Ammo Calibration : Poll & Discussion

[scriptfactory 620]

Now this is certainly interesting way of thinking.

You could be right if only:

 

Both Standalone and mod did not share the same name

 

Operation Flashpoint was a completely different game than OF: DR. The Assassin's Creed series changes with each new release. Just because a game shares the same name as another game doesn't mean it can't be changed or "evolve" in some way.

 

Both SA and mod was not the same genre

 

The fact that two games are in the same genre doesn't mean they have to work the exact same.

 

If qualities of mod did not make a lot of people buy SA

 

Player expectation do not guide game design at most development studios. The fact that Rocket and co. listen so much to player feedback is a boon, but not a requirement.

 

If people logicaly did not assume that SA will be just evolved and overally better mod

 

Again, players should be assuming shit. The transformation of the Final Fantasy series was for the betterment of the game. Game designers are allowed to change their games in whichever way they want. You just have to sit there and complain or be quiet as it is not your game.

 

Even Rocket himself at first said, they considered just packing mod and releasing it as standalone, but later changed the course of action and started developing of proper standalone.

How can you fail to see that both mod and standalone are connected akin to game and it's sequel, is simply beyond me.

 

Rocket said he wanted to make a proper survival horror game. He didn't just want to repackage the mod. He is building his vision.

Better just hang on and enjoy the ride.

http://i.imgur.com/qGqnul3.gif

[kichilron 8550]

Try enlightening yourself in what is wrong with everything you just said.  Maybe if you pulled your head out of your own ass you'd be able to see better.

 

You should know better than that. Get your point across without getting personal.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

You should know better than that. Get your point across without getting personal.

You are correct.  I apologize and my point has been made.  

[infiltrator 275]

On the contrary, you are the one who doesn't understand.  You don't have to come across so butthurt because BiS didn't Make Arma 2.5: DayZ.  They made their own game from Rockets creation and called it DayZ.  This is no longer a mod, this is no longer Arma.  Once you get that through your head you may be able to get on with life.  They stripped out all the milsim aspect from the engine and are doing everything from scratch, hence why we have a game in Alpha and not a fully developed one.  Again, I may not enjoy the design decisions that the developers make, but I don't need to whine about the ones they do.

 

So much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to begin. YOU are the one flinging insults and are accusing others or whining, in addition to supporting NOT expressing opinions or feedback for a game in an ALPHA stage.. the "this is not arma" is just a cherry on top of it all... just, get real, man.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

So much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to begin. YOU are the one flinging insults and are accusing others or whining, in addition to supporting NOT expressing opinions or feedback for a game in an ALPHA stage.. the "this is not arma" is just a cherry on top of it all... just, get real, man.

You are kidding right?  This, I repeat, this is not Arma.  This thread is full of whine from the get go.  Do I agree with the ammo decision?  No.  Am I going to post discontent and call the developers lazy and incompetent? No.  All I can do is see where this goes and check out what they plan on doing with the different ammo types.  We are here to help with development not whine about it.  Instead of making false claims, not directed at you, about how the development team is lazy and incompetent make a post on what they could do to change how the ammo is done.  From Torchia's post it's clear they have a direction but nowhere does it claim that it's set in stone.  This is more of a sky is falling thread. 

[infiltrator 275]

You are kidding right?  This, I repeat, this is not Arma.  This thread is full of whine from the get go.  Do I agree with the ammo decision?  No.  Am I going to post discontent and call the developers lazy and incompetent? No.  All I can do is see where this goes and check out what they plan on doing with the different ammo types.  We are here to help with development not whine about it.  Instead of making false claims, not directed at you, about how the development team is lazy and incompetent make a post on what they could do to change how the ammo is done.  From Torchia's post it's clear they have a direction but nowhere does it claim that it's set in stone.  This is more of a sky is falling thread. 

 

Helping the developent means voicing your opinion backed up by logical conclusions, while keeping in mind this game has (whether you like it or not) very strong roots within the arma series. I'm seeing a lot of that throughout this thread alone, no need to mention the feedback tracker, where a lot of us (myself included) post a constant stream of reports and bugs we find. THAT'S helping the developers.

