Katana67

Weapons should be balanced through rarity, ammo scarcity, maintenance requirements, and weight/mobility requirements. None of which have really been addressed in Standalone, because it's Alpha and it's early in the aforementioned Alpha process. I have no doubt that they'll balance the weapons in the ways mentioned above when it's time. Never should they be balanced, in DayZ, through artificial stat changes like "accuracy", "ROF", "range", or "reload times" unless it's not in line with reality.

Agreed on all points. In my opinion, they can include ANY WEAPON inasmuch as it (or the ammo) is made suitably rare, suitably difficult to carry, and/or suitably prohibitive to maintain. I'd agree that they need to balance the ITEMS and not the ways in which the items can be used. Sniping should be robust, and I enjoy the tension in always having to look out for snipers. I honestly don't care either way. If they decided to put in .50 BMG sniper rifles, I wouldn't mind. But as it stands, I don't mind that they're not in either.

Yeah, I hope they make LMGs available. Even if it's just an RPD. There are ways of balancing it, although, I never thought they were particularly overpowered in the mod. They were trash at range, especially with optics, and bipods did nothing. But, they could make complete belts (for belt-fed weapons) suitably rare, require the player to also find links to assemble the belt, and/or make it have a more prohibitive maintenance requirement than other weapons. Or, LMGs could hamper player movement (whenever they get around to implementing a "weight" system). Especially with the M249 being able to take STANAG mags, it would pretty much be the same as an AR-15 unless one could find a (hypothetically) rare belt of 5.56 for it. I loved rolling around with a Mk 48 in the mod. And, if they implement helicopters ever, something needs to be able to bring them down. Not saying it should be found in every Deer Stand, but helicopters will require a suitable foil when/if they're rolled out. As for those who're dissatisfied about the DMR, AS50, and M107 in the mod... several things. One, these things could be considered overpowered in the mod because they weren't suitably rare. One could find DMR mags in residential-industrial buildings readily. Ammo availability was key in making these weapons into death machines. Likewise, there were no maintenance requirements or weight/mobility restrictions. They also came standard with high-magnification optics. But, also, sniping is INHERENTLY unfair. That's why it's effective. It's designed to be annoying and to maximize individual advantage. So, the ire directed at sniping is EXACTLY WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO CAUSE. People need to stop all the "balance" talk around sniping, when it's designed to be an imbalance.

I have noticed, throughout my time here, that a lot of confusion arises (specifically with weapon inclusions) with regard to the background of Chernarus in DayZ. One of the recent tweets from Torchia reminded me of this. In the tweet, Torchia provides the reasoning that no current military uses the AK-12, so therefore it's an unlikely inclusion. I couldn't care less about the AK-12, but, we really have to establish background lore to Chernarus (in relation to DayZ, so please don't cite ARMA II's Chernarussian history page) in order to establish what is an appropriate inclusion. If it's 2009, sure, then the AK-12 would be implausible. If it's 2016 however, who knows what the Russian army will be using? This is just a particular example used to illustrate the idea of "fiction". Several fundamental questions need to be answered (whether through in-game lore or meta-history created by developers). - In what year is Chernarus depicted in DayZ? - What forces NATO/Russian/UN/CDF were involved in the attempt to contain the outbreak? (This is, to an extent, answered in-game via the inclusion of weapons and appropriately marked gear) - Is DayZ a complete and utter continuance of real-world circumstance or is it dependent on fictional circumstance? This is a big one, as it seems to be a fictional country with fictional circumstances applied to it, with real-world (not purely "realistic" or "authentic") circumstances arbitrarily placed upon it to dictate what can and cannot be included. I'm all for these things being found out naturally through exploration in-game. However, they need to be firmly expressed from a development point of view.

