Katana67

First of all, yeah, it doesn't work and I'm marginally sure it's working as intended. Which is nice, but not because it's somehow "realistic." Universal bipods are a thing, they don't require any rails or machining. It's just a clamp. But, this is a good thing. Because it means that they can move the Mosin away from the "testing" phase wherein it had to be attachment-compatible. Hopefully, the LRS is next in line to be axed for the Mosin whenever a suitable long-range sniper rifle is added. The PU scope and compensator are all it really needs, given what it is and how common it is likely to end up being.

http://www.dayztv.com/

SMERSH! Quite good. Not entirely sure how that jangly fanny pack is going to jive with backpacks, but /thumbsup.

Link, please? /giggle

Even for it to be "realistic," it's also highly situational. I've seen weapons stored bone-stock in both civilian and military armories. I've seen weapons stored kitted in both civilian and military armories. I've seen people store their magazines separately from their weapons. What I haven't seen, is how people would behave in a zombie apocalypse. Who's to say that someone lost all their magazines, or could only take a weapon? I mean, it's easy to say "X is realistic" but in order for it to be "realistic" that item has to have a reason for being there, in the form that it's in. Realism just "because it's realistic" isn't a valid reason for me to advocate for something, and has been rejected categorically by the developers as a method of advocacy. Now, the argument can be made that certain "realistic" inclusions benefit gameplay. But this isn't one of them. This is an area in which the two conflict. It happens less often than you think, as many "realistic" suggestions can be argued to benefit gameplay. But, for one, people seldom do that in the first place. They just say "it's realistic, devs, do it," and that's pretty much all that happens. And second, they don't even realize that by approaching something from a pragmatic view, you're inevitably making said "realistic" suggestion worthwhile in terms of gameplay. And the term "grind" implies that it's hard, tedious, and monotonous. Simply because I want these items spawning separately, doesn't mean that the process is therefore difficult or monotonous. So, no, it doesn't have to be a "grind."

I can't wait for the subsequent flood of requests for sidechat, purely so people can express their entitlement to rides in the form of blue spam grafted to my eyeballs. "Why won't anyone give me a ride to NWAF?"

I mean, yes, I do. Because that is a consequence of making more things (i.e. magazines and attachments) required to utilize a weapon, spawn at the same time in the same place. I'm not twisting your words, I'm analyzing the consequences of what you're proposing. How would having magazines and attachments spawning with weapons, make it less likely that you would find a "kitted out AKM two hours into the game"? It wouldn't, because you'd just... stumble... across a kitted AKM with a mag. Vice having to work for that capability in gradually piecing together a weapon. Again, make the magazine rarity proportional to that of the weapon. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that magazines aren't spawning alongside their weapons. It has everything to do with two simple issues - that "civilian" magazines spawn in "military" locales, and, that the magazine rarity and weapon rarity do not correspond to one another by virtue of the loot not having been balanced. You don't need to have magazines spawning next to weapons to have "low-tier" weapons be useful. You can just alter the parameters of rarity respective to the capabilities of a given weapon. Your grievance is that some weapons go un-utilized simply because their magazines are hard to find. So, make their magazines not that hard to find. It doesn't have to be "make them spawn together." They can just be more common, and spawning in areas which also can spawn their corresponding weapons.

And the fact that there are AR-15 manufacturers in Eastern Europe/post-Soviet countries (i.e. Luvo Prague [Czech Republic], Proarms [Czech Republic], Zbroyar [ukraine], Tara [Montenegro], Mayak [ukraine], OOO Skat [Russia], Heckler and Koch [Germany, formerly East/West Germany], Oberland Arms [Germany, formerly East/West Germany], TAM [Georgia}, etc.) And never mind that AR-15s are used by many Eastern European/post-Soviet countries. And we live in a globalized economy, with an intricate legitimate and illegitimate arms market (last I checked, they never made AR-15s in Northern Ireland and Palestine, so the PIRA and Hamas must not have ever had them, right?). But yeah, way down at the bottom is the fact that Chernarus played host to a NATO/UN/Western intervention in the fiction.

