Beizs

In regards to the meat, it's not particularly difficult to tell different types of meat apart, for the most part. Having an image (and only an image) of the meat would be the most realistic, but it wouldn't exactly be difficult to learn what to avoid (just learn what human meat looks like. Even if the image is from a randomized selection, it shouldn't be that hard, though pork does apparently look a lot like human meat). As for the drinks, it'd be ridiculous to not be able to tell what's what (and I don't believe you currently can). If you have a sense of smell, you can tell bleach, petrol, water and disinfectant apart, before even tasting it - and the second I taste it, if it's not water, I'm going to spit it right back out.

Only for calls, internet and GPS. Every single other feature on the phone would still work. It does drastically limit their capabilities, but they still have plenty of uses. For example, the compass (at least on my phone) uses a magnetometer. This means that it would be functional even without any connectivity. In fact, go ahead and put your phone in airplane mode. It still has a wide range of features that work perfectly well. In regards to charging, there is a tonne of different options out there. They're adding generators into the game, so that'll be one way, using a standard cable. Battery operated chargers (like, ones that take AA's) are also very common. Wind up phone chargers are also pretty common. There is PC's present in the game (obviously non-functional), all of which look like they're from maybe the early 2000's. Considering Chernarus is a poor area, it's unlikely they'd have up to date PC's. This implies that the game is set in, more or less, modern times. Smartphones are incredibly prevalent. Cheap ones would be all over the place in Chernarus. You realize that China has the largest number of smartphones in use in the world, despite the vast majority of its citizens being very, very poor? China has a smartphone ownership rate (in 2013 - it's probably increased dramatically since then) of 46.9%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_smartphone_penetration In regards to how realistic smartphones would be in terms of whether people would actually have them or not, it depends on when DayZ is actually set. But even if it was around the dawn of smart phones, there would still be few rich people in the area and those people would probably have them. So, in my opinion, there's no realism issues when it comes to smartphones. There's also a wide range of uses. However, the question is whether it's actually worth the development time when most of its uses can be replaced with other items. How many people would actually use one, when they'd need a slot for the phone, a slot for the charger and several slots for batteries, when they could just have a compass and map and have the most important features without half as much work.

Your first post in the thread was adressing the subject. Your first post to me was attempting to refute my argument related to the subject. What are you talking about?

No, I absolutely see what you mean there. I'm cool with that. Still doesn't change the fact that you've refuted nothing I said to do with the actual topic at hand. Your only argument in this entire thread was that people would loot the stores, but that isn't really relevant to the topic as the food still exists, it's just moved into the households of the people who have looted it. You've put forward literally no evidence to support your argument and have done nothing but made your own assumptions that are more removed from reality than anyone elses on this thread.

You claimed that the argument was 'so stupid' you thought people were trolling, thus attempting to refute the argument without any actual argument of your own. Ironically, this makes you appear stupid. Oh, and yet again, you've yet to actually put forward any argument. You've refuted nothing. You've presented no evidence. Bye.

Do explain exactly how the world works, then. You've presented no argument. You've simply strawmanned the idea, without refuting a single thing backing it up. If you want a constructive conversation, actually explain what you're talking about. Otherwise, don't bother contributing at all. If anybody seems like they're trolling, it's you. Seriously, it's simple mathematics. It's economies of scale. A zombie virus would spread incredibly quickly, especially in a relatively small, quarantined area. The resources in that area would not all be consumed in that time. There would be an absolute shit tonne left. The maths I did looked only at resources in civilian households. Nothing related to shops or any military/police/commercial storage. Using low estimates. Do tell me what's so incorrect? We're talking about it in relation to the game. Not real life. We're just using real life (and in the case of my post, real virus models) as a base... Y'know. Like literally every single person does. What are these false assumptions?

