I Finally See

[Whyherro123 2283]

AHAHHHH!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvfdPKGrqw

Haha, gotta love anime. His sword would shatter most likely (driving shards of metal into his face), and the bullet wouldn't just disappear. Even if the sword deformed the bullet, his FACE IS STILL IN THE WAY.

[Deathlove 2283]

What was this thread about again?

Well first it was about a guy being an asshat and trying to KOS a new player with no weapons but was doing a poor job at it. Than i kind of turned it around into a debate on how melee is extremely wonky and stupid right now. lmao XD

[Deathlove 2283]

This veered off course SUPER fast

But it still relates to how stupid melee works when you were trying to fight that guy. And i agree but its made your thread more popular......lmao

[Nicko2580 398]

This veered off course SUPER fast

It's been fun though. Sorry for hijacking your thread. 

What's your melee weapon of choice in a zombie apocalypse? :P

Edit: OH wait! it's a fire extinguisher! :p

Edited February 16, 2014 by Nicko2580

[Whyherro123 2283]

Actually due to the shortish nature of a katana yes actually i could, if you can swing a hammer i have room to draw slash a katana

Any weapon wins in a surprise attack so um thats just plain stupid and yes in open you can shoot a gun yeah thats not melee so no you lose...

A katana is approaching 3 feet long, that isn't a short melee weapon. A carpenters hammer is roughly 8 inches from butt to head. I guarantee that I can bring that weapon to bear faster than you can draw out your penis replacer, especially since I don't have to put it in a sheath to protect the blade. Plus, I can drop it to grapple with you in hand to hand. 

[Whyherro123 2283]

Yeah, sorry about going off-topic. I just saw the stupid and had to respond.

[Nicko2580 398]

Okay so no one has ever really argued that in the hands of a highly skilled martial artist, a Katana would not be lethal. Assuming they can care for it correctly after the apocalypse, great. It's unlikely that they'll be able to, but great. In anyone else's hands, including I suspect the people arguing for it in this thread, they'd likely have their own arm off before killing a single zombie.

In terms of general effectiveness - a hammer wins hands down. You don't need any training to use a hammer. You hit things with it and they die and thats the end of the game. They require no maintenance. They're useful for things other than killing. They don't get stuck inside dead things (unless it's a maul and you happen to use the pick side). They don't go blunt. The larger they get the more effective they become, but even a tiny one can impart lethal force on a human skull. 

There is just no contest. 

[Whyherro123 2283]

It's been fun though. Sorry for hijacking your thread. 

What's your melee weapon of choice in a zombie apocalypse? :P

Edit: OH wait! it's a fire extinguisher! :P

In all seriousness, a fire extinguisher would be a great weapon, if you had the gorilla arms necessary to swing that bastard. One hit to the head or chest and you would be done. Personal experience : /

[Wheunis 228]

It's been fun though. Sorry for hijacking your thread. 

What's your melee weapon of choice in a zombie apocalypse? :P

Edit: OH wait! it's a fire extinguisher! :p

An actual zombie apoc?

My trusty Colt 1911 Government Edition, alongside my even trustier, African Bush Machete.

[Nicko2580 398]

In all seriousness, a fire extinguisher would be a great weapon, if you had the gorilla arms necessary to swing that bastard. One hit to the head or chest and you would be done. Personal experience : /

I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I was a bit disappointed when the OP beaned that guy in the head coming up the stairs and it did absolutely nothing to slow him down. Cowboy hat absorbed the blow apparently. :/

[Whyherro123 2283]

. The larger they get the more effective they become, but even a tiny one can impart lethal force on a human skull. 

 

That's...what....she....said?.....

 

I'm so lonely! D :

[Whyherro123 2283]

An actual zombie apoc?

My trusty Colt 1911 Government Edition, alongside my even trustier, African Bush Machete.

Aren't those things pretty much a bolo knife? I might be thinking about the wrong blade...

