Abundance is Realism

[Beizs 186]

Abundance actually is realism. But it would not make good gameplay. Instead, why not make another "gamemode" where let's say there are 40 people. At the start places are full of stuff. But here's the trick: nothing will respawn. No zombies, no loot and NO PLAYERS. So the first ones to get to a town will get the loot and stash it in a forest and the ones that come later starve. And they don't respawn. Would be kinda like battle royale but bigger scale and takes longer time.

The main issue is that the servers just can't handle enough loot to get anywhere close to a realistic level. It would be awesome if they could and they could actually get away with completely disabling restarts for a long ass time if loot was how it would be in real life.

But yeah, it's not very good for gameplay to have complete abundance. It would work, however, in my opinion, if the zombies were at a point where actually going into a town or city to loot it would be genuinely dangerous, especially for a group who can't stealth their way around very easily.

[jqp 9]

Abundance is only realistic for "some time" (whatever this may be) after breakdown of the civilisation. At first there is more stuff than there are consumers (survivors). Since nothing is produced any more, the will be a turning point.

Only if you take the misanthropic assumption that people would just lay about and do nothing while stocks dwindle. Which they wouldn't.

[hekeetsu 86]

The main issue is that the servers just can't handle enough loot to get anywhere close to a realistic level. It would be awesome if they could and they could actually get away with completely disabling restarts for a long ass time if loot was how it would be in real life.

But yeah, it's not very good for gameplay to have complete abundance. It would work, however, in my opinion, if the zombies were at a point where actually going into a town or city to loot it would be genuinely dangerous, especially for a group who can't stealth their way around very easily.

Yeah, look at TWD season 1 when Rick goes to Atlanta, the streets are literally filled with zombies. Make them fast like the Dayz ones and Cherno and Elektro won't be the place for pvp and freshies anymore :D

[jqp 9]

Abundance actually is realism. But it would not make good gameplay.

I'm fine with that. The first is basically fact, the second a matter of opinion. Which is kind of what I was getting at with this thread. I kept reading posts where people were conflating scarcity with realism, and it annoyed me. I don't know if it's because this unrealistic scarcity is a genre staple (e.g., TWD's ludicrous scarcity), or people just don't want to face reality, or what.

[hekeetsu 86]

I'm fine with that. The first is basically fact, the second a matter of opinion. Which is kind of what I was getting at with this thread. I kept reading posts where people were conflating scarcity with realism, and it annoyed me. I don't know if it's because this unrealistic scarcity is a genre staple (e.g., TWD's ludicrous scarcity), or people just don't want to face reality, or what.

The scarcity depends on how long it has been since the start of the apocalypse. 20 years like in The Last of Us? You won't be finding shit other than from some cabin in the middle of the woods. A few days? Food and stuff everywhere.

[ZomboWTF 527]

*Whoosh* goes the thread. :)

yup, in germany food would diappear really fast as well, supermarkets get refilled each day, especially bread and meat,

you'd possibly look at one week maximum of food if such an event hit,

but when you look at how people behave once there will be a long weekend or christmas, the supermarkets get basically plundered xD

[derLoko 30]

yup, in germany food would diappear really fast as well, supermarkets get refilled each day, especially bread and meat,

you'd possibly look at one week maximum of food if such an event hit,

but when you look at how people behave once there will be a long weekend or christmas, the supermarkets get basically plundered xD

 

It's a "Whooosh"-ception! 

[roguetrooper 201]

Since so many people are concerned with how far several aspects are 'realistic'. How realistic can it get, when you sit in your comfortable chair in an air-conditioned room, with fresh water, shower, toilet, fridge, microwave, a soft bed, oven, food and drinks in your reach all the time without any fear that you might loose these things :D

[ZomboWTF 527]

Since so many people are concerned with how far several aspects are 'realistic'. How realistic can it get, when you sit in your comfortable chair in an air-conditioned room, with fresh water, shower, toilet, fridge, microwave, a soft bed, oven, food and drinks in your reach all the time without any fear that you might loose these things :D

you mean we should not complain about realism if we live in a first-world country?

