About Weapons

[About Weapons]

Do people not post here anymore?!

 

I was away and saw the FAL model /drool

[Civilian semi-auto rifles]

AR-15s are not a bad choice for civilian semi-autos in any case. There are factories even in Russia that manufacture semi-auto AR-15s, and pretty much every country in East Europe has some derivative in service (Russian Alpha-Vympel Spetsnaz have been seen with M4 Carbines.) The real problem with them would be gameplay issues that come with it sharing ammo, mags, and attachments with the M4A1 and other military derivatives, which could be problematic in the long run. But, of course, they could also just use an old CAR-15 Sporter without a rail and thin handguard and have only the 10 and 20 round magpul rounds spawn, which would give a realistic use to them (since no military force issues those) and also keep it reasonable for a civilian tier weapon versus the M4A1.

 

Mini-14s are really easy to get in the US and looking on Czech Websites there are quite a few around that region as well. It's a classic and iconic alternative to having to add an AR to the game - not the most realistic but certainly a civvie weapon. And, of course, they can add the Mini-30 in 7.62x39mm, which would make sense as well.

 

I can't see any case that an M14 or M1A derivative would not be a military spawn, though. Even if they went for an original wooden styled one (not the more realistic MK14 or M39 EMR) and made it semi-auto only it'd probably be a NATO weapon just because it's a high-capacity battle rifle. If civvie spawns are going to have high-caliber guns on them, then the most that'd really be good to see would be semi-autos like the SVT-40 or M1 Garand, but if it gets to the point where you can loot a barn and find a 20 round battle rifle it might not be great.

 

Of course they do have the ability to control individual buildings now so we may after all get our wishes of "guerrilla caches" where older military weapons that don't make sense in either regular civvie houses or military bases do (i.e. the PPSh-41)

 

I think this raises a good point, one that I know you and I raised a while back. There's overlap between civilian and so-called "military" weapons, the AR-15 and M14 are great examples of this. The magazines and capabilities between "civilian" versions and "military" versions of these weapons are often interchangeable.

 

Perhaps it would make sense to have fire modes be the main delineation between military and civilian weapons. Civilian ARs are semi-automatic, whilst military ARs have automatic/burst capabilities. Seems like a decent enough difference.

 

Personally, if they were to implement a "civilian" AR-15, I think it'd be something along the lines of what Torchia said about a mid-length fixed stock AR-15 way back. I don't particularly think it's worth it, as I'd rather see other AR-15 variants (namely some sort of full-on M16 and/or a Mk 12). But, I think a good "civilian" AR-15/10 would be some kind of fixed stock bull-barrel weapon. Not the sexiest weapon in the world, but gets the job done I suppose.

 

As for the magazines, they're rare enough as it is. Could be problematic for the low-end "civilian" weapons like any future civilian AR-15, but might not be a show stopper.

 

I'm not sure how one can support the "Mini 14s aren't popular anymore" argument. Sure, they were popular in the 90s because they could skirt certain regulations and were the target (like the SKS) of gun legislation in the United States. But, they're still being made, they've just been outshadowed by the boom in production that we've seen over the past 20 years.

 

I absolutely support the Mini 14, it's not insanely rare (even in Eastern Europe, a few former Soviet countries [primarily the Baltics] still employ M14s as DMRs, Mini 14s are available to civilians [see Anders Behring Brevik [sic?]], and some countries received tens of thousands of them).

 

To the OP, yes! I support these, and all weapons for that matter! However, you do have to be wary of weapons using relatively ubiquitous calibers. In my ideal DayZ, calibers would be more rigidly tailored to the types of weapons they're intended for. So things like the CR 527 wouldn't be acceptable because it fires an assault rifle cartridge, which sort of undercuts how much it gets used and how valuable it is. Likewise, it forces certain calibers to be made less-rare to suit their less-rare weapon counterparts. In effect, this screws the "high-end" weapons that use said caliber by making it too easy to find because it's used in common weapons.

[Military barrack, have they become 'minor' loot building]

Entirely random loot doesn't make sense, I think people are misconstruing the potential implementation of the CLE.

 

It shouldn't randomize loot entirely, where a Deer Stand and a Barracks have the same chance of spawning an <insert rare item here>.

 

Barracks should still have an increased likelihood of spawning <insert rare item here>, they just shouldn't have an entire monopoly on said item.

 

That said, yes, barracks lately have been completely useless for getting any loot... much less decent loot.

[Multi-Person Mechanics to discourage KOS]

These wouldn't discourage KOS per-se, they don't give consequence (not punishment, easy) to killing someone or firing a weapon.

 

They just require someone else to accomplish a task. All you need is one pre-existing friend/clan, or, one/two friends in-game to accomplish this.

 

While everyone else can be shot on sight just the same. 

 

So long as there's no direct and/or immediate consequence for killing another player or firing a weapon, I don't foresee any of the suggestions actually fostering spontaneous interaction.

 

People always pine for the heady days of the early mod where people, supposedly, all lived happily ever after and there was more player cooperation. I posit that this is two things - a myth, and, the result of novelty.

