Katana67

7.62x54R EDIT - It's worth mentioning that I mean, "rifle" cartridges... as in, not intermediate cartridges.

I wouldn't feel anything, because they would (ostensibly) never do that with 9x19 staring them in the face. I just can't justify adding any more pistol cartridges at this juncture, when there are more ammunition categories (see battle rifle cartridges) which need some love.

Well, a 7.62x54R Vepr is pretty much the same as an SVD. So, I don't really see any utility in adding anything like that. PSL, Vepr, SVD, pretty much interchangeable as far as DayZ is concerned. Although, certainly not opposed to it. But yes, the SVD, PKM, and Mosin should justify the inclusion of 7.62x54R. However, I don't really see any indication of it actually happening anytime soon. They could just as easily make the SVD chambered in the amalgamated 7.62x51 that they've got now. Again, I don't really care that it's not "realistic." So save your disgust at the prospect of an SVD in 7.62x51 (even though they certainly do exist). But, the issue for me is that 7.62x51 is thereby made hyper-ubiquitous.

Well, 7.62x51 isn't an intermediate assault rifle cartridge. It's a rifle cartridge. There's a lot of overlap on what constitutes an "assault rifle" versus just a "rifle" or "battle rifle" but, they are (as I'm sure you're aware) considered distinct from one another. Granted, we need more rifle cartridges more than we need intermediate cartridges. Because all we have, is one rifle cartridge (i.e. 7.62x51). But, if pistols get four cartridges... don't see why the same can't apply to other weapons. I agree about .338 LM (or .300 WM, I don't care which) being a dedicated sniper rifle round. I've in-fact proposed it in the past. And yeah, I think .30-06 would be a good candidate for a hunting cartridge. But again, it doesn't have to be .30-06. Just as long as there's a "hunting" cartridge.

Eh, it would have to have a trade-off for me to get behind that. And even if it did have a trade-off, the .45 ACP already sort of fills the "mid-range" gap between 9x19 and .357. I'd rather they add another rifle cartridge, like 7.62x54R (not for having a cartridge which behaves any different from 7.62x51) so that they could actually differentiate between ostensibly "common/uncommon" weapons like the Mosin, SVD, and PKM and their NATO/"Western" counterparts. Again, huge assumptions there. But, it is at least a little future-proof.

Rarity is defined by more than "likelihood of finding something." Which is why I've sought to stress the idea of a weapon-ammunition-utilization spectrum. In other words, you can make a weapon as rare as you want, but if the ammunition it uses is common then the use of said rare weapon becomes inconsequential, and by association, common. Conversely, if you make generic ammunition rarer... you're inevitably screwing so-called "common" weapons by making the ammunition rarity disproportional to the rarity of the common weapons for the sake of appropriating the "rare" weapons. If you have 7.62x51 being used by everything from a break-action pistol, to a hunting rifle, to a battle rifle, to a GPMG, to a high-end sniper rifle... and you make the ammunition rare as to correspond to the rarity of a high-end sniper rifle... you're inevitably making the use of "low-end" weapons like hunting rifles inordinately difficult relative to the commonality of the weapon. Whereas if you add a modest number of calibers, it allows you to better tailor the commonality/rarity of an ammunition in relationship to the commonality/rarity of a weapon.

This, to an extent. I agree that the standpoint of "realism" isn't useful. But there is an argument to be made, for why a modest increase in the overall number of weapon calibers would benefit gameplay (largely in helping the developers more appropriately balance the weapon-ammuntion-utilization continuum in terms of rarity). I've made the argument countless times, and won't waste my breath here unless pressed. However, for the sake of continuity, I've provided a link to my proposal from late May. http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/198263-addressing-the-weapon-calibers-compromises-and-proposal/

Plus, the CZ-83 looks pretty much like a Makarov to me (hell, even a PPK looks damn near identical in my opinion to a Makarov)... so, would perhaps be a good way of having a "Makarov" whilst still appeasing the "realism" folks in having a CZ-83 in .380 ACP. However, I still don't see much utility from a gameplay standpoint (of balancing the ammunition-weapon-utilization relationship) in adding another pistol cartridge. We've got the "regular" (9x19), "heavy" (.45 ACP), and "revolver" (.357) bits covered pretty well. I'm just not sure we need more, although I'm certainly not against .380 ACP. No other generic weapon archetype (rifle, shotgun, assault rifle, etc.) is so well-represented in terms of calibers. I just think there are more calibers which are more critical to be added, like a dedicated "hunting" rifle cartridge and/or another assault rifle cartridge.

"ITZ NAWT A SKOOL ITZ AND OFFICE!" ~ Raging DayZ Community But naw, I hope your friend gets out and wish you well! Normally I just vault my way out of buildings when I'm stuck, but that doesn't work 24/7.

Threads need merging.

