20 words or less: Spawning without a weapon

[Bashfluff 0]

NO.

It's unrealistic, causes people with guns to hammer those without, and makes the game less fun.

[pyrokinetiq 1]

YES

It adds more reason for new players to group up, and also makes it safer for geared up players to visit the coast (less risk of getting makarov'd and losing all their hard earned gear), there will be more situations like I had yesterday, we drove along the coast and saved a newbie being chased by zombies. It was an awesome experience.

[Prof. Awesome 3]

No!

Combined with the new aggro range and stronger Zombies .... that just sucks! I used to only fire in the biggest Emergency, if i aggro one in a House or something like that, now i die instead! Makes me dont want to play the game anymore! Just Frustration...

[TonyStarks 2]

It's unrealistic' date='

[/quote']

Pointless argument and even if it were valid, it would go against a starting weapon. Most people do not own a gun, especially in europe.

causes people with guns to hammer those without

To the contrary' date=' it encourages teaming up. Since the new patch, I've grouped up with more strangers than ever before

and makes the game less fun.

The aim of this mod never was to be fun.

Prof. Awesome Combined with the new aggro range and stronger Zombies .... that just sucks!

Crouch walk, prone, creep and be cautious. At this point and time, I don't take anyone seriously that talks about how hard it is to avoid zeds. Stealth in this game is very effective, some argue its overpowered. Due to the new zombie AI, you can actually outrun zombies now.

[rabb1t 13]

The aim of this mod never was to be fun.

This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read on this forum.

[TonyStarks 2]

The aim of this mod never was to be fun.

This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read on this forum.

Are you serious? Rocket himself said that this is a social-experiment, an anti-game. The aim of this project never was to appeal to a mass audience. It just happened that a lot of people were craving for a real hardcore experience that isn't some spoon fed casualised pay-2-win garbage and holds your hands at all times. The aim of this mod is to create an authentic apocalypse experience with infected roaming the lands. Fun has no business in that kind of environment.

[Bashfluff 0]

It's unrealistic' date='

[/quote']

Pointless argument and even if it were valid, it would go against a starting weapon. Most people do not own a gun, especially in europe.

causes people with guns to hammer those without

To the contrary' date=' it encourages teaming up. Since the new patch, I've grouped up with more strangers than ever before

and makes the game less fun.

The aim of this mod never was to be fun.

Prof. Awesome Combined with the new aggro range and stronger Zombies .... that just sucks!

Crouch walk' date=' prone, creep and be cautious. At this point and time, I don't take anyone seriously that talks about how hard it is to avoid zeds. Stealth in this game is very effective, some argue its overpowered. Due to the new zombie AI, you can actually outrun zombies now.

[/quote']

"This game was never meant to be fun"

What the hell? I don't think you know what you're talking about in the slightest. No, this game does not have mass appeal. That does not mean it isn't fun. The draw of any game is that its primary audience be entertained, for them to have fun. If no one was having fun, no one would be playing. This is basic game design, guy.

This game has been getting around BECAUSE people find it so fun. It's not because they're miserable while they're playing it. A game not holding your hand is not the same thing as a game that is without fun. Living in a post-apocalyptic environment can be one of the most fun things you can imagine, especially realistically, by the way.

And given that you dismissed my realistic argument as irrelevant, you have no business lauding how "authentic" this game is, because it all comes down to the same thing.

[Max Planck 7174]

stuff

Right then. I'll PM you my long winded answer instead of further ruining this doomed thread.

I'm not spending anymore time arguing with you and I'm not doing so in a private message with you' date=' which I've since deleted. You don't know what you're talking about in terms of firearms, firearm availability, firearm laws, etc. Shooting, maintaining, and collecting firearms is my only hobby.

You trying to tell me that 'hurr durrrrr handguns aren't even common in Europe, especially Eastern Europe', is so beyond idiotic I can't even explain it to you.

It does not make any sense to not spawn with a firearm. You are one of the few survivors after the world was destroyed by a zombie infection, it makes zero sense for you to have gotten this far without even a small pistol. You spawn with a chest rig and plate carrier, yet no firearm? This makes as much sense as a flight simulator where you spawn in a flight suit with an oxygen mask and yet no airplane.

