Tranquilizer and Leash

[FlimFlamm 509]

The concept for this idea begins with a wooden stake that can be made from a log and driven into the ground with a heavy meele weapon.

 

A rope can be fashioned into a leash, and here is where the new tranquilizer gun comes into play.

 

We should be able to tranquilize animals, zombies, and potentially even players.

 

Once we have them tranqed up, we can tie a leash around their neck and have a way of controling the creatures movement when they wake up. (Or drag them to death from a vehicle?).

 

Then we can tie the end of our leash onto the stake that we have driven into the ground. It may seem stupid at first but this mechanic can be used in many ways and potentially for future features.

 

Firstly, we can capture animals this way. Cows for milking, pigs for breeding and slaughtering, goats for milk and meat. This can be a rudimentary first phase of animal husbandry. If horses ever get added in then this could be an easy way of capturing your first horse. The uniqueness to this feature would bring something totally new to DayZ.

 

Next I envision the capture of zombies, and using them as hidden sentries to guard your camp. (a zombie who lives in the bushes for example, and lashes out at people who pass by it.) Having Zombies on leashes even if it is utterly useless would still be quite the hoot.

 

This next tidbit might be too awesome for you all to handle or imagine, but once we have a zombie captured, why can we not modify and dress them?.

 

First we restrain the zombies arms with quality rope or chains. Next we put a muzzle on them, we don't want them biting us afterall. Finally we dress them up, give them all the fancy clothes and backpacks we can find. And what do we get?

 

A pet zombie that can be taken for walks. Make sure to keep them tied up when not in use though, as they will wander. The benefit of owning your own pet zombie is that you have the ultimate pack mule.  I will admit at this point that I stole the idea from "the walking dead", but who cares. Good ideas needs must be stolen.

 

Finally there is the entertaining matter of tying up actual human beings. Humans are smart enough to eventually escape their restraints and their neck leash (after they free their hands), but man it would be incredibly enjoyable to teach that backstabber a lesson by chaining him up naked and attracting a bunch of zombies to him :) (or any other number of sadistic slow forms of torture that can be concieved of). The tranq gun facilitates the required unconsciousness but can also become a popular gun for many sorts of uses.

 

So, tranq gun, neck leash, and tie-on stake.

Edited June 8, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[Alexander-Thunder 4]

After the "bite your own tongue" suicide option.

[hekeetsu 86]

We could force players to eat LSD and they would hallucinate and see rainbows and unicorns and jump off a roof to an imaginary plane...

But seriously.

A zombie pack mule.

Remember the difference between The Walking Dead zombies and DayZ infected. In DayZ they run and wiggle their arms happily. I don't think that kind of a guy would just walk with you like a mule. Indeed you could cut off his arms so he wouldn't hit you but he would die from blood loss.

Nice idea, but wouldn't it just be easier to implement mules?

On the other hand, tying up animals like cows and goats sounds more realistic. Nice addition for a camp.

[FlimFlamm 509]

Zombie mules would be easier for devs to implement than actual mules. Restraints and muzzles can make leashed zombies complacent basically...Perhaps some sort of medecines can be given them to make them docile.

 

I think the current DayZ zombie lore needs a revamp. The idea that whatever will kill a human will kill these zombies means they should all have died frome exposure. If they are all living humans who want to eat other living humans, then why don't they eat eachother?

 

If they are still living humans then we can affect their brains with drugs, up to or including real or chemical lobotomies (it only takes a tiny instrument). Anything to make them lose their agression and follow complacently when pulled.

[Whyherro123 2283]

Zombie mules would be easier for devs to implement than actual mules. Restraints and muzzles can make leashed zombies complacent basically...Perhaps some sort of medecines can be given them to make them docile.

 

I think the current DayZ zombie lore needs a revamp. The idea that whatever will kill a human will kill these zombies means they should all have died frome exposure. If they are all living humans who want to eat other living humans, then why don't they eat eachother?

 

If they are still living humans then we can affect their brains with drugs, up to or including real or chemical lobotomies (it only takes a tiny instrument). Anything to make them lose their agression and follow complacently when pulled.

