Abundance is Realism

[jqp 9]

Hi, this is my first post. I apologize in advance for the length, and if I have in my ignorance misapprehended some aspect of DayZ, as I have not played the original mod, or the standalone alpha.

 

If the goal is a "realistic" Zombie Apocalypse game, the reality is that abundance would follow in the wake of a ZA, or any other ELE scenario where a lot of people die in an event that causes relatively little property damage (supervirus, biological or chemical attack, etc.). In a Zombie Apocalypse, the population suddenly drops to one ten-thousandth (or so) of its previous size. Yes, all the dead are replaced with zeds, but zeds don't eat human food. They eat humans.

 

So, there are now enough durable goods and non-perishable food in settled areas to support the survivor population for a long time. Take a small city of 100k inhabitants before ZA; a 1:10k survival ratio means the town has 10 people left. Together they now effectively own what previously belonged to 100k people. They are 10k times as wealthy as they were before. If there was previously a week's worth of non-perishable food in the city, it becomes 10,000 weeks worth of food. Dialing up the survival ratio won't "fix" this, because the more one does, the less severe the Zombie Apocalypse becomes. Protip: canned goods generally last far beyond their stated expiration dates, which are very conservative to persuade uninformed customers to throw away their old stock and waste money on new.

 

Gasoline and other fossil fuels do spoil quickly - in a matter of months - but their shelf life can be greatly extended with various additives on the market. From what I understand, most internal combustion engines can be converted to run on pure ethanol with very little modification. People have been making ethanol in simple stills for centuries. So it wouldn't take much to get a new, if limited, fuel supply going for vehicles.

 

Then there's the game population, which would explode and run rampant without humans to keep their numbers in check. Zeds might depopulate a few of the dopier species (Possums?), assuming they find them tasty, but no way are your standard zed mopes going to catch any squirrel not on its last legs. So, there would be an abundance of game to support the much smaller survivor population. Protip: small game hunting is where it's at. Not as proud an enterprise in civilized times, but it provides a better return on investment; it's easy to fill a backpack with squirrels in a short time if you're proficient with a 22. Small game is much more abundant, and easier to snare. Snares also avoid gunfire, which draws zeds and bad guys.

 

In short, humanity would not be facing starvation en masse. The biggest problem would be security, and restoring power for all those wonderful labor-saving modern conveniences.

 

Same goes for a lot of stuff, not just canned and freeze-dried food. Ammo? If you actively search for ammo and conserve what you find, you should be able to get enough ammo to last a long time. Especially once you get lucky and stumble across an ammo hoard. Modern lithium batteries have shelf lives around 10 years.

 

Speaking of hoarding, that would be the real problem. Over time, survivors would pick surrounding areas clean of all the most valuable stuff and stockpile it. I could definitely see people starving each other into conflict over hoarding, but it would take a lot of time and effort to hoard so completely that everything is out of sight and protected. Rather pointless effort, at that.

 

The economics of abundance heavily favor labor. Everyone is rich, so labor comes at a premium (see the Black Death for details). Cooperation is more valuable than food or water, and far more valuable than durable goods or real estate. A frontier society seems like a good historical analog for a Zombie Apocalypse scenario. Men of action, harsh and quick justice, vigilantism, feudalistic distribution of power. There'd be some violence as people sorted out a new order, sure, but generally speaking, they'd fall into line quickly and work out arrangements with their neighbors, not wander solo through the wilderness stealth-killing everyone they meet. Humans would be far more cooperative than they are now, because the stakes would be very high with hordes of hungry zeds roaming the world.

 

It's also important to remember that if the survivors hit the zeds hard, they will rapidly reduce the zed population. I have no idea what DayZ zeds are like, but going by the mope zombies they have in TWD, I can easily see a dedicated, competent, able-bodied male killing 10,000 zeds a year. 30 zeds a day? The way they herd, you could kill hundreds, even thousands in one sitting given a decent .22, a secure position to shoot from, and sufficient ammo (.22lr weighs like 7.5 lbs per 1k rounds, IIRC).

 

I'm not saying all of this should be in the game. I'm not saying any of it should be in the game. I'm just pointing out the real-world consequences of a sudden die-off. What I have outlined above is far more realistic than starvation scenarios.

 

Stephen King's "The Stand" is a good example a novel that deals realistically with the consequences of widespread depopulation. King made the post-apocalyptic standoff between good and evil the centerpiece of the story. DayZ could certainly benefit from this more realistic treatment of a massive die-off, and the sage decision to focus on the human (and supernatural) factors.

