Katana67

Sheesh, these Ukrainian separatists and/or soldiers sure know where to shop for kit... DPM, Multicam, MARPAT, oh the humanity! Military surplus stores must be rolling in the rubles (Yes, I'm aware Ukraine doesn't use the ruble)! A few more pre-conflict images, spoiled...

Never been the official explanation. There has never been any official explanation as to the "backstory" of our avatars. Which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Balance and gameplay must supersede "realism" in this instance. I don't want to find tons and tons of food because I don't want hunting to be rendered irrelevant. Not because I think it's more realistic. If it's going to be a new system that they're dumping a significant slice of resources into, I want it to have a lasting effect on how we play the game. I don't see that happening so long as one can fill up on canned goods and fresh fruit, easily, from a residential house. Hunting is a more involved process than merely walking into a building and downing a can of beans, hence why I want it to be more relied-upon than looted food goods. Likewise, the same applies to the "gasoline goes bad" argument. Well, sure, but you can't really have vehicles if that were the case. So, we forgo "realism" to provide for a worthwhile system in-game. This is what I've been saying all along. I love "realism" and it's a great thing to factor into thinking about DayZ. But it's not a reason why something should be X. Nor is it useful when adhered to without compromise. Realism is only useful inasmuch as it supports the goals of DayZ as articulated by the developers. Similarly, it's only as useful so long as it is considered alongside pragmatic "gameplay" concerns. [EDIT - Recognize that I'm not referring to you personally, and I too place a great emphasis on the necessity for the establishment of a "timeframe" in DayZ]

I was friendly early on in the mod, tried interfacing with a few folks. Worked a couple times, then I got blasted at NWAF one day after having exchanged friendly banter with a guy in the firestation... Never again... Only other time I've interfaced with someone is a clan I met in Breaking Point. And even then, I had to barter a fully-equipped UH-1Y just to get in their good graces. Other than that, my two years of playing DayZ have been blissful by my lonesome.

Okay, I no longer have any reservations about them including Multicam at all...

Some kinda' standalone single-shot grenade launcher \\ - Takes the primary weapon slot, not some kind of secondary - 40mm rounds take up one slot in inventory - 40mm (HE) rounds rare to come across in the first place

We don't know the timeline of DayZ, so we don't know if it's 24 hours post-outbreak or 24 years. There are too many inconsistencies for us to tell by looking at Chernarus either (i.e. fresh food spawning on shelves and rusty cars that look like they've been there for decades). The balancing of looted food/drink and foraged food/drink, is just that, a balance issue. I doubt it'll be attended to for a while, but it certainly needs to be.

I'm not saying "playable = objective," or, "anything = objective" I'm saying "realism" and "authenticity" are distinct concepts inasmuch as the developers are concerned. I didn't even comment about what constitutes something that's "playable." And, again, "which [realism relating to beneficial gameplay] isn't that hard a case to make." But very few people actually make the case, they just say "DayZ is about realism, therefore I want realistic calibers, and if I don't get realistic calibers, WTF devs?" They don't say "More calibers, corresponding to their realistic weapon counterparts and/or a specific weapon type, would make it easier for the developers to do X (i.e. balance the relationship of rarity in terms of the weapon-ammunition relationship, which is the case that I personally make)." They don't even make an attempt to see the other side, or, even attempt to integrate the concepts of "realism" into a coherent reason as to why it's a preferable approach (which is the traditional meaning of the developer-speak term "authenticity"). Just saying "realistic = good" isn't a solution to the issue. And it inevitably hurts the desire for more calibers (which I agree with), because no actual tangible reasons are articulated as to why it should be so.

