Katana67

Well, the prosperous (ostensibly) devoted more effort/time/risk to getting what allows them to prosper (i.e. rare gear) than the un-prosperous. The only time a problem arises, in my opinion, is when the effort/time/risk to get something that's supposedly "rare" (and more importantly, powerful) is not proportional to the advantages offered by said item. Moreover, it is also a problem when the use of said "rare" items becomes inconsequential. Take NVGs, they were relatively easy to come by in the mod (although comparatively they were indeed rare). Yet, they offered a massive advantage at night (ignoring the gamma tweaks, sorry for all the parenthetical add-ons haha). And they were just 100% effective as well. You didn't have to find, loot, and swap out batteries to keep it up. You didn't have to really do anything to keep your perfect-vision-at-night-100%-effective-cross-server-persistent NVGs going. They didn't degrade over time at all. That and you could just server hop to loot farm, so any notions of rarity were thereby skewed. I do sort of agree with you, that these things should be made rare... but not so rare as to offset things in favor of the few. However, I do place an emphasis on rewarding the diligent. But in the case of most things, and indeed DayZ, it'd be less of a "who tried hardest" scenario and more of a "who got there first" scenario. I wouldn't necessarily have any problems with that approach, if simply having these "rare" items incurred a consequence that was relative to their advantageous capability (however small or large). So, for example, if I came across a Mk 11... if I had to first repair the weapon itself, find a decent amount of 7.62x51, loot specific Mk 11 magazines, just to get the thing operational... then it becomes a bit more feasible to have these things not be hyper-rare. Likewise, if their use (not just your having these items) wasn't inconsequential, then they wouldn't be as blatant. The opposite can be seen with the FAL in the mod. It was rare, relative to supposedly rare weapons like the DMR... yet it was worse (by being less flexible). So nobody used it. I disagree with Torchia's (and therefore Dean's) approach to things like a humble SVD being "regulated" via their upcoming loot management system. Personally, I think that system should only be reserved for the management of hyper-rare items. But, most items should be off of that list. If I had my way, I'd make it so that every weapon type (and certain types of gear) would be able to be looted without regulation. But the really good versions of said weapon type would be reserved for that fixed loot management list. So, you'd have M14s, SVDs, and G3s floating around. But that Mk 17 would be a restricted and limited item. Not because it's just patently better than an SVD, but because it's marginally better in a certain area. It wouldn't necessarily kill folks faster per-shot, but it may be more flexible in terms of its application.

Foregrip /swoon EDIT - And your "reali-tard" points are skyrocketing today.

