What "End Game Gear" Should Theoretically Be Like At Release

[Parazight 1599]

So the only way to play this game is to run as fast to the nearest military base and get army gear?  Wow, the elitists are strong in this thread

Ouch.

Just because your playstyle differs from other peoples' playstyles doesn't mean it's okay to call them names. At least, I think you're calling them names and not assuming their political point of views actually have them believing in an elitist system where a group of people vote for a group of 'gifted' individuals. See, elitism is actually a political movement, not just an often misused word used to slander.

[General Zod 1118]

> Because clothes change nothing yet

 

 

Well raincoat does't work for sure

[w1lg5r 70]

> Because clothes change nothing yet

 

talking about stable...

[omgwtfbbq (DayZ) 1069]

Another thread about endgame in a sandbox game. Hooray. 

[w1lg5r 70]

So the only way to play this game is to run as fast to the nearest military base and get army gear?  Wow, the elitists are strong in this thread 

No but that is the end game gear. To have a good weapon that is second to none. I.E. comparing an M4A1 to an SKS.

[Whyherro123 2283]

We aren't talking about clothes? That's odd...since the OP mentions them and they are important facets of what people consider to be an "end game character's" gear. Don't tell me what a Topic is about when the OP mentions something that I'm talking about. Capisce? Lovely. 

 

Wearing full military gear makes complete sense...when you're in the military with a military's worth of equipment to support you. Not in a post apocalyptic world where the next clean bottle of water should be as much of a concern as the amount of bullets in your weapon. 

 

Don't tell me we aren't talking about clothing in a thread about end game gear when the gear that you wear on your back is directly determinant in your physical condition, which is determinant on your ability to not die or become incapacitated to the elements. Your gun only affects your survival when you fire it or when somebody sees you holding it. Clothing on your back is a survival element that is always at play, every second of every minute of every hour that you play, regardless of what other players are doing and regardless of what they think about you. 

 

You say that you're not a "cod kid" but all you seem to be focused on is "mah military grade assault rahfles" and not "What should I be wearing?", which is...oddly not a concern in Call of Duty games I have noticed. Just an observation. 

To make clean water: Take a metal pot, fill with water. Boil. Boom, clean water. 

-OR-

 

Take a 2L soda bottle, cut the bottom off. Punch holes in it, and insert inside the inverted top. Fill with alternating layers of powdered charcoal and sand. Fill with water and let it drip out the bottleneck. Boom, clean water.

 

There being a scarcity of bullets I can see (no new factories making them, are there?) and can wholeheartedly support.

 

But, the "hate" for military clothing is entirely ridiculous. At least where I am from, milsurp gear is cheap, dependable (tear resistant, tough, and comfortable) and reliable (depending on the type, it may be wind and water resistant)

 

I own a set of camo BDU's (Both the jacket and the pants) I've worn both in the woods in November, in the rain, and been fine. Want to know why?

 

Goddamn layering.

 

In real life, I can wear an undershirt, then a milsurp fleece jacket, then my BDU jacket (which is in and of itself relatively water-resistant and warm, with it's long sleeves and all)

 

I actually started to overheat with all of this on, so I unbuttoned the BDU jacket and unzipped the neck flap of the fleece. Within a few minutes, I was comfortable again.

 

If the rain picked up, I could go into my pack and take out my poncho, then put it on over my other clothing.

 

It is only in Day Z where I can wear either  a sweatshirt -OR- a rainjacket, but not both.

[Rags! 1966]

To make clean water: Take a metal pot, fill with water. Boil. Boom, clean water. 

-OR-

 

Take a 2L soda bottle, cut the bottom off. Punch holes in it, and insert inside the inverted top. Fill with alternating layers of powdered charcoal and sand. Fill with water and let it drip out the bottleneck. Boom, clean water.

 

There being a scarcity of bullets I can see (no new factories making them, are there?) and can wholeheartedly support.

 

But, the "hate" for military clothing is entirely ridiculous. At least where I am from, milsurp gear is cheap, dependable (tear resistant, tough, and comfortable) and reliable (depending on the type, it may be wind and water resistant)

 

I own a set of camo BDU's (Both the jacket and the pants) I've worn both in the woods in November, in the rain, and been fine. Want to know why?

 

Goddamn layering.

 

In real life, I can wear an undershirt, then a milsurp fleece jacket, then my BDU jacket (which is in and of itself relatively water-resistant and warm, with it's long sleeves and all)

 

I actually started to overheat with all of this on, so I unbuttoned the BDU jacket and unzipped the neck flap of the fleece. Within a few minutes, I was comfortable again.

