confirmed new stuff in exp. 46.

[Bororm 1156]

"You don't want to search through 100 gun spawns to find one can of beans "

 

 

I know how the loot tables work, dude.

It's the people with the "rarity" arguments don't know how they work.

 

If you sat down with a piece of paper and a pencil for 10 mins you yourself could work out some statistics on item spawns.

Wake up dude..

You really think you know how the loot tables work ?

 

Do you? because your original post doesn't sound like you do.

 

There's no reason that adding more gun varieties should reduce the amount of food spawns.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Bororm

[mushroom911 14]

While introduced mosin killed with 1 shot in any part of the body at any range. Week after that systematic nerfs happened.

 

It took 2 shots to kill in any part of the body, then it started to matter if you place this 2 shots in legs or torso to kill.

 

And now to kill someone with mosin you usually need at least 3-4 shots.

 

Personally I often tank 2 torso shots from mosin in military buildings while chasing mosin guys with my 30 mag AKM.

This is not due to the mosin being nerfed and if you had spent as much time researching it as you have spent whining about it you would know that it's due to clothing and how it reduces damage. Currently most peices of clothing absorb some damage from a hit. All clothes, vests and everything currently block the same amount (save ballistic helmets which can stop 9mm).

Wearing a vest + shirt in good condition will prevent you from going unconscious in 1 mosin hit to the chest.

The mosin does something around 3000 blood, shock along with some health damage, which usually takes a fresh spawn out in one hit (only shirt and is not fully healthy).

I recommend you check this channel out https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEaZAoRquVbDm7-8u1qastw and learn how the game works and functions.

I really doubht they intend to make all clothes be as effective as lower tier II ballistic protection but I guess the stats are all just placeholder.

Ed: apparently a lot of people are complaining about the mosin, but taking 3+ hits to kill someone means one or more of the following:

a) you missed.

b ) you hit him through the backpack/in the gun/in the arm/non vital area

c) Russian vodka magic stopped the round in the terrain before you hit, because the target was prone behind something that didn't render (or invisible wall)

Edited June 26, 2014 by Psychiatrist

[Exorade 214]

I don't really care what new out of place items they add in.

I'd really wish someone would just give a heads up on how much of the audio and sound system they've worked on so far.

[pilgrim* 3514]

Do you? because your original post doesn't sound like you do.

 

There's no reason that adding more gun varieties should reduce the amount of food spawns.

 

OK - simplification doesnt work for you hu ?.. ok cool

Work it out for yourself.

How MANY items can one server spawn at one time ? Get your paper and pencil and start from there.

 

Seriously - it would take a LONG post to explain the problems of spawn balancing, specially including items that must be combined to be useful. Either you have a grip on the subject, or you research it I guess.

The DEVS know that the game has to be playable above all.. and that if there are many useless objects littered around, this reduces playability.. and that many of the same object littered around also reduces playability...

There is a max no of objects per server, there is a list of objects per individual spawn location.. if one object on that list spawns in one location, any other object on the list cannot. So the length of the list must establish the percentage possibility of a given object spawn, unless you add a secondary weighting to the list, because if one list-object spawns ayt one location any other list object cannot.

And you have different lists for different locations - as you point out - so the percentage spawn for similar objects at a given spawn location must be reduced for a longer list HOWEVER you weight it. If the object is a combine-to-use object (gun+ammo+attachments) you will either spawn unusable objects from a long list, with in practice NO likelihood of being combinable (lets say less than 1% possibility for each combinable is in-play-equivalent to NO possibility, given spawn cycle of 1 hour, means player will play  say100 hours to hit one combination, on average AND if he is looking for it. This is an off the cuff example and does not equate to REAL spawn-player linkups, its a simplification and is not mathematically valid, but outlines the idea)

And these spawns reduce the possibility of "more useful" spawns, of course at the same location and from the same spawn list.

AND weighting by altering the number of loot sub-locations for "more" of one object from one list must across the board result in "less" of another object from another list (server saturation). This without taking into account the interactions of objects on a single list. Lets leave aside hoarding and object importing from other servers, etc...

