December Round-up: ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ GIVE SA

[Katana67 2907]

I always thought the map felt small in some ways because everyone is coming and going from the same places on the map. If you add more value to all parts of the map then you're going to run into people less. As of now it's not just the specific cities or areas themselves that are cluttered, but all the routes to them as well.

 

You raise a very interesting point, which is sort of what I was trying to get at. It's less about where players are as to where they go if that makes any sense.

 

That and there's nothing encouraging a player to settle at all if he/she chooses to.

[oompah 58]

but the map has expanded by 20% - isn't that what we were told?

 

And it does make a difference: aka comparing a barracks to a town/city - when there is a location to loot and it's one building you will encounter players there, but if it a set of 20 buildings, spread out, all enterable - 3 or 4 people could be looting and never see each other.  When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it really make a sound?

[Wayze 549]

Right, I am assuming that. Just as you are assuming that

- A wall is impractical in quarantining an area

- Reality should dictate fiction explicitly

- There is still a society left to nuke Chernarus in your hypothetical scenario

- That society viewed Chernarus as a wholly lost cause and did not try and offer a cure to infection

 

I'd direct your attention to the preceding movie of 28 Days Later, whereby they didn't nuke the United Kingdom. They quarantined it. This quarantine was provided for by a natural sea boundary. Insert "man-made wall", and you've got that out of your way.

 

I'd also direct you to World War Z and Land of the Dead, whereby a wall/moat was used to cordon off a large area. It doesn't matter if it's a city or country, whatever area is deemed as a potentially infected area requires quarantine. Put walls around Chernogorsk and Elektro for all I care, that would actually enhance the so-called realism argument you're making whereby they have several contingencies of quarantine should the city-level quarantine fail.

 

You're applying a real world hypothetical to a fictional (and finite) map to which it is not applicable. I merely suggested the wall as a means of plausibly explaining the unfinished edges of Chernarus.

28 Days Later + 28 Weeks Later -> no wall, because the author knew how stupid it is

World War Z -> wall, concept failed, people died, because author knew how stupid it is + people did know about the virus before the outbreak+ the wall was to protect people, not to quaratine them IN IT

Land of the Dead -> is about zombies, so it has nothing to do with DayZ (as it is about infected people)+ the wall was not 30km long

 

28 Days Later they quarantined it?  As you said there is a natural sea boundary, thanks to god because otherwise the world would have ended pretty, pretty fast (because nobody would be as stupid to build a f*cking wall and even if it would have fail).

 

Your applying a just totally nonsense concept that does not make sense at all to an authentic survival game that is not about zombies, but about infected people. Just because it is fictional, it doesn't have to be absolutly stupid and unauthentic.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Wayze

[weparo 613]

but the map has expanded by 20% - isn't that what we were told?

 

And it does make a difference: aka comparing a barracks to a town/city - when there is a location to loot and it's one building you will encounter players there, but if it a set of 20 buildings, spread out, all enterable - 3 or 4 people could be looting and never see each other.  When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it really make a sound?

 

Exactly my point. With the new cherno, 30 guys might never meet. But since the snipers will derp around they will. :D

[oompah 58]

you have to wonder in the big cities with all the high rises providing great sniper locations, once the game is fleshed out and there are proper sniper rifles, will players avoid those cities as to not just be sniper bait?  Will snipers then quit going there also?

 

These new enterable high rises are really going to change things

[Katana67 2907]

28 Days Later + 28 Weeks Later -> no wall, because the author knew how stupid it is

World War Z -> wall, concept failed, people died, because author knew how stupid it is + people did know about the virus before the outbreak+ the wall was to protect people, not to quaratine them IN IT

Land of the Dead -> is about zombies, so it has nothing to do with DayZ (as it is about infected people)+ the wall was not 30km long

 

28 Days Later they quarantined it?  As you said there is a natural sea boundary, thanks to god because otherwise the world would have ended pretty, pretty fast (because nobody would be as stupid to build a f*cking wall and even if it would have fail).

 

Your applying a just totally nonsense concept that does not make sense at all to an authentic survival game that is not about zombies, but about infected people. Just because it is fictional, it doesn't have to be absolutly stupid and unauthentic.

 

You're missing the concept that I'm expressing, and I suggest you temper your reactions.

 

Wall, sea, plastic covering over a gurney, refusal of immigration, are all constructs given to contain people. These are all functions of a quarantine.

 

I'm not commenting on the realistic application of a wall. Although I think you're vastly underestimating its usefulness, see modern-day West Bank and pre-modern China. All of which made/make extensive use of walls to keep people in/out.

