Chaingunfighter

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.

Even though the Mauser came out in the 1890s and was only really used by officers in WW2.

I really doubt a guitar is going to do "15% more damage" than a crowbar, or even a baseball bat. They're fairly hollow and usually aren't meant to be smashed up repeatedly. I mean, some guitars can be, but they're not commonplace. Typical acoustic guitars that you may find in Chernarus would be poor melee weapons, but I'm not completely opposed to the idea of having a guitar (no need for 3-4 different variants). A crowbar is absolutely going to hit a lot harder than most guitars, and I'd reckon a baseball bat that was made for hitting hard objects would probably be more efficient, too. But yes, expanding on the melee weapons would be awesome.

Stop assuming that I'm trying to be "The expert" or "cool" simply because I make a statement. While I will admit that I cannot explicitly prove that the Mosin-Nagant Obrez is less common than the sawed-off Shotgun everywhere, it's fairly conjectural that the Obrez is inefficient in almost every way to the standard counterpart, save for being concealable, whereas a sawed-off shotgun has concealed benefits in addition to a wider spread which may be useful in a close environment. That's also forgetting that any shotgun can be sawed-off whereas the Mosin-Nagant is just one rifle across a few different variants. Point to point it's nigh impossible to prove that the either the Mosin or IZH-43 are more common because most of them tend not to be registered and are spread out over a very large area. It's just common knowledge that in places where guns are heavily regulated that people will make do with whatever they can, and Eastern Bloc countries often restrict firearm ownership to limited areas, so unregulated guns, a lot of which are shotguns, take a front seat. To argue that a statement that "the IZH-43 is common in Eastern Bloc countries" is an "unsupported" and "undefended fantasy" is simply moronic.

I know, you just said "People cut them down, rather than shotguns", and my whole point was that shotguns are a commonplace in Russia. The Obrez wasn't really common at all, it was just very recognizable.

The IZH-43 is incredibly common. Granted not as common as the Mosin in some areas, but Sawed-Off IZH-43s are fairly commonplace.

Well, I wasn't being completely serious, I was making a remark in the continued string of jokes about "Let's just remove *insert something more extreme than the last here*" . But either way, I don't think the public hive will go away with the advent of private ones, and even then, plenty of servers will still "string together" their own private hives so everything is persistent across them all, so server hopping may very well be possible on them. Not saying I disagree with the idea, it's just my response to a rather idiotic thread.

Why don't we just remove the game from the game? Otherwise, there's no way to stop people from server hopping.

I think a Mosin M38 or M44 would be pretty cool (especially considering the compensator is for the m44), but it wouldn't really add a whole lot. We may be getting an Obrez mosin, and if we do it'll probably take over that role. I honestly don't think they'll have three different kinds of Mosin.

Somehow I'm extremely shocked that you didn't mention the fact that the LRS is on the Mosin in this thread, so, beans for you. I like this idea more than just random dispersion, although dispersion to an extent is necessary.

Why do people keep insisting that the M4A1 was removed? It wasn't, the heli crashes just stopped spawning.

Yes, that was one example, but my whole point was just that it's not illogical to suggest that guerrilla fighters are using more than just old AK rifles. I mean, even in the places with the lowest variety, you still see hundreds of different AK variants, and old G3s, and FN FALs, and M16s, and.... the list goes on. It just doesn't happen anymore that conflicts are strictly regulated to weapons from the environment that the conflict is taking place in. Because of globalization, you'd be hard pressed to find wars in the future that AREN'T using some "western", "high-tech" stuff. Vietnam is also a perfectly fair example, because it's the exact same situation that happens in conflicts everywhere; Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, South America, you name it. There's the main provisional government, and loyalist fighters, and then there's the insurgent and revolutionary forces, who may be backed up by other foreign armies. Typically, one side receives arms and support from Russia (or has tons of leftovers from a time that they did), and the opposite force is backed up by NATO. The huge variety of stuff in Vietnam is definitely unique, but that was in part due to World War II, the Korean War, and the French-Indochina war, which had a heavy effect on the future in the South Pacific. Chernarus has a history rife with conflict, as far as we know they were occupied during WW2, had a civil war sometime post-WW2, and then held another one in 2009. And we know that Chernarus used to be a part of the Soviet Union, who would absolutely back them up.

