Katana67

Either one works! Although I do foresee the built-in scope being problematic. How else would you go about having the optic get broken/worn, if not by having it separate? But perhaps that could justify its rarity over other weapons (which require you to go out and find optics). Personally, I'd like to see bullpups be distinguished in terms of their handling (i.e. reload times and perhaps barrel collisions) rather than modularity (or lack thereof).

Not strictly a "rifle" (even though the term is insanely broad) but, this gentleman needs to make an appearance in some form or another... This guy too... And if you're willing to support the AN-94 (a disfavored, rare-as-piss, pulley-driven [really, look at the internals], almost entirely un-used, weapon which solves no problems, oddball of a weapon) then you should be in full support of something as humble as an AR-10, M240/FN MAG, AR-15, etc. I'm willing to bet a reasonable amount of internet dollars that more FN SCARs have been shipped internationally [much less overall production] than there are AN-94s left on this earth. Wouldn't mind the MSBS Radon making an appearance (i.e. potential Polish service rifle and resident ACR impersonator) Also quite sure we may see this puppy in the distant future (in Rocket's very own Kiwi Love expansion pack)

There are solutions to mitigating the conflict between persistence and respawning characters. None of which are perfect, but many of which are worth a try.

Yeah, it was Torchia. Yeah, to be frank, I'm not entirely sure the SVD warrants being regulated. Or at least, I think it should be on the low-end of the regulated scale. The only reason that I personally (especially given the fact that the only optic it has available currently is a 4x, and the fact that it has a very humble 10-round magazine) would want it to be regulated, is if its main selling point was that it can use relatively common 7.62x54R. That and I think there's still a lot of use in the respawning loot system for many items, such as the SVD. Just making these things rarer, but still respawning, would work for the majority of items. I'd imagine that within the loot management system, they'll be able to tweak the overall numbers of individual weapons/items allowed on the hive at any given time. So you could theoretically have something like 100 SVDs available on the hive at any given time, and only 20 Mk 11s. This is another assumption that people make with regard to the loot management system. People think that if something's controlled/limited/regulated, it will automatically become hyper-rare. They could have the limit be 1000 or 10 PKMs on the hive. And they can vary the overall availability of different individual items/weapons. It's less about the fact that it's regulated/limited, and more about what numbers they assign to each weapon. There's also a point in both systems (i.e. hive-managed and respawning loot) whereby you have the same exact likelihood of encountering an item. Doesn't matter if the respawn rate is set at 5% or you've got a 5% chance of coming across a regulated weapon at any given time. You've still got a 5% chance of encountering said weapon. Sorry for the overly-edited post, but I keep getting ideas. Hopefully, they'll approach loot in a multi-faceted way. So that you've got so-called "regular" loot respawning at civilian locations, some sort of "mid-range" loot respawning at high-value (but fixed) locations like barracks, tents, and police stations... then the dynamically respawning loot at helicopter crashes, and finally the regulated loot which doesn't respawn (which could spawn anywhere they wish as it doesn't have to be location-specific). In bullet-form 1. Low-end loot - Respawns - Spawns at fixed residential buildings - Hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. (weapons which are viable, but mainly because they're relatively easy to supply) 2. Mid-range loot (this category could also be divided into two, with one set of "police" gear spawning at the more numerous police stations and a set of "military" gear spawning at the more sparse military locations) - Respawns - Spawns at fixed high-value buildings like police stations/barracks/jails - Submachine guns, pistols, semi-automatic shotguns, certain assault rifles, etc. 3. High-end loot - Respawns - Spawns at dynamic helicopter crashes - Certain other assault rifles, certain battle rifles/DMRs, certain bolt-action sniper rifles, etc. 4. Hyper-rare loot - Regulated - Spawns at wherever deemed appropriate (could be fixed high-value buildings, could be dynamic events like helicopter crashes, or both) - GPMGs/LMGs, most other bolt-action sniper rifles, most other battle rifles/DMRs, most unique/party-piece loot, advantageous gear (NVGs, high-magnification optics, etc.)

