hombrecz 832 Posted June 1, 2014 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. Not sure if you are joking or trolling?How is guns using incorrect caliber authentic or believable? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyT 554 Posted June 1, 2014 I am not sure how to respond to Krazycage. Half the post supports my comment, a third is remarkable bravado, the rest absurd.Take twenty random civilians to a range, give them a good hunting rifle, have them fire standing. Most will miss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scriptfactory 620 Posted June 1, 2014 Take twenty random civilians to a range, give them a good hunting rifle, have them fire standing. Most will miss. I don't know about your other arguments but this is the truth.During basic we trained on weapon simulators before even going to a weapon range. Even with this simulation training the majority of people without firearm training were just horrible. Adding some weapon sway isn't a very accurate representation of the training necessary to fire a weapon accurately and consistently, especially in a combat environment. The simple fact that you can aim perfectly and fuck up when squeezing your trigger is what (I believe) the DayZ dev team is trying to imitate with weapon dispersion.TL;DR: Shooting in real life is much harder than clicking a mouse accurately... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pycco 38 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) I don't know about your other arguments but this is the truth.During basic we trained on weapon simulators before even going to a weapon range. Even with this simulation training the majority of people without firearm training were just horrible. Adding some weapon sway isn't a very accurate representation of the training necessary to fire a weapon accurately and consistently, especially in a combat environment. The simple fact that you can aim perfectly and fuck up when squeezing your trigger is what (I believe) the DayZ dev team is trying to imitate with weapon dispersion.TL;DR: Shooting in real life is much harder than clicking a mouse accurately...hmm this is interesting, true non the less considering the age of character and the conditions of the game people that don't know how to shoot are the zombies. Edited June 1, 2014 by pycco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katana67 2907 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Show me where the game enforces a background on our avatars... Show me, where it says they aren't former military... Show me, where it says they are former military... Show me, where it says they are inept at shooting... Show me, where it says they are great at shooting... All that's said, or even implied, about our avatars is that we are playing as "survivors" (and even then, in the game description, the word "players" is used far more prominently). Meaning, they survived something. Which if anything, it vaguely implies some level of competency. The absence of something (a skilled military background) doesn't imply the existence of something else (an unskilled civilian background). Our avatars are nothing, they are marionettes to be manipulated by the player. If the PLAYER (you, the cheeto-munching neckbeard like myself, behind your sneeze-encrusted monitor) is already accurate or inaccurate, nothing needs to be added to that. You DON'T NEED TO SIMULATE ANYTHING, because it's already a facet of a player's own skill or lack thereof. If you want to make shooting harder, then actually make the act of shooting more difficult. I'm all in favor of that. But it should be done by having to manage a myriad of factors... such as target identification, recoil, sway, distance, leading a target, wind, and bullet drop. All of which, take place before one fires. If you do A, B, C, D, E, F and G correctly... then you are deserving of a hit. If you don't, then you're not. It's as simple as that. Edited June 1, 2014 by Katana67 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daemonkid 493 Posted June 1, 2014 Show me where the game enforces a background on our avatars... Show me, where it says they aren't former military... Show me, where it says they are former military... Show me, where it says they are inept at shooting... Show me, where it says they are great at shooting... All that's said, or even implied, about our avatars is that we are playing as "survivors" (and even then, in the game description, the word "players" is used far more prominently). Meaning, they survived something. Which if anything, it vaguely implies some level of competency. The absence of something (a military background) doesn't imply the existence of something else (a civilian background). Our avatars are nothing, they are marionettes to be manipulated by the player. If the PLAYER (you, the cheeto-munching neckbeard like myself, behind your sneeze-encrusted monitor) is already accurate or inaccurate, nothing needs to be added to that. You DON'T NEED TO SIMULATE ANYTHING, because it's already a facet of a player's own skill or lack thereof. If you want to make shooting harder, then actually make the act of shooting more difficult. I'm all in favor of that. But it should be done by having to manage a myriad of factors... such as target identification, recoil, sway, distance, leading a target, wind, and bullet drop. All of which, takes place before one fires. If you do A, B, C, D, E, F and G correctly... then you are deserving of a hit. If you don't, then you're not. It's as simple as that.Shhhh Katana. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Remember logic has no place here. