jqp

Well, no. I addressed this above. Apocalyptic Math: for every day you set your game time beyond day0, that's another day of human progress you have to account for. Another day of survivors killing zeds, scavenging, rebuilding civilization. Eventually it becomes silly to deny that human progress should be happening. Then there's the fact that the wild game alone could sustain 1/10,000th (or whatever) of the human population, even after the non-perishable food runs out. You can't just dial up the S:Z ratio to "fix" this because Apocalypse Math; dialing up the S:Z ratio means dialing down the Apocalyptic Zombie Threat. If loot has persistence and no spawning, then so should the zeds. It wouldn't take long to clear them all off the server. It would take a lot longer to eat through all the non-perishable food or run out of ammo than it would to clear out the zeds. Again, I am talking about "realism," not gameplay.

Another thing about starvation; it takes bloody weeks to starve to death. Really not the sort of thing that screams "action-packed." You can make it "action-packed" by dramatically accelerating the process, but only at the cost of realism. And realism is my ENTIRE reason for wanting hunger, thirst, starvation, and dehydration in the first place (drama-dialed-up/grindy pseudo "survival simulators" don't grab me). The fact is, death by starvation is pretty rare outside of remote locations, abusive prisons, or sieges, and would be not much more of a threat in the event of a ZA than they are in real life. I think the results of malnutrition offer much more opportunity for good gameplay. Low blood sugar, fatigue, etc., can have a dramatic effect on performance IRL. My instinct is to chuck the scarcity, and think of ways to make a more realistic approach work well. But, you're asking a valid question, for various reasons. I think the "spores" thing from The Last of Us, or something with a similar "cross-species infection" appeal, works well; you can fold in the explanation from the The Road - food is scarce because something is attacking Earth's plant life, and carrying capacity is far too low to sustain the current population. The "spores" aren't just turning people into zeds, they're also killing off the crops, and probably the animal population, too. Maybe the crop infestation and resultant starvation was going on for years before the zed infestation started, which would explain the exhausted supplies of consumable goods. But then one runs into the problem of where are the zeds coming from, if the population was already low? Writing tight, plausible PA fiction is hard, lol. On the other hand, your Escape From New York theory does offer intriguing possibilities. I would love to see something like that done DayZ style. But EFNY had NYC going for it; Escape From The Dreary Empty Island doesn't have quite the same appeal, IMO.

Reading comprehension still low (ignored/skipped the "realism vs. gameplay" paragraph, skipped rest of reply again.

You skipped the first paragraph of my OP. So, I skipped the rest of your reply.

Of course, introducing "fast zombies" and other, more formidable types would significantly change the Apocalypse Math. I, for one, prefer a more laid-back, "all slow zeds" apocalypse. I'd rather see the early stages of rebuilding than a zombie shooter.

If you're right, then I'm glad I apologized in advance for my ignorance of DayZ.But if you are, then I'm disappointed. I don't know why, but the idea that I'm playing in a very limited Zombie Apocalypse takes a lot away from the experience for me. I like my Apocalypses Apocalyptic. It's hard for me to consider a regional phenomenon an Apocalypse at all. This has substantially lowered my appreciation for Dying Light, for example. A big part of the reason I love post-apocalyptic settings so much is the idea that there are no safety nets, no civilization, anymore. Like the wild west on steroids. But here you run into Apocalypse Math, again. As I said above, every time you dial up the survivor:zed ratio, you also dial down the severity of the Zombie Apocalypse.Raise your hand if you're an able-bodied man who's at all familiar with firearms, and you don't think you could take out a thousand zeds (meaning, "slow zombie" mopes as seen in DayZ and TWD) in a short time, given a decent weapon and sufficient ammo. I don't see why any red-blooded man wouldn't commit himself to taking out hundreds of thousands, if not more, zeds by himself. After his survival requirements are met, what more important job is there? The upshot of all of this for me is that the survivor:zed ratio needs to be very, very low. 1:10k is sort of a ceiling, IMO. Any higher and the "apocalypse" starts to seem too easy. But again, you run into Apocalypse Math; the longer you stretch out the die-off (and thus deplete stockpiles), the less plausible it becomes that there would be a large zed population; once people realize that people come back as zeds, they're going to take preventative measures to ensure the dead don't come back as zeds. So, only a massive and sudden die-off really makes sense here, absent some new handwavium I haven't seen yet.

I could maybe see a scarcity scenario in a place like Las Vegas, which is built in an essentially uninhabitable region and sustained only through trade that comes in from outside the city. Even then, though, you have to deal with the math of the low-property-damage ELE: The amount of non-perishable goods is divided by the survivor:dead ratio. Which would mean even in one of the last places you'd want to find yourself experiencing the Zombie Apocalypse, you'd be surrounded by sudden, massive abundance. An event like in "The Road" would neatly explain scarcity, though.

This is a good point, one I briefly addressed in my original post (the bit about "plot."). I'd only add that it had better be a very well-thought-through explanation, or it will seem cheesy. If Chernarus is really that bad, relative to the rest of the world, first thing I would be wondering is, "why can't we get boats and get off this doubly Godforsaken rock, and go to the much better Godforsaken rest of the world?" "Because that wouldn't be dramatic" kinda falls flat for me. But I'm just picky that way. :)' I'd also be wondering how 40-100 people per server could really impact the numbers I crunch in this thread, which is the real question.

No, the reason is "drama." As I explained above, the food supply would not spoil in months. It would take many years. "Looted" durable goods (e.g., ammo) do not disappear off the face of the Earth. A person hoarding the ammo that previously belonged to a population of 10k (actually, more than 10k, since you only become a hoarder after you exceed your share of the pre-apocalyptic stockpile) will want to trade some of that stuff for services, security, or other goods. Or get himself shot when a psychologically stable person finds out he's the kind of idiot who hoards just to hoard, letting others die for no good reason. Every day you set the clock forward from Day 0 is another day you have to explain why people are still acting like morons too stupid to re-establish the (rather easily accomplished) basics of sustainable survival. So, that's not a "fix," either. ETA: again, keep in mind that I am not directly addressing game design with this thread. I am addressing realism. Whether or not the game should be "realistic" is a distinct, secondary topic that I am addressing less directly. I was annoyed at seeing people advocate the scarcity scenario as the "realistic" one, when the opposite is true.

I do, I just don't see it as the central, or default assumption of the game, the way some do. The Road is an entertaining scenario. I could easily see wanting to play that kind of scenario. But I think it's too narrow (and depressing) a scenario to center a game as promising as DayZ around. I think there would be more than enough game to support a survivor population, given a survivor ratio of 1:10k, or thereabouts. More sustainable, in the very long run, than the pre-apocalyptic stock of non-perishable food. But this is neither here nor there; the available stock of non-perishable food would be far more than enough to get people back on their feet and creating their own canned goods and non-perishable food stocks. I see your point, but am I correct in my assumption that they're practically mindless, and they use no tools? If I am, then I think I can safely declare the game population practically immune to predation from zeds. Imagine a hunter with an IQ of 30 and no ability to use tools. He'd catch no game at all. He would be limited to carrion, basically, or getting lucky once in a blue moon. ETA: a horde could surround large game, with a few winding up lucky enough to actually get a taste of the poor animal, but this is sort of a marginal case. As for zeds eating human non-perishable food, well, I'd think throwing them bags of rice would be a good post-apocalyptic strategy, in that case. I've never seen or heard of any Zombie fiction where zeds are happy with or even remotely interested in eating what humans eat. Runs directly contrary to the genre.