Average Life Expectancy lowered when in a vehicle

[alexthedude 9]

I've come to realize, if you're trying to keep your character alive as long as possible, do not get in a vehicle. I've died more in the last few days from vehicles alone, than bandits, zombies, and hackers combined. My friends and I had a good collection of vehicles going and we had decided to move the cars to our new camp site. We each had a vehicle and drove it towards camp, we might as well have been flying B-29's over Berlin we we're dropping so fast. Not that my friends or I are bad drivers, but it seems if you even bump something your car blows up. We had a little over 10 vehicles, and we're down to 2 today. It is a long trip from the car lot to our camp, but it is ridiculous how easy it is to blow up a vehicle. Along with the easyness of blowing up the vehicles, you also have people wanting your car. When anyone see's a moving car they instantly start shooting it, from jealousy or just the want of a kill, people will try to kill you if they see you in it. Thank you for reading what I have to say about the vehicles, please feel free to reply.

[Edward b 83]

Problem: you hoard vehicles.

Solution: don't hoard them

[Pyro_Marine 147]

Problem: you hoard vehicles.

Solution: don't hoard them

Problem: Vehicles in the game get destroyed too easy and it has been mentioned by, Rocket. All we can do is wait.

Solution: You stop being so jealous you can't find a vehicle. (Solution for your poor solution.)

I don't even know this guy, but I'm not going to be a whiny bitch about his success.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Pyro_Marine

[DrunkPunk 159]

eh, they don't blow up that easily, assuming you drive them carefully. granted, ATVs are deathtraps, those things will blow from barely anything, but the rest are generally good. just have to steer clear of debris, if you can't help but crash into shit you probably should hire a personal driver.

now in terms of you being a beacon for bullets, yeah, that is true. but it's the price you pay for luxury travelling. the best bet is to park them a good distance away from your location, hidden, so you don't attract any unwanted attention.

[Edward b 83]

Problem: Vehicles in the game get destroyed too easy and it has been mentioned by, Rocket.

Solution: You stop being so jealous you can't find a vehicle.

I don't even know this guy, but I'm not going to be a whiny bitch about his success.

It appears that I need to educate you.

To begin, your solution is irrelevant to the problem. Normally I would assume that you were being a dick, but I have to assume another alternative. See, you're here assuming that I was jealous of his "success"...where did that come from? Did I say or imply anything about his endeavors? I'll save you the trouble of answering such a complicated question: no, I did not.

Well, I'm going to go out on limb here and assume that you can't handle someone who even slightly disagrees with you, even if it's minor or virtually nonexistent. Your entire post falls apart because you structured it around a stupid assumption.

Had you been able to properly comprehend my post, you'd know that I was referring to the OP's error in hoarding vehicles. Is there anything wrong with that? No, there isn't. Hoarding vehicles is fine. However, you're going to have wasted your time when something like this happens. There's no reason to hoard those vehicles if they can be swept away so quickly with little notice.

I'll wrap this up with your last point about me whining about the OP's success. Nowhere in my post am I whining; if you could point it out that would be wonderful. Otherwise, I ask that you admit that your words were wrong :)

[Marshmallow (DayZ) 33]

Vehicles are great for making short hops in the northern, unpopulated sections of Chenarus and storing all of your loot, but I try not to get attached to them. Generally, if I find a vehicle, I use it until it's out of fuel or until I get to where I was going in the first place. Holding on to one is just too cumbersome and makes you stick out too much in my opinion.

[Pyro_Marine 147]

It appears that I need to educate you.

To begin, your solution is irrelevant to the problem. Normally I would assume that you were being a dick, but I have to assume another alternative. See, you're here assuming that I was jealous of his "success"...where did that come from? Did I say or imply anything about his endeavors? I'll save you the trouble of answering such a complicated question: no, I did not.

Well, I'm going to go out on limb here and assume that you can't handle someone who even slightly disagrees with you, even if it's minor or virtually nonexistent. Your entire post falls apart because you structured it around a stupid assumption.

Had you been able to properly comprehend my post, you'd know that I was referring to the OP's error in hoarding vehicles. Is there anything wrong with that? No, there isn't. Hoarding vehicles is fine. However, you're going to have wasted your time when something like this happens. There's no reason to hoard those vehicles if they can be swept away so quickly with little notice.

I'll wrap this up with your last point about me whining about the OP's success. Nowhere in my post am I whining; if you could point it out that would be wonderful. Otherwise, I ask that you admit that your words were wrong :)

My solution was more of a solution to your being upset at his success, which is obvious when you tell him to not hoard vehicles.

