Cannibalism

[thorgold 91]

1) Because it adds realism and a darker side to the game ....Great stuff (Did Rocket say that this specific feature would limie game availabilty ? also there is ways around adding stuff like this in without it being banned ..some as simple as not showing any annimation (if you live in one of those countries where it could get banned)

2) Look to what "Moofactory" wrote above for your answer

3) Because its a great feature that alot of people would like and it would be easy to add thats why ! Also adds more deapth into what people might do during an zombie apocalypse. And btw theres not always viable things to do in certain situations ...as moofactory has already explained above with lack of food.

1) This just goes to show you don't actually read the posts you call "TROLLIN" or "FULL OF HOLES." Yes, two posts back I put up the following quote, taken from a month-old topic on cannibalism (that you would've found if you actually used the search bar) that Rocket posted in:

If you wanted too, say, see this as a standalone game or as part of another game *for reals* then such an addition would probably mean you couldn't play it in carebear countries like Australia

Removing the animation would do jack shit. Australia is a very conservative nation when it comes to games ratings, just removing the animation wouldn't sway them. For reference, this is the country that banned Fallout 3 for months because morphine was included as a usable drug. Just removing the animation for cannibalism, and not removing the mechanic itself, would do nothing.

2) Irrelevant. The argument is synonymous with those saying that players need to start with guns because zombies kill them on spawn. The problem isn't that there isn't enough food, the problem is you not looking in the right places. If, for example, you spawn at Berezino and starve to death while running to Elektro to look for food, the problem isn't that there was no food... it's that you're an idiot.

3) Again, irrelevant. Supposed "depth" for gameplay doesn't justify A) cutting the game off from an entire region or B) spending time on an arbitrary mechanic when other ideas could be implemented or bugs fixed.

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

1) This just goes to show you don't actually read the posts you call "TROLLIN" or "FULL OF HOLES." Yes, two posts back I put up the following quote, taken from a month-old topic on cannibalism (that you would've found if you actually used the search bar) that Rocket posted in:

Removing the animation would do jack shit. Australia is a very conservative nation when it comes to games ratings, just removing the animation wouldn't sway them. For reference, this is the country that banned Fallout 3 for months because morphine was included as a usable drug. Just removing the animation for cannibalism, and not removing the mechanic itself, would do nothing.

2) Irrelevant. The argument is synonymous with those saying that players need to start with guns because zombies kill them on spawn. The problem isn't that there isn't enough food, the problem is you not looking in the right places. If, for example, you spawn at Berezino and starve to death while running to Elektro to look for food, the problem isn't that there was no food... it's that you're an idiot.

3) Again, irrelevant. Supposed "depth" for gameplay doesn't justify A) cutting the game off from an entire region or B) spending time on an arbitrary mechanic when other ideas could be implemented or bugs fixed.

Sorry buddie ...more uninformed/untrue bullcrap from you ..this is the kind of replies ill be giving you as iv already slapped every argument u made ...right in the face!

[thorgold 91]

Sorry buddie ...more uninformed/untrue bullcrap from you ..this is the kind of replies ill be giving you as iv already slapped every argument u made ...right in the face!

Somewhere, a logician is crying.

[moofactory 62]

lol

PvP will never stop unless u apply freindly fire which will not happen

Yeah because I totally said I hate PVP lets stop it.

you idiot.

[DemonGroover 8836]

In a world full of beans and animals why on earth would anyone turn cannibal? That would only happen when the food runs out - something that will never happen since the magical Loot Fairy replenishes buildings.

[gibonez 3633]

In a world full of beans and animals why on earth would anyone turn cannibal? That would only happen when the food runs out - something that will never happen since the magical Loot Fairy replenishes buildings.

Why ? Because being a cannibal is the ultimate extreme of a bandit. Not only do you kill for loot but you feast on your victims.

[Donaghue 3]

Sorry buddie ...more uninformed/untrue bullcrap from you ..this is the kind of replies ill be giving you as iv already slapped every argument u made ...right in the face!