 

Yo get the idea ? The DEVS have to live and work with this and they understand "spawn" and "playability" very well.

Edited June 26, 2014 by pilgrim

[Bororm 1156]

OK - simplification doesnt work for you hu ?.. ok cool

Work it out for yourself.

How MANY items can one server spawn at one time ? Get your paper and pencil and start from there.

 

I got a better idea, let's start from the realization that not all gun spawns and food spawns are shared.

[Katana67 2907]

That is an excellent proposition. I have been a fan of the "larger the mag count, the more it rare it is to find" idea as well as your own. To elaborate, the AKM may be easy to find, the ammo is slightly harder to find, and the mags are very rare. The 75 rd. drum is like a unicorn, rarely seen and often spoke of. This way you could say have a high end weapon quickly, one that is easily maintained as an AK should be, but you have to reload it manually cartridge by cartridge unless you happen to have spent enough time looking for a magazine. And only the uberleets would have multiple mags that they had killed to obtain over long periods of time. This would be a great balance as long as more common firearms were easy to arm, but as you stated difficult to maintain. Which quite truthfully in most cases would ring true to their real life counterparts. Even further things like an AK can be drug through the mud. An M4 has known overheating issues after long firefights. Most pistols need constant cleaning to be accurate at any distance, etc.. may just be things that they can offer down the road so all we can do is contemplate, and practice patience through this process. 

 

I'd like to see a weapon's rarity be dependent on a number of factors too. So you wouldn't just have the "high-mag count" weapons be rare, or, just have the "high-damage" weapons be rare, or, you wouldn't just have the "easy to maintain" weapons be rare, or, you wouldn't just have the "high-modularity" weapons be rare. It would depend on a weapon's individual values and advantages on a case-by-case basis. The decision to make something rare (talking hyper-rare here, not merely rare in terms of normalized spawn percentages) needs to be granular. I don't see that happening without a wide variety of weapons and weapon types.

 

I like this approach, vice just categorically relegating all DMRs, or all LMGs, to the loot management system.

[liquidsnake 275]

I really love the new NEAF. I'm seeing a lot more players inland nowadays. It could use a few hangars, though. Maybe there needs to be a new civilian hangar model.
And too bad that those new buildings near NEAF aren't yet lootable.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

There is nothing wrong with grenade launchers if they are put in correctly.

 

They have a relatively small blast radius , limited range and heck they dont even detonate if you fire them at something close.

 

Problem is how games like COD portray them as one shot kill point blank weapons.

 

If added faithfully they will not be a problem as 99 percent of rounds will go harmlessly into the ground as the shooter was trying to shoot it at someone within 30 m.

 

I do kinda wish the first grenade launcher was this beautiful beast. Such a classic and iconic beauty.

 

Not to mention it's only single shot (per grenade, although it is reusable) and cannot be attached to a rifle, so if you screw up you have very little room for error (as you probably don't have much other ammunition and have to resort to a pistol or other weapon, which puts you at risk)

 

I'd also love to see this (not-so beautiful) beauty.

Again, it's already going to be rare as fuck and the best part is; it must be discarded after fired the first time. So yeah, you might have a super lethal and accurate rocket, but you only get one shot, regardless of how many rockets you carry. Want to use it again? Sorry, you have to find another launcher.

To make up for it, this thing could probably be carried in a backpack much easier than most other "primary" weapons, but it's still going to take up most of the room, especially considering you have to carry the rocket as well.

 

And if you want to have a more fitting launcher, then none other than the RPG-7 will work;

As classic of a launcher it is, it's also pretty bad. These things were prone to misfiring and most of the rockets built simply cannot stand up to modern armor (upgrades were made, but you don't see them all that much save for richer countries, who tend not to use these on the front lines). Hell, even when you did manage to fire one off, it had a bad tendency to veer noticeably off course. Not saying it's as bad as depicted in most video games, but it definitely happens.