if we would not, we wouldn't be able to complain about such a thing, and probably wouldn't care about some PC game at all ;)

 

the reason why this is important for dayz is because there needs to be something you lose when you die, or else the game would not be goodat all,

the thrill of dayz comes from losing all your stuff because of one little mistake, throwng you back a few hours or even days

 

if food would be no concern at all, which atm it really isn't in DayZ, the only thing hard to get is good gear,

being hydrated and energized has become far to easy, people can sprint across the map without lacking food or drnk at any time

 

as far as i am concerned, as soon as cars are in the game, people should have a WAY higher consumption rate of water and food while sprinting, while lower consumption rate while jogging, people arguing with the "but i wanna be with my squad" argument can then have a car to get together

Edited August 15, 2015 by Zombo

[Beizs 186]

The scarcity depends on how long it has been since the start of the apocalypse. 20 years like in The Last of Us? You won't be finding shit other than from some cabin in the middle of the woods. A few days? Food and stuff everywhere.

 

This is true, but you'd still have a bounty of stuff a few years on, also, if my mathematics is even anywhere near correct (and, using scientific modelling for the infection and simple maths, I feel like it's pretty accurate to be honest). Excluding food and ammo, you'd have a lot available to you for longer than that, too. Though 20 years? Okay. Clothes have probably all been eaten by moths, there's absolutely no food left over, other than the occasional undiscovered bomb bunker with a bounty, most of the guns have been used to destruction, there's just about no ammunition left and everything you get is going to have to be made by you. At that point, however, I think that the last of us has far too much for 20 years in.

 

Nobody can seem to get it quite right. :P

 

yup, in germany food would diappear really fast as well, supermarkets get refilled each day, especially bread and meat,

you'd possibly look at one week maximum of food if such an event hit,

but when you look at how people behave once there will be a long weekend or christmas, the supermarkets get basically plundered xD

 

It's not about the supermarkets though, man. Most people buy a week or so's worth of food in one go. Add that to stuff like pastas, rice and tinned food, which just about everyone I know generally has quite a large surplus of as they are commonly forgotten about while you're shopping and you have an absolutely ridiculous amount of food lying around. Following scientific disease models and emulating a zombie apocalypse through good old math, the population of Chernarus would be reduced to less than 1% in a mere matter of four days, leaving a ridiculous amount of food for those who did survive.

 

I did literally all the maths you could possibly need to prove that abundance would be a very real thing and, assuming people who survived the initial wave actually rationed, it would last years, even at low estimates.

 

you mean we should not complain about realism if we live in a first-world country?

if we would not, we wouldn't be able to complain about such a thing, and probably wouldn't care about some PC game at all ;)

 

the reason why this is important for dayz is because there needs to be something you lose when you die, or else the game would not be goodat all,

the thrill of dayz comes from losing all your stuff because of one little mistake, throwng you back a few hours or even days

 

if food would be no concern at all, which atm it really isn't in DayZ, the only thing hard to get is good gear,

being hydrated and energized has become far to easy, people can sprint across the map without lacking food or drnk at any time

 

as far as i am concerned, as soon as cars are in the game, people should have a WAY higher consumption rate of water and food while sprinting, while lower consumption rate while jogging, people arguing with the "but i wanna be with my squad" argument can then have a car to get together

 

I'd like to see more realistic food consumption. So, if you drive everywhere and do pretty much fuck all, you're not gonna need more than like 2k calories. If you're running a marathon daily, you might rocket up to anywhere between 6k to 10k calories. You'll need to drink a minimum of about 6 pints of fluid a day to remain healthy. If you're running a marathon a day, that rockets up to 12 pints or more. So long as there's a realstic, healthy medium, I'm fine with that. However, as the server times can be changed, it makes it difficult as you don't know whether to go by real life time or server time when it comes to modelling the calorie consumption.

 

Basically, it'd be nice to see them actually do the maths and get realistic calorie consumption in game, as well as water. It's really not particularly difficult maths and would improve gameplay a lot for me, honestly.

