Does anyone dislike the "no military stuff" agrument?

[Judopunch 523]

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.

But from a game-play/design standpoint it doesnt matter how it would play out IRL. 

 

From a game-play standpoint having more or less weapons, more or less ammo, and attachments and toys makes a MASSIVE difference in how the game is played. 

[Whyherro123 2283]

But from a game-play/design standpoint it doesnt matter how it would play out IRL. 

 

From a game-play standpoint having more or less weapons, more or less ammo, and attachments and toys makes a MASSIVE difference in how the game is played. 

Pretty much.

 

As of right now, there is little to no benefit to building a bow or using a crossbow. In the time it takes you to build a bow and requisite arrows, you can loot a mid-sized town instead and come out with a backpack, "low tier" (I HATE that way of thinking) firearm with some ammunition, warm clothing and enough food and water for a decent amount of time.

 

In my "perfect" Day Z, ammunition would be scarce, to the effect where players with ammunition would hoard it, and people would use melee weapons, bows, etc to defend themselves. That guy with the Mosin up on the hill might have only 4 rounds for it, and a player would take the time to reload shotgun shells and make "wax slugs" to improve his firepower. Of course, there would also be infrastructure added, so by taking the time and putting in effort, a group of people could feasibly make more ammunition. 

 

Case in point: In the "recent" govermental/tribal squabbles in Kenya, improvised bows and arrows are being used more and more, due to the fact that firearms are difficult to get, and NOBODY wants to use a melee weapon. They make arrowheads from nails, and apparently are capable of easily killing people. Improvisation at its finest.

 

(Last post) http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/47143#.VE6tkPnF-30

[Deathlove 2286]

But from a game-play/design standpoint it doesnt matter how it would play out IRL. 

 

From a game-play standpoint having more or less weapons, more or less ammo, and attachments and toys makes a MASSIVE difference in how the game is played. 

Im all for scarcity of things as long as there is MORE variety in that scarcity to choose from is what i mean Judo.

[Judopunch 523]

Im all for scarcity of things as long as there is MORE variety in that scarcity to choose from is what i mean Judo.

If somethings are truly scarce, how can you choose?

 

The comments from a lot of people, not necessarily from you or what you just wrote, seem to emply that there should be weapons everywhere. SO you have some kind of choice between m4 ak, mosin, aug or whatever.

 

Should there be a choice? Or should the answer be 'omg i have a gun AND BULLETS that work for it!' Or should the situation read "I think ill use the AK over the M4 today".

 

There is a difference in how the game is designed. If people want 'choices' in their weapons, perhaps they should try arma. Now if they want depth, variety, and the opportunity to find rare/exotic weapons, with all the problems of maintenance and ammo and equipment that comes with them by all means.

[Whyherro123 2283]

HOLY SHITBISQUITS

 

After watching this video, I wouldn't want to be shot even by the in-game "improvised" bow, much less an actual one.

 

 

The Kenyan tribal warriors make bows very similar to the in-game ones, which apparently are capable of punching arrows into/through the skull.

 

Tell me you would be able to shoulder and fire a rifle after taking one of these to the dome, and I will call you a liar. ( At 2:55, it gets gnarly. The guy survived, apparently)

Edited October 27, 2014 by Whyherro123

[snwh 24]

If somethings are truly scarce, how can you choose?

 

The comments from a lot of people, not necessarily from you or what you just wrote, seem to emply that there should be weapons everywhere. SO you have some kind of choice between m4 ak, mosin, aug or whatever.

 

Should there be a choice? Or should the answer be 'omg i have a gun AND BULLETS that work for it!' Or should the situation read "I think ill use the AK over the M4 today".

 

There is a difference in how the game is designed. If people want 'choices' in their weapons, perhaps they should try arma. Now if they want depth, variety, and the opportunity to find rare/exotic weapons, with all the problems of maintenance and ammo and equipment that comes with them by all means.

 

I think that's what a lot of people are saying. Personally I don't feel the need for a massive array of military grade weapons (more than we have now though). But whats the point of them if they aren't hard to find. Something that'll give you an edge, rather than something that if you don't have it is shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Just because people want variety in guns doesn't mean they want them laying all over the place. Its completely doable to carry ammo for a gun you like more than your current, so if you're lucky enough to find your favorite gun later, you can swap the two out.