You are very wrong. I spend a lot of time doing debates (some of which have opened my eyes on certain topics).

One vehicle is easier to sweep away than ten, granted you are more than likely talking about keeping them all grouped up, which is still his decision. He may have been moving them due to them being compromised. Our camp was compromised and we had to relocate all of our vehicles, granted there were two hidden in another location.

Due to the fact most people complain about vehicles being hard to find and then bashing those that hoard them (My group used to keep five around the clock), it was a safe bet to assume you were pissed off at him. ;)

[Edward b 83]

My solution was more of a solution to your being upset at his success, which is obvious when you tell him to not hoard vehicles.

You are very wrong. I spend a lot of time doing debates (some of which have opened my eyes on certain topics).

One vehicle is easier to sweep away than ten, granted you are more than likely talking about keeping them all grouped up, which is still his decision. He may have been moving them due to them being compromised. Our camp was compromised and we had to relocate all of our vehicles, granted there were two hidden in another location.

Due to the fact most people complain about vehicles being hard to find and then bashing those that hoard them (My group used to keep five around the clock), it was a safe bet to assume you were pissed off at him. ;)

As stated earlier, your solution is to a problem that is not present. I have asked that you show where I was jealous- you have not done this. I told him to not hoard vehicles because it causes more problems that it solves (i.e. you spend days getting parts then the vehicles get stolen, invisible barriers eat your tires, etc.) and all that effort is wasted. My solution was simple: only have as many vehicles as needed. I'm honestly not sure why you think reasoning equates to jealousy.

Telling me that I'm wrong and me being wrong are two very different (and usually opposite) things. I ask you: what benefit is having a fleet of vehicles if a clever player blows that fleet to pieces? Or, better yet, what is the benefit of having to move all of them and risk them being torn to pieces? What benefit is there in spending days of effort that can be wiped away instantly? Do tell me the benefits; I'd like to hear them. I'm also unsure of why you bring up a history of debating- I've been debating subjects that are not so frivolous as vehicles in an online game for years now and that doesn't help my stance any, and I'm having trouble understanding why you think it would help you any. If you have so much experience in debating, then why would you bring anything up that doesn't matter?

Here you are further illustrating my point (that too many vehicles cause too many problems.) Allow me to ask a question with an obvious answer: what is harder to spot, four jeeps or ten? It's simple reasoning: four jeeps will be spotted less often. One probably wouldn't even need four jeeps; although back ups are always nice. Although, I don't really understand why I'm even bothering to respond to this point- you've only helped out my argument that too many vehicles cause too much trouble.

And...the last one. The fact that most people complain about vehicles shouldn't concern you, especially when I clearly stated that the problem was having too many vehicles and that the solution was to have less of them. It was not a safe bet to assume that I was jealous because I was subtley saying that lots of vehicles cause lots of problem shouting to the world that more vehicles attract more issues.

I don't understand why you're even coming back for more at this point.

[Pyro_Marine 147]

As stated earlier, your solution is to a problem that is not present. I have asked that you show where I was jealous- you have not done this. I told him to not hoard vehicles because it causes more problems that it solves (i.e. you spend days getting parts then the vehicles get stolen, invisible barriers eat your tires, etc.) and all that effort is wasted. My solution was simple: only have as many vehicles as needed. I'm honestly not sure why you think reasoning equates to jealousy.

Telling me that I'm wrong and me being wrong are two very different (and usually opposite) things. I ask you: what benefit is having a fleet of vehicles if a clever player blows that fleet to pieces? Or, better yet, what is the benefit of having to move all of them and risk them being torn to pieces? What benefit is there in spending days of effort that can be wiped away instantly? Do tell me the benefits; I'd like to hear them. I'm also unsure of why you bring up a history of debating- I've been debating subjects that are not so frivolous as vehicles in an online game for years now and that doesn't help my stance any, and I'm having trouble understanding why you think it would help you any. If you have so much experience in debating, then why would you bring anything up that doesn't matter?

Here you are further illustrating my point (that too many vehicles cause too many problems.) Allow me to ask a question with an obvious answer: what is harder to spot, four jeeps or ten? It's simple reasoning: four jeeps will be spotted less often. One probably wouldn't even need four jeeps; although back ups are always nice. Although, I don't really understand why I'm even bothering to respond to this point- you've only helped out my argument that too many vehicles cause too much trouble.

And...the last one. The fact that most people complain about vehicles shouldn't concern you, especially when I clearly stated that the problem was having too many vehicles and that the solution was to have less of them. It was not a safe bet to assume that I was jealous because I was subtley saying that lots of vehicles cause lots of problem shouting to the world that more vehicles attract more issues.

