Katana67

You're forgetting where I said "common weapons with common cartridges," which is what is being discussed. That was one thought, it wasn't "common weapons AND common cartridges." The relationship of a cartridge to a weapon, in terms of rarity. Not solely the commonality of the weapon itself is what is being discussed here. Both the Blaser B95 (Blazer 95) and Longhorn (Thompson Center Encore) can be chambered in a variety of rounds, including rounds which are common (i.e. .308 Winchester). The VSS cannot, it is chambered in the near-proprietary 9x39. Hence why we're not talking about obscure weapons, but weapons that use "obscure" calibers.

It wouldn't be an issue to me, although I suspect some of the "realism" folks would lose their minds. I sort of think this is the way they're going already, with 7.62 being used in the B95 and Mosin interchangeably. But, I actually think a diverse ammunition profile would be beneficial to gameplay. That way one couldn't just use generic "7.62" in everything from a Longhorn, to a B95, to a Mosin, to a FAL, to an SVD, to an M40, to a PKM, to an M240. It's pretty satisfying to find the specific mag/ammo combination for your weapon in the mod. Would I mind if weapons just used generic non-specific cartridges? No. But I think it would be better from a rarity point of view to actually have specific cartridges. However, the degree to which weapons have specific calibers is pretty negligible. I mean, most of the weapons I want use calibers that are already represented in DayZ. So either way, doesn't really matter to me. But I think, oddly enough, that it sort of marginalizes a lot of Warsaw Pact weaponry which use less common or purpose-built cartridges. I think it should be divided up into two halves, each with its own counterpart. The [X]'s signify a caliber which is already included in DayZ. Uncommon-Rare (NATO) - .45 ACP [X] - 9x19mm [X] - 5.56x45 [X] - 7.62x51 [X] - .338 LM - .50 BMG Common-Uncommon (Warsaw Pact) - ??? - 9x18 Makarov - 5.45x39/7.62x39 [X?] - 7.62x54R - ??? - 12.7x108 This is just a rough outline.

Errr, nobody said we won't be seeing "obscure" weapons. We were responding to the fact that Torchia wasn't interested in adding weapons with rare/specific calibers. The Longhorn is supposedly firing 7.62x51 as it is already in-game, and the Thompson Center Encore can be chambered in .308/7.62x51. The B95 can be chambered for .308/7.62x51 as well. The VSS is exclusively chambered in 9x39.

To be honest, it really doesn't matter to me either way. If it saves them the headache of making suppressors AND subsonic rounds, then I'd be alright with them going ahead and just having a suppressor = subsonic-quiet with no separate requirement for different rounds. But, I would also be cool with the suppressors just modulating the sound of supersonic rounds (as most do in real life). Either way they want to go with it, I'd support it.

Yeah I'm not quite sure what happened with it either. It couldn't've needed much work, certainly no more than the AKM. Perhaps they pulled it to fiddle with the attachments? I've got no explanation.

I just don't see what could change as to justify a reversal of what was said. I mean, yeah, granted... a ways down the road... they might have time to be adding ancillary things like non-essential weapons with specialized calibers. But for the foreseeable future, this appears to be what we're going to be living with (i.e. weapons with common cartridges). That and his use of "current loot system" seemed to be irrelevant, as one could theoretically add a VSS and 9x39 in the current loot system without an issue. It's just a matter of resource prioritization and end goals. The items themselves aren't in conflict with the loot mechanic we have now, they could be added. It's just that they appear to conflict with the grand objectives that they have. Loot management isn't going to change that, if anything, it may make including things like the VSS less likely.

Well yeah, but we have heard that they plan on making certain weapons more unwieldy to move about with. Which is a step in the right direction. We haven't heard anything regarding any potential for anti-materiel rifles at all from the developers, and I doubt they'll be included in the first place. But still worth discussing. I sort of agree with Torchia's reasoning, but I don't think it's grounds to categorically dismiss any weapon. So I feel your pain. I'm just thinking that the developers haven't really considered why they're doing what they're doing with regard to loot rarity. Point being, the loot management system. The only reason it's necessary is due to server hopping (i.e. managing a fixed number of rare weapons on a particular hive [public] as to limit their gradual permeation). But it's not necessary if one were to just... not allow server hopping. Then they could actually just tweak the spawn values of certain weapons as to make them rare without actually adding to the workload. I never had an issue with the loot system (as a whole) in the mod, but I took immense issue with the tangential mechanics which allowed for its exploitation. I think they should've just stuck with the mod's loot paradigm, made things more rare via traditional means, and remedied server hopping as a means of transferring loot.

