Chaingunfighter

I don't really see the need for a U.S. based map, at least not an official one. I mean, I'm not opposed to it, but there are other interesting areas of the world that have few or no zombie games. Somewhere in Germany would be nice, or some central/western European country that isn't the UK. i don't think making a map literally based on a TV Show/Comic/Other Video Game Series would go out very well, though. They'd have to get permission, and there's also the fact that you can already play the Walking Dead Game to explore the area, where there are more interesting areas even in the US that could be done. They'll definitely need to finish what they have planned for Chernarus before starting on a new map, though. Adding on to the map probably won't happen, because it's not easy to do with the 'island editor' program they use. The biggest problem with making it in the US (besides the fact that the US is the setting for almost every zombie game) is that a lot of the stuff would not make sense in the US. Most of the guns are alright, but an AK-101 is practically impossible, and a lot of the modern Russian/Eastern European gear and clothing are pretty far fetched. They'd need to redesign a lot of the stuff to fit it. Either way, talking about new maps is out of the question at this point, when there's so much that needs to be sorted out on the current map.

There's been a lot of concern about night vision, and thermal optics, which arguably give huge advantages to people who have them (And I will admit they probably do). One of the big problems with NVGs in the mod was that they had their own slot for storage (and you still had a separate one for binoculars or rangefinders), and they could be used without consequence (turned on or off with the press of a button). NVGs are in the game's files, and will probably be implemented at some point, most likely after the loot management system is done. But what if there was an alternative, that isn't so "overpowered" (I use the term for lack of a better word)? The answer may lie in the NSPU (Night Small-arms Scope Unified), or 1PN34. The NSPU was designed for SVD rifles to be utilized during the nighttime, as would be obvious. As these were a relatively early form of night vision, the quality wasn't exactly the best, and they had a huge flaw if the mission turned over to daytime - you can't use the scope without power on. The obvious drawback to this is that being powered on enabled the night vision, which would render it useless at day. So how would this affect DayZ? Well, for starters, something like this would still be rare as hell. You could use it on the guns that use the PSO-1 (AKM, AK101, and upcoming SVD), as well as others, like the PKM, and it would incur a huge advantage at night time. However, you're forced to make a heavy decision. Why? The thing is MASSIVE. It would take up so many slots in your inventory to carry one, so quickly swapping it out and holding it until nighttime would be at the cost of most of your backpack space. And if you tried to keep it on the rifle and just free-aim, well, good luck sniping, and the massive profile will mean you'll get spotted very quickly. You also cannot, in almost any circumstance, use the thing in the daytime (unless you're indoors, or something like that.) So it'd be a hefty choice to make - do I want this rare scope that could help me out a lot at night time? Or should I leave it, because during the day it's just going to be taking up space? (And weigh a lot if said system gets added)

Yeah, but the FAL with the NVS was really bad because you couldn't ever detach it and the FAL was already underused, at least compared to the M14 and DMR (which were both better, because they had a red-dot and sniper scope, respectively)

I mean, using NVGs with regular red-dot optics (such as the aimpoint) is fine, but because we have 3D scopes now, I'd reckon actually aiming with NVGs would be pretty difficult. Still, I think the actual wearable goggles should be some of the rarest items, simply for the fact that you can use them when unscoped. Certain night vision scopes, like the one you depicted on that picture of the M110/SR25, would still be fairly rare, because they can be toggled off and be used as a regular scope in the daytime, but you still have to be sighted in to use them. The NSPU would only be different for the fact that it's a nighttime only optic. You only get put at a disadvantage when using it during the day. That's why I don't think it warrants being a manged item, simply because the downsides are very prevalent.

The reason suppressors don't work now is because of problems with switching the weapon's sound and noise properties when applying the attachment, it's unrelated to the NVGs. The NVGs are just a night filter applied through a scope, nothing to do with sound, really. I can't see something like this being a super high end attachment. I mean, sure, it's high end for the simple fact that you get night vision, but because of how bulky the thing is, and the fact that you can't really see through the scope in the daytime, would make it pretty selective. Also, yes, most people like to play at daytime, so you wouldn't see too many people carrying this thing around. That, and your dexterity with this thing on is going to be really low. Duping could probably be a problem, but it's really no worse than other kitted out M4A1s and AKs that get duped. I wouldn't advocate for adding stuff like this until a solution for duping comes around, though. I think something like this would probably be the rarest of the stuff that ISN'T managed, i.e. there's no maximum, but they're super rare. Modern night vision goggles and scopes that can be switched on/off, among other things, would be managed items. I don't think missions are going to be a thing, especially not NPC ones, because Rocket and the rest of the devs have expressed discourse at the entire idea - they want it to be more of a sandbox. I do think some more incentives to play at night would be nice, like actual increased stealth (avoiding zombies easier at night should be a thing), but adding vision sources that aren't as risky would certainly help. Potentially could be, but that's what makes it balanced, you get heavily reduced dexterity and a larger profile. Night servers are underpopulated because the lighting system is pretty poorly optimized, you can't sneak around zombies any easier, and there aren't any good sources of vision. Night vision would certainly give people another reason to try it out, because it's much less risky. That could work, too. I was just thinking scopes that have a lower profile, can be used at night and in the day, and wouldn't take up as much space, would be rarer, and probably part of the loot management system. Goggles would be, too. Things like this would basically be your only reliable method of getting night vision, otherwise you'll have to look very carefully, or take someone out.

