Chaingunfighter

While I do agree the food, hydration, and nutrition systems have much to be improved and expanded upon, I honestly believe that the rate at which you can starve/die of dehydration needs to be exaggerated in order to make it an actual gameplay factor. I mean, yes, it takes days in real life whereas it can only be minutes in DayZ, something which will obviously be adjusted, but the game would benefit much more were the hunger systems put as more of a threat to you rather than something you can use to "improve" yourself. Granted, getting more benefits from being full and energized (on 'healthy' foods) is something I can absolutely stand by, just not in a way that replaces the system.

They're similar, but not the same. Arma 3's ACP-C2 DayZ's "1911" The most obvious difference is the cuts on the slide, and of course the texturing. Granted they probably used the same source model and just modified it to create DayZ's (assuming it was made for ArmA 3 originally, which it likely was as it's been present since ArmA 3's own alpha. However, a lot of assets are shared between the teams so it's hard to know for sure) Still, if they did end up doing that, they should probably add the MP-443 and Walther P99, because both are fairly realistic and the assets are already there, so why not? I agree with most of what you'd said. Were they not cool guns/interesting for gameplay, there's no incentive to have them at all. However, at the end of the day we've got to remember that it's a video game, and very few games ever really do the job of realism perfectly. Even other prominent post-apocalyptic Eastern European games like STALKER or the Metro series are full of things that quite clearly should not be there, or at least not exist to the degree that they spawn. Granted, yes, I understand the whole point of debating about it is so that eventually some game (in this case DayZ) will do it right, but it's something to think about. Just don't get hung up about it and all's well (not that you haven't, that statement sort of applies to everyone on all sides of the 'realism vs authenticity vs gameplay vs immersion vs whatever' argument.)

There are a billion reasons why you die as a freshspawn, and yes, that includes "being a dick" and running up to geared players. There are, of course, many other reasons you can die - suicide to get a better spawn, starvation/thirst, zombies, bugs/glitches, other freshspawns, or by well-geared players roaming the coast for newspawns. So, yes, it's "unrealistic" that people would run after well-equipped others (not inherently, but for the most part I see the point), but you'd honestly be making the game a million times more frustrating and giving more power to those who hunt fresh spawns. You'd basically be encouraging people to hunt fresh spawns, something already common. Happened to spawn near Berezino? Eliminated by a clan before you could even get to the woods. Now you can wait thirty minutes and hope that it doesn't happen again. No thanks. At this point it's a well accepted risk that wandering near the coast will invariably result in hostile encounters from most other people. It's not like being attacked by fresh spawns is a huge problem, the only cases they'll win is if you were completely negligent, in which case you probably deserved to lose your gear.

That's originally how I felt about the situation - as many guns & calibers as possible, even for guns & calibers with extremely limited variety or that you'd almost never find. However, that's impractical for development. More guns of all kinds are always welcome to me, but I feel like it's a good idea to flesh out the different kinds of guns first, and it's not realistic to expect that (despite how much I'd love it to be) every gun under the sun can/will be added. It's more so arguing on the merits of what should be added first in that respect, because a Saiga would ultimately be better than the SPAS. That isn't saying that it shouldn't be added, just that given limited development resources and time, the Saiga would be more beneficial to the game. I do hope that weapons eventually get expanded on for variety alone, not because of gameplay purposes, but that's not for this stage. Right now we need a good set of variable weapons.

