Ten Reasons why Kill on Sight is 'Realistic'

[CrossShade 4]

Have a source for that?

My evidence is that we're all sitting where we are right now' date=' in functioning societies full of people who cooperate, born because people at some point gathered together, created rule and order, learned to care for one another, and [i']only then decided to go kill everyone who wasn't like them.

Katrina? That good enough of a source? It's one of the best. Even afterwards the police still refused to do a good job of taking in reports trying to dismiss them, even organised society at that point basically just said fuck you.

But in reality everyone is loving and caring right?

No, the police basically flipped of Rape victims, how loving and caring.

Keep being delusional all you wish.

[dds__@hotmail.com 5]

Hi guys. I lived through a disaster and now I'm a green beret of survival.

[Outlawled (DayZ) 27]

"So saying 'IN A REAL SITUATION!!' is moot really ... in a 'real' situation it would be doggy dog and people would kill each other just as viciously as they do in the game."

So doggy dog right meow.

[phienyx 14]

Self preservation would be the biggest motivation for banding together, not necessarily because everyone is so benevolent. Even if you don't like a group of people, if they are your best hope of survival, you're most likely going to tolerate their company for your share of food, shelter and/or safety.

A majority of the world's population just doesn't have what it takes to survive alone. The Hollywood idea of the lone bad ass survivor who has survived on their own for months or years before meeting up with a group of "mewling" survivors and becoming the reluctant, grumpy foul mouthed hero is bullshit and for entertainment purposes only.

Even some of the most capable baddest ass real life warriors who are experts in wilderness survival in hostile environments don't and would not do so alone by choice. They also don't shoot every human they see on sight in the course of their survival. Usually the idea is to avoid contact and/or blend in with the locals if possible to get what they need and move on.

Would there be groups of bandits? Yes, most likely but they wouldn't be the majority of the remaining human race. They would not be the dominant force in what remained of society.

[CrossShade 4]

Self preservation would be the biggest motivation for banding together' date=' not necessarily because everyone is so benevolent. Even if you don't like a group of people, if they are your best hope of survival, you're most likely going to tolerate their company for your share of food, shelter and/or safety.

A majority of the world's population just doesn't have what it takes to survive alone. The Hollywood idea of the lone bad ass survivor who has survived on their own for months or years before meeting up with a group of "mewling" survivors and becoming the reluctant, grumpy foul mouthed hero is bullshit and for entertainment purposes only.

Even some of the most capable baddest ass real life warriors who are experts in wilderness survival in hostile environments don't and would not do so alone by choice. They also don't shoot every human they see on sight in the course of their survival. Usually the idea is to avoid contact and/or blend in with the locals if possible to get what they need and move on.

Would there be groups of bandits? Yes, most likely but they wouldn't be the majority of the remaining human race. They would not be the dominant force in what remained of society.

[/quote']

Most likely? Are you really just making statistics up? Any form of 0 Government always has major amounts of people doing disgusting things.

I guess the biggest reason most of you people disbelieve that humans would do this is being under a normal chemical mood right now, controlled and logical.

Once Adrenaline and various other chemicals start their cycle around your body things change, quickly.

[Techercizer 82]

Katrina? That good enough of a source? It's one of the best.

Someone gave us hard numbers for Katrina earlier in the thread, instead of vague assertions. In the entire episode of panicked looting, civil outrage, and violent disaster, there were about 100 murders according to his number.

In Cheranus, we have a average post-disaster murder rate about three hundred times what it was in the middle of this actual one, assuming only 17% of us are murderers and using those Katrina figures. If more than 17% of us are murderers (hint hint), the numbers get even more ridiculous.

[gopher_p 1]

1. Supplies. They are short' date=' and two mouths to feed is harder than one.

[/quote']

No. It's not. The likelihood of finding exactly enough food to sustain one individual is small. It's more likely that you either don't find any food at all or that you have enough to spare. The likelihood of two people finding enough food to sustain at least two people is significantly higher than you just finding enough for yourself.

And face it' date=' you might just be carrying something I can use.

[/quote']

The most valuable thing that another person can "carry" is themselves. An extra pair of eyes and an extra pair of hands are far more valuable than anything the other person might possess.