 

[About Weapons]

So magazines...

 

Will we ever see a 45-rounder for the AK-74? Pretty dern popular these days.

 

 

To be honest, I'd rather see the 45-round magazine (and 40-round RPK magazine) be the high-end magazine for the AKs, rather than the drum. At least until there's a proper RPK/RPK-74M in game. And even then, most RPKs I see are using 40/45-rounders.

 

Same for the VSS/AS Val.

 

[Force 1PP for Single Stable Release]

In 3PP there is no immersion.

 

It's not debatable.

 

Without immersion you never get a visceral connection to your character and just about every core factor that makes DayZ great is now diminished.

 

It absolutely is debatable, what convinced you otherwise?

 

I get viscerally connected to my avatar, have been for going on three years now. I've had a wonderful time playing DayZ that hasn't been "diminished" in any tangible way. My experience has been far more affected by silly graphical ons/offs (i.e. ATOC) than any help anyone's got from 3PP.

[the problem with dayz: not dank enough]

 

for one thing, why is there not a solid layer of moss and trees growing at random in the middle of streets and between cracks in pavement?

 

Because DayZ doesn't take place a decade after the apocalypse.

 

I think they could do a bit better on atmosphere, but not in the "making shit look beat up" department. Houses are messy and scuffed. Roads are cracked and beat the hell up. Windows are smashed. If anything, widespread destruction is more immersion breaking for me. What did someone go around breaking ALL the windows of Chernarus? Did a bloodied body get dragged in the same exact spot of every house in Chernarus once the shit hit the fan?

 

They need to add, and are adding, more "quarantine/outbreak" infrastructure. More roadblocks. More traffic jams. More CASEVAC points. More ruined medical tents.

 

I couldn't care less if it's covered in moss that would take a few years, at the very least, to grow.

 

And maybe it feels like ARMA because it's using the same map (which has been markedly changed by the way), exists in the same universe, follows certain general plotlines from ARMA 2, is made by Bohemia, uses an iteration of the engine used in ARMA, and owes its existence to a mod of ARMA.

 

Never understood why folks hate ARMA 2 so much now, and view DayZ as a categorical opposite to ARMA. There's a lot of differences. There's a lot of overlap. All encompassed in the unique experience of DayZ. 

[The Community's List of Suggested Weapons for Dayz Standalone (Version: 1.29)]

The AN-94 would be fine considering the Russian Special Ops and MVD that use it were also the ones that intervened in ArmA 2, and they happened to be using high-end prototype equipment as well (AK-107s were their main firearm.) However, yeah, there's really nothing that makes it more valid of a weapon than the SCAR-H, because both require special forces from a different country to be present if they have to be coming from a different land.

 

At this point I'd actually prefer they do the AK-12 if they do any more AK rifles, because now it is being accepted into the Russian military, it looks different to the AK-74 platforms (unlike the AK-107), and comes standard with modern equipment and RIS rather than needing a railed handguard like the other AKs. It'd be a good gun to have alongside the Russian kit they plan to do in the future.

 

Point being, it's hypocritical to dismiss the Mk 17 based upon the misconception that it's "used by nobody" and at the same time, want the AN-94 which is/was actually only used by one country... and isn't being produced anymore... probably isn't even being used by the SOF it was initially provided to in limited numbers... had a very limited production... and was universally panned as overcomplicated.

 

But hey, it looks like an AK! Therefore it "fits" in Chernarus /s

 

I would love an AN-94, a Mk 17, and an AK-12!

 

Unfortunately, Chris said he wasn't in favor of the AK-12 because it hadn't been adopted by anyone (which has since changed as you've said). That said, even his reasoning then didn't make much sense.

[How would you feel if 1st person perspective was mandatory?]

Lots of assumptions here. Chief amongst which is that people that like 3PP are blind because they "haven't seen the light of 1PP."

 

Well yes, I'm willing to bet a lot of us have. Doesn't mean that once we've tried it, we're introduced to the land of never-ending boobs and cheese-steaks never to return to the land of woe and want!

 

I prefer 3PP when traveling, which is 90% of DayZ. I like being able to see my character, it immerses me just the same as seeing nothing more than the last six inches of a firearm all day. It's really that simple, I like being able to see my character, that's about all I care about.

 

I prefer 1PP when in firefights, because it helps me actually hit what I'm aiming at.

 

3PP needs work. I don't like that it's exploitable. It should have more disadvantages than it does now.

 

But dead horse is dead. Extremism on either end isn't going to resurrect said deceased horse.

[The End Game]

You guys are missing the point. I have nothing against people who camp and stock up food, I am one of them. Re-read my description without bias :)

 

The point is that I want a lot of things to do. I never said there should be one end game, but we need to actually hash out the features we want.

 

A true sandbox would be great, but we don't have the processing power to simulate sand :(. We need a compromise. The things I have listed are not "The Only End Game". End is a red herring. All I care about discussing is the ultimate functions we should be able to perform at the peak of our experience and ability.

