Aricane

Hehe Well you're right the realism of the suggestion can be debated. However apply the reversed logic of the arguments to the game would take out many of the features it recently got. For instance the safety system, global chat. Many of the existing features are acceptable now probably because people have gotten use too them. Reversing the argument about cranking up zombies works well to. If people think implementing these suggestions makes the game to difficult, they could just nerf the zombies. The game is already forcing a certain play style. So from my point of view it's not really a discussion about how difficult the game should be or what approaches the game should use to challenge a players isolation from the zombie threat. I think the game originally was intended to be a struggle. Safehouses right now are like a huge buff in a game, that has no counterpart. I'm not under the impression that realism is the main development goal in this game, it's to deal with problems related to a vast zombie threat and how to survive it. What makes PZ very special, I think, is the "This is how you died" approach. Right now that approach is neglected because of the easy achievable roof top safehouses. Edit: On a side note I think PZ really displays the legendary zombie threat very well. Movies depicting the subject doesn't have to account for realism, like out running zombies are zombies spawing outside someones house. Take the 4-5 episode of The Walking Dead series when Rick was stuck in a tank. How can a tank not be a hot topic for remaining survives/soldiers. Zombies are stupid, slow and easy to out smart. I think PZ show should advocate for the threat of zombies by preventing players to just sit behind a wall and being self-sufficient.

It wasn't really thought as a complaint about difficulty, which I think is perfect as it is. I've noticed that several people build up huge safehouses, clears the perimeter and stays alive there, which kind of undermines the whole zombie threat. I'd like to see that threat again.

I'm not sure I like the idea of just settling on top of houses with enough supplies to celebrate your 40th birthday. I have a few suggestions to raise the difficulty or at least render roof top settlements less appealing. My suggestion in general is to take steps to make player migration more appealing by making settlements less beneficial Squares become arid when used for farming a couple of times, making them none farmable. If you fence off a safehouse by the ocean, the water should decrease the amount of potential fish catchesApply penalty to large stashes of food near players, by making them attract rodents/rats that spoils/eats the food.Just like the water and electricity shuts off at some random point in time, a faraway horde should deliberatly be attracted to areas of the map where there is much player traffic. Should unlike water have a large timespan though, so players are not entirely discouraged from building houses.Maybe I just like it rough, but I can't just stand back and watch people survive a zombie apocalypse. Back in the Camp Neo Haven days we would have survived forever just working together.

Sure. I'm really curious how Russia views this. I already know how the western angle on it and I can't believe there can be so big a difference on our perspective. Russia is not a western country, but I can't imagine it could be so much different from them. At the end, we're all people. I imagine Russians share the same dreams as any western citizen. Respect, security and freedom. I guess we all want governments and media we can trust - but even in that regard we are alike. So what is really fueling this divide? If we ignored our politicians and turned of our media, how long would it take to makes friends on either side? Maybe I'm just naive but I refuse to believe we're that different. I can understand Russian values does not approve homosexuality. Well 20-40 years ago most western countries didn't either. So how can we not understand and respect those values.

So you are saying that while there are protesters/rebels/seperatists in eastern Ukraine, having elections is a bad idea? And this is Russias point of view?

Maybe it's just my democratic infected mind, but why would Ukranians want to choose not to have elections? And why won't Russia welcome the elections? Ahh because of the massed armed people. But that was the case on Crimera - mass armed people during elections (and transparent ballot boxes for votes), however those results are widely recognized by Russia and in fact western media AFAIK.

Assuming the Ukrainian government is illegimate, doesn't both Ukraine and Russia welcome the elections 25th of may despite the turmoil?

Not sure if you are aware, but rotten food will become usable as ingredient at lvl 4 cooking. It won't be very effecient though.

Vanilla doesn't cut it, but some dude made it http://pz-mods.net/gameplay/SwapEquipped/

A series of protests in eastern Ukraine does not start coincidential. It was orchestret and very well prepared. Just like on the maidan. The question is not wether someone is behind it or not. The question is who. Right now everyone seems to be pointing at Russia. Either way Putin wil risc coming out as weak. If he did not support the rebels, he did an awful job proving that. If he did - he did a even more awful hiding it. Right now he swears Russia has nothing to do with it. Oh my god. The west are far, far better at lying than Russia - that is very obvious.