2. Liability. If at any point they are bitten / converted / hungry / infected / hurt I would have to use rationed supplies of medical gear to support and/or aid them. Medical gear that I could use on myself.

It goes both ways. Most of the medical supplies would be of little use to you without another person there to administer them. If you're going to argue that they may need your aid' date=' then it's eually likely that you'll need theirs.

3. Trust. Who is this stranger? Are they going to kill me for my limited supplies? How can I trust him/her. There is a high possibility at the point in which I sleep I may never wake up again.

Obviously, this is the question at hand. It's not even a point you need to make. We probably disagree on the probabilities, though.

4. Experience. Everyone reacts to a disaster differently. There are some that huddle together and pray' date=' others that loot the rubble of a city shattering earthquake and others again that simply learn rapidly to adapt to their surroundings. There is no telling what kind of murderous experiences this person has had to do to survive. Including killing friends, family members and relatives.

[/quote']

This is not a new point. It's about who you can trust.

5. Fear. Quite simply at the point where a world has been turned upside down I'd be petrified of just about everything. A realistic approach to any situation. Panic sets in and fight or flight takes over - trust goes out the window.

This is not a new point. It's about who you can trust.

6. Disease. I don't know who you are' date=' where you've been or what you are carrying. My survival may rely on what little medical supplies I could scavenge together and in a world where a cold or diarrhea could be fatal - I want you as far away from me as possible.

[/quote']

This is not a new point. It's about the medical liability that the other survivor poses.

7. Mental Distress. Many disorders occur during high stress situations' date=' including mental distress, dementia, over self preservation, delusion etc. There is no telling what kind of mental state a person is in after that kind of traumatic experience. There is also no telling what mental state I would be in - you have to factor in the fact that you might just go bat shit crazy. You never know, maybe its you who are the crazed bandit that finds power in numbers and goes around killing and taking what you need. Whats stopping you?

[/quote']

This is not a new point. It's about who you can trust.

8. Bandit Packs. I hate to say this but yes' date=' it would happen. People would band together and forge a new life for themselves, strongest first. Weakest second. The meek are not the mighty.

[/quote']

It that case, you would be safer if you had allies. In any case, I doubt you'd take any action that wasn't purely defensive. If they outnumber you, it does not bode well for you to open fire on them ... if you're trying to survive ... and not Chuck Norris. I reckon you've made an argument against kill-on-sight here.

9. Oppression. Women would become a commodity. People have needs and without law and order' date=' people take what they want. And often kill for it. A persons rights no longer exist when there is no law or repercussions. I for one would immediately turn away anyone of female gender as a companion due to their pull and / or value in such a situation. (I know this is sexist, but lets be 'realistic' here for a minute.)

[/quote']

Are you saying that you'd kill the female on sight rather than take the risk that she'd attract ne'er-do-wells? I don't think you are, since you said that you'd turn them away. But I though this list was about why you'd kill on sight. Anyway ... refer to my comments on your reason #1. She likely more valuable to you as a companion.

10. Area Denial. If you're making a living in a 256 x 256 square mile radius and there are fifty other people or more trying to stay alive in the same area - you're going to have some conflict. Zombies or no someones going to want to take someone out. Whats mine is mine' date=' whats yours can also be mine.

[/quote']

No offense, but you may need to brush up on your geometry. Also, this is not a new point. It's about resources/property. It's easier to gather resources and defend property with a group than it is as an individual.

So in essence, you actually only made five points, not ten, and one of those points actually goes against your argument. The only one that's actually valid as an argument for kill-on-sight is the question of trust. If you choose to trust no one and kill every individual you meet on sight, you will very quickly find yourself outnumbered in nearly every interaction with other humans. Refer to #8 and spend the rest of your life running.

[AllYoYens 34]

Bullshit.

People would group up for the most part. its human nature.

Bullshit, I don't group up when I already have a group. KOS all day unless you talk over chat.

[Techercizer 82]

When even the murdering psycho bandits are getting people to watch their backs, you know you need company.

[CrossShade 4]

Katrina? That good enough of a source? It's one of the best.

