I think it's a well thought out idea because maybe the developers thought to their audience "no, you're right, let's play it the dumbest way possible because it's easier for you" but also to themselves. The stick is thrown to the rabid dogs and anything that can be taken literally will be taken literally. The Christmas event is either for those who are too consumed and bitten by the bug or for the mind game circus. Why shouldn't this annual Christmas event be sarcastic? Thanks to the developers, we appreciate your sarcasm.

I think it's a well thought out idea because maybe the developers thought to their audience "no, you're right, let's play it the dumbest way possible because it's easier for you" but also to themselves. The stick is thrown to the rabid dogs and anything that can be taken literally will be taken literally. The Christmas event is either for those who are too consumed and bitten by the bug or for the mind game circus. Why shouldn't this annual Christmas Event be sarcastic? Thanks to the developers, we appreciate your sarcasm.

Why wouldn't this broken mouth be sarcastic? I think the 74 IQ points are unfair to the developers, they deserve better.

I disagree. I would encourage them to put Christmas-themed loot (clothes for example) for that specific event to find during that duration just like any other loot, but that's it. It might be enough to encourage people to go and get them without compromising other aspects.

My post isn't saying that developers aren't working hard, but it's exposing an issue with the survival elements that anyone can discuss. So, for you to come to me from behind your screen and say "stop complaining" is a bit condescending. And quite honestly, I would have broken your bitch mouth for talking to me like that if you had the guts to come and tell me to my face.

The way the Christmas event is implemented as it is currently does not make sense in a post-apocalyptic contextual content. I understand that it is PVP inducing but making specific events just for the sake of PVP interaction at the expense of the contextual setting wouldn't be what I support. More precisely, it is a question of form (how it is implemented) rather than the implementation itself. On a personal level, the Christmas Event in DayZ is immersion breaking. From an authentic survival perspective, this is conflicting. In a survival content, supplies must be truly rare and hard to find, because being spoiled is the antagonism of confronting a constraint and there is survival in constraints. From a contextual setting lens, it is breaking suspension of disbelief. If a book is good, readers can easily imagine the story and forget they are reading. The crashes of Santa's sleigh, Christmas music for the crash of Santa's sleigh, reindeer meat near Santa's sleigh, the bright "magical" light coming from the sky towards Santa's sleigh, wrapped gift boxes, tons of supplies placed and put back under a lit Christmas tree in a post-apocalyptic setting constantly remind me that I am playing a game and, alternately, that I'm not in a post-apocalyptic setting. Related topic: Abundance of ressources conflicts with survival experience

It's true, it's true. I agree.