 

 

I also think you're being very selective in your argument in terms of the "zombie" genre.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Katana67

[oompah 58]

since there might not as many "hot spots" and people will be spread out a lot more you'd have to figure sniping won't be as popular a thing to do.  i mean in the mod, yea sure go set up on the hill above elektro and have fun with it, but there should be FAR less people running around elektro now - I guess it all depends on if new hot spots develop or if the diversity of loot and locations does keep every spread out - I like the idea of less sniper spots

[weparo 613]

you have to wonder in the big cities with all the high rises providing great sniper locations, once the game is fleshed out and there are proper sniper rifles, will players avoid those cities as to not just be sniper bait?  Will snipers then quit going there also?

 

These new enterable high rises are really going to change things

 

I think it will be the opposite. The big buildings provide cover and allow to loot. It will be very hard for the sniper to keep track of everybody while he is trapped on a building... sux for him :D

 

In the mod you don't have much cover to loot.

[oompah 58]

 

and I suggest you temper your reactions.

 

LOL - really bro?

[oompah 58]

I think it will be the opposite. The big buildings provide cover and allow to loot. It will be very hard for the sniper to keep track of everybody while he is trapped on a building... sux for him :D

 

In the mod you don't have much cover to loot.

wait - say that again, i didn't folow exactly...  You think the cities will be full of snipers all sniping at each other building to building then?

[Katana67 2907]

LOL - really bro?

 

I enjoy civil debate, not deeming things as categorically "stupid" as a framework to support my points. Call me crazy.

[weparo 613]

wait - say that again, i didn't folow exactly...  You think the cities will be full of snipers all sniping at each other building to building then?

 

that too, but think about this:

 

you spot a sinper on building X. Just stay in the cover of the other 20 buildings and he can't hit you. He will not know where you went. and somone could climb up behind the sniper and kill him. He is trapped up there, with no way out!

[Wayze 549]

You're missing the concept that I'm expressing, and I suggest you temper your reactions.

 

Wall, sea, plastic covering over a gurney, refusal of immigration, are all constructs given to contain people. These are all functions of a quarantine.

 

I'm not commenting on the realistic application of a wall. Although I think you're vastly underestimating its usefulness, see modern-day West Bank and pre-modern China. All of which made/make extensive use of walls to keep people in/out.

 

I also think you're being very selective in your argument in terms of the "zombie" genre.

Now firstly, I use words like "f*cking" and "stupid" to underline my arguments (as I tend to do, because it sounds good). Secondly, like I said, I never saw someone building a wall to keep a highly dangerous virus from spreading. Do you have an idea how much effort it takes to build a wall that big? Time in such a scenario is crutial. One person gets out of there, mission fail, apocalypse. Why would someone build a wall? I ask you that, why would someone spend so much effort and money and so much risk just to do something that is not even an secure method? Even nuking the place makes more sense than building a wall. I just can't see where you see the benefits? So, you have spend weeks or months to build a wall. For what? For like 1.000 zombies? Why not just go in there and kill them all? If you can build a wall while defending yourself from them, why even bother to build one? I mean, it's not like there are 1.000.000 zombies  in this area and if there are, screw the wall because it won't help you.

 

I really don't see any way of logic that could make that wall seem "authentic".

[oompah 58]

that was kind of funny - it's a posting board you get all kinds; if someone is irritating you insisting they temper their reactions usually earns you the exact opposite response.

 

I love this forum btw - call me crazy

[weparo 613]

Now firstly, I use words like "f*cking" and "stupid" to underline my arguments (as I tend to do, because it sounds good). Secondly, like I said, I never saw someone building a wall to keep a highly dangerous virus from spreading. Do you have an idea how much effort it takes to build a wall that big? Time in such a scenario is crutial. One person gets out of there, mission fail, apocalypse. Why would someone build a wall? I ask you that, why would someone spend so much effort and money and so much risk just to do something that is not even an secure method? Even nuking the place makes more sense than building a wall. I just can't see where you see the benefits? So, you have spend weeks or months to build a wall. For what? For like 1.000 zombies? Why not just go in there and kill them all? If you can build a wall while defending yourself from them, why even bother to build one? I mean, it's not like there are 1.000.000 zombies  in this area and if there are, screw the wall because it won't help you.

 

I really don't see any way of logic that could make that wall seem "authentic".

 

guys, calm down :D

 

It doesn't matter because the wall is a bad idea anyways and I don't see rocket doing that anyways. It's not his style. Endless forrest it is! ;)

 

that was kind of funny - it's a posting board you get all kinds; if someone is irritating you insisting they temper their reactions usually earns you the exact opposite response.

