Katana67

I'm not sure there's anything, other than coincidence, similar about the former Stary base and the base at Veresnik/Dichina. I'm not sure there's any evidence that they willfully tried to simulate the "hill" at Stary, vice just... you know... placed a new base. However, yes, I agree. I don't really like how there are multiple barracks at Dichina now. It was a great and quaint waystation on one's way to Stary or NWAF, and now it's just another clusterfuck. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a town at Veresnik/Dichina, but a full-on military base? I could take it or leave it. I would rather they re-orient the former Stary's resources back to Stary, or some other location nearby. I think Guglovo would be a good area as well, given that it's a bit more centered on the map and away from NWAF (I always felt the Stary base was too close to NWAF). But, you also have to consider that they're talking about having us spawn in the east (in the future) and be moving to the west. Which is, ostensibly, why there are so many high-value buildings in the west (i.e. Balota, Kamenka/Pavlovo barracks, Zelenogorsk, Dichina/Veresnik, NWAF, etc.)

I agree completely, I've been advocating for that very approach for nearly two years. I always thought they should do what they've said in the roadmap, start out with barricading existing structures... then see if player-placed structures are feasible later on. I'd much rather see small villages used as fortresses than the oddly placed HESCO bastioned rectangle in the middle of the woods. But, I still think there needs to be some form of wall/blockade construction that's separate from just boarding up windows and doors. In my opinion, players need to be able to actually control territory. Or else there's really no point to it. Doesn't have to be anything wild, or insurmountable, just a series of walls able to be placed by the player (which would ideally be "jumpable/scalable" by the player as well) so that one can actually fortify a town.

I'm not sure what you're proposing actually fixes. I'm all for handloading (if suitably difficult, but I can't really see any advantage to it other than just looting new ammunition), but not as a substitute for looted ammunition. And I certainly don't like a system which somehow tiers the performance of an individual round. You're effectively DOUBLING the types of rounds available to the player (i.e. crafted 7.62x51 and looted 7.62x51, crafted 7.62x39 and looted 7.62x39, etc.) Rather than adding a few new cartridges. You're essentially just proposing for a delineation between good (looted) and bad (crafted) ammunition, if anything, it'd make ammunition more common if you're able to create it at will or at least on your own terms. Why not just make ammunition rarer based upon the capabilities of the weapon it's used in (meaning conventional loot balance)? The only issue now is, they don't have enough calibers (they're in need of four according to my own proposal) to even properly balance the loot (again, my subjective understanding). They don't have enough tools in their toolbox. Not sure how feasible it'd be for them to ditch their toolbox and proverbially buy another one. I sure as hell don't say/think that. Most of the people that do, say it out of a "feeling" for an aesthetic, rather than anything relevant to the game. I think we're in dire need of a "high-end" spectrum of weapons, for a multitude of reasons... including, but not limited to, player mobility. There aren't enough. The issue is that the ones we do have, can currently be found in cities... and even when they are, they don't confer an appropriate advantage in comparison to the "civilian" lineup we've got now. How does what you're proposing cut down on the number of military grade weapons? I agree that it'd cut down on the effective use of these weapons, in essentially nerfing their capability through crafted ammunition. But I'm not sure I want my rare weapons performing poorly once I get them, I just want them (and their respective magazines and ammunition) to be rare. So that when I do find that gnarly Mk 48, 100 belt links, an attachable box, and 100 rounds of pristine 7.62x51 NATO... I know that the advantages given to me in using said weapon are justified. I'm not sure how more ammunition types = a need for more places for it to spawn. There are already plenty, plenty, of places for ammunition to spawn. If you mean you'll be less likely to find the particular ammunition for your particular weapon (given that there are a larger number of variables in spawning an item) then yes... but that's the whole point of rarity. I don't want individual rounds doing different damages (i.e. handmade vs. looted). I suppose I'll draw a lot of ire from the "anti-streamlining" crowd (which is sort of silly, as any reduction in complexity is therefore liable to do this, no matter how much sense it makes). But, it makes more sense to me to just make rounds rarer by adding a few more... and making weapons more effective by reducing their dispersion overall. So I think you're more excusing a problem (with a game mechanic) rather than attempting to fix it. Though I certainly welcome brainstorming in this matter, and think you raise some good points... the individual solutions I've seen floated for these issues (i.e. ammunition rarity, ammunition-weapon loot balance, and dispersion) are far more adequate than the blanket proposal you're making.

Yawn audio (waking up/going to sleep) when you log in/out.... snore audio when you've logged out but your character is still in-server... Overall though, in addition to (or instead of) making a noise when you log in or out, I'd rather just... more stuff... make noise overall.

