Chaingunfighter

How would they properly implement such a system? "Fully-random" wouldn't be possible, because you'd have many instances of people spawning inside trees, rocks, buildings, and other static objects, and way out in the middle of the ocean. They could set "exclusion zones" in specific areas where spawning was inside of objects & away from high value loot spawns, but then you have to ask; how far away from major loot spawns should they go? I mean, the current spawns are very far from most major areas and you've still got Berezino and the NEAF in close proximity, with Elektro not too far away either. Running from the areas you're in now to places like the NWAF is relatively simple and doesn't take a lot of time, so moving the spawns further inland would only shorten that time. And what's to stop someone from repeatedly committing suicide until they spawn somewhere near a high-value loot spawn? You'd either have to make it a permadeath of sorts (not actually permanent but for a limited period of time) or have people consistently spawn in the same location for a set amount of time, which itself comes with problems; people spawncamping you as you respawn, and people also getting their gear back incredibly quickly. They could properly implement it but it would be almost no different than it is now, only to the point of the specific spawn positions being undefined. The spawns definitely need some improvement, though. They should probably push them a bit further than they are now.

Depending on how far you're willing to take "slightly", I'd say that different guns should have variable levels of suppression based on their caliber (i.e. a CR75 with a suppressor will be a good deal quieter than a 7.62x51mm rifle with a suppressor) However, the main advantage you should get for most weapons is the suppression of the weapon flash. People will have a harder time identifying you when you shoot an M4A1 at them from afar at night time if you have a suppressor. That way there's still a reason to use the internally suppressed weapons, availability aside - if you really want a silent or nearly-silent weapon, your best bet is an Amphibia or VSS Vintorez, or whatever. I do think that they should find a middle ground between the more realistic approach and the hollywood approach, though. The gun should be noticeably quieter, just not to the point that someone who you're shooting at will be unlikely to hear you (like it is with the Amphibia). It all does depend on how the devs want suppressors to work, though.

I'm not sure how that kind of feature would be modded in with any significance. If it were really to work, it would have to apply to all servers rather than just a few, because the servers that did have it would have less people join and would shorten out in extremely quick periods of time. It's an interesting feature but you'd have a hard time convincing people to play with it. There were permadeath-like servers in the mod (I can't recall any actual permanent ones, but some would make you wait until the next restart or a set amount of time. This also happened on custom mods like Battle Royale, which wouldn't allow you to rejoin until the match had ended) As I've said before, the big problem with most of these (save for the ones built around it like Battle Royale) were that people tended not to come back even once their death timers had expired. You had a few dedicated people, but those were mainly ones who had survived for long periods of time or were just extremely into that style of play. Plus, sometimes I do like the liberty of having access to some unrealistic features such as respawning and continually playing in the same area. I'm all for making survival the #1 priority in DayZ, but in no way is DayZ simulating, or attempting to simulate, a post-apocalyptic environment.

I'm not announcing it to the world by talking about it in a conversation with you. And yes, that's a true analogy, but it's not as extreme as something like that. It's more akin to; "Hey, I walked across the street when I wasn't supposed to". Aka, something receiving a response along the lines of; "Wow, what an epic badass you are" rather than "That's disgusting".

Well they haven't seemed to do anything about it, or care. And I really doubt that "TROLOLOL" model was there for the devs to use later on. So regardless of whether it's breaking their licensing, they haven't actually tried to react to it. Jaywalking is illegal in most places, but how often do you see people getting arrested for it?

It's not against the licensing at all, unless I redistribute them to people who don't own the game, which I haven't done. Besides, the devs don't seem to care. Hell, they hid a file called "AS50_TWS" which was really just a low-poly model of text saying; "TROLOLOLOLOL", because they knew people would look into the files. Why does something as ubiquitous as 5.56x45mm have to be limited to military weapons? I can understand certain rifle cartridges should be limited, but 5.56x45mm itself isn't going to cause too much deviation. You're very heavily limiting the possible weapon choice you can have if you have to make one caliber be standardized for "civilian" or "military" weapon spawns. Even then, 5.56x45mm is pretty consistent with what it has. Most 5.56x45mm guns are rifles, and the rest are largely light-machine guns (there are a few other types, but they're few and far). I don't see too much of a problem with a bolt-action and semi-automatic rifle that just happens to use the same ammunition as an M4A1 and maybe a couple of other ARs such as the Galil, HK-51, G36, or AK-102 and FN Minimi/M249. Sure, you're still going to have problems with that, but almost all of the weapons it will have are long arms. It's not like 7.62x51mm which is used in break-action pistols, bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic/automatic battle rifles, select-fire rifles, sniper rifles, and all sorts of stuff. I'm just not in favor of forcibly leaving out guns because they use a caliber that more powerful weapons already in-game use. It's really just doing the same things the devs are doing for the opposite reasons; instead of keeping them out because we want to limit the calibers, you're keeping them out because you want to limit the weapons.