 

I don't think DayZ should be a Survival Game. I think it should be a simulationist game with survival elements. I have no problem with those elements being realistic, but I prefer they not be biased toward an unrealistic scarcity scenario simply for dramatic purposes. If scarcity emerges due to hoarding, that's fine. But why force that scenario, if we can find more interesting things to do in our post-apocalyptic landscape? On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing the scarcity survival scenario available as an optional play style, or used in particular scenarios (obviously I don't mind people preferring that play style, they're welcome to it). I would like this sort of thing to be story-driven. Good stories sometimes feature starvation, but they more often do not. Starvation can drive a story, but it needn't. I see no good reason for DayZ to be any different in this regard.

 

At the very least, I think there should be a compelling explanation in DayZ's plot for why scarcity obtains, instead of the more plausible scenario of abundance. And at the very least, "realism" should not be the reason for scarcity.

 

P.S., this comment is a great example of elevating the survival aspect over the realism aspect (out of all proportion, IMO):

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/227645-survey-worst-part-of-dayz/#entry2292995

 

His preferences are his business, but I prefer realism.

 

Fresh water is really easy to come by. All you need is a typical water source, a filter, and something to remove contaminants. Portable water filters range from $15 to a couple hundred bucks. Water purification drops are cheap. This is all standard survival and outdoor gear. Hikers all carry this stuff. Or you can just boil it. I hate to break it to you, but the availability of water is pretty high in settled areas. Which is where the Zombie Apocalypse happens.

 

Antibiotics have a shelf life of several (if not many) years (as with canned goods, manufacturers' interests are in persuading people to throw them out long before they spoil). Also, antibiotics for pets and livestock are fundamentally no different from antibiotics for humans. It's not a "miracle" that there are good drug stocks everywhere, it's realism.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Morlock

[Bororm 1156]

I agree.  I don't get the argument for scarcity.

 

There's no evidence of a lot of people left around, they're either zombies or more likely evacuated.  I dunno about anyone else, but my house is full of food.  Even if I were packing up and leaving, there's gonna be a lot left behind.

 

People want it to be some sort of survivor man in the woods simulator.  The idea that we should all subsist on wildlife which would probably run out a heck of a lot quicker than canned food in the area is more ridiculous to me.

[too-easy 56]

I do agree with much you say, but the "zombies" in this game are not undead but infected humans.

So who knows what they actually eat.

They are well known for hunting and killing animals (when they can catch them).

Maybe they are still able to eat other foods.

Right now the infected are not a real threat. So with an abundance of supplies there would be even more pvp as there already is.

DayZ has all those mechanics for farming, hunting, etc. so it's pretty sure that canned foods will get much rarer in the future.

Still, I like your arguments and agree that hoarding (and greed) could bring conflicts in the real world.

[billyangstadt 272]

The reason for the scarcity is that we're playing months after the outbreak, not days. Food has spoiled and ammunition has since been looted or destroyed.

[jqp 9]

I agree.  I don't get the argument for scarcity.

I do, I just don't see it as the central, or default assumption of the game, the way some do. The Road is an entertaining scenario. I could easily see wanting to play that kind of scenario. But I think it's too narrow (and depressing) a scenario to center a game as promising as DayZ around.

 

People want it to be some sort of survivor man in the woods simulator.  The idea that we should all subsist on wildlife which would probably run out a heck of a lot quicker than canned food in the area is more ridiculous to me.

I think there would be more than enough game to support a survivor population, given a survivor ratio of 1:10k, or thereabouts. More sustainable, in the very long run, than the pre-apocalyptic stock of non-perishable food. But this is neither here nor there; the available stock of non-perishable food would be far more than enough to get people back on their feet and creating their own canned goods and non-perishable food stocks.

 

I do agree with much you say, but the "zombies" in this game are not undead but infected humans.

So who knows what they actually eat.

I see your point, but am I correct in my assumption that they're practically mindless, and they use no tools? If I am, then I think I can safely declare the game population practically immune to predation from zeds. Imagine a hunter with an IQ of 30 and no ability to use tools. He'd catch no game at all. He would be limited to carrion, basically, or getting lucky once in a blue moon. ETA: a horde could surround large game, with a few winding up lucky enough to actually get a taste of the poor animal, but this is sort of a marginal case.

