acdc_bag

The CQB buttstock is literally worthless right now. Even when they put in the "weapon" physics for turning and different weapons turn at different speeds, a CQB buttstock to make the weapon "easier to turn" is not going to be worth the dispersion it adds to the gun.

IMO if you're looking at damage, .357 is probably the highest in game right now with the Magnum, then probably the M1911 (I'm speculating as the magazine has only 7 bullets compared to the 'standard' 15 bullet magazines the other pistols possess), FNX45 and CR75 with its 9mm, and lastly the 22 Amphibia S. In all likely hood, the M1911 is probably the same damage as the FNX45, though if that's true it needs to be amended immediately. If they're the same damage and you can equip a red-dot sight on the FNX45, why would you ever handicap yourself with less ammo per magazine and only iron sights? Gun/bullet damage is honestly all over the place right now. I took a mosin shot right to the chest at the NE airfield one day, didn't start bleeding. The next shot that hit me in the chest I finally started bleeding, that doesn't seem to be too accurate. The SKS got upgraded so in all honesty they do more damage than the M4 (m4 is pretty weak unless it's against pure clothing or skin), and IMO unless I'm sniping I'd rather have the SKS, not only for the semi-auto factor, but mostly the damage and accuracy.

If all I had was a kitchen knife in the zombie apocalypse, you'd best believe I would be stabbing it through the head, not swinging with it like it's a fucking sword. Kitchen knife should be one-hit bleed, and if you're even remotely aiming at a zombie's head should be a stabbed headshot. The machete should be more than capable of being driven into a skull causing head trauma enough to incapacitate a zombie. At its current rendition, I'd be surprised to see the machete cut off a finger.

They are indeed too fast. In all honesty, Zombies shouldn't be able to "Claw you" into bleeding unless your clothing is Damaged, Badly Damaged, or Ruined. Now if they're at Worn or Pristine status, obviously the Zombies should be damaging the clothing, but if you're wearing a long sleeve shirt, how is a zombie able to claw right through your shirt and rip your skin virtually everytime they swing at a pristine/worn article of clothing? I really don't think Zombies should ever be able to run faster than players, they may be infected or however you may want to spin it, but they're still human beings. Just because an infection makes them not "feel" pain, their bodies will still give out, and just because they're infected doesn't make them the best Olympic athletes imaginable. I heard at one point the team was looking at making Zombies into roaming/moving hoards rather than static spawns dispersed throughout cities/towns, that'd be great. However it'd be completely asinine to have zombies moving in hoards at a gathered pace, and the instant they see a player suddenly can run a 40 in 3 seconds.

XD, guns in general was the point I was making. But let's be honest, anyone wearing brightly colored uniforms in an actual life-taking and death-dealing situation, isn't going to fare as well as someone camo'd to their surroundings.

If you honestly can't tell that I'm making posts in a DayZ game forum about the DayZ Standalone game, maybe you should take a break. Dude if you think Standalone looks anything like ArmA 2 you need to get your eyes checked, immediately. The character models/clothing textures of Standalone look miles ahead of ArmA 3's 10 clothing skins. When you talk about comparing graphics you're really comparing engines, lighting, shadows, texture resolution. The fact is, they're the same engines with different lighting, basically the same shadow quality (Standalone's shadows cranked up look the same as Arma 3's), and different textures, possibly different resolutions, as the housing models and such were brought over from ArmA 2 models. However, most all of the houses that existed before were redone to allow entry and have internal rooms, so they've more than likely all been upscaled if they needed it. Arma 3 and Standalone both use the Real Virtuality 4 engine, just like Take On Helicopters. But I suppose you think TOH looks like ArmA 2 also.