I wouldn't say the AUG or MP5K are inherently bad choices. There aren't a whole lot of bullpup ARs that really see major widespread use around Eastern Europe, it's fairly inconsistent, but among guns like the TAR-21, FN F2000, and Vepr, the AUG is not absent. Plus, seeing what they've discussed, there's a lot they want to do with the AUG, so there's definitely room for other rifles. Likewise, the moshpit that is called the MP5K isn't so much a poor choice, but rather that a full sized variant ala the MP5A2/A3 would have been a better choice. And they did give it the PDW stock, so it's much more believable. The Makarov, Rak, and AK are perfectly fine for the scenario. It's the specific variants that make it odd - the 'AK-101' (not even an AK-101, just a renamed AK-74M), the PM-73 (again, model of a PM-63, renamed), and Makarov IJ-70-17F (Only gun of the three actually originally modeled to be as it is ingame.) And there's nothing to say that the Baikal Makarov is a bad choice, it's just that the PM would've obviously been the more realistic choice. I wouldn't lose sleep over things like this, but that's just me. The Blaze, Derringer, and Rossi are somewhat unique in their own respects. Blaser guns aren't weapons you don't find in Eastern Europe. It's not like the B95 itself is somehow out of place, it's just that the rate at which it spawns is unrealistic for the real variant of the rifle it's supposed to represent. The RG17 and Rossi were clearly done because the devs wanted a lever-action rifle and derringer in the game. There aren't really any guns of those kinds in notable quantity to say those were poor choices compared to other weapons. Under assumed realism, both series of weapons would best be left absent, but in this case it's hard to compare. And the FNX was done simply because it was a new resource at the time and no other pistols existed. Granted, I'm not sure why they didn't choose to add the Walther P99 or MP-443 instead, but that's probably for the same reason all of the other guns exist - the devs thought that they were cool and/or were unique enough in respects to gameplay to warrant them being added. (Also, I don't know about you, but the PM-73 is extremely rare. I've only ever found mags for it, and across the board very few people have used it since it was released.)

That's being unfairly pessimistic. I think you're being a little too nitpicky about the weapons we see in game. The vast majority of guns in game and planned are perfectly acceptable. Hell, we're about to receive a huge influx of AKs (an AK-74, AK-74M, and AKS-74U), all of which originally were not going to happen precisely for reasons you disagree with. I'd say focus more on the good aspect of things rather than losing sleep over the fact that they picked a Blaser over a TOZ or whatnot. And I'm not saying it needs to nor should be done, I'm just saying in the case that it is done it's not the worst weapon ever. Of course I'd rather have a Saiga, or Benelli, or Mossberg, or whatever, but that doesn't mean that doing one of these is somehow wrong.

Who the hell argues against regular civilian equipment in favor of military stuff? I've never seen anyone on here, even people who are okay with firearms of obscurity or super modern design (not saying there's anything wrong with promoting them, just that they're the most accepting of all kinds of guns, whether they be "realistic", or not, in the fictional Chernarussian environment) complain that "dayz devz y u add CZ-527 b4 Kriss Vector" No one really has a problem with what is perceived as civilian gear. It's typically items that are based around common military gear or themselves are military gear that get people riled up, especially if they're not made of wood or steel, have a selector switch, can easily interchange attachments, or use anything "modern" (foregrips, lasers, lights, non-ironsight optics, etc.) You'd probably still have people complaining about "military" gear were the devs to add a regular AR-15, simply because it looks like an M16/M4. The line between what is even civilian and military is very fuzzy and inconsistent, so it's really just a poor argument.

Second Saiga is actually a .410 one, but basically the only difference in most Saigas of the same caliber is the material of the furniture and the length of the barrel. Both tactical and wooden variants are common all over the place, though, but people would tend to pick the second one because it looks less of a military weapon. Honestly if I were in control I'd make the "civilian" saiga the .308 (7.62x51mm) variant And, of course, the "military" Saiga the 12 Gauge variant Both are realistic, look fairly different, and give a good perspective on the same series while allowing different gameplay options. The 12 gauge Saiga as is shown is fairly unique, as it's magazine fed, unlike many other semi-automatic shotguns. The rifle, likewise, uses a similar portrayal but gives a "civilian" variant. You can appease both crowds. And to be fair to my examples, some of them aren't actually impossible to find. I mean, they're rare, but Steyr MP-34s, MG-34s, Gewehr 41s, and Fedorov Avtomats are not impossible to find in Eastern Europe. (I actually do really want the MP-34, it's such a cool gun.) However, yeah, my point of that point was that most of the more tactical/modern looking guns are also the more relevant ones, even though people would favor the more unrealistic side simply because it looks more civilian. Most people aren't complaining about guns like the AKM. When a gun explicitly fits the setting, people tend not to argue against it. Most of these people are all across the board - they're okay with ultra-realistic guns, but if it's in any way questionable it's not okay, unless it's a civilian gun, but it can't look black/tactical/have any sort of attachments, but... you get the point. Somehow I think they just don't know what they're arguing for/against. There are also those that just argue from a realism perspective (ala Gews), which is much more respectable. I still disagree with it, but I can at least see where they're coming from and they provide a valid and relevant argument to their position.

