Chaingunfighter

The bandwagon fallacy only applies when you're dealing with factual arguments - preferential styles of gameplay are opinions, and when you're arguing an opinion it is generally a good idea to look at the majority because the decision will appease the most people if it's the most popular. Listening to Justin Bieber might not be an amazing experience to someone like you or me, but it certainly is to a significant demographic. You can dismiss the music or the people who listen to it as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is popular with a lot of people (even though I agree with you in that it is certainly not an amazing experience for me.) McDonalds food, again, is an entirely opinionated argument. We don't find it amazing, but some might (although I don't think that many people actually love the food, I think they just use it because it's quick, simple, and readily available.) That doesn't change the fact that it serves a very large number of people, and it certainly has nothing to do with whether it should be unavailable or not. The Olivia Newton-John argument doesn't really apply because that's dealing with the past, whereas the issue of third person gameplay is a present issue. In the future people might look back and say; "hey, DayZ would've been better if it were only 1PP", but we're not at that point yet, because we're in the present discussing the issue now. The problem with your argument is that you seem to be under the assumption that majority is irrelevant. When dealing with facts, that's true, a fact is a fact whether everyone believes it, one person believes it, or nobody believes it; it doesn't change. When dealing with opinions, it's absolutely relevant (usually), because an opinion is how someone feels about a subjective issue, and when you're making a gamewide decision on whether or not to do something that would affect a lot of people, it's probably better to look at the wide range of opinions rather than a few. And I'd just like to put a disclaimer that I play almost exclusively on 1PP now unless I'm not playing seriously, and actually prefer it far over 3PP. I still think that having the option available is a better way of doing it than picking an extreme, and that the devs are taking the best course of action in allowing it as a playstyle while improving upon the issues that make it problematic. That's certainly the case for some people, but it doesn't really help your argument at all, because for one it's still going to be a comparatively small amount of people (you can actively see many people, even here on the forums, voice that they prefer 3PP, and even then if enough people preferred 1PP then it wouldn't be a problem), and it shows that those people don't care enough to actually do something about it (they're certainly not being forced to not play on those servers - the biggest gripes I hear are that they don't have enough other players and that the fewer server choices means lower performance.) If you want something to change it's your job to do something about it, and if you're not willing to deal with the consequences that come with going through getting change then don't complain when people don't take your side. It's sort of like the Tumblrinas who try and act like the vast majority of people are homosexuals (no problem with them by the way, just an analogy) but don't come out of the closet for fear of being chastised. Like that's clearly true for a good number of people but it still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the human race is heterosexual, just like the vast majority of DayZ players stick to 3PP for one reason or another.

In some cases civilian weapons do things that military weapons cannot. The Mosin up until recently was the only viable "sniper rifle" in the game, and although the SVD was added recently it's still the Winchester, a civilian weapon, that has the longest ranged scope in the game.

The end-game will just be achieving what's most difficult but still possible to achieve when you've gotten to the maximum potential of your character and other characters alongside them. Whether that's building a large headquarters at a former military base, chock full of vehicles and aircraft and a big perimeter wall with machine guns and traps, or finding a CR-527 (that would be the rarest gun in the game), and three 7.62x39 bullets to kill some animal that might allow you to live another day if you can avoid the zombies, predators, players, and stave off disease, weather, and the cold, it's still the 'end-game' of survival. People here seem to be assuming that "end-game" means it'll be to the point where everyone is operating a full combined-arms force and engaging in ArmA-style mass clan wars, but it's not. Though personally I think the end-game should lean more towards the "Big base and aircraft" side rather than the "You found the one gun in the entire game" side.

That was before they announced it would be used, though, so I don't think it's completely out of the question anymore. Even though it'd be pretty hard to find a gun I would be completely opposed to in the game, you wouldn't see me campaigning for the AK-12 if it wasn't going to be adopted, but I think it fits far better than the AK-107 and AN-94 alternatives They have them - whether or not they're used is a different story. USSOCOM still officially has the HK Mark 23 pistol in service but from all I hear it wasn't ever popular and practically everyone uses a SIG, Colt, or some other kind of pistol now, because the theory behind the MK23 wasn't as sound in execution. Likewise, the US Army still has M16A2s and M16A4s in their inventory, but do you ever see them? No. It's because they all use the M4. I just wanted to point out that the reasons for an AN-94 appearing in Chernarus don't have to be 100% made up, even though in all actuality you'd be about as likely to find one of those as a Desert Eagle, and probably even less so considering the Deagle actually exists on the civilian market.