I don't think so, I've often seen this floated as a solution to server-hopping as we know it today. It really isn't. For one, they've said that the "loot management system" will manage specific high-end loot. Not necessarily every single piece of loot in the game. So, for the rest of the respawning loot... server hopping will still be as viable as it is today as a method of gearing (unless the bar is set insanely low as to what loot should be regulated). So long as there are fixed advantageous loot spawns (i.e. barracks, jails, military tents, etc.) server hopping will be advantageous if left unmitigated in and of itself. That and there's more to server hopping than just easier access to loot. Being able to get loot from one server, and shuffle it off to a low-population and/or empty server on the same hive is insanely detrimental to the entire concept of the "loot management system" encouraging cross-server mobility for the sake of community building. To say nothing of the imbalance inherent in being able to hoard potentially high-end loot on an empty server, away from the significantly increased risk of high population servers. Finally, there's also more to server hopping than just loot. So no matter what you do to the loot system itself (i.e. make it respawning, make it fixed on the hive, etc.) unmitigated server hopping will always contribute to unfair "ghosting" to gain a tactical advantage on an opponent by swapping servers, moving to a better position, then swapping back. Server hopping, like duping, is one of the few issues in DayZ which requires a direct solution. Rather than an ambient and subtle one (i.e. player spawns).

There are weapon suggestion threads out there. But for funsies! Mk 17 Some kinda' FAL... Some kinda' G3... Some kinda' AR-10...

I'd never tell you to alter your opinion. But the reasoning you use to justify it, isn't sound. There are reasons why some things should be rare, or not included. But "realism" doesn't really support that. Again, what I've always said and will continue to say... you're muddling two distinct issues. Rarity... And... The mere presence of a weapon... Simply because something's rare in the real world doesn't mean it should be categorically written off in DayZ. Likewise, there's a difference between an M107 (i.e. a Bugatti Veyron in your analogy) and an AR-15/10 or AK-74 (i.e. the equivalent of a BMW 3-series in this analogy). Which is why I've always said that people make the bar insanely low as to what constitutes something that's hyper-rare.

I still dislike the term "end game" in how it's used. Both as a fixed point toward which all players are supposed to strive, and, as a pick-your-own end game type of deal (even though I much prefer the latter than the former, but both are still flawed). I'd like to see the "end game" of DayZ become a process, rather than a fixed point at which one can say "Yep, I've made it, I have X, therefore I've conquered the game." Nothing should ever be taken for granted, which is why I want things to decay gradually (just an example). So that a constant turnover and demand is created for things, so even when you reach that point where you're at a supposed "end game" you're both at risk of losing said "end game" to players/decay/zombies/whatever and you have to constantly maintain whatever it is that you consider to be an "end game" (i.e. vehicle part decay, gasoline, ammunition for your weapon, cleaning kits, batteries, etc.)

For me, at least personally (to say nothing of the practicality of it), 90% of the utility in having a base (be it a humble tent, a tent with a car beside it, or a massive compound) is in being able to hide it. And not just visibly, either. In being able to place it in an area that is less-likely to be traveled in the first place. Physically limiting the area in which I can place a structure (i.e. through the addition of cliffs and such) increases the chances that my stuff will be encountered. Pure and simple. If I can't hide my shit, then I don't really see a point in having it around in the first place. Because in a game like DayZ, people can walk up on your base while you're logged off and ruin everything (which is a fair risk). But any and all advantage that I can exploit to make my base less-likely to be encountered in the first place, I will take any day over locks, fences, boobytraps, etc. Less wilderness = fewer areas which are able to be used for hiding things, no matter how many neat little rock outcroppings there are... my base/tent/whatever is still more likely to be found simply because there's less surface area in which I can hide it. Granted, in the mod, the old sparse woods sure didn't help. But shrinking the wilderness sort of eliminated any gains that would've otherwise been made by making the forest varied. And, lest we forget, much of what used to be densely wooded wilderness is now fields and/or cities (see the east-west axis in the north upon which they're adding the new cities). Making the wilderness landscapes more varied will get us close to where we were in the mod. But I still think that actually expanding the wilderness itself, in terms of surface area, is absolutely necessary if persistent storage/construction is to have any real use.

I mean, it's a double-edged sword. It seems larger, because there's more nooks and crannies. But there's less area for those nooks and crannies to exist. That and the more rock formations and the like you add, the smaller and more path-y the wilderness becomes. Hence why Skyrim never really felt as big (and I'd argue it just flat out isn't in terms of usable area) as Cyrodiil from Oblivion to me. But on paper, the map was larger in Skyrim.

Yeah, they've done a marvelous job up north in making the forests varied. It's awesome. My only qualms are that - they didn't/couldn't expand the wilderness overall (and it's become marginalized as a result), and, they haven't applied the same treatment (in terms of beautifying the forests) to the last untouched wilderness left on the map, the western border forest between Lopatino and Zelenogorsk.