I must say that I have a hard time deciding which approach should be taken to answering you because not only you completely missed the point of my suggestion but your reasoning is fallacious and many of your assessments are objectively refutable. Also, you skipped over the answer I gave about "better" and "challenge" and you risk facing your rerouting argument being dismantled for not being prudent with my previous answer. I really don't appreciate people trying to trick me and redirect my suggestion to another issue with unsound arguments. You tried to insert the Red Herring Fallacy the first time with your question and then proceeded to ignore my previous answer to your question in which you were preparing this fallacious reasoning that distracts from the main point of my topic. I'm going to believe that you didn't do it on purpose, so I'm going to take the time to respond to your assessments point by point and put things in context so that we can both understand each other because I appreciate and value this suggestion so as not to let it be subject to a reckless and unjust attempt to divert it from its path with reasoning error. Are you objectively correct? This statement comes from faulty reasoning, a misunderstanding of the definition of survival, is objectively refutable, and furthermore contradicts your own subsequent points of reasoning. Survival is both a means of protecting yourself, and a reallocation of your resources to what's most pressing and demanding. Here are some questions to make you think about your statement. Please read your assessment very carefully and then come back to these questions. Do you not survive against the elements in DayZ? Do you not survive against others? Can you not survive with others against others? How come there is no difficulty in surviving? How is surviving despite difficult circumstances not a matter of survival? Can you survive without eating in DayZ? - If the answer to the last question is negative, which it is, then how come it is not difficult to not find enough food to survive? - Doesn't night vision make it easier for you to survive at night and therefore increase your chances of survival? - Doesn't clothing make your survival easier by having camouflage, insulation, protection adapted to a certain situation? - Can't first aid kits save your life when you are injured? What is your argument against my suggestion on this? How does this go against my suggestion? Isn't it because of the abundance of resources (food and clothing)? You can literally catch food with a snare trap in minutes now and you can still just walk away for an abundance of food by going AFK for a few minutes (mushrooms and fruits). Don't you need food to survive? Don't you need heat to survive the cold? Stay on my topic, sir. I did not suggest to survive only against zombies. How is my suggestion contradicts with player to player interactions? Can you please explain. The "biggest" tip of your beloved streamer might not apply to a situation where the "biggest" tip is to keep your mouth shut to get out of a situation. I don't appreciate it when someone justifies a certain social status which incidentally is out of context, to counter my suggestion instead of dealing with the information itself. You also need to find water to survive and a knife is a useful tool in a survival setting and this can also be your "biggest tip". Also, how does my suggestion contradict whether or not you should use your voice? How does my suggestion contradict this? Which private server? How does my suggestion contradict this? You can't live if you don't eat. Furthermore, the goal of my suggestion is not to make it harder but to have a look at the abundance of ressources aspect. Unplayable is to the subject. That is playable for me. When I was being chased as an unarmed freshie by other hostile encounters, I didn't say it was unplayable, I was just trying to survive the situation and I was actually playing. Not to mention that this possibility is also currently happening due to the server change, coastal teleportation, and abundance of resources. Isn't this scenario one where you don't have enough resources to survive? You are running out of resources (food) and so you are taking the risk of getting that resource to continue despite the constraint. This argument should be mine on my suggestion, not yours, because it doesn't contradict my suggestion, in fact, it correlates with it. You won't know until you check what the other person has. You haven't found any fishing resources and you spot someone fishing or having a fishing rod: this is your PVP interaction getting fixed. Also, fishing resources are abundant, even for the outlying areas. Read my suggestion and use your imagination for the scenarios that can arise from it. The loot is too abundant on official, don't try to defend it with rerouting the argument to a player to player interaction. My suggestion does not contradict player to player interactions. I did not say that my suggestion have the goal to make DayZ harder. It might come as result depending on the situation but harder or not harder is not the goal. What does pushing players together have to do with my suggestion? What does this have to do with my suggestion regarding the issue of resource abundance? What do you mean? You validate my previous message that I gave you. It is your preference and your threshold. Your reality is not absolute. Where you delete the game is where I install it. Where you might call it bad, someone else might call it good. Don't you dare define my threshold for me. You could have at least had the decency to start with "for me" but you didn't. Harder is not the goal. What this have to do with my suggestion? If you want to make your own suggestion about player interactions, go ahead, but don't try to hijack my suggestion to sidetrack it for something else. Geared or not geared survivors don't eat cars and plate carriers. They eat food. This is true but it is a double-edged sword because then you make it even more easier for those who have less to lose and more to gain. Once again, the goal is not about harder or not harder. Also, don't you contradict yourself above with this following statement below? Why don't you apply that here instead of asking more BK18 for fresh spawns? The assessment of "better" depends on the context and the criteria used for the evaluation. You might need a gun but you don't have it. So aren't you facing a difficult circumstance in this situation? You may need a weapon to survive this situation, but you can't find it yet. Isn't this a difficulty in survival? Would you survive or would you delete the game? Are you objectively correct?

Straw-man argument. You talk and bark too much for nothing. You're not aware of your cretinism and how stubborn you are. It is tiresome. 1. The realism you speak of is subjective, and so are your reality and your descriptions: “absurd” “bullshit” “ridiculous” “the real beginning” “advantage” "gameplay" “real game”. 2. I did not talk about realism for my suggestion. 3. Above all, I provide ingredients for a survival aspect. 4. The title of the post is not “Realistic Day Zero”. It's titled “Day Zero”. 5. Realism was never the goal. DayZ was meant to deliver an authentic experience.

