mercules

He said he is a "Button Masher" and does not bother to use any of the controlled swings in those games.

However, it would be unfair you to spawn in with a gun and for me to not. It would be unfair for me to start bleeding for no reason and you to not. In this case it is unfair because you can take advantage of a low wall and be unapproachable by anyone who can see you but not be seen by you. Does this mean I should "exploit" empty servers to log in before anyone else and get into those "exploitable" positions? Also, as I stated I can make an educated guess as to what was meant to be used. You have the ability to lean around the corner. With 3rd person on that ability which took effort to code is literally useless. Ergo there was intent for the game to be played in 1st person which is the only perspective mode where having a lean ability makes sense. I think 3rd person was meant for those who can't or don't want to play the game is the designers intended ARMA to be played. If it was the primary intended role they wouldn't have bothered to code in the Lean ability.

Comments in Red.

I would really like the Stance system to come over. I do still think 3rd gives you too much situational awareness to the point that it removes certain practices and tactics from the game.

Exploit - to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage There are spaces in Chernarus that you can't approach and be able to see if someone is in them from 3rd person but they can have full view of you because of use of 3rd person. They can "exploit" that flaw in the 3rd person camera. Covering fire largely becomes useless when you can remain fully in cover and still see the person firing. 3rd person also does away with the "lean" mechanics that exist in DayZ, why have them when they don't do anything in 3rd person? I look at the movement mechanics and the aiming mechanics and I can see that ARMA was designed to be played in 1st person perspective. Seriously, that is what the lean mechanic is ALL about. If the intent was to be played that way then playing it in another way is considered an "exploit". Another definition is "gaining an advantage by using a system in a way it was not intended to be used". I don't think they put a lean mechanic into ARMA if the intent was to look around corners in 3rd person all the time.

I can, however, SEE the sniper on the hill in Cherno if I bother to check on a 1st person server. I can't SEE the person in a building because of the way the camera works, the closer you are to a vision barrier the less cover others have. So the wall protects them but not me and if the only approach to see into the building is to move through that open space, then yeah it is very different than a sniper on the hill. For one thing I can check the hill by going over there and then going into Cherno and I can keep checking it with binoculars or scopes. If he wants to watch me he has to be partially visible himself. That doesn't mean he might be EASY to see, but there is a chance. There are some locations where you have literally no chance of seeing them while they can see you because of 3rd person. It creates an inequity that doesn't exist without 3rd person.

The tactical situation isn't as poor though when the Sniper must expose himself to track your progress. With 3rd person he knows RIGHT where you are and simply has to move up and fix his aim. With 1st person he either has to peek and possibly give you notice from his movement, making noise, or being slightly visible ~or~ track you by sound/shadow and pop up when he believes you are in the kill zone, acquire the target, aim, and fire. With the one you are putting yourself at great risk with little to no chance of being sure how great it is, in the other you are putting yourself at moderate risk. Moving slowly and surely down the street to not make noise makes NO difference with 3rd but a big difference with 1st. Now he HAS to look to figure out where you are in the street or might not get warning that you are about to spot him or pass his ambush. Either he remains exposed and possible sniped himself, or he moves and possible alerts the silent person who then can zero in on his position or get away. The game is different and more tactical in strictly 1st person.

