Osiris1

I like it. A small knife would work. We all have kitchen knives, and hell, even those can cut deep if used correctly. Just being good enough to fend off one or two zombies at a time would be nice. Going rambo with a butter-knife wouldn't work, but having a defense rather than running several kilometers because you have nothing to fight with is a better alternative to how it is now.

Hey, I'm all up for having apples be a new feature. It would sure make finding food easier, and let's be honest, if there's apple trees, there might as well be apples. Then again, the apples would have to be moderate and located mostly in the dense parts of forests, where human food is never found. Apples being found all over the place would kill the difficulty, so they'd have to be in remote areas where beans and soup aren't found. Many times I have spawned in the middle of a giant effing forest and died from starvation because nobody just waltzes into a forest and drops food for other people.

Does that mean there are some arguments for reducing ammo that you wont summarily dismiss? Of course, if there's a more legitimate reason than "I got shot so make it harder to shoot me!", I'd readily consider it.

Your diction is way off if you actually meant aggro. I don't go out of my way to kill players, but I also don't like the idea that this feature be penalized just because you don't like that playstyle. If I went on the suggestion forum and said "Hey, let's penalize anyone who doesn't kill another player within an hour by making their bones even more brittle!" you'd likely get on and start ranting as to how unfair that is. Yet here we are, you trying to justify why your playstyle is the best and anyone who doesn't adhere to it should be punished because nobody plays nice in a PvP-encouraged zombie apocalypse.

Suggesting a detrimental experience to those who would want to kill for the thrill of PvP does not fix the problem of griefing.

Agreed. Zombies aren't luddites. They won't go targeting electricity-powered machines, and the idea that nobody would have an interest somewhere to keep those machines going is far-fetched. These machines tend to also have backup generators and what not.

No. No. And No. If you can't handle getting shot, don't play shooting games. Don't ask for the devs to babysit you. 1. I find nothing more annoying than someone killing someone else, and then them bitching about it in global chat. "OMG HE KILLED ME OMGOMGOMG". Plus, you can lie. That's when the fun really begins. 2. No. That's annoying, especially if you got bandit from self-defense, where self-righteous pricks will shoot on sight out of paranoia or a sense of superiority. 3. No, because if someone misses you and you kill them, but it doesn't register in self-defense, then you die a brutal death. Even if you murder someone brutally, that's part of the survival aspect. Deal with it. 4. No. Again, if you can't handle PVP, don't engage in PVP-encouraging games. 5. Let's not turn this into that zombie frontier RPG. If you can't handle the inevitability of being shot at in a competitive, survival based scenario, then you shouldn't be placing yourself in a competitive, survival based scenario. It's kind of like if you don't have gills, you shouldn't try living underwater. Don't ask the fish to drain the water. Just leave the ocean.

No. Don't ask for reduced ammo just because someone shot you in the face and people continue to do so. People are always bitching about realism. Senseless violence and paranoia is realistic for a zombie apocalypse. If a bandit has so much as one bullet, they'll headshot you when you aren't looking. This won't reduce murders, it will increase them due to the increased demand of ammo. Ammo would become the new hunting knife or watch, encouraging more murder for more goodies. Then there's the whole factor of zombies, which already do a fairly decent job of breaking your shin by slapping you. We need bullets for those, too.

I like it. Let kids who have no grasp on reality cry "REALISM!" while they somehow justify a zombie apocalypse. On the note of realism, here's a direct quote from the cdc. http://now.msn.com/now/0601-cdc-says-zombies-dont-exist OMG ZOMBIES AREN'T REALISTIC DELETE THEM NOW!!!!!!111

Sounds less like making it easier to survive and more like a giant mindfuckfest of noisy zeds. If I'm not mistaken, the next patch remedies the walking through buildings issue. One thing I do notice is the massive sprinting zombies do, then pause, then sprint. It looks less like an intentional setting and more of the whole "it's still a beta" deal. Zombies will probably have a much more consistent run speed over time, when it gets tweaked, since I doubt the devs actually meant to make them semi-rubberband when they sprint.

I agree. While I rarely do find shotguns, it would be even rarer to find a certain shotgun model and then that exact model's shell, when more likely than not I would probably find other models of shells. I know that would piss me off.

Damn, if this is realistic for you then you must break bones climbing up stairs and closing doors. Were you diagnosed with osteoporosis at age 3 or something?

As of the newest patch, starting weapons have been removed. While this isn't a game-breaking mind-frack of irreparable proportions, it unbalances the gameplay considering the zombies' current ability to relentlessly sprint towards you for miles without fail. My suggestion is simple: After running a long enough distance, perhaps a hundred yards or so (I'm bad with measurements), the zombie will stop giving chase and lose interest. Let's be honest here - zombies have short attention spans. Since they already run faster than my high school sprinting team, let's at least give a weaponless, new character the chance to survive when looking for weapons. My reason for suggesting this? Well, as mentioned above, we don't start with weapons anymore (in case you live in a cave). Since we need to find weapons in houses/barns, we have to avoid zombies at all costs, since there's now no initial way to kill them. Since there's no way to currently kill them without a weapon, someone who seriously F's up and gets detected needs a way to escape (since being forced to disconnect is morally wrong and will get you rightfully banned for interweb eternity, as well as a frigging nuisance). So, that's it. When a player is detected and runs a moderate distance, the ninja-zombie will get tired of his daily sprint and go back to his own spawn area for more domestic brains.