 

What I would like is for you guys to share your vision of your own ultimate playstyle. What features does it include?

 

Everyone has biases, the only issue is recognizing them and not over-asserting one's opinion as objective.

 

Your use of end game is problematic, as it implies exactly what it means... an end status. I won't belabor what others have said on DayZ being a "sandbox."

 

All of the items in your OP have been discussed to death, and in most (if not all) cases, outright included on the development roadmap. So discussing their mere existence or inclusion in-game is a bit redundant at this point.

 

If you want to discuss how they should be implemented, what capabilities these things should have, what boundaries, what advantages/disadvantages, then I'm all ears.

[Hermit Playstyle Enchancement]

No there is no problem

You can hunt an animal with an AK on automatic

You can fish anywhere there is water

You can build a fire and cook in the city

You can put up a tent right next to the general store

You can fight in the high-rise blocks with a bow

you can play KoS in Electro and collect human meat with a stone knife

etc

Some activities go under the general calling-name "hermit"  - it's just a name - in the same way anything to do with military gear goes under the general calling-name "mil". It's no big deal, you can totally mix and match. You can make a bowstring from guts and go to NWAF and fight in the control tower with it. You can live in the woods and only eat from cans.

If you think there is some kind of philosophical un-balance ( I'm looking at your examples ) - start a thread called " More General Crafting and Urban Crafting " to put your case. These little "woodland" crafting additions don't change the game, they add a few small perks for people who want to play that way to some extent.

Like - this week: one new way for the hermits to make fire AND three New Guns for the Military dudes.

But isn't that's the wrong way to look at it ? -  you can use all of these things in the town or the country or both.

zero problem.

Maybe your " General Crafting and Urban Crafting " thread ideas would be very interesting. I'd like to hear them. Go for it.

 

xx

 

Uh, what? Again, I think your grasp of English is causing you to misinterpret what I'm saying.

 

I never said anything about an imbalance, at all.

 

I'm saying it doesn't make sense to devote resources to a style of play that is neither attractive nor advantageous, yet. You can't make the "hermit playstyle" attractive/advantageous by further isolating it from the rest of the game's mechanics.

 

Nobody will take the time to put together a bow and drill, chop up wood, make a fire, hunt an animal, and cook it just right if they can just snatch a can of beans that does the same thing.

 

Point being, it's not enough to just "put in more 'hermit' mechanics," they have to be made advantageous.

 

Conversely, while "ready made loot" is available to hermits, it's not really useful. They can't integrate it into their playstyle without violating their playstyle altogether, because ready-made loot is dependent on other ready-made loot (i.e. AK-74 is dependent on the ability to find magazines and ammunition). I can't attach anything I make out in the woods to my weapon, and vice versa. There isn't any overlap between the two playstyles, where there certainly could be (i.e. repairing fabrics with natural materials, etc.)

[About Weapons]

Are the pistol suppressors going to be permanently working on the P1, Makarov, and 1911/Engraved 1911? I know that they're supposed to represent a universal low-caliber design but those specific weapons gripe me because they don't have a threaded barrel that would allow them to be compatible. Personally I think that it should be relegated to the FNX and CR75 both for realism and gameplay reasons, as it makes suppression something people actually have to consider rather than just "oh, well any old pistol can do."

 

The P1 should be able to take the improvised one, though. Last time I checked, it couldn't.

 

Eh, with how useless sidearms are in a firefight (in my opinion), I think having a ubiquitous suppressor makes sense. Sidearms, and more specifically suppressed sidearms, should primarily be for taking out zombies. At least that's how I use them. Otherwise they're just weaker primaries with no real use outside of the "desperation" phase of gearing.

 

Plus, it beats the obvious alternative of making a .380 PB, 1911 w/ threaded barrel, and specific suppressors for each caliber/sidearm.

 

I do think, though, that SMGs should get a separate suppressor and not be able to use the Pistol Suppressor.

 

That and I'd love it if they'd take two seconds and fix the placement of the suppressors on certain weapons (AKS-74u and FNX specifically).

 

Something in me wants this one to have that gritty mix and match post apocalyptic feel where all the old surplus stuff keeps coming out of the woodwork and everybody isn't running around with a high tech assault rifle with every tactical attachment.

 

This has everything to do with rarity, and nothing to do with what they actually make available to the player.

[Hermit Playstyle Enchancement]

I think an unrecognized problem is inherent in how we, and certainly the developers, characterize the "hermit playstyle." This problematic issue is revealed in Mr. Nespesny's first sentence.

 

 

As we are aiming to make hermit playstyle as independent from ready-made loot as possible...

 

While I agree that the so-called "hermit playstyle" should be independently viable, I think it should also be very much compatible with ready-made loot.

 

For instance, I can't attach a torch to an assault rifle. I can't repair a SPOSN pack with deer hide. I can't saw off a car's gas tank and make it into a rainbucket. I can't cook rabbit haunches in an empty soup can.

 

Point being, there's no useful overlap between the two playstyles. It's one or the other, it's a zero-sum game. You can't really adapt aspects of both. It shouldn't be about making them more independent from one another, but enhancing the spectrum of use.