I don't understand why you're even coming back for more at this point.

*sigh* here we go. DayZ nerd talk. Let's begin the list.

I'll go bullet format to simplify this.

*I mentioned towards the end of my last post that it's a pretty safe bet by your comment that you're jealous of his fleet. If you're not, then good on you.

*Effort is wasted: It's wasted every time you get killed or thunder domed. You still play right? What's not fun for you may be fun for him.

*I told you that you were wrong in your assumption of my attitude. To have never met me, you know something about me other than my screen name?

*I mentioned his camp may have been compromised which is why they may have moved them, or they just like the simplicity. I've seen some pretty kick ass "garages" where they used sand bags as parking spaces. It's like building your own vehicle fort. It also helps if you take a vehicle down to a major city and it gets destroyed, you can just pick another, OR you could even host your own demolition derby (done it).

*I brought up the history because you said

I'm going to go out on limb here and assume that you can't handle someone who even slightly disagrees with you

- proving that I do in fact like to hold conversations with people who see things in a different light than myself and with that, proved you incorrect (or wrong if you will).

*"Bring up something that doesn't matter" - you brought up me not agreeing with anyone who has a different opinion, therefore; YOU brought it up. At this point, I would recommend you read back what YOU said, and then what I said....or just quit while you're...well while you're not entirely left behind, though I do believe you will continue to argue for the sake of pride. A person who can not admit their own fault because of pride is a fool.

*

what is harder to spot, four jeeps or ten?

Hide the vehicles well enough and it doesn't matter how many you have. You're casting doubt on his groups ability to hide them without any knowledge of HOW they hide them. I didn't pass judgement on them because I do not know them or how they operate.Just because you can not seem to conceal a vehicle does not mean you can come to the conclusion it is impossible to make it nearly invisible.

*

Although, I don't really understand why I'm even bothering to respond to this point

You're responding because you have a small thought in the back of your mind that you may be wrong and are looking for me to confirm you are correct. That will not happen here. Sorry to break it to you so harshly.

* I do believe it concerns me. Anything that goes on in this forum has the ability to be the concern of every player/tester/poster/developer/administrator/moderator as they see fit because it is mentioned in their community (the DayZ community) and as an avid user of this forum, I take everything mentioned on the forum and apply it. I do not know what you apply because forethought is obviously not on that list.

*

I don't understand why you're even coming back for more at this point.

This statement alone shows your own doubt in your idea and ability to deal with what seems to be more than just your average internet Joe. Psychology 101. You're trying to show a false sense of victory from an unfinished battle that actually has the inner meaning of "For the love of God I hope this is the end. With this, I might be able to demean him into submission."

*When you replied after me I was hoping for a battle of wits, BUT you've apparently come unarmed.

Would you like me to stop here, or are you going to prove me correct that you let your pride run you and dictate your actions?

Edited August 29, 2012 by Pyro_Marine

[Edward b 83]

I suggest that you read my entire post before you start a reply; it should help you figure out how to debate. Also, I suggest that you stop using ad hominems; if you keep using logical fallacies then I'll point them out every time you use one.

*I mentioned towards the end of my last post that it's a pretty safe bet by your comment that you're jealous of his fleet. If you're not, then good on you.

If you had read my entire post you'd notice that I already responded to this.

Effort is wasted: It's wasted every time you get killed or thunder domed. You still play right? What's not fun for you may be fun for him.

You must have forgotten the issue at hand: the OP has lost his vehicles. He whined about it. I offered a solution. I never said a damn thing about what was fun or not. I proposed a solution to his problem: don't hoard vehicles so you take less of a loss when something unpredictable happens. I've said this once, twice, three times, and now I've lost count. There's no way I can drill this into your thick skull, is there?

*I told you that you were wrong in your assumption of my attitude. To have never met me, you know something about me other than my screen name?

I don't know where this came from, but I can assure you that it's irrelevant.

*I mentioned his camp may have been compromised which is why they may have moved them, or they just like the simplicity. I've seen some pretty kick ass "garages" where they used sand bags as parking spaces. It's like building your own vehicle fort. It also helps if you take a vehicle down to a major city and it gets destroyed, you can just pick another, OR you could even host your own demolition derby (done it).

And then I mentioned that having less vehicles would make losses easier and that you stating this only reinforces my point that vehicles attract theft, and that less vehicles results in less theft, and that less theft results in less moving, and that less moving results in less accidents. I have the feeling that you're going to ignore this, though.

you brought up me not agreeing with anyone who has a different opinion, therefore; YOU brought it up. At this point, I would recommend you read back what YOU said, and then what I said....or just quit while you're...well while you're not entirely left behind, though I do believe you will continue to argue for the sake of pride. A person who can not admit their own fault because of pride is a fool.