This is true, but you'd still have a bounty of stuff a few years on, also, if my mathematics is even anywhere near correct (and, using scientific modelling for the infection and simple maths, I feel like it's pretty accurate to be honest). Excluding food and ammo, you'd have a lot available to you for longer than that, too. Though 20 years? Okay. Clothes have probably all been eaten by moths, there's absolutely no food left over, other than the occasional undiscovered bomb bunker with a bounty, most of the guns have been used to destruction, there's just about no ammunition left and everything you get is going to have to be made by you. At that point, however, I think that the last of us has far too much for 20 years in. Nobody can seem to get it quite right. :P It's not about the supermarkets though, man. Most people buy a week or so's worth of food in one go. Add that to stuff like pastas, rice and tinned food, which just about everyone I know generally has quite a large surplus of as they are commonly forgotten about while you're shopping and you have an absolutely ridiculous amount of food lying around. Following scientific disease models and emulating a zombie apocalypse through good old math, the population of Chernarus would be reduced to less than 1% in a mere matter of four days, leaving a ridiculous amount of food for those who did survive. I did literally all the maths you could possibly need to prove that abundance would be a very real thing and, assuming people who survived the initial wave actually rationed, it would last years, even at low estimates. I'd like to see more realistic food consumption. So, if you drive everywhere and do pretty much fuck all, you're not gonna need more than like 2k calories. If you're running a marathon daily, you might rocket up to anywhere between 6k to 10k calories. You'll need to drink a minimum of about 6 pints of fluid a day to remain healthy. If you're running a marathon a day, that rockets up to 12 pints or more. So long as there's a realstic, healthy medium, I'm fine with that. However, as the server times can be changed, it makes it difficult as you don't know whether to go by real life time or server time when it comes to modelling the calorie consumption. Basically, it'd be nice to see them actually do the maths and get realistic calorie consumption in game, as well as water. It's really not particularly difficult maths and would improve gameplay a lot for me, honestly. However, I disagree that gear should be rare at all. Realistically, it would not be. It should just be hard to get, because the zombies are in the towns and cities. That's an ideal DayZ for me. DayZ isn't a starvation simulator. It's a survival simulator based in a zombie apocalypse, absolutely no more than a year (we're probably talking a couple months at the most) after the apocalypse. Everything would be in abundance, if you were brave and smart enough to get through the zombies to get the loot. The actual worries in the game should be zombies and players, and, to a lesser extent, diseases. Realistically, even without the huge bounty available to you in the 'abandoned' towns and cities, it would be very easy to survive food and drink wise out in the wild. Historical research, recently, has pointed toward the idea that humans who were hunters and gatherers way back when actually had significantly more free time than us, as hunting and gathering, once you know the basics, is so damned easy. Throw in modern methods and tools to do these things and you'd have literally no problem at all.

So... Zombies. They aren't great, right? People want zombies to be an actual threat. In order to do this, most people assume that greater numbers will do it. No problemo. But in one of the infected servers that was up shortly on .58, I punched out two hordes. The first time, I did it with a couple other people and finished bleeding, but could have easily survived had I wanted to (I chose to let myself die for dramatic effect). The second one I punched out entirely by myself, without bleeding at all. I was hit once the entire time. There was twenty two zombies in this horde. I just kited them and head-punched one by one. The thing is, in a real zombie apocalypse scenario, a single zombie can kill you easily if you're not aware. All it has to do is jump on you, knock you to the ground and start tearing into your throat. So, how to fix the zombies, without even increasing server load by massively increasing zombie populations? Give them the ability to grab you. Some kind of quick time style event where one of the attacks is a swing which grabs at you. If you counter fast enough (simply hit a certain button, or punch it, whatever), then the hold is broken and has no effect. If you don't, you're held for a second and it bites you, causing you to bleed. If you don't react fast enough at all, you're knocked down onto the ground and have to kick it off by spamming a button (left click would be easiest) as it shreds your neck with its teeth. At this point, you're probably screwed. Obviously there would need to be some randomness added to this (different grappling animations. Some where you don't get knocked to the ground, some where it jumps on you, some where it grabs you, etc) so that it doesn't just become boring and easy to deal with, as a matter of muscle memory. It'd need a lot of refinement to not feel clunky, but fluid and like a real fight. But it would make meleeing the zombies a lot harder and a lot more risky, as it should be. Punching out a large group of zombies wouldn't be an option (especially if they get sped up a little so you can't just make them beeline). You'd have to resort to guns for any more than a couple zeds and if you're not paying attention, you'll be punished. Obviously this idea is really just a basic, cobbled together example. I'm sure that the team could come up with better ways of handling it. But zombies need to be able to grab you, knock you down and, given the opportunity, kill you easily by biting through your jugular (maybe this could be only once they've successfully pinned you) in order for them to become any kind of real threat. People might cry that they're OP or whatever, but really, it's more realistic, more authentic and would make the gameplay far more challenging. Example of what I mean would be State of Decay. They did pretty well with the melee system, though obviously this would need to be a bit grittier and more realistic, without the cartoon like gore and exploding heads.

