Chaingunfighter

An SKS? I don't know. I'd say the SKS should be a mid-game rifle on the entire spectrum of release guns. Even in the current game the AKM is superior to the SKS in almost every way, except for the fact that you need a magazine for it. The M4A1 is also generally a better performing weapon. Even then, the SKS isn't some godlike room-clearing weapon. Sure, it's better than the Mosin, Sporter, LongHorn, and CR527, and in some cases the Blaze 95 and regular IZH-43 for large groups, but handguns usually perform just as well (the FNX-45 and CR75 are probably better), the ARs (AK101, AKM, and M4A1) are far better and the sawed-off IZH-43 is king. Now, if they want to make the SKS a high-end weapon on the civilian lists, then I'd be okay with that, but as a whole it's not anything special.

They could even have flags of different nations, and some custom ones. I don't know that I'd go overboard with them, but maybe one for Chernarus, the CDF, the CHDzK, Russia, the Soviet Union, the UN, NATO, the US, and maybe the UK.

Hahaha, I remember that. That wasn't even what I was thinking of, though. I was just listing off random experimental weapons. But boy the memories that brought back.

The materials for crafting the bow should be more readily available, though. Sticks should definitely be available pretty much anywhere in the wilderness, and sharpening them would only need a basic knife. Guns & ammo definitely need to be made rarer once we're through with the alpha and beta, but not to the point that they're marginalized or can't be used to a useful extent. I don't think that's the path that we're going down, otherwise they wouldn't have added high-capacity, including 40/60 round magazines for the M4A1 and a 75 round drum for the AKM, if they didn't intend for those to ever be used. Hell, I doubt they would've ever added select-fire weapons to begin with. Maybe the AKM or M4A1 could've gotten by, but if they really wanted it to be this "You only have like 2-3 bullets at one time" thing, then why have they been focusing on adding so many weapons at all? They really wouldn't have needed to add anything but the initial weapon sets, .45 ACP for the pistol, 5.56 for the AR, 7.62 for the bolt-action rifle, and 12 gauge for the shotgun. But no, since then, they've added .22LR (a short pistol and rifle hunting cartridge), .380 ACP (compact handgun, submachine-gun, and PDW cartridge, mainly for self defense), 9x19mm (another pistol/submachine-gun cartridge, like .45 ACP), .357 Magnum (pistol/revolver/rifle cartridge), 7.62x39mm (SKS/AK47-based rifle cartridge), and it seems like 7.62x51mm is going to be split into .308 and 7.62x54mmR, we may get 5.45x39mm & .410 gauge, and 40mm grenades will also be added at some point. Why all the detail if guns aren't meant to be a focus? What's the point of the attachments? Why is spraypainting guns a thing? Honestly, besides shotguns & dedicated long-ranged platforms (both of which have a few weapons in the works), we have an acceptable list of guns. And yet, it seems like almost every major update we get 2-3 new weapons, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. So you'd be very hard pressed to convince me that's the way the game is going (or has gone), let alone should be.

Nah, the big ocean is part of the lore and makes the game more interesting. What would they do with Skalisty Island, or the big shipwreck? The only reason that the ACR map had that terrain was because Chernarus is based on a real part of the Czech Republic and the ocean ingame is really just a river. It was a lot easier for them to just add those remade parts of Chernarus than make a brand new map, since it was an Army of the Czech Republic DLC. On topic, while I wouldn't entirely say adding new towns or locations is a bad thing, I definitely think the wilderness has been marginalized enough. What I'd really prefer is that existing towns get more buildings and new models, rather than just being remade. The only problem with that is that the modelers have to create them and make a collision model, but hopefully it'd be worth it. Another interesting idea is to actually focus on the wilderness. Adding downed trees, different shrubs and bushes, more rocks, maybe a few old overgrown or destroyed houses, possibly some vehicle/tank wrecks from the ArmA 2 campaign. Some more small ponds would be nice, too. Otherwise they could just try and expand the map even further out, but that uses up a lot of resources and takes a lot of time.

That's a very good point. The problem is when people try and necessitate that the difficulty of the PvE portion of the game needs to be multiplicative of the PvP portion, so that "you're always more concerned with zombies & getting food, and are forced to work together" That kind of mindset I oppose.

Considering there are still people with it, including infinite-ammo magazines, I highly doubt what you're saying is true. People also did it with other guns, it's not like the M4A1 was the only one, it's just that the M4A1 was the most popular candidate.

