Katana67

So yeah, folks say that helicopters could "dominate" the map in the mod, without actually considering what factors allowed them to "dominate" (which is highly debatable). In my two years of playing the mod, I can count on one hand how many times I've been killed by a helicopter. I never found them to be remotely outlandish in what they allowed players to do. One is trading speed and visibility for stealth. And the helicopters could be taken down by small arms fire. Plus one requires a group to be effective offensively, otherwise, they're just glorified [and loud] flying cars. And folks on the ground, more often than not, could evade the helicopter's ire by simply... not firing at the helicopter. I've taken the liberty of breaking down the factors which could be considered to make helicopters "overpowered" in the mod (none of which have to do with helicopters as a concept)... 1. Easy to spot players from the air due to client-side spawns of zombies 2. Easy to spot players from the air due to artificially turning down graphics settings (i.e. ATOC) 3. Easy to spot vehicles/tents from the air due to a lack of camouflage/storage options and poor graphical contrast 4. Highly flexible third-person view whilst piloting 5. Readily available and inconsequential fuel supplies 6. Auto-refill ammunition on armed helicopters upon server restart 7. Generic repair parts which are able to be found across the map 8. Every pilot and passenger gets an innate parachute, able to deploy teammates without risking the helicopter itself DISCLAIMER - This does not apply to mods of the vanilla mod.

PTRS-41 uses 14.5x114, pretty common anti-materiel/anti-aircraft cartridge. That and the concept of the "anti-tank" rifle has been appropriated by the generalized "anti-materiel" rifle category, as most tanks are resistant to all but the most potent rifle rounds. So, the M107 and the like are pretty much in the same category now as well.

I often see the idea of "random player spawns" dispersed across the entire map floated as some sort of mythical panacea which is going to solve all of the "problems" with spawning on the coast. "It's random, it's luck!," they say, in response to concerns over whether folks will be spawning near high-value locations like NWAF. I guess some folks just get lucky. Lucky enough to miss out on 90% of gearing and the unforgiving journeys which make DayZ what it is. Whilst the rest of us just squabble around because the dice say we shouldn't have nice things. Several things, though. 1. They're placing most (if not all) of the high-value loot locations along the western edge of the map. So right there, you've already got a system predisposed to spawning on the coast (specifically the eastern coast as they've specified). 2. If you think recycling spawns or suiciding is bad now, you will absolutely rue the day that you suggested giving players the capability to luck into spawning next to NWAF. You will rue the day indeed. 3. You say you want more people using more of the map? Okay. Then you can also do other things. Like dynamic loot allocation. Like making towns actually attractive, via making things like survival something more than just devouring an entire cow cooked to perfection in one sitting. Or, having towns each have their own specific (and useful) loot biases. Or, one could bias the loot away from the coast (if one views the coastal clusterfuck as a problem, I don't). You can do other things to encourage non-linear player mobility (even though the relatively linear east-west travel is only one aspect of mobility) other than just the caveman solution of plopping folks all over the map. 4. It's certainly arguable in the first place, as to whether the current spawn system (i.e. spawning on the coast) even presents a distinct problem in the first place. But the biggest flaw of this approach, by far, is the way in which it undercuts any persistence and/or player storage/construction. Figure 1, "The Current Paradigm" Key - Red STAR = Spawn Point, Green TRIANGLE = Persistent Object/Structure If I place a tent, or structure, or anything on the map now... it's, near as makes no difference, equidistant from the spawns on the coast. Even if I, for whatever reason, want to place a tent somewhere other than the NW corner of the map (like the always attractive west or northern borders) I can still control how likely it is that my tent will be discovered by virtue of being able to place it relative to where people spawn. Likewise, the paths people typically create also factor in to the process of figuring out where the optimal place to put a persistent object is. But the point here is that players who already exist have the ability to manage the risk of their persistently placed structures/objects. It therefore becomes an adaptive "reward" scenario, wherein the player is rewarded with a less-discoverable persistent object in managing the flow of players from the coast inland. In other words, you can make your persistent object more/less likely to be found based on how well you place/hide said object. Figure 2, "The Random System" Key - Red STAR = Spawn Point, Green TRIANGLE = Persistent Object/Structure Let's look at a similar scenario, with random spawns. Refer to the Northwest corner of the map again, if you will. Not only does the player have a chance of spawning on top of the persistent object (thus rendering it useless), he/she also has the ability to spawn within a stone's throw of these persistent objects. Where you place your persistent object becomes totally irrelevant/useless if someone can just spawn near or on top of it. Having nothing but chance (not player pathing, not dynamic loot spawns, not fixed resources on the map, not private hives) dictate the usefulness of your persistent storage is unacceptable. Any undue advantage upon the mere act of spawning into the game (i.e. randomly spawning nearer to your persistent object) is also unacceptable. It no longer becomes about how well you place/hide your object that dictates how likely it is to be found, it becomes a matter of "how long until someone chances into a nearby spawn and takes all of my shit." Which is absolutely silly. TL;DR - The map (by virtue of having high-value loot in the west) is predisposed to having folks spawn on the coast - Suiciding to cycle spawns to more favorable/easy locations may become much more prevalent - There are more elegant, ambient, and subtle solutions to encouraging non-linear player mobility - It's arguable as to whether coastal spawns are the problem, or a problem, in the first place. - "Random spawns" undercut any utility, skill, or risk management in placing a persistent object if a new player has the ability to spawn in on top of, or nearby, said object.