Just to add to this, as they are planning on adding animal companions, this kind of mechanic is, in my opinion, even more necessary. I assume the companions will basically just be dogs. The ONLY way a dog is going to be able to defend itself properly is by barreling into someone, taking them by surprise and knocking them down, before continuing to shred their faces. Just like zombies. Just throwing it out there - this system would kill three birds with one stone; improving zombies, improving meele PVP and animal companions.

The main issue is that the servers just can't handle enough loot to get anywhere close to a realistic level. It would be awesome if they could and they could actually get away with completely disabling restarts for a long ass time if loot was how it would be in real life. But yeah, it's not very good for gameplay to have complete abundance. It would work, however, in my opinion, if the zombies were at a point where actually going into a town or city to loot it would be genuinely dangerous, especially for a group who can't stealth their way around very easily.

Read my longpost a couple up. Even with food and ammunition, it's really not realistic for there to be scarcity for a couple years at the very least, frankly. If you don't have time for the longpost, it's summed up in a TlDr, though the actual maths and crap backing it up is fairly important imo.

Yep. Now factor in the fact that in this kind of situation you're probably talking about 0.1% of the population or less surviving for any noteworthy period of time and that suddenly goes up to 70 per person. Even the Netherlands would be left with 39 per person. Here in the UK, you're talking 66 per person and this is a place that is considered tight on gun controls. Factor in military and police guns and that probably goes up well past 100. Also, the Czech Republic is at 16.3 per 100 people. Think that's worth noting for Chernarus' statistics. Could be talking 163 civilian, registered guns per person in this kind of situation. Factor in the civil war aspect of the story and heavy police/military presence in the region and I'd not be surprised if it was 200, 250.

What I would like to see would be the addition of radios that players can broadcast to if they have the right setup. Imagine how much that could add to the end game once proper base building is in (and I know and am very happy about the base building they're planning on rather than the actual construction of buildings). I'd love to set up a small base, get a radio tower going with a generator and broadcast out to any survivors out there, I am Legend style. Maybe even the static radios could be listened to to add a bit more to the game, though you'd have to throw a new battery in there 80% of the time or something to get it working. How cool would it be to be on a server, throw a battery in a radio and sit there, listening for any frequencies that are broadcasting (with a simple method of switching through frequencies quickly so you don't have to sit there for an hour. :P Maybe it's just my inner roleplayer coming out, but damn those kinds of radios would be awesome. Wouldn't really require much on top of the current walkie talkie system, either. Just some new items (obviously this would only be feasible after the generators were added in), a bit of tweaking and the conversion of the static radios to usable objects with fairly consistent spawns.

Maybe with the in depth vehicle repair system, they can just port the core mechanics over to the guns and have it far more realistic in just about every regard. Definitely could use some genuine maintenance mechanics which would help with immersion, add some realism to the firefights and balance out the guns a bit better.

Firstly, I agree with you pretty much 100%. However, with the new character controller, the animation thing will no longer be an issue (and the devs will have a better system to play with). With the desync etc, hopefully, that's not a permanent problem. I agree that it'd suck to have that happen with a zombie that was desyncing, but considering the fact they're specifically working on the performance with the zombies and their impact on the server, hopefully, that won't be an issue for much longer. I absolutely get where you're coming from with quick time events, and actually agree with you. However, with a simple grabbing system, I don't really know how else it could be achieved. The zombie swings for you. If it connects, you have I dunno, half a second to punch the zombie/left click to counter the grapple entirely. If you take more than a second, it locks deals extra damage. If you take any longer than that, it knocks you to the ground, at which point, you can struggle out or die, basically. It's a bit more of a fluid quicktime event and could (assuming the desync is sorted) see it coming fairly easily and avoid the attack without much of an issue. The main thing would be if a zombie came at you from behind. Realistically, you'd be fucked if a zombie got behind you. To be honest, it could only be possible if the zombie was behind you. I think that the game really needs something along these lines. I really don't mind the implementation or the method of countering so long as it actually makes the zombies a threat - even a single one, if it catches you unaware. I don't really think that the quicktime events themselves are what pull me out of the immersion, but the way they're handled. If they feel kind of janky, or out of place, they definitely pull me out of the game. But if they're fluid and work well, they're absolutely fine. A bad example would be TWD quicktime events, which are pretty meh. A good example would be, as I mentioned before, State of Decay. I also remember, I think it was maybe Call of Duty 3, where there was a quicktime event fairly early in the game where some guy jumped on you with a knife and knocked you over. All you had to do was spam a button a couple times, as you kicked him off. If the animations were done well and it was handled properly with the actual connections etc, I think even just a quicktime event could actually work pretty well. Not sure though. Like I said, I'm sure the devs can probably come up with something far better than I can. Or the community if we put our minds together. Again, though. I just really think the game needs something like this. Otherwise, no matter what, the zombies won't quite be there. If someone is within swiping distance, I can grab them. If I grab them, I'm instantly harder to deal with than if I simply throw a punch at them - and the current attacks that the zombies use take me out of the game far more than a good grappling and biting system would. I'm just trying to think of games that have good grappling mechanics. A few wrestling games or something could be a good 'research project' for the team in that regard.

