Katana67

Well the RPK and RPD aren't exactly analogs, one being belt-fed and the other mag-fed. The way I framed it is that there'd be two selections for the magazine-fed, belt-fed LMG, and belt-fed GPMG respectively which (generally) followed the NATO/Warsaw Pact divide. So for example, as a counterpart to the RPK I proposed a C7A2 LSW or an L86A2 LWS, as well as the ARM. The West isn't overly fond of mag-fed LMGs, save for the IAR which is a recent development. Whereas the Warsaw Pact countries aren't overly fond of battle rifles (the SVT-40 [which is really an analog of the M1/M14] and the Dragunov [which is seldom used as a battle rifle] are really the only ones offered).

No, given how obvious the rifle spawns are (i.e. the piano buildings). I think weapons need to have a broader, albeit lessened, chance to spawn in all residential buildings. Rather than just a few. I'm not sure there's much to be said about having to start out with a pistol, then moving to a rifle. Think of it as primary/secondary, rather than better/worse. The only issue now, which isn't the rarity or ammo commonality (although that certainly should be tweaked), is there are no tangible benefits to using a pistol versus a rifle in most scenarios (even CQC). Normally, I try and snag a suppressed pistol as a secondary. Which is a bit more difficult in the Standalone, as the suppressor doesn't actually work for the FNX and the Amphibia S is a peashooter unless it's a headshot (as it should be).

Oh you are just too precious.

So wouldn't the logical step be to advocate for rarer optics? Rather than a sweeping indictment of "western" weapons perverting development. The only optic that I've ever thought to be unduly common, is the PU scope. Also, they have to test the attachments system. It still has a lot of issues, in terms of bugfixing. So it makes sense for them to test their newly implemented system by having us experiment with relatively common optics.

I recognize that it has marked differences from the AK, but it is nevertheless a weapon derived from the AK. When I was considering my LMGs in the "LMG/GPMG" thread, I couldn't justify setting an RPK next to a Galil ARM. I wouldn't be opposed to a Galil, I want to see it in. But I'd rather some weapons (like you said the battle rifles) go before it.

Well, we have no idea what items will be rare in the final product. Never mind the systemic changes which are slotted to change the significance of loot (i.e. potential server hopping fixes and a controlled loot list on the hive).

Anything and everything can be villainized into "ZOMG they're telling us how to play."

Yes, further demonstrating that most of the ire directed toward "high-end" weapons is based upon personal feeling and preference, rather than any reasoning. The "feeling" approach is always, always, always the very last line of defense for people who arbitrarily dislike so-called "high-end" weaponry. Because it can't be refuted, it's wholly subjective. There's nothing wrong with that, but it can't be purported as the "right" answer. The ire isn't actually based upon plausibility, rarity/commonality, usefulness, etc. It's always, always, always based on the infantile (in my opinion) answer of it "feels" wrong. Which is entirely subjective. Moreover, as I've demonstrated previously, this "feeling" is often based on incomplete understandings of the categories I've mentioned above. My issue is this "feeling" is held up as some sort of objective fact that DayZ is striving for. When it clearly isn't. This is evident in the lengths that people will go to try and cast something as wrong, even though these reasons are almost always wrong unto themselves. Which calls into question the entire definition of "high-end" weaponry. If you're considering a lowly, and widely distributed G3 platform as "high-end" then you're casting entire swaths of weapons as "high-end" without taking into account their usefulness in-game. High-end, whatever meaning you put into that, weaponry has a place in the real-world. If DayZ purports itself as "authentic", it has to take these weapons into account. Making these weapons rare, is how they are made "authentic". Incorporating them into the fiction, is how they're made "authentic".

I'm not sure T-Bozz, Chilli, or Left-Eye (RIP) ever gave anyone AIDS. Although I've been wrong before, I'm gonna' put my money on you being Chilli. She was the brains behind the operation anyway. But clearly, scrubs are the kinda' guys gettin' no love from you.

In his defense, I don't remember many of the threads specifically referring to PvP specifically.

Which one are you? I've noticed a lot of TLC members seem to be avid DayZ players. Are you T-Bozz or Chilli?

Yes, and making it more difficult to KoS is the objective (i.e. through the addition of consequence). Removing it or stopping people that do KoS isn't the objective. Making it less attractive overall is the objective.

More consequences = less likely KoS. Simply adding features won't necessarily do anything. We'll never be able to make KoS a rare occurrence, but we can balance it through the addition of consequence to action (i.e. fire your weapon in Cherno, zombies eat your face).