[/quote']

Since you insist on sharing your unbelievable stupidity with everyone, instead of keeping this thread reasonably clean, i shall indulge you.

First, I never said that

"hurr durrrrr handguns aren't even common in Europe, especially Eastern Europe",

you made that up you lying little shit.

Second,

"I'm not spending anymore time arguing with you and I'm not doing so in a private message with you, which I've since deleted"

But you do, you lying little shit, you just want to do it in front of everyone. And deleting the PM? I guess you couldn't come up with a better answer than "hurr durrrrr".

Third,

"It does not make any sense to not spawn with a firearm. You are one of the few survivors after the world was destroyed by a zombie infection, it makes zero sense for you to have gotten this far without even a small pistol."

Balls. I've survived in the game for several days without firing a single shot. Your guy could have been holed up in a cellar, or on a ship, while the zompocalypso went on.

Fourth,

"You spawn with a chest rig and plate carrier, yet no firearm? This makes as much sense as a flight simulator where you spawn in a flight suit with an oxygen mask and yet no airplane."

A flight simulator is all about flying so of course you'll have an airplane. This is a survival game you don't necessarily need a gun for that, at least not from the beginning. The player model might also get changed, this is still alpha, remember?

Fifth,

If you must persist in making up shit you think I should have said, please sent it in a PM. There is no reason to barf your gun nut rage all over the forums.

Ta'.

[sofwhitewolf 0]

Removes griefing at the start as you said as well as there is no reason for bandits to kill freshys because they have nothing needed. Zeds can be lost. It adds difficulty as well as fun. Dont let the care bares dismay you.

YES

[stryker211 10]

YES

I was against this at first but I don’t mind it now. Kind of fun actually adds to the challenge of starting out. I found it fun to collect multiple guns and share them with people I found on the coast with no weapon.

So far the people were grateful when I helped them and I have not been shot in the back after giving them a weapon. Hope it stays that way as I like helping other people out.

[TonyStarks 2]

pid='142040' dateline='1340096633']

The draw of any game is that its primary audience be entertained' date=' for them to have fun. If no one was having fun, no one would be playing. This is basic game design, guy.

[/quote']

Having fun and being entertained aren't synonymous and are two different things. When I watch a horror movie, I'm entertained but I don't have fun. Same with games. And when it comes to "the purpose of any game is that the audience is to be entertained". Sorry but can you lend me your official "how you must make a game" rulebook? I don't have one. Besides, this isn't a game but a MOD.

This game has been getting around BECAUSE people find it so fun. It's not because they're miserable while they're playing it.

Actually this game has been getting around because it is something different and fresh. It wouldn't nearly have the attention if it just was another "shoot all zombies" game

Living in a post-apocalyptic environment can be one of the most fun things you can imagine' date=' especially realistically, by the way.[/quote']

Wow, I'm speechless you can't possibly be serious.

And given that you dismissed my realistic argument as irrelevant' date=' you have no business lauding how "authentic" this game is, because it all comes down to the same thing.

[/quote']

I actually responded to your "realistic" argument. The problem with arguing about realism is that everyone defines it differently.

[wand3rer 0]

Without weapon is fine, takes just a few minutes to get what you need. Fly, you fools.

[rabb1t 13]

a wall of butthurt and "I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!! (but actually did)"

QQ more

Rocket's dick needs a little more sucking, you haven't quite gotten all of the semen out of it.

[Max Planck 7174]

a wall of butthurt and "I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!! (but actually did)"

QQ more

Rocket's dick needs a little more sucking' date=' you haven't quite gotten all of the semen out of it.

[/quote']

Cute.

Tell me where I said it? You can't.

How is saying "USA =/+ Europe" equal to sucking Rocket's dick?

You are digging a hole here, i can barely see you anymore.

[Bashfluff 0]

pid='142040' dateline='1340096633']

The draw of any game is that its primary audience be entertained' date=' for them to have fun. If no one was having fun, no one would be playing. This is basic game design, guy.

[/quote']

Having fun and being entertained aren't synonymous and are two different things. When I watch a horror movie, I'm entertained but I don't have fun. Same with games. And when it comes to "the purpose of any game is that the audience is to be entertained". Sorry but can you lend me your official "how you must make a game" rulebook? I don't have one. Besides, this isn't a game but a MOD.