In your quote the devs specifically say that weapons of that calibre exist, did you not read your own sourced text? Yes, I know that .380 Makarov IJ70 pistols, manufactured by Baikal, exist. I know that the PM-73 RAK is a real .380 Auto submachine-gun. However, my point was that these are not the realistic variants that should be in Chernarus. The Makarov PM, the most common Soviet sidearm, is chambered in 9x18mm, and is way more popular than the Makarov IJ70, which only uses .380. The PM-73 .380 variant wasn't popular at all in its trials, and few organizations ever used it as a mainline weapon. They're not impossible to any extent, but if they were more concerned with realism they would've chosen the 9x18mm variants. My point is that these were deliberate design decisions, as you can see in the quote, to benefit gameplay. Sure, there is realism involved, in the fact that they made a compromise so they could still have those Eastern European weapons without breaking their own caliber rules, but said compromises shouldn't exist in a simulator. Morphine and optics and the effects of attachments on weapons are all placeholders, I specifically remember hearing something, somewhere about the morphine and how they're going to fix it up to match logic, they just have a lot to work on at the moment, such as a gameplay-prohibitive realistic helicopter engine, for one. If you can find me a source to where the devs mention that morphine or the dispersion-affecting attachments are placeholders, I will drop the argument. I'm not taking it on a whim anymore, because most of your arguments insist that everything that is wrong with the game is just temporary or a mistake, so now I'm asking for proof. The decision to move over to the Take on Helicopters engine was done for more than just to give better helicopter gameplay. The engine was more modernized and optimized than ArmA 2: Operation Arrowhead's, and it featured a lot of robust and redesigned features that better suited DayZ while they could still reuse assets from ArmA 2 without screwing up, like using ArmA 3's engine would've. The helicopters will (hopefully) use the flight model from Take on Helicopters, although we've had no real word on them save for that they'll be in and be more difficult to utilize. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that taking a more realistic approach to the flying model is a good idea, ArmA 2's flying was pretty bad and it was too easy (and too clunky) to fly around. I'm just not making it for the sole realistic argument. I want it to be realistic because it encourages people will spend more time and be more careful with their helicopters, rather than just taking off and crashing inside the hangar as has been done hundreds of times before. Sure, the fact that it's realistic is also a bonus, but it's not the sole reason I'd ever make a design decision. But trying to argue weapon inaccuracies still doesn't make them any sort of concession to gameplay over realism, they're just errors. You might as well say that wall clipping glitches make the game not a simulator, they aren't intentional flaws! Errors are NOT concessions. If Microsoft Flight Simulator has a wing fin tip the wrong colour on a plane or something, it doesn't make it not a simulator. You're still running under the assumption that everything here was unintentional. And no, bugs are not the same as incorrectly (if you want realism, that is) designed models. Mistakes can be made, but it's really hard to argue with someone who's insistent that the devs have made zero concessions towards gameplay and everything that could possibly be unrealistic is just a placeholder. Your comments about the environment being rather shitty have a point, but it honestly is that bad in certain parts of Eastern Europe. Fortifications and barricades will go messy, say if you imagine the center of the city in the movie Zombielands where they tried to establish barricades and people crashed cars through it and stuff. I already explained the abandoned apartment buildings-- do you think there's enough work in towns the size of Chernarus for all those apartments? The Soviets used to build completely useless tower blocks all the time, hence they would get abandoned. There's an entire military camp near Balota full of tents, they would have blown over in a strong wind after a few weeks with the way the winds are on the coast. The fact vehicles are planned means that the game definitely can't be set more than a few years after the apocalypse because petrol has an expiry date. DayZ is called DayZ because it's set DayZ after the zombies began. Thus, the presence of fresh fruit is not unrealistic; just assume the fresh stuff was unripe when the apocalypse happened, taking a week or two to ripen, and the rotten stuff was ripe a few weeks prior. Everything looked disused because it really is IRL in similar countries to Chernarus. Rural Eastern Europe, not Model Homes Showroom. Well, I'm just saying that it's fairly inconsistent. Sure, the blockades could be run down, but I find it hard to believe that it happened the same EVERYWHERE. Even if the tanks were burned out, they still wouldn't start to rust only a few "DayZ" after the apocalypse (and there's no evidence towards any time after the apocalypse in which DayZ takes place). And I wouldn't say the apartment blocks were already abandoned, Chernarus is much larger than the map we have, which is of a region called South Zagoria. The town of Chernogorsk has relatively few large apartment buildings directly inside (the largest is a hotel), so most of the people living inside probably worked at local shops. The apartment buildings were likely those who were sent to the industrial centers and docks of Cherno/Elektro, and they're definitely large enough to accommodate a few hundred workers (each). Sure, they may not have major use, but there's still clearly furnishings and stuff which would've been looted out before the apocalypse occurred, so I honestly doubt they were supposedly abandoned beforehand. Fresh fruit can only last for a few weeks if it's kept in stable conditions, but inside the damaged interiors of old homes, where the temperature is no longer regulated, the fruit will start rotting anyway. Sure, some may have survived, but go even 2-3 weeks and unless there's a supermarket with power spraying the fruit with water, it's all going to be decomposing. Have you ever left your home in this country in which you live? Have you ever seen the burnt-out wreck of a car? Do you not know that this happens all the time and is a hallmark of poor areas [the kind where you don't find golden AKMs]? Can still find them anywhere. They were in ArmA 2, so clearly the region did have them at some point. Even if your argument is that someone "would've sold them for a plow", which isn't necessarily true, what would've happened to it? Would it just be in a never ending cycle of people selling it for plows? It's got to end up somewhere, and frankly it's very well possible a few people kept them and died, leaving them wherever. "Abandoning an old car without a licence plate in a remote area used to be a common way of getting rid of an unwanted vehicle here in the Czech Republic." and They look like they've been sitting there since the 80s? Hell they might have, that's exactly what ex-Soviet areas are known for, civil strife and such. Chaingunfighter tells me that the game is also linked to ARMA canon, giving us plenty of reasons for blown up tanks, and if you've seen any zombie movies at all you should know by now that panic, rioting and explosions are the order of the day when zombies show up. Use your imagination. And btw anyway, you only need to say "btw" or "anyway", not both, it's really irritating. Yes, the cars that are sometimes just seen rusting on old farmland or in the wilderness are acceptable, but half of the rusted out cars and vehicles in the game are sitting right in the middle of the road, sometimes even on highways, or in major cities. It's extremely doubtful that cars would be sitting there long after the recovery from ArmA 2's invasion, let alone the 80s. Sure, there'd probably be a few wrecks here and there, especially in the woods, where they're not in the way, but you would be very hard pressed to find any in the middle of a bustling city. Rioting can get pretty bad, but in order for modern battle tanks to get destroyed, and have their turrets blown off, you're going to need some pretty high powered explosives. So, unless the civilians were running around with Konkurs and tons of RPG-7s, most of the armored vehicles would've been relatively okay. Some may have been destroyed, but every T-72 wreck on the map looks like it had a 2000LB bomb dropped on it, every BMP-2 looks like it rolled over an IED, and every BRDM-2 looks like half of its body was blown out. If you're going to make the argument that people did hold onto RPGs and explosives, which would be practically useless in self defense, then why is it so implausible to you that someone kept their gold-plated AK?