The only real advantage you'd get over a LAW by carrying this is the fact that it can be re-used. You can't stuff it in a backpack, you can't expect complete accuracy, and the ammunition takes up much more room. Yeah, it's arguably more reliable, but the LAW only needs to work once, and I doubt you're going to be frequently using this in DayZ, even if reliability becomes a more significant factor later on.

 

I'd say having both of these wouldn't be taking it too far. Grenade launchers I'd like for them to expand a bit more on, with something like the Russian GL-94 being the "top-tier" grenade launcher, while your majority will be GP-25s (and the occasional M203 and M79)

Edited June 26, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[Weyland Yutani (DayZ) 1159]

How is the mosin nerfed ?

1. Massive recoil.

2. No more dust kick-up. If the moon is in line with the sun you might get a weird particle kick-up so its pretty hard to see where your shots are landing.

3. No blood spray when hitting a target.

4. Massive ADS sway, hold breath doesn't do much. Even if your laying down and breath is under control its still moving at range.

5. 2 shot minimum kill. Shot a player center mast, in his heart, at 30 meters and he flaked it off.

 

On the other hand, if you ADS with the Longhorn, its sweet as pie.

 

I've been using the Mosin [not exclusively as I do use other systems, not a Mosin whore] since the beginning of the game and know it pretty darn good and it's ass right now. Its not like there is a sniper problem with snipers dominating the game so I'm not sure why they keep dumbing the Mosin down.

[BadAsh (DayZ) 1513]

1. Massive recoil.

2. No more dust kick-up. If the moon is in line with the sun you might get a weird particle kick-up so its pretty hard to see where your shots are landing.

3. No blood spray when hitting a target.

4. Massive ADS sway, hold breath doesn't do much. Even if your laying down and breath is under control its still moving at range.

5. 2 shot minimum kill. Shot a player center mast, in his heart, at 30 meters and he flaked it off.

 

2 and 4 are bugs (which occurs with every gun atm), and they will be fixed in next exp update.

[Weyland Yutani (DayZ) 1159]

2 and 4 are bugs (which occurs with every gun atm), and they will be fixed in next exp update.

Thanks so much for the reply. I figured they were bugs but I haven't seem them officially addressed and have been too busy to sift through the bug tracker. Thanks again!

[Chaingunfighter 917]

OK - simplification doesnt work for you hu ?.. ok cool

Work it out for yourself.

How MANY items can one server spawn at one time ? Get your paper and pencil and start from there.

 

Seriously - it would take a LONG post to explain the problems of spawn balancing, specially including items that must be combined to be useful. Either you have a grip on the subject, or you research it I guess.

The DEVS know that the game has to be playable above all.. and that if there are many useless objects littered around, this reduces playability.. and that many of the same object littered around also reduces playability...

There is a max no of objects per server, there is a list of objects per individual spawn location.. if one object on that list spawns in one location, any other object on the list cannot. So the length of the list must establish the percentage possibility of a given object spawn, unless you add a secondary weighting to the list, because if one list-object spawns ayt one location any other list object cannot.

And you have different lists for different locations - as you point out - so the percentage spawn for similar objects at a given spawn location must be reduced for a longer list HOWEVER you weight it. If the object is a combine-to-use object (gun+ammo+attachments) you will either spawn unusable objects from a long list, with in practice NO likelihood of being combinable (lets say less than 1% possibility for each combinable is in-play-equivalent to NO possibility, given spawn cycle of 1 hour, means player will play  say100 hours to hit one combination, on average AND if he is looking for it. This is an off the cuff example and does not equate to REAL spawn-player linkups, its a simplification and is not mathematically valid, but outlines the idea)

And these spawns reduce the possibility of "more useful" spawns, of course at the same location and from the same spawn list.

AND weighting by altering the number of loot sub-locations for "more" of one object from one list must across the board result in "less" of another object from another list (server saturation). This without taking into account the interactions of objects on a single list. Lets leave aside hoarding and object importing from other servers, etc...

 

Yo get the idea ? The DEVS have to live and work with this and they understand "spawn" and "playability" very well.

