Ken Bean

Not on your character. You see a bit the 1st person cam shaking and some weird arms or legs might be thrown in, only first person would be a bit pointless. @Mercules Thanks for the info. I see, lots planned, less shipped within the release.

They add so much cool stuff, at least it sounds like that, the 3rd person view im more important than it ever was. Didn't they also say that there are also healer or sanis or something like that? Maybe different classes with different abilities? That canibalsm thing also could open some interesting posabilities. Maybe even gang/tribal clothes, face paintings or whatever this is called like? I'd love to see a group management system ingame. Shared maps and stuff.

Just lurking from the dark behind with my night vision googles. **laughes sinister and crouches into the fog to eat some beans**

Because what ever we do, no one is able to finally break through your third wall or something, guys. PvP is the thing what matters you everything else, the thrill of the 1st person, also can be experienced right now, everywhere, even on thrird person server. Why? Because that server deliver both. PvP, the "cheating" and "exploit" of the 3rd person view is the key argument and yet there are 1st person only server out there, which are empty most of the time. Instead you demand to force everyone to "your way" while you guys are playing 3rd person server yourself. Even though it makes no sense, I can understand you guys. The 1st person only is just not the holy grail. Yet, you don't want to see it. So yes, there's a 90+ pages of argument, most of them full of "first person is hardcore, first person is the shiz, third person player are fat and lazy" and so on. And nope, I didn't post here from the start. Just in the recent days. Now, with you extremely "fair" argumentation stile, you wanna toss the weirdness of this thread to me, right? Kind of try to blame your mistery to me? Well basically third person view is third person view, even if it gets modified a bit. The clip has been shot in 3rd person. It looks awesome and thats I tried to point out. I thought it's not too difficult to understand such simple things. Yes, you can choreogrape something in 3rd person and even film it and its a nice emotional fetch. Have you noticed how real and truly believable those szenes appear? That's a nice side effect, isn't it? So you decided that all this things are invalid. I already expected this. That's how you're doing all the time here. Oh look, he even agrees. Doesn't prevent him from making it ridiculous be in fact he actually agree. He just didn't want to accept the point. Just "destroying it", right after that comming up with it as it would be your own. So "WE" (You?) balanced these "pros against the flaws (constantly saying pros are bullshit and 1st person is the only way to go). Awesome, you really understood how fair discussions work. What you guys are doing basically is "I don't value any of your points, all you say is weak, lazy, untrue - here comes the fact that 1st person is the only thing". I really tried to get through your 3rd wall but I see, everything I did was to be sought of in your "we". All my arguments will be considered to be not valid and then used by yourself against me. Awesome! Purpose and outcome of the discussion already has be set, right? Btw, I've seen no one who denies that 1st person fanatics may have a problem with the "extremely unfair" 3rd person. The point is not very difficult to understand. I for myself already noticed that you put the PvP-Aspect over everything else. What folks is trying you to say is that this is not everything. Camping around a corner is nasty but not the entire game. We also learned is that there is many folks that shoots you anyway, if they are camping around a corner or not. Its just you wear a weapon or may have beans, so you die anyway. Btw, thats why I tried to point out that everyone on a third person enabled server plays under the same rules and also can use the thitrd person. So all circumstances are perfectly fair. If you dont want to use the 3rd person, then playing on already existing 1st person only server should be your choice number one, or not?

You are so fixed in your "it's apocalypse, *grabs gun and shots everyone in the face* that you don't see that there could be plenty of food. 10 people could easily take and defend some land to grow some corn and potatos. Animals are also there as well as machines and basically everything you need. 60 people could free, defend and adminster a smaller town with law enforcement and farming for food and so on. The Zombi apocalypse doesn't mean that the land is unfertile. It's all still there and if the remaining survivor would not kill each other but work together, food should be a problem which can be managed. Personally I always loved apocalyptic settings. But since folks more and more seems to think that apocalypse means that they indefinetely clever if they are turning into psycho mass murder, I'm more and more annoyed. It's getting stereotypical. I hope this only is the american way of things and that some just watched too much movies. There always is a choice. Kind of "apocalyptic settings" in certain areas can happen today. A fload may destroy whole landscapes. It would have been very weird if in Fukushima after the catastrophe people would have started to kill each other. I know, this are no global catastrophes. But there also has been lots of war, starving and destruction in europe in the wake of World War 2. The remaining people suffered very badly but did not *grab the gun and shoot everyone in the face* and actually, this was a good thing. This automatism some people seems to expect in my opinion is very creepy.

