Chaingunfighter

I'm just waiting for all of the; "LOL Go back to CoD and Counter Strike if you want clans and PvP" comments.

And definitely to the North, too. I'd like some more wilderness being the edge of the map rather than just cities with a thin line of trees and then debug plains. I mean, I hope one day, when technology is sufficient enough, that we get a map that accurately encompasses the entire planet (or at least an entire country). That would be so damn cool, especially with all of the things you could do. It's obviously a long way off, but technology will get there at some point. On topic, yes, I agree, we need more wilderness. I've always envisioned they could just create a larger blank plain and then copy & paste the built section of the map onto that, but that would require much more work than I'd like to think it does.

I don't know that I'd say it has any more relevance than an AKM or SKS or Mosin. Yeah, military wise it'd probably be the standard service rifle, but the AKM would undoubtedly exist in similar numbers in military stocks and even in some civilian or police hands. The SKS & Mosin would also be used heavily by civilians & police forces. It's not a huge deal to me. Yeah, I'd love for an AK-74, but it's not needed.

(I put a spoiler on your images, you should really do that for long strings of them) I agree with you, 5.45x39mm guns would be cool and fitting. However, they're not necessary by any means. As you can see in your pictures alone, the AK-12 has 7.62x39mm (and .308) variants. The AKS-74U can be an AKMSU, the RPK-74 can be an RPK-47, the Groza has 7.62x39mm and 9x39mm variants, the AK-74M is nearly identical to the AK-102 and very similar to plenty of 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm AK-100 rifles. Yes, that means there can be no AN-94, but it's just one minor variant left out. The AK-74 is a pretty big loss, as it'd be a great weapon to have, but in no way is it indicative that we need 5.45x39mm. If the devs ever decide to add it, I'll be very happy, but I'm just saying there's no great incentive for them to do it. I'd honestly rather them add 7.62x54mmR anyway, so we can have weapons like the Mosin, SVT-40, SVD, and PK be separate from M14, FN FAL, G3, M240, M60, and other NATO gun variants. Why? Because there are very few 7.62x51mm conversions of 7.62x54mmR guns, whereas almost every 5.45x39mm gun has a nearly identical equivalent in 7.62x39mm or 5.56x45mm.

There's no real need to have that many as the game is, though. Later on, maybe, but what would be the point of adding a Type 56 when it performs almost exactly the same as an AKM? Even a basic SA Vz.58 variant functions completely differently than but has similar performance and aesthetics to an AKM. The only 7.62x39mm AK I feel that we need is the AKMSU, as the current standing is that we won't have 5.45x39mm for an AKS-74U. Great alternative, if you ask me. There are plenty of other 7.62x39mm AKs that have different aesthetics, if they really want to spice up the variety:

Well, you can find spent M72 (and to a lesser extent, AT-4) tubes in civilian hands, but they don't really count as working launchers. Also, they've really cracked down on the spent tubes anyway. People get arrested for just transporting them in their car when they get pulled over.

Exactly. And to think, that's in a country engulfed in war, with a ruined economy, divided down the middle and being supported by two separate sides, just like Chernarus. That's why there's not too many weapons that you could add and call "unrealistic", because there are innumerable reasons you could logically give for them being there, other than fiction. Even then, Eotechs and other short optics aren't any more unlikely than what we already have (in fact, I'd reckon RDS optics are less common than Eotech 552s).

The BUIS aren't meant for MP5 type sights, they're specifically designed for AR type weapons. I think it's a pretty cool feature that you can use all railed attachments on railed weapons, but they don't all serve a useful purpose. (Except the M4 handguard, but I can live without that) Just imagine an ACOG on an MP5K, lol. They really need to do an Eotech or Shortdot sight, though. Actual CQB optics would be really helpful.

Well, they could do an MP5SD variant, which would save some work finding a suppressor, but I guess that wouldn't be compatible with any foregrip handguard. I wouldn't object to a full sized MP5 since the performance could be a bit different, but it would be negligible at best. They could do an MP5A2 or MP5A3 which has no burst capability, to tier SMGs, but that's hardly enough to really say that its "worse". It just doesn't make too much sense to me that you can remove the handguard of it when clearly nothing but other MP5s could take it. (And to a lesser extent the stock, although I do think the stockless MP5K looks badass, so I can believe that) I dunno. The only real reason they'd add more is for variety's sake, which I wouldn't complain about.