YOU on the other hand are just complaining about other people complaining, while being complacent with whatever the hell this game turns out to be. You're basically the golden customer of Activision/EA.

[pilgrim* 3514]

Let's be reasonable about this - I like the 'gun people' - so forget insults or invective, let's not all shout, and I'm sorry this is long:

 

Chris Torchia said, quote : "those of us who are real gun nuts"

- so he's classing himself as a gun nut. Obviously he is not against 'gun nuts', he is one. He shares gun nut interests.

He is also a game designer.

 

OK let's put those two things together :

In DayZ SA there are a number of important game elements. These have been discussed, been implemented, or are being worked on.. etc. They include

 

... movement (swimming, climbing, running, stealth), stamina, weather, hunting, fishing, cooking, foraging, medication, illness, infection, injury, temperature, shelter, crafting, concealment, camps, vehicles, repairs, maintenance (clothes, equipment, transport), zombies, melee, loot, respawn, map features ...

 

And that's not all of them. But all of these are vital to the way the game plays and how 'hardcore' it is and how 'realistic' it is. We can agree on that.

 

None of these elements has been given (so far) the time and detail and attention and focus and weight that has been given to guns. So the 'gun nuts' are doing very well at the moment, in alpha - and after all, the only reason to have a wide range of guns is for pvp. There is no reason we NEED automatic weapons or advanced sights of ANY kind, in a zombie survival game.

 

One solution to 'gun realism' - (which I am not suggesting) - is to take OUT all the automatic weapons, all the sights except iron sights, and leave the gun nuts with the remaining weapons as they stand in the game now, this would not harm pvp and would not harm 'survival', Then there would be no argument about calibres and the Devs could concentrate on the MANY other important features which are being developed and refined.

 

If all the other features mentioned were brought up to the current level of realism of 'guns', this would be an in-depth fascinating hardcore game.

 

The gun nuts (bless them) seem blind to the other elements of the game, they want massive gun realism, and many varieties of guns, so they can play at pvp

(no one wants a big complicated collection of modern realistic military weapons to shoot goats, I guess ?)

 

Chris Torchia is a 'gun nut' (he says) but he is not blind to the other elements of the game. This is his job.

 

The gun nuts have plenty of stuff to keep them happy (and to complain about) already. Why should development concentrate on their (very small minority) absolute-reality fanaticism about guns, instead of bringing ALL the REST of the SURVIVAL game up to the same level that 'guns' has already reached ?

 

I think there must be as many medical people playing SA as real gun experts - ask them about needle calibres. They will explain that a syringe and needle used to inject antibiotics is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from a needle used to take a litre of blood. The two needles are not interchangeable. However at the moment they are not shouting about it, and are not putting up long strings of photos of medical equipment. Even though (of course) health is a lot more important than weaponry in any REALISTIC survival game.

 

So gun people - we all understand your concerns and your great love of accurate gun simulation (we all like 'realistic' gunfire properties in the game) but EVERYBODY KNOWS (including yourselves)  that a shitload of guns is not the key to an excellent zombie survival game, it is only interesting to elite pvp gamers.

(I mean Leet, dudes)

 

You have forgotten, maybe, that in the Mod, there were long arguments about the magazines for the AK74 and the Sa58, because in real life they are NOT interchangeable, but for better gameplay they could be exchanged in the game. But - be honest - how many of you really stopped playing because of that ? Are you still here ? You complained a lot, and you ran around with engine blocks in your backpacks complaining that the magazines were unrealistic, but you didn't stop playing.

 

So please don't look back to the 'golden age' of the mod where everything was 'realism' (except the truck engine in your pocket) and complain that SA is being simplified for the "mass" and the 'pvp kids'. It is not. You yourselves are simply "gun nut pvp kids" - and I have nothing against you for being that, you want a "realistic" military fantasy. That's cool. But recognise that you already have plenty of good stuff to play with, don't insult all the other players, and understand that there are MANY areas of the game that should be brought up to speed and refined, before you get your special chocolate cake with icing. Don't have a tantrum about it.