Nope, hence why I'd be alright with it being a very, very, seldom occurrence (hence why I voted for the 10% option). And it's not about either, in my opinion. It's about adding variety and depth to gameplay, which wouldn't be the case if you have to do less to get the same result (i.e. a functioning weapon). Looking at it from a purely "realistic" or "various" angle doesn't cut it, you have to consider how this would affect how one gears. And it would make the process easier, and therefore more inconsequential, so nobody really has to work for their kitted-out, mag-spawned, M4A1 that they then turn toward the coast with extreme prejudice.

As far as I know, helicopter crashes (i.e. the only place where the humble, mid-range, intermediate, assault rifle... the M4A1... spawns) are quite buggy. Likewise, 5.56x45 also only spawns at these locations (could be wrong, I've heard of it spawning at police stations to perhaps accommodate the new AK-101). So for the moment, yes, you may be SOL.

Your argument basically resides on aestheticism and "realism," not anything pragmatic in terms of how to make gameplay better/worse. I already explained why it's a bad idea in my eyes, in the post you quoted. It simplifies gameplay, in that you have to do less to get your weapon functioning properly. Which is a bad idea in my opinion. Weapons being fully functional when you find them in the mod, was a massive... massive... flaw (highlighted by a lot of people, including the developers, hence why they've split magazines/ammunition/weapons). It simplifies the experience when you have everything spawning together at once. Where did I say it should take tedious hours to get your weapon up and running? No, I've never said this. I've said that, in having to find three different items (rather than just having them handed to you all at once with any semblance of frequency) you're both decreasing the likelihood that a given player will have a fully-functional weapon at any given time, and, you're encouraging the journeys (and player mobility) which make this game great. Again, you seem to be blurring two distinct issues, which you haven't fully realized are distinct. Which is evidenced in your closing statement. 1. The fact that "civilian" magazine spawns are misallocated to "military" buildings 2. That magazines should be spawning alongside, in the same place, at the same time, as their weapon counterparts These are two different issues. If one merely makes "civilian" magazines spawn at "civilian" buildings, then your grievance (about tedium in having to "travel miles for a chance at a military base for a rifle that only spawns in residential areas") doesn't exist. Because you simply don't have to do that. "Civilian" weapons would spawn in the same types of buildings as "civilian" magazines.

Ugh. Really?

Lest we forget, that there are cities all over the place in Chernarus (Elektrozavodsk, Chernogorsk, Svetlojarsk, Berezino, etc.). Likewise, these aren't even the biggest cities in the country of Chernarus (see Novigrad). And we certainly can't forget the medium-sized towns which I'm sure would be no stranger to a 20 year old vehicle. I see no reason why cars made in the last 20 years (1994-2014) shouldn't be included in DayZ.

We don't know which cars will be added. They can add any cars they wish to add, and given that DayZ clearly takes place post-2009, I don't doubt that we'll be seeing some newer vehicles. In DayZ mod, there was a mix of different cars. Like there was an early-2000's Toyota Hilux/Tacoma. The point is that, regardless of the make/year of the car, the audible exhaust note broadcasted the same distance. So one could hear it just as well.

1. For one, most of the forests have changed markedly from the mod. With the exception of the western border, the forests have all changed and been made more variable. They're no longer all flat colonnades with no underbrush. Granted, I agree, I'd love to see some more variant forests. But I don't think player speed should be limited in forests. However, I do think there should be a chance for some audible noise to be made when you're sprinting through the forest (branches cracking, birds fluttering away, etc.) 2. I disagree. I live in a rural area. Modern cars just aren't that audible, and haven't been for a while. They're incredibly quiet un-modified. I mean, short of having everyone putting around in an old Alfa Romeo, I don't feel that cars should be overly loud. Likewise, I don't think they warrant being loud anyhow. They're already incredibly visible and don't need any additional signatures to be reasonably detected. The way DayZ renders sound is also a problem, in that it appears to be a stepped radius rather than an actual gradual amplification. 3. I agree that vehicles were too easy to spot from helicopters. But they were also too easy to spot from the ground. I mean, you physically cannot hide a bright white Toyota Hilux against the background of fluffy green trees. It sticks out like a sore thumb lit on fire. In my opinion, helicopters themselves don't need a nerf (other than being made consequential to operate/repair/utilize effectively), but the act of hiding something needs to be made better.

