Chaingunfighter

Zombies should absolutely not be priority number one, player interaction is one of the biggest things that drives DayZ, and it shouldn't be all "everyone is forced to work together because of how difficult the game is." They could definitely use fleshing out and improvement, and a higher degree of difficulty, but not the primary threat 24/7. Also, "advanced" weapons like the M4A1 or AK-101, vehicles (in general), and all sorts of other gear make this idea moot. Why is any of it ingame if even finding simple hunting rifles will truly feel like a miracle? Do you really think they'll just remove all of that stuff from the game, except for maybe a few basic things like the AKM, which would be like finding El Dorado? (On another note, the crossbow is actually fairly advanced, being that it is essentially a 1 hit kill, you can re-use bolts, and it has a number of optics. I wouldn't mind it being fairly rare, with most bow-type weapons being crafted) They need to be more of a threat, but trying to make them the sole primary danger, to the point that hostile interaction with other players is almost nonexistent, is not a good idea. DayZ styled gameplay can work without zombies just fine. They're a pretty big part of the game, and it is called "DayZ" after all, but that doesn't mean we need to throw zombies to the front.

Encourage them to do what? It's pretty much set that the calibers are going to be limited, arguing against it is a bit futile at this point. I personally would've been fine with DayZ having a large amount of different ammunition types, but seeing as how that's not currently what they're interested in, I'm working to make compromises so we can at least get what we want without breaking the system. The Norinco Type 54 (TT-33) is sort of like the Type 56 is to AK rifles today, it's not from Eastern Europe/Russia but it's still fairly common in those parts. The 9x19mm export version specifically (probably) isn't, but it's not really any different than the Makarov IJ-70 with .380 ACP in that regard. The MP41r SMGs, while obviously not common, were pretty much entirely used on the Eastern Front, and Chernarus is very possibly within an area that Germany would've invaded. If so, then it's possible that soldiers there converted PPSh-41s when stationed, as it's clear from statues that Chernarussian soldiers did use the PPSh at one point. That wouldn't really justify making them common, but it's still possible. Either way, that's a plausible idea for getting them in the game, especially if 7.62x25mm won't be added (and it's possible that it won't - Chris Torchia said he'd rather have .410 Gauge than 7.62x25mm in some posts awhile ago)

A-ha! Norinco Type 54, Model 213 (9x19mm) It's essentially a Tokarev TT-33 re-chambered in 9x19mm. Sure, it's a Chinese knock-off, but aesthetically it's nearly identical and it's a real gun. Now we can have a Tokarev without a whole new caliber being necessary. Edit: Seems there's also a 9x19mm PPSh-41 During WW2, German forces apparently re-chambered some captured PPSh-41s and PPS-43s into 9x19mm and designated them as the "MP41r". Again, it's aesthetically similar to the PPSh-41, and still a real gun. Now we really have no need for 7.62x25mm.

True, but you wouldn't be able to swap servers if the game was closed down, :P

Not advocating for it, I don't want that kind of system. I was just saying that's the only for sure way to stop it completely, not that I think we need to go that far.

The M1 Carbine is awesome, especially the M1A1 with the skeleton stock. Unfortunately I doubt they'll add .30 carbine to the game, even though unlike most other calibers people seem to want, it actually does have a good variety of weapons that use it. AK-12s are cool, too, and much more likely with 5.45x39mm being a potential future addition (and AK-12s exist in other calibers)

No. More like; and and and and and Hooray for weapon non-discrimination! (and really long posts)

It's really only going to be more detrimental to regular players than it is to server hoppers. Running 1km in DayZ only takes a few minutes, and for someone who has enough time to spare to loot, it's not going to be a huge problem. Conversely, someone who's trying to get as much out of the time they have is going to be extremely frustrated when they appear randomly a kilometer away because they were kicked off of the last servers they joined. That's not to mention how the random placement wouldn't be very easy to do, because the likelihood of one spawning stuck inside an object can be quite significant, especially depending on where you are. Or, you could end up spawning a mile away from the shore in the middle of the ocean. It's sort of like how randomly spawning around the map is a bad idea (and it's already been confirmed by Brian that random spawning is not something they're going to do) The only way to truly end server hopping is to get rid of the public hive system entirely. You have to either restrict players to a single server or get rid of the public hive, otherwise it's still possibly to gear up on other servers, no matter how difficult or time consuming you make it.

Possibly Prigorodky, the little suburbian area outside of Chernogorsk. That little town has always been so fascinating for me, and it's typically where I used to camp out in ArmA 2 (when I needed a spot near the city), as people usually just ran straight for Cherno and avoided the outskirts. What else would they have done? Completely re-designed the map from scratch, copying it entirely without actually copying and pasting anything, save for the areas they wanted to change? Besides, they've only changed the NEAF, and soon Balota (keep in mind we have no idea what's actually going to change, just that it will). And they're not even getting rid of the airfields, they're just redesigning them and moving loot locations in order to fit the game structure better.

