Chaingunfighter

I don't think they'll slow down permanently, though. I think we're just getting a basic alpha lineup of firearms (with a few little extras like the Engraved 1911 to keep us happy) so we have a variety of weapons to test with gameplay. Then we'll pick up again as the major issues sort out and the variety starts to come into play. But yeah, they could honestly stop adding weapons as is (even without ever adding the confirmed future weapons like the PM63 and MP5K) and we'd still have a pretty good weapons list. Sure, it could use a little bit of ironing out (especially SMGs and shotguns), but the variety is already better than quite a few other games. I'm sure we'll always be getting new weapons, though, because the PM-63 was commissioned by a freelance artist if I'm not correct. Chris Torchia also loves doing guns, and he's talked about tons that he wants to do, so I'm sure those will keep popping up in his lineup. Edit: Thompson Contenders don't exist in .308 as far as I'm aware. I could be wrong, but I thought the largest they went up to was .300 WM. The one in-game is slightly different anyway, so it could just be a fictional variant.

The only guns firing incorrect ammunition are the Mosin and the LongHorn (which isn't a Warsaw pact weapon.) The PM-63 will probably fire the 9x19mm bullets, but we don't know that, for all we know they could add 9x18mm.The devs haven't added a Makarov or AK-74 to the game, so complaining about what they've said could happen is rather stupid. People are also missing the fact that Chris & the other devs have clarified over and over again that the guns would end up like this if they were added at this point. People seem to skip right over the whole "for now" aspect of what they've said. An AK-74 added is only going to use 5.56x45mm bullets if they added it before improvements to the loot system (mainly centralization and respawning). It's not like we're in desperate need of more guns at the moment, anyway. The weapon's list is almost as big as the mod's, and we're getting even more guns soon. We can wait to have our Makarov and AK-74 until they have the system optimized for more calibers.

Well, it isn't really a fair comparison considering the standalone's only been out for 6 months and in development for a little over a year while the mod's been out for years and was built mainly on assets of a game that came out in 2009.

I'm not talking about some sort of cheap old hunting rifle, I'm talking something special, like a VSS Vintorez. "Weeks" was an exaggeration, but I don't think that you should always be finding 9x39mm bullets in one three hour playthrough. Your basic argument is; if the average player can't access something readily, then you should not add it to the game at all. I don't want to be seeing everyone running around with internally suppressed marksman rifles and RPG-7s, but it would always be fun to occasionally encounter a lucky or dedicated player/group that had found something nice. I'm sure there are going to be plenty of common items for the regular playerbase to use. If you don't plan on playing for a long period of time, then don't take something that's going to need work or effort to use. This is the exact same philosophy that applies in real life.

Well, I'm not able to argue with you when you're calling this stuff "useless". That's where it ends, because we both disagree on the value of an individual item. I do not think that an individual item should be common, I think that everything should be less abundant as a whole. Yes, if there are 3 items to choose from rather than 2, and the numbers are being rolled, then you will still statistically see item #2 less than you would if there were no item #3, regardless of how high or low the probability of item #3 is of spawning. However, I don't think that item #2 should be readily available, I want item #2 to be something to look for. If it's something that should be more common, than increase the percent chance of it spawning. Sure, it may appear less, but that's something you'll have to deal with. Another solution would be to incrementally increase all items (which the devs have been doing). The loot proportions will probably not stay the same, but the devs are not just adding guns to the game. You could add a new gun, for example, but add two new food items to "accommodate" for it. It's not a perfectly even system, but I don't want that kind of system. An item either does or does not exist in a particular location, that does not necessarily incline that it does not exist in a different location, even if that item possibly exists on another server. The idea that the "game will be unplayable" because there are a large variety of weapons or specific items is invalid. The spawn-rates of specific weapons will usually be more prudent than others. Melee weapons are a good example of this, and they can be used right on the spot. You're acting as if the devs were to add more weapons and ammunition that it would become unplayable. This is unlikely. Even if the devs had 150 weapons (which will probably never happen), they would still spawn statistically less than the majority of other items, as at that point you'd have thousands of other items. You may be able to play for days or even weeks without seeing getting ammunition (or a weapon that uses your special ammo), but that does not make it useless. The item can exist, and the loot is not pre-determined, so it will, at some point, exist.

It's not going to matter, that's not how the "loot type" system works. Certain areas are much more likely to spawn food than they are to spawn weapons, and vice versa. Having a larger variety of guns is just going to mean you'll find different kinds of guns in certain areas rather than the same ones over and over again. What would skew the rates of spawning would be to increase the spawn rate of guns, not increase the variety. I'm all for less guns spawning, but I also think less food and medicine should spawn. You'll have to scavenge and loot much closer and more carefully to get stuff, and utilize hunting, fishing, and foraging in order to get everything you need. Having a larger variety of individual stuff just means that you'll have a much more alive and believable environment, because you're encountering new stuff all the time.