I didn't exactly say it was stupid they couldn't articulate why they liked it. I stated that it was stupid to be given as a reason with no other support for it. "I like it" is not a reason, it is a conclusion. You can not have a discussion with nothing but conclusions. "This is a pen." "Yes it is a pen." "I like this better." "Okay, how come?" "Because I prefer it." "Okay, what makes you prefer it?" "I prefer it." There is a reason you prefer that pen, maybe you can't explain that the grip in your fingers feels better, that the ink comes out smoother, that the weight is right for your hand, or that the grip fits the way you hold it, but if you stopped and considered it your SHOULD be able to come up with reasons for that conclusion. What is stupid, is not the person, but not understanding that even unconscious preferences have reasons behind them. When people can't say why they prefer something it is typically because they haven't put any thought into it. Look, I play MMOs and I play Mass Effect. In those you are pretty much forced into 3rd person. Mass Effect won't let you go into 1st at all and some MMOs won't either. In general I do not like it. I do not prefer that style of game. Just like I don't prefer 3/4 perspective. I get why some of those games utilize those points of view and wish I could change them. I can, however explain WHY I prefer 1st person. I feel like I am the character. I don't have omniscient knowledge the character should not have. It locks me into the world and makes everything more interesting for me as I HAVE to crouch to look under that desk or find something to get up on to look on top of that shelf and so it makes me interact with the game world more. I enjoy that interaction and so welcome it and dislike things like 3rd person perspective that remove me from that interaction. Like Dslyecki I find myself feeling more challenged and "living" in the game world for that time that I play the game. Games are a way to become something and someone else for a bit to imagine "what if" and if the interface is bad it pulls me back from that. The problem comes in that the most straight forward and simplest way to remove those exploits is to simply do away with 3rd person. As I pointed out maybe a solution where the person's body was translucent so you could see through them and otherwise were locked at eye level just a few feet back from their head would resolve those crutches? Maybe the "shoulder cam" which really is very much like 1st Person Perspective but gives a person a bit more sense of their character's body would do much the same?

So am I. It has been stated the virus in DayZ is similar to the "Rage" virus in "28 Days Later" and "28 Weeks Later". It has been hypothesized that the Rage virus has aspects of Rabies in it but it is supposedly built off the Ebola virus. Hemorrhagic Fever has some symptoms in common with Rabies, specifically headaches, agitation, confusion, seizures, and such. If those symptoms were increased you could end up with reactions very similar to Rabies. Since the infected in "28 Days Later" tend to not eat or drink and will eventually die from that if not from their other symptoms it would stand to reason that those symptoms come from making the Ebola more like Rabies where people gain an aversion to drinking and vomit when they try to eat. Now animals infected with Rabies do have a tendency to bite and infect others but for them it is their primary defense. It may be that whomever created the virus found a way to make it a bit more like Toxoplasma which is a protozoan that can only breed in cats but infects rodents. It passes form the cat's feces to rodents and in rodents it travels to the brain and inhibits their fear reactions. Those rodents are then more likely to wander out into areas where cats can find and eat them and thus infect another cat and continue the cycle. Both Rabies and Ebola cause a form of Encephalitis as does Toxoplasmosis. So we now have all the puzzle pieces to create something that turns humans into something resembling a "Rage" zombie or a "zombie" from Quarantine. I may have to go back on something I said earlier. A bit more looking/reading and it seems that people with Rabies may have an urge to bite despite not having the urge to eat. So gnawing on an "Uninfected" might be a very valid option. I still think they will go with their most primitive urge of striking but the biting seems reasonable although eating a person does not. So I am confused as to why the DayZ team put that "tear off a chunk of flesh and eat it" animation in. I think in the new animations it is different from some of the motion capture I had seen

You do understand the meaning of "preference" right? If you prefer something you place more value in it than other choices. That means you believe it is a "good" thing. If you believe something is good it means you belive it has value or is satisfactory in degree or quality. Now that doesn't mean you think 1st is bad but that does mean you think 3rd is good. Preferences can be wrong, contrary to common thought or belief. I could prefer playing games in God Mode, but that doesn't mean that is what would be right for a game I play with others.

You are incorrect, I am very familiar with the "Scrub" article and using the tools you are given without calling foul. When I log into a server with 3rd Person I don't try to play in 1st person and cry "foul" upon anyone who doesn't. At the same time I can look at 3rd person and understand how much easier it makes the game and discuss how it removes the challenge and the feel from the game. I can then come to a reasoned opinion that the game might actually benefit from removing 3rd person despite people liking it. I have never played CoD in my life. I do enjoy a few FPS games including Mechwarrior Online which decided against 3rd person since it didn't make the game they wanted to make. The market shouldn't decide everything. That is what gives you really crappy games that appeal to the lowest common denominator and become tiresome very quickly. Niche games can actually survive off core audiences who become even more loyal BECAUSE they don't appeal to masses but to those looking for an experience the masses don't enjoy as much as their Game of the Month which switches and pulls those players off to the next big thing. DayZ ~is~ a niche game. Most people don't like having to worry about eating, drinking, or disease. Mr. Hall and crew are making diseases even more complex. Soon you will need the correct antibiotic to treat various infections which will annoy the general public but is more the game he wants to make. I agree with him and think he needs to continue in that vein and disable 1st person because it does move DayZ in the direction of a survival horror FPS.