I think the spawning in the east will be great, and you'll still be exploring smaller places like Msta and the like. Plus, with the new east-west axis they're adding in from Svetlojarsk to Lopatino, the map will be bordered by three corridors of towns/cities. Rather than just two if we were spawning in the south (i.e. the Cherno-Elektro corridor and Berezino-Svetlo corridor). Rather than wholly displacing the military spawns north, I think just addressing the outliers would be best (i.e. NEAF if we're spawning in the east, and Balota if we're spawning in the south). But I do appreciate you linking it to the bit I wrote about Gorka. I've been considering the necessity of a Stary-like analog in light of the new police stations and the like in nearly every town, so it may not be necessary from a loot distribution point-of-view. As with helicopter spawns, I definitely think their appearance should be biased toward the north and/or west, but I still want helicopter spawns to be able to be seen across the map. To your bit about the loot, I think it doesn't necessarily need to be lowered across the board. I think it should become more prevalent as you move inland. Cities should be places where you can find a few basics, smaller towns inland should be where the real meat is, and then you have the military stuff in the west and/or north. The only issue that I see with this approach is that you've got to encourage folks to go back to the cities. I don't want them to be wasted, but I don't want them to be the focus of attention 100% of the time. I copied my post from the since-moved thread on moving the Dichina military spawns, seemed pertinent.

So, with the recent flare up in discussion of weapon calibers in DayZ, I was trying to think of a proposal to address the issue. I'll try my best to keep this concise. However, it should be noted that this proposal isn't intended to appease anyone absolutely. Compromises in "realism" have to be made in order to make for an approachable solution. But, more calibers are necessary for the sake of gameplay and can bring certain weapons in line with "realism". Objectives - Add a minimum amount of weapon calibers, as to allow for a more wholesome long-term ammunition loot balance. - Re-allocate ammunition distribution as to be more acceptable to advocates of "realism." - Break up the ubiquity of 7.62x51 as it stands in-game. Proposal - Divide ammunition into three overall categories - Generic, Warsaw Pact, and NATO - Make the aforementioned categories correspond to levels of rarity - Common, Uncommon, and Rare - Add four new weapon calibers - 7.62x54R, 5.45x39, .30-06, and .338 Lapua Magnum or .300 Winchester Magnum Specifics - .30-06 is to be added as a designated "Hunting Rifle" cartridge to replace the use of 7.62x51 in the Blaze 95 and Longhorn - 5.45x39 is to be added to offer an Uncommon alternative to Rare 5.56x45 NATO - 7.62x54R is to be added to offer an Uncommon alternative to Rare 7.62x51 NATO - .338 Lapua Magnum or .300 Winchester Magnum is to be added as a designated "Sniper Rifle" cartridge - 9x19 will remain the only 9mm pistol cartridge, 9x18M will not be added * New calibers are denoted by the (II) marking ** .338 LM/.300 WM are cross-calibers, meaning they're not really related to NATO/Warsaw Pact. Likewise, there is a typo, it's intended to read .300 WM vice .338 WM *** .22 LR has been left out Shortcomings/Outliers/Alternatives - AKM and SKS (i.e. 7.62x39) SOLUTION ONE - Substitute 5.45x39 with 7.62x39, only add three new calibers, discard AK-74M or replace with 7.62x39 analog (i.e. AK-103) SOLUTION TWO - Limit the selection of weapons to the AKM and SKS, make 7.62x39 Common - Mosin-Nagant, an ostensibly Common weapon, uses Uncommon 7.62x54R SOLUTION ONE - Live with it?? Summary - Add four new calibers - 7.62x54R (Uncommon), 5.45x39 (Uncommon)*, .30-06 (Common), and .338 LM/.300 WM (Rare) - The inclusion of 5.45x39 may not be necessary, as we already have 7.62x39 which could act as a substitute - Re-organize the way the rounds are grouped by rarity, make a bigger distinction between Generic rounds and NATO/Warsaw Pact rounds - New rounds may not actually perform any differently from their counterparts, the division is solely there to provide for a better distinction in terms of rarity * As stated in the second bullet of the summary, the addition of 5.45x39 may be redundant DISCLAIMER - Inflexible, vitriolic, and/or non-constructive posts are not welcome. However, feel free to make suggestions and reasonable critiques

Well, certain barricades are designed to impede movement/visibility (i.e. fences) and some are designed to deny access (i.e. locked doors). They're different concepts, both of which have a use.