Someone gave us hard numbers for Katrina earlier in the thread' date=' instead of vague assertions. In the entire episode of panicked looting, civil outrage, and violent disaster, there were about 100 murders according to his number.

In Cheranus, we have a average post-disaster murder rate about three hundred times what it was in the middle of this actual one, assuming only 17% of us are murderers and using those Katrina figures. If more than 17% of us are murderers (hint hint), the numbers get even more ridiculous.

[/quote']

Yes, let's not use Katrina as a rough draft, let's just use it as a damn completely equal correlation.

/sarcasm.

Other events where major shit went down, Nazi Germany, Not only where the Germans raping children and women among mutilating them (this wasn't even during civil downfall, European, and American troops on major accounts were raping girls under the age of 10, killing young children and women, and mutilating people aswell.

Damn people just love to band together and be lovey dovey.

From another thread, Sniper Alley, many children and women were killed with no remorse.

Somalia Do I need say more?

[Hawk24 94]

I don't see Kill on Sight as a problem, as I've been playing DayZ as bandit since the beginning

Back when we had bandit skins, I was prepared to die when being caught off guard by another player

It's the same now, just with the slight possibility of being ignored by another player out of kindness

Point is, if I let my guard down I might die, didn't change throughout all the patches

Now the "problem" with Kill on Sight is the fact that with all the realistic and gritty survival stuff - this is still a video game

In an actual zombie apocalypse people wouldn't just shoot each other on sight, because there are moral standards that still apply to a certain degree

Moral codes don't apply to a video game unless you enforce them, and enforcing them won't work in a sandbox environment(which is what Rocket wants)

Also IRL you can can guess pretty well if you want to trust the person in front of you or not

That's where facial expression and body language give you a rough idea what kind of person someone is

The only body language available in ArmA2 is "lowering your rifle" and "salute"....oh great....that helps alot

It boils down to this:

If you want to play DayZ as a co-op survival, get some friends on Teamspeak/Ventrilo/Mumble and cooperate with them

I don't see why it'd be the ULTIMATE GOAL to cooperate with a >random stranger< that you just met

[Techercizer 82]

Yes' date=' let's not use Katrina as a rough draft, let's just use it as a damn completely equal correlation.

/sarcasm.

Other events where major shit went down, Nazi Germany, Not only where the Germans raping children and women among mutilating them (this wasn't even during civil downfall, European, and American troops on major accounts were raping girls under the age of 10, killing young children and women, and mutilating people aswell.

Damn people just love to band together and be lovey dovey.

From another thread, Sniper Alley, many children and women were killed with no remorse.

Somalia Do I need say more?

[/quote']

...and? You have successfully pointed out that in some situations, there are some people who act terribly. Nobody here is questioning that though, so I fail to see what that actually accomplishes.

Some people have done terrible things in some places != Everyone will do terrible things all the time in bad situations.

By the way, the figures I pulled from Katrina were percentages, not numerical comparisons. They're indicative of the fact that only a tiny (statistically insgnificant, actually, if you're the sort that discounts probabilities less than half a percent) portion of the population was murdering, and you yourself said Katrina was an amazing example we should look to.

[rawrifficus 0]

Were there a real zombie apocolypse I would want to group together with others to increase all of our chances of survival. A group helping others is > then a single trigger happy lunatic. I also have never shot a gun before in my life. Would I even be able to hit anything? Were my mother to be a zombie would I even be able to shoot her to save myself? Your reasons are not very accurate.

As for shooting others in the game as far as I'm concerned it's a game and it is them or me. I trust absolutely no one. Several times before I learned I had people come up shouting "FRIENDLY FRIENDLY", only to kill me once they were within easy kill range.

[CrossShade 4]

Yes' date=' let's not use Katrina as a rough draft, let's just use it as a damn completely equal correlation.

/sarcasm.

Other events where major shit went down, Nazi Germany, Not only where the Germans raping children and women among mutilating them (this wasn't even during civil downfall, European, and American troops on major accounts were raping girls under the age of 10, killing young children and women, and mutilating people aswell.

Damn people just love to band together and be lovey dovey.