 

Making SA into a Leet military fantasy for a small minority of players would REALLY be the thin edge of the wedge. Chris Torchia IS a gun nut, ask him about the practical aspects of REALISTIC PLAYABILITY

 

because PLAYABLE REALITY is his trade.

 

xx pilgrim

 

[ note: in the mod we ALL ran around with engine blocks in our packs, so don't take that as an insult or a gibe. But don't please say "that has nothing to do with guns"  - of course it does, everyone knows you can't shoot with a truck engine on your back ]

Edited June 2, 2014 by pilgrim

[Fabik 71]

Doom had specific ammos for each weapon...

Why can't DayZ do the same ?

or

Why even bother put so many different weapons in the game in the first place ?

[Fabik 71]

How many players ou there would still play DayZ if the only weapons were the Makarov and Enfields ?

I know I would.

 

One solution to 'gun realism' - (which I am not suggesting) - is to take OUT all the automatic weapons, all the sights except iron sights, and leave the gun nuts with the remaining weapons as they stand in the game now, this would not harm pvp and would not harm 'survival', Then there would be no argument about calibres and the Devs could concentrate on the MANY other important features which are being developed and refined.

 

[hombrecz 832]

-snip-

 

While I appreciate what you are trying to say, i still can not fully agree.

I, certainly, would not call myself  "gun nut pvp kid", I was also not full time KOS'er.

Yet I simply prefer weapons to use the correct caliber, which could even mean LESS KOS'ing, because it would be a tad harder to find the proper ammo. Basically you are accusing "us" of being trigger happy while this whole "streamlining" of calibers is promoting this!

 

As for car engine being carried in backpack. This is a prime example of what could be done better in SA as it was not possible in mod. I mean let Devs make it so that you can carry such huge parts only in your hands and ofcourse without being able to sprint or run. That way, if you got into fight, you would need to drop that engine to defend yourself. See, it is not that "gun nut pvp kids" prefer realism only in one sole aspect of the game! Quite on the contrary, the more realistic features they bring, "we" will be most likely pleased where "1 caliber fits all & random dispersion zealots" might start whining, that the game is needlessly hard for them. As Rocket said, SA earned a lot already, it does NOT need to cater to your usual "lazy"player. Mod was rather unique, Standalone should expand of this, not streamline anything.

 

Well, that is ofcourse my humble opinion. As I said, I appreciate you providing some arguments as opposed to some others, that resort to personal insults because they simply can not come up with solid arguments, which I believe is mostly because there are none.

 

EDIT: I would very much appreciate if Devs took 10 minutes and posted us a list of features, that are now in SA only as a placeholder and will be reworked & expanded later. I sincerely hope shooting mechanics and caliber mismatch would be on that list, which would both make me happy and shut up.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Hombre

[finnpalm 312]

Let's be reasonable about this - I like the 'gun people' - so forget insults or invective, let's not all shout, and I'm sorry this is long:

 

Chris Torchia said, quote : "those of us who are real gun nuts"

- so he's classing himself as a gun nut. Obviously he is not against gun nuts, he is one. He shares gun nut interests.

He is also a game designer.

 

OK let's put those two things together :

In DayZ SA there are a number of important game elements. These have been discussed, been implemented, or are being worked on.. etc. They include

 

... movement (swimming, climbing, running, stealth), stamina, weather, hunting, fishing, cooking, foraging, medication, illness, infection, injury, temperature, shelter, crafting, concealment, camps, vehicles, repairs, maintenance (clothes, equipment, transport), zombies, melee, loot, respawn, map features ...

 

And that's not all of them. But all of these are vital to the way the game plays and how 'hardcore' it is and how 'realistic' it is. We can agree on that.

 

None of these elements has been given (so far) the time and detail and attention and focus and weight that has been given to guns. So the gun nuts are doing very well at the moment, in alpha.. and after all, the only reason to have a wide range of guns is for pvp. There is no reason we NEED automatic weapons or advanced sights of ANY kind, in a zombie survival game.