 

ANyways, most of the machetes you find in a sporting good store are worse than useless. Too thin, made of shit steel, and needlessly heavy. In the type of environment Day Z takes place in (temperate deciduous forest) a machete is the completely wrong type of tool to use. Machetes are for thin, springy vegetation. You want either an axe, or a particularly large knife, like a Bowie, Seax, or Bolo.

[soulfirez 901]

you said

 

As for the artillery reference, I was bringing up the greatest killer on the battlefield. Artillery, "The King of Battle". Why were swords not so titled? BECAUSE THEY WERE OBSOLETE.

 

Wouldnt you say that a tactical nuke would be the king as it stands these days( not often used but trumps artillery ) but the point is thats not melee is it???

[soulfirez 901]

Aren't those things pretty much a bolo knife? I might be thinking about the wrong blade...Or

 

ANyways, most of the machetes you find in a sporting good store are worse than useless. Too thin, made of shit steel, and needlessly heavy. In the type of environment Day Z takes place in (temperate deciduous forest) a machete is the completely wrong type of tool to use. Machetes are for thin, springy vegetation. You want either an axe, or a particularly large knife, like a Bowie, Seax, or Bolo.

Or maybe a short bladed sword lol .. I never said they fit the russian land scape i didnt suggest them  i merely jumped in when they were said to be less effective than a hammer hell they even said a carpenters hammer do you honestly believe a sword would be less effective in MELEE than a hammer???

 

NEVER SAID THEY SHOULD BE PUT IN  and would hope that artillery and tac nukes dont either......

Edited February 16, 2014 by SoulFirez

[Judopunch 523]

Dont go to electro?

 

There are about 7 citys on the coast. There are 2 airfields, and about 3 military bases. If you stay in these spots you will be shot, raped, mugged, abused, poisoned, or any number of other things.

 

There are over 20 citys that are not these places.

 

Quit complaining about going to THE MOST HEAVILY CAMPED areas IN THE GAME and getting shot for it. If thats not ok with you, get some friends, get some guns, man up, and regulate that shit. But quit QQing about it. Do something or avoid the situation.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Judopunch

[Whyherro123 2283]

you said

 

As for the artillery reference, I was bringing up the greatest killer on the battlefield. Artillery, "The King of Battle". Why were swords not so titled? BECAUSE THEY WERE OBSOLETE.

 

Wouldnt you say that a tactical nuke would be the king as it stands these days( not often used but trumps artillery ) but the point is thats not melee is it???

What is a tactical nuke? A hypothetical weapon that has never, ever, ever been used in battle? 

Seriously, do you even know any history? The ONLY TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS USED IN WARFARE WERE THE ONES DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI. Tactical nukes don't exist, they probably will never exist, and will never be used even if they do exist. Wishful thinking to the contrary is foolish at best, and criminally incompetent at worst.

[Whyherro123 2283]

Or maybe a short bladed sword lol .. I never said they fit the russian land scape i didnt suggest them  i merely jumped in when they were said to be less effective than a hammer hell they even said a carpenters hammer do you honestly believe a sword would be less effective in MELEE than a hammer???

Uh, yes? That has been what I've promoted throughout this entire conversation. Did you not understand that?

[Whyherro123 2283]

Dont go to electro?

Day Z: Elektro Boogaloo

[Wheunis 228]

Aren't those things pretty much a bolo knife? I might be thinking about the wrong blade...

 

ANyways, most of the machetes you find in a sporting good store are worse than useless. Too thin, made of shit steel, and needlessly heavy. In the type of environment Day Z takes place in (temperate deciduous forest) a machete is the completely wrong type of tool to use. Machetes are for thin, springy vegetation. You want either an axe, or a particularly large knife, like a Bowie, Seax, or Bolo.

In concept, a bolo = panga = machete, etc.

But the variances are huge.

The African machete, or locally called a Panga, is no trifling slice of steel...

[Whyherro123 2283]

In concept, a bolo = panga = machete, etc.

But the variances are huge.

The African machete, or locally called a Panga, is no trifling slice of steel...

Oh, I quite understand. I personally own a Bowie with a 12in blade. Thing is a beast, fully 1/2 in thick. I put it through a car door once, just for kicks.

