Ammo Calibration : Poll & Discussion

[Goove 70]

You and yours act as though the game is shipping in 2 weeks and this is the last minute push. There are MONTHS left to go before this even gets to beta, and yet you rail against the flaws in it like its a finished game.

 

Cool story bro, like i said you are another swagette who is not understanding this thread, more than likely you just jumped in without reading because it seems you are very lost.

 

No one said anything about a final release, and the flaws that are being railed should have been the first things taken care of.

 

The zombies and buildings are still so far from finished, yet they want to worry about ammo, and guns, vehicles, campsites...all of these things that should not even be in public talks now

 

I do not care if this game needs another year to become stable and better.  It has been about a year and honestly not much has changed.  So cling to the game like you will, glad to know you are OK with getting shammed.

[a_ruttle 199]

Unacceptable attitude from the Dev team, attention to detail has always been one of the greatest features of DayZ both mod and standalone. Fair enough, not wanting to have micky mouse calibers from obscure weapons but this is the exact opposite end of the scale, and its being done as they no longer have to appease a fan base, they just have to keep content coming 'as long as it looks cool' to keep the casual majority entertained.

[sloasdaylight 129]

Could it possibly be there is more than 1 team working on this game? And that they could work on different aspects of the game, and at different paces? Nah, not possible.

I read this thread, and for what its worth, I want the AK-74 to use 5.45x39 ammo as well. That said, I'm not upset enough about it to rage about how "lazy" the Dev team is, or how shitty the game is.

[pycco 38]

flaming each other does not successfully debate it one way or the other.

 

the game is getting "streamlined" and dumb down by the current development pattern. less is not more in any way for this type of game, the effects of not putting a variety everything(this case ammo type) is going to make it to easier to survive and the items hold no value. where as in the mod you would get excited and spend the time looking for a specific type of ammo/gun/item. in essence removing a huge part of what made the mod great.

[Katana67 2907]

flaming each other does not successfully debate it one way or the other

 

Neither does hinging on the "direction" of the game.

 

Instead of talking about solutions, debating the pros and cons of their approach, and making recommendations on adding new calibers as to be acceptable to the developers...

 

We're now talking about the "direction" of the game...

[TheWanderingMan 170]

Unacceptable attitude from the Dev team, attention to detail has always been one of the greatest features of DayZ both mod and standalone. Fair enough, not wanting to have micky mouse calibers from obscure weapons but this is the exact opposite end of the scale, and its being done as they no longer have to appease a fan base, they just have to keep content coming 'as long as it looks cool' to keep the casual majority entertained.

 

The casual majority will always rule, money is the driving force in dayz's development not the fans.

 

Popularity and money always compromise artistic integrity, the same thing is happening to dayz and there's nothing we can do to change it.

Edited May 31, 2014 by TheWanderingMan

[Daemonkid 493]

The little things count in a game like DayZ. Steam lining gets us a shitty game.

[liquidsnake 275]

I agree with their decision. I also don't want too many ammo types and think it'll damage the game if there are. However, why the hell stop here, with only 7.62x51/39, 9mmP, .45ACP, .357 and 5.56x45??? That's nowhere near the amount of cartridges that'd hurt gameplay. This looks like they're watering down their "anti game", bigtime. For damn's sake, they're contemplating on making the AK74 shoot 5.56! What the hell? 

I say cap the amount of cartridges at 10 and no more. Add 7.62x53R, 5.45, .50BMG and you got just about every calibre you'll need for the guns we'll see in the future. With the odd exception of course, like the Makarov shooting 9mmP instead of 9mmM, but small things like that are quickly forgotten. An AK74 firing 5.56, most certainly is not. 

 

Off topic:

This decision solely seems to cater to those god-awful whiners who always are in the majority and get games watered down, just how they like it; simple, much like themselves. Most of the gamers have gone sissy and I don't know why. DayZ is just about the only actual challenging game left and I beg of you not to ruin yet another jewel of mine. Games used to make you want to rip out your hair, but now they're made unnecessarily easy and short for some reason.  I can't count the amount of series that have been overly simplified and/or stupidified on my two hands (think Battlefield, Splinter Cell, etc.). If more of these poor decisions emerge, I'll have to add DayZ to this list and scrap it from my owned games list. Most dev teams appear to have become money crazed, and that compromises on quality and ambition. There are only a handful of "oldschool" ones, and half of those are forced into the same path as the rest by corporations like EA.

Edited May 31, 2014 by The End.

[pycco 38]

Neither does hinging on the "direction" of the game.

 

Instead of talking about solutions, debating the pros and cons of their approach, and making recommendations on adding new calibers as to be acceptable to the developers...