 

If the rain picked up, I could go into my pack and take out my poncho, then put it on over my other clothing.

 

It is only in Day Z where I can wear either  a sweatshirt -OR- a rainjacket, but not both.

 

I don't understand the message of your post. 

 

I think it's "In real life there are solutions to concerns in DayZ, the video game on the computer."

 

You do know I'm talking about the video game, right? DayZ? The game that this website is devoted to? The game on the computer? That you play? I'm talking about the video game. Not real life. Once the update hits soon, players who are used to soldiering up with all that equipment are going to have to arm themselves with water bottles and a change of clothing, too. I'll relish that, personally. I like looking like a badass, but this game needs a focus on survival in addition to the inevitable PvP that will occur. I certainly don't "hate" military clothing. I hate how wearing that kind of gear doesn't have any negative effects on your mortal human being character in a survival game that is going to be filled with consequences for every decision. Or at least...it should. 

 

When you're tracking somebody or ready to journey into the wild grey yonder, DayZ needs to always nip at the back of your head with the omnipresent needs of mortality. You should always be thinking to yourself... "You need water and food before you trek to Svetlo" or "You're pinned down by another player on the hill...but you're thirsty so you have to do something soon" or "There's another player in that building over there...but you're about to starve, bro". 

 

I understand that there are realistic solutions to a myriad of survival issues one might experience in a world like Chernarus. But I'm talking about the video game here. We had to wear a pair of black BDU's in Search and Rescue here in Arkansas, we'd treck through the woods, the hills, the Ozarks for miles and miles in every kind of weather you could imagine. I'm an Eagle Scout, I hiked and camped in the woods every month for nine years of my life. I understand layering. I understand removing and adding clothing when it is necessary. But that's in real life. I understand if the rules of reality aren't at play in this video game, only representations of those rules in very basic implementations. 

 

And I think that's good. 

Fantastic, even.

 

I don't mean to hate on you or anything, I just don't really understand the point of bringing up all the real life ways to fix problems in DayZ that DayZ will not allow you to do. But I'd love to have a discussion about it. 

[Whyherro123 2283]

I don't understand the message of your post. 

 

I think it's "In real life there are solutions to concerns in DayZ, the video game on the computer."

 

You do know I'm talking about the video game, right? DayZ? The game that this website is devoted to? The game on the computer? That you play? I'm talking about the video game. Not real life. Once the update hits soon, players who are used to soldiering up with all that equipment are going to have to arm themselves with water bottles and a change of clothing, too. I'll relish that, personally. I like looking like a badass, but this game needs a focus on survival in addition to the inevitable PvP that will occur. I certainly don't "hate" military clothing. I hate how wearing that kind of gear doesn't have any negative effects on your mortal human being character in a survival game that is going to be filled with consequences for every decision. Or at least...it should. 

 

When you're tracking somebody or ready to journey into the wild grey yonder, DayZ needs to always nip at the back of your head with the omnipresent needs of mortality. You should always be thinking to yourself... "You need water and food before you trek to Svetlo" or "You're pinned down by another player on the hill...but you're thirsty so you have to do something soon" or "There's another player in that building over there...but you're about to starve, bro". 

 

I understand that there are realistic solutions to a myriad of survival issues one might experience in a world like Chernarus. But I'm talking about the video game here. We had to wear a pair of black BDU's in Search and Rescue here in Arkansas, we'd treck through the woods, the hills, the Ozarks for miles and miles in every kind of weather you could imagine. I'm an Eagle Scout, I hiked and camped in the woods every month for nine years of my life. I understand layering. I understand removing and adding clothing when it is necessary. But that's in real life. I understand if the rules of reality aren't at play in this video game, only representations of those rules in very basic implementations. 

 

And I think that's good. 

Fantastic, even.

 

I don't mean to hate on you or anything, I just don't really understand the point of bringing up all the real life ways to fix problems in DayZ that DayZ will not allow you to do. But I'd love to have a discussion about it. 

Hey, I am an Eagle Scout too! *Eagle Scout Fistbump*

 

I discussed it because clothing doesn't necessarily have to be an "either-or" kind of thing. Right now, you can only wear 5 "types: of clothing;

1. A top (sweatshirt, jacket, T-shirt, etc)
2. Pants (jeans, shorts, etc)
3. Shoes (boots, sneakers, wellies, etc)
4. Hats (bandannas, winter caps, baseball caps,boonie caps, etc)
5. Gloves

If you, for example, are wearing a sweatshirt, then put on a rainjacket, in-game you take off the sweatshirt and put on the rainjacket, which I find absoutely ASININE. 

