Shooting everything you see isn't realistic...

[perestain 33]

I am so beyond sick of seeing numerous threads over and over about this. Dude seriously just suck it up and be more aware of your surroundings. People will kill you for gear. Get used to it.

Guess what' date=' these threads will continue, if you are able to think logically even for a slightest bit, you would understand why.

[/quote']

Oh this is wonderful. First of all just because you are going to bitch about something because you suck at arma two and cant seem to kill someone with your little axe because thats all you find that isnt our problem. Dont come to forums to bitch about it.

He has a point though, if you want to go for a realistic experience, the deathmatching is bullshit. As is the circumventing of permadeath with tents and/or vehicles. It all depends on what you like the game to deliver in the end.

Besides, there is no way to suck at dayZ, since there is little skill involved. You only need to get used to the controls and be patient enough to avoid risks and you can get everything you want. Its great though, since I finally have something to play with my RL friends who would never put in the practice time needed for competitive gaming.

The controls are glitched in a way that real competition would be hardly possible anyway. You'll probably rather see Angry Birds played at WCG before they even think about picking up Dayz or Arma.

[Valec 55]

I am so beyond sick of seeing numerous threads over and over about this. Dude seriously just suck it up and be more aware of your surroundings. People will kill you for gear. Get used to it.

Guess what' date=' these threads will continue, if you are able to think logically even for a slightest bit, you would understand why.

[/quote']

Oh this is wonderful. First of all just because you are going to bitch about something because you suck at arma two and cant seem to kill someone with your little axe because thats all you find that isnt our problem. Dont come to forums to bitch about it.

He has a point though, if you want to go for a realistic experience, the deathmatching is bullshit. As is the circumventing of permadeath with tents and/or vehicles. It all depends on what you like the game to deliver in the end.

Besides, there is no way to suck at dayZ, since there is little skill involved. You only need to get used to the controls and be patient enough to avoid risks and you can get everything you want. Its great though, since I finally have something to play with my RL friends who would never put in the practice time needed for competitive gaming.

The controls are glitched in a way that real competition would be hardly possible anyway. You'll probably rather see Angry Birds played at WCG before they even think about picking up Dayz or Arma.

It's only bullshit because you call it deathmatching. That's fine if you see it that way, but it's not anything like a deathmatch. It's about survival, not score. If I kill you, you won't kill me, thus i've increased my chances of survival.

It's very simple logic. Not killing you drastically increases my chances of dying to you. Killing you reduces that chance to %0.

[gizm0 96]

I am so beyond sick of seeing numerous threads over and over about this. Dude seriously just suck it up and be more aware of your surroundings. People will kill you for gear. Get used to it.

Guess what' date=' these threads will continue, if you are able to think logically even for a slightest bit, you would understand why.

[/quote']

Oh this is wonderful. First of all just because you are going to bitch about something because you suck at arma two and cant seem to kill someone with your little axe because thats all you find that isnt our problem. Dont come to forums to bitch about it.

He has a point though, if you want to go for a realistic experience, the deathmatching is bullshit. As is the circumventing of permadeath with tents and/or vehicles. It all depends on what you like the game to deliver in the end.

Besides, there is no way to suck at dayZ, since there is little skill involved. You only need to get used to the controls and be patient enough to avoid risks and you can get everything you want. Its great though, since I finally have something to play with my RL friends who would never put in the practice time needed for competitive gaming.

The controls are glitched in a way that real competition would be hardly possible anyway. You'll probably rather see Angry Birds played at WCG before they even think about picking up Dayz or Arma.

It's only bullshit because you call it deathmatching. That's fine if you see it that way, but it's not anything like a deathmatch. It's about survival, not score. If I kill you, you won't kill me, thus i've increased my chances of survival.

It's very simple logic. Not killing you drastically increases my chances of dying to you. Killing you reduces that chance to %0.

So does killing me at 500m plus when I'm not aware of you increase you chance of survival if i'm going away from you?