It's not going to matter, that's not how the "loot type" system works. Certain areas are much more likely to spawn food than they are to spawn weapons, and vice versa. Having a larger variety of guns is just going to mean you'll find different kinds of guns in certain areas rather than the same ones over and over again. What would skew the rates of spawning would be to increase the spawn rate of guns, not increase the variety.

I'm all for less guns spawning, but I also think less food and medicine should spawn. You'll have to scavenge and loot much closer and more carefully to get stuff, and utilize hunting, fishing, and foraging in order to get everything you need. Having a larger variety of individual stuff just means that you'll have a much more alive and believable environment, because you're encountering new stuff all the time.

[Jex 1104]

Good thing you dont ever need to join 3rd person enabled server aye?

One would expect this endless stupid debate about 3rd person "cheaters" to stop already, but no, it will never go away will it?

 

Similar thing with TeamSpeak "cheaters" and such.

 

Come back after some guy you never had the chance to see throws a grenade on ur head and kills you. At least with direct fire they had to expose themselves.

[pilgrim* 3514]

It's not going to matter, that's not how the "loot type" system works.

 

You can look up the percentages, count the loot points, see exacty what items are in each table for each spawn location.

If you increase the number of loot items in a single table, spawning at one loot point, then obviously each item will appear less frequently at that spawn location. This is not rocket science. Anyone who bets on races can work out the odds for you, and factor in the number of players and frequency of spawns, and number of loot points, types of loot points, length of item list associated with that spawn-type location, and work out the odds of any combination being available to any one player.

AND work out what quantity of individually useless stuff the player will have to wade through to find stuff that combines in ways useful to him.

 

This is why the devs do not want many different ammo types (for instance). It is not to spite the realist gun-lobby, it is to ensure the game remains playable for the great majority of sane "ordinary" players, with their multiple and varied interests, who do not want to search through many useless ammo types (useless to them) to find some one thing they can use.

The effect of an over-emphasis (game inequilibrium) towards multiple guns + multiple ammo types + multiple accesories, is FOR the INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, to fill the game with immediately and long-term useless objects. We can EASILY understand that equilibrium of the loot tables and spawn percentages is VITAL for the game experience. You cannot say "we want a lot of gun models and many ammo types and this will affect no one except the people who care". The game mechanics do not work like that, they do not permit it.

 

To say blandly  "that's not how the loot type system works"  only proves my main point. Lobbyists, and players in general,  use the term "rare" without understanding what they are saying.

Edited June 26, 2014 by pilgrim

[Katana67 2907]

This is why the devs do not want many different ammo types (for instance). It is not to spite the realist gun-lobby, it is to ensure the game remains playable for the great majority of sane "ordinary" players, with their multiple and varied interests, who do not want to search through many useless ammo types (useless to them) to find some one thing they can use.

The effect of an over-emphasis (game inequilibrium) towards multiple guns + multiple ammo types + multiple accesories, is FOR the INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, to fill the game with immediately and long-term useless objects. We can EASILY understand that equilibrium of the loot tables and spawn percentages is VITAL for the game experience. You cannot say "we want a lot of gun models and many ammo types and this will affect no one except the people who care". The game mechanics do not work like that, they do not permit it.

 

You're essentially making the "convenience" argument here, in asserting that the developers should tailor their loot distribution to make it easier for "ordinary" players to understand.

 

But this hasn't ever been a facet of DayZ. It just hasn't. I recognize that DayZ is a lot of things to a lot of people. But one thing that it never has been, is convenient. So I'm not sure I assign a lot of merit to that argument.

 

And the game mechanics certainly do permit the inclusion of varied weapons and ammunition types. There's no barrier stopping them from putting in anything and everything. There's not even a barrier stopping them from "balancing" what they add to the loot tables.

 

It's also worth mentioning that the developers haven't categorically ruled out adding more weapons (which they are doing, every patch we get roughly two-three new weapons and are approaching the number of weapons in the mod) and ammunition types. They've merely said that, for now, they're not interested in adding any more types of ammunition.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Katana67

[pilgrim* 3514]

You're essentially making the "convenience" argument here, in asserting that the .