 

I love this forum btw - call me crazy

 

same here :D :D

[Wayze 549]

guys, calm down :D

We are calm, you just have to learn to read things in a calm way. ;)

[OrLoK 16182]

*takes interest in thread*

 

Keep it frosty, guys n gals, please.

 

L

[joe_mcentire 2073]

i demand now an answer: where is Fraggle?!

[Katana67 2907]

Now firstly, I use words like "f*cking" and "stupid" to underline my arguments (as I tend to do, because it sounds good). Secondly, like I said, I never saw someone building a wall to keep a highly dangerous virus from spreading. Do you have an idea how much effort it takes to build a wall that big? Time in such a scenario is crutial. One person gets out of there, mission fail, apocalypse. Why would someone build a wall? I ask you that, why would someone spend so much effort and money and so much risk just to do something that is not even an secure method? Even nuking the place makes more sense than building a wall. I just can't see where you see the benefits? So, you have spend weeks or months to build a wall. For what? For like 1.000 zombies? Why not just go in there and kill them all? If you can build a wall while defending yourself from them, why even bother to build one? I mean, it's not like there are 1.000.000 zombies  in this area and if there are, screw the wall because it won't help you.

 

I really don't see any way of logic that could make that wall seem "authentic".

 

It both doesn't sound good and depletes the effectiveness of what you're trying to say.

 

You're asking me to comment on a hypothetical, when (ironically) there are real-world examples that I've used to demonstrate my point. Walls separate things.

 

I'll address the hypothetical points you've raised, and will answer no more highly situational hypotheticals, as one could go on incessantly about this forever.

 

1. Yes, it takes a moderately divested infrastructure roughly ten years to construct 200 linear miles of fencing, concrete barriers, barbed wire, and check points (see West Bank). I cannot comment on a mobilized international construction effort as would likely be required in the physical quarantining of a portion of an infected nation. But, let's just say six months supported by a peacekeeping task force to (ostensibly) contain any infected personnel approaching the construction zone. In fact a wall would save money, as once it is complete (pending a cure not having been found) one would have a minimal security staff.

 

2. Because we are human? We have competing ethical and political imperatives to act in certain ways? Why doesn't Israel nuke Gaza and the West Bank? Because of the political and ethical ramifications of condemning a large population to death.

 

Again, you're applying real-world pragmatism to a genre which relies very little upon it. Regardless, the entire point of this was to provide something more plausible than a blatantly unfinished terrain at the map boundaries.

 

EDIT - Nevermind the fact, that by my inclusion of its failure... it's sort of included because it failed. To add plausiblity to the borders and depth to the lore of DayZ. Because nobody's ever undertaken a construction project which failed right?

Edited December 10, 2013 by Katana67

[weparo 613]

It both doesn't sound good and depletes the effectiveness of what you're trying to say.

 

You're asking me to comment on a hypothetical, when (ironically) there are real-world examples that I've used to demonstrate my point. Walls separate things.

 

I'll address the hypothetical points you've raised, and will answer no more highly situational hypotheticals, as one could go on incessantly about this forever.

 

1. Yes, it takes a moderately divested infrastructure roughly ten years to construct 200 linear miles of fencing, concrete barriers, barbed wire, and check points (see West Bank). I cannot comment on a mobilized international construction effort as would likely be required in the physical quarantining of a portion of an infected nation. But, let's just say six months supported by a peacekeeping task force to (ostensibly) contain any infected personnel approaching the construction zone. In fact a wall would save money, as once it is complete (pending a cure not having been found) one would have a minimal security staff.

 

2. Because we are human? We have competing ethical and political imperatives to act in certain ways? Why doesn't Israel nuke Gaza and the West Bank? Because of the political and ethical ramifications of condemning a large population to death.

 

Again, you're applying real-world pragmatism to a genre which relies very little upon it. Regardless, the entire point of this was to provide something more plausible than a blatantly unfinished terrain at the map boundaries.

 

I don't want to see a wall in the SA, yet I agree with your arguments exept one. Israel would nuke gaza and palestina in the blink of an eye, if they could. But the can't because other, powerfuller nations would extinguish israel from the face of the earth. Besides many israelis are hoping for a peaceful solutions. But believe me, the governement and the millitary have enough plans in their shelves on how to eradicate the palestine people. It ain't like they aren't trying to do so anyways.

 

EDIT : One more thing, how is an endless forrest "unfinished terrain"?

Edited December 10, 2013 by Weparo

[Katana67 2907]

EDIT : One more thing, how is an endless forrest "unfinished terrain"?

 

No no! I actually like the idea of a forest as you explain it. I'm just positing the idea of a "wall" as an alternative to what we've got now (unfinished terrain), not as an alternative to a potential forest.

