I have said repeatedly that it should be made available in it’s original caliber. I wouldn’t mind if in some prerelease version of the game, the Zubeknakov is an Eaglefire with slightly different recoil, attachment options, and rate of fire.
and you haven’t provided a good reason for it. encouraging bad work habits isn’t one, and neither is saying that some AKs take 5.56 even though they had their own special magazines for it.
1 Like
I don’t see how it would be bad for Nelson to add something simple, instead of immediately jumping into something complex. The man has a lot of things he’s working on, and I’ll probably support whatever he wants to do. I thought it could be a quick and simple thing Nelson could add just to appease the community, while he works on other things that don’t go boom. But evidently I’m the only one here who would remotely enjoy having more options.
I don’t see how it would be bad for Nelson to add something simple, instead of immediately jumping into something complex.
because the process is going to be complex anyways. he’ll need to add (a) magazine(s), receiver(s), barrel(s), stock(s), and handguard(s) for each new gun due to the attachment system. if he needs to go that far, there is quite literally no point in NOT adding the weapon’s proper ammo type.
that’s not even mentioning how we don’t know if the different receivers will allow for different ammo types.
1 Like
Can you not tell that
Weapon + Reciever + Stock? + Handguard? + Rear Sight? + Front Sight? + Barrel? + Magazine
Is less than
Weapon + Reciever + Stock + Handguard + Rear Sight + Front Sight + Barrel + Magazines + Makeshift Cartridge + Every other version of the cartridge
?denotes that an Eaglefire attachment could serve just as well, on a placeholder design atleast.
The point is that it’s less that needs to be done immediately, I wouldn’t terribly mind if the Zubeknakov is introduced in a new caliber without a SAW in that same caliber being immediately introduced along side it. Although if it is the only gun in that caliber, and I already have a pile of 5.56 for my Eaglefire, I would certainly be less inclined to test the weapon.
if you wanted to have a placeholder, then all you would need is one version of the cartridge. that’s it. just add in a base version of the cartridge, just like how 4.0 currently ONLY HAS ONE VERSION OF THE 5.56 ROUND.
not only that, but having a gun temporarily chambered in a cartridge it is not intended to be chambered in in-game is DISINGENUOUS TO HOW THE WEAPON WILL ACTUALLY BEHAVE.
1 Like
I was still under the assumption that a 5.56 receiver for the Zubeknakov might be possible. If it isn’t, and wouldn’t be kept in the game, then of course there would be no reason for it.
I was still under the assumption that a 5.56 receiver for the Zubeknakov might be possible.
Why. Why would you be under that assumption.
1 Like
I don’t remember where I first heard the idea, but I don’t see the point in changing receivers if they all fire the same cartridge. If the idea can’t be implemented there would be no point in either of us discussing why it should or shouldn’t be done. If it can be implemented I still don’t see any harm in it.
but I don’t see the point in changing receivers if they all fire the same cartridge.
Imagine someone’s building your desk. They tell you it’s done, so you come to see it, but the drawers aren’t installed. You ask him why, and he says, “Well, you already have the drawers from your old desk, and I’m tired. Just use those until tomorrow.” Now tell me, how fucking stupid does that sound?
That’s basically what you want Nelson to do with the Zubeknakov.
1 Like
I don’t need a new desk, and those drawers would probably only be aesthetically better than the ones I have.
I don’t need a new desk
Not the point.
and those drawers would probably only be aesthetically better than the ones I have.
Or they could just not fit. Maybe they’re too big. Maybe they’re too small. Maybe they’re broken.
1 Like
Well the attachments work on the Eaglefire, so I don’t think any of that is relevant.
In this case, the drawers are the ammunition, and the desk is everything else. It doesn’t make sense to have EVERYTHING ELSE except one relatively minor thing done, does it?
1 Like
Ammunition is a relatively major thing.
Mechanically sure, but in terms of effort in adding new variations? If it’s anything like 3.0 (which, file wise, is possible), not really. The hardest part is getting the model and colliders working, which I’m sure Nelson is fluent at already.
1 Like
I guess it would be simple if he just had one variant of the ammunition, and just used tweaked 5.56 stats. Though that would be just as unfinished as a 5.56 Zubeknakov.
It’d be a helluva lot better then a 5.56 Zubeknakov. If it had its own round he could actually make balance changes to the round itself, and slowly implement the rest of the variants.
1 Like
I guess the Zubeknakov wasn’t the greatest example. What I was originally thinking of was that I’d like guns to camber a variety of cartridge, but some cartridges are relatively uncommon, like 9×39 mm and 5.8×42 mm, so maybe before reintroducing the Matamorez, the OTs-14 should be introduced, because some versions of it chamber the more common 7.62×39 mm cartridge, but other versions which might be introduced later can chamber the 9×39mm cartridge, which is the same cartridge that the real life equivalent to the Matamorez uses.
I said the Zubeknakov, simply because it was the first idea that popped into my head. It wasn’t a great example for my idea, but I tried to defend it because it was the only example I had brought up. I concede that the idea doesn’t apply well to the Zubeknakov, and I apologize for being so stubborn about it.
okay, THAT actually makes more sense. it’s still not a great idea (especially since Nelson would just add the 9x39mm cartridge with the Mata anyways), but i can actually see where it’s coming from now.