Katana67

A large part of the weapon's character is arbitrary though. Meaning, whatever caliber it's chambered in, the developers can have the weapons behave however they want. I recall asking you about which pieces hold which statistics (i.e. magazine, round, weapon, etc.) and can't remember specifics. But either way, it's dependent on configuration values that can be tweaked. However, there are indeed more ways of differentiating weapons in terms of their "character" than just ballistics. Like reload times for certain weapons (like bullpups), modularity, recoil, etc. Granted, I want 5.45x39 as well. But to reiterate, from a standpoint of being able to tailor the weapon-cartridge-utilization relationship, I don't view it as necessary. Nor do I view it as some sort of monumental loss in not having it. I do hope they get around to de-amalgamating 7.62x51 sooner rather than later, if only for peace of mind. While I'd rather it just be divided into 7.62x51, 7.62x54R, and <insert hunting round here> I think the hinted .308/7.62x54R divide will be a good start. I still don't really assign much merit to the argument of it being too confusing. I never really heard anyone complain about this particular aspect in the mod which was different, granted, but still had a wide variety of hybrid ammunition-magazine types. A round either fits into the magazine you have on you or it doesn't, it couldn't be any simpler. I was sort of simultaneously appalled and hopeful that what seemed to be the main source of concern regarding "confusion" was just the names being similar, versus anything to do with variety or limitations. I am in favor of just changing the names to "7.62 NATO," "7.62 AK," and "7.62 Rimmed" with appropriate inventory filler. Then adding a dedicated hunting round like .30-06 or .300 Win Mag. That'd be simple enough for most to understand at first glance, in my opinion. Might simplify the nomenclature further if they had the "7.62" lineup be named as such in order to indicate a potentiality for the corresponding weapons being "military" as opposed to the ".30X" formula being used to indicate that the rounds are to be used in "civilian/hunting" weapons.

This is where you misunderstand me. You can have your opinion, I'd never even think of removing that and certainly would never tell you to stop holding it (as you, in contrast to some of the more vocal folks on this forum, actually display coherent reasoning in what you're asserting). I actually share your opinion, too. In an ideal world, I'd love for 5.45x39 to be included rather than have to placate folks who value "realism" explicitly, by offering these workarounds (which are equally as "realistic" but require more effort on my part in suggesting them). I view 5.45x39 as an extra tool in being able to balance the assault rifle cartridges inasmuch as they relate to their respective weapons. I just do not view it as necessary to do so because we've already got 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 respectively. I want 5.45x39 in DayZ. I just don't view it as a necessity, because it just isn't from a pragmatic perspective. We've got two data points with which to balance the assault rifle cartridges. Which may not provide for the most applicable or wholesome balancing/tweaking, but it's at the very least possible. Things are different with 7.62x51 (i.e. the full rifle cartridges) which cannot be tweaked to accommodate any variety of weapons. It is wholly ubiquitous, by virtue of it being a single item. And also, there are 7.62x39 bullpups which would approximate the Vepr (like the AKU-94 and OTs-14-1A), a 7.62x39 version of the AEK-971 (see AEK-973), and obviously there are 7.62x39 approximations for the AK-74M (in the AKM and/or AK-103). The only weapon that you listed which is relatively unique and/or unavailable in 7.62x39, is the AN-94. And even then, its uniqueness is certainly debatable (as it can be argued that it's "just another AK-pattern weapon"). That and if you're (speaking generally, not about you) willing to support an overcomplicated, pulley-driven, seldom-used, disfavored, pseudo-prototypical, COD/BF-popularized, weapon like the AN-94... then folk should be supporting Mk 17s and M110s left and right.

Thanks for your insightful, valued, and well-reasoned input!

Eh, what you're describing is too complicated in my opinion. Lest we forget, complex =/= complicated. I think R should be the main key to initiate reloading (all reloading). With magazines, the benefit is that you've only got to press R once to reload. Without one, you've got to press it many times (whether to chamber a single round in a magazine-fed weapon or to chamber multiple rounds in a clip-fed or en-bloc weapon).

