-Gews-

Either "hi" or "hello".

I'm not impatient. I'm not really hyped for 0.60 either (nor 1.0). Yet it's hard not to be annoyed, because while I don't mind waiting, I do mind when they make the game look bad or themselves look incompetent. Been going on since alpha. Just to name a couple recent examples, "We've discussed our intent to have a .60 build in the hands of the consumers at the end of February"? Really shouldn't have said that. "Sooner than folks think"? Come on "DH", you should have seen that was setting up a meme. Don't publicly state your goals if you have a history of failing to meet them. A lot of the criticism is quite preventable. Didn't hear great things about the PAX stream, poor mics, not so much interesting discussion, when I tuned in myself there was some streamer who didn't seem to know that cars have gears (sigh) so I let others do the watching for me.

"Is it possible for 3PP not to be overpowered?" Yes... but the solutions would not be acceptable to most players. The options are restricted camera angles, raycasting plus occlusion, and swapping camera mode in certain situations. So... question is, who wants it "fixed"? Most people don't see a problem with the peeking. The server populations make this clear. They are used to the current camera and like it the way it is. Those who do care about peeking have the ultimate solution on 1PP servers. I recall at least as many complaints as there were neutral or positive comments about the minor 0.57 camera change, there's no way they will occlude models out of LOS or create a highly restricted over-the-shoulder camera. For many, by the time 3PP was "fixed" it might well feel , play or look "worse" to them than 1PP. So who is this supposed to please?

Nah, only if you get bored and lonely.

0.59 released last December... "We've discussed our intent to have a .60 build in the hands of the consumers at the end of February, and while that is still our goal..." Mhm, February, March, April... Sooner... sooner than folks...

It's coming sooner than folks think!

I'm having difficulty determining whether you're serious about me being serious (^_-)

Looks pretty good to me.

Also in standalone, we've seen some different types already but I only really notice the differences in toughness. It will be interesting to see what happens. The speeds and movement especially IMO.

Lemme copy/past Reddit response. Sliding Players: The QA Team encountered a 100% repro rate series of steps to cause players to become stuck in a sliding state - regardless of laying, prone, or erect. These steps have been provided to the gameplay programming team - and they are working on resolving the issue. No more double-carry worries? Yay. Lots of new and horribly ugly looking infected are going to be swarming Chernarus. I like what I hear. Different infected types may by stronger and faster than others, every city and village will get various combination depending on it's size, position and importance. I remember statements that indicated there weren't going to be different "types" of infected, but as long as they aren't outlandish variants like some other games, no problem. There are new reload anims for M4, for Red9 and CR527. Technically Red 9 reload animation is incorrect, the Mauser bolt locks back only on an empty magazine, the magazine follower is holding it open. The clip serves to hold the bolt open while reloading. When you pull out the clip the bolt slams closed. So without the clip, you can see it would be problematic to reload with single rounds in any kind of timely fashion, because as soon as you push the first round in, the bolt will slam shut on your fingers!

Well, that's a subjective gameplay issue, personally I rage quit DayZ during 0.57 as the minFov change made it unplayable for me. Most players don't seem to care too much. The realism/simulation aspect, not so debatable, our monitors aren't eyes and can't represent human visual acuity at a single FOV.

H1Z1 is not at all concerned with realism, which is the point of the character eyes' variable FoV. It's inappropriate to think of it as an extra zoom since the zoomed level represents the eye's natural resolution and optics magnifications are based off this (ie: 4x binos = 4x "zoomed in" eye). Speaking of magnified optics, they've always been a huge advantage in DayZ and ARMA so I see no need to make them even more essential. Since there's been some discussion regarding changes in the character zoom mechanic I decided to jump in and explain what are we trying to achieve. We should probably start by asking the question "Why have a characters-eye zoom in the first place?". It's the old problem with emulating a 3D world on insufficient hardware. The human field of vision (fov) is around 190° and the area where the vision cones of both eyes overlap is around 100°. Unfortunately, most of todays monitors viewed from a regular distance usually tend to cover only 45°of human fov in real life. This means that if you want for target on screen to appear in real-life size you are only able to display around ~1/2 of what you would see in reality, stereoscopically. And so as a designer you have to choose - Should I display objects in the distance properly but sacrifice the overall vision or set the fov to 100° but deform the whole picture? The trick of Arma is actually not to choose and instead introduce an "eye zoom" instead. This way you can keep the surrounding awareness by setting the default fov to 100°, but when necessary to perceive a depth of field properly occurs (ie. you are shooting), you can "zoom in" to 45°.

Yes and yes.

Used to be a thing, as long as the server allowed it. But for some reason I think it would break immersion.

Hehe.

There are no real gameplay cons, only authenticity and/or realism. But the exact opposite is true as well.

