The Mosin Problem

[-Gews- 7443]

EDIT - Question, if the option arose (I think I remember you talking about this recently, so forgive me if it's redundant) would you rather they'd've gone with all Mosins as sniper variants with correctly rendered bolt handles?

 

Meh... I would think "what's more likely, Chernarussians doing bubba bolt jobs to clear hunting scopes or every Chernarussian owning a bonafide or reproduction sniper?" Probably the former... finding "snipers" without their PU scopes would also be odd. On the other hand at least it's an "official" variant with the PU and it looks better.

 

I ran across this guy in some footage from Bosnia, he has an M44 with an unknown scope mounted forward and ridiculously high.

 

[hells high 676]

Why would anyone mount what looks to be a high end tactical scope on a 100 pos rifle ?

 

Hmm its almost like we're in the middle of the zombie apocalypse and people might have to use what they find, and can't just

 

buy a remington 700 or a Tikka t3.

 

Just like in the other thread where you complained about the PSO1 on the AKM. Would you be looting an abandoned military base, see the PSO1 on a rack or in a locker and go "Ew no, that sight wasn't even designed for the ballistics of this weapon's round. Gross." even though your rifle had the universal mount? If so I hope we don't get shacked up during the apocalypse. :P

 

 

 

I don't really care that the bent bolt isn't authentic, I just don't like the way it looks. :P A lootable bent handle bolt would be nice because I'd never pick it up.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Hells High

[PhillyT 554]

People really need to chill.  This is foolishness.

 

Get over it.  The Mosin is a bolt action russian weapon.  They needed a bolt action sniper style weapon.  The Mosin fits that perfectly well.

 

Leave it alone.

[Katana67 2907]

Just like in the other thread where you complained about the PSO1 on the AKM. Would you be looting an abandoned military base, see the PSO1 on a rack or in a locker and go "Ew no, that sight wasn't even designed for the ballistics of this weapon's round. Gross." even though your rifle had the universal mount? If so I hope we don't get shacked up during the apocalypse. 

 

I don't really care that the bent bolt isn't authentic, I just don't like the way it looks. A lootable bent handle bolt would be nice because I'd never pick it up.

 

I honest to god have no issue with folks who want the weapons depicted "realistically." Most of the time, I am one of those people. But it just has to be done in concert with pragmatism, not in defiance of it. That and, oddly enough, people have very loose definitions of "realism" (even though it's a hyper-specific term). Most people can't argue for realism (or anything for that matter) without being condescending, insulting, or can't do so without indicting the developers somehow.

 

The second people make the MASSIVE jump to "this is the direction that the game is headed," then I have an issue.

 

The second folks jump to illogical extremes (i.e. they want the LRS on the Mosin, therefore, they MUST WANT railed double-barrels with M203s and laser beam Fleshlights), then I have an issue.

 

The second someone asserts that realistic weapons are the SOLE CRITERIA upon which the legitimacy/merit of DayZ can be judged, then I have an issue.

 

Advocate all you want for realistically depicted weapons, I'll be right there with you. But the second it turns into a "this is an affront to DayZ, WTF devs, there is no reason for this" vitriolic conversation... then I'll be against you.

 

However, yes, I hope that once they put in a so-called "high-end" sniper rifle, or at least a rare sniper rifle, that they'll remove the LRS from the Mosin and give it a horizontal bolt-handle (but even then, it'd still conflict with the PU scope). But if that doesn't happen, I won't lose any sleep over it because it's unrealistic, I'll lose proverbial sleep over it because it's detrimental to have a common weapon able to mount a supposedly rare optic.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Katana67

[VonHoth 3]

What does this matter. Zeds walk thru walls an not a single supressor works. But you complain about mosin realism issues? How real is the shit i mentioned?

[blacklabel79 949]

How real is the shit i mentioned?

 

Its only in your head.

 

...

 

:rolleyes:

[VonHoth 3]

Yes. Its only in my head that every suppressor is broken, even the built in amphibian s. And Zeds walk through walls for 2 years in mod and SA...... But this is all in my head that it makes no sense to complain how unrealistic the scope mount is for the mosin......

[-Gews- 7443]

Yes. Its only in my head that every suppressor is broken, even the built in amphibian s. And Zeds walk through walls for 2 years in mod and SA...... But this is all in my head that it makes no sense to complain how unrealistic the scope mount is for the mosin......

 

Those are obvious bugs which they will attempt to fix.

 

This is something they did on purpose and probably will never fix.

 

Comprende?

[Deathlove 2286]

Nah, brah, they're so focused on civilian and/or melee weapons... with the direction they're heading in man, we're gonna' be fighting with these... DayZ is clearly a caveman arcade game now...