Whatever physics they implement, I'd just want it to be simple. I don't really need anything fancy. Just something that allows players to actually jack the vehicles up, something that allows vehicles to stay put when you get out of them, and something that doesn't have the vehicles feeling like they're just floating over a road. However, I do think that they need to tweak several things about vehicles. 1. What I like to call, the "insta-charcoal" effect. When your vehicle reaches 100% damage, say from hitting a tree, it shouldn't automatically and always burst into flames (see Family Guy exploding carriage and horse). 2. The off-road capabilities of most vehicles need to be tweaked. While I don't want humble sedans being able to tear it up at 100 mph in a forest (like was the case with Nissan 350z's in some of the mods), I also don't want them to be slowed down to a snail's pace. Likewise, dedicated or modified off-road vehicles should have an advantage off-road. I want to see roads be actually advantageous for the majority of vehicles, and therefore, forcing people into tense bottlenecks. 3. The noise generated by vehicles needs to be tweaked. Cars are entirely too loud, I can hear them from quite a ways away. 4. They need to be less janky to enter/exit. I absolutely hated in the mod, how you were just cast out to the wolves when you had to get out of your vehicle quickly. Doors need to actually open to provide a middling amount of cover when exiting/entering. That and fixed animations, rather than teleporting, would be good to include as well. 5. Parts need to be non-generic. This needs to happen in my opinion. I don't want generic tires fitting on everything from a Ural to a bicycle. Could either be vehicle-specific (i.e. Mountain Bike tires, Hilux Tires, GAZ tires, etc.) or it could be based on the type of vehicle (i.e. bicycle tires, motorcycle tires, sedan tires, truck tires, etc.) Same goes for other parts. 6. Repairing needs to be less instantaneous, and needs to be made into a process. Instead of just clicking "X to repair Engine" you should actually have to diagnose the issue with your vehicle, find the appropriate parts, and actually... I don't know... jack the vehicle up... remove a tire... and then torque down the individual nuts on a tire or somesuch. 7. Fuel supplies need to be limited, to a degree. Unsure of how to approach this, but perhaps there's something to be said about the new "loot management" system in being able to appropriate it for regulating things like fuel on a server. 8. More camouflage options. One of chief issues with vehicles in the mod, was how easy they were to spot. Short of tweaking the rendering in-game, the only solution I can think of is adding more camouflage options. Actually being able to cut bits of bushes off and sticking them to your vehicle would be great.

But why? What problem does it solve? What does it add to the experience? Why, if it solves a problem, is it a preferable solution over other solutions (like just tweaking the spawn rates and offsetting the spawns of ammunition/magazines/weapons to their respective "civilian" and "military" spawns)? The only problem you cite, is the fact that "civilian" weapons do not spawn in the same types of buildings as their "civilian" magazines. Which, I agree, is a problem. But that doesn't therefore, somehow (as they're two distinct issues) make the spawning of magazines/attachments beside and at the same time as their respective weapons, a problem. A small, talking 10% (that's what I voted for) chance of spawning an empty magazine with a weapon would be acceptable to me. But not attachments, ever, in any condition. With the magazine/ammunition/weapon divide, which is a change from the mod's combination of ammunition and magazine, outfitting oneself with a firearm is a 1+1+1=3 action. There are three variables or requirements which have to be met in order for you to get your weapon fully functional. What is being proposed as of late (linking the spawns of magazines and/or attachments to weapons, to any degree) just sends us closer to the way it was in the mod. It's a 2+1=3 action that way. There are two variables/requirements, instead of three. If we throw attachments in, it's a 1+1+1+1=4 situation. However, if we combine attachments... weapons... and magazines, potentially, into one spawn... it becomes a 3+1=4 situation, which is even worse (as you're condensing three distinct requirements into one). As an example, it would be like... if you killed a cow in-game... if it dropped a box of matches and a stack of wood, in addition to raw meat... at the same time.

