Katana67

To supply the Magnum, proving that just making a weapon rare or common isn't in and of itself... a complete action. The two (weapon and ammunition) have to coincide with one another.

Fixed.

It's also worth mentioning that they've said they plan on having it be a more fluid command in chambering an individual round, I suspect they'll just make the R key chamber one round in lieu of a magazine.

I don't really understand why the prospect of AK's chambered in 5.56x45 bothers folks. If they rename the AK-74M to AK-101, it is correct. That exists in reality. And it therefore exists in the fiction of Chernarus, which can be buttressed by something as simple as a description like... "The AK-101, a weapon procured in large numbers by the CDF following the NATO intervention or <INSERT FICTIONAL CHERNARUSSIAN GUN MANUFACTURER HERE>, is an AK-derivative weapon chambered in 5.56x45 NATO" I'd rather them do that, than waste resources that they already have. And, to be fair, I wouldn't impose upon the developers to tweak the magazine to the angle of an AK-101 just for propriety's sake. That's the true definition of nit-picking. To your edit, one... I don't consider anyone to be speaking for "the community" to have much of a chair to stand on. Speaking for ourselves as individuals is about all we can do. Two, I'm going to guess that 90% of players couldn't care either way. Which is an important distinction to make, because it's not like they don't want more calibers... they just wouldn't care... they're indifferent. To me, it therefore makes sense to address the 10% who do care either way because they actually have an opinion on the matter vice being indifferent. And three, it's not as if the developers "don't care" it's just conflicting with their design goals at the moment. Where that becomes a problem, for me, is when people start asserting that the developers have somehow failed them.

That's just it. There is no expense in just having just 7.62x39 represent the "Eastern" weapons as a 5.56x45 counterpart. Because nothing is being sacrificed. You can have the Warsaw Pact weapons every bit as much as you would with 5.45x39. It's not "damaging to the game" to have 5.45x39, I support 5.45x39 being added (for reasons of balancing the loot tables and weapon distribution). But it's not necessary to accomplish the goal of including the majority of Warsaw Pact gear and still have it be "authentic."

I mean, it doesn't have to be X at the expense of Y. We can just have X and Y. Plus, it's not like we don't have 7.62x39. Which is what he's saying. We don't need 5.45x39, because all the weapons that it would provide for (AK-74M, RPK-74, AKS-74U, etc.) all have 7.62x39 counterparts.

Agreed, I just had to re-use the image. Or you could take a joke. I purposefully mislabeled them, the top is an AK-101 and the bottom is an AK-74M. I apologize for nothing, other than being reasonable in proposing a compromise. I don't need to get bombarded by folks who exalt realism above all else without thought, and then indict the developers as if they're being let down categorically because DayZ's worth is somehow only measured by the degree to which it represents weapons "realistically." But I do. And I'm still here.

Quick, staring contest... you and me... now! AK-74M (5.45x39) AK-101 (5.56x45) DID YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE?!?!

For the sake of argument, perhaps just naming the rounds in a more distinct manner could address the "confusion" issue. 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"

Right, but the ones we do know (i.e. tents [seen in the latest patch files], backpacks [mentioned numerous times as the first step toward persistence], vehicles [mentioned numerous times, on the roadmap, and commonly thought of as a "core" feature of DayZ], and barricading [stated plainly on the roadmap at Rezzed 2014]) all occur above-ground.

I know! I wasn't the one saying that, I think it's a good compromise (and favor compromise). I don't particularly care for .380 ACP, and think there are other areas which need the inclusion of a caliber, but I welcome it. I'm non-discriminatory. :D However, I still maintain that 7.62x51 needs to be de-amalgamated for the purposes of accommodating the large swath of weapons it's now, and ostensibly will be, covering. I don't think it's overly confusing to have more than two 7.62 rounds. It only really could sound confusing when they're all named similarly, like 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54R. The fact that there's three different rounds though, is not confusing. So perhaps it's just a matter of naming them right/differently to avoid potential confusion. Hell, if it makes it more apparent, you could just go with the .308 Winchester (or other caliber) to accommodate the "low-end" hunting rifles and leave 7.62x51 alone. I'd rather have 54R to make the use of Warsaw Pact weapons separate from that of their NATO counterparts. But, if push came to shove, I suppose I'd rather have a dedicated "hunting rifle" cartridge than anything.

By an independent journalist, not Dean. "Much of DayZ’s increased scope has related to ambitious plans for underground base architecture" ~ Jeremy Peel, not Dean Hall The only mention of the underground base, is from the author of the article... not the person being interviewed, meaning Rocket. What Rocket actually said regarding construction, is this “As we’ve gone along some of the reasons why we felt we couldn’t build above ground have disappeared.” Meaning, "we can now build above ground." In other words, he's saying that underground bases aren't the only thing they can do now... because the barriers to construction above ground have been removed.

The only issue that I have with the "confusion" bit is that it really isn't all that confusing. If the success of the mod proves anything, it's that folks can handle a diverse, unforgiving, and perhaps even cumbersome ammunition-weapon relationship. Casuals, whoever they are, aren't idiots. They'll play the game you make, and use the ammunition you include, regardless of whether it's complex or streamlined. They're indifferent. In other words, you don't have to do anything special for them. They're just happy to be given a game with the DayZ logo on it. A cartridge either works in your weapon, or it doesn't. I don't really care about 9x18M or even 5.45x39, I think we have enough pistol rounds for now and I can live with 7.62x39/5.56x45 being the intermediate cartridges. But the 7.62x51/54R situation is more pressing to a wide variety of weapons, which are almost exclusively relying on 7.62x51 (or just generally, one particular round). The ubiquity of 7.62x51 needs to be divided up in order to better suit the wide variety of weapons it's now forced to cover. And again, I don't mind that certain things are "unrealistic" at all.