As for zeds eating human non-perishable food, well, I'd think throwing them bags of rice would be a good post-apocalyptic strategy, in that case. I've never seen or heard of any Zombie fiction where zeds are happy with or even remotely interested in eating what humans eat. Runs directly contrary to the genre.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Morlock

[jqp 9]

The reason for the scarcity is that we're playing months after the outbreak, not days. Food has spoiled and ammunition has since been looted or destroyed.

 

No, the reason is "drama." As I explained above, the food supply would not spoil in months. It would take many years. "Looted" durable goods (e.g., ammo) do not disappear off the face of the Earth. A person hoarding the ammo that previously belonged to a population of 10k (actually, more than 10k, since you only become a hoarder after you exceed your share of the pre-apocalyptic stockpile) will want to trade some of that stuff for services, security, or other goods. Or get himself shot when a psychologically stable person finds out he's the kind of idiot who hoards just to hoard, letting others die for no good reason.

 

Every day you set the clock forward from Day 0 is another day you have to explain why people are still acting like morons too stupid to re-establish the (rather easily accomplished) basics of sustainable survival. So, that's not a "fix," either.

 

ETA: again, keep in mind that I am not directly addressing game design with this thread. I am addressing realism. Whether or not the game should be "realistic" is a distinct, secondary topic that I am addressing less directly. I was annoyed at seeing people advocate the scarcity scenario as the "realistic" one, when the opposite is true.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Morlock

[billyangstadt 272]

No, the reason is "drama." As I explained above, the food supply would not spoil in months. It would take many years. "Looted" durable goods (e.g., ammo) do not disappear off the face of the Earth. A person hoarding the ammo that previously belonged to a population of 10k (actually, more than 10k, since you only become a hoarder after you exceed your share of the pre-apocalyptic stockpile) will want to trade some of that stuff for services, security, or other goods. Or get himself shot when a psychologically stable person finds out he's the kind of idiot who hoards just to hoard, letting others die for no good reason.

 

Every day you set the clock forward from Day 0 is another day you have to explain why people are still acting like morons too stupid to re-establish the (rather easily accomplished) basics of sustainable survival. So, that's not a "fix," either.

 

ETA: again, keep in mind that I am not directly addressing game design with this thread. I am addressing realism. Whether or not the game should be "realistic" is a distinct, secondary topic that I am addressing less directly. I was annoyed at seeing people advocate the scarcity scenario as the "realistic" one, when the opposite is true.

Well, until an ELE happens where we have records, it's all going to be a matter of opinion. We don't know what society in this area would be like. This may have been the largest suburban and rural area in the region. Everyone, residents aside, could have migrated to Chernarus for it's resources, and durable goods can also be a form of consumable. (I.E. ammo being used)

 

You're never going to create an accurate parallel to what would happen in the real world, because we're not there. We have the luxury of logging off when we get tired and going to bed...or just sitting out the next few days to play Rocket League..these are not luxuries the Post-apoc world would have.

 

I am excited for persistence to come back as I feel most of the player base will hoard if given the opportunity. The thrill of the mod to me was searching the wooded areas for camps.

 

I do like this topic, though. I do look forward to see what others' opinions are.

[jqp 9]

Well, until an ELE happens where we have records, it's all going to be a matter of opinion. We don't know what society in this area would be like. This may have been the largest suburban and rural area in the region. Everyone, residents aside, could have migrated to Chernarus for it's resources, and durable goods can also be a form of consumable. (I.E. ammo being used)

 

You're never going to create an accurate parallel to what would happen in the real world, because we're not there. We have the luxury of logging off when we get tired and going to bed...or just sitting out the next few days to play Rocket League..these are not luxuries the Post-apoc world would have.

 

I am excited for persistence to come back as I feel most of the player base will hoard if given the opportunity. The thrill of the mod to me was searching the wooded areas for camps.

 

I do like this topic, though. I do look forward to see what others' opinions are.

 

This is a good point, one I briefly addressed in my original post (the bit about "plot."). I'd only add that it had better be a very well-thought-through explanation, or it will seem cheesy. If Chernarus is really that bad, relative to the rest of the world, first thing I would be wondering is, "why can't we get boats and get off this doubly Godforsaken rock, and go to the much better Godforsaken rest of the world?" "Because that wouldn't be dramatic" kinda falls flat for me. But I'm just picky that way. :)'

 

I'd also be wondering how 40-100 people per server could really impact the numbers I crunch in this thread, which is the real question.