Sweet 'argument' y'all. Anywho, so if DayZ occurs in the Armaverse, then why are certain things being dismissed as implausible based solely on their real-world prevalence? They're operating in a fictional universe, they have to abide by the tenets of that universe. Real-world prevalence has no bearing on what can be done in a fictional universe. Now, they can strive for authenticity insofar as it relates to the real-world. But, it has to be BACKED UP by in-universe reasoning. If they are indeed operating in the Armaverse (this is an example, in reference to weapons) then it should be plausible for every single weapon in ARMA II to be found in Chernarus. So, for example, rather than Torchia saying "The AK-12 can't be included because it's not prevalent in the real-world yet", it would be appropriate to say "The Chernarussian/Russian military did not acquire the AK-12 system as of 20XX when the outbreak began". Do you see the concept I'm highlighting here? Their narrative reasoning has to be brought in line with the fictional lore of Chernarus. The development narrative/reasoning needs to be in line with the fictional universe. Which is the crux of what I'm getting at. Just basic information, just dates even, would give us a reference point to judge the statements of the developers inasmuch as it concerns the plausibility of what's being included. And for those saying "let us make our own stories", I'm not suggesting otherwise. This has nothing to do with "your" stories, you can still have them just as well. It's completely irrelevant.

I think people may be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm only interested in a unified and clear narrative (which the developers can refer back to, in order to explain why things are a certain way, rather than just arbitrary application). Whether it be in the ARMAverse, out of the ARMAverse, or whatever. I don't favor a particular approach. I don't care either way. But at the end of the day, I want to know why something is a certain way. Not just "oh, it's not X in the real-world". Yeah, that's true, but this isn't the "real-world" it's DayZ. So why is X incompatible with DayZ? They can offer an example or use the real-world to buttress their claims, but it has to be coherent, relevant to the game, and explained in those terms. Lore is a way to do that in a very succinct manner.

Didn't really get what you were saying on the first part. I'm not in favor of one approach or the other, I'm in favor of SOMETHING from the developers in terms of background lore. Simple things, like dates. Chernarus (not Cherno) is "based off" of the landscape of the Czech Republic (specifically Bohemia IIRC). However, it's still a fictional location with fictional circumstances being applied to it. What it's called isn't really relevant. I'm saying that they're mixing their reasoning up. On one hand, they're saying "No, this can't be included because it's not X in reality" and on the other they're existing in a fictional universe/setting. And that's fine, but there has to be a unifying lore to explain why that is. So, for example, with the AK-12 example I cited above, they can not include the AK-12. But it has to be backed up by in-universe reasoning. Like, for example, the game is set in 2009 so the presence of the AK-12 is anachronistic. Or, the game is set in 2016, but the Russian Army didn't end up adopting the rifle. They can't just default to real-world circumstance to explain the presence/lack of something in their fictional universe. Which underscores the need for lore, because it actually gives them a coherent framework to act upon that relates to the game. Rather than just mixing real-world and in-game circumstance arbitrarily.

This has always been a major issue in my opinion. Even if there were properly respawning zombies in large numbers, I can't evade them even if I'm being totally stealth. They need to start implementing a better stealth system. Always feels a little silly just bolting into a town with a bunch of zombies on your tail. It should be very difficult to get an aggro from afar whilst crawling. I also think they need to decide on how buildings modulate sound (i.e. do they muffle it or amplify it). That and I'd like silhouette/visibility to play a bigger role as well, not as big as sound, but bigger overall.

They just need more variety in optics. I mean, not only are most bugged (in terms of zoom) but there's only a few options. I'd like to see the PU scope (and future civilian optic analogs) have realistic magnification, and the LRS be only for railed weapons. The PU scope should be the equivalent of a civilian hunting scope. They just need to abide by a better loot system which gives more rarity to certain items, to compensate for the increased number of "military" spawns overall. - Irons (Standard) - RDS/Holo (Residential/Military) - Hunting Scope 6x (Residential/DeerStand/Military) - ACOG 4x (Military) - Long-Range Scope (Military) Sniping is supposed to be unfair, that's what makes it scary/successful. It shouldn't have a guaranteed "counter" as in conventional video game "balance". You're getting sniped at, find cover, suppress/snipe back, dip out. Rinse and repeat. Nothing wrong with long-range sniping at all, it's much better in my opinion than the mod where one could find a DMR around every corner.

Now, how did the infection came to be ? Cholera warning in all sanitary units - medical centers, is a clue. They are written in russian, polish and czech. Right, but like I said in the OP, that particular background isn't strictly relevant. The lore of DayZ could operate in an independent universe from ARMA. It could also occur in the same one, but we just don't know that. If it occurs in the same universe as ARMA, then I would assume that all weapons/vehicles/clothes/etc from ARMA would be fair game in DayZ. Likewise, DayZ could take place in 2020, not 2009 like ARMA II. The history on the ARMA II is more OOB than anything, in describing the conflict, vice the actual land.

