Katana67

I agree. And as I've said before, the absence of something (i.e. a military background) doesn't imply the existence of something else (i.e. a civilian background). They have no background, thus any stylistic choice of animation is just that... a matter of preference. Rather than background. Our avatars have to be portrayed somehow. I'd prefer they just go with a middle ground, I'm fine with what they've got now (although, in reality, I'd prefer they just have our avatars be rendered with full-on proficient animations). That, and maybe it's just me, I don't really set the bar that high for what constitutes a "military" stance. I learned to lower my elbow, square my stance, and walk with the muzzle down without being in the military. Not sure how the military can make a claim to logical human body positioning.

I'd agree that there should be a corresponding amount of "civilian" weapons to "military" weapons. Which, to a large extent, we've got now. There's a solid 50/50 divide, by my own assessment, with the current weapon lineup. However, if we're willing to adopt a relatively strict interpretation of what constitutes a "civilian" weapon... then we're working with a limited inventory anyhow in terms of functional and stylistic archetypes. You've essentially just got pump-action shotguns (which share some overlap with "military" weapons), bolt-action hunting rifles (which also share some overlap with "military" weapons), pistols (which is a huge concession, as many of the pistols in-game are pretty "miltiary" oriented), and .22 LR plinkers. I mean, you can only put so many bolt-action, wood-stocked, hunting rifles in the game before they get repetitive. The same thing is happening with the AKs we've got now. The problem is, at least in my view, "civilian" weapons are inherently more generic stylistically and functionally. So they're more apt to be homogeneous anyhow.

I meant to get up to the NW corner to check out some of the improvements that they've made, and finally did so today. I know this has been there for a while now, but at the end of the road stretching into the NW corner, there's this small little cabin. At which I'm quite certain they're testing either barricading, or horticulture, or some combination thereof. However, we need more isolated cottages and the like for folks to barricade.

Defensive/offensive is irrelevant. Advantages are earned, and then exploited over players without said advantages. That is the crux of what is being discussed. Player Y with Makarov is at a disadvantage to Player X with DMR. Player Y can still kill Player X, but this is less likely than the inverse. Player Y with no protection is at a disadvantage to player X with a SAPI plate. Player Y can still kill Player X, but this is less likely than the inverse. The point is nobody's invincible. Protection doesn't make you invincible. Everyone can be killed, and much quicker than most games. I think folks might underestimate how quickly people get dropped in ARMA/DayZ by comparison to say... Battlefield or even COD.

An interesting, albeit misleading and potentially inaccurate, demonstration of how marginalized the wilderness truly has and will become. The hotspots are pretty overstated in a lot of cases. Unfortunately, the developers have stated that they're not interested in expanding the borders of the map. This is disappointing. However, given this setback, I still think the western border should be made into a more diverse wilderness. Filling in the massive fields with dense forest and hills would be a start.

If the netcode hadn't been so off, which is what allowed me to wake up from being unconscious before the other player did... then that wouldn't have happened at all. Either he, or I, would be dead after the first engagement. What saved me in that instance was the kill (unconscious) trade, not the fact that I had a helmet. I'd agree that things aren't where they should be now, and that protected players shouldn't have unreasonable advantages (like being able to get shot in the head with 7.62x51 and walk away). But that doesn't therefore mean that protection is useless or inherently an imbalance (which isn't a bad thing in the first place).

So, by "core rules of the mod" you're asserting that even a humble newspawn should be able to kill a geared character just as easily as said geared character can kill said newspawn. That is balance, definition of. And even in the mod, what you're saying wasn't the case. There were advantages, massive advantages (see DMRs, LMGs, helicopters, NVGs, etc.) which allowed geared players to exploit the gear they'd acquired over those who had not acquired said gear. The current protection system doesn't even work this way either. Your awesome MICH helmet takes a hit, you're either dead or unconscious. It doesn't save you. And even if it did, it'd be ruined after the first shot, and the second should would come on in and turn your face into paste. This just happened to me not five minutes ago. Cornered a dude at NWAF tents. We both light each other up, and both fall unconscious (which is the fault of atrocious netcode). I wake up with a ruined helmet, bandage myself, and put two in his also-helmeted grape. Protection doesn't make you invincible. I can still die (and subsequently lose all my shit, which was the true downside of death in DayZ mod) easily with protective gear on. And when I do, it'd be all the more devastating because of the effort/time/risk I put in to get that advantageous gear in the first place.

