Katana67

Errr, I'm a little confused as to what you're saying.

I mean, having enterable buildings doesn't magically make players less likely to be encountered. If you want to be encountering more players, advocate for the things which actually encourage mobility. Like persistent storage, vehicles, loot bias changes, significant/consequential survival needs, and more attractive high-value loot locations. Doesn't matter if a player's inside a building or next to it, that player is still there. I think 100 players will be the absolute limit. I've said it before, but Chernarus ain't that big when you've explored it all. There's only so many spots where you can hide a tent effectively, and the number of spots has shrunk dramatically from the mod (with the marked marginalization of the wilderness). And bear in mind as well, it's not just the 100 people on your server at any given time that you've got to contend with... it's the 500 or so regular visitors which move in and out that you've got to worry about. Sure, 100 players could be the maximum limit at any single moment... but that's not representative of how many players visit that server overall.

I've never heard anyone advocate for this in an absolute sense. I think, for one, that the decision was made before the release of ARMA II in 2009 (when DayZ wasn't even an idea) so it's sort of irrelevant taking issue with it. And secondly, there's a distinction between having something based on a location and just putting out a 1:1 reproduction of a real-world location. And there's a lot of work in making a map, especially one the size of Chernarus. It's not like it's some whimsical action that they can just choose to do or not. It's a concerted effort which requires the devotion of a large amount of resources. What bothers me to no end though, is the assertion that Chernarus = Russia. It just isn't supported by anything remotely logical. It's as if people forget that the universe in which DayZ is situated is one of fiction. I love the area that Chernarus was based on. I think it's very unique. And lest we forget, we're only playing in a small portion of Chernarus (i.e. South Zagoria). There's still a huge opportunity for variation as well. Although, I doubt they'll ever come to the point where they're rendering the whole of Chernarus. But for the sake of argument, you could have the area around Novigrad be more "Mediterranean" and the border with Takistan be more arid.

Any M14 variant would be acceptable to me (be it the since disfavored/removed DMR, an EBR/EMR that have replaced their M21/DMR counterparts, or just a vanilla M14). Would definitely like to see a Mk 11 and/or Mk 17 as well, along with the "European" battle rifles like the FAL and G3. This is an area in which so-called "Eastern Bloc" weapon producers are distinctly lacking, DMRs and Battle Rifles. You've got the SVD and that's... pretty much it. The PSL and/or Saiga .308 are essentially just SVDs, at least aesthetically if not mechanically. At the very best, they're all derivative of the SVD and/or AK, which means they have a similar action and/or aesthetic. Whereas with so-called "Western" weapon producers, there's a much wider variety of battle rifles and/or DMRs being produced which are, at the very least, aesthetically different from one another. Sort of the same way with the AK as well, you get the AK platform coming out of the Eastern Bloc and that's... pretty much it, with some minor variations here and there and the occasional bullpup AK. Nothing wrong with that, but folks have to recognize that in pushing for "only Eastern Bloc" weaponry, you're working with a limited set of weapons in terms of both capability and variety. I don't expect every weapon under the sun, but I'm not going to make the assertion that weapons should be left out unless I have a logical/relevant/practical/supported reason to do so.

Not necessarily broader, just based on a variety of criteria. Not one, or even a few, criteria. To rephrase my argument about why I think assault rifles in particular are not worthy of being overly rare, let's just look at what they are. Assault rifles are inherently, just as a concept, middle of the road weapons. The fire intermediate cartridges, which are effective at intermediate ranges, have mid-range magazine capacities, and have mid-range damage (in terms of a video game, I won't even attempt to delve into the ballistic profiles of each intermediate cartridge). Point being, they're a "jack of all trades" weapon. Hence why they're used as standard issue firearms for most of the world's militaries these days. They perform with an acceptable level of proficiency in a variety of areas. They're not "the best" weapon for any one thing, other than for being applicable to a wide variety of engagements. However, things like battle rifles/designated marksman rifles, GPMGs/LMGs, dedicated sniper rifles, all have a more niche application and are arguably the best at something specific. Battle rifles and DMRs hit harder at longer ranges. GPMGs/LMGs have massive magazines/belts. Dedicated sniper rifles are the most accurate at extreme range. Assault rifles were designed to fill the gap between a submachine gun and a battle rifle. They are inherently mid-tier, just in being what they are. So for that reason, I believe they should be mid-tier loot in DayZ. Because they, in and of themselves, aren't the best at any one thing. Their main claim to fame is versatility, not being niche. Which is, granted, a valuable characteristic. But their performance is hampered by this desire for versatility, and therefore do not warrant being hyper rare in my opinion.