 

Obviously, you know that layering is one of the best ways to stay warm and dry (or cool, whatever) in a survival situation. Why then, does the game have our characters cripple their survival chances by removing valuable pieces of clothing?

 

I would like to see some sort of "layering" system implemented (obviously, after cold and weather effects. Day Z Standalone takes place in autumn, so both would be serious considerations for immediate survival) For example, you can wear three or four different layers on your torso, for rain protection/warmth retention, camouflage, etc. BUT by doing so, you limit your "agility" decreasing the rate and\t which you turn, shift, etc)

 

Have a T-shirt, then a sweatshirt (for warmth), then a BDU jacket for camouflage. This would decrease your "agility" by a bit. If it starts to rain, put on a rainjacket over everything else, but this would decrease your "agility" by a lot.

 

Or, you want to travel through a swamp (for some stupid reason). You tromp through the swamp in sneakers, they get ruined and you get hypothermia and wet, bruised feet (which would seriously affect your walking/running speed). Or, you could take the time to put on a pair of wool socks and some wellies, and be perfectly fine at the the other side of the swamp.

 

I want choices, and not just for aesthetic reasons. I know wilderness survival (I've taught a High Adventure program in it for a while now, combining wilderness survival, ahem...."personal development", leadership training, and emergency management. Pretty good program, if I can say so myself), and I can say that wilderness survival isn't truly about building a shelter, or knowing how to build a fire (although those are important aspects). The most important part of wilderness survival training involves being taught how to recognize the "right choice". Do I stop to put on this rain jacket, and get my movement impaired, or do I press on without it (in case of ambush), and hope I don't get hypothermia?

 

Those kinds of choices, not "Which assault rifle should be considered end-game?"

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

No but that is the end game gear. To have a good weapon that is second to none. I.E. comparing an M4A1 to an SKS.

So in order to be cream of the crop, I need an M4 huh?   FYI, I can kill you or anyone who plays this game with the sporter 22.  I don't need an M4 to prove how leet I am.  Or need to be decked out in full mil gear either,  Also, this is a sandbox, there is no end game.  Weapons or gear.  

Edited September 1, 2014 by Caboose187

[Rags! 1966]

- Words words words -

 

A friend and I were talking about clothing beneath clothing. We both thought that you should be able to have something light underneath something else, but it wouldn't let you use it for storage. All it would do is give you a little more damage protection.

[w1lg5r 70]

So in order to be cream of the crop, I need an M4 huh?   FYI, I can kill you or anyone who plays this game with the sporter 22.  I don't need an M4 to prove how leet I am.  Or need to be decked out in full mil gear either,  Also, this is a sandbox, there is no end game.  Weapons or gear.  

You would be more effective with an M4. You could be just as good as someone else who has an M4 when you have a sporter, that makes you better not the sporter. And end game is considered as the best of all.   I am not talking about all players with M4s are better than those without (using the M4 as an example idk if you like AK variants better) I am talking about players being better off with an M4.

Effective range of the sporter is 100m (if you are decent) the M4 you can shoot up to 400 if using magpul.

 

  Just FYI, I haven't used an M4 in months i just consider that, or any other similar weapon superior to, say, a sporter. Apparently that makes me a CoD kid. Same deal with clothes, wear an orange raincoat if you wish, it doesn't make you a worse player (I haven't been judging anyone's skills, only some are judging mine) but there's less chance of somebody seeing me in my camouflage (that is the reason militaries use camo btw, because it is advantageous). By the end game gear the OP means the best stuff you can get or should be able to get. A very inconclusive 'there is no end game' doesn't give any idea of what higher tier equipment you would like, this renders your point useless and invalid since you completely misunderstood the topic and epitomizes the divide on the forum people like to create between the so called 'cod kids' who opt for mil gear, and 'survivors' going for civ clothing.  Why can't we just accept peoples choices without judgement?

[w1lg5r 70]

A friend and I were talking about clothing beneath clothing. We both thought that you should be able to have something light underneath something else, but it wouldn't let you use it for storage. All it would do is give you a little more damage protection.