From another thread, Sniper Alley, many children and women were killed with no remorse.

Somalia Do I need say more?

[/quote']

...and? You have successfully pointed out that in some situations, there are some people who act terribly. Nobody here is questioning that though, so I fail to see what that actually accomplishes.

Some people have done terrible things in some places != Everyone will do terrible things all the time in bad situations.

The point was (not sure how you didn't get this originally I even pointed it out for you ;[)

Evolution, the violent ones in a zombie apocalypse would be the last ones alive.

They would developed tactics (already having an advantage over firing first) moreso over "caring" survivors.

Thus, the caring people would turn savage to survive also.

That being said only the minority would be caring, the majority (we are speaking after x exponential time as I originally pointed out) would be people going savage, you see someone with a gun, you have a few bullets left, not gonna try to negotiate some bullets from him right? Those are his bullets to keep him alive, just kill him and take it all.

[Techercizer 82]

Evolution' date=' the violent ones in a zombie apocalypse would be the last ones alive.

They would developed tactics (already having an advantage over firing first) moreso over "caring" survivors.

Thus, the caring people would turn savage to survive also.

That being said only the minority would be caring, the majority (we are speaking after x exponential time as I originally pointed out) would be people going savage, you see someone with a gun, you have a few bullets left, not gonna try to negotiate some bullets from him right? Those are his bullets to keep him alive, just kill him and take it all.

[/quote']

This has nothing to do with Evolution, because we're not dealing on a geological scale. The statistics that you yourself said we should look to say that people don't turn into blood-bathing psychopaths in a disaster, and the only counter arguments I've heard out of you this whole thread are "some people have done bad things before though" and "I totally think people would turn into crazed savages".

Meanwhile my assertions are supported by actual statistical analysis of human reactions during disasters and the understanding that we surprisingly enough didn't all just wake up one morning in civilized countries that were designed and built for us by aliens.

[Surg3on 4]

There are countries in africa with no government and no law, where resources are scarce. Yet the majority still live in groups to survive. There are violent people/groups but that is a far cry from everyone killing everyomne else they see.

Anyone claiming KOS would become the norm is just trying to rationalise their own behaviour outside of actual evidence.

[gopher_p 1]

A minor study in Evolution shows after x period of exponential time the stronger (violent) factor would be the dominant one.

Evolution' date=' the violent ones in a zombie apocalypse would be the last ones alive.

[/quote']

I'm not sure you understand what evolution is and how it works. Perhaps you shouldn't be using it as a basis for your arguments.

[fink2011 0]

I see tons of theories in regards to this topic about what would people do during a zombie apocalypse.

These theories fail to account for the fact that in DayZ, your life is merely a number in a database. When you "die", some numbers are altered and your location in a game world in changed (you never die).

Perhaps the theories should be altered to include the fact that anything that happens that would take your life, merely removes your possessions and relocates you to another location. To put it simply, what would immortal beings do during a zombie apocalypse.

I don't think it's logical to expect people to behave like they do in real life, considering death (among other things that have a huge impact) is very very far from reality in DayZ. Eventually the heavy risk takers that exist in DayZ would die out in a real life zombie apocalypse.

[Asmo (DayZ) 3]

The only reason I need for killing on sight (appart from members of my group) is that fighting other players is fun and this is a game. Is it realistic? Hell if I know, and hell if any of you pretend to know how human society would react to an apocalypse. It's never happened and no matter how many post-apocalyptic books you've read, that's only writers guessing.

The first day, maybe two, of DayZ I actually had fun and feared the zombies, tried to be friendly and got mad at people shooting on sight. Then I realized that this game would be very boring without PvP. And without the shoot on sight mentality, I could mess up and walk right into the sights of a squad of players and still live, I don't deserve that.

This is a game. Games need to be challanging to be fun. The only challange in this game is the fact that it's a shoot on sight mentality. If you want more focus on the social aspects of what would happen. Here's a tip, don't look for it in a videogame. Get some likeminded friends, go pick up a good pen and paper rpg, and enjoy.

[CrossShade 4]

Evolution' date=' the violent ones in a zombie apocalypse would be the last ones alive.

