Does anyone dislike the "no military stuff" agrument?

[stielhandgranate 480]

I noticed that when a new weapon in military service is introduced to the game a decent amount of people from the community become irate and write comments such as "Enough military equipment". Why is this? DayZ takes place in a former Eastern European war zone. If it was located in lets say New York City,Manchester or Osaka places with little military presence the argument against military equipment would have merit. Chernarus is a place where you would find such items in high volume.

[Mos1ey 6301]

DayZ doesn't take place on day 1 of the outbreak. The vast majority of these items would be long gone to 1) the military and 2) looters and the like.

[stielhandgranate 480]

DayZ doesn't take place on day 1 of the outbreak. The vast majority of these items would be long gone to 1) the military and 2) looters and the like.

 

Gone where? Where do these looters and military personnel go to turn in such gear away from the local area? Everyone equipped with a M16A2 and PASGT vest made it out of the area before getting slotted by a zombie or other human?

[Trizzo 632]

I dislike it but i understand it, especially in regards to guns.

 

All this military and new guns keep rolling out but nothing else competes against guns. Guns work well. Everything else doesn't. Therefore it looks imbalanced.

 

Hey I loves me an AK/SVD/lever action/shotgun/derringer/vests/helmets/scopes that go on guns/X,Y,Z kills stuff...but what about something else that actually works? Like a peaceful tool of sorts that isn't a placeholder or hint of whats to come.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Trizzo

[ChainReactor 922]

I'm fine with the focus being on civilian stuff. Sometimes i think some people wanna play this standalone of an ArmA mod to play ... well, ArmA.

[DocWolf 146]

I noticed that when a new weapon in military service is introduced to the game a decent amount of people from the community become irate and write comments such as "Enough military equipment". Why is this? DayZ takes place in a former Eastern European war zone. If it was located in lets say New York City,Manchester or Osaka places with little military presence the argument against military equipment would have merit. Chernarus is a place where you would find such items in high volume.

The reason is fairly simple, and I'll put it at the beginning to avoid TLDR-syndrome: at the moment there's nothing to do in DayZ Standalone except PvP, and military weapons give a sensible advantage to players either in rate of fire, range or both.

Now, the TLDR part.

DayZ SA is marketed as a realistic survival horror (playable alpha) multiplayer videogame, with an heavy emphasis on:

* "realistic survival" --> that means Bohemia wants a proper hunger/thirst system (we have one, but it doesn't work), a proper health system (we have one, but it's too simple to be "realistic"), a balanced loot economy/respawn system (we have one, but it doesn't work), a sensible item degradation system (we have one, but it doesn't work)

* "horror" --> that means Bohemia wants aggressive infected people around (we have some, but they're too few) that are also dangerous in combat (at the moment they're not), with a good respawn system (we don't have it) and a good navigation system (we don't have it)

* "multiplayer" --> that means Bohemia wants a large amount of people on their servers (at the moment we're capped at 50 in EXP, maybe 70 if things go as planned) interacting in a player-driven game experience (at the moment we can't because the map is too big and there's nothing to do except murder)

So yeah, Bohemia is working on many of such things. For example, the "survival" part in Experimental is cranked up to eleven: you don't lug around three pistols, a sawed off shotgun and 4 round mags for your AK...you stuff your backpack with food, water containers, raincoat and spare clothes. But at the moment for many players what is the only thing they can do in this multiplayer game? Killing other players. Plain and simple. So, instead of introducing now more weapons (or items, or both), they should work on the game systems/mechanics that qualify this game as a legit "realistic horror survival game" and only after making that features work they should introduce more weapons.

Edited October 27, 2014 by DocWolf

[Chaingunfighter 917]

 

The reason is fairly simple, and I'll put it at the beginning to avoid TLDR-syndrome: at the moment there's nothing to do in DayZ Standalone except PvP, and military weapons give a sensible advantage to players either in rate of fire, range or both.

Now, the TLDR part.

