Katana67

I'm not saying "it will be 100% hidden 100% of the time." Players are less likely to be on the periphery of the map, and are therefore less likely to stumble across your stash. I can post a heatmap graphic to demonstrate this. And, yes, I did state these solutions in my OP. 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). If you're going to say "well, you didn't outline them in detail," well... that's because the objective of this thread isn't to highlight these individual aspects. It's to highlight a general flaw in an approach.

Again, I'm in full support of making "civilian" weapon magazines spawn in the same locations as their weapon counterparts. Just not together, at the same exact time, next to one another.

It's meant to be the "coastal spawn" paradigm versus the "random spawn" paradigm. I included spawns which were in the mod to demonstrate a point, not to be accurate. You're preaching to the choir my friend. This is all I used to do in the mod. But, for the most part, the wilderness area on the margins of the map still have some very good places for hiding things. As opposed to the high-traffic areas (all areas are high-traffic, some more than others) to the SE.

Cool? You used even more words pointing out that you think I used too many words instead of posting constructively. I suppose that folks should now stop writing books, simply because they have a thesis which can be condensed into a single sentence. There's more in-depth analysis needed to explain the overall concept (i.e. the reward found in managing risk via being able to predict player flow in placing a persistent object versus not).

This isn't something meant to be realistic. It's something meant to encourage depth in gameplay, in forcing the player to embark on a number of potentially unforgiving journeys just to get his/her weapon up and running. Likewise, it makes the use of a weapon consequential when it is more difficult to get that weapon running in the first place. And I'm sorry, if one thing (especially something as inane as magazines spawning elsewhere from weapons) completely "kills the immersion" for you then that's an awfully absolutist approach, and I don't know what to tell you.

So make the magazines for the Sporter spawn in "civilian" areas? Seems like a specific problem with regard to balance of the Sporter, and nothing to do with magazines spawning separately as a concept. You don't see the Sporter used any more than the Mosin/SKS because the Mosin/SKS spawn at pretty much the same rate as the Sporter, owing to the fact that the weapons/loot has not been balanced at all. Moreover, the Sporter is never going to be "preferred" over the Mosin/SKS even if it's made more common and the Mosin/SKS is made rarer. In other words, it's not because they have en-bloc magazines that these weapons are common. They just don't spawn any differently than the Sporter, and are better than the Sporter. Either way, en-bloc magazines have certain pros and cons. They come with the weapon, by virtue of being en-bloc. But typically have longer reload times and lower capacities. Whereas detachable magazines have larger capacities and provide for quicker reload times, at the cost of being separately looted.

Off-topic and unrelated to your post, I don't want magazines spawning in any greater quantity (even empty) and I don't want them spawning with weapons. It is one more tool which makes the use of weapons consequential. Moreover, it's another objective in DayZ, which means it's another spark for a journey. Vice just wandering along and finding both a weapon and magazine in one smack. On-topic, was it? I don't recall seeing this vest specifically early on. I recall seeing stuff like the press vest, but not this ballistic vest.

Authenticity is developer-speak for "We value 'realistic' approaches, but only inasmuch as it concerns making decent gameplay." In other words, if "realism" actually makes for an interesting mechanic, then it will be applied. If it doesn't, it will be discarded in favor of something else. There is a difference. Maybe not as much as Merriam-Webster is concerned. But as far as the terms are applied and used in the context of DayZ, there's a difference. To demonstrate this, the developers of Battlefield 4 also strove for "authenticity." Would you call that game realistic? So no, they aren't really interested in pure realism. Because if they were, they'd be slaves to it. Rather than being pragmatic in deciding which "realistic" aspects should be included and which aspects shouldn't.