Well, I'm not arguing with them, I'm just telling you that they're falsely observing the problem if they believe that specific content is the problem rather than the overall arch in content and the way in which it spawns. ArmA is a fairly realistic shooter - hence why it features many modern military weapons in addition to lower-end and older rifles. Why? Because it's a (rather) accurate fictional depiction of the world. Sure, not every militia group is using XM8s and FN SCARs, like they're sometimes depicted in video games that have to use them for the fact that those were the weapons chosen. However, it also doesn't depict militias and insurgents using just AKs and hunting rifles. ArmA 2's insurgents had weapons all across the board - plenty of AKs (AKMs and AK-74s), RPKs, PKMs, and such, but they also had some guys with G36Cs, and golden AKMS rifles, among other things. Sure, things like the AKM should be on the more middle end of rarity, but people act like anything that comes from "West of Poland" (as stated before) is an atrocity to the game. (I think more accurate would be West of East Germany, though, because they had their fair share of guns)

Variety is not the problem, abundance is. The current high-end stuff just spawns a lot, and there's not a huge variety of stuff, so you end up seeing the same things over and over. I'm not saying let's just add a bunch of snipers, DMRs, and machine-guns, without putting any thought into other stuff, but having a large variety is different than having a large quantity of stuff. I mean, if gear were rare as hell, but there was so much potential stuff, it'd truly become variable. Say you're searching through a helicopter crashsite, and you're the lucky duck who just found themselves an M249 Para. Cool, right? Well, would it be more interesting if the only LMG available was an M249 Para, or would it be more interesting if you could also find PKMs, RPKs, M240s, M60s, MG-3s, and a ton of other cool stuff? And of course with that we also get a bunch of hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, and all sorts of other items. I love pretty much all guns. The only reason why I (and many, like Katana67) are talking about military weapons is because they're the ones that are lacking right now. We've got plenty of civilian weapons for the time being, and most of the categories that could use an upgrade are almost exclusively military (save for shotguns).

Meh, I don't think it would do a whole lot, honestly. I mean, the fact that the devs would have to apply it to every model would definitely get annoying, even with just the amount of firearms we have now. I'm not superbly opposed to the idea, but you also have to consider that letting people just duct tape attachments would render the requirement of looking for rails moot. The flashlight isn't a huge advantage, but if you want to tape a flashlight then there's nothing really stopping you from taping a PEQ box, or a foregrip on. I say just leave it to rails. If the gun comes with rails, you're set, if you can find rails, you're set, if you can't find rails or the gun doesn't support them, you'd better find a different weapon for nighttime. It would really entice people to change up their playstyles. It'd also make unique attachments like NVG scopes or even hyper-rare thermal scopes more versatile.

Plenty of armies still issue Mosins and SKS rifles. Sure mainly for second line, support, or DMR/sniper roles, but they're still around. Either way, I fail to see how having a variety of military items makes the game bad. What's wrong with having 20 different vests if they're all rare? That would actually increase the variety in people you see, but not everyone would be relegated to civilian clothing for variety. You'd have a good mix of everything. Same with guns. What exactly is wrong with having a MK17 in the game, if it were per say a helicopter crash site weapon? Some people seem to follow the mindset of; "It's not a military shooter, therefore anything currently issued to military forces should not be in the game" Which is illogical. Why is an M4A1 unreasonable when an AKM isn't, both are commonly issued military rifles, that are select-fire, have 30 round magazines (generally), and fire intermediate cartridges. The only major difference (in a game, that is), is the aesthetic. The M4A1 isn't as associated with rag-tag civilians and guerrillas, so people assume that in a post-apocalyptic environment they'd completely disappear. Plus, I'd reckon the M4A1 and AKM appear in almost every single shooter out there. Maybe not those specific models (the names tend not to match up with the gun anyway), but can you really name an abundance of popular FPS games that don't have some AK variant and some AR-15 variant?

