Chaingunfighter

Except we know nothing about the background of these survivors, who are capable of feats arguably just as difficult as flying a plane. The survivors are just a blank template to represent the player. Their limitations are decided based on what the devs feel is best for the gameplay - and aircraft apparently fit that narrative, according to them. And either way, the idea of pilots surviving the apocalypse, or people learning how to fly afterwards, isn't some fantasy idea. It's a stretch, sure, but not impossible.

I know you hate the idea of DayZ having any aircraft at all, but you can't seriously believe that an international airport with cargo planes is as unbelievable as having the Tyrannosaur in the game. Granted - I see no reason for anything too big on Chernarus, and the NWAF works fine for the "international airport" job, but the idea of aircraft is not fantasy.

Any appropriate M16 is going to have a burst trigger group rather than full-auto, so it's already different to the M4A1.

That's probably the most thought-out and well-written rebuttal to something I've ever said - and you're correct. I think I was being a bit too giddy about trying to cross my logic over into the real world and wasn't really applying my understanding of the other side when arguing about it. So I concede that you're right - black powder firearms are a much more sustainable and thus more 'reliable' form of weapon post-apocalypse. However, for DayZ the point remains that it'd just be impractical and there's no use in having the devs make one. I could absolutely getting behind a gamemode that effectively just made the loot system like it was when the alpha first came out; everything is already there and will not respawn, but now you have all the tools you need to build things using crafting. At first people would be using their AKMs and M4A1s and MP5Ks, but eventually yeah most of those firearms are going to run out of ammunition and be mostly useless, so anyone left will have to choose to keep looking for more ammo/other guns or start building. I like that idea.

The FN FAL will most certainly use the .308 Winchester round ingame already - they're both almost exactly the same round and technically .308 and 7.62x51mm are just synonyms using different systems of measurement. Plus, pretty much every T65 standard military rifle can fire civilian .308 cartridges anyway so there's no need for both. I'm not in strict opposition to them being added, but black powder muzzle loaders are far from practical weapons even in a post-apocalyptic setting. In DayZ specifically, I see no real reason anyone would want to use these in a practical sense. Building them is not a quick or easy task - anyone just looking for a quick ranged weapon would be much more inclined to build the ashwood bow. Likewise, making proper ammunition for them isn't a simple process either, and at least in the future you'll have a chance to re-use arrows that have already been fired. Not only that, but besides being a craftable alternative, the bow's main use is as a completely silent and deadly weapon. Muskets are not only more complex and impractical to build but are also very loud and let off a lot of smoke - it would draw zombies and players like the mod's Lee-Enfield, except you only get one shot and by the time they reach you you're probably still reloading. And sure, there might be some pre-apocalypse antique muskets sitting around in houses and barns - that's not impossible by any means, but in pretty much no area of the globe would they be more common than "modern" hunting arms, so the only real reason the vast majority of players would pick up a musket is because they wanted to - not because it was their only choice. I wouldn't even give them the complete advantage of being a "sustainable" firearm in this case, because with advanced weapon crafting mechanics and various usable complex machines placed around the map, it may very well be possible for players to machine their own bullets, so who knows. Even in a real apocalypse I can't foresee a massive switch back to black powder firearms. The survivors as a whole will have more experience with modern weapons than black powder ones and the focus will be on rebuilding factories and places where ammunition can be machined, because modern guns will last quite a long time (there are AKs built in the 50s that are still in regular use.) If the apocalypse is so bad that no semblance of order can be restored by the time that all modern weapons are gone and we've somehow been kicked back to the stone age, then we're probably fucked anyway. Advanced weapon crafting using workshops and factories around the map is apparently planned so we might see some more complex things occurring in the future. However, with this instance specifically I can't see any reason that US special forces and marines would be carrying around M39/MK14 conversion kits for wooden Norinco rifles in the region. If both were included they'd be two separate weapons.