Two big things have to happen for vehicles to be an improvement from the mod in my opinion... 1. Parts can't be generic. No more generic "tires" that fit on everything from a rickety bicycle to a Ural. No more generic "engine parts" that can be applied to everything from a motorcycle to a UH-60. 2. They must be bereft of most parts upon spawning. No more M240s with a few respawning belts on helicopters by default. These items, in addition to basic items like engines, tires, and the like, must be found in the world. There are also other aspects which are important, like having gasoline be a finite resource in DayZ (or dynamically allotted, which might be a good way of integrating the "loot management system"). That and decent camouflage options for vehicles are a must, real... customizable... player-created camouflage options. Ones that can be tailored to a specific location, as to not make one's truck stick out like a sore thumb. They also need to revamp how damage is done to vehicles. The "insta-charcoal" effect of a vehicle's demise needs to be a seldom occurance. The last time I checked, cars didn't always burst into flames when they are disabled. Similarly, the performance of vehicles needs to be varied so that off-road vehicles have an advantage (gasp) off-road. This was sort of the case in the mod, but it was purely based upon speed rather than handling. Personally, I'd like to see some advantage to using a road (both on foot and in vehicles). Be it lessened tire wear (or, if you're on foot, slower footwear decay), or markedly increased speed, whatever. Roads should be choke points, and using them should be both advantageous and a vulnerability. There's no real incentive to use roads in DayZ, and a lot of cool player interactions (i.e. setting up roadblocks and checkpoints) are short-changed by this. That and I'd like to see vehicle repair be less of an "action" and more of an "activity." I don't really like the approach of "click X to repair tire." You should have to find a freakin' jack, pump that bitch up, take off the deflated tire, mount the new one, torque down the lugs, and set the vehicle back down again. It shouldn't just be a "clickable" action that you press one button, and your avatar just goes about fixing the vehicle automatically.

How would that be cool? I agree, the encouragement of server hopping just to get vehicle parts is silly. But it's nothing inherent to the loot management system itself, it's just their approach in applying it. They can have the loot management system be applied at a micro level (i.e. the server) or at a macro level (i.e. the hive). Those are different approaches with the same concept (i.e. regulated loot). Now, if we were playing all together on one server (or if a server = a hive) then it would be different. Like a traditional MMO, which has a large amount of players playing on a single server-hive hybrid. Whereas now, the hives are divvied up between a bunch of different servers (owing to the traditional FPS-style server structure).

Not to mention Multicam-patterned gear is popular now with non-US militaries (Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, etc.)

Psh, why would I only rely on Ukraine when there are so many other wonderful examples! Not that I need examples to demonstrate the fallacies put forth by the term "tacticool," an ignorance of the fact that we're dealing with a fictional country, and the subsequent demonization of innate objects for no apparent reason. But hey, just for fun! Ukraine http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/203210-mp5k-flashlight/?p=2043187 http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/181929-what-clothing-setweapons-would-you-add-if-you-could/?p=2085076 http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/181929-what-clothing-setweapons-would-you-add-if-you-could/?p=2044370 http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/181929-what-clothing-setweapons-would-you-add-if-you-could/?p=2001799 http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/203210-mp5k-flashlight/?p=2043239 http://www.guns.ua/assets/images/news/awqbb01oviu-1024x684.jpg http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/tavor_1-tfb.jpeg Georgia http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8UnpOAs6sWo/UnMFlfKO7aI/AAAAAAAAAjY/OW3wkI5O4ig/s1600/GSF3.JPG http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/484641_576197579079655_498772703_n.jpg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/18/1363614654808/cbab02d7-a666-4142-a233-ea27313f4ea9-620x372.jpeg https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5487/14540080632_c026c0aac8_o.jpg http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?157891-Georgian-Army-Navy-and-Air-Force/page310 Czech Republic http://www.luvo.cz/ http://www.proarms-armory.com/en/parmk3/ https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-f332NrFTbqI/T_7icy6RcdI/AAAAAAAAARA/oViThAVN950/w800-h800/IMG_0063.JPG http://www.601skss.cz/archiv/foto-archiv/falcon001.jpg http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/sports-fitness/guns-and-recreational-sports-shooting-in-the-czech-republic/ http://prahaexpat.blogspot.com/2009/10/czech-gun-shop.html Russia http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/181929-what-clothing-setweapons-would-you-add-if-you-could/?p=2085385 http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/208267-new-cdf-gear-confirmed/#entry2086625 http://forum.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/006667/6667603.jpg Slovakia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Slovak_Army_5th_Special_Forces_Regiment_in_Afghanistan3.jpg Little bit of everything... http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/181929-what-clothing-setweapons-would-you-add-if-you-could/?p=2016874 And hey that was just with five minutes of looking up my own image threads and a quick cursory Google search! Wouldn't want me delving more into the above countries... and the ones I left out (Germany, Poland, Romania, the entire Balkans, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc.) A Mosin is "needless" for DayZ. It doesn't need a Mosin to function as a game, now does it? As I said, the "it doesn't need it" argument is one of the ultimate concessions you can make. To say nothing of its relevance, or lack thereof.