The AN-94 would be fine considering the Russian Special Ops and MVD that use it were also the ones that intervened in ArmA 2, and they happened to be using high-end prototype equipment as well (AK-107s were their main firearm.) However, yeah, there's really nothing that makes it more valid of a weapon than the SCAR-H, because both require special forces from a different country to be present if they have to be coming from a different land. At this point I'd actually prefer they do the AK-12 if they do any more AK rifles, because now it is being accepted into the Russian military, it looks different to the AK-74 platforms (unlike the AK-107), and comes standard with modern equipment and RIS rather than needing a railed handguard like the other AKs. It'd be a good gun to have alongside the Russian kit they plan to do in the future.

No more so than the UMP45, MP5K, M4A1, Steyr AUG, or FNX45 do - sure, there are explanations for why those are there but in the end they're just as easily explained away as the SCAR-H is. It's not a ridiculous idea because it's a gun that's actually in service in quite a few places and serves the battle rifle role well, the only real argument against it if you're not going to be opposed to the other guns is that it "is too modern and tactical" which is just an appeal to very low levels of immersion and quite frankly a bad argument in the end.

Something like this would go extremely well with that nightstick that's been in the game files forever but for some reason hasn't been implemented.

I think the aesthetic appeal of the VSS is exactly why it was added, because I really don't think the devs would've ever bothered adding "SP-6" rounds for generic modern Russian weapons like the AS VAL or SR-3. Truth be told in any regard it's a pretty poor choice of ammunition type if you really want to have a lot of variety, just like 7.62x25mm Tokarev, because even though the round is unique and the guns are cool, the small advantages they have aren't so different that they fundamentally change gameplay. Then again, I still think the Tokarev round would be appropriate because of the PPSh-41 and TT-33, even though that comes with the realization that you're adding them just to have them in the game, not because it's doing a whole lot for it. Then again, I don't think every gun needs a major niche in order to be utilized. To me, there's no real reason why anyone would ever use the IZH-18 (especially the sawed-off version) over the LongHorn considering how inferior it is, but the IZH-18 is still a pretty interesting weapon. The CR-527 is less useful than the SKS and other bolt-actions in pretty much every way. The 1911 and P1 both function as "half-mag" versions of their higher tier ammo equivalents (FNX and CR75) and aren't really necessary - the same could be said for the Makarov, which just uses .380, and the PM73, which is inferior to the MP5K in most ways and now basically obsolete because of the UMP45 taking the other pieces. We never really 'needed' the AK74 series, because pretty much every prominent type of AK firearm could be done without 5.45; the only reason it was done was for realism, and they still kept the AK101 in the game afterwards, so that's just variety. The Model 70 is also pretty much just a different looking rifle taking the same role as the Mosin before it, but had .308 and 7.62x54mmR not been split it would be completely unnecessary to have (the big kicker was to make the Mosin more realistic, although I will admit that a big part was also to keep one caliber from being extremely dominant with all forms of weaponry.) Yet, despite all that, I'm satisfied with the variety DayZ has. The weapons just seem 'right' together, and although there are plenty of cases where you can jump and say "X would've been better if it were Y, or X-A1 or X-A2", but I think they've done a good job giving roles to what they add.

This kind of discussion really is completely pointless at this time, because not only has the issue transcended (in most cases) the problems with wall peeking and subsequent 1PP-only emptiness to two crowds of people fighting tooth and nail for their side (mainly 1PP-only fans who vehemently oppose any compromise that allows 3PP to remain in the game, and 3PP fans who are very poor at arguing for their points and will say basically anything to defend it and perpetuate the argument further), but also simply because the issue has been decided on. We know for a fact that the 3rd person perspective will not be removed from the game entirely but instead reworked to be less exploitable. That doesn't solve every problem by any means but to keep beating the dead horse on something long decided is only a waste of time for those involved.

Although I don't agree with pilgrim's stance on aircraft, he's technically right in that a "no/none" option would be perfectly viable, because you're here asking for the community's opinion on aircraft as a whole, rather than petitioning the developers about what they "should" do. It's obvious that aircraft in some form will be added because it was on the list of things to be added by 1.0, but if you really wanted to get a good idea of the community's stance in microcosm, even just on the forums, a "no" option would've helped, because some people might just not vote at all now and thus skew the results.