[M@rshall 3]

A great man called M@rshall once said (and then repeated it several times thereafter)

"Shoot every god damned mother fucker that you see, without fail, without hesitation."

And I believe that was good advice, such is DayZ.

That is true realism.

Of course we are all natural born killers, we're a degenerate generation of internet addicts with no moral compass or social skills.

We learn warfare through a computer screen and we are damn good at it.

We are desensitized to the actual horrors of warfare and killing that is rampant throughout the world and that makes us able to carry it out without remorse. Winning!

That's what a zombie apocalypse would be like, everyone who survives will be shooting every god damned mother fucker that they see. FACT.

It's true because I stated my opinion and then summarised it with FACT.

Now that is realism.

[Valec 55]

Guess what' date=' these threads will continue, if you are able to think logically even for a slightest bit, you would understand why.

[/quote']

Oh this is wonderful. First of all just because you are going to bitch about something because you suck at arma two and cant seem to kill someone with your little axe because thats all you find that isnt our problem. Dont come to forums to bitch about it.

He has a point though, if you want to go for a realistic experience, the deathmatching is bullshit. As is the circumventing of permadeath with tents and/or vehicles. It all depends on what you like the game to deliver in the end.

Besides, there is no way to suck at dayZ, since there is little skill involved. You only need to get used to the controls and be patient enough to avoid risks and you can get everything you want. Its great though, since I finally have something to play with my RL friends who would never put in the practice time needed for competitive gaming.

The controls are glitched in a way that real competition would be hardly possible anyway. You'll probably rather see Angry Birds played at WCG before they even think about picking up Dayz or Arma.

It's only bullshit because you call it deathmatching. That's fine if you see it that way, but it's not anything like a deathmatch. It's about survival, not score. If I kill you, you won't kill me, thus i've increased my chances of survival.

It's very simple logic. Not killing you drastically increases my chances of dying to you. Killing you reduces that chance to %0.

So does killing me at 500m plus when I'm not aware of you increase you chance of survival if i'm going away from you?

Yes. Because I have absolutely no idea where you will end up. I don't know for sure that you aren't aware of me. You could very well be trying to circle around behind me for the kill. There's a lot of uncertainty, and I don't like uncertainty that I can avoid.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Besides' date=' there is no way to suck at dayZ, since there is little skill involved.[/quote']

Absolutely. No way to suck. Which explains why the average life expectancy is 31 minutes and I've been alive for over 50 hours. Yeah, you're right. We're all equally skilled at the game clearly.

You'll probably rather see Angry Birds played at WCG before they even think about picking up Dayz or Arma.

Haha, WCG. Yes, DayZ hasn't succeeded until it joins the prestigious likes of Asphalt 6. Oh, don't forget the sports games and the pure death match games. I guess deathmatching is okay as long as WCG says so?

You're cute.

*pats head gently*

[dallas 5195]

With the removal on any consequences, DayZ players have gone completely feral. It's like being in a small sandbox, trying to build a nice castle together with a parkinson's patient with a attitude problem.

[perestain 33]

I am so beyond sick of seeing numerous threads over and over about this. Dude seriously just suck it up and be more aware of your surroundings. People will kill you for gear. Get used to it.

Guess what' date=' these threads will continue, if you are able to think logically even for a slightest bit, you would understand why.

[/quote']

Oh this is wonderful. First of all just because you are going to bitch about something because you suck at arma two and cant seem to kill someone with your little axe because thats all you find that isnt our problem. Dont come to forums to bitch about it.

He has a point though, if you want to go for a realistic experience, the deathmatching is bullshit. As is the circumventing of permadeath with tents and/or vehicles. It all depends on what you like the game to deliver in the end.

Besides, there is no way to suck at dayZ, since there is little skill involved. You only need to get used to the controls and be patient enough to avoid risks and you can get everything you want. Its great though, since I finally have something to play with my RL friends who would never put in the practice time needed for competitive gaming.