I don't agree. Then you'd have piles of unused optics/attachments laying around while someone is trying to find an ostensibly rare M4A1, then once that rare weapon is found, it becomes inconsequential to equip because you'd have to make the optics relatively common across the board in order to accomplish what you've outlined (i.e. making a given weapon rare, but also having the use of optics more common on said weapon). The main advantage in terms of modularity, in my view, that the M4A1 should have is in the ability to attach generic (meaning 1913-compatible) attachments. Whereas other weapons like the AKM (and perhaps weapons like the G3 and/or FAL) rely on weapon-specific attachments such as the PSO-1 (like the Zeiss [iIRC] and SUIT scope respectively). The "generic" optics should be rarer than weapon-specific optics as a general rule of thumb, owing to their ability to attach to a variety of weapons. The disparity is offset in the weapon-specific optics being less ubiquitous. So they're spawning more often relative to their "generic" counterparts, but you're less likely to find one that fits your specific weapon. Whereas with "generic" attachments, they spawn less frequently but apply to a wider variety of weapons (which would ostensibly be made rarer as a partial consequence). I don't have any issue with the AKM being able to use the PSO-1, insofar as the PSO-1 is made rarer. I find PSO-1s far more often than I ever found ACOGs. I probably find as many PSO-1s in one or two trips to NWAF than I ever found ACOGs in the six or so months that the standalone has been out. That's the true issue now, in my opinion. The PSO-1 is just too easy to come across. I honest to god, found at least 15 PSO-1s (who knows how many rails, mags, and folding stocks) before I found one AKM. A potential fix for this could be embodied with how the mod treated certain magnified optics. How often did you come across an M16A2 versus an M16A4 w/ ACOG? Substitute the M16A2 with the AKM and substitute the M16A4 w/ ACOG with just the PSO-1. That should remedy the issue you have of having "every second AKM wearing a PSO-1." Regardless of the PSO-1's plausibility to be found, I don't feel that a 4x scope warrants being hyper-rare or regulated by a broad loot control scheme. So lumping the PSO-1 in with the SVD just seems unnecessary to me. I personally think they should opt for the approach of having the PSO-1 be the Warsaw Pact equivalent of the ACOG, in being able to be mounted on most AK platform assault rifles. This assumes that for the time being, we won't be seeing an exponential increase in the number of redundant attachments. And they should then give the SVD a dedicated optic with a higher magnification, like a POSP 8x42 (in tandem with other things, like perhaps adding a few more high-er magnification scopes so that the LRS isn't the end-all-be-all scope). But, again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. We appear to be coming at it with two different objectives in mind.

I mean, if you're concerned about a forested area being where it isn't, then certainly a sea being where it isn't should be of equal concern in and of itself. Chernarus is based off of Usti nad Labem. Meaning it is faithful in its reproduction in certain areas, and unfaithful in others. The locations become less accurate as you move north. The cities of Chernogorsk and Elektrozavodsk are pretty accurately placed, but Berezino is fairly out of place as are the new cities being placed along the east-west axis in the north. Likewise, there is no "E55" highway curving north-south like it is in Chernarus on the western side. That area has also been completely changed from the mod, as there is no longer a northern area near Skalka (because Skalka doesn't exist anymore). The airfields don't exist where they are in Usti nad Labem, and there is no dam in the north (Pobeda Dam, which has since been removed).