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bruce of Wayne 81 Posted June 1, 2014 Show me where the game enforces a background on our avatars... Show me, where it says they aren't former military... Show me, where it says they are former military... Show me, where it says they are inept at shooting... Show me, where it says they are great at shooting... All that's said, or even implied, about our avatars is that we are playing as "survivors" (and even then, in the game description, the word "players" is used far more prominently). Meaning, they survived something. Which if anything, it vaguely implies some level of competency. The absence of something (a military background) doesn't imply the existence of something else (a civilian background). Our avatars are nothing, they are marionettes to be manipulated by the player. If the PLAYER (you, the cheeto-munching neckbeard like myself, behind your sneeze-encrusted monitor) is already accurate or inaccurate, nothing needs to be added to that. You DON'T NEED TO SIMULATE ANYTHING, because it's already a facet of a player's own skill or lack thereof. If you want to make shooting harder, then actually make the act of shooting more difficult. I'm all in favor of that. But it should be done by having to manage a myriad of factors... such as target identification, recoil, sway, distance, leading a target, wind, and bullet drop. All of which, takes place before one fires. If you do A, B, C, D, E, F and G correctly... then you are deserving of a hit. If you don't, then you're not. It's as simple as that.About not needing to simulate anything due to player skills being simulation, it is a LOT harder to accurately shoot a gun in real life than in a game, where, if there were no dispersion, it would be putting the sight over what you want to hit and clicking. If you look at statistics, almost all shots in wars fought by TRAINED SOLDIERS miss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frozenjaws 69 Posted June 1, 2014 I really couldnt care less about gun calibers, really not adding or taking away from the game experience Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bruce of Wayne 81 Posted June 1, 2014 But I do support of your suggestion to add so it's not this way. But that may be too server intensive Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katana67 2907 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) About not needing to simulate anything due to player skills being simulation, it is a LOT harder to accurately shoot a gun in real life than in a game, where, if there were no dispersion, it would be putting the sight over what you want to hit and clicking. If you look at statistics, almost all shots in wars fought by TRAINED SOLDIERS miss. Are there statistics which show that those misses are the result of anything in particular? No. They're meaningless. Those statistics, whatever they may be, don't account for any actual cause. Not the natural MOA deviation of a weapon, not the need for suppressive fire, not automatic fire, not advances in technology, not anything. No, read what you quoted me as having said. If you want to make shooting harder, then actually make the act of shooting more difficult. I'm all in favor of that. But it should be done by having to manage a myriad of factors... such as target identification, recoil, sway, distance, leading a target, wind, and bullet drop. All of which, takes place before one fires. How is any of that just "point and click"? You're managing a myriad of factors before you even get your sights lined up properly. I'm all for dispersion, but only inasmuch as it is simulated "realistically" in this instance. Having dispersion be on the order of FEET or TENS OF FEET at ranges which a weapon's natural deviation would be on the order of INCHES is unacceptable from a standpoint of "skill" and "realism". Edited June 1, 2014 by Katana67 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036 Posted June 1, 2014 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.Wow, the ignorance in the post. You will get the game the way the devs make it. If you don't like what they give you, you have the option to stop playing it or use mods to make it the way you want it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daemonkid 493 Posted June 1, 2014 About not needing to simulate anything due to player skills being simulation, it is a LOT harder to accurately shoot a gun in real life than in a game, where, if there were no dispersion, it would be putting the sight over what you want to hit and clicking. If you look at statistics, almost all shots in wars fought by TRAINED SOLDIERS miss.Actually most of those are shots are never meant to actually hit. Suppressive fire is taken into account there. Put as much lead down range so they can't poke their heads out to shoot back, execute a flanking maneuver to engage the enemy in a position where cover is not immediately available. It's also difficult to shoot accurately while under fire, with bullets cracking and whizzing over your head.There are much better ways to simulate this other than random dispersion. Bullets go where the gun is pointed there is very little deviation within the weapons effective range. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samuri_Bake_Pie 96 Posted June 1, 2014 We're still getting different types of poop, right?Oh and apparently women will need a tampon every once in a while if they survive a long time. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OrLoK 16185 Posted June 1, 2014 Oh and apparently women will need a tampon every once in a while if they survive a long time.Hello there And what would be wrong with that? Its just part of life. And fyi one doesn't need to have exclusively tampons, there are other things. Regardless, get back on topic please. Rgds LoK 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pycco 38 Posted June 1, 2014 Wow, the ignorance in the post. You will get the game the way the devs make it. If you don't like what they give you, you have the option to stop playing it or use mods to make it the way you want it.LOL, again the game will be shaped by the suggestions and community feed back now saying take what i'm given is a joke. i got the early access so i could voice my opinion and help shape the game. now if you are going to be a parrot and keep saying the same thing, stop wasting both of are time please. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scriptfactory 620 Posted June 1, 2014 Actually most of those are shots are never meant to actually hit. Suppressive fire is taken into account there. Put as much lead down range so they can't poke their heads out to shoot back, execute a flanking maneuver to engage the enemy in a position where cover is not immediately available. It's also difficult to shoot accurately while under fire, with bullets cracking and whizzing over your head. My uncle Marty served in Desert Storm. he was killed by a friendly grenade. I don't know the details of his death. The vast majority of Coalition deaths in this particular war were from accidents and friendly fire. Most humans, in the "Western World", just don't want to shoot other humans to the point that they will intentionally miss. You have to desensitize soldiers to violence before they become killing machines and this can often lead to psychological problems.There is a (critically acclaimed and vilified) body of work by Melanie Joy called "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows" she touches on the subject. In the chapter, titled "Unnatural Born Killers", she writes: There is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating humans' seemingly natural aversion to killing. Much of the research in this area has been conducted by the military; analysts have found that soldiers tend to intentionally fire over the enemy's head, or not to fire at all.Studies of combat activity during the Napoleonic and Civil Wars revealed striking statistics. Given the ability of the men, their proximity to the enemy, and the capacity of their weapons, the number of enemy soldiers hit should have been well over 50 percent, resulting in a killing rate of hundreds per minute. Instead, however, the hit rate was only one or two per minute. And a similar phenomenon occurred during World War I: according to British Lieutenant George Roupell, the only way he could get his men to stop firing into the air was by drawing his sword, walking down the trench, "beating [them] on the backside and ... telling them to fire low".World War II fire rates were also remarkably low: historian and US Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall reported that, during battle, the firing rate was a mere 15 to 20 percent; in other words, out of every hundred men engaged in a firefight, only fifteen to twenty actually used their weapons. And in Vietnam, for every enemy soldiers killed, more than fifty thousand bullets were fired.What these studies have taught the military is that in order to get soldiers to shoot to kill, to actively participate in violence, the soldiers must be sufficiently desensitized to the act of killing. In other words, they have to learn not to feel -- and not to feel responsible -- for their actions. They must be taught to override their own conscience. yet these studies also demonstrate that even in the face of immediate danger, in situations of extreme violence, most people are averse to killing. In other words, as Marshall concludes, "the vast majority of combatants throughout history, at the moment of truth when they could and should kill the enemy, have found themselves to be 'conscientious objectors'". http://books.google.de/books/about/Why_We_Love_Dogs_Eat_Pigs_and_Wear_Cows.html?id=bIg_AwAAQBAJ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilgrim* 3514 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) ..//..If the PLAYER (you, the cheeto-munching neckbeard like myself, behind your sneeze-encrusted monitor) is already accurate or inaccurate, nothing needs to be added to that. You DON'T NEED TO SIMULATE ANYTHING, because it's already a facet of a player's own skill or lack thereof. If you want to make shooting harder, then actually make the act of shooting more difficult. I'm all in favor of that. But it should be done by having to manage a myriad of factors... such as target identification, recoil, sway, distance, leading a target, wind, and bullet drop. All of which, take place before one fires...//.. "Following the end of World War II, the U.S. Army conducted studies of what happened in the war and how it was actually fought. Research found that most combat casualties caused by small-arms fire took place at short range . //. The research found that aiming was not a major factor in causing casualties. Instead, the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired." C. Taylor The fighting rifle – A complete study of the rifle in combat, ISBN 0-87947-308-8 "During World War II, an infantryman with a rifle at an average engagement distance of 300 yards under combat stress expended 10,000 rounds for one hit. " US Army Project SALVO [ OK - how we going to be realistic about that ? ] -edited - Edited June 1, 2014 by pilgrim 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katana67 2907 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) "Following the end of World War II, the U.S. Army conducted studies of what happened in the war and how it was actually fought. Research found that most combat casualties caused by small-arms fire took place at short range. So the long range and accuracy of the