Game needs a sniper heavier than 7.62

[thisisPyro 9]

If I can manage to shot mi17 down with sa58, then you dont need 50. cal at all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xzSGkDb0U thats a mil 17 with 4 players shooting at it while landed and they couldnt kill the pilot or disable it. So b.s. on you taking one down with a sa58.

[thisisPyro 9]

I see no issue with 1HK weapons when all guns can 1HK with headshots.

However, there should be more civilian weaponry and not semi auto snipers like DMR which is just spam gun.

If they are powerful they should encourage hitting the first time and not reward players for spamming.

DMR does not one shot players. 

[dutch_miller 159]

Its not like you can only have one gun in dayz. I have a tent full of gear and a pickup truck for more gear. As for the american guns cant be in cause its in Russia. That hasn't stopped the game from having the m24 or the m4s so it is silly to that only Russian weapons should be added when that does not seem to matter to the devs. 

 

First, I wasn't talking about DayZ. Of course you can have more than one gun in DayZ, do you think I'm that stupid? I'm talking about how in a real apocalypse, nobody who has any small amount of sense in their brain would carry an anti-material rifle around. Secondly, Fun with Flare's point was their shouldn't be American weapons there in the first place, which is completely different from the dev's point of view.

 

 

DMR does not one shot players. 

 

 

"I see no issue with 1HK weapons when all guns can 1HK with headshots."

 

 

Anyway, let's clear up why anti-material rifles shouldn't be in DayZ.

 

1. Realistic impracticability. You cry realism as the reason it should be in the game, and fail to realize how ineffective it would be in a real scenario; which is what DayZ is emulating. If you want to make it realistic, you're going to be one slow bastard.

 

2. Unnecessary. There's really no reason for a .50 cal weapon to be in the game. Any servers you play where you are having problems with armoured vehicles and helicopters is missing the point of DayZ anyway - and I don't give a shit about those servers. In vanilla DayZ, vehicles, especially choppers, are difficult to find, repair and get working. I didn't see a chopper for well over a month when I started playing. You really don't need anti-material rifles just because you want to destroy everybody's work as fast as humanly possible.  If you disagree with that, you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole and don't actually care about this conversation.

Not only that, for how rare those weapons should be I call bullshit that anybody with one only uses it to defend themselves from choppers.

However, I do think the weapons on choppers should be removed and the ability to fire your weapon from a chopper implemented (see Dyslecxi's Arma 2 Little Bird mod).

 

3. Game Balance - DayZ Standalone is a fucking game, get over yourselves. It's not realistic, nothing can ever be close to real life. You can be authentic, like adding and removing things that make sense in a real apocalypse (see point #1); but it's a game, and like all other games, it needs to be balanced. I don't care that people are bandits; in fact, I like bandits, because the game would be boring without them. But what I don't like is that the bandit playstyle is by far the most effective and most viable playstyle. Sniping with an As50 is definitely one of the easiest and simplest ways to play the game, as well as one of the best ways to live in the game without hiding in the woods and doing absolutely nothing. I don't like that at all; I'd like to see playstyles that require co-operation between players become as equally viable and effective way to play the game. 

Having a rifle effective over a kilometer that kills in one hit is the epitome of imbalance; and you complain about choppers.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Dutch Miller

[JIJOK 49]

the problem is that you CAN'T put some semi-auto anti material sniper with range of 1200 max (?) but also there's no point on remove high damage snipers because now it obligates you to use DRM, semi-auto with same damage and range that bolt action and 20 bullets, plus is has zoomx1 and x2 with low recoil 

[dutch_miller 159]

the problem is that you CAN'T put some semi-auto anti material sniper with range of 1200 max (?) but also there's no point on remove high damage snipers because now it obligates you to use DRM, semi-auto with same damage and range that bolt action and 20 bullets, plus is has zoomx1 and x2 with low recoil 

Please rephrase your point so it's understandable and try again.

[thisisPyro 9]

First, I wasn't talking about DayZ. Of course you can have more than one gun in DayZ, do you think I'm that stupid? I'm talking about how in a real apocalypse, nobody who has any small amount of sense in their brain would carry an anti-material rifle around. Secondly, Fun with Flare's point was their shouldn't be American weapons there in the first place, which is completely different from the dev's point of view.