 

However, I disagree that gear should be rare at all. Realistically, it would not be. It should just be hard to get, because the zombies are in the towns and cities. That's an ideal DayZ for me. DayZ isn't a starvation simulator. It's a survival simulator based in a zombie apocalypse, absolutely no more than a year (we're probably talking a couple months at the most) after the apocalypse. Everything would be in abundance, if you were brave and smart enough to get through the zombies to get the loot. The actual worries in the game should be zombies and players, and, to a lesser extent, diseases. Realistically, even without the huge bounty available to you in the 'abandoned' towns and cities, it would be very easy to survive food and drink wise out in the wild. Historical research, recently, has pointed toward the idea that humans who were hunters and gatherers way back when actually had significantly more free time than us, as hunting and gathering, once you know the basics, is so damned easy. Throw in modern methods and tools to do these things and you'd have literally no problem at all.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Beizs

[freethink 984]

if my mathematics is even anywhere near correct (and, using scientific modelling for the infection and simple maths, I feel like it's pretty accurate to be honest). 

 

It's not because it's based on false assumptions about how the world works.

 

This thread and the theory that abundance is realistic in a post-apocalyptic world where a virus is the main cause of the downfall is asinine. 

 

If feel like it's people trolling as the idea is so stupid.

Edited August 15, 2015 by freethink

[ZomboWTF 527]

It's not because it's based on false assumptions about how the world works.

 

This thread and the theory that abundance is realistic in a post-apocalyptic world where a virus is the main cause of the downfall is asinine. 

 

If feel like it's people trolling as the idea is so stupid.

 

to be honest the idea is far away from stupid, you do know the sickenss (not sure if virus or bacteria) that make animal rabid (Tollwut in german)?

i don't know why it affects humans in a different way than animals,

but if a slight mutation of that virus would make people just as agressive as animals

instead of just killing humans, that would be basically it

 

also, i think many mathematical conclusions as to how fast the virus would spread and kill people don't realise how people would first barricade in their homes until food runs out, then die when they search for more

 

i certainly wouldn't continue my normal life as i do right now if i heard that a deadly zombie virus is on the loose

Edited August 15, 2015 by Zombo

[Beizs 186]

It's not because it's based on false assumptions about how the world works.

 

This thread and the theory that abundance is realistic in a post-apocalyptic world where a virus is the main cause of the downfall is asinine. 

 

If feel like it's people trolling as the idea is so stupid.

 

Do explain exactly how the world works, then.

 

You've presented no argument. You've simply strawmanned the idea, without refuting a single thing backing it up. If you want a constructive conversation, actually explain what you're talking about. Otherwise, don't bother contributing at all.

 

If anybody seems like they're trolling, it's you.

 

Seriously, it's simple mathematics. It's economies of scale. A zombie virus would spread incredibly quickly, especially in a relatively small, quarantined area. The resources in that area would not all be consumed in that time. There would be an absolute shit tonne left. The maths I did looked only at resources in civilian households. Nothing related to shops or any military/police/commercial storage. Using low estimates.

 

Do tell me what's so incorrect?

 

We're talking about it in relation to the game. Not real life. We're just using real life (and in the case of my post, real virus models) as a base... Y'know. Like literally every single person does. What are these false assumptions?

Edited August 15, 2015 by Beizs

[freethink 984]

Do explain exactly how the world works, then.

 

You've presented no argument. You've simply strawmanned the idea, without refuting a single thing backing it up. If you want a constructive conversation, actually explain what you're talking about. Otherwise, don't bother contributing at all.

 

If anybody seems like they're trolling, it's you.

 

Seriously, it's simple mathematics. It's economies of scale. A zombie virus would spread incredibly quickly, especially in a relatively small, quarantined area. The resources in that area would not all be consumed in that time. There would be an absolute shit tonne left. The maths I did looked only at resources in civilian households. Nothing related to shops or any military/police/commercial storage. Using low estimates.

 

Do tell me what's so incorrect?

 

We're talking about it in relation to the game. Not real life. We're just using real life (and in the case of my post, real virus models) as a base... Y'know. Like literally every single person does. What are these false assumptions?