 

1) Seriously? How do you know this? How do you know that "zombie mules" are easier for the devs to implement

 

2) Restraints and muzzles will not make a zombie "complacent basically". Go up to a meth-tweaker and throw a straightjacket and muzzle on them. Watch as they bite off their tongue and tear all the ligaments in their arms and shoulders.

 

3) The "zombie lore" doesn't need a revamp. The environment in Day Z is very friendly to human habitation. All the zombies are wearing clothing, and just because we don't see it in-game, doesn't mean they don't (or won't. Remember, zombies are due for a HUGE revamp) take shelter from the weather. Or, eat and drink for that matter.

 

All the "infection" does is destroy higher brain functions, turning the infected into essentially humanoid animals. Are animals stupid? No. Do they take shelter from the elements, and eat and drink? Yes. 

 

Just because you don't see it happen, doesn't mean it doesn't, or won't, happen.

 

4) Because they don't want to eat other humans, necessarily? All they do is chase you down and beat the shit out of you, which they also do to other animals. In the mod, they ate player corpses, but I haven't seen anything that suggests they do so in the standalone. 

 

Besides, the "zombies", much like the humans they once were, are predators. Actual, real-life predators don't randomly and needlessly attack other animals. They don't want to get hurt. Or, like wolves, hyenas, or humans, the "zombies" are a "social species", and work together, or at least, refuse to attack each other, when they don't have to.

 

5) Yes, chemical/physical lobotomies are the way to go! /sarcasm. Disgusting, your disregard for your fellow man. Next time you see your neighbor, imagine driving an icepick through his eyesocket, for a small convenience of not having to carry some equipment.

 

I find the "zombies" to be the most frightening, and conversely, the most heartbreaking aspect of this game, and the sheer callousness players have when talking about them suggests to me that 1) you are both unable to see yourself in your characters shoes and metagame constantly and 2) have at the least a limited sense of empathy.

 

Next time you are in-game, don't picture the zombies as "zombies", a faceless, mindless threat only worthy of destruction. Instead, imagine them as that neighbor from down the street, that cute girl that worked in that store you always visited, or even your parent/sibling/child. They never wanted to be sick, never deserved any of this.

 

Now, they aren't even in control of their own actions anymore, and people use them as lobotomized pack mules/attack dogs for shits and giggles.

 

Who is the monster, here?

[FlimFlamm 509]

1) Seriously? How do you know this? How do you know that "zombie mules" are easier for the devs to implement

 

2) Restraints and muzzles will not make a zombie "complacent basically". Go up to a meth-tweaker and throw a straightjacket and muzzle on them. Watch as they bite off their tongue and tear all the ligaments in their arms and shoulders.

 

3) The "zombie lore" doesn't need a revamp. The environment in Day Z is very friendly to human habitation. All the zombies are wearing clothing, and just because we don't see it in-game, doesn't mean they don't (or won't. Remember, zombies are due for a HUGE revamp) take shelter from the weather. Or, eat and drink for that matter.

 

All the "infection" does is destroy higher brain functions, turning the infected into essentially humanoid animals. Are animals stupid? No. Do they take shelter from the elements, and eat and drink? Yes. 

 

Just because you don't see it happen, doesn't mean it doesn't, or won't, happen.

 

4) Because they don't want to eat other humans, necessarily? All they do is chase you down and beat the shit out of you, which they also do to other animals. In the mod, they ate player corpses, but I haven't seen anything that suggests they do so in the standalone. 

 

Besides, the "zombies", much like the humans they once were, are predators. Actual, real-life predators don't randomly and needlessly attack other animals. They don't want to get hurt. Or, like wolves, hyenas, or humans, the "zombies" are a "social species", and work together, or at least, refuse to attack each other, when they don't have to.

 

5) Yes, chemical/physical lobotomies are the way to go! /sarcasm. Disgusting, your disregard for your fellow man. Next time you see your neighbor, imagine driving an icepick through his eyesocket, for a small convenience of not having to carry some equipment.

 

I find the "zombies" to be the most frightening, and conversely, the most heartbreaking aspect of this game, and the sheer callousness players have when talking about them suggests to me that 1) you are both unable to see yourself in your characters shoes and metagame constantly and 2) have at the least a limited sense of empathy.