Look at this: Sued them all for exploiting. Hence they even pause the game! Also, totally unimmersive, because it's not first person! They never learn to make a proper game. I sent them all an email to explain them how wrong they are. I said they play in easy mode and stuff. They just claimed that they like it so. Well, we know better, don't we? It's like growing fat because of lazyness and convenience. They just don't know it better. Choice is not always good. It's also totally unrealistc (Who the hell has a third eye flying around?). That's also not how the apocalypse works. Just grab a gun and camp in a corner. Camp in a corner always works. Oh, and there's no reason why they didn't shot everyone in the face with a jumpshot. (Of cause, this was sarcasm. But we also could drop the first person, to get rid of this "built in" shooter weirdness.)

I'm confused. How many percent of the 1st person shooter don't have third person? ;D Well anyway, this also is questionable since the third person can make things also more difficult. But I figure there hardly is interest in a unbiased debate here. Let's go back to sth serious in real life. In any case it's better than wasting time.

So you probably find your arguments cool or better? I also didn't made such extreme positions like you claim. If I say 3rd person shifts the focus a bit more to something else, I didn't mean that "all first person boils down to is, "run around the corner, seeing sth clicky-clicky-kill-kill-dude"." But you guys need your extremes, don't ya? I'm pretty certain that I said sth like "3rd person helps/supports the role playing" and not that you would be able to make use of it or that you would be interested in. However, I may regret the "clicky-clicky-kill-kill" thing since this probably is the point my whole argumentation for you boils down. That the 3rd person perspective can offer a tactical advantage is a nobrainer and surprises me that it needs to be explained. However the additional overview helps to oversee a situation. It also helps to keep your cool. I really don't want to be constantly thrilled by super-action-immersion-vis-a-vis-survival-fighting against the *whole everything*. It also is not my case, I didn't make up this topic and try to tell everyone which point of view all player have to play. Yes, and I used the video to illustrate that 3rd person has its advantages. Well, sue me if you can't get along with it. Otherwise, is something wrong with it? Wasn't it 3rd person?

I hope this is part of your roleplaying, otherwise you said some really desturbing things, dude. And I'd really hope that you are far far away if ever such an apacalypse should happen. My instinct probably would be to find other people to survive together. Fear is a bad adviser. Fear of the unknown and stranger makes you switch into "clicky clicky kill kill mode". Maybe the third person cam could help to take your fear or at least ease the stress level a bit? Btw I frequently play on 1st and 3rd person server and in the latter case, I sometimes switch. It does't make me less or more hardcore.

Well, I'm curious about your arguments and reasons. What you just did was showing your ignorance.

Oh, okay. Player-player-interaction has more depth in regards of what you are doing. If someone forces you to surrender, you actually see your hands being raised. Also if you are not in 1st person, you have a chance to better watch and understand situations because you have more overview and more time. You are not the "run around the corner, seeing sth clicky-clicky-kill-kill-dude". You littertaly have time to judge a player and to decide what to do. Should I engage or not? It's part of the tactical advance the 3rd person offers. It shifts the game away from a more reflexive gameplay to a more deliberate one. Also it looks better and supports the "this is your story" feeling better than 1st person could do. To illustrate this, maybe a video might help. Could you imagine to make such a video in first person only? Wouldn't work well I guess.

I thought I already tried, e.g. here: What's the point which might be unclear?

Could you explain your thoughts on this? Without any explaination it slightly looks like you just invalidate every opinion which isn't yours, by saying "wrong". How could a constructive answer look like? Do you just want everyone to repeat everything what already has been said? So how can I help you?

How about trying to convince him, like so: :murder:

Doesn't really sounds convincing and I knew that the world wasn't perfect. But mind, 3 hives, 4 difficulties, dev-team has perfect control over gear and drop rates. You could call yourself hardcore, given you actually play on expert-difficulty. If everyone would play in 1st person only, and if 1st person only whould be hardcore, wouldn't be everyone hardcore? You'd need to give yourself a new strange sounding title, like hardcore elite, which everyone would at least smile about. Nah, why not making it this way? World's not perfect, neither we are. There musst be room for failure. And some features should be spared out for the right difficulty in the perfect moment. And please don't complain about empty expert server. Not everyone can be an expert. Expect life to be different there. If you have mates which don't want to play on expert server, then be it, you can decide if you play there or not. But there only is one hardcore character. Edit And if you change the difficulty, like going back to veteran servert, the expert char will die. This will prefent folks from claiming to be expert/hardcore or whatever and camping the whole day on veteran server. What happens if your mate doesn't want that 1st person only thing anyway? He then stops playing entirely? What have you accomplished in that situation? Driven your friend away?

I really don't get why it cant be handled like this: - 4 difficulty settings - last difficulty "Expert" is 1st person only has its own hive - difficulty "Veteran" has its own hive and 3rd person enabled, maybe a little tweaked - difficulties normal and easy also have an own hive, which they share So you guys still can call yourself hardcore, still have 1st person view only and hopefully stop camping on verteran server and exploiting the hell out of the 3rd person. There are many advantages, everyone gets what they want and it's no longer possible to farm easy modes for weapons to get full geared on veteran or expert server. Let's do it like this, everyone gets happy and is dancing in the steets. Doesn't sounds good?