Not to mention it's only single shot (per grenade, although it is reusable) and cannot be attached to a rifle, so if you screw up you have very little room for error (as you probably don't have much other ammunition and have to resort to a pistol or other weapon, which puts you at risk) I'd also love to see this (not-so beautiful) beauty. Again, it's already going to be rare as fuck and the best part is; it must be discarded after fired the first time. So yeah, you might have a super lethal and accurate rocket, but you only get one shot, regardless of how many rockets you carry. Want to use it again? Sorry, you have to find another launcher. To make up for it, this thing could probably be carried in a backpack much easier than most other "primary" weapons, but it's still going to take up most of the room, especially considering you have to carry the rocket as well. And if you want to have a more fitting launcher, then none other than the RPG-7 will work; As classic of a launcher it is, it's also pretty bad. These things were prone to misfiring and most of the rockets built simply cannot stand up to modern armor (upgrades were made, but you don't see them all that much save for richer countries, who tend not to use these on the front lines). Hell, even when you did manage to fire one off, it had a bad tendency to veer noticeably off course. Not saying it's as bad as depicted in most video games, but it definitely happens. The only real advantage you'd get over a LAW by carrying this is the fact that it can be re-used. You can't stuff it in a backpack, you can't expect complete accuracy, and the ammunition takes up much more room. Yeah, it's arguably more reliable, but the LAW only needs to work once, and I doubt you're going to be frequently using this in DayZ, even if reliability becomes a more significant factor later on. I'd say having both of these wouldn't be taking it too far. Grenade launchers I'd like for them to expand a bit more on, with something like the Russian GL-94 being the "top-tier" grenade launcher, while your majority will be GP-25s (and the occasional M203 and M79)

I doubt it would fit in any of the game's backpacks. It's not as small as you'd think, still a full-sized rifle. By that logic you should also be able to put an M4A1 in your backpack, but I know people would flip if you could (and it wouldn't fit anyway, it's just around the same size with the stock closed)

Well, people assume that consequences always have to be negative because of how it tends to be used in common language. However, the word 'consequence', is essentially a synonym for; 'result'. I think shooting grenade launchers would actually be quite interesting in this position. The actual firing wouldn't make too much noise, but the impact would certainly draw plenty of zombies to a location (whether it fired high explosive, smoke, or flare rounds, they're still going to have a high attraction rate). That would make for some interesting gameplay; using grenade launchers to guide zombies away from (using smoke or flares, as you'd obviously not waste a 40mm HE trying to direct them) or towards a position. If you did try to use an HE round (or any explosive in general), you'd attract many more zombies than just from a simple gunshot. That's why I don't think having M203s/GP25s, M79s, M72s, or RPG-7s is that bad of an idea. They're not "overpowered" at all, if done correctly. It's not like we're asking for Javelins, Stingers, or M202 FLASH launchers, people.

DayZ mod still had post-80s stuff in it. The exact timeframe is unknown, but it's likely post-2009 when Arma 2 takes place.

The M4A1 was made in 1996, the FNX-45 came out in 2012, MAGPUL stuff wasn't made until the 90s either. There are also things like the HMMWV wrecks; HMMWVs did enter service in 1984, but they weren't very prevalent until the mid-90s. I highly doubt that DayZ takes place in the past.

So what exactly is wrong with having aftermarket attachments, even if you consider them "tacticool"? Should every gun in the game be essentially the base firearm, and maybe let the M4 have one or two of its optic attachments? Talk about uninteresting gameplay. The whole idea that they're affecting dispersion and accuracy when they shouldn't be is something I'm opposed to, but if they were just purely aesthetic then I see nothing wrong with having them in-game. Besides, putting rails on an AK is something that's done all the time, all over the place.

It's such a minor detail, I can't understand why people get so annoyed by something so small. Then again, I get annoyed by the simplest grammatical errors, so I may be hypocritical, but whatever.

Discussion of stuff happens slowly at times, for seemingly no reason. It will probably pick up shortly.

Does it come with 15 round magazines? I really hope you can find those. As impractical as it would be, the whole; stockless MP5K with a 15 round magazine sounds incredibly badass. (And if they ever make weight a factor, I guess that could be one small advantage)

Oh, okay. I was just confused, because you said "in a long time", but quite a few of the recent weapons have been perfectly fitting. The CZ-527 is definitely one of the most authentic weapons, though. The MP-133 and MP5K will probably be great, although they could've done better with an MP5A3 or MP5A4, but whatever. Hopefully we'll also get that Remington 870 we saw a long time ago alongside the MP-133, it'd make for a good variety of shotguns.

