Chaingunfighter

There's no "supposed to", there's just what's typically done. Don't want to call it alpha? Fine, call it "Omega" version, because it's not the full-release game, it's what the developers call it. Bugs are there because the game is still in development. Why is that so hard to get through your head? "Alpha", "Beta", "Going Gold", "Whatever the fuck mode", they're all meaningless terms meant for nothing other than project organization. Just because they don't follow the general stance, or in this case, what YOU and YOU ALONE say, does not indicate that it's somehow no longer early in development. If you're going to use your logic, then you may as well say that any early-access alpha is just a commercially released game, because the alpha release is what people play. Stop being so vitriolic.

Besides the fact that DayZ Origins, Namalask, Taviana, Lingor, and most other maps aren't canon at all, I don't think the fact that a plane has crashed into a building somehow proves where the virus came from. The crash could've because of an intentional terrorist attack, engine failure/mid-air collision, the plane being shot down, poor weather, or simply a random plane from an unknown location crashing because of infected passengers/crew. (The only maps that are canon in the Armaverse are Chernarus, Utes, Takistan, Zargabad, the "Proving Grounds", and Shapur. However, the only place where zombies are actually canon in the DayZ universe is Chernarus, everywhere else could be fine for all we know.) The most likely idea is that it was just added to create a cool setting in Chernogorsk and that it's really up to the player to decide what happened, rather than it actually being significant.

No, /no joke :P

Possibly, but only if the RPK (assuming it's added) is restricted. Otherwise, it should just be hella rare, but not restricted. I'm also loving that AK-101 mocked up as an AK-74. But seriously, with all of that gear, the guy looks like he's wearing an EOD suit and is about to defuse a bomb. SPOSN + SMERSH + GORKA + MASKA, geez, there needs to be a weight-induced speed factor.

That's true, it's just that it already exists in the game, so I don't see why not to keep it :P It's not really important right now anyway, because we're not even sure what's going to happen, all we know is that something like an AKS-74U is being worked on.

What I really want is to stuff a derringer into the back of my boots just like you can with the M9 Bayonet, and pull it out on someone while I'm lying prone on my back. (Perhaps they can also make a knee-holster or concealed holster as well) Chaps would be epic, and a rough skin leather vest, possibly made from the animal skins, would create the coolest aesthetics.

I wouldn't say that the AK-101, AKM, or AKS-74U are identical at all. They're completely distinguishable. Granted, they're similar, but it's not as if they're comparing an AK-47 to an AKM, it's three different weapons platforms. The FAL was automatic/burst fire in most instances, the first common semi-automatic variant was the L1A1. Also, there are plenty of attachments that the FN FAL can use. Hence why I suggested the Zastava M85, which is really chambered in 5.56x45mm. I honestly don't think that they'll do it, because they said AKS-74U, and usually they'd word it differently if they were doing a Zastava, but who knows. It's really between the AKMSU and AKS-74U, I was just throwing in the possibility. And what exactly are the artists and modelers going to do while the game is being fixed? You act as if creating new content is getting in the way of fixing bugs, both of which are completely separate fields. I have to disagree that there's no sense in having both the AK-101 and AK-74M, even though I doubt that they'd do an AK-74M if they were going to pick other 5.45x39mm weapons. I still like the concept of the AK-101 being the AK-pattern rifle that uses AK attachments but western ammunition. Plus, it's already in the game at this point, so if they really wanted to, they could simply copy & paste the code. My best guess is that we'll have the 7.62x39mm AKMSU anyway, but it doesn't really concern me. I just like the idea of having an AK-100 series rifle in the game. I don't know that we need new weapons of every class each month, we've already got a fairly regular weapons set as is. They could honestly drop all work on everything and just keep the guns as they are now, forgetting the MP-133, SVD, Rossi R92, derringer, AKS-74U, and whatever else they've got planned, and we'd still have an acceptable list of guns. Now, we'll obviously get those guns at the very least, and I'd say the MP-133 and SVD are necessary to fill niches that aren't really done now, but say they added all of those, and we'd be good. Weapons take a fairly large amount of time to complete, and not all of the artists are working on guns. I'd definitely be happy if they added 3-4 guns every update, like the one with the Sporter-22, 1911, CR75, and Amphibia, but that can't happen every time.

Meh, or they could do a regular AK-74. Either way, it's already ingame, so if they want to do another one I don't see why we should decrease the overall variety, even if it is minor. And I don't think there's any limits on how many of each type of firearm they're allowed to have balance-wise, plus I like to see the AK-101 as the "Western ammunition gun that uses eastern parts", to give a bit more versatility.