If you want to be taken seriously, back up your point of view with evidence, or failing that, common sense. You've just quoted a post in which Thorgold has done this. Your response to it does nothing but make you sound juvenile and lazy. Rather than restate what he has already said in a clear, categorical manner (though with probably a bit more savagely than I think was warranted--sorry, Thor), perhaps we could re-examine your points in favour?

1. It's quicker and easier than finding food (basically).

Agreed. And in an actual survival situation this could be a valid, if extremely difficult, decision. In this survival simulator, is it really a good thing to take the controversial approach (the reasons for which have already been given repeatedly), of making eating people easier than foraging or walking into a supermarket? If so, why?

2. It's darker and more edgy to be a canniballistic bandit.

Depends on your point of view, but fair enough. Also agreed. Is this a good thing? More to the point, why is it necessary? If murder isn't doing it for you anymore, is it really necessary or appropriate for the developers to add 'features' that will likely exacerbate what seems to be a deep-seated psychological issue for you?

3. Lots of people want it.

So far I count you and....can't remember. Moojuice? No doubt there are others out there, but that's really up to you to prove, right?

Let's see you support your arguments with something other that 'Massicor slap your argument in face lolololol now he covers ears!'

Edited July 20, 2012 by Donaghue

[moofactory 62]

My original thoughts on the subject were the ability to drink the blood and eat raw flesh off dead players.

But either of these methods would cause your head skin to change so you clearly have blood on your face.

To avoid this you wouldn't drink blood and you would have to cook the meat first.

If this was ever implemented it would need a considerable penalty associated with it.

It makes you have to weigh up the decision with serious consideration.

Its basically a last resort.

[thorgold 91]

The penalty for the last suggestion of cannibalism was that you'd take a humanity hit. Rocket said it may be interesting in that regards, but then mentioned the whole "can't do it, Australia lol" thing. It may be hard to gauge "penalties" for something like cannibalism until humanity is unveiled again (Rocket said that there are still plans for it when he removed bandit skins).

Additionally, avoid the term "penalty." That implies a hard-coded punishment for an in-game action that's arbitrary in nature (Cannibal perk: +50 to daily hunger. MY IMMERSION). Instead, there should just be a consequence that is inherently tied into the mechanic - such as Kuru (yes, Massicor put that in another thread), poisoning, etc. Nothing like "You're a cannibal so you emit an aura of evil to let players know to KoS."

Though its still irrelevant since it can't happen anyway

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

If you want to be taken seriously, back up your point of view with evidence, or failing that, common sense. You've just quoted a post in which Thorgold has done this. Your response to it does nothing but make you sound juvenile and lazy. Rather than restate what he has already said in a clear, categorical manner (though with probably a bit more savagely than I think was warranted--sorry, Thor), perhaps we could re-examine your points in favour?

1. It's quicker and easier than finding food (basically).

Agreed. And in an actual survival situation this could be a valid, if extremely difficult, decision. In this survival simulator, is it really a good thing to take the controversial approach (the reasons for which have already been given repeatedly), of making eating people easier than foraging or walking into a supermarket? If so, why?

2. It's darker and more edgy to be a canniballistic bandit.

Depends on your point of view, but fair enough. Also agreed. Is this a good thing? More to the point, why is it necessary? If murder isn't doing it for you anymore, is it really necessary or appropriate for the developers to add 'features' that will likely exacerbate what seems to be a deep-seated psychological issue for you?

3. Lots of people want it.

So far I count you and....can't remember. Moojuice? No doubt there are others out there, but that's really up to you to prove, right?

Let's see you support your arguments with something other that 'Massicor slap your argument in face lolololol now he covers ears!'