 

 

where have I presented a straw man? Do you even know what a straw man is. Please point out exactly where I use a straw man. Straw men and mathematics are two things you like to talk a lot about yet have very little knowledge of.

 

Anyway I'm out. Reminds me of the wrestling with pigs quote.

[Beizs 186]

where have I presented a straw man? Do you even know what a straw man is. Please point out exactly where I use a straw man. Straw men and mathematics are two things you like to talk a lot about yet have very little knowledge of.

 

Anyway I'm out. Reminds me of the wrestling with pigs quote.

 

 

 

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

 

 

You claimed that the argument was 'so stupid' you thought people were trolling, thus attempting to refute the argument without any actual argument of your own. Ironically, this makes you appear stupid. Oh, and yet again, you've yet to actually put forward any argument. You've refuted nothing. You've presented no evidence. Bye.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Beizs

[freethink 984]

You claimed that the argument was 'so stupid' you thought people were trolling, thus attempting to refute the argument without any actual argument of your own. Ironically, this makes you appear stupid. Oh, and yet again, you've yet to actually put forward any argument. You've refuted nothing. You've presented no evidence. Bye.

 

 

Oh hai, I'm back. Can you tell me what argument I refuted that wasn't presented because that's the very crux of the idea of a strawman? Earlier in this thread I refuted the abundance argument and through-out this thread this is the only argument I attempted to refute. If you can point me to a post where I refute some argument that wasn't made then go ahead - otherwise your straw man thesis, just like your maths is based on ignorant nonsense.

 

I take back that you were trolling. I don't think you are capable nor clever enough.

 

Here's a strawman argument as an example as you obviously don't understand the concept:

 

Beizs doesn't think we landed on the moon so what would he know about this.

Edited August 15, 2015 by freethink

[Beizs 186]

Oh hai, I'm back. Can you tell me what argument I refuted that wasn't presented because that's the very crux of the idea of a strawman? Earlier in this thread I refuted the abundance argument and through-out this thread this is the only argument I attempted to refute. If you can point me to a post where I refute some argument that wasn't made then go ahead - otherwise your straw man thesis, just like your maths is based on ignorant nonsense.

 

I take back that you were trolling. I don't think you are capable nor clever enough.

 

Here's a strawman argument as an example as you obviously don't understand the concept:

 

Beizs doesn't think we landed on the moon so what would he know about this.

 

No, I absolutely see what you mean there. I'm cool with that.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that you've refuted nothing I said to do with the actual topic at hand. Your only argument in this entire thread was that people would loot the stores, but that isn't really relevant to the topic as the food still exists, it's just moved into the households of the people who have looted it.

 

You've put forward literally no evidence to support your argument and have done nothing but made your own assumptions that are more removed from reality than anyone elses on this thread.

[freethink 984]

No, I absolutely see what you mean there. I'm cool with that.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that you've refuted nothing I said to do with the actual topic at hand. Your only argument in this entire thread was that people would loot the stores, but that isn't really relevant to the topic as the food still exists, it's just moved into the households of the people who have looted it.

 

You've put forward literally no evidence to support your argument and have done nothing but made your own assumptions that are more removed from reality than anyone elses on this thread.

 

I've searched this thread for the word "loot" and it's not in any of my posts. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, just like you are confused by the concept of strawmen and the way the world works. I'd hate to think that mr. anti-strawman is attributing arguments to people that they never made. That'd be a bit hypocritical imo.

[Beizs 186]

I've searched this thread for the word "loot" and it's not in any of my posts. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, just like you are confused by the concept of strawmen and the way the world works. I'd hate to think that mr. anti-strawman is attributing arguments to people that they never made. That'd be a bit hypocritical imo.

 

Your first post in the thread was adressing the subject. Your first post to me was attempting to refute my argument related to the subject.

 

What are you talking about?

[jqp 9]

The scarcity depends on how long it has been since the start of the apocalypse. 20 years like in The Last of Us? You won't be finding shit other than from some cabin in the middle of the woods. A few days? Food and stuff everywhere.

