Prove Me Wrong

[bennyandthejets 12]

no.... just no. in real life in a post apocalyptic thing i would shoot you and take your food, its survival of the fittest not survival of the nicest

This argument is just absurd. I see it in almost every thread. People going on about "In a post apocalypse environment I would kill you for food/water no matter what".

In a real zombie apocalypse there is absolutely NO WAY you would have this mentality. The next time your driving down the road look at the population of the city your in. For me that is roughly 100,000+ in a suburb. In a outbreak (whether it be swine flu, small pox whatever) it is projected that only 10% of the population would be immune. So just in my own city we are looking at close to 90,000 zombies. Do you have any f*cking idea how many zombies that is? I have played L4D for close to 200 hours, killing zombies constantly & don't even have 90,000 kills. That is just 1 city...

The DayZ servers restrict zombies to manmade structures & even then they are very low in density. I would love to see all those claiming "I would shoot you on sight for supplies" if Dayz servers could actually hold a reasonable zombie population. Its the #1 reason griefing has gotten out of hand as much as it has & why the game will continue to be a pvp deathmatch until zombies actually become a threat.

[krtshv 362]

Hey. If this was real life and you're standing between me and my food (or a prettier gun), I'll shoot your legs and leave you for the zombies.

[bilbobangboom 0]

ok good point, although i dont know where u get this "fact" that 10% percent of the population is immune to a fictional virus, and about realistic amounts of zombies, imagine if there was 90,000 zombies, naw 25,000 even in cherno, would that be any fun?

[M O N S T E R 599]

Boobies.

Your argument is now invalid.

-MONSTER

[Virindi 5]

What does the number of zombies have to do with someone killing someone else for food or water?

[bennyandthejets 12]

What does the number of zombies have to do with someone killing someone else for food or water?

If 90% of the population has become infected that means the majority of food & supplies will not only be available but abundant. A extra firearm at your side will not. As I stated earlier, even in Left 4 Dead when automatic military grade weapons practically litter the ground I haven't even killed enough zombies to account for my own cities zed population.

[herrjon 478]

Well based off the area, even Cherno wouldn't be that populated, maybe 25k at most like bilbo said. Also have to consider this virus or whatever could straight up kill some people, and that 10% may be a bad assumtion. Then consider people attempting to leave town to go to the military for protection, initial kills durring outbreak, etc. etc. The game also handles it by respawning Zeds, instead of just having some massive number being widdled away until server reset.

As far as the shoot on site mentality, I honestly would if I was desperate enough. If I didn't have anything and you had a bag full of supplies, I'd definately consider taking you out. It just depends on the situation. Yes the game has become a little too deathmatchy, but it's still somewhat justifed.

Edit: Even if it really is 10% fighting over remaining resources, they'd still be scarce. Durring the outbreak, people will get as much food as they can only to turn into zombies, so it would still be there, but in peoples bags and cars and what not. A lot of food isn't good for very long, and it's hard to get drinkable water without the pipeline running. Also in the situation where you bump into another guy at the super market, both looking for food, sure it's logical to think "I'll just check out the next one", but there's really no knowing if the next one isn't cleaned out already or if you'll have competition, or if you can even afford to be in town that long anyways. In the heat of things you'd shoot, grab, and gtfo.

Edited July 19, 2012 by HerrJon

[thmsrox 14]

This argument is just absurd. I see it in almost every thread. People going on about "In a post apocalypse environment I would kill you for food/water no matter what".

In a real zombie apocalypse there is absolutely NO WAY you would have this mentality. The next time your driving down the road look at the population of the city your in. For me that is roughly 100,000+ in a suburb. In a outbreak (whether it be swine flu, small pox whatever) it is projected that only 10% of the population would be immune. So just in my own city we are looking at close to 90,000 zombies. Do you have any f*cking idea how many zombies that is? I have played L4D for close to 200 hours, killing zombies constantly & don't even have 90,000 kills. That is just 1 city...