Because a slow, loud ass machine that leaves anyone on top completely vulnerable is a great idea for breaching a base well constructed and defended enough to have a wall high enough that you need one to get over/around it. Yeah, I actually really want to see this in game now, :P

The UMP45 is probably the best of them considering it's a 1-shot kill every time and has a wide range of attachments - only the MP5-K has more. Even with shotguns I've had instances of people surviving at point blank. However, considering how rare the UMP is I'd say it's really just down to preference between the sawed-off IZH-18 and the MP5K - MP5Ks have a lot of leg room but the sawed-off guarantees a pretty quick kill. The MP133s are alright and in CQB the pistol grip one is better, but the sawed-off is best simply because you have two quick succession shots. The PM73 is worse than the MP5K in nearly every way, and the regular IZH-43 can't be stored in a backpack so there's no use in keeping it for CQB.

Yeah, the problem isn't that the SCAR-H is just an inherently bad weapon to have in the game - it's that when all is said and done there are too many other more realistic alternatives that make sense. Sure, if the devs intend on having 10 different western battle rifles in the game then it'd be fine, or if they're going to recreate Operation Arrowhead's US Army faction then it's fine, but considering that both of those are unlikely why add it? I can't imagine there are too many BRs of any kind planned, not to mention the standard "20-round 7.62x51 NATO" ones. You've got the FN FAL, HK G3, SVT-40, SR-25/M110, MK14 Mod 0/1, and HK-417 that all make far more sense before the SCAR-H itself is worthwhile. Only in the case that they recreate the OA US Army faction in DayZ would the SCAR actually become a "probable" weapon.

With all things considered, yes, there are far better MGs that should come first, but I'm not so sure that the devs are reluctant to have MGs at all but moreso are just reluctant to talk about them a whole lot when the planned weapon systems in the future aren't ready to support them. Out of the PK, PKM, and PKP, I'm pretty much certain without mods we'd only ever get one of those, so let's take the PKM. Both the RPK-74 and RPK could work - considering the ubiquity of the RPK-74 and how little the 5.45mm round sees use you'd be better to pick it (the AKM drum will just be stuck with it, unfortunately.) Then, for 7.62x39mm you use the RPD. Later in development they add the DPM in some random guerrilla cache just because it's a semi-interesting design. That's only four MGs in the end there and all of them are completely different. If they wanted to give the AK drum mag some use they could add the RPK and RPK-74M instead of the 74 but that's still only five. With NATO the only thing I'd say is necessary is the M249/FN Minimi - an M240B/G or M60/M60E4 would be interesting but is unnecessary with the PKM. So really at the most you'd have 5-7 MGs all of different roles, and the DP-28/DPM can still be included just for kicks.

It just seems more plausible to me than an MP40 - plus with the ArmA 2 insurgency in Chernarus being modeled off of a lot of these Balkan and Eastern European guerrilla conflicts it makes a lot of sense - DP-28s and DPMs have been spotted quite around a lot, and that's not to mention the RP-46s that are in second-line service in many places. On the other hand, there aren't that many MP40s making appearances (both because they're less common and because they have less utility in those situations than MGs do.) Not that I'd mind either - the MP40 is an interesting design, but there are plenty of more realistic 9x19mm SMGs like it. The DP, on the other hand, is a very unique weapon and even though guns like the PK and whatnot would be more common, they're far different. Still, both would be cool.

You act like the "correct" playing experience is objective. To you it may "ruin the experience" to have mod compilations like Epoch that basically changed the slow-paced and realistic tide of the game to a more fast-paced and less realistic action style, but to other players it does not ruin it any way and in many cases they prefer it. Any modding at all is going to "fracture" the playerbase to different sects that have what they prefer, so don't take the position that some mods are acceptable if you're going to argue that you don't want the community to be fractured. Is it better to arbitrarily limit someone's creative ability based on a single person's whims of what they feel "makes or breaks" their experience, or should we allow the content creators to build and create as they see fit and allow the player base to decide what they like? To me, the answer is obvious, but I'm not sure how you feel.

I don't really see how a DP-28 would be any less likely than an MP40 - they still saw use into the 1960s with the Soviets and actually have been showing up in present day conflicts unlike the MP40 which is rarely seen. Granted the RP-46 probably makes more sense than the DP-28 and DPM itself and at that point it's no longer a WW2 weapon and no longer has the drum magazine so it ruins the point, but still, it's not really a bad weapon to have.