No, it doesn't depend on how long it's been per se, unless there's some other factor, like environmental and crop failure in The Road, or sudden mass mental retardation, like in TWD. Otherwise, human progress would mean the further the disaster recedes into the past, the better the living conditions would become.

It's a "Whooosh"-ception!

I meant "whoosh" as in flying over someone's head. :D

Since so many people are concerned with how far several aspects are 'realistic'. How realistic can it get, when you sit in your comfortable chair in an air-conditioned room, with fresh water, shower, toilet, fridge, microwave, a soft bed, oven, food and drinks in your reach all the time without any fear that you might loose these things :D

One might just as well say it isn't a survival game at all then. In the sense you describe, it is no more "violent," "difficult," "post-apocalyptic," "about survival" or "about zombies" than it is "realistic." :)

I'd like to see more realistic food consumption. So, if you drive everywhere and do pretty much fuck all, you're not gonna need more than like 2k calories. If you're running a marathon daily, you might rocket up to anywhere between 6k to 10k calories. You'll need to drink a minimum of about 6 pints of fluid a day to remain healthy. If you're running a marathon a day, that rockets up to 12 pints or more. So long as there's a realstic, healthy medium, I'm fine with that. However, as the server times can be changed, it makes it difficult as you don't know whether to go by real life time or server time when it comes to modelling the calorie consumption.

Basically, it'd be nice to see them actually do the maths and get realistic calorie consumption in game, as well as water. It's really not particularly difficult maths and would improve gameplay a lot for me, honestly.

Same here. I'd at least like to see a realism setting or gametype available.

However, I disagree that gear should be rare at all. Realistically, it would not be. It should just be hard to get, because the zombies are in the towns and cities. That's an ideal DayZ for me. DayZ isn't a starvation simulator. It's a survival simulator based in a zombie apocalypse, absolutely no more than a year (we're probably talking a couple months at the most) after the apocalypse. Everything would be in abundance, if you were brave and smart enough to get through the zombies to get the loot. The actual worries in the game should be zombies and players, and, to a lesser extent, diseases. Realistically, even without the huge bounty available to you in the 'abandoned' towns and cities, it would be very easy to survive food and drink wise out in the wild. Historical research, recently, has pointed toward the idea that humans who were hunters and gatherers way back when actually had significantly more free time than us, as hunting and gathering, once you know the basics, is so damned easy. Throw in modern methods and tools to do these things and you'd have literally no problem at all.

That's my opinion too, more or less.

 

It's not because it's based on false assumptions about how the world works.

This thread and the theory that abundance is realistic in a post-apocalyptic world where a virus is the main cause of the downfall is asinine.

If feel like it's people trolling as the idea is so stupid.

Great argument, very convincing, if totally devoid of support. :)

where have I presented a straw man?

True, you didn't present a straw man. Or an argument. :)
  Edited August 16, 2015 by Morlock

[jqp 9]

After several days of testing, I have come to the conclusion that this:

Community Forum Software by IP.Board 3.4.7

Is really, really horrible. Spectacularly bad.

[hekeetsu 86]

No, it doesn't depend on how long it's been per se, unless there's some other factor, like environmental and crop failure in The Road, or sudden mass mental retardation, like in TWD. Otherwise, human progress would mean the further the disaster recedes into the past, the better the living conditions would become.

Well, I would say that let's say 5 first years are just people trying to survive and use up pre-apocalypse supplies. Then, they start rebuilding the civilisation and then the living conditions would improve. Like Rick turned from a badass into a farmer.

[derLoko 30]

No, it doesn't depend on how long it's been per se, unless there's some other factor, like environmental and crop failure in The Road, or sudden mass mental retardation, like in TWD. Otherwise, human progress would mean the further the disaster recedes into the past, the better the living conditions would become.

 

Mental retardation in TWD? Why?

The show had the farm, prison, woodbury, and now that community in washington. Well, and terminus. Some of those communities were fairly advanced.

 

Oh, and while we're at it: Starvation was never an issue in TWD, either - up unitl Season 5 i think, but that was mostly because they were travelling a lot and kinda messed up.