Because it has nothing to do with the AK series, at all. Plus, it's just another 5.56x45mm AR, which we already have two of, so it's rather low priority at this point.

If it's not going to be fun - you don't release it. I don't know what you were expecting. If they really wanted to keep a player base, why would they release something that you couldn't enjoy? We don't have a god-given right to control development just because we bought a game that's in a state that the developers call "pre-release". To say that the community and playerbase has had no say in development is simply false, but to say that we need to have direct control and that the developers are obligated to listen to us is wrong. Patches, updates, whatever you want to call them, are newer versions of the game. They feature content that has not yet been added to the regular game. That's the development process. There are very few early access games that truly add everything in the most basic form when it's implemented for developer testing, most of the time you have a semi-refined product added. The developers have taken plenty of suggestions from the community, but again, they don't have to do everything the (supposed) "majority" wants, and they'll rarely conform to the wants of a specific person, i.e., you. Sure, when the devs decide to add a Rossi R92, you never actually got a hand in whether it should be added, but after it gets added, if people discover that it shoots way too inaccurately for a gun of that type, they'll fix it. The fact that most of the content is decided on doesn't mean you don't get to help, but you can't act like you deserve a huge saying in it. The fact that bugs have been persistent isn't just a black-and-white issue either, many of them are low priority and some of them are more complicated than you'd think. You can point out bugs that haven't been fixed, but there are many times more bugs that HAVE been fixed. "The point is, an alpha isn't supposed to be fun or even that interesting (gameplay wise) - it's supposed to be barely functional. When I first saw the page, and the giant disclaimer, I thought that we'd finally get a truly open alpha. However, obviously, that's not the case." That's never been set in stone, anywhere, ever. It's a general rule of development that goes through in most alpha-phase stages of products. Early-access alpha is a relatively new concept and developers are experimenting with new ways of delivering said product. One of which is delivering an interesting experience to the users, and that partially stems from the fact that releasing a game that has most of the large stuff, but almost no detail, typically dissuades users and gives the product a lower chance at making sales later on in development, whereas giving people a bunch of new stuff to look forward to actually draws in more and keeps them playing. I mean, the amount of money made has proven that it's worked for at least some people. So yes, you are playing a truly open alpha, just not the one you expected. I, for one, am satisfied, and it seems quite a few others are with that. Your complaints are meaningless.

The picture is of an actual AKMSU, there was no real "standard" AKMSU production. Most of the ones in existence today are just AKMS receivers thrown into AKS-74U body kits, including the one I've shown, which is actually quite a popular blank-firing movie prop. The ones mentioned on Wikipedia were just the ones used during the Soviet-Afghanistan War, and were fairly improvised, but either way, both look similar, so it wouldn't make a huge difference. If they're going to add an AK-74 or AK-74M, it shouldn't be at the cost of the AK-101. At this point, why not just have both? I wouldn't say the AKS-74U is near-identical to the AKM, AK101, or M4A1, which are the other select-fire rifles ingame. It's a carbine length rifle, so clearly you're going to get significantly less range than the other three, but it's also got a full-powered round which gives it a great boost for CQB and medium ranged encounters. Granted, it's not anything super special, but I wouldn't say it's near-identical. The only gun that I'd say is absolutely necessary for now is a pump-action shotgun, the MP-133 which is getting animations right this moment, and a dedicated sniper platform, the SVD that's already confirmed. Otherwise, we've got a fairly decent regular weapons set, and the devs could honestly stop making weapons there and have one that's good enough. Endgame weapons like MGs, long-ranged sniper platforms, RPGs/directed explosive weapons, and whatnot have their place, but the devs aren't adding them until the central loot economy works, so it's not worth considering right now. That's why the SVD hasn't been added yet, because it's probably going to be on the rarer end of the spectrum. I want a PKM and M249 as much as anyone, but I think we can wait, so that we're not seeing them everywhere.