It may have a use for the simple fact that you can store it in a backpack unlike the 9130 and thus will have a use for the 7.62x54mmR which will probably be more common than .308 when they become separate. It's really no different than cutting down the IZH-43, although the Sawed-Off IZH-43 is a very good CQB weapon, unlike the Obrez which is only going to make it more useless in most cases. I mean, it may not excel in any role, but it is quite a badass looking weapon and the 5 round capacity of high-powered bullets may appeal to some. I don't know. I don't think every weapon added really needs to fill a particular niche in that it needs to be useful, but more so in just that it has to give off a different performance, for good or for worse. I mean, adding the P1 would've been fairly pointless considering the CR75, as they're both just semi-automatic 9x19mm handguns, but the CR75 is more versatile and has a higher capacity. The Obrez may not see a lot of use, but I guess it doesn't need to. It's not really meant to be a gun that people use (or intend to use) as a permanent weapon, similar to the new CR527. The CR527 might have a few good attachments, including a hunting scope, which may give it some flexibility, but otherwise it's going to be outclassed by the SKS which has double the capacity and doesn't need magazines, and the Mosin, which uses a more powerful round and can currently utilize a powerful scope (Assuming they don't take the LRS from the Mosin once better sniping platforms come into play).

I'd honestly welcome any weapon they added to the game, even if it were something as extreme as an XM8 or XM29 OICW. Granted, I see no gameplay benefits and it would definitely "feel" odd, but there's nothing I can really argue for why they shouldn't be in the game that would actually be compelling, because the XM8 was for all intents and purposes a futuristic looking M4, that is actually less customizable than modern M4s (which is part of the reason why they didn't use it), and the XM29 is really just an M4A1 with an M203, just built into some Aliens-type weapon system, so gameplay wise they wouldn't be "OP". Granted, yes, if they were to stray THAT far from realism it would start to irk me, even though there are plenty of people who are already upset with guns like the M4A1, even though they're not at all out of place, even realistically speaking. It's just not a compelling argument in any way to affect development, at least for me. I appreciate realism as much as anyone else, you just can't make it the sole (or even most important) factor regarding the game when you're trying to create the best experience possible. (And the devs do, too.) On topic, I can see why the SVU would be nice, I just meant that the VS-121 that they made is fairly distinguished from the actual SVU, so they'd be better off just making a new model (that, and reusing content is not something I'm too fond of. I'm not going to complain, but it's just a pet peeve of mine. CS:GO, which is a really fun game, set me off because of how much is reused from Left 4 Dead 2) But I can see why an SVU would be cool. There's also the fact that it utilizes the same magazines as the other guns, and because the devs seem to want to try and give most items multiple uses, it would always help to have magazines that can be used more than once. This honestly has to be done with the M4A1 mags, considering how many of them there are, it would be so pointless to have them ONLY be utilized in the M4.

And if you're lucky enough to find a 30 round magazine you can fire off a lot more than the SKS can. Granted, I really hope they move the magazines to civilian spawns, just like with the pistols and the CR527, but the Sporter-22 can be a pretty potent weapon. Granted, it's still a low tier weapon because .22LR rounds have a petty hit and the fact that you need magazines for it to be useful mean that even something like the SKS and Mosin will always be better for the simple fact that they don't need magazines, even if they're eventually made rarer.

Waiting 5-10 minutes would be very annoying. Yes, DayZ is meant to be difficult and frustrating (Due to difficulty), and waiting is frustrating, but not because it's difficult - because it's consuming a lot of time where you're doing, well, nothing. I don't see any problem with the current system, waiting 30 seconds seems fair enough, and as long as respawn doesn't work within that window then I'm absolutely okay with it. There's no way to prevent people from logging out, as even if the logout button is disabled, there's nothing the devs can do to stop people from alt-tabbing (or running the game in a window) and killing the process in task manager. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to swap regardless, you start over as a freshspawn anyway, so you'll end up losing all of your stuff.