This game has been getting around BECAUSE people find it so fun. It's not because they're miserable while they're playing it.

Actually this game has been getting around because it is something different and fresh. It wouldn't nearly have the attention if it just was another "shoot all zombies" game

Living in a post-apocalyptic environment can be one of the most fun things you can imagine' date=' especially realistically, by the way.[/quote']

Wow, I'm speechless you can't possibly be serious.

And given that you dismissed my realistic argument as irrelevant' date=' you have no business lauding how "authentic" this game is, because it all comes down to the same thing.

[/quote']

I actually responded to your "realistic" argument. The problem with arguing about realism is that everyone defines it differently.

>Having fun and being entertained aren't synonymous and are two different things. When I watch a horror movie, I'm entertained but I don't have fun. Same with games

But they are similar and can be used interchangeably. Until you break out the dictionary, you have no right trying to lecture me on the definition of words, and even then the common parlance renders it irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, yeah, they are pretty much the same thing.

> Sorry but can you lend me your official "how you must make a game" rulebook? I don't have one. Besides, this isn't a game but a MOD.

This should be obvious. If people don't want to play, they won't. And don't give me this "not a game" bullshit. It clearly is a game.

>Actually this game has been getting around because it is something different and fresh. It wouldn't nearly have the attention if it just was another "shoot all zombies" game

1. I didn't say it should be a "shoot all zombies" game.

2. This game would never get around if people didn't enjoy it. It doesn't matter how different something is; if people don't like playing it, they're not gonna. I could make you a different game right now. It'd be shit, but it'd be different. And we'll see how much play it gets.

>Wow, I'm speechless you can't possibly be serious. \

What a wonderful rebuttal. Haven't you given the slightest bit of thought as to why zombie media is so popular? The zombie Apocalypse is a fantasy, and giving people the opportunity to live it is fun to them.

>I actually responded to your "realistic" argument. The problem with arguing about realism is that everyone defines it differently.

You did. You said it was irrelevant, and then went on to laud the realism of the mod. Realism is not that difficult to define at all. Would it be reasonable for some of the lone survivors of the apocalypse in Russia to have a gun? Certainly. Is it reasonable that they don't? Not at all. Not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly unlikely and unrealistic.

[nidza 0]

Spawning without a gun is so much better and here's why

1. Mugging victims

2. No more makaroni bandits

3. Hold a flashlight fella at gunpoint and make him give u a blood transfusion

4. More team play before betrayal.

I personally do not shoot people with flashlights but anyone else with any kind of gun is free game.

[rabb1t 13]

Tell me where I said it? You can't.

(Yesterday 04:55 AM)Max Planck Wrote: Noone is saying there aren't any guns in eastern Europe. I'm saying that there are LESS guns.

is where I was basing my sarcastic exaggeration of your posts so far.

You are just that one asshole that is always on a forum who has the notion that no one but you is allowed to have an opinion and you must argue your point to anyone who disagrees with you' date=' no matter what.

Chernarus is based on the Czech Republic, who have very very lax gun laws compared to most European countries, excluding Switzerland. If there was a zombie apocalypse that wiped out most of the world's population, let me know how far you get without using a firearm.

How is saying "USA =/+ Europe" equal to sucking Rocket's dick?

I never said America was like Europe, I said Europe has more far firearms available to civilians than you're trying to make it seem. You're that asshole who blindly defends a game no matter what the developers do to it, you're like the biodrones on the Bioware forums who blindly defend any and every patch, addition, hotfix, expansion, and game update to any game, regardless of how awful it is and scour every post of a 1000+ reply thread in search of anyone who disagrees and says the update isn't very good just so you can say how stupid they are and how awesome the new update is and why the game is better this why and why their opinion is worthless compared to yours.

You are digging a hole here' date=' i can barely see you anymore.

[/quote']

Good, I'm digging to get away from your smugness.

