Donaghue

No, for two reasons: 1. The only uses for the hatchet in the game are uses for which hatchets are intended. Degradation at that extreme rate is unrealistic. 2. All other items in the game, with the exception of vehicles, can be used indefinitely without any kind of maintenance. Also unrealistic, but at least it's balanced. Singling out the hatchet seems....odd. This isn't a bad idea in itself, but I think it should either be greatly expanded or dropped altogether. It's also worth pointing out that the topic of weapon upkeep, in more expansive terms, has been touched on elsewhere in Suggestions.

I don't like the idea. It's bad roleplay. Just drop them on the ground.

I like it.

Much as I think the arguments in favour of this are awesome, I would be against it. I have enough trouble finding servers with room to play as it is, and starting from scratch on each new server would not be enjoyable (probably the main reason I play DayZ :) ). I've never heard of this particular system being used in another game before, and I think it adds to the charm. I can buddy up with friends on another server with an established character if I want to, or migrate to one with less lag without being penalised. There are plenty of other suggestions for clamping down on server-hopping snipers and such that permanently locking down characters seems unnecessarily heavy-handed.

The title says it all. I admit freely that I haven't used the crowbar often, and after my few experiences I'm glad of it. Most of the time it doesn't hit when you swing it (or it does and you simply can't tell), and seems to take at least half a dozen hits (based on near-miss SFX) before an infected will succumb. It's like like beating someone to death with a limp....noodle. So I'm told. If my experience is accurate, then in my opinion having the crowbar is worse than being unarmed, simply because you don't feel so vulnerable anymore. Kinda like the devs are trolling us. :D I recommend either a damage boost or just ditch the thing altogether. Preferably option B; the hatchet is a much better substitute and, again in my experience, as common as dirt.

This is the suggestion thread. I'm making a suggestion. To all other suggestions, I would agree with most. As things stand, the crowbar is next to useless, but if it had a clear purpose and was actually good for it, huzzah. Mission accomplished.

Yes, I can find a gun, eventually. They all have strengths and weaknesses that I don't doubt you're more familiar with than I am. Likewise, the empty cans can be thrown to distract nearby infected, so they too have a use. The crowbar's only strength seems to be the ability to kill isolated infected at great personal risk--a task which can be performed faster, more easily and with much less risk with the hatchet. Also, in addition to being a useful tool as well as a weapon, hatchets spawn more frequently.

I would imagine they both are. One without the other is useless. As it stands, they're both screwed.

I like it all. As with a lot of these suggestions, it seems to be a bit outside the limits of the ARMA 2 engine, but I'm no expert.

This has been mentioned elsewhere, but yes--a thousand times, yes. More zombies. Heaps more, everywhere. Nowhere should be safe.

If the game engine could support it, I too would be in favour of more severe climate conditions. Tornadoes and similar events seem a bit beyond the game, but server-wide climate changes, such as a particularly nasty winter? I could see this happening. We sure would be burning through those heat packs a lot faster. And on the subject of burning, why not forest fires? My experience with ARMA2 outside DayZ is extremely limited (first mission of the campaign), but from vids and screenshots online large-scale fires seem to be well within the parameters of the game. Forget to extinguish your campfire, or 'forget' to extinguish your campfire, and there could be a chance of it raging out of control. How to deal with a forest fire? No emergency services in the apocalypse, buddy. Start running your ass off.