You're both half-wrong and half-right - If vanilla A2 is canon to DayZ then I'd imagine that OA is as well, but the events of the two are so different and not really connected in any way so it doesn't matter whether they are or not. However, the US faction in OA is the Army, not the USMC, and it takes place not long after, so again even if the two are connected the USMC probably still had its M16A4s and M4A1s rather than SCARs during that timeline. Yes and no. The gun's in service in quite a few countries (including Eastern Europe), it is technically canon to ArmA (and either way is used by special operations that probably participated in the Chernarus conflict) and it's undoubtedly a cool gun. It wouldn't necessarily be a poor weapon to have on that alone. However, when it gets down to it, the gun doesn't make much sense to include over other firearms in either the L or H versions. There are a plethora of other far more fitting and interesting 5.56 rifles that they could add over the SCAR-L, and guns like the FN FAL and G3 are more sensible than the H. Would it be a horrible weapon to have? No. But there are far better weapons in the same role that make having it basically inconsequential for any reason - the only exception being if they decide to add an OA equivalent Army faction to the game, in which case it's perfectly acceptable. The whole "worst in the world" thing was more of a stigma against the entire platform that came from some prevalent issues that came with the first rifles issued. There were various issues with the original M16 rifle, but the biggest reason it was so poorly accepted among US troops initially was because they were not issued with cleaning kits and the top brass was under the illusion that the rifle was "self-cleaning." Even the shortly later XM16E1s and follower M16A1s were markedly better but the stigma remained for a large number of reasons. The M4A1 is far from an original M16. Plus, even though gibonez is wrong in that the platform "never took off" (it did, just not to the degree that was hoped for), the AR-15 style of rifles is among the most common in the world today, unlike the SCAR which is comparatively minor.

Both options are viable if they plan to add food preservation beyond just cooking it. Lighting a fire always has the risk of drawing attention of nearby players (and zombies) so smoking your meat would be more viable for people who have bases and camps that they can protect already set up. Salting can be done "on the go" but comes at the drawback of needing to be soaked in fresh water before it can be edible again. Salt would need to be harvested as well, be it just from looting it in various locations or boiling it from the sea, you're still going to need a source of it, whereas lighting a campfire can be done pretty much everywhere considering the trees and indoor fireplaces. At the same time, a cut of smoked meat will probably not last as long as the same cut of meat salted, simply because the salt remains and continuously draws out water whereas smoking may have to be done several times to extend the life of the meat. God, I love food. It's probably the only DayZ topic I'm even close to as obsessed about as the guns, but people rarely talk about it here (whereas guns get plenty of discussion.)

Food preservation is not a bad idea - salting would be an effective method if you're storing it at camps, and perhaps they could make things like jars and whatnot available so you could keep perishable food inside.

My guess is that it'll be equivalent to playing on an empty, vanilla server (with support for the steam workshop.) The only AI will be animals and zombies, just like in the regular game. As has been stated above, some inventive modders might create their own AI or do something along those lines but I wouldn't expect them to actually add anything new just for SP.

Besides the 7.62x25mm guns, you'd actually have to leave out the Nagant 1895, KAR-98, M1 Garand, and M1 Carbine from that list if you're not going to add any new calibers - the 1895 uses 7.62x38mmR, not 7.62x25mm, and no production variants of it use the tokarev round either (even though it'd be a good weapon to have.) The KAR-98 is a 7.92 gun and although like the Nagant it's plausible there's not a whole lot of utility to adding the round. The M1 Garand and Carbine aren't really realistic anyway. MP40s and Luger P08s are acceptable but they'd need to be extremely rare like the Red 9 is because they're just not as common nowadays. Lugers simply weren't deployed as often as P38s were (just like the C96, although I don't think the Red 9 was even used in WW2 to any significant degree) and so they're a lot harder to find. MP40s were somewhat common (not as common as they're made out to be) but chances are most SMGs would be taken from civilians and the government had no use for MP40s, so very few of them made it in Eastern Europe. The rest of the guns are fine.

'Tis a shame, because it takes place on the very map that was the core of that "bugged piece of crap they called a game." Not that I agree with your opinion to begin with, but if ArmA is so bad, what the hell do you think of DayZ? I love the game but it's at least 100x more buggy than vanilla ArmA 2.

I'm referring to how in-game you can fully load some guns (like the Mosin) with just loose rounds, whereas certain guns can only chamber one loose round (i.e. the M4A1) and require another means, such as magazines, to hold more. You can still load five rounds into the Mosin without a stripper clip. The SVT-40 needs its detachable magazine in order to hold any more than a single round.

