Ken Bean

So you are finally playing on 1st person locked server? I feel lile we have some progression here.

Id say just relax and enjoy where it brings you to.

In my opinion the overall direction to reward survival time is the way to go. I also suggested a character enhancement system for the mod some months back but folks didn't like it, since basically it makes surviving easier, aka less challengeing. And now I think they were right, character enhancement is not the golden way to go, aside from several skills. Now I came up with rewarding survival time bei a progressive environment here and they don't seem to like it either. Sooo.... let it mix. 3:-)

Unless this is your private forums, this doesn't work that way, tommes.

Hey peeps, since I had a short break lately - not telling anything but I think it's save to say that some variations of tart accidentaly have been incorrectly used - I had some time to think about the subjects of major importance which frequently has been discussed on this lovely forums. The most important subjects that frequently come accross are: 1) There's a saying that some individuals use to kill everyone they randomly met for pure enjoyment, just like they would play Battlefield. 2) There are groups being reported that consequently hunt down freshspawns also for said enjoyment. One may assume that this has to do with the size of the map. The map is bigger than in Battlefield, so having an encounter is very unlikely, except they camp on known spawn points. All kind of playstiles are allowed by the game and in this topic I'm not going to question it, nor intending to ban something. One may say, spawncamper should be punished, another may say that if you frequently get killed in early game, you are doing sth wrong. Anyway, there seems to be varied interprations of the game, mainly: 1) DayZ = survival game, survivers are supposed to survive, to fight the hostile environment and maybe even to work together for higher goals, like building a base or like rapairing helicopter. (PvE) 2) DayZ = more or less a death match, focusing on player versus player, main goal is to dominate another player and to destroy or take everything a survivor achieved, including that shiny helicopter. (PvP) For your interest, I used to be in group 1) mainly doing PvE, only shoot in selfdefence, but I couldn't care less as long as that PvP folks uses to hang around the coast lines. I try not to be there or to encounter them so please feel free to do whatever you want. Problem rises when both groups meet together. Group PvP tends to be way more aggressive, so group PvE is in the disadvantage. Problem: The more endgame you give PvE focused folks, the more PvP folks will dominate them. Why? Buildings, vehicles, stashes, helis etc. need some serious amount of time to be build, repaired, found together and so on. Now the work to destroy all that is nothing compared with the time it took to create. This by time frustrates PvE player. I just can speak of me, but I in fact stopped to use tents, cars, helis in the mod. Instead I started to live out of the backpack. Tents only are good for resting - otherwhise they get robbed and/or destroyed anyway. Of cause, I still appreciate the efford of the Stand Alone team to create game depth and endgame content. But I don't see that working very well, since the map is way too small. You wont be able to hide your car/heli/base/tent or whatever. Everything will get stolen or destroyed with ease. And once there are 100 survivor on a server... well... kiss your goods goodby. Now how do we get both together? Here on the forums I lately spotet a map, which showed me that the current map of Chernarus only is a minor part of a way bigger country. So here comes the suggestion: - make the current Chernarus map to an "entry level", level 1 - if a survivor manages to survive 100 ingame hours (alternatively: and having killed less than 5 unarmed freshspawns who were less than half an hour old), the survivor is allowed to proceede to level two, which basically is the whole map above - the survivor in level 2 starts at the area of level one, but his character is wiped out from level 1 - the survivor can go back to level 1 if he dies, but if he does so, his character on level 2 is wiped out and he will need to survive 100 ingame hours again in order to advance to level 2 once more ---- Why? ---- For PvP player such a huge map is a pain. There is a reason why Battlefield maps are just very small compared to Chernarus. There is a reason why PvP player camp Cherno, Airfields, Electro, Balota etc. For PvE player on the other hand the current map is way too small, there's too less room to successfuly hide something. Of cause there will be PvP in the larger map as well. In fact bandits there even have enough room for building large communities, as well as survivors. Bigger cities could be battlefields as well... Now then, what's the difference? - The overall mentality. Those who already survived 100 ingame hours proofed that they actually can survive and even tried it. So what do you think? Should the playerbase being separated like this or would it be enough to give them both the whole map - provided such a huge map would be even be possible. Such a level system also could be combined with a difficulty setting, rising the difficulty on the larger map. Thanks for giving a thought.

This 1st person only approach could be a theme of "level 3". You wont just get anything you need without "working for", I mean surviving.Motivation is the key.

How could it ruin dayz? It doesn't ban any playstile, only rewards surviving time.Also it matches DayZs "this is your story" theme. ... and after xy days, I finally left my beloved home and proceeded deeper into the country...

But why not? Wouldn't it be logical for a survival game that the survival time would make or break them? You also have an amazing end game motivation: Larger map, more environment, more space to practice surviving and roleplaying, more things to discover. There is PvP folks, which never came out of Electro or Cherno or which is not interested in surviving at all. Why should they have such a huge map to play with, with all that annoying walking stuff and so on? I see it as an additional approach to motivate surviving. - Which the game is lacking atm. Maybe one of the PvP spawn camper then realize that he's not the king of dayz and may instead try to survive. If he does, he is welcome on level two: the survivors hub.

It's not unfair, since it is a legit game feature which everyone could utilise. There also is no unfair advantage because walls are there for everyone and you can counter that with superior moving tactics.

