Katana67

I mentioned belt links in the OP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_%28firearm%29 I just think piles/boxes of belt links should be a looted item, then the player would have to amass a lot of ammo just to make a belt, then (if he/she wanted to minimize the encumbrance of the LMG through having a dangling belt) one could loot another rare box/belt. I'd rather have it be a bit of a puzzle than just have super rare full belts/boxes/bags.

No, it inaccurately chambers 7.62x51 NATO. http://dayz.gamepedia.com/7.62mm_Round%28s%29 It's rendered as 7.62x54R (see the rimmed cartridge) but it still says 7.62x51 multiple times in the descriptions of weapons and the ammo itself. Plus, there is no Blazer 95 which is chambered in 7.62x54R, hence why 7.62x51 is used in the description.

Well, part of what I'd say to that is that there's no incentive to make rewarding in-game communications, or make the existing ones better, due to the prevalence of third-party comms programs, so it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I thought it was just a bug/series of bugs.

To be fair, I don't really know all that much about the servers. For all I know, the public servers could indeed by leased and rented servers by BIS. Which they may very well be. But its BIS still renting/regulating them.

You don't want to hear my opinion on third-party comms programs, trust me. :D

What is the public hive if not a server architecture regulated by BIS? Are you saying that no game can feature company-controlled servers without a subscription? Why do we care about independent rental companies?

This thread is evil! Evil I say! /stares at the grave of decent in-game communication mechanics

This is what I take issue with, it just isn't the reality. There are tons, and tons, and tons of empty servers. There always have been. More servers is not the answer. Fewer servers, which are dynamically proportional to the community at any given point, is the answer.

You keep saying things that I've already said, as if you're disagreeing with them. I just said, above, that I support people being able to wear packs and carry LMGs. See this, "As to the subject of not being able to carry a backpack, I think you shouldn't be limited in what you can carry randomly by an LMG" Like I said, the limit shouldn't be artificial. It shouldn't be Player X can carry 100 lbs and no more. However, the weight of your equipment should add up, so that there becomes a point where it's no longer sustainable to carry all of your gear (through increased thirst/hunger, slower running, etc.)

Nothing wrong with being biased (i.e. subjectively predisposed toward a particular assertion), just as long as you don't suppose your own understanding as objective/fact. To your first point, yes, but I like being on one server. It encourages server loyalty and makes population dips less likely overall. Moreover, we've never really had proper servers ever, so it makes more sense to me to remove the requirement for frequent server restarts and increase stability so that population dips occur less frequently. There's always been a vast surplus of servers in relation to the in-game population at any given point. Why does this matter? A plethora of exploitable empty servers. I'd like to see the servers, if public hive is to be kept, be dynamically allocated based upon player population. Meaning, if 200 players are on at a given point, then the amount of servers visible to the player should be only able to hold 200 players. Similarly, a lot of population dips happened in the mod because there was no unified update structure. So some servers were left on the previous patch, whilst the quick-adopting ones were updated to the newest patch. This pushed people around more, whereas now the updates are much more unified (i.e. stable). To your second point, I'm not sure convenience is something we should be wholly endorsing. Either they make DayZ a true MMO by making us all exist in the same world (which isn't possible currently) or they limit us to a character a server. I don't play with friends, but if I did, I wouldn't want it to be easy to group up. I can certainly see the utility in having public hives, but I think there are ways of preserving the "convenience" of public hives whilst marginalizing the marked downsides of server hopping. To your third point, public hive servers can be subject to admin abuse. It's not a feature particular to private hives. To your fourth point, this assumes that private hives will be the same as in the mod. A lot of the private hive crap (1000 vehicle servers, starting out with loadouts, etc.) was provided for by scripting as I understand it. So it may no longer be possible to do all the crazy things that were done with private servers in the mod. I don't necessarily hate public hives, but server hopping is a massive problem. A game breaking one. Making everything private is an easy way of fixing it. Working with public hives to fix server hopping is a bit more difficult, hence why people prefer the easy caveman path.

I think it should depend on how much weight you have overall. I mean LMGs should contribute to that weight moreso (through the weapon itself and the large quantities of ammunition should a player choose to create a belt of ammunition). In other words, I don't think there should be an artificial limit to what you can carry, so much as there is a point at which it becomes prohibitive (through the downsides mentioned below) to carry a ton of stuff. As to the subject of not being able to carry a backpack, I think you shouldn't be limited in what you can carry randomly by an LMG. But the increased weight of running an LMG should make you run slower, tire easier, be encumbered when turning, and (as you say) require food/water at a quicker rate. Nevermind that LMGs should be difficult to control when unsupported. Most attachments that can fit onto an AKM or AK74 can fit onto the RPK or RPK-74. I think the best way to represent the NATO/Warsaw Pact with LMGs/GPMGs, though, is through modularity versus ammo commonality. So the Warsaw Pact weapons are easier to find ammo for, but are less modular. Whereas the NATO weapons have rarer ammo, but can mount more attachments.