 

 

For the record, I'm on the fence about more military weapons. I like more variety, but I think they should be harder to get your hands on. Weirdly enough, at the same time, I think that civilian firearms shouldn't be that hard to come by.

[St. Jimmy 1631]

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.

Lol I would pick the second because the first ones are so outdated. Also the upper Saiga appeals me more because I've never seen the second one.

[Deathlove 2286]

I think that's what a lot of people are saying. Personally I don't feel the need for a massive array of military grade weapons (more than we have now though). But whats the point of them if they aren't hard to find. Something that'll give you an edge, rather than something that if you don't have it is shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Just because people want variety in guns doesn't mean they want them laying all over the place. Its completely doable to carry ammo for a gun you like more than your current, so if you're lucky enough to find your favorite gun later, you can swap the two out.

 

 

For the record, I'm on the fence about more military weapons. I like more variety, but I think they should be harder to get your hands on. Weirdly enough, at the same time, I think that civilian firearms shouldn't be that hard to come by.

But for places like lets say military or Police i would expect to find a few things and not have it TOTALLY barren per say.

 

One being if that outbreak began without warning not allot of soldiers or police would not have time to store and stock there guns and ammo someplace safe.

 

And the second being even if ppl survived and managed to carry as much as they could from armories and such they wouldn't be able to carry every single thing. Hell even a few broken guns lying around that could be fixed up id accept. The game takes place when? Only a year after ARMA 2 I guess? Idk theres allot of  variables and iffs.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Deathlove

[CJFlint 357]

I like having military gear in the game, but it should not be easy to get. But to take the out of the game all together....thats lame. Whats funny saying this I always gravitate toward the mosin. But much of the gear I do like. I love the AKM but prefer the long range of the mosin. Last month when I started my current life, I had an AKM and mosin but had to drop it in an emergency. You do not want to be on the recieving end of that thing lol Between the AKM, hi cap vest and gurka vest it kept my avatar alive in some really hairy encounters I otherwise would not have survived. There asome items. Quit hating.

 

I think many of the folks who say they don't like the military gear, is becuase they were victoms of KOS. Or they were at the recieving end of an AKM, 101 or M4. Or they just drop dead suddenly didn't hear a thing, cause someone was on a hill with a mosin blended in. They don't know how to counter it, so they come here to the forums and ask for it to be nerfed. There also the same people who don't take the time to go across the map and loot the military spawns. Its too far for them. There also the same people who cry hacker every 5 seconds. Hey don't hate on those of use that do take the time to find good gear and live long lives. Its your own fault you die all the time. I don't see a problem with military loot, just keep it on the bases. Rarity is ok by me, but altogether...thats dumb. Make people have to risk there necks getting it. I do. Make people have to work hard to get it.

 

Why take them out all together. We are aware that DayZ came from a long line of military sims, and came directly from ARMA2 LOL Right? In fact the map you play on is a direct ref to the map used in ARMA2. So ARMA 1 and 2 spawned from the operation flash point series which have been around 2001. All military sims. There not going to take all military spawns out of this game I promiss.

Edited October 27, 2014 by CJFlint

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Lol I would pick the second because the first ones are so outdated. Also the upper Saiga appeals me more because I've never seen the second one.

Second Saiga is actually a .410 one, but basically the only difference in most Saigas of the same caliber is the material of the furniture and the length of the barrel. Both tactical and wooden variants are common all over the place, though, but people would tend to pick the second one because it looks less of a military weapon.

 

Honestly if I were in control I'd make the "civilian" saiga the .308 (7.62x51mm) variant

And, of course, the "military" Saiga the 12 Gauge variant

Both are realistic, look fairly different, and give a good perspective on the same series while allowing different gameplay options. The 12 gauge Saiga as is shown is fairly unique, as it's magazine fed, unlike many other semi-automatic shotguns. The rifle, likewise, uses a similar portrayal but gives a "civilian" variant. You can appease both crowds.

 

 

And to be fair to my examples, some of them aren't actually impossible to find. I mean, they're rare, but Steyr MP-34s, MG-34s, Gewehr 41s, and Fedorov Avtomats are not impossible to find in Eastern Europe. (I actually do really want the MP-34, it's such a cool gun.)