Mosin-Nagants and SKS rifles are still used by militaries, but also by civilians. It's too arbitrary a line to say "low-end", because compared to what? An AKM is generally low-end compared to an M4A1, but an AKM is high-end compared to a Mosin. However, all of them are military rifles. The CZ-527 is also a very high-quality rifle. In real life it's much more high-end quality wise compared to a Mosin, so your terminology doesn't really work.

Our overall level of development might recede to that point, but not everywhere will recede equally. Some people will have the knowledge of older things to keep them running for quite a long time, and maintaining something old can be done without constant access to newer parts. Sure, we might not be producing AKMs anymore, but if some sort of global disease wiped most of us out tomorrow, you'd probably still see people using them 100 years from now. The best way to prepare (although I don't honestly think some sort of global catastrophe is really imminent) would be to create a method of both short-term and long-term survival. I'd make sure I was in an area that can be used for long-term cultivation and hunting, but also had access to plenty of things I would be able to use early on. Keep a supply of food, medicine, water, and weapons while making a plan for the long-term. You're putting yourself at a disadvantage if you start using an improvised bow right from the beginning, because you're probably not the only one who's survived. That, and the further in the future you get, the harder it becomes to plan for. You're better off having what you need right off the bat and coming up with what you have later rather than preparing for the long-term and forgetting what you need to do right now.

I think you're in luck for explosive booby traps. They have (at least) two types of improvised grenade models, so we might be able to use them in different ways. And this new grenade system is great. Clearing rooms is going to be great, although I'm not sure i'd want to yet (right now it'd be good for clearing an entire building, and another 8 city blocks)

Yes, because everyone who's not in the military will completely fuck up shooting the gun, sometimes to the point that they hit themselves. What's with you and "low-end"? Such an arbitrary line you draw. Statistically speaking the M4 is a low-end weapon right now, considering it's super rare and still can't shoot for shit. However, realistically speaking the Sporter-22 and P1 are low-end, but those were added recently. Are those not "low-end" enough for you? What about the AKM? It's got select-fire capability, but it's definitely not advanced.

Huh, apparently they are divided on it, marketing-wise. But regardless, DayZ isn't intended as a simulator. I don't get the whole "anti-game" term because of that. I mean, sure, there's no stated objective, but the whole idea is that people create their own objectives. That's still a game to me.

Yeah, in that sense, every game is "simulating unreality". But even the devs haven't called DayZ a simulator, nor have they called Arma. Sure, both have many realistic elements, but they aren't actually replicating reality, or making an attempt to. Something like VBS2 would be more in-line with a simulator, as it was made with the intention of training military troops or private companies in dealing with combat situations, rather than just playing huge sandbox battles with 250 jets vs another 250 jets, or running around fishing boots out of a pond and blasting people in the face with an IZH-43.

If you're gaining artificial XP, it's not a simulator anymore. Not trying to say that DayZ is a simulator or an RPG, because it's neither. It's just an open-world, sandbox, survival game. You can run around and scream "ITS NOT A SURVIVAL GAME! ITS TOO EASY", but the element of difficulty is not the determining factor here. The fact that you are stranded in a world with relatively few other people, where there's no questlines, and you have to scavenge for food, water, and medicine, and the only goal is to stay alive, it's a survival game. I'll agree that it's pretty easy to come across all of DayZ's basic necessities and people often combat each other rather than engaging in the stereotypical "survival elements", but because those elements are still the basis of the game, it's a survival game. You might never use the basement in your house, but it's still a part of the foundation, whether you like to think it is or not.

Over-complicating weapons systems is not the most practical way to get things done. If it gets to the point where something is just tedious and doesn't actually affect anything, then what's the point in having it? It would be like having to unscrew and manually keep track of all of the little parts & screws while mounting an M68 CompM2 before also aligning it yourself and re-screwing them on individually. Sure, it might be more realistic, because attachments don't just prop themselves onto weapons, but would you really like to have to do that just to put an Aimpoint on your M4? Or what about separating the guns into every single individual part, where everything matters and perfect maintenance is required. Instead of just changing out the stocks, handguards, and other attachments on something like the M4, you'd have to swap out; stocks, handguards, pistol grips, lower & upper receivers, triggers, stock tubes, barrels, front sights, as well as all of the little parts that make them up (like sling ports, springs, screws, bolts, the tighteners on the carry handle, etc.) And to top it off, you'd have to perform each action individually and with the correct tool (only with an AR tool can you take out the front sight in order to swap out your barrel, but you also need a specific 2x6 Phillips-Head screwdriver, because the other sizes are too large or small to fit). Sounds like fun, right?

What would be the point of temporarily removing fall damage if it's just going to come back? I mean you can't honestly expect them to make surviving falling hundreds of feet off of the top of the ship or an industrial building in Cherno a final possible game feature.