 

One solution to 'gun realism' - (which I am not suggesting) - is to take OUT all the automatic weapons, all the sights except iron sights, and leave the gun nuts with the remaining weapons as they stand in the game now, this would not harm pvp and would not harm 'survival', Then there would be no argument about calibres and the Devs could concentrate on the MANY other important features which are being developed and refined.

 

If all the other features mentioned were brought up to the current level of realism of 'guns', this would be an in-depth fascinating hardcore game.

 

The gun nuts (bless them) seem blind to the other elements of the game, they want massive gun realism, and many varieties of guns, so they can play at pvp

(no one wants a big complicated collection of modern realistic military weapons to shoot goats, I guess ?)

 

Chris Torchia is a gun nut (he says) but he is not blind to the other elements of the game. This is his job.

 

The gun nuts have plenty of stuff to keep them happy (and to complain about) already. Why should development concentrate on their (very small minority) absolute reality fanaticism about guns, instead of bringing ALL the REST of the SURVIVAL game up to the same level that 'guns' has already reached ?

 

I think there must be as many medical people playing SA as real gun experts - ask them about needle calibres. They will explain that a syringe and needle used to inject antibiotics is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from a needle used to take a litre of blood. The two needles are not interchangeable. However at the moment they are not shouting about it, and are not putting up long strings of photos of medical equipment. Even though (of course) health is a lot more important than weaponry in any REALISTIC survival game.

 

So gun people - we all understand your concerns and your great love of accurate gun simulation (we all like 'realistic' gunfire properties in the game) but EVERYBODY KNOWS (including yourselves)  that a shitload of guns is not the key to an excellent zombie survival game, it is only interesting to elite pvp gamers.

(I mean Leet, dudes)

 

You have forgotten, maybe, that in the Mod, there were long arguments about the magazines for the AK74 and the Sa58, because in real life they are NOT interchangeable, but for better gameplay they could be exchanged in the game. But - be honest - how many of you really stopped playing because of that ? Are you still here ? You complained a lot, and you ran around with engine blocks in your backpacks complaining that the magazines were unrealistic, but you didn't stop playing.

 

So please don't look back to the 'golden age' of the mod where everything was 'realism' (except the truck engine in your pocket) and complain that SA is being simplified for the "mass" and the 'pvp kids'. It is not. You yourselves are simply "gun nut pvp kids" - and I have nothing against you for being that, you want a "realistic" military fantasy. That's cool. But recognise that you already have plenty of good stuff to play with, don't insult all the other players, and understand that there are MANY areas of the game that should be brought up to speed and refined, before you get your special chocolate cake with icing. Don't have a tantrum about it.

 

Making SA into a Leet military fantasy for a small minority of players would REALLY be the thin edge of the wedge. Chris Torchia IS a gun nut, ask him abot the practical aspects of REALISTIC PLAYABILITY

 

because PLAYABLE REALITY is his trade.

 

xx pilgrim

 

[ note: in the mod we ALL ran around with engine blocks in our packs, so don't take that as an insult or a gibe. But don't please say "that has nothing to do with guns"  - of course it does, everyone knows you can't shoot with a truck engine on your back ]

 

I'm all for realism, in every part of the game. And I am definately for the developers prioritizing what they do when and what they leave for later.

 

Personally, as I said in a previous post I like the idea of having to decide if you're going to keep the worse gun that has a more commonly found caliber, or the better gun that might be hard to find ammo for. That has nothing to do with having tons of guns in the game. In my opinion there is already a lot of guns in the game. I'm not opposed to there being more guns, but if they decide to have more guns I would also like them to have more calibers to offset the abundance of gunfire in the game that would follow. Yes, you will most likely find a firearm. No, you might not be able to find ammo easily.

 

On the account of dispersion in the game, we've had that discussion in a different thread, and I like the idea of having a gun firing where it's pointed, but instead put the difficulty of hitting the target into making it hard to point the gun where you want it. Again, realism. This has nothing to do with being a gun nut (I'm not). I want the procedure to aim and fire a gun to mimic reality as much as possible. Simulating the weight of the gun, increasing sway, having wind affect trajectory, injury or infection might make it hard to aim because your arms are weak or trembling and so on. This is what I would like to see.

