Why The Distinction Between Civilian/Military Weapons Is Bad, And You Should Feel Bad

[Katana67 2907]

So, for the past two years, I've been a staunch advocate of so-called "military" weapons in DayZ. As such, I've been constantly combating several assertions. Which are as follows...

 

1. That Chernarus is a supposed eastern-bloc and/or former Soviet nation, which therefore means that only eastern-bloc/Warsaw Pact weapons should be included

2. That "military" weapons are somehow opposed to the spirit of DayZ

3. That "military" weapons are somehow incompatible with DayZ, by virtue of their being "overpowered"

4. That "civilian" weapons provide a better experience

5. That "civilian" weapons are fundamentally different from "military" weapons

 

I've realized one thing in that two years (aside from that people are imbeciles)... the distinction is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT and DETRIMENTAL. For several reasons...

 

1. Most weapons, even the so-called "civilian" ones, are the product of military development

2. A Mosin-Nagant equipped with a scope and a high-speed-low-drag M40A5 with a scope would essentially be the same weapon for the purposes of DayZ

3. There's nothing inherent in an assault rifle that makes it wholly better than a battle rifle, high-powered hunting rifle, etc.

4. If one disregards all weapons which have been developed/employed by the military, one is left with an INCREDIBLY small spectrum to draw from

 

Any weapon (be it an M107, PKM, AKM, or Red Ryder) can be included, inasmuch as it is properly balanced by rarity, maintenance requirements, encumbrance, and ammo/magazine rarity. So why would we limit the scope of potential weaponry in DayZ?

 

Now, this might seem pretty inflammatory to the crowd that I'm so familiar with that will defend so-called "civilian" weapons to the teeth and seek to banish "military" weapons asunder with vitriolic references to other franchises.

 

I get that the developers are interested in making the weapons of DayZ reflect the environment (i.e. a fictional, key word fictional, post-Soviet state) and be more plausible in terms of available weaponry (i.e. a focus on "civilian" weaponry). That's fine, I support making "military" (whatever attributes you choose to ascribe to that) weapons rare and "civilian" weapons more common. I'm also in support of having Warsaw Pact weapons be the primary focus of weapon development (i.e. AKM, PKM, RPD, SVD, etc.)

 

But, lest we forget, all of the above weapons are DING DING... weapons employed by the military. Even the lowly Mosin-Nagant has an intense military history. If we ignored all weapons with a so-called "military" background, we'd be left with an unremarkable set of weapons to choose from.

1. Bolt-action hunting rifles (many of which have been extensively employed by militaries across the world)

2. Lever-action rifles (formerly employed by many militaries across the world, and now much harder to come across than other types of firearms)

3. Revolvers (formerly employed by many militaries across the world, and now no more prevalent than other sidearms)

4. Over-under and side-by-side shotguns

5. Breechloading riles (i.e. Blaze 95)

6. Semi-automatic sporting rifles (i.e. .22 LR)

(I'm sure I'm missing a few more)

 

All but one (lever-action) are already in the effing game! And you'd be missing out on...

1. Light Machine Guns

2. General Purpose Machine Guns

3. Assault Rifles

4. Submachine Guns

5. Designated Marksman Rifles/Battle Rifles

6. Infantry Automatic Rifles (i.e. M27, L86, AUG HBAR, RPK, etc.)

7. Anti-Materiel Rifles (Yes, I know they're not going to be in DayZ, but they're a category nonetheless)

8. Semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns (Yes, I'm aware that they have civilian applications as well... hence why the distinction is irrelevant)

9. Semi-automatic pistols (Ibid.)

10. PDWs (i.e. P90, KAC PDW, etc.)

Et cetera.

 

Likewise, I'll say this again, Chernarus is a fictional location. It may be set as a post-Soviet state within that setting, but the Armaverse dictates that NATO/USMC intervened in Chernarus. Therefore, the presence of non-Soviet/Eastern weaponry is plausible. Not saying it should be MORE PLENTIFUL than Warsaw Pact stuff, but it's not out of the question.