Anubis, Giving your reason as "I like it." therefore it is good is stupid. Not attacking you just stating that you have to have a REASON you prefer it. What are those reasons? You don't prefer one thing to another for no possible reason, that is pure insanity, there is a reason behind your like or dislike. As a thinking and reasoning thing you can't possible have a preference for something without a checklist of good and bad that has been compared even if you haven't consciously thought about it or are unable to articulate it. So no, I can't accept, "I like it better." as a reason. That is not a reason that is the summation of several reasons that have brought you to a conclusion. No, people really don't have to be free to choose how they have fun. That is an erroneous assumption. As I have stated before some people enjoy using wall hacks to see through walls. Others enjoy God Mode or spawning in weapons. All of these will get you BANNED in DayZ by BE. Why is that? I mean everyone can access those same cheats and download them and choosing not to use them is handicapping yourself and your fault, right? No... it's because hacks/cheats/exploits ruin the point of the game. No, I don't know Dean Hall's thought process, but I can look at previous actions and make assumptions of future behaviours. I can look at the design and how it has changed and extrapolate from that the intent. I can also look at quotes from the DayZ team and make educated guesses as to what their intent is. Yes Dean Hall has stated he doesn't want KoS to prevail as much as it does but he has also stated he doesn't want to remove it completely. He has stated he wants an immersive game where people really have to interact and search and be in the environment. From that I can extrapolate that since, in my opinion (which is backed by reasons I have given), 1st person is superiour for that immersive state it would be better for the game. I can then form an argument and provide evidence for that beyond, "Because I like it."

*sigh* It's "moonlight" and "grammar". It would behoove a person who is communicating via a text based medium to attempt to communicate in the best possible manner especially if they wish their ideas and thoughts to be taken seriously. While it is very possible or likely that you are not from an English speaking country, most languages still utilize "capital letters" and you do seem educated in writing English even if you chose to do so poorly. I can ignore it for a while but when it is spectacularly poor I tend to point it out and then hopefully move onward. Notice I ignored it for a long while? I am not telling you how to play. I am stating that your method of playing interferes with mine and that 1st person is a better fit for a game like this because of reasons I have stated. You have disagreed because you want to, but have yet to give a compelling reason for your desire to have 3rd person other than you "want it". Good luck convincing me 3rd person has merit with, "Because I personally like it." and "You can't tell me how to play."

It's not because you don't agree with me that I am saying you don't get it. It is because the words you are using and the ideas you are presenting lead me to the conclusion that you really don't get it. Tolkien creates a world of fiction for his books. If someone makes a movie based off his books, which they have, and then has Aragorn's sword able to cut through anything they have just broke the reality of Tolkien's world where Aragorn's sword, while special, is not monomolecular and able to cut through other swords. Yes, Zombies are fictional but we can theorize what they could be like and how they might act and react. We can think of ways to bring about "zombies" in this case a virus that causes the person infected to become violent and mindless. There is a virus in real life that does this, it is called Rabies. We can look at rabies infected animal and people and determine how a mutated version of it might cause humans to react. Specifically they become agitated, delirious, refuse to drink or eat,can attack for no apparent reason, and otherwise become mindless. If the virus was engineered to attack more specific parts, to bind with certain proteins common in certain areas of the brain it could create the symptoms we see in DayZ "zombies" where they wander around in a stupor and attack uninfected for no reason, where movement and loud sounds aggravate them. Because we as human beings have this ability to reason and develop theories based off evidence and fact we can say that something in a game is a reasonable model for what could or would occure in real life if one little assumption was made. In this case the assumption is that a virus either mutated or engineered causes symptoms X, Y, and Z among those infected, that 2% of the population is immune, and that this world of DayZ is what it would be like to be one of the 2%. From that we can say that cars should not fly, my character should not be able to leap to the top of buildings, and even that Infected that have Symptoms X, Y, and Z should usually do A, B, and C when certain things happen. While Rabies patients can often talk and everything else they do get the spastic motions and verbal outbursts the infected in DayZ have. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZeKR1-0QE0