[soulfirez 901]

What is a tactical nuke? A hypothetical weapon that has never, ever, ever been used in battle? 

Seriously, do you even know any history? The ONLY TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS USED IN WARFARE WERE THE ONES DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI. Tactical nukes don't exist, they probably will never exist, and will never be used even if they do exist. Wishful thinking to the contrary is foolish at best, and criminally incompetent at worst.

True there is nothing tactical in using a device such as this but nuclear weapons eg weapons of mass destruction etc do these exist??  i was forced to go to iraq as part of Australian aid to america in the 90s (not that you needed it trust me i know) but the point is nuclear beats artillery your own example of an atomic bomb shows it ( proud your the only country to use weapons of mass destruction???

 

I have offered you the chance to test your theory on swords vs hammer if you believe it to be the hammers favour why not try it out( yes i know the whole death thing how about i use a kendo stick as substitute and you can use a wicker made hammer with proper protective gear... Words dont make what you say true but i am willing to test beyond words are you...

[soulfirez 901]

Oh, I quite understand. I personally own a Bowie with a 12in blade. Thing is a beast, fully 1/2 in thick. I put it through a car door once, just for kicks.

its damn bordering on a short sword ( i know not really but why is 20 to 30 inches added going to make it so much less effective....

 

less practical to carry yes not my arguement effective in melee is and thus far you have offered no evidence against it ( or i for it if i am being honest)

 

So without testing i am wasting my time ( hmm thought sinkls in pointless to debate opinion when one cant back it up with a real practical test...

Edited February 16, 2014 by SoulFirez

[Judopunch 523]

Melee needs to be one of the big priorities to fix after the other stuff.

? I mean how does this highlight that? 9/10 times the guy with the gun is going to win against the guy with the axe/fists/rock/pointed stick. In the 1/10 times thats not true the guy with the gun has made a GRAVE tactical error.

[Whyherro123 2283]

True there is nothing tactical in using a device such as this but nuclear weapons eg weapons of mass destruction etc do these exist??  i was forced to go to iraq as part of Australian aid to america in the 90s (not that you needed it trust me i know) but the point is nuclear beats artillery your own example of an atomic bomb shows it ( proud your the only country to use weapons of mass destruction???

 

I have offered you the chance to test your theory on swords vs hammer if you believe it to be the hammers favour why not try it out( yes i know the whole death thing how about i use a kendo stick as substitute and you can use a wicker made hammer with proper protective gear... Words dont make what you say true but i am willing to test beyond words are you...

As for whether I am proud to be the only country to use nuclear weapons: Yes, actually. Using them prevented hundreds of thousands of death, on both sides, as well as pretty much preventing them from ever being used again in today's age. I am willing to bet that a nuclear weapons will NEVER be used (by a nation state. Terror organizations are up for grabs) due to the horrible precedent we set 70 years ago. A price well paid, in all honesty.

As for the duel, did you not read above where I would refuse to face you in a "fair" fight? If your fight is fair, you've already lost. As a soldier, you should know that. You do everything in your power to make the fight as unfair as possible. I wouldn't expect you to stand in the middle of the street and challenge zombies to an honorable duel. Don't expect me to do the same. 

[Tmar09 19]

What is a tactical nuke? A hypothetical weapon that has never, ever, ever been used in battle? 

Seriously, do you even know any history? The ONLY TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS USED IN WARFARE WERE THE ONES DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI. Tactical nukes don't exist, they probably will never exist, and will never be used even if they do exist. Wishful thinking to the contrary is foolish at best, and criminally incompetent at worst.

Have never been used in battle but do/did exist. The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a family of man-portable nuclear weapons fielded by the US military in the 1960s, but never used in actual combat. In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States developed several different types of lightweight nuclear device. The smallest of these was the W54 warhead, which had a 10.75 inch diameter (270 mm), was about 15.7 inches long (400 mm), and weighed approximately 23 kg (50 lbs). It was fired by a mechanical timer and had a variable yield equivalent to between 10 tons and 1 kiloton of TNT. The W54 nuclear device was used in the Davy Crockett Weapon System.