Oh Allah...you're quite a piece of work, aren't you? I highly recommend that you go back and read your initial point that I was jealous, and that you (still) haven't proven it. All you've done is regurgitate arguments that you've used already and claim victory when it's obvious that the claim that your entire argument is centered around is false. The OP complained about losing a bunch of cars. I gave him a solution. You have not shown that my solution does not work. Sorry, but I don't understand how you not proving me wrong is a defeat. My only fault is responding to morons such as yourself.

Hide the vehicles well enough and it doesn't matter how many you have. You're casting doubt on his groups ability to hide them without any knowledge of HOW they hide them. I didn't pass judgement on them because I do not know them or how they operate.Just because you can not seem to conceal a vehicle does not mean you can come to the conclusion it is impossible to make it nearly invisible.

You didn't answer my question. Stop avoiding it: what is harder to hide, four jeeps or ten? I'll answer it for you (in fact, I did this already): four. Four vehicles is easier to hide than ten. If his vehicles were stolen, then it was because they were hidden improperly. This goes back to the point that it's much easier to hide something when you have less of it, and therefore the solution is to not hoard vehicles. My point, once again, is proven by another piece of evidence. It's not looking too good for your argument.

This statement alone shows your own doubt in your idea and ability to deal with what seems to be more than just your average internet Joe. Psychology 101. You're trying to show a false sense of victory from an unfinished battle that actually has the inner meaning of "For the love of God I hope this is the end, with this; I might be able to demean him into submission."

Yep, it's confirmed: you've never taken a course in psychology. It's clear that I've proven my point and that you've failed to prove yours.

When you replied after me I was hoping for a battle of wits, BUT you've apparently come unarmed.

Would you like me to stop here, or are you going to prove me correct that you let your pride run you and dictate your actions?

The only reason you posted in the first place is because you're a shit head to thinks arguing when there's nothing to argue about is a good thing. See? I can make up stuff about what you call "psychology" as well.

I would like for you to debate the subject at hand. All you've done is insult and belittle me, but you haven't actually responded to my points that the OP's problem could be resolved by simply having less vehicles. Here's my point, in case you missed it:

1. The OP took a huge loss in losing his vehicles (otherwise he wouldn't have posted here) because he hoarded them

2. If the OP wasn't hoarding any vehicles then he wouldn't have lost so much

3. Your assumption that I am jealous of the OP is wrong

There is my stance. Here is the evidence to back it up:

I told him to not hoard vehicles because it causes more problems that it solves (i.e. you spend days getting parts then the vehicles get stolen, invisible barriers eat your tires, etc.) and all that effort is wasted. My solution was simple: only have as many vehicles as needed.

Four vehicles is easier to hide than ten. If his vehicles were stolen, then it was because they were hidden improperly. This goes back to the point that it's much easier to hide something when you have less of it, and therefore the solution is to not hoard vehicles.

I proposed a solution to his problem of losing vehicles: don't hoard vehicles so you take less of a loss when something unpredictable happens.

And...the last one. The fact that most people complain about vehicles shouldn't concern you, especially when I clearly stated that the problem was having too many vehicles and that the solution was to have less of them. It was not a safe bet to assume that I was jealous because I was subtley saying that lots of vehicles cause lots of problem shouting to the world that more vehicles attract more issues.

If you don't refute my points and my evidence then the following is clear:

1. You have no idea how to debate (hint: insults and refusing to acknowledge points isn't how you debate.)

2. You are unable to refute my points and evidence

3. You are wrong

4. I have no further reason to listen to you

I suggest that you read my entire post before you reply. If you don't refute my points and evidence then it will be clear to an objective third party that you've been soundly shut down.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Edward b

[Pyro_Marine 147]

I suggest that you read my entire post before you start a reply; it should help you figure out how to debate. Also, I suggest that you stop using ad hominems; if you keep using logical fallacies then I'll point them out every time you use one.

If you had read my entire post you'd notice that I already responded to this.

You must have forgotten the issue at hand: the OP has lost his vehicles. He whined about it. I offered a solution. I never said a damn thing about what was fun or not. I proposed a solution to his problem: don't hoard vehicles so you take less of a loss when something unpredictable happens. I've said this once, twice, three times, and now I've lost count. There's no way I can drill this into your thick skull, is there?

I don't know where this came from, but I can assure you that it's irrelevant.