It's post civil war. There were militia all over the place before the zombie apocalypse, according to the story. Guns would be plentiful. It's also full of farming communities, and rural areas, many of whom would own guns for hunting purposes and protection purposes due to their remote location making the police virtually useless. Also, the sheer number of guns the military and police have, even in places like the UK, with a significantly reduced population (as there would be after a zombie apocalypse), it's really, really a non-factor.

To be fair, the angle in the OP makes it difficult to see the slope. :D

Just because the store is empty doesn't mean the food is gone. Do you think people eat literally everything in one go when they're buying for rations? I think that obvious places to loot, such as grocery stores, military bases, etc should actually have less loot and a lot of stuff should be found in caches in homes. Clothes, materials and tools etc should be spread out randomly, as people aren't going to take literally every piece of clothing or every tool they come across. But food, etc, would have been looted, but not necessarily actually consumed. That sort of thing should be less common to find, but it should pay off more as you find an entire cupboard filled with tins or something. If I went to a shop at the beginning of a zombie apocalypse and took all of the food from it, but then died the next day, that food isn't gone. It still exists and if someone finds it, they're going to be set for a very long time for food. In a poorer climate like Chernarus, farmers absolutely keep stockpiles of food. They just split it based on what they can sell and what they can keep. Hell, I live in Wiltshire in England, which is quite a rich county, but is absolutely full of farmers. I went to a village school where half of the kids came from farming families. They stockpiled food, because it's easier (and significantly cheaper) to just keep some of the food you farm than going out and buying it. Obviously things that perish faster tend to get sold almost entirely, while things that can be stored easily are stocked before they are sold. Right now, I have fully stocked cupboards. If I didn't buy anything else and rationed what I was eating, I could survive for over a month with a household of five people... Out of the food in my house alone. Now, imagine that 90% of the population (again, that's actually a small number for a zombie apocalypse scenario) died off within a week or two. That leaves 90% of households with 2 or 3 weeks worth of food just sitting there. Obviously some houses would have started with more than others, and some will have rationed worse, but as an average, that's how it goes down. So now that remaining 10% have enough food available for at least (with an original population of, say, 100k households, leaving 10,000 households to loot the empty ones) 2 weeks from their own stores and 18 weeks on average from looting, totaling 20 weeks of food. That math may be completely off, by the way. I'm half asleep. But it's a lot - and it's a very low estimate. Under mathematical algorithms for the spread of the infection, two weeks is slow. 10% survival rate is very high. If you decrease that survival rate to 1%, leaving 1,000 households out of 100,000, you're talking 200 weeks - nearly four years - and even 1% is high. In a quarantined zone like Chernarus, assuming there's no 'common' gene combination in the area that creates an immunity to the infection, you're looking at, tops, 0.1% after two weeks. I'm sure you can multiply by ten. Edit: The Math This math will also indicate roughly how much other stuff will be around too. Remember, however, that starting numbers for other things (guns, clothes, ammo, tools) tend to be lower, but they deplete at a much lower rate. So yeah. Example. Say 1 gun average per household (some have none, some have many). 100,000 households goes down to 1,000. Now you have 100 guns per household. Each person has 5 full outfits. Now they each have 500 full outfits. 2 pairs of shoes? 200. And this is using the 1% min population... Which is, again, pretty damn optimistic. When you break it down, even ammunition isn't going to be particularly rare. Say each household starts with an average of 50 rounds of civilian grade ammunition. 50*100,000 is 5,000,000 rounds. In two weeks, during the infection period, the average use is half of that. That's actually a hell of a lot, when these people are supposedly holed up just burning through their food. 1% survival rate, which, again, is very optimistic, leaves every household with 2500 rounds of civilian grade ammunition. Single shot rifles/pistols? That'll last you a long ass time. 0.1%, still quite optimistic, though could actually be realistic in a true apocalypse scenario, you got 25,000 rounds. Please. Do tell me about how scarcity is realistic. EDIT: Quick paper on modelling a zombie outbreak. https://loe.org/images/content/091023/Zombie%20Publication.pdf. This one is fairly optimistic compared to others I've seen, but backs me up as being a pretty damn optimistic guy. In the first model, you see an incubation period of 24 hours. After the first time unit, infections begin to take place (implying 1 time unit is roughly 1 day) and by 4 days, non infecteds are below 1%. The longest it takes (ignoring the cure example) for it to dip below 1% is 8 days under any model. Even with a cure from day 1, the population drops to >10% within 7 days, leaving 30 weeks worth of food for the survivors based entirely off of non-perishables. With this paper as evidence, the one I labelled as 'fairly realistic', unsurprisingly, is the most realistic, though still rather optimistic. The quarantine example is looking at a quarantine whose entire population is zombies and infected, while the non-quarantined area is an area where only healthy are, which gave the longest survival time (quarantines eventually fail then the infection is sped up). However, Chernarus in its entirety was quarantined, trapping the healthy in with the infected. This would likely see a faster infection rate than even the first, standard model, which saw it drop to ~1% or less in 4 days. It also implies that the quarantine, realistically, would fail, leading to the rest of the world being infected also in a matter of weeks. Final note