 

 

Do you see how vitriolic and illogical that is?

I don't mind some weapons that involve stones but screw that shit. I uninstalled Rust because of that kind of direction you started out in. Trying to kill some one with a rock against a guy thats managed to farm ARs was just a no win most of the time.

[muddyraccoon 176]

Was it not confirmed that the LRS would be removed before the addition of a dedicated sniper rifle?  I should just use the search function, but eh.

 

I will say, that I feel like these arguments are always broken into the obvious 2 camps, with people that know a lot about guns being strong for these realistic changes, and people that don't know specifics not caring about them being implemented, saying it's "over-the-top" realism or something of the sort.  Being someone that is mostly ignorant about specifics such as sights, rails, attachments, or variants, I used to be in the "Who gives a shit?" camp.  But I have recently changed my mind.  

 

But I also would like to see guns come with attachments more, and less random attachments in hangars and such.  Less, not none.  I grew up in middle class suburbs in the 80's and 90's, when all the baby boomers discovered that they knew everything and child safety became a child prison sentence.  So I had a BB gun for 1 day.  One of the best christmas days ever.  But a lot of the friends I made from more rural areas, I learned that people that bought guns generally took more pride in them than in other things in their life, like their cars, or families...(I kid).  And I dont know if I ever saw a rifle or an AR-15 (the BB gun for kids in the country) without a sight or other customized feature.  I'm not saying I want all that, but why not?  (if you have a good answer for Why Not, please be kind.  I think I meantioned I'm pretty gun-ignorant.  I am gun-curious though)

[skypig 139]

haha rocks...

then you'll hear "granite is OP!! I got in a rock fight with some guy who was sniping with granite.. my sand stone rocks fell apart on impact!! wtfdevsyousuk!!"

[Katana67 2907]

-snip-

 

To answer your question, there really isn't any reason why we can't have the things you say. It's fiction, the developers can use any reason they wish to explain any inclusion they wish.

 

Ultimately, the only argument against what you're saying is in preserving "the aesthetic feel" of the game. Which is wholly subjective, largely based on a misinterpretation of circumstance in post-Soviet countries (now being a part of a globalized economy and indeed producing their own unique weapons), and is still subject to fictional interpretation.

 

As to the "two schools" argument, I disagree. There are extremes and middle grounds. Unfortunately, the extremes tend to be more vocal (i.e. NO TACTICOOL GUNZ or LOLREALISM). The middle grounds, something that I've tried to seek, get glossed over by the extremes. And it's unfortunate. Some folks are dismissive of "realism" whilst some folks are slavishly obedient to it. I want to find a compromise, via the mediation of "realism" and pragmatic gameplay concerns.

 

I love weapons, I am a gun nerd. But I'm not holding "realistic depictions of weapons" over the head of DayZ saying "Do this! Or you won't be good!"

[irishroy 1347]

PU for the Mosin and a LRS-like-optic for the B95 :>

Edited May 24, 2014 by irishroy

[Katana67 2907]

PU for the Mosin and a LRS-like-optic for the B95 :>

 

This is why I think they need to include a new optic, just a "Hunting Scope."

 

Fixed magnification, but more than the PU. Non mil-dot reticle (for aesthetic reasons). Deer Stand spawn.

 

Able to be used on the B95 and whatever hunting rifles they plan on implementing.

 

Done deal.

[zeroy 240]

Another QQ thread from the realism police. Its a game at the of the day, some shortcuts are ok to be taken, mounting certain scopes on the fly on some weapons is ok. 

[PhillyT 554]

It is life for them Zero!

[UltimateGentleman 355]

...I really don't see the problem here.

 

It's just the placeholder sniper, it can obviously be changed why should they change it now? Once they add another sniper in then it makes sense to change it but until then why does it matter?

 

As is almost always the excuse, it's an alpha. They've just chucked in basic weapons so we can actually play the game until they build up to all the other weapons and features.

If it's unrealistic or whatever in the final release then you can complain all you want.

 

 

Currently I don't want to have to spend hours finding a rail or whatever to make my Mosin functional when an M4 or SKS is much easier to find and is way more likely to be what people shoot at me with. at this point in the development it would be silly to make it so complicated to use when it's not all that good compared to the SKS, M4 and probably the AKM too.

It is only good for long range and I don't want to waste my rifle slot for that when the only close range weapons I've found are melee.

[gibonez 3633]

...I really don't see the problem here.

 

It's just the placeholder sniper, it can obviously be changed why should they change it now? Once they add another sniper in then it makes sense to change it but until then why does it matter?

Blaze is a suitable rifle for the LRS and has been in the game for quite some time.