Authenticity is subjective. ARMA III is "authentic" and yet the majority of its weapons, factions, and vehicles are fictionally employed if not downright fictional themselves. If they're aiming for "authenticity" then making these weapons rare seems to be the way to go. Rather than denying their existence entirely. Dismissing them because, somehow, they're "inauthentic" does no good in my opinion. Obviously, there are pragmatic development pipeline priorities for them to consider. But categorically dismissing something isn't helpful, especially when it's based upon an incomplete understanding of what DayZ, Chernarus, and the real-world small-arms landscape is. I never understood why the weapons of a game influenced its setting. Seeing the weapons in the mod didn't somehow ruin the immersion/experience for me. Chernarus is still Chernarus if you're finding a SCAR or an AK. Breaking "immersion" is also a very, very, subjective consideration. If previous precedent is to be considered (M4A1, kitted-out M1911, Amphibian S, FNX, and all the attachments associated with said weapons) they are clearly seeking to make their weapons lineup unique. Also... One, people seem to have an aged notion of what weapons are actually used and what are lolFutureWeaponzzzbrah. The SCAR, Tavor, and certain other platforms are widely used now and are becoming more popular. Two, people have a warped definition of fiction and what it entails. Fiction, in itself, makes things plausible which are not in reality. Three, people have an unbelievably sensitive notion of what constitutes "realism" and "immersion". Four, people have a bad taste left in their mouth with regard to so-called "high-end" weapons given the problems of the mod (i.e. duping, hoarding, lack of rarity, etc.) None of which have anything to do with the weapon itself. Five, and most importantly, people apply their understanding of plausible weapons in a very, very, malleable manner (meaning it's based upon personal preference and that's pretty much it). I've had arguments where the line has been drawn at the TDI Vector, the ACR, the SCAR, the M14, the M4, and now the Uzi. There is no monolithic limit whereby a weapon somehow tips the balance of "runing immersion". It is all up to the individual. Six, I have never... ever... not once, seen someone assert that these so-called "high-end" weapons should be common over their Warsaw Pact counterparts. Two years of posting, never seen it.

I like the Galil, I think the ARM is a very good option for the mag-fed LMGs. But it's too AK-y for me to be a staunch proponent of when we've got two AK pattern weapons inbound already.

Nope, I wouldn't tell you that. Because it's both incorrect and irrelevant. Chernarus is fictional, they can add whatever weapon they wish. Here's a news article explaining the Ukrainian production of in-house Tavors chambered in 5.45x39. http://www.altair.com.pl/news/view?news_id=8715 And the P90 is in the employ of various European police forces, not limited to Ukraine, Czech Republic, and Germany (all former Soviet/Warsaw Pact nations, East Germany in the case of Germany). Here's an image of an Uzi sitting in the window display of a gun shop in Prague. Not that any of this matters, because weapons can be incorporated into the fiction of Chernarus.

So they're manufactured for civilians? How does this make it less likely to be in X?

Azerbaijan, Brazil, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Macedonia, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Vietnam, United States All nations which manufacture or downright employ Tavors. It only recently became prevalent in the civilian market, at least in the United States. EDIT - The Ukrainian manufacturer, RPC Fort seems to be an IMI/IWI clone factory. They produce their own version of the Negev and Galatz as well.

/bonk Read the first line, "(weapons that aren't in the game yet or inbound)".

Cool? If you'll notice, my anti-materiel rifle selections were all bolt-action. So the M107 doesn't really factor in. If I had to pick a semi-automatic anti-materiel lineup, the list would be fairly short and inflammatory to folks like yourself (i.e. M107, AS50, and perhaps the OSV-96). Tavors are being employed in 5.45x39 and are being manufactured in the Ukraine. Never mind the myriad other countries that have since adopted the platform. Notice how I didn't refer to commonality at all, I referred to what I would put in. Which was a tempered list, as if I actually put down what I'd put in, I foresee even more rage. I included the L85 for several reasons, one, it was employed by the BAF in neighboring Takistan. Two, it's a bullpup that uses STANAG mags. Three, it's an interesting weapon. Four, it has been employed in various apocalyptic fictions previously (i.e. STALKER). Five, the UK is part of the UN. That's about it.

If I had to pick three weapons for each respective category (I'm sure I'm missing a few), it'd be as follows (weapons that aren't in the game yet or inbound)... Pistol - Makarov - Tokarev - M9 Pump-action Shotgun - Remington 870 - Mossberg 500 - KS-23 Semi-automatic Shotgun - Saiga-12 - Beretta M4 - CZ 712 Submachine Gun - Some kind of Uzi - Skorpion vz. 61 - Bizon PDW - HK MP7 - PP-2000 - FN P90 Assault Rifle - L85A2 - Some kind of Tavor - Galil of some type Battle Rifle - HK G3A4 - FN FAL - Either a Mk 17, HK417, or AR-10/M110/SR-25 Bolt-action Sniper Rifle - CZ 550 - M40/M24 variant - SV-98 (I don't want it, but it'd appeal to the "Chernarus = Russia" crowd) Anti-materiel Rifle - AW50 - KSVK - Tac-50 Magazine-fed LMG - RPK - L86A2 - C7A2 LSW Belt-fed LMG - RPD - M249 - IMI Negev GPMG - M240/FN MAG - PKM/PKP - MG3

That's part of the issue, yes. However, one man's "gameplay steering" is another man's "broadening the use of the map". I want to eventually, see the coast be a place to which people return, rather than spawn and stay. It should be a dangerous area in terms of zombie density, but there should perhaps be unique spawns there. So that the player has to be geared/grouped to actually navigate the coast effectively.

I like to think of ACE as an interesting thought experiment, rather than a "what ARMA should've been".

I like being able to see my character, I like third-person. It is really that simple. I don't feel any more or less "immersed". I recognize the detriments of it, and would rather they be mitigated vice contributing to the unnecessary vitriol surrounding third-person. Would I be bummed if they only went with first-person? Sure. Would I stop playing? No.

It's part of the problem, sure, but then again... Balota has always been a "military loot" spawn. Even in the mod. What really needs to happen, are two things. One, the loot bias needs to be moved inland overall. Two, the zombie counts need to be markedly increased on the coast. This would remedy the two issues that I view to be keeping people on the coast (in addition to just blind PvP). The fact that the coast has the same, if not better loot than inland areas. And the relative risk disparity is not appropriate.