Chaingunfighter

Well, the anger would be justified. People don't want to be told that they have to play on high population servers just because some people want more interaction. The repercussions of actually forcing people to high count servers would be disastrous, though. Most of the servers people pay for with their own money, how would you be able to convince them that their server should be unlisted or they can't play on it because it doesn't meet a quota of players?

That was f'ing awesome. Really excited to see what these guys do.

We need keep in mind that everything that happened in ArmA 2 is canon in the DayZ storyline, so it has to remain consistent with it, even if some of the "official" details are not elaborated on. While I'm not sure whether it would be classified as a town or just a landmark, the battle-torn and completely destroyed village of Kumyrna is where I'd like to start. Kumyrna - ("Chinese Temple") While the village of Kumyrna was officially founded in the 1960s (believed to be between 1963-1964, although no official documents are known to exist), evidence of human occupation in the region through archaeological digs has found relics of early human tools in the woods just 1.5km south of the village, some dating back over 50,000 years (For reference, the South Zagorian plateau, where Chernarus+ is set, was found to have been inhabited by early Neanderthals around 200,000 years ago). For most of its history, the lands that Kumyrna sits on were unoccupied, occasionally used for hunting or woodcutting. One of the oldest buildings nearby, a small log farmhouse which sits on the road west of the town, was originally constructed in 1892, as per the testimonies of the current owners. Said building was eventually expanded into a more modern Slavic design, with little of the original site remaining, but the building was one of few spared destruction after the entire town was burned down (more on that later). Eventually, in the early 1930s, a small Eastern Orthodox church was built, and the provisional government, who were under the control of the Soviets, built the road that runs through the town. As time went on, many houses began to spring up around the church, most of which were made of brick, a rare occurrence in South Zagoria at the time. What really set Kumyrna apart from the other villages was the fact that many of the inhabitants were ethnic Chinese and Korean, and said people continued to hold onto their traditional beliefs. Despite the religious and ethnic cleansing going on throughout the USSR at the time, the villagers built a small Confucian temple, completely out of imported Beech wood, and due to the village's remoteness, the temple remained for over 70 years. In the 1960s, the village garnered it's official name, "Kumyrna", which translates as "Chinese Temple" in Eastern Slavic literature. Later, in 1973, the Eastern Orthodox church in the middle of town accidentally caught fire, killing three residents. Early attempts were made to restore the church, but eventually it was decided that a restoration would be too costly, and the religious assembly in control moved to the newly annexed island of Utes, where a brand new church was built (That would also, erroneously so, be destroyed later, in the Chernarussian Uprising) While mostly insignificant after that point, the village became a centralized point in the early conflicts between the ChDKZ and Chernarussian government. In early 2009, just weeks before the oncoming USMC intervention, a firefight between ChDKZ insurgents who occupied the now desolate and crumbling church, and a platoon of CDF Mechanized Infantry broke out, resulting in heavy damage to the town and the church. Because the CDF were ordered not to utilize explosive weapons in their assault (due to civilian proximity), including the main guns on their BMP-2 IFVs, the insurgents inflicted heavy casualties on the CDF, and were able to drive off the CDF troops until they returned, now reinforced with an Air Corps division and a group of locally volunteered militia. The ChDKZ, in order to buy themselves some time, are believed to have set fire to many buildings in the town, including the Confucian temple, completely destroying the temple and heavily damaging all other buildings, resulting in the deaths of a quarter of the town's population. However, the ChDKZ blamed the fires on the CDF, claiming that they "fired tank shells directly into people's houses" in order to fight. With the ChDKZ insurgents mobilizing across the entire countryside, the remaining populace was displaced to other nearby villages, mainly Guglovo and Novy Sobor, never to return. The town gradually fell into disrepair, although some relics of the once unique village still stand, fighting off time. To this day, the remnants still exist, a constant reminder to the horrors of the old world, however unequal they may be to the new ones. Some time after the infection consumed Chernarus, a CDF Air Corps Mi-8 helicopter crash landed on the outskirts of the village. While the helicopter is riddled with bullet holes, it is believed that the helicopter suffered an unrelated rotor malfunction and crashed (although it did undoubtedly come under fire in flight, most of the bullets were likely fired post-crash). What happened to the crew is unknown, as no evidence of their demise was left behind.

I wouldn't mind having a few assault rifles up at the top end of rarity, simply for unique value, sort of like the 1911 Engraved, only as its own platform. Obviously these have to be weapons that already have some similar equivalent that's more common, but that's beside the point.

Well, the Mosin can still use the PU Scope and the M44 compensator, and it's unlikely that they'll remove those since they were specifically designed for the Mosin. The Mosin could definitely be made more of a lower-end rifle, but I'd still say it's more of a mid-game weapon then anything else. It's not bad, but it's nothing special either. "Bare-bones" Mosin really isn't saying much considering the Mosin doesn't spawn with any attachments. Even if they remove the LRS, it'll probably still have the PU Scope and M44 Compensator, so it won't be completely without customization. As a whole (with current weapon standings), this is what we'd get, assuming the weapons list stays the same until the release Low-End Sporter-22IZH-43Makarov IJ70P1CR527 (without scope, if it does get one, then it'd be mid-tier)Middle-End (Most of the guns) 1911LongHornMagnumBlaze 95Mosin 9130SKSPM73 RAKCR75High-End AK101M4A1MP5-KFNX45Amphibia S (because it's internally suppressed)AKMUltra-End NothingThere's no real "balance" in the weapons right now. Sure, the overall setup is good, but I listed guns that probably shouldn't be high-tier (like the MP5-K) simply because they're select-fire and have a decent capacity. The AKM and AK101 are fairly high-tier because they have a load of customization, but as an individual weapon they're really mid-tier, as is the M4A1. The FNX-45 is definitely a great pistol, though, and I'm okay with it being the top-tier pistol, and the Amphibia is up there simply because it is suppressed internally. But I really don't think any of the guns ingame right now, or even planned, really dictate being made into "endgame" gear. (Maybe the SVD, but if it has to be managed by the loot system then it should be one of the more common ones.)

Maybe on a different map, but I like the whole idea of the big ocean. The devs have said they want to do more with islands out in the ocean, so once they add boats, they can become a more significant part of gameplay. Maybe you can get some high-tier loot spawns on the western edge of the map, including heli crashsites, but what if the ultimate loot spawns were on an island far off to the east? You couldn't swim there, but you could potentially take a boat or aircraft there. Think it's going to be easy? Not so much, taking a loud vehicle over to the island is undoubtedly going to attract hordes of zombies, who are all stuck on the island. I think that'd be much cooler than just removing the ship and Skalisty and adding land on the other side. Not only would they need to remove that, but they'd also need to extensively redesign all of the harbors of the coastal cities, and it just really isn't worth it. And how could you convince the devs not to keep the ship?

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.