Mid-Length AR-15 [Torchia Reddit]

[Katana67 2907]

So yeah, a recent Reddit post from Torchia cites the fact that he's interested in having a mid-length, fixed stock, AR-15 in DayZ.

 

Again, not entirely on-board with his reasoning here (i.e. that somehow a fixed-stock and/or mid-length makes the weapon more "civilian"). I just don't see much point in having an AR that's, at least aesthetically, similar to the M4 we've got now rather than an M16 variant which is more distinct.

 

Granted, they're all AR-15's, but a mid-length AR that's somehow more limited than the M4 in terms of attachments just seems without a use.

 

I hope that the stock doesn't remain fixed and can be fitted with looted stocks. Seems to be a bit of a wasted resource if the stocks are not interchangeable.

 

To be fair, I think a mid-length AR would be a cool addition. Just, not instead of a proper M16. And yes, I recognize that he's said this isn't really on his plate at the moment. Just seems like a bit of an odd choice.

 

For that matter, they've got an M4 in already. Is it possible to just find looted mid-length, SPR, and/or full-length kits? Wouldn't that be more efficient than making an entirely new weapon? There's probably some hocus pocus regarding how the weapons are implemented preventing this kind of modularity. Perhaps they should add barrels to the "attachments" list.

 

EDIT - I'm unsure if M16's use the same buffer tube as M4's, I have never seen a buffer tube not designed for a retractable stock (even on fixed-stock models). But I suspect they exist, I remember seeing some smooth buffer tubes. Could've been for the M16 w/ fixed stock. Apparently the buffer springs are different though.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Katana67

[-Gews- 7443]

I don't see the point either, it would be almost identical to the one we have now, and also I don't like the idea of even more AR15-based rifles in Chernarus.

Especially a mid-length, if they are set on introduce a semi-automatic AR15 why not go with a full 20" rifle for variety...

We already have, what, 90 different combinations for the M4A1?

[Whyherro123 2283]

I would love to see both the M4A1 and the M16 in the game. 

[pacific_coast 632]

people hate the m4a1, which does need a page one re-write

 

unless it is a semi auto/burst only weapon idgaf about the ar-15

[gibonez 3633]

Why not just add a 18 inch mk12 SPR ?

 

 

Semi auto 1:8 twist ar.

 

I don't like the idea of unrealistic attachment criteria.

 

There is no reason for an m4 now to not take an LRS.

[Katana67 2907]

I don't see the point either, it would be almost identical to the one we have now, and also I don't like the idea of even more AR15-based rifles in Chernarus.

Especially a mid-length, if they are set on introduce a semi-automatic AR15 why not go with a full 20" rifle for variety...

We already have, what, 90 different combinations for the M4A1?

 

I don't have much of an issue with ARs being in Chernarus.

 

I'm just thinking that they could do more with less. Why have an entirely different weapon (or even different sets of attachments) for something that can just be configured via attachments?

 

They've got an AR-15 already in the game. So perhaps they should just give it a more robust set of attachments (i.e. barrels and appropriate foreguards/rails) to make it into a variety of weapons (like a mid-length, full-length, SPR, SBR, etc.) rather than making a whole new weapon.

 

But yeah, I would totally be in-favor of a semi-auto AR (hopefully a 20"). But I'm not sure if I'm alright with it being a separate entity. Perhaps they need to just relabel the M4A1 the "AR-15" so that it can be less bound to a semi/auto fire group. Maybe make semi/auto AR-15s rarer than semi or semi/burst ARs.

[gibonez 3633]

I don't have much of an issue with ARs being in Chernarus.

 

I'm just thinking that they could do more with less. Why have an entirely different weapon (or even different sets of attachments) for something that can just be configured via attachments?

 

They've got an AR-15 already in the game. So perhaps they should just give it a more robust set of attachments (i.e. barrels and appropriate foreguards/rails) to make it into a variety of weapons (like a mid-length, full-length, SPR, SBR, etc.) rather than making a whole new weapon.

 

But yeah, I would totally be in-favor of a semi-auto AR (hopefully a 20"). But I'm not sure if I'm alright with it being a separate entity. Perhaps they need to just relabel the M4A1 the "AR-15" so that it can be less bound to a semi/auto fire group. Maybe make semi/auto AR-15s rarer than semi or semi/burst ARs.

 

I rather see another Ar variant especially one used by the military that occupied chenarus as opposed to something stupid and unlikely like a SCAR, or a Steyr AUG

[Katana67 2907]

I rather see another Ar variant especially one used by the military that occupied chenarus as opposed to something stupid and unlikely like a SCAR, or a Steyr AUG

 

Well, SCARs were used in neighboring Takistan. By the same military force (United States) as the one that occupied Chernarus. And AUGs are used by many UN member states, which was also present in Chernarus.