 

 

 

 

"I see no issue with 1HK weapons when all guns can 1HK with headshots."

 

 

Anyway, let's clear up why anti-material rifles shouldn't be in DayZ.

 

1. Realistic impracticability. You cry realism as the reason it should be in the game, and fail to realize how ineffective it would be in a real scenario; which is what DayZ is emulating. If you want to make it realistic, you're going to be one slow bastard.

 

2. Unnecessary. There's really no reason for a .50 cal weapon to be in the game. Any servers you play where you are having problems with armoured vehicles and helicopters is missing the point of DayZ anyway - and I don't give a shit about those servers. In vanilla DayZ, vehicles, especially choppers, are difficult to find, repair and get working. I didn't see a chopper for well over a month when I started playing. You really don't need anti-material rifles just because you want to destroy everybody's work as fast as humanly possible.  If you disagree with that, you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole and don't actually care about this conversation.

Not only that, for how rare those weapons should be I call bullshit that anybody with one only uses it to defend themselves from choppers.

However, I do think the weapons on choppers should be removed and the ability to fire your weapon from a chopper implemented (see Dyslecxi's Arma 2 Little Bird mod).

 

3. Game Balance - DayZ Standalone is a fucking game, get over yourselves. It's not realistic, nothing can ever be close to real life. You can be authentic, like adding and removing things that make sense in a real apocalypse (see point #1); but it's a game, and like all other games, it needs to be balanced. I don't care that people are bandits; in fact, I like bandits, because the game would be boring without them. But what I don't like is that the bandit playstyle is by far the most effective and most viable playstyle. Sniping with an As50 is definitely one of the easiest and simplest ways to play the game, as well as one of the best ways to live in the game without hiding in the woods and doing absolutely nothing. I don't like that at all; I'd like to see playstyles that require co-operation between players become as equally viable and effective way to play the game. 

Having a rifle effective over a kilometer that kills in one hit is the epitome of imbalance; and you complain about choppers.

Pick a side either realism or balance. I think my suggestion fits both. Realism Argument: Calibers above 7.62 are found in almost every military in the world, as this game is a end of the world simulator, one would expect to find calibers that exist in the world. Those calibers do not magically stop at 7.62 and include .388 lapua(a caliber I would love to see) and .50 cals. To say that those calibers are impractical or detrimental  for survival in a zombie apocalypse is to change the argument. The in game weapons are not all perfect or even helpful in a zombie Apocalypse. Example is the enfield, aka the dinnerbell, Yet the devs put it in because it represents a real world counter part. You say a player can not move/hike with a .50 cal rifle(how bout a .388?), I beg to differ. First, Why do I have to hike? I have a pickup truck in dayz, surely I can throw it in the back? That is realistic. Besides in game characters have no trouble carrying an m240 with 1,000 rounds of ammunition. To say that if the world is to end in a zombie Apocalypse that all calibers above 7.62 would disappear is not realistic and to say that carrying a .50 cal is impractical and therefore should not be in the game is simply changing the argument.(and failing to admit that items of equal weight can already be carried in dayz.                                                      Balance argument: You may play in Dayz servers where you never see a helicopter but if you get a group of even a couple mediocre dayz players you can easily get a military helicopter up and running with little trouble. The Helicopters are extremely tricky to take down. Yes, with enough players with DMRs, or M249s you can drop a heli. But it takes a lot teamwork, extremely nice gear, and a bad pilot in the heli. However there are some choppers that are virtually invincible with a decent pilot. The military Mils have invincible pilot seats. Don't believe me? watch the video I put in the forum where 4 guys with extremely nice gear shoot at a LANDED non moving chopper and still could not take it down. Now tell me that you can do it while its flying, I doubt it.  So how do we balance realism of heavy calibers with helis. I propose rather than make choppers weaker, add a rifle(I hope a couple) capable of punching through the mil bulletproof glass and that does significant damage to the rotors, make it a bolt action so accuracy is still key and make it a heli spawn or rare barrack spawn. So choppers flying around and playing smart will still be fine to absolutely destroy new spawns. But if you catch a pilot landing or sitting in the pilot seat, you can actually do damage to the Heli.                                                             I think a heavier caliber bolt action sniper would be both realistic and balanced in that it is rare and takes a bad pilot and a well placed shot to symbolize a helicopter. 