I agree, but this also applies in areas in which some would feel inappropriate. Like having the Mosin be able to mount the LRS. It is sure as hell possible in real life. So modularity in a game is sort of ubiquitously applied to all weapons. We don't have to carve out the stock of the Mosin to apply a PU scope. It's just point and click for weapons which are "modular" in real life and those that aren't, inasmuch as DayZ is concerned. In other words, they can make any weapon as modular as they like... simply by virtue of the "point and click" system. I agree, but I can't really do that without making the post exponentially longer. In my mind, just the innate capabilities of a weapon (modularity, magazine capacity, damage, rate-of-fire, etc.) should come first. Then you have the circumstantial concerns (like ammunition rarity). And far less important by comparison to the first two, is the "setting plausibility" factor. Which isn't any one given thing, by virtue of DayZ being fictional. I agree with the first bit. But many people interpret the desire for non-Warsaw Pact weapons, even if they're rare, as some sort of affront to DayZ. Which is silly. I disagree marginally with your second bit. I don't really have any issue with military outfits being unregulated. Granted, I believe they should be rarer than they are now. But they don't confer a huge advantage. That and military gear is pretty widely available everywhere. I mean, Ukrainian rebels are sporting Multicam, DPM, and MARPAT gear pretty frequently.

"...we're adding 380 Auto. Baikal made a Makarov pistol in 380 and there was a version of the RAK in that caliber too..." ~ Chris Torchia http://www.reddit.com/user/Scubaman3D This is neat! Although, I'm not particularly seeing the utility in adding yet another pistol round (when we desperately, in my opinion, need a dedicated "hunting" cartridge and one or two more rifle/assault rifle cartridges). Plus, I don't find many of the typical weapons in .380 ACP all that interesting. But the more the merrier.

I'm not, I'm saying that we can't say that weapon X has quality Y in real life, therefore, it should/will/needs to have quality Y in DayZ. Because they're two separate entities. One exists in the real world, and one exists in DayZ. They might be named the same thing, and look the same, but that's where the similarities end. We have to weigh quality Y separately from the weapon it's supposedly going to be representing, and say to ourselves, "How does this factor into gameplay?" What makes the SVD (for example) a firearm, isn't (and can't really be) represented in DayZ. It's just code. So when you bring up "technology," it's not applicable to DayZ, because the real-world "technology" of the SVD is merely being approximated by configuration values and lines of code in-game. And therefore can assume arbitrary or dissimilar values. It can also acquire similar values, but ultimately it's still an emulation... not a reproduction. What would distinguish an M98B from a Mosin-Nagant in DayZ? It certainly wouldn't be the way the powder burns. It certainly wouldn't be the accurized barrels. It certainly wouldn't be the metallurgical makeup of the bolt. It certainly wouldn't be the weight of the bullet. Because these things are insanely unlikely to be represented in DayZ, and are approximated by different generalized values. All of which would fall into the category of "technology." It certainly will be things like damage modifiers, effective range values, availability of optics, recoil, rarity, etc. Which is what we need to be focusing on, tangibles.

I'm saying that "technology" doesn't matter to DayZ. Because it's not a facet that's represented. So saying that the SVD is "low-tech" is irrelevant, because the "technology" of the SVD isn't displayed/represented in-game. It is a programmed item that shoots bullets in DayZ, not a machine. A 4x scope could be a toilet paper roll with two lenses taped to each end. It still magnifies something 4x. Doesn't matter if it's a PSO-1, an Elcan SpecterDR, or the aforementioned toilet paper roll. The "technology" behind something is irrelevant if it leads to the same end. A Mk 11 with a ten round magazine would/could be exactly the same as an SVD in DayZ if it were deemed appropriate. This is another area in which "realism" is inapplicable to DayZ. They aren't copy and pasting values from real life, they aren't rendering internal mechanisms to any extent other than animation's sake, they aren't dealing with the advantages that newer technology supposes. They aren't taking a weapon in real life and rendering it with 100% accuracy (no game has done this to my knowledge). They're creating a programmed stand-in for a weapon which is aesthetically similar to a weapon you and I know from the real world. That's all. Hence why I am dismissive when someone like Gibonez just sits there and posts ballistic values of some not-that-interesting hunting caliber and says that "The Mosin isn't that accurate" or somesuch. Okay, cool, but so what? How does it relate to DayZ? Those values aren't applicable to DayZ because it's real-world data, which (if precedent is to be followed) has little to no relevance to DayZ. It would be like (as the example I've used before) if I posted an anatomical dissection of a deer/elk and said, "Well, deer/elk have heart, lungs, and kidneys, why don't they have this in DayZ?" Simply put, the weapon you and I know in the real world and the weapon as rendered in DayZ will always be two separate entities.