Well, it all depends on what player mobility paradigm they want. Which, has been stated, that they want folks moving from east-west (vice south-north in the mod) in the standalone. Hence why we now have a solid line of barracks running north-south along the western border of the map (NWAF, Dichina/Kabanino, Zelenogorsk, Pavlovo, Balota). That line is now the goal, vice the mod where it was pretty much just NWAF, Stary, and NEAF. If they were sticking with the south-north mobility paradigm, then I'd be more sympathetic to revamping Balota from a practical standpoint. Likewise, if they were to endorse a more diagonal approach (i.e. spawn all along the coast, and move toward NWAF) then I'd support it as well. And, on a personal note, I just find Balota to be boring. I always have. It's just not a fun place to be, or look at. So, any revamp of it, even if it's just aesthetic, would be welcome. But, if they're going to keep the east-west mobility idea going... they don't really have to downgrade Balota. It'd still be on the extreme limit of where players would be moving, and would be no further than a crawl from Svetlo to NWAF if folks could spawn near Skalisty as a southerly limit. In an ideal world, I'd want a bit of asymmetry in their approach. And yes, there are more subtle, rewarding, and wholesome solutions than just plopping people down randomly over the map. For one, random spawns are incompatible with a persistent world in my mind. Anybody able to spawn even a single step closer to my tent, based on nothing but chance (vice my having control over where I place my tent relative to common pathways and spawn points), is unacceptable to me. Second, I want people to be given more fluid reasons to go to different locations based upon demand and survival needs. So one day it would be more prudent for you to sneak into NWAF. Another day it would be more prudent for you to just linger around a small village. Another day it would be prudent for you to head back into a major city. Everywhere, every location, needs to have a distinct purpose. Creating dynamic resources, limited resources, more survival demands, player control of territory, and increasing the threat of zombies are all potent motivators in determining player mobility. The issue now, is that there are very few factors which dictate player mobility (mainly just loot). Third, (largely related to the second bit) I want people to be moving to and from places. Not just to places. This mainly has to do with cities. Right now, they're just where people go initially. I don't want that to be the case. I'd rather have the cities be prohibitive for newspawns to negotiate (via the increased threat of zombies, for one). Cities, in my mind, should be places to which players return once they're geared. They should become bastions, where well-armed folks duke it out for valuable resources hidden amongst hordes of tough zombies. Not absolute gold mines for unarmed players.

I'm sure others have said this, but once they yank the renderer and/or fix some of the occlusion bits (they've spoken about it, but I'm development illiterate so I may be misusing those terms) then I would assume that client-side performance would improve as well. So there's certainly room for improvement. However, I wouldn't have an issue with the cities up north if they were being offset by an expansion of the wilderness. But they aren't. They're just being plopped down with no regard to their proximity to what was previously the main "wild" area of Chernarus. As I've indicated in my "Save The Trees" thread, the wilderness is shrinking. In more ways than one too (a big one being the running speed, which they've said is temporary so I'm less worried about it). http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/185396-save-the-trees-man-marginalized-wilderness/ And it's only going to get worse. If you look at the east-west axis upon which they're placing new cities, coupled with the areas which appear to already be reserved for cities... the wilderness gets even smaller. Moreover, the only "wild" area of Chernarus is now confined to the western forest south of Lopatino. Until they consider adding more wilderness to DayZ, I don't really want any more cities to be added.

But, that's my issue, you didn't actually explain what "playability" is. You just said "playability" as if it's a matter-of-fact without explaining it. It's not about it being "easy to grasp" or not, you just haven't explained the terms that you're using in a subjective manner. I don't give you beans because I don't agree with what you're saying. And even then, I rarely hand out beans.

Anyone speaking for anyone other than themselves (i.e. the community, playerbase, majority, etc.) is full of absolute shit unless they're citing an actual aggregate. And even then, I wouldn't trust any aggregate data from any of the typical vents (i.e. Reddit, DayZ forum, Twitter, etc.) I'm willing to guess that the "majority" of players could care less, so long as they get a coherent/decent/worthwhile experience... be it forgiving or unforgiving.

No, but not because "I want realism" or "I like the AK-74M." More calibers means a more granular loot table. It also means that the developers can actually make their weapons behave differently, thus adding variety to the experience. We don't need every caliber, but we do need more. That is pragmatism. What Torchia is describing, isn't pragmatic per-se, it's just limited.

The last time I checked, I wasn't. I'm speaking for myself, and nobody else. Again, you're just saying "playability" without actually defining what that means. You're also supposing that your definition of "playability," whatever that may be, is also the same "playability" to which the developers subscribe. And the Keynesian model doesn't really apply to an unregulated economy, which is what DayZ is. And even if it were applicable, that kind of duality is certainly not accurate. Simply because it's hard to find something, doesn't mean I just give up. I try harder to find it, hence why I've been looking for five days for an AKM to no avail. Rarity is measured in likelihood, not whether or not an object can be found easily or not at all.