The graphic indicates several things - Players favor roads - Players favor certain paths to high-value destinations - Players are less likely to be found in the NW and along the periphery of the map (just look at the densities of pathways) - Players favor specific locations (like Stary and NWAF) I don't want chance, luck, or clicking "respawn" to be forcing anything for players who've already gone ahead, risked their avatars, devoted time/effort to building up one's avatar, gathered gear, and hidden their persistent storage items. They/their gear can be vulnerable to other people who've expended time/effort/risk in searching them out and gearing themselves. But you shouldn't be rewarded with "easy" or "advantageous" placement simply by virtue of clicking "Respawn." Which is what would happen if there were random spawns across the entire map. And again, you can encourage players to move around more so (i.e. more players likely to be in more places at more times) by adding/tweaking other things (which I've listed, but not detailed, above).

I don't see why just tiering the rates at which certain magazines and/or weapons spawn (i.e. traditional rarity) wouldn't accomplish the same goal (i.e. having ostensibly "common" weapons like the CR75/P1/Sporter be used more often) without sacrificing the act of having to find a magazine separately from the weapon. In other words, why not just have Sporter magazines, Sporters, and .22 LR be more common than SKSs and 7.62x39 as to be make the use of said weapon easier than its en-bloc counterpart? I mean, we're talking about weapons which are probably going to be fairly low-rent anyhow. So it's not like they should be equally as viable as their intermediate and rifle-cartridge firing counterparts either. So, what's there left to do if you want to encourage the use of these weapons? Make them more common, in addition to their magazines, and make the weapons you cite (SKS/Mosin/Revolver) rarer as to accommodate for the advantage given by comparison to their lesser counterparts. We can adjust the rarity of the weapons/magazines/ammunition without lumping any combination of them together. We don't need to have weapons and magazines spawning together to make the use of said weapon more common, we can just have both items spawn separately... but be more common as well. Gibonez made a similar argument with regard to linking optics/attachments to weapon spawns. Either way, you're streamlining the experience. This, in contrast to the streamlining of ammunition types, is a tangible simplification of how many variables you need to take into account to get your weapon to a point at which it can be used. Which is far worse in my opinion, in terms of actually having an affect on how people play the game. Likewise, the argument you're making can be made in any system where one weapon is better than the other. I could say the same (theoretically) about an SKS and a FN FAL. Or a FAL and a Mk 48. Why, in being presented access to both, would I ever pick the former over the latter? That's easy, I wouldn't if I had a choice. If I didn't have a choice, said lack of choice would be provided for by rarity. Also, the CR75 and P1 are perhaps incomparable to the SKS/Mosin... as they're not in direct competition with rifles in the first place. In short, it's not weapons spawning without magazines that's the cause of the problems/inequity between the weapons now. It's the lack of balance to any degree.

