First Balancing pass on firearms

[Exorade 214]

Quote from Hicks: Zombies have never been the real threat, and never will be. They are part of the env pushing player interaction.

 

Isn't that a way of saying pvp is the endgame? Player interaction to do what, kill zombies? No, its player interaction to pvp each other or group up and pvp someone else. So yeah the emphasis should be more on combat as thats what player interaction leads to even with loot respawn and persistence it still comes down to defending yourself (and or the loot and group) from other players because banditry will always be present. 

 

 

it's also only his opinion not shared by everyone working in the dev team. Or did you not read the discussion in reddit?

 

 

[–]rocket2guns

6 hours ago

Brian is a true fan of the game, almost to a flaw! We allow the whole team to be free and open with their opinions. They're not robots. Often there can be big differences, even arguments internally. But it's the area lead that makes the call, so for design that is peter. And then it's my job to keep petter in line!

Relish that our team is open with their thoughts and opinions. It's a good thing.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Exorade

[Tmar09 19]

 

 Hello there

 

Here's another hicks quote.

 

PvP is and always will be a part of the game, but its not the sole point of the game (or at least it wont be as we go further down the line). Pure "combat" Arma style PvP of which there is a great element now should be diminished. You may well still scrap with other clans but not the way one does now.

 

If the game were to become just a polished version of what it is at this stage then there's little point to it IMHO.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

 

 

 

it's also only his opinion not shared by everyone working in the dev team. Or did you not read the discussion in reddit?

Actually I read the entire discussion, but I believe you and Orlok both miss my point. I get that no matter what you do with the zombies the other players will always be more dangerous, the original point Orlok made which started my comment was '...its more of a survival sim but I think the emphasis will be more on survival than combat.'  and thats what I was questioning because it will always come down to combat when interacting with other players. Pvp will always be the endgame because of exactly what Hicks said about human unpredictability so more emphasis should be given towards combat. Even if you get base building, barricading, the ability to hide/camo your tent it will still end in pvp eventually either defending your territory, making a raid on someone elses, or making a run into a town for some needed supplies.

 

My mistake for not including that part in my original post to Orlok, probably would have cleared up my point better.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Tmar09

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

To me the environment should be your main enemy and Hicks alludes to that in the quoted post.

 

The unpredictability will lie in player interaction and again taking from Hick's post it looks as if folk mill be forced to interact on occasion which lifts the game above pure PvP.

 

PvP will be important but it will not be the be all and end all.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[cels 43]

Hello there

To me the environment should be your main enemy and Hicks alludes to that in the quoted post.

The unpredictability will lie in player interaction and again taking from Hick's post it looks as if folk mill be forced to interact on occasion which lifts the game above pure PvP.

PvP will be important but it will not be the be all and end all.

Rgds

LoK

That as well.. Straight out running around just to pvp is going to be much more harder to do once they balance the central loot economy(outside of making the environment and zombies more dangerous).. Its not going to be die, run around for a hour and be almost geared back up to just look for other people to take out.

Surviving is going to be much more difficult. Alot of items are going to be made alot more rare that dealing with zombies and the environment is going naturally become alot more difficult. More so even when they do increase the difficulty of them both outside of this.

This is where Hicks even suggests player interaction will become its most dangerous,

"as the zombies, and other environmental hazards of surviving in Chernarus evolve to become even deadlier, they will push players to interact with each other. Be it friendly, or otherwise - thats when the real magic of DayZ happens."

Will people still go after other players? I dont doubt it.. But its probably either going to be the guy trying to punch you out that just respawned or its going to require players to interact more than just firing shots from the treeline. Im sure it will still happen, just not as much as now.

Imo, I believe the changes in the future will make the bandit or KoSer to be much more challenging which is good. Kinda easy right now just waiting for someone to run by.. Youll have to get close and gain peoples trust and after you get what you need... well then, will have to see :)

Edited July 30, 2014 by cels

[pilgrim* 3513]

..//..

I get that no matter what you do with the zombies the other players will always be more dangerous, the original point Orlok made which started my comment was '...its more of a survival sim but I think the emphasis will be more on survival than combat.'  and thats what I was questioning because it will always come down to combat when interacting with other players. Pvp will always be the endgame because of exactly what Hicks said about human unpredictability so more emphasis should be given towards combat.//.

..//..

 

Even if you had a game that was 100% survival, full of survival equipment and objectives and survival problems.. but .. in with all the other elements you had pointed sticks that you could sharpen... and IF the game permitted you to poke other players with your pointed stick and steal their stuff - then there would be PvP. You dont need any special weapons or complex armaments, a rock or your bare hands is just fine.

also - there would be PvP all the time whatever else you did in that survival game.

And other human players are always more interesting and unpredictable and dangerous than any AI, this is the only reason we play online.