Well, yes, they can be boring at times, but I think the problem with releasing an alpha and taking the usual development route is that it's a lot more risky (hell, it's risky releasing an early access game in general, but that's besides the point). A lot of times with games like that it's a hit-or-miss type of thing, if a game is released early and found to be boring, typically people will not come back to it, whereas games that are updated regularly and add new stuff tend to at least keep people interested longer. Yes, it's usually at the cost of slower overall development, but that isn't always the case, and a lot of times people become disinterested or way too hyped for games that take a while to release anyway. I can't say for sure, but completely rebuilding a game with a whole load of new content and improvements while at the same time trying to keep the core feel actually takes a lot longer than developing a brand new game. Black Mesa: Source, for example, took a very long time to finish, and they did quite a good job with it. That was just an HD remake, but the thing is, they were forced to stay within the same boundaries of the original game so that it didn't play much differently while at the same time feeling new, and that's the hard part about re-doing games or creating sequels. Now, I will admit, that DayZ development seems (can't say for sure because we've never had an actual inside look at it) to be a bit unusual, because oftentimes the developers want to have a half-decent (although buggy) version that they're happy with releasing, rather than just releasing what they have when it's ready in the most basic form. Vehicles are taking a while because they want to put a good amount of time into them, and they're not as far off as people think (only a few more big updates presumably). Is it at all perfect? No. The game has it's flaws and I certainly wouldn't run the company exactly the same were I in charge (thank goodness I'm not), but so far I'm liking what I'm seeing. Yes, the waiting and anticipation for the HUGE things really does suck, but seeing how dedicated the devs are to their game, I'm not worried that 1.0 won't be quite the experience

All I can see is that you're unhappy that the development team isn't devoting 100% of their time creating large features, because adding 55 gallon water drums and retexturing models is something that, apparently must come in the beta, while the entire alpha should be spent only getting the very base of features and not adding a single thing more. Do you not understand how development simply cannot work exactly like that in an early-access game? If everything was left bare bones and there were extremely long periods between updates, you lose players very quickly. Is the Rossi R92 or 55 gallon drum or skateboard helmet really going to make a difference? Probably not. But if everyone was still running around with Mosin-Nagants or M4A1s with TTsKO gear, FNX-45s, and motorbike/ballistic helmets, I don't think the game would be too much fun to play. Guns like the CR527, AKM, AK101, and whatnot, are all essentially the same as the Mosin/M4A1 (being bolt-action & 30-round select fire rifles), just with different values. It just wouldn't be fun without the new little things like those. That wouldn't be important if the development was being done closed until release, they'd have a couple of the weapons shown off and then at one point mid-development they'd add most of the games weapons. You can't keep it interesting if you wait til one point to do that. That, and it's more efficient to do that than just have everyone work on large projects at once. Making a hat doesn't take as long as making an entire car, and you really only need a couple of people to implement the hat, whereas you have to get an entire team of artists, modelers, scripters/coders, animators, and sound-designers just to get one vehicle in the game, and you can't have them all work on it at once, and it still takes a lot longer. That's why it isn't working, as a subjective, "general" statement on Wikipedia says.

Rossi R92 AND a derringer, full cowboy weapons set now only needs an SAA.45 or another 1800s revolver

That, and they have to reloaded after every shot, or in the case of something like an M-72 LAW, are a "one-shot - one chance" weapon, and can't be reused after firing.Either way, people running around at full speed with anti-materiel rifles seems MORE generic FPS-esque than simply having a few explosive support weapons.

Now we're calling even old Soviet APCs tacticool? You may as well call the ashwood short bow "too tacticool for DayZ" at this point.

I'd rather they keep the 101 at this point, and if they truly decide to add 5.45x39mm, then they should make the AK-74 and AK-101 two separate weapons. That, and the only thing I'd say is "broken" is the 7.62mm rounds that keep changing, modeled based on 7.62x54mmR but used in two guns that use 7.62x51mm, and we already know that's planned for change. Why, exactly, would streamlining the game in any way make more sense on a console? The only thing that tends to be different from most PC-to-console ports is the overall graphic quality, content is very rarely restricted any differently or "streamlined", especially considering cross-platform servers are a planned possibility. Older ports sometimes lack the content of the PC game because console technology couldn't handle it, or the ported version was being developed by a different company (ala Minecraft), but I honestly doubt the devs are going to change the types of bullets available because of hardware limitations.

What's there to be fixed? "We've decided to add .380 ACP. We're not going to have two 9mm calibers in game" doesn't seem like something that's just awaiting a fix, seems quite intentional to me. As for things like 7.62x54mmR and .308 being separated, that's future stuff.