They would developed tactics (already having an advantage over firing first) moreso over "caring" survivors.

Thus, the caring people would turn savage to survive also.

That being said only the minority would be caring, the majority (we are speaking after x exponential time as I originally pointed out) would be people going savage, you see someone with a gun, you have a few bullets left, not gonna try to negotiate some bullets from him right? Those are his bullets to keep him alive, just kill him and take it all.

[/quote']

This has nothing to do with Evolution, because we're not dealing on a geological scale. The statistics that you yourself said we should look to say that people don't turn into blood-bathing psychopaths in a disaster, and the only counter arguments I've heard out of you this whole thread are "some people have done bad things before though" and "I totally think people would turn into crazed savages".

Meanwhile my assertions are supported by actual statistical analysis of human reactions during disasters and the understanding that we surprisingly enough didn't all just wake up one morning in civilized countries that were designed and built for us by aliens.

I concede, you are refusing to see the entire post I'm making, instead choosing selections.

Have fun believing that everyone would be lovey dovey.

Completely ignoring the psychological factor of A)Self preservation and B)It's the end of the world.

[phienyx 14]

Self preservation would be the biggest motivation for banding together' date=' not necessarily because everyone is so benevolent. Even if you don't like a group of people, if they are your best hope of survival, you're most likely going to tolerate their company for your share of food, shelter and/or safety.

A majority of the world's population just doesn't have what it takes to survive alone. The Hollywood idea of the lone bad ass survivor who has survived on their own for months or years before meeting up with a group of "mewling" survivors and becoming the reluctant, grumpy foul mouthed hero is bullshit and for entertainment purposes only.

Even some of the most capable baddest ass real life warriors who are experts in wilderness survival in hostile environments don't and would not do so alone by choice. They also don't shoot every human they see on sight in the course of their survival. Usually the idea is to avoid contact and/or blend in with the locals if possible to get what they need and move on.

Would there be groups of bandits? Yes, most likely but they wouldn't be the majority of the remaining human race. They would not be the dominant force in what remained of society.

[/quote']

Most likely? Are you really just making statistics up? Any form of 0 Government always has major amounts of people doing disgusting things.

I guess the biggest reason most of you people disbelieve that humans would do this is being under a normal chemical mood right now, controlled and logical.

Once Adrenaline and various other chemicals start their cycle around your body things change, quickly.

I don't believe I stated any statistic? Did I?

....and how about looking back in history? Yes there will always be people doing terrible things and there will always be even more who are not. History is full of survivors of one sort or another that did so by banding together and supporting each other and fighting back against their oppressors and abusers. Now in DayZ, that can be either zombies or bandits, but this is the nature of the human spirit. People band together in an attempt to preserve what's left of their society and culture. Sure, some people just want to watch the world burn, but that is not a majority of earth's population.

In a time of real life crisis, you will see the best and worst of humanity. In DayZ, you usually only see the worst. That is why it is not realistic.

[Sabaat 0]

dog eat dog.

the phrase is dog eat dog.

[KOS11 0]

Poster is right on all accounts.

Everyone who dis agrees needs to pick up a history book.

There is a reason we had to threaten people with "your going to hell if you rape/murder/sodomize/cheat/steal/make suffer/ turn gay, theres a big bearded old guy in the clouds whos watching you at every moment so dont fuck up, or else"

it worked for a long time, mostly because they killed off the people smart enough not to fall for that bullshit, or who where convinced that some other form of bullshit was correct.

fact is, every one of you whos saying no one would kill anyone, we would all ban together and form drum circles, just needs to understand one thing.

while i agree that is the way things should be, you are unfortunetly projecting the way you live and see the world and assuming everyone else is just like you.

thats why you see protesters getting beaten with hardend sticks and riot shields, all the while there screaming "whats wrong with you! were peacefull!" they dont understand hostility, maliciousness, cruelty, misbehavior... or suffering... youve been sheltered from all that and in its place you had teletubies and mr dress up.

its time to put on your big boy and big girl hats and see the world for what it really is. a nasty cruel place.

there is more slavery in the world then there has ever been (by the numbers)

there is more crime

there is more murder ( how many did that mao guy starve in china? and how many did he gun down in that square ? dont know, google it! ) and that was in the last 20-30 years. not including the great wars and every war since and to this day. and the genocide, good lord dont forget the genocide....

sry people. fact is if SHTF tomorrow, it would be about three days before the already overworked police gave up trying to keep law and order, after that the military would step in, and under military law if you so much as steal a candy bar you would be put to death... legally...

wake the fuck up. read books. stop watching t.v.