 

Also, it's not really feasible to play as a "hermit" when everything about being a hermit is much harder and more unforgiving than the "ready-made loot" playstyle. Oddly enough, being a "hermit" needs to be made easier, and "ready-made-loot" playstyles need to be made more difficult to accommodate for their differences.

[The Community's List of Suggested Weapons for Dayz Standalone (Version: 1.29)]

no real reason to be in chernarus, so as many other weapons already ingame... total balance breaker in weaponry, but dayz does not need balance in weapons... . i would not mind seeing it spawn sometimes at heli crashes, mags even more rare. FN FAL mags could be modified using the upcoming workshops to fit in the FN SCAR. but lets not include weapons like that when dupping is still a big issue, i'm already concerned with SVD/UMP45/VSS for 0.57 stable :o

 

i can't help, i still think this kind of weapons belong more to Arma than Dayz.

 

How would it affect balance? It would probably, if implemented, be a highly regulated/limited item like the SVD will be.

 

Why? Why does DayZ somehow dwell in an alternate plane of existence where military weapons do not exist?

 

 

No more so than the UMP45, MP5K, M4A1, Steyr AUG, or FNX45 do - sure, there are explanations for why those are there but in the end they're just as easily explained away as the SCAR-H is. It's not a ridiculous idea because it's a gun that's actually in service in quite a few places and serves the battle rifle role well, the only real argument against it if you're not going to be opposed to the other guns is that it "is too modern and tactical" which is just an appeal to very low levels of immersion and quite frankly a bad argument in the end.

 

Agreed.

 

Why? There was a Ukraine style civil war/proxy war in Chernarus before the zombie outbreak involving several nations.

 

Plus the SCAR platform was adopted by the US Army in ARMA2:OA as their standard service rifle. So, there's already an in-universe explanation.

 

Every single one of the weapons you listed are far far far more ubiquitous in the world in not only nations served but numbers than the Fn scar.

 

Kenya having a handful of rifles means little for it being in Chenarus.

 

I might also add that the largest user of Fn Scars the US special Operations command also has them in limited numbers.

 

Like most failed weapon systems I would not doubt there are more of these weapons in civilian hands in the US than actually in places where it would sorta make any sense for the weapon to make its way into the game.

 

"Far, far, far more ubiquitous in the world," do you have anything besides an assumption to back this up?

 

Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, France, Belgium, and Germany having them sure does though! And I included Kenya and the other Latin American countries to show that it's gaining a wider usage rate than "DER ITS ONLY IN KAWD! KEEP IT OUT OF MAH DAYZ SIMZ!"

 

"Failed weapon systems." Oh, so you mean the Mk 20/Mk 17 that's replacing the Mk 12 SPR (which you totally want in-game) and Mk 11 for USASOC? By 2017? That's been procured in the thousands by a multitude of international militaries?

 

 

Also, in-universe, it was adopted as the standard service rifle of the United States Army by at least 2010. So, there's that!

 

And again, don't you want the AN-94 too? The discontinued, rejected, prototypical, produced-by-only-one-country, popularized entirely by AAA video games, weapon used by nobody with a pulley inside?

[Gun Sway Poll]

Random anything is unacceptable. DayZ is, in part, a game predicated upon giving the player the ability to control (or not) his/her own input into the world. If you're throwing hyper-random sway on top of all the other things the player has to manage, you're removing a key element of skillful input. I discourage the use of the word "skill" because it can be applied in a variety of contexts and isn't a zero-sum concept. But, yes.

 

If sway is predictable and controllable, it is a skill that can be mastered. If it's random, it's a dice roll.

 

And it's really odd to see people say "make it harder for difficulty's sake," it's just as ludicrous as "make it so because of realism."

 

From a realistic standpoint, the weapon sway we have now is silly. I'm not drunkenly sloshing my muzzle from side to side after sprinting for 100m. I'm also not yanking my muzzle from random point to random point (a la DayZ mod) after having ran a few yards.

 

Weapon sway should really only factor in with magnified optics, certainly not iron sights and unmagnified optics. Yes, it should be there, but it shouldn't be so drastic as to throw off a shot at reasonable ranges (i.e. within 100m).

 

Likewise, weapon sway should be drastically reduced if...

- The player crouches

- The player prones

- The player has a bipod deployed

 

Instead of making the mere act of firing a weapon inconceivably difficult and cumbersome, why don't we encourage measures that place more weight on the act of firing a weapon? Meaning zombie hordes that will jump you if you fire your weapon in an inopportune locale, meaning rarer ammunition, a meaningful weapon maintenance mechanic, etc.

 

I never understood why people want to hamper the gunplay in DayZ just to discourage banditry (which isn't in and of itself bad).

[Aircraft: What kinds would you like to see? Share your opinion!]

The only way to sucessfully implement aircraft in DayZ is to find a balance with them. It would be very hard to balance a UH-1Y in the game of DayZ. Anyone who thinks firing 2000 rounds of 5.56 every minute is a good plan then they have another thing coming.