 

I don't mind if they decide to elaborate other parts of the game first, but I become worried by things like what Torchia said. Now, if he really meant that "we're not doing calibers now. We're saving that for later" then I'd be fine with that. But the way he phrased it is "we're not doing calibers, period".

 

Then again, I said somewhat jokingly in a different thread that I'd like it if you packed your backpack sequentially, and that when you needed an item from the bottom of it you had to sit down and take out everything else first before reaching the desired item, spreading all your stuff out on the ground and then having to put everything back again. I wasn't really joking there. I think it would be awesome if you had to think of how you packed your stuff. "Oh crap, I need my pistol. Why did I put it at the bottom of my backpack" *rummage rummage pulling out socks and apples*

 

The more realistic this game becomes the more difficult it will be. Some will argue that it will become unplayable. I disagree. It would be hard, but not impossible. But that's just my idea of fun. :)

[PhillyT 554]

Tests much more extensive than yours have been done already. Most handguns are horrible past 30m, regardless of stance, condition, fire rate or anything else.

I am not saying I don't like any dispersion, if there wasn't any all the guns in the world would be perfect hits if properly aimed (not the case). But dispersion SHOULD by all means be a fraction of what it is now (1/3 or 1/4) and sway should be amped to compensate and allow us to rely on breath control and skill rather than dice throws when shooting.

 

Most pistols are garbage outside of 30m in the real world.  But I understand you point, the issue is, in all the courses I have attended, and all the shoots I go to, the current dispersion model isn't far from the truth.

 

I don't believe the dispersion model as it stands will remain.  It works to allow play.  But the dispersal value of the aim should be all the evidence people need.  Addittionally, claiming the current model doesn't reward skill (which some keep repeating) isn't true.

[vcz 0]

I personally think when weapons spawn with some mags and ammunitions with it, it solve the problem of luck so they can add some new ammunitions types for more diversity, realism and also difficulty.

 

I'm a pro-realism but i actually understand this choice.

 

Dayz mod was a succes also because the arma 2 realism and i think Dean's dev' team know it.

 

Doe's anyone try Dayz mod + ace + acre + smk ect... ? :)

[gibonez 3633]

Doe's anyone try Dayz mod + ace + acre + smk ect... ? :)

I did once on a single server.

The ace mods hate dayz so they never allowed other dayz mods to use Ace mod.

At least not officially.

[smoq2 221]

I really fail to see the reasoning behind limiting to only a few types of ammunition, be it based on design or required development effort.

 

Let's elaborate...

 

-------------

 

Design - "Users don't care about (...)" - Wrong assumption. We can assume there are three camps - one that wants realistic specs, one that does not care and one that advocate the idea.

 

Group 1 - They are put off by the very thought of having guns with unrealistic technical specs. Plain and simple, no need to go further with this.

 

Group 2 - They don't care - and this is what we should focus on. Since they don't give a damn, they are open for both solutions. Either decision will have no impact on their ability to gain joy from playing the game.

 

Group 3 - They don't want many types of ammo. Reasons would probably vary, but the most common would be that they don't want to spend hours to find correct ammo for their gun.

 

Now I'm not sure whether DayZ team did any research on the topic (I assume they didn't), but until then it would be safer to assume that the group who "does not care" is 1/3 of the gaming community.

 

-------------

 

Development effort - Now this shouldn't even be an argument. Once you got a ballistics model working and a base "ammo" class object, you just make a new ammo mesh (in the case of DayZ this requires 2 models - a box and a shell, still the most easily modelled items in the game industry), copy and paste, then modify the config values, add the object's ID to loot tables under the ammo array and viola.

 

Unless DayZ uses some strangely unique development pattern for adding new items, then that's 3 mh tops. Someone who works directly on the ballistics should do it way under a man-hour with placeholder configuration values.

 

-------------

 

So this boils down to: Unless there is some grand argument that would have an impact on the future of the game design, there is no firm reason why to restrict to only several types of ammo. As some suggested before in this thread, this strongly hints at an attempt to "streamline" the game for the common crowd who look for sole PvP and don't want to spend too much time searching for death-bringing equipment.