 

[billyangstadt 272]

This is a good point, one I briefly addressed in my original post (the bit about "plot."). I'd only add that it had better be a very well-thought-through explanation, or it will seem cheesy. If Chernarus is really that bad, relative to the rest of the world, first thing I would be wondering is, "why can't we get boats and get off this doubly Godforsaken rock, and go to the much better Godforsaken rest of the world?" "Because that wouldn't be dramatic" kinda falls flat for me. But I'm just picky that way. :)'

I'd also be wondering how 40-100 people per server could really impact the numbers I crunch in this thread, which is the real question.

Now, I completely disagree with 100 person servers. This map does have enough points of interest and is far too small in my opinion. As is, your camp is found within a day on a 40 pop, double that plus 20 and there will be no use to even try and establish yourself.

I think 50 is perfect given the scenario were in.

[Whyherro123 2283]

This is a good point, one I briefly addressed in my original post (the bit about "plot."). I'd only add that it had better be a very well-thought-through explanation, or it will seem cheesy. If Chernarus is really that bad, relative to the rest of the world, first thing I would be wondering is, "why can't we get boats and get off this doubly Godforsaken rock, and go to the much better Godforsaken rest of the world?" "Because that wouldn't be dramatic" kinda falls flat for me. But I'm just picky that way. :)'

 

I'd also be wondering how 40-100 people per server could really impact the numbers I crunch in this thread, which is the real question.

 

 

I hold the opinion that South Zagoria (the region of Chernarus we play in), is in fact under quarantine, and we are prevented from leaving by NATO+UN+RU armed forces (let me explain that in a minute). The rest of the world is fine, or "okay enough" to allow for regular Special Forces patrols via helicopter into the QZ.

 

Take a look at the map. There are only a couple of major roads that lead in/out of South Zagoria. It would be trivial for a military force to either 1) block off these points (which, if you notice in-game, there are several military roadblocks and checkpoints scattered around the map), or 2) say "whoever crosses this line gets shot". Evidently, the CDF failed to contain the disease.

 

Meanwhile, as part of the quarantine, NATO, UN, and RU Special Forces regularily fly overhead in helicopters, tracking the progress of the disease, as well as the condition/location of any survivors. Every once in a while, they crash ("Hellish Copter" is a trope for a reason), or get shot down by some survivors. This is why whenever you stumble across a crashed helicopter, it is smoking. If it was weeks/months after the crash, would it still be smouldering? NOTE: this doesn't mean it couldn't be weeks/months after the TSC.

 

And, in the progress of a "real" pandemic, even one with an absurdly high fatality rate, there is ALWAYS people that don't get infected, even without being immune. Either due to isolation (eminently possible in the smaller villages in SZ), due dilligence in the wearing of PPE, or just sheer dumb luck, there are ALWAYS survivors, usually of a much higher number than you think, like 30%-60% of the "previous" population (HINT: most real-world diseases aren't absurdly lethal, or, if they are, they are 1) not easily transmissible, or 2) realllly fucking obvious)

 

Now, most of these survivors die eventually due to what is often termed the "Secondary Kill", that is, outbreaks of diseases unrelated to the "main one", but instead related to lack of sanitation, malnourishment-related immune system depression, the drinking of "bad water", or just from exposure or sheer accidents. Remember, in a world without advanced medical care, a cut on the hand is a SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM. And, those going into the larger towns/cities for medical supplies, food, or even booze and smokes could get killed from the disease (remember, they aren't immune, just not exposed yet), yet more accidents, the infected, or bandits. Meanwhile, they are using up food, swallowing down meds, burning up gasoline, and shooting up bullets.

 

Same thing with the "infected", before they succumb to the disease and "reanimate" (for lack of a better term, as they are still living, breathing human beings). Even if the disease progresses REALLY FAST, like a couple of days, in those days, they will still be eating food, using meds (probably pretty quickly), etc etc. Not counting the Samaritans that stay around and help them in their final days (family, religious orgs, NGOs, etc (There are ALWAYS people helping during a disease, especially family).

 

It isn't like God flicked some switch, and 100,000 people died in the blink of an eye. It probably took MONTHS for South Zagoria to end up like it is, and in those months, the survivors lived like kings off the carcass of the Old World (look what happened during the Black Death. Society SHAT THE BED, with fuckhueg parties, orgies, robberies, near-open warfare, etc etc etc).

 

We are the poor dumb-fucks that are left. We are the last.

[jqp 9]

I could maybe see a scarcity scenario in a place like Las Vegas, which is built in an essentially uninhabitable region and sustained only through trade that comes in from outside the city. Even then, though, you have to deal with the math of the low-property-damage ELE:

The amount of non-perishable goods is divided by the survivor:dead ratio.