Yes. But why should anyone use it? These sawed-off rifles are produced by resistance fighters during wartime, and by criminals. Both groups cut them down to more easily hide them from authorities. In the apocalypse there are no authorities to worry about, and since it's still quite weighty and bulky it's not something that is very easily carried or concealed on one's person. Usually these are stored in players' backpacks, and weapons in a backpack shouldn't be easily accessible, making it even less useful. Sporterizing I can see, this not so much. The weapon is supposed to be crappy, so I don't think under-use is a problem. If people are chopping them down in numbers for various in-game advantages, then I'd say there's a problem. All examples produced purely for giggles and fun factor. Yes, but only at one distance, although it may not matter given the effective range. That's why I'm opposed. I see many reasons against chopping it in real life and many reasons to chop it in game. Since its flaws won't be represented they should leave this option out. If they decide to add in those realistic negatives then I would have no problem with the option... but they won't, because if they added all the drawbacks it would still suck and just like now, most players would not use it.

I use it. Is fun. Yes, realistically sawing off the barrel does not affect the PU mount. But realistically people would not be running around with sawed-off and scoped Mosin hackjobs. The only reason people historically sawed rifles down is to more easily conceal them, not for a "pocket sniper". In this case they are restricting a specific action for more authentic big picture. Saw off the barrel like in game would drop energy to 7,62x39 levels and the "zeroing" would no longer correspond. Also without a stock it will be bothersome to maintain the proper eye relief, so, hard to see through the scope, small tunnel image, and holding it close, ~3 inches from eye, recoil might whack you in the face. All not a factor in the game.

I typed that with a big grin on my face, by the way.

No, not close to "nailed down", several munitions have incorrect, inappropriate or less-than-optimal damage and aerodynamic characteristics. Like B_762x39_Ball has airFriction = -0.00195. B_308Win_Ball has initSpeed = 820. Etc, etc. I have not seen any comments regarding these values. Many comments I do see are often unhelpful or wrong ("Mosin kills in one shot and Winchester doesn't" "VSS pierces body armor so it should ignore protection" "polymer stock increases recoil").

I'm sure that even if they put up a passworded server for the "experimental regulars" there would still be plenty of KoS. 'Tis DayZ.

Unfortunately I suspect the chickens don't have a separate head hitbox. ‎

I'm a little bored of the .308 hunting rifles. I would like to see a new civilian cartridge and accompanying bolt-action rifle. Apart from the Model 70 in .308/7.62 we have the CR527, a pretty unique "mini-Mauser", and the Steyr Scout will arrive in .223/5.56. Both of those are somewhat unusual rifles which will use military cartridges. We have no purely civilian centrefire rifle cartridges. So I suggest adding the .25 Winchester Super Short Magnum. This short, fat cartridge was introduced in 2004. The idea was to duplicate the ballistics of the .25-06 in a short action rifle, a fast, flat-shooting, relatively low-recoil number that can be used on everything from varmints to big game. The WSSM chamberings were offered in Winchester's Model 70 and Browning's A-Bolt lines. We don't need a second Model 70 variant, and we have enough wood-stocked rifles, so it would be neat to see the Browning A-Bolt Composite Stalker. This rifle is very light, weighing just over 6 lbs (2.75 kg). One downside is that the fat WSSM case limits the magazine capacity to 3 rounds. Perhaps more troubling is the lack of iron sights, but this could and should spawn with scope (and magazine) attached (besides, we have the new precision crosshair, not the old static dot—so who needs sights?) The 25 WSSM was originally offered in a few different weights. The 115 grain Ballistic Silvertip at 3,060 ft/s has been produced the longest. In the 22" barrel of the A-Bolt, call it 3,000 ft/s, give or take. Ballistics for the 25 WSSM would look something like this: hit = 11.2 airFriction = -0.00095 initSpeed = 915 Compared to current .308: hit = 12 airFriction = -0.001006 initSpeed = 820 (this should be faster) Trajectory 25 WSSM 100: +0.15 200: +0.16 300: ZERO 400: -0.37 500: -1.00 Trajectory .308 Win 100: +0.19 200: +0.20 300: ZERO 400: -0.48 500: -1.27 So, this would do about 7/8ths of the .308's damage and shoot a little flatter. Of course, a 115 gr Ballistic Tip would cause more damage than 144 gr 7.62 ball, but bullet construction is a can of worms that hasn't yet been opened. Thanks to the A-Bolt's light weight, free recoil would be about the same as the Model 70. Someone may point out that the WSSM calibres flopped, the rifles were discontinued around 2006 and ammunition is no longer produced except for the occasional limited run... but this is the apocalypse. Everything is discontinued! Besides, these weren't high volume target rifles. I suspect most owners didn't put too many rounds through them, and their leftover ammo could still be lying around.

I remember seeing people proudly post screenshots of their kill counts in mod days. Example. After stats have been gone for so long I find I don't really like the idea of adding a kill counter... but realistically, it won't change a damn thing. Just as long as they don't give us K/D.