[TonyStarks 2]

they are similar and can be used interchangeably. Until you break out the dictionary' date=' you have no right trying to lecture me on the definition of words, and even then the common parlance renders it irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, yeah, they are pretty much the same thing. [/quote']

Similar doesn't mean the same. I've never heard someone describe a horror movie as fun (well, maybe if it was some hilariously bad trash-horror). I'm pretty sure rocket would be deeply disappointed if you told him that you found DayZ fun. Out of all things, DayZ tries to be everything but fun.

Maybe you mean with fun that it is enjoyable. The thrill of trying to survive in a zombie apocalypse is enjoyable but not fun. You should look up the definition of fun before you tell me to open a dictionary. You think that everything that indicates enjoyment is absolutely synonymous with fun.

This should be obvious. If people don't want to play' date=' they won't. And don't give me this "not a game" bullshit. It clearly is a game.[/quote']

It's actually be definition not a game, but a simulator as described by bohemia interactive. That out of the way, DayZ is clearly a Mod. It has no reason to meet video-game business criteria like accessibility. It doesn't compete and it's free. You paid absolutely nothing for DayZ, you paid for Arma2 and that money went to bohemia.

This game would never get around if people didn't enjoy it. It doesn't matter how different something is; if people don't like playing it' date=' they're not gonna. I could make you a different game right now. It'd be shit, but it'd be different. And we'll see how much play it gets.[/quote']

Did i ever imply that this game isn't popular because of enjoyment? Enjoyment is a factor, but the bigger factor is Uniqueness. DayZ doesn't try compete and is drastically different in terms of authenticity and gameplay than anything currently on the market.

What a wonderful rebuttal. Haven't you given the slightest bit of thought as to why zombie media is so popular? The zombie Apocalypse is a fantasy' date=' and giving people the opportunity to live it is fun to them.[/quote']

Popular media has nothing to do with real life experiences. You said that especially if a zombie apocalypse were to happen for real, it would be FUN. Only the sickest of minds would think that dead people roaming the streets, complete breakdown of civilization and constant fear of death would be fun. It is certainly enjoyable and fascinating to think about but actually letting it play out in real life would be horrifying and far from any media portrayal.

You did. You said it was irrelevant' date=' and then went on to laud the realism of the mod. Realism is not that difficult to define at all. Would it be reasonable for some of the lone survivors of the apocalypse in Russia to have a gun? Certainly. Is it reasonable that they don't? Not at all. Not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly unlikely and unrealistic.

[/quote']

1.This game doesn't take place in Russia but in chernarus, a fictional region based on the Czech republic. But I guess eastern-europe is just all the same for some people.

2. In actual real life, survivors would all have different weapons. The chance of all having exactly the same gun and same amount of gear is marginally small and a statically impossibility. So much for your realism.

3. This is first and foremost not real life. There are technical obstacles and balancing issues to address and overcome. As it turned out, giving players a starting gun resulted in some nasty, unnecessary and frustrating scenarios for everyone involved.

If you want to continue this debate, let's do it via PM. Don't feel like spamming this thread.

[Max Planck 7174]

Tell me where I said it? You can't.

(Yesterday 04:55 AM)Max Planck Wrote: Noone is saying there aren't any guns in eastern Europe. I'm saying that there are LESS guns.

is where I was basing my sarcastic exaggeration of your posts so far.

You have it misunderstood then. I meant less than the US' date=' not less than the rest of Europe.[/font']

You are just that one asshole that is always on a forum who has the notion that no one but you is allowed to have an opinion and you must argue your point to anyone who disagrees with you, no matter what.

I guess it takes one to know one. You are doing the exact same thing, except that you insist it must be public. You also seem to prefer calling me a cocksucker to arguing your point.

Chernarus is based on the Czech Republic, who have very very lax gun laws compared to most European countries, excluding Switzerland. If there was a zombie apocalypse that wiped out most of the world's population, let me know how far you get without using a firearm.

Correct, the Czech like their guns and are allowed to have them. But this does not mean that Mr & Mrs Czech Republic are packing, like in the US where gun ownership is a very common thing - probably due to your revolutionary history. Also, I got about three days ingame without shooting anything. I could do a lot longer if I were on a ship with no zombies around.

How is saying "USA =/+ Europe" equal to sucking Rocket's dick?