 

I agree that weapons-people are well treated in the development so far. I'd say 'pampered'. There are regular weapons additions. No cause for complaint there, I think.

 

°°°

You have missed my point. You misquote me :

"developers should tailor their loot distribution to make it easier for "ordinary" players to understand"

NO

My point is :

developers must tailor their loot distribution to ensure the game is playable

 

and when I said  "sane ordinary players with their multiple and varied interests", I mean simply "the players are the people who play DayZ" you cannot dump a great number of different ammo types on players who individually find each type useless, there are 2 million players and most of them do not want a 'DayZ Special Weapons-Collector Edition'. They want to find stuff they can employ to survive. They do not want gear that is useless to them - and will only ever be useful if they set out on the uber quest to find the ultra rare gun X and the ultra rare mag Y and some other stuff to bolt on to that usually unavailable equipment.

 

AND note: there is a profound misconception of "rare", which I have explained, but no one has TWIGGED yet. The maths is NOT difficult.

 

This "ensuring the game is playable"  is NOT making the game "dumb".

I have attempted to explain why there can be no such thing as RARE in this game. It's a false concept and inoperable, for the gun lobby and for everyone who plays. It can NOT work.

Edited June 27, 2014 by pilgrim

[Katana67 2907]

I agree that weapons-people are well treated in the development so far. I'd say 'pampered'. There are regular weapons additions. No cause for complaint there, I think.

 

°°°

You have missed my point. You say :

"developers should tailor their loot distribution to make it easier for "ordinary" players to understand"

NO

My point is :

developers must tailor their loot distribution to ensure the game is playable

 

and when I said  "sane ordinary players with their multiple and varied interests", I mean simply "the players are the people who play DayZ" you cannot dump a great number of different ammo types on players who individually find each type useless, there are 2 million players and most of them do not want a DayZ Special Weapons Collector Edition. They want to find stuff they can employ to survive. They do not want gear that is useless to them unless they hav set out on the uber quest to find the ultra rare gun X and the ultra rare mag Y and some other stuff to bolt on to that usually unavailable equipment.

 

AND note: there is a profound misconception of "rare", which I have explained, but no one has TWIGGED yet. The maths is NOT difficult.

 

This "ensuring the game is playable"  is NOT making the game "dumb".

I have attempted to explain why there can be no such thing as RARE in this game. It's a false concept and inoperable, for the gun lobby and for everyone who plays. It can NOT work.

 

But your definition of "playable" is therefore equated with "simple." When you're arguing the merit of fewer calibers and weapons, and streamlining the overall available selection of loot to be more straightforward... you're advocating for simplicity vice complexity (note - simplicity =/= dumb and complexity =/= complicated).

 

I found the mod pretty dern playable, and it had weapon specific everything.

 

Honestly, I don't really see the argument here. It isn't really that hard to know what ammunition your weapon uses. Nor should you be guaranteed to get the loot you want every time. It's not hard to keep track of the ammunition your weapon uses either.

 

Making it so that you're more or less likely to find ammunition is a design choice, not a measure of "playability."

 

Can you explain this misconception of "rare" then in simple English then? Because I haven't heard anything that's concise, from you, explaining this misconception surrounding rarity that we're all buying into. 

Edited June 26, 2014 by Katana67

[pilgrim* 3514]

Can you explain this misconception of "rare" then in simple English then? Because I haven't heard anything that's concise, from you, explaining this misconception surrounding rarity that we're all buying into. 

 

OK - Keynsian economics (classical economics) - the real world situation we know and love = value

 

A player is looking for an object

How much time will the player invest in looking for that object ?

He will invest time equal to his judgement of the value of that object.

 

If he finds it inside the time-investment limit, so effectively gaining on his value-attribution, he will say I CAN find it = It is Not Rare

If he does not find it inside his time investment attribution he will say I CAN NOT find it = It is Rare

 

But the problem is simple

- if he cannot find it, as far as that player is concerned, he evaluates the object as 'worse than Rare': it is in practical terms Non Existant. There is Not One.