And either way, places that sell optics do not have them mounted on weapons. They have them in dedicated cases, or on shelves. My local firearms store has a whole 12x4 glass case of optics just glittering on their own. To say nothing of hunting stores, personal storage situations, and military armories (which I've seen do both - store optics separately and already attached to weapons). There's nothing any more or less realistic about having optics only spawn on weapons. The only thing that I'd say would make them more "realistic" in certain instances is if they spawned in some sort of box, hardcase, or packaging. But even then, not everyone has neatly packaged optics.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with including the AK-101. Would you rather have it be named AK-74M and be firing 5.56x45? Would you rather it not be in altogether? I think not. This is a compromise to get content in the game whilst maintaining a small aspect of correctness (i.e. in just renaming it to AK-101 so that it makes sense to be firing 5.56x45). I agree about the ammunition, it's a bad idea to have 5.56x45 be applied to the AK-101 and an ostensibly rarer weapon like the M4A1. But perhaps there's something to be said for making 7.62x39 the more common of the two, and thereby having the AKM be the more common AK to come across. And there's not much to suggest that the AK-101 will behave "identically" to the M4A1 simply because it fires the same round. There are other aspects to weapon behavior which can be realistically/artificially rendered (i.e. barrel length, recoil, reload times, rate of fire, modularity [which is a bit confusing how they're just applying the AKM attachments to the AK-101], effective range, etc.) Plus they can give the weapons whatever statistical performance values they want. Conversely, I wouldn't be upset if they included an AR-15 or RPC Fort Tavor chambered in 5.45x39. They're very cool weapons. I will say it again as well - the only caliber that needs to be de-amalgamated or given another counterpart (i.e. 7.62x54R) is 7.62x51. They can make tweaks to balance (albeit general ones) with two rounds like 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 respectively. But they can't do so with just one full rifle round.

Neat! And yay, glad to see a compromise could be reached to get the AK-101/AK-74M in the game. Now if we could only get some native English speakers to write the damn descriptions! /tease

And, again, you're not hearing what I'm saying. There's water within 0-3km (i.e. a maximum of a ten minute hike) from every single point within the area you cordoned in the above graphic. I can get water if I need it, if I'm in the extreme north, by taking a short walk to a pump or pond. It is not as if someone living in the north has zero access to water, when they can make an easy jaunt to one of the many pumps bordering the area you created. So it's not a problem... because people in the north have access to water... because they can just walk the 0-3km to one of the current pumps or ponds. You have indeed misunderstood my OP, which wasn't concerned with water distribution at all.

Eh, not really. I do, but mostly out of habit. Until suppressors work, I don't see any reason for a sidearm in addition to a primary weapon. Likewise, they're never really useful in my opinion if reloading your primary takes more time than bringing up your secondary. If I can just throw another mag in my primary with a simple stroke of the R key, vice fumbling around in the inventory, or having my character root to the ground to take 2-3 seconds to swap to a secondary... then it never becomes an attractive/useful option.

1. Okay, that's cool for you! I don't see any loss in "immersion" in having standalone optics spawn in equally as "realistic" spots like hunting stores, barracks, deer stands etc. 2. Again, I'm not saying that. I'm saying you're linking two objects and therefore creating one objective in finding a weapon. As I've said before, no matter how rare you make the one item (i.e. a combined PSO w/ AKM) once you find it you've found everything you need. 3. Again, just making the optics rarer... is a far more simple and wholesome solution than amalgamating the weapon/optic spawns. 4. Sure, I agree, I want them spawning in more appropriate buildings as according to their capabilities (and to a far lesser extent, their "likelihood" of being in X location). 5. Limiting them to rare spawns would also do everything you just said, without screwing over the act of gradual gearing and player freedom (which has become a hallmark of DayZ).

I have never proposed having water sources only around urban centers. Ever. I've merely stated that I don't see a need for them being all over the place. No, I didn't miss the point. I understand completely that there's no water in the north, in places which appear to be designed to accommodate it. Simply because I didn't address that aspect of what you posted, doesn't mean that you weren't saying more than one thing. I was taking issue with your assertion that the lack of water in the north is somehow a problem. Which I don't view as a problem, to any extent. You take a five minute hike from the north and you're in water country, access to water from the north isn't an issue.

And good morning RPK, AKMSU, and many other potential 7.62x39 firearms that are analogs to nearly every single 5.45x39 weapon.

But that "high cap rifle" (whatever that means) has to, in and of itself, be better than the ostensibly rare weapon you're discarding just to cherrypick the optic off of. If your issue is with how easy it is to swap optics then address that issue. Hence why I think your approach here is entirely off base. You're making a huge, and unfounded assumption, in saying that "the most realistic place to find optics is on a gun." At best, it's backed up by nothing more than anecdotes. At worst, it's inaccurate (one can certainly find optics without weapons, see firearms stores... hunting stores... sporting goods stores... surplus stores... etc.) I won't waste time linking images of this in reality, as you should know it is the case. Optics do not require weapons to be spawning "realistically," that's just your take. So please, stop saying X is realistic without having any evidence to back it up. And even if we should follow "realism" implicitly, it makes for a poor gameplay mechanic as I have just demonstrated. Realism is only worthwhile inasmuch as it enhances gameplay. This is an instance where it does not do so.