Well, "they failed us" indictments and vitriol fueled disgust with the developers aside... Including a few more calibers is a way to both enhance gameplay and shut the realism humpers up by giving them what they want. So I'm all for it.

Potentially. They haven't commented on the "bunker" situation in quite some time. They may have abandoned the idea, in fact, I vaguely remember them saying this. But I could be way off, and have no source to support that. However, the more recent roadmap outlines that construction will take two forms - barricading existing structures and player-created construction. Even if an "end-game" bunker is introduced, 95% of the persistent objects (i.e. tents, backpacks, stashes, vehicles, etc.) will be above ground.

Some SBR love... vz. 58 Compact Arsenal AR-SF Mk 18 G36C BONUS - Russian SF using AR-15

Now that I think about it, it'd probably work best with four tiers. 1. Common weapons, which are capable of mounting 0-1 attachment(s) (i.e. CZ 527). 2. Uncommon weapons, which are capable of mounting 1-2 weapon-specific attachment(s) (i.e. SKS). 3. Rare weapons, which are capable of mounting 1-2 weapon-specific attachment(s) with the option of looting a separate rail system to attach "generic" attachments (i.e. M4A1, AKM, G3, FAL, etc.) 4. Very rare weapons, which are capable of mounting 3-4 attachments innately and do not require the looting of a separate rail system (i.e. Mk 11, Mk 48, AK-10whatever, all that jazz).

Well, I thank you for the praise, but I'm not a big fan of indicting the developers. They're just choosing a different design path from the one I'd've chosen. Won't stop be from advocating for it in the hopes that they change their minds eventually, but it also doesn't cause me to resent them. Doesn't get us anywhere.

In my opinion, weapons should also be tiered based on their modularity. So you have "civilian" stuff, which (rightly or wrongly) cannot mount many attachments (maybe just an optic for things like hunting rifles). Then you have the Warsaw Pact stuff and things like the G3 and FAL, which can mount a few more attachments (or perhaps attach a looted rail system)... perhaps with some being weapon-specific (see SUIT and/or the PSO-1 to an extent). Then you have the high-end, modular, NATO stuff like the M4A1, Mk 11, M249, all that jazz which is innately modular.

Like, a lot. A lot. Did I say a lot? From underfunded Peshmerga militias in Iraq to high-speed-low-drag Russian SF. Railed AKs are all... the... piss... over... the... place.

Errr, kind of? They're all still pretty dern unique no matter which way you slice it. The Galil has been a fixture of shooters since CS. You can't advocate for the hyper-unique weapons, while dismissing "obscure" weapons (like how you have dismissed the SCAR in the past), because the "unique" weapons you listed above, are by your own words... pretty "obscure" (save for the Galil). And you can't advocate for weapons which are "likely" and then advocate for hyper-unique weapons (it's pretty unlikely that there'd be an Ak 5 or a weapon, like the RK 95, used in small numbers by one country in a place like Chernarus). They're conflicting concepts, both of them.

But there are ways of making the weapons themselves different. I don't care so much about the round's performance per-se. Like for the L85 you could make reloads longer, because it's a bullpup. Or, depending on which variant you select, you could make the G36 have varying levels of modularity which could be more/less than its counterparts. I don't really view the rounds through the lens of "how can we make them behave differently," although that is important. My concern is primarily with how they end up forming an overall hierarchy in relationship to their respective weapons.

Wat?

But the ammunition used in shotguns is pretty clear-cut. It's 12-gauge... or 12-gauge... So it's not like they really have anywhere else to go. Yes, I'm aware that they've indicated that .410 will be in and I'm aware that 10-gauge (amongst others) exists. But they could just as easily have gone with 12-gauge and not been really limited on the amount of shotguns available to be added.

Eh, to be honest I think I'd just pass on a 700 altogether if I had a gun to my head (or another choice). There are other "generic bolt-actions" to take its place, especially as high-end sniper rifles... which could be chambered in specific rounds. Again, not opposed to it, but it's passable for me. For them to include something like a vanilla M24 or M40 in, they'd have to first make 7.62x51 rare for me to even consider it. I'm not sure I want 7.62x54R to be a distinctly "civilian" round, I just want it to be less common than 7.62x51 NATO overall. Doesn't matter to me that it can be used in SVDs and PKMs. So, you can still have that PKM chambered in 7.62x54R but you can also have the rarer M240 (or whichever GPMG you like) in 7.62x51. The way I hammered it out in my proposal was .30-06 = common, 7.62x54R = uncommon, 7.62x51 = rare. EDIT - In my opinion, it's a bad move to have the CZ 527 chambered in 5.56x45. I'd much rather it be chambered in 7.62x39, because it's an ostensibly "common" hunting rifle which is now chambered in a round that's only otherwise used in the rarest weapon in the game so far. 5.56x45 should be the NATO assault rifle cartridge (G36, L85A2, M4A1, etc.) Perhaps with the exception of an M249. But, I don't see any reason why it has to be, or should be, applied in other areas.