Katana67

Which is the issue. Attachments arbitrarily decreasing the already arbitrary dispersion values, something which Rocket has recognized as a potential flaw. The M4A1 should, in my opinion, just perform as it does with MP furniture... just, normally. Nothing, short of removing the handguard and stock altogether (which makes it harder to shoulder and nearly impossible to hold without burning one's hands) should increase or decrease downrange dispersion values. I've never thought the M4A1 was wholly inaccurate, at least not to the point where it becomes prohibitive. My issues have always been with the appropriation of arbitrary "spread" values which are used as substitutes for player skill or lackthereof. Having a CTR stock or MOE handguard doesn't make your weapon more accurate downrange. I don't see any reason why it should. Now, if they want to have these things affect weapon handling on the shooting end, that's fine. That's what I'd like to see. Things like recoil management, time-to-target, mobility, reload speeds, modularity, are all areas in which attachments can benefit how the weapon handles.

Now who's making generalizations? I have frequently, frequently advocated for realistic suggestions inasmuch as they benefit gameplay. My point is that you cannot use the fact that the developers are "streamlining" the number of calibers as an argument, without being a hypocrite. You can only decry it based on the fact that it's unrealistic, not because it's simpler and/or catering to so-called "casuals." There's nothing fantastical about anything that's been implemented, aside from the zombies of course.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that you hold two opinions that conflict with one another on a fundamental level. Streamlining does not imply something artificial or unrealistic in any circle. It implies something that's simplified as to be made more effective in and of itself, because that's what the word means and is how it's used. This is a case in which supposed "realism" provides for a streamlined system, vice a more rewarding and complex one.

No, it doesn't change the fundamental core of your argument. Which is what I'm saying, sure, I get that you want magazines spawning with specific weapons. I get that. But it doesn't change what you're saying (i.e. that magazines should spawn with weapons), and it doesn't change what that means (i.e. a simplification of the gearing process). Whether it's for a Sporter or an M4A1, it simplifies the very process just to make it easier. Whereas you can just make it easier, whilst preserving the process. If you want a "couple of underdogs to be more viable," then why is spawning magazines alongside them the solution? Wouldn't a better solution be to make the magazines for these weapons spawn more frequently? Which is what I've been saying all along. Spawning magazines alongside weapons solves a problem with a hammer. Spawning magazines at a higher rate, still preserves the act of having to find a magazine separately... whilst making finding magazines for the weapons you suggest much easier. I mean, you can keep arguing about the fact that I'm arguing with you. But I'm trying to let you know that there are two issues in which your advocacy against "streamlining" conflicts.

Keep an eye out over the next week or two. I haven't hopped on experimental since the most recent patch, but I haven't heard of any issues making the game unplayable. They may want to tweak the loot respawn and persistent items before pushing. But, we'll see.

That's another thing, riding a bicycle needs to tire you out this time around. A significant imbalance in the bicycles in the mod, was that they were essentially just fuel-less motorcycles. Sure your avatar's legs wobbled about as if he/she was pedaling, but you're not expending any energy no matter how hard you're pedaling or how fast you're going. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you don't lose any additional hunger/thirst (by comparison to motorized vehicles) whilst on a bike in the mod. That and you shouldn't just be able to hop off the bike and have a 100% steady sight picture.

I'm omitting it, because it doesn't change your argument. You're asserting that magazines should spawn alongside weapons. It doesn't matter if they're weak/strong/rare/common. The fact that you're advocating for weapons spawning at the same time as weapons is the issue here. It is streamlining the experience (I could care less if it is "realistic" or you think it's "realistic" or not, that doesn't matter either), I mean, you don't have to go find a magazine if it just spawns next to a weapon. That's how it conflicts. On one hand, you decry the developers for "streamlining" the game when it comes to weapon calibers. But at the same time, you support streamlining the very process of getting a weapon functional. I said it's "acceptable" to me, not that I support the notion of spawning magazines alongside their respective weapons. That is the compromise I'm willing to make to my own position. Doesn't mean I support it indefinitely.

I actually support the removal of the bipod and LRS for the Mosin. That type of capability (i.e. supported and long-range fire) belongs with a weapon that is rare. And I honestly don't ever foresee the Mosin being rare, so I'm fine with it just being a kind of poor-man's sniper rifle which can only use the PU and compensator. Curious enough, one of the most common weapons now (the Mosin) is the only one capable of mounting the highest magnification optic in the game. That is why I think it needs to be removed from the Mosin once they've got a dedicated, rare, sniper rifle. And it would certainly help if that sniper rifle were 1913 compatible as standard, so that the "realism" folks would also be satisfied. But, to me, that's way down on the list of priority.

If Myshkino is not the only answer you have, then this thread is useless. /tease But naw, Myshkino will be my home as it always is. Hopefully I'll be able to finally board up that god damn barn north of it and live the rest of my life in peace.