Ignore the military aspect as much as possible? Then wouldn't that mean getting rid of everything military in the game? If they did that you'd lose half the guns, including the Mosin & SKS, which are both still used by many armies. Do you really think a game where every gun but the IZH-43 and Mosin (with no attachments) is removed, and only 100 rounds of 7.62 and 12 Gauge across the entire game, would be fun?

I'm all in for this idea, but assembling it would have to be essentially for cool/unique factor, because the addition of guns like the PKM will make using something like this moot (The whole reason why GPMGs were created). That, or a better weight and stamina system should be considered. Still seems cool, and it'd give another reason for them to add 7.62x54mmR.

I see no need for a Striker when there are plenty of other fitting guns. Sure, there's nothing inherently wrong with the Striker being in, because let's be honest, realism isn't the only consideration you should make when adding content. The actual gun is just incredibly ineffective and there are plenty of other alternatives which are both more effective and make more sense. If you really want a high-capacity shotgun, you may as well add the AA12. Sure, it's still a realistic oddity, but at least it goes along with the Amphibia S in that you can explain it with the presence of SEALs.

Oh, well, I guess shooting with it could still be done. Still, it'd make the gun heavy as hell, and it's still a handgun so long-ranged shooting is impractical. You'd honestly need a scope with less magnification than the LRS, because the one we have is more akin to something you'd see on an L115 or L96 rather than a revolver. That, and you typically on see scopes on the largest revolvers. Don't get me wrong, the Python is a big and badass revolver, but .357 magnums are not really "scoped revolver" type guns, unlike .500, .454, and .44. I know you're into gritty, western (as in Wild West), and badass gear, but there's nothing you really get out of being able to put it on. I'd rather see a scope for the Sporter-22, CR527, and then Blaze 95, first. If they want to make any of those scopes fit on the Magnum, then that's fine by me, as it is possible, but the LRS is just excessive.

It doesn't really look perfect to me, it just looks like two simple straight down cuts were done, and there is the appropriate roughness where it happened. Some Obrez Mosin's have a lot more time spent into their creation, so they can be more effective. What I was saying is that obvious mistakes or blemishes are usually a bad thing to have when you're only using one texture and model, because it implies EVERYONE made the same mistake. Subtle roughness is much better. I'm not saying it's a huge deal, because in all honesty it isn't, but consistency is key.

Not to mention we're also getting the MP-133, which is ALSO similarly-named. Of course, both are definitely acceptable. Saigas are magazine fed, but the MP-153 and 155 are tube-fed guns, so both would play out differently. That, and the guns don't necessarily have to be Eastern European. Benelli, SPAS, Remington, Winchester, Browning/FN - all sorts of other shotguns are out there.

As has been stated before, a lot of the issues are being worked on. I know that's not what people like to hear, all that they want to hear is that the problem has been fixed, but it's not that simple. Either way, you can't just have everyone on staff devoted 24/7 to fixing specific issues. People are doing their jobs, but many of them have no specialization in specific areas. It'd be like asking a painter to write you a song, it probably wouldn't work out well. Sure, there are people who are artistically and musically talented, but most of the time people are specialized in specific areas, and it would take a long time for that painter to write a good song. It's the same thing with the artists, animators, and the many different kinds of programmers. Are the artists supposed to completely stop making new stuff because some of it isn't going to work exactly as intended on initial implementation?

Wouldn't really work well, considering the image you have is of an 8' python while the one in-game is 6'. Also, the Magnum's dispersion is awful, I honestly doubt the magnification would make shooting any easier.

Yeah, I love the new persistence. Making stashes is something I love doing in all sorts of games. When I played Fallout 3, I always went around to different locations in the wasteland and set up areas with tons of guns and medical supplies (never ammo because it weighed nothing), even though it was pretty pointless since Fallout 3 gets easy really quickly, but it was still fun as hell. Now I have an incentive to do this in DayZ, which is awesome. I'll probably hide all of my extra handguns in a courier bag somewhere super secret, just in case I ever need a resupply (because frankly, I want to carry more than just a CR75, two 1911s, and Magnum, and said .45s, 9x19mm, and .357s)

Ah, I see, but the problem is that it would look really odd if the same mistakes were present on every model, since they're probably going to work with the same one. The better thing is to just give it some basic roughness, but not anything too specific.