It would really take a lot of work, but it would be something I'd hope to see. However, there's no real consistency in the apocalypse. Some of the buildings look brand new, while others look fairly run down and damaged. The grass and lawns in some places are heavily overgrown but in others its really short. And of course there's the cars which look rusted to hell in most instances. But then there's the fact that you can find fresh fruit just sitting around.

But I'm sure there are multiple reasons why they're developing pretty much all-new weapons for DayZ. The MP-443 Grach has been one that I've seriously advocated for because it's completely realistic (not that I agree with that argument, but it is better when something IS realistic) and the resources are available, because the FNX-45 is a port from ArmA 3 (or maybe the other way around). I want an MP-443 regardless of whether they use the pre-existing model, because it has a 17/18 round magazine, which would set it apart gameplay wise from the CR75. I'd prefer the 18 round magazine so a Glock 17 can be done, but either works I guess, and there are other capacities in Glocks, as well as .45 models. The Skorpion Evo could probably make a good high-tier 9x19mm submachine-gun, because of how modular and how high the firing rate on the thing is. They'd definitely need to add an Eotech or shortdot (or both, :P) for it, though. The F2000 is fairly interesting, could make a good rarer end bullpup assault rifle, but the devs seem more interesting in doing an AUG so who knows. The F2000 uses STANAGs like the M4 and can use new optics, so maybe it'd be the rarer one and the AUG would be common with the eternally attached scope, assuming they did an AUG A1. The TAR-21 I would really like, although with an AUG and F2000 having it be 5.56x45mm would do nothing other than just add variety (which I totally support). There are some 5.45x39mm variants, so if they eventually decide to add that caliber it could be the 5.45x39mm bullpup (while something like the Groza-1 or AKU-94 would be the 7.62x39mm one) The MK14 EBR I'd like but I hate the short barrel on the thing, even though it'd probably be best if they wanted to do a regular M14 or M21. I don't know why, but I've always preferred full-length M14s, the SOCOM-16s and short MK14s just don't interest me. The Negev is a must have, they're absolutely perfect LMGs to have, alongside the M249/FN Minimi (It'll probably be an M249 for copyright reasons). Slightly off topic, but an M249 Para would be awesome, as well. The SVU I like but the VS-121 is a pretty well modified version of the rifle, so they'd be better of making a new model. Hell, depending on where the diversion point in the ArmA vs DayZ canon is, they might even be able to get away with having a few prototype MX rifles, being in the loot management system just for cool factor. Granted, they use 6.5mm in ArmA 3, but I wouldn't complain. That, or the underwater rifles. The Heckler & Koch P11 underwater pistol would be something extremely cool once they expand on how water works, hopefully. Yeah, I know, diver combat seems super "special forces", but it would be an awesome loot management pistol. Using mods isn't really a fair comparison, unless you actually compare it directly to the mod (although it loses some validity at this point because mods usually aren't official) I mean, I'm sure once modding is available a lot of the stuff that was made intentionally unrealistic to benefit the overall gameplay will be changed for an extremely hardcore or realistic experience, but there will also be plenty of people that make it ten times as unrealistic. I'm excited to see what people who mod for DayZ actually do, because if it's done like ArmA then we might have some really interesting mods, or just massive packs of weapons, which I can't complain about either. Sorry that my grammar is fairly deplorable and I'm pretty much rambling for the whole post, I'm very tired while posting this.

Stalker's approach to the weapons wasn't at all realistic. Not only were the majority of guns western, but the Walther P99 (Walker P9m) is the most common and overall most used pistol, even moreso than the Makarov. Also, Stalker has a Desert Eagle, and it's not like it's a super rare find either, they're fairly readily available. I'd say that's far from realistic. I actually would not complain if they added a Desert Eagle to DayZ, though, because it's one of the few semi-automatic handguns that can chamber .357 Magnum, but I wouldn't mind it being a heavily regulated item since it's a semi-auto handgun firing a powerful cartridge. (And that people would flip if such a gun were added, but I don't give a fuck)

What exactly is wrong with having a bunch of aftermarket stuff? Would you rather there just be no attachments at all? I thought the whole point of stuff like that was to either slowly progress your gun to make it more effective or finding a higher quality weapon.

Oh, I meant long before the apocalypse even happened. Now, if they wanted to change the castles and make them into museums or possibly build a museum that holds medieval artifacts, that would be cool (In fact I like the idea of specific items limited to very specific locations, instead of just general types or buildings). Just like with the flare gun they're eventually going to add, I hope that is mainly only found at the ship, with a few spawns at military buildings and police stations.

