Katana67

I'm not saying they should all be like that. I'm saying that it's worthwhile to consider making some of your highest-traffic buildings a bit more varied in how they can be approached. I actually think the barracks building might be far more in need of a change than the jail building (to say nothing of its cumbersome nature in having zombies walk through the insanely narrow, door-filled, hallway). The goal here isn't to eliminate camping. Or to eliminate the advantage to be had by defenders. It's to make approaching, clearing, holding, looting, and exiting these buildings less formulaic. These buildings are high-traffic buildings, and I make the argument that they need to be put under more intense scrutiny than others. Hence why I agree that they shouldn't be changed simply because other buildings have two entrances. They should be changed because they get a lot of use and a lot of time is spent dealing with these buildings in the game. You're right in saying that defending players will always seek the most defensible spots. But certain designs have areas in which two spots can be equally as defensible, thus requiring a group (and more effort) to defend adequately. However, when there's only really one defensible spot (i.e. a chokepoint) it makes the buildings (in my opinion) uninteresting and formulaic to interact with, not to mention inconsequential to defend as they can be locked down by one man. That, and to nitpick, the barracks has windows peering in to every room (even the shower has a window facing it from across the hall). Only issue is that, to my knowledge, the windows cannot be shot through currently. It becomes a situation of "If I clear that corner, I'm good to go." I'd argue that the buildings are far more "balanced" having one entrance and singular chokepoints as it stands now, simply because both the defenders/attackers know what to expect. As a defender, I know the attacker will come up stairway X before I even know anyone's in the area. On the other side, as an attacker, I know that the defender will be in a single "most defensible" spot. I know the scenario before I even look at the building, much less enter it and clear it. That is why I think some could use a revamp.

But even so, the Pavlovo barracks are pretty damn close to the coast. So I doubt we'll see southerly coast spawns returning. Not to mention that the developers have said that they intend on having folks spawn on the eastern coast. Not sure what cheating has to do with anything being discussed, but cool. Meh, in the mod maybe. But now, with people spawning only around Berezino/Svetlo... it's the longest hike (as the crow flies) out of any high-value location, besides perhaps Pavlovo. And even if they had folks spawning as far south as Skalisty, it'd still be roughly equidistant as a hike from Berezino to NWAF. But you'd have to negotiate two large cities, Cherno and Elektro (which could be filled with other players and zombies). So, I actually think as of now at the very least... Balota is the most out-of-the-way high-value location.

I would make the argument that it's because they're high-value locations that they should have two entrances (ladders work fine too, see the ATC). The barracks and jail buildings are the two biggest perpetrators. And coincidentally, they're the two best (as of now) high-value buildings. It's not so much about making them "fair" to me, and more about making these high-traffic buildings... less predictable. I mean, they're high-value buildings. Which means that more people will be drawn to them and will be entering these buildings than any others. So, why would we want that experience to become formulaic? Why would we want these high-traffic buildings being, arguably, the most straightforward buildings in the game? Case in point, the police stations. They have two entrances, and are they any more "balanced" than these other ones? I don't know, I don't think so. They're still PvP clusterfucks which can be camped. But something as simple as having a second entrance varies the experience. It changes the nature of the encounter every time, it changes the approach you can take to a building. Defenders are still at an advantage (i.e. waiting for people to come to them, and in cover) and the attackers are still just as liable to fuck up and die as they were before. But they can make a choice.

1. Again, proving my point. You associate "valuing your opinion" with "doing everything that you want." For instance, I value your opinion. But disagree with it in certain areas. It's also worth mentioning... that they're going to put in 7.62x54R... have significantly reduced the dispersion of weapons across the board... and an AK-101 firing 5.56x45 is realistic... as it exists in reality. 2. No a straw man argument would have to distract from the issue that you raised (i.e. price dictating rarity) by changing the argument itself. You think that price should be a factor in rarity and/or deeming whether or not something should be included in the game. I highlighted how this is already not the case, as the Blaser B95 costs upwards of 3-10 thousand dollars USD in the real world (depending on how much engraving you get on it) and is spawning in residential locations. And I love camping, it's a wonderful thing. I want certain high-value buildings to be more unpredictable. Now that is a straw-man argument, though.