 

However, yeah, my point of that point was that most of the more tactical/modern looking guns are also the more relevant ones, even though people would favor the more unrealistic side simply because it looks more civilian.

 

 

 

I like having military gear in the game, but it should not be easy to get. But to take the out of the game all together....thats lame. Whats funny saying this I always gravitate toward the mosin. But much of the gear I do like. I love the AKM but prefer the long range of the mosin. Last month when I started my current life, I had an AKM and mosin but had to drop it in an emergency. You do not want to be on the recieving end of that thing lol Between the AKM, hi cap vest and gurka vest it kept my avatar alive in some really hairy encounters I otherwise would not have survived. There asome items. Quit hating.

 

I think many of the folks who say they don't like the military gear, is becuase they were victoms of KOS. Or they were at the recieving end of an AKM, 101 or M4. Or they just drop dead suddenly didn't hear a thing, cause someone was on a hill with a mosin blended in. They don't know how to counter it, so they come here to the forums and ask for it to be nerfed. There also the same people who don't take the time to go across the map and loot the military spawns. Its too far for them. There also the same people who cry hacker every 5 seconds. Hey don't hate on those of use that do take the time to find good gear and live long lives. Its your own fault you die all the time. I don't see a problem with military loot, just keep it on the bases. Rarity is ok by me, but altogether...thats dumb. Make people have to risk there necks getting it. I do. Make people have to work hard to get it.

 

Why take them out all together. We are aware that DayZ came from a long line of military sims, and came directly from ARMA2 LOL Right? In fact the map you play on is a direct ref to the map used in ARMA2. So ARMA 1 and 2 spawned from the operation flash point series which have been around 2001. All military sims. There not going to take all military spawns out of this game I promiss.

 

Most people aren't complaining about guns like the AKM. When a gun explicitly fits the setting, people tend not to argue against it.

Most of these people are all across the board - they're okay with ultra-realistic guns, but if it's in any way questionable it's not okay, unless it's a civilian gun, but it can't look black/tactical/have any sort of attachments, but... you get the point. Somehow I think they just don't know what they're arguing for/against.

 

There are also those that just argue from a realism perspective (ala Gews), which is much more respectable. I still disagree with it, but I can at least see where they're coming from and they provide a valid and relevant argument to their position.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[harteman 155]

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 see zero problems with it.  BULLETS are lethal in this game.  Guns shoot them.

[Judopunch 523]

But for places like lets say military or Police i would expect to find a few things and not have it TOTALLY barren per say.

 

One being if that outbreak began without warning not allot of soldiers or police would not have time to store and stock there guns and ammo someplace safe.

 

And the second being even if ppl survived and managed to carry as much as they could from armories and such they wouldn't be able to carry every single thing. Hell even a few broken guns lying around that could be fixed up id accept. The game takes place when? Only a year after ARMA 2 I guess? Idk theres allot of  variables and iffs.

So you expect that every time you enter a military or Police area that you are the only one who went there to find weapons? You dont think that they would take most of those guns and amo they stockpiled with them?

 

You do hint on something thats going to make a big factor in the future. When all guns wear out and break down it is going to have an interesting impact on how they are valued.

[Whyherro123 2283]

So you expect that every time you enter a military or Police area that you are the only one who went there to find weapons? You dont think that they would take most of those guns and amo they stockpiled with them?

 

You do hint on something thats going to make a big factor in the future. When all guns wear out and break down it is going to have an interesting impact on how they are valued.

Pretty much.

 

How many people lived in Chernarus before the outbreak? They probably had the same thoughts as we did: " Raid the police stations and military outposts for weapons! (Not that they probably weren't already trying to get into there). Now, how long has it been since the outbreak?

 

For all we know, that police station could've been scavenged 100x over, and we are picking up the pieces. IRL, if I went into a police station, and found an MP5, even with no ammo, I would take that thing to trade for something else. Hell, I probably would've stripped the place of all usable things; bedding, curtains, scrap metal, broken the glass for tools, etc.

[freethink 984]

Yep but I'm more annoyed at the lack of sks ammo outside of mil bases

[pilgrim* 3514]

.//..