On the contrary, I think it will be wholly necessary as DayZ progresses for them to look into procedural generation (talking decade here, or a potential DayZ sequel). Granted, with the current granular server architecture, having a different procedural world for each one would probably be unfeasible. But, if the server architecture was reformed to be more in line with traditional "MMO" server structures, then it would be appropriate. DayZ is in the uncomfortable position of occupying a middle ground between a traditional FPS server/world structure (i.e. ARMA, Battlefield, CoD, etc.) and an MMO-style persistent server/world structure (i.e. WoW, SWTOR, SWG, etc.) But, in being a "middle ground," It really doesn't, and can't, accommodate the full benefits of either approach. DayZ has never really been able to reap the benefits of a truly "persistent" and massive world. Eventually, I'd like to see us (akin to most MMOs, although they do have "shards" [which, despite Rocket's best efforts to describe, are not the same as "hives" when there are also granular "servers" acting as sub-worlds beneath the hives]) move to a one-server/one-world concept. Where everyone (the entire playerbase of DayZ, or at least a large chunk) is playing in the same world. To do that, I think procedural generation will be demanded to accommodate that many players in one environment. Otherwise, any notion of DayZ as an "MMO" won't really be accurate. Or, somewhat less far seeing, the map of DayZ will have to be expanded exponentially as to accommodate thousands of players. We're also getting to the point now, where procedural generation is approaching the fidelity of "hand-crafted" worlds. I love Chernarus, it is perhaps the most convincing video game landscape I've ever come across. But it does have its limits, which I think will start to show once they toy around with filling in the blanks of DayZ.

Unfortunately, that's largely what sparked the initial debate. While I totally welcome 9x39 and the AS Val/VSS/SR-3 or 9A-91/VSK-94, they'd only really need to put in one of those weapons (probably an SR-3M, given that it's more modular and they can do more with it). They're all pretty much aesthetically and functionally the same, so I could only foresee them needing to put one weapon in. So it's not like 9x39 would allow them to put in whole families of weapons. Which is counter to what they've stated as their goals with ammunition, in being able to maximize their return. But, Torchia did say "current loot sys" at the end, so who knows what'll happen whenever they implement loot management. http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/195705-no-specialized-cartridges-torchia-tweet/

Two biggest things... The ambient cricket noises... And the doors... dem doors... /salivate Check this series out too.

More a fan of this approach... Oil filter suppressors!

Well, I think this is intended to work primarily for barricaded existing structures. So, in theory, the "zones" will be pretty easy to define (i.e. the confines of the building itself). Lord knows how they intend on doing this with player-placed barricades/structures which are not dependent on an existing building. But, I don't really see any issue with this. It's not warning you that another player is in the area, it's moving you away from a barricaded structure. You still have no idea if anyone's in that structure or even nearby. And tough tits if it moves you away from where you logged in, land navigation is an essential skill to be learned by every single DayZ player. I doubt it'd move you THAT FAR away, but even if it did, I wouldn't mind. Land navigation isn't that hard.

I would assume that's the plan. Having everything persistent AND having persistent storage, without some sort of penalty/benefit between the two, is unsustainable.

I'm sort of of the mind that it can't really be fixed per-se, but storage overall can be made into a more involved endeavor. Things need to degrade gradually, so if you're not actually paying attention to your storage, it'll eventually degrade as to no longer be useful (at least with certain modes of storage, tents and backpacks). I couldn't care less if someone dies and goes back to their loot, if there's some guarantee that their stash will degrade over time if not cared for. On top of the usual attrition of being discovered. That and the individual storage units should be smaller overall, and the larger units should require some sort of involved process (i.e. construction, pitching, crafting, etc.) The issue that I had with the storage in the mod wasn't that it was recyclable/persistent, but that it was just too easy. You found a tent, plopped it down, filled it full of ammo and 5+ weapons and called it a day really. There was no real maintenance factor. There were no activities. I also think that the "if the tent isn't accessed within X amount of time, it disappears" thing was good as well.

The proposal specifically states that the objective isn't to provide for differently performing rounds, it's to create a delineation as to make ammunition loot balance varied (vice ubiquitous). From the OP I don't care, replace .30-06 with whatever you wish. I picked it because it's a common sporting round, and a plethora of hunting weapons are available in .30-06. There's no reason for 7.62x54R either, other than to give Warsaw Pact rifles a different ammunition to draw upon than 7.62x51 NATO. Hence why the purpose of this proposal isn't to provide for different down-range ballistic profiles, but to provide for different pools of ammunition to draw upon as to not make every rifle rely on 7.62x51 NATO (because it's detrimental for loot). Likewise, people have hissy fits over the Mosin firing 7.62x51 (and will probably do so as well if the SVD and/or PKM are added). Hence why the other aspect of this proposal, is to provide for a synthesis between pragmatic gameplay concerns (i.e. diversifying the ammunition loot table) and appeasing those who value realism. You can make the case for a certain round being included because it performs differently, but that isn't the objective of what I'm proposing.

The Blaser B95 can be chambered in any number of rounds, .30-06 is one of them. .30-06 is one of the most popular hunting rounds in the world, able to be found across Europe (including the Czech Republic). .30-06 is there to give these "low-end" weapons (like the Longhorn, Blaze 95, and whatever hunting rifles they choose to add) a category that's separate from 7.62x51, which I'm proposing should be used in rare weapons... not rare AND common weapons. Again, you can have these weapons (Gewehr 98, Makarov PM, P-64, etc.) but you'll have to compromise on the adherence to realism to get them. Meaning, you'll have to accept them firing calibers which aren't possible/commonly seen in-game.