Yes, because a SPAS-12 shotgun that is fairly rare in Eastern Europe is clearly as unrealistic as two items that... don't exist... at all. And to be fair, it is used in Croatia and Turkey, so it's not like they don't exist in Eastern Europe to at least some degree. I'm not trying to say it's a very realistic gun, but saying it shouldn't be in at all simply because it's not perfect for the region is ridiculous.

That's a good point, I actually drew my argument from concepts like that. It's entirely fallacious, especially with instances like the 90's "assault weapon" ban, which made things like flashlights, large muzzle attachments, lasers, and other random attachments practically illegal, even though anyone actually going to commit an armed crime with a 'tricked out' AR-15 probably knows that throwing on things like flashlights are essentially useless for anything but making the gun heavier. However, the nature of gun control in Chernarus is relatively unknown. Saiga shotguns are common in military, police, and civilian hands all over Europe, though, so both variants are equally sensible, it's just some people would rather have the latter because it "looks" more civilian. Maybe it's just because I don't understand why looking like a soldier is so bad or that I believe the argument "go play ArmA" is invalid, but who knows?

They've been working quite quickly on new features. Horticulture, navmesh, animal AI and hunting, fishing, barricading is on it's way, vehicles have had extensive progress, there are more random loot sites around the map giving you an incentive to travel, etc. These things can't be made in as short of a period as new content, hence why we get a lot of it, because you can't have every single dev working on core functions at once. Once the modelers have the tomato plant done, they can't just sit around on their ass all day, so they start filling in their remaining time working on other items that are expected to be added by 1.0 release, oftentimes choosing guns, because... well; guns are cool (who here is going to disagree with that?) Also, this issue isn't really with actual perceived variable differences most of the time. Very few people really complained about most of the new AKs (though there were their fair share), most of them seemed to be more up in arms about the AUG. I think it has to do more with (just as with many people in real life) the look of the guns that bothers people. Seriously, in a weapon's post awhile back, most people were completely opposed to this; But they were fine with something like this; What's the actual difference between the two? Little. But the top Saiga 12 looks more menacing and tactical, and was thus shot down, realism and actual gameplay variation thrown aside. Which group would you add? Or I can guarantee you most people would pick the first list, simply because they all appear more civilian and less "military", despite the fact that every equivalent in the second list is more common in the real world, and in gameplay they all fill the same roles.

The two german weapons packs by Marseille were actually where I got the Mosin M1891/30 I used (as well as other guns). Vietnam the Experience and the Unsung mod have Mosins, but they're M38s and M44s. I originally used the Iron Front ports for bolt-action rifles, because they're the highest quality models and have actual animations, but too much else got screwed up so I decided not to keep them. The SVTs came from Vietnam The Experience as well. Not the best quality models ever but it's a lot better than nothing, and that was my main concern. (ArmA 2 isn't some game where I'm too concerned with good quality models)

If I could (and can), I would (and will). If I release it publically I'll try and get permission from those who made the mods, at least some of the bigger ones (many are old and haven't even been updated since 2009, or even earlier). I can't say it'll go around well, because a lot of modders from the ArmA community seem to dislike DayZ, or at least the mods, because so many people took them without permission. Granted, I don't explicitly need permission because they don't actually own the rights to the mods, but I'd feel wrong doing it. I will definitely see what can happen, though. On terms of DayZ Standalone, I'd absolutely love to, but I can't promise anything. I have no idea what the extent of modding will be, nor how compatible mods for other games will be (it's always across the board), but if it can be done I will do it. And even if I can't port it directly I'll do the same thing with the other mods and try and create a similar experience. Take this with a grain of salt, though. I'm an amateur coder, nothing more. All I really did was change the text on a few scripts by using mods already installed, I didn't actually make any new content as far as it's concerned.