Okay, well you just sort of confirmed what I said originally. Adding a bayonet purely for show (rather than for functionality) is "tacticool" definition of. If it adds functionality, then it isn't "tacticool." And, again, in confirming what I said originally... a bayonet doesn't make your weapon any worse, but like you said "it looks silly" because a bayonet is attached (even if it's used for practical reasons, i.e. hand-to-hand combat). In which lies the contradiction. I mean, we could have this discussion all day. But acting like weapon attachments are "tacticool" and therefore bad, is just baseless and without logic. I just don't see anything wrong, bad, or otherwise questionable about the simple innate, neutral, fact that weapons can mount attachments. For example, look at this... This is something that would probably be considered "tacticool" under the auspices that it's commonly used. Yet, everything on this weapon is purpose-built and tailored by the operator to make the weapon more practical. The keymod system has no rails where there need not be any. The front irons are combined with a flashlight to be on-bore. The EOTech has a riser as to clear the irons. The magazine has a lip as to aid in grip while reloading. Has a very aggressive muzzle brake to mitigate recoil. So is it "practicool" or "tacticool" because there's a difference, one is focused on practicality/functionality. The other is focused on looks. It can't be both. Saying that something doesn't "need" to be X is also one of the few ultimate concessions you can make to your argument. You're essentially saying that DayZ doesn't need X only because you don't like it. DayZ doesn't really need any firearms, but do we have them? You bet.

Ask me again when the game's complete. This is one of the true illusions (that I myself fall prey to a lot) of DayZ. Because it's been out so long (i.e. the mod since April of 2012) we think we know what DayZ is/should be/will be. It's deceptive, because we play it all of the time. We get into very rigid schools of thought about what it should be, based upon something that's incomplete. But we don't know what DayZ is, because we've never had a complete anything to judge it by. Even the two-year-old mod is still an alpha, with many flaws in execution... technical shortcomings... exploits... and bugs. Which is why it frustrates me to no end when people say "Zombies weren't a threat in the mod, player interaction is what DayZ is all about, so therefore... zombies will always suck." Okay, cool. The zombies were, and are, broken. So how do you know what significance they're supposed to have on the experience? Answer, we don't.

Head: Green MICH Helmet w/ Green Bandana Eyewear: Designer Sunglasses (feh, there aren't really any good sunglasses yet) Jacket: Flat Green Gorka-E Jacket Vest: Green UK Vest (because the effing High Capacity Vest looks odd) Pants: Flat Green Gorka-E Pants Boots: Brown Combat/Jungle Boots Hands: Brown Gloves (we could probably use more gloves too) Backpack: Hunting Pack

