Average Lone Wolf Wouldnt Survive

[sachad 1016]

No, it isn't. The amount of food you require as a group goes up on a linear scale, but the amount of "effort" (time taken, places searched, carrying capacity, etc) it takes to get that food decreases on an exponential scale, due to more available labor.

 

Which adds a liability factor because if one guy slacks off, the group suffers as a whole.

[R Razor 9]

You Americans know how to party!

 

. Maybe it's just that you need 20 Americans for 4 Brits, that seems like a fair ratio.. ;)

 

 

 

 

We didn't in 1776, 1917 or 1944....... :P

Edited January 9, 2015 by R Razor

[sloasdaylight 129]

Which adds a liability factor because if one guy slacks off, the group suffers as a whole.

Yes, but it decreases the damage one guy slacking off does to the group exponentially.

 

If you have 2 people who have to do 4 tasks, let's say

• Gathering food
• Building a fire
• Setting up shelter
• Gathering water

Each person in that 2 man group must do 2 of those tasks. If one of the people in our pretend duo decides he's not going to go gather water, he's just going to set up the tent, then the other guy must now perform 3 tasks, 1.5 times his original workload.

 

Now, say there are 4 people in the group, if 1 guy decides he's not going to do anything, you have 3 people left to cover 4 jobs, or an increase in workload by .3 jobs per person. Bump that number up to 8, and you now have 8 people for 4 jobs, or 7 if one person decides to not do anything. You have 4 jobs for 7 people to do, which means there are 2 people for all but 1 job, and so one and so forth down the line as you increase the number of people in a group. It also means that more dangerous jobs can be performed safer, because as we all know, there's safety in numbers. A bandit is less likely to attack a group of 3 people in town gathering food than if there were only 1.

 

Addendum: For example, back in the original mod days, I played with a multi-clan conglomerate, with players from both the EU and NA. There were a few of us who took up roles as suppliers due to our play time restrictions/hours/etc. I was one of them. My "role" per say, was to make water runs, go hunting, and scour the map for enemy camps. I did a pretty decent job of it, our tent city always had food and water when the other guys logged on, and on more than a few occasions I was able to point out camp locations and run some cursory raids on them myself, when few people were online. Because I was able to supply my group with food, water, and gasoline on a regular basis, the other players in my group were able to spend their time PvPing, or running large scale loot runs at NWAF/Cherno/Elektro/etc.

 

The more people you have in your group, chances are, the better your group will do.

Edited January 19, 2015 by sloasdaylight

[CJFlint 357]

While I enjoy playing with people, my life span drastically goes down. When playing with the people I play with my bandages get used up extremely fast, loot has to be shared, it's harder to stay undetected etc. Had a toon alive for like 3 months with playing pretty much everyday, then my friend wanted to go shoot some people in Berinzino, 5 minutes in a hacker ports over to me puts my guns away and bam is kill. I tend to be less alert when playing with a group because I feel like I don't have to with the extra eyes, so I am definitely more paranoid alone but again I live much longer. Playing solo, if you know what your doing enables you to live much longer than in a group but it can't beat dicking around in the game with your friends. When I play solo I stay in the wilderness more and head into towns and what not when i need loot and thats about it. I enjoy the woods and fields and the small little towns where no one is at, then with friends its to the larger towns etc. Both have their challenges but solo lets you focus on yourself only so is better for long term by far.

I noticed kind of a similar were I just don't live as long grouped. I think once you play solo for a while you master it. You learn the does and don'ts, what gets you trouble and what doesn't. Now with groups much the time there pvp oriented, that's the goal. So they will seek it out, and place them selves in more dangerous areas the you otherwise probably either avoid or be much more careful about solo. So almost instantly your risk level goes up. Its a game and if you have the means to do it, why the hell not.

Its a different mindset for sure. I think the cost of losing is also much higher solo as well. You don't have anyone to help you. So I think when I lone wolf I'm survival oriented, and the reason for pvp is different then grouped. I want to do it with a better hand cards then the other guy or just leave. Maximize on getting the drop on them 1 st. We all know that that's all just in theory, and day z has a way and players have a way of catching us off guard.

Groups offer a support system in way, so the cost death of during is less. Which of course leads to taking more risks. The truth is its a thrill to take risks in game. It can lead to allot of action and if you live through there is a since of group accomplishment, which is great. Train wrecks happen too, which is really not fun.