Well, the M249 & PKM don't have their own folders, unlike the AK74M and MP5, so it just seems interesting. Plus. most of the MP5Ks attachments are listed as "MP5", so it's quite possible they could be used for multiple MP5 types, something the devs would surely make use of. Dunno, it's just interesting, as I said before.

It's a 91/30. The perspective that the model is viewed from just gives a skewed appearance. The M38/M44 would be cool, but there's no real reason to add it.

Well, chances are he'll be caught somewhere he's very familiar with if some sort of post-apocalyptic disaster happens. Zombies themselves are incredibly implausible, though.

What about the second MP5 folder? (The one besides the MP5K's?) I've always been wondering what's inside that, but I've been on vacation for a while and am still going to be for another one and a half weeks, so I can't check.

Doubt it, otherwise they would've just taken the tents away. Plus, they're in more locations than just Balota, so I doubt they'd take out loot spawns if they just wanted to reduce the numbers of tents. Its a bug. This happened after 0.45, too, then it was fixed, and now its broken again.

I really don't care more or less, but it seems like way too small of a problem to warrant trying to limit what people call themselves. I mean, the only times you'll see someone else' name is in the player list, which is honestly more immersion breaking since you would never really know everyone in an area, or if they talk to you through text chat, which is necessary for people who don't have a microphone being identified. And then again, post-apocalypse, what's stopping someone from calling themselves something ridiculous? I mean, the risk factor isn't there, but a post-apocalyptic setting is one of the best fits for people with unusual names, as there's nothing stopping them from identifying as whoever they want to be. Why must DayZ be restrictive? I'm not going to nitpick at your individual rule systems, because they're clearly able to be changed, but in the end it's going to create tons of work to solve something that's not necessarily even a problem to begin with.

Or maybe landmines, in order to trap the bandits in the town (or blow an ally up if they're not careful)

All he says is "normal people" and that they're not "military trained". The usual context of what he's saying they're not there as soldiers, but that's it. It doesn't mean that they have no former experience with combat, even if informal. But even then, what defines a "normal person" is beyond me, because that's a subjective term. There are plenty of people in the military today, so I'd consider military service a pretty regular job. There are also plenty of people who have a good knowledge of firearms, a good number of doctors, a good number of mechanics, a good number of pilots, etc. I'm not saying that our DayZ avatars would realistically know how to do everything, but it's not like they're performing super FPS stunts and doing things that only a very small number of people know how to do. I'm not entirely against a system where your character progressively becomes better at something with time, but that feels even more gamey than just allowing you to do it off the bat. However, if that compromise is a must to have some things that certain people couldn't do, then I wouldn't complain. Either way, it's been pretty much confirmed that we'll have helicopters, so arguing about it is relatively pointless. If you really want to get something done at this point, your merit is best devoted toward helicopter mechanics and features: Yes, they should be rare. Yes, they should be hard to maintain. Yes, they should be hard to fly. Rather than; No, they should not be in the game. If they're truly assumed to be "regular", then you'd have to naturally make them terrible at almost everything, because the majority of people on Earth never use guns, the majority of people on Earth never drive, the majority of people on Earth never have medical experience, hell, the majority of people on Earth aren't alive.

But what's a "regular survivor"? We have no background knowledge of any of the avatars that represent us players before they spawn in. To assume that it'd be impossible for anyone to fly helicopters because most people now do not know how to do it is a fallacious argument, at best. And it's not good reasoning to disclude something from the game, considering the flight controls and maintenance required could be very high. It's not like you'll be getting fully armed AH-64Ds up in five minutes after spawning in, it could take days or even weeks to get something as simple as a Bell 47 working on minimal fuel. Flying in that would be very vulnerable, as even concentrated small arms fire would bring it down in a relatively short period. The only major advantage you're getting is aerial reconnaissance and a low profile, but it is costly and risky to use. I see nothing wrong with having helicopters, the advantage to risk & work factor is not so great that it would be "overpowered" and they aren't at all out of place. Immersion is not going to be destroyed because someone can fly in the air? Also, what constitutes military equipment to you? Plenty of weapons, clothing, and equipment that civilians would probably not have are already ingame, and it's not like all of the military vehicles would be inoperable or destroyed post apocalypse.

