Katana67

I mean, the "Soviet Russia post-apocalyptic" genre is pretty damn cliche in and of itself. See the Metro franchise. See STALKER. Two well-established franchises, adhering (with great, great, leniency) to a depiction of an "Eastern European" and/or "Russian" environment. I mean, an "Eastern European" post-apocalyptic aesthetic has even crept into other games, like Destiny as well (which only features a ruined Russia as a location on Earth). So, I ask, why should be be playing just another "bland" Soviet apocalypse cliche? I swear to god, if I hear a "something something something Chernobyl/Pripyat" reference, I might lose my mind. Because that is the ultimate in post-apocalyptic cliches, in the real-world. Whenever folks think of an abandoned, ruined broken down area... where to they think of? Pripyat. The litany of "Top 10 Abandoned Places" lists on the internet alone are a testament to that. Nevermind that, surprise, these countries exist in the 21st century. And that they now partake in a global economy, in which small arms from all over change hands every day (see my pictures that I've posted on this thread). These countries, including Russia, use western gear with an ever-growing frequency. Take a look at any ten images from the Ukrainian conflict, and you'll see Multicam gear all over the place. I'm not saying that it should be this way, but you can't really assert that they're somehow betraying an aesthetic... when the realistic aesthetic isn't what you think it is in the first place. Simply because a country is relatively poor, does not mean military-grade (and even "Western") hardware is not commonplace. These countries are often times incredibly unstable (see the conflict occurring in 2009 in Chernarus) and can be militarized as a consequence. The true misconception/dissonance is in the assumption that we still live in the Cold War, where one side uses X and the other uses Y. We don't. There is overlap, significant, blatant, overlap. Never mind the robust civilian market (legitimate and illegitimate) in so-called "military" weapons. NATO/Western gear should be rare. Eastern European gear should be uncommon. Civilian gear should be common. I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise, because we all know (hopefully) that merely suggesting something... doesn't mean you think it should be common.

With the advent of .49, we have seen the displacement of the Balota miltiary complex to Myshkino. I had previously assumed that this displacement would take place between Balota and the newly revealed "Tisy military base" in the NW corner of the map. However, I was wrong. It is perhaps presumptuous of me to be taking issue with how the developers are improving the map. But I can't help but notice several things. 1. The wilderness left on Chernarus has now been further marginalized by the western north-south axis of high-end military structures. 2. The placement of a military base near Myshkino slices a high-traffic path right through the core of this wilderness which, to reiterate, is already shrinking. 3. The placement of a military base near Myshkino offsets the north-south axis of high-end loot locations further westward (almost to the border of the map). 4. One of the few small villages remaining (most of which are now substantial full-on towns or cities), Myshkino, is now a high-value location. Now, to reiterate my points from my "Save The Trees" thread, it seems that the wilderness is not being expanded... or even preserved... but is being actively marginalized. This is a negative aspect of the map development for many reasons. Chief amongst which, is a lack of variety in terms of player structure/storage/vehicle locations (thereby forcing them into urban centers). But moreover, it makes the map more homogenous. It's now just a series of pretty-much-the-same towns, punctuated by the occasional high-end military location. Rather than an organic, varied, landscape. Plus, I am personally biased to Myshkino. So there's that. So what do I think should happen? One of two things. Either have one less high-end loot location, because the Tisy military base will be a factor (and is already pretty dern close to the border). Or, displace the Myshkino base somewhere north of Lopatino (along the road). EDIT - To be clear, I am certainly not against change. I embrace it. Just not this particular change.

But if Chernaruska Zbrojovka (the only in-universe firearms manufacturer of Chernarus) made a SCAR lookalike (call it the CR 17H) then it would be Chernarussian-made.

Chances might go up, at least on the "real-world precedent" side of things. Interesting to see people still so unrelenting and fundamentalist about having only Warsaw Pact gear in DayZ. We've got an M4A1, we've got a tactical 1911, we've got an MP5K, we've got an Amphibian S, we've got an FN FNX/P, we've got a multi-thousand-dollar Blaser B95, we're getting .308 Winchester, we're getting a Steyr AUG. We've got two AKs, we've got a Makarov, we've got a PM-73, we've got a Mosin, we've got an SKS, we're getting an AKS-74U, we're getting 5.45x39, we're getting an SVD. I think the jury's pretty well out on the diversity present in DayZ's weapon lineup, from a standpoint of "origin."

