Greenbeast Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 seeing some of these high figures makes me wonder why I didn't get longer. can't be the food in the cupboard lasting a few days thing, as surely that would just affect me in the short term, unless it also affects the probability of surviving into the long term.
tmcd35 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 seeing some of these high figures makes me wonder why I didn't get longer. can't be the food in the cupboard lasting a few days thing, as surely that would just affect me in the short term, unless it also affects the probability of surviving into the long term. I put my low surivival rate down to lack of Scouting experience and willingness to join the looting. I think I got 6 months not 6 minutes thanks to my willingness to run for the hills when the looting turns nasty. Perhaps the longer survivors are not partaking in the free 60" widescreen TV opportunities and have better camping skills?
LosOjos Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 seeing some of these high figures makes me wonder why I didn't get longer. can't be the food in the cupboard lasting a few days thing, as surely that would just affect me in the short term, unless it also affects the probability of surviving into the long term. When the apocalypse comes, you'll want as much food as possible in your cupboards. Once you run out, it's time to go looting. You won't be the only looter and you probably won't be the strongest or meanest either, so that's going to be dangerous. The biggest threat to your health is other survivors, you'll want to interact with them as little as possible (outside of your own family). Fortunately for me, I live like that already
edutech4schools Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Perhaps the longer survivors are not partaking in the free 60" widescreen TV opportunities and have better camping skills? I did loot but ran when things got nasty. Wish it had a weapon question, I am a dab hand at making a bow and arrow.
edutech4schools Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 And it should have had a water purification question as I can do that also.
featured_spectre Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 40 years, but then again, I am a prepper any way
tmcd35 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I am a dab hand at making a bow and arrow. I've seen The Hunger Games - does that count?
Greenbeast Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 When the apocalypse comes, you'll want as much food as possible in your cupboards. Once you run out, it's time to go looting. You won't be the only looter and you probably won't be the strongest or meanest either, so that's going to be dangerous. The biggest threat to your health is other survivors, you'll want to interact with them as little as possible (outside of your own family). Fortunately for me, I live like that already I'm well versed on the likely apocalyptic options and have done some prepping in the past but right now all of my food is fresh meat and veg, therefore gone (or gone off) in no time I do have katana and a will to live however.....
Andrew_C Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 A year. I'd top myself when the beer ran out though...
ICTDirect_Dave Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 A year. I'd top myself when the beer ran out though... homebrew!
AMLinington Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 I got a year but I suspect that was because I TOLD THE TRUTH on the running question XD
hawc Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 The results are in! You'd survive for five years after the apocalypse. You know, that's pretty damn good for the end of the world. Well done. You're basically Will Smith in I Am Legend.
AMLinington Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 If I change my answer to the running question I get 10 years.
LeightonJames Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 I get 5 years even after telling the truth on the running question.
AMLinington Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 The irony is that the more you HAVE to run, the better you will get, so if you can stay alive for a year, your chances of surviving longer increase because presumably you'd be fitter than you are now from all the running away.... Yeah I'm thinking about this WAY too much.
E_G_R2 Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 The irony is that the more you HAVE to run, the better you will get, so if you can stay alive for a year, your chances of surviving longer increase because presumably you'd be fitter than you are now from all the running away.... Yeah I'm thinking about this WAY too much. Wouldn't it depend on what type of Zombie? Slow Walkers or speedy 28 Days/World War Z types (too much thinking)
featured_spectre Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I would say somewhere between Walking dead and 28 days later. Because as the tissue gets necrosis, it would get worse for movement, so would start quick and deteriorate rapidly.
E_G_R2 Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I would say somewhere between Walking dead and 28 days later. Because as the tissue gets necrosis, it would get worse for movement, so would start quick and deteriorate rapidly. Thats not what happens in World War Z the book though where the 'virus' seems to keep the Zombies going longer than you would expect a corpse to last.
AMLinington Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Thats not what happens in World War Z the book though where the 'virus' seems to keep the Zombies going longer than you would expect a corpse to last. The whole decay issue is the core weakness of the Zombie genre. I can get past the idea that parasites or viruses 'take over' the brain of a dead person and animate their limbs in a semblance of 'life' but as the body starts to rot, so too will the brain, quickly becoming unusable as a 'nutrition source' for the virus/parasite. Additionally the rotting body doesn't produce enzymes and stuff that are needed to digest the 'food' zombies are driven to 'consume'. I can get past this too by imagining that this is more about spreading the virus/parasite than actually imbibing nutrients but what I really can't get past is how a corpse is able to move limbs without muscles or where connective tissue has rotted - movement is a ballet, full of form and colour (sorry, 5th element ref, couldn't resist) that relies on muscles connected to bones via tendons and sinew. The muscles rely on nerve impulses from the brain and spinal column. Even the smallest bit of damage to this would result in paralysis - particularly around the neck area yet we're seeing fully ambulatory zombies with clearly broken or damaged spines and in some cases missing parts or muscles that are required to move the limbs. Sorry but I don't buy it. Yeah, I've given the zombie thing waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much thought... Also, 28 days later was kinda clever because people didn't have to die before they 'turned' - it was an infection that took over their brain and they were killable so technically the 'zombies' in 28DL weren't undead. After all, they survived by waiting for them to die of starvation... Edited January 16, 2014 by AMLinington
E_G_R2 Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Well in WWZ though the Zombies 'eat' they do not digest it (Read the book to see what happens with the meat) but i'm with you on the whole de composition thing as being a logical drawback to the whole Zombie Genre. Best not to think to much and just enjoy the action.
tech_guy Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Do you know that there are people in the world that actually believe that there could be a zombie apocalypse?! Stupid people. Hang on, I went to Luton last week and it figures.....
featured_spectre Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 @techguy you went to luton and didn't inform me?! we could have met up! lol
Greenbeast Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 The whole decay issue is the core weakness of the Zombie genre. I can get past the idea that parasites or viruses 'take over' the brain of a dead person and animate their limbs in a semblance of 'life' but as the body starts to rot, so too will the brain, quickly becoming unusable as a 'nutrition source' for the virus/parasite. Additionally the rotting body doesn't produce enzymes and stuff that are needed to digest the 'food' zombies are driven to 'consume'. I can get past this too by imagining that this is more about spreading the virus/parasite than actually imbibing nutrients but what I really can't get past is how a corpse is able to move limbs without muscles or where connective tissue has rotted - movement is a ballet, full of form and colour (sorry, 5th element ref, couldn't resist) that relies on muscles connected to bones via tendons and sinew. The muscles rely on nerve impulses from the brain and spinal column. Even the smallest bit of damage to this would result in paralysis - particularly around the neck area yet we're seeing fully ambulatory zombies with clearly broken or damaged spines and in some cases missing parts or muscles that are required to move the limbs. Sorry but I don't buy it. Yeah, I've given the zombie thing waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much thought... Also, 28 days later was kinda clever because people didn't have to die before they 'turned' - it was an infection that took over their brain and they were killable so technically the 'zombies' in 28DL weren't undead. After all, they survived by waiting for them to die of starvation... er....ok
tmcd35 Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Do you know that there are people in the world that actually believe that there could be a zombie apocalypse?! Stupid people. Hang on, I went to Luton last week and it figures..... Living in Norfolk I can confirm Zombies are real! 98% of the local population appear to infected.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now