Katana67

And it does... helicopters help with that... I sure feel alone, scared, and vulnerable when a helicopter flies over me armed to the teeth. One man's crew of bandits is another man's "elite military unit" I guess.

Flying across the map in less than 5 minutes isn't an issue for me. It doesn't offer any real advantages in and of itself in terms of being able to affect the situation on the ground. However, the ability to deploy folks inconsequentially and the ease of spotting things is what is at fault here. You're muddling two very different things - being able to traverse terrain rapidly... and being able to spot things easily. Camps/vehicles having the ability to be camouflaged by the folks on the ground, or having smaller storage alternatives (i.e. persistent backpacks) would work wonders. As would remedying the issues that I listed in the OP. The issue with spotting things, is that the folks on the ground (with regard to tents and vehicles) have no alternative means of hiding their things. Likewise, making them more difficult to get up and running isn't insignificant. If they're less-likely to be in the air at any given time, they're less likely overall to be doing the things you're saying.

I like looking at my character... I suggested this approach a while back, and it has some major pitfalls. The issue doesn't have a simple solution, which is why they need to address the problem with a complex and multivalent solution (i.e. a lowering of the third-person camera, and occlusion blurring).

A good point! Another issue that has nothing to do with helicopters, and everything to do with a systemic flaw (i.e. frequent server restarts not only forcing helicopter crash spawns, but also a lack of dynamic helicopter crashes). Not to mention, the effectiveness of this tactic is tied to how frequently one can get a helicopter up and running. Remove the need for, or reduce the frequency of, server restarts (as it's supposedly planned) and re-work the helicopter crashes (if it, or something similar, is going to be in Standalone eventually). On an unrelated note, folks, bear in mind that I don't think helicopters were overpowered... at all. Even if they were, they should be something to be feared. The point of this thread is to highlight some of the factors which folks cite to deem helicopters as "overpowered" and to realize that none of them actually are to do with helicopters as a concept. The "issues" with helicopters in the mod were in large part to their execution (which was lacking, given that they weren't tailored to DayZ) and systemic flaws in the game, not their mere inclusion.

Chris Torchia ‏@ctorchia 4h @Chaingunfight @SFRGaming @simpsonslavyan in any case - no since it would be an attachment to an attachment. We cant do attachmentception :p This was in response to a tweet (presumably Chaingunfighter's from the forum) regarding the presence of an attachment on top of another an attachment. I found this to be a tad suspect, as the RIS attachment therefore allows the attachment of a flashlight to the M4A1. Which is essentially the same concept (i.e. an attachment allowing for another attachment). Now, I don't see much utility in having the carry handle be able to mount optics (vice just the rail on the receiver). But I'm not sure, again, Torchia's reasoning is sound on this one. It could be unfeasible due to the sight's relationship to the player, but the precedent of attachments on top of attachments has already been set by the KAC RIS available for the M4A1. That, and it's clearly possible to have Docter/RMR-type back-up red-dots on certain optics (which wasn't necessarily the objective of the tweet). Now, granted, these optics are generally one object in ARMA. But I feel they'll be necessary as high-end loot further on down the line (looking at you SpecterDR).

It would place Chernarus bordering Russia, as per the Armaverse. But it isn't Russia. The fact that it's fictional isn't irrelevant, it's massively significant. Look at Kosovo. NATO/UN intervention (similar to that of ARMA II) and there's an international peacekeeping mission there, ten years later. And your understanding of "what fits the setting" seems to be based in reality, which isn't the case in a fictional medium. The developers dictate what "fits." Your last example, with regards to the ACOG, is a perfect example of this. Not only are ACOGs pretty dern widespread these days, being purchased by civilians as well as global militaries, the fiction of Chernarus explains their presence. Now, you can argue that a hangar is not an appropriate place for an optic to spawn. But it being "Chernarussian" is irrelevant, when the presence of "Western" optics is explained. AR-15s are pretty ubiquitous. Not sure why their use is somehow out of order from any point of view (both a fictional and "realistic" point of view). And a half dozen "units" could be a massive force. Not sure I get a "last stand" vibe from NWAF, it's just an abandoned FOB. Gonna have to agree to disagree I suppose. Not a personal indictment of you, but I am getting insanely tired of defending something that is so readily explained now.

Well, you're in luck. Chernarus isn't Russia. And the universe in which DayZ is set isn't the real-world! The story of NATO weapons in Chernarus is explained by the events of ARMA II, see my signature with quoted statement from Chris Torchia. We don't need to make up backstories, that's what they're going with. "Primitive," whatever the hell you mean by that (I assume you mean poor), areas of the world are often highly militarized. Chernarus is no exception. They've stated they're not interested in putting in anti-materiel rifles, fairly early on. Again, your actual issue appears to be with the availability of ammo... not which weapons are in the game.