DayZ SA is marketed as a realistic survival horror (playable alpha) multiplayer videogame, with an heavy emphasis on:

* "realistic survival" --> that means Bohemia wants a proper hunger/thirst system (we have one, but it doesn't work), a proper health system (we have one, but it's too simple to be "realistic"), a balanced loot economy/respawn system (we have one, but it doesn't work), a sensible item degradation system (we have one, but it doesn't work)

* "horror" --> that means Bohemia wants aggressive infected people around (we have some, but they're too few) that are also dangerous in combat (at the moment they're not), with a good respawn system (we don't have it) and a good navigation system (we don't have it)

* "multiplayer" --> that means Bohemia wants a large amount of people on their servers (at the moment we're capped at 50 in EXP, maybe 70 if things go as planned) interacting in a player-driven game experience (at the moment we can't because the map is too big and there's nothing to do except murder)

So yeah, Bohemia is working on many of such things. For example, the "survival" part in Experimental is cranked up to eleven: you don't lug around three pistols, a sawed off shotgun and 4 round mags for your AK...you stuff your backpack with food, water containers, raincoat and spare clothes. But at the moment for many players what is the only thing they can do in this multiplayer game? Killing other players. Plain and simple. So, instead of introducing now more weapons (or items, or both), they should work on the game systems/mechanics that qualify this game as a legit "realistic horror survival game" and only after making that features work they should introduce more weapons.

 

They've been working quite quickly on new features. Horticulture, navmesh, animal AI and hunting, fishing, barricading is on it's way, vehicles have had extensive progress, there are more random loot sites around the map giving you an incentive to travel, etc.

These things can't be made in as short of a period as new content, hence why we get a lot of it, because you can't have every single dev working on core functions at once. Once the modelers have the tomato plant done, they can't just sit around on their ass all day, so they start filling in their remaining time working on other items that are expected to be added by 1.0 release, oftentimes choosing guns, because... well; guns are cool (who here is going to disagree with that?)

 

Also, this issue isn't really with actual perceived variable differences most of the time. Very few people really complained about most of the new AKs (though there were their fair share), most of them seemed to be more up in arms about the AUG. I think it has to do more with (just as with many people in real life) the look of the guns that bothers people.

 

Seriously, in a weapon's post awhile back, most people were completely opposed to this;

 

But they were fine with something like this;

 

What's the actual difference between the two? Little. But the top Saiga 12 looks more menacing and tactical, and was thus shot down, realism and actual gameplay variation thrown aside.

 

 

Which group would you add?

 

 

Or

 

 

 

I can guarantee you most people would pick the first list, simply because they all appear more civilian and less "military", despite the fact that every equivalent in the second list is more common in the real world, and in gameplay they all fill the same roles.

[irl-calibre 744]

I tried to play this game genuinely for about 4 months using nothing but a crossbow and it was, quite frankly, shit! Society breaking down is more interesting than it being completely broken imo..

[OrLoK 16185]

Hello there

 

We have to remember we all individually want what we imagine fit into this scenario, FYI I too would have plumped for the first set in chaingunfighters post.

 

But then again say you, dear reader and I agreed on that we may argue about the type of zeds we want, I prefer the slow Romero type (yes i know DAYZ Zeds are not undead) and you may like the 28days Later infected.

 

Weve all got very different ideas and thoughts on the game, but we have to remember that this is essentially Dean's vision as well as that of his immediate crew.

 

What we will get is roughly a game we all want and that modding will enable us to tweak it into the particular ideal that we envisioned.

 

I guarantee you we will have "east block" weapon and slow zed servers. Too many folk just want that.

 

BUT WAIT! We are still in Alpha and so much could change. Lets wait until mechanics and ideas firm up a little before we judge too harshly.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[Evil Minion 943]

The argument comes from the misconception that more variety would also result in a higher quantity of military equipment. Now in terms of quantity there is already too much military gear so its understandable of people don't want to add more.

 

Also in most games any specific piece of equipment is relatively easy to get and trivial to keep so eventually lots of people will use it. Now DayZ is in the position of avoiding this my virtue of including the logistics, practicability and maintenance aspects as well as a diverse gamplay that doesn't have to focus on using the best weapon to kill other players.

 

What's the actual difference between the two? Little. But the top Saiga 12 looks more menacing and tactical, and was thus shot down, realism and actual gameplay variation thrown aside.

Now thats actually authentic because authorities usually judge weapons by their appearance and are more likely to ban those that look more menacing. Same reason: most people are no experts and tend to judge the book by its cover because they lack deeper understanding - after all a politicians job is about politics and not about gun knowledge.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Evil Minion

[Jex 1104]

I noticed that when a new weapon in military service is introduced to the game a decent amount of people from the community become irate and write comments such as "Enough military equipment". Why is this? DayZ takes place in a former Eastern European war zone. If it was located in lets say New York City,Manchester or Osaka places with little military presence the argument against military equipment would have merit. Chernarus is a place where you would find such items in high volume.

 

I think there's an argument to be made for less "military" firearms and more focus on melee weapons and a few firearms. It's two different types of game. The one where there's less firearms and more melee would likely mean greater teamwork once the zed population is increased. You and your mates battling through the streets with axes does sound pretty cool. Or having to defend a building as they batter down the doors (which is why we need a spear to jab the fuckers in the face).

