Katana67

Not being able to defend your stuff while offline is part of the risk. Where this becomes problematic, is when there aren't any reasonable mitigating factors. Which is why the meager construction in DayZ mod was pretty much my jam, because I'd just run around scarfing up tons of loot in the woods because there wasn't much people could do about it. Tents stuck out like sore thumbs, there weren't all that many great places to hide them, you couldn't protect them at all, and there was no decent alternative (until later, with stashes). Many things could be suggested, some of which are specific and some of which are systemic, like... - Locks to doors/containers (which should obviously be able to be countered by well-prepared bandits) - Fences, both scalable and not - Boobytraps and/or monitoring equipment (i.e. game cameras) - A more robust, expanded, and varied wilderness in which we can hide structures - More effective and varied options for camouflage - Different containers (like stashes from the mod) which are low profile at the expense of being less useful - Urban "fortresses," the security of which is partially provided for by prohibitive numbers of zombies surrounding said fortress Stuff like that...

1. You're delusional if you think that the food/hunger system currently in DayZ is complex, it couldn't be any more straightforward. There are even hyper-obvious inventory cues to let you know how your avatar's stomach is doing. 2. You're insane if you think that the current food/hunger system is anything more than an inconsequential afterthought. It certainly isn't a hassle, because it doesn't even factor in to the majority of situations in DayZ. Your grievance seems to have to do with the timescale, with which you've conflated nebulous ideas like "complexity." If you're talking about the timescale, then yes, it should be elongated. However, with that, I want the hunger/thirst system to be much more of a factor on day-to-day gameplay than it is right now. I want the pristine fruit and pristine cans of beans to be rare, if not as rare as most weapons. I want to hunt for my food. I want to cook more of my food. Which also needs to be done in concert with things like reducing run speed to that of the mod.

Probably because there's zero reason, necessity for, or advantage (outside of being better able to kill folk) to group/grouping up as it stands now. There's no need for a "two heads are better than one" approach to survival, because the current survival mechanics are either wholly inconsequential (i.e. food, water, weather, etc.) or can be accomplished just as easily by one player (i.e. hunting, gathering, etc.) The only thing that might be more advantageous in DayZ with a group, other than killing folk, is just gathering things. But then again, I don't really need another player to enhance my ability to gather the constantly spawning pristine cans of beans all over the place. Simply making things like weapons rare won't automatically make people stop, or even impede, people KOSing. This is something that I always see. You have to give people reason to group up, reason to care about their characters, reason to cull the use of resources, and reason to invest themselves in DayZ. Simply removing weapons doesn't do it, and makes the game boring (in my opinion) as a consequence. However, once there are mechanics in place (which are then made significant) which provide for an increased focus on surviving, control of territory, and resource investment (i.e. vehicles) then I foresee much more frequent spontaneous group play. But, I think that you could also make the case that DayZ's group play is becoming far... far... far... more insular nowadays. Partially as a result of the pervasive and unchecked use of things like TS (an extra-game communication method, therein removing a significant measure of interaction from the game). Partially as a result of lingering mechanics which have not yet been made robust, due to the fact that we're playing an alpha. Oh, and partially (mostly) owing to the fact that the number of servers seemingly outnumbers the number of players at any given time. So a player can have an entire server all by his/her lonesome.

Very interesting initial implementation of barricading. Hopefully, locking a door will eventually become a more involved process both to set up and to destroy.

That and things like a "hive-based loot economy" supposedly require cross-server interaction anyhow. And, forgive me if I'm being ignorant of technical things, but what's to stop someone from just running a single server on a private hive (i.e. the case in the mod)? Wouldn't that completely remove the novelty of having a centralized loot economy? Even if one were to run a 10-server hive/shard/whatever, then we'd just have what we have now... on a smaller and more intimate (i.e. noticeable) scale. And if there's only one server, then ultra-rare items (which were supposedly going to spawn on distant servers on the same hive, see Rocket's speech at Rezzed) will all be spawning on the same server, and will thereby become not as rare. Which is why I think the developers really need to make up their minds, and just go all-in for a private hive/server model rather than try to play both sides of the fence. We'll lose some of the grand social features, but we'll have a much more focused and ultimately less problematic experience. This is all owed, in my opinion, to the limitations of ARMA (i.e. a FPS server compartmentalization) and the over-abundance of servers for DayZ itself.

