common. A zombie survival with a highly complex level of interaction with the items and the environment is pretty much a niche game. Turning it into a plain FPS would stop it being so. The reason DayZ gets the community it does is based on several aspects, but one of them is primarily because it is different to other games, and in a sense it's niche value. Where does that assumption come from? I want harder zombies, ones that attack in hordes where as a new spawn you are clinging to life, and are forced to cobble together crafted weapons just to survive long enough to go foraging for food, let alone weaponry. This is the epitome of a zombie apocalypse survival game, which is the raison detre of DayZ. In your opinion, and one I feel is based on assumptions of what it is I am describing, and it's why I said you didn't seem to be getting what I meant. Reducing guns doesn't make this game any less dangerous either from the zombies or your fellow players. However, what does make the game less appealing and, to be honest, utterly tedious, is spawning, running to the nearest weapons spawning point, then immediately setting out to kill other players. To me that is a waste of the environment being created here and if that was the end game then why bother with any of the survival aspects at all? Obviously when we discuss "realism" it's all supposition and conjecture. Who knows what a zombie apocalypse would be like, however I do believe we have all read enough post apocalyptic fiction (and not the Hollywood/TV trite rendition of it) to know that whatever was useful would be scavenged quickly and things like guns and ammo wouldn't be just left lying about.

While my post was more tongue in cheek, on a medium population persistence server I have yet to come across netting. I know where they spawn it's just a case that I never see any. Lots of wellies, hats and raincoats but no netting.

I don't agree with that, there are some lovely vistas inland. Although you realise the WHOLE map, including the cost, looks Russian for a reason.

While I am like most and want to encourage players to head inland I do think there is a case for a new town (or a re-purposed one) which would have a tourist layout rather than an industrial one. It's very common for the Russian state to create public recreation towns that catered purely for the downtime of the proletariat. Look at some of the ones on the Black Sea and you'll see what I mean. Granted we only see a tiny part of Chernarus so perhaps this is only the industrial part of the country, but as it's going to be only bit we get to see it would be nice to have somewhere that features a beach front hotel and cafes with beach umbrellas and even bathing huts and a marina rather than just big metal warehouses and metal shipping containers. If I had to place this new town it would be somewhere along the coast between Solnichniy and Kamyshovo, perhaps integrating Skalisty Island and/or Krutoy Cap.

Ah... FPS. Trust me OP, if getting the FPS fixed (or at least the game optimised) was as simple as starting a thread on here then I would have solved that problem a long, long time ago. Not that I disagree with the premise, but a little searching on this forum before posting would have given you the answers you are searching for, and more...

As it's holiday season, I don't want to seem harsh, however you might have read my post, but it's clear you didn't understand it. Perhaps Battlefield or Arma is what you are looking for. Again, you seem to have completely missed the point. Still we will just have to see what the devs end up delivering. With the lead replacing Rocket coming from a hunting background I am hoping the survival aspect is ramped up and the gunplay reduced. You clearly disagree. C'est la vie.

Ideally several hours, if not more, it might stop the CoD players who will get bored and leave us survival fans to get on with the important task of surviving. If people like the Chernarus environment with it's realistic crafting and interaction then there is Arma, for those who want the challenge of struggling against the elements and the "locals" with very little resources then DayZ would be the choice.

I never said it should become exclusively melee, so let's drop that assumption, however whether it would be fun is a matter of debate as personally I like DayZ for being a zombie survival game rather than a kiddie shoot em up which sadly it seems to be at the moment with the plethora of guns there are. The comparison to the US is not relevant as not only is America an extreme example of gun ownership, it's not equivalent to Eastern Europe; both in quality and quantity. Also you need to look at the context, if a zombie apocalypse was to happen (and clearly this is all conjecture), people wouldn't just leave weapons and ammo lying about. Those escaping would have taken them when they went and the ones that were left behind would have been used and probably only left because it had run out of ammunition. The idea you could find modern and undamaged weaponry just lying about with full ammo clips is just not realistic - obviously "realism" is a all down to debate here. Thankfully with the new lead taking over coming from a hunting game background that should emphasise the survival aspect far more, leaving those who just want to shoot things going back to Battlefield or CoD. Is there a place for guns in the game? Of course there is. Should they be a primary element, definitely not. It will, imo, ruin the game if that was the case.

It's not a shame, it's essential.

There is such a thing as netting in this game? I just thought it was a myth...

I don't like the number of guns that are available, I just don't think that in an event such as a zombie apocalypse they would be so common and just lying about. They would be used and the ones that were left would have hardly any ammo left. However, personally I'd like to see a whole lot less food spawning. We now have many other ways of getting food than tins lying about and maybe if you had to put a bit of effort into things then people would spend less time shooting and more time farming, fishing and hunting. It might even cut down on the KoS/bandits as shooting people who have food ruins the items, resulting in people needing to rob others rather than just kill them on sight.

Not actually tried in .52, so it might work but I've never caught a rabbit ever.. :(

"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise."

Does anyone seriously bother with barracks? If it's not absolutely swarming with server hoppers, it's swarming with bandits or KoS kiddies. Unless you are on a very low pop server, or you go in with a squad then I would advise avoiding them all together. In terms of weaponry you can pick up all you need to survive elsewhere.

I've found less, and the ones that I have found have been smaller in number (boxes of 12 or 20, rather than 40 or 60), but they are definitely still around.