I'm marginally sure that Chernarus (South Zagoria) doesn't follow the exact layout of Usti nad Labem, but only the general shape of the region is represented. For example, fairly certain that location of the cities and airfields is more or less fictional. So, it's not like the area to be added has to be forested in real life for it to be added to the map. As there are already massive discrepancies between South Zagoria and the real area of Czech that it is based upon (see the massive sea which borders South Zagoria, vice the landlocked country of the Czech Republic).

But the aesthetic isn't in and of itself a motivator for me. I didn't crawl all over the map to find a FAL because I thought it was cooler than the M14 (which I do). There's more to a weapon than just its own rarity. Which is why I think the M4A1 need not be hyper-rare, as it also relies on ostensibly uncommon/rare ammunition, magazines and attachments. So you may not be able to find 5.56x45 for a while, so you'd have to ditch that weapon in favor of another if the situation didn't suit it. I have no issue with a relatively linear weapon hierarchy. The issue was, in the mod, that the hierarchy wasn't protracted or varied enough. You could find top-tier weapons pretty much everywhere, because the top-tier weapons were just uncommon weapons (like the DMR). Likewise, the "tiers" in this hierarchy were poorly defined... because weapons really only had three concerns (i.e. the rarity of the conjoined ammunition/magazines, the performance of the weapon, and the performance of the inseparable attachments). This has since been improved on, allowing each weapon to have different capabilities which are dependent on more things (i.e. the rarity of separate ammunition and magazines, the rarity of separate attachments, and the performance of the weapon). So, in other words, they can better balance the weapon rarity by having more data points from which to vary the capabilities of each weapon.

This is what I was hoping to have answered. I don't really know what statistics are attached to what items (i.e. the weapon itself, ammunition, magazine). It was explained to me before, but I don't really remember how it's applied.

Two things. 1. I don't foresee the bit about the PSO-1 happening. If only because they've stated that they're considering things like the SVD for their loot management system. And I don't think a humble 4x scope warrants being lumped in with the SVD's supposed rarity if that were to happen. Now, I think the SVD should be on the "lower end" of their hypothetical loot system with a healthy amount being available (vice it being a 2-3 per hive deal in being the rarest of the rare). But that's a different argument. 2. Even if they do as you say, unless it's just patently better than the AKM in all (or most) regards then I still don't think it warrants being as rare as it is and/or will be. Unless the recoil is either prohibitively ridiculous on the AKM, or laughably miniscule on the M4A1, it just cannot be better inasmuch as DayZ is concerned. Even if it performs better, it's still hampered by a variety of commonality issues (largely to do, now, with its ammunition... magazines... and optics/attachments... all only spawning at helicopters). In other words, I don't think it would be helpful to make the AKM worse via making optics rarer for it (from both a practical and "authentic" point of view) and making the M4A1 better via making optics more common. And, just on a personal note, I don't think assault rifles warrant being considered for positions of hyper-rarity. Obviously, I want the M4A1 to be rarer than the AKM. But only marginally.

But that's what I was saying. Even if they do that, it can't be any better than the AKM given the statistics used in DayZ to make weapons perform the way they do, without bleeding into the realm of silliness OR conversely being hyper-realistic and therefore requiring an undue amount of effort from the developers. The AKM hits harder, has the same magazine capacity if not a more voluminous magazine in the 75 rounder, is easier to find in and of itself, is much easier to resupply, is almost every bit as modular, and has a better scope available. In order to justify making the M4A1 rare, it also (in my opinion) has to be almost entirely better than its uncommon/common cousins. Otherwise, why is it rare? If it's from an argument of pure aesthetics/likelihood, then sure. But that isn't a satisfactory criterion in my opinion for making a weapon rare. Take the FAL in the mod. It was passed over, because it was rare... its magazines/ammunition were/was rare... and it didn't actually perform any better than its common/uncommon counterparts like the M14 AIM and DMR. Which is why I make the argument that assault rifles should never be high-end or hyper-rare. Just as concepts, they don't provide enough of an advantage in my opinion to warrant being anything more than uncommon/rare loot (vice helicopter loot or regulated via the incoming loot system). Things like GPMGs, LMGs, DMRs/BRs, dedicated sniper rifles, absolutely. Make them rare as hell, because they actually confer a significant advantage upon those using them. But the M4A1, even if it's made more accurate, can never be the rarest of the rare in my opinion. I get why they did it for now, because it's the only weapon which could plausibly be deemed "high-end" currently. I like that they've returned to the helicopter spawn paradigm. But once weapons which are actually deserving of regulation due to their advantageous nature are implemented, I don't want it being hyper-rare. In short, I don't feel assault rifles warrant being hyper-rare.