 

As for me, I'm in the "don't care" crowd. I'll play either way, but if they decide to go the simplistic way, it will leave me we an uneasy feeling about the game's targeted audience.

 

Also, I don't like how the design team is selective about what should be realistic or "streamlined" - heart attacks GO but corresponding weapon cartridges NO GO? It's like they start to lack consistency.

 

EDIT:

 

I forgot to mention they are implementing a new "Bullet SDK" - I don't think that it's exactly a "Software Development Kit", since this is used for creating content to an existing model, but instead, it's a whole new ballistics model. Maybe it forces them somehow to put everything on hold and makes adding new calibres a hindrance. But that's still speculation. 

Edited June 2, 2014 by retro19

[blacklabel79 949]

Sticks and Stones dont come in calibers :D ( *yet* )

[madbrood 6]

You're ultimately left with an unintelligible milieu of rounds which cannot really be balanced, because you can't make them rare without screwing over common weapons. And you can't make them common without making the use of rare weapons easy.

 

Sorry if this has been said already, but surely it's the magazines that will make rare weapons difficult to use? What use is a Mk48 Mod0 if you don't have the box/belt for it, despite having hundreds of rounds of 7.62x51mm?

 

Or here's another idea - require the player to have cartridge links (one inventory slot could contain enough to link up to 200 rounds?) as well as a box magazine? There are other methods of making a rare weapon hard to use besides ammo...

Edited June 2, 2014 by Madbrood

[Katana67 2907]

Sorry if this has been said already, but surely it's the magazines that will make rare weapons difficult to use? What use is a Mk48 Mod0 if you don't have the box/belt for it, despite having hundreds of rounds of 7.62x51mm?

 

Well, we haven't heard about how they're going to manage LMG/GPMG ammunition. We haven't even heard if they're going to be adding any LMGs/GPMGs at all. But, with LMGs/GPMGs you're right in saying that the ammunition is more dependent on whatever "magazine" they use by comparison. I actually suggested a while back that the belt-fed LMGs/GPMGs should require the separate looting of belt links (which could be combined/crafted with ammunition to make a belt), vice just finding a complete belt/box. A box could be a separate entity in which the belt would go, improving mobility. But I digress.

 

The developers have also stated that eventually, they're going to change the reloading system so that one won't have to go to the inventory just to chamber a single round (in lieu of having a magazine). Which will make magazines and speedloaders less crucial to the process.

 

For something like an M4A1, or an L85A2, or a G3, or a FAL, these are weapons shouldn't necessarily be beholden to their magazines being rare. Because they, in my opinion, don't confer much of an advantage. So I suppose there's something to be said about magazines inasmuch as they relate to rarity as well.

 

In my opinion, you can't have something be wholly rare whilst having its ammunition be common. Even if the magazines are rare as well (which is a good added layer), once you find that magazine (in your example of the Mk 48) you're set. A few pages back (might've been in the post you quoted) I used the example of DMR in the mod. It was moderately rare, but was able to be used in a widespread fashion because the ammunition was common.

 

For example, take an AS50 and .50 BMG.

 

If you make the AS50 rare, and the .50 BMG common, by the time you find an AS50 you'll be ready to roll in terms of ammunition.

 

If you make .50 BMG rare and the AS50 common, you'll have no problem fitting what ammunition you've got into a weapon.

 

If you make BOTH rare (or in this case, all three [magazines, weapon, ammunition]) you're making it less likely that you'll even encounter it in the first place. All three factors are a piece of the same puzzle, meaning rarity. By making one not so rare, you're inevitably making the use of said weapon more commonplace.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Katana67

[sloasdaylight 129]

Design - "Users don't care about (...)" - Wrong assumption. We can assume there are three camps - one that wants realistic specs, one that does not care and one that advocate the idea.

 

Group 1 - They are put off by the very thought of having guns with unrealistic technical specs. Plain and simple, no need to go further with this.

 

Group 2 - They don't care - and this is what we should focus on. Since they don't give a damn, they are open for both solutions. Either decision will have no impact on their ability to gain joy from playing the game.