I don't think they need to be unarmed. I think some should be armed, although I would love to see more "civilian" helicopters. One person versus a helicopter shouldn't be able to come out on top 99% of the time. Hence why one shouldn't shoot at them unless you're ready to live with the consequences. It shouldn't be a fair fight at all. Sure, I agree that it's too easy to spot people from a helicopter. But I don't really expect to win if I'm engaging an armed helicopter by myself. They should be a force to be reckoned with. One of the most tense moments I've had in DayZ was getting caught in Stary, in the middle of the night, by a fully armed helicopter with a searchlight. I had to prone all the way across the southern field without getting spotted while it searched the area for me, after I'd stupidly baited it in over sidechat. If every helicopter was unarmed, people would just shoot at them 24/7 and there'd be zero consequence.

Can you start a comment without making a vitriolic assumption? Yes, I did play the mod, I stated so... in the OP. And my statement still stands, they can be taken down by small arms. Yes, I do expect they'll re-work the entire helicopter mechanic... because they've said they're reworking vehicles entirely.

Making them harder to fly is only one way of making them suitable in Standalone, but it's certainly a start! +1

That and they've expressed interest in having smaller storage, like backpacks. Doubt they'd be as easy to spot as tents. This is why I ended up storing my tents in smaller villages. Less conspicuous against buildings. Plus, I always found the tents to be easy to spot because they just contrasted too much with the tones of the woods (not to mention just graphically).

I agree! This is more to ascertain why people think they're "overpowered." Because this is something I hear a lot, and disagree with.

That's another good one that I forgot, everyone gets a parachute. And to my knowledge, the second issue was resolved.

Right, which, again... has nothing to do with the weapons themselves. It has to do with the rarity/availability (or lack thereof) of ammunition. And the acknowledged problem of server hopping... and the WIP loot system. Of an Alpha state game. Nothing to do with the weapons being "civilian" or "military".

Sure, but that's to do with rarity and the fact that they haven't balanced the loot to any tangible extent. Nothing to do with the arbitrary "civilian"/"military" divide, or anything to do with the weapons themselves. Bullets kill folks regardless of what weapon they're shot out of, the weapons that are most lethal per-shot are "civilian" weapons (i.e. the Mosin and SKS, even though they're both former military service rifles). Most of the weapons in-game have military and civilian applications. The M4A1's alpha status (in terms of it being "the best") in DayZ is highly... highly debatable as well.

How do you figure?

Anything on the order of hours, for a server reset, is unacceptable in my opinion. It should be on the order of days. Right now, as others have said, the situation is dictated by a desire to recycle loot. In the mod, it was dictated by server stability and desync. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with, frequent server restarts in a supposed "MMO" are unacceptable.

Optics time! Elcan SpecterDR Some kinda' EOTech Some kinda' S&B Short Dot or Leupold CQBSS lookin' thing SUIT PKA

Right, but does it mean that every time a new area is added, the entire thing has to be re-generated to accommodate it? I understand they are dividing it up into quadrants. I don't know all that much about navmesh.

Awesome. Feesh? Question, does the navmesh generation make it easier or more difficult to add new areas?

And I don't think said upcoming feature is a good idea, given what it ended up doing to the vanilla mod.

Well, they're clearly not doing that. Because they're including ammunition based on its applicability to a wide variety of weapons. They are envisioning/creating the setting, so it's up to them to deem what "fits." There's nothing they can do wrong or right, as they're creating the fiction.

All of which are AK-derivative, and all have 7.62x39 counterparts (i.e. AKM, AKMSU, and RPK). Point-being, there's no real need for 5.45x39 when we've already got 7.62x39. 5.56x45 has a much more robust variety of different weapon platforms entirely (i.e. G36, Galil [amongst other AK derivatives], AUG, FAMAS, L85, AR-15, Tavor, etc.)

No thanks. The fact that I can see zombies spawning in front of me (yes, I'm aware it's a heavy WIP) and they've got instant, 100% accurate access to my position (regardless of whether I've moved after firing) is entirely detrimental. Zombies need to be more GTA V police and less laser-guided missile. The zombie threat should be apparent, as to be assessed and negotiated by the player. If the player ALWAYS spawns an infinite amount of zombies nearby after killing another zombie, the experience will become insanely formulaic. I want persistent hordes, not stop-gap "simulation" measures.

Honest to god, I still think adding mod support is a bad idea at this point (or any point in the foreseeable future). It hemorrhaged players away from the vanilla mod, drew down support for it (see "Epoch/BP/Overwatch has X, why doesn't the mod have X?"), and pushed players into experiences which were profoundly NOT DayZ. I respect modding, and recognize that DayZ wouldn't exist without it. But it can't go on like it did with the mod.