Both military folks and civilians can shoot proficiently, there's nothing about shooting stances in general (especially in DayZ) that suggest that our empty-vessel avatars were trained by any military. They display a modest understanding of how to carry a firearm. They're not DEVGRU operators kicking down doors and clearing rooms. They're not 90 lb females from LA trying to shoot a Desert Eagle in a bikini. They just look like regular folks who aren't pros, but are familiar with how to operate firearms. And either way, the miltiary teaches folks to shoot proficiently (although, I know many a soldier/airman/sailor/marine who shoots every bit as well as I do, as a humble civilian). Why is this bad?

This makes more sense. Akin to why we have the stab vest, which offers (ostensibly, I've never worn it nor have I been in a melee fight with a player whilst wearing it) protection against melee hits. The more specific an item is, the more it's vulnerable to. However, I have been noticing a trend ever since DayZ started. People seem to think that the "vulnerability" factor should substitute for "balance" (i.e. everyone's on the same playing field). But, at least to me, DayZ has... just emphatically... categorically... never been about a level playing field. At all. It's always had advantageous gear that puts people who've geared above that of newspawns. If I expend time/risk/effort to get rare-ass item X, it should give me an advantage. I'm not sure why people (not saying you specifically) are so afraid of earned asymmetry.

Artificially making things look "civilian" is just as bad as artificially making things look "military." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put your elbow down and lean into a firearm (which the current character animation doesn't even do). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to square your stance (which the current character animation doesn't even do). The current pistol grip animation is straight out of Lethal Weapon. The current run/walk animation has the character sacking the weapon like it's a baby. The current animations are fine, they're not "Ermergerd, what's this gun in my hand for?" and they're not high-speed-low-drag. So, for one, even the current animations aren't "military." And two, they used to be either simpler or more "civilian." They've changed a lot since release. To say nothing of the argument that if anything, our "survivors" are at the very least competent in one thing... survival. An aspect of which, in this case, is a decent manual of arms.

It's fair to talk about, because player protection can have real consequences on how we play the game... regardless of what stage of development it's in. But the argument/reasoning advanced in the OP is just ludicrous.

Seeing as the animations used to be far more "civilian" when the game released, and have been purposefully changed to not make our avatars look like bumbling idiots, I doubt that's going to happen.

Hell no. The one thing that should actually protect you to some degree, and you want to make it cosmetic? No way, completely ridiculous just tossing the very notion of protection out the window. Make clothes irrelevant to protection. Make body armor actually useful. Make it rare. Make it a puzzle (i.e. find a SAPI plate for your empty plate carrier). Make it heavy. Improve the hit-detection (which is the real issue you're citing). Yeah, Cap'n said it best. You aren't invincible. At all. A newspawn can still carve a hole in your face with a Mosin he just found no matter how much gear you've got. Or your chest for that matter, unless you've got a freakin' Mithril ESAPI plate.

I see your point. I suppose it could apply to crossbows as well. But I'd rather they be made better than a bow somehow (whether it be in reload speed, range, damage, or whatever) than put on the same level. Or they could just be rarer than crafted bows.

I'd love to see a VSS/Val/VSK/9A-91/SR-3 However, they've said a while back that they're not planning on including such a niche category. Because when you think about it, the VSS/Val/SR-3 are pretty much the same. And the VSK and 9A-91 are pretty much the same. And the two categories are all pretty much the same anyhow (a compact, CQC-focused, assault rifle firing 9x39). So you'd pretty much be adding 9x39 for one weapon. While I support the weapon being added to the game, I completely understand their reasoning for not wanting to include it at this time.

I agree. This sort of used to be the case in DayZ actually, although not with sprinting. They took it out, not sure why or whether it's coming back ever.

Personally, I think it should be possible to carry a regular bow (not a crossbow) alongside a normal primary firearm (without having to take something "into hands.") In part, because I want the bow to be more of a silent tool than a primary weapon. And I'd love to see it be used often in this role. Allowing it to be carried over the back, along with a primary, would be a cool way of doing this. And also because a bow is pretty much a weapon and a sling combined.

I think weapons like the bow/crossbow will play a bigger role when they revamp zombie aggro and zombie numbers. I don't necessarily want folks running around with bows and hatchets all day long, I think firearms should be the mainstay. But what I do want is for bows/melee weapons to have a specific use. Mainly manifested in their stealth. I would totally carry a bow over my shoulder (along with a rifle) if I could whip that bow out and grease a zombie/player quietly, if I needed to because the zombies around would totally jump me. Bows/melee weapons should be the proverbial "poor man's suppressor."