[dutch_miller 159]

snip

Let's not go down the realistic route. I could go down the path of sniper rifles being insanely easy to use in the game, the fact that very few people would be able to use the rifle... but those are old arguments I don't want to bring up again.

 

 

When I say realistic impracticability, I suppose I really meant authenticity. What would happen with those weapons in real life? Nobody would use them. So, you emulate that. Think about it - in a real apocalypse, nobody is going to fucking sit on a hill outside a city and snipe people. In DayZ, people will. 

Unless you are inhumanly athletic, you cannot hike for miles on end, through rough terrain, with a .50 rifle that with ammo weighs upwards of 40 pounds or more, and a backpack that weighs a similar weight. You'd make it maybe half a mile before collapsing. I also never said that I did like the ability to carry an m240 with thousands of rounds - that shouldn't happen either.

 

That said, I really don't care that much about realism. I care more about balance. Your argument against balance is flawed in a few ways -

1. It takes alot of teamwork and a fair amount of gear to get a chopper, as well as take one down. Both sides have to put in a considerable amount of time and effort.

 

2. Most of the issues you have with killing choppers are the game itself. DayZ is a glitchy game because it's a mod. It's likely the standalone will be better about that. I've been on both sides - I've shot people no problem out of a pilot seat in all kinds of choppers, but I've been unable to kill people the same way. I've shot people out of gunner seats plenty of times, while the chopper was flying (not extremely fast, but the gunner can't accurately shoot at high speeds anyway). And I don't consider myself a good sniper.

 

3. You're missing one of my main points. People with anti-material rifles don't have it just to take down choppers. That's a bullshit argument at best. They use it to grief players simply because it's easily the most effective and appealing way to play the game - sit far away, hidden, with a one shot kill weapon. It's easy to play that way, and far more difficult to survive against it. The game needs more even playstyles, make other ways of playing more effective and playable rather than just a single dominant playstyle. 

 

I also said that chopper mounted weapons should be removed and replaced with players being able to shoot with their own weapons.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

Russia didn't have "Marksmans" before the 90's. They had semi automatic rifles because of hold over in design and lack of an automatic design that was up to their standards. The SVD was a very rare suggestion, but that's already outdated for being inaccurate trash.

 

 

The SVD isn't inaccurate trash. Am I misunderstanding you?

[applejaxc 2500]

The SVD isn't inaccurate trash. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

Prior to the 80's/90's, Soviet battle doctrine was to dump as much ammo at the enemy as quickly as possible with concentrated firing squads. Thusly, the AK47 (which was cheap to manufacture as everyone so says) was designed to be craftable from stamped metal (inferior most of the world's weapon assembly methods, though for whatever reason carved metal AKs are absolutely awful) and fired the 7.62x39 so that as long as one person hit someone, it was probably going to stop shooting back. Accuracy wasn't a concern in the slightest.

 

Then came the Dragunov sniper rifle, which fired a 7.62x54mmR (I believe the R stands for "Rimmed," which means the Dragunov could fire 7.62x39 as well. Don't quote me on that, though), hardly a step up from a weapon designed to scare the enemy more than hit it. The only difference is its drop off starts a couple meters further out making a rifle. Even that being said, the 7.62 holds less powder than one might think in such a bullet; your off-the-shelf Walmart hunting rifle from the 1980's without a scope could outshoot a Dragunov any day, night, week, or month of the year, fiscal or otherwise.

 

The Dragunov is only called a "Marksman's rifle" because no one has the guts to tell Putin the Dragunov is trash. It's not only old and outdated by our standards today, it was already dated when it got released!