 

Mkay, maybe make 5.56x45 hard to come by? That's a start at balancing it. Or maybe make the door-mounted gun hard to come by as well, in addition to the ammunition? Maybe have an M240D instead of an M134?

 

 

Military aircraft, as I will argue, should only come to fruition with modding tools. As has been said before if people want full militarization they are going to need to wait until modding tools.

 

Military aircraft aside, I'm keen to discuss exactly how arcraft can be kept balanced while still making them satisfying in the long run: here are my ideas so far.

 

You can't just exclude/ignore "military" aircraft with the cop-out of "leave it to mods." This is a DayZ forum, you brought up military aircraft in your poll, therefore we're discussing their inclusion in DayZ. This is exactly what I was talking about, there's nothing in the mythical rulebook that says "military aircraft are unbalanced." Moreover, this is DayZ. They were a feature of the mod, no reason why they can't be a feature of standalone.

 

Also, what do you even mean by "full militarization"? Is a civilian UH-1 with someone shooting out the window a fully militarized aircraft? Where do you draw the line? It's not a zero-sum status for aircraft. Scout helicopters are often heavily armed (read AH-6) but they can be unarmed as well. Similarly, there's a huge difference between an attack helicopter with a co-pilot controlled turret versus an AH-6 or somesuch. There's a lot of grey area that you're overlooking.

 

Similarly, why is this a bad thing?

 

Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance. This is the obvious and easy way to balance any form of aircraft implementation. The more in-depth the maintenance, the more difficult helicpters will be to use effectively.

 

That's pretty easy to say, what do you mean? Do you mean the parts themselves should be rare? Do you mean they should be individualized (i.e. Mi-7 rotor, UH-1 rotor, etc.)? Do you mean there should be some sort of repair process that requires player input?

 

Realistic Damage. If aircraft take bona fide damage from bullets, then we will see them be used in a drastically different manner than we saw them used on the mod. On the mod aircraft were pretty beefy and hard to hit. Attack helicopters could be easy hit with bullets if they were attacking you or trying to land, but the amount of armor they had made them flying tanks. If tanks have little to no armor then nobody will fly low and base hunt out of fear of being shot down. We will see them used in civilian-esque ways instead of airforce-esque ways.

 

Seeing as small arms could bring down a UH-1 in the mod, gonna' disagree with you here. They weren't tanks by any stretch of the imagination. One guy with a Mk 48 or even a DMR could bring one down.

 

They were suitably vulnerable in the mod, they had an acceptable offensive/defensive damage model. Making them super vulnerable is pointless, nobody will use them if they're not powerful or to be feared.

 

 

Better (more realistic) Flight Model. Aircraft should definitely, definitely, definitely, behave in a more realistic manner than the way they behaved in Arma 2. Flying a helicopter was literal child's play. Autohover was constantly used by 95% of all pilots simply because they are bad pilots, but autohover allowed them to takeoff and land. Not loosing control, Landing properly, Taking off properly, actually flying straight, etc..., these are all things thta will become genuine issues for people. Even with the ease of flight in DayZ there was like a 20% crash rate. In my experience, 20% of all aircraft flights end in a crash (resulting from the poor average piloting skill of the public), imagine how high that number could be if helicopters were actually more challenging to fly. I don't even really need to make this argument regarding planes and autogyros, but a better flight model is absolutely expected. On the DayZ mod people crashed planes and gyros so frequently that literally only one in 50-100 players was competent at flying them.

 

So remove autohover? I never thought autohover was problematic, landing 100% vertically was suicidal. Any pilot worth their weight in salt would come in at a gradual angle and be thinking ahead. Sure it's a crutch, but it's not an overly advantageous crutch.

 

How, specifically, do we make a "better" flight model? You're not making any suggestions. Does it require weather to be simulated? Does to require more intricate control schemes? Does it require TOH intervention?

 

People crashed planes in modded DayZ because Chernarus is unsuitable for landing, not because they were overly difficult to fly. Also, where are you drawing these percentages from? If you're using your own experience (which it seems like you are), a 20% crash rate seems pretty high for something that's super easy to fly. Also, there are more reasons than "inexperience" that cause crashes.

 

 

If the devs addressed these three main aspects, getting a helicopter could become so difficult that groups of 20 struggle to achieve it after weeks of play. Through part rarity, tool rarity, resource rarity/complexity it is possible to counteract the OPness of a heli of just about any size, but if helicopters should not be too OP in the first place, and overall they should not be nigh on impossible to get.

 

While I agree that helicopters themselves should be more consequential to use/maintain/store/repair, 20 players struggling for anything in DayZ doesn't really make much sense. We can quip about "how many players is enough to be granted the use of a helicopter" but 20 person groups are few and far between.

 

They should be forces to be reckoned with, I'm not sure why you want to neuter helicopters. They weren't that good in vanilla DayZ.

 

Sure, a god damn UH-1Y with auto-repair on restart, auto-resupply on restart, and a FLIR seat like we saw in the mods is ridiculous. But remove all of those things and it's pretty effing tame.

