adadav48

How are things supposed to be changed or implemented later if current features are not scrutinized? How do you rationalize the idea that adding more content is ALWAYS a good thing? Guns are far too common, not just military-grade ones. Why intensify the problem by adding a camouflaged variant of a sniper already in the game? Wouldn't that be wasting the time you think the devs should be spending adding more features and bug fixes to the game? Because little is known about the outbreak, for all we know the military bases in Chernarus were abandoned when things got bad. Perhaps they fell back to another region of the continent, or set up a perimeter around the area of the infection so as to contain it? The armies probably would have taken their high-tech weapons and equipment with them when they fell back. In either case, the only weapons you'd be able to find would be on the scars of battles waged in the time before, and, depending on how long it has been since those battles and all of this started, most of them could have already been taken or lost. I can understand how you could potentially find weapons at the site of a helicopter crash, I don't have a problem with this feature. This is all speculation on my part, and anything is possible because so little is known (to me at least, perhaps I need to look). If anything is to be fixed or changed in the interest of the good of the game, people DO need to complain about what is currently an alpha, and conflicting viewpoints DO need to be raised. A lot of things have to be considered. I appreciate that you are contributing and adding more ideas to the table, even though I really disagree with them, but don't pull the "IT IS AN ALPHA" card. It doesn't lead to discussion about ideas, and it doesn't help build an intelligent conversation about a feature that you seriously think should should be implemented. EDIT: Some spelling errors.

Whaddya mean you can't find so much as an axe? Every time I enter a barn there's at least 3 or 4, they're far too common. If I were you, I'd suggest learning which buildings are capable of being entered. Stay around the outside of towns, and scan for those enter-able buildings. Don't shoot until you need to, and always have a building you can double back to if needed and an an accompanying plan. Always have at least one morphine auto-injector on you so that if your leg is broken you can escape. The zombies in this game really aren't too much trouble if you stay stealthy.

I'm not implying that they are or should be as strong as normal humans. I'm not sure if I didn't word myself correctly or if you misinterpreted, but I'm AGAINST zombies being anywhere near as strong as normal humans, and am not saying they currently are. I was referring back to the original post which states that the zombies would fall unconscious several times after receiving a sufficient amount of damage before eventually succumbing to death. I apply the word 'zombie' to the infected because: A. I thought that the 'Z' in DayZ implied that it had to do with zombies. B. Because there is little information as to what the effects of the infection are (besides the effects already apparent right now) or the origins of it, for all we know it could kill and then subsequently reanimate the host. Euryale, Because these people could have been killed and brought back by the disease, they could be textbook definitions of zombies. I'm sorry that you think that your idea of what a zombie may be is universal. Who says that the zombies HAVE to be slow, or can't accomplish simple tasks like ascending a ladder? EDITS: Spelling and some other errors.

It is my understanding that the zombies featured in DayZ are afflicted by some sort of disease or infection and are not corpses rising up from the dead. With this in mind, it is hard to justify why what supposedly is just a diseased human should be able to take more damage and abuse than an able-bodied person. The enemies and environments within DayZ are supposed to be at least a little realistic in their own respects, and I feel that if the zombies become extremely hard to destroy (more so than what would be expected from a diseased human) it would detract from the overall experience, immersion, and realism. Personally, I think we should keep as far away as possible from the sort of 'supernatural' zombie you've suggested and stick with what they currently are: people with a disease that makes them aggressive, irrational (or, at least a less intelligent), and hungry for us non-infected individuals (as evident by the eating animation that the zombies use when they attack the unconscious).