 

 

edit

 

I just saw your STALKER signature/forum title... and it's funny, because earlier today I looted a Dragunov off a zombie (ex soldier) and every shot I took was off-target up and to the left. It's probably because the gun was at 50% condition, but even STALKER: Call of Pripyat agrees with me.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Applejaxc

[m.w. vindicator 880]

Prior to the 80's/90's, Soviet battle doctrine was to dump as much ammo at the enemy as quickly as possible with concentrated firing squads. Thusly, the AK47 (which was cheap to manufacture as everyone so says) was designed to be craftable from stamped metal (inferior most of the world's weapon assembly methods, though for whatever reason carved metal AKs are absolutely awful) and fired the 7.62x39 so that as long as one person hit someone, it was probably going to stop shooting back. Accuracy wasn't a concern in the slightest.

 

Then came the Dragunov sniper rifle, which fired a 7.62x54mmR (I believe the R stands for "Rimmed," which means the Dragunov could fire 7.62x39 as well. Don't quote me on that, though), hardly a step up from a weapon designed to scare the enemy more than hit it. The only difference is its drop off starts a couple meters further out making a rifle. Even that being said, the 7.62 holds less powder than one might think in such a bullet; your off-the-shelf Walmart hunting rifle from the 1980's without a scope could outshoot a Dragunov any day, night, week, or month of the year, fiscal or otherwise.

 

The Dragunov is only called a "Marksman's rifle" because no one has the guts to tell Putin the Dragunov is trash. It's not only old and outdated by our standards today, it was already dated when it got released!

 

 

edit

 

I just saw your STALKER signature/forum title... and it's funny, because earlier today I looted a Dragunov off a zombie (ex soldier) and every shot I took was off-target up and to the left. It's probably because the gun was at 50% condition, but even STALKER: Call of Pripyat agrees with me.

 

 

I disagree.  It was accurate though.  A competent shooter with a good quality gun could achieve 2 MOA of accuracy at 100m.  It most definitely isn't a soviet piece of trash. There is quite a bigger difference between 7.62x39 and 7.62x54mmR 7N1.     B/c of the size differences, the 7.62x54 has better long range ballistics and more power.  It is a rifle caliber where as the 7.62x39 is an intermediate caliber.

 

A good shooter could hit a target at 350-400m in 1-3 shots no problem. 600m would be a stretch, but possible.  Hitting anything with an AKM at 300m is tough w/o tons of bullets.  Many websites I searched compare the SVD to a M14.  The both fire 7.62 of slightly different size and ballistics.  

[applejaxc 2500]

I disagree.  It was accurate though.  A competent shooter with a good quality gun could achieve 2 MOA of accuracy at 100m.  It most definitely isn't a soviet piece of trash. There is quite a bigger difference between 7.62x39 and 7.62x54mmR 7N1.     B/c of the size differences, the 7.62x54 has better long range ballistics and more power.  It is a rifle caliber where as the 7.62x39 is an intermediate caliber.

 

A good shooter could hit a target at 350-400m in 1-3 shots no problem. 600m would be a stretch, but possible.  Hitting anything with an AKM at 300m is tough w/o tons of bullets.  Many websites I searched compare the SVD to a M14.  The both fire 7.62 of slightly different size and ballistics.  

 

100m isn't anything to be proud of as a marksman.

And the M14 is very different from the SVD; Americans have different grains in their bullets, barrel twists, and all that kind of nonsense. If I remember correctly, the Americans like their guns with more twist (meaning the rifling of the barrel spins the bullet with more RPM as it is fired) for accuracy at range. And 7.62x39 isn't an intermediate caliber.

 

From Wikipedia (as illegitimate of a site as you may think it is)

Barrel[edit source | editbeta]

The barrel profile is relatively thin to save weight and is ended with a slotted flash suppressor. The barrel’s bore is chrome-lined[3] for increased corrosion resistance, and features 4 right-hand grooves. It is not rifled over its full length but partly over a length of 547 mm (21.5 in). In the 1960s, the twist rate was 320 mm (1:12.6 in). During the 1970s, the twist rate was tightened to 240 mm (1:9.4 in), which reduced the accuracy of fire with sniper cartridges by 19%. This adaptation was done in order to facilitate the use of tracer and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, since these bullet types required a shorter twist rate for adequate stabilization.[4]

Edited August 16, 2013 by Applejaxc

[duong0111 9]

*snip*.