The controls are glitched in a way that real competition would be hardly possible anyway. You'll probably rather see Angry Birds played at WCG before they even think about picking up Dayz or Arma.

It's only bullshit because you call it deathmatching. That's fine if you see it that way, but it's not anything like a deathmatch. It's about survival, not score. If I kill you, you won't kill me, thus i've increased my chances of survival.

It's very simple logic. Not killing you drastically increases my chances of dying to you. Killing you reduces that chance to %0.

Deathmatching in other games is not necessarily about the score either, it can be played for fun, or for warmup. In CS i even unbind the scoreboard in deathmatch, so scores won't distract me from practicing properly.

Your logic of killing just to survive doesn't work out completely either, because if you kill me I can respawn, grab an M16 from my tent and/or tell my friends to hunt you down.

So killing someone doesn't always lower the chance to get killed, it may aswell increase it. Avoiding any contact is obviously the best way to survive, and it could easily be done by anyone, but its dead boring to most, thats why people prefer to play deathmatch style instead.

[Upshot 19]

I think shooting first is very realistic.

If you're even alive in a zombie filled world, with your families eaten alive, and your daughters/sons/babies trying to eat you alive... It means you've DECIDED and CHOSE to survive in a world mimicing HELL. - the fact you even decided to live at all, and the fact you are even surviving, means you've gone Insane, and are tough as nails.

Those who would consider shooting 2nd, well, they'd have been extinct long ago, and probably commited suicide or been killed.

I am not a bandit, and I always try to make peace & friends, but if we're talking REALISM, [which it's a game, btw]. then I fully believe realistically that people with guns, who exist, who HAVE survived, WHO DECIDED they would want to live in this world, than kill themselves, or take the easy way out, or let their wives eat them alive... WOULD shoot first.

[dallas 5195]

Most of people come together after a natural disaster, while others loot, murder and rape.

There used to be a balance with the bandit skins, now there's only KOS or hiding.

[Deviant (DayZ) 43]

Please read the stickied threads before you make threads about PvP.

There is a "one and only PvP discussion thread" for a reason. Making another one won't make your argument more right.

[Valec 55]

Most of people come together after a natural disaster' date=' while others loot, murder and rape.

There used to be a balance with the bandit skins, now there's only KOS or hiding.

[/quote']

The zombie apocalypse isn't a natural disaster. It is the end of the world. You can't compare how people behave after a tsunami, earthquake, or hurricane. They know help is out there. For them survival is time based. They only have to last so long before help arrives.

In the apocalypse, help isn't coming. Civilization as we know it has ended. People will band together and try to survive, sure, but most will be small groups and they will have to contend with likely an equal number of groups who will prey on anyone who isn't them.

The end of the world will not showcase humanities finest traits. It will showcase the worst of it.

[dallas 5195]

The end of the world will not showcase humanities finest traits. It will showcase the worst of it.

I disagree, it's exactly what it is, a showcase of who's humane and who's not. The worst will reveal themselves, while others will have to struggle with keeping theirs. At the moment the aspect of humanity has dissapeared from DayZ. Humanity is the key element in these end of the world as we know it tales, the struggle to survive, the struggle to stay human and not just become a zombie with an AK.

Right now the complexity is gone, there's only: Who's the better killer.

[perestain 33]

Besides' date=' there is no way to suck at dayZ, since there is little skill involved.[/quote']

Absolutely. No way to suck. Which explains why the average life expectancy is 31 minutes and I've been alive for over 50 hours. Yeah, you're right. We're all equally skilled at the game clearly.

You mistake patience for skill.

Anyone can live almost forever in a deserted northern part off the map on basic hunting gear and a can of water. No skill/training needed for that beyond knowing the game controls and how the inventory works.

Its just dead boring and thus people decide to do riskier things for fun. That doesn't mean they suck, though. If you play a videogame with zombies, you might aswell have some fun, right?