I do think there should be a kind of mid-range military Stary Sobor analog again. Hey, maybe they'll move the tents back to Stary! /grumbles But I'm not sure I'd want it near the new cities. They're already pretty good for loot. That, and there's something to be said for the fact that mid-range police/military loot has become more diffuse anyhow. With a police station in every other town, and UAZ/truck wrecks now spawning AK-101s, Gorka clothing, and ammunition.

I'm not really concerned with the deathmatching on the coast. That will always be there, in my opinion, although there are steps that can be taken to mitigate it (i.e. loot bias inland, higher zombie counts in cities, unforgiving zombie aggro when firing weapons, etc.). And in fact, I'd posit that it should always be a clusterfuck on the coast to an extent. It only becomes a problem when that's all people ever do. My concern, is with what a higher player count will do to the wilderness (and to a slightly lesser extent, the map overall). More players in the same area means more people bumping into one another. It means more people finding my tent. It means more people at high-value locations. All of which, are already pretty likely to happen anyway with the current player limits. And in a game which has persistent storage, I feel that those who choose to isolate themselves will need some significant love from the developers should they choose to up the player counts.

I said they overestimate it. It won't be that big when all the white space is filled in by cities, players, fields, and persistent structures. Server player limits are one piece of the puzzle. What about the 500 or so (again, an example, I have no idea what the actual statistics would be) players who are regulars on a particular server? It's not just the 100 player limit you've got to contend with, but the fact that 500 players are fluxing in and out of the server at any given time, that's 500 log-ins in 500 different locations. And they aren't expanding the map's overall surface area (or at least don't plan on it at this time). They really misused the word "expand" in that they meant "enhance" via the addition of more cities and the like. They've said that actually expanding the borders of the map is unfeasible, due to how objects relate to one another in the world. I encountered people all effing day in the wilderness in the mod. All day. So, now that it's been marginalized, once I actually have a reason to go back to the wilderness (to raid tents and steal vehicles) I suspect it'll be all the more crowded.

Junkies doesn't have to be pejorative. An action junkie, car junkie, in the United States... these just mean that one is an enthusiast of something. Junkie is only pejorative when the qualifier is pejorative/negative (i.e. a heroin junkie, a violence junkie, etc.) And he didn't say "obeying the every whim of realism junkies," so... yeah. Difference between doing everything you want, and finding a middle ground. The issue is, that you associate total and absolute obedience to your ideology (i.e. realism) with merely being paid attention to or being held in high regard. This type of unreasonable absolutism is what truly is at the root of many of the issues with which you find fault. They can value your opinion, but not obey your every command. And price shouldn't really be a factor in DayZ, because we're not paying for things. Hunting scopes, or whatever item, should be rare/common because of a wide variety of factors. Not only one factor. And certainly not one as irrelevant as "pricing." Especially with optics (which can range from $40 USD for a knock-off 12x, to thousands of dollars for a quality 12x) because price doesn't really dictate capability, but tends to justify quality. And you want to talk price? What about the multi-thousand dollar Blaser B95? Or the $1,300 USD Amphibian S? For the price of one Blaser over-under, I could buy one or two brand new FNH SCAR 17s's at MSRP. A $2 USD hamburger probably won't taste as good as a $50 USD Wagyu beef hamburger with foie gras on it. But they're still hamburgers.

