Presence-

To provide an authentic, gritty, and unforgiving survival experience, we must give survivors what they need. Controversially, I can firmly write that at this point, reading about people struggling to survive is a sign of good direction and a moment for a coffee break/laugh for me. Rationally, how is reading about people struggling to survive in survival content not the point? Propose them five minutes death-timer and they will pass out. Then they'll ask "Why?" before threatening to get the fuck out. When a little good direction is applied, you will see discontent springing up from the weeds. You know, the weeds that consider the need to drink water in survival content to be masochism. Contextually, if they are thirsty, we can give them what they need (not what they want) and make them work for it because the experience of survival can be experienced when one needs something, just as it can be experienced when one is faced with a threatening situation. When that need is satisfied, expectations of future improvement in one's life state are reduced or nonexistent, and the shorter the time to reach that state, the less value is placed on the time and energy required to obtain what satisfies it. Thus, the object itself has little value when it is common and easy to obtain, therefore, survivors do not care about losing it. The incentive to introduce, maintain or increase the importance of finding and protecting something is a crucial part of how you set the tone, strategy and pace, because it is part of the investment requirements that are reflected in the consequences. In a certain context, minimising the loss of an investment is tantamount to devaluing it with the time and effort it takes to acquire it, leading users to make rash decisions and actions. As an extension of the above, - The incentive to venture out and scavenge for resources fades quickly. - The incentive to help each other is minimal. - Decision-making and strategy regarding resources is minimal. - Exploration is less rewarding and easily accessible in survival content. - Extended experience is negatively impacted - Dying is less punishing - Survival is less of a concern 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.

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?

Survivors start from scratch. No knives, no bandages, no maps, no glow sticks. Nothing at all. Zero. Even if the benevolent idea was to help survivors and especially beginners, it's really no help at all, and it robs you of your experience more than it enriches it. Need some rags for a chance to survive? Tear off your clothes. "Don't you dare insult my thinking abilities". Can't you do it? If not, for whatever reason, you've at least tried to survive. Isn't this an event and an occurrence in a survival context? Handing survivors the necessities to survive without having to work for it is depriving them of the experience of getting there. It's a survival content, isn't it? Described and marketed as authentic, gritty, and unforgiving. So why cut out the necessary ingredients for the survival experience?

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 value of life. The recent spawn system is not working because of this. Short time to respawn and returning to one's body should be considered an exploit, circumvention, and unfair use, but I blame the creators who allow such inconsistencies. If things have been done so that alternate accounts can be used for similarities, then why not this? Minimising the loss of an investment is tantamount to devaluing it with the time and effort it takes to acquire it, leading users to make rash decisions and actions. The body should be there to rot for a while and a death timer should be activated and by death timer I definitely don't mean 15 seconds where we don't even have time to blow our noses. Distance can keep survivors from returning to their bodies, larger maps and a farther spawn distribution help make death more punishing. One the other hand, the lower the cargo capacity, the more punishing death is for non-solo users, as the more permissive the cargo, the more convenient it is to carry teammates' gear. The time and effort required to return are sufficient deterrent if they are effective enough, but what is sufficient? Sufficient time is the proportion of time needed for the body to disappear so that the deceased person, currently alive, cannot return to its dead body. Additionally, the smell of rot, also cued by the sound of flies, can prompt hostile AI to eat the body. Thus, the guard of the team guarding the corpse is constantly disturbed and forces him to use resources and even reveal his location. Only constantly disrupted because our character is unfortunately overpowered and the hostile AI underpowered. Speaking of returning, let's also reduce the character's speed. We don't want deceased person, currently alive, sprinting at breakneck speed to get back to his body. He's fast. He might get back quickly.

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.

They're just doing business, man. The plebeians below are already fainting from having to go get a glass of water in survival content. At this point, you and I are just trolling with our suggestions.

Excellent ideas. I had something like that in mind. I always thought that the inventory screen with the character appearing deserved further development. There's a lot to be done with this system. It could be useful for the medical system and many other things besides.

It's an excellent suggestion, on par with what I consider good art direction. I can also see the survivors making more use of light sources as they investigate and scavenge indoors. Still life and still lights. In an apocalyptic context, shadows can recall the unknown, mystery, danger, abandonment and, above all, extinction. Dust particles in the beam of light. Lest we forget. Not working properly with shadows is not serious art direction. The purpose of windows can be relative. Fuck everybody. I need food to survive, so I'm going there.

That's not cool. I don't consent to being brought back to life with a defibrillator or given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation after being shot in the brain for the sake of a subjective gameplay.