No, I never said your position is generally oriented toward streamlining. I'm saying your position on ammunition variety and your position on this subject (two specific issues), totally conflict. In one instance you're advocating for multiplicity in calibers for the sake of realism, while simultaneously decrying the developers for endorsing "casual" streamlining. And at the same time, you're also advocating for outright streamlining the gearing process. I mean, just mathematically, you have to do less to get your weapon going with this suggestion. That is streamlining, definition of.

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/185396-save-the-trees-man-marginalized-wilderness/ There are fewer isolated wilderness areas than in the mod.

Seeing as the PU scope requires every bit as much gunsmithing to mount as an LRS would, this is a complete non-issue. If you're in support of the PU scope on the Mosin, of course. Not to mention that there are mounts which do not require gunsmithing to attach to the Mosin (see scout-type mounts, many of which do not require long-relief scopes if the bolt handle is bent [which it is on the Mosin in DayZ]). http://www.centerfiresystems.com/MNTMOI03.aspx The B95 does not come standard with a 1913 mount. The only 1913 rail that I could find for the B95, was made by one independent manufacturer, and costs upwards of $600 USD. Nor does the Sporter. Nor does the CZ 527. These things have to be bought separately, often from independent manufacturers and installed. Debating which installation is "easier" is irrelevant. Either way, there's no process for "simulating" the gunsmithing required to attach the PU scope in DayZ. There's no process wherein you can unscrew the scope rings from the LRS and put it in a different scope mount. It just happens, because this is a game and it's an "attachment system" vice reality, where objects have to be installed.

Gibonez, again, we've been over this. The B95 requires a dedicated scope mount just the same. It is not 1913 compatible, which is what would be required for it to mount the LRS. The Sporter is also not equipped with a 1913 rail in DayZ, thus implying that it requires a separate mount. It cannot mount the LRS as is. Same applies with the CZ 527. The only rifle that should be able to mount the LRS, as rendered in DayZ, is the M4A1.

If I hire sixty people to screw in a lightbulb, it isn't going to get done any faster than if I just hire one person. Likewise, if I pay that one person $60,000 dollars... or pay 60 people $1000 dollars, said lightbulb isn't going to get screwed in any faster. To say nothing of doing things well (which is what's really important, and has always been a stated emphasis of the devleopers vice a "now, now, now" approach). Again, there's a finite limit to what people can do. No matter how much you pay them.

This. This is true. They did say "expanding" the map at one point, but IIRC, it was meant to say that they're expanding the northern cities. Not expanding the map as a whole, which is where some confusion arose I believe.

They discarded it because it never looked/felt right, IIRC. As to the subject of this post, they've never ruled it out categorically. But simply because there's roads leading to nowhere, doesn't mean that they intend on expanding the map. The roads have to end somewhere, the limits of the map seem an apt place. I do recall something (though it may be out of context, owing to my lack of knowledge in technical aspects) about how expanding the size of the map wasn't feasible, because all of the objects on the map are linked to one another. So if you proverbially "stretch" the map to be larger, everything will get distorted out of place. I could be way off, but I recall them saying something to that effect. Granted, so long as there's a debug plain, I don't see any issue with just filling that empty space in with detailed landscapes. But I'm sure it's much more complicated than that. I agree, though, that the map needs more wilderness and the only way to do that is via expanding the map. It would be relatively modest as well, a 3x15km expansion on the western edge of the map would work wonders.

I can't speak for the M4, haven't found one, or had a desire for one. But yes, the new increased sway has been applied to the AKM. No idea about how the bipod affects it.

No, sway was just increased. See this, taken six months ago, clear sway present. It is miniscule, but it's always been there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fduXbL5LRpo

What about the purpose-built compensator that only fits on the Mosin? Or the PU scope? Or the bayonet?

There's a finite limit to the amount of progress that can be made at any given time. It's like expecting the US government to already have interstellar travel, simply because they have trillions. Money doesn't buy progress. And it certainly doesn't by quicker progress. $50 million ain't making Star Citizen come any quicker.

Not even going to dignify that with a response. Well, yeah, I am. Try piling a bunch of money on top of a Ferrari, does it make it go any faster? Or, pay the driver that money and tell him to go faster than 500 mph. See if that's possible too.

I have no idea, I don't use the bipod because it looks silly. Holding out for a foregrip.

Maybe they didn't want the Mosin to have that capability? So they purposefully took it out? Maybe it's bugged, and they haven't got around to fixing it? I mean, yeah, it isn't a conspiracy.

I didn't say anything about sway. And you can believe that, doesn't mean it's backed up by anything other than your own supposition. They didn't add sway recently, sway has been in the game since it released. They've changed the severity and the nature of it, but it's always been a factor. If they "didnt want to code the bipod to remove sway" then why would they leave it in for the AKM and M4A1?

Because the bicycles aren't done?