 

This has nothing to do with "endgame" it is just one element in the game

No one has to emphasise or de-emphasise PvP.. If the game permits combat it will happen with whatever list of weapons is available, or with frying pans and boots and screwdrivers if that's all there is. 

 

°°°°°

I think you can see three main areas in DayZ: there is Survival; PvP; and Zombies

If each of these 3 themes was equally represented, so they each had the same 'weight',  then the game would start reaching maturity, yes?

No one would be forced to play the total 'zombie' game, or the total 'PvP' game, or the total 'survival' game, but all 3 of them would form a bigger game that you could move about in freely (and naturally).

Just one easy example - if there are tents or camps out in the woods, then hardcore PvP-ers are going to move out of the towns and go looking for trouble in the wilderness'. Stands to reason - this will change the gameplay.

And there is a lot that can/will be done with zombies, not just to make theim more dangerous, or more zombies, but what they do in the game .. how they act.

Easy example.. some areas having more zombies than other areas.. so if you go there you know you run greater risks.. but if you go to 'easier' areas you will face more players. (I suggest this just to show that interesting things can be done, I dont know what's planned).

The game started up with PvP implemented, so there was a game to play. Now the other areas are being brought up to par, and all being refined.

Looks good and promising to me.

The gameplay changes already (but no one really notices?)

 

=> you all realise, the main real use and interest of the extended and 'rare' weapons list is:

with persistent storage and all these neat weapons, the first thing that will happen is players will hoard these fancy guns and ammo - and the next thing that will happen is everyone else will set out to steal all that stuff ?? That's their true in-game function.

Edited July 30, 2014 by pilgrim

[Tmar09 19]

Even if you had a game that was 100% survival, full of survival equipment and objectives and survival problems.. but .. in with all the other elements you had pointed sticks that you could sharpen... and IF the game permitted you to poke other players with your pointed stick and steal their stuff - then there would be PvP. You dont need any special weapons or complex armaments, a rock or your bare hands is just fine.

also - there would be PvP all the time whatever else you did in that survival game.

And other human players are always more interesting and unpredictable and dangerous than any AI, this is the only reason we play online.

 

=> you all realise, the main real use and interest of the extended and 'rare' weapons list is:

with persistent storage and all these neat weapons, the first thing that will happen is players will hoard these fancy guns and ammo - and the next thing that will happen is everyone else will set out to steal all that stuff ?? That's their true in-game function.

Every point you make is valid and true. Also ends in pvp in each example you put out there, its the natural extension of the game you wont get around. All I was pointing out is that an emphasis on combat (pvp) is necessary. Doesn't mean you need to make more and fancy weapons but it will always be the end result. Therefore having weapons to defend yourself against pvp AND the zombies is what every player will strive for; combat, for better or worse, is the endgame or end result if you don't like the endgame word. Even the guy out living off the land will have to find a way to defend himself from robbers and zombies with COMBAT. Color it any way you like the but combat is the end result of every style of gameplay so it deserves emphasis is all I was ever trying to say in response to Orlok's first post. I am not bitching about the game in any way, shape, form or fashion I love the game; but at the end of the day combat is the final result in this survival game.

[GeorgieBest 7]

When will these changes be implemented to stable?

[pilgrim* 3513]

..//..

I love the game; but at the end of the day combat is the final result in this survival game.

 

What I pointed out is that combat goes on all the time .. so simple .. but it is not the "endgame" or the "final result".. it is just an element of the game, like eating beans is an element of the game.

You seem to be saying "because you have to eat all the time, and because you have to find beans all the time, so eating is the endgame and even if you do other things you will always end up eating beanz".

So what ?

But eating beans is not the final result of DayZ.

 

We both like the game.

(but this is not much about firearms)

Edited July 30, 2014 by pilgrim

[hotcakes 348]

Guys, the top-tier MP5K (default has no stock now) is 9 MOA instead of its previous 160 MOA.

 

I think we have a winner. 

[ZomboWTF 527]

Is it just me or have they further increased the weapon sway on the mosin?

 

it is really hard now to stay on target, even if it is not moving while firing prone and being rested...

 

eventually a little overkill if you ask me

[calabam 55]

But isnt it alpha ?

[pillock 850]

But isnt it alpha ?

 

What on Earth gave you that idea?

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Sadly some tacticool mosins can mount m203s.

 

I wouldn't really say that's "sad" considering anything with 20mm pictanny rails can mount an M203, it's not like there's some special case for the mosin.

You'd also likely never see it, because it's nigh impossible for most Westerners to get M203s (not to mention grenades) and countries where Mosins are still prevalent in use are relatively unmodified, not to mention they probably don't have access to M203s themselves.

Sure, there are always special cases, but really in any case someone's more likely to put it on an AR-15/M16/M4 or another capable select-fire rifle rather than old, tricked out WW2 bolt-actions, simply because it would be completely inefficient.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

I'd like to see every change they make. We're not sitting here to experience the "It's an alpha, don't complain about anything" phase without wanting to see what's actually being done.