I'd love to see an in-depth comparison (Gews, are you out there?) with statistics and such. But, assuming that they perform pretty much the same... The AKM is clearly better in terms of versatility and attachments. But the SKS is the obvious choice for a "starter" gun. Why anyone would pick a now-rarest-weapon-in-the-game M4A1 over the AKM and/or SKS is totally beyond me. Hence why things like the M4A1 should never be considered "high-end." Even just as a concept, and even if it were more accurate than it is now, as far as DayZ is concerned... the AKM/SKS is just patently better. And you can't have hyper-rare weapons... be worse than their mid-tier or even low-tier counterparts.

I'm not commenting on the accuracy of Mosins. Bipods can be mounted easily to them sans machining/gunsmithing.

Again... DEBATABLE Yes, I'm aware this is an SKS. Universal bipods exist.

You're right, we do need more sniper rifles (and more of most weapon archetypes as well). The Mosin should get a downgrade when that happens, but until then, I'm fine with where it's at (and it really does need the bipod at this point). Long range shooting does need a significant revamp, in more than one area. More sniper rifles won't necessarily fix any of the issues with it as of now.

In my opinion, it used to be a lot worse. I couldn't even so much as mention player construction in late 2012 without getting a complete earful from people about how it'd ruin the game somehow. And even as recent as four-six months ago, I couldn't mention any piece of equipment made outside of mother Russia without being accused of trying to put a cheeseburger in the mouths of every DayZ enthusiast. Most of the real trolls have either been banned, or moved to Reddit. The moderators on this forum are pretty on-point with that type of thing. Plus, I've learned to not get too involved with the haggard topics (i.e. gamma exploit, helicopters, vehicles in-general, TPV vs. FPV, hardcore vs. regular, etc.). What I find annoying, and this is just a general comment on people not specific to this forum, is the extent to which illogical and unsupported arguments gain traction. Likewise, I agree with Cap'n, there's a lot of people here who want it their way and no way else. If it's not their way, the developers are letting them down on a personal level or are insinuated to be dishonest. This would be comical, if the developers didn't get unreasonably indicted for things that they never said, or intended to do in the first place. And even if they did, they've always provided solid reasoning for why they've changed their minds. Which is not to say that we as players and members of this community cannot be critical of the developers. I am frequently critical of the developers. But it can be done in the form of a reasoned argument, rather than pure vitriol. My favorite thing though is when things don't "feel" right, with no explanation as to why. That one always tickles me in ways. My second favorite thing, is when people pretend to speak for a majority, the "community," or a persecuted minority. Speak for yourself, it's all you can really do. However, 99% sure this thread will get locked sooner or later. As all the etiquette guidance you need is outlined on the list of forum rules.

Perhaps that's why the USMC loves their McMillan stocks on the A5. Curiously enough, my scout-sniper buddy wants to get something like this when he gets out for his personal rifle. To each their own.

Zbroyar! Oh yes, that's right, Ukrainian-made bolt-action .308 rifle with an ACR stock. That's right, I went there. Bonus - Russian-made ORSIS T-5000.

I/we have no evidence that this is being done. They've been wholly disinterested in forming any kind of background, hence why we had to wait for two years just for confirmation that the events of ARMA II have any bearing at all on the setting of DayZ. And rightly so, they have a game to make with ravenous and unreasonable fans shouting "now, now, now." And besides, it was said in jest. I don't actually expect them to adopt it, I wrote it for fun.