And then I mentioned that having less vehicles would make losses easier and that you stating this only reinforces my point that vehicles attract theft, and that less vehicles results in less theft, and that less theft results in less moving, and that less moving results in less accidents. I have the feeling that you're going to ignore this, though.

Oh Allah...you're quite a piece of work, aren't you? I highly recommend that you go back and read your initial point that I was jealous, and that you (still) haven't proven it. All you've done is regurgitate arguments that you've used already and claim victory when it's obvious that the claim that your entire argument is centered around is false. The OP complained about losing a bunch of cars. I gave him a solution. You have not shown that my solution does not work. Sorry, but I don't understand how you not proving me wrong is a defeat. My only fault is responding to morons such as yourself.

You didn't answer my question. Stop avoiding it: what is harder to hide, four jeeps or ten? I'll answer it for you (in fact, I did this already): four. Four vehicles is easier to hide than ten. If his vehicles were stolen, then it was because they were hidden improperly. This goes back to the point that it's much easier to hide something when you have less of it, and therefore the solution is to not hoard vehicles. My point, once again, is proven by another piece of evidence. It's not looking too good for your argument.

Yep, it's confirmed: you've never taken a course in psychology. It's clear that I've proven my point and that you've failed to prove yours.

The only reason you posted in the first place is because you're a shit head to thinks arguing when there's nothing to argue about is a good thing. See? I can make up stuff about what you call "psychology" as well.

I would like for you to debate the subject at hand. All you've done is insult and belittle me, but you haven't actually responded to my points that the OP's problem could be resolved by simply having less vehicles. Here's my point, in case you missed it:

1. The OP took a huge loss in losing his vehicles (otherwise he wouldn't have posted here) because he hoarded them

2. If the OP wasn't hoarding any vehicles then he wouldn't have lost so much

3. Your assumption that I am jealous of the OP is wrong

There is my stance. Here is the evidence to back it up:

I told him to not hoard vehicles because it causes more problems that it solves (i.e. you spend days getting parts then the vehicles get stolen, invisible barriers eat your tires, etc.) and all that effort is wasted. My solution was simple: only have as many vehicles as needed.

Four vehicles is easier to hide than ten. If his vehicles were stolen, then it was because they were hidden improperly. This goes back to the point that it's much easier to hide something when you have less of it, and therefore the solution is to not hoard vehicles.

I proposed a solution to his problem of losing vehicles: don't hoard vehicles so you take less of a loss when something unpredictable happens.

And...the last one. The fact that most people complain about vehicles shouldn't concern you, especially when I clearly stated that the problem was having too many vehicles and that the solution was to have less of them. It was not a safe bet to assume that I was jealous because I was subtley saying that lots of vehicles cause lots of problem shouting to the world that more vehicles attract more issues.

If you don't refute my points and my evidence then the following is clear:

1. You have no idea how to debate (hint: insults and refusing to acknowledge points isn't how you debate.)

2. You are unable to refute my points and evidence

3. You are wrong

4. I have no further reason to listen to you

I suggest that you read my entire post before you reply. If you don't refute my points and evidence then it will be clear to an objective third party that you've been soundly shut down.

Oh goodie! I get to do this one in reverse!

I do read them. How else would I reply?

4. But you keep on coming back?

3. And how is that? You're the one who can't seem to comprehend that you brought up something about me that you apparently know without having met or spoken to me before this thread.

2. How so? Did I not propose point to everything? Hence the bullet format? What else would you like me to do? Hide them well enough and numbers do not matter.

1. I have no idea, yet you forget the topics your brought up?

"And the last one" - you just copied your quote that I replied to already.

You totally ignored my point on WHY they may do it, thus making anything you say irrelevant.

Proposed a solution....you make it sound as if they were getting stolen, they were not. They were blowing up due to damage on this crap game engine.

(This reverse answering is quite enjoyable)

3. I even said "If you're not, then good on you" - apparently you can not read.

2. According to his original post, he would have just ended up with even fewer than he has now due to the damage from driving them. Of course if you HAVE more you risk losing more. Basic gambling. The good thing? If you have more it is OK to lose more because there is...well...more you have left.

1. He lost them because of damage FFS. Did you even READ the OP? Or is the title all you glanced at before you decided you were king of the thread? (Oh this is so much fun!)

Wait wait wait....you say that I am incapable of debate but you sit here and call me a "shit head"? Are you serious? Honestly, do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in what you're doing? You have proven that you are indeed a hypocrite here fighting out of pride and anger rather than thought. It nullifies anything you type after this, however; I will reply for the enjoyment I'm getting out of seeing you try to climb out of this massive pit you've dug for yourself.