Want a "real debate", as you so call it? Fine by me. Pros: - Admins would be able to choose between 50-100% I don't see how that's really a "pro", that's just your idea of how the system could work. You could argue that it's a con because they can't choose values any lower than that. - Players will not be spawned until the player count is reached Still not really a "pro". Again, you're just listing how you think such a system should go about. - This would solve all those 2-3 player servers out there where people are gearing up in an empty world. Fair enough, this would mitigate that issue, but there's plenty of locations to gear up around the map that people almost never visit. Balota is usually safe and the military bases across the western edge of the map remain unlooted most of the time, so you could simply hop into a half full server in a location like that and probably be fine. Sure, it would take longer and be more risky, but not for the most part. - This would help reduce hopping in the sense that you would always be hopping between half full servers and up, making the method more dangerous I wouldn't really say this is a separate point than your last one, it just expands upon and gives more detail to it. But as I conceded previously, this is indeed a positive consequence of a minimum player requirement. - This helps level the playing on server resets, as there will be no lone players getting a head start It may help, but only marginally so. Anyone who isn't spawning in as a new character would still have all of their gear and previous location, so it wouldn't be any different for them save for the fact that everyone else is ingame. Otherwise, I guess it could even the field for a server of entirely fresh spawns, but how often this happens I'm not sure of. - I think this would also entice players to go back to the same server after a reset, especially if they were in the middle of a good battle as they would know that players didn't have a chance to change positions before they loaded back in People could still jump around to other servers and change positions, it would just be risky, but this would "help", I guess. Otherwise the only incentive for them to stay on a server with this plan specifically is that they wouldn't have to wait so long as the server was up. - On a fresh start of a server that has new players, this would give a greater chance of players meeting and teaming up early as they are all spawning at the same time Seems like another continuation of the other post (two up from this one). How often new players are the majority population on servers I'm not sure, and on a restart as a new spawn you all have to wait until the server resets anyway. Chances are, unless you lag behind, you'll be with the first wave after a restart regardless, so the difference is minimal at best. Teaming up is a different issue for a different discussion, though. - People wait for Battle Royale so I'm sure they would wait for DayZ Well, I can't really say this is a pro, either. Battle Royale's gameplay is significantly different than DayZ's, as it relies on a somewhat symmetric and balanced start and the game becomes asymmetric immediately afterwards, whereas DayZ has asymmetric gameplay the entire way through. I understand that the point of this would be to give DayZ more of a balanced introduction, but I'm not entirely sure that would be a good thing. The presumption that people would wait to play DayZ is fairly unfounded, though. People complained fairly significantly when the developers added the timer between switching or rejoining servers, so you can tell there would be a lot of active displease with it. It's not representative of the entire DayZ community, but it can give you a slight idea as to the general trend of opinion. Those were the "rebuttals", although I use quotes because I can agree with some of the points that you made. Now, for the counter-arguments. - The bias towards more popular servers becomes heavily extended Unfortunately, with a system like this, the more popular servers would almost always be the ones that maintained a player base. Smaller servers, while they can have a decent size population, may not always reach the server maximum, and this would be a killer for such servers that have gone under, because naturally people would shy towards the ones with more players. This may seem good in some cases, but people pay money for their servers and it's already fairly difficult to get people to try new ones. - Many people would not like to wait to play As I've mentioned before, it's actually fairly likely that people would not be willing to wait. Sure, DayZ is pretty one of a kind, so most of the playerbase would essentially be coerced into going along with it, because they don't have any other similar games to play, but it doesn't mean they'd be okay with it. It's sort of like how YouTube has a knack for making unpopular updates to their site, and yet it continues to grow in popularity, because Google knows for damn sure that its userbase has nowhere else they can go where they can truly get the same experience and content. - Some people like to play alone It's a relatively simple issue, but a lot of people just like the play alone or with a small group of friends/other people. I mean, not everyone who plays with the smaller crowd is doing so in order to server hop for gear or ghost into an advantageous firefight position, many of them just enjoy the sereneness that a quiet environment has to offer. There are plenty of little things people do with their friends or by themselves that make for truly interesting experiences on small servers, and why people shouldn't be allowed to do this just because other people server hop & ghost is beyond me. This also ties in with the first issue, because someone who is paying their own money for a server wouldn't even be allowed to play on it because not enough others had joined. Then of course there's the problem (not counter-argument) of; - What happens when people leave the server? Are they just temporarily forced out of play because someone got bored, or their game crashed? Or does the game just continue as normal, breaking the idea of the system? Then what's stopping an admin from just putting the lowest possible playercount and then waiting for a few people to join until kicking them and gearing up then? Hopefully those are enough reasons to give you a reasonable debate versus your idea, even though I'm not entirely against it, and I'd still play with it involved (although I definitely would not like it, for the most part.)

That's because it's awesome. I'm sad that no one likes the AKM, though.