And the few more calibers don't need to be redundant ones, like 9x18mm. They should be ones that actually promote varied gameplay rather than merely separating the same class of firearms based on location of manufacture. I don't see how sticking to one specific bullet for some pistols and some smgs, with 4 other unique rounds being used for the same overall weapon groups, is streamlining the game, especially considering you don't even need the other bullet type to get the same weapons. Hurt animations were confirmed, and even shown off already, but they're probably awaiting engine improvement, weapon jamming will obviously be a thing considering the weapon cleaning kit, diseases are confirmed.... they are capitalizing on them. Not adding one bullet type isn't going to change a thing. I'd not just limit it to gear, but more so progression in general. The point at which you have everything you need and no longer need to focus on improving, just expanded to include shelters/forts, vehicles, and whatever else beyond inventory gear is planned.

Well, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, at least on the issue of calibers. It should be complex, but I don't think making it as complex as possible is a good thing.

It's still more complex than most games, I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be as complex as possible in order to get a good experience. ]

It's implied anyway, but I just meant that even of weapons left behind, you'd probably never find an AK-12 realistically, as the person was trying to state. But yes, "more guns more funs" is absolutely true.

You pretty much hit it spot on with that one, beans to you. You should really try directly petitioning it to one of the devs like Chris Torchia, or at least try reddit, because apparently they have their 1.0 release weapons planned out so weapons suggestions are going out the window really quickly. The devs read the forums but you can't rely on them here.

1. I do agree that ammunition with different ballistic properties, as well as overall weapon variety, are definitely worth being considered. 5.45x39mm is definitely one I really do want them to add. However, the ballistics between 9x18mm and .380 ACP are incredibly similar, and in a game you're not going to notice the difference half the time. More calibers can be a good thing, but it's better spent adding ones that actually have differential ballistics and good variety rather than just one millimeter size difference. Again, as I put it, I would've been fine with either 9x18mm or .380 ACP (Because neither of them were necessary in the first place), but when put toe to toe 9x18mm would be my second pick, not first. 2. Because in a game there's no inherent difference in function between the overall amount of Eastern weapons and Western weapons, it's just realism at that point, and I've already told you that it's not an acceptable argument on it's own. It's not really an accomplishment to find a .380 ACP SMG that is rarer overall and performs almost exactly the same as an equivalent 9x18mm SMG. No one would ever pick it up for serious usage, because it incurs no advantage. That's why I don't see any point in adding the Nagant M1895, because it's going to end up using a caliber built specifically for it and it's not too special compared to other revolvers and handguns. I'm for having rare, cool "party-piece" weapons, but if they're only being made rare for the uniqueness factor (I.e. being a western counterpart to an existing eastern gun), then having their own nearly-identical but rarer ammo caliber is pointless. What would be an accomplishment would be guns like the VSS Vintorez or AS VAL, because they're internally suppressed and quite the impressive and useful weapons, so you would feel rewarded to find one and some special 9x39mm ammo. There likely wouldn't be a regular counterpart, so that's what makes them useful, the utility, not just the stigma of where the gun was manufactured. 3. This part is, of course, strictly a matter of opinion. Obviously both of us can acknowledge that complexity in a game like DayZ in a good thing and that there are variable levels that we each feel suit our needs. I personally feel that having multiple incredibly similar calibers that are functionally identical in a game and only make sense on realistic grounds is unnecessary, hence "over-complicating" (I'll admit that it's just a loaded word, but still) 4. I'm not saying they should, but the devs have made comments about it, so it's part of their plan. And I didn't necessarily say the USA, it could be anywhere. Eastern ammunition like 5.45x39mm and 9x18mm aren't too common in most parts of the Western world as a whole. I wasn't really arguing my point forward with it, because I agree, planning that far in advance is something that you really need to be considering at more than just the item level. At the end of the day, I'm not gonna bat an eye if I end up having to look for both 9x18mm and .380 ACP rounds. In fact, I originally wanted the game to have tons of different calibers, all across the board, but seeing as how the developers are not taking the vanilla game that way, I start to support ideas that would further my experience the way the game is going, because it isn't my game, as much as I'd love for it to be. I just want DayZ to be a fun game, and at this current point and time, I don't see how 9x18mm is going to make it any better. Pretty much, when guns are brought up we definitely get a bit too rowdy, myself included. However, this is still a healthy debate that pertains to how the end game would work, as yes, what ammunition your gun uses would absolutely affect how quickly gearing up goes.

The stripper clips shouldn't work on the Mosin with the LRS anyway. I'm not sure how common stripper clips need to be. They should definitely be available but I think having to choose between loading more often and more slowly versus reloading quicker and having generally larger capacities but needing to search a lot harder is a good balance. Hand-loading shouldn't be atrociously slow (Looking at you, Enfield L42 from Insurgency: Source), but it should be noticeably slower than magazine reloading.