Katana67

I think this raises a good point, one that I know you and I raised a while back. There's overlap between civilian and so-called "military" weapons, the AR-15 and M14 are great examples of this. The magazines and capabilities between "civilian" versions and "military" versions of these weapons are often interchangeable. Perhaps it would make sense to have fire modes be the main delineation between military and civilian weapons. Civilian ARs are semi-automatic, whilst military ARs have automatic/burst capabilities. Seems like a decent enough difference. Personally, if they were to implement a "civilian" AR-15, I think it'd be something along the lines of what Torchia said about a mid-length fixed stock AR-15 way back. I don't particularly think it's worth it, as I'd rather see other AR-15 variants (namely some sort of full-on M16 and/or a Mk 12). But, I think a good "civilian" AR-15/10 would be some kind of fixed stock bull-barrel weapon. Not the sexiest weapon in the world, but gets the job done I suppose. As for the magazines, they're rare enough as it is. Could be problematic for the low-end "civilian" weapons like any future civilian AR-15, but might not be a show stopper. I'm not sure how one can support the "Mini 14s aren't popular anymore" argument. Sure, they were popular in the 90s because they could skirt certain regulations and were the target (like the SKS) of gun legislation in the United States. But, they're still being made, they've just been outshadowed by the boom in production that we've seen over the past 20 years. I absolutely support the Mini 14, it's not insanely rare (even in Eastern Europe, a few former Soviet countries [primarily the Baltics] still employ M14s as DMRs, Mini 14s are available to civilians [see Anders Behring Brevik [sic?]], and some countries received tens of thousands of them). To the OP, yes! I support these, and all weapons for that matter! However, you do have to be wary of weapons using relatively ubiquitous calibers. In my ideal DayZ, calibers would be more rigidly tailored to the types of weapons they're intended for. So things like the CR 527 wouldn't be acceptable because it fires an assault rifle cartridge, which sort of undercuts how much it gets used and how valuable it is. Likewise, it forces certain calibers to be made less-rare to suit their less-rare weapon counterparts. In effect, this screws the "high-end" weapons that use said caliber by making it too easy to find because it's used in common weapons.

Entirely random loot doesn't make sense, I think people are misconstruing the potential implementation of the CLE. It shouldn't randomize loot entirely, where a Deer Stand and a Barracks have the same chance of spawning an <insert rare item here>. Barracks should still have an increased likelihood of spawning <insert rare item here>, they just shouldn't have an entire monopoly on said item. That said, yes, barracks lately have been completely useless for getting any loot... much less decent loot.

These wouldn't discourage KOS per-se, they don't give consequence (not punishment, easy) to killing someone or firing a weapon. They just require someone else to accomplish a task. All you need is one pre-existing friend/clan, or, one/two friends in-game to accomplish this. While everyone else can be shot on sight just the same. So long as there's no direct and/or immediate consequence for killing another player or firing a weapon, I don't foresee any of the suggestions actually fostering spontaneous interaction. People always pine for the heady days of the early mod where people, supposedly, all lived happily ever after and there was more player cooperation. I posit that this is two things - a myth, and, the result of novelty.

It absolutely is debatable, what convinced you otherwise? I get viscerally connected to my avatar, have been for going on three years now. I've had a wonderful time playing DayZ that hasn't been "diminished" in any tangible way. My experience has been far more affected by silly graphical ons/offs (i.e. ATOC) than any help anyone's got from 3PP.

Because DayZ doesn't take place a decade after the apocalypse. I think they could do a bit better on atmosphere, but not in the "making shit look beat up" department. Houses are messy and scuffed. Roads are cracked and beat the hell up. Windows are smashed. If anything, widespread destruction is more immersion breaking for me. What did someone go around breaking ALL the windows of Chernarus? Did a bloodied body get dragged in the same exact spot of every house in Chernarus once the shit hit the fan? They need to add, and are adding, more "quarantine/outbreak" infrastructure. More roadblocks. More traffic jams. More CASEVAC points. More ruined medical tents. I couldn't care less if it's covered in moss that would take a few years, at the very least, to grow. And maybe it feels like ARMA because it's using the same map (which has been markedly changed by the way), exists in the same universe, follows certain general plotlines from ARMA 2, is made by Bohemia, uses an iteration of the engine used in ARMA, and owes its existence to a mod of ARMA. Never understood why folks hate ARMA 2 so much now, and view DayZ as a categorical opposite to ARMA. There's a lot of differences. There's a lot of overlap. All encompassed in the unique experience of DayZ.