Would be nice if they ever do implement winter, you could layer up. I'm thinking limit the slots of underlayers and decrease mobility with more layers.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

You would be more effective with an M4. You could be just as good as someone else who has an M4 when you have a sporter, that makes you better not the sporter. And end game is considered as the best of all. I am not talking about all players with M4s are better than those without (using the M4 as an example idk if you like AK variants better) I am talking about players being better off with an M4.

Effective range of the sporter is 100m (if you are decent) the M4 you can shoot up to 400 if using magpul.

Just FYI, I haven't used an M4 in months i just consider that, or any other similar weapon superior to, say, a sporter. Apparently that makes me a CoD kid. Same deal with clothes, wear an orange raincoat if you wish, it doesn't make you a worse player (I haven't been judging anyone's skills, only some are judging mine) but there's less chance of somebody seeing me in my camouflage (that is the reason militaries use camo btw, because it is advantageous). By the end game gear the OP means the best stuff you can get or should be able to get. A very inconclusive 'there is no end game' doesn't give any idea of what higher tier equipment you would like, this renders your point useless and invalid since you completely misunderstood the topic and epitomizes the divide on the forum people like to create between the so called 'cod kids' who opt for mil gear, and 'survivors' going for civ clothing. Why can't we just accept peoples choices without judgement?

I do not misunderstand. Your kind have been trying to shove one playstyle only on others. If no one is using full mil gear they may as well not play right? Not everyone plays this game as a CoD deathmatch. That is why you and your kind get labeled as such because you keep forcing this bullshit upon the playerbase. Edited September 2, 2014 by Caboose187

[hombrecz 832]

-snip-

 

Just few shorter comments (ok maybe not THAT short), if I might.

 

1.If Devs wanted, they could improve each caliber added to game to have more attributes and not only damage and bullet drop or what we have now. We can have different penetration, different bleeding effects, shock dmg and possibly others. In light of this more calibers = richer and more variable gameplay. That should be good for everyone no? Plus again, different ammo, can have different rarity. And I'm glad you see benefits of 5.45x39 being added.

 

2.Regarding 9x18mm or .380 ACP. Why not have 9x18mm for eastern hand guns or SMG's or whatnot and .380 ACP for those western weapons that are commonly in this caliber? Would it be bad if Eastern weapons were more common and so did their ammo? And when finding of something different was more rare occurance, one that would bring sense of acomplishment? 

 

3. Well I simply disagree with few more calibers added making gameplay "over-complicated". Again in what manner would it be "over-complicated"? That you could end up with weapon and ammo that does not fit? I would say it is making gameplay more interesting and forcing players to do hard choices like if they should keep Mosin, but without ammo for it, or ditch it and grab first weapon that they have ammo for, no matter if it's weaker smg or some shotgun or whatever.

I think many people use argument of more calibers being "over-complicated" simply because they can not come up with anything reasonable, or because they defend Devs (a little too much in my opinion). This is often followed by mention of "every caliber under the sun" despite nobody ever wanting that. Adding 4-5 more calibers really isn't any of that, so I ask, is it just straw man or simple exaggeration?

 

4. As for future map based in say USA, it does not make any sense to adjust mechanics to cater for it now.

Devs said they plan to support game for years, so why not, logically, tailor everything (calibers, weapon list, rarity and everything) for what we have now, and adjust for anything else later?

Don't you think that doing it the other way around will hurt (streamline?) the experince needlessly? Why should the game, situated in fictional Eastern European country, follow the same logic (weapon list, rarity, calibers) as it's future, not officialy confirmed, map situated somewhere else?

[w1lg5r 70]

I do not misunderstand. Your kind have been trying to shove one playstyle only on others. If no one is using full mil gear they may as well not play right? Not everyone plays this game as a CoD deathmatch. That is why you and your kind get labeled as such because you keep forcing this bullshit upon the playerbase.

Yes again with the playstyles and the judgement. What am i forcing on the playerbase? I am simply saying having a military weapon and camo is advantageous, my playstyle isn't mentioned. I could deathmatch on the coast, be a hero or roam NWAF. You don't know how i play, so stop judging.  And by my kind you mean people who get full military gear right? So 90% of players?

[General Zod 1118]

No but that is the end game gear. To have a good weapon that is second to none. I.E. comparing an M4A1 to an SKS.

Don't underestimate the power of SKS, M4s are mostly used by spray and pray players SKS needs much more precission. 