If you read the entire topic ..you would have seen that I backed my views up both personally and logically from different perspectives .So it seems you didnt read the entire topic so please dont skip to the last page to put your 2 cent in and comment on the way iv answered my last few posts...I backed my views up time and time again against Thorgold and that othet guy..and only in the last couple of posts have i been writting things like "slapped every argument u made ...right in the face!" because Thorgold is simply asking the same questions iv already answered on this topic mixed with some more silly comments and im not gonna take the time to reanswer them again.

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

So far I count you and....can't remember. Moojuice? No doubt there are others out there, but that's really up to you to prove, right?

Anyways this topic has had over 730 views ...and ull see theres alot more possitive comments from different people ( not repeat comments ) than negative. Now I could run a poll ..but so far comments suggest that the idea is liked more than disliked ...and also running a poll doesnt inform people of what the feature accually means and how it works and the thinking behind it and in a poll people probly wouldnt read the related topic .Btw people can choose to use or not to use this feature ..so even if they disliked it all they would have to do is not use it. Just like killing other players ...some people do it ..some dont.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Massicor

[thorgold 91]

Anyways this topic has had over 730 views ...and ull see theres alot more possitive comments from different people ( not repeat comments ) than negative. Now I could run a poll ..but so far comments suggest that the idea is liked more than disliked ...and also running a poll doesnt inform people of what the feature accually means and how it works and the thinking behind it and in a poll people probly wouldnt read the related topic .Btw people can choose to use or not to use this feature ..so even if they disliked it all they would have to do is not use it. Just like killing other players ...some people do it ..some dont.

730 views doesn't mean it's widely supported. "Friday" has several hundred million views, and we all know how popular Rebecca Black is.

I would legitimately like to see you respond to an argument without handwaving. Just once. I refuse to think that a human mind can be completely dereft of reason. So answer this.

What would keep this mechanic from being banned in countries such as Australia, given the fact that other games featuring similar mechanics (Fallout 3, Fallout NV, even L4D2) have been banned?

Edited July 20, 2012 by thorgold

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

730 views doesn't mean it's widely supported. "Friday" has several hundred million views, and we all know how popular Rebecca Black is.

I would legitimately like to see you respond to an argument without handwaving. Just once. I refuse to think that a human mind can be completely dereft of reason. So answer this.

What would keep this mechanic from being banned in countries such as Australia, given the fact that other games featuring similar mechanics (Fallout 3, Fallout NV, even L4D2) have been banned?

Answered already ....go back and read please (I stated a very minimal effort solution from the top of my head..im sure the devs could come up with a better one) ..From now on I wont be responding to any of you troll posts buddie as I know you will try push my buttons on your next few posts or ask me questions iv already answered ...Have fun ill probly only be reading posts from other people and aviod reading yours now.

Btw i didnt say it was widely supported...those views will consist of people that like/dislike/not bothered by the idea.What i said was from the people that accually commented ..theres alot more possitive vs negative ..way to not read posts as per usual.

Now stop trying to divert the topic in hand ....that is do people like/disklike the idea ...dont ask me to answer more of your questions...let other people post there views as yourv posted yours!

Edited July 20, 2012 by Massicor

[Ophidion 11]

Wow Massicor, you truly are a dumbass. You didn't even READ my post regarding why this just won't work. And your friend Moo, even agreed with me. Also yes, FO:3 & NV were banned for the use of Morphine, cannabalism, drug references and such. And believe me, it's *possible* to get around it, but very unlikely. Becuase you clearly have never had a lawsuit on your hands have you, so just how the fuck makes you right about everything. Why in the hell should we listen to a word you say, because not only do you have SUCH a big superiority complex over everything that you're too proud to admit you're wrong. And THAT'S why you dodge questions and answer by explaining their troll posts. But no, you're just a proud fuck who's to up on his high horse to realize he's wrong, and I absolutely HATE people like that.