 

And not that it matters, but I'm actually a grad student in Middle Eastern studies. :D

Edited December 10, 2013 by Katana67

[weparo 613]

No no! I actually like the idea of a forest as you explain it. I'm just positing the idea of a "wall" as an alternative to what we've got now (unfinished terrain), not as an alternative to a potential forest.

 

Ahh, allright :) Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of the plains neither. I just feel that a wall has too much of a "beeing locked" aspect. This isn't the hunger games after all :D

 

And not that it matters, but I'm actually a grad student in Middle Eastern studies. :D

 

Whooops :P Might matter... might XD

Nasty place, security and politically wise

[Sloddor 167]

Time for the alpha before people smash each others heads to marmelade because of a wall ^^

Edited December 10, 2013 by Sloddor

[twinturbonet (DayZ) 294]

It both doesn't sound good and depletes the effectiveness of what you're trying to say.

 

 

 

...I disagree.

[Wayze 549]

It both doesn't sound good and depletes the effectiveness of what you're trying to say.

 

You're asking me to comment on a hypothetical, when (ironically) there are real-world examples that I've used to demonstrate my point. Walls separate things.

 

I'll address the hypothetical points you've raised, and will answer no more highly situational hypotheticals, as one could go on incessantly about this forever.

 

1. Yes, it takes a moderately divested infrastructure roughly ten years to construct 200 linear miles of fencing, concrete barriers, barbed wire, and check points (see West Bank). I cannot comment on a mobilized international construction effort as would likely be required in the physical quarantining of a portion of an infected nation. But, let's just say six months supported by a peacekeeping task force to (ostensibly) contain any infected personnel approaching the construction zone. In fact a wall would save money, as once it is complete (pending a cure not having been found) one would have a minimal security staff.

 

2. Because we are human? We have competing ethical and political imperatives to act in certain ways? Why doesn't Israel nuke Gaza and the West Bank? Because of the political and ethical ramifications of condemning a large population to death.

 

Again, you're applying real-world pragmatism to a genre which relies very little upon it. Regardless, the entire point of this was to provide something more plausible than a blatantly unfinished terrain at the map boundaries.

 

EDIT - Nevermind the fact, that by my inclusion of its failure... it's sort of included because it failed. To add plausiblity to the borders and depth to the lore of DayZ. Because nobody's ever undertaken a construction project which failed right?

It both does sound f*cking good, because you can use the word f*cking as f*cking much as you f*cking want and put it infront of every f*cking word and it stills sound f*cking good.

 

When ironicly, there is no real-world example for quaranting the most dangerous virus mandkind was confronted with.*

 

1. Like I said, if the virus is not capable of spreading over the whole world within a very short amount of time, it is highly unlikely that it will ever do that. Simply because humans are not stupid at all, and if the virus is not capable of breaking a simple wall, it will never be capable of reaching the outside wall. A wall would not save money, because destroying the whole area would be a way more quick, human and cheaper solution.

 

2. Because we are human, that is right. So it is ethical to let all the people in that area just starve? It is ethical to let them turn into monsters? It is ethical to let them be eaten by zombies? Why doesn't Isreal nuke Gaza? Because it would be suicide. Remember, in a nuclear wall the first one who strikes, is the last one who dies. That is why nuclear weapons are so effective. They prevent war by simple intimidation.

Now, within 6 months, while constructing the wall, almost every human being in that area would be most likely dead. Starved to death, eaten by infected people, died due to the infection. So, russia leaves their own citizien to die within a well, in a very cruel way? This would be a huge political scandal.

Within 6 months, the whole situation is solved or the virus did break out. But like I said there is no way that they build the wall and the virus breaks out after it. Why would that happen? Most of the zombies and people in the zone would be dead.

 

Now the most important part:

The virus has to be so dangerous that there is simply no way to quarantine it. If that is the case, there is no way that anyone would be able to build a wall around ground zero. As in your scenario chernarus is ground zero, it would have most likely been just completly wasted. How does your scenario even look like? They build a wall, it is completly finished, most infected and alive within the area are dead. What now? How does the virus spread? And if it spreads, what do you think would the gouverment do? Just watch? Or plan B, wasting the whole place?

 

If there was something like chernarus, they would just kill every infected within the area. It would be so easy. Just take some helicopters, some US-drones, some apaches, some tanks, troops. Whipe everything out. Where is the problem? If they don't do that and  just build a wall, then like you said yourself, it would be a political scandal. Absolutly unethical.

 

 

Because nobody has ever undertaken a construction project that risked mankind.