Chaingunfighter

I still fail to see what's problematic with "ultra modern" stuff to you, like everything post-2000 (and most 90s/late 80s stuff) would suddenly disappear after some (at least) nation-ending disaster. Why, exactly, is it so "jarring" to see disaster survivors utilizing technology in order to further their survival? If someone found working advanced tech, they'd be stupid not to make some use of it, and it's not like all of that would suddenly be absent. There are a few problems to your idea of optics only being procured from certain weapons - For one thing, the PSO scope is already ingame. Even after the global wipe, loot centralization will likely come later, and thus there'll be the problem of the pre-existing PSO scopes. This goes for making any other optics/attachments only spawn on applied guns already ingame. It makes it far easier for people who DO find a gun to be leveled up. The whole point of having optics being rare is the fact that they're useful and can be applied to guns in order to give them more utility. Making them spawn on the guns would remove the point of finding them, because in order to find the optic you'd also need to find the gun; per say finding a scope-less SVD first.Both optics and weapons need to be rare, but making them spawn together would do absolutely nothing to help the rarity. All that needs to be done to make optics rarer... is to decrease their chance of spawning... not only allow them to spawn on the guns in the first place.

Some of them are insurgents/rebels, so they would've been receiving off-hand gear and guns from all over the place. The Russian soldiers in Ukraine are probably not standard troops, simply because Russia is operating under the guise that they haven't actually sent any men there. That, and Putin has increased Russian military spending quite immensely. No, you're right - it isn't typical. However, Chernarus isn't in a typical situation either. Even ignoring the ArmA 2 campaign, there was still quite clearly military deployments across Chernarus while the infection spread, and infighting likely occurred (evidenced by vehicles ridden with bullet holes, and things like tanks blown to pieces which clearly could not have been caused by zombies). That, and there are UH-60 (temp, but still) crashsites, so there's evidence of a NATO/US (or Austrian/Turkish) presence. If that's the case, then the Chernarussian military/survivors may have been donated gear & weapons, in addition to guns left behind by NATO forces today and during the 2009 invasion. All manner of guns can appear in the game.

I don't think it's going to be removed, though. Sorry.

Ukraine - supposedly. When? I'm not sure, within the year. Regardless, those aren't IDF soldiers, so you can tell that these weapons exist across Eastern Europe.

I was being sarcastic. I don't agree with a word I made in that post.

Yeah, they really didn't need to add any guns after the initial few. The Mosin, IZH-43, SKS, Blaze 95, and Magnum are all we need. Get rid of the M4A1 because it's not realistic. And why the hell are they adding assault rifles when you should almost never have enough ammo to fill a magazine? It's honestly stupid that we get any new guns, they're worthless and having a gun should be something you're proud of. I shouldn't be finding a gun every house, I should be lucky after playing for a weeks worth of time to find an old hunting rifle, that I will cherish to the grave.

The variant they use is a super modified modern version, and either way, it's not a common Eastern European firearm, relative to AKs and whatnot. And what's your point? Never once did I say they should be readily available, or common at all. SCARs and whatnot should be incredibly rare, but to say that they are out of place is still wrong because they DO exist, in whatever small numbers they do. You do have to exaggerate those numbers when you are making a video game, because there'd be no point in making a brand new gun if only 12 of them existed across the board, but I'm not saying there should be thousands of them either. Otherwise, they'd better just make the AKM, SKS, and Mosin the most common rifles in the game, because in most Eastern European countries they'd far outnumber guns like the Sporter-22, CR-527, Blaze 95, and whatnot, simply because those are all imported (save for the CZ-527). "Everyone is armed as they would expect with ak74s, SVDs, pkms and wahtever surplus Soviet weapon they can find. Heck on VICE there is even a rebel armed with a ppsh 41." Yeah, most of the rebels do have them, but it's hardly everyone. The PPSh-41 is honestly just as much of an oddity (numbers wise) nowadays as most modern weapons, simply because the role of SMGs deteriorated and there's no real demand for them, unlike Tokarevs & Mosins. This guy's got a PMAG, RIS handguard, flashlight, and Aimpoint on his AK. Another super customized AK on the left, possibly the same guy. Props to the guy with the shotgun fitted with an crane stock on the right. Two TAR-21s and a Negev with a STANAG magazine . Another TAR-21 Customized AKM with receiver RIS, an RDS optic, and GP-25/GP-30 VSS Vintorez on the right AR-10/AR-15 with a MAGPUL stock, bipod, and scope. And a bunch of AK-74P/AK-74M rifles. Clearly they aren't the most common weapons, but they ARE there, so there's no "realism" argument against them being added.