 

We're now talking about the "direction" of the game...

the "direction" of the game, is being decided by the choices that are being made. trying to debate pros and cons  without speculating the results of said pro's or con's is futile. the "direction" of the game will be determined by the results of said debate and the perception of the result of the debate and possible out comes.

 

I have noticed a definite pattern in choices being made by the developer they are choosing to accommodate the masses instead of relying on the fact that they have a awesome game and supportive fans. look at the mod people bought a whole different game to play it. now the developers are "turning" there back on the fans that starting the whole idea, for the "casual" gamer's. it will not end well they have a huge fan base what they do next will determine if they turn in to blizzard like successful company or like many of the dead game company.

 

P.S. can you start a poll Katana67 so we can clearly see what this community thinks please. you being one of the most defined voices in the thread.

[Katana67 2907]

the "direction" of the game, is being decided by the choices that are being made. trying to debate pros and cons  without speculating the results of said pro's or con's is futile. the "direction" of the game will be determined by the results of said debate and the perception of the result of the debate and possible out comes.

 

I have noticed a definite pattern in choices being made by the developer they are choosing to accommodate the masses instead of relying on the fact that they have a awesome game and supportive fans. look at the mod people bought a whole different game to play it. now the developers are "turning" there back on the fans that starting the whole idea, for the "casual" gamer's. it will not end well they have a huge fan base what they do next will determine if they turn in to blizzard like successful company or like many of the dead game company.

 

P.S. can you start a poll Katana67 so we can clearly see what this community thinks please. you being one of the most defined voices in the thread.

 

There's nothing about fewer overall weapon calibers that's "catering to the masses," or "casual" it's just a neutral design choice... they have goals... and they view this as the best approach to achieve those goals at this time.

 

I'm not going to start a poll for several reasons

 

1. There are already way, way, way too many threads (partially my own fault) out there at the moment discussing this very issue.

2. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of players don't post on the forum, so the idea that a poll will offer us some sort of new insight isn't very likely. We already know where folks stand.

3. I don't particularly believe in the idea that popular = good. So I personally wouldn't find any use in a poll.

 

And no, it's not that I'm "afraid" that my approach won't be "popular." I want more weapon calibers, I view it as essential to balancing the weapon-ammunition loot relationship. But, I'm flexible, and I'm not going to lower myself to indicting the developers... and I'm not going to divert the conversation any more than I absolutely have to by entertaining a discussion of a vague "direction" of the game.

 

I think, if the developers are aware of this discussion in the community at all, they may adjust their position and/or make moderate concessions. We haven't heard much from the developers in terms of follow-up. Everyone's just going off of the initial Reddit and Twitter posts from Torchia, which, by the way... aren't new. They haven't followed up with the community on the issue.

 

But, I think the general consensus is that more calibers are necessary. What calibers those are, and where they're applied, is up for debate (which I enjoy far more than this).

Edited May 31, 2014 by Katana67

[pycco 38]

>There's nothing about fewer overall weapon calibers that's "catering to the masses," or "casual" it's just a neutral design choice... they have goals... and they view this as the best approach to achieve those goals at this time.

 

I'm not going to start a poll for several reasons

 

1. There are already way, way, way too many threads (partially my own fault) out there at the moment discussing this very issue.

2. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of players don't post on the forum, so the idea that a poll will offer us some sort of new insight isn't very likely. We already know where folks stand.

3. I don't particularly believe in the idea that popular = good. So I personally wouldn't find any use in a poll.

 

And no, it's not that I'm "afraid" that my approach won't be "popular." I want more weapon calibers, I view it as essential to balancing the weapon-ammunition loot relationship. But, I'm flexible, and I'm not going to lower myself to indicting the developers... and I'm not going to divert the conversation any more than I absolutely have to by entertaining a discussion of a vague "direction" of the game.

 

I think, if the developers are aware of this discussion in the community at all, they may adjust their position and/or make moderate concessions. We haven't heard much from the developers in terms of follow-up. Everyone's just going off of the initial Reddit and Twitter posts from Torchia, which, by the way... aren't new. They haven't followed up with the community on the issue.

 

But, I think the general consensus is that more calibers are necessary. What calibers those are, and where they're applied, is up for debate (which I enjoy far more than this).

There's nothing about fewer overall weapon calibers that's "catering to the masses," or "casual"

 i do not agree with this.

 

it's just a neutral design choice... they have goals... and they view this as the best approach to achieve those goals at this time.

ok, i just hope they don't take the easy way out

 

1. ok

2. ok

3. ok

thanks for taking the time to respond :)

"But, I think the general consensus is that more calibers are necessary"

glad we are on the same page.