[Katana67 2907]

Blaze is a suitable rifle for the LRS and has been in the game for quite some time.

 

There is no Blaser B95 available, standard, with a 1913/Picatinny rail interface (which the LRS requires to remain "realistic").

 

The Blaser 95 is every bit as incapable of mounting the LRS as the Mosin.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2014 by Katana67

[gibonez 3633]

There is no Blaser B95 available, standard, with a 1913/Picatinny rail interface (which the LRS requires to remain "realistic").

 

The Blaser 95 is every bit as incapable of mounting the LRS as the Mosin.

 

 

 

The b95 is drilled and tapped for optics, any pair of rings and you are good to go.

 

Cant say the same for the mosin.

 

You dont need rails to mount optics.

[Katana67 2907]

The b95 is drilled and tapped for optics, any pair of rings and you are good to go.

 

Cant say the same for the mosin.

 

You dont need rails to mount optics

 

But you do need a rail to mount the optic in question, the LRS.

 

The LRS (i.e. a scope that uses a 1913/Picatinny interface) cannot be mounted to a Blaser 95 (Blaze 95) without the purchase and installation of a specialized mount.

 

The LRS (i.e. a scope that uses a 1913/Picatinny interface) cannot be mounted to a Mosin without the purchase and installation of a specialized mount.

 

Yet one's "realistic", because one's installation is more involved than the other. Please...

 

So all that matters is that it's optics-ready, not whether it can REALISTICALLY accommodate the optic in question? 

 

You're no longer arguing for realism.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Katana67

[gibonez 3633]

But you do need a rail to mount the optic in question, the LRS.

 

The LRS (i.e. a scope that uses a 1913/Picatinny interface) cannot be mounted to a Blaser 95 (Blaze 95) without the purchase and installation of a specialized mount.

 

The LRS (i.e. a scope that uses a 1913/Picatinny interface) cannot be mounted to a Mosin without the purchase and installation of a specialized mount.

 

Yet one's "realistic", because one's installation is more involved than the other. Please...

 

So all that matters is that it's optics-ready, not whether it can REALISTICALLY accommodate the optic in question? 

 

You're no longer arguing for realism.

 

 

I suppose you are right I keep forget the LRS comes with rings already.

 

I always assumed it was just a nude glass and they took the liberty to add the mounting system once it was added to the gun.

 

Think what I should say is the Likelyhood of seeing a modern optic on a mosin is far less likely than seeing it on a modern hunting rifle such as the b95.

Edited May 24, 2014 by gibonez

[Katana67 2907]

 

I suppose you are right I keep forget the LRS comes with rings already.

 

I always assumed it was just a nude glass and they took the liberty to add the mounting system once it was added to the gun.

 

Think what I should say is the Likelyhood of seeing a modern optic on a mosin is far less likely than seeing it on a modern hunting rifle such as the b95.

 

Well the likelihood argument is based on nothing, in my opinion. But, a Mosin can be purchased for $100 USD. Whereas a Blaser 95 costs upwards of $2000-4000 USD. So, I'd say the likelihood is at least even (i.e. more people are likely to have a Mosin, vice a Blaser B95, but the more expensive rifle is less involved to have optics placed upon it) if not in favor of the Mosin.

 

However, I just think they need to put in a generic "Hunting Scope," which can be balanced/implemented separately from the LRS. Gives certain weapons (like the B95) a capability to use an optic, whilst not giving it the same advantages as the LRS. Then, they can remove the LRS from the Mosin in good faith whilst other weapons geared toward "hunting" can have a decent optic.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Katana67

[gibonez 3633]

However, I just think they need to put in a generic "Hunting Scope," which can be balanced/implemented separately from the LRS. Gives certain weapons (like the B95) a capability to use an optic, whilst not giving it the same advantages as the LRS. Then, they can remove the LRS from the Mosin in good faith whilst other weapons geared toward "hunting" can have a decent optic.

 

Yea a Fixed power scope is needed.

 

Perhaps a 10x fixed mildot scope although the mildots would probably be useless due to the FOV changing the magnification level.

[hombrecz 832]

Well Devs stated so many times, that realism does not mean too much for them.

It feels wrong, but it is their game.

 

Also not having 5,45x39 AK74 seems simply wrong.

How could adding of this particular caliber harm the game?

 

Is it so much of work? Would that "bloat" loot table too much? 

I believe the answer is no in both cases.

 

Also different caliber should be good for different behaviour of guns using it, which is in turn good for variety.

 

I sincerely hope devs will change their stance, introduce more calibers, fix shooting mechanics and start putting a bit more emphasis on realism than they are showing at the moment.

 

You are ofcourse free to not agree with me or not give a damn about realism, I am fully aware of that.