This is exactly my grievance, this whole approach of "make a POI or nothing!" Not every POI has to be a damn themepark a la every-game-in-existence. And not everything has to be a point of interest, we can have areas of interest too. The woods, themselves, should be made into an attractive location. Not have the caveman solution of "put military bases there and people will go there." For one, this solution is flawed from the very start... it doesn't encourage people to go to the forests for its own sake. It encourages people to go to fixed loot locations that just happen to be surrounded by forest. The POI is still the military base, not the forest. Second, there are much more elegant and subtle ways of encouraging people to just use the forest as is. Like in the mod, where we had things like tents and vehicles to store. The effectiveness of these mechanics was almost exclusively owed to the forest (i.e. an isolated hideaway which players could use to create freeform bases/camps). It really is that simple, add valuable items... give them a place to be hidden effectively... and people will use the woods for all sorts of things (which I'm actually drawing precedent from the mod, vice just making shit up). Third, adding fixed high-value bases in what was previously the only real untouched wilderness left in Chernarus+ thereby reduces, significantly, the effectiveness of freeform player creation. Again, I'm not going to waste time crafting a cool base if I can't find a place to guarantee relative safety from intruders (not absolute safety, if folks don't know the difference then that's their own fault). Fourth, the woods themselves should (*gasp*) be turned into a (*gasp again*) ecosystem. If the forests were more necessary for survival (i.e. foraging, hunting, fewer zombies, etc.) then they would be attractive. I think once they limit edible food spawns, people will be forced to live off the land moreso (rather than just go to the proverbial/literal supermarkets of Chernarus). Fifth, as I've said previously, adding things like player construction (i.e. freeform resource placement) would encourage the use of isolated areas. In short, putting POIs in the wilderness is a simplistic solution. It is a solution that inherently short-changes a variety of gameplay archetypes (i.e. freeform/open-world resource placement, woodland survival, etc.) Not to mention, that the argument can be made that we've got enough military bases in Chernarus just from a map balance perspective. Likewise, there is this massive misconception that Chernarus is so huge, that it couldn't possibly be the case that the wilderness is being marginalized. Open space is good, it doesn't have to be filled with cities and bases, let the players fill it. Moreover, Chernarus isn't that big. Even just on foot now and in the mod, I can survey the entirety of the western forest in something like an hour. Also, just the narrowing of potential hiding spots is the problem. Sure, we've got some woods... but if they're just irrelevant preambles to the next massive city 500m away, then they aren't a part of a wilderness.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Putting more military bases in the west = narrowing the area in which loot spawns, and to which players travel. If you place a military base next to Myshkino, it will only be known as one thing (that you apparently wish to discourage). It will be known as just another clusterfuck military spawn, and not as a freeform wilderness location. And by implication, putting a high-value location in the wilderness narrows the other feasible locations at which players can place hidden tents/vehicles/structures. Thereby minimizing the number of "good hiding spots" in the wilderness, making finding these spots all the more likely. No, we are not implying that there are safe areas. Which should stop you right there. I wander alone, because it's fun. DayZ doesn't force player interaction, which is great. It only becomes a problem when no player interaction is encouraged, at all (which is essentially the case now in the alpha). Yes, the two arguments are comparable. ASIDE - People act as if there's no military base in the woods, then people won't go to the woods... ever... under any circumstances. This is just categorically false/idiotic. Did you all even play the mod? The woods were wonderful locations in which people stored their tents/gear/vehicles, prompting interaction. It wasn't by virtue of a fixed high-value loot location that did this. And not to mention the real unique gameplay that could/will sprout up from a robust wilderness... like actually having utility in a base/cabin that isn't on the road to a military base. Or in having a secluded tent that people have a hard time finding. Or in having to survive off the land because canned goods are too hard to find (which is going to be the case as per developer statements).