Well there's optimal and acceptable. Optimal? Probably 70-100. Acceptable to me? 80-120. I think folks really overestimate how big Chernarus is. Once vehicles get implemented, persistent storage gets ironed out and bolstered, player construction gets added, zombies become a reasonable threat, and the loot has been tweaked to provide for some semblance of player mobility, I think Chernarus will be shrinking for a lot of people. To say nothing of the fact that the wilderness of Chernarus has been marginalized, drastically, from the mod (especially in the north, which made up the bulk of the wilderness in vanilla Chernarus). Which essentially forces players to bump into one another more frequently. And please, don't come at me with the non-argument of "Well of course the wilderness shrunk! We have many new building interiors, so the map is bigger!" Doesn't matter if a player is inside a building or next to an un-enterable box, that player is still there. So, if people thought they encountered folks a lot in the mod... buckle up. Because the second they allow for an increased player count per server, it's going to be a clusterfuck in Chernarus+ without some mitigating factors. Luckily, there are a few glimmers of hope. If player-configured camouflage options for persistent structures/vehicles, dynamic weather, and lockable doors get implemented... then we may see some improvements. But short of expanding the map and/or giving the player a tangible method of camouflaging his/her stuff, I don't really see how more players and persistent vehicles/structures/storage can be accommodated without it becoming useless due to the increased likelihood of discovery. That, and the fact that our characters run at 30 kph (IIRC) currently. Whereas they ran at 18 kph (IIRC) in the mod. People also underestimate this factor in deeming how large Chernarus feels. It's shrunk greatly, relative to the individual player, because he/she can run places faster (i.e. one step goes further). EDIT - Also (and this is detrimental for other reasons) the fact that the overall playerbase is spread out over a massively over-allocated number of servers is a potential mitigating factor. Rather than having 1 server for 100 total players, we've got 100 servers for every 1 player (hyperbolic example).

VHS (Croatian service rifle) FN F2000 (Slovenian service rifle) H&K G36 (Service rifle of Germany, Latvia, Estonia [along with the Galil and G3], Lithuania, and used by too many SOF units in former-Soviet, Eastern European, and/or Balkan countries to list here) Some kinda' FN Minimi variant (Used in Latvia, Serbia, Slovenia, and of course... New Zealand's sexy adoption of a 7.62x51 version as their standard light machinegun) BONUS - FN Minimi used with Elcan SpecterDR optic, by vanilla-ass Latvian serviceman

You make a good point. I think it could go either way. I'd just rather they take advantage of the attachment system. I don't really like how the Longhorn and optic are one entity, sort of defeats the purpose of having the attachment system at all. Plus, I want that effing optic on my M4! But, having an integrated optic would be a good way of distinguishing it. And I'm marginally sure the irons are built-in to the Swarovski (IIRC) scope on the AUG. Unsure as to whether or not this type of thing will ever be represented again in DayZ (i.e. being able to use a scope and its back-up irons). But, it might not be as disadvantaged in CQC as one might think.

But if the supply chain stops, then you're left with whatever was there previously. So, it's not like these things just magically get expended and somehow become more rare than they would otherwise have been because the UPS man stops delivering. I can't read a scenario into DayZ's timeline, especially not one that's concrete, and especially not one that's so specific that would somehow allow me to arrive at the conclusion that Mosin mounts, across the board, became rarer as a result of X happening in the apocalypse. Given their mass-produced nature, global availability, and the fact that there are a plethora of generic manufacturers... I don't think they'd be any less common than a PU scope w/ mount.

Errr, wait, what? Does all the stuff that people purchased/installed just disappear when zombies start shambling around? The fact that an apocalypse has happened should have no bearing on what is in the country already, sitting there for years prior, at the time of the apocalypse. Unless zombies are on Amazon. Then all bets are off.

This is very cool! A neat idea to take loot distribution into your own hands. I do think there's something to be said for broadening the distribution of loot (especially mid-range loot). Which I think we're already seeing with things like the rusty UAZ and truck crashes spawning some kind of remarkable ammunition/weapons. But yeah, alongside that, I think high-value locations should always be one's best bet. My suggestion for varying the loot would include things being done already (like the UAZ/truck spawns and helicopter crashes). Likewise, it would include a more distinctly tiered loot system (i.e. Common, Uncommon [Police], Uncommon [Military], Rare, Regulated). Plus, I would do two things in terms of the actual distribution of loot in residential areas. 1. Bias the loot overall, inland (in addition to making cities more dangerous via decent zombies) 2. Severely limit the rate of food/drink spawns in all buildings, to make foraging/horticulture/hunting actually useful

Right, and I disagree with the OP about a need for its change due to "balance." But I think some of the buildings warrant a change nonetheless. But that doesn't mean that it's not a worthwhile endeavor to make the buildings (especially the high-value locations) a bit more varied in how they can be approached, lest the act of looting high-value gear become formulaic.