I never said America was like Europe' date=' I said Europe has more far firearms available to civilians than you're trying to make it seem. You're that asshole who blindly defends a game no matter what the developers do to it, you're like the biodrones on the Bioware forums who blindly defend any and every patch, addition, hotfix, expansion, and game update to any game, regardless of how awful it is and scour every post of a 1000+ reply thread in search of anyone who disagrees and says the update isn't very good just so you can say how stupid they are and how awesome the new update is and why the game is better this why and why their opinion is worthless compared to yours.

Take your rage to the Bioware forums, I do not frequent those. I'm not "blindly defending any and every patch" I'm saying I like this particular change, just like you say that you don't. I seems, having an opinion that differs from yours is what makes me an "asshole".

You are digging a hole here' date=' i can barely see you anymore.

[/quote']

Good, I'm digging to get away from your smugness.

Tell me one last thing, why do you need to have this discussion publicly? Are you some type of exhibitionist?

[baN (DayZ) 3]

so proud that Switzerland got mentioned here :D

[GameJeff100 1]

not if you dont have anything on you there is no monetary gain besides just killing to kill and most people dont do that

Haha - respawned near cherno' date=' me and my buddy got picked up by a sniper in 3 minutes. After respawning again near cherno - same story. Spawning without a weapon is ridiculous so NO!

Reducing mags to 2 is however a nice idea.

[/quote']

OK let me understand this. in 3 min you were kill by a sniper and if you would have had a pistol with at least 2 mags the sniper would not have killed you? humm every time I am sniped I never see the player that got me so having a gun does not seem to matter. So not having a pistol is only an issue if I get chased by a zombie or three.

To avoid getting sniped I run away from the coast as soon as I log in

[survivan 0]

There's a lot of argument of whether u would have a gun or not irl. In my opinion it's unlikely.

Why? You have just washed up on a beach meaning u had to swim for your life from a sinking or zombie infested boat. Your only goal would be not to drown - holding onto a weapon is not the priority, it would weigh you down and make it harder to swim. Plus, would it survive the salt water?

[Cyrusdexter 0]

NO

I'm getting pretty tired of being killed before finding a gun because I'm not a super tryhard 24/7 player.

[nalta 3]

NO

With the addition of melee weapons, i dont see why the survivor couldn't have picked up a knife or crowbar. Maybe not a pistol, but something to stop instant death and something to at least make the player feel like he stands a slight chance.

[Bashfluff 0]

they are similar and can be used interchangeably. Until you break out the dictionary' date=' you have no right trying to lecture me on the definition of words, and even then the common parlance renders it irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, yeah, they are pretty much the same thing. [/quote']

Similar doesn't mean the same. I've never heard someone describe a horror movie as fun (well, maybe if it was some hilariously bad trash-horror). I'm pretty sure rocket would be deeply disappointed if you told him that you found DayZ fun. Out of all things, DayZ tries to be everything but fun.

Maybe you mean with fun that it is enjoyable. The thrill of trying to survive in a zombie apocalypse is enjoyable but not fun. You should look up the definition of fun before you tell me to open a dictionary. You think that everything that indicates enjoyment is absolutely synonymous with fun.

This should be obvious. If people don't want to play' date=' they won't. And don't give me this "not a game" bullshit. It clearly is a game.[/quote']

It's actually be definition not a game, but a simulator as described by bohemia interactive. That out of the way, DayZ is clearly a Mod. It has no reason to meet video-game business criteria like accessibility. It doesn't compete and it's free. You paid absolutely nothing for DayZ, you paid for Arma2 and that money went to bohemia.

This game would never get around if people didn't enjoy it. It doesn't matter how different something is; if people don't like playing it' date=' they're not gonna. I could make you a different game right now. It'd be shit, but it'd be different. And we'll see how much play it gets.[/quote']

Did i ever imply that this game isn't popular because of enjoyment? Enjoyment is a factor, but the bigger factor is Uniqueness. DayZ doesn't try compete and is drastically different in terms of authenticity and gameplay than anything currently on the market.

What a wonderful rebuttal. Haven't you given the slightest bit of thought as to why zombie media is so popular? The zombie Apocalypse is a fantasy' date=' and giving people the opportunity to live it is fun to them.[/quote']

Popular media has nothing to do with real life experiences. You said that especially if a zombie apocalypse were to happen for real, it would be FUN. Only the sickest of minds would think that dead people roaming the streets, complete breakdown of civilization and constant fear of death would be fun. It is certainly enjoyable and fascinating to think about but actually letting it play out in real life would be horrifying and far from any media portrayal.