Save for the fact that the PSO is now made hyper rare along with the SVD with this approach, so why would the player put it on an AKM which is more common and arguably (as we've not seen the SVD in action) less capable? If I found a rare SVD with a rare PSO, I wouldn't toss the SVD just so I could put the PSO on an AKM. There's nothing about this that increases diversity. You're linking two objects together (i.e. making them one) vice having them be apart (i.e. making them more than one). That is homogenization/amalgamation, definition of. You're making weapons and optics into a single package. So, rather than going to the butcher, the market, the baker... you're just going to the supermarket and buying everything at once. At best, you're just displacing diversity (in making weapons spawns different, vice having attachment spawns be varied) and not actually adding anything. At worst, you're detracting from mobility and making finding a weapon more inconsequential than it ought to be. Who cares if it's rarer this way? When I find a kitted AKM, I find a kitted AKM. You can make the objects themselves rarer as individuals, without having them attached to one rare object. in other words, you can accomplish the same goal (i.e. making optics rarer) just by... making them rarer. And, you can do so without cheapening the aspects of mobility which are inherent in a diverse loot system. The player gets to decide his or her "configuration" vice having it fed to them. Moreover, in deciding whether to keep searching for an ACOG or PSO-1, you're encouraging mobility and therefore the lovely journeys which have made DayZ into what it is. People should be worried about whether they're going to find a weapon in the first place (much less appropriate magazines, ammunition, and attachments subsequently). Not whether or not they're going to find a kitted weapon. They have the freedom to move about in an effort to find each individual attachment as they see fit. Versus just stumbling upon a fully kitted weapon in one smack. If you're worried about encountering "countless optics" in "the strangest places," then why wouldn't you be advocating for rarer optics spawns in general and/or more "realistic" spawn locations?

It doesn't matter. I'd rather have "unrealistic" (even though, having optics spawn on their own is just as "realistic" as having them spawn on weapons, it's entirely situational/circumstantial) attachment spawns and preserve the journey of searching for loot, piecing together your weapon, than coming across it all at once. I'm all for optics being rarer. But this isn't the way to do it. Lumping things in with the SVD, an ostensibly regulated (via the loot management system) weapon, is an overzealous way of making something rare. Especially when it's certainly debatable as to whether or not 4x optics, or any optics for that matter, should be hyper rare. Hell, I'm all for limiting the places in which they spawn (i.e. moving them out of hangar floors and into barracks/armories). But this is a bad approach. They can just as easily make the PSO-1 spawn less frequently, which has worked decently with the ACOG so far in my opinion (I've only found four ACOGs in almost seven months of playing [and it's only been made rarer with being a helicopter-only spawn]). The only issue with the PSO-1 now, is that it spawns too frequently. That's it. That's why you see AKMs with it all of the time. I found 15 (not exaggerating) PSO-1s before I found ONE AKM. I don't think the optics are overly taxing on the loot tables, I haven't heard any mention of them specifically... or any item... being taxing on the loot tables. So it's certainly arguable as to whether the loot tables need to be "cleaned up" in the first place. Moreover, by linking optics to weapons indefinitely... you're making for a streamlined experience. Sure, they could (emphasis on could) become rarer as a result. But it's still a one-stop-shop find when you do come across a weapon with an optic. Separating the two not only protracts gameplay (i.e. you actually embark on a journey to find X when you've got Y, rather than stumbling on X and Y at the same time) but it also allows them to balance dual-purpose attachments which apply to a variety of weapons (ostensibly the AKM and SVD in this instance).

Absolutely not. You can just make the PSO-1 itself rarer. Period. That's all you need to do.

We've had this discussion before. The red line you draw as a border, has multiple sources of water on it. A 3km hike (if you're on the extreme edge of the map) for water is fine by me. So it's debatable as to whether this is a problem in the first place. Doesn't really matter that there are no water sources inside your borders, when it's a short hop to the ones which are on the borders. Moreover, I'm not sure why we need water sources all over the place. Having them actually be relatively uncommon would encourage mobility and add consequence to survival.

All hail the mighty deer stand! Thou supplier of loners and devourer of time! Deer stands have been devoid of loot in the standalone for quite some time. Visiting these mini Stary Sobors is one of the fondest memories I have from the mod. In the mod, for a while at least, these structures (scattered all over the map as I'm sure you're aware) provided a rare mid-range spawn of so-called "military" gear (generally nothing more flashy than a vanilla M4A1 or AK-74). They were then patched to be totally focused on hunting gear. This is all well and good, but I'd like to see them return to their former status as having the capability to spawn decent pieces of kit every now and again... with a few caveats. The overall percentages should be (roughly, just using this to demonstrate a point) as follows - 95% hunting gear, 5% mid-range "military" gearThings like DMRs and Mk 48s (whatever their equivalent ends up being in the standalone) should never spawn here at allAmmunition for rare military gear should never spawn here at all (which is problematic given the current ammunition paradigm)The hunting items that spawn at deer stands should be primarily clothes, followed by gear (knives, traps, game calls, etc.), followed by weapons (CZ 527s, SKSs, Mosins, and whatever else they end up adding), followed by ammunition, followed by canned food as a rarer spawnWhat I liked about this approach in the mod was that it provided an alternative approach to gearing. The typical system of venturing into a high-risk area (NWAF, for example) to get high-end gear never really appealed to my personal playstyle. It's a high-risk, low-time, high-reward scenario. With deer stands, it was the inverse. A low-risk, high-time, low-reward scenario. This provided a time-intensive alternative to looting, which was great for those of us who like to stay on the periphery of the map. Likewise, with the marked increase in survival mechanics being touted... I suspect these areas (however marginalized, see my "Save The Trees" thread) will become more attractive to the average player. Plus, it probably couldn't hurt to actually have a dynamic deer area spawn percentage if a player camps out in a deer stand for long enough. What would you like in YOUR deer stand?

