Katana67

Yep, but not military sniper rifles. Which is what I'm referring to. As I said, .300 WM and .338 LM have both military and hunting applications. Making it a more flexible "high end long range sniper rifle" round for DayZ in my mind, as it's available for a wider variety of sniper rifles.

.300 WM is the only one that'd "make sense" in my mind. Most .338 LM weapons are also able to be chambered in .300 WM. Doesn't matter to me, either one makes just as much sense to me as the other. The others are pretty well reserved for hunting purposes, whereas .300 WM and .338 LM see widespread use in hunting and military long-range platforms (which would justify my intended use for .338 LM/.300 WM, in "high-end" sniper rifles).

There's nothing crazy about .338 LM in DayZ. .338 LM would make for a great, great, dedicated sniper rifle round that would be open to a wide variety of sniper rifles and big game rifles, which are really too many to list. Plus, it's not like 7.62x51 which is used in everything from break-action pistols to GPMGs.

Yep it's a cool round. Just not sure they really need it now.

Very informative, thank you. The only rounds that I think we need in the future are a hunting round (whatever that may be), a dedicated "sniper rifle" round (hopefully .338 LM), and/or 7.62x54R (I actually wouldn't be opposed to having 7.62x54R as the hunting round). That way, they can have the big-boy "civilian/hunting" weapons like the Longhorn fire a different round from say, a high-end GPMG or battle rifle. Likewise, they can make more "common" weapons like the Mosin and assumedly the SVD, fire 7.62x54R. 5.45x39 I don't think we need, as we've already got 7.62x39 and most of the weapons chambered in 5.45x39 also have 7.62x39 counterparts. But, I wouldn't mind it. The issue for me now, isn't that we have "matching" calibers. Or a plethora of calibers. It's that we have a lot, granted, but not enough for the ammunition in-game to be tweaked adequately later on. We only really need three or four new calibers for this to happen in my opinion. There are unrepresented calibers out there, with vast families of weapons which can be chambered in said calibers. I just think those need to be implemented, before we talk about calibers which do not have diverse families of weapons. I don't think .410 gauge is the way to go now, but, it's as good as any I guess.

That and dispersion affects single-shot just as well. It's not like single-shot automatically gets rid of the dispersion. In fact, it's far more intrusive on semi-automatic, because you're trying to make each shot count... and land where you want it... by doing the right things... like managing sway, recoil, lead and the like... and the game's basically giving you the middle finger for no reason by playing ping-pong with your rounds as they fly downrange. Dispersion is not only detrimental (if highly noticeable or prohibitive at reasonable ranges), it's unnecessary. If a player is inaccurate, he or she will ALREADY be inaccurate. If a player is accurate, he or she is ALREADY accurate. There's no reason to screw folks over who're good. Nothing needs to be simulated, at least in terms of prowess/ineptitude. A player is ALREADY either good or bad at shooting, or somewhere in between.

Any player construction, should be modular and not linearly upgradable. A fire should be a fire. A cabin should be a cabin. One shouldn't grow/shrink into the other. That, and player-placed construction is heavily dependent on one thing - the amount of available wilderness. The wilderness in DayZ has been markedly, markedly, trimmed from the mod. The northern mountains have been flattened and have cities (and planned cities) directly in abutment. The only piece of wilderness which has been relatively untouched, is the western border south of Lopatino. So, as I said in another thread, there's two things that need to happen for player-placed construction (at least relatively permanent construction) to be successful. One, the wilderness needs to be expanded again. Not sure if this is possible or not, but it's essential. The other option, is having player-placed construction being geared towards fortification of cities/towns. But, allowing players to control territory is essential. The implementation of barricading is slated for Q3 or Q4 (I can't remember which). Which'd be a good start. They've got a long way to go until then though. Things like persistent objects need to get nailed down first.

I do wish they'd add 5.45x39, as it'd serve to differentiate the assault rifles... so that one type of ammo (5.56x45 NATO) could be made rarer and the other (5.45x39) could be made more common. But, the same thing could be done with 7.62x39 as well (which is already in the game). And there are workarounds (i.e. the AK-101) although that still may not be satisfactory to some. I'd rather have the AK-74 fire 5.45x39, but I understand why it's not prudent at this time. And yes, I also agree that balancing things (vice only realism) will demand that they introduce more calibers further on down the line. If everything from a bolt-action hunting rifle, to a break-action pistol, to a magazine-fed battle rifle, to a high-end sniper rifle, to a GPMG is using 7.62x51 and 7.62x51 only (or just one type of ammo) then these weapons will more or less require the same amount of effort to rearm... no matter their rarity/commonality.