But the Makarov uses 9x18mm, read the weapon description, it's just an ALPHA PLACEHOLDER They're not adding 9x18mm Makarov, it's not temporary, it was a deliberate design decision. "It was decided there will not be two 9mm bullets in the game and the 'realism' argument was not compelling in our discussions but the gameplay argument was. We reached a compromise to avoid confusion, we're adding 380 Auto. Baikal made a Makarov pistol in 380 and there was a version of the RAK in that caliber too but so help me the first person who says 'b-but that's not probable'. This is what you're getting for now. Deal. Its a matter of a few lines of text in a cfg so some day when the game is open for modding you can change the 380 to 9mmM and your immersion will be restored and the world will be at peace." -- Chris Torchia, Lead Artist "It makes complete sense if you consider all the working-order cars were driven out of Chernarus by survivors fleeing the countryside; in a poor farming community working cars are kind of uncommon already. The buildings are cracked and in disrepair for the same reason, nobody employed in upkeep, or even no inhabitants some of the time. Here's some pictures of locations in Czechoslovakia which exist without any apocalypses right now, thanks to the Russians invading, building huge pieces of infrastructure which were never used, and leaving them to be abandoned. The apocalypse just contributed to the general shitty look of the place. Rusty cars? Farmers don't splash out on Armorall." Not only are the random cars just sitting in farms rusty, but also even the military blockades and fortifications that were clearly set up as the result of a disaster. And it's not just that they're working solely on models they re-used from ArmA 2, they added a brand new destroyed BVP-2 (amphibious APC) model that exists within the various bases and locations that are clearly run down. I also find it really hard to believe that every single car in a 225 square kilometer region would be rusted beyond belief, even if they weren't working. Yes, I know working vehicles are on their way, but to say that every single car would've been driven away is ridiculous. And even places that should be in well working order are looking run down, the apartment blocks which haven't been cleared out of furnishings still have signs of major disuse, in fact, ALL of new buildings that they've added look run down. Even all of the buildings that you can enter are clearly rotting, not a single building looks like it was spared, which I simply find hard to believe. I WAS BEING SARCASTIC. They aren't. Taloon and Mountain are both shiny, but neither of them are military, which is what I was pointing out as to his criticism that the military issues "shiny backpacks". Okay, I apologize for this misconception. I haven't actually bothered to go near any Taloon backpacks in a while so I was just assuming you were making a serious argument. But there isn't plenty of other unrealistic stuff you could list off. Those are inaccuracies, not gameplay concessions over realism. They will patch them as people complain. This is an alpha. You've only listed weapon inaccuracies and you can bet that if people make complaints they will change some of these things in the interest of realism, unless they can't be bothered. People have been complaining about weapon inaccuracies since the alpha was released, frequently visiting this forum proves that. Plenty of people advocate for "realistic" calibers and it's been said over and over again that that's not the dev's design plan. Also, inaccuracies are just as valid of an argument when you're trying to make a simulator. That means no concessions, outside of design/engine/programming limitations should really be made, unless absolutely necessary. Modelling realistic weapons, or at the very least, realistic variations of them, is probably not a huge problem for the devs. In order to improve gameplay and expand the attachment system, they made some concessions. Realistically speaking you'd be less likely to find some of the weapons ingame than a golden AKM (I'll get to that later). But I highly doubt they're going to remove any weapons from the game. Exactly, yet. it's not a gameplay thing, they're just WORKING ON IT. When I said yet, I was just implying that it's not completely out of the question that it could one day be in. (From Twitter): Tom Blagg: "@ctorchia Is there plans to add a .44 Magnum to DayZ?" Chris Torchia: "@Tom_Blagg not right now - we're gong to stick with the more common 357 mag. I'd sooner prefer to see 5.45mm added." David Chilcott: "@ctorchia @Tom_Blagg So the answer to that question is Soon." Chris Torchia: "@davidchilcott15 @Tom_Blagg no, it more of a "maaaybe some day..." It's not impossible, but that doesn't mean that it's probable, either. Except you can't list something as unrealistic they haven't even done yet. I wasn't actually listing that off as a specific reason, it was more of a follow up to what I'd said before. He never said he was making some of the things you listed completely intentionally, that's just putting words in his mouth. And when you're listing weapon inaccuracies which don't change the gameplay in any way, such as the Mosin bolt anachronism, they are CLEARLY not intentional, and definitely not a result of concession to gameplay over realism. Maybe they are temporary, maybe they only had certain models and stuff on call. Doesn't mean they won't be changing things down the track. I would reckon that saying he's said that they're strictly adhering to realism is just as much "putting words in his mouth". As for whether it affects gameplay, fine, the specific instance that the Mosin has a bent bolt is not going to affect gameplay in of itself, but the fact that the Mosin can accept the LRS and PU scope on the fly, which is not possible in real life without extensive modification, does affect gameplay. The fact that the Mosin's compensator reduces dispersion, does affect gameplay, the fact that deploying a bipod just reduces dispersion but not kick, does affect gameplay. The fact that the MP5-K has rails that it shouldn't have does affect gameplay, and the fact that a pronged flashhider reduces dispersion does affect gameplay. The fact that the AK-101 and AKM can interchange parts does affect gameplay. But is all of it necessarily realistic? No. I wouldn't try to say that it wasn't intentional, though. Unless you're actually on the dev team, how can you claim to speak for them?

