-Gews-

They could just take the M4 model, extend the barrel 1.5 inches and call it done, but I think players would be irritated such a weapon didn't look different enough. They could just put a Norinco M305 and spawn 5-rd magazines and the odd 20-rd in civilian areas. I don't see why the 30-round .223 "assault weapons" should be a civilian spawn yet the 20-round "classic" .308 they replaced should only be military. Gameplay-wise it makes sense due to the current hitpoint damage system but that's not the way it should be. Similar reason we won't see Tigr carbine or, most likely, hunting rifles spawning with scopes attached as makes sense. As for the M39 it is being replaced with the M110 since 2010, so it doesn't make sense having M39 but not M110. "Why not both?" but since they perform the same function making one redundant I'd much rather have the latter. Or similar, HK417, depends on backstory, country of origin. I think a lot of people want M14 just because M14. Personally I want at least one autoloading hunting rifle, and the same for shotguns. Browning BAR. Benelli R1. Verney Carron Impact. Etc. Such guns, always overlooked, probably the reason being they have little representation in popular media.

Hmm... I already see people in here who were against forcing 1st person ("you have your own 1st person servers, they are less popular, don't force everyone else to play your way", etc)... yet want to force vanilla on everyone who purchased the game despite devs' promises of future modding capabilities. Happens every time this subject pops up. So to flip that back: you have vanilla servers, they are (or have been, will be) less popular, don't force everyone else to play your way.

Rocket called it exploitable in August 2013. "I think that it has been demonstrated that there is a "problem" with the allowance of third person, and the proposed solution is the best I can come up with. It's not perfect, but if we just allow servers to turn it on/off then I think demand will dictate that people gravitate to 'third person allowed" servers - despite them acknowledging the exploits." x "It's going to be hard to get it right, but I really want us to try. I find I am using third person alot in DayZ SA while running long distances, or to "check" my character (like to see where I am shot to check direction of firer), but then third person is so exploitable in prone. So we are going to try both forcing first for prone, and the "sucking camera in close" and see which works best. Agree too, crouching would really benefit from a more "over the shoulder", we'll try that and put some previs up for people to comment on." x http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/144748-august-round-up-devblog-dayzdaily-gamescom/

So now it looks like: minFov = 0.4143 which is slightly less zoom than the mod's minFov = 0.25 or 0.54 and ARMA 3's minFov = 0.375, but much more than 0.57's minFov = 0.65. Iron sights and eyes are now both locked to this same (close enough) max zoom. Much better. But iron sights could now use a larger initial field of view, which goes back to "The Campaign for Iron Sight Zoom". When you right click to enter iron sights, suddenly your FOV is reduced from the initial level (depends on FOV slider but default 91, max 116) to 75 degrees. I don't see the reason for this, one could argue while aiming down sights your peripheral vision may be somewhat impaired but that could also be argued against. It does seem to make it more janky and in many close-quarters situations one might not want to zoom at all. They should also speed the zoom so it has more snap, it takes approx. 0.3 s to zoom in. Time spent slowly zooming in is wasted time. In ARMA 3 it takes 0.2 s.