 

Next time you are in-game, don't picture the zombies as "zombies", a faceless, mindless threat only worthy of destruction. Instead, imagine them as that neighbor from down the street, that cute girl that worked in that store you always visited, or even your parent/sibling/child. They never wanted to be sick, never deserved any of this.

 

Now, they aren't even in control of their own actions anymore, and people use them as lobotomized pack mules/attack dogs for shits and giggles.

 

Who is the monster, here?

 

1) Zombie pack mules would be easier to implement because zombie models already exist. The clothing players would use for their "pack" capacity already exist. Basically all the modeling is done. However difficult actual mules would be, a similar version of zombie mules should be equally difficult to implement, minus the modeling.

 

2) If I Put a "zombie" (are we even calling them zombies anymore?) in a muzzle and a straight jacket why is it that they would bite their tongue off and hurt themselves? Is it honestly too big a hit to realism for advanced restraining to exist without criticizing it because people, infected, zombies, whatever, would kill themselves whule restrained?

 

3) Are you telling me that the infected live of the land with their own two hands by wandering the streets? Furthermore if they have such a survival instinct, why would they not learn to submit when captured?

 

4) My perception of the infected comes from the mod, which means being devoured. Would it be fir to say that the "lore" is in flux? You seem to be basing your opinions off of a possiblly tentative lack of devouring animation and a great deal of speculation about the finalized behavior of infected.

 

In order to dance around my objections like "How do they survive" and "why don't they attack eachother" you need to make it seem like the infected are intelligent communal creatures with thoughts and intelligence. It might be cool if these infected behaved like intelligent animals and engaged in securing their own survival, but this is a drastic departure to the way they behave in game.

 

5) Their higher brain functions are destroyed, and so the morality of exploiting them is much the same as exploiting a mule, or a horse, or a cow, for whatever reason. We go around shooting these infected in the faces and stomachs. Not out of mercy but out of necessity or sport. The hypocricy is glaring. That I should extend morality less so to the animals that I consume and more so to the mindless creatures that constantly try to kill me simply because they once were considered persons. Here is a snippet from the common feelings players have toward the infected

 

"You mean those things that run straight at you? Shit, remember the "jellied gasoline" I mentioned earlier?  Pour it down a road, attract the zombies, and set it on fire. If they don't get killed by the heat, they will suffocate due to the flames sucking all the oxygen out of the air."

 

I'm not the monster at all becasue I want to domesticate an infected. Everyone else is the monster because they look at them and see only target practice.

 

You call me callous and having disregard for "my fellow man", but ask yourself how often you murder your actual fellow man in the game simply to prevent and possible harm to yourself. Unless you're going to tell me you're a vegetarian and you castrating and working mules for labor is immoral, then your argument that exploiting mindless husks (infected) is immoral falls flat on it's face.

 

Why do you presume that I "Metagame"? What do you mean by "metagame"?

 

P.S. I want to domesticate infected. I want to name them and bond with them and grow to love them. if I need to lobotimize them to do it then it's better then just killing them because they are too aggressive. If they are as intellligent as you say then they can learn to submit, just like a wild horse. I got shot at many times today for no reason and had to just keep running. I'm not the monster, nor are the infected. It's you PEOPLE who are the real monsters. I want to domesticate and tame the infected, you want to burn them alive.

Edited June 8, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[BeefBacon 1185]

 

Who is the monster, here?

 

What? It's a fucking videogame. Get a grip.

 

I can't see 'zombie mules' becoming a thing. Infected, as they exist currently, don't really suit it.

 

Animal husbandry and literal pack mules I can definitely get behind. Trading animals (or slaughtering or stealing another group's animals) would add an interesting element to the game. I'd love to see bred traits so you could make a perfect animal. Perhaps pig A yields more meat while pig B moves faster. Breed them together and you have a fat pig on rollerskates. Equally undesirable traits could exist, including things like diseases which can infect both animals and players. Such a system might encourage larger groups to settle down and trade. Of course there's nothing stopping groups from straight-up raiding, but a really in-depth animal husbandry system would be really cool for those that are interested in creating bases and want a goal besides 'build a really high wall'.