You are, of course, correct--not in assuming that I haven't read your posts, but in the inherent suggestion that I might have missed some gem the first time through. I'm only human, I make mistakes. I admit freely that there was something in between all the accusations, raving and hate that might have been worth reading that I was simply too inferior to notice with a single examination. So, having trawled through all your childish drivel a second time for these mythical pearls of wisdom, a difficult task that reinforced my conviction that you don't really give a damn about the feature you yourself are proposing, I conclude that you're referring to your reply to this post by Thorgold.... ....after which you say this: Are you satisfied that I've read your posts? This is one of your posts, right? It's got your name next to it, so I'm going to assume that it is. And you can safely assume that I have indeed read your posts because I've taken the time to single out the so-called supporting opinions for your side of the debate--something you couldn't be bothered to do yourself when you replied to the very post that asked for them. Yes, I'm fully aware that the answer given to one of the points is actually Moofactory's (sorry for getting your name wrong before, Moo), and no, I'm not going to quote it again. His theory was debunked to my satisfaction, I see no reason to contest Thorgold's point that he was simply disorganized or plain out of luck when he starved to death. That is just the nature of the game. Now, if I'm wrong about you not caring about the topic at hand--and I hope I am, because it's your topic--maybe you could offer some evidence to back these points up--something you probably should have done in the first place. To be clear, what you've given is not evidence: it's unfounded opinion, something you seem to expect us to accept as gospel in spite the apparent lack of thought that's gone into it. Give us facts. I've already gone further than I care to to cater to your laziness; from now on you can do your own legwork--starting by reading the preceding posts, as you hypocritically accuse myself and others of not doing. And if you can find time in between rants to do a spell-check and use some punctuation, I'm sure we'd all be a lot more likely to read your posts in future.

If you want to be taken seriously, back up your point of view with evidence, or failing that, common sense. You've just quoted a post in which Thorgold has done this. Your response to it does nothing but make you sound juvenile and lazy. Rather than restate what he has already said in a clear, categorical manner (though with probably a bit more savagely than I think was warranted--sorry, Thor), perhaps we could re-examine your points in favour? 1. It's quicker and easier than finding food (basically). Agreed. And in an actual survival situation this could be a valid, if extremely difficult, decision. In this survival simulator, is it really a good thing to take the controversial approach (the reasons for which have already been given repeatedly), of making eating people easier than foraging or walking into a supermarket? If so, why? 2. It's darker and more edgy to be a canniballistic bandit. Depends on your point of view, but fair enough. Also agreed. Is this a good thing? More to the point, why is it necessary? If murder isn't doing it for you anymore, is it really necessary or appropriate for the developers to add 'features' that will likely exacerbate what seems to be a deep-seated psychological issue for you? 3. Lots of people want it. So far I count you and....can't remember. Moojuice? No doubt there are others out there, but that's really up to you to prove, right? Let's see you support your arguments with something other that 'Massicor slap your argument in face lolololol now he covers ears!'

DayZ is a simulation, an imitation of a real thing--in this case of a survival situation. In what real-life scenario can someone simply snap their fingers and vanish off the face of the earth to escape a difficult situation? Naturally, DayZ isn't and never will be a perfect imitation of real life. People have to leave sometime, and a number of methods for making it more realistic have been proposed. Whatever the case, the ability to instantly escape injury/death without any consequence has no place in a simulation which is founded on survival in a hostile land. It's got nothing to do specifically with 'this person started a fight and quit when it went bad' or 'I ambushed that guy and he quit so he wouldn't lose his gear'. Both actions are equally inconsistent with the simulation.

Because it's cheap, bad sportsmanship, and not in keeping with the spirit of the mod. DayZ does not appear to have been designed with the intention of making the consequences of one's actions easily escapable. The sooner Rocket brings in a reasonable counter to this garbage the better.

Fair enough, I believe this could work, but only on RP servers. Everywhere else, as soon as the danger of eavesdroppers is commonly known, everyone would be back on TS and you'd have a whole lot of useless radios on server--everyone listening and nobody talking except aversionfx. ^_^ It's a damn shame. I don't see any way to make using radio as suggested in this thread more appealing than voip. Take away eavesdropping or make it much more difficult and you could be onto something.

I don't see anything in the pro-radio argument that would change this. Every suggestion regarding radios in favour of realism means that they have a downside--limited range, batteries, insecure channels, etc. But already players can--and do, as Fish points out--use third party voip to get all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of radio communications. In a game as easy to die in as DayZ, who would even consider giving up an advantage that is well within the unstated rules of the game? \ Radios are an exciting possibility and excellent for realism, but ultimately do more harm than good. Better for rocket to concentrate on features that have a lasting appeal and usefulness.