 

Group 3 - They don't want many types of ammo. Reasons would probably vary, but the most common would be that they don't want to spend hours to find correct ammo for their gun.

 

Now I'm not sure whether DayZ team did any research on the topic (I assume they didn't), but until then it would be safer to assume that the group who "does not care" is 1/3 of the gaming community.

 

 

You're making a fundamental error in your argument by assuming that the three camps are evenly distributed amongst the population, which is quite the stretch. I'd wager that the second group is much larger, by population and percentage, than either of the other two, or possibly both combined.

[smoq2 221]

You're making a fundamental error in your argument by assuming that the three camps are evenly distributed amongst the population, which is quite the stretch. I'd wager that the second group is much larger, by population and percentage, than either of the other two, or possibly both combined.

 

No I did not make that error. I simply would assume this initially and then try to assess if the second group is larger then the other two. Actually, since the development effort is not a factor, I would ignore the second group altogether, and look into the first and third, keeping the second in mind only if the other groups are even.

 

I probably didn't convey what I had in mind correctly. I do that more often then I'd wish. :)

 

The only error that I could have made, is assuming they didn't research it.

 

If they did not, they should be at the "1/3" stage, which basically means - "we don't know".

Edited June 2, 2014 by retro19

[madbrood 6]

Well, we haven't heard about how they're going to manage LMG/GPMG ammunition. We haven't even heard if they're going to be adding any LMGs/GPMGs at all. But, with LMGs/GPMGs you're right in saying that the ammunition is more dependent on whatever "magazine" they use by comparison. I actually suggested a while back that the belt-fed LMGs/GPMGs should require the separate looting of belt links (which could be combined/crafted with ammunition to make a belt), vice just finding a complete belt/box. A box could be a separate entity in which the belt would go, improving mobility. But I digress.

 

The developers have also stated that eventually, they're going to change the reloading system so that one won't have to go to the inventory just to chamber a single round (in lieu of having a magazine). Which will make magazines and speedloaders less crucial to the process.

 

For something like an M4A1, or an L85A2, or a G3, or a FAL, these are weapons shouldn't necessarily be beholden to their magazines being rare. Because they, in my opinion, don't confer much of an advantage. So I suppose there's something to be said about magazines inasmuch as they relate to rarity as well.

 

In my opinion, you can't have something be wholly rare whilst having its ammunition be common. Even if the magazines are rare as well (which is a good added layer), once you find that magazine (in your example of the Mk 48) you're set. A few pages back (might've been in the post you quoted) I used the example of DMR in the mod. It was moderately rare, but was able to be used in a widespread fashion because the ammunition was common.

 

For example, take an AS50 and .50 BMG.

 

If you make the AS50 rare, and the .50 BMG common, by the time you find an AS50 you'll be ready to roll in terms of ammunition.

 

If you make .50 BMG rare and the AS50 common, you'll have no problem fitting what ammunition you've got into a weapon.

 

If you make BOTH rare (or in this case, all three [magazines, weapon, ammunition]) you're making it less likely that you'll even encounter it in the first place. All three factors are a piece of the same puzzle, meaning rarity. By making one not so rare, you're inevitably making the use of said weapon more commonplace.

I do see your point. All I'm saying is, it's early doors yet - let's wait and see what the dev team choose to implement in terms of rare weaponry.In my opinion, it'd be kinda weird to have a FAL with common ammo, then a 7.62x51 sniper rifle/MG with a different kind of ammo, just because it's supposed to be "rare".

 

Am I making sense? Hard day at work...

[Katana67 2907]

... it'd be kinda weird to have a FAL with common ammo, then a 7.62x51 sniper rifle/MG with a different kind of ammo, just because it's supposed to be "rare".

 

Am I making sense? Hard day at work...

 

You're making perfect sense, no worries.

 

This is why I've taken issue with the developers trying to have it both ways. They're seemingly reducing the number of ammunition types as to be more specific to the weapons themselves... BUT... they're also broadening the use of ammunition across different weapon types (i.e. 7.62x51 NATO).