Point being, it's hypocritical to dismiss the Mk 17 based upon the misconception that it's "used by nobody" and at the same time, want the AN-94 which is/was actually only used by one country... and isn't being produced anymore... probably isn't even being used by the SOF it was initially provided to in limited numbers... had a very limited production... and was universally panned as overcomplicated. But hey, it looks like an AK! Therefore it "fits" in Chernarus /s I would love an AN-94, a Mk 17, and an AK-12! Unfortunately, Chris said he wasn't in favor of the AK-12 because it hadn't been adopted by anyone (which has since changed as you've said). That said, even his reasoning then didn't make much sense.

Lots of assumptions here. Chief amongst which is that people that like 3PP are blind because they "haven't seen the light of 1PP." Well yes, I'm willing to bet a lot of us have. Doesn't mean that once we've tried it, we're introduced to the land of never-ending boobs and cheese-steaks never to return to the land of woe and want! I prefer 3PP when traveling, which is 90% of DayZ. I like being able to see my character, it immerses me just the same as seeing nothing more than the last six inches of a firearm all day. It's really that simple, I like being able to see my character, that's about all I care about. I prefer 1PP when in firefights, because it helps me actually hit what I'm aiming at. 3PP needs work. I don't like that it's exploitable. It should have more disadvantages than it does now. But dead horse is dead. Extremism on either end isn't going to resurrect said deceased horse.

Everyone has biases, the only issue is recognizing them and not over-asserting one's opinion as objective. Your use of end game is problematic, as it implies exactly what it means... an end status. I won't belabor what others have said on DayZ being a "sandbox." All of the items in your OP have been discussed to death, and in most (if not all) cases, outright included on the development roadmap. So discussing their mere existence or inclusion in-game is a bit redundant at this point. If you want to discuss how they should be implemented, what capabilities these things should have, what boundaries, what advantages/disadvantages, then I'm all ears.

How would it affect balance? It would probably, if implemented, be a highly regulated/limited item like the SVD will be. Why? Why does DayZ somehow dwell in an alternate plane of existence where military weapons do not exist? Agreed. Plus the SCAR platform was adopted by the US Army in ARMA2:OA as their standard service rifle. So, there's already an in-universe explanation. "Far, far, far more ubiquitous in the world," do you have anything besides an assumption to back this up? Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, France, Belgium, and Germany having them sure does though! And I included Kenya and the other Latin American countries to show that it's gaining a wider usage rate than "DER ITS ONLY IN KAWD! KEEP IT OUT OF MAH DAYZ SIMZ!" "Failed weapon systems." Oh, so you mean the Mk 20/Mk 17 that's replacing the Mk 12 SPR (which you totally want in-game) and Mk 11 for USASOC? By 2017? That's been procured in the thousands by a multitude of international militaries? Also, in-universe, it was adopted as the standard service rifle of the United States Army by at least 2010. So, there's that! And again, don't you want the AN-94 too? The discontinued, rejected, prototypical, produced-by-only-one-country, popularized entirely by AAA video games, weapon used by nobody with a pulley inside?

Random anything is unacceptable. DayZ is, in part, a game predicated upon giving the player the ability to control (or not) his/her own input into the world. If you're throwing hyper-random sway on top of all the other things the player has to manage, you're removing a key element of skillful input. I discourage the use of the word "skill" because it can be applied in a variety of contexts and isn't a zero-sum concept. But, yes. If sway is predictable and controllable, it is a skill that can be mastered. If it's random, it's a dice roll. And it's really odd to see people say "make it harder for difficulty's sake," it's just as ludicrous as "make it so because of realism." From a realistic standpoint, the weapon sway we have now is silly. I'm not drunkenly sloshing my muzzle from side to side after sprinting for 100m. I'm also not yanking my muzzle from random point to random point (a la DayZ mod) after having ran a few yards. Weapon sway should really only factor in with magnified optics, certainly not iron sights and unmagnified optics. Yes, it should be there, but it shouldn't be so drastic as to throw off a shot at reasonable ranges (i.e. within 100m). Likewise, weapon sway should be drastically reduced if... - The player crouches - The player prones - The player has a bipod deployed Instead of making the mere act of firing a weapon inconceivably difficult and cumbersome, why don't we encourage measures that place more weight on the act of firing a weapon? Meaning zombie hordes that will jump you if you fire your weapon in an inopportune locale, meaning rarer ammunition, a meaningful weapon maintenance mechanic, etc. I never understood why people want to hamper the gunplay in DayZ just to discourage banditry (which isn't in and of itself bad).