I beg your pardon?

Saying that you can fire 7.62x39 in a 7.62x54 chambered rifle is just outright blastphemy. Have you ever handled one of those above mentioned weapon?

The Russians and us Eastern bloc don't have grains, yes, but we have grams. Different munitions type were manufactured for different purposes (namely the 7N/T/B family of different cartridge types, with different bullet construction and powder loads as well. And they range from 350gr - 410gr, with a variety of constructions (hardened steel core, fmj, lead casting shapes for a variety of ballistic performance and targets)

To say that the SVD is trash is just sheer ignorance. Why did the US and NATO have to go through with their DMRs and HK417s and AR10 derivates for marksman rifle then.

And to say that the Eastern Bloc doctrine is about spewing bullets all over the place means you haven't handled a single military textbook in your life. There are two types of sharpshooters in Eastern Bloc system. One will be the designated marksman, meant to tag along with squaddies and engage hardened, covered and/or targets of tactical value (machine gun crews, mortar team, NCOs and so forth). The other ones were dedicated sniper teams, consist from two to three man. They perform the exact same roles as US and Coalition snipers, from area recce to destroy light armored/high value target. And they ultilize the same thing, but with specialized gunsmithing, equipments, munitions and fire support as well.

Being an ex-conscript myself, we do train in marksmanship as well. Single shot and two round in a row were the staples. Yes, there were cases of militia who did not know how to ultilize the potential of the AK family but to dub it as a 'cheap and inaccurrate' rifle again, is blasphemy too! IIRC some lads were able to put the whole magazine through a 12" steel target at 500m, of course with breathing control and proper techniques. Why you're saying that it was inaccurate must be due to not being familiar with the ballistics of 7.62 rifle - they tend to jump from the barrel then start to fall down a bit then hit the targets hard - unlike the 5.56 family which have a real flat trajectory but when out of range start to tumble and only achieve wounding due to fragmentation and yawing.

And no, too much rifling causes overspinning and destabilize the projectile. The rate of the rifle (twist per inch, or centimeters) had to be accordingly to the length, powder load and projectile weight and type too. If the projectile is aerodynamically unstable, or underpowered, no matter how much rifling you put on the barrel it still going to tumble and not hitting the target.

The SVD were rated up to 800m and by luck you can nail people at 900m+ with it. All it takes is user skills. And it's a classic example of Eastern Bloc military engineering. And it does its job perfectly.

Edited August 16, 2013 by duong0111

[LancerG2 369]

Agreed with the SVD discussion. I would perfer not only to see the SVD camo but the Regular marksmen rifle in action. Hey how about the M700 sniper rifle? It could come with a supressor and maybe most AS50 gunners could get into stealth sniping.

 

Just my two-cents.

[applejaxc 2500]

I beg your pardon?

Saying that you can fire 7.62x39 in a 7.62x54 chambered rifle is just outright blastphemy. Have you ever handled one of those above mentioned weapon?

 

It was a guess based on the 7.62x54R; it's normal for weapons with rimmed ammunition to accept smaller rounds (like a .44 revolver using .357 or a .45 than fire .40). Either that or it works the other way around (the R is an oversized bullet that lets you go up in size, soa  .357 can use .44)

[applejaxc 2500]

Agreed with the SVD discussion. I would perfer not only to see the SVD camo but the Regular marksmen rifle in action. Hey how about the M700 sniper rifle? It could come with a supressor and maybe most AS50 gunners could get into stealth sniping.

 

Just my two-cents.

 

The M700 is a beautiful example of American sporting weapons turned into American military weapons (the M40A5/M24)

[duong0111 9]

*snip*

If only we could stick the TAPERED 7.62x39 into 7.62x54 weaponry then I guess why would have we bothered with CKC, AK, RPD, RPK, PK, SVT, DP, SG, PMsS and all that bullshit? Just manufacture magazine for one weapon system then adopt them as the standard universal arm already.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

 

100m isn't anything to be proud of as a marksman.