Meh, I could take it or leave it. With the M4A1 it's a toss-up for me. On one hand, I understand that it's realistic and the M4A1 isn't all that great enough for me to say that "this combination would be too much." But on the other hand, I just don't see much utility in it. That, and the M4A1 isn't all that great in the sense that it's not deserving of the LRS as opposed to dedicated sniper rifles on which it would actually make a difference. I don't necessarily think the best scope in the game should be able to be on anything less than the best weapons in the game. But I'd love to see either an 8x hunting scope and/or some kind of 6x rifle optic (like a TA648 or somesuch). I think the biggest problem facing optics now, is the lack of variety.

I absolutely agree. However, and I don't really wish to sideline the thread with this argument, the outcomes of post-Soviet nations have proven to be vastly different from one another. So it's not like we can apply one particular set of circumstances to say "The M1 Garand shouldn't be here." The Garand was scattered to the wind after WWII. They were exported all over the place. Tens of thousands were sent to Europe. And many former-Soviet nations have used, stockpile, or still use, its spiritual successor, the M14.

Agreed, although, I wouldn't be opposed to a dynamic police car or Ural spawn in the south every now and again. Perhaps it's good, though, that you could have a fixed and straightforward looting process along the coast, then a more cyclical... dynamic... and ultimately rewarding loot mechanism as you move further inland. Keeps the north moving a bit more, rather than just "Enter Stary/NWAF > Live/Die > Loot > Profit." Actually, now that I think about it, expanding the dynamic loot sort of simulates what I wanted to be done with deer stands. In providing a more divergent method of looting, which is low-risk, high-time, low-reward. Rather than high-risk, low-time, high-reward that we've got now with places like NWAF. My biggest concern (although it's not really a concern, as I don't really see a distinct downside) is in the overlap between fixed high-value loot and dynamic loot. There seems to be a bit more overlap now, with police cars and V3S' sort of encroaching on what was once fixed-spawn mid-tier police loot.

This seems to be more oriented toward so-called "low-end" rifles being able to mount so-called "high-end" optics, which is something I agree with. But I don't think it was an indictment of sniping in general on Chris' part. I just think it was an indictment of the inconsequential nature of sniping in the mod, as prompted by the relatively common sight of sniper rifles (optics included) overall. I actually have kind of fallen in love with the CZ 805 over the past few weeks. Didn't really ever pay it any mind, but it's pretty dern cool. And yeah, I would argue that the AUG and G36 shouldn't be included with integrated optics. But, I could really go either way when it comes down to it. There's a benefit (one which would have to be accounted for with significantly increased rarity) in having an optic that's integrated. I prefer the puzzle of having to piece together your weapon, but, I could get behind integrated optics if it were approached correctly with specific weapons like the AUG and G36. Not for nothing, but Chernarus =/= Russia.

Yeah, I'm curious as to how they plan on doling out loot now. Dynamic spawns seem to be playing a larger role in the development than I had anticipated. I wasn't aware that they planned on extending the dynamic loot locations to cars and the like. Because, ostensibly, we've got a few more categories now... 1. Residential 2. Police Station/Fire Station 3. Military Buildings (i.e. Barracks, Tents, and Jails) 4. Dynamic Spawns I'm also curious as to whether there'll be any actual variation between a UH-60 crash, an Mi-6 crash, a police car, and a V3S in terms of loot. I assume the V3S and police cars will provide "LE" weapons. I assume the UH-60 crash will provide NATO gear. I assume the Mi-8 crash will provide higher-end Pact gear. I just don't know how they intend on approaching it. And I assume they may add HMMWVs as dynamic spawns as well. Plus, we've got the UAZ and Urals spawning military gear now, so, unsure if that will either stop... or they'll be moved to dynamic as well. But either way, this expansion of dynamic spawns is sort of causing me to reorient how I look at loot a bit. It will be much more spread out, and therefore the significance of fixed buildings like the barracks and tents will be lessened. Not sure how it'll actually play out, and I assume there'll be some overlap between dynamic spawns and the barracks.