. 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 can't speak for Osaka.. bu when you say Manchester or New Your City have "little military presence" ..  you lost me there. Check out the gun ownership per head of population in the USA against other countries - try the central European countries first, but check arab states too, or . wherever... Military weapons, military formations, military planning for riot or disaster control, AND for insurrection as well as terrorism in the USA and in Great Britain is documented, not dificult to find. Private semi auto (and illegal converted to full auto) Military weapon ownership in the USA is highest in the world.. BEATS Bolivia. etc.Beats Somalia  .. In the Ukrain at PRESENT where there is .. < "a war" ??? >- virtually NOBODY has guns. You won't find a house in the whole country that has a military weapon in it..except in TINY areas ..  and compare the numbers of military and (armed) police there to an equivalent population in the USA or Great Britain. As for Britain.. it's a different strategy, the army is not cheered on TV or praised constantly (but respected).  It is deliberately (for many reasons) seperate from the civilian population, and keeps itself seperate. Largely, its a pro - "for life" - army, and gets a lot LESS hero-worship than the USA froces. This does not mean the British army does not have guns. This does not mean the british army is smaller than the total of all forces fighting in the Ukraine or bearing military arms there, fighting or not. And the Brit army is ,not large..but "war zone" ?? GB forces have been to those, but they brought their weapons home.

 

Some folk seem to think there exist European countries that are a kind of barbaric wastland of (like) somalian warriors-pirate nationalists who live by heaping AKs into the boots of their bullet-riddled stolen cars because the front porch is too full of missile launcers and MGs to move. Where do you people get this idea? You use the internet (right, that's why you're here). Read what's happening, check some statistics, watch (even) Youtube but there are much BETTER sources for reality instead of short rare footage of bloody excitement,

 

mainly do some research..

- here's an an easy start, in 15 minutes you can be certain to KNOW the following:

 

WHICH COUNTRIES have the biggest armies ?

WHO has the most assault rifles ?

WHICH country has the highest ownership of non-sport weapons

 

start from there.

"places with little military presence/ war zone"  ? - Hmm..  I guess when the Western forces left Chernarus they dumped a big pile of assorted assault, light and medium weapons, and millions of rounds, ya know, in case the zombie population needed them ??

That's a standard procedure ?? So the Brits must have done that in 2011 while leaving Iraq I guess ?? How big a stockpile did they leave, I wonder ??

 

Or, are you claiming it's the USA and/or ex Soviet Russia (not NATO ?) that typically abandons hundreds of tons of weapons and munitions when it withdraws.

(Some people even think the Russians could do this because they are "crap fighters" - not my opinion, but check it out..Do the Russians or ex-Soviets  "fight worse" than other nations? Historically the answer is No).

Dude, the Russian Empire and then the Soviets made so many Mosins that since 100 years they are still SELLING them cheap even today.. - and I mean selling - they didn't  leave them "lying around".

 

Or maybe you're saying this huge military Chernarus  presence was overwhelmed and killed to a man, no survivors, and the USA  just decided to let it pass, because they never get excited about loosing a war and few thousand troops.. we all know that.

 

So I guess I dont understand your explanation.. did you actually give one ?

Now - if you you just want to have fun with guns and screw the "why" - then that makes some sense. I can understand that attitude.

Edited October 28, 2014 by pilgrim

[Mor (DayZ) 57]

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.

Fixed that for you. The vast majority of any item, military or otherwise will be a miss.

As for weapons, considering that the vast majority of the military and looters will be gone to and zombies aren't likelly to export their gear, them weapons might be spread out a bit but not gone. Besides it is very likelly that during the initial stages of outbreak, international forces became involved and provided supplies and military equipment to the airports.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Mor

[Judopunch 523]

Pretty much.

 

How many people lived in Chernarus before the outbreak? They probably had the same thoughts as we did: " Raid the police stations and military outposts for weapons! (Not that they probably weren't already trying to get into there). Now, how long has it been since the outbreak?

 

For all we know, that police station could've been scavenged 100x over, and we are picking up the pieces. IRL, if I went into a police station, and found an MP5, even with no ammo, I would take that thing to trade for something else. Hell, I probably would've stripped the place of all usable things; bedding, curtains, scrap metal, broken the glass for tools, etc.

Not even fictitious people. How about just players?

[Mor (DayZ) 57]

IRL, if I went into a police station, and ...

Real life can be boring, which is why we add zombies and other unrealistic elements to our games ..

[Forrelist 236]

I like variety. A mix of both Civillian and Military , so to speak.