With that said, and perhaps this is just by virtue of the current state of the alpha, I think that rare stuff needs to be rarer and at the same time, common stuff needs to be more plentiful. And I think we also need to consider what items warrant being common, and what items warrant being rare (based largely on what advantages they confer upon the player). Because in my mind, so-called rare and/or "military" gear isn't really all that advantageous over the current "civilian" lineup of common items. Now, on persistent servers, I feel that the criteria for loot respawn is a bit too stringent. It makes it so I won't even search most buildings, because they've already been cleaned out or spawn nothing useful. And while I do want an emphasis on survival, looting still has to be a fun/rewarding activity. It's a fine line between on the spectrum of being a tedious grind through useless items, or, a one-stop-shop easy gearing process. That and I think there just needs to be more stuff in-general, spawning in residential buildings. And it needs to be useful stuff, not just hats and rotten apples. I'm not saying it has to be a freakin' tent kit or a pristine can of beans, but there's a lot of stuff that is pretty dern useless as it stands in DayZ now (see disinfectant and see weapon cleaning kits). This is a problem I see with a lot of video games, which is usually to do with the environment. You have all this great scenery, buildings, and in-world items. But none of it can be used. For example, fireplaces... furniture... refrigerators. These are normally just there for show. But what about actually assigning a use, or multiple uses to them? That's also what I'd like to see (and am excited for things like world containers), not explicitly related to loot. But I just think that before we start making things super rare, we have to have a more robust "common" base of useful items that can be maintained, upgraded, and relied upon until a player can get that hyper-rare SVD and Gorka-E suit. That, and we need to have actual survival mechanics... that are more than just stuffing your character's face with pristine, common, and never-ending supplies of beans.

Not to rehash the old debate, but I'd posit that it's not that nothing can be done about it... it's that nothing is being, or will be, done about it. For a variety of reasons. Doesn't mean I'll change my attitude towards it, I don't like it. However, it is certainly unrealistic to expect the developers to do anything about it... but, again, doesn't mean I have to just accept it without voicing my disagreement. And then again, I'm not expecting anything to change... but I can point out the blatant flaws in the act of not even attempting to mitigate third-party influence. I doubt any sort of rangefinding capability would be used in the heat of battle, because anyone who'd be at ranges at which it is prudent to use a rangefinder/map would already be removed from the "heat of battle." I can't really recall any time I've been trying to whip out a rangefinder or map out when under fire. And besides, that's not even the issue. The issue is that, an in-game item = the expending of time/effort/risk to acquire. Third-party capability = the expending of zero time/effort/risk to acquire. You can't have some people playing by the rules and others giving the middle finger to the game's in-game systems. Rangefinders, aptly, grant the player the ability to accurately find the range to a target. So does DayZDB, the difference being (and it's a massive one) that one actually is an acquired capability (and thereby justified in-game) and the other is something that is outside the auspices of the game itself, thereby requiring nothing but a whim to acquire.

Yet another decent capability undercut by third-party programs... the newly added rangefinder. Who needs a super rare rangefinder when I can just plot the ranges down on my always-accessible, always-inconsequential DayZDB map panel?

The one in the ol' noggin! I generally frown upon the use of extra-game maps, especially when the developers have gone through the trouble of including one in-game! But then again, I'm an extremist. I despise the use of extra-game comm programs for the very same reason. Plus, I never saw the use in extra-game maps once you've pretty much memorized the entire map (which isn't hard at all).