But these are two very, very, distinct issues. I agree with the second, but not the first. Rarity shouldn't be dictated by any one thing, as you're positing (i.e. the ammunition). It should, in my opinion of course, be dictated by all of the things which factor into a weapon's use. Because ultimately what we're talking about here, is how the things like magazines/ammunition/weapon factor into whether or not a player can use a weapon at any given time. If we make only ammunition rare, then the player will most likely have a working weapon when he/she comes across said ammunition. Conversely, if we make ammunition common and magazines/weapons rare, then the player will have copious amounts of ammunition to fire off when he/she gets a weapon running. So, for that reason alone, it needs to be a combination of factors dictating the rarity/likelihood of a weapon's use. Which is why I'm against magazines spawning with (at the same time, in the same place) their corresponding weapons. It makes using said weapon all the more inconsequential, when one is just given two parts of a three-part puzzle at the same time. EDIT - Sporter magazines are apparently spawning in the new pub buildings in the new experimental update.

Right, because the fact that I put it in quotations is meaningless... and isn't used to indicate a colloquial use. /sarcasm Moreover, simply because I use the word "realism" doesn't mean I am an advocate of it. I am frequently an advocate against absolute realism, and having hounded me this long with your irrelevant arguments... it should've been apparent. Going to go ahead and say it, I'm going to venture a guess and say that English isn't your first language. Because if it was, you'd be having a much easier time actually comprehending what I'm actually writing. Hence why it's just... odd... as to why you're commenting on the Ukrainian political situation, when all I said was essentially "They have different camouflage patterns." Glad to see that, as usual, you have nothing constructive (or even logical) to contribute. And the unfortunate thing is, I cannot argue against someone who does not wield coherent thought. I also find it mindblowingly hilarious, that you're now claiming to not be putting words in my mouth, when I never said anything of the sort. I mean, just look through the thread. I didn't say the thing you're quoting me as having said.

No, I don't. So quit putting words in my mouth and making irrelevant arguments with zero causative (or even correlative) facts (other than the overall population of Ukraine). Not going to sit here and continue discussing something that I mentioned in passing, about military outfits, as one example (among many).

Neat!

I've never said that the Ukraine situation is "normal," I can't really think of any rebel/separatist/militant group that's the norm. Being a scholar of militancy, I can tell you that there's no such thing as a norm. I've only stated that it's a prominent example to be used. 1. This has been addressed by the developers. They're adding more calibers (see .380 ACP and the upcoming divide between 7.62x54R and .308), and tweaking the details of weapons so these calibers become "proper." I mean, what more do you want? They're doing what you/we want. 2. They haven't really said anything qualitative against this. In fact, in my own conversation with Rocket, he stated that weapon attachments (and moreover, weapon balance) are nowhere near where they want them to be. 3. No, it doesn't make anything more or less likely. Because there's no such thing as "casual" or "hardcore" players as monolithic blocs who all believe in one thing or another. They're considering the aspects of simplicity, pure and simple. From my own biases, discussion of "casual" players is a bummer. But more so because the developers make silly distinctions and hold massive misconceptions in the first place about what they believe are "casual" players. The terms "casual" and "hardcore" are insanely loaded terms, which are almost never defined by the people who use them. And even when they are defined, these definitions are never wholesome or accurate. I mean, they listened to us with regard to the AK-74/AK-101. They named it the AK-101 because of what was said on the forums. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that. EDIT - This is amazingly off-topic now. You can reply if you wish, but I won't be replying back unless it's to discuss weapon rarity.

Why would you doubt that? They've taken multiple suggestions and made them reality, even my humble AK-101 suggestion was taken into consideration. We debate the weapons based upon their capabilities, then we have a sense of how they should be implemented if at all. Hence the discussion. People assert every day that X should be rare. Well, I'm here to ask why people think X should be rare. EDIT - Sorry for the multiple un-quoted posts, just got home from work and can't really be arsed to comb through the thread in one sitting.

So why wouldn't we just remedy server hopping then?

I'm not playing any card, I'm indicating that military gear is widespread. You're demonstrating my point, in that we live in a globalized society/economy, with a multitude of influences dictating what is in a certain place at a certain time. And Ukrainian loyalists have all the gear I just mentioned as well either way.