So no, the reason why I truly hate your idea is because of you. You're presentation of the idea was so fucking terrible, it hurt. Y'see, I love FO:3 and NV. And the cannablism didn't bother me there, because it WORKED in that game. It was balanced, it made sense, it was optional and had good consequences to your actions (negative karma). This game JUST DOESN'T NEED IT. Not only is it a waste of the dev's time, it's a controversial feature to be put in, and rocket already said he didn't want any of that shit.

Balance > Realism

Realism =/= Fun

The reason we HAVE these alternatives to eating, is that players are SUPPOSED to decide how to treat their time. Whether to grab food, drinks, ammo, weapons.

Your shitty "alternative" is a double negative. The cons:

- You reduce the need for the actual loot spots for food. Just go out, and kill a player and eat him.

- If no one USES the feature, because the players are too hard to find and it's not worth it, it just wastes time as a useless feature.

- You're encourging MORE PvP (Which we really don't need).

- Food is instantly less valuable, and hunting becomes more and more redundant.

- If you actually suck that much for the feature to be useful, you need to spend time getting your priorities straight on how to search for items.

- You essentially remove dying from starvation as a huge issue. We WANT it as an issue, it's what makes it fun.

- It CAN get banned in places if it is on a standalone game.

- It's controversial as hell.

Here are some of the "pros"

- Yes, it serves as a seemingly useless alternative, but an alteranative none the less.

That's all I can think of. All the pros of this idea are terrible, and so little to no purpose. It actually ruins the game for people, because you claim that you kill sooo many people. It'll just encourage players to player hunt more, we want LESS PvP, and more teamwork with strangers.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Ophidion

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

Wow Massicor, you truly are a dumbass. You didn't even READ my post regarding why this just won't work. And your friend Moo, even agreed with me. Also yes, FO:3 & NV were banned for the use of Morphine, cannabalism, drug references and such. And believe me, it's *possible* to get around it, but very unlikely. Becuase you clearly have never had a lawsuit on your hands have you, so just how the fuck makes you right about everything. Why in the hell should we listen to a word you say, because not only do you have SUCH a big superiority complex over everything that you're too proud to admit you're wrong. And THAT'S why you dodge questions and answer by explaining their troll posts. But no, you're just a proud fuck who's to up on his high horse to realize he's wrong, and I absolutely HATE people like that.

So no, the reason why I truly hate your idea is because of you. You're presentation of the idea was so fucking terrible, it hurt. Y'see, I love FO:3 and NV. And the cannablism didn't bother me there, because it WORKED in that game. It was balanced, it made sense, it was optional and had good consequences to your actions (negative karma). This game JUST DOESN'T NEED IT. Not only is it a waste of the dev's time, it's a controversial feature to be put in, and rocket already said he didn't want any of that shit.

Balance > Realism

Realism =/= Fun

The reason we HAVE these alternatives to eating, is that players are SUPPOSED to decide how to treat their time. Whether to grab food, drinks, ammo, weapons.

Your shitty "alternative" is a double negative. The cons:

- You reduce the need for the actual loot spots for food. Just go out, and kill a player and eat him.

- If no one USES the feature, because the players are too hard to find and it's not worth it, it just wastes time as a useless feature.

- You're encourging MORE PvP (Which we really don't need).

- Food is instantly less valuable, and hunting becomes more and more redundant.

- If you actually suck that much for the feature to be useful, you need to spend time getting your priorities straight on how to search for items.

- You essentially remove dying from starvation as a huge issue. We WANT it as an issue, it's what makes it fun.

- It CAN get banned in places if it is on a standalone game.

- It's controversial as hell.

Here are some of the "pros"

- Yes, it serves as a seemingly useless alternative, but an alteranative none the less.

That's all I can think of. All the pros of this idea are terrible, and so little to no purpose. It actually ruins the game for people, because you claim that you kill sooo many people. It'll just encourage players to player hunt more, we want LESS PvP, and more teamwork with strangers.

Nice troll post..a post filled with "facts" that you seem to think are idd fact but are not...wont be replying to you also as your just another timewaster like thorgold. Let others have there say!