Again, in terms of weapons... if a super rare... but not-any-better-than-an-SKS weapon spawns at a helicopter crash, you won't see me going out of my way just to get it. Just like you don't see me tracking down helicopter crashes to find an M4A1 now, because my AK-101 is just as good and can be found at fixed locations. Sure, you can make the argument that I may happen upon a weapon by chance because I'm trying to get other items which spawn at the same location. But DayZ is all about destinations (both literally and figuratively). Player mobility is created by demand, and a demand for better gear is a part of that. And moreover, even if I do get a rare weapon.. in order for its use to be truly rare it also has to have rare magazines, ammunition, attachments, etc.Otherwise, it'll be one of three things - not really that rare, not any better than common weapons, and/or prohibitively difficult to arm/rearm by comparison to the aforementioned common weapons. You're right, most of them (i.e. assault rifles, like the M4A1) should probably be distinguished more so by their modularity vice their capability (because they're all roughly the same, and don't confer that much of an advantage on the player anyhow). But with things like long-range sniper rifles, DMRs, LMGs/GPMGs and the like sort of demand being made rare because of the advantages they confer upon the player. That and many of them (with the exception of the dedicated sniper rifles) don't really have distinct "civilian" counterparts which are more common in the first place. The largest overlap is with the dedicated sniper rifles. I will say this though, and it's something that I've always believed. Rarity in DayZ is multivalent. It can be seen through a variety of lenses. Modularity, innate capability, ease/difficulty of supply, "plausibility/likelihood" in the environment, are all worthwhile considerations in rarity. But we can't only abide by one tenet to deem what should be rare. I personally focus more so on the innate capability aspect (i.e. what they actually allow the player to do, and what advantages they confer) as my main guide. Because it's actually relevant to how the game is played. But no one factor should dictate what weapons should be rare. Which is why I've constantly tried to have a discussion about specific types of weapons, rather than broad "NATO/Warsaw Pact" discussions which are overly simplistic in my opinion. That and there are more than a few specific reasons to make a given weapon rare. Like, for example, the SVD could be made rare solely because it uses relatively common 7.62x54R ammunition. Or, in contrast to that, a Mk 11 could be made rare solely because it's more modular. Or a PKM could be made rarer than an M249 solely because it fires a more potent cartridge. Or a PKM could be made more common than an M249 because it can be considered to be more ubiquitous in Eastern Europe. In short, there are a lot of ways of looking at rarity.

This is where I disagree. I'm not going to haul my ass all over the map looking for a crash site (especially if these weapons are regulated via the server as well) just to find something that has a more common equivalent. Hence why the FAL was nigh unseen in DayZ mod. And why the M14 AIM was far more popular. It's not the fact that it spawned at a crash site that made it uncommon to come across, it was the fact that it wasn't any better than the slew of M14 variants out there with readily-available ammunition. In my opinion, weapons which are rarer... have to be better. Otherwise, there's no real tangible use in making them rare.

Dedicated implies that it's purpose is specifically tailored for a use. .308 is general-purpose. Hence why it's used in everything from battle rifles, to GPMGs, to sniper rifles. Or they could just have .300 WM or .338 LM and have the same affect. Speaking about dedicated sniper rifle rounds in the context of DayZ, not real life.

I agree. Which is why I think dedicated sniper rifles should be chambered in a specific round (like .300 WM or .338 LM). Aside from modularity (which isn't even accurate, the developers can make the Mosin as modular as they wish) the M24/700/M40 wouldn't really be much different from a Mosin. Removing the LRS from the Mosin would be a good start, if they were to keep it in .308. But I'd rather they add a dedicated sniper rifle round, so that sniper rifles can actually be distinct from their more common and general-purpose counterparts (like the Mosin).

Maybe that's what I'm recalling. I feel that it may have been the case at one time or another in the mod's development (way back in 2012). Or something from one of the mods of the mod. Thanks for clarifying.

No, this is DayZ. Where they've separated ammunition from magazines and suppressors from weapons, and can change the values of a suppressor with a .cfg file. They can make suppressors work however they wish. They (the developers) create the game. They've even said that they're not going to include subsonic ammunition, or don't plan on doing so. Yet suppressors are, or were, in. And they're now removed until functionality can be added, so, it's not like they're useless without subsonic ammunition either way. EDIT - And no, if I recall correctly, even when using a mag of non-SD ammunition in ARMA/DayZmod, it sounded suppressed either way. It aggro'd zombies like nobody's business, but on my end, all mags (SD and non-SD) being run through a suppressed weapon sounded suppressed.

I agree, it's absolutely something you can suck at. I suck at drawing, but I can still draw a stick figure. Point being, there's a threshold between merely being able to do something... and doing something well. I can't comment on my own, or anyone else's (including our fictional avatars in DayZ) prowess with an LMG. I can only comment on the fact that it can be done. And until a "skill" system is implemented (which I doubt it ever will) we can only deal with what can be done, not whether or not our avatars are likely to be adept at doing one thing or another (hence why, ostensibly, we'll be able to fly helicopters in-game without our characters/avatars having training). We've got an M4A1 with a seamless 60 round magazine, and an AKM with a seamless 75 round magazine. We've pretty much already got the fundamentals of an LMG in-game, and it's not really doing any harm. These things being common, in my opinion, sure is a bad idea. But their just being in the game, isn't. Now, if we were to implement something like a PKM (which could potentially be heavier, fire a more powerful round, have rare belt-links, have rare boxes, have rare ammunition, and have prohibitive firing characteristics when not supported) then the picture changes... but only slightly.