Sorry, but I can't read words that aren't there. You're using the statement of "DayZ should be realistic" as a justification (i.e. a reason) for the developers doing something (i.e. including more calibers). Vice anything tangible, which would be an actual solution. And you're thereby using something "unrealistic" as a synonym for easy, simple, and not worthwhile. Which isn't necessarily accurate either.

Either way, rarity is relative. Things like M107s and AS50s, on paper, spawned at a lower rate than Enfields. Thus, they were less-likely to be encountered. That doesn't mean that seeing the AS50 wasn't an everyday occurance (owing to things like duping, hacking, and cross-server characters) but it was rare in relation to other weapons. Likewise, simply because weapons weren't all that rare in the mod doesn't mean they CAN'T BE in standalone.

Simply saying "DayZ is supposed to be realistic" isn't a solution, though. It's not even true, either. DayZ has always been striving for "authenticity" which, in developer-speak, means realism inasmuch as it is relative to pragmatic gameplay concerns. Never mind that DayZ isn't wholly realistic (see zombies). Point being, they're trying to mediate between realism and practicality. They always have been. You can disagree with the specific approach of generalized/ubiquitous calibers but just sitting there saying "It's not realistic" is irrelevant and not going to solve anything. Realism isn't a reason, in and of itself, why the developers should do X. If you want to frame it as a reason, however, you're going to have to actually find ways in which "realism" tangibly benefits gameplay (which isn't that hard a case to make).

That's not a Moose...

Flavor text sounds fine to me. But honestly, it ain't rocket science. You don't need to be a gun nut to know that 12 gauge won't fit in an M1911. It's not that complicated. And plus, DayZ has never had to cater to "new users."

Legend - Blue arrows represent the east-to-west axis of movement caused by easterly spawns - Red diamonds indicate current locations which feature a barracks and/or a jail "camo" building - The Yellow star in the corner represents where I believe they will add another military installation - Green stars represent where I'd like to see a "mid-level" loot spawn Comment As you can see, or as I can see, having folks spawn along the east coast places most of the military spawns in the extreme west. The only real outlier being NEAF now. The necessity for a "mid-level" Stary analog may not be as significant anymore, given that we're seeing police stations, office buildings, and other mid-level (but still high-value) buildings being placed in nearly every town. So it seems the objective is to get folks gearing up gradually, until they hit the western "military" spawns and gear up fully.

I feel that one or the other is redundant. If we assume they're adopting calibers based upon the number of weapons these calibers will provide, whilst also taking into account their desire to have as few calibers as is possible, then it doesn't make sense for them to add both. Because pretty much every 5.45x39 (a round we don't have) weapon that I'd envision them adding has a 7.62x39 counterpart (a round we do have). RPK/RPK-74M AKM/AK-74M AKMSU/AKS-74U Plus, you've then got the RPD (a rather unique belt-fed LMG) chambered in 7.62x39 and not 5.45x39. So it doesn't really maximize their return in adding both, when they can add just one and get the same weapons lineup out of it. Granted, I don't agree with this approach out of a concern for a more granular loot balance. But, it still is something to consider.

This is what I eventually would like to see the major cities become (i.e. Berezino, Chernogorsk, Elektrozavodsk, etc.) Places where it's unfeasible for the ungeared to loot initially, thus forcing people inland. Then, once you're geared, you have the option of going back into these cities. Only issue is making the loot decent enough for folks to come back to, whilst at the same time preventing it from getting into the hands of the average newspawn. Definitely some kinks to work out, but might be worth a try eventually.

Well, I think the poll is, like the OP... inadequate. For me, it's not about whether they fire realistic calibers... but that they fire a relatively diverse number of calibers. As I've said before on this thread. You can't really have a round like 7.62x51 NATO be so ubiquitous as to be used on everything from a break-action pistol... to a double rifle... to a bolt-action hunting rifle... to a battle rifle/DMR... to a "high-end" sniper rifle... to a GPMG and still balance the rarity of the weapon-ammunition relationship. If you make the round common, you're making the use of "rare" weapons easy. If you make the round rare, you're screwing over the common weapons in which it is used. I voted yes, because I feel having rounds be "realistic" is a way of including more calibers overall. But, as I've outlined in my proposal, I'm more than willing to propose/consider compromises to "realism" in order to facilitate the stated developmental goals.