Edited June 1, 2014 by pycco

[Pandema 352]

7.62x54/51/39 5.56x45 5.45x39

 

Those five calibers cover most if not every rifle currently in use by NATO and post-Soviet countries.

 

I'd like someone to go over with me how having five calibers that cover most of the weapons we'll see in this game (because lets be honest we're not going to get a lot of civ weapons in the end) is too many and will overly bloat the loot tables (which isn't a bad idea actually).

[pycco 38]

7.62x54/51/39 5.56x45 5.45x39

 

Those five calibers cover most if not every rifle currently in use by NATO and post-Soviet countries.

 

I'd like someone to go over with me how having five calibers that cover most of the weapons we'll see in this game (because lets be honest we're not going to get a lot of civ weapons in the end) is too many and will overly bloat the loot tables (which isn't a bad idea actually).

this is what i was told

 

it's just a neutral design choice... they have goals... and they view this as the best approach to achieve those goals at this time.

[Katana67 2907]

Though I'm not going to make a poll here, if there's anyone Reddit-savvy out there who's willing to outright ask the developers directly what's up with this, I'd be very appreciative.

 

1. Why is having fewer calibers a design goal?

2. What benefits do you foresee this approach having? What downsides?

3. How do you intend on balancing the loot tables with a smaller (and therefore, more ubiquitous) number of calibers?

4. Are you aware of the debate going on around this issue?

5. Are there any plans to expand the number of calibers once the loot management system is finalized?

6. Are there any hard barriers to adding more calibers?

Edited June 1, 2014 by Katana67

[DemonGroover 8836]

Lets just wait for modding and we can have all the calibers we desire in the future.

[Katana67 2907]

Lets just wait for modding and we can have all the calibers we desire in the future.

 

Well, two things...

 

I'd rather things be done right in the vanilla experience, rather than wait for mods to fix something. Because, if DayZ mod teaches us anything, most mods fix a few legitimate issues... and at the same time pile on a lot of unnecessary crap.

 

And, related to that, I therefore feel it's necessary to add a modest number of calibers to satisfy several requirements. The primary requirement for me, is in being able to better manage the loot (specifically the relationship between weapon and ammunition in terms of rarity) by having fewer generic calibers. Secondary to that, is the appeasement of the folks who value pure realism.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Katana67

[-Gews- 7443]

^I agree, I prefer vanilla to mods. Not one DayZ submod went about fixing weapon realism issues from ARMA 2... most went on Armaholic and added 1000 random guns from RobertHammer packs... just great... even DayZ 2017 had a damn tank. DayZero nerfed machine guns and the Lee-Enfield and I couldn't deal with that. There were one or two forgotten or half-finished mods that tried incorporating ACE and other nice features but no one likes playing by themselves.

[stielhandgranate 480]

Can the people who cry "It would make the game TOO realistic" elaborate? There are several successful games on the market that do this and why should the devs aim to make the game easier and renege their mission statement of a difficult and realistic gaming experience.

[Capo 323]

Why does this thread not come with a poll. OP you are doing the community a disservice by not including a poll which would simplify everyones arguments while demonstrating to the devs that this is important to the community. 

 

I'm under the impression that this is temporary until they reach beta. But I think it's about time the devs said whether this is planned as the finished ammo system or not, I'm straight up not cool with having ammunition classed under sniper, assault rifle, and pistol. 

[pycco 38]

Lets just wait for modding and we can have all the calibers we desire in the future.

why don't you make a mod with less calibers, see how arrogant that sounds. not cool m8, we have just as much right as you to have the game are way.

[crazykage 1063]

Exactly.  ARMA is based on soldiers.  To say the mechanics should be the same implies that players are soldiers, which isn't the games intent.

 

Besides, weapon accuracy issues are the most overstated problem in Dayz.  This vocal minority can't honestly be such garbage shots as to complain that the gameis fundamentally broken.  Thousands of 100m shot kills begs to differ.

 

Additionally, when shooting there are many concerns that come into accuracy other than sway. Clinch, prediction of recoil, and trigger pull all come into play, making the sight picture you see at pull little more than an estimate when the bullet leaves the barrel. It take years and thousands of rounds to overcome those issues.

WRONG. Wrong wrong WRONG!