I like the choices they've made representing the CDF so far. They don't even have to put weapons like the TAR-21/SCAR/AUG/AN-94/whatever as CDF weapons, they could simply be NATO/UN/Russian intervention weapons. However, I like the idea of some unconventional weapons being made into CDF special-operations weapons, rather than all simply foreign guns. I've never stated how common I want these kinds of weapons to be, I'm just stating that there's no real problem with including them.

Considering civilians can't actually get the SCAR, I'd have to say you're wrong. (I'm not counting semi-automatic variants) And it's an expensive, relatively-new firearm, so most of the military customers would've received theirs in bulk while civilian manufacturing comes second. I'm not saying it should take a high priority, but they DO exist in those countries, so my point is that you can't argue that it's out of place. That's not to mention that Chernarus is a fictional region, so there's no such thing as "doesn't fit the setting". The SCAR is not, in any way, "obscure", it's a fairly well adopted and definitely widely known. If you're going to argue that it's "jarring" because it's an "ultra-modern" weapon, then the FNX-45 should bother you much more, considering it has not been adopted by a single military organization as of yet. I don't want the FN SCAR, if added, to be a common weapon, but if it were made as rare as other helicopter crashsite weapons, then what's the problem with it? We may as well remove the M4A1, FNX-45, 1911, AK-101/AK-74M, the MP5K, the flashbang, every aftermarket attachment for the AKM except the folding stock, as well as most attachments for other weapons, if you're really going to argue that modern weaponry is too hard for you to accept with "starving survivors", because seeing an M4A1 outfitted with full MAGPUL parts, and M203, and ACOG sight would be just as surprising to see in the hands of someone who has next to nothing as a SCAR. And last time I checked, the entire game isn't about EVERYONE being starving survivors ALL THE TIME. I know you want the endgame to be essentially getting barely enough food to sustain yourself, where even guns like the Mosin and SKS are on the loot centralization system, but I don't see it the same way. Maybe we just inherently disagree about where the game should end up, but I actually would like being well off to be a thing, and not just the entire game being some endless super-difficult struggle. (The game should never become EASY, but actually advancing yourself into an acceptably advanced state should be a thing.) There's no actual complete basis for Chernarus, but the geography is taken directly from the Czech Republic, and quite a lot of the atmosphere is as well. Of course, there are Russian, Ukrainian, Moldovan, Georgian, Chechen, and plenty of other bases, but Chernarus is an inherently fictional region. There's no specific country that the devs have to base it on, because it doesn't exist, but because of previous comments, they seem to pick the Czech Republic as the best inspiration, which means that arms can be across the board. That, and even Ukraine has some "obscure, ultra-modern" (according to gibonez) firearms, like the TAR-21, Fort-401/IMI Negev, Fort-301/Galil & VPR-308. And lest we forget all of the arms that are manufactured/used across the region, but unofficially. Ukrainian rebels have AKs of all kinds, AR-15s, the aforementioned Israeli firearms, and plenty of other guns supplied by Russia/other countries/arms dealers, in addition to a wide range of personally owned weapons. My point is that because of globalization, practically any firearm is acceptable, and that there aren't too many you can truly say "don't fit the setting" with complete merit.

Well, I simply do not agree with the whole "it fits the setting" argument. The FN SCAR is used by Poland, Croatia, Lithuania, Serbia, and Turkey, all of which are around the region that Chernarus would most likely be in. Yes, it's only really used by special forces, but I'm not advocating for them to be the most common guns in the game. That, and of course it's also used by the United States, Germany, France, and Belgium, so you could also argue that it's presence is justified by a NATO intervention, especially considering special forces are usually the REAL first guys on the ground. The M107 is used by the Czech Republic, Finland, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, and Turkey, which again, are all somewhat near where Chernarus would be situated (and the fact that the Czech Republic is the largest design inspiration for Chernarus.) And again, if you can't accept that Chernarus would use them, then NATO intervention still allows for Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portgual, the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, as well as most of the other former warsaw pact countries, now a part of NATO, to have brought the M107 into Chernarus. I don't really care for any anti-materiel rifles in the game (at this point), but it's not at all an oddity/uncommonplace, and definitely acceptable for the setting were it chosen. The Cheytac M-200 Intervention is used by Poland & Turkey, again close to Chernarus. I don't see any reason for it in the game, simply because it uses it's own ammunition type, but it's not really out of place if you want to argue that Chernarussian special forces used them. Ironically enough, the AN-94, the only actual Eastern Bloc weapon, is the least likely of them all. It's only used by Russia in limited numbers, but guess what - it's used by the Russian Army & by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, aka MVD, both of whom intervened in the Chernarussian uprising in ArmA 2. Still not impossible for Russian "peacekeepers" to have been deployed following the disease, with some of them using AN-94s. Either way, that's just arguing from a realistic perspective. Having realistic guns is a good thing, but realism should not be the sole factor that judges whether a gun makes it in, the overall improvement to the gameplay should be the real deciding factor. Yes, DayZ isn't meant to be an MMO where balance is a thing, but that doesn't mean the AKM should be the most common weapon in the game simply because it probably would be in real life.

