Ken Bean

I'm certain they buff the zeds somewhat to patch 1.7.7 again. (The version were Zeds basically are on sterioids, faster than you and almost impossible to fight in the open.) Wait, did you play lately?

It's quite an engine which supports both views very good. The main aspect or features of the engine are: open world, simulating, looking natural and also multiplayer. But open world and simulation are the key elements, I'd say. Both views go very well.

Approximately human or very close I suppose. Excuse me but if you have the feeling, 3rd person is comfort, then fine. (might be even luxus?) I for myself have to say that I never chose 3rd person server because I considered it easier. Edit I have the feeling you didn't understand the looting system of the mod or at least confuse sth. But anyway, Zeds slow down the player, of cause. They slow you down in 1st and in 3rd person. They are roaming around anyway.

To the red: Correct me if I'm wrong, but loot spawns in a defined circle around the player. If the player comes near the loot pile, loot spawns. Zeds btw also spawn around the player. To the rest: Good, its not dangerous, then whats the matter with the 3rd person "exploit"? Doesn't it make other player more dangourous? Because they constantly snipe you from invinciple positions?

We get to the point. And you wonder about the kill on sight problematic... -.- But no, I don't really think so. At least it's not the main focus. I didn't (re)read every of the 1205 posts here carefully, maybe the last 300, but I think I'm qualified enough to state my opinion.

Well you need extremely luck to find something usefull. Even more after 1.7. So you feel like your life span is too long and not in danger?

I figure we have a bunch of thirst person shooter fans who deny to be 1st person shooter fans. Should DayZ be a 1st person shooter? What I not get is, why do they not play on 1st person server? Such server are out there. Nuff said?

To the red part. You know that the last situation was that loads of player complained that they got infected? Getting infected usually only happens if you eat raw flesh, drink unboiled water, getting in contact with another survivor who is infected and, last but not least, getting hit by an infective zed. So yeah, Zeds are not "no match", at least currently. Wich is good, but not the 1st or 3rd persons fault. Another doubtful theory. I think the view has no impact on the loot piles. And of cause, you may have a longer life, if you can mange to control your character better in 3rd person. Tats not the 3rd persons fault. Believe it: 1st person is flawed. I tried myself and can confirm 1st person handles very strange. I see. And I somertimes get sth wrong. No problem. :)

You explained your logic well but under bottom line I cant imagine how a first person shooter like view could reduce the KoS problem. Even more since fighting in 1st person is way more accurate. I guess the KoS problem is either caused by the 1st person shooter like nature of the game (attrackts those player) or by some inherit game mechanics, like too rare loot. Maybe its a mixture or other things that add to the problem, like being bored and lack of other tasks to do. The theory that 3rd person causes or motivates / encourages kills on sight I'd call very hazy and not really backed up or grounded.

You also could take me serious. Point is, if you see someone by this "exploit", you don't need to engage. I very often met people which I didn't engage. What I was talking about that a survivor who uses the "exploit" could give away his position. To get a bit what I mean, have a look at this video. Yes, right, he uses the direct communication to play the sounds. So the other survivor cant detect his position. But sth similar could also be possible / managed by the sound engine. Just forget the nature of the sounds he uses. Arma 3 btw has a function which goes very in that direction. A soldier starts to couch while moving, making certain sounds. The key point is that in a certain radius, if the 1st person line of view is blocked and someone gets a line of sight, in 3rd person, the player who gets the 3rd-person-los, will reveal his presence. Which allerts the other player and in the effect will reduce the abusive nature of the "exploit". I really thought in regards of the SA, where eating human flash is confirmed, a cannibal skin could be introduced, with even - maybe based on sanity - soliloquises. Why the heck not? This could be a more elegant solution than just plain removing or sabotaging a key element of the game. In my eyes this is a valid proposal which can be at least discussed. But I'm afraid that most 1st person fanatics wont even dare to try sth else than making 3rd person unplayable.

Meanwhile I found a solution so awesome that it just should satisfy everyone. Instead of breaking the 3rd person, we let it as it is now. But The one who is in 3rd person (Dude A) gives away his position as soon as another player comes close enough (a distance which can be discussed) in the moment, the dude in 3rd person (Dude A) gets a line of sight. Dude B will be warned and gets an Idea of where he is. ... Whoa, awesome! But how he reveals his position? Dud A makes a sound, can be everything from farting loud an noisey to talking rubbish to him self. ... Example: A psycho bandit cannibal (pbc) is hiding in the bush using 3rd person view. A survivor comes near and will be seen by the pbc. Now the pbc starts talking: - There you are! - Come a little closer! - I'll eat your liver! --- People sometimes get issues and start talking to himself without noticing it itself. Btw, we also need a cannibal skin.