 

You seem to view the so-called "OPness" of a helicopter as bad. I view it as good, because helicopters should be good and not useless. They should be the powerful resources that they were in the mod, they just need to be made more consequential to use (via rarer parts, a more involve supply chain [having to find a door mounted weapon, ammo, etc.], no parachutes for passengers, etc.)

 

 

The last and most important method of balance is the issue of overall dilemma rarity. The issue is that once servers gain control of vehicle spawn rates, they will jack up the numbers, and those servers will become the most popular for that singular reason. This is where the concept of supplementary constructable ultralights comes in an tries to save the day. Ultralights in the form of fixed wings, autogyros, and mozzies (with their respective complexity and difficulty to construct) will satiate many players who want flight for the sake of flight without giving them something inherently OP. (1 passenger, basically no cargo capacity). Because of this, players and server owners will be much more apt to not want an increase in actual vehicle spawns because they will want to preserve their rarity and value. The problem is we all want aircraft to be rare, but even more so we want to actually use one more than once a year, and so we jack up the spawn rates and fuck over the rarity and then there are too many OP helicopters everywhere, and the game changes (Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow :D).

 

If we implement constructable ultralights then we address the problem on many fronts. Firstly we allow for more vehicles without making them free and spawned in everywhere, players have to work for them; value of aircraft is preserved and the number of constructable vehicles will only ever reflect the amount of work players have put into making them on a given server. Secondly, the 'extra vehicles' that exist as the result of being constructed by players will be inherently weaker and more limited than real helicopters; we satiate people with a vehicle of their own after two weeks of work, but we don't break the game by rewarding them with something over powered. This also keeps real helicopters much more valuable given that they can actually be used as transports so the most powerful groups (or the badmins) can be the ones to vie for the ultimate power (if indeed it be that). Thirdly, and perhaps in the end the most important reason to have constructable ultralights is Realism/authenticity.

 

And here it is, the unexplained assumption that armed helicopters are "inherently OP." See my initial thoughts on this, there's an incredible amount of variance in what constitutes an armed aircraft. What is overpowered? Is it a UH-1Y with a minigun? An M240D? A Hydra pod? An MH-6 with someone shooting off the bench? An AH-6 with a lone minigun? A Super Tucano with a gun pod? Some asshole tossing frags out of a biplane? What? Where's the line?

 

How would the addition of constructable ultralights do any good? Not only is it ludicrous from a "realism" standpoint (which I don't particularly care for) for every player to know how to construct these things, but it doesn't resolve any of the problems you just highlighted.

 

All it does is give an unarmed alternative to armed helicopters.

 

 

Small groups and lone survivors simply aren't going to have the where-with-all to maintain and operate any kind of medium or large helicopter. Realistically the best they could hope for in the name of reconnaissance or travel is an ultralight that they can actually construct, maintain, and fly on their own. Given the availability of ultralights, many players will opt for an ultralight instead of going for a much harder to maintain/fuel/fly large helicopter. As a result instead of servers needing to spawn 20 helicopters to satisfy their playerbase, they might only need to spawn 4 or 5, or even 2-1.

 

Again, where's the line? UH-1's don't take much more to get flying than an AH-6. Certainly not in the personnel department.

 

People want death helicopters because they're death helicopters. If people have the option of 20 ultralights and 5 armed helicopters, you bet your ass they're going to dump that ultralight the second a more robust airframe comes along. It doesn't matter if it's hard to maintain, once they've got it flying, that ultralight is going to rot in a field.

 

Availability =/= desirability. This is the first time I've heard someone suggest more helicopters as a solution to discouraging their use overall.

 

If I want to get to point A from point B quickly, quietly, and without a lot of maintenance... know what I'll select? A freakin' bicycle! Ultralights wouldn't exist in a vaccuum, they're not overly advantageous in any regard. They have none of the stealthy benefits of a ground vehicle, they have none of the carry capacity of heavy helicopters/vehicles, they have no offensive measures, they have no defensive measures. Their only advantages are that they're relatively quick, marginally easier to hide than the average vehicle, and are hard-er to hit. All of which are easily outweighed by their downsides.

 

One guy flying a UH-1 can do about as much damage as one guy flying an Ultralight.

 

All types of helicopters should be included. Armed helicopters should be feared assets, not teacups. Ultralights aren't a panacea to helicopter balance. We can have a debate about what types of armed helicopters/aircraft will be included, if you'd like.

[The Community's List of Suggested Weapons for Dayz Standalone (Version: 1.29)]

How about the FN SCAR-H?

The FN SCAR-H is a select-fire battle rifle manufactured by FN Herstal. It is chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO, which is already confirmed to be coming to the game with the FN FAL eventually. The weapon was developed for use by US SOCOM military forces. It comes in two main variants, long-barrel (for accuracy in long range engagements) and short-barrel (for maneuverability in close-range engagements). It can accept a wide variety of attachments such as rail optics (i.e. M4 optics), rail accessories (flashlight, bipod, etc.), and a sound suppressor.