Yeah, I mean, I sort of can't believe we're still having the "does it fit in Chernarus" argument again. Thought we were past this... Why can't we be debating whether or not the M4A1 should be a helicopter-only spawn, given its innate capabilities? But, just for the sake of completeness... 1. AR-15 platform, one of the most widely exported/distributed assault rifles in the world 2. AR-15 platform, one of the most prolifically used/manufactured assault rifles in the world 3. AR-15 platform, the standard-issue service rifle of many-a-country worldwide 4. AR-15 platform, a weapon likewise favored by many global SOF units over the decades 5. AR-15 platform, a weapon with non-military manufacturers in relevant countries such as Germany, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Russia, Montenegro, and Georgia respectively 6. AR-15 platform, a weapon provided for in the acknowledged background fiction of DayZ/Chernarus. I'm not saying it should be common (or as common as say, an AK), but christ, it's the Burger King of assault rifles. The AK is the McDonald's. Is it really that hard? On-topic, however... The M4A1, first and foremost, does not warrant being regulated by the central loot economy. It is an assault rifle, inherently intermediate and mid-range in every aspect. Its only niche is the fact that it's passable at everything. Hence why assault rifles are issued as general-purpose issue rifles to most (if not all) militaries worldwide. Secondly, it's mid-range in terms of modularity as well. Which in my mind, makes it marginally unworthy of being a helicopter-only spawn. It requires the looting of an extra RIS system to be fully modular. Whereas weapons like the Mk 17 and others have railed handguards already (thus not requiring an extra rare loot item). These weapons, in my opinion, warrant being helicopter-only spawns and/or regulated. Not the M4A1. I'm also not entirely sure where people are getting the "it's a top-tier weapon" from. There are much more "tactical" and advanced weapon platforms out there now, the M4A1 is pretty dern humdrum these days compared to some newer (I mean, the concept behind the M4A1 has been around since the 1960s, some innovation would have to occur in fifty-odd years right?) weapon platforms. That and there's not a huge gulf in terms of performance by comparison to its much more common, and easily supplied counterparts (i.e. the AKM, AK-101/AK-74M, and SKS). In fact, I'd posit that the AKM/SKS is just patently better than the M4A1, largely owing to how easy it is to supply. The M4A1 is also not really any more modular than the AKM/AK-101 in DayZ now. I mean, what? It can mount a suppressor and a few CQC optics? I suspect the AK platform will be getting suppressors and CQC optics eventually.

Risk/work = advantage. If I expend time/effort/risk collecting supplies, construction materials, and tools to construct a barricade... then there should be some advantage conferred on that action (i.e. relative protection of what's stored within). I'm not sure what precedent or developer statements you're citing whereby barricades are providing 100% security. They will be counterable, hence why we're getting locks and lockpicks as indicated in one of the recent devblogs. And smart folk won't barricade insanely obvious buildings. They'll barricade off-the-beaten-path cottages and barns. I may not even be able to see a barricade, if it's able to be constructed on the inside of a building. Much less counter it at any given time, depending on the variables (padlock, deadbolt, wood door, hardened wood door, sheet metal, steel, etc.) I think that you're right in suggesting that nobody will "man the walls." But I don't think anyone has ever been operating under that illusion/assumption. People have precedent for that, in mods like Epoch, where bases could be made 100% impenetrable and construction wasn't really a hassle. Obviously it's not a 24/7 job, but people still did it. And folks could potentially do it more often if there was an actual chance (which there really wasn't much of in Epoch) of infiltration. But, I'd agree that it's unlikely to be the norm. However, that doesn't then mean that barricading will provide for 100% impenetrable structures as a consequence. That and you're assuming that there's no level of acceptable risk when people barricade a building. I put up tents in vanilla DayZ, people did all of the time, knowing there's a chance that it could get looted. But that mitigation of risk was provided by stealth, not hard protection. It wasn't absolute. The same dynamic applies to barricades, it's a bit more high-profile (but certainly not to a prohibitive level) and it trades stealth for outright protection. I also don't think that anyone's operating under the assumption that barricading will provide for 100% safe storage anyhow. Your grievance seems to have more to do with what you seem to think people think of barricading, rather than the advantages/disadvantages of barricading itself. Back when I was fighting for this inclusion (barricading/construction) a year ago, these were the two most common critiques leveled at barricading - "it's too visible and therefore useless," or, "WHAT? You want 100% protected locations?! That's not DayZ." Well, no, I don't want that. And I don't think anyone's ever asserted that bases/barricading should be this way. Developers included. The only "exclusion" zones that have been discussed by the developers, are with regard to server hopping. Dean has stated that it will be impossible for a player to spawn inside a player structure via server hopping, due to some spawn exclusion zone system they have planned. Other than that, there will be counters to entering barricaded buildings. There's a difference between area denial, and movement impediment. Both of which are not absolute. That and I think people, given what I'm seeing here, might have a warped view of what "ownership" implies. It implies that you own something now, not that it's yours forever. I own my apartment, but it could be taken away from me if I don't pay my rent. Simply because one "owns" something, doesn't mean that it's theirs forever. So I think there's a lot of confusion between what constitutes ownership/advantages/counters, and 100% impenetrability.