Arctic33

I'm torn on the topic. On one hand (call it the "realistic" hand) there would be a massive miltary response to any sort of outbreak. Whatever country the game lands in I'm sure has their version of a National Guard, who, along with active troops, would be locking things down in a last ditch effort to stop the spread. The massive influx of military hardware and personnel into civilian land would leave a lot of powerful gear around. Most of it would be M16A4's and AK47 variants, as your standard troop doesn't have a sidearm or NVG's or things such as that. That being said, most of that would be looted right quick by those slow to fall to the disease, stashed who-knows-where before they start eating their friends. On the other hand (I have different fingers....) the military grade hardware should be hard to find and, in my opinion, not a game-breaking powerful assortment. I would hate to see some hardware being the end-all of weapons. I would greatly enjoy the gameplay if it were skill based rather than weapon based. For example, pistols are lethal at close distance when a large enough caliber. Make the Makarov junk, but a 1911 spitting out a 45 slug is going to wreck your day, along with the revolver. An Enfield, or even the Winchester, should be a contender with the assault rifles when in the proper hands. Both rifles hit like a truck, but lack the fire rate. It would bring skill more into the equation, maneuvering and getting the drop on someone along with your standard FPS skill, as opposed to seeing a guy through binoculars and saying "Oh, he has a M16, I can't contest that with my Enfield" or "at 200 meters the scoped rifle will always win".

This isn't CoD, so balance is out the window. It's not a deathmatch game... okay, it's not INTENDED to be a deathmatch game, but let's be honest, most of us are playing Bean Wars at this point waiting on the standalone. That aside, it's meant to be a survival game, not a balanced shooter. The 303 Enfield hits hard. It's up there with a 30-06 round. It SHOULD be a one hit kill. A fire rate of 60 rpm is realistic, considering anyone with any sort of time behind the trigger can really work one. If you want something slower, throw the 03A3 in there (the Enfield's counterpart). It was known for having a crappy action, where the Enfield had a reputation for being a smooth operating bolt action rifle (and they are, they're a lot of fun) As far as "firing faster than intended yadda yadda yadda".... it's a bolt action rifle. ANY quality bolt action rifle, especiually those based on the Mauser action, are designed for "affirmative" bolt movement. You baby the bolt, you get a problem. Slap it up,rip it back, and ram it forward, it's how it's designed to work. Same with a lever action (such as the 1873 Winchester, which I sincerely hope makes a show in standalone in 44 mag or 357 format). if you baby the lever, you have problems. These rifles were made for fighting men, their actions designed for hard use under stress.

Keep hugging your NVG's. It's ok, we understand. Some people are afraid of the dark. DayZ is supposed to be difficult and a bit scary. Darkness should be a multiplier to those two factors. If you want your godmode item to make nighttime worthless, by all means have it. But don't jump on your "GTFO" horse when people ask for a game to be challenging and want it to be a risk/reward system. You want ez-mode? Play another game. Let us have the thrills and finally a challenging game that doesn't hold your hand the whole time. Popping light should be a decision and a risk. As it stands, there's no incentive at all to play at night until fully geared because everyone knows the NVG's are rampant. As it stands, and unless changes are made, anyone starting at night is at too much of a disadvantage to make it worthwhile.

I'm sure the problem is readily apparent, but for the ones who don't play at night.... Night vision goggles are a gamebreaker. I know, you're clutching yours to your chest and screaming "OMG CRY MOAR NOOB!". You hold onto them. That's fine. The sheer amount of duped/hacked-in items in the game makes NVG more or less readily available. I run across tents quite often loaded with supposedly "rare" loot, and NVG's are in those tents 9 times out of 10. If I can't find a tent, it's easy enought o lurk around Elektro and jack some nitwit sniping. So, if they're easy to get, they shouldn't be a problem..... Until you put them on, and it makes night in DayZ completely pointless. If you posess NVG, you may as well play on an all-daytime server. What's the point of it getting dark if you can turn it into daytime at will? Oh, that's right... NVG's turn you into a demi-god against players who don't have them. Gone is the risk of using a chemlight or tossing a flare. Well, for you, anyway. That poor guy who can't see 5 feet in front of his face is screwed, but hey, he should have found some NVG's. There is honestly no suspense for the guys who have NVG's. It completely removes the risk of nighttime, as well as the decision and "risk vs reward" of using a light source. Let's face it, a well-armed survivor without NVG is at the mercy of a NVG-wearing guy with a Makarov. They simply skew the game too much, FAR too much for a single item. Simply put, there should be no single item that, once found, can change the game this much in your favor. A single item, no matter what it is, shouldn't be able to turn the tables completely. If DayZ wants to turn people into gods after dark, just put in vampirism and completely jump the shark. I sincerely hope the standalone brings back a fear of the dark. There's simply too much potential for the game to change after dark falls to waste half the day/night cycle. Decisions on lighting, movement, team play, setting traps, etc are completely removed with the inclusion of NVG. Playing DayZ in the day and at night could (and should) feel like two different experiences. I only hope that difference isn't a green tint to the world.

