Why are you against many military items in game?

[Whyherro123 2283]

Hollywood has this perception of the US military as stupid uneducated bloodthirsty rednecks and the poor who join the military becasue they don't have any other options. This leads them to portray the military as for the most part incompetent.

Yeah, pretty much. 

 

In other words, IRL a zombie apocalypse is pretty much impossible, for both the obvious reason and because human beings are really fucking good at killing things.

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html

[pacific_coast 632]

>.> Really that's not it at all for me at least.

I'm just vain and find M4s to be ugly lol.

I wanna look post-apoc mad max with improvised gear! Not like G.I. Joe. But I'm not gonna go tell the Joes not to have their fun!

EXACTLY.

give a player like you to mod his mosin.sks/WHATEVER with "wasteland style"

im down

just dont set ANYTHING to default over butthurt

this is alpha, chill out and TEST THE GAME everybody!

 

man, i'd honestly love an armoured vault 13 jumpsuit about now but this isnt fallout, so NO

[xRann 126]

Military grade gear would/should be common, based on the forces that were present. You would expect the forces that failed to contain the infection to either become infected or disperse leaving equipment rather than their lives. Either way, their kit would be up for grabs.

 

I'd rather see loot locations completely randomized as you wouldn't have a concentration of any particular gear/items in one region once the forward lines attempting to contain the infection are broken and troops disperse to small holdouts, couple that with civilian holdouts attempting to survive and stave off their small corner from the infected. Also, if you assume gear found is/was gear used then pristine items should be very uncommon if not extremely rare.

[Irish. 4886]

Orr.... they need to write a movie and are not concerned with realism as the whole point is to get lost in a movie?

[TEST_SUBJECT_83 465]

Because this isn't Arma, it is a survival sim.

I myself can't wait for bows and improv weapons to be the common weapons and the military and higher end weapons to be next to impossible to acquire.

[eleventhavenue 204]

Because military stuff is boring. A progression straight from Freshspawn to someone dressed as a mechanized infantry soldier is boring. Heading straight to the military zones when you have just enough stuff to survive is boring. Having only good guns is not only boring, it also makes all the bad weapons useless, and turns the game into a military simulator.

 

In my vision of a finished DayZ, military areas would be an area that most players would ignore, just like most players ignore the two-room wooden houses right now. Sure, can get some pretty sweet stuff, but obviously military areas are picked clean (if all the armies now intervened and somehow got horribly defeated, would you really think all the barracks and ATC's would be littered with guns and ammunition?)

Why bother with a sniper rifle LMG or assault rifle, with rare ammunition, easy to jam, hard to maintain? A ballistic helm or a kevlar vest surely protects you, especially from more primitive weapons, but they're heavy, so you're not going to be able to carry food, water and medical supplies with it, atleast not while moving at a high speed...

 

Of course, a squad of players kitted out in military gear would be pretty fearsome, but it wouldn't be something an ordinary player would be searching for. A Vintovka Mosina kills just as well, after all.

 

As for military defeat, what would you think would happen if 99% (feel free to choose a number to your fitting) of the world's population would become infected? From what I know of the lore, the disease spreads like any other, and it spreads before the symptoms start showing up. There must be some kind of breaking point, where society would collapse.

[pacific_coast 632]

Because this isn't Arma, it is a survival sim.

I myself can't wait for bows and improv weapons to be the common weapons and the military and higher end weapons to be next to impossible to acquire.

well, play private hives, then.

the public hive will always be filled with roving groups of fully maxxed bandits hopping from server to server trolling you to death with m4/cz550 rounds to the face.

fire your little arrow legloas

[rapier17 48]

Weapons, webbing and military equipment I'd like to see less of but camouflage clothing is quite a common thing in my opinion - plenty of military surplus out there owned by civilians. If anything I'd like to see the variety of camouflage varied - British DPM, German Flecktarn, US 'Tigerstripe' or Woodland etc.