This is my number one biggest problem with the standalone. I can live with almost everything else. I can't live with this. ARMA's excellent zoom mechanics have been monkeyed with and utterly ruined! WHY DO WE HAVE ZOOM? Some people have called the zoom unrealistic, "bionic" eyes, etc. So why do your player's eyes zoom in at all? Simple answer: they don't. Check out this comparison of zoomed out, zoomed in, and the ACOG. Look at the coloured boxes drawn around the oil derrick. As you can see, the "zoomed in" level represented your normal eyesight. "Zoomed in" is 1x. If there was no "zoom" feature, you couldn't see anyone past ridiculously short ranges. Your eyes don't zoom in, they are zoomed OUT by default. The human eye has a way larger field of view and a way larger resolution than a little flat monitor can portray. The variable field of view is necessary for a realistic game, which is why the ARMA series has the "zoom" in the first place. Note: for clarity I'm still going to refer to the 1x view as the "zoomed in" one for the rest of this post. IS THIS THE SAME IN STANDALONE? Look at this comparison, using standard FOV for both games. The level of "zoom" is EXACTLY the same. No difference whatsoever. However, the answer is no. It's not the same in standalone, and the reason why makes absolutely no sense... WHY IS MY CHARACTER'S EYESIGHT TOTALLY INCONSISTENT? In the standalone, your character's eyesight randomly changes for no logical reason. Check out this comparison of the T3N red dot, and a bare iron sight. The T3N has the same magnification as the M68, which is supposed to be NON-MAGNIFIED. Yet the image appears a full 40% larger! WHY DOES A NON-MAGNIFIED RED DOT MAGNIFY? It doesn't! The red dot's "magnification" is the exact same as your character's normal 1x eyesight (described in WHY DO WE HAVE ZOOM?). SO WHAT'S GOING ON? What's going on is that iron sights have been limited. Your character, for reasons unknown, can't see as far when using them. He can see properly with a red dot, or with an axe (ie, no sights), but the moment he looks down any iron sights - BAM - his normal "zoom" is restricted by 40%. HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO ARMA? ARMA made perfect sense - your "zooms" in iron sight mode were EXACTLY the same as your normal "zooms". You had the same two levels of "zoom" whether running around without any weapons, or when looking down the sights of an AKM. In gameplay terms, you have less zoom. I hear some people have even tried not using the sights in order to get more "zoom". That wouldn't be necessary if your eyesight wasn't randomly limited. Here's the standalone's Mosin vs ARMA's Lee-Enfield. we had 40% more zoom in ARMA... and still do in the standalone, except when using irons! BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! This isn't just about zooming in. I want to zoom OUT as well! Let's consider a scenario: say, room clearing. You don't want to be zoomed in for room clearing. But in the standalone, if you're looking down the sights, you're ALWAYS FULLY ZOOMED whether you like it or not. Look at this revolver comparison. The ARMA 2 revolver has a field of view that's over 40% wider, because like all guns in the standalone, the "Magnum" is always fully zoomed in! The only exception is the 2D long range scope. I don't want to be forced into a zoom I don't need or want! The difference in the above comparison may not be obvious enough - it feels terrible when playing - so consider this: like I said above, red dots zoom 40% more than iron sights. What does that mean? With a standalone red dot, you're going to have HALF the field of view you would have with an ARMA 2 red dot. Half. That's awful. GIVE US BACK OUR ZOOM! It worked great in ARMA. It made perfect sense. It enhanced gameplay. So what was wrong with it? I want it back ASAP, and hopefully others do too.

And now the SP-6.

This sounds good... But I wonder about this part: The wording of this is a bit confusing. So 45 or 60 degrees, both? Would pressing RMB also zoom to 45 degrees? Or only 60? And then to 45 with numpad +? Because it should go to 45 deg, it would be a pain to have to pressing +/- for a continuation of the same function that has always been provided by right mouse. Although I suppose one could bind RMB to that control instead. And I wonder about this. "This way would going into iron sights actually shows the unzoomed picture which is definitely not something you would desire" Actually that is something I would desire, as long as the sights can also zoom with RMB. Iron sight FOV should also have two zoom levels for the same reason as eye FOV. Although I suspect this might be referring to the current iron sight fixed FOV situation.

If those two pictures are both representing the default RMB zoom then that deals with my largest complaint of 0.57 which was "player/irons minFov much too high / player vision too low". :thumbsup:

The flash is overall ridiculous, it's crazy white and opaque, the same whether day or night and seems copy-pasted across various weapons regardless of ammunition or barrel length. This shouldn't even be a debate. ARMA 2 did it better.

It makes sense ammo should be balanced by weight, size or both. From heaviest to lightest: 12ga 2-3/4 = 46.5 g .308 = 24.5 g 9x39 = 23.5 g 7.62x54R = 22.8 g .45 ACP = 21.3 7.62x39 = 16.4 g 357 Mag = 16.2 g 9x19 = 12.3 5.56x45 = 12.2 g 5.45x39= 10.3 g .380 = 9.5 g .22 LR = 3.3 g So if we say 1 square allows us 20 .308 cartridges, by weight we should have: 10 x 12-gauge cartridges 22 x 7.62x54R cartridges 30 x 7.62x39 cartridges 30 x .357 Magnum cartridges 20 x 9x39 cartridges 40 x 5.56x45 cartridges 48 x 5.45x39 cartridges 22 x .45 ACP cartridges 40 x 9x19 cartridges 52 x .380 ACP cartridges 148 x .22 LR cartridges We could round that to 10 x 12-gauge 20 x 7.62x54R, .308, 9x39, .45 ACP 30 x 7.62x39, .357 Magnum 40 x 5.56x45, 9x19 50 x 5.45x39, .380 ACP 150 x .22 LR But I guess there's also the space to consider. Volume, high to low, taking each cartridge as a cylinder* (case base dia. x C.O.L.) 12ga 2-3/4 = 19.4 cm³ 7.62x54R = 9.3 cm³ 7.62x51 = 8.1 cm³ 9x39 = 5.7 cm³ 7.62x39 = 5.7 cm³ 5.45x39= 4.5 cm³ 5.56x45 = 4.2 cm³ .45 ACP = 3.7 cm³ 357 Mag = 2.9 cm³ 9x19 = 2.3 cm³ .380 = 1.8 cm³ .22 LR = 0.66 cm³ And that by itself would give us: 8 x 12-gauge 18 x 7.62x54R 28 x 7.62x39 28 x 9x39 36 x 5.45x39 38 x 5.56x45 44 x .45 ACP 56 x .357 Magnum 70 x 9x19 90 x .380 245 .22 LR *for simplicity's sake. A .308 cartridge has an actual volume of approx. 5.6 cm³. Which combined would look something like this if we're basing this on 20-round stacks of .308: 10 x 12-gauge 20 x .308, 7.62x54R 25 x 9x39 30 x 7.62x39 25-30 x 45 ACP 30-40 x .357 Mag 35-40 x 5.56x45 40-45 x 5.45x39 40-50 x 9x19 50-60 x .380 100-200 x .22 LR