I've long contended that most of the graphical settings don't actually do anything, I'm marginally sure that they're bugged and nobody's really picked up on it. I doubt they'd be willfully gearing down their graphics when they plan on increasing fidelity/performance via DX11. I mean, I'm pretty sure that the Ambient Occlusion at the very least is way bugged. It makes massive shadows in the tiniest of crevices, whereas before it just added subtle depth to items. That and it's insanely annoying to have my graphics settings reverting back to "Normal" all of the time. That explains about 90% of why I think DayZ looks bad, simply because I stop playing for a week or so... come back (not knowing my graphics settings have reset to default for some reason)... only to be unaware that I'm playing a lowered version of what I normally do. So it takes me a little while between saying "Okay, let's play DayZ again" to "Hrm, this doesn't look as good as it used to" to "What the sex?! Why are my textures on Normal?"

ARMA II feeds into the timeline of Chernarus+ (Chris Torchia has stated this), ARMA III may not have any relation to the timeline of Chernarus+. Think of it as a fork in the road, with the fork being ARMA II. One road (universe/timeline) leads to DayZ, the other leads to ARMA III. They've said bluntly that they're not interested in adding anti-materiel rifles. So a discussion of their inclusion is somewhat academic, unless they change their minds. And, I mean, they put out 2-4 weapons in a major patch. We're already quickly approaching the overall number of weapons that were included in ARMA II. So, it's not like they're not adding weapons. They are. Simply because NATO weapons spawn at crash sites, doesn't mean we're limited to a fixed number of weapons. I don't particularly believe that NATO assault rifles warrant being included as helicopter-only spawns. But everything else (GPMGs, BRs/DMRs, dedicated sniper rifles, etc.) I'm fine with it spawning at crashes and/or being regulated by the hive-loot management system that's supposedly inbound.

Unrelated, and I've said this before, but I think there's something wrong with the High Capacity Vests. They contrast so sharply with damn near every other item of clothing. It's almost as if they're not being rendered properly (shaders?).

They can, and should, do both in my opinion. And I'm not dead set on tents. If you consider the aspect of player-placed construction (an aspect outlined on the roadmap), where are these things going to occur now? In high traffic areas? I think not. People aren't going to waste their time dumping resources into an ostensibly "end-game" and/or difficult construction system if they can't first manage the risk to that structure. Problem is, most areas are now vulnerable to being high traffic. Which is the entire point of this thread. The dynamic has changed, and therefore needs to be accommodated in more ways than one. Please save your insulting bile for another day, or just never.

I do agree that the crossbow/bow needs to be made better, as to make them viable for something. But in my mind, the crossbow/bow aren't there to supplant firearms. They're there to give the player a silent method of neutralizing zombies/players without having to find an ostensibly rare suppressor. Problem is, stealth is pretty much a non-factor as it stands right now. I don't ever think, or want this to be the case, that we'll all be running about with bows most of the time and have firearms be super rare. They have a specific use, and shouldn't be there to take the place of firearms.

Correct, it's a FAL.

Meh, again, I wouldn't make the PPSh rare just because it's a relatively difficult weapon to come across in the real world nowadays (which is certainly debatable). I would probably make it common, because it isn't all that great. Hence why the PM-73 is probably going to be more common than the MP5K, because one is more modular (and perhaps more useful) than the other. In other words, a weapon (for me) has to be significantly advantageous to be made rare as the prime criteria. And no, the FAL isn't useless. Battle rifles are in dire need with modern militaries, hence why a lot of them are "rediscovering" the concept with different platforms (like the L129A1, EBR, Mk 17, etc.) And it's pretty widespread as well, FALs are everywhere. But that's not strictly relevant to DayZ either. The FAL was pretty much only a Commonwealth and/or Belgian weapon, which (owing to the nature of an empire) was disseminated to the previously colonized countries (aside from a few of the larger South/Latin American adopters which in certain cases now produce FALs wholesale). And there's a lot of issues with a lot of weapons in Afghanistan, just the name of the game. Not really relevant to DayZ.