And the M14 is very different from the SVD; Americans have different grains in their bullets, barrel twists, and all that kind of nonsense. If I remember correctly, the Americans like their guns with more twist (meaning the rifling of the barrel spins the bullet with more RPM as it is fired) for accuracy at range. And 7.62x39 isn't an intermediate caliber.

 

From Wikipedia (as illegitimate of a site as you may think it is)

Barrel[edit source | editbeta]

The barrel profile is relatively thin to save weight and is ended with a slotted flash suppressor. The barrel’s bore is chrome-lined[3] for increased corrosion resistance, and features 4 right-hand grooves. It is not rifled over its full length but partly over a length of 547 mm (21.5 in). In the 1960s, the twist rate was 320 mm (1:12.6 in). During the 1970s, the twist rate was tightened to 240 mm (1:9.4 in), which reduced the accuracy of fire with sniper cartridges by 19%. This adaptation was done in order to facilitate the use of tracer and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, since these bullet types required a shorter twist rate for adequate stabilization.[4]

 

 

 

 

You completely missed the point of the 100m test.   MOA is a measure of accuracy.  2 MOA at 100m is actually quite accurate.    1 MOA of accuracy is extremely accurate .  If you don't understand waht MOA is, go look it up.  

 

 

Obviously the M14 is different from the SVD.  I was saying that there accuracy is similar.  7.62x39 is an intermediate assualt rifle caliber most definitely.  I am starting to think you have no idea what you are talking about.  

 

7.62x54 is a rifle caliber.  7.62x25 Tokarev is a pistol caliber.  7.62x39 is in between a pistol and rifle caliber a.k.a. a intermediate caliber  :facepalm:

[applejaxc 2500]

You completely missed the point of the 100m test.   MOA is a measure of accuracy.  2 MOA at 100m is actually quite accurate.    1 MOA of accuracy is extremely accurate .  If you don't understand waht MOA is, go look it up.  

 

 

The MOA tests on the Dragunov didn't pass; the Soviets had to lower the bar to accept the SVD. The SVD was made to compliment a firing squad by suppressing targets the same way the AK47 was, albeit a little further away. And I'm willing to bet if Russia was better supplied when it came to the battle of Stalingrad, SVD snipers would never be called marksmen at all; the Dragunov shined as a "sniper rifle" only because in WW2, the Soviets didn't have industrial-military-transportation complex necessary to supply soldiers in the field, so for once in Russian history, every shot actually counted. The SVD doesn't compete with any sniper rifle made at its time by the US, Britain, or Germany. The Springfield, Lee Enfield, and (I'm not going to lie, I do have to google what the German snipers used) K98/Mauser absolutely blow the SVD out of the water. Accuracy and useful as a sniping weapon was sacrificed for light weight and inexpensive construction.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Why did this turn from an argument over whether there should be a caliber of sniper rifle higher than a 7.62 (7.62x54mmR / 7.62x51mm NATO) to a "Let's argue about the SVD and compare it to other sniper rifles"

 

There's nothing really wrong with a 'higher caliber' (Which could both mean bullet diameter and height) so long as it's one of those 1/10,000 weapons. If you're talking Standalone, I'd rather it be something like a KSVK and then maybe have an M82/M107 or AW50 if it's even rarer than before, but there's no real reason for them to focus on those, since they are a hugely endgame weapon regardless.

Now, they could feasibly add a .338 Lapua, but it would still be incredibly rare unless they justified a reason for the British to be there.

In a sense, I'd be fine with them in as long as next to no-one had them and they focused on them late in development instead of early on (Same with things like the RPG-7, which should definitely be in the game but are not something they should focus on)

[m.w. vindicator 880]

The MOA tests on the Dragunov didn't pass; the Soviets had to lower the bar to accept the SVD. The SVD was made to compliment a firing squad by suppressing targets the same way the AK47 was, albeit a little further away. And I'm willing to bet if Russia was better supplied when it came to the battle of Stalingrad, SVD snipers would never be called marksmen at all; the Dragunov shined as a "sniper rifle" only because in WW2, the Soviets didn't have industrial-military-transportation complex necessary to supply soldiers in the field, so for once in Russian history, every shot actually counted. The SVD doesn't compete with any sniper rifle made at its time by the US, Britain, or Germany. The Springfield, Lee Enfield, and (I'm not going to lie, I do have to google what the German snipers used) K98/Mauser absolutely blow the SVD out of the water. Accuracy and useful as a sniping weapon was sacrificed for light weight and inexpensive construction.