Right, and "realistic" and "authentic" can work with fiction (see ARMA II/III). We just need to establish some basic background facts so we can get a better of idea of what realistic/authentic MEANS in the context of DayZ (i.e. the fiction of DayZ).

One thing that I've always thought was at the core of DayZ's issues (among other things) was how many servers were available at any given time. There are just so many servers available, that one can willfully choose to play on an empty or low-population server. This is one element that allows for loot-farming (no matter how many discouraging measures are in place, it's possible and relatively easy). When you open the server browser, you get immediate access to hundreds of servers (mostly unpopulated). I'm all for variety and server-persistence (over hives) but I feel that this is a huge problem having so many empty servers available. So, would it be feasible to dynamically make servers available to respond to the overall online population of the game? I mean, if 1000 players are online at any given time, and servers can hold X amount of players, why would there be a need for anything more than the minimum amount of servers to hold 1000 players? I recognize that there are problems with this approach (with regard to differing timezones and "sponsored"/"private" servers). But I believe that having so many superfluous servers is detrimental to the overall experience. What do you think? Open to well-reasoned critique.

Agreed, I was going to suggest this as well. Public (dynamically allotted servers) for vanilla, third-party rented servers for mods later on down the line.

Well, I've spoken at length on this before when I was more active on the forums, but I don't like how they're trying to straddle the line between persistent hives and private servers with regard to characters. Most of the issues we cite (like server hopping) could easily be remedied if characters were server-specific. However, that is even more unlikely to happen. So we've got to try and find workarounds.

To work around the issue of rented servers, I was trying to hint at just making the server browser allocate what's VISIBLE to the player based upon total population. So you could still have rented servers, but they wouldn't necessarily be visible (by default or at all).

Right? No zombie games ever incorporate robust melee systems (i.e. Dead Island, Dead Rising, Dying Light, <insert most zombie games here>). DayZ is just following the trend! /sarcasm. Sorry, I don't want DayZ : Romero Tropes 2.0 now with new DLC chainsaw laser! If anything, a zombie game where you're reliant on firearms is ABNORMAL. The fact that firearms exist in the game doesn't explain all of its problems. Nor does it explain why "interactions" aren't as common as you'd like. More firearms, the merrier. Military weapons? Yes please. Appropriate levels of rareness/maintenance? Sure.

I have returned from the land of mystics and fairies! I see the Deanpocalypse is in full-swing. I guess I'm on the fence. Rocket's always been a pretty self-motivated guy, so what he wants, he does. And it's not like he hasn't been talking about doing other things for a while now. I'm all for him doing something that is fulfilling. But, he always used to talk about how development was dependent on him making something. It sounds self-centered when I say it, but it didn't come off that way when he did. Either way, it suggests to me that he has a very central role in the creative process. So it might short-change the end product if he dips out. Yes, I get that the year is young. But still, I think we as a community need some hard, undoubted, planned-out assurances that DayZ will progress to a more acceptable/playable state. Definitive roadmaps, not vague "this is what we're working on, and we'll get it out when we get it out" or "this is what we'd like to do, maybe!" I guess I just want a clear and concise "this is happening next, X will be taking over for Dean, things will proceed unabated" type of message.

Behold... (I assume this may not be the complete roadmap). DAYZ is currently in early alpha and we see a lot of work ahead of us in order to make it the true authentic multiplayer experience we want it to be. Current version is including only small subset of game mechanics and serves mostly as test bed with core technology that should serve as basis for future additions and improvements. Currently planned key future features are: Playable vehiclesWide variety of native animal lifePlayer created constructions in the environmentExtensive interactions with the environment and crafting optionsStreamlined user actions and interfaceUpgraded graphics and physics engine (including ragdoll, etc.)Control and animations expanded and improved for fluiditySupport of user modsWe estimate that reaching Beta version with all key features present will take more than one year from current stage. All features and plans listed here are subject to change, we may add or remove features as seen fit during development process.

I personally think the map will eventually be a limit on what DayZ can/should be. If they're constantly pushing for higher player counts, I'd say the map is almost at its limits if not at them already. I've said this before, but Chernarus ain't that big once you've filled in all the mental gaps. I really think that later on, perhaps many years from now, they're going to attempt procedural generation. A finite map is just that, finite. It can be learned indefinitely, hence why I haven't needed an in-game map since 2012.