I didn't make it up. I minored in Psychology. Seeing through your words is simple. Want to know how it's proven? Your tone. Your entire tone changed after I pointed that out. Why? Because it hit a nerve. It hit that nerve and tickled that thought I mentioned. I brought it up and you immediately begin with the swears and name calling. I made one gesture about you being unarmed in this battle and you go ballistic. So, please - do continue to prove me correct.

Oh and you have taken a course? Seeing through your text is rather easy. I bet as a person you are even easier to see through. Where did you take your classes? Mine was Georgia Southern University. I attended 2008 to 2011, deployed and have picked up at another school closer to home.

Easier to hide? Four or ten? They are all equally easy, just one is more time consuming. There is nothing different between hiding one jeep or hiding a thousand. They all hide the same way. It just takes longer to hide them. It's like asking what weighs more: A ton of feathers or a ton of bricks. I can hide ten jeeps just as easily as I can hide one, it will just take more time to make sure they are all concealed. I mean, we are talking about jeeps that are the same length, width, height and color right? That would mean that since they are no different that they are no more difficult to hide. (Oh this is fun. I get to toy with you by braking it down so simple that it merely pisses you off because you're thinking of hiding them in one solid bunch instead of spacing them out in trees.)

One can not prove jealousy over the internet via text. You are asking the impossible. That shows your ignorance. Well, we could also mention that most of the people who display envy on these forums also do so by telling others to NOT do what the original person (let's say you) wants to achieve. Say little Jimmy wants a camp, someone mentions setting one up; Jimmy will tell him not to do it. It's human nature. (This is a blast, I can't wait to see what other ways you use to try and push this off on me! :D ) So, judging by the normal actions of users on this forum, I have the ability to place you in that profile.

Again - I'm the one calling names, but I see NOWHERE (please quote it) that I once called you a name like "Moron" and "Shit head" - BOTH of which YOU used. I made a remark about you being unarmed in a battle of wits (This seems awfully familiar, but it would seem as if the only way for you to understand something is....repetition repetition repetition repetition), which you apparently took soooo much offense to that you sunk to name calling (a sign of an inner loss for true return fire in a debate. I'm actually waiting for you to call me a faggot and prove you're on the same level as your average internet user.)

Less vehicles makes losses easier....Tell that to the Confederacy when it came to losing troops when they had less than the Union. When your numbers (of anything) are lower, each loss is that much worse. Would they have lost an overall number less? Yes. Would it have been a larger hurt? Yes.

Why can't you understand that?

(This reverse thing isn't quite as fun anymore. Too much scrolling.)

Irrelevant? But sir, did you not say that I would disagree with EVERYONE who differed in opinion? Did you not bring that up? That makes it relevant. YOU bringing up my ability to see the other side of an argument was what is irrelevant. I'm just bringing up what you posted, replying to it and then you are simply trying to ignore what you brought up. You are blind to your own mistakes which leads me to believe you will probably never rise to the top of something worth mentioning. Is this a low blow? No, merely an observation based on your ability to reply, ignore what you said and then accuse me of irrelevant items when it was you who brought them up in the first place.

"You must have forgotten the issue at hand: the OP has lost his vehicles. He whined about it." *sigh*

He did not whine. He mentioned how easy they are to destroy and even said Thank You at the end of his post. That is not a whine.

THIS is a whine: MOTHER FUCKING VEHICLES ARE TOO FUCKING EASY TO BLOW UP! THIS SHIT IS FUCKING STUPID! THEY SHOULDN'T BREAK SO EASILY! THIS IS BULLSHIT!

Unless you attach the words in metal form and on the end of a drill, you can't literally drill them into my head can you? (It's apparent you are unable to admit you are wrong, so sarcasm must take place in order for me [and any others who may read this] to keep my sanity.)

And it was a reiteration. SMH.

---

Oh this was rather enjoyable. I do hope you'll respond again (I'd bet my house on it), and this time, could you ignore the fact that you brought up my inability to handle people who had a different opinion than me?

Oh! Oh! Let me quote it so it's even more amusing when you ignore it. :D

Well, I'm going to go out on limb here and assume that you can't handle someone who even slightly disagrees with you

[Abandonedcartoon 45]

I have your solution first REPAIR the engine secondly avoid any and all towns and riving on the coast, lastly never drive in a caravan and driving at night is even worse. Also learn to drive because if your vehicle is fully repaired it's impossible to wreck it unless YOU ARE A BAD DRIVER and hit osemthign going atleast 50kmh lol. Sorry but it's not that hard, if you get shot at it's a diff story. Also repair the glass it HELPS more than most would think from bullets.