That already exists, it's called Kumyrna, and it's been there since the days of ArmA 2. It's likely a bombed out relic from the insurgency between the ChZDk and CDF, although the town is bombed out by the time the USMC arrives. It's slightly north of Mogilevka, in the range of Stary Sobor. There's a small road that runs straight through it, but the town itself is just rubble & shells of former buildings, as well as the crumbling church, which holds an unmarked Eastern Orthodox graveyard outside. There's also one small green/red house sitting on the road not far from the town, and it's completely unscathed. The Mi-8 wreck was added in the standalone, though, so its possible that the lore of Kumyrna could be expanded for DayZ's liking.

Then what would be the point of them? It's like saying that you're allowed to have your own building, but it must be built identically to every other building around it, there's nothing to really show for it. But, we already know that that's not what they're going to do. Most of the dev team is in full support of having large scale mods or total game conversions, even Dean himself. They could all be wrong about what's best for the game, but the chances of them completely removing modding are slim at best. And no, mods will not ruin vanilla DayZ.

I've worked with the map editor that they used to make Chernarus and there isn't an option to increase map size of pre-existing maps. Theoretically they could make a larger plain and just paste over the pre-existing map, but I don't know if that would work, as I'm no expert on using it. It would definitely be a good question to ask the devs, though.

Well, to people like you and me, they may seem shit, but you can't discount that a large amount of the mod's playerbase loved to play on them. I'm not one to step up and say that the devs need to constantly appease the masses, but I'm also not some hardcore elitist who thinks that only the extremely fanatic few should determine the game's future. I'd say just to leave modding as open as it can be (without allowing for hacking or security issues). Sure, some people may not like the kinds of mods that come out, but there will definitely be ones to play, and you can always make your own, as hey, its unrestricted. Also, most of the people who like certain kinds of mods will magnetize towards said mods, so you'll be left with more people who like to play in a fashion alike yours. That means that people who run around and have clan wars or camp the coast will move towards other servers built around player combat while people who enjoy the survival or PvE elements can have their own mods and vanilla gameplay. It appeases everyone as best you can that way.

PBO file structure makes securing them essentially impossible. There's no real way to prevent people from opening them up with something like PBOView or PBOManager. They'd have to change their entire file organization that BIS has used since the days of Operation Flashpoint, and the only purpose would be to limit people from viewing content which will be public within a few weeks. Sounds rather pointless to me. Plus, there's nothing really wrong with it. You don't have to go looking at the public DayZ maps or viewing into the game's files, but it's extremely helpful for testing that you can. If everything was just left a mystery, bugs & glitches would last a lot longer because people don't know what to look for. That, and the devs love showing off new stuff that they've added, as any creator does. It's like telling someone who needs to get to a place they've never been to go out and explore and destroy their GPS, because you'll have a much more significant reaction when you come across it. It might feel that way to you, but to the other person, they just want to get where they need to go. There's no need to force them to do it one way or the other.

It's sort of arbitrary to say that modifying the spawn rates of certain objects should be blocked, because some mods/scripts could rely on spawning with certain objects in order to make the gameplay work. Sometimes you have to push the boundaries of gameplay in order to make something interesting, so it'd be pretty redundant and pointless to allow mods under the condition that they have to be essentially vanilla or enforce difficult survival gameplay.

Meh, I think having stuff rare is a pretty good idea. Maybe not to the fullest extent, but stuff that's supposed to be uncommon should be uncommon. Granted, hand grenades specifically shouldn't be limited to helicopter crashsites (I thought you could also find them in general military), as they're a fairly staple weapon, but late game advanced weapons probably should. If you're talking about the flashbangs, then I'd really like to see them spawn in police stations. They're the perfect police spawn, although I can see why special forces in helicopters may also carry some. If they really want a rare crashsite weapon, then why not add the MM-1 with smoke, flare, tear gas, and rare explosive rounds? That'd be the perfect crowd control weapon.