‎

It's too powerful compared to 5.56, 5.45 and 9mm, they can either buff those three or nerf .45 ACP. IMO there should be only a difference of, say, 1.0-1.25 in hit vs 9mm.

Most likely. 7.62x39 still has incorrect ballistics pasted from ARMA 2 hence 34". Should be more like 26-29".

Here is how it works ... ... and here is how it should work.

Working as intended. Kind of. The scope is not supposed to be adjusted in the field, on an AK-74 the bullet will only rise about 15 inches so aim center mass and hit from 0-400 meters. Simple to use for Russian infantry. But on the AKM with its slower rounds the bullet has to rise about 34 inches to reach 400 meters. The AK-74 launches its bullet at about 0.17° to reach 400 meters. So if this was more realistic / better designed the same 0.17° would only send the AKM's bullet to about 260 meters, rising only 10 inches and you wouldn't have this problem of excessively loopy trajectory.

Well, good luck. The way I see it, if it's floating up in the air it is always going to give a potential advantage over someone viewing from their character's head. Even just lying in the open grass, standing in a forest, driving a vehicle, etc.

In a perfect world I'd like to see the same thing but all the proposed fixes are unacceptable to one group or the other. I don't want to play servers where switching into third person gives any tactical advantage. Other people don't want to play on servers where players and other dynamic objects your character can't see aren't rendered (the only complete and practical fix).

There are dozens of games for nonstop player interaction. Giving players who kill others Parkinson's and psychotic hallucinations will not make players value their lives. A lot of people do play ARMA. Those are different games. I may as well ask why those after more "interactions" aren't playing DayZRP, H1Z1 PvE or Altis Life. "Value for life" can only be reached by incentives for living and penalties for death. Not penalties for PVP. You can force players not to kill each other but at that point it's no longer staying true to the original concept of DayZ. Interactions and decisions should be "organic." As Rocket said: "... I wanted to make systems that do not imply judgement: they should not tell you how to play. However, there also needed to be impact to your decisions. There will be decisions such as “do I pick up the ammo or do I pick up the food?” But you also face decisions like “do I shoot that person, or do I not?” If you shoot the person, there should be some effect from it. There shouldn’t be a direct negative consequence, of course, it shouldn’t tell you how to play, but there needed to be something ... So what we did was implement that bandit system, which highlights the killers. But I don’t think it works. I think we need to have skins that are based not on your humanity, but on things that you find, craft, and use. That should allow people to craft their characters how they want. To appear as the character you actually play."

Why would any player not want this? Let's see: because it unrealistically penalizes a play style? Some people might be playing as a psychopath. Some people might be into "tactical" squad play. The game shouldn't be deciding something as wishy-washy as your character's mental state, you are the character. As if people all react the same way. You could just as easily make the argument the more people you kill, the better your character gets at killing.

I don't see a zoo. And where did they get a solution which works on humans? Only good explanation for an anti-personnel tranquilizer gun in Chernarus is that it was developed and used to neutralize infected for examination. But I'd rather not see it all the same.

i cri evrytiem On topic: I don't like the idea of tranquilizer guns. Seems to fictional/gamey. Yeah, zombies, I know. Yes, game, I know.

I agree with that. In fact there's no reason the zoom shouldn't be instant, apart from style. A2 is very slow. I said once, "the zoom is quicker in ARMA 3, it feels way more responsive and "usable" to the player. In real life, the zoom takes 0 seconds, because your eyes are "zoomed in" all the time. I believe a faster zoom in the standalone would be appreciated by all players."

Nah, it isn't. "Janky" my ass, you click, you zoom. What next, no iron sights or freelook either? Too "janky"?

Indeed, but that's a separate issue. "Lost my glasses" mode.