[Ivell 0]

Another solution is drive UAZ's those things are freaking tank when fully repaired, I've lost 1 to it bugging out and another to a server reset with the latest patch but otherwise they are fine great for running over zombies with and heaps of storage

[IIxSubmarinex 13]

Calm down peeps. !

[Edward b 83]

Pyro_Marine,

I'm asking that you only include what is relevant. I'll wait for you to repost your arguments without fallacies :) I'll link you to the fallacies that you've used...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi (also known as a Red Herring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Remember to only include things that are directly relevent to the topic at hand.

If you've forgotten the topic at hand...

1. The OP took a huge loss in losing his vehicles (otherwise he wouldn't have posted here) because he hoarded them

2. If the OP wasn't hoarding any vehicles then he wouldn't have lost so much

3. Your assumption that I am jealous of the OP is wrong

[Pyro_Marine 147]

Remember to only include things that are directly relevent to the topic at hand.

If you've forgotten the topic at hand...

1. The OP took a huge loss in losing his vehicles (otherwise he wouldn't have posted here) because he hoarded them

2. If the OP wasn't hoarding any vehicles then he wouldn't have lost so much

3. Your assumption that I am jealous of the OP is wrong

Wait. You want me to keep on topic, yet you are trying to get beyond the fact that YOU were the one who brought up something personal and beyond the argument (which was proven to be entirely incorrect?). So you want ME to not bring anything off-topic up, but it's OK for you?

1. OP took losses because of the crap game engine design and faulty vehicle damage system, which HAS been addressed by ROCKET himself.

2. He wouldn't have lost as many, but the losses would have been worse due to having fewer to spare.

3. You are one dull piece of work. Let me get a quote to help open that cloud of smoke in your brain.

*I mentioned towards the end of my last post that it's a pretty safe bet by your comment that you're jealous of his fleet. If you're not, then good on you.

There. Now you can't use that excuse anymore.

It's funny. You first accused me of being off-topic, when you brought up something totally unrelated. You then accuse me of continuing to assume something (though I provided enough evidence to prove you fit the bill of your average DayZ player), even though the above, bolded statement makes your continuance on the topic moot.

Ya know, if you want to be in a place where you can say what you want, and then say you didn't say (or ignore it entirely) and then place fault in the other person; you are more then welcome to become a politician.

[Pyro_Marine 147]

Arguing with you is literally depressing me because of your inability to admit you brought up something and then want to ride my ass for what you did.

Hoarding vehicles doesn't cause them to blow up. Crashing, bullets and rockets do.

[The Aquatic Land Walrus 565]

It appears that I need to educate you.

To begin, your solution is irrelevant to the problem. Normally I would assume that you were being a dick, but I have to assume another alternative. See, you're here assuming that I was jealous of his "success"...where did that come from? Did I say or imply anything about his endeavors? I'll save you the trouble of answering such a complicated question: no, I did not.

Well, I'm going to go out on limb here and assume that you can't handle someone who even slightly disagrees with you, even if it's minor or virtually nonexistent. Your entire post falls apart because you structured it around a stupid assumption.

Had you been able to properly comprehend my post, you'd know that I was referring to the OP's error in hoarding vehicles. Is there anything wrong with that? No, there isn't. Hoarding vehicles is fine. However, you're going to have wasted your time when something like this happens. There's no reason to hoard those vehicles if they can be swept away so quickly with little notice.

I'll wrap this up with your last point about me whining about the OP's success. Nowhere in my post am I whining; if you could point it out that would be wonderful. Otherwise, I ask that you admit that your words were wrong :)

Noob question inbound:

How do you set that quote at the bottom of your post?

[G1bby 3]

Noob question inbound:

How do you set that quote at the bottom of your post?

If you're talking about his signature, you can go to your profile, edit it and select signature. Save it and there it is.

[eB Monster 14]

Oh lawdy lawdy, dem paragraphs! Lord make it stop!

[Edward b 83]

Wait. You want me to keep on topic, yet you are trying to get beyond the fact that YOU were the one who brought up something personal and beyond the argument (which was proven to be entirely incorrect?). So you want ME to not bring anything off-topic up, but it's OK for you?

1. OP took losses because of the crap game engine design and faulty vehicle damage system, which HAS been addressed by ROCKET himself.

2. He wouldn't have lost as many, but the losses would have been worse due to having fewer to spare.

3. You are one dull piece of work. Let me get a quote to help open that cloud of smoke in your brain.

I want you to stay on topic because you are notorious for claiming victory about things that are not relevant to the topic at hand. I thought it was clear. I never stated that what I said was always on topic initially, but I can guarantee you that I haven't said anything further on it.

