Dagwood

Another adult in the forums that understands the benefits of agreeing to disagree. Well done KOS

Does anyone have more details about this steam download that disabled third person view? I saw it mentioned elsewhere.

This thread is not the spot for name calling. Thank you for readdressing that point. And I am sorry that a visual glitch that occurs while you are crawling with an axe is too obtrusive for your meager imagination to overcome. ^^There, is that the kind of "name calling" you were hoping for? Edit: just quit smoking cigarettes. I'm an irritable prick. Also drinking. Sorry world. Good night.

Superfluidity, I grew up driving a manual ('99 jeep wrangler) and I remember my roommate in college buying an automatic transmission Mazda 3 hatchback. I know you can imagine my disappointment at seeing the stump between the seats when he brought it home. It's too bad that more people aren't willing to dive headfirst into a pretty insignificant challenge. Hopefully we can weed out the boys from the men.

Mr. Jebus, you have the exact attitude and mentality I hope to harbor in this thread. If the masses would like to play a watered down version, let them. All we need is a small pool of the pure, terrifying stuff that is dayz. Glad to have you on board. Edit: fluxley, knew I'd see you on here sooner or later. Thanks for the info on the first person only servers. I am currently traveling and only have access to a phone. Do you know where these servers will be hosted geographically?

Then why did you feel to add that small, unrelated factoid that does nothing but diminish a valid point that I was trying to make?

Bribase's post just gave me wood...

Do you think dayz caribou died because all of the original players couldn't stand life without 3rd person? Because that definitely is not why I stopped playing.

No. Please do not turn this thread into another retard shit slinging competition. This thread is here to bring like minded people together. If you would like to preach the truth (FPVFTW) please continue the righteous fight in another location. But I support your enthusiasm gibonez! I've seen your posts on the subject in other threads. While I agree with what you are saying, your delivery method is all wrong. You need to remember that this is a videogame forum. People will ignore your real argument and just continue to spray shit in your face until all you can do is the same. If you would like to continue playing fun with feces, please take it elsewhere. I would like to keep at least this thread somewhat civil. Edit: wow that came off much more aggressively than I intended. All I was trying to say is that I think it would server everyone better if the discussion did not carry over to yet another thread. My apologies.

While having it as an OPTION may seem like it guarantees player traffic, it does not. We saw this in the mod. If this is because I am part of a very small minority, so be it. But if that is the case, we need to do a better job of concentrating that small population. I appreciate your support ryzoh, but history has shown that we need to be more proactive if we want to attract a more refined crowd to a common playing field.

Were you asking because you would be interested? I'm a club of one at the moment...

While snooping around earlier, one of our dignified brethren informed the masses that there was a patch available on steam that disabled 3rd person. If this is our only option at the moment idk. If someone not limping around on a cellphone could provide a more informed response, we would all benefit.

And implement the ACE system on hardcore systems. If you make killing each other more of a real challenge with more "hardcore" features, many of the players looking for kills will stick to servers that lessen the time spent roleplaying a survivor. As the OP mentioned above, it doesn't really make much sense that people play a game with a massive map, far too few weapons, and a skillcurve-crushing 3rd person following just so they can pvp around the same 3 towns... Why not play pvp on arma 3 where there are way more weapons that are more easily attained? I've hopped into overwatch servers just to pvp before. It's soooooo much less rewarding than hopping on even BF3 to play a round or two. If I just want to get kills, why wouldn't I play a game that provides me with more guns, ammo, and targets? Can someone with half a brain and enough courtesy to ACTUALLY READ AN ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING please fill me in on what I am missing?

Dat Kentucky windage

Plus all of the bloodsuckers are in the north...

And everyone else trying to do your little loot run will be standing in your way. 125 people between balota and zelengorsk.... Jesus Christ

What we need to remember is that loot spawn rates will change dramatically over the next year. My hypothesis is that the devs are flooding us with weapons right now to make sure they get them right. Once that is done, they will start flooding us with vehicles or something. The increased number of barracks on the western half of the map will make loot distribution more fair when loot rates drop. Locking down the NWAF no longer makes you king of the armory.

Do you think wearing non-military garb makes you seem less threatening and as a result less likely to get shot after being seen? I've always liked to think so, but I can't say whether it works or not. Thoughts? Experiences? Please share.

There should be a trade off. Forest dwelling creatures are more dangerous. Field dwellers are domesticated and not a threat. The advantage of domestic game is that it gives more meat and you won't get hurt by your prey. The disadvantage is that you have to expose yourself to gut your kill. My .02

And having some kind of excuse might make my comrades hate me a little less :)

I just think it's boring wearing mil garb like every other geared person I run into. All three of the guys I play with wear masks and rock vests and all that. Boring. They all look the same with just different colors. Playing at my best while not using the very best equipment brings my family much honor.

Hitting a person with a pistol at 100m? Ya fucking right, man. Maybe if it's braced. Don't come in here thrashing me for admitting that I am not as proficient with firearms in real life. Those snipers killing people at 2000m have fired their weapons millions of times. You and I have not.

Or he's a hacker and was warning you?

Why can't we have it? I'm an occasional hunter and shoot probably once or twice a year. Shooting is fucking hard. I zero my ruger hawkeye .308 with a 2x7 scope to 1 inch high at 100m, fire off a box of rounds, and then put it away. Even a headshot as close as 100m would be beyond my ability if I had to fire standing without a brace. Maybe I am just not that naturally talented, but I like to think that it's because shooting anything without bracing the weapon is very difficult. Survivors in an apocalypse should not be as proficient as the Spec Ops we control in arma that have drills with their weapons endlessly. Dayz already hinders our ability to snap our body around quickly to simulate the same limitations in reality. Why not make the controls for aiming less perfect. When you adjust your aim and sight picture, the rifle should not perfectly mirror you inputs. There should be a small amount of coordination lost in translation; especially if the survivor is young. The longer you survive and the more that you fire your weapon, the more "skilled" you become. This means that your inputs would become less altered. Please don't flame the shit out of me for hinting at some form of skill progression...

No a shotgun with a rifled barrel in addition to the smooth bore for the shotty shells. Will probably fire 20 gauge shells and a .22 Am I the only person that uses the M1014 as an endgame weapon...?