Hi Glimmhand, Skinned an animal without gloves and ate with dirty hands? Your hands may be dirty, there is a visual clue (blood on your hands if your hands are dirty). You will need to wash them. If you're vomiting and making pain noise then it's Salmonellosis. The symptom of fever accompanied with faster rate of hydration depletion might be Cholera.

Reducing the inventory system was essential to the logic and coherence of the content, and I'm grateful for the change. It's now a little less aberrant and absurd than in version 1.25 and a little more coherent, more convincing in relation to the nature of the content, and we can already see the fruits of this change with this small reduction in survival elements such as management, strategy, decision-making and improved visual attention for estimating cargo concealment. A survival element that keeps the user engaged is found where a survivor is faced with a constraint. A survival element that holds the user's attention is found where a survivor needs something. To continue to enrich and enhance it in this sense, I suggest that it would be more impacting in the survival elements to reduce further until garments without pockets have zero slots, and to have a precise separation system for garment pockets. Compartmentalisation in the grid of the slot system for each pocket of each garment that will automatically prevent large objects from entering a pocket (e.g. a car radiator, baseball bat or cooking pot, etc.) without any underlying prejudice to the capacity of a targeted pocket. The balance of <no cargo> can be elsewhere (insulation, layering, weight, comfort, protection, concealment, aesthetic choice of garment, etc.) These examples of offsets focus on an authentic balance and will be most sensible and justifiable for the nature, coherence and logic of the content, which is gritty, authentic and unforgiving. The inventory system should be less forgiving and more detailed, as it may later enable the implementation and redesign of a system of movement and motion; weight, caloric expenditure due to weight, terrain distribution, impact on navigating challenging terrain, fatigue and much more. In addition, a clothing layering system will benefit from a cargo capacity that is not exaggerated to enhance and engage the survival planning aspect. There is game in plausibility. There is play in constraints.

Were you on official or community? Yesterday, on an official server, I left things on the floor and they stayed there for hours. On official content, backpacks in usable condition stay for 8 hours. I suspect you were on a community server where despawn settings can be changed by the server owner. In 1.25 you could carry over 1272 Kg on you and jog with it in difficult steep terrain infinitely as long as you eat food and drink water. At this point, the reduction in our ability to bear weight is just one small element that is consistent and in keeping with the official description of the content, which is gritty, authentic and unforgiving.

Do you read? Content-based communications (handheld transceivers, field transceivers, radio stations) are unfortunately not used by many users. I suggest an audio processing that is on par with the official description of the content, which is gritty, authentic and unforgiving. I think this will make the content more immersive, more compelling, more detailed, more authentic and more strategic. On the other hand, this could increase the incentive to use in-content chat rather than external/third-party chat while enhancing it and without compromising the consistency and logic of the content. On the bus, a subtractive EQ going through the low and high frequency bandwidth followed by some bitcrusher distortion placed after. The audio engineer will have to play around with the slope a bit to get it right. I might think of a HPF at 300 Hz and a steep LPF at 2.7 kHz. Also, a sample for the radio hiss/beep loop for the input and output; coming in, coming out. The process can still continue to be complex if we want to nail it down to the nitty-gritty details, especially if we choose to monitor user microphone input, but there are ways around it to keep it less consuming, and compelling. I mean, how far are we willing to go? Other genuine reception factors may infiltrate the input/output and/or interfere with audio (aka bleed), transmission and reception, thunder, storm, gunshots... Over

@Riddick_2K Can you explain why you're reacting negatively again on this thread? Give us your point of view so we can understand better.

I like my game to be consistent and not compromise to please you, which would result in a mediocre, inauthentic, and very forgiving content. On the other hand, I like my content to be consistent, honest and integral to the official description of the content, which is authentic and unforgiving. No. Why would you add rags? What is the utility of rags with a pipe? Realistic elements are important in DayZ. It's been in DayZ since the beginning. There are many realistic elements in DayZ and that's what creates a compelling and interesting experience for me. Delivering an authentic experience is also what keeps it consistent, honest and integral to the official description of the content, its roots and its original idea. Why didn't you say the same thing to the inventory system, which was very permissive, aberrant and absurd in 1.25 compared to 1.26?

I know. Thanks. Yes. Thanks for the compliment. Yes I did.

Provide the evidence of me making jokes about people's families here and laughing about it. Dumbass.

I have provided you with the evidence out of pity, because you are incompetent in your job of providing it. You are talking nonsense, provide the evidence. Get out, you've lost. Start struggling, face the situation and deal with it, quitter.