What if you randomly spawn in a giant forest in a location you are unaware of and are unable to locate a "city of logging"? Well, then you alt+F4 and are banned for illegitimate log abortion! But Osiris, what if you DO find a city!? You can totally log out! Well, yes, but not if you get detected in a zombie. Then guess what? Then you're combat logging! GLOBAL BAN! Oh, you have no evidence of just trying to log out? You've officially been kicked out of DayZ!

"OMG IT MUST BE REAL THO" Until headshots instant-kill, wounds to the chest prevent movement and a broken leg prevents all sprinting for a period of several real-life months, realism won't truly be in a fantasy game. That being said, since realism can't genuinely be achieved to the level certain wannabe elitists want it to be, let's not have zombies insta-kill you. And if you are going to let zombies insta-kill you, at least make it more bearable and give us a single health point, this way it's less ridiculous than losing several gallons of blood from being roid-slapped.

Hmm... I have been thinking about how Rocket wants to introduce "zombie lifecycles", where they eventually rot, so how about after that mechanic is introduced they rot at an increased rate when running, causing them to eventually fall apart while chasing. I think thats reasonable. Too reliant on timing. The bottom line is this - if you don't have a gun and are detected, that's it. Even if you limit your detection to just one zombie, you can't get a gun out to shoot that zombie before they break your leg, or cause you to start bleeding out. It's not realistic and it promotes combat logging, since that's the only alternative to guaranteed death.

Yes. Realistic zombie apocalypse is fun. Thin-blooded deteriorating wimp is not. Passing out all the time, seeing the world like it's a black-and-white evil sitcom and imminent death from combat blow. Food gives jack for blood and getting someone to give you blood is a bit like pulling teeth....assuming you find anyone willing to work with you. I like the idea that, while blood isn't frig easy to come by, it certainly doesn't get lost quicker than old socks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the human body would regenerate lost blood if you got cut. I find that to be more realistic, and feeling like a delicate sack of water that could burst at any minute to be a bit more "gamy".

Yes. Sounds reasonable, especially if you have to go rambo zombie-kill to get the ammo.

Well, if you want a silent vehicle, the galloping and panting of a horse won't do much, since stealth-crawling already gets these psychic zombies all up in your grills....yo. Like Chard said - bicycles make more sense, both practically in the sense of code and in the sense of stealth. On a third note, you'll probably end up having your horse shot by some bandit or outrun and eaten by zombies before you can properly...*ahem*...."enjoy" it.

No, I don't run into DayZ every day, 7 hours a day. I'm not aware of what town I'm in just by looking at the angular position of the North Star. I've not yet memorized architectural relationship with loot, and I'm such a n00bz0r that I haven't even calculated the approximate distance from my own position to cherno! LOL I R BAD 4 IT! Here's the deal: When you spawn without a starting weapon, and you scavenge for one, there's a tendency to be zombies around said areas. When zombies around said areas are very good at detecting less experienced players, it becomes a circular buttfrack to get a weapon, since those weapons are located right next to the zombies you need a weapon to kill. Don't give me this crap about realism. No civilian already equipped with a large backpack and medical supplies is going into villages without at least a barely loaded pistol. If so, that's a stupid civilian. There is no realism. It's a zombie game. Unless you pass off the zombies as living people on bath salts, you'll never have me believe realism should be put over practical gameplay. If starting weapons remain removed, the only way to properly balance it would be to reduce zombies' detection abilities. Well, that and their ability to ninja-run and break my leg/cause me to bleed out from a slap. Then there's the fact that the moment you are detected you are relentlessly chased for miles until you disconnect, where self-righteous kiddies will permaban you for not wanting to stand still while you are slowly murdered.

I like this idea. Except the part where I drink my own piss. Besides that, it sounds reasonable. I can't drink out of water with my bare hands? What, do they disappear upon touching water? No comprendo.

No. There's already a rude awakening for anyone starting a new character. No guns, little equipment, stranded in an unknown area. We don't need uncurable zombie AIDS to become another reason we rage. We already have unreasonably weak bone structures. Don't make us sickness-prone. Furthermore, I highly doubt the community would respond like they would in your head. As it is, it's difficult not to get KOS'd by strangers. Nobody within reason would be joining servers going "HEY GUYTH!!! IM GONNA CURE YOUUUU!" I imagine the reaction would be, "There's flies over his head. Screw it. Kill him." There's simply too many survival factors when you throw unreasonable diseases into the mix for a new character.

I like it. I find the people who hate classes with righteous fury really blew it when they tried RPGs. Usually because it was such a COOMPLICATED THIING OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD I HAVE TO CHOOSE STUFF!?!?!? AESHDFGJNSOGIDMNOHG. Classes define more specific, unique gameplay from person to person while offering benefits suited to certain playstyles. While such a system would certainly take a while to conjure up, it's not impractical. Though I do also like the above-mentioned idea of getting better at what you do. Of course, if you're going to try and avoid RPG elements for the sake of avoiding RPG elements, you're SOL on that feature, since that's also a WoW element (professions). Regardless, getting better at what you do is more realistic, though classes are certainly viable. I prefer saved stats recording you getting better at something (yes, like skinning, or accuracy as headshots on zombies/players are achieved).

I like this idea. Better gear or not, KOS bandits are going to do just that, and they'll kill you for even brandishing a pistol before knowing if you even have anything else on you. While this rewards cooperative play, it still allows for PvP opportunity without giving a bandit obviously away with a skin change. Besides, there's probably more than a few self-righteous kids shooting bandits on sight for the ironic reason that they're "bad people". Without a skin-change, going on witch hunts will be far more difficult, and trusting others will be a matter of strategy, not "LOL U R BANDIT SKIN U R BAD NO TEAMWORK FOR U BOOOOOM HEADSHAWT!" I could be wrong on that. I've never actually been a bandit.