 

So naturally I dont mind seeing new military weapons in development, just another toy to play with, and the more they add - the harder it gets to find ammo, or magazines for one specific weapon system.

 

This could probably explain why we haven't seen the SVD yet, even though it has been a finished asset for quite some time. If they added it with the current weapon pool, every bandit who camps that hill in elektro/ apartments in cherno etc.. would have plentiful ammo and magazines because there isn't enough of the other stuff to cause massively spread variety.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Forrelist

[Chaingunfighter 917]

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.

Who the hell argues against regular civilian equipment in favor of military stuff?

I've never seen anyone on here, even people who are okay with firearms of obscurity or super modern design (not saying there's anything wrong with promoting them, just that they're the most accepting of all kinds of guns, whether they be "realistic", or not, in the fictional Chernarussian environment) complain that "dayz devz y u add CZ-527 b4 Kriss Vector"

 

No one really has a problem with what is perceived as civilian gear. It's typically items that are based around common military gear or themselves are military gear that get people riled up, especially if they're not made of wood or steel, have a selector switch, can easily interchange attachments, or use anything "modern" (foregrips, lasers, lights, non-ironsight optics, etc.) You'd probably still have people complaining about "military" gear were the devs to add a regular AR-15, simply because it looks like an M16/M4. The line between what is even civilian and military is very fuzzy and inconsistent, so it's really just a poor argument.

[Deathlove 2286]

Who the hell argues against regular civilian equipment in favor of military stuff?

I've never seen anyone on here, even people who are okay with firearms of obscurity or super modern design (not saying there's anything wrong with promoting them, just that they're the most accepting of all kinds of guns, whether they be "realistic", or not, in the fictional Chernarussian environment) complain that "dayz devz y u add CZ-527 b4 Kriss Vector"

 

No one really has a problem with what is perceived as civilian gear. It's typically items that are based around common military gear or themselves are military gear that get people riled up, especially if they're not made of wood or steel, have a selector switch, can easily interchange attachments, or use anything "modern" (foregrips, lasers, lights, non-ironsight optics, etc.) You'd probably still have people complaining about "military" gear were the devs to add a regular AR-15, simply because it looks like an M16/M4. The line between what is even civilian and military is very fuzzy and inconsistent, so it's really just a poor argument.

Personally I cant wait till the game gets more variety with stuff.

[Mos1ey 6301]

Real life can be boring, which is why we add zombies and other unrealistic elements to our games ..

 

DayZ is essentially a survival simulator. A fictitious virus has infected the majority of the population, everything else is supposed to be as authentic as possible.

[Mor (DayZ) 57]

DayZ is essentially a survival simulator. A fictitious virus has infected the majority of the population, everything else is supposed to be as authentic as possible.

I am not sure if disagree with my reply (or read the comment I replied too) or just having a knee jerk reaction.

In any case. Yes, with the key word being authentic, not realistic... hence why we don't run at realistic speeds, why the environmental effects are exaggerated and our health is in overdrive, why the infected haven't died out from the elements, we can grow things that takes month at best conditions, why we have a big item verity (RL or fun) even if many of them realistically should be so rare that they shouldn't have been created ... and why there is loot in place, which realistically would be the first ones to be raided like police stations etc (because it encourage exploration, and easily understood concept that makes for less random play)

Edited October 28, 2014 by Mor

[Mos1ey 6301]

I am not sure if disagree with my reply (or read the comment I replied too) or just having a knee jerk reaction.

In any case. Yes, with the key word being authentic, not realistic... hence why we don't run at realistic speeds, why the environmental effects are exaggerated and our health is in overdrive, why the infected haven't died out from the elements, we can grow things that takes month at best conditions, why we have a big item verity (RL or fun) even if many of them realistically should be so rare that they shouldn't have been created ... and why there is loot in place, which realistically would be the first ones to be raided like police stations etc (because it encourage exploration, and easily understood concept that makes for less random play)

 

Well, I think a lot of these things will be tweaked over time to provide a more authentic experience.

 

For example the effects of weather are exaggerated currently because the other PvE mechanics (disease, infection etc.) are not yet in place.

[Jex 1104]

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 :(

 

It was stated clearly well over a year ago that there would only be so many items in the hive database and yeah, survival's a bitch - suck it up ;)