Rare = more effort/time/risk expended to get item X. So, there has to be a reward for said expenditure of risk to acquire said rare item. Hence why they should be, and need to be good. People just need to accept that. And I'm not sure why folks don't, because DayZ is all about inequality and is very anti-balance in the traditional sense (even though it is prudent in certain scenarios). I of course agree with you about making it so that firing a weapon causes zombies to jump you. That's essentially what I mean when I say "add consequence" (among other factors) to killing folks, and is exactly what I mean by consequence not being "a punishment." People always jump to conclusions when I say "killing people needs to have consequences" and then reply "the humanity system didn't work." Well, duh, because consequence is different from punishment... and there are more natural forms of "consequence" than humanity points. Yeah, not sure how anyone could possibly... ever... think that DayZ mod took place in the eighties. There are so many blatant anachronisms pointing the opposite direction (i.e. M4A1s, EOTechs, MOLLE interface gear [see the standard vest for mod characters], AS50s, M16A4s, etc.) I mean, theoretically it could be taking place in a fictional timeline divorced from that of ARMA II (a la Black Ops) but the evidence available doesn't support that. I'm glad you asked. And yes, someone did say that grenade launchers are exploitable. But even if they didn't, it's a very common line of argument that I hear when "military" and/or "high-end" weaponry is involved. http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/200710-confirmed-new-stuff-in-exp-46/?p=2019763 1. A great range of types of weapons actually allows them to vary the shooting mechanic to a greater degree (and therefore the experience). Meaning that a bolt-action hunting rifle behaves differently from a LMG, to a battle rifle, to a pistol. In having more types of weapons, you're inevitably making for more types of shooting... which is a major mode of input in terms of DayZ. 2. An overall variety of individual weapons allows the developers to actually tier the weapon lineups within the aforementioned types. So, for example, you have Assault Rifle as an overall weapon category. Yet you have bullpups, 7.62x39, 5.56x45, gas-piston, etc. types of weapons which can all be represented differently in terms of their characteristics (recoil, ballistic profile, ammunition loot profile, maintenance requirements, etc.) 3. A large variety of individual weapons actually allows them to tier their already-included attachment system into a more granular loot system. So that one isn't constantly searching for the only, or even the categorical "best" weapon out of a lack of choice (or, conversely, out of all of the weapons behaving similarly). And, therefore, the tiered weapons have different acquired and innate capabilities via the attachment system. This is already halfway done with things like the SKS comparatively to the AKM, with one being able to mount more attachments than the other. However, a different approach could be taken with, for example, battle rifles. a. M14 (Tier 4, common "low-end" battle rifle) - No modularity (i.e. the number of available attachments). b. G3A4 (Tier 3, uncommon "mid-range" battle rifle) - A moderate amount of available attachments. Two weapon-specific attachments available (optic and muzzle fitting). c. FN FAL (Tier 2, rare "mid-high-range" battle rifle) - An increased amount of available attachments, accepts some generic attachments. Optics, muzzle fittings, and looted rare RIS system required for mounting of additional attachments. d. FN Mk 17 (Tier 1, very rare "high-end" battle rifle) - The same overall number of attachments available as the Tier 2 weapon, but comes fitted as standard with a railed handguard for mounting all generic attachments (without the need of an additional looted RIS item).

Haha, the proverbial racism against military weapons continues. As if they somehow had sex with your mother and beat up your father, and thus warrant vitriolic and unfounded "they'd ruin gameplay categorically" statements. With little argument to back said statement up. It isn't Mk 48s and AKs that encouraged folks to kill people. It's the fact that there's no consequence to killing someone, period. Not a punishment. But there's no thought process. It's, "Oh, there's another person... BLAM... /loot.... /continuelivinglife." Doesn't matter if you've got a Mosin or a DMR, the process is the same. Likewise, they can include anything inasmuch as it is made rare. Period. There's a difference between including a variety of weapons, and making them rare. People have a hard time differentiating between the two concepts for some reason. If it's less likely to be encountered overall, then it will be seen less often. That was one of the issues of the mod, and current issues with the standalone. Ammunition is entirely too common, thus making killing someone inconsequential (there are more ways that this is true as well). And the tired "Well, it could be exploited" excuse is the absolute most illogical thing I've ever heard. Well no shit, things can be exploited. Should we remove M4A1's then? Or Mosins? Because someone could dupe them, ya' know! Oh lerd! And damn that "fixed loot management" system, people are just going to exploit it! Tell Dean to stop all production ASAP! Lets work on fixing exploiting then, shall we? Instead of artificially limiting the game based on the fear that someone might exploit something. Grenade launchers, yes please.

Not sure why you're questioning the credibility of the leak. Everything there has been discussed/mentioned before by developers as on the track to be implemented, and some of it is already in-game (i.e the Gorka top).