People appear to be just looking at the word "balance" and are reacting to that. If the jail building had two entryways normally, and never had one entryway, would it be any less interesting/fun/PvP-oriented? Not to me. Think less about it being "balanced" and more about it being made varied/unpredictable versus formulaic and predictable. I don't want my risky entry into a high-value building to be formulaic (i.e. check these two corners for players camping). Would people be up in arms, wanting there to be one entryway instead of two? I doubt it. It could be argued that by making the high-value buildings varied in terms of entry/exit routes, you're actually making it more dynamic and unpredictable for both the attackers and defenders. Thereby making the experience more unforgiving for those who mismanage the situation (on both ends).

They'll probably come at you with the gradual spiraling decay away from the original language. It evolves from "it's not realistic," when that's proven false... It moves to "it's not likely," and when that's highlighted as an argument surrounding rarity (not the mere possibility of X happening), or, is unsupported by any actual statistical/empirical evidence... It then devolves further to "it doesn't fit the setting," and when that's shown to be either false, or utterly subjective without any real pragmatism concerning the game... It finally moves to the non-argument of "it doesn't feel right." EDIT - I was not dissapointed! :D

I think some people set the bar insanely low for what constitutes "balance" of something. Adding two, vice just one, entries/exits to a building doesn't make a building "balanced." Just means there's more to take into consideration when assaulting/defending, and varies the situation more so for both sides. Rather than "Welp, they'll be coming through the front door... let me train my Mosin on the only entryway" it becomes "Shit, there's two doors... Which one do I pick?" Likewise, it changes from "Welp, I've got to check corners X, Y, and Z... and if there's nobody there, I'm good" to "I've got to check corners X, Y, and Z if I go in through entrance 1... or corners A, B, and C if I go through entrance 2." Doesn't necessarily make the building more "balanced," just makes for a varied (and therefore, marginally unpredictable) experience.

Chris Torchia, just said, in this thread... that they will be taking it away. http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/208692-do-you-think-the-lrs-will-be-removed-from-mosin-when/?p=2090576 The wrap/grass wrap has nothing to do with the LRS. It can be used with a PU scope.

Interesting, never thought about it! Some harvestable/growable corn, carrots, onions, potatoes, all that jazz would be neat! And yeah, though I don't really care that it's supposedly unrealistic to find fresh fruit (ostensibly, even though we don't know the timeline) some time after an apocalypse... I think food/drink needs to move markedly away from loot, and more into foraging/horticulture. A can of food/drink in a supermarket should be a very rare and lucky occurrence, if only for making horticulture/hunting/foraging a useful endeavor.

Agreed. A big thing that needs to happen, though, is that they need to standardize the zoom/magnification of optics to be independent of FOV settings.

I agree. Although not in the same language as you describe it. It's interesting to me as to why the highest-value buildings are often the most linear buildings. Look at the barracks, for example. One way in and out. Insanely narrow, and singular, passageway which is a "fish in a barrel" situation waiting to happen. How they're ever going to get zombies to negotiate the barracks building (without clipping through doors all day) is beyond me. Which is perhaps why there's a new barracks building model. But yeah, with the jail/camo building, it's pretty much a one-trick pony when going in there. Which makes the experience either dull, predictable, or frustrating. In my opinion, high-value buildings need to have at least two (if not more) entry/exit ways. Like the police station, for example.