Which would mean even in one of the last places you'd want to find yourself experiencing the Zombie Apocalypse, you'd be surrounded by sudden, massive abundance.

An event like in "The Road" would neatly explain scarcity, though.

[jqp 9]

I hold the opinion that South Zagoria (the region of Chernarus we play in), is in fact under quarantine, and we are prevented from leaving by NATO+UN+RU armed forces (let me explain that in a minute). The rest of the world is fine, or "okay enough" to allow for regular Special Forces patrols via helicopter into the QZ.Take a look at the map. There are only a couple of major roads that lead in/out of South Zagoria. It would be trivial for a military force to either 1) block off these points (which, if you notice in-game, there are several military roadblocks and checkpoints scattered around the map), or 2) say "whoever crosses this line gets shot". Evidently, the CDF failed to contain the disease.Meanwhile, as part of the quarantine, NATO, UN, and RU Special Forces regularily fly overhead in helicopters, tracking the progress of the disease, as well as the condition/location of any survivors. Every once in a while, they crash ("Hellish Copter" is a trope for a reason), or get shot down by some survivors. This is why whenever you stumble across a crashed helicopter, it is smoking. If it was weeks/months after the crash, would it still be smouldering? NOTE: this doesn't mean it couldn't be weeks/months after the TSC.

If you're right, then I'm glad I apologized in advance for my ignorance of DayZ.But if you are, then I'm disappointed. I don't know why, but the idea that I'm playing in a very limited Zombie Apocalypse takes a lot away from the experience for me. I like my Apocalypses Apocalyptic. It's hard for me to consider a regional phenomenon an Apocalypse at all. This has substantially lowered my appreciation for Dying Light, for example. A big part of the reason I love post-apocalyptic settings so much is the idea that there are no safety nets, no civilization, anymore. Like the wild west on steroids.

And, in the progress of a "real" pandemic, even one with an absurdly high fatality rate, there is ALWAYS people that don't get infected, even without being immune. Either due to isolation (eminently possible in the smaller villages in SZ), due dilligence in the wearing of PPE, or just sheer dumb luck, there are ALWAYS survivors, usually of a much higher number than you think, like 30%-60% of the "previous" population (HINT: most real-world diseases aren't absurdly lethal, or, if they are, they are 1) not easily transmissible, or 2) realllly fucking obvious)

But here you run into Apocalypse Math, again. As I said above, every time you dial up the survivor:zed ratio, you also dial down the severity of the Zombie Apocalypse.Raise your hand if you're an able-bodied man who's at all familiar with firearms, and you don't think you could take out a thousand zeds (meaning, "slow zombie" mopes as seen in DayZ and TWD) in a short time, given a decent weapon and sufficient ammo. I don't see why any red-blooded man wouldn't commit himself to taking out hundreds of thousands, if not more, zeds by himself. After his survival requirements are met, what more important job is there? The upshot of all of this for me is that the survivor:zed ratio needs to be very, very low. 1:10k is sort of a ceiling, IMO. Any higher and the "apocalypse" starts to seem too easy.

Now, most of these survivors die eventually due to what is often termed the "Secondary Kill", that is, outbreaks of diseases unrelated to the "main one", but instead related to lack of sanitation, malnourishment-related immune system depression, the drinking of "bad water", or just from exposure or sheer accidents. Remember, in a world without advanced medical care, a cut on the hand is a SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM. And, those going into the larger towns/cities for medical supplies, food, or even booze and smokes could get killed from the disease (remember, they aren't immune, just not exposed yet), yet more accidents, the infected, or bandits. Meanwhile, they are using up food, swallowing down meds, burning up gasoline, and shooting up bullets.Same thing with the "infected", before they succumb to the disease and "reanimate" (for lack of a better term, as they are still living, breathing human beings). Even if the disease progresses REALLY FAST, like a couple of days, in those days, they will still be eating food, using meds (probably pretty quickly), etc etc. Not counting the Samaritans that stay around and help them in their final days (family, religious orgs, NGOs, etc (There are ALWAYS people helping during a disease, especially family).

But again, you run into Apocalypse Math; the longer you stretch out the die-off (and thus deplete stockpiles), the less plausible it becomes that there would be a large zed population; once people realize that people come back as zeds, they're going to take preventative measures to ensure the dead don't come back as zeds. So, only a massive and sudden die-off really makes sense here, absent some new handwavium I haven't seen yet.