Absolutely. Well, just optics in general. I think, for starters, they need to include the Hunting Scope that has been in the files for a while. After that, I think we need a proper mil-dot scope. Then I think the AKs could use a few CQC optics (like a Kobra or PK01-Vi). Then I'd like to see some commonly found "Western" optics like Aimpoint T-1s and EOTechs. Followed by some cool 4x sights like some from Elcan.

Agreed. I think it's a huge cheap shot to indict the developers for following a non-existent "trend" of having everything be hyper-modular. The attachment system is relatively under-utilized in my opinion. It needs to be made more robust, not marginalized (especially in areas which it is commonplace... like with assault rifles). I could go either way with the AUG. I'd like it if it were some kind of railed F88 or AUG variant. But I also wouldn't mind an integrated optic (though it is problematic given the current degradation models [or lack thereof] we've got now). Plus, I prefer the "puzzle" aspect that is created by the attachment system. So, I guess I might slightly favor making it relatively modular. Personally, if we're looking at bullpups... I'd rather some kind of AK bullpup be the "not modular" one, for what it's worth. But then again, I don't see modularity as innately bad on any weapon.

Well, I mean just from a visual point of view... the wilderness has shrunk. I won't really waste time arguing that, because it's just so plain to see in a comparison between Chernarus and Chernarus+. The northern corridor upon which they're adding cities is evidence enough of that, an area that was previously a wooded mountain range (which has now been replaced with empty fields and future city plots). I don't think you can really argue that the wilderness hasn't shrunk, because it has. There hasn't been any "added" wilderness, only added urban locations and fields (hence why when they showcase the map additions, they are always focusing on what new city was added). http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/185396-save-the-trees-man-marginalized-wilderness/ I argue that the wilderness should be a destination unto itself, not a pathway. But we need to actually have wilderness in the game for this to be applicable, which is why I'm here. Similar to your "specific type of player" argument, I am a specific type of player. The kind who dwells in the wilderness. The kind who wants to live off the land. The kind who wants to raid the property of others. Like you, I don't want to be forced into playing with others who are "playing a different game." And you're essentially proving me right when you say "it attracts a certain player type" in that it becomes a point of attraction. I want the wilderness itself to be viable (i.e. to supply a given gameplay archetype) rather than just shoving more military bases into the wilderness for more of the same. To summarize, what I want is more wilderness so that it can be allowed to become a destination unto itself. Not less wilderness, with more high-value locations dotting it.

No, I don't think we need woods everywhere. I've never asserted this, ever. I'm saying we need some wilderness and a robust wilderness at that. A lot of the map is wooded (although I'd contend that most of it is just fields and cities now), but it's not wilderness if it's in immediate abutment to large towns and/or high-value locations. The wilderness we had in vanilla Chernarus was passable. People could hide vehicles/tents with relative security (although this is presumptuous, as I found vehicles/tents in the woods all... effing... day). But that wilderness has been carved up. Just look at the north, it's plain to see. Take the upcoming horticulture feature. I'm not going to waste time setting up a garden if it's either immediately adjacent to a high-end loot location (which much of the untouched wilderness in Chernarus now is), or, if it's on a commonly traveled pathway to a high-value area (which nearly all of the wooded areas are now, or are going to be, in Chernarus). Like it or not, the true utility of the wilderness is being able to add value to things like vehicles/storage/construction by hiding them. I'm not going to waste time building up a cabin, only to have it be on the freakin' road to Myshkino. And with the marginalized wilderness, the areas in which it actually is viable to set up persistent structures/storage locations become all the more uncommon. This results in a "narrowing" of viable locations, which results in easier pickings for those who would seek these valuable resources out. In short, fewer places to hide... easier to tell where people are hiding things. All or most of the true wilderness of Chernarus, has been completely marginalized and has had towns/cities/military camps placed in direct abutment. And forcing player interaction is good to an extent (although one can argue that "forced" anything is completely against what DayZ is), but it can be done in multifaceted ways. Rather than univalent ways.