The MP5K is pretty common knowledge now. Anyone who looks into the weapon model files after the update has surely seen it by this point. Regardless, it has nothing to do with 5.56x45mm, civilians, or rifles. It's a 9x19mm, police/military issue, submachine-gun.

I don't understand why you love the mod so much more than the standalone (especially considering you can still play the mod). There were some things about it that were more refined than the standalone, but most of them were simply there because they were taken directly from ArmA 2 and didn't necessarily tie in well with DayZ. You're a pro-claimant for realistic firearms, but most of the mod's weapon aspects were far worse than the standalone's. The lack of an attachment system to begin with (And thus weirdly having around 8 M4 variants to compensate), the lack of environmental factors, the overall poorer weapon choice (most of the weapons were not fitting and played the same), etc. The dispersion of weapons and unrealism with a few of the attachments (mainly them affecting things they should not, and some attachments that aren't easily compatible working on weapons) are problems, but the fact that there is a working and modular attachment system, the fact that there is a hugely expanded melee list, the fact that objects such as arrows and bolts have physics, the 3D scopes, and ammunition is hand-loaded and can be separated (not to mention magazines that actually show up), all add up to the fact of better weaponry in the standalone. The gunplay itself might be off, but correcting it is a relatively simple process. The leaps of things such as individual bullets & modular attachments were not available in the mod and couldn't be done (technically attachment systems can work, but it's a hugely tedious process and involves a lot of scripting and individual weapon variants)

I'll agree with you there, the issue is not completely black & white. "High-tier" guns tend to rely on magazines, anyway (such as the M249 SAW, M240, RPK, PKM, etc.), but the whole "magazine rarity" thing is also pretty gimpy (I believe that in part is due to the fact that the magazines can only spawn in specific loot areas for just magazines, which in turn only spawn in military areas, but still) Games like State of Decay have a pretty universal weapon caliber system but you'll rarely see long-term use military firearms until the late game because of the overall rarity of them & ammunition in general, and also the inaccessibility of areas (which could come in the form of tougher & more concentrated zombies, rather than waiting until a certain amount of the "questline" is done)

They don't all necessarily need to have optics on them. I kind of like the idea of having rifles that are relatively common but hard to use because the optics needed to aim them are the rare parts. If they had to limit it down to only one rifle of each type (say bolt-action .223) then I'd change my mind, but I think having some pure iron-sight .223s as well as capable scoped rifles would be awesome. I think something like .223 and 7.62x51mm deserve to be more modular. If they were super concerned with seeing everyone running along with M4A1s, they could just lower the amount of them available (They're already down to crash sites only). Ammunition shouldn't be left to accommodate for everything, I agree, but there needs to be some sort of calibers that you'll see more use of because of the universal application. The obvious problem with that reasoning is that it leaves little room for weapons that have equivalents in less-common calibers, because you'd hardly ever see their use, but I still don't like the idea of reserving 5.56x45mm for military applications. Bolt-action & break-action rifles would not require magazines, where the M4A1 does, so you're not getting a heavy advantage considering STANAGs are going to be rare themselves. Also, you can only get the M4 from crash-sites, which is another obstacle in getting your working one. The question you have to ask yourself at that point, is; "will this rifle give me too much more of an advantage for it to be worth it?" - I'd say no in the M4s case. You're going to have problems with things like 7.62x51mm, but that's mainly due to the fact that the devs aren't willing to make other versions available. The balancers could also come with relative availability. Even though 7.62x51mm could be somewhat common, finding enough ammo to make that M60 you found effective is going to be hard. Other factors, such as weight and handling come into play at that point, so you have to ask yourself if using it is really worth it for all of the trouble it gets you. EDIT: I'd also like to add that the devs have been pretty faithful with the magazines, even though we know that most of them will only ever be used in one gun (I really doubt we'll get a Walther P-38 in addition to the P-1). It seems to be the ammunition that they have the real problem with.