 

 

 

Now I know you are talking out of your ass.  

 

The SVD was NEVER used in WWII. The SVD wasn't issued until 1964 .  The Russians used the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 in WWII.  Not the SVD.  The Mosin-Nagant is a bolt-action rifle.  The Dragonov SVD is a semi-automatic DMR.  While I agree that it is many used to increase the effective range of a squad I soundly disagree that it is just used for suppression.  

 

The reason a single sniper can pin down the better part of an infantry company is b/c that sniper could kill any soldier at a moments notice with a single shot.  While a regular conscript might not accomplish this with an SVD, I can assure you that a good marksman easily could do that with the SVD.  

 

 

 

 

 

From Wikipedia 

 

The Russian military has established accuracy standards that the SVD and its corresponding sniper grade ammunition have to meet. Manufacturers must perform firing tests to check if the rifles and sniper grade ammunition fulfill these standards. To comply to the standards, the SVD rifle with 7N1 sniper cartridges may not produce more than 1.24 MOA extreme vertical spread with 240 mm twist rate barrels and no more than 1.04 MOA extreme vertical spread with 320 mm twist rate barrels. When using standard grade 57-N-323S cartridges, the accuracy of the SVD is reduced to 2.21 MOA extreme vertical spread. The extreme vertical spreads for the SVD are established by shooting 5-shot groups at 300 m range. The accuracy requirements demanded of the SVD with sniper grade ammunition are similar to the American M24 Sniper Weapon System with M118SB cartridges (1.18 MOA extreme vertical spread) and the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System with M118LR ammunition (1.27 MOA extreme vertical spread).

 

 

As you can see  the gun could achieve 1.24 MOA.  That is very respectable.  While it might not be the best out there, it is definitely good enough.  

[applejaxc 2500]

-snip-

Good enough to scare people isn't good enough to be a sniper rifle. Regardless, I still think the Dragunov can't compete with other rifles of the same class for accuracy, 1-shot kill potential, or maximum effective range.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

On Topic.  

 

If any larger caliber weapons are added I would prefer they be old WWII anti-tank rifles.  They were often used w/o optics.  The PTRS-41 and the PTRD were both AT rifles used by the soviets.  They are very heavy (17.3 kg for the PTRD) but effective  against armor.  

 

I don't know if those would be possible to find in Chernarus.  

[m.w. vindicator 880]

Good enough to scare people isn't good enough to be a sniper rifle. Regardless, I still think the Dragunov can't compete with other rifles of the same class for accuracy, 1-shot kill potential, or maximum effective range.

 

 

1.24 is almost as good as the M24 and better than the M82.  It is good enough to be a sniper rifle and scare people b/c his friends just got killed.  7.62x54 can easily kill someone in one shot IRL.  It is a rifle caliber.

[Fun With Flares 72]

First, I wasn't talking about DayZ. Of course you can have more than one gun in DayZ, do you think I'm that stupid? I'm talking about how in a real apocalypse, nobody who has any small amount of sense in their brain would carry an anti-material rifle around. Secondly, Fun with Flare's point was their shouldn't be American weapons there in the first place, which is completely different from the dev's point of view.

 

 

 

 

"I see no issue with 1HK weapons when all guns can 1HK with headshots."

 

 

Anyway, let's clear up why anti-material rifles shouldn't be in DayZ.

 

1. Realistic impracticability. You cry realism as the reason it should be in the game, and fail to realize how ineffective it would be in a real scenario; which is what DayZ is emulating. If you want to make it realistic, you're going to be one slow bastard.

 

2. Unnecessary. There's really no reason for a .50 cal weapon to be in the game. Any servers you play where you are having problems with armoured vehicles and helicopters is missing the point of DayZ anyway - and I don't give a shit about those servers. In vanilla DayZ, vehicles, especially choppers, are difficult to find, repair and get working. I didn't see a chopper for well over a month when I started playing. You really don't need anti-material rifles just because you want to destroy everybody's work as fast as humanly possible.  If you disagree with that, you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole and don't actually care about this conversation.