This is all I got for a magazine-fed NATO/Western counterpart to the RPK. I prefer the IAR, but I suspect the L86A2 or C7A1 might be more palatable to the he-man-rail-haters-club. I don't think the AUG or L2A1 would work, given that the former uses proprietary magazines and the latter is essentially a battle rifle. C7A1 or L86A2 would be cool either way. We do need a bullpup after all. I think the Galil ARM would do well too, although it is AK-derivative. M27 IAR C7A1 LSW L2A1 (Doubt this would be appropriate, given that it fires a full rifle cartridge) L86A2 (Yes, I'm aware that it's primarily intended to fill a DMR role, but it's the same principle as an RPK) AUG HBAR EDIT - Forgot the Galil ARM, might be a good choice as well.

But how do you "feel" they would be out of place? How do they ruin the "gritty" "feel"? People always cite this "ruin the feel" of something, without actually explaining what they mean.

I didn't say that they were.

I chose the PKM over the Pecheneg largely because the carry handle on the Pecheneg looks silly and ruins the profile in my opinion.

To your first critique, I don't really think traditional squad structures are the concern of DayZ. Second, by virtue of firing automatically for extended periods of time, many LMGs have an increased rate of barrel turnover. Belts can, in certain instances, also increase the probability of jamming. Likewise, this is an effort to balance it and not a simulation of pure realism. Third, not saying a bipod is "invalid" (whatever you mean by that) on other weapons. I'm saying it should be MORE ESSENTIAL for accurate fire on an LMG vice other weapons (like assault rifles). Fourth, referring to weapons like the RPK, M27 IAR, and AUG HBAR. Fifth, links are required to link ammunition into belts. This should be represented in DayZ to justify the commonality of the ammunition used by belt-fed LMGs/GPMGs. I'm not saying that it should require a box/bag to fire, I'm saying that having a box/bag should lower the encumbrance threshold (as moving around with a compact box/bag of ammo underneath your weapon is a lot easier than moving around with a 150 round belt danging off of your ass).

Why?

The developers need to implement systems which make things valuable to other players, able to be stockpiled, and traded in-game. The developers, also, in my opinion, need to stop ignoring the detrimental effects that third-party programs and the meta-game have on the experience of DayZ (eventually, as it's still pretty early).

Yeah, I mean that's just a picture of Chernarus leading to a random circle around the Caucasus.

I just don't think Chernarus has a single real-life counterpart, or any real-life counterpart.

Wasn't talking about the overall state of BF4, but they're both equally to blame. However, I was referring to stuff that they just... forget... like having irons show when looking down 4x sights (which was not the case in BF3 as per player feedback), or forgetting to put reticles on certain things like Mortars and the HIMARS in Hardcore, or neglecting to realize that by adding aesthetic crumbly bits to the top of blown-out walls they effectively render bipods useless in many scenarios.

To me, it's essential. It differentiates non-contextual shooters (playing on maps for no reason) from immersive games like DayZ. It's not enough for me to just... play... I need to know why I'm playing. Context is essential for me. Player stories cannot exist in a vacuum. Otherwise, there's no difference to me in telling a story from Battlefield about how rad that explosion was when I blew up that tank to DayZ stories of banditry. There's no context for why this is happening.

I think it's just fictional, it's an amalgam of (mainly in my opinion) the Czech Republic, Ukraine, and perhaps a country like Georgia (maybe Bosnia as well). It's not necessarily meant to emulate any of them in any given instance. As an aside, I wouldn't be opposed to BIS hiring on (or sourcing) a freakin' writer to hammer out just some basic details about DayZ's lore and universe.

Not sure why people are discussing TPV, but alright. Anywho, on-topic, yes Wayze, it's a serious problem. I think you and I discussed it way back when the DayZ forum was pretty much just the Announcements section (IIRC). I think characters need to be fixed to the server, period. It solves all of the problems of cross-server loot transfer, whilst only creating "inconvenience" for people. Plus, it has the added benefit of encouraging loyalty to a particular server. Its not enough to just have private AND public hives. The entire structure of DayZ's server distribution needs to be looked at. That said, the developers don't seem to keen on that prospect (with Dean effectively endorsing cross-server looting at Rezzed with regard to helicopter parts). If they're going to keep that paradigm, I think there are several options that I'd be in favor of. One, reset all characters to the coast upon server swap. Increases risk for those players to swap whilst removing them from easy access to their loot. If somebody wants to transfer loot across the server, it should be difficult. If you're willing to switch servers, risk the coast, and haul ass back up to your tent in the north... only to do all that over and over again, more power to you. Second, don't reset character location to the coast, but reset character gear upon swapping. These are problematic, but I'd like to see at least some approach attempted. And again, server logout timers are profoundly NOT the answer.