[pacific_coast 632]

Because military stuff is boring. A progression straight from Freshspawn to someone dressed as a mechanized infantry soldier is boring. Heading straight to the military zones when you have just enough stuff to survive is boring. Having only good guns is not only boring, it also makes all the bad weapons useless, and turns the game into a military simulator.

 

In my vision of a finished DayZ, military areas would be an area that most players would ignore, just like most players ignore the two-room wooden houses right now. Sure, can get some pretty sweet stuff, but obviously military areas are picked clean (if all the armies now intervened and somehow got horribly defeated, would you really think all the barracks and ATC's would be littered with guns and ammunition?)

Why bother with a sniper rifle LMG or assault rifle, with rare ammunition, easy to jam, hard to maintain? A ballistic helm or a kevlar vest surely protects you, especially from more primitive weapons, but they're heavy, so you're not going to be able to carry food, water and medical supplies with it, atleast not while moving at a high speed...

 

Of course, a squad of players kitted out in military gear would be pretty fearsome, but it wouldn't be something an ordinary player would be searching for. A Vintovka Mosina kills just as well, after all.

 

As for military defeat, what would you think would happen if 99% (feel free to choose a number to your fitting) of the world's population would become infected? From what I know of the lore, the disease spreads like any other, and it spreads before the symptoms start showing up. There must be some kind of breaking point, where society would collapse.

man you have epic posts.

 

realistically? a war-torn then infected cherarus (lore) would be filled with bodies and EMPTY weapons.

average survivor would never see mil gear or a base, it'd be overrun or looted bare.

but we know the map, we know the spawn points, so we use what we know is there.

game exploits be game exploits yo.

guns everywhere, ammo nowhere is more realistic and solves the problem

Edited February 21, 2014 by pacific_coast

[brzator47@gmail.com 524]

Because the game is already so light on survival it's ridiculous?

[Valadain 270]

Realism is for mechanics. The state of the world is all about the story. Nobody can argue realism one way or the other without knowing the full story. I could say, that if there are military bases, there would be full armories that wouldn't possibly be able to be looted quickly. But then the story could say that there was enough time for the military to pack it all away and head out of the area to another base.

 

I could say it is realistic that you should find handgun ammo all over the place as it would be the least important during the actual apocalypse. The story could say that hand-guns were all but non-existent in the area due to poverty and stringent gun restrictions.

 

Without the story, there really isn't any context in which to say "it would be this way" or "it would be that way".

 

That said. I'm not looking to play a Dead Island MMO. I'm not going to run about trying to kill a horde of zombies one at a time with a sharpened stick. Nor am I going to go through the entirely game-breaking lack of immersion that comes from throwing knives into zombie heads as if they were made of butter not bone.

 

If guns aren't here, I won't be either. That isn't to say "I want it this way so it must be this way". I acknowledge that the game may become something other than what I expected and that is fine. I've been happy. I don't consider my money wasted in any sense.

 

To those who don't want a call of duty clone, don't worry. It will never be one and that has nothing to do with guns or no guns. The combat in this game will always be far more strategic and the interactions far more authentic. What many who say this mean is that they don't want to get shot. I wish you luck on that. I think you'll probably be disappointed with the result of being stabbed to death with pointy sticks and taken out by arrows "from nowhere" should you get your dream of a generally gunless game.

[Duenan 226]

Because this is russia and in a post apocalyptic enviornment you would have military weapons but you would not have enough access to ammunition to justify luggin around the weapon.

 

I could understand if this game took place in america where you have a very good chance on finding serious weaponry in normal civilian homes even if it is non full auto.

 

I personally think guns should be plentiful but ammo shouldn't be. You don't find ammo laying around everywhere in reality and in a zombie apocalypse most of the ammo would have been expended already.
 

Ammo should be a precious commodity. We're talking about a survival game here not a military sim. If you want all the weapons and crap just play Arma2 or Arma3.

 

This is not supposed to be Arma3

 

It doesnt even make sense from a rural chernarus perspective. A bunch of poor farmers have DMR's and Bizon's and FN FALs all over the place with the ammo to boot?