So yeah, what stated inclusion on the roadmap and/or factor from the mod do you personally think will represent that crystallizing moment of the DayZ Alpha actually becoming DayZ? Because for me, by virtue of being fairly early on in the testing process, I haven't felt that I'm playing anything distinctly DayZ-esque yet. Now, it should be said that this isn't meant to ask "Under what criteria do you think DayZ will be complete?" Nor is it meant to ponder the transition from Alpha, to Beta, to Release. I'm talking about the experience. I'm merely curious as to that point in time at which the disparate inclusions of the Alpha actually coalesce into an experience that we can call "DayZ." For me, it's tents and persistent storage. All I really did in the mod, was go around looting people's tents and it really defined my routine. For most, I suspect the big factor will be coherent/working/decent zombies. As a secondary factor, and a novel one at that, I suspect the survival mechanics will also help solidify a new DayZ experience. It should also be noted, that none of us can really suppose an objective "this is what DayZ should be" mentality, hence why I wanted to ask people's opinions. Nor are any of us in a particular position of knowing what DayZ is from a holistic perspective, as we've always been testing an Alpha and therefore do not know what any given system is intended to be. But yes, what systems/mechanics/inclusions will make you say "This is now DayZ"?

Oh, and there's also frag grenades in-game now on experimental. Pretty rad. And the plate carrier (which was on file before) and a new "vest holster" (which I suspect will be some kind of crossdraw) is on file.

They are both thoughtless terms used to dismiss something without actually explaining oneself with any semblance of a reasoned response, other than "well, I don't like it." Hence why I dreamt it up... That is the point with my counter-example of "reali-tard." To demonstrate the utter bile that is dismissing something because of its appearance or in using only vitriol to back a point. Moreover, you can advocate for something whilst not slandering the opposite end of the spectrum.

Well, I think we can agree on one thing... DayZ is not one thing, and anyone who says it is... is nuts.

Pretty sure the weapon sounds are pretty low on the list of priorities. However, very interested/curious to see what their new audio guy ends up coming with. Audio advancement has been distinctly lacking these days in DayZ.

So apparently the files suggest that the MP5K will have multiple stocks and handguards/grips. Likewise, there are separate files for the MP5 and MP5K which isn't necessarily meaningful, as it could just be legacy files. And somebody's working on SMERSH gear, neato! Not entirely sure it'll be that aesthetically different from the UK vest we've got now, but the more the merrier. And there are apparently files for a PEQ-2 on the books.

Hence why I said this, the portion you left out. "Just to let you know how unreasonable the things you say on this forum, are. By example, of course, in using "reali-tard" as a silly, vitriolic, dismissal of your point. If you can't pick up on the subtle demonstration of your own methodology, then /giggle"

Now that we've got the helicopter crashes back in the game, I thought it'd be a good time to discuss that seemingly taboo topic of "high-end" loot. Assume that when I say that term from here on, it's in quotations, due to its highly subjective nature. It has been established that DayZ, or more specifically Chernarus+, continues off of the circumstances expressed in ARMA II. Which would undoubtedly provide for a plethora of high-end gear for our humble survivor avatars to collect. Even without that fictional precedent, it can and should be argued from a development perspective that high-end loot becomes necessary in order to act as (one of many) a factor in driving player mobility. Moreover, even from a "realistic" perspective, the presence of high-end military gear in a so-called Eastern Bloc country is nothing out of the ordinary these days. That and we're already seeing a sliver of what could be considered high-end loot as manifested in the M4A1, FNX, AKM, and respective attachments. Likewise, high-end gear is not confined to just weapons. There's plenty of decent "military" gear, which I assume most could deem "high-end" present already. So now that the issue of high-end loot's "place" in DayZ has been settled, cemented, and vindicated once and for all... But... Mr. Katana, sir... I don't... We can begin a reasoned discussion of how high-end loot can, should, and may affect gameplay. Obviously, I'm not going to crawl all the way across Chernarus just to snag me a humdrum M4A1 which offers no real tangible benefits over say... an AKM... or an SVD... or even a humble SKS. Likewise, I don't want to see something as inane as an AKM or M4A1 being the top-shelf-dope-shit-best-gun-in-the-game. Which brings me to the main crux of what prompted me to create this thread... High-end loot has to actually offer a tangible advantage over so-called "low-end" and/or "mid-tier" loot. So, what're we left with? The precedent set by the mod, of a variety of so-called "high-end" loot items which helped drive many player interactions and player journeys. Now, I should say that I don't believe high-end loot can or should be the only source of attraction across the map. Survival needs and limited resources can also act as potential journeys unto themselves, but that discussion is for another day. Light Machine Guns (LMGs) and/or General Purpose Machine Guns (GPMGs), dedicated bolt-action sniper rifles, battle rifles (BRs), designated marksman rifles (DMRs), semi-automatic shotguns, high-capacity sub-machine guns (SMGs). On the gear side, we have things like GPSs, NVGs, plate carriers, etc. Anti-materiel rifles are out, as per Matt's statement way the hell back at E3 2013 (or Gamescom) that they will not be included. Likewise, the planned "loot management" system may indeed segment the distribution of high-end loot as to be a bit more balanced (I know some of you tremble in your boots at the thought of an M107, or even a humble M14). What are your thoughts on the matter, how would you like "high-end" loot approached in DayZ? TL:DR - High-end loot is here to stay - It can act as a potent factor in player movement and migration - The "loot management" system and other practical tweaks should assuage your concerns of things being "overpowered" - High-end loot has to actually offer an advantage over low-mid tier loot DISCLAIMER - This is not the place to discuss the merits of "high-end" loot, or whether or not it should be implemented. It's the place to discuss its implementation, approaches to this implementation, and consequences of said implementation.