There's an Orion flare pistol in the game's files, so we'll probably get that eventually. It's been there for awhile, so I'm not sure what they'll do with it, but if they decide to add it they have the model. M3 Greasegun would be cool, as would the UMP-45. Dual magazines for the M4A1 wouldn't be so bad if they actually worked like they should've and just allowed for a faster reloading speed, and I don't really see the problem with the 40 round MAGPUL mags either. The 75 round AK magazines were sort of inevitable if they ever plan on adding an RPK or something along those lines, and they can also just make them super rare. But I honestly don't see any real issue with the larger ones, so long as they're justifiably rare. If people want to waste their ammunition spraying, then let them, they're going to miss most of their shots. I think the real problem is just that ammunition is way too common, so that picking your shots isn't really needed. People who stock up enough ammo and are lucky enough to finding high capacity magazines should be rewarded, they just shouldn't be as common as they are now, rather than removing them.

I was quite specific when I said "higher capacity, select-fire battle rifle", there isn't one of those ingame yet. The "western" part is just for detail, and because I'd rather have most battle rifles using rarer 7.62x51mm/.308 ammo rather than 7.62x54mmR which will likely be more common when they're split. That, and I was specifically referring to the G3 and FN FAL in that instance, but I wanted to use as many vague adjectives as I could :P Or at least a 40 round magazine for 7.62x39 AK variants. That way the 75 round magazines could be super rare but we could still have a magazine that works well with the RPK. Plus the 40 round magazine can just as easily fit in the AKMSU (7.62x39 AKS-74U), so you could just clear rooms with that (10 rounds might not make the difference with a carbine, though)

Maybe, they did have that function in ArmA 3 and even ArmA 2 (I believe), though. Regardless, the sights are very high profile, so aiming accurately with them is not too easy. Sort of like the carry handle scope I wanted awhile ago (and still want, for aesthetic purposes), it's use is greatly diminished when it doesn't line up with the regular sights. The Longhorn being stuck with the scope was kind of annoying, because it's actually a gun that fairly easily swaps optics, and can also be used effectively without them at all. However, I feel like this was because they just didn't put as much time into it, or maybe didn't like how the LRS worked on it and they couldn't agree on what to do with the other one. It's not a huge deal because the LongHorn isn't a major use weapon, but it was still slightly disappointing. I want them to take a huge advantage of the attachment system, too, but I believe that attachment versatility should be something to consider when picking even higher-end guns. Most other potential 5.56x45mm ARs, like the TAR-21, G36, FAMAS, L85, SG552, or what have you, are pretty versatile. The AUG, or at least A1 in this instance, gets its advantages from the fact that it's already "leveled-up" to a higher end status, but they come at the cost of reduced overall versatility. That's why I think that the TAR-21 would be a better candidate for a large amount of attachments, as it; Is of bullpup design, making reloading quicker(Potentially) has a shorter barrel than the AUG, increasing effectiveness in CQB but decreasing overall ranged usefulness.Uses STANAG magazines (and all of the other M4 mags), while the AUG uses it's own kind. (Technically the AUG can be modified to use STANAGs but I don't know if they'll do this)Has rails for plenty of optics and other attachments, grenade launchers included.The AUG A3 would basically fill the same niche, but I feel setting the two apart with the AUG being a longer-ranged 5.56x45mm bullpup and the TAR being a shorter-ranged bullpup would actually add differential performance rather than just two cool looking guns that for all intents and purposes perform the same. That, and I like the classic A1 look :P That's true, a higher capacity, select-fire, western battle rifle would definitely be cooler to have sooner than a rifle which is, for all intents and purposes (gameplay wise) an SKS that shoots 7.62x54mmR rounds and uses a magazine. Still, I see no reason for something like it to be managed, because the only real advantages it has over the SKS is that it deals more damage and is a bit more accurate. Both of them are limited to the PU Scope of optics currently implemented (and the SKS does have a bayonet, so there's that), the SVT-40 needs a magazine to be at full useful capacity, and the SVT is also a lot longer than the SKS -- Though not too much, it's significant enough in CQB. And if weapon maintenance ever becomes a factor then the SVT-40 will probably be significantly less reliable than the SKS. The FN FAL might be cool, too, as it's a pretty long rifle, but either work.

I think Chris Torchia was talking in one of the recent interviews about how they want to make weapon degradation a thing, so the whole advantage of the AUG would be that the scope doesn't get damaged separately to the gun - sort of like the LongHorn. That, and the AUG could just be rarer, though I wouldn't necessarily consider the scope to be a complete advantage, because the AUG scope sucks for CQB and the gun has no ironsights, so you'd generally be better of with an M4A1, or to a lesser extent, the AK101. And I think the idea that bullpups are generally better because of handling is a true point, I just also think that taking advantage of the built-in scope, something that's not too common, would be cool. The TAR-21 with a CQB barrel would probably be a better "high-end" bullpup rifle (compared to other ARs).