So really playing both, I know its really it really just comes down to play style and how you feel like playing that given day. Day z has pretty cool sand box game play freedom in that way. There really is no right or wrong way to play. Play how ever the hell you want

Edited January 19, 2015 by CJFlint

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

tell that to the mountain men of the 17-18 hundreds. And guys now days like Mick Dodge, if you havent seen that show, hes a modern day mtn man

With a life expectancy < 40 years.

[Sirwarriant12 94]

I noticed kind of a similar were I just don't live as long grouped. I think once you play solo for a while you master it. You learn the does and don'ts, what gets you trouble and what doesn't. Now with groups much the time there pvp oriented, that's the goal. So they will seek it out, and place them selves in more dangerous areas the you otherwise probably either avoid or be much more careful about solo. So almost instantly your risk level goes up. Its a game and if you have the means to do it, why the hell not.

Its a different mindset for sure. I think the cost of losing is also much higher solo as well. You don't have anyone to help you. So I think when I lone wolf I'm survival oriented, and the reason for pvp is different then grouped. I want to do it with a better hand cards then the other guy or just leave. Maximize on getting the drop on them 1 st. We all know that that's all just in theory, and day z has a way and players have a way of catching us off guard.

Groups offer a support system in way, so the cost death of during is less. Which of course leads to taking more risks. The truth is its a thrill to take risks in game. It can lead to allot of action and if you live through there is a since of group accomplishment, which is great. Train wrecks happen too, which is really not fun.

So really playing both, I know its really it really just comes down to play style and how you feel like playing that given day. Day z has pretty cool sand box game play freedom in that way. There really is no right or wrong way to play. Play how ever the hell you want

Ya thats exactly how I feel although my care for my gear doesn't go down in a group but what I loot does a bit. I will look for blood bags and iv its more etc than I would solo.

[Pandema 352]

With a life expectancy < 40 years.

General life expectancy was roughly 40-50 years back then wasn't it?

 

So those mountain men were doing pretty well.

[Whyherro123 2283]

General life expectancy was roughly 40-50 years back then wasn't it?

 

So those mountain men were doing pretty well.

No, actually. This is something many people get incorrect about people from past eras.

 

The "life expectancy" of the average human being from the Roman Empire all the way to the 1850s was roughly 60-70, AKA pretty close to modern times. What differs was the "average life span", which is usually the 30-40 figure you mention. This is due almost entirely to the atrociously high levels of infant mortality. So, as long as you lived past 2, you could reasonably expect to see 60, barring disease, war or accident. However, making it past 2 was the hard part. This is the major reason why "ancient peoples" (and relatedly, people living in the 3rd World, no offense intended) had so many kids, barring having more bodies to work: only a few would live to see adulthood.

 

It isn't that we are living longer today compared to the past (we are, but not by all that much), it is that more people are surviving to reproduce.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Whyherro123

[Beizs 186]

Yes, but it decreases the damage one guy slacking off does to the group exponentially.

 

If you have 2 people who have to do 4 tasks, let's say

• Gathering food
• Building a fire
• Setting up shelter
• Gathering water

Each person in that 2 man group must do 2 of those tasks. If one of the people in our pretend duo decides he's not going to go gather water, he's just going to set up the tent, then the other guy must now perform 3 tasks, 1.5 times his original workload.

 

Now, say there are 4 people in the group, if 1 guy decides he's not going to do anything, you have 3 people left to cover 4 jobs, or an increase in workload by .3 jobs per person. Bump that number up to 8, and you now have 8 people for 4 jobs, or 7 if one person decides to not do anything. You have 4 jobs for 7 people to do, which means there are 2 people for all but 1 job, and so one and so forth down the line as you increase the number of people in a group. It also means that more dangerous jobs can be performed safer, because as we all know, there's safety in numbers. A bandit is less likely to attack a group of 3 people in town gathering food than if there were only 1.

 

Addendum: For example, back in the original mod days, I played with a multi-clan conglomerate, with players from both the EU and NA. There were a few of us who took up roles as suppliers due to our play time restrictions/hours/etc. I was one of them. My "role" per say, was to make water runs, go hunting, and scour the map for enemy camps. I did a pretty decent job of it, our tent city always had food and water when the other guys logged on, and on more than a few occasions I was able to point out camp locations and run some cursory raids on them myself, when few people were online. Because I was able to supply my group with food, water, and gasoline on a regular basis, the other players in my group were able to spend their time PvPing, or running large scale loot runs at NWAF/Cherno/Elektro/etc.

 

The more people you have in your group, chances are, the better your group will do.