The problem's compounded by the fact that they've increased the number of barracks while simultaneously keeping the barracks as the sole spawners of high-end loot. Personally, I don't really care about military loot being rare. I don't think it should be common, but an AK shouldn't be god's gift to man. My entire post history has been almost solely devoted to having a reasoned approach to weapon spawns. One can just as easily drop someone with a Mosin than with an AK or an AR. Likewise, I never understood the whole equation with certain weapons being more prestigious than others. Maybe it's just because I'm an American, and seeing assault rifles in people's gun safes is common, but I don't really prioritize an AR-15 as "badass", "high-end", or "military". It's just a weapon. Granted, it's alpha, there are very few weapons and I expect much work to be done with regard to tweaking the loot spawns.

I voted in the middle, but the war on military weapons continues. Assault rifles aren't god's gift to man.

I've arrived at the conclusion that the map is no longer adequate for what DayZ is projected to be. If Rocket wants to keep pushing player counts and/or consoldating servers, a new approach to the map will eventually have to be taken. I already feel the map is at its limits in terms of overall player counts, anything more than 75 (which isn't all that many, considering the pseudo-MMO goal of DayZ) and we'll be encountering folks everywhere. In the mod, I encounter people all over, much more than one might think in the "Wilderness" areas (which are pretty high-traffic areas in my opinion). In Standalone, I don't encounter many simply because there aren't that many full servers when I play. Note that simply because they added interiors does not take away from the overall player distribution. In other words, it doesn't matter if a player's inside a building or beside it, that player is still there. I think the map's limits will be further underscored when construction and vehicles are implemented. No matter how difficult these things are to fix/create, they will inevitably clutter (not a bad thing when combined with an appropriately-sized map) the map and make it proportionally smaller when traveling at high speeds. Not to mention how easy it is to memorize Chernarus (which I did long ago, and memorizing the aspects of Chernarus+ has been just as easy). Eventually, I'd like to see a core-designed map with the contingency for a procedurally generated wilderness/frontier. That way, DayZ could be a bit less formulaic in terms of the landscape whilst maintaining a "hand-crafted" urban/suburban core. EDIT - Likewise, something should be done with the debug plains. It's unfinished (imagine removing the frame from the Mona Lisa only to find blank pieces of printer paper attached to the edges) and as someone who spends a lot of time on the periphery of the map, not very immersive. The effect is exacerbated in the Standalone where the expanding map has placed thick forests directly against the borders of the map making for some pretty jarring transitions/sights. Something needs to be done eventually, whether it be through a LOD forest (rather than just detail-less plains), procedural generation, or an in-lore quarantine wall. Something needs to be done about it, I'm not entirely sure what though.

I more meant get rid of persistent characters entirely, rather than leaving it up to the individual server administration (which would have the same effect as private hives). Which is my preferred approach, but some of the mitigating compromises (i.e. loot wipes and/or position resets upon server swapping) are probably the best bet. I do recognize that folks need to be able to swap servers (in the current paradigm, which should be moved to a more MMO-esque type server/player displacement) for various reasons such as server inactivity, outdated game versions, bugs, etc. However, the former two would be mitigated as well by a strong sense of server-specific communities and/or loyalty. Coupled with a more streamlined method of automatic version updates. Server hopping to gain tactical advantage or combat log is a big deal. But not nearly as big a deal as the detrimental effects it can have on looting, which in turn completely undermine any potential storage, vehicle, and/or construction mechanic planned later on. Fixed-server character, or non-persistent characters works for me. No need to dumb it down.

Down with cross-server characters! Up with fixed-server characters! Or reasonable compromises such as loot wipes when server swapping and/or character position resets upon server swaps.

Could've been removed for several reasons - Coupled with their inclusion of "streams/brooks/creeks", Pobeda Dam as a tributary-less body of water no longer makes sense. Or, they've got something better planned for it in terms of a water feature. - The north (see north of NWAF) has been pretty much wiped clean and is very WIP. There are tons of missing assets, out-of-place land textures, and so-on up north. Perhaps they're moving Pobeda out of the way for something else. I'm still not 100% on board with their apparent plans for the north. I liked the wilderness up there and I feel that it's becoming marginalized in SA. There is no frontier or wilderness anymore, you're never more than a stone's throw from a town/city. I hope they expand upon this later on in the development cycle.