Katana67

Not true. Suppressors do decrease the dB level of supersonic ammunition. They modulate the sound as well, making it harder to pinpoint the origin of a shot downrange. Plus, they make CQC more buddy friendly. Hence why the majority of folks who run suppressors do with supersonic ammunition. It's still loud, sure. But it's a different kind of loud from an unsuppressed weapon. Gews has a much more scientific explanation. Subsonic ammunition (5.56x45 NATO) in this instance, is indeed used by the US military. Although, very infrequently. Would I mind if they included subsonic ammunition? Not at all. Do I want it? Sure. Do suppressors need it to be useful? No.

I do think it may eventually be alright for some sort of tracked vehicle. Definitely unarmed (or with a GPMG), definitely rare, definitely difficult to repair, and definitely fuel inefficient. I really think that people need to take a step back and actually analyze what made things like tanks/APCs and helicopters "overpowered" in the mod(s). Because they aren't objects that are conceptually incompatible with DayZ as a game. Plus, I wouldn't mind if the majority of the seats were on the exposed roof. The way I feel about tanks in DayZ, is that they should be used as movable cover. Pure and simple. I don't see any issue with having a lumbering, armored, vehicle in DayZ. If I were to bet money on it, I'd wager that the vanilla vehicles will end up being teacups in terms of armor. And even if they get armor modifications, they'll be more or less the same as an APC. We know so little about vehicles in DayZ, that I don't think we can make a call one way or the other on tracked tanks or APCs.

No, the fact that more than one player is in DayZ make it PvP. You can absolutely destroy a UH-1 in the mod with a Mk 48, I've taken several out in just that way. Hell, I've even been sniped out of helicopters by battle rifles.

I never ever... ever... thought helicopters could "dominate" the map. I've been playing since April of 2012, and I've never once had an issue with a helicopter. One could take them out with small arms fire for god's sake. Or just, you know, avoid them... really... really... easily. Sure, the vehicles and tents stuck out like a sore thumb. But that's not the helicopter's fault now is it? Reading the circumstances of the mod as if they're perpetually applicable to the SA, isn't helpful.

This thing again?

Luckily we don't have to pay for our attachments in DayZ.

But it's already a concept expressed in the game (i.e. the KAC RIS [a looted attachment] allowing for the mounting of the Weapon Flashlight [another looted attachment] onto itself). And 99% of the stuff we discuss is "unimportant atleast for now."

Err... What? So you're saying that because certain attachments allow for the mounting of certain other attachments (i.e. the KAC RIS which is already in-game) that it will inevitably evolve into what you just detailed? Or, it could be this... Or this... as was detailed in the Tweet. Either way, Torchia's reasoning is unexplained at best and incoherent at worst.

Why?

You can't buy the mod. I understand what you mean (i.e. buying ARMA 2 OA), but its a discrepancy that isn't insignificant.

Obviously very concerned, but hopeful. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.

I personally like the minigame concept, it actually allows for the player to get GOOD at something. Vice just having the player click "use" or "repair" or "combine" and the character goes about a fixed animation in accomplishing that task. Failure, shoddy repair, or a perfect repair... should be options as well, rather than a 100% guarantee of success. Agreed about the locks, some of the mods were absolutely stupid because of "indestructible" bases. So long as an item (locks in this case) has a suitable counter, I'm totally fine with it. But it shouldn't be something that everyone has, and the locks should have varying degrees of resistance.

Right, and I'm not really talking about a difference in performance. Having the use of rare weapons be tough, is what I'm saying. Just dividing the rounds up by weapon type, regardless of performance, would go a long way in making the dynamics of actually keeping yourself armed a bit different as one climbs the proverbial weapon tier. They could actually tweak the rarity of a given round on a more relevant and granular level, rather than just having blanket rarity of ammunition for a particular round that fits in a variety of common-rare weapons. Succinctly, I want hunting rifles to be easier to find ammunition for than battle rifles (or other rare rifles). Even though they may have similar performance on a shot-per-shot basis. And I don't see that happening with everything using 7.62x51.

Well they do have a point with the VSS, as the 9x39 round is almost proprietary (i.e. the weapons it's used in are either able to be chambered in another round [OTs-14], or are too similar aesthetically/pragmatically to the VSS to be of significance [AS VAL, VSK-94, SR-3]). So it wouldn't make sense for them to add 9x39 if they were just going to add the VSS, they'd have to add an entire line of weapons which are able to use 9x39 to justify it from a development perspective. But honestly, I don't see what's so difficult about adding a new ammo type. However, with regard to hunting rifle rounds... I think there's something to be said here from both a balance and diversity perspective. Personally, I think that it's purely balance issue. Common weapon cartridges that stretch from hunting rifles to LMGs/GPMGs just rehashes the same problem from the mod (i.e. being able to resupply "high-end" weapons inconsequentially from low-risk areas). In my opinion, they need to add a distinct set of "civilian" cartridges in conjunction with "military" cartridges. That way, one set could be made rarer than the other in order to not short-change low-end weapons by making "high-end" weapon ammo hyper-rare. Conversely, as I said before, it ostensibly makes it so it's actually difficult to resupply a "high-end" weapon. Obviously, there'd be some overlap. As "military" rounds often have "civilian" counterparts, and vice versa. But I think it makes sense in terms of design. Or perhaps, they just need to make a dedicated hunting rifle cartridge distinct from that of other rifles. Which might be a good compromise. I'd go for .30-06 as a candidate for consideration. The issue is that if they're going to include a round, they need to have a suitable variety of weapons to justify its use. A dedicated hunting round is actually something that makes sense in that regard, to me at least. But yeah, honestly, most hunting rifles do look aesthetically the same to me. Obviously there's some discrepancy with the term, but more-or-less what folks associate as a hunting rifle (i.e. traditional wood stock, bolt action, no detachable magazine, few if any standard mounts) fits a particular aesthetic form factor which isn't necessarily the case with other weapons.