 

Well, not really. First, there's the issue of a larger group being easier to spot, virtually no matter what you do. If somebody is set up on a hill and can snipe reasonably well, they can wreak havoc in just about any group of even incredibly skilled players. Now, if you're one guy in a town and there's one sniper watching said town, it's much more likely that you'll go unnoticed. While you'll be the only one he focuses on if he does notice you, it's not too difficult to zig zag away most of the time. If your group had a set medic, for example, and he gets shot in the chest, your group now has 0 medical supplies (or maybe some limited ones, depending on how smart you were). It's even worse if you have a dedicated pack mule who was carrying your spare ammo, food and medical supplies too.

 

Then there's the fact that stuff is finite in DayZ. It's all very well and good if you have eight people out of your group of eight looking for food, even to the best of their ability, but they're not all going to bring back a lot. Eight people could clean Cherno if you're there for any extended period of time. If you're not on a server that's just restarted and you get in a fight, you'd better hope that luck's on your side when it comes to regenerating your health.

 

The same goes for guns, ammo and medical supplies... Except they're even rarer. Say there's 5 full bandages in all of Cherno. I have no idea how realistic that is, but whatever. If you're alone and you find just one, you have the ability to heal yourself ten times.

 

If you're in a group of eight and you find all of them, you have the ability to heal each member of your group only five times.

 

 

With a life expectancy < 40 years.

 

Citation, please. The average life span in those times was somewhere around 40, but that's taking into account all of the children who'd die. Infant mortality was a much larger issue back then and that skews life spans a lot.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Beizs

[Draemos 0]

Ive seen many ideas shot down because they would hurt the lone wolf. "I dont want detailed surgery it would hurt lone wolves, dont add sanity/social needs it would hurt the lone wolves, dont add in crew fired weapons it would hurt lone wolves". Honestly, Im tired of hearing everyone say "Oh, well IRL I woud be a lone wolf I wouldnt need anyone then why should I in DayZ?"

Because the fact is most people here cant perform medical operations/CLS techniques to others let alone doing it to yourself. Dont say that you dont need social lives when SHTF, humans invented language and civilization BECAUSE humans need interaction. What happens to the guy who says he doesnt need a girlfriend or friends and spends all day in mommys basement? Hes either a 600 pound socially akward gamer or he becomes a school/mall/theater shooter because society doesnt understand him. (If you dont like the truth, fix the truth)

So I say add in complex surgery, yeah I can do basic CLS treatment on myself and others but according to you all were untrained survivors who shouldnt be able to use tactical stances (see A3 stance in DayZ thread)

And add in sanity/ a need for social contact, yeah I go camping for a couple weeks to a month sometimes but I still crave human contact after a while (and I dunno about yall, but talking to my girlfriend is one of the best parts of my day)

Tl;Dr--> Lone Wolves will die IRL when SHTF and its the EOTWAWKI

 

I don't much care about things like crew fired weapons and those sort of changes that improve the group dynamic as that doesn't really hurt anyone (I think "complex surgery" would be kinda stupid though), but the idea of a "sanity/need for social contact" mechanic is absolutely awful.  The type of person that is a lone wolf isn't the type of people that need social contact to maintain a healthy mindset, and the type of people that lone-wolf don't want to be forced into group dynamics... so what is gained?  The answer is nothing, at best you get people who grudgingly do the minimum required to satisfy the  requirement, and the more likely scenario is that you just lose players who aren't going to be forced into playing the game in a way they don't want to.

 

The idea that lone wolf people wouldn't do fine in an apocalypses is a bit absurd to.  They're the most suited to both handling the mental challenges and managing to avoid trouble.  I know several folks who do just fine who have been living out in the sticks for decades.

[q.S Sachiel 470]

With a life expectancy < 40 years.

though the average life of a DayZ player character is less than that, sounds like a pretty good expectancy given it's probably close to the average for the time anyway...

 

ITT: realism junkies.  If you want realism, play black screen simulator.  That's what you'd be seeing if you were in DayZ.  You'd all be dead.

 

I'll give an aside though,

despite the OPs jaded view of Lone wolves due to his assumed preference to group play and his taking stock in his supreme numbers of two, and his laughable straw man arguments... Lol 600 pound behemoth cave dwellers as an equivalent for apocalypse survivor?  The humor is strong.

this is a sandbox game.  There is an implicit freedom that other games and even this in certain respects tout but drive a wedge through.