I think this'd be a good approach for the handguards, not necessarily the stocks (which I think could have other properties). I like the potential for a tiered system in terms of modularity. You've got the stock M4A1 handguard which is incapable of mounting anything. Then you could have the MOE handguard be able to mount one attachment (perhaps just a flashlight [even though the MOE handguard can mount a foregrip via a proprietary interface as well]). Then you could have the rarer RIS handguard be able to mount a variety of attachments.

Though I disagree with your last bit (nothing's really ever "yours" in DayZ no matter how many walls you put up around it), I agree that anything involving a lock or barricade, needs to be counterable. Not just counterable, but requiring a specific counter. Using a generic "toolbox" to deconstruct things won't work in my mind, neither will using a common item to defeat a lock. Realism will have to be suspended in this case, but I'd want destruction/infiltration to be a capability that not everyone will have at any given moment. If you make padlocks able to be removed by a crowbar (something that's currently common), then there won't be much utility in even locking your stuff in the first place. Now, if you make it so that the rarity/effectiveness of a lock is proportional to the rarity/effectiveness of its counter, then I'm all for it.

I don't think it's intended to replace persistent storage items (i.e. tents).

Well, that's because the west will be the new north if everyone's moving from east-west vice north-south (as was the case in the mod). So that's the reason why there are a lot of bases in the west. Not sure how it feels "unauthentic," it's a design choice. Barracks have been in fixed locations before, there's nothing inauthentic about having barracks. I'm just not sure what you're intending to accomplish with this. I get moving Dichina closer to Stary, as Stary was always intended to be a midway point (even though it pretty much borders NWAF). Balota will be a new NWAF if we're moving from east-west, I don't see anything wrong with that. Moving east-west vice south-north isn't some ancillary concern, it will fundamentally change how we play and indeed view the map. Again, not sure how it's more "authentic." I think Zelenogorsk is a great place for a military base. Green Mountain already has a jail/camo building, it's already a destination. I don't think Zelenogorsk is in need of redistribution. No way, don't even think about touching my Myshkino. For one, I love it exactly the way it is. Secondly, it's one of the last true "villages" we have left. All of the other cities have been expanded and now have high-value buildings in them. Third, it's one of the last isolated villages we have left. Fourth, it's in DIRECT abutment to the LAST bit of untouched wilderness we've got left in-game.

Plus I just feel it's more "natural" to have bandits commandeering towns, or clans fortifying towns. Sure, there's nothing really "unnatural" about building a log cabin in the middle of the woods, but it inevitably sort of takes away some of that potential interaction. I actually wrote a lengthy proposal a while back, and never posted it, seeing as Rocket (to my delight) pretty much outlined everything I was going to say in the Rezzed roadmap presentation. But I always thought it should be approached in terms of a tiered construction (mostly in terms of how easy-difficult or effective-ineffective it'd be). So you'd have what I called Simple Construction meaning an analog to what we had in the mod (i.e. placing individual sections, like sandbags, tank traps, fences, etc.) Then you'd have Fortification Construction, which is essentially just boarding up windows/doors. Then you'd have High-End Construction, which would be placing structures down a la Epoch. Each tier was balanced by a few things. Ease of construction, rarity of materials, and ease of destruction/circumventing. For example, the Simple Construction concept of erecting a 12x6 section of Corrugated Metal Fencing required the following. Corrugated Metal Fencing (12x6) Maul required for installation Hammer and box of nails required for construction (2x) Metal Stake (2x) Corrugated Metal Sheeting As you can see, there are several facets with separate requirements. Gathering of tools, gathering of resources, construction of the item, and installation of the item. Simple Construction isn't intended to provide for security, it's to provide for cover, concealment, and is designed to hamper (not halt) movement. So you could construct a 4x4 wall around a car, but a player could still destroy that wall. Or, he or she could simply scale that wall. In other words, the only things that should deny access outright are things like locked doors and barricaded buildings. You can still have this piecemeal placement of walls and the like as long as they're not meant to be indefinite barriers.