Actually, they should up and take some measures to stop it. Otherwise, this might continue just as in the scenario by Жириновский (pretty much the map from the 13th-14th century): http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/zhirinovsky-redraws-map-of-europe/215425.html His first idea (not sure if it got out of Russia though) was to split Ukraine in two - we get everything east of Kiev and Poland gets the rest. Luckily nobody did treat him seriously or so it seeemed - now there's a piece of "the USSR will be rebuilt with Poland and Finland (sic!) following just behind them" propaganda going through the media. The thing that scares me is that if Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, he might want to take a bite out of another country - this time a NATO/EU member. I don't even want to know how that one would end... I don't think there'll be any attack on NATO countries, M.A.D. is still active. I think what Putin wants is to make sure that neighbouring countries are not too influenced by the west. Westeren influence have been crawling closer to Russias borders. If Ukraine started negotiating deep political deals with EU, that is regarded as a threat to Russia. What wonders me is the choise of rethoric by Putin. That Crimera was taken from Russia by injustice. But Khrushchev gave it away. The whole fall of USSR was a result of invidual states claiming independance. How can the Duma acknowledge that as wrongful and unjust?

Yup, they did. And the west just has to accept and swallow the camel. When a nation is capable of achieving its geopolitical goals while noone is able to do anything significant about it, it will do it. Instead of yelling at Russia just accept that it's a big country and does what it wants to, just like the West have been doing for so long.

I see Khodorkovsky has been holding some speeching in Ukraine claiming Russia is lying about Crimera and the neo-facists. That's interesting. Did he help finance the maidan or is he just there to slap Putin in the face? "Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries - for heavy ones they cannot." ~Machiavelli

Noone knows if Yanokovych was rightfully impeached. He cannot be impeached, as far as I know, unless the Constitutional Court finds him guilty of treason or other crime. That process was skipped. Medvedev was according to him self considering to challenge Putin for the election campaign. He saw he couldn't amass enough support, so he pointed towards Putin. Those answers needs to be backed up by something more than a post, that concludes that Putin is a mad man, which clearly he is not. He is an extremely effective leader. And just while we're at it. I think it would do you good to remind yourself of these small facts It was the U.S. who was caught in the act of spion on USSR using a U-2 spy plane, when the USSR had clearly signaled a will towards peace. It was the US. who used not only one, but two atomic bombs a foreign country. The US have engaged and participated in far more wars than the USSR, and yet we regard Putin as the dangerous one.

Just to clarify, Хрущев (Khrushchev) gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. As I said, I didnt research anything I wrote. I also found out that there are neo-fascist elements amongst those who seized power in Kiev so calling them Nazis isn't as ridiculous as I thought it was. Still, its all a bit of a mess, eh? Maybe next time It would be a bit smarter to research the topic throughout before jumping in the conversation with a long post and start throwing accusations People in Crimea aren't afraid of "their families getting shot and buried over freedom of speech and democracy". They were the ones to call Russia for help, frightened by things that happen over in Kiev. People there were going from house to house, causing mess and brutally torturing/killing people that were a part of a police defense group, "Berkut", defending Yanukovitch and attempting to keep the damn peace. I don't protect or in any way try to justify what Yanukovitch did - but Berkut did not deserve getting themselves burnt to death or killed by a bunch of neo-nazis who killed people left and right, opposition or police. I've seen various pictures on the internet (I do research my stuff before saying it ) And people there are hugging the Russian army, taking pictures with it, NOBODY is conquering anyone's land. Ukrainian and Russian people have had a "brotherhood" relationship with each other for a long time, if there's ever a reason for armed forces in Crimea, it's because people in it asked for the help. If this is really true, it's insane how different the east/west perspectives on it is. In western media Crimea has been invaded by Russia. According to the press and several quoted western experts Crimera is lost to Russia and Ukraine will never get it back. Putin wants Crimera because he and all Russians believe that if people speak Russian, then it's Russian territory. Indeed some western politician compares Putins rethoric with Hitlers, when Hitler started condemning Jews as Putin condemns homosexuals. I think the west needs to accept, that they have no clue on how Russians see things, and just believe that Russia has friendly and peaceful intentions. Here's a sum-up of things that doesn't make sense The west acknowledges the new Ukranian government despite it is technically illegimate. The west holds constitutions very dear, yet apparently not. When the egyptian military couped the Muslim Brotherhood despite they were elected by the people, the west didn't condemn the coup.Putin denies having sent troops to Crimera. The soldiers country marks have been removed. Why is that?Why is the estimated 30.000 troops necessary to maintain peace in Crimera?Why does the EU think it can just send military observators into Crimera, as if EU is elevated beyond the conflict.Why does demonstrators attempting to breach police barricades near the government building in Donetsk wave Russian flags when they should be waving Ukranian flags? This makes the so-called brotherhood between Russia and Ukraine look a bit assumed. It does look a little orchestrated to me.I'm glad the US has such a "weak" president. Things could escalate very quickly and badly if the previous president was still in office. I think there's a massive canyon between the perspective of things. In our age of technology it would astound me if such a canyon can even exists. Then again. I've sometimes wondered why I never really hear much about what is going on in Russia. I often hear about events and trends from EU and USA, even the Middle East, Afrika and some parts of Asia. Russia I know nothing about. It's a huge country, many people. Yet it is as if nothing ever really happens there.