 

My proposal, is to make the generic rounds generic and make the "rare" rounds more specific. By adding a modest four new rounds. So, you can have 7.62x51 NATO be a flexible round... but it's just not AS flexible as it is right now. It's flexible in weapons which are indeed likely to be rare, vice stretching the gap between common and rare weapons. In other words, just by adding something as inane as a "hunting caliber" (in this case, .30-06, but it can be whatever) you're pushing 7.62x51 NATO out of the "low-end" and into the "high-end" without making odd delineations.

 

Succinctly, I want 7.62x51 (specifically) to be used in the range of GPMGs and Battle Rifles/DMRs and that's it. Not all low-end bolt-actions, not in double rifles, not in break-action pistols AND GPMGs/BRs/DMRs.

 

 

* New calibers are denoted by the (II) marking

** .338 LM/.300 WM are cross-calibers, meaning they're not really related to NATO/Warsaw Pact. Likewise, there is a typo, it's intended to read .300 WM vice .338 WM

*** .22 LR has been left out

 

There are some additional outliers (both utilitarian and "realistic"), which I won't bore you with.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Katana67

[madbrood 6]

There are some additional outliers (both utilitarian and "realistic"), which I won't bore you with.

On the contrary - PM me? I'm intrigued.

[Coltz 5]

TLDR; on the bottom

Now I am not too sure why the devs are going against having multiple calibers, However imho most games with guns that I have tried doesn't have the same degree of detail DayZ have. At least for me, DayZ is where I learn the different sounds of guns ( regardless if its realistic or not ) and what calibers are most fitting to what gun. I know nothing about guns but I see the learning aspect of DayZ is what is truely unique to DayZ and is the defining reason that got me attached to the game.

The only con of not adding multiple calibers that I can see and understand so far, is that people like me with no prior knowledge of firearms may have an unfair degree of trouble. Perhaps also it may be too difficult to find the proper type of ammunition, gun, and mag for people to attain.

 

However I believe the Pros outweighs the Cons for having more calibers: PROS

- It brings about the (imo) defining factor of DayZ for players to learn, adapt to the situation and perhaps grow, VERY fitting for a zombie apocalypse game.

- can be an appropriate immersive addition to what is, to my understanding and assumption "Rocket's vision" of authenticity or realism.  

-It can enhance the loot and spawn system if perhaps done in a "different approach".

 

 

Different approach:

I am not sure if its been suggested or if it is already planned (because it is still Alpha and the loot system I heard will be redone). But why not have many spawns of different items, and have it easier to acquire by players who are looking for a certain item? We could make loot spawns more consistent to more believable places. M4A1 and M4A1 ammo can be found at the military tents and camps instead of police stations. Double barrels can be found in farm or where ever one can most likely find these guns.

This way we can have many different guns and fitting specific ammo and still the loot tables can be controlled in a way that you won't have too many of the same guns floating around. A sense of balance can be implemented, and of course addition of weaponry in moderation so we won't have a call of duty going on or clans of self proclaimed sons of Rambo. However I'm not sure if adding a gun store would be a good idea.

TLDR: spawn guns and ammo in consistent areas and vicinity that they will most appropriately appear, so people are able to run around with guns with the right ammo. So lots of guns and calibers can be introduced while having the loot and game-play controlled. Or dedicate specific locations for specific items, perhaps a particular town really likes shotguns?

Edited June 2, 2014 by Coltz

[infiltrator 275]

Most pistols are garbage outside of 30m in the real world.  But I understand you point, the issue is, in all the courses I have attended, and all the shoots I go to, the current dispersion model isn't far from the truth.

 

I don't believe the dispersion model as it stands will remain.  It works to allow play.  But the dispersal value of the aim should be all the evidence people need.  Addittionally, claiming the current model doesn't reward skill (which some keep repeating) isn't true.

 

It doesn't award skill in the scenario I described, that's why I was specific about it. But it's not the only scenario of course.. and there are some instances where it doesn't matter like CQC etc. All in all, I think it can be worked on so it's more fun, more realistic, and more consistent (less random) - all at the same time.