The folks who buy cheap, widely available railed foreguards to replace the vanilla polymer/wood furniture for their AKs? And these gentlemen...

There's a 100-round CMAG on file for the M4A1, not the AKM mag which is a 75-rounder.

I agree that from now on, when I say PvE, it will mean what you're saying (survival mechanics and threatening AI). Because it's more relevant. But the distinction isn't merely semantic. The opposite of the concept of Player versus Player, is Player versus NPC (at least in the current paradigm). One could make the case (and I would) that existing in and combating "the environment" is always a factor even in PvP. PvP and PvE (if meant as the broader environment) become an apples-to-oranges comparison, they're ultimately two inequitable concepts. But if PvE is said in reference to NPCs/AI, it's at least on the same comparative spectrum of "this is the active entity that the player will be actively fighting." But yeah, I agree completely with what you're saying. The mechanics listed will provide an interesting alternative to the deathmatch experience we've been getting since April 2012.

I'm just not sure what those guns should be. I mean, anti-materiel rifles are the low hanging obvious fruit for that one. But I don't want things like LMGs/GPMGs to be hyper rare like that. Now, granted, I want them to be much rarer than they were in the mod, and much more difficult to arm/maintain/operate than in the mod. But I don't want them to go overboard with the loot management as to make certain weapons hyper rare which are more than just party pieces, they actually have a distinct role. Things like anti-materiel rifles are pretty much just party pieces. I can snipe and drop folks just as well with an SVD. Same applies for the VSS, so I'm not sure it makes sense to therefore manage both the weapon spawns and ammo spawns on the hive. In contrast to their loot management system, I'd rather they just adopt the traditional approach and add a lot of weapons and cartridges, and tweak the spawn rarity from there. Certain things like anti-materiel rifles should indeed be managed, but it's not the fault of the weapon... and more the fault of the fact that we can farm loot and move loot from server to server that requires a loot management system from the hive. If those two issues (more or less one, just server hopping in general) were remedied, then they wouldn't need to devote resources to managing the loot.

Well I agree, but only one of the PvE categories you mentioned is actually what I'd consider to be PvE. Yes, it literally means "Player versus Environment" but it's always really been intended to mean "Player versus NPC/AI." That's the sense in which I was using it. Which is ironic, because DayZ has a distinct emphasis on survival (i.e. pitting oneself against the environment). However, I always viewed that as a separate (albeit tangentially related) issue.

Yeah, I do. The RV/VBS engine is great, and it has potential... but that potential hasn't really been exploited efficiently... ever. It's one thing to toss around a bunch of BIS Youtube videos of the VBS3 engine on a tech demo (which don't look all that great nowadays by comparison). But it's another to actually incorporate half of the things demonstrated in that tech demo. Which hasn't really been done. Do I think they should've gone with a different engine for SA? Meh, probably not. They're familiar with what they've got, and so far it's working with an acceptable amount of success. Do I think they'll need to go for a different engine eventually to actually improve on DayZ? Probably. Things like procedural terrain generation, ever larger maps, optimization, and an exponential increase in fidelity (to keep it competitive) do not seem feasible with the current engine. These things, in my opinion, are essential for continuing the success of DayZ in the long term. There are other engines which are capable of doing what RV/VBS does, don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. I certainly don't fault the developers for going with RV this time around, but eventually (and it is, arguably, already doing so) it's going to show its age.

No, that's not what I mean at all. DayZ, as a vanilla experience, should incorporate a fusion of PvE and PvP. Not picking between servers which exclusively focus on one or the other. See RDR Free-Roam for what I mean (which is just one of many examples). There's nothing about DayZ, as a concept, that's geared exclusively to PvP. People just think that because of the current state of the game and its evolution in the mod. The issue is that we haven't ever had a robust PvE experience because the zombies haven't been good or a threat. Likewise, we've never really had any alternative to PvP... it's been the sole activity of DayZ. And roleplay is not the sole prerogative of PvE.