'I don't want the people on the internet to yell at me more than they normally do.' :(

Have you ever seen a theoretical disease outbreak model for a zombie apocalypse? It'd spread fast, especially because the infected actively seek to infect others. A large part of the population would be wiped out incredibly quickly. Especially in higher population areas, where there would be more food stockpiled. People wouldn't have to vanish in to thin air all at once. But in the first day or two of a zombie apocalypse, the majority of the population would be infected, especially if the incubation period was long enough to travel between towns/cities before turning. You'd be talking 99% in a week or so, assuming incredible (and near impossible) quarantine measures were not put into place almost immediately. A quarantine, however, as the region DayZ is set is apparently under, would speed up the infection rate in that area as people would be trapped in with the infected, So yeah. There would be plenty left over. Especially in farming communities, which Chernarus is full of.

This is actually kind of a good point in the sense that there's really not any need to build in game, realistically. Why would you even want to build a house from scratch when you can just take any already existing one and fortify it?

People wouldn't take bags of tinned food if they were being evacuated. They'd take the essentials. People who live off the land create large stockpiles of food and such so that in case of a famine etc, they have plenty of non-perishables to survive. Even without that, farmers store and treat food for consumption throughout the year because a lot of their harvest happens only once a year. In this kind of area, non perishable food would be even more common than an industrialized area. It would take literal years to deplete this kind of area of all of the stockpiled non perishables with a survival rate as high even as 10% (in which case, it's not an apocalypse. It's cleared up in a few weeks). Lower that survival rate and you have enough food to sustain people for far longer than they need worry - by that point, they'll be farming and hunting like professionals. From a gameplay perspective, however, as I stated above, it would only make sense for abundance to exist (as it would in real life) if the zombie populations were increased and a single zombie could kill you if it caught you unaware, which requires the implementation some kind of grappling mechanic and a much better melee system in general.