The most realistic solution is to simply lock it in directly behind the person's head with just enough clearance for them to see over their own head, but that still lets them peek over things so really solves nothing. Maybe move the point of view back about a foot behind someone's head and make them transparent? Mechwarrior Online devs toyed with the idea of not drawing anything not scenary that were not in Line of Sight from 1st person perspective but that brought in coding issues of what to draw when and the system had to track the two FoV and determine what could be seen twice doubling the work load on the computer and server. Tons of complex and hard to bring about solutions were looked at and scrapped and it was more or less concluded that there was no way to allow 3rd person that didn't give it an advantage over the 1st person perspective.

1. Yes, the majority have 3rd person turned on. Yes the majority of the players play on those servers. That doesn't mean it is the best option for DayZ going forward. The majority of the people in the world live in China but that doesn't mean we should all learn to speak Chinese and adopt their culture. What happens is that we go where the people are and where our friends are. I have friends that don't mind 1st person at all, but find 3rd easier and sometimes just want to go the easy route. They would not complain (much or for long) if 3rd person was removed but since it is available they take the path of least resistance. Even they admitted in a discussion not long ago that the game is different in 1st person. When I asked why I shouldn't switch my server over to forced 1st the main reason they gave me was that it was a bit more difficult to drive vehicles and that the other servers have 3rd on and since we sometimes hop over to other servers we might as well be used to it. Basically once you give 3rd person as an option to use everyone does because it makes the game simpler and gives tactical advantages. That means there is no, "Why can't we allow both?" because one excludes the other when both are available. 2. You stepped awfully close to Godwin's Law there. Yeah, I might cut our your style of play to get my own but that is because your style of play ALREADY excludes my preferred style. Yes the mass of people who can't handle it want to play 3rd person, but only because it is the easy route. The conception of DayZ was never "easy route", not from the first days. I didn't play back during the early releases but I watched the videos and they were great, especially the ones on servers that only had 1st person. Now if you want numbers of players then you go to the 3rd person servers or turn yours into 3rd person so that "easy mode" is on and people will come. 3. Check out this debate as it concerns Mechwarrior Online. Previous Mechwarrior games had 3rd person but WMO does not. Devs stuck to their guns and the game is better for it. Trust me, all the reasons given in this thread came up and were dismissed because they really don't have merit when dealing with this sort of game. It is, "P.S. I'll be over on the daylight server." and I'll be feeling bad that you won't be able to experience how good Day Z can be. Then again the only person you are cheating out of a good experience is yourself.

This is a fallacy called "Appeal to Tradition". Just because something has been done a certain way in the past does not alone grant it merit to be done that way in the future. 1st person is better for FPS and Survivor Simulation games for the following reasons. 1. More realistic - You only get information you could gather if you were there in your avatar's shoes looking through their eyes. This is better for FPS and is more fitting for a SIMULATION. 2. Exposure - To see someone, you have to be visible yourself. Sure it might only be a bit of your face so you can get one eye clear and able to see, but you can still be shot in the face or a Zombie might see the movement and react. This makes the game harder but does so in a controllable fashion. It gives the game a Risk vrs Reward aspect. To see where gunfire is coming from you have to actually expose yourself to it. To spot Zombies you will have to actually move to the end of the building and peek around the corner possibly getting spotted by one that is a bit further away from the wall you are now peeking down agroing on you. 3. Immersive - If you look back to my first post in this thread I started playing in 1st Person and there were times I jumped or panicked or didn't see a zombie. They were a bit scary back then. Once I started using 3rd they actually stopped being scary because it was very easy to spot them all and keep track of their movements. What are the reasons to have 3rd person perspective in the game? It isn't simulation since simulating being someone's guiding angel 1.5 meters up and back from them is NOT what the goal of the game design was. It was to be a PERSON in a Zombie Apocalypse and people can't look at the back of their heads without a lot of help from technology.