A minigun or .50 cal might be a bit excessive (minigun because of all the ammo necessary and the firing speed, and the .50 because it'd need an ammo type we probably won't have for anything else), but I don't really see any problem with having some of the inevitable military-operated helicopters having per say a PKM, or M240, or M60 or some GPMG/LMG mounted on the side. I'm pretty sure we're going to have user operated versions of those kinds of guns at some point anyway, so what would really be the harm in letting players put them on a mount and firing them from the helicopter. Hell, I could even live with dedicated versions for vehicles, such as the PK-T, M240D, or M60D, so long as they generally did not spawn with the vehicle and you had to find all of the ammunition separately. It's not like these machine guns are overpowered in anyway, because shooting accurately from a moving helicopter is very hard (especially with ToH flight mechanics), shooting from a hovering position is vulnerable, and you still have to gather tons of .308 or 7.62x54mmR rounds to even allow it to be sustainable. They should be a feature for those who are dedicated, nothing super complex, but enough to make air warfare a part of end game fights. As far as planes go I feel like the map is just too small for anything but light planes to be useful or viable. I mean, the mod had the C-130 which wasn't very problematic, but that was still because it was a slower cargo plane. ArmA 2's jets can cross the map extremely quickly and are obviously excessive. Still, I think some small planes to allow for a full range of air mechanics to be utilized (per say for future maps) are ultimately necessary if they want to test everything they can. Ultralights are a must have for me, whether you have to find them or build them (maybe a combination), they seem great. They're very mobile and good for scouting and just moving around quickly, at the tradeoff of being extremely vulnerable to any attacks. They're also generally easier to fly than larger craft so if they were the bare minimum of aircraft we got you could at least explain them away as being "easy" to fly and thus realistic (and this would have a tradeoff in game anyway, because with real flight mechanics you actually would have an easier time with an ultralight than bigger vehicles, left for the experienced pilots among us.)

The different variants of the PSO-1 are still compatible with the AKs, as is the C-1 scope on the VSS/SVD. They're just supposedly less useful now because they're actually built for 7.62x54mmR and 9x39 SP-6 rounds rather than general use as before. The only reason it would've been made incompatible is if they decided to have them permanently attached to the VSS and SVD and just removed it from the game as a separate item. Otherwise all compatible attachments will be usable, even if not useful (see BUIS on MP5K.) And yeah, the VSS is more of a precision marksman rifle if anything. If it were the AS VAL then assault rifle would be appropriate but I don't think it describes the VSS very well.

I'm assuming that because it's a desert eagle and because it's got gold plating all over it, it's probably going to be one of those hyper rare loot economy items where only ~1 spawns per server at like 0.0001% chance. I actually like the idea of rare things like that; things that exist only to be "prize items" and kept as trophies rather than actually having extreme practical value (because let's face it, a golden desert eagle is going to attract tons of attention, and a one round increase does not make it more practical than the Magnum.)

Yeah, but in the end I wouldn't say it's necessary, because it doesn't even hold any sort of niche. Even the Desert Eagle, which is probably the weirdest choice the devs have made, still fills the role of "high caliber semi-auto pistol." The FG-42 has plenty of other realistic analogues and doesn't need to be represented for the sake of having WW2 German weapons - we already have the P1 and Red 9 that do that (though the P1 wasn't made til after the war and Red 9's were out of service by then, the P38 and C96 were both used then.) And if they really want more they could add an MP-40 or an MG-3, both of which I actually think would be pretty good and distinct choices that are different from other comparable weapons. Though in the end Russian WW2 weapons (i.e. SVT-40, TT-33, PPSh-41, etc) are the best bet for that classic feel of gun.

FG-42? Are you kidding? They produced less than 6,000 total of all variants and nearly all were used on the Western Front late into the war, at a time when Germany would've been completely gone from the Eastern Balkan region and further for the few that would exist on the Russian front (where Chernarus is likely situated.) The only real possible weapons would be the KAR-98, MP-40, MG-34/MG-42, Walther PPK, Walther P38, and Luger P08 - the MP-40, PPK, and technically P08 could be done, but the KAR-98 needs a new caliber that doesn't offer a whole lot, the P38 exists in the form of the P1, and the MG-42 has a modern MG-3 variant that would use .308 anyway.

I'M SORRY - I WAS JUST GIVING YOU MY OPINION. Though I actually looked at the game's changelogs and sure enough February 25 of this year was when 0.54 pushed to stable, so that could very well be the 'reference'.

It's probably about just as meaningless as the periodic table being from 1995. My only point was that DayZ doesn't take place somewhere during the Cold War or 90s, an idea that gets touted off both here and Reddit more often than I'd like. If anything that date is probably when they created the model/texture for the board there. Nothing more.

Because the game clearly does not take place in the 90s - there's plenty of post-2000s stuff in the game. The date has never been officially given (and might not even have a canon point), but there's really no reason to believe it's any earlier than today. It has been confirmed that ArmA 2's events in Chernarus are canon, and that game took place in 2009, so... do with that what you will. The date is probably one of the least important parts of the lore anyway, though, as the devs have added stuff from a plethora of different time periods.