Edited June 8, 2015 by BeefBacon

[-Gews- 7443]

I find the "zombies" to be the most frightening, and conversely, the most heartbreaking aspect of this game, and the sheer callousness players have when talking about them suggests to me that 1) you are both unable to see yourself in your characters shoes and metagame constantly and 2) have at the least a limited sense of empathy.

 

Next time you are in-game, don't picture the zombies as "zombies", a faceless, mindless threat only worthy of destruction. Instead, imagine them as that neighbor from down the street, that cute girl that worked in that store you always visited, or even your parent/sibling/child. They never wanted to be sick, never deserved any of this.

 

Now, they aren't even in control of their own actions anymore, and people use them as lobotomized pack mules/attack dogs for shits and giggles.

 

Who is the monster, here?

 

i cri evrytiem

 

 

 

On topic: I don't like the idea of tranquilizer guns. Seems to fictional/gamey. Yeah, zombies, I know. Yes, game, I know.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Gews

[FlimFlamm 509]

i cri evrytiem

 

 

 

On topic: I don't like the idea of tranquilizer guns. Seems to fictional/gamey. Yeah, zombies, I know. Yes, game, I know.

 

What's fictional and gamey about a tranq gun?

 

Maybe Chernarus has a zoo, or animal control...

Edited June 9, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[-Gews- 7443]

What's fictional and gamey about a tranq gun?

 

Maybe Chernarus has a zoo, or animal control...

 

I don't see a zoo. And where did they get a solution which works on humans? Only good explanation for an anti-personnel tranquilizer gun in Chernarus is that it was developed and used to neutralize infected for examination. But I'd rather not see it all the same.

[Whyherro123 2283]

What? It's a fucking videogame. Get a grip.

 

I can't see 'zombie mules' becoming a thing. Infected, as they exist currently, don't really suit it.

 

Animal husbandry and literal pack mules I can definitely get behind. Trading animals (or slaughtering or stealing another group's animals) would add an interesting element to the game. I'd love to see bred traits so you could make a perfect animal. Perhaps pig A yields more meat while pig B moves faster. Breed them together and you have a fat pig on rollerskates. Equally undesirable traits could exist, including things like diseases which can infect both animals and players. Such a system might encourage larger groups to settle down and trade. Of course there's nothing stopping groups from straight-up raiding, but a really in-depth animal husbandry system would be really cool for those that are interested in creating bases and want a goal besides 'build a really high wall'.

Nothing wrong with animal husbandry. Would be awesome to see it in-game, in some form.

 

What is wrong, is casually suggesting chemically/physically lobotomizing someone to use them as physical labor. 

 

Shit, we don't do that to animals.

[FlimFlamm 509]

Nothing wrong with animal husbandry. Would be awesome to see it in-game, in some form.

 

What is wrong, is casually suggesting chemically/physically lobotomizing someone to use them as physical labor. 

 

Shit, we don't do that to animals.

 

We do much worse. Industrial farming is horrid. We castrate them, then slaughter them, and consume them after a life of horrible living and working conditions. We test medecines and every other product on them, Products you use in real life. Don't come at me with your moral concern for a pixelated zombie when we live in a world of exploitation and death. It is a game. A game where survivors kill one another for sport.

 

Infected are uncurable and are not subject to the same moral considerations we extend to humans. You cannot be so blatantly hypocritical about this. You're the one that earlier suggested burning them alive en masse. Now you want to talk about zombie morality as if we have moral obligtions to preserve their lives.

 

Zombies are not people with rights. The person that once occupied their body is now gone. They are animals.

 

P.S. lobotomies were only an idea, if zombies are as human as you suggest then capturing and taming them can be seen as a moral act of rehabilitation, lobotomy free... :D

Edited June 9, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[FlimFlamm 509]

I don't see a zoo. And where did they get a solution which works on humans? Only good explanation for an anti-personnel tranquilizer gun in Chernarus is that it was developed and used to neutralize infected for examination. But I'd rather not see it all the same.

 

Why?