In my experience the Mini-14 has always been a short-ish ranged rifle (it's not too accurate), but it is extremely awesome to use. Mini-14 all the way! I think the devs could get away with having the Mini-14 and IZH18, since one's a purely semi-automatic rifle and the other is break action (unless you add the AC-556, but I really hope they don't add one of those). If they wanted to do a bolt-action .223 alongside the last two, may I recommend the Browning A/X-Bolt?

Pistols aren't hard to find as it is, they just have magazines which have incredibly low spawn rates and can only appear in military locations, regardless of whether the the pistol itself is a military spawn or not (even Sporter-22 mags only spawn in bases) They'd need to expand more on the pistols (I know, it sounds ridiculous) before they could make them the majority weapons. The P1, 1911, Magnum, and Longhorn are okay contenders (no pun intended), but the CR-75, FNX-45 and Amphibia S are probably intended as military weapons. My problem with the acceptable pistols is that they wouldn't make sense relative to some of the long-guns in-game. Maybe the P1 is fine, but I can't imagine finding more Kimber Warriors, Colt Pythons, and Thompson G2 Contenders than IZH-43s and Mosins. Gameplay-wise they'll need more pistols before that can be done, but even then, I'd say long guns like the IZH-43, Sporter-22, Blaze 95, and to a lesser extent, the Mosin (since they seem to be regulating the attachments more now) should be as common as the pistols. I'm speaking, of course, for gameplay reasons. Realistically the Mosin, SKS, IZH-43, and AKM would be the most common weapons of the ones currently in-game. The P1, Sporter-22, and M4A1 are also entirely reasonable. However; Also, zombies need to be more of a threat, but I wouldn't say they need to be pushed to the point that people are forced to always cooperate and that the threat isn't just shifted to the opposite. Firing a gun should attract a ton of zombies (relative to your location), but there should still be a reason to fear a bandit that comes across you with a loaded rifle. I'd be much less afraid of people who are armed if I knew that they were almost certain to break contact rather than engage, and that's a problem for me. Elevating the threat of zombies should not come at the cost of making players a secondary factor, I.E., people should not have to work together to survive.

Oh yeah, I just noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Blaze 95 for the win - the Mosin is more accurate and generally more versatile, but that super fast trigger response on the Blaze is something I never want to give up. Two rounds of 7.62x51mm in less than a second guarantees a dead target.

The zombies would just run into walls constantly if that happened. The pathfinding that determines where they can go is better than just shoving a wall in front of them and having them constantly speed into it. The AI is not going to suddenly recognize that it cannot pass through a wall and run around it, unless it has... No, wait, it can't be true.... pathfinding

Something other than having your character speak would be better. The whole point of the in-game character is that it's you (or your avatar) that has all of the features of you that the game can reasonably replicate (like your tastes, combat-style, and voice). I'd find it really odd to hear the same, generic "Goodbye" from either a male or female voice over and over again. I don't know if increasing the time your character remains in-game would help (maybe to like 60 seconds), but playing a sound wouldn't only affect combat loggers.

Golf clubs are everywhere here in the US (Assuming your location is telling the truth). However, you don't see a lot of golf elsewhere, save for expensive resorts and hotels located in places like the UAE. Golf does exist all over the world, but it's not very prevalent in most locations. You're not going to realistically find a ton of golf clubs in somewhere like Chernarus over somewhere like Los Angeles. It's not the worst sport-based melee weapon they could add, but it's definitely stretching it. There are plenty of other melee weapons they could add. It's an important consideration to think about whether the location the game is set in would have a chance of having a specific item before it's added to the game (concerning authenticity/realism). If not, then there's usually a good reason, gameplay wise, that something is in a game that is trying to replicate reality to some degree. I can't imagine running around in scuba gear and a wet suit for too long in the apocalypse, unless I planned on swimming somewhere a lot (which is a good reason to have it). It would look pretty silly seeing guys with flippers and snorkels running around, but at least the basic wet suit idea is a pretty good one, since it actually offers utility.