Well the likelihood argument is based on nothing, in my opinion. But, a Mosin can be purchased for $100 USD. Whereas a Blaser 95 costs upwards of $2000-4000 USD. So, I'd say the likelihood is at least even (i.e. more people are likely to have a Mosin, vice a Blaser B95, but the more expensive rifle is less involved to have optics placed upon it) if not in favor of the Mosin. However, I just think they need to put in a generic "Hunting Scope," which can be balanced/implemented separately from the LRS. Gives certain weapons (like the B95) a capability to use an optic, whilst not giving it the same advantages as the LRS. Then, they can remove the LRS from the Mosin in good faith whilst other weapons geared toward "hunting" can have a decent optic.

But you do need a rail to mount the optic in question, the LRS. The LRS (i.e. a scope that uses a 1913/Picatinny interface) cannot be mounted to a Blaser 95 (Blaze 95) without the purchase and installation of a specialized mount. The LRS (i.e. a scope that uses a 1913/Picatinny interface) cannot be mounted to a Mosin without the purchase and installation of a specialized mount. Yet one's "realistic", because one's installation is more involved than the other. Please... So all that matters is that it's optics-ready, not whether it can REALISTICALLY accommodate the optic in question? You're no longer arguing for realism.

There is no Blaser B95 available, standard, with a 1913/Picatinny rail interface (which the LRS requires to remain "realistic"). The Blaser 95 is every bit as incapable of mounting the LRS as the Mosin.

I agree with all but the last bit. The developers are pursuing both barricading pre-existing structures, and player-placed construction. I'm more interested in the first one, but the second one needs to come as well. However, there are some limitations. One being, there's no real area of wilderness to hide a base or player structure in Chernarus+. This leaves us with two options. Add wilderness areas, or gear the player construction towards fortifying/securing existing cities/towns (not only structures). I want players to be able to influence the terrain more so, and I think player-placed structures would be a good way of doing that. Imagine rolling up to a small town, say Myshkino (my favorite one!). It's dusk, sun's going down. You're walking along a desolate logging road and come across an unmanned roadblock, a spraypainted sign reads "STAY OUT OR BE SHOT." You, being an intrepid survivor, go on anyway. You eventually come to Myshkino, which has been walled off and secured by a party of bandits. What would you do? Would you try and infiltrate and steal their supplies? Would you try and get in touch with other survivors for an assault? Would you try the unwise route and attempt to barter/negotiate with them? Giving players the power to influence the landscape of DayZ, is essential in my opinion. And I don't see that being possible without being able to actually control territory.

Or just... retool it... give things different values which aren't related to down-range performance...

This is why I think they need to include a new optic, just a "Hunting Scope." Fixed magnification, but more than the PU. Non mil-dot reticle (for aesthetic reasons). Deer Stand spawn. Able to be used on the B95 and whatever hunting rifles they plan on implementing. Done deal.

To answer your question, there really isn't any reason why we can't have the things you say. It's fiction, the developers can use any reason they wish to explain any inclusion they wish. Ultimately, the only argument against what you're saying is in preserving "the aesthetic feel" of the game. Which is wholly subjective, largely based on a misinterpretation of circumstance in post-Soviet countries (now being a part of a globalized economy and indeed producing their own unique weapons), and is still subject to fictional interpretation. As to the "two schools" argument, I disagree. There are extremes and middle grounds. Unfortunately, the extremes tend to be more vocal (i.e. NO TACTICOOL GUNZ or LOLREALISM). The middle grounds, something that I've tried to seek, get glossed over by the extremes. And it's unfortunate. Some folks are dismissive of "realism" whilst some folks are slavishly obedient to it. I want to find a compromise, via the mediation of "realism" and pragmatic gameplay concerns. I love weapons, I am a gun nerd. But I'm not holding "realistic depictions of weapons" over the head of DayZ saying "Do this! Or you won't be good!"