 

All options should be viable and as others have said on p1, you as a lone wolf accept the lack of support and embrace the risk. 

You acknowledge your weaknesses but seeing as this environment is so unbelievable hospitable compared to what i'd imagine a real Eastern bloc nation/landscape to provide over the long term, well...

 

Sure build up other features which are not immediately or co-useful with lone wolf play (Lone wolves aren't actually allowed on the crew gun, they get an error message and a picture of Dean waving his finger.  Parking your vehicle on the hill then changing spots will actually cause self destruct)...

Sure, amass the difficulty against me because of my lack of number, and the strength of other groups because of above features

But don't penalise the loners just because you want to encourage teamwork.  Provide the opportunity and incentive, allow for the incentive of challenge on the alternative and let the damn game be.

Sandbox 101.

 

Also OP, you usually don't write multiple paragraphs and then contract whatever ungodly pop culture reference you have into such an ugly acronym without giving some kind of explanation as to what it is. Too many journalists just throw these things around without ever explaining it to their audiences.

Edited January 21, 2015 by q.S Sachiel

[pale1776 375]

though the average life of a DayZ player character is less than that, sounds like a pretty good expectancy given it's probably close to the average for the time anyway...

ITT: realism junkies. If you want realism, play black screen simulator. That's what you'd be seeing if you were in DayZ. You'd all be dead.

I'll give an aside though,

despite the OPs jaded view of Lone wolves due to his assumed preference to group play and his taking stock in his supreme numbers of two, and his laughable straw man arguments... Lol 600 pound behemoth cave dwellers as an equivalent for apocalypse survivor? The humor is strong.

this is a sandbox game. There is an implicit freedom that other games and even this in certain respects tout but drive a wedge through.

All options should be viable and as others have said on p1, you as a lone wolf accept the lack of support and embrace the risk.

You acknowledge your weaknesses but seeing as this environment is so unbelievable hospitable compared to what i'd imagine a real Eastern bloc nation/landscape to provide over the long term, well...

Sure build up other features which are not immediately or co-useful with lone wolf play (Lone wolves aren't actually allowed on the crew gun, they get an error message and a picture of Dean waving his finger. Parking your vehicle on the hill then changing spots will actually cause self destruct)...

Sure, amass the difficulty against me because of my lack of number, and the strength of other groups because of above features

But don't penalise the loners just because you want to encourage teamwork. Provide the opportunity and incentive, allow for the incentive of challenge on the alternative and let the damn game be.

Sandbox 101.

Also OP, you usually don't write multiple paragraphs and then contract whatever ungodly pop culture reference you have into such an ugly acronym without giving some kind of explanation as to what it is. Too many journalists just throw these things around without ever explaining it to their audiences.

Man those assumptions though.

I play lone wolf, I prefer it in Days. But IRL, I would attempt to make contact. Face it, mankind cannot survive without each other. Hence civilization, and those people who throughout time preferred to live alone? They died cold lonely deaths, were killed by predators,killed by people, or simply died because of illness.

Everyone needs contact of some sort. If you cant, then you'll either talk to yourself or find a "Wilson" to talk to. And most people who live entirely alone are severely mentally defficient, and don't say "Oh well the reality shows" because those reality shows are shows. When the camera goes off, so does the wilderness. Same as that damn moonshiner show, my family runs, well ran shine and the biggest thing was secrecy. So if your doing something illegal, why broadcast it on TV? And why haven't they been raided yet? Because its a scripted show.

Civilization was founded BECAUSE human nature craves contact and we have a banding nature. The loner 24/7 l33t cannibal sn1p3rs that y'all are so firm would exist would die off. And in real life, there's no respawns. BUT LONE WOLVES (Not the loner 24/7 l33t cannibal sn1p3rs) would survive, because to be a lone wolf requires brains. And to have brains would mean that you would use human help/ make contact EVEN if it's just temporary. Those are called nomads/lone wolves and they have been around forever because they can survive but also see the need and benefits of groups (even if its temporary trading/ small talk at the campfire)

So in case y'all are still living by your preconceived notion that your incapable of reading past the first line, here's something for you.

Tl;Can't Read: Lone Wolves* can survive. Loner 24/7 L33t cannibal sn1p3rs** will die.

*Someone who is capable of solo survival but sees the need for, and will use civilization and human contact/groups.

**The pro cod kiddies that dwell on this forum who brag about how prepped they are, how pro Delta Ranger Seal they were, and how they have 4628 hours in Arms and Dayz.