 

Assuming since you enter chernarus some time after the chaos has ended, don't you think everybody would have already looted abandoned military installations?

Edited February 21, 2014 by Duenan

[TheWanderingMan 170]

The military bases should have a decent amount of gear in them, the trade off should be that they have been overrun and are full of zombies.

 

There is no way the entire army in America would be wiped out. Obviously there would be mass desertion but there's no way to predict or even interpret that into real life or a game lol.

 

This game is better than most in terms of 'authenticity' so as long as it keeps going it should be alright when it's done.

[SurvivorAndy 15]

Personally I'd enjoy a much wider variety of guns, maybe not *too* many military grade ones but yeah, more guns. It's not fun knowing there's maybe ten (less, I think) guns to claim in the world. There should definitely be at least one rare sniper though and more assault rifles though.

[Jamz 253]

This has been an argument for as long as I've played DayZ and will continue for its lifespan, I imagine. Balancing the best weapons against their availability and also the threat level of the zombies would be very difficult, and at the moment not a consideration in the alpha phase. Eventually though, I would think that the military stuff would be very hard to come by as the military presence would take as much of its gear with it as possible when it extracted (I don't think they would have been completely overrun). The remaining items may have changed hands so often that they would likely be be lost or useless, the only useable equipment could be found in smaller abandoned or overrun bases.

Civilian weapons may be more available but ammo would definitley be scarce in that area, a high zombie population would also limit the use of guns to a degree. This is the way I see it in the future, and it would make for a far more atmospheric game than an FPS zombie shooter. Time will tell.

[pacific_coast 632]

This has been an argument for as long as I've played DayZ and will continue for its lifespan, I imagine. Balancing the best weapons against their availability and also the threat level of the zombies would be very difficult, and at the moment not a consideration in the alpha phase. Eventually though, I would think that the military stuff would be very hard to come by as the military presence would take as much of its gear with it as possible when it extracted (I don't think they would have been completely overrun). The remaining items may have changed hands so often that they would likely be be lost or useless, the only useable equipment could be found in smaller abandoned or overrun bases.

Civilian weapons may be more available but ammo would definitley be scarce in that area, a high zombie population would also limit the use of guns to a degree. This is the way I see it in the future, and it would make for a far more atmospheric game than an FPS zombie shooter. Time will tell.

THIS

[eleventhavenue 204]

I'm sorry for nit picking, but this isn't russia! Stop calling Chernarus Russia. It is not Russia. Gee...

 

I think the ammo vs. guns discussion is an interesting and important one, but I'm not sure that ammo really would be the most scarce thing... atleast not 7.62x54 ammo... but I don't know, what makes the game itself work best should be the factor that decides this.

 

There is a way in which the entire army would be wiped out, for example if 99% of the fighting men would be infected. Or any other number. Saying ´´there is no way in which the military forces of the world would be defeated by infection´´ is stupid IMHO.

[Franchi (DayZ) 146]

I'm sorry for nit picking, but this isn't russia! Stop calling Chernarus Russia. It is not Russia. Gee...

 

I think the ammo vs. guns discussion is an interesting and important one, but I'm not sure that ammo really would be the most scarce thing... atleast not 7.62x54 ammo... but I don't know, what makes the game itself work best should be the factor that decides this.

 

There is a way in which the entire army would be wiped out, for example if 99% of the fighting men would be infected. Or any other number. Saying ´´there is no way in which the military forces of the world would be defeated by infection´´ is stupid IMHO.

I am fine with balancing weapons/ammo/clothing/food/supplies availability for game play reasons, but when people start trying to use realism as a reason for it I want to reach through the internet and slap them. With 90-99% of the population dead or infected competition for the resources that are left would be nearly non existent, and guns don't wear out very fast or break easily. Ammunition shortages maybe, but I do believe there are enough bullets in the world to kill every living person several times over.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Franchi

[TwinSpire 49]

The main reason why I am against military loot is in games it is a slippery slope to a military pvp fps mmo... we are already seeing it.  The military loot is the meta game, more inventory space, more bullets/capacity/rate of fire.