I think some helicopters should have door guns, but they should require complete ammo boxes/belts (like any other GPMG/LMG) to be operated. That way, helicopters are still harmless when piloted by one guy, but a force to be reckoned with when used by a group. The mod just had it so that it (the UH-1) came standard with 5 or 6 100 round boxes of 7.62x51 for the M240s. That and the ammo regenerated on server restart. Which made the use of weapons on the helicopters completely inconsequential. I think helicopters should be tiered in much the same way that I think weapons should be tiered. You've got the bone-stock single-seater. Then you'd have the full-on scout helicopters (like an MH-6) which could carry a few more people. Then you'd have unarmed helicopters which could transport a group. Then you'd have the military helicopters with door mounted weapons. All in varying degrees of rarity (all of which should be hyper-rare anyhow, and not in working order). However, I would like to see different configurations available to be installed by the player, like a loudspeaker array. Without any armament, they're really just louder... flying... cars.

So it's not realism then, it's real-world likelihood that dictates whether you think something is plausible in DayZ. Which makes zero sense to me, because by that logic, we'd only be using vanilla weapons (AR-15s included). And every modification (1913 compatible attachments included) would be implausible, simply because one's less likely than the other. There's nothing more specialized about a railed mount for a Mosin than a PU mount, they're both designed (i.e. specialized) to go on the Mosin. In fact, most PU scopes/mounts these days are aftermarket anyhow. Finding an original PU scope and mount is getting harder. The PU mount fits on both the Mosin and SKS with a similar amount of modification (both the Mosin and SKS require modification to the stock to install the PU mount).

Made a suggestion thread about this a few weeks ago. One thing's for sure, it shouldn't be an innate item. It should be a looted/crafted item. Your helicopter is going down and you don't have a chute? Tough tits, you're riding that baby into the ground. None of this annoying "ermergerd, choppers done! Let's all bail and then mow down the asshole who rightfully shot us down!" It's funny, helicopters themselves weren't overly ridiculous in DayZ mod. But the systems attached to them (i.e. infinite ammo on restarts, parachutes for all, seeing every object via an insanely good third person view) just made it a bit much. Get rid of all that, replace it with reasonable systems (i.e. ammo which has to be scavenged and that saves on restart, looted parachutes, and a fixed/limited third person radius for helicopters) and we're golden. That said, I would like things like autorotation and controlled descents for helicopters so that it isn't 100% crash or insta-charcoal.

Yeah, I mean 43 million isn't bringing us Star Citizen any faster. Money =/= speed.

My approach is that weapon dispersion should be on par with the real-world properties of the weapon. Let the players muck up their shots. Mind you, this isn't a "because it's realistic" suggestion. I just want my personal accuracy to be represented properly.

Nor are Magpul parts for the M4 standard issue, the majority of the parts on the M1911 as rendered in DayZ aren't standard issue, same with the FNX attachments. Moreover, why does something need to be "standard issue" to be realistic for you? And my issue was with your misuse of "realism" when something is just less likely.

How is a PU scope on an SKS unrealistic? It can be done in reality, it is therefore "realistic" (however unlikely) for it to be in DayZ. Same thing applies to the LRS and Mosin. You can have all weapons be modular, or you can have certain attachments be marginally flexible (i.e. LRS and PU) for those weapons which are not modular (i.e. Mosin and SKS). Otherwise, it's just more work for the developers to design an optic for every last weapon just to make it fit your definition of plausibility.

We've known for... quite a while... that the zombies were WIP. Like, since the SA released (if not the mod). Hopefully, they'll get on track sooner rather than later. I want them to finish the fundamentals and then finally get to experimenting with the spawns, aggro, and densities.

Ugh. DayZ doesn't take place during the Cold War. It takes place sometime AFTER 2009. Likewise, Chernarus isn't Russia by a long shot. It's fictional, pure and simple, it is its own entity (meaning that it isn't subject to real-world circumstances). And the former Eastern Bloc has a VARIETY of weapons and equipment being employed. Thinking that there's only AK's and Mosin's available in post-Soviet states is completely ridiculous (as is thinking all post-Soviet states are the same). And thinking that finding an AR-15 is somehow wholly out of place is also ridiculous. DayZ is continuing off of the events of ARMA II, as per developer statements (see my signature).

I miss the hoot-owl sound effect from later versions of the mod.

Why can't we have both a robust PvP and PvE experience in DayZ?