Nothing in my post suggests that one is more important than the other, nor does it address this issue. Contextually, subjects and objects can be considered interchangeable when each label is applied only from one angle or another. It is not the objects as such that are the problem, but their subject. "You" can be expressed as the subject and "life" as the object. Your character is an object and his life is also an object insofar as its constituent parts, such as something being done to it. As for the word "life", it all depends on the properties you attribute to life because it can apply to an object; the life of an object or the life span of an object. Before assessing error to a subject, you have to understand what the word "object" is being subjected to. By extension, life is your object and an object can be your life. According to you, objects are subject to restrictions, as is “life”, which can be illustrated by complexities, cycles and a multifaceted nature. Therefore, dissociating these chosen words from their possible relativity is an unwise thing to consider, as it not only leaves the inquirer stuck in his own restricted limit, but also keeps him in subjective ignorance and objective error. What's more, rushing to assert that someone is wrong because of your own flaws and shortcomings is a low-effort brain problem that will trip you up, yet again, and make you the textbook example of one who “doesn't survive as long as possible” on my post.

I wouldn't choose the word "better". "Better" for what, for whom? The assessment of "better" depends on the context and the criteria used for the evaluation. The “challenge” are to the subject. What is not a challenge to me may be a challenge to you. Within your parameters, speech and debate are equal. This is above all a choice of orientation and this choice may or may not reflect your preferences. If finding resources for your survival already reaches your challenge and difficulty threshold in DayZ, then this suggestion might not be for you.

The value may be to the subject. Just because you don't see any value in it doesn't mean it won't be outside your reality. Light a cigarette and take your eyes off the sniper scope for a moment. For everyone's sake. I'd appreciate to see cigarettes in DayZ, but admittedly the health degradation when smoking is too gamy-like for my taste, I'd just leave the option of smoking a cigarette.

The ideal solution is no transfer of data progress between servers, otherwise it's an open door to exploits which is a problem touching on basic design fundamentals and the heart of the content experience. However, this solution can be a double-edged sword because technical problems with the server such as performance and stability can weigh on the decision to remove the possibility of changing server with a data progression transfer.

Nie mogę uciec The previous server switching system was abused, which is why we now have server teleportation, to prevent ghosting. However, server teleportation is also vulnerable to abuse in other ways and it goes to the heart of the survival experience. I must point out that server teleportation with transfer of user character progress data is abused, prone to abuse and not just between different maps. "Nie mogę uciec" reference is just one example of incongruity on DayZ's part as users can free themselves from time and space constraints by switching servers, thus removing the issues and challenges of logical step requirements. Furthermore, it is being misused for challenges, disrupting the CLE in the process. This is as unstable, sloppy and skippy as it gets for a survival content that is described and marketed as gritty, authentic and unforgiving.

As long as availability is certified once a survivor gets there it will be easily obtainable because they know it is there, it will spawn/stay there and only there so randomising spawning to different and multiple locations around the map while keeping it in an appropriate space (relative and situational) and reducing the chances of spawns/total numbers at once while aiming for a dynamic rarity/scarce system is a good start for constraints because the experience of survival lies in constraints. Also, since the map is too small and supplies is plentiful, a certain place is easily accessible. Since the character is too fast when sprinting and navigating difficult type, surface and slope of terrain, a certain place is also easily accessible. Since the character does not face the constraint of more energy expenditure due to carrying more weight and navigating difficult terrain, a certain location is also easily accessible. Since you can navigate, carry a lot of weight and navigate on difficult terrain without any need to rest, a certain place is also easily accessible. Since you can teleport by switching servers, a certain place is also easily accessible. Since you can just attach a weapon without having to find or craft a sling, certain guns will always be easily carry-able and transportable. There's already too many guns and ammunitions spawning along the coast. Reduce the spawns of weapons and ammunitions. Make users count their bullets and cherish their weapon, not just on the coast, but everywhere. Here again. You see, that's the problem with BI with the survival aspect, they just want to incentivise users to check the item they placed there. How? By increasing the frequency and chance of this item spawning guns and ammo without wondering if there's already too much guns and ammo available even in a full server. They want you to use that snare trap to catch food? They'll reduce the time and space constraints to get it instead of wondering if maybe it's because other ways to get food are much easier and more accessible. The supply shortages themselves will make more places worth visiting and variety of use come along as the scarcity of loot implemented will be a solid means of survival experience and resource seeking.