My money is on the extreme NW corner of the map, where they've made a clearing in the woods. Good as any one else's guess. This seems somewhat odd to me, as Balota's placement was fine (in my opinion, even though I can count on one hand how many times I've been there) as it was on the north-south axis in the west where the high-value loot locations have been placed (running from Balota, to Pavlovo, to Zelenogorsk/Green Mountain, to Dichina/Veresnik, to NWAF).

While I don't really care for such black and white divides like "some people want PvP, others want PvE" (I want both, crazy right?)... I think you raise a good point. Offering a robust wilderness that can actually be a destination unto itself would benefit both PvE and PvP by giving broader utility to the wilderness. Whereas now, this utility is non-existent. The simple addition of player construction to what we have now would not be complete, as storage/construction sites would be confined to a relatively small area of the map (thereby making them all the more easy to find). There is, of course, the eventuality that player construction can be geared toward urban areas. But that's where I make the case that it shouldn't be confined to only urban areas. It should be viable in the wilderness as well. Which, I don't see happening if the wilderness is made smaller and has fixed high-value locations.

Less of an issue? Sure. But not by any significant amount. If a location is attractive, it will be a destination. Players will go there in droves, no matter how fast they can run. Likewise, I only worry about player structures "polluting" the landscape when there's not enough landscape...

I'm not necessarily (though I could make the argument for it) saying that the type of gameplay they're creating by focusing on urbanized, or military/high-end locales, wouldn't "work out" or be fun. I'm saying, they're missing out on a huge aspect of otherwise worthwhile landscape archetypes for playing (i.e. the wilderness) which bear their own unique types of gameplay. That and you can have high-end miltiary locations, copious ones, and have a distinct and isolated wilderness. They just have to be separated to a degree. First, the central loot economy is only a small piece of the overall gameplay puzzle. It would be counter-intuitive for military locations to not have some level of preferable loot spawning consistently (thus being attractive, and thus attracting a greater amount of the 75+ server population). Likewise, it doesn't guarantee an item would be rare. They can set the limits at 10 SVDs per hive or 1000. All the central loot economy does, is allow the developers to control the amount of resources that they want to be limited to some degree. Second, high population servers only buttress the argument for a broadened and more remote wilderness, because there are more people crowded into more condensed/linear spaces. Third, I agree about the raw survival part. If this is made more difficult, then it might be slightly less likely that we'll be encountering people in the first place (in certain instances, though, it can be argued that it would increase player interaction out of necessity). But my main concern with the marginalization of the wilderness (in addition to the reduction in overall gameplay archetypes), is with things like tents... player storage... vehicle storage... and player structures. Simply put, I don't want these things to be solely the concern of urbanized areas. I want storage/construction to be something that can be applied to the freeform wilderness, effectively. And I just don't see any of that being effective, if the wilderness is both minimized geographically and cluttered via population increases (whether outright [see player counts] or pathing [see attractive locations]).

The Tisy military base (I've checked the area, and the map on which it was first indicated) is situated in the woods. Which I'm fine with, the Tisy base makes sense to me.

Yeah.

I don't really get all the hate for drum magazines. As long as they're rare, I don't really have an issue. Both from a gameplay perspective and the broader, "supplying LMGs" perspective. When you think about it, HBAR assault rifles aren't really LMGs. Or they are in name only. Actually, in retrospect, the notion of an IAR actually reflects more accurately what things like the AUG HBAR and RPK are. I think having a belt-fed LMG is far more important/critical than placing importance on what amount to be assault rifles using larger mags.

The west is now the area in which high-end loot spawns. You've got Pavlovo, Zelenogorsk/Green Mountain, Veresnik, NWAF, and now Tisy. There are no barracks buildings outside of those locations. However, this will be offset by an expansion of dynamic spawns (i.e. helicopter crashes, police cars, HMMWVs, etc.)

Because it's being moved north, to the NW corner. In the form of a new military base. However, they plan on re-introducting southern spawns. And if it were a southern spawn, you'd have people spawning on top of the two barracks buildings that are at Balota. Which is problematic.