That's what I'm saying though, that'd only be the case if the game took place years down the line, which it clearly does not.

There's no actual indication of what's happened outside of Chernarus. For all we know the rest of the world could be fine, in fact, Chernarus could be the DayZverse equivalent of the Zone. I wouldn't really say civilization regressed hundreds of years when there's plenty of modern life still afforded to the survivors. I mean, if we were really driven back to pre-industrial society, guns would be super rare, vehicles wouldn't exist, and most of what was left of the modern world would be gone. I fail to see why having guns like an AN-94, FN SCAR, M107, or Cheytac M-200 (though I don't really care for the M107 or M200) somehow ruins the desolate feel. I mean, modern weaponry would still exist, it'd just be rather rare. If they gave the FN SCAR a worn look, would it be okay? I don't see what's wrong with it The separation of survivors is almost better. There are those who improvise most of their gear, and then there are those who lucked out and have found high-end pre-apocalyptic gear. It'd be more interesting to come across a patrol of people actually wearing a full military outfit and carrying end-game weapons, because you'd know they actually spent a lot of time looking and surviving, rather than just; "Oh, that guy has a hoodie, gas mask and an AKM, the rarest rifle in the game." There needs to be separation, which is why high-level stuff is necessary. Being well equipped should actually be being well equipped, not having one full magazine for an AR and a couple cans of beans. Oh, and wouldn't you think that the AN-94 would be a great high-level 5.45x39mm AR because of the now-confirmed ammunition? It's a pretty unique design, has the two-round burst function, and of course has the moving barrel, so I don't see why having a worn but modern variant as one of the better 5.45 guns would be problematic. That, and the AK-12, would be the two highest-end ARs in 5.45x39mm.

Apparently the AKS-74U was confirmed as of this week's new devblog, and I'm honestly super excited, it's one of my favorite weapons and an absolute great choice for a carbine-length AK rifle. However, the wording of "AKS-74U" begs the question... will the gun be an actual 5.45x39mm AKS-74U? Now, it's not a complete guarantee, because there's a 7.62x39mm variant of the AKS-74U called the "AKMSU", and then there are plenty of other similar ones, like Zastavas and whatnot, that also have 7.62x39mm and even 5.56x45mm options. (that's also not mentioning that they don't have to use a real caliber). Here's a 5.45x39mm AKS-74U: Compared to a 7.62x39mm AKMSU: Compared to a 5.56x45mm Zastava M85: Not a whole load of difference, right? (Granted, the M85 is fairly different from the first two, but it's still quite similar) I'm not going to argue on the merits of adding 5.45x39mm (which I personally want, in order to allow better balancing of ARs and rifles, in addition to providing a round with (rather) unique ballistic characteristics. However, I do NOT care for the realism aspect, not at least on it's own.) So, what does the community think/want. Would you prefer the AKS-74U, AKMSU, Zastava M85, all three, a combination of two, do you just not care, or what?

Yeah, .308 and 7.62x51mm are essentially the same round. It's honestly not a huge deal if they make 7.62x51 guns use .308, even if they were made for the more powerful caliber.

3 anti-materiel calibers? I'd say limit it to one at best, and that's assuming they even want AMRs. I could stand behind having the PTRD-41 in addition to a super rare 12.7x99mm caliber for M107s/M95s/AS50s, but my best guess would be they either add 14.5mm or 12.7x99mm and stick with one, because I think penetrating any heavy armor (assuming there is some) should be left to incredibly rare propelled warheads, or IEDs/explosives.

Well, I agree, but I still think there should be a balance. Obviously ARs, SMGs, battle rifles, sniper rifles, MGs, grenade launchers, and whatnot should be really rare compared to most other guns, and more powerful/easy to utilize civilian weapons like the SKS should also be hard to find. I can agree to having pistols becoming more significant in combat overall, but I still feel that the majority of weapons should be the true lowest end guns - some pistols, like the Makarov & P1, as well as low-performing rifles like the CR527 and IZH-43.

That's probably true. Whatever, I just don't see any real good reason for adding it. I'm not at all opposed to it, I just don't advocate for it either.