[vanden1989 15]

Massicor,you're clearly a troll,I don't know why no one already realized it. Ophidion already gave tons of cons about this suggestion.

And believe me,I liked the idea. But it's not possible to do it as it will be banished at countries like Australia. Also,it doesn't add nothing to the game. If you don't have any food on you,you're doing it wrong.

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

Massicor,you're clearly a troll,I don't know why no one already realized it. Ophidion already gave tons of cons about this suggestion.

And believe me,I liked the idea. But it's not possible to do it as it will be banished at countries like Australia. Also,it doesn't add nothing to the game. If you don't have any food on you,you're doing it wrong.

I have no problem getting food ..but doesnt mean I wouldnt like the feature added as another way to get food + add a of a dark side to the game. And for your information im not a troll and also there are pros and cons of any feature buddie.

And people say its not possible because of countries like australia...well untill this has been totally proven (that in specific ..dayz using cannabalism will not be possible by the devs themselfs and noone else) then ill assume it is possible and that the devs could find workarounds with a little research. Btw games get banned and unbanned ..just remember that :)

And all you going on about this are missing the point of this thread ...this thread is to see if people would like the idea ...not if the idea was possible ! I rest my case. Iv said all i need to say in this topic now ...Feel free to leave your views guys and remember where talking about "LIKING THE IDEA" not if it "POSSIBLE"

Edited July 20, 2012 by Massicor

[CrimsonBlade 2]

Cannibalism will get the game banned from New Zealand/Australia..... Rocket lives in New Zealand..... CASE CLOSED..... DO NOT POST... THAT IS ALL.

[Baelethal 102]

I dislike this idea.

[Ophidion 11]

I have no problem getting food ..but doesnt mean I wouldnt like the feature added as another way to get food + add a of a dark side to the game. And for your information im not a troll and also there are pros and cons of any feature buddie.

And people say its not possible because of countries like australia...well untill this has been totally proven (that in specific ..dayz using cannabalism will not be possible by the devs themselfs and noone else) then ill assume it is possible and that the devs could find workarounds with a little research. Btw games get banned and unbanned ..just remember that :)

And all you going on about this are missing the point of this thread ...this thread is to see if people would like the idea ...not if the idea was possible ! I rest my case. Iv said all i need to say in this topic now ...Feel free to leave your views guys and remember where talking about "LIKING THE IDEA" not if it "POSSIBLE"

Ooohh, well judging by what people have been saying, including those under me.

They just don't seem to take to the idea. ):

And nobody really cares about ideas if they're not possible in the game. This is a suggestions board, not a "do you agree that X should be put it because it would be cool."

This is to make the game better, not cater to your weir fucking playstyle. This feature is broken, has minimal pros, and clearly has people against you. You see, vaden1989 even says I listed the cons to this. There just isn't an upside. I do NOT dislike the idea, because it works in games like FO3. I dikslike the idea in DayZ because it's useless, and just doesn't work.

[ytman18@gmail.com 9]

If it were to ever be implemented I'd like to see it tied to humanity. It should only be possible with very negative humanity and the very act of doing it should bring ones humanity far far lower than just murdering another.

Basically, the act of cannibalism opens up the concept of people as sources of food. Basically demeaning other human beings as animals to be harvested. It is a repugnant act to murder one human for the sole purpose of eating them.

I personally don't see a value in this 'feature'.

[ryan__mc__@hotmail.co.uk 131]

If it were to ever be implemented I'd like to see it tied to humanity. It should only be possible with very negative humanity and the very act of doing it should bring ones humanity far far lower than just murdering another.

Basically, the act of cannibalism opens up the concept of people as sources of food. Basically demeaning other human beings as animals to be harvested. It is a repugnant act to murder one human for the sole purpose of eating them.

I personally don't see a value in this 'feature'.