 

It's a pity they can't do 2 hives, one more focused on melee and a few weapons and one focused on more weapons. I'd play both I think they'd be a lot of fun :)

[nebelwerfer (DayZ) 14]

this actually changes a lot for me:

 i was under the impression that a certain PVP aspect of the game was intended, i was wrong apparently.

 

Like many other players, i was kind of fooled by the way the MOD worked , in hindsight.

 

I do not agree with the new vision of rocket, and i think some aspects  ( rarity and spreading of loot ) were not even clearly stated last year when the SA was released .

the dev tracker posts etc from last year they gave a complete wrong picture of this, as they just showed pictures and pictures of newly added loot spawn sites etc, which probably made a lot of players think that the SA would have more loot included ( atleast it made me and my friends think that ).

 

 it is good to know these things, as i now know that being involved in this game probably makes not so much sense for me anymore , as i do respect the dev teams vision, but to me it makes the game less fun :(

Edited October 27, 2014 by nebelwerfer

[DocWolf 146]

Also in most games any specific piece of equipment is relatively easy to get and trivial to keep so eventually lots of people will use it. Now DayZ is in the position of avoiding this my virtue of including the logistics, practicability and maintenance aspects as well as a diverse gamplay that doesn't have to focus on using the best weapon to kill other players.

Current 0.50 comes with a brand new shoe degradation system. Yes, footwear gets ruined...if the developers are working on this, weapons very susceptible to wear and tear is just the logic consequence. Manteinance-heavy weapons mean less senseless PvP just for the heck of it and more purposeful PvP.

[a_ruttle 199]

I noticed that when a new weapon in military service is introduced to the game a decent amount of people from the community become irate and write comments such as "Enough military equipment". Why is this? DayZ takes place in a former Eastern European war zone. If it was located in lets say New York City,Manchester or Osaka places with little military presence the argument against military equipment would have merit. Chernarus is a place where you would find such items in high volume.

It's not so much a dislike of military loot, it's more that we want it to be very rare, unlike in the mod when you could spawn, run to balota and leave with an M4 or DMR or something. High rarity does a number of good things, first and foremost, it makes the weapon a treasured piece of gear, it gives the survivor a reason to stay alive and it gives those who don't already have one soemthing to do other than run a loop between zeleno and NWAF looking for PVP. It also bumps up realism and immersion, more people running about with civilian weaponry makes it feel more post apocalyptic, though something must be done, in my opinion to balance out civ weaponry and make for example a sporter seem appealing depite the survivor having a choice between a Mosin, sporter or SKS.

[Evil Minion 943]

i was under the impression that a certain PVP aspect of the game was intended, i was wrong apparently.

No you were not but I guess thats the issue:

Like many other players, i was kind of fooled by the way the MOD worked , in hindsight.

Now I do not think DayZ mod was meant to be a MilSim with a few survival elements but as an Arma 2 mod those MilSim elements were already there and ready to use creating this impression - so the setting is actually closer to a zombie outbreak in a warzone than a zombie apocalypse with a few random survivors.

Now DayZ SA seems to go for the latter with military gear being rare and pretty high level rewards - a good thing in my opinion as it allows for a much deeper experience with a lot more possible gameplay elements and playstyles. PvP is still intended but its not the one central aspect and PvP with military equipment is arguably "end game" - something many players won't see for a very long time.

[5mirkeh 98]

Honestly, I am more for there for more military equivalents to civilian/"lower level" guns

But I don't really care for more end game guns because it will make existing military guns rarer and more tedious to find ammo/attachments for.

[Mos1ey 6301]

Honestly, I am more for there for more military equivalents to civilian/"lower level" guns

But I don't really care for more end game guns because it will make existing military guns rarer and more tedious to find ammo/attachments for.

 

I'd like to see more military weapons for the sake of variety. They should all be incredibly rare though.

[5mirkeh 98]

I'd like to see more military weapons for the sake of variety. They should all be incredibly rare though.

What I said there was basically your reply overblown to make it sound smart :-P

[Accolyte 1727]

I'm in love with the Steyer.  :wub:  I'm throwing my virtual beans at mr. Torchia for this.

[klesh 2423]

Seriously, in a weapon's post awhile back, most people were completely opposed to this;

 

But they were fine with something like this;

 

What's the actual difference between the two? Little. But the top Saiga 12 looks more menacing and tactical, and was thus shot down, realism and actual gameplay variation thrown aside.