Certainly not, because one wouldn't be able to server hop at all. I wasn't asserting that server hopping wouldn't be wholly remedied by private servers/shards. What I was asserting though, is that there might be alternative solutions which preserve (rather than totally discard) what I'll outline below. In taking this particular approach to server hopping, you're inherently marginalizing something that might not be worth throwing out entirely. The potential shortcomings I was referring to have to do with the loss of a supposed persistent/coherent cross-server character dynamic. This was something that was absolutely central to DayZ as it stood in the mod, and I can recall more than one occasion of Rocket touting the "cross-server persistent character" as something to be valued in DayZ. It certainly still seems to be the case as well, with Rocket recently expressing a desire for fully endorsed cross-server loot economies with the inclusion of things like helicopter parts which are able to be transferred cross-server. A part of it has to do with something that I've taken issue with for a long time - the attempt by the developers to walk the fine line between a traditional MMO-type server architecture (i.e. broad-based universe persistence) and a narrower FPS-type architecture (i.e. non-persistent, compartmentalized, and/or private servers). In my opinion, you can't really do both and still keep the strengths of both approaches intact. For example, you can't really say that you're limiting in-game resources if I can just plop a persistent tent on an empty server and be able to transfer the stuff I store there to a fully-populated server with zero consequence. And if you are limiting in-game resources (i.e. the loot economy) then you have to be okay with some degree of server hopping. Conversely, you can't really have a "cross-server loot economy," or even a vibrant community (I don't fully agree with this second bit, just using it as an example) if my character is only limited to interacting with one particular server/hive/shard/whatever. Simply put, if everything's on a private shard, you're compartmentalizing (i.e. dividing) the community and the experience into small microcosms. Which is fine, if that approach is actually followed. But you lose some of the integrity of a broad cross-server dynamic. And it's not really enough anymore to say "We'll include both! Let the players decide!" because it results in two fundamentally distinct games being played. Which would require two different experiences to be created by the developers. A centralized cross-server hive-based loot economy can't really function as intended within one server. So what needs to be done is an approach to servers needs to be selected (i.e. cross-server/public, or, fixed-server/private), and then the proposed qualities of the game need to reflect that. We can't keep having talk of a "hive-based" loot economy if we're just going to divvy up everything into private servers. Or... A middle ground needs to be sought which remedies so-called "illegitimate" server hopping, while keeping a space open for some form of cross-server character/item transfer. DISCLAIMER - I am actually a proponent of private shards/servers/hives/whatevers. But I can see the value in being able to swap servers for legitimate reasons.

They're a potential solution to server hopping. One of many, none without potential problem areas.

I agree! Which is why I want more variety in optics.

/facepalm

I mean, you're going to catch hell for this. Because that's always what happens. But yes, in short - if something is suitably rare, difficult to craft, difficult to maintain, and balanced within reason... I have no issue. The only possible issue I might have, is with something like a belt-fed grenade launcher. They're pretty powerful forces to be reckoned with, and can get annoying real quick in a video game. That said, if the weapon itself were extremely rare, 40mm HE was rare, belt links were rare, on top of having to get a vehicle up and running... I could see it. Tanks, I don't really see a point. Technicals and armed (door-mounted) helicopters, though, yes please.

Neat! I was talking prudentially, though. And I don't think anyone was referring to the real-world or in-game discrepancies at all. As in, the LRS should be made into a fixed magnification scope because I want something else, which is much rarer with a mil-dot reticle, to be the high-end variable magnification scope. Or the other way, keep the LRS as is... change the reticle... and make it rarer... then add a new fixed magnification scope.

I think a variable power scope should be rarer, and distinguished from that of the LRS (which I agree should be fixed power). In other words, we just need more variety in terms of optic selection. I don't like how the LRS is just the apex predator of optics with no real competition. Plus, I don't think it'd kill them to add a proper mil-dot. But that would probably require that they remedy the FOV dictating scope parameters issue.