If they remove "random spread" from weapons, I'd trade that for "Hollywood" suppressors and generic ammunition any day.

Although I do have some caveats with regard to your previous discussion (i.e. that subsonic ammunition is used by the US, albeit in limited numbers and that plausibility/likelihood of finding something isn't the sole determinant in what should/shouldn't be in DayZ) I agree wholeheartedly that subsonic ammunition isn't needed for suppressors to be useful.

Seven sentences is a bible?

A suppressor doesn't need subsonic ammunition to be effective. It does lower the dB level of supersonic ammo, and does modulate the sound. Granted, it's still pretty dern loud being supersonic. But there's a reason people run cans. Makes CQC a bit less messy and minimizes one's audio profile as to make it more difficult to tell the direction of a shot. Had this discussion with Gews a while back, and he brought a lot of good ideas to the table. Subsonic ammunition isn't all that common (save for rounds which are nearly exclusively subsonic). Hell, my Marine buddy said they pretty much only used it for neutralizing guard dogs in Afghanistan. Which isn't an issue, but it's not like suppressors are completely shit without subsonic ammo. However, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to subsonic ammunition as a separate entity in DayZ. But I would also be okay if they left suppressors as modulating, rather than silencing attachments. Or, just went all out and made suppressors "silence" the weapon in traditional Hollywood style. I just think they need to do something, what that something is, is up for debate. The only suppressor that appears to do anything in-game is the integral on the Amphibia S. FNX suppressor does jack shit (even though it fires subsonic .45 ACP), same with the M4 suppressor.

/shrug I don't see anything wrong with it. They'll probably be made rarer eventually. Only thing I want is for them to treat the 60 round magazine for the M4 as two separate magazines with a lessened reload time. Rather than as one pool of 60 rounds.

Not sure the poll is worded quite right, I want them to be important in the sense that they allow me to travel from A to B quickly and store things which may provide a distinct advantage over walking or fixed storage. But I don't want them to be more prevalent or somehow more necessary. There are a lot of things that need to happen with vehicles before I personally, would consider them acceptable. First, they need to be randomized, rarer, and completely/near barren (i.e. no usable parts on spawn). Second, the repair parts need to be vehicle or vehicle-type specific. No more generic "tires" fitting on everything from a rickety bike to a Ural. Not sure if it should be "Toyota Hilux tire" or just "truck tire," but the parts have to be less generic. Third, the ACTION of vehicle repair needs to be made into an ACTIVITY. It's not enough to just have a generic "toolkit," click "use," and your character goes about repairing the individual part. Locating what actually needs repair via in-game visual cues (not HUD items) is essential. Likewise, repairing a vehicle needs to be made a process. I'd suggest a mini-game for different repair actions, but people would probably have a shit fit. Fourth, they need to save consistently and be persistent. Helicopters and technicals have to actually SAVE their previous ammo counts from restart to restart, and should NEVER come standard with ammunition. Fifth, camouflage netting. This may not seem like much, but vehicles really do stick out like a sore thumb no matter what color they are or where you hide them. A camouflage netting item needs to be included for all vehicles. Sixth, fuel availability. With the advent of the loot management concept, this could be applied to dynamically allocating fuel loot distribution on the hive. Siphoning fuel is a must, and it should be able to be done on both wrecked and live vehicles alike (but may not yield anything, or a small amount of gas). Gas should be a precious resource, not a "taken for granted" item in the game.

While I agree with Orlok that it's not what Torchia said verbatim, it's inevitably what was implied. By dismissing the inclusion of specialized and/or specific calibers, he's inadvertently making a statement about their overall design goals at this time. No, I'm referring to the vanilla mod and Standalone only. Right, but I'm not talking about the overall availability of ammunition as a whole. I think the ammunition availability needs to be toned down. Which again brings me to the question - How can we reconcile the fact that rare and common weapons alike may be using the same ammunition? It is detrimental, in my opinion, to have everything using generic ammunition. Because it doesn't really require a justified rarity in ammo availability to suit rare weapons. Another way of approaching it, is having certain calibers both correspond to the generalized make of the weapon (i.e. 7.62x54R for Warsaw Pact and 7.62x51 for NATO) on the "high-end" and then have a more generic "civilian" (for the purposes of a divide, not in their real-world use) batch of hunting ammunition which is more common in-game (i.e. .30-06). Which could supply the "low-end."

Dat missed sarcasm...

Psh, everybody knows it's the famous James Steed of The Interceptors. Who's this James May bloke again? Never heard of him...

I agree that roleplay is wonderful, and would like to see more of it. However, people are going to play the way they want to play. The only thing the developers can do is add consequence to action, which gets us all roleplaying to an extent.

I don't much care for it being "lazy" or not, it makes sense from an "ease of development" point of view. But how do we reconcile the potential for common cartridges being used in, ostensibly, rare weapons in-game? I mean, if 7.62x51 can be used in everything from a Blaser B95 to an M240, how can they avoid the problems of the mod where ammunition was widely available as to make the use of said rare weapons not really all that rare? You can't short-change the "low-end" weapons by making said ammunition hyper-rare as to justify its use in some of the rarer weapons. But you can't have it be common, as to make the supplying of rare weapons as easy as others. It's no longer the case where ammunition and magazines are one in the same, so ammunition commonality is even more vulnerable now than it was in the mod (until mag splitting was implemented). Needing specific magazines for a weapon sort of mitigates this, as does having to find them separately from the weapon itself. But I just think it's going to be problematic to have a relatively homogenized ammo pool, which stretches from common to hyper rare weapons.