One thing about DayZ, you can't be a try-hard in it's current state. There's just no point. Try to enjoy it for what it is and don't worry about the rejects running scripts or the problems DayZ has. It's enjoyable at it's core, and interesting to wander around or play war games in the forests away from Elektro. Trying really hard to gather the perfect kit is nearly pointless, and only ends in frustration most times. Get a half decent weapon and go get yourself killed. It's fun. Tents work about half the time (mine either disappear or come up empty after server restart), so trying to build a little stockpile may or may not work. Even after you decide to live out of your backpack you're going to get nailed by a scripter. NOT a hacker. I have a hard time applying that term to the monkies fooling with DayZ. Screwing up a mod that's far from perfect, based on a game that isn't popular to start with (because IT has tons of problems) doesn't exactly make me think these guys are busting Pentagon coding. At any rate, just enjoy the mod and ignore the problems. Explore a bit, grab a little gear and waste all your ammo, because quite frankly it's only a matter of time before you find some misfortune and start over. I believe one of the reasons the Minecraft open Alpha model is being pushed so hard is to get the standalone available in some form before everyone gets bored and quits. Let's face it, Bean Wars in Elektro only amuse us for so long. Most of us play multiplayer to build something. Be it a character, or a stockpile for our group, if that building and accomplishment isn't available (and it's very questionable in it's current state), we'll lose interest in FRS-Z (Forest Running Simulator- Zombie Edition) shortly. Let's face it, there are better sniping games out there.

My wishlist, and some hopes..... I hope... - they don't make it "too real". The mod feels good, you die fast and getting the drop on people is important enough so you feel a need to be careful and not blunder around. However, things can be too realistic, and you transition from a fun and challenging game into a simulator only the most hardcore want to play, and they're generally assholes to play with anyway. - along the "too realistic" lines, they don't make running a long distance a chore, and the food/water system doesn't get out of control. I like having to eat and drink, and have died from lack of planning a few times. I simply don't want to spend half a play session searching for food because I need it every 4 minutes. - the game stops breaking legs for stupid reasons. If rubble and such is included, make it work or take it out. BF3 is a huge game in a well known franchise name, and one of the number one complaints about it is the rubble and terrain don't work properly. If they don't kill you, it takes twenty tries to vault it. Either make it work or leave it out. Wishlist: - Good weapon balance. Yes, military grade hardware should work better than the Enfield (even though it's military grade itself....). However, there shouldn't be a God-Gun. Travel back... waaaay back, to Call of Duty. No, not that sissy Modern Warfare crap, the REAL Call of Duty. Single shot rifles with open sights in that game were devestating if the player behind it was actually good (Kar98 anyone?). Sure, a machine gun was generally better, but a skilled player could do work with a bolt action rifle. If the standalone would reward skill over "my guns better so I win:", it would rock. A survivor shouldn't be a victim just because he has "old-school" gear. A good fighting chance should be there, not "Oh Lord, I only have an enfield, I'm a dead man" - Better weapon design, more realistic fire rates. A skilled marksman can fire a bolt action rifle pretty quickly. An IPSC shooter can blaze with a revolver. The follow-up shot times on some weapons seem to be designed after studying a Special Olympic marksman team. As far as design (or damage, to narrow it down) it would be nice to see the sidearms have their own feel. A .357 revolver packs a wallop, with a slow reload rate and moderate recoil, while the M9 doesn't do as much damage, but has a 15 round magazine to make up for it, and a faster reload. Aside from giving the sidearms their own feel, it would also reward the better marksmen in the game with higher damage potential. Again, back to the "skill over gear" ideal. - Inventory to remain as it is, with a slot system. A weight system just gets too cumbersome (not a pun) to work with. There is such a thing as getting too realistic and ruining the fun of something. How much does a rotor assembly really weigh? Who cares, it takes X amount of slots. Of course, the inventory system as it stands is a raging piece of crap, but I like the slot system over, say, Skyrim's weight system. You can simply carry too much crap in Skyrim, and in a survival game it only adds to the urgency and decision making when you only have so many slots to load up. - Bases tough to build. Nothing is more annoying than a game where every lone player has real estate. Important things should take teamwork, such as creating a base for your squad, and the higher teir vehicles (choppers and military trucks). Sure, reward the little guy, but the big stuff should take large amounts of effort by a group. - Don't add too much crap. More junk means more to balance, and really adds nothing to the game. Take, for example, Fallout 3 (or New Vegas). For a game that large, with such a large landscape and so much to see and do, there are really only a few weapons. I hardly noticed it, I doubt many people did. Why? Because sometimes less is more. - And if you really want to make my nipples hard, make weapons and attachments different, and add a slot next to the weapon for attachments. Say most M4's you find are bare-bones. However, you can find an eotech or a suppressor (or a home-made job with an oil filter, but that's getting into fallout territory) and attach it. It removes the "My end-game gun is the M4 SD" and adds a "Man, I found my M4 finally, wish I would run across a suppressor for it...." or "All I have is a crappy Enfield, but if I find a scope for it, it won't be so bad"