bazbake

Female's an adjective, not a noun. Sometimes you can call them women and ladies.

Sounds like what EVE tried to do not too long ago. That turned out perfectly...

Like I described in a separate thread, using the rate for starving to death from full blood being 90 minutes and 40%/4 pints/4 units of the average person's blood loss equaling cardiac arrest/death IRL, I calculated that 3,000 blood is the in-game equivalent of a pint of blood and an appropriate health regeneration based on the thirst/hunger scale would be 3,000 blood an hour. That's an authentic system for blood regeneration. I also believe that blood packs should be able to be used by everybody and should be the only way to quickly regenerate health. To balance this out, blood packs should only restore 1 unit of blood as they do IRL, or 3,000 blood. This would also mean that food no longer regenerates blood. Instead, your hunger and thirst level would determine how much blood you regenerate. Thirst Flashing Red = No blood regeneration/20 blood loss per tick. Empty to Green = No Effect. Hunger Flashing Red = No blood regeneration/20 blood loss per tick Empty to Yellow(Half) = Half blood regeneration speed. Yellow(Half) to 75% = 75% blood regeneration speed. 90% to Green (Full) = Full blood regeneration. Blood would regenerate at 50 blood/minute and 3,000 blood/hour. A blood pack would heal at 3,000 blood/hour. Under this system, both food and blood packs would always have value and your character status would have to be steadily maintained in order to perform at peak health. Furthermore, you wouldn't be able to duck behind a wall and instantly heal your teammate back to full health. Taking too much damage would instead be motivation to escape instead of just posting up. On the other hand, people would likely hoard blood packs even harder, but it would at least push players toward resources more aggressively. And lone-wolf characters won't be able to simply hide in the shadows hunting rabbits all day long whenever they suffer damage. Instead of killing a cow and healing back half of your health, it would take constant eating and hydration + two hours of game time to restore that damage.

I acknowledged your challenge. I quoted it, in fact. (I'll leave you to figure out why.)

I'm reposting this for posterity because one day you'll remember you wrote this and rush back to edit it. And it will still be here. Mocking you.

In response to all of the apex predator, ultimate survivor bullshit. Do you use a tent? Yes? Then get the fuck out of here with that Apex Predator shit. The real heart of the issue is that bandits would have a 50/50 chance of losing everything and gaining everything in each encounter if we had actual permadeath. Survivors would have a 25% chance of losing everything and a 25% chance of gaining everything in each encounter if we had permadeath. But we don't have permadeath. So bandits talk shit about survival of the fittest and "apex predators" when if they had actual permadeath, they would be at the bottom of the food chain most of the time instead of hitting low pop servers and building bandit camps full of spare guns and ammo just in case they die. So don't shit in my shoebox and call it Godiva. Most bandits are munchkins with loot maps and drop calculations hoarding items on servers where no one is a threat, not hardcore badasses taking on all comers. ------------------------------------------------------ PS, there's a concept called evolutionary biological altruism that is also accounted for by genetics. In one example, a species of bacterium develops a mucus layer that allows it to float to the surface of water and get oxygen. By itself, it sits at energy equilibrium but will eventually sink into the water and die during an energy spare period or during reproduction. However, if multiple bacteria join their mucus together, then they float even when others among them are not getting enough energy to grow and reproduce. A mutation appeared whereby a bacterium put all of its energy into reproducing to spread its genetic material. However, the irony is that if too many bacteria have this mutation, NO ONE PRODUCES THE MUCUS RAFT THEY FLOAT ON, so all of the bacteria die. That's how evolution and altruism work within a social context. Bandits function because humans have evolved NOT to kill each other randomly. As soon as all of the bandits are killing each other openly and everyone is a bandit, then you have an even chance of surviving or dying. But if most people aren't bandits, bandits are basically the NO MUCUS bacteria thriving off of everyone else's good nature.

Was on Gamespy and read about permadeath and zombies and I was on a real zombie kick for some reason (went through several online games, some even turn-based, in my pursuit of zombie-killing joy other than Left 4 Dead/L4D2 which I stopped playing years ago). Finally found a copy of Arma II on sale months later after it was mentioned in a couple of other articles. My opinion of the game...changed.

"Don't destroy the stuff I saved up for when I died. That's, you know, like permadeath or something!" Hehe. Burn it all.

Muskets fired deforming lead .75+ caliber/ 19mm rounds. Inaccurate at distances longer than 50 yards but more than enough to splatter your insides and do far more damage than most modern longarms short of a shotgun round for round. In other words, muskets were slow firing, loud, and the barrels fouled easily, but they were very good at killing people.

@Master Z Not so much. The M136 is 3 and a half feet long...loaded. The M107 and AS50 are about 5 feet long. But if you pick up the M136, there goes your backpack. The M136, in real life, takes up less space than the ..50 caliber rifles. It probably takes up less space than the M240 if we're going to be honest. These were changed so that gamers could play with the big guns without having to worry about such things as weapon size.