Several things, which I've demonstrated before... more than ten times over... 1. Any notion of a "feeling" of a weapon's "look" is purely, and utterly subjective. Nothing wrong with that. But you have to apply that subjectivity in a consistent manner. It's not something based in fact, realism, or actuality, it's just your own personal preferences which are no more valid than anyone else's. 2. Practicality? It's far more "practical" and "utilitarian" to have a flexible mounting system than not. Adding attachments that you find useful, adds capability (not effectiveness). Pure and simple. 3. Not that jarring? Because it was the case in the mod, and I never had an issue with the weapons in the mod (save for a few which were removed due to "balance" concerns). DayZ isn't, and never was meant to be, "The Road - The Game." And even then, you're saying "it would just look silly"... which is ENTIRELY to do with the weapon's look in context. + 1 reali-tard points

You're joking, right? You are... you must somehow not be sarcastic... You must be joking... Because your entire dismissal of railed weapons is basically to do with nothing but their looks.

But your definition of "playable" is therefore equated with "simple." When you're arguing the merit of fewer calibers and weapons, and streamlining the overall available selection of loot to be more straightforward... you're advocating for simplicity vice complexity (note - simplicity =/= dumb and complexity =/= complicated). I found the mod pretty dern playable, and it had weapon specific everything. Honestly, I don't really see the argument here. It isn't really that hard to know what ammunition your weapon uses. Nor should you be guaranteed to get the loot you want every time. It's not hard to keep track of the ammunition your weapon uses either. Making it so that you're more or less likely to find ammunition is a design choice, not a measure of "playability." Can you explain this misconception of "rare" then in simple English then? Because I haven't heard anything that's concise, from you, explaining this misconception surrounding rarity that we're all buying into.

You're essentially making the "convenience" argument here, in asserting that the developers should tailor their loot distribution to make it easier for "ordinary" players to understand. But this hasn't ever been a facet of DayZ. It just hasn't. I recognize that DayZ is a lot of things to a lot of people. But one thing that it never has been, is convenient. So I'm not sure I assign a lot of merit to that argument. And the game mechanics certainly do permit the inclusion of varied weapons and ammunition types. There's no barrier stopping them from putting in anything and everything. There's not even a barrier stopping them from "balancing" what they add to the loot tables. It's also worth mentioning that the developers haven't categorically ruled out adding more weapons (which they are doing, every patch we get roughly two-three new weapons and are approaching the number of weapons in the mod) and ammunition types. They've merely said that, for now, they're not interested in adding any more types of ammunition.

Yeah, not entirely sure that it's necessary. But wouldn't be opposed to it. I mean, when I lived in the UK, there sure as hell were supermarkets. Granted, Chernarus isn't the UK, but the markets in DayZ are pretty rinky-dink. I think they could use a modest revamp.

I'd like to see a weapon's rarity be dependent on a number of factors too. So you wouldn't just have the "high-mag count" weapons be rare, or, just have the "high-damage" weapons be rare, or, you wouldn't just have the "easy to maintain" weapons be rare, or, you wouldn't just have the "high-modularity" weapons be rare. It would depend on a weapon's individual values and advantages on a case-by-case basis. The decision to make something rare (talking hyper-rare here, not merely rare in terms of normalized spawn percentages) needs to be granular. I don't see that happening without a wide variety of weapons and weapon types. I like this approach, vice just categorically relegating all DMRs, or all LMGs, to the loot management system.

Agreed. And I just think, as healthy/necessary as discussion is at this point, it's just too early. I mean, it's really deceptive because we feel like we've been playing DayZ for two years and we suppose a sense of what should be rare. But we haven't really been playing anything coherent, and with the turnover of development systems, there's a lot of stuff that needs to happen before we can get to the point where we can actually offer full feedback on rarity. I do think we need to have a discussion about what weapons folks feel need to be rare, and/or relegated to the "loot management" system. Because like I said, I think the criteria for entering something into the "loot management" system should be based on flexibility and not necessarily lethality. And perhaps, converse to what I've been saying, rare weapons could be easier to maintain as a potential advantage. Whereas the lesser types are more plentiful, easy to rearm, but more difficult to keep running. Just a thought, haven't really articulated an argument for that position.

What weapon that we have now in DayZ comes with more than one rail as standard on it? Which weapon FORCES you to use rails? I'll answer that for you. Bagel. Zilch. Zero. None. You don't like rails. Don't use them then. You have that option. You have the option not to use rails on the weapon you choose in DayZ. It's as simple as that. Stop acting as if the developers are shoving rails down your throat as if you're FORCED to use them, when they're clearly optional attachments on most (if not all) weapons. Reali-tard points, up to +5 for the day.

Hrm, not sure why, but not really opposed to it. Would rather a .22 LR suppressor be able to be fitted to the Sporter. I think we'd have to give some sort of mobility benefit (whether it be time-to-on-target or some sort of CQC collision advantage) to short-barrel weapons before we start sawing off the barrels of everything.