If you mean persistent, then perhaps. Some loot does have to respawn though, including the loot on the "fixed" loot management system. Likewise, said respawns have to have "cleanups" wherein unused loot is recycled. I see no reason why we can't or, more importantly, shouldn't have this conversation now. We're talking about innate capabilities of these weapons as concepts. We need to decide what should be subsumed under the moniker of "hyper-rare" and weigh what capabilities warrant consideration for the fixed loot system. I agree, but not because it's realistic. The Mosin and .22 LR weapons should be relatively common because they aren't that good in comparison to other weapons. Likewise, one's definition of "military" weapons is subjective (and, as I would argue, totally irrelevant/inapplicable). I don't see any reason, realistic or pragmatic, as to why things like assault rifles should be "ultra rare." From the "realism" perspective, one need look only as far as the recent conflict in Ukraine. The separatists/rebels/militants aren't fighting with bows and arrows, they're fighting with weapons looted from national guard outposts (primarily AK-74s) and/or privately acquired weapons. For the "pragmatic" reasons, things like assault rifles (as I've said in the OP) are inherently middle of the road weapons. Just as concepts, they are designed to be intermediate in all aspects. Intermediate cartridge, intermediate range, intermediate magazine capacity, intermediate length. Assault rifles occupy the territory between full-rifle cartridge firing weapons (like sniper rifles and BRs/DMRs) and submachine guns firing pistol cartridges. They aren't meant to be the best at any one thing. They're meant to be a jack of all trades. Only really good at being able to perform at acceptable levels in a wide variety of situations. Rather than being really good in their dedicated application.

That, and renaming them in the inventory screen would work wonders. 7.62 NATO In-game description upon inspection... "The 7.62x51 NATO round is a high-powered cartridge used primarily in weapons of Western origin" 7.62 Rimmed In-game description upon inspection... "7.62x54R, an older high-powered rifle cartridge commonly used in weapons of Soviet origin" 7.62 AK In-game description upon inspection... "7.62x39, an intermediate rifle cartridge, most commonly used in AK-derivative weapons" Either way, the planned divide between .308/7.62x54R seems to be a good solution at the moment.

I mean, most weapons aren't high-tech. They're kinetic machines that shoot bullets. And for the purposes of DayZ, they're just lines of code that shoot coded bullets. The SVD, inasmuch as DayZ can render, is no more or less "high-tech" or "powerful" than a Mk 17. It's all about what values are assigned to make it "powerful" or not.

No. The idea that some unspoken majority of players can't handle simple 1+1=2 (i.e. AK-74M + 5.45x39 = functioning weapon) is preposterous. Even then, it's not like this was a real tangible issue in the mod. And even if it were, it's arguable as to whether it's a detriment or not. It's not like they even have to appeal to a broader audience. Complexity is attractive in and of itself, see every TES game... nearly every Mass Effect game... and nearly every MMO. And even then, they've got a sizable fanbase who've already purchased the game. I doubt they'd be driven off to any extent if a few new calibers were added. As I said in a previous thread, I was simultaneously relieved and appalled that the "confusion" issue was really the only issue preventing them from adding more calibers. Appalled because it's so trivial. And relieved because, in being so trivial, it's easier to fix/remedy. Luckily, even if we acknowledge that it will be "confusing" it's just a matter of naming things distinctly. But, I dislike the term "casual" as it is applied on both sides. There's no hard divide whereby you can deem something as "casual" or "arcadey" or a "sim" or "hardcore."