- if he can find it inside his value limit, it is Common. There are Plenty Of Them

 

Ok - so in terms of PLAYABILITY - which is most important to the Devs, objects are in the players view either Common or Unobtainable.

 

As you weight the spawn tables for a given object you reach a point where it TIPS from EASY to find, to IMPOSSIBLE to find. There is no intermediate equilibrium.

 

Demonstration: NO player is interested to know that one player on some other server found the Object. This player did not find the Object here and apparently (everyone kinda agrees) there are none on this server.

(Player; in the vernacular:  So wtf there Aren't Any. So why are you leaving useless ammo lying around for this thing that Does Not Exist ?)

 

If this is the common player experience - and ALL players must function subjectively on the 'time/investment/value' model, (however smart, casual, uber, expert, knowlegeable, dumb, informed, etc they are: [e.g. - this is why capitalism works, ok]).. then the Obtainable/Not Obtainable evaluation is common to ALL players, and among 2 million players you will have a statistical consensus, an evaluation that the game is :

Playable or Not Playable

 

And THIS is what the Devs must absolutely take into account - Playability - NOT if one particular version of one type of assault weapon is in the game or not.

 

And you can NOT say "the majority of players are WRONG and I alone am right". That is not a logical declaration.

 

The spawn runs on simple statistical rules and the player reaction runs on simple (gut-reaction if you like) response and evaluation.

Its either There or its Not There, the game is Playable or Not Playable. This is a necessary statistical adjunct to my argument, isn't it?

 

"rare" and different levels of rarity are not in it. In practice nothing has ever been, or can be "rare" in DayZ.

 

Hope this clarifies "playability" . I like guns, no problem, but a great emphasis on (what has been called in this thread) "weapon granularity" based on an argument for item "rarity" is a nonsense.

 

+++

If anyone can give me a definition of "rare" or any mathematical or 'human value system' treatment of what "rare" means in this game, I'd like to hear it. People keep using the word. Can it be that no one really KNOWS what they are talking about, its just a nice-sounding buzzword and fundamentally vacuous?

 

xx pilgrim

Edited June 26, 2014 by pilgrim

[Chaingunfighter 917]

You can look up the percentages, count the loot points, see exacty what items are in each table for each spawn location.

If you increase the number of loot items in a single table, spawning at one loot point, then obviously each item will appear less frequently at that spawn location. This is not rocket science. Anyone who bets on races can work out the odds for you, and factor in the number of players and frequency of spawns, and number of loot points, types of loot points, length of item list associated with that spawn-type location, and work out the odds of any combination being available to any one player.

AND work out what quantity of individually useless stuff the player will have to wade through to find stuff that combines in ways useful to him.

 

This is why the devs do not want many different ammo types (for instance). It is not to spite the realist gun-lobby, it is to ensure the game remains playable for the great majority of sane "ordinary" players, with their multiple and varied interests, who do not want to search through many useless ammo types (useless to them) to find some one thing they can use.

The effect of an over-emphasis (game inequilibrium) towards multiple guns + multiple ammo types + multiple accesories, is FOR the INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, to fill the game with immediately and long-term useless objects. We can EASILY understand that equilibrium of the loot tables and spawn percentages is VITAL for the game experience. You cannot say "we want a lot of gun models and many ammo types and this will affect no one except the people who care". The game mechanics do not work like that, they do not permit it.

 

To say blandly  "that's not how the loot type system works"  only proves my main point. Lobbyists, and players in general,  use the term "rare" without understanding what they are saying.

Well, I'm not able to argue with you when you're calling this stuff "useless". That's where it ends, because we both disagree on the value of an individual item.

I do not think that an individual item should be common, I think that everything should be less abundant as a whole.