 

Continue down the military road and you have little birds and c4 charges, LMG, NVG, heat scopes. imo it just can't be balanced in a "survival horror game" properly.  You either make them soo difficult to find/maintain its pointless and no one will even use them.  Or they are too common OP and hinders the survival aspect of the game and turns it into what we see now mostly pvp idiocy in elecktro.

 

imo people are just unrealistic... batteries for anything like NVG are probably long dead they don't keep forever.  Lets forget about the % of the population that would even know how to repair maintain tech, vehicles especially helicopters.  Or even how stuff will corroed quickly without temp controlled buildings  (that haven't been looted a year ago).

 

While yes having some timeframe would be nice... if this was 2 years after "Z-day" I doubt you would find anything of use at any store or military base.  Even a year... those are the first places people would go to loot.  Some previous poster thought it would be cake just to walk to the gun shop and get "armed up"... but he forget about the gang with trucks loading up EVERYTHING shooting his ass as he got near with everyone running around looting.

 

I can see small automatic arms like AKs and M4s but ammo should be scarce AND there should be wear on your weapons... so many shots you loose condition and chance of breakage.  imo everyone should prefer to NOT use guns because the cost is so great you only fire as last resort... 

[pacific_coast 632]

The main reason why I am against military loot is in games it is a slippery slope to a military pvp fps mmo... we are already seeing it.  The military loot is the meta game, more inventory space, more bullets/capacity/rate of fire.

 

Continue down the military road and you have little birds and c4 charges, LMG, NVG, heat scopes. imo it just can't be balanced in a "survival horror game" properly.  You either make them soo difficult to find/maintain its pointless and no one will even use them.  Or they are too common OP and hinders the survival aspect of the game and turns it into what we see now mostly pvp idiocy in elecktro

then ask for better civilian gear or the option to customize civilian gear to stand out less.

logically, mil gear should never be removed, should be ultra rare and the overall best equipment.

it shouldn't be thought of as being "needed" in order to play

[TheWanderingMan 170]

^Exactly, it should be the best weaponry available but the hardest to obtain.

 

Seeing anyone in military gear would make you assume they'd had to earn it.

[Valadain 270]

then ask for better civilian gear or the option to customize civilian gear to stand out less.

logically, mil gear should never be removed, should be ultra rare and the overall best equipment.

it shouldn't be thought of as being "needed" in order to play

 

I still have to laugh at the idea that military gear is "the best". It isn't always the best. There are some advantages to military gear, but in a world without infinite ammo, I would use an M4 no differently than an AR. They are nearly the same gun, but the AR just doesn't have a fully automatic mode. But then, if you are trying to actually kill someone, you aren't shooting fully automatic. You are doing that to suppress return fire.

 

If something like this were to actually happen and you offered me an AR or a fully automatic AK-47, my considerations would be durability, reliability, and accuracy. Not the size of the bullet or the rate of fire beyond semi-automatic.

[CrazyCorky 40]

I do agree with what's being said about C4, rockets, grenade launchers, as well as military vehicles. I feel like the vehicles should not primarily be military as you would just have people flying around mowing other people down.

[Valadain 270]

I do agree with what's being said about C4, rockets, grenade launchers, as well as military vehicles. I feel like the vehicles should not primarily be military as you would just have people flying around mowing other people down.

 

These types of things would be pretty rare as they already are rare. These items don't get issued to every soldier, you don't need tons of them, and there are no civilian equivalents. I don't think that's a problem.

 

As for vehicles, the ammo for them would be in extremely short supply for the same reasons above. There aren't civilian equivalents to the rounds generally.

 

But .223 rounds would not be extremely rare, nor 7.62. Certainly not 9mm, .38 or .22lr

[dvsilverwing 241]

Not saying I don't want military gear, but I want civilian gear to be far more prevalent.