 

Honestly, no weapon is any more plausible than the other.

 

I would love to see a SCAR-H (Mk 17) included. Definitely a useful battle rifle, and could possibly be more modular (if rendered as such) than the G3 or FAL, which I'd love to see as well. A Mk 16 would be a bit redundant, but I wouldn't mind it. AUG I could live without, but would like to see some kind of bullpup.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Katana67

[Valadain 270]

First, the AR should take any attachment. They really are no different than an M4.

 

Second, I wouldn't mind if they replaced the M4 with the AR, put the accuracy to something realistic, and left the AK (proper variant, don't get caught up on the shortened name) as the automatic of choice.

 

Third, any AR with any attachment, any stock, any scope, any furniture at all is a civilian rifle. The difference between a civilian rifle and a military rifle is selective fire. Period.

 

My AR exceeds military specifications. That isn't uncommon with civilian rifles. Shooting a target or an animal actually requires more precision than an enemy soldier and the civilian market tends to cause more quality and feature competition than rather uncontested military bulk contracts.

[Facetentacles 92]

I still think there needs to be some sub-machine gun options to use up a lot of the pistol ammo

[Valadain 270]

I still think there needs to be some sub-machine gun options to use up a lot of the pistol ammo

 

I agree. There are also some semi-automatic bull-pup style rifles that use hand-gun ammunition that could be thrown in to keep the spawn rate of full autos down. Personally, for ammo conservation, I like semi-autos and would like to see more of them.

[Katana67 2907]

First, the AR should take any attachment. They really are no different than an M4.

 

Second, I wouldn't mind if they replaced the M4 with the AR, put the accuracy to something realistic, and left the AK (proper variant, don't get caught up on the shortened name) as the automatic of choice.

 

Third, any AR with any attachment, any stock, any scope, any furniture at all is a civilian rifle. The difference between a civilian rifle and a military rifle is selective fire. Period.

 

My AR exceeds military specifications. That isn't uncommon with civilian rifles. Shooting a target or an animal actually requires more precision than an enemy soldier and the civilian market tends to cause more quality and feature competition than rather uncontested military bulk contracts.

 

In my mind, civilian/military is irrelevant at worst and subjective at best. Civilians (at least in the United States) can own selective fire ARs. The fire group does not make it "military" nor do attachments make it "civilian".

 

Why can't we all just focus on the weapons themselves and what they offer DayZ? And not get so caught up in the civilian/military divide, which doesn't really matter in my opinion.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Katana67

[Valadain 270]

In my mind, civilian/military is irrelevant at worst and subjective at best. Civilians (at least in the United States) can own selective fire ARs. The fire group does not make it "military" nor do attachments make it "civilian".

 

Why can't we all just focus on the weapons themselves and what they offer DayZ? And not get so caught up in the civilian/military divide, which doesn't really matter in my opinion.

 

You can own an automatic weapon in the states legally, but the paperwork, requirements, and cost is so prohibitive, that it is extremely rare. So in my mind, that creates the only real distinction. Spawn frequency. And that is really the intention of the designation. To control spawn frequency.

 

That said, I agree with you primarily because people think the Blaze is civilian and I bet any AR I post would be considered military, which is completely wrong as the AR is far more common here than the Blaze by orders of magnitude.

 

Here's a good example, the mini 14, generally considered a ranch rifle, very civilian.

 

 

This is the tactical version, stock. Fill up all those rails with standard attachments and it will look as military as any military gun. It just won't fire multiple shots with one trigger pull. That is all.

[Katana67 2907]

-snip-

 

I agree with you about rarity, not in terms of military/civilian, but just for pragmatic gameplay reasons (rather than "immersion" reasons as many promote). Selective fire weapons should be rarer because of the advantages they offer, not because they're used by the military.

 

But I just couldn't care less about the prejudices of folks in the military/civilian debate (which you are not exhibiting, so no worries). It's just a distraction from the more relevant discussions about how individual weapons should be approached in DayZ.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Katana67

[gibonez 3633]

It's just a distraction from the more relevant discussions about how individual weapons should be approached in DayZ.

 

With absolute and unending authenticity and realism ?

[Katana67 2907]

With absolute and unending authenticity and realism ?

 

No, with a healthy balance of authenticity inasmuch as it concerns the variety presented in the fictional Armaverse.