 

 

edit2: It's also kinda silly how some people say DayZ is supposed to be like The Road - the scenario in Road is completely different from a zombie apocalypse.

Edited August 16, 2015 by derLoko

[gibonez 3633]

Mental retardation in TWD? Why?

The show had the farm, prison, woodbury, and now that community in washington. Well, and terminus. Some of those communities were fairly advanced.

 

Oh, and while we're at it: Starvation was never an issue in TWD, either - up unitl Season 5 i think, but that was mostly because they were travelling a lot and kinda messed up.

 

 

edit2: It's also kinda silly how some people say DayZ is supposed to be like The Road - the scenario in Road is completely different from a zombie apocalypse.

 

The road is a far more realistic representation of a post apocalyptic event.

 

People truly don't understand how scarce everything would be one has to remember that while things don't magically disappear people tend to hoard and quickly loot mass quantities of supplies thus creating an artificial shortage.

 

Take a look at any grocery store before a natural disaster or major storm.

 

Few people go in and hoard leaving the shelves bare and those that come after with little to no supplies.

 

Same would happen in Dayz panic would set and the few would create an artificial shortage of supplies leaving what findable supplies to be extremely scarce while they hide huge stores of supplies for themselves.

[jqp 9]

Mental retardation in TWD? Why?

The show had the farm, prison, woodbury, and now that community in washington. Well, and terminus. Some of those communities were fairly advanced.

Pretty much everyone on that show behaves like a moron. Especially the ones that let Ranger Rick play leader, lol, that guy's a grade-A moron. I think his finest moment was leading the whole group of idiots right into Terminus. Then he doubled down on the stupidity and led the whole group of idiots right into Alexandria. Lucky for the idiots, the Alexandrians aren't cannibals. The concept of sending in one guy to scout the place eludes him. The concept of setting up ambushes eludes him. The concept of setting up rally points eludes him. The concept of disciplining his son (to save his life and others') eludes him.

The most self-reliant character on the show, Darryl, can barely bring in a squirrel.

Woodbury and Alexandria were/are full of idiots playing at suburbia.

It's basically just lazy writing to get "teh dramaz" without thinking too hard about how to go about it. The producers seem to have taken the "it's based on a comic book" thing very much to heart.

Don't get me wrong, I love TWD, it's my favorite show. But I have no illusions about its flaws. I just decided to love the show anyway, warts and all.

 

 

Oh, and while we're at it: Starvation was never an issue in TWD, either - up unitl Season 5 i think, but that was mostly because they were travelling a lot and kinda messed up.

I was just saying that I could easily see the horde of idiots that has survived TWD's zombie outbreak failing to do anything much in the way of rebuilding civilization or even sustainability.

 

 

The road is a far more realistic representation of a post apocalyptic event.

It's really not. It's really hard to write up a proper post-apocalyptic scenario that humanity wouldn't bounce back from, unless you just say Earth Is Doomed Beyond Repair. Because if shit isn't on an inevitable decline to annihilation, man is a busy little progressor, lol. What I mean is, you can write a story that's set a few years past The Event, but not 100. Because in 100 years, either man would be extinct, or he'd have bounced all the way back. Man has too much built-up knowledge not to bounce back from anything that won't destroy him completely.

Which isn't to say The Road isn't realistic for what it is, but rather to say that it isn't more realistic. Think of a hundred-sided die, with each number representing a possible apocalyptic scenario; The Road is one of the 5 or so really, really nasty scenarios that man can't (or couldn't, if that's the way the author wanted it to be - I've only seen the movie so I may be missing a lot about the ending from the book) bounce back from, while the other 95 are scenarios that man would bounce back from in a couple generations. I don't want to belabor the point any more than that, but if you like, we can sit here and throw some apocalyptic scenarios around, and I'll show you what I mean. I've thought a lot about fictional apocalype scenarios that a) don't completely wipe out the human population and B) man wouldn't bounce back from in a generation or two, and they're almost impossible to write plausibly. They basically require intelligent design, and almost wiping out a dangerous species like humans isn't very intelligent.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Morlock