Nah, I mean "loose loading" the gun completely without the stripper clip - with the Mosin you can still individually load all five rounds into the gun without needing a stripper clip but the SVT requires a clip or magazine to load more than a single round into the chamber.

There's a reason why this didn't carry over into the Standalone. You could pretty easily abuse all of those systems anyway - someone who gets shot a lot but is the better gunman would become a bandit simply because they're better at defending themselves. Someone who just runs around in proximity to players all the time could become a hero. There's no accurate way to gauge a person's personality through any in-game features and I certainly don't think they should try and make it that way. Uncertainty is a good thing and makes you consider whether you should interact with or avoid people.

Alrighty then - 20 round SVT mags it is! The gun's actually a lot more versatile than I thought it was originally. 20-rounders would still be extremely rare both on the principle of gameplay and realism (20 round mags are far less common) A semi-automatic 16' carbine would be a civilian weapon and require a significant change to where AR parts spawn and change - an MK18 would undoubtedly just spawn where the M4A1 did. I don't like the idea of a rifle that gives you basically everything the M4A1 has except for selective fire in civilian spawns, hence why I think an older Sporter with a fixed carrying handle would be more appropriate. I have no problem with an AR-15 in general, I just think giving it the same capabilities as the helicopter crashsite rifle would be detrimental. Either they change the AK-101 to the AK-74M or give it a proper magazine; either is appropriate in my mind. The big problem I have with it is that it's claiming to be a rifle that it's not with the identical magazine, but if they changed it it makes no difference to me. I too want folding stocks and whatnot but I doubt it's ever going to be a function, and I'm sure you'd have a ton of whining when people suddenly realized that they're not going to be swapping stocks or handguards anymore. Unfortunately I don't think that's likely anymore considering that the Kashtan C-1 is meant for the entire AK platform. The argument made sense when the PSO-1 was all there was and it was clearly just to test it for the future SVD but at this point now that they have a dedicated optic it'd be very weird if it could only be used on one gun from the AK platform. (Besides the VSS and SVD)

That's just an SVT-40 modified to use the 15-round AVS-36 magazines (or perhaps an AVS-36 magazine modified to fit the SVT-40.) You can see the same thing happening with the AVS-36 on top; it's using an SVT-40 mag. They weren't built to do that and it's not a common modification at all (Considering that AVS-36s are piss rare and the SVT-40 isn't exactly common either.) However, I have learned that the SVT-40 can use 5Rnd Mosin stripper clips, so I guess in pretty much all cases this rifle would be an upgrade to the Mosin. The only downside is no direct hand loading, and as of right now the different reload animations would not work (even though we've seen that that's going to change soon.)

I just figured that if Chris is going to go make an M16 which he's said is likely, he's probably going to end up using parts of the M4 model as a basis. Thus, if he's going to be fiddling around with that model already I don't see why it'd be very difficult or time consuming to just copy and paste the model with a chopped up barrel. It's really just for variety, although I do believe that the shorter MK18 will end up being preferable within interiors considering weapon-to-environment collision will probably be a thing (unless shooting through walls is going to stay.) Also, the M16A4 shoots in 3-round bursts, so I figure that's a good enough difference from the M4A1 to make it reasonable beyond variety and the whole 'faction kit' system. Variety isn't a poor reason to include other stuff, especially if it's reasonable and low-cost. The AK-74 was a realistic choice but before they decided to add 5.45 it wasn't really necessary considering the AK-101 did the job just fine. Yet even after they added the AK-74 and AKS-74U the 101 was still kept for variety, despite the fact that that's all it serves as right now. Not that it's bad to keep something they already added to the game, but it doesn't do anything that the other rifles can't and if it were changed to be an AK-74M it'd only be even more pointless, so, you can't always rat on just having more.

The short, official answer: No. Long, "actual" answer: It depends. There will certainly be legacy code remaining in the game files that has no real purpose, and I can bet quite a bit of it will combine a lot of aspects of older work - it won't be completely gone because the new engine relies on assets from the previous engine. The 'core' that BIS uses will also remain the same; they'll still use the same file types (P3D and such) but the way of handling them will be new.