 

So in order to be cream of the crop, I need an M4 huh?   FYI, I can kill you or anyone who plays this game with the sporter 22.  I don't need an M4 to prove how leet I am.  Or need to be decked out in full mil gear either,  Also, this is a sandbox, there is no end game.  Weapons or gear.  

Killed a guy with a sporter yetserday, with a mosin, without scope, but it had grass wrap so I couldn't use iron sights either. That's how 1337 I am

Edited September 2, 2014 by General Zod

[w1lg5r 70]

Don't underestimate the power of SKS, M4s are mostly used by spray and pray players SKS needs much more precission. 

SKS is good, no doubt but I always thought it lacked the ability for continuous fire due to it's 10 round clip. Using an M4 with a 30rnd mag and an ACOG sight you can shoot further and shoot faster than an SKS, outgunning them. Be honest if you had to take a gun based on the effectiveness of the two, would it be the SKS or the M4?

Edited September 2, 2014 by lootable

[General Zod 1118]

SKS is good, no doubt but I always thought it lacked the ability for continuous fire due to it's 10 round clip. Using an M4 with a 30rnd mag and an ACOG sight you can shoot further and shoot faster than an SKS, outgunning them. Be honest if you had to take a gun based on the effectiveness of the two, would it be the SKS or the M4?

That 10 round clip can put down 3 people if you shoot accurately. 

SKS all the way. I like precise guns with lower rate of fire, which is why I am using mosin. 

Edited September 2, 2014 by General Zod

[DURRHUNTER 597]

All i see is gun nuts fighting over ammuntion types.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Just few shorter comments (ok maybe not THAT short), if I might.

 

1.If Devs wanted, they could improve each caliber added to game to have more attributes and not only damage and bullet drop or what we have now. We can have different penetration, different bleeding effects, shock dmg and possibly others. In light of this more calibers = richer and more variable gameplay. That should be good for everyone no? Plus again, different ammo, can have different rarity. And I'm glad you see benefits of 5.45x39 being added.

 

2.Regarding 9x18mm or .380 ACP. Why not have 9x18mm for eastern hand guns or SMG's or whatnot and .380 ACP for those western weapons that are commonly in this caliber? Would it be bad if Eastern weapons were more common and so did their ammo? And when finding of something different was more rare occurance, one that would bring sense of acomplishment? 

 

3. Well I simply disagree with few more calibers added making gameplay "over-complicated". Again in what manner would it be "over-complicated"? That you could end up with weapon and ammo that does not fit? I would say it is making gameplay more interesting and forcing players to do hard choices like if they should keep Mosin, but without ammo for it, or ditch it and grab first weapon that they have ammo for, no matter if it's weaker smg or some shotgun or whatever.

I think many people use argument of more calibers being "over-complicated" simply because they can not come up with anything reasonable, or because they defend Devs (a little too much in my opinion). This is often followed by mention of "every caliber under the sun" despite nobody ever wanting that. Adding 4-5 more calibers really isn't any of that, so I ask, is it just straw man or simple exaggeration?

 

4. As for future map based in say USA, it does not make any sense to adjust mechanics to cater for it now.

Devs said they plan to support game for years, so why not, logically, tailor everything (calibers, weapon list, rarity and everything) for what we have now, and adjust for anything else later?

Don't you think that doing it the other way around will hurt (streamline?) the experince needlessly? Why should the game, situated in fictional Eastern European country, follow the same logic (weapon list, rarity, calibers) as it's future, not officialy confirmed, map situated somewhere else?

1. I do agree that ammunition with different ballistic properties, as well as overall weapon variety, are definitely worth being considered. 5.45x39mm is definitely one I really do want them to add. However, the ballistics between 9x18mm and .380 ACP are incredibly similar, and in a game you're not going to notice the difference half the time. More calibers can be a good thing, but it's better spent adding ones that actually have differential ballistics and good variety rather than just one millimeter size difference. Again, as I put it, I would've been fine with either 9x18mm or .380 ACP (Because neither of them were necessary in the first place), but when put toe to toe 9x18mm would be my second pick, not first.

 

2. Because in a game there's no inherent difference in function between the overall amount of Eastern weapons and Western weapons, it's just realism at that point, and I've already told you that it's not an acceptable argument on it's own. It's not really an accomplishment to find a .380 ACP SMG that is rarer overall and performs almost exactly the same as an equivalent 9x18mm SMG. No one would ever pick it up for serious usage, because it incurs no advantage. That's why I don't see any point in adding the Nagant M1895, because it's going to end up using a caliber built specifically for it and it's not too special compared to other revolvers and handguns. I'm for having rare, cool "party-piece" weapons, but if they're only being made rare for the uniqueness factor (I.e. being a western counterpart to an existing eastern gun), then having their own nearly-identical but rarer ammo caliber is pointless.