Tied to humanity....good idea and sorry you dont see the value (I have said the value would be being able to stop hunger if you came across a dead body)

Edited July 20, 2012 by Massicor

[thorgold 91]

Massicor,you're clearly a troll,I don't know why no one already realized it.

I only doubt the conclusion that he's a troll that no one could act that stupid. There's troll stupid, then there's stupid stupid. There's a limit to the inanity that a sane mind can simulate.

Let's just let it drop. He's clearly incapable of comprehending basic logic or the concept of failure. We know why this idea won't happen, anyone who reads the topic will know why this idea won't happen, it's just Massicor left who's deluded enough to continue the argument. He can sit in his little fantasy world as far as I care at this point.

Edited July 20, 2012 by thorgold

[Azrail (DayZ) 211]

Balance > Realism

Realism =/= Fun

DayZ =/= Balance

[Donaghue 3]

You are, of course, correct--not in assuming that I haven't read your posts, but in the inherent suggestion that I might have missed some gem the first time through. I'm only human, I make mistakes. I admit freely that there was something in between all the accusations, raving and hate that might have been worth reading that I was simply too inferior to notice with a single examination.

So, having trawled through all your childish drivel a second time for these mythical pearls of wisdom, a difficult task that reinforced my conviction that you don't really give a damn about the feature you yourself are proposing, I conclude that you're referring to your reply to this post by Thorgold....

thorgold, on 19 July 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Speak for yourself. In reply to every post I've made, you just say "stick to the topic." Since you obviously can't be bothered to read an "off topic" post, here's a brief summary:

1) Why should we implement this suggestion when Rocket has himself said that such a mechanic would limit the game's availability?

2) Why should we implement this suggestion, given that food as a loot spawn is relatively common and survivors who are in a position to hunt other survivors for food are equally able to loot basic houses?

3) Why should cannibalism be implemented before less controversial and more logical concepts, such as eating wild food and produce?

....after which you say this:

1) Because it adds realism and a darker side to the game ....Great stuff (Did Rocket say that this specific feature would limie game availabilty ? also there is ways around adding stuff like this in without it being banned ..some as simple as not showing any annimation (if you live in one of those countries where it could get banned)

2) Look to what "Moofactory" wrote above for your answer

3) Because its a great feature that alot of people would like and it would be easy to add thats why ! Also adds more deapth into what people might do during an zombie apocalypse. And btw theres not always viable things to do in certain situations ...as moofactory has already explained above with lack of food.

Now i feel that i have explained my idea and poked all the holes that need poking in your and that other guys posts ....so imma leave it at that and let you try troll or rearm your argument with more hole filled thought so ill just not reply and let the topic continue without me untill i see something interesting by someone who acucally knows what there talking about!

Edited by Massicor, 19 July 2012 - 04:38 PM.

Are you satisfied that I've read your posts? This is one of your posts, right? It's got your name next to it, so I'm going to assume that it is. And you can safely assume that I have indeed read your posts because I've taken the time to single out the so-called supporting opinions for your side of the debate--something you couldn't be bothered to do yourself when you replied to the very post that asked for them.

Yes, I'm fully aware that the answer given to one of the points is actually Moofactory's (sorry for getting your name wrong before, Moo), and no, I'm not going to quote it again. His theory was debunked to my satisfaction, I see no reason to contest Thorgold's point that he was simply disorganized or plain out of luck when he starved to death. That is just the nature of the game.

Now, if I'm wrong about you not caring about the topic at hand--and I hope I am, because it's your topic--maybe you could offer some evidence to back these points up--something you probably should have done in the first place. To be clear, what you've given is not evidence: it's unfounded opinion, something you seem to expect us to accept as gospel in spite the apparent lack of thought that's gone into it. Give us facts.

I've already gone further than I care to to cater to your laziness; from now on you can do your own legwork--starting by reading the preceding posts, as you hypocritically accuse myself and others of not doing. And if you can find time in between rants to do a spell-check and use some punctuation, I'm sure we'd all be a lot more likely to read your posts in future.