First of all, I'm not saying that it should be... or is... or would be... on par with the Mosin or the M4A1. It is better, given that it hits harder than the M4A1. And that it has a few more rounds per magazine/clip. But I'm saying the advantages it offers aren't enough, in my opinion, to warrant it being included on the regulated loot list in the first place. Second, an 8x scope isn't god's gift to man either. It just allows it to actually be a DMR. Third, I'm not saying the SVD cannot mount both a PSO-1 and a POSP. No reason why it shouldn't.

Oddly enough, the raincoat. I know it doesn't do anything special at the moment and has fewer storage slots than the TTsKO jacket, but I'll be damned if it doesn't look cooler. Gorka jacket is slowly winning me over though. And I do like the boonies even though they're not as practical as the helmets. The MICH helmet really gets old after a while, and without any fancy doodads to class up the place (i.e. camouflage, NVGs, flashlights, additional paint schemes) it's just a big green dome.

It's just a general hierarchy. Within that hierarchy, there's a multitude of different possibilities (which I hinted at in this statement "Bear in mind, there are a multitude of criteria which can be used to weigh whether or not something should be rare. These criteria include, but are not limited to, things like - modularity, lack of modularity, rarity of ammunition, commonality of ammunition, innate ballistic strengths, innate ballistic weaknesses, weapon behavioral strengths, weapon behavioral weaknesses, "setting plausibility", etc.") I couldn't have a concise thread, without simplifying it. But you're right, there are a multitude of criteria to deem whether something should be regulated or not. Especially within the generalized weapon types, like having the SVD be more common relative to something like a Mk 11. I've used this example before, with regard to how I believe individual weapon categories should be tiered internally. But as you can see, if I'd've done that with each weapon category... the thread would've been exponentially longer and would've bled too much into the "Suggestions" category vice sparking discussion.

If we're talking about the PSO-1, then it's 4x magnification. Compare that to the PU (3.5x) and ACOG (4x), then it really isn't all that advantageous. If the SVD is to be made into a rare weapon, then it needs to be advantageous. I don't see that happening if it's limited to a humble 4x scope. With regard to modularity, I think they'd just have us be able to paint the SVD and its wooden parts like the Mosin.

Personally, I think there are two things that could also be done to remedy the SVD/Mosin conundrum. 1. Remove the LRS from the Mosin. Leave the PU scope as the highest magnification optic for the Mosin. 2. Give the SVD the capability to either mount the LRS, or, add a POSP/PSO 8x42 scope to the SVD.

Again, this is why I think we need to have a decisive conversation on what should be hyper rare and/or regulated by the upcoming loot management system. Because I'm not entirely convinced the SVD fits the bill. It's not very modular, has a limited magazine capacity (by comparison to other DMRs/BRs), and has limited access to optics as it stands now (see the PSO-1 being a 4x optic). Granted, they could make it as modular as they like via the attachment system. But I haven't seen any evidence so far that this is the case. I'm really, really, really glad that this concern has been recognized. The SVD was one of the outliers in my proposal for being able to tweak the weapon-caliber-utilization concept that I've championed. 7.62x54R (or whatever round they end up having it use, be it the current amalgamated 7.62x51 or not) is pretty unique in and of itself. Like I've said before, only the SVD, Mosin, and PKM really use it these days (with some room for the SV-98). The argument can be made here, that the SVD should be made rare because it uses relatively common ammunition. That is its selling point. That's what makes it attractive. Not the modularity. Not the magazine capacity. Not only the fact that it's a DMR. In this case, having common ammunition is the reason for making something rare. So, that could be a way of looking at it. But, I think that you have to look at the weapon-magazine-caliber-utilization continuum and all of the innate properties of the round and weapon in order to weigh the item in terms of whether to make it rare or not. Focusing on any one fact to make it rare/common isn't a complete action, you have to look at everything. This is interesting, whatever it means. Hopefully it just means that they're going to make the M4A1 a bit better and perhaps remedy the issues with the shotgun. Other than that, I have very few issues with the performance of the rest of the weapons.