If two levels or more make sense is open to disussion, also how long it takes to advance to "level 2" (we as well could talk about 99 ingame hours ;-)) but it could also be a huge motivation since one realy could advance by surviving time. But not the player is advancing, the environment does. Think about the possabilities! Also PvP player dont need that much of environment. :P

The 3rd person view has been criticized for being exploitable, meaning: player can peek around objects without exposing themselfes.and so getting into advantage against other. But in my opinion this topic was ignoring the core problem a bit: one human sence is overly represented, eyes. Possible solution: simulating sound environment If a player gets a line of sight (los) to another one - while there would be no line of sight between the player characters in 1st person view - let the player which has been spottet hear a sound. This could be coughing or for example, more elegant, braking undergrowth if you are in a wood area. The player which has been spotted from 3rd p could get aware of the presence of an enemy or ally by locating where the sound came from. In the game you hear a lot of random unrelated backround noise and to some extent a player presence already can be located by sounds, but as it is, visual sences by far outplay an average sound perception, which should be changed.

No, this only works in e cerain radius, not serverwide. But equipment and stuff just is making noise. In dayz you only hear yours. And if you you walk through a wood, don't tell me you quickly go prone without you and your equipment is making noise which can be heard quite far in an environment which basically is quite. (no working indutry or traffic around) Moving without making sound basically takes ages if you are quipped with a huge backpack and all kind of attachemnts.

Think I worded myself wrong. This is not primary about beating that dead 1st person vs 3rd person horse yet again, it's more about an additional game machanic to add some realism to the player sences. I may change the title and opening post.

Because many see it as exploit outside of combat. For example one could track others to their base in 3rd person view while someone in 1st person has no chance to get aware of it.

I thought if we check the line of sights anyway anyway, a sound within a certain distance could add to the immersion and realism. If everything around is quiet, you may hear others around you. Though, not rendering player which are not in LoS, should be done as well. Maye we could merge both approaches, like this: If a player which could be spottet in 3rd person, but if there's no first person line of sight, the player who is in 3rd person may give occasionally give away his position by making a sound that the player who is in 1st person can hear.

I tried to point out that getting in advantage is not an exploit per se. Yes, there's a difference between a wall and a bush which I'm aware of.

Tommes, first of sorry for that kind of name calling thing we had lately. This might have been due to the fact that this discussion already was an endless story in the mod, but besides of that, we may get along.One problem in my opinion is the constant underlying outplay of one favour against the other. You try to proofe that 1st person only ist the only "justified" point of view. Well that's not correct. There are some debatable sideeffects of the 3rd person view, like clipping the camera through a wall or like getting in advantage by using it on close walls or sth to peek around. I as well would be glad when such side effect could be minimised. But on the other hand, getting into advantage can't just be called exploit. See that sniper in the pine tree? - No? - He can see you. He's in the advantage. Exploit? Should pine trees be removed? What I'm trying to say is that there are different views and opinions on that matter. Most of the time it's PvP focused folks which complains about 3rd person. That's being said, they have their point. But they are not the only ones who play that game.

Greetings everyone, yet another suggestion here, feel free to read ahead. In the mod there already is a system which lets Zeds hit harder, if the player is not full on blood. Given that in real life predator tend to focus on the ill or injured to have a prey, wouldn't it be more logical that the Zed aggro is increased on player in bad condition? Lets say in case a player is bleeding, infected, starving or otherwhise just low on blood, Zeds could be aggroed in a wider radius compared to a player in healthy condition. There also is a chance that Zeds may ignore a player. This also could be related to the players overall condition. If this already has been implemented or suggested, my apologizes.

Well then, wonder what mod comes next.

Aren't there kind of hardcoded IPs and stuff? I mean what files would be needed to be customized? If it just would be a config file...

Is this how 1st person lover ended up playing on 3rd person server in the mod? Yet making dozens of topics demanding 3rd person to be removed? Well thinking about it, I believe I just stick with the habbit to prefer things I like over things I do not like. This for some reason played out well. :-)

This almost sounds like capture the flag. But I as well am convinced that something has to be done. Either the map has to be increased drastically in order to successfull hide sth or there has to be system that grants posession. The latter one is almost unrealistic.

Yep, the map definately is too small. If they allow 100 player on a server then having cars basically is useless

Yeah, that's right, in real life you can't pick a psychological side effect you like. It picks you. That's why it would be a good starting point if we'd have various psychological drawbacks and certain chances. So for example: if you whitness a massacre very close, you have a chance that your chacter is being traumatized. How this effects your gameplay? How about not being able to shoot at somebody to times? How about blackouts after seeing amounts of blood?How did it come that so many are defending a playstile like "spawns out of the air, runs to next weapon spawn point or commits suicide, grabs weapon, shots someone, dies, respawns... rinse and repeats" by claiming this would be realistic? Did they play too much games where they constantly respawn in oder to confuse that gamey playstile with realism? That's being said, in nature, no unhealthy lifestile is being unpunished. Unpredicted psychological consequences in fact is something survivor would have to deal with.

Please play battlefield you pvp <snip> guy.Its an awesome game by the way. And has no 3rd person for soldiers. You should be happy, since 3 billion games like this, having no 3rd person, already exist. So yeah, just be a happy <snip> guy and play on 1st person server or play a game like battlefield. In case this is too complicated for you, there also is an option to not to think too hard about and just leave it be. edit cleaned some bad language, did it not for you, tommes