Not only that, for how rare those weapons should be I call bullshit that anybody with one only uses it to defend themselves from choppers.

However, I do think the weapons on choppers should be removed and the ability to fire your weapon from a chopper implemented (see Dyslecxi's Arma 2 Little Bird mod).

 

3. Game Balance - DayZ Standalone is a fucking game, get over yourselves. It's not realistic, nothing can ever be close to real life. You can be authentic, like adding and removing things that make sense in a real apocalypse (see point #1); but it's a game, and like all other games, it needs to be balanced. I don't care that people are bandits; in fact, I like bandits, because the game would be boring without them. But what I don't like is that the bandit playstyle is by far the most effective and most viable playstyle. Sniping with an As50 is definitely one of the easiest and simplest ways to play the game, as well as one of the best ways to live in the game without hiding in the woods and doing absolutely nothing. I don't like that at all; I'd like to see playstyles that require co-operation between players become as equally viable and effective way to play the game. 

Having a rifle effective over a kilometer that kills in one hit is the epitome of imbalance; and you complain about choppers.

Well said.

[thisisPyro 9]

Let's not go down the realistic route. I could go down the path of sniper rifles being insanely easy to use in the game, the fact that very few people would be able to use the rifle... but those are old arguments I don't want to bring up again.

 

 

When I say realistic impracticability, I suppose I really meant authenticity. What would happen with those weapons in real life? Nobody would use them. So, you emulate that. Think about it - in a real apocalypse, nobody is going to fucking sit on a hill outside a city and snipe people. In DayZ, people will. 

Unless you are inhumanly athletic, you cannot hike for miles on end, through rough terrain, with a .50 rifle that with ammo weighs upwards of 40 pounds or more, and a backpack that weighs a similar weight. You'd make it maybe half a mile before collapsing. I also never said that I did like the ability to carry an m240 with thousands of rounds - that shouldn't happen either.

 

That said, I really don't care that much about realism. I care more about balance. Your argument against balance is flawed in a few ways -

1. It takes alot of teamwork and a fair amount of gear to get a chopper, as well as take one down. Both sides have to put in a considerable amount of time and effort.

 

2. Most of the issues you have with killing choppers are the game itself. DayZ is a glitchy game because it's a mod. It's likely the standalone will be better about that. I've been on both sides - I've shot people no problem out of a pilot seat in all kinds of choppers, but I've been unable to kill people the same way. I've shot people out of gunner seats plenty of times, while the chopper was flying (not extremely fast, but the gunner can't accurately shoot at high speeds anyway). And I don't consider myself a good sniper.

 

3. You're missing one of my main points. People with anti-material rifles don't have it just to take down choppers. That's a bullshit argument at best. They use it to grief players simply because it's easily the most effective and appealing way to play the game - sit far away, hidden, with a one shot kill weapon. It's easy to play that way, and far more difficult to survive against it. The game needs more even playstyles, make other ways of playing more effective and playable rather than just a single dominant playstyle. 

 

I also said that chopper mounted weapons should be removed and replaced with players being able to shoot with their own weapons.

So you yield the realism argument. Good.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Now lets work on the balance. At this point, taking down a chopper and building a chopper are not equivalent. It takes much more gear, much more teamwork, and much more luck to shoot one down then to build one. I am not proposing we introduce stinger missiles that insta gib choppers, I am proposing a heavier caliber BOLT action rifle that can penetrate the glass on all the choppers and that can do render inoperable a rotor in a couple shots.(Not something you can do to a flying chopper)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      But that does not seem to be your problem, you seem to worry about pvp combat correct? I honestly do not see the difference between this and a m24 for pvp. Both would have sufficient damage to easily drop a player at range. And because its bolt action, it has the same fire rate problems. Besides would someone want to waste ammo on a non armored target or risk losing the gun for killing a couple survivors, a task they could do just as well with a m24 and probably better with a DMR?