I use 1st person sometimes and prefer 3rd person while playing. 1st person is good for sniping, scouting and fighting. Tell me: Why must I be turned?

While I agree with that the 1st person view (and with it the shooter part of the game) is very flawed, I want to add that 3rd person is a base element of the roleplay part of the game which goes beyond those shooter elements. Survival also is roleplaying. Are you a hunter, a scravenger, a bandit and so on? Also if it comes to carmouflage, you absolutely depend on figuring out how something looks like from afar. In real life, if you are a lone survivor, you probably would make or find a Ghillie. To figure out what effect it has, you probably would use some strow to make a human shape, throw the Ghillie over and go some metres away before you lose it and never find it again. This are things you cant realize in the game. So beyond the "seeing and "sensing" your character in the sourounding world, making it believable, helping the role" you depend on 3rd person to solve such simple practical problems, like: are my feet in the bush or not? DayZ also focuses on litteraly 'doing things', like 'doing survival'. Therefore seeing your character 'doing survival things' for me is the key element of playing a survival game.

I'm afraid that some of this "hardcore" gamer are not pleased untill they reached a situation in which they no longer enjoy it. Now removing 3rd person cam is their agenda, since it makes so much sense that threy can't help but using it. Meanwhile 1st person server are empty.

Thanks for the picture but wrong logic can be proofen wrong otherwise. ;) As long as you can't, the logic and argumentation is what it is: waterproof. So yeah, some have decided talking rubbish. Not sure when it started, but this clearly is nothing new.

You obviously confuse terms like "harcore" with "realistic". To be "realistic" is an approach a "simulation" tries to be. What this has to do with 1st person and "hardcore" (what do you think that means?) really is your secret. Or other way round: "Call of Duty" is first person right? So do you think this is realistic and hardcore? So please don't get me wrong, but you are obviously talking nonsense. No wonder if we don't get to a solution. This also explains your 1st person fanatics.

So "hardcore game" for you means 1st person? This dear sir is plain bullshit.

Benefits roleplaywise. Pease just try to understand that the whole thing of DayZ goes beyond a first person shooter. Really, try it! I know, you dont. Wont probably ever, so ... Why not playing another game dude? Like Sniper Elite or Battlefield or whatever? That's cool, probably no "exploits" with the 3rd person.

To be honest, I see you made a valid point. Can't really say so because I don't know about how the SA is build. If there are sniper nests all over the place or sth. I wouldn't feel very comfortable if it would be a sniper fest.

You also can make the distance blury, making it difficult to see sharp in certain situations.

Well they could disable the 3rd person if is someone is sitting in a heli. I'm not saying "cool" but it would be no too big letdown.

Yep, absolutely agree. I have the suspicion that they sabotage or handicap the third person in a way that it also loses its legit benefits. And some in this thread are either blind or just don't want to see how mutch 3rd person adds to the game and how much it would lose if you turn it into a shooter.

Flying around with a helicopter is supposed to provide a better overview. If you turn your head to the side window you can see pretty good. Just give a try at home and move your head close to the window. Mabe got to a higher floor. You can see pretty good, I suppose. At least making you half blind is not really the way to go imho. Doesn't really help any further. I could have used the word "dangerous" insead of "unknown". What then?

Y Just as you do and allow me to add that you have a strange sense of crap. Bcause 3rd person does not remove "some of the tension". It actually adds to the unknown, like fraggle said btw here:

And yet you are pointing out that main "issue" or "exploit" for you is that you can't hide behind a wall. Which leads me to the conclusion that because of the 3rd person view there are less saver places. Also there's a chance that someone is hiding behind a wall you can't see. And this points lead you to "it feels saver"? How could this be? There is a bit more danger after all. A kind of danger which already exists: An enemy you can't see. Those can not only be behind walls or on roofs utilizing the 3rd person view. They'd rather could lie everywhere in a bush or a tree. So you can counter it by moving around, being a hard target. I for myself came to the conclusion that the reason behind the empty 1st person server is that the 1st person view is fundamentaly flawed. 1st person is in its nature not able to address all the games needs in its complexity. You keep claiming that 3rd person would be easier and broken or what not. I see the 1st person view way more broken. 3rd person just works dandy. Now to that what you call an exploit: I can't really see how you can improve the 3rd person in a way without actually breaking or handicapping it. Shall we have two broken perspectives?