Katana67

I think, if it were so, players would have to be able to camouflage themselves sleeping pretty god damn well.

Meh, I don't think it should be "sleep" per-se. Perhaps just "fatigue" would be good enough, remedied by just having a rest for a while (doesn't have to be "sleep"). Although, I think there's something to be said for the use of "sleep" as a logout mechanic. Not sure I'm 100% on board with it, but I think it's a good thought exercise.

Gnarly. Even though I'm marginally sure that Facebook isn't "official".

While I don't think the position against defecation is necessarily indicative of a worry that it "interferes with ... pvp", I do believe the decrying of the system as "too realistic" and "a chore" certainly does express that worry.

Why can't it be one of many? Vector, should be plural. I mean, helicopters, bikes, legs, and cars are all means to the same end. Yet they exist as separate systems with dissimilar properties to be considered unto themselves. The only reason, that I can make out, that defecation would be bad as a concept, is that there is no prerequisite activity necessary for it to occur. Which is an issue that I've seen zero folks raise. With spoiled meat, zombies, and animals you have to kill the animal, drag it over to a water supply, and leave it there to rot. Whereas with defecation, you have to do nothing (save maybe fill your stomach, which happens just by virtue of surviving in DayZ). That is the only reason I see that isn't reliant on "feeling" that is a detriment to defecation specifically.

/sigh Rape isn't something that, to my knowledge, adds anything to the game itself in terms of a mechanic. Much in the same way that it rarely ever adds anything to a story, and is just used for shock value. Defecation (i.e. the mechanic we're discussing, which would ostensibly be there to act as a vector for disease) does. So, with that in mind, we take steps to mitigate abuse. I didn't call you anything. At all.

This, very few people actually treat DayZ as an alpha. This will be treated as a fundamental feature if implemented now. See sidechat.

Yes, more of an event. Rather than a regular occurrence. Either way, it's not like you'll be able to see it if you're already dead, so the "embarrassment" card (which can happen from something as inane as being killed, as is evidenced from the majority of posts on this forum) doesn't really factor in for the victim... And honestly, the second we start considering players' "feelings" when something nasty happens, is when we lose the essence of DayZ. Not saying that not having defecation represents a loss of that essence, only your thought process.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying this, to address concerns that it might be abused. Not to justify it as a "good" feature.

Sounds great to me, rather than piles of feces left in the middle of the road via an unregulated mechanic. Hence the mitigation. One mildly embarrassed player per hour is better than fifty.

So, if you read my post in the context of the post it was referencing, I was asserting that adding a timer to how frequent one can defecate would be a good way of mitigating (not erasing) abuse.

Jesus christ, I'm not speaking from a realistic perspective. I'm not concerned with emulating reality. I'm trying to emphasize a method of mitigating abuse in a game mechanic.

I mean it's not like Chernarus isn't a big place. And poop is pretty dern small, and doesn't have to be persistent.

Wouldn't a timer do the trick? One dump per hour? Still doesn't have to be a need to be sparse.

It's not a need. It's just an action that can be selected by the player. At least that's how I'd implement it. You shouldn't be forced to defecate, but it should be an option able to be selected to create a vector for disease. That's its only function.

I totally see this reasoning, but it's not the line of argument being used by the folks on this thread. It seems overwhelmingly clear to me, that people are associating the desire for a defecation mechanic with a desire for "realism". They're creating a straw-man, an irrelevant one at that, rather than actually addressing the mechanic unto itself. I've scoured the thread, and nobody who's a proponent of it has cited realism alone (if at all) for it's implementation.

I'm not saying one should be forced to defecate at any point.

Again, focus less on the fact that defecation is "realistic" and focus on what types of gameplay a mechanic such as defecation could create. Firing bullets is an aspect of "realism", yet it isn't extrapolated into silly anecdotes. And I doubt many folks would consider handloading to be detrimental just because it's "realistic." I pray that you see the concept that I'm highlighting above, rather than getting caught in the specifics of the analogy above.

Yep, we can come up with multiple ways. But why is defecation over the line? Because other than the societal taboo of "pooping," I'm not seeing a whole lot of reason to dismiss it as a potential vector for disease. I'm not sure I get how it'd remove "immersion" as that's an abstract and subjective concept up to the individual. To your third point, we have no idea whether or not people will be able to be fed feces. It could be done in a very low-key and "tasteful" manner and could be done in such a way that it doesn't actually produce an item. It just creates an effect.

Again, I like this idea... yet I don't care about realism and authenticity in this matter. I care about what the concept can add. The objective of this mechanic isn't to somehow magically render the game wholly authentic/realistic.

Sure, but why is defecation over the line? Why can't we have multiple ways of contaminating things? And I think people are forgetting that this is actually a mechanic endorsed by Rocket as well. So it's not out of thin air that this materializes.

Why can't we have many vectors then, including defecation? Why is defecating somehow illegitimate and "too realistic" whereas sneezing in someone's face is totally cool and reasonable? They accomplish the same goal, through different means/applications (which can complement one another). To be honest, I think people are solely keying in on the societal taboo around defecation, rather than just dealing with the idea of a purposefully spread disease.

Your dismissal of an issue, based on the fact that we don't "need" it to have fun, is what is irrelevant. Nothing is "needed" in DayZ, but it is nonetheless added because of what it adds to the experience. Pick an item/mechanic in DayZ, and you can make the argument that we don't "need" it. We don't need vehicles to have fun in DayZ, yet they're inbound. I'd have fun if I had to purify my water, because of the off-chance that some douchenozzle bandit might've contaminated it via defecation. As an aside, why do people only focus on the fact that defecating is "realistic"? I don't give a shit if it's realistic or not, I care about what it has the potential to contribute to DayZ. Why is purposefully defecating to contaminate a water supply somehow over the line?

Defecation provides a player-initiated way of spreading disease. Short of giving folks vials of disease as a looted item, I don't foresee a way to do this otherwise. I mean one could theoretically snuggle in with some other players if that's how disease transfer ends up working. But one could just as easily sabotage a water supply. Either way, I'd rather multiple vectors than one.

And what you meant was irrelevant. That's what I was highlighting.