Mkay, maybe make 5.56x45 hard to come by? That's a start at balancing it. Or maybe make the door-mounted gun hard to come by as well, in addition to the ammunition? Maybe have an M240D instead of an M134? You can't just exclude/ignore "military" aircraft with the cop-out of "leave it to mods." This is a DayZ forum, you brought up military aircraft in your poll, therefore we're discussing their inclusion in DayZ. This is exactly what I was talking about, there's nothing in the mythical rulebook that says "military aircraft are unbalanced." Moreover, this is DayZ. They were a feature of the mod, no reason why they can't be a feature of standalone. Also, what do you even mean by "full militarization"? Is a civilian UH-1 with someone shooting out the window a fully militarized aircraft? Where do you draw the line? It's not a zero-sum status for aircraft. Scout helicopters are often heavily armed (read AH-6) but they can be unarmed as well. Similarly, there's a huge difference between an attack helicopter with a co-pilot controlled turret versus an AH-6 or somesuch. There's a lot of grey area that you're overlooking. Similarly, why is this a bad thing? That's pretty easy to say, what do you mean? Do you mean the parts themselves should be rare? Do you mean they should be individualized (i.e. Mi-7 rotor, UH-1 rotor, etc.)? Do you mean there should be some sort of repair process that requires player input? Seeing as small arms could bring down a UH-1 in the mod, gonna' disagree with you here. They weren't tanks by any stretch of the imagination. One guy with a Mk 48 or even a DMR could bring one down. They were suitably vulnerable in the mod, they had an acceptable offensive/defensive damage model. Making them super vulnerable is pointless, nobody will use them if they're not powerful or to be feared. So remove autohover? I never thought autohover was problematic, landing 100% vertically was suicidal. Any pilot worth their weight in salt would come in at a gradual angle and be thinking ahead. Sure it's a crutch, but it's not an overly advantageous crutch. How, specifically, do we make a "better" flight model? You're not making any suggestions. Does it require weather to be simulated? Does to require more intricate control schemes? Does it require TOH intervention? People crashed planes in modded DayZ because Chernarus is unsuitable for landing, not because they were overly difficult to fly. Also, where are you drawing these percentages from? If you're using your own experience (which it seems like you are), a 20% crash rate seems pretty high for something that's super easy to fly. Also, there are more reasons than "inexperience" that cause crashes. While I agree that helicopters themselves should be more consequential to use/maintain/store/repair, 20 players struggling for anything in DayZ doesn't really make much sense. We can quip about "how many players is enough to be granted the use of a helicopter" but 20 person groups are few and far between. They should be forces to be reckoned with, I'm not sure why you want to neuter helicopters. They weren't that good in vanilla DayZ. Sure, a god damn UH-1Y with auto-repair on restart, auto-resupply on restart, and a FLIR seat like we saw in the mods is ridiculous. But remove all of those things and it's pretty effing tame. You seem to view the so-called "OPness" of a helicopter as bad. I view it as good, because helicopters should be good and not useless. They should be the powerful resources that they were in the mod, they just need to be made more consequential to use (via rarer parts, a more involve supply chain [having to find a door mounted weapon, ammo, etc.], no parachutes for passengers, etc.) And here it is, the unexplained assumption that armed helicopters are "inherently OP." See my initial thoughts on this, there's an incredible amount of variance in what constitutes an armed aircraft. What is overpowered? Is it a UH-1Y with a minigun? An M240D? A Hydra pod? An MH-6 with someone shooting off the bench? An AH-6 with a lone minigun? A Super Tucano with a gun pod? Some asshole tossing frags out of a biplane? What? Where's the line? How would the addition of constructable ultralights do any good? Not only is it ludicrous from a "realism" standpoint (which I don't particularly care for) for every player to know how to construct these things, but it doesn't resolve any of the problems you just highlighted. All it does is give an unarmed alternative to armed helicopters. Again, where's the line? UH-1's don't take much more to get flying than an AH-6. Certainly not in the personnel department. People want death helicopters because they're death helicopters. If people have the option of 20 ultralights and 5 armed helicopters, you bet your ass they're going to dump that ultralight the second a more robust airframe comes along. It doesn't matter if it's hard to maintain, once they've got it flying, that ultralight is going to rot in a field. Availability =/= desirability. This is the first time I've heard someone suggest more helicopters as a solution to discouraging their use overall. If I want to get to point A from point B quickly, quietly, and without a lot of maintenance... know what I'll select? A freakin' bicycle! Ultralights wouldn't exist in a vaccuum, they're not overly advantageous in any regard. They have none of the stealthy benefits of a ground vehicle, they have none of the carry capacity of heavy helicopters/vehicles, they have no offensive measures, they have no defensive measures. Their only advantages are that they're relatively quick, marginally easier to hide than the average vehicle, and are hard-er to hit. All of which are easily outweighed by their downsides. One guy flying a UH-1 can do about as much damage as one guy flying an Ultralight. All types of helicopters should be included. Armed helicopters should be feared assets, not teacups. Ultralights aren't a panacea to helicopter balance. We can have a debate about what types of armed helicopters/aircraft will be included, if you'd like.