I agree! Things shouldn't be nerfed/buffed unnecessarily solely to appease people. I don't like that approach to balance. However, and I suspect you already understand this and perhaps agree with it, balance can be applied in multiple areas. To me, balance is about justifying an advantageous item/weapon/combination. Not lessening the advantage altogether. Which is why things like the AS50 and L85A2 TWS were removed from the mod, because the advantage they offered was not appropriately justified by any mitigating factors (i.e. weapon rarity, ammunition rarity, magazine rarity, maintenance requirements, etc.)

Well, it's not really an issue of logic when you follow it up with "We shouldn't," which would make it an issue of opinion or subjective prudence. While I dislike the approach of "nerfs/buffs," there are certain things which require balance. Doesn't have to affect the weapon's performance, but there will always be balance considerations when the developers are trying to craft an experience. So the "put stuff in and let the chips fall where they may" method doesn't really lend to that approach. I don't think I'd want M240's spawning in residential homes with any semblance of regularity, so, they'll always have to apply some level of balance to things. I argue that "balance" should mainly be articulated through rarity, and secondarily, through considering innate capability (i.e. what a given weapon archetype and/or attachment combination allow the player to do). Take the Mosin, having it be a long-range sniper rifle through using the LRS is a capability that it would otherwise not have. So, when you make something common, with that capability, it shifts the commonality of that combination (i.e. a Mosin with an LRS, and therefore a long-range sniper rifle) into areas in which the developers do not want it to be. Most games attempt to balance weapons through tweaking artificial "spread" values, damage values, and the like. While that certainly could be/should be/is being done with weapons in DayZ, I doubt it will become the norm once the weapons are where they need to be.

Neat! Glad to hear it. What's the status of the bolt-handle? Will it remain turned down, will it become the longer bolt handle as is on the sniper variant? Not a big deal for me, just curious if there's any changes you've got in mind. While I have zero issue with the Mosin being able to use the LRS from a "realistic" perspective, as it can be done in reality (with far less effort than most would have us believe [see clamp rail mounts, cinch rail mounts, and scout mounts]) and "realism" is never really a good reason in and of itself for doing anything, I think this is a good step from a pragmatic standpoint. The Mosin is currently the only sniper rifle in the game, yet it's ostensibly a relatively common rifle. And it can mount the (current) highest magnification optic in the game. If I may, I would suggest having a variety of "generic" scopes with specific purposes in an overall hierarchy. And, bear in mind, talking about scopes on sniper rifles/hunting rifles, not necessarily ACOGs and the like (even though there's significant overlap). 1. General Purpose Scope (i.e. the PU) - 3-4x (range of potential magnification, not variable) - Able to be used on common "civilian" weapons 2. Hunting Scope - 6-8x (range of potential magnification, not variable) - Able to be used on specific "hunting" rifles (like the B95, CR 527, etc.) 3. Sniper Rifle Scope - 8x-10x (range of potential magnification, not variable) - Able to be used on most railed weapons and sniper rifles 4. Variable Magnification Scope - 12-20x - Able to be used only on high-end sniper rifles This is just a rough hierarchy, and I can see several flaws in it as I think it over. But you get the gist of how "generic" scopes could be approached. However, I think there is something to be said for a divide between weapon-specific, and, generic attachments. So you could have some weapons only able to mount weapon-specific attachments (but have those attachments be more common overall) and have other weapons have the advantage of being able to mount "generic" attachments (i.e. 1913-compatible attachments) at the cost of increased weapon rarity, increased attachment rarity, or a requirement to have an additional attachment (i.e. a RIS system) to attach generic attachments. Yet another of my hierarchies... 1. Common Weapons - 0-1 types of weapon-specific optics (or attachments) available 2. Uncommon Weapons - 1-2 types of weapon-specific optics available 3. Rare weapons - 3-4 types of generic optics available, but require the additional looting of a RIS system to mount said attachments/optics 4. Hyper-rare and/or regulated weapons - 3-4 types of generic optics available, weapon innately capable of mounting generic attachments/optics without the need for a separately looted rail system That and we certainly could use a traditional mil-dot scope one of these days.