Tinned food shouldn't be rare at all. That's kind of a given, in all honesty. Guns shouldn't be uncommon either. Civilian weapons are widespread and many people own more than one gun. Military weapons would be less common but, frankly, with so many military bases, they wouldn't be realistically rare. Guns aren't exactly easily destroyed, either. Tools, again, are sturdy and very plentiful. In an area like Chernarus, there would be an absolute bounty of things like splitting axes, machetes, hacksaws, hammers and more. Clothes are also ridiculously rare in game. They don't get ruined anywhere near fast enough to be as rare as they are now and the average person probably has over ten full outfits (and a couple pairs of shoes). Ammunition is a little easier to argue for scarcity, as it'd be used up a lot during the early stages of the apocalypse and (I don't know whether this is right, as I live in the UK, so this is an assumption) not many people stock literally thousands of rounds at home. People say that we don't know how long it's been since the apocalypse. Well, it's clearly no more than a year, otherwise everything would be seriously overgrown and animal populations would be booming. As the infected are humans, not undead, they'd have probably died out to a large extent. So, couple months? Makes sense as a lot of stuff is still in places you'd expect it to be (which, in my opinion, is silly - loot should be plentiful, but only if you happen upon a stockpile, with less useful stuff spread evenly around - stuff that people wouldn't stockpile), implying not much looting has taken place. After a couple of months, with about 1% of the population still alive, even, there'd still be a ridiculous amount of canned goods and clothing. The tools and weapons would still be plentiful, though probably largely stockpiled. But even ignoring that, the amount of wild plants you can eat and things like apple trees and berry bushes being very common, as well as the wildlife, it would, realistically, be incredibly easy to avoid starvation. And again, no amount of time is going to deplete the world of clothing to a point anywhere near what it is in DayZ. Hunting with modern tactics and modern weapons is easy. Same goes for fishing. People would also look after their guns, as they'd be so freaking useful, preventing depleting numbers there. So... Again, the only thing that would realistically become depleted would be ammunition and, I guess, gasoline, though you can use ethanol in petrol engines and vegetable oil in diesel engines. The only way anything other than ammunition and traditional fuels would be rare would be if it had literally been years. It clearly has not. However, from a gameplay perspective, unless they could literally increase the number of infected fivefold and get them to a point where one can spell your end if it catches you unaware, the game would just be far too easy to be fun with a realistic amount of loot. In a zombie apocalypse, there would be only two things to worry about, realistically. Zombies, and other people. However, with the zombies a big enough threat, a good number of the people you meet would be friendly. So, Tl;Dr - Scarcity is literally the opposite of realism in DayZ. However, from a gameplay perspective, at least for now, it's necessary. If zombie numbers could be largely increased and they were more effective, realistic loot would be okay for the game. It really just boils down to that.

In regards to building realistically, it's actually very easy. I've helped build sheds (nice ones out of timber) from scratch and even using scrap wood. I've built metal sheds too. I've helped build conservatories, both with glass and brick as their primary material. I've even worked on small housing projects using various materials (wood, brick & block). I have never had any real training to do any of these things. My father wasn't trained to be a builder, but taught himself at a young age and does work on friends houses regularly. I helped him build an extension on our old house that essentially doubled the size of the ground floor. With a little reading (and books on the subject of construction are very common and explain just about everything you could possibly need) and some trial and error, building even larger structures can be very, very simple. Also, with trucks like the V3S in game, and even the bus, you could move resources for larger buildings incredibly easily. Given free reign over a bunch of towns and cities, especially poorer ones where people would have the tools and resources to work on/build their own homes themselves readily available, it'd be incredibly easy to build a reasonably large bungalow in a fairly short timeframe. Especially working with building materials such as straw bales and render, which would be plentiful in this kind of area. However, in terms of this game, it's not particularly feasible in my opinion - or a good idea. Look at games such as ARK and RUST, where just having the mechanics in game allow for people to build ridiculous structures that would take months with a full team of builders realistically, many of which wouldn't even actually be possible. It'd be awesome if the DayZ dev team could implement a full, realistic physics based building system (lashing together logs, hammering them into the ground, nailing pieces of wood together and even brick laying, etc), but it's far too much work and probably isn't even feasible with the engine they're working with - and unless it's physics based and very refined, you're going to see the kind of silliness you see in other games. I think that, for this game, modifying existing buildings and maybe a few small scale prefabs would work. But it's not anywhere near as difficult as one would assume to actually build something larger. TlDr; Building something the size of a house isn't particularly difficult. With a bit of reading, given the tools, time and resources, just about anybody with reasonable practical skills could build a house, ranging from log cabin to a small, simple mansion. However, in game, it's difficult to enforce realistic building standards. It's a slippery slope and incredibly difficult to get right. But if you keep the structure simple, it's actually pretty easy to build a large house, especially using things like straw bales and render, which can be just as sturdy as brick, last just as long and be thrown together incredibly quickly.

Even civilian guns have been very rare for me. Maybe I've just been unlucky, but I only have an SKS... Which uses ammo that spawns only in military areas. For the most part, however, I think that it's about right. I like scarcity in a game like DayZ and it's infinitely better than 57.