[billyangstadt 272]

If you're right, then I'm glad I apologized in advance for my ignorance of DayZ.

But if you are, then I'm disappointed. I don't know why, but the idea that I'm playing in a very limited Zombie Apocalypse takes a lot away from the experience for me. I like my Apocalypses Apocalyptic. It's hard for me to consider a regional phenomenon an Apocalypse at all. This has substantially lowered my appreciation for Dying Light, for example. A big part of the reason I love post-apocalyptic settings so much is the idea that there are no safety nets, no civilization, anymore. Like the wild west on steroids.

But here you run into Apocalypse Math, again. As I said above, every time you dial up the survivor:zed ratio, you also dial down the severity of the Zombie Apocalypse.

Raise your hand if you're an able-bodied man who's at all familiar with firearms, and you don't think you could take out a thousand zeds (meaning, "slow zombie" mopes as seen in DayZ and TWD) in a short time, given a decent weapon and sufficient ammo. I don't see why any red-blooded man wouldn't commit himself to taking out hundreds of thousands, if not more, zeds by himself. After his survival requirements are met, what more important job is there? The upshot of all of this for me is that the survivor:zed ratio needs to be very, very low. 1:10k is sort of a ceiling, IMO. Any higher and the "apocalypse" starts to seem too easy.

But again, you run into Apocalypse Math; the longer you stretch out the die-off (and thus deplete stockpiles), the less plausible it becomes that there would be a large zed population; once people realize that people come back as zeds, they're going to take preventative measures to ensure the dead don't come back as zeds. So, only a massive and sudden die-off really makes sense here, absent some new handwavium I haven't seen yet.

Maybe the patches simulate this. 57 has tons of weapons (outbreak) and zombies.

.58 has weapons being less common and zeds are gone.

Obviously kidding.

Edited August 14, 2015 by DanicaHamlin

[jqp 9]

Of course, introducing "fast zombies" and other, more formidable types would significantly change the Apocalypse Math.

 

I, for one, prefer a more laid-back, "all slow zeds" apocalypse. I'd rather see the early stages of rebuilding than a zombie shooter.

[Whyherro123 2283]

-snip-

 

1) The "infected" in Day Z are most emphatically not "slow zombie mopes". Have you played the game at all? If you have, you would know that the "infected" SPRINT AT YOU, BALLS OUT, to the point where if they are within 30 meters or so, and you aren't paying the utmost attention, you essentially have to "spray n' pray" with an automatic in order to kill them before they smack you around. And they usually manage to get in a few whacks.

 

2) "Kill hundreds of thousands of zeds".

 

Sure thing, pal. It might not be a big thing to you, playing a game and all, but look at it from the survivors perspective, both our own, and those who came before. These "infected" were once your neighbors, that guy down the street you went to the pub with, co-workers, friends, your goddamned family members. Hell, none of the cities/towns in South Zagoria are all that big, I see no real reason as to why, in a town like Svetlojarsk, a resident couldn't somehow know 95% of the people that lived there.

 

And now you have to kill them. Yes, as they come at you, screaming for blood, but you still have to kill them. That..... probably isn't something the in-game people could just shrug off like changing a tire. The in-game survivors most likely have a "healthy", well-developed case of PTSD, if not other neuroses (depression, anxiety, etc), as a result of having to murder 99% of their former acquaintances.

 

3) Remember: South Zagoria literally just underwent Civil War (Day Z takes place right after the ARMA II campaign), with Communist militas hiding out on every mountaintop, being all "insurgent-y" and such. With the Quarantine, and accompanying restriction of law and order to the cities, the militias probably jumped right back into action. Hell, they could have blamed the government for the outbreak! Said militia was more than capable of waging all-out war against the CDF, IIRC. 

So, you've got:

1) quarantine, preventing you from leaving your city, or even your house past a certain hour (ensures you get exposed to both "THE infection", as well as other secondary communicable diseases that proliferate between people in close proximity)

2) loss of power and related services (medical, police), with all the accompanying issues (cant keep food cold, nor medication, nor pump water)

3) fucking WAR

4) outbreak of other diseases, as a result of poor sanitation, starvation, lack of clean drinking water, leaving many otherwise-"healthy" members of the population at deaths door.

 

Nobody said that the "reanimation" of the infected only took a week. Shit, for all we know, it could be weeks, or months! And, if one person "reanimates" in Svetlojarsk, some poor bastard down in Cherno isn't going to find out  until it is too late. Remember: no electricity, no Internet, no phones, nothing. So, by the time Freddy Farmer outside Cherno finds out his sick Aunt is going to come chewing on his jugular, there is a wave of death sweeping down from Svetlo.