 

SUMMARY

 

- The distinction between civilian/military weapons is irrelevant and unnecessarily limits the variety of weapons able to be present in DayZ

- Any weapon can be included, insofar as it is balanced by rarity, maintenance, encumbrance, and ammo/magazine rarity

- Chernarus is a fictional location and although said fiction casts it as a post-Soviet state, it is not WHOLLY beholden to real-world circumstance. Likewise, the fictional background of Chernarus provides for a VARIETY of Warsaw Pact/NATO weapons to be present in-country

- Most of the weapons in DayZ as it stands now, are weapons employed by various militaries

 

EDIT

 

Folks, not saying either one is better, nor am I saying they're the same. I'm saying that the distinction/preference between the two is detrimental.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Katana67

[ig-rage 78]

nice post :)

[guppy22143 1081]

Ja, I agree. Not only was NATO there, but also evidence suggests that the UN (i.e, Peacekeepers) intervened in Chernarus. Could they have used NATO weaponry? (The Chernarussian Red Star Movement, the one where NATO intervened, was a decade before the outbreak.)

[Buffaloe 87]

I tend to disagree with you. Sure the distinction civilian/military is problematic.

 

When people say "military" they mean modern, military equipment. (assault rifles, lmgs, modern sniper rifles, maybe even grenade launchers)

 

When they use the term civilian, they either mean purely civilian weapons, OR (very) outdated military equipment, that doesen't reach the quality of the aforementioned ones, or is very widespread in the population.

 

I think for the sake of argument, the terms "civilian" and "military" are adequate and usefull.

 

Personally, I'd like to focus of the gun-game to be on low grade "civilian" weapons, than on modern military ones.

 

 

edit: I do agree though, that military and western weapons aren't necessarily a no go. They should be VERY rare though, making them precious and coveted.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Buffaloe

[rybo 171]

Lulz, The NRA could use your help.

 

Good work and that's sums up how I feel about the topic more or less. I've probably used your points as arguments in the past at least 10 times.

Edited March 20, 2014 by RyBo

[rybo 171]

I tend to disagree with you. Sure the distinction civilian/military is problematic.

 

When people say "military" they mean modern, military equipment. (assault rifles, lmgs, modern sniper rifles, maybe even grenade launchers)

 

When they use the term civilian, they either mean purely civilian weapons, OR (very) outdated military equipment, that doesen't reach the quality of the aforementioned ones, or is very widespread in the population.

 

I think for the sake of argument, the terms "civilian" and "military" are adequate and usefull.

 

Personally, I'd like to focus of the gun-game to be on low grade "civilian" weapons, than on modern military ones.

 

 

edit: I do agree though, that military and western weapons aren't necessarily a no go. They should be VERY rare though, making them precious and coveted.

 

A musket was a Military firearm..Now its a relic. The difference between Mil and Civ is time and politics....

Edited March 20, 2014 by RyBo

[Buffaloe 87]

Well, I outlined that in my post.

 

It used to be used in the military, but nowadays it's outdated, and not in military use anymore.

Same as the mosin, it was used by the military, but isn't anymore nowadays, instead it's very popular among civilians.

 

I already mentioned that in my interpretation of the typology though.

Sure those terms have their flaws, but i think they still are justified.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Buffaloe

[gibonez 3633]

I am all for more military spec weapons in the game heck I am all for more explosives and emplaced weapons too like heavy machineguns or recoiless rifles.

 

What I am not for is weapons especially military weapons that would make 0 sense.

 

I don't wana see some obscure military rifle that no army uses like a Fn Scar.

 

So long as they keep adding weapons that would probably be found in that environment I am happy.

 

Biggest crime however is how the weapons have been added the accessories are unrealistically added and the weapon behavior is insanely unrealistic.

 

So we are then left with retarded 100 year old rifles somehow converted into 1400m sniper rifles and new production m4s that cant hit the broad side of a barn.

[Irish. 4886]

I guess I dont understand why you would care so much about this?

 

Aside from that I agree. 

[amiasfree 262]

Well, axes were once military weapons too, if you go by that logic. I haven't heard of anyone calling for straight out removal of military grade weapons, but I think they should be extremely rare, especially if we get light machine guns and the like. It seems silly for there to be so many M4s and such just lying around when you can tell the whole map has pretty much been looted a thousand times since the apocalypse started. I mean, cars are rusted hunks and houses are mostly barren, how could a military grade gun go unnoticed for so long?

[pacific_coast 632]

when someone get's kos they rage extra hard if they see that it was a fully-mil-kitted "COD KID" with a silence bizon/full m4

extra points for pre-pubescent shrill voice over comms proving your 1337ness.