There is no real measure of skill in this game, there can never be because there is no winning condition. You decide for yourself what your goal is, and as a result what you consider skillful gameplay.

I think its a good thing, because it is one of the very few games that are damn exciting and can still be played with casual-gamer friends no problem.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Most of people come together after a natural disaster' date=' while others loot, murder and rape.

There used to be a balance with the bandit skins, now there's only KOS or hiding.

[/quote']

The worst natural disaster in history were the China floods in the 1930s. On the high-side of the estimates, 2.5MM people lost their lives. 2.5MM out of approximately 400MM Chinese citizens at the time. The survivors, though going through a living Hell, were not alone. Help would come, and it did. They had hope in the midst of their Hell on Earth.

In Chernarus, hope is as dead as everything else. Billions are gone. Society is gone. The world is at an end and nobody is ever coming to make that different. Not for you and not for your children or theirs.

You cannot compare the end of the world to a natural disaster.

[ninthtj 1]

I'm not sure the argument "Shooting everything isn't REALISTIC" is actually a valid point in a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE GAME...

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

The end of the world will not showcase humanities finest traits. It will showcase the worst of it.

I disagree' date=' it's exactly what it is, a showcase of who's humane and who's not. The worst will reveal themselves, while others will have to struggle with keeping theirs. At the moment the aspect of humanity has dissapeared from DayZ. Humanity is the key element in these end of the world as we know it tales, the struggle to survive, the struggle to stay human and not just become a zombie with an AK.

Right now the complexity is gone, there's only: Who's the better killer.

[/quote']

If you want humanity to survive then you must be willing to fight for it. It's not going to come easy and yes, your efforts may fail but they are worth trying. That's the point of DayZ.

[rome 58]

I love how kids here (i hope most of them are kids to be honest) are truly convinced that killing on sight is a realistic attitude in an hostile environment.

Guess what. that couldn't be more wrong.

The level of Cooperation is what makes species SURVIVES in an hostile environment. It is our high level of cooperation that made us -human race- stand where we are now. In any apocalyptic event, i would bet on the guys able to communicate and cooperate to survive the longest.

the lack of cooperation is one of the reason invoked for example to explain the exctinction of the Neanderthal faced to the Sapiens.

Bandits: Neanderthals.

Survivors: Sapiens.

Your thoughts?

Hard to speak of these darwinian things not in my native language. Sorry about that.

Oh, and for the kids :

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

(Dayz is really the only game game that makes me speak of such thing as darwin and evolution, i love that !)

[dallas 5195]

If you want humanity to survive then you must be willing to fight for it. It's not going to come easy and yes' date=' your efforts may fail but they are worth trying. That's the point of DayZ.

[/quote']

I'm humane alright, atleast I try, however the only lesson new players learn is to shoot first or die. In order to stay humane you must kill everyone?

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

You mistake patience for skill.

Patience is part of skill. Just as a skilled F1 driver exercises patience in waiting for an opportunity to pass' date=' or a skilled soccer player exercises patience looking for an opening in the goal.

Other measures of skill are tactics, communication, an understanding of your weapon, good aim, knowledge of the terrain and an intuitive understanding of human behavior to predict your opponent's actions before they occur.

Anyone can live almost forever in a deserted northern part off the map on basic hunting gear and a can of water. No skill/training needed for that beyond knowing the game controls and how the inventory works.

That's true. It's not what I do, but it's true. But that's not how I've survived for 18 days and 50+ hours in game. I own ~11 vehicles on two different servers, a network of fully-stocked tents (legitimately found) scattered across the map and well hidden. This takes skill as well - using the terrain and a knowledge of travel behaviors to choose tent locations that are not discovered. I have in my possession one of every gun in the game at his point except for the Camo SVD.

I take chances in the game. lots of them. I survive because I play more skillfully than other people. To deny that this game requires skill is just folly.