Though there are a lot of folk here who, unreasonably, are vehemently against the Mk 17 even when faced with facts, it would be a welcome addition. And even in ignorance of those facts, don't recognize that DayZ is fictional and anything can be explained plausibly given a miniscule amount of background. Would love to have the Mk 17 as a high-end battle rifle! Definitely one of my favorite battle rifles out there today, that's gaining a surprisingly broad amount of use in modern conflicts/militaries/law enforcement (even post-Soviet/Eastern European ones). United States (obviously) Kenya France Belgium (obviously) Lithuania Peru Serbia, Poland, Chile, and Colombia (Mk 16s but close enough)

Everything short of delivering explosives on both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, and even then, if they want to throw a Hydra pod on the UH-1Y (that has to be looted from an airfield, and stocked with rare-ass FFARs) then so be it. Door and/or mounted pylon guns are fine, so long as they... - Don't come as standard, meaning you have to loot and attach them - Have to actually be resupplied with ammunition, again, meaning you have to loot a ton of ammunition, find belt links, find an ammo box, etc. - Have some sort of maintenance requirement - Are suitably rare That said, I don't necessarily want to see "crafted" airframes. Ultralight scout vehicles, sure, no problem. But there's a lot of overlap. Not to rehash the old argument, but aircraft are not irrevocably and innately incompatible with DayZ by any means. They're going to be in DayZ, get over it.