It's a unique round, I'll give ya that, but the biggest detrimental factor is that it simply has very few guns (and even fewer that would actually perform noticeably different from each other) that actually go along with it. Yes, it is a unique case in that not only is the round special, but also the guns that go along with it, and it's extremely realistic for the environment, but it's simply not practical for development as is. Granted, I'm not against it being added There'll be the share of hardcore, ultra realistic mods just as there were for DayZ, and many were quite popular. However, god knows we'll also have hundreds of easy mode mods that simply make the games many times more unrealistic, adding things like currency & trade shops, NPCs, building massive forts, spawning with a full arsenal (or at least being able to get one in a short period of time), and all of that. And these were where the majority of players went. Granted, just like you, I have no problem with letting people play how they want to play. I'm just saying that's not a very strong argument for inducing even more stuff like this, because it seemed like most mods wanted a faster placed gameplay, not a slower one. Though if it were up to me I'd just add as many guns under the sun as I could, and make sure that the more realistic guns spawned often (Mosins, Tokarevs, Makarovs, etc.), somewhat outlandish guns being somewhat uncommon (M16s, FN FALs, G3s, etc.) and unusual or highly out of place have extremely low chances of spawning, but still being findable (ala Kriss Vector, UMP-45, M1 Garand, etc.) I'm actually in the process of making a DaiZy (Single player DayZ) mod that utilizes tons of different mods in order to create an experience like this. Unlike most typical custom DayZ setups, I've used some of the most obscure and outlandish mods to add things people wouldn't expect - SVT-40s, Mosin-Nagants (in the mod), PPSh-41s & PPS-43s, Tokarevs, RPDs, and a hell of a lot more. It's even cooler having access to the weapon's code because I was able to make ammo compatible by creating variants that shared magazines and whatnot (such as loose Mosin Nagant bullets being used in an SVD or SVT). Granted, I can't upload it publicly because I've used tons of them and I never actually asked for permission (it was for personal use), but it's still a fun idea that I would love to expand to the standalone, with features such as individual bullets, weapon customization, additional/enhanced buildings, and all of the other things that make DayZ standalone great.

Yes, but it's especially unlikely for a game already in public alpha development. These tech videos are cool and all, but by the time it actually starts becoming relevant and used, there will be plenty of leaps in other areas reducing the significance.

Maybe, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see (assuming they're added.) Though to be fair I haven't really seen any "griefing" with grenades thus far, and because they're thrown weapons, you can't really "grief" any differently than with a gun. That argument only really stands with planted explosives, but again, you can just "grief" using already existing items, no need to waste good explosives. Laser/wire tripmines in a sense I don't see a reason to be added. By mines I meant ones you actually need to step on to set them off, not laser tripmines.

That's why they need a good set of all around gear. Don't neglect any field, that includes gear that is directly meant for combating other players and that alone. I never said that we should only get mines, I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with including them alongside a vast amount of other gear. And I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about IEDs and whatnot being only "griefing" weapons.

Like I said though, you can just remedy these by increasing the number of spawn points, and making mines/explosives extremely rare (they should be anyway.) With a large number of available spawn locations, it'd become an immense task to predict where people are and blow them up instantly. Add that to the fact that explosives are already hard to find, people wouldn't even bother using them for that purpose. It'd lose sentiment very quickly, and in the end it wouldn't do a whole lot. I mean, dying instantly would be frustrating, but it'd almost never happen, and it's not like you really lose anything save for 30 seconds of your time. Oh, and like I said, claymores are not triggered weapons, they're detonated. You'd still have to be present in order to actually kill someone, not to mention you're forced to wait in one spot, whereas with a rifle you can just travel up and down the coast as you please. Even with mines that people step on (as you've said yourself), people would only be killing fresh spawns with them to troll. It wouldn't be very funny if you just planted them along the coast and left, because you'd never actually witness it happening. My point is that there's next to no incentive for people to use them for this. Anyone who's hunting fresh spawns is going to be at an extreme disadvantage if they use fixed and valuable weapons.