Yes, if there are 3 items to choose from rather than 2, and the numbers are being rolled, then you will still statistically see item #2 less than you would if there were no item #3, regardless of how high or low the probability of item #3 is of spawning. However, I don't think that item #2 should be readily available, I want item #2 to be something to look for. If it's something that should be more common, than increase the percent chance of it spawning. Sure, it may appear less, but that's something you'll have to deal with.

 

Another solution would be to incrementally increase all items (which the devs have been doing). The loot proportions will probably not stay the same, but the devs are not just adding guns to the game. You could add a new gun, for example, but add two new food items to "accommodate" for it. It's not a perfectly even system, but I don't want that kind of system.

 

OK - Keynsian economics (classical economics) - the real world situation we know and love = value

 

A player is looking for an object

How much time will the player invest in looking for that object ?

He will invest time equal to his judgement of the value of that object.

 

If he finds it inside the time limit, so effectively gaining on his value-attribution, he will say I CAN find it = It is Not Rare

If he does not find it inside his time investment attribution he will say I CAN NOT find it = It is Rare

 

The problem is simple

- if he cannot find it, as far as that player is concerned, he evaluates the object as worse than Rare: it is Non Existant. There is Not One.

- if he can find it inside his value limit, it is Common. There are Plenty Of Them

 

Ok - so in terms of PLAYABILITY - which is most important to the Devs, objects are in the players view either Common or Unobtainable.

 

As you weight the spawn tables for a given object you reach a point where it TIPS from EASY to find, to IMPOSSIBLE to find.

 

Demonstration: NO player is interested to know that one player on another server found the Object. This player did not find the Object and apparently (everyone kinda agrees) there are none on this server.

Player: So wtf there Aren't any. So why are you leaving useless ammo lying around for this thing that Does Not Exist.

 

If this is the common player experience - and ALL players must function subjectively on the 'time/investment/value' model, (however smart, casual, uber, expert, knowlegeable, dumb, informed, etc they are).. then the Obtainable/Not Obtainable evaluation is common to ALL players, and among 2 million players you will have a statistical consensus, an evaluation that the game is :

Playable or Not Playable

 

And THIS is what the Devs must absolutely take into account - Playability - NOT if one particular version of one type of assault weapon is in the game or not.

 

And you can NOT say "the majority of players are WRONG and I alone am right". That is not a logical declaration.

 

The spawn runs on simple statistical rules and the player reaction runs on simple (gut-reaction if you like) response and evaluation.

Its either There or its Not There, the game is Playable or Not Playable. This is a necessary statistical adjunct to my argument, isn't it?

 

"rare" and different levels of rarity are not in it. In practice nothing has ever been, or can be "rare" in DayZ.

 

Hope this clarifies "playability" if any a

An item either does or does not exist in a particular location, that does not necessarily incline that it does not exist in a different location, even if that item possibly exists on another server.

The idea that the "game will be unplayable" because there are a large variety of weapons or specific items is invalid. The spawn-rates of specific weapons will usually be more prudent than others. Melee weapons are a good example of this, and they can be used right on the spot.

You're acting as if the devs were to add more weapons and ammunition that it would become unplayable. This is unlikely. Even if the devs had 150 weapons (which will probably never happen), they would still spawn statistically less than the majority of other items, as at that point you'd have thousands of other items. You may be able to play for days or even weeks without seeing getting ammunition (or a weapon that uses your special ammo), but that does not make it useless. The item can exist, and the loot is not pre-determined, so it will, at some point, exist.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[Katana67 2907]

And you can NOT say "the majority of players are WRONG and I alone am right". That is not a logical declaration.

 

The last time I checked, I wasn't. I'm speaking for myself, and nobody else.

 

Again, you're just saying "playability" without actually defining what that means. You're also supposing that your definition of "playability," whatever that may be, is also the same "playability" to which the developers subscribe.

 

And the Keynesian model doesn't really apply to an unregulated economy, which is what DayZ is. And even if it were applicable, that kind of duality is certainly not accurate. Simply because it's hard to find something, doesn't mean I just give up. I try harder to find it, hence why I've been looking for five days for an AKM to no avail.