It's not, it's about a zombie outbreak. There's no ulterior commentary about the United States. They're an actor, as dictated by ARMA II, pure and simple. Most of the actual OB is drawn off of previous precedent with regard to the NATO intervention in Kosovo, and also to the peacekeeping mission (i.e. KFOR). Both the intervention and subsequent peacekeeping operation resulted in one of the most multilateral small-scale military deployments in recent memory. Russians and NATO both were involved in that conflict. Either way, the previous history of ARMA II (which was stated to feed into Chernarus+) establishes an intervention by the United States. EDIT - You can certainly make the case that my personal lore is too "military" oriented (to which, I've also penned a brief summation of the Chernarussian political actors as well as indigenous groups). But it certainly isn't "American," it's an international attempt at containing an outbreak which threatens the globe as a whole. Every contingent of CFOR (Russians/Georgians, UK/Germany, US/Czech Republic) all have their roles to play in the fiction. Each has a spotlight in telling the story. Moreover, the specific units that I highlighted are by no means a comprehensive list of units that could/would/should be involved in a fictional containment of a zombie outbreak. The United States' contribution to the fictional CFOR, just by going off of the list that I made, comprises just one fifth of the total units highlighted (to say nothing of actual troop strength). Troop strength would be a different matter, one which would require specifics, vice a broad overview. For instance, according to my list, the United States committed a regiment of troops and a platoon of FORECON Marines. That's sort of an odd deployment.

Devs, please adopt my background as the "lore" of DayZ. Prease? People of Chernarus CFOR/UNOCHER DayZ Lore DayZ Lore, Chronology of Infection

I recall them saying that if they expanded the map, everything already existing, would be out of place. It is my understanding that the position of every building/object is relative to the others, so if you stretch a rubber band with two marks on it... those marks are going to stretch further apart and become distorted. That could be way off though, not sure what that was in reference to specifically. All they'd need to do is add a 3x15km wilderness buffer zone to the western edge of the map.

I don't think zombies brought down helicopters offensively. Malfunctions, transporting of infected personnel via MEDEVAC, chaotic rebels/bandits with MANPADS are more likely candidates. Either way, most everything in DayZ/Chernarus+ is not explained at all. I agree that there are too many "military" locations, but even then, they're mostly concentrated on the western edge of the map now... which is by design. There are very few military locations (pretty sure NEAF is the only one left over) east of Stary Sobor. And plus, they no longer spawn fully-kitted weapons... and the utility of military gear itself isn't as huge as it was in the mod. I still contend that there's no reason to trudge around for an M4A1 or a whole swath of "Western" gear when the AKM and/or SKS, and "Civilian" gear is equal if not superior to the former. The M4 "feels" wrong is always where people go. It doesn't "feel" wrong to me, because of the reasons I explained above - the fictional explanation for these weapons and the real-world precedent for these weapons being in post-Soviet states (mind you, these reasons are therefore rooted in something other than "feeling"). We no longer live in a Cold War fantasy world where one side uses only AKs and the other side uses only AR-15s. And it's certainly debatable if we ever did in the first place, because there are no "sides." EDIT - And why did you add a link to a Chinese WiFi Security Camera company to my quoted post?

Why? I mean, Coke and Pepsi are two of the largest globally exported products in history I'd wager. They're about as American as a BMW SUV is German. The United States intervened in Chernarus in 2009 (see the now-acknowledged events of ARMA II in the timeline of Chernarus+). The AR-15 is one of the most ubiquitous weapons available. The AR-15 platform is used/produced by a number of post-Soviet states (i.e. Georgia, Poland, Germany [formerly East/West Germany], Czech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, Ukraine, etc.) It's even to be found in recent conflicts like the Ukraine crisis. Here's the websites/links for a variety of "Eastern Bloc" AR-15 manufacturers... http://www.luvo.cz/ http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/06/06/georgia-g5-carbine-ar-15/ http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/10/19/izhmash-subsidiary-molot-to-manufacturer-russian-ar-15-rifle/ http://www.zbroyar.com.ua/rifles.php So, take your pick. AR-15s are provided for in a country like Chernarus by both fiction (which is enough on its own) and reality.