DayZ isn't ArmA, or Call of Duty, or Battlefield, or Counter-Strike, or Super Mario Bros, or Tetris, or any other video game. It's DayZ? What does this have to do with anything? Definitely not MORE than the PKM, but it could probably fit in there somewhere. You don't need to make a new post every time you want to suggest a weapon, in fact you should probably put them in the Community Weapon's thread if you really want them.

SA Vz.58's made it all over the planet, just as the AK-47, AKM, Type 56, and most other AK variants did, even though the Vz.58 isn't actually an AK. Chernarus is likely situated somewhere around Asia Minor, possibly by modern Turkey, of course it's a fictional Earth so it could be anywhere. However, it's never been proven for sure, and we know that the Czech Republic was a huge basis for how Chernarus was designed, so I wouldn't say that the Vz.58 is at all out of place.

But there are only 2-3 guns that aren't too special otherwise that would actually be done for that. Being able to penetrate body armor alone isn't something I'd use to justify, at most, 5 guns (four of which are, for all intents and purposes in a video game, paired copies of another). That, and they could just add armor piercing and hollow point variants of existing ammunition. That, and the 7.63 Mauser was much lower velocity, so you wouldn't want to give the Mauser C96 a Tokarev round. I just don't see the point. We don't even know what kinds of body armor they'll add, and it'll likely just be a few generic ballistic vests, rather than actual Class I/Class II/Class III types and so forth.

No, but Gews pointed out earlier that the model is actually of an AK-74M that they made awhile ago and just repurposed into the AK101 so they didn't have to waste it. So yes, that actually would make the game's AK-101 a 5.45 weapon. But it's mainly for the other weapons that it allows for in the future that people are excited about.

But the PPD-40 and PPSh-41 aren't a whole lot different, and the C96, TT-33, and CZ-52 are three semi-automatic handguns. Sure, it's five guns, but from a pragmatic viewpoint the major difference is between 2 or three of them. That, and we already have plenty of pistol rounds. .380 ACP for compact pistols, 9x19mm & .45 ACP for most standard handguns, .22LR for alternate pistols & revolvers, and .357 Magnum for large-caliber revolvers. 7.62x25mm is a unique round but honestly I don't think even 5 firearms is enough to justify another standard handgun caliber. That, and the fact that essentially all of them can be done with a currently existing caliber renders it moot.

I think the idea is that .30-06 will be the general full-powered hunting cartridge, used almost exclusively in civilian weapons, 7.62x54mmR will be somewhat common and be used across the board in lower-end weapons like the Mosin, middle-end weapons like the SVT-40, and high-end weapons like the PK and SVD, and 7.62x51mm will be the rare NATO round used in most battle rifles, long-ranged sniper rifles, and GPMGs. Also, it's not technically confirmed, but usually when the devs (especially Rocket) say that they want something, it's going to be done. Which is why you should have a good balance of both. I mean, the M1 Garand was probably on the better end of rifles you could get with .30-06, as most of them would be regular hunting rifles. You can have guns like the M14, FN FAL, and G3 at the same time (they perform quite differently), but they'd be across the board. Guns like the M1 Garand and SVT-40 would be more common than say an M14 because they generally hold fewer rounds and aren't as capable, but they'd also have their own advantages being that ammunition is more prevalent. Plus, the M1 Garand has the bonus of being clip-loaded and thus not "needing" magazines. I'd say the difference between the G3 and FN FAL would be barrel lengths and modularity. Variants are across the board, but your typical G3 has a shorter barrel than the FAL and is more modular, while the FAL gets a much better range. This is, of course, negligible, because both have tons of other models that are super modular (or not at all so), and have varying barrel sizes. Still, you could justify both of them for that purpose. The M14 is a semi-automatic rifle (in most cases today), so the selector switch would be its biggest separator.

There are only a few pistols that they could do with "7.62 pistol rounds", not to mention that they've said that 7.62x51mm will be called .308 when it's split up from 7.62x54mmR so that they only have two "7.62" rounds. Like I said before, the Mauser has many different 9x19mm variants and a few .45 ACP ones, so the 7.63 Mauser ammunition isn't necessary. Norinco's Type 54 copy of the Tokarev has a 9x19mm variant. Even the CZ-52 is also offered in 9x19mm barrel conversions. The only real guns that you couldn't superbly replicate are the PPSh-41 and PPD-40 (and every other "PP" variant), but there were even some 9x19mm conversions of the PPSh-41 done during WW2, so again there's nothing they really require 7.62x25mm or any 7.62 pistol round for assuming they want guns with real calibers, but not necessarily the most common forms.

I'd be okay with things like the broomhandle stock and varied capacity magazines, but honestly I don't think it needs it's own holster or scope mount. Improvised suppressors should work across the board, but there's no point in adding them until suppressors actually work.