The DayZ servers restrict zombies to manmade structures & even then they are very low in density. I would love to see all those claiming "I would shoot you on sight for supplies" if Dayz servers could actually hold a reasonable zombie population. Its the #1 reason griefing has gotten out of hand as much as it has & why the game will continue to be a pvp deathmatch until zombies actually become a threat.

You obviously got shot, get over it.

[bennyandthejets 12]

You obviously got shot, get over it.

My character is very much alive, almost a week playtime. Living out of a tent near NW airfield.

[CerebralZombie (DayZ) 151]

It all depends on the situation...

If there was no food, or hardly any, then maybe. If there are a ton of zombies, then yes I'd want back up/people to help out. There are so many different situations that would and could go down in RL that the game will be the game. Just join a server with less people playing for now and blow them bandits away once you got some good supplies. I do hate when I've said through the mic that I've just spawned and have nothing, with no weapon in hand and end up getting shot/chopped. You get used to not being attached to your character very early in the game so it's no biggie!

[bennyandthejets 12]

Well based off the area, even Cherno wouldn't be that populated, maybe 25k at most like bilbo said. Also have to consider this virus or whatever could straight up kill some people, and that 10% may be a bad assumtion. Then consider people attempting to leave town to go to the military for protection, initial kills durring outbreak, etc. etc. The game also handles it by respawning Zeds, instead of just having some massive number being widdled away until server reset.

As far as the shoot on site mentality, I honestly would if I was desperate enough. If I didn't have anything and you had a bag full of supplies, I'd definately consider taking you out. It just depends on the situation. Yes the game has become a little too deathmatchy, but it's still somewhat justifed.

Edit: Even if it really is 10% fighting over remaining resources, they'd still be scarce. Durring the outbreak, people will get as much food as they can only to turn into zombies, so it would still be there, but in peoples bags and cars and what not. A lot of food isn't good for very long, and it's hard to get drinkable water without the pipeline running. Also in the situation where you bump into another guy at the super market, both looking for food, sure it's logical to think "I'll just check out the next one", but there's really no knowing if the next one isn't cleaned out already or if you'll have competition, or if you can even afford to be in town that long anyways. In the heat of things you'd shoot, grab, and gtfo.

I agree with many of your points. I do think some of the population would die to exposure to the virus, others dieing in the chaos that would ensue following the outbreak (car accidents/trampling etc) & I am not familiar with the populations within Russia but I think it is safe to assume that there would be at minimum tens of thousands within cities such as Stary/Cherno etc. Even with all these variables there would still be a very very substantial zombie population. Obviously more concentrated within the cities but they would be wandering the forests & landscape as well. No where would be safe.

[LukeSkywalkers 31]

Most of the bandits here would anyway not survive a single day after a zombie apocalyse. Neither they would be able to shoot at another person. Those are people who play this game as a GAME! Though arma 2 is a military shooter simulator and DayZ is supposed to be a apocalypse survival simulator. It's supposed to simulate your real life! Get back to shitty CoD bandits!

Anyway back to the topic:

You would rather stay together with another survivor than kill him for a can of beans. There would be many psychological things IRL.

You would go crazy if you're alone and manage to survive for a few weeks or even days.

[Epidemic (DayZ) 8]

Hey. If this was real life and you're standing between me and my food (or a prettier gun), I'll shoot your legs and leave you for the zombies.

Alright Shane

[numethon 0]

Hmm, this thread again. Why not sticky a rage thread and limit all of the raging to it.

[CerebralZombie (DayZ) 151]

Yeah the game is basically set far after the outbreak, when the zombies have gone to where the mass of people are. The zombies left behind and the people equal DayZ, except the amount of guns, ammo, and supplies is a bit much at times, but it really has to be that way with respawning and all

[LukeSkywalkers 31]

Yeah the game is basically set far after the outbreak, when the zombies have gone to where the mass of people are.