SVT-40 would be a low-end battle rifle, not really warranting being rare. It would only really be able to take the PU Scope (of ones ingame, not taking into account other potential scopes in the future), and only holds a 10 round magazine, similar to the SVD. The SVD is a bit more versatile, more accurate, and also potentially has 20 round magazines (although mainly 10 round ones, like the SVT). SVD should be the middle end rifle, possibly the low-end of the managed system. "Ultra-end" to me would be something like a MK17 or SR-25, while "high-end" would be rifles like the M14, G3, and FN FAL, which are definitely more versatile than the SVD, but not superbly high-end It's pretty easy to tell the difference between them. Granted, they are fairly similar looking, and I would love to have a G3 or FN FAL, but I think the SVT is different enough so that it shouldn't be held off just for looks alone. I'd sort of prefer the Steyr AUG A1 Just because it's interestingly different from the M4A1 and AK101. It comes with an integrated scope, and is also a bullpup rifle, but you can't really put any other attachments on it, and the scope doesn't come off. That way it's got a point other than just being another mid-length 5.56x45mm AR (which I'm not opposed to, but I think that they could do that with other rifles, say the TAR-21, which don't exist like this)

He's talking in the real world, the only reason the Mosin is used as the only sniper rifle (for now) is that it's the only weapon with the LRS and thus more capable downrange. Once more dedicated platforms come out, the Mosin will probably be more of a general support rifle, rather than dedicated sniper.

Don't think Lee-Enfields or K-98Ks are very likely, considering the overall limitation on calibers, and .303 and 7.92x57mm aren't used in a whole lot of other guns. AN-94 would be interesting as a crashsite weapon, but 5.45x39mm isn't on board yet, so I don't know whether we could get it. I'd like an AKMSU, which is a 7.62x39mm AKS-74U, at some point. That, or just the AKS-74U if they ever decide to add 5.45x39mm. Oh, and an SVT-40 :)

Using figures of speech through text is fairly inefficient, because emotion is much harder to detect, so I apologize that you keep forcing me to assume various things. What I'm saying is that there isn't anything wrong with more guns, guns, guns, or improvised items. I went into gameplay because a common sentiment here is to compare new features to other first person shooters and claiming that utilizing similarities is a bad thing, including adding weapons that aren't strictly civilian in nature. You may be different, but when you reference things like you do, you're automatically shoved in with a quarter of the rest of the forums, who believe that adding anything that, as I've said before, isn't civilian, is bad.

And adding more military stuff isn't going to make it any more of a "general first person shooter". Call of Duty would be exactly the same if they did it in a civilian setting, the only major difference would be... the civilian setting. It's the gameplay that really counts, not just the content.

Usually when people say "I'd prefer the focus to be on civilians" they're implying a stern "No." It's my general response to it at this point, you get used to it.

Then wouldn't the obvious solution be to just make military gear rarer, instead of just not including it?

I'm the same way, but normally something has to make at least a tad bit of sense for me, or at least be somewhat explainable, but I can't really see why these would ever be built. They'd still be cool and I'm not opposed to them, at all, but I'd rather the devs spend more time on something more sensible like an oil rig, which could also spawn high valued gear - since you could argue that the military would repurpose them or use the oil.

Only problem is, what if you killed someone at their stash? Then you basically get poor quality gear that was completely unrelated to the firefight. Or worse, what if someone abruptly dies across the map while you're looting it, should the stuff all just randomly become damaged?

Uzi is a must have There are a lot of general .308 weapons, though. What he's saying is that there should be dedicated rounds for dedicated sniper platforms so that regular rifles can be distinct, and we can have them without screwing up the gameplay. Otherwise, guns like the Blaze will be pointless because you have to use a round that's rare for sniper rifles.

Well, good luck convincing them to remove content that they spent a good amount of time working on, and are very passionate about. Dean: "Sorry artists, we have to remove your tents from the game" Artists: "But... but, why!?" Dean: "A couple of players feel that they personally violate DayZ's ULTIMATE 100% REALISM SIMULATOR ANTIGAME RULE" Artists: "But..." Dean: "Nope, sorry, the next patch is removing persistent items from the game completely, that goes for you too, programmers" Programmers: "But we've been working on this since the Alpha was released" Dean: "Well, when I stated that I'm not going to cater to the majority, I obviously meant that I am going to cater to the minority. Artists, delete the models from your computers, programmers, get rid of that code. Now." The game doesn't need to be as realistic as possible, to the point of completely violating "fun", in order to add "immersion" (which is completely subjective). I'm able to feel immersed in the game as it stands. Sure, there are things that can break it, but I don't think the fact that people can place tents and store items in them is going to ruin my experience.

I don't know about making the M24 a crashsite weapon, the M24 wouldn't really be any different performance wise than the Mosin is now (before 7.62x54mmR and .308 become separate). In fact, besides optics and the ATLAS bipod, the M24 wouldn't really have that many attachments. I'd say it could just be a rarer military spawn or possibly police station spawn, it doesn't really warrant being a super high-end rifle. Also, I believe the M4A1 is now spawning back at regular bases, I found a pristine M4A1 with no attachments (as they spawn) at a police station, and it doesn't appear to have been dropped, since I was the East Coast, far from any crash sites. (Not to mention on a 12 player server)