I think the "confusion" issue is really the only thing. After getting some (direct and indirect) feedback from the developers, this really seems to be the only thing driving the "streamlining" of calibers. The good thing is, this is an issue which has been the source of debate amongst the developers. So, it's far from settled. And also, they are adding calibers so it's not as if they're just leaving it as is. It certainly isn't any limitations imposed by the loot system that's driving it, or a lack of emphasis on "realism" and appropriate calibers, or a bashfulness with regard to it being "more work." It really is just the assertion that more calibers would be too confusing for players that's causing all of this. Which is about as ridiculous an argument as could be imagined. I mean, players aren't idiots (even so-called casual players). It isn't rocket science knowing if an AKM takes 7.62x39 or 5.45x39. Even if you somehow can't figure it out, one round works in the weapon and the other doesn't. It's really that simple. And plus, it's not like games with complex inventories and different items cannot appeal to a wide audience (see Mass Effect 1, the Elder Scrolls series, most MMOs, etc.) Moreover, it's not like they need to appeal to a broader audience in the first place. They already have a massive fanbase who've purchased the game. I doubt they'd be driven off in droves if a few new calibers were added. And it's not like (well it is with some people, who view every caliber under the Russian sun as a necessity) every single caliber is being asked for. I really only want four new calibers (i.e. 7.62x54R, <insert dedicated hunting cartridge here>, <insert long-range sniping cartridge here>, and maybe 5.45x39). And even if most players can't manage simple 1+1=2 (i.e. 5.45x39 + AK-74M = functioning weapon) then why should these people even be considered if they lower the bar of the game? This is an area which I don't really like to discuss, as it really brings out the vitriol in folks when they deem something as "casual." But, in short, it just really isn't that hard. People might be raving, frothing, illogical morons. But they can manage the knowledge (which would/could certainly be displayed in item descriptions for those who don't want to retain said knowledge) of what caliber matches with whatever weapon they've got at the time. This is why I think you and others need to distance yourselves from the "realism" and/or "authenticity" line of argument. Yes, I get that it's very important to you. It is to me too. But it isn't relevant to the course of making a game. It isn't pragmatic. It doesn't offer any reasoning or solution other than, "this is realistic, do it." If you can argue that a certain inclusion (be it "realistic" or "unrealistic") is beneficial to gameplay, that argument becomes much more relevant and applicable to DayZ. Especially in the stage it's in now. In other words, I think some of the people on this forum need to reorient their language and/or arguments toward pragmatic gameplay concerns in order to actually get what they want. Which is ostensibly more "realistically" depicted weapons. The thing that a lot of people miss, is that many of the "realistic" suggestions can also be argued to have tangible benefits to gameplay. But very few people are actually able to fuse the more subjective and idealistic desire for "realism" with the relevant pragmatism that's necessary to make a game.

Agreed, hence why I said this.

I'm hesitant to agree with this for two reasons. 1. It can come standard without storage options (similar to the way the M4A1 comes standard without attachments) as to be something that has to be gradually pieced together. So that when you loot it in the first place, it's on-par with things like the press vest. But it is unique in that it has the capability to become better via the looting of attachable pockets and the like, pending the devotion of some additional time/energy/risk. 2. It depends on later revelations, but if this is supposed to be the "high-end" vest... why shouldn't it be a hybrid of protection/storage? Whilst the other, more common, vests are made to focus on one or the other. If it's supposed to be a "high-end" item then it should be advantageous, not just a cooler looking press vest.