What's the point in listing every minor change in experimental updates that happen fairly frequently when they're completely tentative to change between their jumps to the regular game and the next update, and a lot of the time it's just small errors or tweaks?

They list the changelog for the regular updates, which most people play on. If you really want to know everything they're adding then wait a little longer, from a development standpoint it's very annoying and time wasting to write lists of everything you've done for something minor.

[Katana67 2907]

Sure, there are always special cases, but really in any case someone's more likely to put it on an AR-15/M16/M4 or another capable select-fire rifle rather than old, tricked out WW2 bolt-actions, simply because it would be completely inefficient.

 

That and there's jack shit to suggest that the developers would/will actually allow the mounting of the M203 on the Mosin. And there's jack shit to suggest that the developers are making a RIS system in the first place for the Mosin.

 

In fact, what is apparent is that they're removing attachments from the Mosin (see bipod).

 

Making that image that Gibonez, in typical fashion, posted... completely useless, inapplicable, and vitriolic.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Katana67

[Chaingunfighter 917]

That and there's jack shit to suggest that the developers would/will actually allow the mounting of the M203 on the Mosin. And there's jack shit to suggest that the developers are making a RIS system in the first place for the Mosin.

 

In fact, what is apparent is that they're removing attachments from the Mosin (see bipod).

 

Making that image that Gibonez, in typical fashion, posted... completely useless, inapplicable, and vitriolic.

Oh, I don't think that was in reference to gameplay, he was just responding with a comment I made that stated; "it's not like they're adding a Mosin with 2 M203s.... so on and so forth"

Maybe he intended to make that analogy as he does, but in this specific instance probably not.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[-Gews- 7443]

Haha, I was going through the numbers and noticed something funny.

 

Right now if you wish (experimental), you should be able to remove the stocks and handguards from M4s and AKs without any significant effects. Even with the handguards and stocks removed, those weapons are still more accurate than ANY weapons in the previous patch (except those with 0 spread).

 

Experimental M4s, AKs without stocks are much more accurate than even the old Magpul M4s so enjoy that before it's patched!

[rybec 339]

What's the point in listing every minor change in experimental updates that happen fairly frequently when they're completely tentative to change between their jumps to the regular game and the next update, and a lot of the time it's just small errors or tweaks?

They list the changelog for the regular updates, which most people play on. If you really want to know everything they're adding then wait a little longer, from a development standpoint it's very annoying and time wasting to write lists of everything you've done for something minor.

It really can't be that hard to write "X has been changed to Y". It's as simple as the patch notes rolled out every few weeks.

The thing I'd like best is when (if) they're reading comments to give input on what they think of people's ideas and we can bounce ideas back and forth. It's really more like a one way conversation. One that people not the devellopers talk in.

[gibonez 3633]

Experimental M4s, AKs without stocks are much more accurate than even the old Magpul M4s so enjoy that before it's patched!

 

Thats assuming its a bug.

 

Perhaps they embraced a more realistic approach to the handguards and stocks and instead the removal or addition of these parts on the gun instead has an effect on the sway/ weapon inertia mechanics.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

It really can't be that hard to write "X has been changed to Y". It's as simple as the patch notes rolled out every few weeks.

The thing I'd like best is when (if) they're reading comments to give input on what they think of people's ideas and we can bounce ideas back and forth. It's really more like a one way conversation. One that people not the devellopers talk in.

Changelogs are usually written up before the release of an update, and values are constantly being tweaked across multiple different departments before the experimental versions come out. All of the accumulated data eventually has to be put together and it's not simple to do so over and over every update.

 

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that it's not necessary or practical and would be a waste of time in most cases with regular updates around the corner.

[alldaypk 63]

Is it just me or have they further increased the weapon sway on the mosin?

 

it is really hard now to stay on target, even if it is not moving while firing prone and being rested...

 

eventually a little overkill if you ask me

 

Check you haven't broken a limb.

[alldaypk 63]

All 5.4" at 25 yd = 20.63 MOA

T/C Encore = 6.88 MOA

 

I'm so glad they've changed the pistol accuracy. What were the values before, do you remember?

[Zed's Dead 67]

Guys, the top-tier MP5K (default has no stock now) is 9 MOA instead of its previous 160 MOA.

I think we have a winner.

Sorry to ask, but what is MOA?

[gibonez 3633]

Sorry to ask, but what is MOA?

 

Minute of angle it is angular form of measurement.

 

It roughly translates to about 1 inch at 100 yards.

 

So if a weapon is 2 moa for example it would mean if the weapon was perfectly secure and fired 2 times at the same target without movie it would make a group of no larger than 2 inches.

[Zed's Dead 67]

Thanks man.