Ahh, this editorial from the international edition of CNN seems to sum things up pretty good http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Okay. That's not what I hear. From the subtitles I'm reading "You welcome the destruction of Russia" by accepting missiles near Russian borders. I think that's sounds a little like the people here in Denmark saying I welcome an islamic government because I don't hate muslims. Anyways thanks for the video. I don't trust the western media very much and it's not covering the Russian perspective on the Crimera crisis very well. I think I saw one out of 100 articles asking "Does Putin have a point?". The current Ukranien government isn't legitimate according to constitution, as far as I know. So I really don't quite get why the western nations are eagerly supporting and recognizing its new government.

He's saying that the new Nazi government in Ukraine will allow NATO to have missiles aiming at Russian cities. Is that a common oppinion in Russia, that NATO is a regarded threat and humiliator of Russia? I'm just curious because it's difficult from where I sit to actually get a sense of what people in Russia thinks about NATO and the west

The community of PZ is borderless and goes beyond politics, genders and country <3

Well, most likely they expected our "beloved" Советский Союз to last forever, so giving away Crimea was like giving yourself a gift. That didn't work out as planned though.,, That's the media for you - nothing is important apart from amassing the largest share of the viewers. There was once a photo of an African kid dying of thirst, which sparked a lot of controversy over how the reporter should have given water to the kid, instead of taking the picture first. In my humblest opinion, that sums up the media's approach perfectly. While it is a nice gesture on their part, I would say NATO has the talent for situational humour, what with the crisis being related to Ukraine's south... Or, did I miss anything and Lithuania became involved somehow (apart from the EU outrage and sanctions, of course) ? Another problem is, that if the West is somehow convinced to accept the "saving the indigneous Russian population" excuse, no war will be necessary (not to demean Ukraine's military potential, but a strike by the entirety of the Black Sea fleet could be sufficient to take and hold until reinforcements arrive, evolving into another prolonged civil war scenario). All of them are. Some (if not most of them) just have bad leaders. Amen to that

Russian here as well (actually about 3/4ths). I wouldn't consider myself a fangirl of Russia as well, nevertheless, this is my country and I love it dearly. That said, I neither agree with or approve our government's foreign policy. With the case of Snowden, our leader(s) did manage to earn a tremendous amount of good PR and seem to have liked it, hence, the whole game to get the Crimean parliament to ask Russia for annexation - if our people are in distress, sweeping in to "save them from the Ukrainian fascists" seems justifiable. Now, it is only a question if the West buys this story (with some material motivation, no doubt) or not. The latter will result in another Georgia, while the former is not something I would like to think about. Of course, everything originates from and boils down to the strategic naval base in Sebastopol... PS: Another thing is that as a gesture of goodwill when Ukraine disarmed its nuclear arsenal, we gave them Crimea as a gift, so trying to take it back now is ...not very elegant. PPS: Cdr. Keen, have we met before ? I am quite sure we did - if so, great to meet you here as well. Well maybe Crimea wasn't a gift to be given in the first place :/ What makes me most sick about this whole affair is how the media revels in it, angling and biasing headlines to attract readers. I think EU is being hypocritical considering sanctions. EU/USA tends to forget that Russia is a large, proud and powerful country. The west develops politics and think their laws apply to everyone beyond their own borders. Well Russia thinks the same. I'm from Denmark and I think all countries are awesome.... almost all.

I'm a beacon of love

Yes, yes. Let us raise our demands and see what happens.

Well in that case, contrary to what you may think, you're the violent part of us

I mentioned it before in this thread. Safety system only helps the victims of other players false intentions. They do not prevent kill on sight. I'll have my safety system switched off 95% of the time. If I go out with some buddies to clear an area of zeds I would switch it on. I can't think of other reasons.