[jqp 9]

1) The "infected" in Day Z are most emphatically not "slow zombie mopes". Have you played the game at all?

You skipped the first paragraph of my OP. So, I skipped the rest of your reply.

[Whyherro123 2283]

You skipped the first paragraph of my OP. So, I skipped the rest of your reply.

 

If you haven't even played the goddamn game yet, how could you possible formulate an opinion on the "validity" of the zombie apocalypse? Get some hours under your belt, experience the world, then come back and vent. Your entire opinion, and all that nice text, is essentially invalidated until you do so.

 

Considering how you label the Standalone zombies as "slow zombie mopes:, when they are specifically not so, I automatically consider next-to-everything you say rather, well, "suspiciously", for lack of a better word. Again, get some experience first.

 

Oh, and even if you never played either the mod or the Standalone, Google remains your friend.

 

http://dayz.gamepedia.com/Zombie

 

Finally, way to duck out of the conversation. Lurk more.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Whyherro123

[jqp 9]

Reading comprehension still low (ignored/skipped the "realism vs. gameplay" paragraph, skipped rest of reply again.

[nl 986]

I could maybe see a scarcity scenario in a place like Las Vegas, which is built in an essentially uninhabitable region and sustained only through trade that comes in from outside the city. Even then, though, you have to deal with the math of the low-property-damage ELE: The amount of non-perishable goods is divided by the survivor:dead ratio. Which would mean even in one of the last places you'd want to find yourself experiencing the Zombie Apocalypse, you'd be surrounded by sudden, massive abundance. An event like in "The Road" would neatly explain scarcity, though.

I guess a large part of Chernarus' population could have left or been evacuated at the time the ZA started and the forces were still able to contain the diseased who may still have been in smaller numbers, and protect the population in certain defended areas. These refugees may have had the time to also take most belongings with them, including their food stocks, maybe protected by mobile forces accompanying them. The government may even have ordered the military to loot abandoned houses and secure resources for the refugee camps outside of Chernarus. Once the zombie virus became too dangerous or the infected too numerous Chernarus may have been locked down or quarantined trapping a handful of survivors with now limited resources.

Just trying to think of a scenario that would explain the scarcity.

[Evil Minion 943]

Actually the OP is very right and very wrong wrong at the same time. Widespread sudden depopulation would cause in a lot of stuff being left behind resulting in abundance of basic everyday stuff. For a time. Then survivors start to use, consume and break stuff and low population as well as lack of infrastructure would prevent replenishment.

So realistically DayZ would start with tons of loot but without loot respawn (not dynamic, not on server restart - never). For the first few weeks or months there would be abundance but then... not so much. We would move towards something that resembles early patch .55 (which was actually enjoyable if you were open to the experience) - and would never ever go away.

In contrast rarity combined with loot respawns causes some consistency on the long run. Basically the world is in a constant shape of "this area is already looted but we might still find some scraps" which makes far mores sense given the basic "shape" of the game (small map and running over prolonged time). As justification you say it simulates a much bigger world with nomadic players somewhere between "still some scraps" and "complete depletion".

[jqp 9]

Another thing about starvation; it takes bloody weeks to starve to death. Really not the sort of thing that screams "action-packed." You can make it "action-packed" by dramatically accelerating the process, but only at the cost of realism. And realism is my ENTIRE reason for wanting hunger, thirst, starvation, and dehydration in the first place (drama-dialed-up/grindy pseudo "survival simulators" don't grab me). The fact is, death by starvation is pretty rare outside of remote locations, abusive prisons, or sieges, and would be not much more of a threat in the event of a ZA than they are in real life.

I think the results of malnutrition offer much more opportunity for good gameplay. Low blood sugar, fatigue, etc., can have a dramatic effect on performance IRL.
 

 

I guess a large part of Chernarus' population could have left or been evacuated at the time the ZA started and the forces were still able to contain the diseased who may still have been in smaller numbers, and protect the population in certain defended areas. These refugees may have had the time to also take most belongings with them, including their food stocks, maybe protected by mobile forces accompanying them. The government may even have ordered the military to loot abandoned houses and secure resources for the refugee camps outside of Chernarus. Once the zombie virus became too dangerous or the infected too numerous Chernarus may have been locked down or quarantined trapping a handful of survivors with now limited resources.