 

Rarity is measured in likelihood, not whether or not an object can be found easily or not at all.

[pilgrim* 3514]

..//..

You may be able to play for days or even weeks without seeing getting ammunition (or a weapon that uses your special ammo), but that does not make it useless. The item can exist, and the loot is not pre-determined, so it will, at some point, exist.

 

You carry a gun around for "weeks" without finding any ammo for it "but that does not make it useless"

 

You must ask the player base about that. I have assumed that they would decide a gun was useless in far less than "weeks" if they could not find any ammo for it. Same thing if they find ammo and can't find a gun to put it in.

 

the player decides if an item is "useful" or "useless" - as there are more than a million players, of course there will be a consensus

 

I am not against guns or gun types or gun variants

I was asked a question about "rare" and replied to this, and explained my reply.

If you want to talk about guns, go ahead, you certainly know more about weapons than I do.

If you want to use the term "rare" than try to understand what you are saying when you use that word.

 

Or maybe... let's just let the Devs get on with it,

I'm sure they understand what they are doing and why.

Edited June 27, 2014 by pilgrim

[pilgrim* 3514]

And the Keynesian model doesn't really apply to an unregulated economy, which is what DayZ is.

 

doesn't it ?

oh.. you got me there for sure.. I thought it DID.

(of course the Devs strictly control supply, if you missed the point on the first line, you wont pick up on the argument itself.. but .. whatever..)

 

You asked me to explain playability in so far as it relates to item spawn.

You just read the explanation. I guess its not an intuitive easy-to-grasp overview.

 

 

OK - that's my contrib.

I asked you a question, you replied fairly so I gave you Beanz

You asked me a question

I replied - dont I get any Beanz ?

 

xx

Edited June 26, 2014 by pilgrim

[Chaingunfighter 917]

You carry a gun around for "weeks" without finding any ammo for it "but that does not make it useless"

 

You must ask the player base about that. I have assumed that they would decide a gun was useless in far less than "weeks" if they could not find any ammo for it.

I'm not talking about some sort of cheap old hunting rifle, I'm talking something special, like a VSS Vintorez. "Weeks" was an exaggeration, but I don't think that you should always be finding 9x39mm bullets in one three hour playthrough.

Your basic argument is; if the average player can't access something readily, then you should not add it to the game at all. I don't want to be seeing everyone running around with internally suppressed marksman rifles and RPG-7s, but it would always be fun to occasionally encounter a lucky or dedicated player/group that had found something nice. I'm sure there are going to be plenty of common items for the regular playerbase to use. If you don't plan on playing for a long period of time, then don't take something that's going to need work or effort to use. This is the exact same philosophy that applies in real life.

[Katana67 2907]

doesn't it ?

oh.. you got me there for sure.. I thought it DID.

 

You asked me to explain playability in so far as it relates to item spawn.

You just read the explanation. I guess its not an intuitive easy-to-grasp overview.

 

But, that's my issue, you didn't actually explain what "playability" is. You just said "playability" as if it's a matter-of-fact without explaining it.

 

It's not about it being "easy to grasp" or not, you just haven't explained the terms that you're using in a subjective manner.

 

I don't give you beans because I don't agree with what you're saying. And even then, I rarely hand out beans.

[hombrecz 832]

Come back after some guy you never had the chance to see throws a grenade on ur head and kills you. At least with direct fire they had to expose themselves.

 

So I take it you don't want to play on hardcore 1st person servers for some reason?

Because if I were so irked about 3rd person, as you appear to be, I'd stick with them hardcores and avoid that problem completely.

 

 

snip

 

Only fool would carry a weapon without ammunition for weeks.

Smart player will collect all ammo he can find and then uses the one for gun he finds first.

 

Also please do not pretend that few different calibers are too much for normal player.

It is also clearly writen what weapon uses what ammo. There is really no need to "dumb" the game down for imaginary players, who supposedly get headaches, if guns use real calibers. We are really NOT talking about 20+ calibers in the end.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Hombre