 

Though there are a lot of folk here who, unreasonably, are vehemently against the Mk 17 even when faced with facts, it would be a welcome addition. And even in ignorance of those facts, don't recognize that DayZ is fictional and anything can be explained plausibly given a miniscule amount of background.

 

Would love to have the Mk 17 as a high-end battle rifle! Definitely one of my favorite battle rifles out there today, that's gaining a surprisingly broad amount of use in modern conflicts/militaries/law enforcement (even post-Soviet/Eastern European ones).

 

United States (obviously)

 

Kenya

 

France

 

Belgium (obviously)

 

Lithuania

 

 

Peru

 

Serbia, Poland, Chile, and Colombia (Mk 16s but close enough)

 

 

 

This one was supposedly found in the possession of a Colombian cartel member!

 

[Aircraft: What kinds would you like to see? Share your opinion!]

Everything short of delivering explosives on both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, and even then, if they want to throw a Hydra pod on the UH-1Y (that has to be looted from an airfield, and stocked with rare-ass FFARs) then so be it.

 

Door and/or mounted pylon guns are fine, so long as they...

 

- Don't come as standard, meaning you have to loot and attach them

- Have to actually be resupplied with ammunition, again, meaning you have to loot a ton of ammunition, find belt links, find an ammo box, etc.

- Have some sort of maintenance requirement

- Are suitably rare

 

That said, I don't necessarily want to see "crafted" airframes. Ultralight scout vehicles, sure, no problem. But there's a lot of overlap.

 

Not to rehash the old argument, but aircraft are not irrevocably and innately incompatible with DayZ by any means. They're going to be in DayZ, get over it.

[The Community's List of Suggested Weapons for Dayz Standalone (Version: 1.29)]

TL;DR - Including the SR-3 would've made more sense than including the VSS. The most different weapon aesthetically they could add in 9x39 would be the OTs-14-4A, and it's still problematic. And most, if not all, weapons chambered in 9x39 are functionally, mechanically, and aesthetically the same.

 

- SMG format, fit in a backpack with rougthly the same size as the AK 74U

 

Pretty much the only unique feature about this, potentially, over the VSS.

 

- uses the subsonic and powerfull 9x39mm rounds freshly introduced for the VSS vintorez

 

The same with all 9x39 weapons (i.e. AS VAL, AK-9, OTs-12, OTs-14-4A, 9A-91, etc.)

 

Not really a selling point. Other than from the "we need more 9x39 weapons to justify its existence," perspective. Which would be the same for the above as well.

 

- borrow the same mag as the VSS vintorez and AS VAL (10-20-30 rounds mags), thus no new item/artwork needed

 

This is part of why I think it's logical (see below) to include if they wanted to minimize the amount of effort to add another 9x39 weapon to justify their inclusion of the round. Or, if you look at it from another angle, magazine ubiquity is a selling point.

 

 

- has a unique look (an IMO very sexy) with an unique and easily recognizable handguard (keep it folded so no new weapon hold animation is needed)

 

Very much debatable. It's the same as a VSS, and AS Val, it's just an AS Val with a non-integral suppressor. It looks, and functions, essentially the same as both the VSS and AS Val (because they're all variants of the same weapon).

 

And they need to include foregrips (and already have, just not functional ones) sooner or later, finding cheeky workarounds both squanders resources and allows them to side-step ever having to expand on the attachments. I don't think it's unfathomably hard to create different animations for foregrips.

 

- has mount for russian optics (yes i'm thinking about PSO 1-1)

 

Yep, but so does almost every other 9x39 weapon as well (even the 9A-91/VSK-94).

 

Not really a selling point.

 

 

- can take a big ass supressor, making introduction of the AS VAL useless, make it rare so the weapon is not OP (with russian crash only spawned features, this weapon will be had to find, hard to kit and hard to maintain)

 

I'm not sure how it'd make the introduction of the AS Val useless. The VSS does this already, in that it's just an AS Val with a wooden stock instead of a folding stock. Take off the optic of the VSS, and you've got an AS Val. The SR-3 is "more different" than the VSS-AS Val comparison, but that's because it's modular. Not solely because it can mount a suppressor.

 

I find it hard to ever consider 9x39 as a caliber, integrally suppressed weapons like the AS Val, or non-integrally suppressed weapons like the SR-3 overpowered in any regard. Sure, have them spawn at helicopter crashes for propriety's sake, and/or to make them a "party-piece" prestige weapon. But these weapons are so niche that I could never dream of calling them "overpowered" if they're rendered with any of their real-world qualities.

 

 

totaly fit in the sovietic atmosphere of chernarus, could be a great addition to russian crash spawns. i could be the ultimate unicorn rifle in the game (it would be mine for sure).

 

Again, debatable. Whatever "fits" into the "atmosphere" of Chernarus is subjective, and so long as anything is explained in-universe (read M4, Desert Eagle, AK-101, CR instead of CZ, Blaser 95, etc.) then it "fits" in Chernarus.

 

 

 

What do you think about it ?