You did. You said it was irrelevant' date=' and then went on to laud the realism of the mod. Realism is not that difficult to define at all. Would it be reasonable for some of the lone survivors of the apocalypse in Russia to have a gun? Certainly. Is it reasonable that they don't? Not at all. Not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly unlikely and unrealistic.

[/quote']

1.This game doesn't take place in Russia but in chernarus, a fictional region based on the Czech republic. But I guess eastern-europe is just all the same for some people.

2. In actual real life, survivors would all have different weapons. The chance of all having exactly the same gun and same amount of gear is marginally small and a statically impossibility. So much for your realism.

3. This is first and foremost not real life. There are technical obstacles and balancing issues to address and overcome. As it turned out, giving players a starting gun resulted in some nasty, unnecessary and frustrating scenarios for everyone involved.

If you want to continue this debate, let's do it via PM. Don't feel like spamming this thread.

>Similar doesn't mean the same. I've never heard someone describe a horror movie as fun (well, maybe if it was some hilariously bad trash-horror). I'm pretty sure rocket would be deeply disappointed if you told him that you found DayZ fun. Out of all things, DayZ tries to be everything but fun.

That's because no one says, "That movie was enjoyment." You'd be using the word "fun" in a very awkward way. But that does not change that they are used interchangeably IRL. And even if you'd like to disregard that...

fun/fən/

Noun:

Enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure: "anyone who turns up can join in the fun".

Adjective:

Amusing, ENTERTAINING, or enjoyable: "it was a fun evening".

Verb:

Joke or tease: "no need to get sore—I was only funning"; "they are just funning you".

Synonyms:

noun. amusement - joke - sport - jest - lark - entertainment

verb. joke - jest - banter - jape

>It's actually be definition not a game, but a simulator as described by bohemia interactive. That out of the way, DayZ is clearly a Mod.

Uh, no. Something can be a simulator, a mod, and a game. This is all three. And so it has to follow the most basic game design law: it must be fun to play so as to keep people playing. Simulator or not, mod or not, these three things actually follow the same law, more or less. I don't understand how trying to avoid how this thing is also a game would help your case...

>Did i ever imply that this game isn't popular because of enjoyment? Enjoyment is a factor, but the bigger factor is Uniqueness. DayZ doesn't try compete and is drastically different in terms of authenticity and gameplay than anything currently on the market.

No, but you said uniqueness was a bigger factor, which is utterly ridiculous. I outlined how it was ridiculous in my example. You can create something that is unique easily. But if it's not also fun, no one will play it. And notice how you use "gameplay". Not a game indeed.

>Popular media has nothing to do with real life experiences. You said that especially if a zombie apocalypse were to happen for real, it would be FUN. Only the sickest of minds would think that dead people roaming the streets, complete breakdown of civilization and constant fear of death would be fun. It is certainly enjoyable and fascinating to think about but actually letting it play out in real life would be horrifying and far from any media portrayal.

Well, I guess you're going to have to call hundreds of thousands of people worldwide sick bastards, then.

>1.This game doesn't take place in Russia but in chernarus, a fictional region based on the Czech republic. But I guess eastern-europe is just all the same for some people.

2. In actual real life, survivors would all have different weapons. The chance of all having exactly the same gun and same amount of gear is marginally small and a statically impossibility. So much for your realism.

3. This is first and foremost not real life. There are technical obstacles and balancing issues to address and overcome. As it turned out, giving players a starting gun resulted in some nasty, unnecessary and frustrating scenarios for everyone involved.

1. Okay. Sorry for my mistake, but someone has already outlined how available guns would be in such an area.

2. Yeah, that's true. I support weapons randomization for that very reason. I DO like realism, as you constantly support as well, but it must give way to gameplay when it is necessary. There are numerous instances of this we could both nitpick over and over again, but that misses the point: at the core, it tries to be a realistic zombie game, and while the little things we gamers can ignore, the bigger ones break out suspension of disbelief.

3. I've yet to see any of them.