Having played for a couple of days by living off the land, I'm a bit surprised at how few game animals there are. They seem to appear more or less where you'd expect to find them--sheep and cattle in the open, boars and rabbits in the forest--but unless I'm just always getting there just after someone else they're suspiciously rare. I mean, even in an ex-Soviet state I'd expect to find more than one goat for every couple of villages I stumble across. Given the scarcity of food on the hoof it's hard to pin down where they're currently likely to spawn, but it makes sense to me to find farm animals near farms and wild animals anywhere else. Also, and this has been suggested elsewhere, I'd normally expect to see them somewhere near water, but this doesn't seem to be the case. And what's the deal with the rabbits? They're tiny, fairly quick, hard to catch, and have hardly any meat on them--all good and well. But they're also rare. Why? Are they all celibate or something? The forest should be crawling with them. Give us more game animals, please! And while we're on the topic of food, this instant-heal from a steak or tin of sardines business is a bit meh. Maybe it could be changed to instant satisfaction of hunger but heal-over-time? Say twenty minutes for full benefit from fresh food and thirty minutes from canned? Just a thought.

Hm, yes. Search didn't pick it up. Oh well. Ah! Also meant to suggest: a limit on how much you can eat in a certain amount of time, or bloating effects if you eat too much (sickness, slowness, etc). As it stands, you can take a shot from someone, duck behind cover, choke down some painkillers and some steaks and be as good as new. Admittedly, it takes a minute or two in which you better hope you don't get shot again, but it's still bullshit. I got myself cut to ribbons raiding a hospital at night, down to around 600 blood. No worries! Hit the coast for some hunting, ate about a dozen steaks and hey presto, by dawn I was fighting fit. Just like in real life!

I think it's worth mentioning to champions of both sides of the difficulty argument that DayZ, like anything, gets easier with practice and experience. No matter how realistic the simulation, the one thing they are unlikely to be able to replicate is the experience of first setting foot in Chernerus. That's what we experience the first time we spawn at a given location; after that, *it is immediately and permanently lost*. Making the game more difficult, as has been pointed out many times already, makes for a better experience for veterans and a hellish one for newbies. However, that too is temporary. Give it a few weeks and the people will have worked out how best to avoid, distract or kill zombies, then this same argument will likely crop up all over again. I myself have briefly argued in favour of making zombies more dangerous, but my starting experience--which, being less than a week ago, is still fresh in mind--was one of being torn apart by them time after time. Eventually I got better at the game, now I too (like an idiot) am looking for a bigger challenge. Assaulting NW airfield alone comes to mind. See you on the shore soon, I guess. I'm suggesting, contrary to my earlier post, that the focus be shifted away from the zombies. No matter how difficult you make them, eventually they'll become nearly meaningless, and people will turn to PVP because other players are adaptable and provide a unpredictable and sometimes unique challenge. To that end I would suggest make sharing resources beneficial, by all means. But be very careful about making them exceptionally rare. Can't have meaningful PVP without ammunition. Yet.

I agree with a lot of what OP has said. I can also see the merits in a lot of the arguments in this mammoth thread. It seems to me (and I admit I'm pretty inexperienced) that there is no 'delicate balance', as some have put it. Given the option to shoot or not shoot, the sensible player shoots. Unless they're a terrible shot, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I believe that slower, FAR more numerous zombies, less tool belt space and shared advantages for food/medical items combined would be a good foundation for playtesting, and that the other, finer adjustments could be considered to strike that balance people sometimes talk about. But most importantly, the zombies need to be more dangerous. As things stand, they can't hope to compete with other players when considered as a threat.

Knockouts sound like a nice addition for survivors, particularly if they were added as a fire mode for appropriate weapons - I imagine this would be the easiest way. But five-ten minute knockouts? Hell no. First: unrealistic. People knocked out for that amount of time have taken a hell of a hit, probably sustained brain damage and may not ever wake up. Second: boring and exploitable. Who wants to lie around for five or ten minutes doing nothing but wait for some zombie to wander over and tear them to pieces? Also, how long's the average wait at traffic lights where you live? Here it's about two minutes, but I tell you it feels like a frigging eternity when you're sitting on your backside with nothing to do. Third: unnecessary. It doesn't take five or ten minutes to search through someone's pack and make yourself scarce.