1. And I never disputed this (show me where I have, please.) I simply stated that having less vehicles leads to less losses.

2. His losses would not have been worse. He would've spent less time tediously gathering parts only to lose all that effort. Let's say that he put 2 hours into repairing a jeepand he has ten of them. Let's say he loses eight. That means he spent twenty hours getting parts and sixteen hours were thrown away because those vehicles are now gone. Assuming that he has three other friends to play with, that means he needs a grand total of ten one jeep to transport everyone, but of course backups are needed to he has an additional three in reserve. So what if he loses those three? He only loses six hours. This is ten hours less than the hours lost if he lost 8 out of ten, which means he can spend ten hours replacing those vehicles lost...which only takes about 6 hours if he replaces all three. Therefore, he loses four hours less than he normally would by having less vehicles (but only if we assume that the OP won't replace the 8 missing vehicles. If he does replace the vehicles, then the OP would take an even smaller loss by replacing those vehicles.)

3. I've already addressed that your claim was wrong (if you had read my posts you'd know this), but I really want you to admit that you were wrong.

You then accuse me of continuing to assume something (though I provided enough evidence to prove you fit the bill of your average DayZ player), even though the above, bolded statement makes your continuance on the topic moot.

I have not contested your quote, only that you have not proven that I am jealous nor admitted to being wrong. I hope that making it stand out helps.

In your third statement, you only provided evidence that you acknowledged the possibility of being wrong. However, you have yet to admit to being wrong about that claim- I urge that you prove that I am jealous or admit that your assumption is baseless and incorrect. You have shown zero evidence that I am jealous, and therefore I can continue pressing this point until you prove your point or retract it.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Edward b

[RavingNinja 4]

Problem: you hoard vehicles.

Solution: don't hoard them

Problem: You're not giving us a proper solution.

Solution: Stop talking.

[Pyro_Marine 147]

I want you to stay on topic because you are notorious for claiming victory about things that are not relevant to the topic at hand. I thought it was clear. I never stated that what I said was always on topic initially, but I can guarantee you that I haven't said anything further on it.

Says the man who tried to end the debate before it started, and continues to tell me to be on topic after ignoring his own error. I bring it up because you brought mine up to begin with.

1. And I never disputed this (show me where I have, please.) I simply stated that having less vehicles leads to less losses.

2. His losses would not have been worse. He would've spent less time tediously gathering parts only to lose all that effort. Let's say that he put 2 hours into repairing a jeepand he has ten of them. Let's say he loses eight. That means he spent twenty hours getting parts and sixteen hours were thrown away because those vehicles are now gone. Assuming that he has three other friends to play with, that means he needs a grand total of ten one jeep to transport everyone, but of course backups are needed to he has an additional three in reserve. So what if he loses those three? He only loses six hours. This is ten hours less than the hours lost if he lost 8 out of ten, which means he can spend ten hours replacing those vehicles lost...which only takes about 6 hours if he replaces all three. Therefore, he loses four hours less than he normally would by having less vehicles (but only if we assume that the OP won't replace the 8 missing vehicles. If he does replace the vehicles, then the OP would take an even smaller loss by replacing those vehicles.)

3. I've already addressed that your claim was wrong (if you had read my posts you'd know this), but I really want you to admit that you were wrong.

1. It would lead to a numerically "lower" loss, but in the end the cost would have been higher due to not having any to spare.

2. See number 1. If it's based on time spent gathering to lose = bad then this entire mod is utter shit. I have fun gathering supplies with friends. Even if the vic blows up or gets stolen.

3. Lol

I have not contested your quote, only that you have not proven that I am jealous nor admitted to being wrong. I hope that making it stand out helps.

In your third statement, you only provided evidence that you acknowledged the possibility of being wrong. However, you have yet to admit to being wrong about that claim- I urge that you prove that I am jealous or admit that your assumption is baseless and incorrect. You have shown zero evidence that I am jealous, and therefore I can continue pressing this point until you prove your point or retract it.

"Good on you" means good for you. ie If you aren't jealous then good for you, the subject can be dropped. FFS where in the hell are you from?

Most players can be profiled, I provided to profile and you fit. You denied and I pretty much said "Well alright then." Jesus H. Christ on a merry-go-round.

[malau (DayZ) 36]

I've never ever ever found a single vehicle in the 2 months i've played the game. Mind you, i've never seen a single hacker ever either.

[callmesarge 79]

we might as well have been flying B-29's over Berlin we we're dropping so fast.

B29's never bombed Berlin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

I think you meant B17's.

Carry on.