After having told the person who necro-d the two month old thread that I didn't want that to happen, and after having requested a mod to lock the thread. If someone goes through the trouble of quoting what I say and/or responding to what I say, I will do the courtesy of replying back. Sorry???

Some old Turtle Beach headsets that I took off my disused Xbox and plugged into my PC. Which I don't even wear, as I like to listen to music whilst playing DayZ, which sort of defeats the purpose of a headset. So I just leave the headset on full blast on my bed, so I can hear a little bit whilst listening to music. But we persevere.

Only thing that gets me worked up is when people assert that the act of flight is, in and of itself, wholly "overpowered" and entirely incapable of being tailored to fit DayZ appropriately. Then they assert that interpretation as hard fact. Hence why I don't post about helicopters anymore.

Well you're in luck! Germany did push into the Caucasus, the region in which you're asserting Chernarus fits. But, that's irrelevant. We live in a globalized society, with a globalized economy. Germany doesn't need to be in close proximity to Chernarus for there to be German gear in-country.

This is where you're wrong. The landscape, the ecosystem/biome/terrain, is based on the Czech Republic. Not the overall geographic situation of the country itself. Hence why there's no sea next to the landlocked Czech Republic, or, why there's not an arid Helmand Province analog next to Czech.

Not that a bending of history is necessary, as Chernarus is wholly fictional and can be explained via fictional means (rather than an appropriation of "real-world" events). Here's some facts that could lend to a "realistic" approach to explaining why there are weapons from Nazi Germany in a post-Soviet state. Nevermind that the Germans actually entered the Caucasus.

Brah, this is a poor part of Russia! They don't have MANPADS in farmhouses! Der! /sarcasm This (Chernarus) is a militarized conflict zone distinct from that of Russia where military hardware is/was commonplace throughout said conflict, and the most current real-world examples feature heavy use of MANPADS and far more complex SPAAG systems (see Ukraine) /actuality EDIT - Mods, wouldn't mind a lock.

All it does is zoom in on the Caucasus.

Nothing in the DevTracker from Torchia saying anything of the sort, as far as I can see. Certainly not on Twitter.

It's not on the Caspian Sea, it's on the Green Sea, a fictional sea. Chernarus isn't able to be located anywhere on the globe, because it's fictional. It's based on certain things... like the landscape of the Czech Republic, the conflict in Kosovo and/or Chechnya, the geopolitical situation of Georgia, etc. But it isn't those things. It's based upon them. All they'd have to do is somehow, if they haven't already, incorporate WWII into the background of Chernarus as a country. I don't see a problem with that, as all the major parties of the ETO... Germany, Russia, United States, and the United Kingdom are already represented in the Armaverse. But yes, wouldn't be opposed to a few Kar98's kicking around and/or a few old Wehrmacht helmets.

When I saw you like a post from here, I was hoping that you wouldn't necro the thread! Learned after this that helicopters are one of the "hotbutton" issues to stay away from, lest the frothing masses return to derail any serious debate.

Well, I dislike the term "end-game." I dislike it just as much as the people who say "end-game" as if it is some sort of bad thing. I get what you mean, but it may not be applicable/needed in DayZ. The "end-game" in DayZ shouldn't be some fixed point wherein you can say "Well, I've got everything that this game has to offer." It should be a state in which you're capable of surviving efficiently. It should always, always, always be a process. You should never have X and be having X forever indefinitely, without consequence. The issue now, or more importantly with what the mod taught us, is that things need to be consequential to find/have/maintain/operate. Take NVGs for example in the mod. Once you got them, they worked 100% of the time, required nothing to maintain, and were with you until you died. However, if we implement a "decay" system whereby items degrade over time without proper maintenance, or implement things like batteries, the picture changes from one of "Yep, got it, now what?" to "Yep, got it, now I've got to work to keep it." That's just an example. But the point of all this, is that people need to stop thinking of the end-game as some sort of fixed point and/or status. One should always be a part of a process in DayZ, specifically that of survival. And the process of survival needs to be made more involved for the concept of an "end-game" to transition from a mentality of "I've got the best loot" to "I've got the best loot, but I may not have the best for situation X, and I have to work to keep the best loot."