 

What is your legitimate reason for opposing a tranq gun? Why would you rather not see it in game?

 

It's simply a less than lethal version of what already exists.

 

If the devs add a zoo, then there's a zoo. And yes, maybe military doctors tried to capture a few when the outbreak started. Any solution that will work on a large mammal will probably work on humans.

Edited June 9, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[Whyherro123 2283]

-snip-

 

1) you got me on this one. However, animals and bicycles can carry more weight with much less effort and resources involved, and also might provide other resources. You can't really plow a field with a zombie, or milk it (I suppose technically you could, but the implications of forced breeding and milking are ..... unpleasant)

 

3) Intelligence =/= sapience, or even sentience. Does an animal "submit to capture" when you point a gun at it? No, you either have to domesticate it (over many generations), or beat it until its will is broken. Either way is inefficient with regards to the infected.

 

I also am assuming that the infected are undertaking "survival related activities" due to the game taking place at least several weeks after a societal collapse, and the fact that they don't just appear out of holes in the ground. They've existed for this long, and are capable of sprinting down and beating to death a survivor, so they must be doing, at the very least, okay, food, water, and exposure wise.

 

For all I know, they could be eating humans. They just don't eat each other. Why could be due to some engine thing, or due to the fact that they might not feel threatened by each other.

 

Both the game in general, and the infected in particular, are not even close to being done.  For all we know, they could be eating, drinking and congregating in buildings to get out of the weather in a couple of patches.

 

Hell, you can break their legs and make them crawl in the next patch, so they aren't just automatons.

 

4) Good thing this isn't the mod, then?

 

Also, see #3 above. 

 

5) You "exploit" an animal for labor/resources, but you also have to take care of them in return. They require food, water, shelter, and care (both medical and mental), and if they don't get these things, the labor/resources stop.

 

NOTE: I am against "factory-farming" animals, if this makes my feelings clearer. I am not a vegetarian/vegan/animal rights activist, but I prefer to source my meat from reputable sources, and overwhelmingly prefer to hunt for my meat when possible, to ensure it is healthy and the animal was taken "properly", as opposed to "factory-farmed" methods. I also am against most forms of animal testing, with the exception of medications. And, in the case of medical animal testing, the "needs of the many" (not just human medications are tested on animals, but "animal" medications as well) outweigh "the needs of the few."

 

If you lobotomize a cow and stick it in a barn to produce milk, expect a hefty fine at the least.

 

And, yes, I expect you to treat a human being with more respect than an animal. However, this doesn't mean you need to actively treat animals like shit, either. If you need to eat, well, you need to eat, but make the kill quick, clean, and as painless as possible, and don't kill things just to kill things. If something needs to die, respect that. Note that this also extends to culls and such, where animals (usually overpopulated species, or those suffering from a disease) are subject to a kind of "mercy killing", where death might be viewed as more preferable to slow starvation or wasting away from disease.

 

What is kinder? A quick bullet to the chest, or death via exposure over weeks? What do you think the person the zombie was would prefer?

 

I also "feel sorrow", for lack of a better term, even when animals are killed in self-defense, as overwhelmingly these attacks are due to human encroachment into their territory. Being a Biology major makes you understand just how much we effect the environment, both for the good and the bad.

 

I also expect you to treat the dead with respect. In this case, respect the memory and humanity of the "previous" person by not using their remains as lobotomized slaves?

 

This is why I don't really understand the whole "zombie" genre, because while others are going around shooting them in the head with no qualms, I am imaging what their lives were like before they turned into some kind of rabid animal. Not that I can't kill them, or defend myself if attacked, I just find the whole thing rather sad. And then people suggest tying them up, and lobotomizing them to use them as labor.

 

I also just kinda knee-jerked as soon as I read "lobotomize". The procedure and outcome is horrific, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy

 

Being shot and bleeding out is more merciful than a lobotomy. Being bashed in the head is more merciful than a lobotomy. Being set on fire and dying due to smoke inhalation or suffocation due to lack of oxygen (which is actually how most fatalities related to fire happen, as opposed to actual burning) is more merciful than a lobotomy.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Whyherro123

[Whyherro123 2283]

i cri evrytiem

 

 

 

On topic: I don't like the idea of tranquilizer guns. Seems to fictional/gamey. Yeah, zombies, I know. Yes, game, I know.