Again, there's nothing inherent to an assault rifle (even augmented by rare attachments) that's justifiably necessary to counter by making it hyper-rare. Even if we consider them "good," they aren't that much better than weapons like the SKS and Mosin (which are also augmented by attachments). In other words, there's no point in making the M4 rare (innately or via attachments) if it isn't any better than weapons that are ostensibly uncommon/common. I won't go searching for one, if the SKS is just as good if not better. Hence why we need different types of weapons altogether (like battle rifles and LMGs/GPMGs) which function/behave differently, and therefore offer new (and better) capabilities. And it's not significant, but the weapon being held by Colin Farrell above appears to be a PSL and not an SVD. Attachments are not the sole determinant in what makes a weapon "high-end." The weapon itself has innate capabilities which are far more significant than what is added via attachments.

Well, I can't really see any logic in not including something... based solely on the premise that it might be exploited. Fix duping, don't limit what you can add into the game because of it. No, the atmosphere and "allure" is still there for the 90% of the time that you don't have NVGs. It doesn't magically go away.

I don't see any issue with the NVGs. They'll be very rare, and Rocket indicated that NVGs specifically would be on the list of regulated loot. I doubt they'll be easy to maintain either. Plus, they'll probably get destroyed if you kill someone with them... limiting the transmittal of said gear. Flares and fires for 90% of the folk, NVGs for the 10% lucky folk. Seems decent enough on both ends. Thermal (i.e. the highlighting ONLY of targets in day/night) is a whole different animal completely, and should never be mentioned in the same breath as NVGs (i.e. the highlighting of EVERYTHING only during the night).

Right, and I agree about the rarity bit. But I think we need to have a discussion about what constitutes "high-end" vice just "geared." Because in the mod, an AKM or a kitted M4 was nothing to write home about. Partially because there were other, better, weapons out there. And partially (here's where it's relevant to the standalone) because they weren't overly good by comparison to their low-end counterparts. In other words, I wouldn't really feel at a disadvantage getting into a fight with someone with an M4 if I had a SMLE in the mod. I could still drop them most of the time. The same thing applies to the standalone. I don't feel at a disadvantage (in fact, I feel advantaged as it stands now) rolling up against someone with an M4 with an SKS or Mosin. So making something worse (or at best, the same), rarer, doesn't make any sense to me (as has been done with the helicopter crashes, granted, for testing). However, if the rare weapons were actually good and conferred capability to those who wield them, then I could justify them being rare. What I meant by different approach, is that some people consider an AK or an AR as "high-end." I don't. Mostly because these weapons, just as concepts, are not justified as being "high-end" just by virtue of being assault rifles. They don't offer any real tangible advantages versus something like an SKS or Mosin in-game. In fact, I'd submit that the SKS and Mosin are probably the best guns in the game as it stands currently. I think we can all agree that high-end loot should be, and probably will be, rare. I don't think there's an argument to be made to the contrary. But, what constitutes "high-end" in terms of DayZ needs to be clarified. And I don't salivate over any of the weapons we've got now, enough to traverse the entire map looking for one like I did with the mod. There was a much larger gap between low-mid tier weapons/loot and high-end weapons/loot in the mod, and that gap has been made smaller in the standalone (by virtue of having no discernible "high-end" loot). Point being, we need more "high-end" loot. The M4 can't be the only weapon spawning at a helicopter crash in the future. I don't envision folks combing through the map just to find an M4 as the pinnacle of "high-end" loot in DayZ, we'll need something more.