I hope they make an honest decision on this, because an SVD would be far more common than a derringer in Eastern Europe, but obviously the SVD is the more effective gun (in most cases). Granted, this may just be because I don't think the M4A1 warrants being a controlled spawn, but the devs seem to disagree, so I digress. With the upcoming AUG, AKS-74U, and AK-74 (and apparently the AK-74M as well), the M4A1 can be regulated to a controlled position, simply because of modularity. I don't inherently believe any ARs on their own deserve being controlled (save "party piece" guns), but with the addition of the AKM, AK101, AK-74, AK-74M, AKS-74U, and AUG, there's nothing that's really being lost.

Historically, sniper rifles were made to be one shot kill rifles (in fact, most guns are built like that) Besides, being vulnerable and knowing that all you've accumulated can be wiped clean in an instant (through sudden attacks/snipers) is something that DayZ has had since the beginning. At the ranges we're talking about, guns like the SVD would work very well as sniper rifles, I don't think we need to be making weapons that are specifically developed to shoot more than a kilometer simply to have them.

I think he just means because the derringer is a civilian weapon, while the Uzi would likely be a police/military spawn. Derringers aren't really common anywhere in the world - they're somewhat popular in the US with gun enthusiasts, but even people in the concealed carry community generally recommend you do not use a derringer, as sub-compact pistols like the Glock 26 are far more practical. Still, concerning gameplay, derringers are probably better off spawning more often than submachine-guns like the Uzi.

That's an understandable point of view - I was somewhat confused, and this is a fairly general mentality people take on, so it was wrong for me to assume you followed the same ideas. Your idea could honestly be remedied by simply vastly increasing the number of spawns. I'm not saying make it completely randomized, but just add more specific positions along the coast, to the point that it becomes heavily impractical to plant explosives and wait for someone to spawn. People camp with guns most of the time, because ammunition is readily available and they aren't relying on the fact that someone takes one specific spawn point, just that they happen to enter that location Server hopping is an issue in of itself. Personally I'd rather just have every server run on it's own hive, but that would take away from one of the features heavily pushed; the fact that your character is universal. I don't actually want any trip mines. Unlike CoD would have us believe - claymores are remotely detonated, not triggered. What makes them unique is the fact that they direct most of the energy forward, not in all directions like with a standard mine/IED/grenade. That's why I want them, because they're a unique way of placing traps that simply cannot be done with improvised explosives or regular mines. You still have to keep watch, otherwise someone may just sneak right past them. It seems to me like your problem is just with the fact that people can get them readily available and server hop for them, and camp spawn points, issues that are already a problem without them in game, not so much the item itself. I agree - I do think we need these issues remedied before we start adding powerful items that can truly make a difference on their own. If set up right, claymores would be rare to the point that you'd only ever want them for emergency situations, not for spawn camping (please, you've got much more to worry about).

To be fair, a larger network bubble would be beneficial for far more than just increasing the range of sniping. However, if the devs REALLY wanted a dedicated long-ranged round, I could stand by .338. I just don't see any necessity in it because there are plenty of 7.62x51mm and 7.62x54mmR sniper rifles with very long ranges, so there's no practical point unless they saw a need for guns that shoot over 1200m with ease.

It's been confirmed already, just not implemented until we have full loot centralization.

How about these, instead? Far more readily available, less controversial, more practical (AMRs would be mostly pointless post-apocalypse), and they don't require the addition of a new caliber. You can have sniping without a .50 caliber rifle, trust me.