I was under the impression that we had buckshot already, and it was the green-shelled slugs that had been removed.

Well, you didn't really defend your grievances so much as just state them. But, have you considered picking up a firearm? Because the issues you cite with bringing down zombies are the case with melee weapons, in the current Stable build. Firearms drop zombies pretty quick in DayZ. I want my zombies to be both numerous and hard-hitting.

You're making perfect sense, no worries. This is why I've taken issue with the developers trying to have it both ways. They're seemingly reducing the number of ammunition types as to be more specific to the weapons themselves... BUT... they're also broadening the use of ammunition across different weapon types (i.e. 7.62x51 NATO). My proposal, is to make the generic rounds generic and make the "rare" rounds more specific. By adding a modest four new rounds. So, you can have 7.62x51 NATO be a flexible round... but it's just not AS flexible as it is right now. It's flexible in weapons which are indeed likely to be rare, vice stretching the gap between common and rare weapons. In other words, just by adding something as inane as a "hunting caliber" (in this case, .30-06, but it can be whatever) you're pushing 7.62x51 NATO out of the "low-end" and into the "high-end" without making odd delineations. Succinctly, I want 7.62x51 (specifically) to be used in the range of GPMGs and Battle Rifles/DMRs and that's it. Not all low-end bolt-actions, not in double rifles, not in break-action pistols AND GPMGs/BRs/DMRs. * 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 There are some additional outliers (both utilitarian and "realistic"), which I won't bore you with.

Yeah, I don't want human AI either. This is just set up to give people an idea of what lore can add to DayZ. Instead of things just... being... they can be explained. And therefore, the player can uncover the story of the outbreak incrementally. Plus, if they're willing to make a hundred or so books for DayZ, I would assume that they could make a hundred or so "lore documents" that could be picked up by the player.

Well, we haven't heard about how they're going to manage LMG/GPMG ammunition. We haven't even heard if they're going to be adding any LMGs/GPMGs at all. But, with LMGs/GPMGs you're right in saying that the ammunition is more dependent on whatever "magazine" they use by comparison. I actually suggested a while back that the belt-fed LMGs/GPMGs should require the separate looting of belt links (which could be combined/crafted with ammunition to make a belt), vice just finding a complete belt/box. A box could be a separate entity in which the belt would go, improving mobility. But I digress. The developers have also stated that eventually, they're going to change the reloading system so that one won't have to go to the inventory just to chamber a single round (in lieu of having a magazine). Which will make magazines and speedloaders less crucial to the process. For something like an M4A1, or an L85A2, or a G3, or a FAL, these are weapons shouldn't necessarily be beholden to their magazines being rare. Because they, in my opinion, don't confer much of an advantage. So I suppose there's something to be said about magazines inasmuch as they relate to rarity as well. In my opinion, you can't have something be wholly rare whilst having its ammunition be common. Even if the magazines are rare as well (which is a good added layer), once you find that magazine (in your example of the Mk 48) you're set. A few pages back (might've been in the post you quoted) I used the example of DMR in the mod. It was moderately rare, but was able to be used in a widespread fashion because the ammunition was common. For example, take an AS50 and .50 BMG. If you make the AS50 rare, and the .50 BMG common, by the time you find an AS50 you'll be ready to roll in terms of ammunition. If you make .50 BMG rare and the AS50 common, you'll have no problem fitting what ammunition you've got into a weapon. If you make BOTH rare (or in this case, all three [magazines, weapon, ammunition]) you're making it less likely that you'll even encounter it in the first place. All three factors are a piece of the same puzzle, meaning rarity. By making one not so rare, you're inevitably making the use of said weapon more commonplace.

There's a gun shop at the Kittery Trading Post, I hear they've got a good selection of 40mm HE grenades...

Thanks, this is the chronology that I've been working with to fit these units in to the overall story. http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/186377-framework-for-lore-discussion/

Meh, we've already got an M4A1. Not sure what use a Mk 16 would have in-game that'd be different from an M4. I'm not opposed to it, but I'd much rather have a Mk 17 than a 16.

What, does any of what you just said, have to do with the conversation? I didn't say what you posted was wrong, I was saying it's inapplicable to what we're actually discussing.

The passage doesn't say that. It says the more rounds that are fired at the enemy... the more casualties you're likely to inflict. In fact, it doesn't even say that. It just says, more rounds fired = better indicator for casualties. How the study can, for one, measure "aiming" and therefore compare "aiming" to "volume of fire" as an indicator is questionable. The passage is ENTIRELY tangential and irrelevant to what's being discussed.

The passage above is essentially saying three things... One, that close-range combat was commonplace in WWII. Two, that people were therefore more likely to be killed in close-range than from afar in WWII. Three, that aiming is less significant in close-quarters than at range (big surprise there...). It doesn't say anything relative to dispersion, or anything being discussed including the behavior of weapons.

I am so confused by this post. To my knowledge, even in experimental, the rain doesn't do anything yet. And the game should be unforgiving, forget realism. The values can be adjusted later, but I don't want weather being a server option. You have to adapt to the circumstances in-game, not the other way around.