Chris Torchia had said that they plan on having 7.62x54R and .308.

Was more just focusing on the use of the Cyrillic alphabet rather than the phonetic structure of the language. I don't speak Czech or Russian, so the alphabet is all I can comment on. Perhaps I should've been more specific. I wouldn't put much stock in the idea that Chernarus could be a former Bohemian possession. Given that its geographically separated from where the Czech Republic (and medieval Bohemia) would be. It is in the Caucasus, or near to it, I can't find the intro video for the campaign that identifies it there. But I'm sure I've seen it either there, or in a similar position to modern-day Moldova. Likewise, the fact that it borders a major body of water at all rules the entire area of Bohemia or Czech out at all. Which is why it isn't really all that useful, in my mind, to play the game of trying to pin it down ourselves. It's just purely fictional, and until that fiction is fleshed out... I don't really see anything to be gained in speculating. Because we're not really operating in the realm of non-fiction. I've long maintained that Chernarus (and the universe of DayZ) itself needs to be fleshed out much more by the developers. Whether that means planting a "Background" section into the website, or if it means including in-game lore items for us to find, I don't particularly care at this point. But I don't really think the whole "let the players tell the story" excuse for a lack of lore in DayZ is acceptable, or even unique, anymore. There is, of course, a difference between the story of the player and the story of the environment. Nobody bitches about not having a unique player-by-player experience in a game like Skyrim, which has an intimately crafted lore and a well-articulated universe. So why is DayZ any different? If Chernarus/DayZ's lore is further expanded upon, it doesn't marginalize... or even affect at all... the notion of the players "creating their own stories." DayZ needs lore. How that lore is to be delivered is up for interpretation. But I think we, and the developers, are missing out on a lot of what lore could offer. Rather than just having us play on a vague, non-contextual canvas.

I still have yet to find a green balaclava. And I cannot find any bandanas which can be transformed into facemasks.

The only thing you can conclude is that Chernarus is fictional, it does not exist in the real world. It is pieced together with aspects from the real world, but it is not therefore one of those real world entities. Its overall landscape is based on Usti nad Labem, in Czech. It's still Chernarus. Its geographic location on the globe, is more akin to Georgia or Azerbaijan. It's still Chernarus. Its political history is more akin to a region like Chechnya or Ukraine. It's still Chernarus, though. Its economic circumstance appears more like Belarus or rural Ukraine. But, it's still Chernarus. Its military history is more akin to the Balkans. It's still Chernarus, though. Its linguistic heritage is more akin to Russia. It's still Chernarus... right? Aspects (not the entire notion of Chernarus, because a large portion is purely fictional as in it was created expressly by the developers due to their own distinct creativity) are based in reality. The product, universe, and everything to do with Chernarus as it is manifested in DayZ... is fictional.

It's fictional. Though Chernarus draws upon real-world inspirations. It is still fictional. It isn't Czech. It isn't Ukraine. It isn't fictional Ukraine, whatever that means. It isn't Russia. There's no hidden meaning behind it, or conspiracy that we're really supposed to be playing in the Ukraine. It's Chernarus, an amalgam which draws upon them all (and others) and incorporates their landscapes, political circumstances, languages, and aesthetics, to various degrees, into a fictional location. Not sure why this is difficult for people to wrap their heads around. It's Chernarus.