Will be interesting to see. Not sure what the first iteration looks like, might just be back-end. But contrary to what people might assume, just because something's limited via the central loot economy... doesn't automatically make it hyper-rare. Nor is the central loot economy only capable of handling things which are supposed to be rare. It can, theoretically, be applied to humdrum items like cans of food (and I believe it should be). But it can, and should, be used in conjunction with traditional spawn-rate items. They could have SVD spawns be limited at 10 per hive, or 1000 per hive. Which is great, because it actually allows them to tweak the values as to craft the experience. But I think people have this misguided notion that "regulated = rare." A discussion of rarity doesn't just go out the window when we've got a centralized loot economy, it becomes more important to discuss.

Hey, AUG in the new devblog!

I remember a few weeks ago, somebody had found some code in one of the files which included the M249 and PKM in DayZ. Now, I'm pretty sure this was just legacy code and not indicative that these weapons are coming to DayZ. But the merits, largely in terms of how they can be appropriated/implemented in DayZ, have not been widely discussed. Personally, I have absolutely no issue with LMGs and GPMGs being included in DayZ. The issue with these weapons is that they often times use common ammo, the majority of which (save the PKM oddly enough, as 7.62x54R isn't in DayZ yet) use ammunition already included in DayZ. A possible middle-ground would be to add high-capacity magazines for existing/incoming assault rifle platforms (i.e. M4A1, AKM, AK-74). This is already sort of the case with regard to the 60 round "coupled" magazines available to the M4A1 in-game. Likewise, I remember seeing an image of an in-game 100 round CMAG on Reddit. LMGs themselves should remain rare. They should also have increased maintenance requirements in terms of cleaning and repair. I'm unsure if I'm willing to endorse a "barrel temperature" mechanic, but that could be a factor as well. Similarly, LMGs should encumber the player moreso than the average weapon. The use of a bipod should be essential, scaling up from the magazine-fed, to LMG, to GPMG in terms of significance. The ammunition could be provided for through the looting of relatively rare "ammunition links" which could be combined with existing ammunition to create belts. After that is accomplished, the player could suffer from further encumbrance due to the belt of ammo not being encased in a box/pouch. Which would require another rare item to be looted. The one caveat with this, is that certain belt-fed LMGs can use assault rifle magazines (like the M249). This is not a problem, however, as it essentially transforms a rarer weapon into a vanilla assault rifle. Thus negating the purpose of an LMG. Summary - The weapons themselves should be rare - They should encumber the player - They should require an increased level of maintenance (cleaning, repair, etc.) - They should place a heavy emphasis on supported fire (i.e. making a bipod essential) - Magazine-fed LMGs should require high-capacity magazines to be 100% useful - Belt-fed LMGs/GPMGs should require the combination of links, ammunition, and box/bag to be 100% useful What are your thoughts? Do you think LMGs have a place in DayZ? How would you like attachments to be handled if LMGs were to be implemented? SAMPLE LINEUP RPK/RPK-12 [RARE] [7.62x39 and 5.45x39 respectively] [Perhaps one could be selected, as they're aesthetically similar. Ideas for a NATO counterpart?] M249/RPD [RARE] [5.56x45 NATO and 7.62x39 respectively] [M249 could be more modular in terms of attachments whereas the RPD could be more potent] FN MAG or M240/PKM [VERY RARE] [7.62x51 NATO and 7.62x54R respectively] [Ammunition/links for the PKM could be more common than for the FN MAG]

Libya w/ AK-103 Gaza

Neat about the IZH-18. Not neat about the "bleeding edge" hyperbole. There's nothing "bleeding edge" about a rail system on an AK. There's nothing even "cutting edge" about a rail system on an AK. I agree that the AKM should've been more humdrum. But I think you put far too much (it is still a significant aspect) worth into modularity. It isn't that advantageous. They made a huge fuss about the attachment system when DayZ was in development. Would be a waste of resources not to have it used with some semblance of regularity. Which it isn't really, there aren't even that many attachments as of now.

Right, but the use of Czech for the modeling of Chernarus is pretty much just to do with the modeling of the landscape. The actual geographical layout of Chernarus is based on a region of the Czech Republic. After that, not much to share between the two. Cap'n is taking issue with those who say "X is found in the Czech Republic, therefore, it should be found in Chernarus." Which is about as silly as those who say "X isn't found in the Czech Republic, therefore it shouldn't be in Chernarus."