What would be an accomplishment would be guns like the VSS Vintorez or AS VAL, because they're internally suppressed and quite the impressive and useful weapons, so you would feel rewarded to find one and some special 9x39mm ammo. There likely wouldn't be a regular counterpart, so that's what makes them useful, the utility, not just the stigma of where the gun was manufactured.

 

3. This part is, of course, strictly a matter of opinion. Obviously both of us can acknowledge that complexity in a game like DayZ in a good thing and that there are variable levels that we each feel suit our needs. I personally feel that having multiple incredibly similar calibers that are functionally identical in a game and only make sense on realistic grounds is unnecessary, hence "over-complicating" (I'll admit that it's just a loaded word, but still)

 

4. I'm not saying they should, but the devs have made comments about it, so it's part of their plan. And I didn't necessarily say the USA, it could be anywhere. Eastern ammunition like 5.45x39mm and 9x18mm aren't too common in most parts of the Western world as a whole. I wasn't really arguing my point forward with it, because I agree, planning that far in advance is something that you really need to be considering at more than just the item level.

 

At the end of the day, I'm not gonna bat an eye if I end up having to look for both 9x18mm and .380 ACP rounds. In fact, I originally wanted the game to have tons of different calibers, all across the board, but seeing as how the developers are not taking the vanilla game that way, I start to support ideas that would further my experience the way the game is going, because it isn't my game, as much as I'd love for it to be. I just want DayZ to be a fun game, and at this current point and time, I don't see how 9x18mm is going to make it any better.

 

 

 

All i see is gun nuts fighting over ammuntion types.

 

Pretty much, when guns are brought up we definitely get a bit too rowdy, myself included. However, this is still a healthy debate that pertains to how the end game would work, as yes, what ammunition your gun uses would absolutely affect how quickly gearing up goes.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[hombrecz 832]

 

At the end of the day, I'm not gonna bat an eye if I end up having to look for both 9x18mm and .380 ACP rounds. In fact, I originally wanted the game to have tons of different calibers, all across the board, but seeing as how the developers are not taking the vanilla game that way, I start to support ideas that would further my experience the way the game is going, because it isn't my game, as much as I'd love for it to be. I just want DayZ to be a fun game, and at this current point and time, I don't see how 9x18mm is going to make it any better.

 

 

Guess I still did not accept the way devs think about calibers although it is probably lost cause to argue against it.

 

And I'm not saying I will not enjoy the game anyway, if the other aspects are well finished like client optimalisations for better FPS, loot balanced properly, netcode improved, hacking brought to minimum etc.

Still, to me, to needlessly compromise seems as wasted opportunity. I mean we have tons of mediocre games catering to casuals with tons of streamlining to the point of spoon feeding them, that DayZ could be invaluable exception in that regard.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Guess I still did not accept the way devs think about calibers although it is probably lost cause to argue against it.

 

And I'm not saying I will not enjoy the game anyway, if the other aspects are well finished like client optimalisations for better FPS, loot balanced properly, netcode improved, hacking brought to minimum etc.

Still, to me, to needlessly compromise seems as wasted opportunity. I mean we have tons of mediocre games catering to casuals with tons of streamlining to the point of spoon feeding them, that DayZ could be invaluable exception in that regard.

It's still more complex than most games, I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be as complex as possible in order to get a good experience. ]

[gibonez 3633]

It's still more complex than most games, I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be as complex as possible in order to get a good experience. ]

 

Dayz might be one of the few instances where the more complex it gets the better the experience is.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Dayz might be one of the few instances where the more complex it gets the better the experience is.

Well, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, at least on the issue of calibers.

 

It should be complex, but I don't think making it as complex as possible is a good thing.

[hombrecz 832]

It's still more complex than most games, I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be as complex as possible in order to get a good experience. ]

 

Well yeah I guess. Just don't like needless streamlining, I really do not see anything complex in adding few more calibers and deepening the gameplay overall.  

 

I do not want only more calibers, but also stuff like hurt animations (limping, holding your side etc), weapons jamming if you do not clean them, diseases....damn all those possibilities. I just hope devs could capitalize on most of them.