How do you know? Maybe it's just some months or weeks. Look at the dead soldier bodies lying at military locations and in towns. They're not just skeletons :D

[Virindi 5]

If 90% of the population has become infected that means the majority of food & supplies will not only be available but abundant. A extra firearm at your side will not. As I stated earlier, even in Left 4 Dead when automatic military grade weapons practically litter the ground I haven't even killed enough zombies to account for my own cities zed population.

Only preserved goods would last and they wouldn't be abundant because you would get eaten alive before you made it to most of them. You view a extra gun at your side as a good thing where other people would view extra people as a liability. Guess what happens when you run into people who view you as a liability? Best case scenario they tell you to get lost; Worse case they rob and or kill you.

[SirKamyk (DayZ) 5]

I LOL at the people who say they would kill other people for their beans in a zombie apocalypse. No. Just NO. No you would not, you need a reality check.

Killing someone would be unnecessary. And unpleasant. After weeks of no human contact, I guarantee that when you'd see another person you would not murder them, but rather try your best to befriend them, maybe you know, try to talk them into sharing supplies, and they would probably share with you what they had, or at least try to help you in some way, unless they were fucking psychopaths. And nope, listening to emo music does not make you a psychopath.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SirKamyk

[derailed000 20]

People would at first cooperate and not likely to go at eachother with fists or knifes. The problem is when water and food runs out and help is not coming. It is at this point i would start to worry about other humans. You dont even need to take a fictional event as a zombie outbreak. For example when Katrina hit New Orleans inside the dome that people were evacuated to " Despite increasingly squalid conditions, the population inside continued to grow. The situation inside the building was described as chaotic; reports of rampant drug use, fights, rape, and filthy living conditions were widespread." Another example is the ship estonia that sunk in the baltic sea, when people were about the hit the life boats they were lined up and robbed. So imaging what a post apocalypse environment would be if this happens in the real world. Would you trust another hungry or thirsty person, i wouldnt?

Edited July 19, 2012 by derailed000

[LukeSkywalkers 31]

I LOL at the people who say they would kill other people for their beans in a zombie apocalypse. No. Just NO. No you would not, you need a reality check.

Killing someone would be unnecessary. And unpleasant. After weeks of no human contact, I guarantee that when you'd see another person you would not murder them, but rather try your best to befriend them, maybe you know, try to talk them into sharing supplies, and they would probably share with you what they had, or at least try to help you in some way, unless they were fucking psychopaths. [...]

Here sir take my beans!

[TheFired3mon 33]

No, I wouldn't shoot unless shot at. And, in competition for food and water, I know I wouldn't have the balls to kill someone. Most likely I'd die on the first day of the zombie apocalypse due to me not wanting to kill anyone, or from me being a dumbass around the zombies. XD

[optimate 4]

This argument is just absurd. I see it in almost every thread. People going on about "In a post apocalypse environment I would kill you for food/water no matter what".

You're right, it's a totally spurious argument made by people who want to play the game a particular way (griefing people who do want to play some kind of survivor game mainly) to provide cover for their actions. They seem to have forgotten that it's a freaking game with about as much resemblance to real life as an episode of The Simpsons, probably less so. To illustrate let's take a scenario and compare game to life, as best we can. Let's say there has been a zombie apocalypse style event and by happy chance you've managed to snag a rifle, several clips of ammo and enough food and drink to get by on. You sneak into town to grab what else you can. As you come out of the shop a little further down the street a stranger comes out of another shop - obviously with the same idea in mind. He's got a gun but he's not pointing it at you. Now in DayZ, and in real life according to these self-appointed survivalist experts, the correct thing to do would be to open fire at once. But in real life a few other thoughts might cross your mind, such as:

• Firing guns will attract attention from zombies. This could be bad for your health.
  
• You've got enough ammo for a modest shoot out but you don't know for sure that you'll be able to get any more in a hurry. In real life ammo does not conveniently materialise out of thin air at numerous locations. You might be better off saving what you've got for the zombies (see above).
  