The CR527 was re-done into the carbine variant, so hopefully it can be a viable rifle in close areas (Not that it's really a high-end rifle, but I'd sooner prefer it over the Mosin in CQB). I really want a MK18, or even a CAR-15, with a 10.5' barrel (preferably the MK18, because it can use the M4 handguards & optics, too). But some intermediate-cartridge weapons for close quarters, besides just SMGs, would be nice.

No, unfortunately I'm not Rolle, I always go under the alias "John Doe", (or Jane Doe) for whatever reason. But yeah, any place rife with conflict is going to displace a lot of people and make them poor, so a lot of guns would've been brought in to further fuel the fire (because, hey, arms dealers just want to make money). Not sure exactly what Obrez translates to, but yes, you can have chopped up versions of practically any rifle. As long as the mechanisms that allow the gun to fire are left intact, it could still work, it'd just perform much worse. Even though it is possible, I don't really see any reason to add chopped up versions of any other guns ingame. The IZH-43 works well because Sawed-Off shotguns are a commonplace and the utility of one definitely exists, and the Obrez is definitely interesting, but otherwise I can't really see anything but the Blaze 95 having any utility, and even then, why someone would cut up a multi-thousand dollar rifle is beyond me. I mean, I wouldn't complain if they added sawed-off variants of other guns, but I see no pragmatic usefulness in adding sawed-off Sporter-22s, or CR-527s, or SKS rifles. They'd just be useless aesthetics with a worse performance than their regular counterparts.

Well, the variant ingame is one that was re-chambered and built specifically for .380 Auto, so there shouldn't be any malfunctions.

Well, in ArmA 2, Chernarus was in the midst of civil war between the CHDKZ and the government. The CHDKZ were an insurgent force that was heavily backed up by the Russians and arms dealers coming from all over. The CDF was heavily supported by NATO, especially after the conflict died down post-invasion. Then of course there were the NAPA guerrillas, who were just (mainly) regular civilians who used weapons captured from both sides and just fought to defend their lands. This is very similar to how the situation in Ukraine is going. And do you honestly think people in the US really cared about Vietnam anymore than some place like Chernarus? The only reason people started to care was because the Korean-War model of "Send troops to support democratic independence from communism!" could've applied there, and then people cared afterwards because the war was going horribly and over 50,000 Americans died. It's just wrong to make the argument that Chernarus was insignificant for it's entire past, just for the fact that the lore makes that incorrect.