We're not entirely sure if defecation or cannibalism are going to be in at all, so don't make such presumptions. As for getting diseases, I highly doubt that people are going to bat an eye because you can get cholera in a game. Either way, there's nothing stopping the devs from releasing the game with all of the same content as the full version. The only difference is going to be the system you play the game on. Left 4 dead 2 was censored on all versions in Germany and Australia, not just console or PC versions, so why would DayZ stay open on PC but go "streamlined family friendly" on PS4/Xbox One? How exactly can you prove this? Have you met every PC player and every console player ever, or at least all of the ones that have or will eventually have DayZ? The only difference is going to be that one is (generally) played on a PC/Laptop with a keyboard and the other is (generally) played on a TV with a controller. The mentality of people isn't going to change, and it's not like there's some "arcade" infection on people who play on consoles. As it stands, sometimes you get servers where everyone shoots anything that moves, and other times you get ones full of people who wouldn't hurt a fly. Most of the time it's a mix of those. And what exactly is wrong with killing someone on sight or being a bandit? (which, by the way, are two separate things. Bandits definitely kill a lot, but not always, and they usually interact with people before doing so) Part of the reason it's so common is because there isn't a whole lot to do. Sure, the devs add new features and cool stuff all the time, but there's nothing that really takes a lot of time to do, or at least nothing that comes out very rewarding. Nothing will ever stop the mentality, and it will probably always be common, but your device has nothing to do with it.

If there are servers that have less or none of the required population that have passed their "wait-to-start", then what exactly is stopping people from just server hopping there? And what's stopping anyone from just getting a sizable group of people who also want gear to go onto an empty server? Or what about just hopping onto a server that does meet the quota, but simply in an area that is not frequently visited by players? What you're suggesting would, at best, slightly mitigate the issue. And it's not like setting up a brand new system would be easy, so it's a lot of work for little return. "Better than nothing" isn't a valid argument when there are other priorities and are counter arguments. And I can turn your question right around? How is it any more of a roadblock for server hoppers than it is for people who simply wish to play with lower numbers of people? (I never said none, I rarely play solely by myself, but I sometimes prefer just a small number of people). The only difference between the groups is the goal; one wants to play the game legitimately and enjoy it in a certain position, while the other wants to use it illegitimately to get loot easier. As a side note, the most recent patches took away loot spawning on start, so that point of your argument is moot. I never once stated that it is fair or okay for people to server hop to get loot, I find it illegitimate and fairly cheaty (not completely because it's recourse from the public hive itself). However, it is completely fair to want to play with only a certain number of other people. It's not "bypassing the core concept of the game", because it's not a core concept that everyone has to be grouped together. Sure, it's a multiplayer game, but that doesn't mean jack. There are plenty of other games with no single player out there that you still have the option to play by yourself if you so choose. I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to them adding a single player option, so long as the gear doesn't carry over into online play, but it's not always just "single player". Sometimes I just want to play with 2-3 friends, tell me again why there's something wrong with that?

There is no "how DayZ was meant to be played". The only thing dictating how people play are the limitations and gameplay factors set, there are no rules stating "You must play on servers with X number of players". Never use the argument "adding/doing Y takes away from what X was meant to be", unless you are the creator of X, because it's only a personal opinion at that point, not a stated fact. Sure, it may be important and useful to learn when to initiate contact and when to break it, or avoid it entirely, but in no way is it indicative that we have to use that against large numbers of players. It's perfectly reasonable for people to express how they like the game when someone else expresses how they would like the game to be. Some people don't want the restriction, and find it unnecessary. Others find it useful, as it has the potential to solve some problems. Neither are inherently more valid than the other. On to the point that "If you want to have a coop experience, you can have it, but it takes a little more work is all", the same could be directly re-applied to the entire system you're trying to prevent. People can still go and gear up on other servers, it's just more dangerous, and takes a little more work is all. It may, in some cases, entice people to join servers where there's a minimum amount, but that would rarely be the case. All in all, the disused servers are just going to become even more disused. The trend will become more extreme, and the overall number of active servers will fall to just a few, with an even lower chance of disused ones coming back. The server population may not grow on the smaller servers, but with this system it's either; "Grow into a huge tree, or you don't even get to sprout."

Just like the Sawed-Off IZH-43, it actually does have saw marks on the barrel and wood. Fairly hard to see, but it indeed does.

It's decent for stealth and the arrows hit hard, but if you get into open combat or a firefight you're basically screwed. If you must have a similar weapon that is more effective in combat, then take the crossbow. It's not a whole lot better, but you can use M4 optics (and now the new holosight) which make aiming easy. Still, unless you plan on making your entire game stealth & hunting based, with no anticipation of hostile encounters, I'd go with a gun. The Sporter-22 is a nice alternative because it has a decent capacity and is super quiet, and the Amphibia is a good choice as well. They're still not really viable for heavy combat (The Amphibia as a sidearm is fine for shootouts), but you'll probably stand a much better chance with one of them.

I honestly doubt the game will be "ruined" because a market for different people is opened. And you really think most people treat the game as survival as is? Most people just play to kill and loot. There's no real problem with that, but it's not like introducing a different group of players are going to change the style of play that's already common.