Firstly, ARMA isn't based on SOLDIERS, but the military, and simulation of military equipment and tactics. To say that the mechanics should be the same does NOT imply that the players are soldiers (and as stated by another poster, its all in the players head anyway. Maybe I WANT to RP as a soldier. Who are YOU to dictate that to me?), but implies that the GUNS are the same, function the same, DO the same things. Im honestly beginning to think that many of the people that support randomized ballistics are just mad that they get killed in game (comment not necessarily directed at you)or just cant deal with the fact that some people kill other players, whatever the reason. They want to have their carebear playstyle camping in the woods and scrounging for gear they will never use and not be bothered, and to hell with anyone who doesn't like to play that way. Further, who are YOU to say what the games intent is? Only the devs get to say that. Not you, not me. All we can do is debate. Establishing your opinion as fact like that is poor logic.

Secondly, 100 meter shots SHOULD be easy. They are easy IRL. That's a single football field. If you cant hit a target from that far (irl), its pathetic. A man sized target at that range is quite easy to hit. Problem is, that in game, even at THAT range, randomized ballistics will take a well aimed shot and THROW it 5 feet left of my aim point. Don't even get me started about pistols. WIth those things, anything short of point blank range is a gambol.

Lastly, do you know anything about shooting? Because this statement: "Clinch, prediction of recoil, and trigger pull all come into play, making the sight picture you see at pull little more than an estimate when the bullet leaves the barrel. It take years and thousands of rounds to overcome those issues.", is all wrong. I'll explain:

CLINCH: NEVER clinch. Doing so "muscles" the rifle. It should rest naturally in position, with proper bone support, maintained while obtaining correct sight alignment and sight picture. Clenching the rifle results in forcing it into position and alignment with you, rather than the other way around. It also results in canting, which distorts the perceived impact point when viewed through the sights. One should wrap themselves around the rifle, rather than force it into what they think is the right position (I realize that might not make a lot of sense).

Prediction of recoil: NEVER NEVER NEVER anticipate recoil. Pretend it doesn't exist. recoil has NOTHING to do with the trajectory of the bullet. By the time the recoil hits, the bullet is already out of the barrel and on its way. The reason why recoil DOES affect accuracy is because shooters anticipate it, and therefore try to compensate for it. Just shoot the damn thing. If you take a well aimed shot, the bullet will hit your target regardless of weather the recoil is an insignificant twitch or if its enough to through a fully grown man off his feet.

sight picture you see at pull little more than an estimate when the bullet leaves the barrel: Wrong. Any good shooter can do a HELL of a lot more than an "estimate". I make keyhole shots on the REGULAR at 100 meters and more. At ranges, I frequently have shoot groups that are simply silver dollar sized holes in my target after firing 50 or more shots. That means I am consistently and intentionally putting rounds within an inch to half of an inch of the spot I aim for. And Im no Marine Corps scout sniper. Im just a lowly POG-tastic air winger that worked his ass off every day, and happened to be pretty damned good on the range. A REAL sniper could pull of the same at much greater distances.

It take years and thousands of rounds to overcome those issues: WRONG! In the Corps, I only shot at the range 6 times, once a year (which means about one weak of daily shooting, once a year. so 6 weeks). I qualified expert 5 times. Once as sharpshooter (one step down from expert). And, more recently, I took my friend Nate to a 100 meter range with an AR owned by my father. Nate, at the time, had never fired a real firearm in his whole LIFE (with the exception of a 22., ONE time, when he was 12. Now he is in his mid twenties). I explained to him all of the fundamentals, a few tips, and a little bit of demonstration, along with a few minor corrections when he was holding the weapon, and it was enough to get him to establish an accurate, if somewhat spread out, grouping on a target no bigger than a human head. With just a LITTLE practice, that spread out grouping could EASILY turn into a nice, TIGHT grouping less than an inch wide. It took only two mags of 20 rounds each, one to establish a grouping and adjust the sights to his eyes, and a second to place that grouping on his target. SIMPLE.

Shooting a rifle is NOT difficult. If you just understand or learn the fundamentals, and make a conscious effort to apply them as you shoot, you WILL hit what you are aiming at. Compensation for wind, gravity, and moving targets, and extreme range gets more difficult, yes. But its not as hard as you seem to be making it out to be.

The fact of the matter is, that if I skillfully outmaneuvered my opponent, took a well aimed shot, and in every way resoundingly DEFEATED him, I do NOT want random CHANCE to dictate weather or not I succeed. And the same goes for my opponent. I respect my opponents enough that I want them to be given the SAME reward when they outsmart ME.

BUT!!!! at the same time, NEITHER do I want it to be as simple as just pointing my crosshairs and pressing LMB. I WANT to be challenged in SOME way, with weapon sway, windage adjustments (to supplement the already present elevation adjustments), or some other well balanced, FAIR mechanic. Hell, if I had MY way, EVERY rifle you find would start with the sights misaligned randomly in some way, requiring you to BZO the weapon at some point in order to become accurate with it. After all, EVERY weapon, even those of the same make, model, and manufacturer are unique in subtle ways.