TL;DR - Including the SR-3 would've made more sense than including the VSS. The most different weapon aesthetically they could add in 9x39 would be the OTs-14-4A, and it's still problematic. And most, if not all, weapons chambered in 9x39 are functionally, mechanically, and aesthetically the same. Pretty much the only unique feature about this, potentially, over the VSS. The same with all 9x39 weapons (i.e. AS VAL, AK-9, OTs-12, OTs-14-4A, 9A-91, etc.) Not really a selling point. Other than from the "we need more 9x39 weapons to justify its existence," perspective. Which would be the same for the above as well. This is part of why I think it's logical (see below) to include if they wanted to minimize the amount of effort to add another 9x39 weapon to justify their inclusion of the round. Or, if you look at it from another angle, magazine ubiquity is a selling point. Very much debatable. It's the same as a VSS, and AS Val, it's just an AS Val with a non-integral suppressor. It looks, and functions, essentially the same as both the VSS and AS Val (because they're all variants of the same weapon). And they need to include foregrips (and already have, just not functional ones) sooner or later, finding cheeky workarounds both squanders resources and allows them to side-step ever having to expand on the attachments. I don't think it's unfathomably hard to create different animations for foregrips. Yep, but so does almost every other 9x39 weapon as well (even the 9A-91/VSK-94). Not really a selling point. I'm not sure how it'd make the introduction of the AS Val useless. The VSS does this already, in that it's just an AS Val with a wooden stock instead of a folding stock. Take off the optic of the VSS, and you've got an AS Val. The SR-3 is "more different" than the VSS-AS Val comparison, but that's because it's modular. Not solely because it can mount a suppressor. I find it hard to ever consider 9x39 as a caliber, integrally suppressed weapons like the AS Val, or non-integrally suppressed weapons like the SR-3 overpowered in any regard. Sure, have them spawn at helicopter crashes for propriety's sake, and/or to make them a "party-piece" prestige weapon. But these weapons are so niche that I could never dream of calling them "overpowered" if they're rendered with any of their real-world qualities. Again, debatable. Whatever "fits" into the "atmosphere" of Chernarus is subjective, and so long as anything is explained in-universe (read M4, Desert Eagle, AK-101, CR instead of CZ, Blaser 95, etc.) then it "fits" in Chernarus. This is why they should've added the SR-3 and not the VSS. I get that people adore the VSS due to their experiences with it in other video games, and, because it's an incredibly niche weapon... but the SR-3 makes more sense to have included from a pragmatic perspective. It's modular, for starters, allowing the player to essentially make it into a VSS (as shown above) with the addition of a suppressor and optic. Or, conversely, the player could make it into an SBR (see below). Or any slew of other possible configurations. They could've got much more "bang for their buck" so to-speak with the SR-3 over the VSS. They wouldn't need to include more than one weapon platform to justify 9x39 in DayZ, because the SR-3 is already more than one weapon. Because it can be configured in many ways. I always found it odd that people salivated over the VSS and 9x39 so much, while casually discarding other more useful/unique/prevalent weapons and calibers. The VSS/AS Val/SR-3 are for all intents and purposes, the same weapon. Aesthetically, mechanically, and functionally (i.e. typically-suppressed, sniper-rifle, compact/SBR, limited-range, 9x39 weapons). The 9A-91/VSK-94 are only marginally different aesthetically and mechanically, but are functionally exactly the same as both each other and the entire AS Val family (i.e. typically-suppressed, sniper-rifle, compact/SBR, limited-range, 9x39 weapons). Even the OTs-12 and AK-9 are just AKs chambered in 9x39, which we've already got in more useful/common calibers (read AK-74, AKM, and AK-101). Which is funny to me, because they're pretty much all just AKs in one form or another. At the very least, their internals and actions are AK-derived. I doubt people would be so receptive if I proposed adding every AR-15 variant under the sun. For instance, if I were to propose a .300 BLK AR-15 (which is probably 9x39's most similar analog) people would absolutely lose their effing minds screaming "Der this isn't CoD we don't need a Honey Badger," or "It's just another boring AR, they should add different weapons not more of the same!" The most apt choice, if they wanted something different would be the OTs-14-4A "Groza." It at the very least looks different, and gives us something we don't have (i.e. a bullpup AK variant). Plus the Groza is, arguably, every bit as modular (if not more because it can mount a grenade launcher) as the SR-3. However, it probably wouldn't be a "backpack" weapon (although it does have a similar OAL to a folded AKS-74u) which, as I stated above, is pretty much the only real selling point of the SR-3 over the VSS now that it's included. But then again, they could add an OTs-14-1A in 7.62x39 and achieve the same result. Further underscoring why 9x39, while I like it and welcome it, doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a pragmatic perspective. Which ordinarily wouldn't matter, save for the fact that I've seen a lot of other weapons/calibers be dismissed (by both players and developers) on the same grounds that I'm saying 9x39/VSS doesn't make much sense to include (i.e. it's redundant aesthetically, niche in function, there aren't many unique weapons chambered in 9x39 to justify its inclusion as a caliber, the weapons that are chambered in 9x39 can typically be found in other pre-existing calibers).

Solid argument. I want real-world style weapons, these weapons existed in the world before COD. Have your opinion.