You decide for yourself what your goal is, and as a result what you consider skillful gameplay.

Whatever your goal, you have to be alive to accomplish it. Surviving is the universal goal. If you choose to do that in a boring way, that's okay. It requires less skill than surviving while doing exciting things, but that's your call.

Just because people can choose NOT to use their skills doesn't mean the game has no measure of skill.

[PintOfBass 0]

I kill people all the time from 500 meters, am I doing it for lols? No. I am doing it because my friends are in that same town getting gear, that gear is ours, it is not yours. When side chat was on people would say "Wow I just got shot by a bandit in berezino! That asshole should go play (insert game name)! These assholes think this is a deathmatch!" No I think this is a cruel unforgiving game based off of a cruel unforgiving narrative, you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and BTW, enjoy the beach bitch, we have been there and didn't like it.

[Valec 55]

I love how kids here (i hope most of them are kids to be honest) are truly convinced that killing on sight is a realistic attitude in an hostile environment.

Guess what. that couldn't be more wrong.

The level of Cooperation is what makes species SURVIVES in an hostile environment. It is our high level of cooperation that made us -human race- stand where we are now. In any apocalyptic event' date=' i would bet on the guys able to communicate and cooperate to survive the longest.

the lack of cooperation is one of the reason invoked for example to explain the exctinction of the Neanderthal faced to the Sapiens.

Bandits: Neanderthals.

Survivors: Sapiens.

Your thoughts?

Hard to speak of these darwinian things not in my native language. Sorry about that.

Oh, and for the kids :

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

(Dayz is really the only game game that makes me speak of such thing as darwin and evolution, i love that !)

[/quote']

This isn't a 'hostile environment'. It's the end of a species. The zombie apocalypse, traditionally, cannot be 'defeated'. Humans will not survive the event, were such an occurrence possible. The fact that it is a widespread thing already assumes every government and military has fallen, so the ability to bring about overwhelming firepower to annihilate the hordes no longer exists.

Thus, many humans are forced to acknowledge a simple fact. The world is, in fact, over. There is no persevering through it. The only thing left to do is to survive as long as possible and hopefully die of natural causes.

I don't see how you can possibly imagine shooting people on sight would be unrealistic in this case. You are in a hostile world where even the dead are trying to kill you. You KNOW there are bad people out there, too. Are you REALLY going to expose yourself to being brutally murdered when you have the power to prevent yourself from being a victim?

Just check out more post-apocalyptic movies and novels. You have to acknowledge there will be bandits and psychopaths who know there's nothing left to live for except survival. I genuinely believe that in such a case, your best chance at having that natural death is to kill anyone on sight.

[rome 58]

This isn't a 'hostile environment'. It's the end of a species. The zombie apocalypse' date=' traditionally, cannot be 'defeated'. Humans will not survive the event, were such an occurrence possible. The fact that it is a widespread thing already assumes every government and military has fallen, so the ability to bring about overwhelming firepower to annihilate the hordes no longer exists.

Thus, many humans are forced to acknowledge a simple fact. The world is, in fact, over. There is no persevering through it. The only thing left to do is to survive as long as possible and hopefully die of natural causes.

I don't see how you can possibly imagine shooting people on sight would be unrealistic in this case. You are in a hostile world where even the dead are trying to kill you. You KNOW there are bad people out there, too. Are you REALLY going to expose yourself to being brutally murdered when you have the power to prevent yourself from being a victim?

Just check out more post-apocalyptic movies and novels. You have to acknowledge there will be bandits and psychopaths who know there's nothing left to live for except survival. I genuinely believe that in such a case, your best chance at having that natural death is to kill anyone on sight.

[/quote']

What i know :

There is no ZOMBIE. There are infected people. They get insane and try to eat you. A cure could exist then. We know that antibiotic can delay the infection. We know there could be a cure.

Human hope is what will remains even in the darkest times.

See with the destruction of europe because of the Black Plague.