Like a rocket launcher.

Sounds like dude was loot farming (no equipment on him so he can fill his inventory without losing his good stuff) and decided to see if he could get your stuff too. No harm done, he'll just respawn. External storage is awesome.

I think the realism should go up to that point..and then keep going because this is a zombie survival simulator and the more realistic the guns are, the better. Know what wins most gun fights? A shit-ton of anger and the smartest use of cover. The game doesn't reflect that, it's too predictable in the wrong ways. There should be an element of fear instead of tactical aloofness knowing that you're in a car so you can't get hurt. Except, in real life, being in that car wouldn't protect you at all. One of the things I've learned playing this game is that the fastest way to balance the game is to make weapons and damage more realistic (not necessarily more punishing). The more the game plays like a videogame, the faster it'll settle into "tiers" and "ranks" and "endgame" nonsense. The less people have the opportunity to exploit game mechanics to pull off unrealistic advantages, the smoother the game curve will be.

I like the idea of padlocks, but only if they can be broken the same way you can break them in real life. This was the biggest problem with barbed wire -- they took away the ability to use your hatchet to cut through them which made no sense.

The M136 (14 lbs) weighs HALF OF WHAT A M107 (28 lbs) or AS50 (29 lbs) WEIGHS. But if you pick up a rocket launcher, there goes your backpack. This post amuses me. As does the OPs post since it doesn't allow the option of, "It's fine...if you want to blow up and instant-kill 5 people at the same time, then fuck your backpack." Which is how I would vote. Ha, really. That's an interesting way to put it. I thought you were supposed to be able to do what you want within the constraints of a post-apocalyptic zombie survival simulator. Scripters are the ones doing what they want.

The AKM fires a bullet the same size as the FNFAL. Damage tables in this game amuse me greatly. Also, shotguns aren't useless, they're just underpowered. The ammo is easy to find and the weapons are very rare, which you think would balance them enough to sit at the big kids' table but, alas, they gotta be nerfed.

I think your point is more valid if he were arguing about poison-tipped M107 rounds. Crossbows take more than one shot to kill, OPs good idea is good.

Um. Yeah, what this guy said. Although when you say "being as deadly with a Mak as you are with a M16," that only applies to games where the Makarov doesn't do 1/3rd the damage of the M16. Snipers are deadly because snipers are deadly. Snipers are not deadly because their guns are deadly. Otherwise we would just outfit the military with sniper rifles and call it a day. You already have more than enough firepower to dominate as a sniper in this game. Your weapons do unrealistic damage and have incredible range, accuracy, and stability. If you're not kicking ass as a sniper, it's not the weapon's fault, it's your fault. If you keep missing, then maybe you should start shooting at 500 meters instead of 1500 meters. It's not like anyone without a sniper or battle rifle will be able to shoot back at you.

Further evidence that we should just throw out Arma 2's mechanics and replace them with Sleeping Dogs' mechanics? :|

Shooting a car's hull shouldn't make the car blow up. They really need hit box detection in vehicles. Shoot the engine block, the engine turns red and stops running. Shoot the hull and your gets really, really ugly. (Your car shouldn't really provide much cover or protection except behind the engine block anyway.) I don't know if it would throw off the fun driving around in your car like a badass and then being killed when someone fires a volley of .45 rounds through your door. But it would be pretty funny.

That's ~25% of the loaded weapon's weight. In a system where weapon handling is dependent on weight (a 2 pound pistol should be easier to swing around and aim two-handed than a 10 pound sniper rifle by about a factor of 5), then this sort of thing would be interesting. Adding an extra AK clip would be the equivalent of trying to aim and fire an AK-47 with a Glock duct-taped to its belly.

Fire. Works on zombies, werewolves, vampires and ghosts' bones.

Bandits kill people in real life quite often. Sometimes they don't (the Somali pirates have form letters and conduct themselves in a very professional manner, which would surprise some people), but often they do. The only thing a bandit needs to do is take your stuff using violence or the threat of violence. If someone shoots you and steals your beans, he's still a bandit. He's just a murdering bandit. If he never wanted your NVGs in the first place, then he's just a murderer. But the two aren't exclusive. That said... @crockett A thorough bandit might kill someone for their equipment. But a bandit who holds you at gunpoint and looks like a survivor/hero has a pretty significant advantage. But that requires being actually smart.

A .45 revolver round does less than 1400 damage. A 7.62mm round does 8000 damage. You're wearing a bulletproof vest.

You're already wearing a bullet proof vest. EDIT: If you can run around with a 30 pound rifle without slowing down, you can run around with a 10 pound kevlar vest without slowing down. Although in the case that encumbrance is added, then just add the vest's weight to your encumbrance.