Word to the Wise

[Cluckles 26]

Well I don't think the argument was irrelevent because it alls stems from the OP

In a real zombie apocalypse humans would revert to their primal natures, they would in fact kill or be killed, and those quick to trust would be the first to die.

EDIT: Typo

I'd argue the opposite, that we evolved due to selective pressures pushing us towards cooperation. How else could mechanisms such as language arise? The notion of 'reverting to ones primal nature' certainly sounds like flipping a switch, the way you put it. This doesn't make sense in a psychological framework.

[Contrastination 27]

Well I don't think the argument was irrelevent because it alls stems from the OP

I'd argue the opposite, that we evolved due to selective pressures pushing us towards cooperation. How else could mechanisms such as language arise? The notion of 'reverting to ones primal nature' certainly sounds like flipping a switch, the way you put it. This doesn't make sense in a psychological framework.

Revert doesn't mean instant. It just means revert. As I have all ready stated, i do believe people would work together in small groups, however without the ability to communicate with one another above physical communication, I.E. No global communications, these groups would be small and scattered and looking for resources. As time goes on people would stop trusting those they do not already trust, and because of this ever growing displacement groups of people would be extremely introverted. As much as I hate to use this in my argument, the television series "the walking dead" did a fantastic job of illuminating this situation. I'm referring to the boy they take hostage near the end of season two.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Contrastination

[grizzle 21]

The problem with this rationale is that this is a game and people respawn.

Bandits would feed on themselves until they eventually wipe themselves out - this cannot happen in the game.

Surviviors would capture and either kill or incarcerate bandits - this too cannot happen in game because bandits respawn and there is no way to lock them up.

Killing someone as a potential threat means NOTHING in this game because they respawn and become a "threat" once again.

Fear of "perma-death" has nothing on ACTUAL death.

Imparting hypothetical real world acts and attitudes into a GAME that can't even come close to emulating the real world experience is utter bullshit.

This game is what it is simply because there are no negative consequences to killing other players. End of story.

If rocket REALLY wanted to "experiment" and create an "anti-game" he would make death as close to real world death as one could get and that would mean that if you die, you never, ever get to play again. Do you think that might change the dynamics a bit?

"If this were to happen in real life..." MY ASS.

[Contrastination 27]

The problem with this rationale is that this is a game and people respawn.

Bandits would feed on themselves until they eventually wipe themselves out - this cannot happen in the game.

Surviviors would capture and either kill or incarcerate bandits - this too cannot happen in game because bandits respawn and there is no way to lock them up.

Killing someone as a potential threat means NOTHING in this game because they respawn and become a "threat" once again.

Fear of "perma-death" has nothing on ACTUAL death.

Imparting hypothetical real world acts and attitudes into a GAME that can't even come close to emulating the real world experience is utter bullshit.

This game is what it is simply because there are no negative consequences to killing other players. End of story.

If rocket REALLY wanted to "experiment" and create an "anti-game" he would make death as close to real world death as one could get and that would mean that if you die, you never, ever get to play again. Do you think that might change the dynamics a bit?

"If this were to happen in real life..." MY ASS.

i never said that DayZ is a real-world zombie apocalypse emulator, my whole point is that people need to get over the fact that this game is played shoot on sight. When I first started, I tried to be the friendly howdy do guy. But now If someone is near me, I pop them before they can pop me, it's not about killing them. It's about them not killing me. THIS rationale can be applied to a real world apocalypse, THAT is my point.

"Killing someone as a potential threat means NOTHING in this game because they respawn and become a "threat" once again."

And i disagree strongly with this point. I kill someone shooting at me, threat neutralized. Yes, somewhere down the road, I MIGHT run into this person again. But immediately, they are zero threat to me.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Contrastination

[M O N S T E R 599]

This has all been said in previous threads in response to people being cry-babies. Did we need a thread about it?

-MONSTER

[Tex Willer 47]

Oh look the police is here. This is one of the most civil threads i've seen on this forums so far, so let it live and grow.

[phillfxc@gmail.com 4]

The only way to know for sure is to be put in that situation......can someone manufacture a zombie virus already?

[hgilbert@iswest.com 5]

This has all been said in previous threads in response to people being cry-babies. Did we need a thread about it?

-MONSTER

For god's sake...THIS again?

It's not reality...some people would rather hunt others than the zombies when they've done everything. Or they do it because they like to grief.

There's no incentive here to restart society or what have you. There's no penalty for not cooperating.

Rocket's said he's not going to step in and impose an order on things - so it's time to build your group of sheriff's or what not and hunt the bandits griefers down yourself.

Me, I'm going to stay low profile, work with a team of friends and woe be unto whoever we run into.

I'm going to die in game, and guess what....I'll be reborn until the next time someone's smarter or more patient than me, or has paid the $$$ for a script hack that kills me (as has happened oh so many times).

I'm not going to expect everyone to want to extend a hand to me and help me. Those who have helped have been through those I know, or have associated with in the past via vox.

To my mind you need to find yourself a support structure...Perhaps it worked better when side chat vox worked, but there's an inherent insecurity in dealing with strangers - especially those who want your weapon or your beans.

But it all comes down to this being a mod/game/sim where you aren't at any real risk of actual physical harm. It's not reality, so people aren't going to act the way they would should there be an actual breakdown of civilization. Expecting that behavior in this environment is pretty naive.

[cpstörd 7]

To make the game less PvP, dayz team can remove main weapons, and only have hand guns left and ammo for it is superrare.

That would be fun!

[M O N S T E R 599]

To make the game less PvP, dayz team can remove main weapons, and only have hand guns left and ammo for it is superrare.

That would be fun!

...No.

-MONSTER