I honest to god have no issue with folks who want the weapons depicted "realistically." Most of the time, I am one of those people. But it just has to be done in concert with pragmatism, not in defiance of it. That and, oddly enough, people have very loose definitions of "realism" (even though it's a hyper-specific term). Most people can't argue for realism (or anything for that matter) without being condescending, insulting, or can't do so without indicting the developers somehow. The second people make the MASSIVE jump to "this is the direction that the game is headed," then I have an issue. The second folks jump to illogical extremes (i.e. they want the LRS on the Mosin, therefore, they MUST WANT railed double-barrels with M203s and laser beam Fleshlights), then I have an issue. The second someone asserts that realistic weapons are the SOLE CRITERIA upon which the legitimacy/merit of DayZ can be judged, then I have an issue. Advocate all you want for realistically depicted weapons, I'll be right there with you. But the second it turns into a "this is an affront to DayZ, WTF devs, there is no reason for this" vitriolic conversation... then I'll be against you. However, yes, I hope that once they put in a so-called "high-end" sniper rifle, or at least a rare sniper rifle, that they'll remove the LRS from the Mosin and give it a horizontal bolt-handle (but even then, it'd still conflict with the PU scope). But if that doesn't happen, I won't lose any sleep over it because it's unrealistic, I'll lose proverbial sleep over it because it's detrimental to have a common weapon able to mount a supposedly rare optic.

Solid ideas, I like the "weapon kit" as a tool to be used to attach certain optics on certain weapons. As it would require a bit of time/animation, and wouldn't be instantaneous. As for the rope/weapon deal, sure, that makes sense... although it should actually come at some cost (be it weight or a lack of a melee weapon, neither of which are represented in-game [there's no weight/stamina system, and one can store a fireaxe in a backpack]). I'd be interested in slings as well, to provide for a faster transition from primaries to secondaries.

Has anyone come across the railed handguard for the AKM? Or do you think it's awaiting implementation?

Thank you, the one person who's actually interested in discussing how this affects gameplay and not just "realism." I agree, however, there is something to be said for making the LRS itself rare versus removing capability from the (rightfully, in my opinion) common Mosin. Granted, there are issues with this (i.e. loot system, server hopping, etc.), but they're tangential/dependent. I hope they implement a "Hunting Scope" (a la CZ 550) eventually. I have a hard time seeing how it'll be prudent to snag a dedicated "high-end" sniper rifle, while the Mosin is common and effective at the same ranges, if/when one is implemented. EDIT - Question, if the option arose (I think I remember you talking about this recently, so forgive me if it's redundant) would you rather they'd've gone with all Mosins as sniper variants with correctly rendered bolt handles?

Nah, brah, they're so focused on civilian and/or melee weapons... with the direction they're heading in man, we're gonna' be fighting with these... DayZ is clearly a caveman arcade game now... Do you see how vitriolic and illogical that is?

And, again, I've never heard anyone have an issue with the aftermarket (if not outright fabricated, certainly not the "standard issue" horizontal or specialized "turned-down" sniper variant) bolt-handle. But the scope being potentially the result of an aftermarket modification, stop the presses.

Honestly, it's a bit hard for me to see the jump between "Mosin which can mount a scope other than a PU scope"... ... to "Bolt-action .338 LM Barrett MRAD with three optics, a drum mag, and a grenade launcher." (Notice how one's a real image, whilst the other is a pink... computer-rendered image).

Agreed. And even then, it's not that it's impossible...or even uncommon... to see the attachments we're seeing in-game. Mosin's have railed scope mounts available, they can be ordered on the internet for a paltry amount. Granted, I've never seen the rail on the Mosin in DayZ in real-life (as it appears to just be a different action entirely, as the rail is just on top of the receiver). But the concept is the same. PU scopes, can be, and are, attached to the SKS. It's a relatively common modification to an SKS. The SKS is relatively optics-unfriendly, so folks work with what they have. No game, ever, to my knowledge... has required people to be gunsmiths to attach optics to weapons. So, you can make the argument that "you need to modify the stock/sights to attach this optic." But it's sort of inefficient from a development perspective to design an entire mechanic just to attach an optic, when they can just... attach the optic. And I don't see much merit in the argument of "render it 100% accurately, or not at all." Now, we can discuss whether or not the Mosin should be able to mount an LRS, for reasons of gameplay. But the pure realism bit is pretty irrelevant, and always has been in DayZ. Likewise, it is insanely frustrating to see the merits DayZ be reduced to ONE SOLE FACTOR... it's "realism" in depiction of weapons.

Well it's a handguard, so I gather it'll be similar to the KAC RIS for the M4 in being able to mount flashlights and the like. I figure they'll save the optics for the AK as to be weapon/family-specific, as it's not rendered with a railed receiver. That and I don't recall them saying they can't attach optics to railed attachments, just that they can't have "attachment-ception" (which is already the case, effectively, when the KAC RIS allows the attachment of the flashlight). EDIT - The in-game description is as follows, albeit a bit useless "Short Aftermarket handguard with rails, fits AK based rifles."

I opened it in Notepad. This line was interesting though, "Attachment_Handguard_AK_Rail_Black"