[Katana67 2907]

I mean, at a fundamental level... dispersion provides for one unintelligible action...

 

Having your weapon dialed in for one thing... then having it do another... regardless of the accuracy input from the player.

 

Nobody wants, that I've come across, laser-beam accurate weapons in DayZ.

 

However, I do want the input required to hit a target to be accounted for, by the player, BEFORE you fire. Not accounted for, by the game, AFTER you fire.

[minime1000 78]

Why not just make all pistols share the same ammo, all assault rifles share the same ammo, etc. Who cares lol. What are you, some sort of armchair general? What, you gonna cry about no shoe sizes next? lmao tryhards.

 

Because one of the best ways to make a gameworld believable and authentic in a survival game is to streamline it.

Edited June 1, 2014 by myshl0ng

[sloasdaylight 129]

CLINCH: NEVER clinch. Doing so "muscles" the rifle. It should rest naturally in position, with proper bone support, maintained while obtaining correct sight alignment and sight picture. Clenching the rifle results in forcing it into position and alignment with you, rather than the other way around. It also results in canting, which distorts the perceived impact point when viewed through the sights. One should wrap themselves around the rifle, rather than force it into what they think is the right position (I realize that might not make a lot of sense).

Prediction of recoil: NEVER NEVER NEVER anticipate recoil. Pretend it doesn't exist. recoil has NOTHING to do with the trajectory of the bullet. By the time the recoil hits, the bullet is already out of the barrel and on its way. The reason why recoil DOES affect accuracy is because shooters anticipate it, and therefore try to compensate for it. Just shoot the damn thing. If you take a well aimed shot, the bullet will hit your target regardless of weather the recoil is an insignificant twitch or if its enough to through a fully grown man off his feet.

sight picture you see at pull little more than an estimate when the bullet leaves the barrel: Wrong. Any good shooter can do a HELL of a lot more than an "estimate". I make keyhole shots on the REGULAR at 100 meters and more. At ranges, I frequently have shoot groups that are simply silver dollar sized holes in my target after firing 50 or more shots. That means I am consistently and intentionally putting rounds within an inch to half of an inch of the spot I aim for. And Im no Marine Corps scout sniper. Im just a lowly POG-tastic air winger that worked his ass off every day, and happened to be pretty damned good on the range. A REAL sniper could pull of the same at much greater distances.

It take years and thousands of rounds to overcome those issues: WRONG! In the Corps, I only shot at the range 6 times, once a year (which means about one weak of daily shooting, once a year. so 6 weeks). I qualified expert 5 times. Once as sharpshooter (one step down from expert). And, more recently, I took my friend Nate to a 100 meter range with an AR owned by my father. Nate, at the time, had never fired a real firearm in his whole LIFE (with the exception of a 22., ONE time, when he was 12. Now he is in his mid twenties). I explained to him all of the fundamentals, a few tips, and a little bit of demonstration, along with a few minor corrections when he was holding the weapon, and it was enough to get him to establish an accurate, if somewhat spread out, grouping on a target no bigger than a human head. With just a LITTLE practice, that spread out grouping could EASILY turn into a nice, TIGHT grouping less than an inch wide. It took only two mags of 20 rounds each, one to establish a grouping and adjust the sights to his eyes, and a second to place that grouping on his target. SIMPLE.

 

Not that I'm disagreeing with your statements here, because I agree with them in principle, but your experiences with an AR and someone else's are going to be vastly different. Recoil anticipation (which leads to flinching) is a real thing that a lot of shooters do, especially when they're first starting, and for some people, it CAN take hundreds of rounds down range with a weapon before they get comfortable enough with it to shoot accurately.

 

Also, ARs are great weapons to introduce someone to shooting with, due in large part to the nature of their recoil, and how manageable it is. Compared to a full caliber bolt action rifle like the Mosin-Nagant, or a 12ga double barrel breach loading shotgun, an AR in .223 or 5.56 is an air rifle. Using them as some sort of demonstration on how easy it is to overcome common issues and say "See, look, anyone can do it, shooting's easy" is a little dishonest. This isn't even mentioning the fact that shooting on a range and shooting at a living thing, especially a human, are vastly different things.

[Bruce of Wayne 81]

It will bother the crap out of me if they use the wrong ammo in very many guns at all. The whole ak74 firing 5.56s is rediculous. It's a Russian gun firing a Russian 5.45 round and they really want to give it the 5.56 nato? That would be so annoying.