So you read the whole thread without getting anything? I know, you just don't want to understand.

If the FOV is the same, doesn't matter, since the viewpoint is different. Same FOV, another view. ;) I know, for FOV-fixed folks this is hard to understand, but the different viewpoint is what the 3rd person makes so a valuable feature of the game. If you don't want to let the points count, that's your decission. Otherwise they are valid. DayZ is more than a shooter, it is a survival game which also implies role playing. What sense does it make to have all the features, functions and items in the game if you never see it on your character? It has been said a billion times and it actually makes sense. There are 1st person only server available, just join them and all is fine, isn't it? If you want to understand why the 3rd person view encourages and enriches player-player interactions, read former post which has been made. It has all been explained.

- player-player interaction - encourages role playing - tactical overview, no tunnel vision - reflects natural self and souround awareness - no desorientation in buildings like with 1st person This and more already has been said. And last but not least, given that allmost everyone is playing on 3rd person server (even those who complain about), people seems to like it.

Anyway, I think this divide in 1st person only and 3rd person enabled server was a great idea and actually works really dandy. Played on a vanilla expert server the whole day, in 1st person, most of the time alone. Got infected but have everything to cook meat. I ate round about 2 sheep, 4 goats, 2 boars, 3 or 4 cows and countles canned food. Now meat is empty but I'm still alive and full of blood as I logged out. (Is that normal that I found so many animals? Thought usually it were less.) I wonder what those 60% are doing on 3rd person server. Edit Latest poll said 60%, not 90%. Apologizes. Edit2 Btw, after playing a while, I'm for having 1st person only server. Note, I'm not saying 3rd person should be removed, but having those 1st person only server available also enriches the game imo.

Nonlethal encounter is something which doesn't exist?

Yeah, 90 % want to play 1st person only, but cant, because of the remaining 10%, which is playing on 3rd person server... Wait a minute. If those 90% would play on 1st person server, they'd probably full, right? Just do it. Regarding player interaction. I imagine interaction difficult, I someone runs around a corner and immedeately shoots me into the face, because he's thilled 180% and a bit nervous as well. So he just saw something moving and thought in those 20 miliseconds of time: "Shit, him or me." I prefer to keep my head down and watch a while. Guess I would be forced to let weapons speek more if 3rd person would be removed. Yes, 3rd person gives you time. Maybe this is rather important if you want to make friendies?

Very good points. Third person gives you time for player interaction. You have time to think, to observe and to judge.

You seems to be one of these who constantly want the game to be more annoying until you finally stopped enjoying the game and leave. But what's the point you want to make? That I make poor arguments? I didn't see any good from you lately. And now? I thought we already made some progress. 3rd person stays in, it's getting tweaked a bit. Both views are valuable. 1) I have no doubt that the SA will be vanilla (since vanilla means unmodded, and won't be released modded, how could it be not?) and that's a good thing I actually appreciate because I right in the moment have problems with the mod being too much modded all around. A point we argued about something just because to argue about sth? 2) Getting infected or a broken bone is a feature one actually can enjoy, because it is not the default game. It can be fixed in game, it's temporary. The first person on the other hand on 1st person only server is like a broken bone from the start which can't be fixed in game. So the feature 1st person can't be compared to other game elements. Or are you someone who breaks his bones by purpose because you enjoy it that much? You probably avoid it and if so, you fix it. It's a mechanic which actually is enjoyable and makes sense. The 1st person view also is enjoyable, but like the broken bone, not for the entire game. 3) I'm not only complaining about the fov. The fov btw is fine, if you want to have super tunnel vision. Don't get me wrong, super tunnel vision is not bad, it's just bad all the time. I'm not complaining about the fov, I jst don't want the 3rd peron view to be removed. This is my favourite viewpoint. My second favourite viewpoint is 1st person. As easy as that. I can understand that PvP driven player see the 3rd person as an exploit and therefore this should be tweaked a bit. But I want to keep it in. In my opinion btw, the ability to switch between both points of view makes the game more interesting, more enjoyable, more compelling. Wait a minute! - Maybe you find the 3rd person annoying? That's good, then we have both a reason to keep it in. :D

3rd person is going to be tweaked a bit, so no worry. You also don't need to use it. I know, using a handy feature sometimes is not easy. But regarding that polls, if they would all stand behind their vote, 1st person server would be many and full of player ... Yes, 1st person feels more tense, but this also can annoy you in the long run. Walking barefoot on nails also feels more tense. ;) Being constantly thrilled is just stressful. Not everyone wants it. Normal days sometimes are stressful enough. This can get exhausting. In 1st person you just don't see enough. It feels like wearing blinders. It also makes finding loot in grassland to a life task. Somwhere is a point where you just had enough tunnel vision, staring and blury vision. There's nothing wrong with trying to enjoy a game.