I didn't hear any zombies at all when it happened to me, that's the weird thing.

What's really scary is when you think they've killed themselves but they're really just glitched and haven't played the "Get back up" animation so you suddenly die of fright in the middle of the dark woods at night after being hit by a zombie that was speeding across the ground the whole time. True story.

Ah, I see. I prefer using tree stumps, too. You could've gone with a better picture though, that half-naked lady with the SKS is getting in the way of the real merchandise. All I can say is; "Dat log"

Posting these kinds of threads doesn't help either. It's best you just ignore it and let it fall in the forum list until the moderators can take action. In fact, I wouldn't be making this post right now if this were a serious thread.

I wasn't too fond of the British Armed Forces DLC. The map they added with it is incredibly small and essentially just a tiny Takistan/Zargabad. However, the British were something people wanted to be a part of the main game for a while and the weapon selection was okay; The L85, L86, & L115, and the L110A2 and L7A2 GPMG were new to OA but had no difference from the M249 & M240 from ArmA 2, and the AS50 was available in the PMC DLC. They also did not include a Browning Hi-Power or Glock 17 with it, so they were just stuck using 1911s for some reason. They added two new ground vehicles (the Jackal & FV-432) and four helicopters, two of which were just re-config'd versions of the already existing CH-47 and AH-64. I've had fun playing with the addon but I generally consider it to be lackluster compared to what they could have had. The PMC DLC is, by far, the best. Almost all of the weapons were unique to the game (not including the XM8s they reused from A2, but still), the SUVs with miniguns were terrific, and the helicopters provided a different functional role than most of the others (Instead of being your standard; CAS with miniguns). It had less content overall but it was more unique and detailed. ACR was meh, though they finally added sidearms and a good number of primary weapons., The semi-trucks with guns were a really nice addition, and the air support in the addon was well done (Bohemia really loves their L-109s). But regardless, most people bought combined operations or just downloaded the free versions of the DLCs, so complaining about it is sort of ironic. There are plenty of addons that have equivalent stuff, and it's not like you're being asked to go play a different game (unlike some people here who like to think that; "Go play something else" is a valid argument)

I'd rather we keep it as is (with adjustments to the loot spawns themselves so that they make more sense). Having a guaranteed (or even semi-guaranteed) chance of finding ammunition in the same location as a weapon wouldn't encourage moving between locations at all. Sure, people would search more closely in buildings, but you'd be less inclined to look into the next house if you knew everything your gun needed was already there. The randomization is much better, even though it's gimpy at times (like magazines being awful to find, and stuff like Sporter-22 mags only spawning in military bases), but having some sort of guarantee that you'll get something is too hard to believe. However, I'd like it to be possible for some guns to spawn with magazines or loose bullets around them (a low chance) so that you'd see more people using the handguns and sporter-22.

It may be easy to find low-ping servers for Westerners like us in the US or UK, but there are plenty of foreign players who have a limited amount of local servers that are also reasonably populated. It's not as simple as just "connect you to a random server with low ping", because there would still be plenty of instances where you got a server with few or no people on it. Plus, when private hives are a thing, I don't want to be automatically logged into "500 vehicle, spawn with guns servers" just because some people are dedicated enough to server hop with the limitations in place. People should be allowed to choose how they play. The game should not dictate what servers they are allowed to play on.

Well I stopped reading forward in order to respond, so... And I can agree that the game's setup for nighttime works extremely well, as the phases of the night sky actually make a difference while playing. I just find it to be generally too dark. However, I do play nighttime, occasionally, and it's incredibly scary (especially when there's more than just 9-10 other players on). I like the scare factor, the darkness can just get very annoying at times (probably because the brightness is related to the moon's phases), so hopefully if they improve night somehow they can get the best of both worlds (dark enough to be terrifying, but bright enough so that more people will play). I don't believe turning up your brightness and gamma settings really affect how well you can see, anymore. They might change it, to a degree, but turning them up too high makes viewing the outlines of stuff very impractical, so I doubt it would help in any case.