 

You see the same thing in real life when people react to a gun's appearance moreso than its capabilities in terms of restrictive legistation.  Its nothing new under the sun.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Now thats actually authentic because authorities usually judge weapons by their appearance and are more likely to ban those that look more menacing. Same reason: most people are no experts and tend to judge the book by its cover because they lack deeper understanding - after all a politicians job is about politics and not about gun knowledge.

That's a good point, I actually drew my argument from concepts like that. It's entirely fallacious, especially with instances like the 90's "assault weapon" ban, which made things like flashlights, large muzzle attachments, lasers, and other random attachments practically illegal, even though anyone actually going to commit an armed crime with a 'tricked out' AR-15 probably knows that throwing on things like flashlights are essentially useless for anything but making the gun heavier.

 

However, the nature of gun control in Chernarus is relatively unknown. Saiga shotguns are common in military, police, and civilian hands all over Europe, though, so both variants are equally sensible, it's just some people would rather have the latter because it "looks" more civilian.

Maybe it's just because I don't understand why looking like a soldier is so bad or that I believe the argument "go play ArmA" is invalid, but who knows?

Edited October 27, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

It's a knee-jerk reaction, and frankly, it pisses me off. Mainly the hypocrisy that surrounds the logic behind "If it's mildly military, IT HAS DESECERATED THE SACRED SHRINE OF SURVIVAL!".

 

That's funny. Y'see, if it's 70 years old who cares? Yet anything past the early 60's and has either a selector switch, magazine, foregrip, accessory rails, or all of the abive immediately gets the bullshit excuse of "DAYZ ISNT ARMA GO HOME CODKID!".

 

Please, just shut up.

 

What we need are better survival mechanics that reward the player and still make it incredibly challenging. A good balance of military gear doesn't break that. A large variety of rare items is better than an incredibly boring handful of incredibly rare items because of the rantings and knee jerk reactions of hypocrisy.

[Deathlove 2286]

I noticed that when a new weapon in military service is introduced to the game a decent amount of people from the community become irate and write comments such as "Enough military equipment". Why is this? DayZ takes place in a former Eastern European war zone. If it was located in lets say New York City,Manchester or Osaka places with little military presence the argument against military equipment would have merit. Chernarus is a place where you would find such items in high volume.

No i think military equipment has MERIT but its when ppl argue against regular civilian clothing or equipment that gets me most of the times. Even if it seems out of place and flashy to the eye.

 

How can you be for one but against the other? In fact i think we need just as much useless civilian items and clothing as we do the other. Because no one really knows how a situation like this will play out  in real life but im pretty sure improvising on existing gear and even useless stuff no matter what it is would play a huge part in the survival role.

[Deathlove 2286]

It's a knee-jerk reaction, and frankly, it pisses me off. Mainly the hypocrisy that surrounds the logic behind "If it's mildly military, IT HAS DESECERATED THE SACRED SHRINE OF SURVIVAL!".

 

That's funny. Y'see, if it's 70 years old who cares? Yet anything past the early 60's and has either a selector switch, magazine, foregrip, accessory rails, or all of the abive immediately gets the bullshit excuse of "DAYZ ISNT ARMA GO HOME CODKID!".

 

Please, just shut up.

 

What we need are better survival mechanics that reward the player and still make it incredibly challenging. A good balance of military gear doesn't break that. A large variety of rare items is better than an incredibly boring handful of incredibly rare items because of the rantings and knee jerk reactions of hypocrisy.

Im going to use the same argument i made with the different colors spray paint thread. It does not matter if your fully geared with the best guns and camo gear or are carrying the simplest farmers weapon and bright clothing. Its all about tactics and how you play the game in general that determine the overall survival.

 

I personally would love high tech military gear with the latest sniper ammo in game. More variety and more choices. An SVD even though its a good weapon does not get me 100% excited its more of like an "Eh ill use it till a better one pops up".

 

Its ether that or id like something similar to the Sigsauer 556 XI model that takes both the AK and Nato rounds and magazines. To me a versatile weapon like that would be considered a good holy grail survival weapon and would be worthy more of the helicopter crash rarity.

[Judopunch 523]

I'm fine with the focus being on civilian stuff. Sometimes i think some people wanna play this standalone of an ArmA mod to play ... well, ArmA.

If the game continues in the direction its going there are going to be a lot of people complaining that this isnt ArmA Chernarus+. And I hope it does. I want an apocolipse simulator. If I wanted a first person shooter with a long ass respawn time id go play Arma3