w1lg5r

Yeah I like the idea of wildlife being a threat, I was referring to mechanics like thirst and hunger though.

Yeah it shouldn't be the only one, but apart from zombies, surviving the other elements will never really require much skill. I pretty much agree with the rest of that paragraph in the sense that you explain exactly what's so compelling about DayZ, I just think at the moment those encounters don't happen as frequently as they should and the game plays at too slow a pace. I think that making food more rare will simply slow the game down rather than make DayZ a more hardcore experience. I like the cooking idea a lot, I think it could be a good incentive for players to play the endgame with making bases and such rather than heading to the coast to KoS.

The reality of that means you'd be spending the majority of your time searching for food, it wont make it challenging to survive since none of that is difficult, just boring. The real survival element of Dayz should and always did come from player encounters and if people are spending all their time looting, they'll encounter players less. It would also mean that it would take far longer for players to get across to other areas of the map resulting in a system where most of the server doesn't really move far from the coast.

I don't see how that is a compelling mechanic. All having food that rare will do is force players to constantly loot.

I hope the total item count is increased a fair bit tbh, imo you spend far too much time looting on .63. It makes the transition from early-mid game take too long and looting is pretty much just rng anyway really.

Oh wake up. The game is as easy as it gets. All you have to do is go to the less populated areas and loot to survive. Outside of the coast, there is little chance of meeting a fellow survivor. Sniper rifles were a huge threat to you but now there is very little threat.

'murican hero troops? FYI the US is still operating in chernarus (UH-60 crashsites). You have no reasons why Russian guns would be more common. Soviet weapons sure, but the AK74M wouldn't be anywhere near as common as M4s.

So what? The M1 Garand is being added and so is the AK74M. Two weapons lore wise which would be less likely than an M82A1. Russian guns are no more relevant than American guns if not less so. QED PDQ.

I already stated that I am happy that the AK-74M is being added even though it is less likely than an M4 and I would even go so far as to say rarer than an M1 garand.

And that is relevant how.... I am talking of the M4 being more likely than the '74M not about the M1.

Yes and which post Soviet states (apart from Russia and Azerbaijan) use the AK74M? None (This is about the '74M not the rest of the AK family) Personally I am happy that the '74M is being added as it sets precedent for other modern Russian weapons such as AS VAL or SVU, but lore-wise M4s make more sense. EDIT: I now realise that Armenia and Georgia use the AK74M too but still not relevant.

Because lore-wise the USMC was directly involved in the conflict beforehand and would also be more likely to help out in a crisis.

I'm pretty sure they don't come stock with a suppressor and even if it does it will still work, it's attachable suppressors that are bugged

IMO having a super rare weapon would be the perfect way to test ultra-rare items in the loot economy without introducing something OP ahead of it's time.

Stop putting words in somebody's mouth. You are the type of person who sees something they don't like and overreacts. I'm also guessing you didn't play the mod.