Nah, you're right. Let's just leave 190km^2 out of the 225km^2 unpopulated and virtually no reason to ever be there unless you want to set up a camp out in the middle of no where. If they don't populate the inland map, there will never be ANY reason for people to move inland. Right now the only reason to move off of the East coast is to get weapon attachments for your M4. Long Range scopes, PU scopes, magazines, everything for guns except parts for the M4 can be found without being at a military installation. So in your post, you blast the devs for spending time (not much to be honest), of laying out new cities/towns, and using existing models already available to them, which already have loot locations programmed in; yet you want the building/design devs to spend MUCH more time building amusement parks, nuclear power plants, prisons, whatever you can come up with most likely from scratch, and you really don't see the irony here? WHY ARE YOU GUYS SPENDING TIME BUILDING THE MAP?!!! YOU SHOULD BE SPENDING MORE TIME BUILDING THE MAP!!!!!!!

It's a game, if you can identify a camo'd target without any magnification at 600m, in brush, you shouldn't be posting on a DayZ forum, you'd be one of the best marksman in the world. Ironsights aren't intended for sniping in ArmA 1, 2, 3, or Standalone. The fact that the designer of the m16 you posted was smart enough to set it up for ArmA 3 optics, is great, however, still completely moot when it comes to anything related to Standalone. That m16 and the argument that the scale is off on this game and that iron sights should be so much more useful than they are now, is completely contradictory to this game, and all of Bohemia's games. If Iron Sights are so awesome up to 600m why are there 1000 different types of optics for guns? Easy answer, just about any quality optics will improve a shooter and a gun's accuracy. Iron sights are as shit as they should be, anyone hitting a target more than 2-300m away in this game with iron sights, is getting lucky, with anything other than an SKS/Blaze right now. Iron sights should be crap, as they are.

Both sexes should either be bright and colorful, or all white. Really doesn't make any sense why they were made differently. I forget, how well did the Samurai do and how long did they stick around once firearms hit the scene?

There's literally no where else for them to add cities and areas to except inland, the coast is already heavy with cities and towns. Without giving inland more content that's worth hitting, no one will ever get off of the coast because there won't be any other players venturing inland either. Maybe it's just me but I don't see the big, AHA! of where they seemed to have removed a bunch of trees, looks practicaly identical to me for before and after. I disagree, Standalone has far better lighting IMO, looks like a much better game than ArmA 3 does. And yes I own and play both. Everything in stand alone appears squished and up close 100m looks like 30m, 600m looks like 200m. Stand alone does a real bad job at demonstrating distance the vastness of terrain. I completely disagree. Maybe you're just used to Altis being so wide? 100m on Standalone looks like 100m on Arma 2 which looks like 100m on Arma 3. Unless you have actual pixel evidence to show that at 100m away on ArmA 3, a guy standing is 10 pixels tall but yet on Standalone he's 30 pixels high; you're just citing general perspective as fact. Shooting 600m with irons is doable because of the weapon models excellent quality. I wonder if you can change barrels on that M16? Stocks? Add attachments? If you're hitting anything at 600m with an M16 with ironsights, you're getting lucky, period. I'm not saying people can't do it in real life, I'm sure they do all the time on a practice range without a moving target. This isn't a range and most targets aren't sitting still while being shot at. Your ability to hit something based on a custom gun made by the community is based MUCH more on its configuration for ArmA 3, its dispersion, everything. The model's iron sight being lined up properly is the least important thing for accuracy. If the gun has a dispersion of 0 you'd better be hitting something at 600m. Is that realistic for an M16? Just because someone can make a "high resolution" model of a gun doesn't mean that has anything to do with this game. I don't see how the lack of simple ArmA 2 animals such as cows, pigs, goats and chickens gave the game any "wildnerness". Chernarus has never had a wilderness, there's never been any dangers in the "wild" except for other players. I don't buy this whole "Chernarus is smaller in Standalone", sorry, it's just not. If you even take just the buildings that are now enterable, or the enterable area of all buildings, the map almost doubled in size. If you think about what was actual "playable area" in the original Chernarus map, we easily have double the area now. We could enter a whopping 20 buildings in ArmA 2, and all these houses which we can now go inside, were before obstacles that removed playable area from the map. The map certainly hasn't gotten any smaller, and it's certainly only going to get more playability and extra "area" as they continue to populate the map.