standard rifle was, in a real sense, wasted. Second, the research found that aiming was not a major factor in causing casualties. Instead, the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired."C. Taylor The fighting rifle – A complete study of the rifle in combat, ISBN 0-87947-308-8 The passage above is essentially saying three things... One, that close-range combat was commonplace in WWII. Two, that people were therefore more likely to be killed in close-range than from afar in WWII. Three, that aiming is less significant in close-quarters than at range (big surprise there...). It doesn't say anything relative to dispersion, or anything being discussed including the behavior of weapons. Edited June 1, 2014 by Katana67 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pycco 38 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) The passage above is essentially saying three things... One, that close-range combat was commonplace in WWII. Two, that people were therefore more likely to be killed in close-range than from afar in WWII. Three, that aiming is less significant in close-quarters than at range (big surprise there...). It doesn't say anything relative to dispersion, or anything being discussed including the behavior of weapons.you missed one the more you fire the more you hit, :lol: Edited June 1, 2014 by pycco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katana67 2907 Posted June 1, 2014 you missed one the more you fire the more you hit, :lol: The passage doesn't say that. It says the more rounds that are fired at the enemy... the more casualties you're likely to inflict. In fact, it doesn't even say that. It just says, more rounds fired = better indicator for casualties. How the study can, for one, measure "aiming" and therefore compare "aiming" to "volume of fire" as an indicator is questionable. The passage is ENTIRELY tangential and irrelevant to what's being discussed. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilgrim* 3514 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) The passage above is essentially saying three things... One, that close-range combat was commonplace in WWII. Two, that people were therefore more likely to be killed in close-range than from afar in WWII. Three, that aiming is less significant in close-quarters than at range (big surprise there...). It doesn't say anything relative to dispersion, or anything being discussed including the behavior of weapons. ok sorry I spoke - it's just me and the US Army who disagree with your ideas about how folk shoot each other in wartime, then.But I'm sure we're wrong, let's drop it. I would like to ask one question - HOW MANY different guns do you (gun) people envisage, in total, in this Zombie Survival game ? Just a ball park figure please ? xx Edited June 2, 2014 by pilgrim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katana67 2907 Posted June 1, 2014 ok sorry I spoke - it's just me and the US Army disagree with your ideas about how folk shoot each other in wartime, then. But I'm sure we're wrong, let's drop it. I would like to ask one question - HOW MANY different guns do you people envisage, in total, in this Zombie Survival game ? Just a ball park figure please ? xx What, does any of what you just said, have to do with the conversation? I didn't say what you posted was wrong, I was saying it's inapplicable to what we're actually discussing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pycco 38 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) ok sorry I spoke - it's just me and the US Army disagree with your ideas about how folk shoot each other in wartime, then. But I'm sure we're wrong, let's drop it. I would like to ask one question - HOW MANY different guns do you (gun) people envisage, in total, in this Zombie Survival game ? Just a ball park figure please ? xxideally all, realistically 30ish "The passage is ENTIRELY tangential and irrelevant to what's being discussed."ya i thought it was funny is all Edited June 1, 2014 by pycco 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hikurac 115 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Honestly, Gews, what does it matter? Mods are going to take over and players are going to get what they want anyway. Can't always rely on mods to fix the developers problems. Mods are great and they do have a lot of nice features. The problem is that everybody migrates to the mods and the core gameplay never gets any better because the devs think people have stopped caring about it. Another issue with mods is that they have a ton of great features but each one has an Achilles' heel which makes it unbearable. For example many of them allowed you to build tiny shelters at first, but then caved in to the community and allowed you to build entire cities at will. As good as the mods were in some aspects, they were utterly horrid in others. http://www.xp4t.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Capture1.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/n7CyGfa.jpghttp://up.picr.de/17512694dx.jpg I hope I never have to see this in the Standalone...Also pretty difficult to complain about engine blocks in a backpack when people carry entire cities in a Ural. Edited June 1, 2014 by Hikurac 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
minime1000 78 Posted June 1, 2014 It's actually the entire reasoning behind their decision. It's extra work with very little payoff.Immersion in a survival game= useless work and little payoff. Hope they also stop wasting time on useless stuff like hunting and improvised weapons.They should model, texture and place more masks, cowboy hats and different colored pants. That's where the real payoff is. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