Going to have to completely disagree with you, then. I'm not able to work on a hunch that someone is just "being quiet" about it, I'm taking what Rocket, who has been very open, is saying. He's not catering to any crowd, he's making the game that HE wants to make. It favors realism in most cases, but that is not the complete trend, there are plenty of unrealistic things that are completely intentional and aren't just "temporary" or "waiting to be expanded on". Now to specifically address you. Dispersion is affected by a multitude of factors, but the fact that the weapon kicks back on you because you weren't holding it steady has nothing to do with the bullet in motion. Sure, the overall power of the bullet/gunpowder and weapon itself do affect dispersion, but throwing on a MagPul handguard will not do anything but make it more comfortable to hold and maneuver. I'd rather them just make using "better" quality handguards/grips increase your weapon maneuverability if they really need to do anything other than look cool (foregrips I can support though). Then there's the realism issue of all of the custom M4 parts being there to begin with. I mean, AR-15s are everywhere and I'm not going to argue over the realistic placement of items, but if the game was supposedly realistic in content then the MagPul stuff and the CQB stock wouldn't be there. The standard parts, optics, and RIS are fine, though. Again, this issue (which isn't an issue) does not bother me at all, but if the game were trying to strictly adhere to realism, tricked out M4s would not be a common sight, at all. You could very well find a Gold plated AK in an Eastern European country. It wouldn't be common, but they're definitely there. Tricked-out AKs in places where the AK still sees heavy use are just like tricked out AR-15s in the United States, they love them, as impractical as they can be. Sure, they're rarer, because there's not as much money to go around and the general availability is lower, but they exist, and it's more than just "one or two". Call of Duty is a very unrealistic shooter, I'll agree. DayZ is much more realistic, but even with specific weapons there are some things wrong with DayZ's weapons. The Mosin 9130 has a bent bolt, which was utilized for the PU-scope variants. However, the Mosin comes as standard without the PU scope ingame, and most people use the LRS, so it's super anachronistic. Not impossible, per say, but it's very unrealistic. The SKS also spawns without a bayonet, which is done to benefit gameplay, but almost every SKS is standard with a bayonet. And don't get me started on the MP5-K, it has comes with a PDW-styled stock, but that can be removed incredibly easily, and underneath it is a sling port that only exists on the standard MP5K, which should make it impossible for the PDW stock to be mounted on it. It also has a really weird rail setup even though rail mounts aren't too common. And the pronged flash hider that's not yet in-game is also a nonexistant type attachment for the MP5K (it seems more like a UMP flash hider). And when I was talking about caliber simplification, I actually mean that weapon calibers have been intentionally simplified in order to benefit gameplay rather than adhere to realism. The chances of us getting 9x18mm are incredibly slim, because .380 ACP which they added as a replacement is incredibly similar in ballistics and is chambered in most weapons available in 9x18mm, as well as many more. Why did they add .380 ACP? Because you can do a lot more with it, hence why the Makarov ingame is .380 ACP and the PM73 RAK is as well, even though the only real common versions are the 9x18mm ones. 5.45x39mm and 7.62x54mmR are Russian calibers that are incredibly common in Eastern Europe (and all over, really). 7.62x54R is the Mosin's real ammo, even though it shoots 7.62x51 NATO in the game, and 5.45x39 is used in the AK-74 and its variants. 7.62x54R is a possibility at the moment, but 5.45x39 isn't planned, which means no AK-74 or AKS-74U for a while, even though those are typically the most common guns in Eastern militaries. The AK-74M we had was subsidized by the AK-101, which is a 5.56x45mm export variant that had very few sales, but it was added because they wanted a use for the model without having to add more ammo types. In reality the AK-74M would be a much better choice, but to benefit gameplay it's not in (yet). More likely than not we'll get the 7.62x39mm replacements for different AK-74 variants, like the AKMSU instead of the AKS-74U, which is nearly identical, but not nearly as common. Still unrealistic. And what about the other guns? The AWC Amphibian S (Amphibia S) is an internally suppressed variant of the Ruger MK2 that is really only used by Navy SEALs (in extremely limited quantities) and rich gun owners. It's highly unlikely that even the richest of Chernarussian farmers would have it, the CDF has no real reason to use them, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me a SEAL team just happened to enter Chernarus with a foreign intervention team, only to use them and then lose them. And even if that were to be convincing, there'd have to be like one of them in the entire game, and other common SEAL weapons like the HK-416, P226, and MK23 SOCOM would have to spawn.The AK-101, for the same reasons as mentioned previously in the post, is an odd weapon.The Blaser B95 (Blaze 95) is an expensive over/under hunting rifle that's unique in the fact that both barrels can fire separate calibers. However, it costs many thousands of dollars and is a relatively rare weapon on the market. I honestly doubt many Chernarussians would buy one of these when they have much more affordable weapons around.The Colt Python (Magnum) is similar to the Blaser B95 in that it's just a really expensive .357 Magnum revolver that is no longer in production. Unlike some of the other guns, a few of these are plausible, but they'd still have to be super rare, which cannot be done to accommodate gameplay.The FNX-45 is a very new derivative of the FNP series of handguns. In fact, this specific model came into public production in 2012. While it's not entirely impossible that some FNP models could've been brought to Chernarus, it's highly unlikely considering how new to the market they are. That's not to mention the aftermarket MRD sight, which is rare itself.The Thompson G2 Contender (LongHorn) is not something you see too often outside of the United States. Granted, they are growing in popularity, but they haven't really grown to any major use outside of the United States yet.The MP5-K itself is quite a weird choice. It's not the worst weapon and the MP5 series is certainly internationally popular, but the MP5-K isn't very common because it was intended to be a compact SMG for concealment and for vehicle/aircraft crews. It can't mount a suppressor without modification and rails aren't easily added either, so generally it falls short of other models like the MP5A3 or even the SD variants.The PM-73, as I addressed earlier, is not common at all. While the PM-63 (9x18mm) variants are everywhere, the export variant in .380 was pretty unpopular. Still added to accommodate gameplay.There's plenty of other unrealistic stuff I could list off. Nearly all of the things that I listed don't bother me at all, but they clearly don't adhere to realism and most of them are intentional and probably will not be changed. "Yes, you don't need to bandage yourself and get blood transfusions, that's definitely not a feature of DayZ" You have to bandage yourself to stop bleeding, but otherwise just eating a bunch of food will still bring you back up to full health. Using blood transfusions just restores a lot of blood more quickly. "Because DayZ isn't set day-z after the apocalypse at all?" Then how come some buildings are cracked or in disrepair beyond belief and the cars lying around look like they've been rusting around for years? Did every car get bombed out or catch on fire? The rate of apocalyptic disorder is completely inconsistent., "News update: Taloon backpack is now called "military backpack"" And that's the question, why? If it's implied that they were military issue then why do all of the colorful variants exist? Taloon backpack was a better name. "Gosh, yeah, it isn't possibly because early access gamess have minor issues, it just must be because the developers HATE realism" Now you're going too far. Nowhere have I nor he implied that the developers "hate" realism. You're arguing that they're strictly adhering to realism in practically every case possible and that everything unrealistic is just "temporary", and also that because it's more realistic than other games that it makes it a simulator, and we disagree (although the merit of his arguments is rather poor, I may add). But I'm not sure exactly what they're going to change about eating the rice, it's already implemented so it's not like they'll redo the entire model or change the quantity, which seems set.