 

This is why they should've added the SR-3 and not the VSS. I get that people adore the VSS due to their experiences with it in other video games, and, because it's an incredibly niche weapon... but the SR-3 makes more sense to have included from a pragmatic perspective.

 

It's modular, for starters, allowing the player to essentially make it into a VSS (as shown above) with the addition of a suppressor and optic. Or, conversely, the player could make it into an SBR (see below). Or any slew of other possible configurations.

 

 

They could've got much more "bang for their buck" so to-speak with the SR-3 over the VSS. They wouldn't need to include more than one weapon platform to justify 9x39 in DayZ, because the SR-3 is already more than one weapon. Because it can be configured in many ways.

 

I always found it odd that people salivated over the VSS and 9x39 so much, while casually discarding other more useful/unique/prevalent weapons and calibers. The VSS/AS Val/SR-3 are for all intents and purposes, the same weapon. Aesthetically, mechanically, and functionally (i.e. typically-suppressed, sniper-rifle, compact/SBR, limited-range, 9x39 weapons).

 

The 9A-91/VSK-94 are only marginally different aesthetically and mechanically, but are functionally exactly the same as both each other and the entire AS Val family (i.e. typically-suppressed, sniper-rifle, compact/SBR, limited-range, 9x39 weapons).

 

Even the OTs-12 and AK-9 are just AKs chambered in 9x39, which we've already got in more useful/common calibers (read AK-74, AKM, and AK-101).

 

Which is funny to me, because they're pretty much all just AKs in one form or another. At the very least, their internals and actions are AK-derived. I doubt people would be so receptive if I proposed adding every AR-15 variant under the sun. For instance, if I were to propose a .300 BLK AR-15 (which is probably 9x39's most similar analog) people would absolutely lose their effing minds screaming "Der this isn't CoD we don't need a Honey Badger," or "It's just another boring AR, they should add different weapons not more of the same!" 

 

The most apt choice, if they wanted something different would be the OTs-14-4A "Groza." It at the very least looks different, and gives us something we don't have (i.e. a bullpup AK variant). Plus the Groza is, arguably, every bit as modular (if not more because it can mount a grenade launcher) as the SR-3. However, it probably wouldn't be a "backpack" weapon (although it does have a similar OAL to a folded AKS-74u) which, as I stated above, is pretty much the only real selling point of the SR-3 over the VSS now that it's included. But then again, they could add an OTs-14-1A in 7.62x39 and achieve the same result. Further underscoring why 9x39, while I like it and welcome it, doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a pragmatic perspective.

 

Which ordinarily wouldn't matter, save for the fact that I've seen a lot of other weapons/calibers be dismissed (by both players and developers) on the same grounds that I'm saying 9x39/VSS doesn't make much sense to include (i.e. it's redundant aesthetically, niche in function, there aren't many unique weapons chambered in 9x39 to justify its inclusion as a caliber, the weapons that are chambered in 9x39 can typically be found in other pre-existing calibers).

[What clothing set/weapons would you add if you could?]

The fact that you all want none stop military gear is what makes your ideas plain bad. If you want COD style weapons then please go play COD or ARMA series. The more high tech stuff is added the less immersive it's becoming. 

 

Solid argument. I want real-world style weapons, these weapons existed in the world before COD.

 

Have your opinion.

[The Community's List of Suggested Weapons for Dayz Standalone (Version: 1.29)]

RPC Fort 301 (Ukrainian Galatz clone)

[Why change the Mosin]

Then again how plausible would it even be to find such an obscure bipod for that gun specifically. It would make little sense to find such a bipod in game.

 

Again, what are you basing this off of?

 

Just because you say something that's available for purchase on one of the most popular marketplaces on the internet (read: Amazon) is "implausible" doesn't make it true.

 

That and the bipod above is absolutely generic. It's just a clamp mechanism that requires the tightening of a few Allen bolts around a tube.

[i would like to start a discussion about the current looting mechanics...]

Certain things need to happen for the vicinity window to be less attractive...

 

1. Loot actually needs to be visible, not clipping through walls/furniture. Bullets are incredibly guilty of this, plus it causes me to linger just banging around the walls to find every scrap of loot that's hidden underneath a floor or somesuch.

 

2. Loot needs to be spawning in more appropriate areas. I get that they want us looking under every rock and in every nook/cranny, but hell, it's such a chore going prone in the tiny-ass barracks buildings just to get that suppressor that's halfway in the floor underneath a bunk.

 

3. The pickup cone for items needs to be changed so that items themselves require less precision to pick up. It's really annoying to have to get your cursor just on those two pixels of a bullet just to pick them up. Hence why vicinity is so attractive.

 

4. Sort of unrelated, but they need to have more pickup animations. It at the very least requires you to look at what you're picking up.

 

Personally, I'd rather they remove the vicinity window and just make looting straightforward. It's really just de-prioritizing them addressing the issues with loot placement, because the vicinity window exists.

[DPM Uniforms Added]

Nvm.

[DPM Uniforms Added]

That and DPM is used all over the effing place. Doesn't need a NATO presence to be in Chernarus.