Yeah, seriously. The Vietnam War is perhaps one of my favorite examples of a force (the NVA/Viet Cong) who truly utilized everything. And keep in mind this was at a time when modern variations of firearms were just starting to take shape. What did they have? Donated Soviet World War II weapons - Tokarev TT-33s, Nagant M1895s, PPS-43s, PPSh-41s, SVT-40s, Mosin-Nagants (M38s, M44s, M91/30s, you name it)Donated Soviet/Eastern Bloc Post-WW2 weapons - Makarov PM, Stetchkin APS, SKS, AK-47s (AK-47/49s, AK-47/52s, AKS-47s, etc.), AKMs (and AKMS'), RPD, RPK, RPG-2, RPG-7, SVD, Type 56, Type 63, SA Vz.58, SA Vz.61, P-64, etc.Donated German World War II weapons - KAR-98Ks, Gewehr 98s, MP-38s (and MP-40s), StG-44s, MG-34s, MG-42sCaptured Japanese weapons - Arisakas (mainly Type 99s, but plenty of others), Type 11 LMGs, Type 100 SMGs, Nambu Type 14sCaptured French weapons (from the French-Indochina war) - MAS-36s, MAS-49/56s, MAT-49sCaptured American/CIDG/Australian weapons - Colt 1911s, Browning Hi-Powers, S&W M39s, S&W Model 15s, MAC-10s/MAC-11s, IMI Uzis (Mini, Micro, and Full Sized), Walther MPL (and MPK), M1 Garands, M1 Carbines (And M1A1 and M2 variants), M1903 Springfields, M3 Greaseguns, M1921/M1928 Thompsons M14 rifles (and M21s), M16s (lots, XM16E1s, M16s, and M16A1s), CAR-15s (E1s, E2s, XM177s, all sorts), Ithaca 37s, Remington 870s, Winchester M1897s, M60s, Stoner M63s, M79s, M72 LAWs, L1A1s/FN FALs, Stens, Sterlings, F1 Smgs and a whole lot moreHomemade variants of pre-existing weapons - Most notably the K-50M and locally produced Thompsons, but they also had AKs assembled in Vietnam.Probably a ton of other undocumented weapons.This was obviously across the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and not every weapon saw frequent or even multiple uses across the war by VCs(I doubt many Stoner 63s were captured, even though it did happen), but it's an overall representation of Vietnam rather than just a specific point, just like DayZ in Chernarus is. But it's still very interesting, because in Vietnam most of the NVA soldiers and VCs actually WERE farmers, unlike in Chernarus, where there's a lot more diversity, and yet they still had all of these different weapons, many of which were top of the line at the time, and still prove invaluable today.

M4A1 is low-tech? MP5-K is low-tech? FNX45 is low-tech? Amphibia S is low-tech? Hell, even the AK-74M, which is what the model of the AK-101 was originally made to be for, isn't low-tech. And that's a very subjective distinction. I mean, the only difference between the AK-74M and the AK-74 is that the 74M uses polymer parts instead of wooden ones, that doesn't really change the tech level. The only difference between the 74M and the 101 is that the 101 uses 5.56x45mm. I really doubt poor, rural farmers would have AK-74Ms or AK-101s, but I don't think it was ever implied that every single person to ever live (or occupy) Chernarus was poor, from a rural area, or a farmer, at all. The AK-101 can also be explained through lore, if it's really necessary. Since you can argue that many of the M4A1s ingame were either captured or donated as military aid, then it might make sense for the CDF to purchase AK rifles chambered in 5.56 so they can utilize the surplus ammunition while still having access to AK parts. That's why Israel made TAR-21 variants in 5.56x45, 7.62x39, and even 5.45x39, so they could utilize all of the extra ammunition they captured during previous failed invasions of the country. Either way, the AK-101 absolutely feels authentic. I mean, to be honest, any Eastern European setting can justify practically any AK variant, even the least-produced ones (and it's not like the 101 is anything obscure, just a 74M in 5.56). I will admit that the DayZ weapon selection is very unique and well-picked, but it's not all low-tech.

Some people prefer the most obscure, terrible, or "useless" Soviet/Eastern European weapons over internationally common weapons of western origin. Seriously, I met a guy who said that the PP-19-01 Vityaz was a better choice than the MP5 because the PP-19-01 is Russian and the "game takes place in Russia". This was awhile before the MP5-K was done, so I doubt it was even on the merits of using the Kurz variant over a full-length one. (Edit) Nevermind, I thought you were talking about the previous conversation, not the Obrez (duh). I guess my point still stands true, though. The Obrez just isn't so much "obscure" or entirely uncommon.

Pretty much. But obviously something unique has to have a regular counterpart. Say they were to eventually had 5.45x39mm, it would be odd for them to add an AN-94 in the regulated category simply because it's cool, but then not have any other full-length rifles, like the AK-74. Nothing managed for uniqueness factor should be the only example of something that performs as such. Now, if they added an RPG-7, then that's different, because it adds a different layer of gameplay, but it's not entirely unique.