[Nalamin 0]

I am glad to see some sanity in this thread.

Human beings by their nature group up to overcome the environment. This has been shown to be true throughout history. There are exceptions and in any situation where there is no law evil things happen...but this does not change the fact that most people would be driven to find a group in which to exist. I am a historian and can not think of a situation where what the OP states is accurate. I am open to suggestions. First off...

I have heard Katrina mentioned: This is Bullshit. The hurricane effected millions but the number of murderers was quite small. Most of what we saw on TV was HYPE for ratings (or political benefit). Katrina is not a valid example in any case because every one knew that the rule of law would return in a few days.

The closest event I can think of was possibly behind the german lines in the U.S.S.R. after Barbarossa. Millions slaughtered, SS hunting down and killing almost anyone, food and meds short. No idea when they will be gone. People grouped up and fought back. (Even this is not a good match)

---

Poster is right on all accounts.

Everyone who dis agrees needs to pick up a history book.

There is a reason we had to threaten people with "your going to hell if you rape/murder/sodomize/cheat/steal/make suffer/ turn gay' date=' theres a big bearded old guy in the clouds whos watching you at every moment so dont fuck up, or else"

it worked for a long time, mostly because they killed off the people smart enough not to fall for that bullshit, or who where convinced that some other form of bullshit was correct.

fact is, every one of you whos saying no one would kill anyone, we would all ban together and form drum circles, just needs to understand one thing.

while i agree that is the way things should be, you are unfortunetly projecting the way you live and see the world and assuming everyone else is just like you.

thats why you see protesters getting beaten with hardend sticks and riot shields, all the while there screaming "whats wrong with you! were peacefull!" they dont understand hostility, maliciousness, cruelty, misbehavior... or suffering... youve been sheltered from all that and in its place you had teletubies and mr dress up.

its time to put on your big boy and big girl hats and see the world for what it really is. a nasty cruel place.

there is more slavery in the world then there has ever been (by the numbers)

there is more crime

there is more murder ( how many did that mao guy starve in china? and how many did he gun down in that square ? dont know, google it! ) and that was in the last 20-30 years. not including the great wars and every war since and to this day. and the genocide, good lord dont forget the genocide....

sry people. fact is if SHTF tomorrow, it would be about three days before the already overworked police gave up trying to keep law and order, after that the military would step in, and under military law if you so much as steal a candy bar you would be put to death... legally...

wake the fuck up. read books. stop watching t.v.

[/quote']

No one is suggesting the "NO ONE" would be shot or killed.

In the world you suggest protesters would be SHOT on sight.

Slavery and all the other things you mention are more numerous (by the numbers) because there are A LOT more people in the world now.

Oh, and GENOCIDE is by definition an "organized" activity. How does it justify running around in the woods killing people?

I am sorry you have such an evil outlook on life but your arguments are spurious.

[amov1ngtarget 1]

I laughed at this entire thread. It is so funny how most of the posts were about what would happen in real life and in disasters. How do you compare what would happen in a zombie apocalypse to what happened in history or in natural disasters? The way people would react in a zombie apocalypse would be completely different. In wars (of any kind) you have one group of people killing another group. In disasters you have people being killed by obviously a disaster, accidents, occasionally other people. In a zombie apocalypse you would have people being killed by other people, accidents, starvation, dehydration, disease, and either zombies or an ever increasing amount of zombies. (No one is going to be taking the time to keep electricity and other things working) Considering not a single person would know what a real zombie would be like. (Can they run, jump, use things (weapons/vehicles), do they kill and spread the virus with a single bite or scratch, is the virus in the air and if anyone dies they are going turn?) Or why don't you guys just say, hey zombies are just something made up they are not real so none of this is realistic anyways?