• You might think you're the deadliest gun in the West but there's always somebody faster and more accurate. It could be that guy and if it is your one and only life will come to an abrupt end, you will not find yourself on a beach ready to have another go.
  
• And even if you do manage to kill that guy he might have friends nearby who'll be keen to have a word. In real life you do not have the option of exiting to some alternative reality where they aren't, you'll have to live with the consequences and maybe die of them.
  
• If the guy is not hostile then he's an asset worth far more than whatever's in the backpack. For starters two can carry more than one. Also in real life I like to spend some time asleep, having someone to take watch is better than a can of beans any day. A corpse with a few cans of food is worth a few cans of food and a few cannibal meals if you're that way inclined, a reliable partner with a gun improves your survival chances no end.
  
• And it would be ironic if you shoot someone who turns out to be only medic in a 100 klicks and the next day you get appendicitis.
  

Now for these, and numerous other reasons which are obvious if you take a moment to think about it, in the real world I wouldn't initiate the Gunfight at the OK Corral every time I bumped into someone. I wouldn't exactly rush over with a bunch of flowers either because psychopathic bastards do exist. So sounding things out in a cautious fashion - finding out their story and testing it for credibility, seeing if they were willing to trade perhaps - would be the order of the day. Even if I was truly desperate robbery might make more sense than outright murder, spin 'em a sob story ("my daughter, she's only six, going to die without these supplies, sob, gulp") and you might get away with a bit of a beating instead of a bullet in the head if your victim and any friends ever catch up with you.

In DayZ no mechanisms exist to replace the cues that in real life would help you make such life and death decisions - you can pick up a lot about someone (a lot of it unconsciously) just from their body language. And with chat crippled and the absence of any real consequences it's not surprising it has degenerated into deathmatch. But please don't waste anyone's time with the "that's what I'd do in real life" argument because it's utter bullshit.

[Madfast 22]

At the end of the day noone can prove either way how any one person would act in that situation. You don't know these people, you haven't seen how they act in real life stressful situation and I doubt many people here have been in a true life or death survival situation where they are in direct competition with other humans. So it impossible to say, oh people wouldn't kill people they would work together and visa versa. While humans are a "pack" , for a want of a better word, animal, that work well together and are naturally social. That cannot be said for the entire population, people are crazy already, they may murder without remorse. People may form groups but then those groups may murder without remorse. In a situation where we have no real life comparison you cannot possible hope to prove one way or another how people may or may not react.

Also on a side note, who cares? It is a game if someone enjoys killing people, let them get on with it. This is a PvP focuses zombie survival mod, PvP is here to stay, so arguing semantics about the validity of the situation accomplishes nothing. Like I have said before, the only way to get rid of the "coast campers" and kill for a kill bandits, is too make yourself harder to kill. That doesn't necessarily mean kill them, just make yourself a difficult target.

[zyfer.nyholm@gmail.com 131]

in real life, no i wouldnt, but in a game i would, therefor i do it, and dont care, because its a game, i didnt buy it to follow rules did i now? i follow the no hacking and exploiting and disconnecting when killed or being shot at to relocate and server hopping for loot and stuff, that i do not do, but only because i choose to. so yeah, i would say its stupid to post something like that, even kinda scary, but hey, thats what games do, maybe that explains why some people went shooting at their school and blamed a game lol, i play this shit to have fun and now to help the devs making it better the way i can.

and as the above wrote

"no one knows how one would react anyway" so yeah. cant really blame them for doing it, just look and shrug.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Zyfer

[LulzGamez 17]

All of these people claiming that they'd kill for food/water if shit got real are just trying to come off macho. I say trying because it's not fooling anybody.

A tiny minority would no doubt commit these acts, but I'd wager that they are the ones who already have psychological issues IRL.

Anybody arguing the toss on these forums about how they'd be all "shoot first, ask questions later" is probably 12 years old.

Or retarded.