The castles just look run down and disused, not like they're being museums. And even then, anything valuable from them would've been looted a long time ago.

Maybe, but they also don't seem completely intent on adding just Eastern Bloc weaponry. I mean, sure, 9x18mm is used in a ton of different handguns and submachine-guns, but .380 ACP is used in many as well, including a good number of the 9x18mm weapons. It's just better for pragmatic reasons; you get a bullet with similar performance, no confusion in the names, and an overall larger variety of stuff. The PM-63 RAK has .380 variants, the PM-84 has 9x19mm variants, the PP-91 has 9x19mm variants, the PP-19 Bizon has .380 ACP and 9x19mm variants, the Vz.61 has .380 ACP & 9x19mm variants, the Vityaz-SN is a 9x19mm SMG, and so forth. There are plenty of Eastern Bloc SMGs that can be added without 9x18mm. Pistols are essentially the same, we can get the Makarov, we can get the P-64, we can get the P-83, we can get the Stetchkin, and a whole ton of other ones, still without 9x18mm. Sure, if weapon availability realism is the primary concern, then 9x18mm would obviously have priority over .380 ACP, but .380 ACP allows for a better variety of guns. I mean, who doesn't want to use a Walther PP? I'd rather them just have .380 ACP and add 7.62x25mm Tokarev, that way we can get guns like the Tokarev TT-33, PPSh-41, PPS-43, and so on.

It's really the other way around. Most 9x18mm weapons have .380 Variants, but there are FAR more .380 Auto guns out there than 9x18mm ones. They did .380 Auto so they can have the Makarov & PM-73 in addition to a plethora of other weapons. The fact that 9x18mm in text looks almost exactly like 9x19mm is also a small concern, but not the main reason. Pistols: Makarov - 9x18mm, .380 ACPStetchkin APS - 9x18mm, 9x19mmP-64 - 9x18mm, .380 ACP (In prototypes, but it's still possible)P-83 Wanad - .380 ACPSubmachine-Guns: Bizon - 9x18mm, .380 ACP, 9x19mmWhich seems more efficient to add? Keep in mind we can also get the MP-443 Grach (9x19mm), PP-2000 (9x19mm) and PP-19-01 Vityaz (9x19mm), which don't even exist in 9x18mm. And some other .380 guns? The Vz.83, Walther PPK, Beretta 84S, CZ-83 Pistol, Beretta M1934, MAC-11, etc. Without .380 we'd get no Skorpion at all, since the regular variants are chambered in .32 ACP. So is the realism really that much of an issue because we might need to sacrifice having the exact variants we want in order to get an overall better variety of stuff? And on the AK-101, it was the only real option they had with the model, as they don't seem to have any plans for 5.45 at all right now. They could've either; A] Added it as the AK-101, which is a real gun and uses the correct ammunition, even if it isn't popular, B] Added it as the AK-74M and given it 5.56x45mm ammunition anyway, creating a nonexistant AK variant, or C] Entirely scrapped the model. Which do you prefer?

By "tiers" I just meant that weapons should be rare based on their overall effectiveness, rather than realism alone. I mean, yes, that is a factor, been when dictating gameplay it's a minor one. A weapon's rate of fire, damage, magazine capacity, modularity, range, accuracy, are what really need to judge the weapon's rarity, not just the fact that an SKS is more realistic than a 10/22. As of right now, a final balanced weapons rarity list would probably have the Sporter-22, IZH-43, CR-527, P1, and Makarov IJ-70-17F as the most common of the weapons, while the Blaze 95, LongHorn, CR75, PM-73, and 1911 would be uncommon, the AKM, SKS, Mosin, Magnum, Amphibia, and MP5-K would be pretty rare, and the AK-101, FNX-45, and M4A1 would be the current rarest weapons. Sure, it's unrealistic that the AKM and Mosin and SKS are less common than a multi-thousand dollar hunting rifle and a single shot Thompson Contender, but for pragmatic reasons it's necessary.