 

The behavior of weapons in a realistic/authentic manner is separate from the mere presence of certain weapons.

[gibonez 3633]

No, with a healthy balance of authenticity inasmuch as it concerns the variety presented in the fictional Armaverse.

 

The behavior of weapons in a realistic/authentic manner is separate from the mere presence of certain weapons.

 

I rather have both facets be treated as realistic as possible.

 

Really helps drive the immersion. Seeing weapons or objects in the game world that are unlikely are just so jarring sometimes.

 

Then again I am also the dude who wan'ts crew served weapons and sPG 9s eventually so take what I say lightly most people don't agree with me on that.

[Bororm 1156]

I'd like a normal m16 over an ar-15, they look cooler.  More long, badass looking rifles in general pls.

[Katana67 2907]

Really helps drive the immersion. Seeing weapons or objects in the game world that are unlikely are just so jarring sometimes.

 

But one is based upon real-world properties (i.e. weapon behavior), and one is based on fiction (i.e. the presence of certain weapons in fictional Chernarus).

 

And what is your definition of "unlikely"? I mean, it's a fictional country. In a fictional universe. With fictional circumstances applied to it.

 

Chernarus, in the fiction, has a large array of weapons which are plausible to be found in-country. If a SCAR breaks your immersion, you're limiting yourself unnecessarily.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Katana67

[Valadain 270]

I agree with you about rarity, not in terms of military/civilian, but just for pragmatic gameplay reasons (rather than "immersion" reasons as many promote). Selective fire weapons should be rarer because of the advantages they offer, not because they're used by the military.

 

But I just couldn't care less about the prejudices of folks in the military/civilian debate (which you are not exhibiting, so no worries). It's just a distraction from the more relevant discussions about how individual weapons should be approached in DayZ.

 

I won't exhibit the prejudices, because my take on the spawn rates is really a "concession" to other players. Personally, I don't think there is a huge advantage to fully-automatic weapons over semi-automatic weapons given a finite inventory and proper tactics. Fully auto has some actual killing advantage in close-quarters combat, but at range, it is primarily for suppressing fire. Only really useful if you are employing proper squad tactics.

[Facetentacles 92]

I won't exhibit the prejudices, because my take on the spawn rates is really a "concession" to other players. Personally, I don't think there is a huge advantage to fully-automatic weapons over semi-automatic weapons given a finite inventory and proper tactics. Fully auto has some actual killing advantage in close-quarters combat, but at range, it is primarily for suppressing fire. Only really useful if you are employing proper squad tactics.

If I know the guy is at range with an m4, the way it handles right now, I don't even worry about suppressing fire because I know there's no way he'll even hit me from a distance with that thing

[Deathlove 2286]

Regardless of similarities im all for it just because it means more variety. There are many shotgun models that you could argue are practically the same thing as well. Hell even handgun models and designs. But more skins the better.

[tandwan 250]

I was one of those people in DayZ Mod who said that the weapons there made absolutely no sense. Granted with Arma 2 I could see more US weapons being there for the mission itself but not in the current build of DayZ. My thoughts are ALL weapons should be russian grade weapons because we're in russia, why is the most found assault rifle the M4? Granted, the AKM is on the way but the M4 should be removed entirely. Add more russian weapons if you want immersion, take out the green uniforms with US patches on the side and add more Soviet / Russian weapons.

[Deathlove 2286]

I was one of those people in DayZ Mod who said that the weapons there made absolutely no sense. Granted with Arma 2 I could see more US weapons being there for the mission itself but not in the current build of DayZ. My thoughts are ALL weapons should be russian grade weapons because we're in russia, why is the most found assault rifle the M4? Granted, the AKM is on the way but the M4 should be removed entirely. Add more russian weapons if you want immersion, take out the green uniforms with US patches on the side and add more Soviet / Russian weapons.

Yes lets make everything more communist based! LMAO

 

"IN RUSSIA COW SHOOTS YOU!"

[Valadain 270]

I was one of those people in DayZ Mod who said that the weapons there made absolutely no sense. Granted with Arma 2 I could see more US weapons being there for the mission itself but not in the current build of DayZ. My thoughts are ALL weapons should be russian grade weapons because we're in russia, why is the most found assault rifle the M4? Granted, the AKM is on the way but the M4 should be removed entirely. Add more russian weapons if you want immersion, take out the green uniforms with US patches on the side and add more Soviet / Russian weapons.

 

That simply isn't realistic. Civilians buy guns from all over the world. As do the various armed forces of many nations. You are thinking "Soviet Union", not modern day post-soviet blocs.