 

this is the basis for all anti-miliary weapons vitriol.

[kihz 83]

I'd be happy with any weapon added. The more the better.

 

The thing that I'm afraid of is attachments. Infrared scopes would be a terrible addition and ruin a lot of the game.

[Karmaterror 982]

I agree that all guns should be included. But isn't the whole mill civ thing just because some spawned at civy loot sites and some at mill loot sites?

[iBane 381]

Good analysis.  

[hannibaldaplaya 1095]

I want as many guns as humanly possible in DayZ.

I want as many guns as humanly possible in real life.

[Duenan 226]

The only reason I was for "civilian" weaponry was due to having some weapon that was not fully automatic. It's kind of underwhelming in this game against players or zeds when you just start mowing everybody down.

 

Even with the beefed up zeds on the latest patch. If I want to go full pve and just mow down the waves of spawns I can do just that until I run out of ammo.

 

I dont have the same level of tension in the game if Im running around with only a pistol than I would if I had an RPK and a drum mag

[Deathlove 2286]

 

They need to put these in than if there going to do anything. Plus its Terkish made so its not to fare fetched.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Deathlove

[gibonez 3633]

 

They need to put these in than if there going to do anything. Plus its Terkish made so its not to fare fetched.

 

If anyone remembers DOOM 64 had the triple barrel shotgun in it as well as the double chainsaw. Those weapons were beast as hell. XD

 

That might be the stupidest thing I have ever seen lol.

 

1600 dollars for a 12 gauge shotgun lol.

[Deathlove 2286]

That might be the stupidest thing I have ever seen lol.

 

1600 dollars for a 12 gauge shotgun lol.

Its triple barrel so like basically i assume you could probably indefinitely kill some one with it if your able to fire all 3 barrels at once. Plus im sure it would have a terrible kick lol.

 

You gotta remember this is a new gun to if availability becomes more MAIN STREAM the price will go down but right now its something new so its going to be pricey.

[hells high 676]

Most people just want automatic weapons or their ammo to be harder to find.

 

3. There's nothing inherent in an assault rifle that makes it wholly better than a battle rifle, high-powered hunting rifle, etc.

 

I agree with a lot of your post, except for this bizarre sentiment. Are you trying to say a fully automatic AKM with a detachable 30 round magazine isn't inherently better for combat than a bolt action hunting rifle?

[Deathlove 2286]

Most people just want automatic weapons or their ammo to be harder to find.

 

 

I agree with a lot of your post, except for this bizarre sentiment. Are you trying to say a fully automatic AKM with a detachable 30 round magazine isn't inherently better for combat than a bolt action hunting rifle?

Maybe hes thinking in terms of any weapon can kill with one hit period if the person knows how to use it right.

[eleventhavenue 204]

Sorry for bringing this off-topic... but who calls their shotgun ´´Triple Threat´´??

 

It sounds like something you find on the ´´Boys Between 8 and 10 years´´ Shelf in a toy store...

[Deathlove 2286]

Sorry for bringing this off-topic... but who calls their shotgun ´´Triple Threat´´??

 

It sounds like something you find on the ´´Boys Between 8 and 10 years´´ Shelf in a toy store...

 

This guy definitely is not 10 years old and he even called it triple threat.

[Deathlove 2286]

Anyways back on topic the more weapons the better whether its crafted, civilian, police or military. So ppl need to NOT get upset with LMGs and stuff like that. If you take allot of the good guns out of a game it gets pretty damn boring having only one set of strict guns to follow off on.

[Katana67 2907]

Most people just want automatic weapons or their ammo to be harder to find.

 

 

I agree with a lot of your post, except for this bizarre sentiment. Are you trying to say a fully automatic AKM with a detachable 30 round magazine isn't inherently better for combat than a bolt action hunting rifle?

 

I'm saying that it's all in how you use the weapon, not solely in what the weapon is. They are both capable of killing another player, based upon how they're used. I can take an AKM-wielding player out with a Mosin-Nagant.

 

An assault rifle has strengths and weaknesses, a bolt-action has strengths and weaknesses as well. It's up to the player/operator to exploit these strengths or not.

 

The innate properties of the weapon are not the sole determinant in how effective it is.