I agree. Unfortunately, it's not going to be possible in my mind with the new turn from east-west (vice north-south in the mod). They've now got a pretty well-defined line of high-value locations running north-south along the western half of the map (NWAF, Kabanino/Veresnik/Dichina Barracks, Zelenogorsk/Green Mountain, Pavlovo Barracks, Balota). Whereas in the mod, for one, it didn't matter where you spawned because there were "military" loot locations spread out relative to what we've got now (NEAF, Balota, Stary, and NWAF). And second, because of that, you had an odd pairing of "military" loot and initial spawns. Which wasn't an issue to me, because the really good stuff could only be found inland. But, it wasn't as well-defined in the mod as it seems to be in the standalone. But, there might be a middle ground in having folks spawn all along the eastern coast (which is what I believe they plan on doing). Like having the southern-most spawn be in the vicinity of Skalisty Island. Trouble with what we've got now, is it's pretty much just Svetlo/Berezino spawns and that's pretty much it. And rightly so, they need us to test the east-west corridor upon which they're placing new cities in the north. But eventually, I think that will, or should, change.

It was taken from Reddit detailing the activity of a server, in the mod, over a period of 24 hours. And lest we forget, this thread isn't about whether or not the northern and/or western borders of the map are good places to hide things. It applies to wherever people hide things. Because if folks are spawning all over the map, one is always vulnerable to folks just spawning nearby.

Neat! .357 definitely needs more of a reason, than just the revolver, to be in DayZ.

Never did I say that empty magazines should be more common than weapons. I said magazines spawning with weapons should be a rare occurrence, if it occurs at all. I'm saying I like, and value, the aspect of them spawning separately. Again, never did I say that magazines should be rarer than weapons.

I would be okay with some chance of it happening, a rare chance. But having magazines spawning next to their respective weapons with any semblance of normality, totally undercuts the entire system of making weapon use consequential. It is just one more step in making your weapon all the more easy to use.

I don't want to expand on them, because that would require several dedicated threads (one on loot bias moving away from the coast, one on having fixed resources on the map like gasoline/water, one on dynamic loot spawn allocation, one on town-specific loot, one on the different ways in which survival needs can encourage mobility, and one on increasing the number of zombies along the coast as well) all of which have been covered before. Moreover, as I've stated, the objective of this thread isn't to tout the merits of coastal spawns (hence why I didn't go into detail on that) nor is it to provide "solutions" to the issue of random spawns (because it isn't the case, this is a preemptive outline of a flaw in an approach). And yes, I see the idea floated all of the time both here and on Reddit. Hence why the first sentence of my OP states that. Who says it doesn't matter, I can't judge someone's "seriousness" based upon their forum handle.

Again, I have always supported moving the .22 LR magazines to "civilian" spawns. This was originally a debate about whether magazines should spawn with their respective weapons. Not whether .22 LR magazines are deserving of "civilian" spawns.

If there's even the slightest chance that one could luck into a favorable spawn (in terms of high-end loot and/or persistent storage), I am not in favor of it. And if there's even the slightest chance that people could spawn next to NWAF, or even just 2km closer, they'll take it. There's a 1 in 4 chance that you'll spawn in the quadrant that NWAF occupies, if spawns are to be dispersed across the map. There's a 1 in 2 chance that you'll spawn somewhere on the western half of the map (which is where most, if not all pending the NEAF revamp, of the high-end loot is located currently). And to anyone saying that this is somehow an effort to make persistent storage objects harder to find. It isn't. It's to give an appropriate level of time/effort/risk involved in finding a stash, vice just... lucking into a spawn close to one. Everyone should start with the same advantages, you are what you make your character/avatar. Not the utter pawn of chance. And yes, it is debatable. You even highlighted this in the following sentence... "Some people favor it, some people don't," that is the seed of a debate. Disagreement, definition of. And moreover, a large bit of the disagreement of coastal spawns has to do with the PvP-centric nature that this results in, making for a clusterfuck on the coast. I don't view that as a problem (this coming from someone who can count on one hand how many times he's been in Chernogorsk in two years of playing DayZ, so it's not out of a desire to preserve the deathmatching on the coast that I'm saying this), and even if I did, there are other solutions which I've mentioned which can alleviate any undue focus on PvP on the coast.