Yeah, yeah, I knee-jerked on "lobotomization", I know.

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

Kinky.

 

[FlimFlamm 509]

=Yoink=

 

1) You cannot plow a field with a zombie, but we aren't going to use them for field plowing. Players would tie them up as sentries, and restrain/muzzle them to use them as a pack mule. Like a dog, or like a mule.

 

If it fits with "the lore" then perhaps overtime  a captive zed that you feed and clothe could come to like you, and demonstrate loyalty. They could follow you around  and protect you against other zombies that would attack you. (Superficial necromancy anyone?)

 

We're going to have companion dogs mayhaps, why not companion Zeds who can actually carry stuff around for you and take on a zombie?

 

I know it is far out and kind of ludicrous, but all I really care about is game-play, not lore or strict realism. Think of the gameplay; think of the gameplay.

 

3) You're probably not going to get through to an infected who is irrational by nature by being abusive to it. You probably could do a much better job of it by feeding it and trying to get it used to your company. you could administer medicine to it (god knows it will need it) and who knows, maybe they can become nice and cuddly?

 

It is at this point that I brought up drugs and lobotomies, because some people have a view of the zeds such that they are totally beyond any form of reason, including things like seeking shelter from elements, managing food, etc... The lore is really undefined for the SA, so I'm just throwing out options that can serve as a realistic way of making zombies docile.

 

4) We cannot just blindly adhere to what we think the lore is or implies about game-play, or base lore on current game-play, nor can we rely on the mod to set precedent for lore or game play. It's up in the air, so as far as i'm concerned pretty much any concept regarding zeds is potentially viable.

 

5)

 

You are never going to convince me that I should feel morally guilty for exploting the empty husk of what was once a man or woman. I have a pretty robust moral foundation, and very unambiguously these murderous, mindless, less-than-animals we call the infected deserve no more respect than we would show to a pile of termites that we fry and crunch between our teeth. I'm a very moral person so far as people go though, don't get me wrong, it's just that the survival of humanity necessitates that we overcome the zeds by any means necessary; all moralities except the metaphysical ones evaporate in the face of survival, and the metaphysical ones were never real anyway, so we cannot trust them.

 

You say that you kill the zombie out of mercy, but you probably don't. You kill the zombie because it trapped you in a house, or because it's standing by an area you want to loot. You don't feel mercy for them because they constantly try to kill you, and so you become hardened to them and reciprocate their aggression. Animals do this. DayZ players do this because they are animals. You want to bring humanity back into the picture with respect to zeds but it's impossible. Humanity evaporates along with morality, and without it we are all the same; amoral greedy animals trying to proliferate ourselves.

 

In light of the fact that DayZ starts on a very amoral playing field, mercy killing zeds can be viewed as a morally praiseworthy act, but so to can capturing one, desensitizing it of it's aggression by whatever means, and taking care of it in a mutually beneficial relationship. I say 'it' because it's no longer human and can never be human again (if they could be cured, killing them would be immoral)

 

In the end, if it came to it, lobotomizing zombies to reduce their aggression is more morally praiseworthy than killing them. This way they get to go on living you see...

 

I hold the human mind to be the most sacred thing that exists, and so to me lobotomies are among the worst fates that a human can suffer and I would wish it on no human. And there's the rub; Zombies are not human. Their precious mind that once defined who they were is dead, and they are dead along with it. The reason why lobotomizing humans is so terrible is that their mind is the most precious thing about them, but the infected already have a destroyed mind, and because of it they are given a death sentence. In this case the lobotomy can give them a post "zombie" existence. They might be subjected to some leg work but this will pay for their upkeep. Some players might abuse the zombies they capture, but that's no worse than what they do to actual humans they capture. Players choose how they behave; we used to call it human nature simulator 2000.

 

Personally I would not want to be killed if I were infected. How about you? (I can see the reason why a guaranteed funeral would be attractive though).