Sarcastic, sure, but that's to be expected when I've been defending reason (i.e. a recognition of Chernarus itself as fictional and a recognition of real-world geopolitical/economic paradigmatic change) for over two years, against swathes of folks who vehemently don't want things like a humble AR-15 in their ideal post-Soviet apocalypse. And, if you read what I actually said (I don't recall ever mentioning "horror" at all, genre or otherwise), I was referring to the pure stereotypical post-Soviet and/or "Eastern European" aesthetic for which you were advocating. I don't set up binaries. Likewise, this aesthetic that you're advancing... is ostensibly based on reality. As the notion of a post-Soviet country is a concept born out of real-world circumstance, rather than completely dreamed up in fiction. I don't recall mentioning journalism at all, either. I used two franchises, yes. That are pretty seminal. I also used a so-called "AAA" game to demonstrate that this aesthetic creeps into other genres (thereby becoming cliche). I also listed a detached popular culture reference, in the "10 Abandoned Places" anecdote. I could list other things, like Call of Duty's heavy emphasis on Pripyat as a plot device. I also listed a real-world example, one which is etched into a broader global consciousness, about what an apocalyptic landscape would look like. So, I feel I've got all my bases covered when I assert that a "post-Soviet" apocalyptic aesthetic, is every bit as cliche as a "Western" apocalyptic aesthetic. Not to mention the error in the assumption that foreign = fixed. I'm also not sure where you're getting the idea that DayZ is meant to convey something "foreign." Not only is the status of "foreign" completely relative, but DayZ is fictional. It's foreign to everyone, because it's made up. Would a rural Russian find DayZ's aesthetic foreign? Doubtful. I don't even find it terribly foreign, given that I grew up in rural New England. Which brings me to the final point I'll make. You say that Steyr AUGs and Tavors are "Western" weapons? Perhaps you should tell that to RPC Fort in Ukraine, the most prolific manufacturer of Tavor-platform weapons outside of Israel. Perhaps you should do a cursory Google search for Steyr AUGs or FN 2000s in countries like Syria, Palestine, and Libya. They're "Western" right? You say that Multicam is rare in Eastern Europe? Tell that to the military servicemen from countries like Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, and Georgia who use Multicam pattern gear. And you might want to include the other swathes of irregular forces fighting in Ukraine, which regularly use Multicam (likely purchased from military surplus stores, brought in from external powers, or looted from military facilities). You're dismissing "realism" while wanting it at the same time (because you're calling things like the Steyr AUG, M14 [which was sold in quantity, and is still stored in the tens of thousands by former Pact countries] and Tavor "western," which is a consideration deeply rooted in reality). And for the record, I was taking issue with the fact that you view merely advocating for the inclusion of things like M14s as somehow detrimental. Not the fact that you want them to be rare.

Personally, I think once the AKS-74U is in... and we've got an RPK of some sort, I think they should give the AKs a rest for a good long while (to say nothing of AK attachments/optics). So, where do they go from there? Obviously this discussion is going to be a bit academic, as the developers have stated that they have a fixed weapon list for a 1.0 release. But, in the absence of our knowledge of that list, let's look at what we know/have heard so far. 1. The MP-133 is inbound, as is the Rossi R92 2. They're working on the AKS-74U and 5.45x39 (/confetti) 3. The SVD is being held back due to a desire to put it in the centralized loot economy 4. The M1 Garand is rumored to be included eventually 5. There was a brief mention of the PKM, albeit as a vehicle-mounted weapon and not explicitly as a man-portable weapon 6. Developer interest has been shown for a mid-length AR-15 and a FN FAL OPINION - I'd like to see some time dedicated to "European" military arms that aren't distinctly "American" but aren't distinctly "Soviet" either. Such as the FN FAL, FN MAG, HK G36, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and/or L85A2. Likewise, I'd love to see a rifle-cartridge hunting rifle or a dedicated bolt-action sniper rifle. Obviously, the previous patterns of weapon inclusion have been a bit eclectic (i.e. not having been chained down to a particular region). So perhaps my desire for "European" weapons is presumptuous. But I think we're good for now on two things - pistols and AKs. Where do you think they should go next? Please keep it civil and non-vitriolic, I'm genuinely interested in where you think they should go next, not where you think they shouldn't go. UPDATE - Steyr AUG announced in Devblog for week of 15 September.

I don't want to play a caveman simulator. Firearms should be the mainstay, low-rent melee/arrow weapons should be - weapons of desperation, and/or, ultra-specific utility (i.e. poor-man's suppressor).