Great, except you can turn off the headbob motion and movement blur off and 1st person becomes exactly the same as 3rd except you are not 1.5 meters up and back from your character's perspective. So that argument is debunked. It's a FPS survival sim. The difference is not that big. It is built off a FPS engine that should never had have 3rd person in it. It actually becomes harder to survive with 3rd person turned off since you can't see Zombies over fences, or have to actually look over the edge of a building to see where people are. It's not "Simulating" much in 3rd person the simulation actually comes in when you are locked into the perspective of your avatar instead of being able to see all the way around it. So even if it wasn't primarily FPS it would still be better in first person because that better simulates the survival aspect. I'd be curious to see what he has turned on and off... My wife doesn't when going first person with stuff like headbob disabled and she gets motion sick in cars just from riding in them.

Ha ha... Yes you can. Given certain exceptions you expect everything else to be realistic. It would RUIN Dawn of the Dead if the people built a lightsaber out of junk they found in the mall and started to slice their way through the zombies Jedi style. It's okay if you don't get it, but a lot of us do get the idea of a "concept book/film/game". What it is is that it assumes that all other normal realistic laws apply EXCEPT for certain concepts, like, "what would happen if an infection swept through a country and left most of the people in a zombie like state?" Which is exactly what DayZ is. What this means is that in DayZ we expect that if someone falls off a building they will be hurt, likely die, and if nothing else probably break something. In DayZ that happens. We expect to be using realistic weapons and not plasma rifles, grav guns, acid sprayers, At the same time there are going to be unrealistic things that we have to suspend for the sake of it being a game. Things like Morphine fixing the state of something like your leg being broken. Sure we should be splinting it and hobbling around for a while, but it would make the game a lost less viable. Stand Alone though... might actually have limping and such in it. In the end we TRY and come up with a reasonable facsimile of this concept world which from descriptions is very much modern day, realistic, except a virus has infected people and turned them into what they are. We are immune and trying to just survive. That means where they are not limited by game mechanics they try to make things realistic and in that "setting".

So, what exactly do you want this for? If it is on your server you can simply reset it to daytime if you want full view? The ONLY reason to have this is so that you can run around at night when the zombies and other players can't see you and you can see them. The required limitation to using NVG is that your field of view is limited. Removing the limit is cheating, you are getting a better result than other players or than was intended by the designer.

Mine is more valid because it isn't just an opinion or "preference" it has logical reasoning about why it makes the game more interesting and fits the style of game better. Your opinion is valid and should be heard, but it should also be backed up by reasoning and it isn't. You don't give reasons for your opinion, just assume that because it is an opinion there is no right or wrong to it, which is incorrect. Thousands of years ago people had the opinion/belief that the Sun orbited the Earth, they were not right. You have a belief that 3rd person is better for the game than 1st but can't explain why you think that way, which most likely means you are incorrect. Oh, and "People like it." isn't a reason it is good for a game. Thousands play CoD, Battlefield, and other similar games without 3rd person so you can't use, "They want more players." as a valid argument either.

It really isn't all that unrealistic. All you would really need is a mutated strain of Rabies that acts faster and doesn't respond to current treatments. Aside from that we do need to talk about some realism and the reason is that if I could jump to the top of the supermarket in a hop the game would no longer fit the genre. It would also make getting away from zombies really easy and ruin the game play. FPS tend to be simulators with an extra element and the better (notice I didn't say popular) ones tend to be more realistic. When I play Mass Effect I WISH I could play in First Person. I think the game would have a much better feel too it.

Actually... I prefer first person. I use 3rd because not doing so leaves me at a huge disadvantage when dealing with those that use it. They can literally see me through low walls. It's not a preference, it is a "I have to." Their preference is that they "prefer" to be able to see over and around objects without exposing themselves, just like some people "prefer" to see through walls with wallhacks. I would "prefer" to get paid twice as much for half the work I do right now but my boss disagrees with that preference.

I can understand that you like 3rd person just fine. Why can't you understand it really doesn't have a place in a first person shooter game? There is a reason the game genre is called "FIRST PERSON Shooter". Really people... how simple is that? ^_^

Yeah, I do. You apparently haven't tried everything because turning off Head Bob makes 1st Person Perspective just like 3rd Pearson Perspective. Trust me, it is NOT the first person causing his issues it is motion blur and headbob creating motion in first person that doesn't do it in 3rd. It's not the viewpoint, it's the motion that creates motion sickness. ;) My wife gets motion sick. Turn off things like headbob and it no longer bothers her.