 

 

[video to be viewed for humorous purposes only]

Edited June 9, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[FlimFlamm 509]

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/226203-peter-nespesny-on-twitter-hriki-daedriclion-thedeluxe4-ctorchia-break-71-taser-and-tranquilizer-darts-are-ready-model-wise-but-still-needs/#entry2278310

 

IT'S HAPPENING!!!!!

[capt. beefsteak 95]

We do much worse. Industrial farming is horrid. We castrate them, then slaughter them, and consume them after a life of horrible living and working conditions. We test medecines and every other product on them, Products you use in real life. Don't come at me with your moral concern for a pixelated zombie when we live in a world of exploitation and death. It is a game. A game where survivors kill one another for sport.

 

Infected are uncurable and are not subject to the same moral considerations we extend to humans. You cannot be so blatantly hypocritical about this. You're the one that earlier suggested burning them alive en masse. Now you want to talk about zombie morality as if we have moral obligtions to preserve their lives.

 

Zombies are not people with rights. The person that once occupied their body is now gone. They are animals.

 

P.S. lobotomies were only an idea, if zombies are as human as you suggest then capturing and taming them can be seen as a moral act of rehabilitation, lobotomy free... :D

 

I like cow. However i will only eat "free range" bananas. I care about what goes in my body. Lolz at "free range" it's such a joke. There isn't a single undomesticated cow in america. You will never hunt a cow for supper. We've basically domesticated plants as well. The get all jammed together spliced and seeds are all genetically engineered. People think plants don't matter because they aren't conscious? The cows state of consciousness is probably closer to the plants than a humans.

 

Anyhow OP, that mess is twisted, but I do like the idea of less than lethal weapons, because if you have the upper hand on someone and you just want to rob them, they will just run circles around you with an axe and you will waste more bullets then you need to. I personally would like to be able to tranquillize someone and handcuff them more for my own safety rather than kill them.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Deepfryer

[Syphonz 64]

Tempting idea that came to me, so I thought I would combine it into this thread.

 

 

From what I know, a dart fired from a tranq gun is basically a needle filled with fluid that allows one to knock someone out, correct?

 

 

Wanna be a real jackass? Take some of your blood and put it into a needle, then fire it at someone. They think they got off easy? Let blood poisoning take them down slowly. Even better, load it with infected blood.

[Sleeves 98]

Tempting idea that came to me, so I thought I would combine it into this thread.

 

 

From what I know, a dart fired from a tranq gun is basically a needle filled with fluid that allows one to knock someone out, correct?

 

 

Wanna be a real jackass? Take some of your blood and put it into a needle, then fire it at someone. They think they got off easy? Let blood poisoning take them down slowly. Even better, load it with infected blood.

 

Holy shit, do you have any idea how many awesome pathways you just opened up? This is awesome.

 

Also the whole animal husbandry thing... You all are getting a little ahead of yourselves. I mean, maybe in the future? If you want something like that though might I recommend Wurm?

[FlimFlamm 509]

I didn't suggest full blown animal husbandry really, and I understand that sort of mechanic would be complex and take a long time to implement. What I did however suggest is a mechanic that lets you drive a wooden stake into the ground and to then tie ropes around the necks of players, zombies, and animals, and to then tie the rope to the stake in order to limit their movement. Beyond that, something like "milking a cow" might not be too complex. Really what I'm interested in is increasing the ability of players to interact with one another in a form other than lead to the brain, even if that means sadistic imprisonment.

Edited July 19, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[Parazight 1599]

The second that it isn't fun anymore, a player victim can log/respawn. This is never true IRL and thus why torture and its mechanics are lame.

Items that restrain are fine, but usually torture related suggestions over do it.

[FlimFlamm 509]

This isn't torture this is imprisonment. That said players can already torture other players...

 

When you capture another player with restraints, there is no way to force them to move where you want them to move. Not only should we be ablle to grab them and force them around but we should also be able to confine their movement in the way this thread describes.

 

It's not to give players the power to torture other players, it's to give them the power to capture someone without needing to then shoot them in the brain for convienience. Taking control of another player needs to be possible, and if anyone disagrees, just think about how instead of being captured you just get killed, and try to imagine what the experience of getting captured might have been like.