At this point with .22, .223/5.56, 7.62x39, .308, and 7.62x54mmR (and .357 Magnum) all available in civilian rifles there's really no need for another rifle caliber, because they all do what .240 or .270 could accomplish to some degree. I'd still definitely prefer any M24/M700 system to be a .308, though, and act as a military spawn with top picatinny and scope rails and bipod compatibility, as otherwise it's just another Model 70. I've been championing for the Mini-14 as a high-end civilian semi-auto for a long time as well. It's a different design to your typical AR-15 (which we'll have plenty of considering the M4A1 and eventual M16 we'll probably get) and also functions quite nicely as a purely medium ranged weapon (these guns are rarely used beyond 100-150m.) Additionally, it wouldn't use STANAGs so the devs wouldn't need to make M4A1-compatible magazines and attachments common (thus ruining the point of having it be so rare.) The Mini-30 I could also get behind but I feel like it would just be a generally less viable version of the SKS considering the magazines (only goes up to 20 rounds and starts at 5, making it at most still worse than an AKM but as inconvenient because of rarity and magazines.)

Could just be an old periodic table that they had hung up, I mean the school is clearly old and may not have the newest material (such is common in poorer regions) readily available. It could have been placed there at any point after 1995, the school just never got one with an updated bit of information. Another board in the school has a piece of paper which is clearly talking about some Biology related event happening in February of 2015, so it's not like that has any effect on what time period DayZ takes place in. Present day, if anything.

By "Sniper Rifle" I'm assuming you mean the Mosin, which spawns in basically any civilian building that can spawn guns (i.e. piano house.) You'll also need the LRS (or PU scope) which can be found in the same spots. The SKS is compatible with the PU scope as well, and spawns at the same places as the Mosin, though it's not as good at long ranges, and there's the LongHorn that has a built-in scope. The M4A1, AUG, AK series (except AK-74 and AKS-74U on stable), FNX45, and MP5K are all also compatible with optics to some degree. However, if you play experimental 0.56 there's a scope for the Winchester Model 70 (basically a .308 Mosin gameplay-wise), Blaze 95, CR-527, Sporter-22, and Trumpet, allowing them all to be used as "sniper rifles." They also have the SVD, an 'actual' sniper rifle, and the VSS Vintorez, which is another precision rifle. And, of course, there's a Kashtan C-1 scope for all AKs/SVD/VSS (including the AK-74), as well as the UMP45 that can use any standard picatinny-rail optics. Oh, and who can forget the Crossbow, that is compatible with the now-detachable LongHorn scope. So, yeah, there's plenty around in the way of "sniping."

All the better. I'm actually glad they gave that capability to the Trumpet, because it makes it capable of exactly what it's intended to be; a collapsible survival rifle meant mostly for hunting. All of the .22 weapons in DayZ are actually some of the most interesting choices; none are the best for dealing with players, but all of them have a niche that nothing else really fills.

That actually seems like a pretty reasonable explanation, but then you really have no reason for the NATO UH-1Ys or Chernarus MI-8s to be wrecked around and still smoldering. I can fathom the idea of those just being mobile forces who ended up getting shot down/brought down by onboard infected, but it seems unlikely that they'd actually try to deploy any forces to a rather insignificant region that's already been fully overrun. Some measures of evacuation or at least the general chaos that would've followed would be nice, and it's not like we need massive military blockades or outposts to do it; they could simply have a large police-ran camp in one of the major cities, perhaps with riot vans and whatnot to indicate they used special police as security instead of the army.

The LRS is only being removed because it was a placeholder scope used exclusively on the Mosin - they're adding more optics and whatnot to 'replace' it so that they can be used on a wider variety of other rifles, and I wouldn't doubt that a variable zoom scope will be added at some point in the future (especially if they add a military bolt action) I really don't think you can say that anything suggests sniping is being nerfed; sure, the LRS will be gone and the Mosin will only have the PU scope, but just in the last update alone we got the god-damn SVD, as well as the VSS Vintorez, and a new scope that works on four different rifles, and even now the ability to put a scope on the crossbow! I don't think you can honestly say that sniping is being degraded in any form, especially considering that there's an actual sniper rifle in the game.

If not getting a god damn status report on time really makes you think that the developers don't care, then I can't say anything. That's a ridiculous notion, because considering everything the devs have done for the community you're still complaining when you find an instance that they haven't. How is not posting the status report when expected giving the impression that they "don't care."? If they really didn't care they would have stopped updating the game awhile ago, they wouldn't ever respond to forum, Reddit, and Twitter posts, and hell; we wouldn't even have status reports. You're making one small issue into a much larger one.