-Gews-

Members
  • Content count

    6345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About -Gews-

  • Rank
    independent in my whip like rrr

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    : debug

Recent Profile Visitors

21267 profile views
  1. My theory is that it was put there to be funny... and also as another consumer of .357.
  2. And salty ARMA players will tell you that the DayZ mod detracted from what the core gameplay was all about.
  3. Haven't played for a while, started the game up, it threw me into a server. I had a shotgun from last time, so I made sure it was loaded, pressing "3" to use the buckshot on my hotbar. Turns out when I tried to reload from the hotbar, it would fire the shotgun, silently, and without depleting my ammunition. Thought someone was shooting at me to begin with. I was able to kill a few zombies like this, confirming it was actually firing projectiles. The zeds didn't seem to know where the shots were coming from. Weird. Relogged just now and things are back to normal.
  4. ARMA 2-style fully-automatic shifting isn't accurate but neither is the standalone manual shifts. What @Sqeezorz mentioned about the stepped speeds is a good argument. Automatic transmission makes sense in vehicles with auto transmissions. About half of passenger cars in Russia are now purchased with auto xmsn. Looked up some stats since I was thinking about making a related topic on vehicle choices.
  5. https://dayz.com/blog/status-report-09-jun-2015
  6. No one will be able to tell if changes to eye zoom alone results in more player interactions or not. As far as I'm aware the devs haven't kept logs of all player interactions to date. The other stuff you mention is a different topic. 'More interaction' also was not the reason for removing 'eye zoom', that was just Peter weighing possible pros and cons of each option, as they haven't yet decided whether to keep the 'zoom' or not. My prediction is that there would be no noticeable differences in the number of players one runs into merely due to changing 'eye zoom', although if all things were equal, you'd probably miss a few encounters as you wouldn't be able to spot each other from as far away. Players would probably be shot on sight just as often, maybe from a little closer on average, but most encounters tend to be close range surprises as it stands.
  7. So, this would require the ammunition affecting the accuracy of the weapon. Which would be a nice feature.
  8. This is the reason: " ... absence of naked eye zoom was intentional as we run into technical problems due interference with switching to iron sights, witch was key-binded to middle mouse button. Time was running out and instead of fixing the old camera behaviour, we decided to cut it completely, so that we can start implementing a new camera from scratch to allow us to have more control over it (which is being worked on right now)." That's it. That's the reason it was missing from Gamescom demo. The other things mentioned are all just pros/cons they are considering, as they decide whether or not to re-implement the 'eye zoom'. (At least, that's what I understand from status report)
  9. It was already reduced. Right now we sit between 0.54 and 0.55. As for that other BI game, A3, it's the same as A2. That's not a compromise you describe, it's a compromise right now in 0.62. Copy-paste: "This 'zoom' doesn't represent some intense kind of focus, the basic range of FOV, minFOV to maxFOV, represents simply a normal vision of the kind you are using while reading this text." And so it makes no sense to limit it because you're tired, or because you're standing upright instead of crouching down. The normal vision range needs to be consistent and it needs to be always accessible.
  10. It's not possible to use 'zoom' in place of binoculars and scopes. Won't. See: patch 0.57.
  11. Agreed about their current value. I always grab binocs or even better, PU scope from hunting stands when gearing up. You can scan a huge area with such items, they are invaluable for spotting people. I don't get why they need to be even more valuable than now. They have a function, and they perform it... what more is needed?
  12. Fair enough. Correct. I wouldn't say the ability to see a realistic distance is a 'supernatural ability'. Binoculars and scopes should be used when things are too far away to see properly. Binoculars and scopes should NOT be needed to distinguish people (as opposed to dark pixel blobs) a mere 200 or 300 yards off. In 0.62 I find a magnifying optic is extremely useful for spotting players—'eye zoom' alone does not match up. Naked eyes should be enough to observe your environment. Today I watched someone walking in a field of tall grass, and their two dogs running alongside, at approximately 950-1050 meters. Small, yes, but neither bionic eyes or binoculars were necessary to simply see them. Note that I can't do that in DayZ, even with 0.62 'eye zoom'. As mentioned above, the inability to see properly would lead to people simply not seeing other players, and walking by one another without ever noticing. See better = more interactions. Good to hear. "Correct perspective" = zoom? In this case, characters with guns can see better—which would not make sense. If we have a correct perspective, assuming this means appropriate minFOV, I don't think added zoom is necessary. And I don't think holding breath should affect eyesight. Since, 1. Focusing on a distant object is not something you can only do for a few seconds, 2. the correct perspective / zoom already represents 'focus', in a way, and 3. if we were after top accuracy we would be focusing on front sight anyways. Anyways it is nice to see a response on this topic and I hope the feature is kept as is. "Simulation of mid to long range engagement wouldn’t be possible without such feature ..." "We know that zoomed fov or ironsights must be 45° because it emulates the eye and we stated earlier that 45° is realistic."
  13. Realistically if you're eating a nicely prepared human steak there shouldn't be any notable risks to your character's health.