Just trying to think of a scenario that would explain the scarcity.

My instinct is to chuck the scarcity, and think of ways to make a more realistic approach work well. But, you're asking a valid question, for various reasons. I think the "spores" thing from The Last of Us, or something with a similar "cross-species infection" appeal, works well; you can fold in the explanation from the The Road - food is scarce because something is attacking Earth's plant life, and carrying capacity is far too low to sustain the current population. The "spores" aren't just turning people into zeds, they're also killing off the crops, and probably the animal population, too. Maybe the crop infestation and resultant starvation was going on for years before the zed infestation started, which would explain the exhausted supplies of consumable goods. But then one runs into the problem of where are the zeds coming from, if the population was already low? Writing tight, plausible PA fiction is hard, lol.

On the other hand, your Escape From New York theory does offer intriguing possibilities. I would love to see something like that done DayZ style. But EFNY had NYC going for it; Escape From The Dreary Empty Island doesn't have quite the same appeal, IMO.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Morlock

[freethink 984]

Realistically stores only contain three days of product. If they don't get resupplied they'll basically be empty. The are resupplied "just in time" - if people panic as they do with impending bad weather or crisis then they often get left with empty shelves.

 

Google "three days from anarchy" or "nine meals from anarchy" and you'll find plenty of information backing that up.

[jqp 9]

Actually the OP is very right and very wrong wrong at the same time. Widespread sudden depopulation would cause in a lot of stuff being left behind resulting in abundance of basic everyday stuff. For a time. Then survivors start to use, consume and break stuff and low population as well as lack of infrastructure would prevent replenishment.

So realistically DayZ would start with tons of loot but without loot respawn (not dynamic, not on server restart - never). For the first few weeks or months there would be abundance but then... not so much. We would move towards something that resembles early patch .55 (which was actually enjoyable if you were open to the experience) - and would never ever go away.

In contrast rarity combined with loot respawns causes some consistency on the long run. Basically the world is in a constant shape of "this area is already looted but we might still find some scraps" which makes far mores sense given the basic "shape" of the game (small map and running over prolonged time). As justification you say it simulates a much bigger world with nomadic players somewhere between "still some scraps" and "complete depletion".

Well, no. I addressed this above. Apocalyptic Math: for every day you set your game time beyond day0, that's another day of human progress you have to account for. Another day of survivors killing zeds, scavenging, rebuilding civilization. Eventually it becomes silly to deny that human progress should be happening.

Then there's the fact that the wild game alone could sustain 1/10,000th (or whatever) of the human population, even after the non-perishable food runs out. You can't just dial up the S:Z ratio to "fix" this because Apocalypse Math; dialing up the S:Z ratio means dialing down the Apocalyptic Zombie Threat.

If loot has persistence and no spawning, then so should the zeds. It wouldn't take long to clear them all off the server. It would take a lot longer to eat through all the non-perishable food or run out of ammo than it would to clear out the zeds.

 

Again, I am talking about "realism," not gameplay.

[jqp 9]

Realistically stores only contain three days of product. If they don't get resupplied they'll basically be empty. The are resupplied "just in time" - if people panic as they do with impending bad weather or crisis then they often get left with empty shelves.

Google "three days from anarchy" or "nine meals from anarchy" and you'll find plenty of information backing that up.

Doesn't really matter what the actual number is (I used a week, not far from three days at all when you actually run the Apocalypse Math). Apocalypse Math says you have to divide the amount of stock by the Survivor:Zed ratio. If it's 1:10k, that means you multiply the stock by 10k. 3 days times 10k is 30k. Thus, you have 30,000 days before the food runs out, issues of distribution aside. That's roughly 82 years worth of food. If the ratio is only 1:1k (meaning, the Zombie Apocalypse will be cleaned up in days or weeks, not months or years), then that's 3,000 days worth of food.

 

There'd be so much food around, people would find it impossible to hoard enough to starve one another without some truly organized and heroic efforts.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Morlock

[freethink 984]

Sorry but your logic is flawed. It's more like:

 

Day 1: Panic. People stock up, Stores are emptied. People can eat.

Day 2: People are holed up, most people eat as normal. Stores are not resupplied.

Day 3: People are coming to the end of their food. Most will stay holed up. Those without supplies will begin to search for food. Vulnerable people will become targets.

Day 4: Anarchy. 

 

You seem to imagine a situation where the stores and larders are full then with a snap of god's fingers most of the population just die.

Edited August 14, 2015 by freethink