Cooperation is the key. For Agriculture, for science, for sex, even for War.

[Valec 55]

This isn't a 'hostile environment'. It's the end of a species. The zombie apocalypse' date=' traditionally, cannot be 'defeated'. Humans will not survive the event, were such an occurrence possible. The fact that it is a widespread thing already assumes every government and military has fallen, so the ability to bring about overwhelming firepower to annihilate the hordes no longer exists.

Thus, many humans are forced to acknowledge a simple fact. The world is, in fact, over. There is no persevering through it. The only thing left to do is to survive as long as possible and hopefully die of natural causes.

I don't see how you can possibly imagine shooting people on sight would be unrealistic in this case. You are in a hostile world where even the dead are trying to kill you. You KNOW there are bad people out there, too. Are you REALLY going to expose yourself to being brutally murdered when you have the power to prevent yourself from being a victim?

Just check out more post-apocalyptic movies and novels. You have to acknowledge there will be bandits and psychopaths who know there's nothing left to live for except survival. I genuinely believe that in such a case, your best chance at having that natural death is to kill anyone on sight.

[/quote']

What i know :

There is no ZOMBIE. There are infected people. They get insane and try to eat you. A cure could exist then. We know that antibiotic can delay the infection. We know there could be a cure.

Human hope is what will remains even in the darkest times.

See with the destruction of europe because of the Black Plague.

The problem I see here is that we assume most of the population is dead, which leaves few left to even imagine researching a cure, and even fewer functional facilities to do it in, never mind actually producing a cure in significant quantities.

With the black plague, the infected didn't go around trying to kill everyone who wasn't infected. That's why the idea of the zombie apocalypse is so scary. You are horribly outnumbered, hunted on sight by infected, and constantly running out of supplies.

I don't see any scenario in which humanity comes out on top, short of preventing the spread of the infection in the very beginning. Once it's worldwide, it's pretty much game over.

[rome 58]

This isn't a 'hostile environment'. It's the end of a species. The zombie apocalypse' date=' traditionally, cannot be 'defeated'. Humans will not survive the event, were such an occurrence possible. The fact that it is a widespread thing already assumes every government and military has fallen, so the ability to bring about overwhelming firepower to annihilate the hordes no longer exists.

Thus, many humans are forced to acknowledge a simple fact. The world is, in fact, over. There is no persevering through it. The only thing left to do is to survive as long as possible and hopefully die of natural causes.

I don't see how you can possibly imagine shooting people on sight would be unrealistic in this case. You are in a hostile world where even the dead are trying to kill you. You KNOW there are bad people out there, too. Are you REALLY going to expose yourself to being brutally murdered when you have the power to prevent yourself from being a victim?

Just check out more post-apocalyptic movies and novels. You have to acknowledge there will be bandits and psychopaths who know there's nothing left to live for except survival. I genuinely believe that in such a case, your best chance at having that natural death is to kill anyone on sight.

[/quote']

What i know :

There is no ZOMBIE. There are infected people. They get insane and try to eat you. A cure could exist then. We know that antibiotic can delay the infection. We know there could be a cure.

Human hope is what will remains even in the darkest times.

See with the destruction of europe because of the Black Plague.

The problem I see here is that we assume most of the population is dead, which leaves few left to even imagine researching a cure, and even fewer functional facilities to do it in, never mind actually producing a cure in significant quantities.

With the black plague, the infected didn't go around trying to kill everyone who wasn't infected. That's why the idea of the zombie apocalypse is so scary. You are horribly outnumbered, hunted on sight by infected, and constantly running out of supplies.

I don't see any scenario in which humanity comes out on top, short of preventing the spread of the infection in the very beginning. Once it's worldwide, it's pretty much game over.

Have you read 'I Am Legend" ? I remember that in the end of the novel , the hero encounters some others human that found a cure.

You actually just made me realize that how we behave on Chernarus pretty much depends on how we interprate the background story of the mod.