Yes, the AKM is on stable. Although, I haven't been able to effing find one... it's a nightmare. I've found every attachment for it five times over, and not the rifle itself. I've found mountains and mountains of Brown Bear, and not the rifle itself. I've found six M4A1s at helicopter crashes, and not an AKM.

That assumes that vehicles themselves aren't rare and/or difficult to get up and running. Likewise, it assumes that travel is inconsequential (see the "limited resources" bit above, which could mean limited fuel resources as well). I think a discussion needs to be had on what should be in the controlled, limited, "loot management" system. Because I'm not convinced that most of the weapons that were so-called "high-end" in DayZ mod, warrant artificial limitation. In other words, take the DMR. I don't think, especially now that weapons come separately from magazines and optics (which is a whole different rarity balance ballgame) that something like a semi-automatic BR/DMR needs to be regulated. Because it may not confer that huge of an advantage over something like a scoped Mosin. However, something like a .338 LM sniper rifle... or a pair of NVGs... or a GPMG... I could see the case being more apparent for those types of items being regulated.

There's nothing "industry standard" about tacticool, it's every bit as dismissive as "mall ninja." CZ is using it sarcastically. So is the picture you posted. Nobody actually runs their gear like that, that weapon was expressly created to demonstrate an extreme, one which doesn't have any bearing on DayZ. Likewise, the second image (IIRC) is a demonstration of a German (or some other nation) "Future Warrior" analog program. Tacticool is essentially, forgive the extreme comparison, the n-word of the firearms community. Used to dismiss things based upon their appearance. Sure, not everything that's black and has rails is necessary. But some of it is, and you wield the term as if it applies to everything that isn't made out of wood. Likewise, you wield the term as if it is indicative of objective merit of an innate object.

I've decided that every time you use the word "tacticool" or the phrase "mall ninja" or silly vitriolic lol-images... I'm going to start storing, what I've come to know as, "reali-tard" points. Just to let you know how unreasonable the things you say on this forum, are. By example, of course, in using "reali-tard" as a silly, vitriolic, dismissal of your point. If you can't pick up on the subtle demonstration of your own methodology, then /giggle.

Well, I'm not a huge fan of acquired skills or "experience" in DayZ (although, hey, willing to try it out... they tried out the "humanity" system after all, right?)... But I think we can put to bed the connotation of DayZ as a so-called "simulator." It just isn't, and never was. Even in the loosest sense of the word, and if we use that loose usage... all games become simulators.

Well, I think that bandaging needs to be made variable... Like, sure, you can tear up a bunch of clothes... but that bandage might not stop the bleeding. Whereas if you loot a packaged tourniquet or military bandage kit, it'd work more consistently. I think that needs to happen before they start making everything rippable. But yeah, this scenario arose earlier today with me. Hadn't realized I ran out of bandages, started bleeding, then frantically searched Gvozdno for a t-shirt. Took a while, but found one.

This is sort of what I was saying, about not being able to suppose what DayZ is "about." Zombies haven't been (and weren't a factor in the mod) a factor because they've been poorly implemented, not because of a lack of emphasis.

Killed by a flagrant server hopper whilst trying to find one... But we persevere.