floj

Again ad hominem, and you're still responding to me after I watched a whole season of the Walking Dead, so I must have been doing something right. Now let's discuss the pros and cons of how they might implement removing the exploit, like the thread title suggests.

Sure, like the people that heard that Rocket was looking at removing the exploit and wanted to raise objections to it. Thanks for the agreement. Now let's discuss the pros and cons of how they might implement removing the exploit, like the thread title suggests.

I want to play on 3PP servers without the exploit so I can play with friends that don't like 1PP. And that's an ad hominem argument. So let's discuss the pros and cons of how they might implement removing the exploit, like the thread title suggests. EDIT: Sorry for the monotony of my responses for any third parties reading, just fighting fire with fire :)

Lost interest because you couldn't understand or more likely didn't want to. I understand choice, where's the choice for 3PP players that want to join a server without the exploit? There is none, but they've responded on the poll to show their preference to play without. So let's discuss the pros and cons of how that might be implemented, like the thread title suggests.

Nope, because over half the players that want to play 3PP don't want the exploit. Currently at 77:43 or if you want to count the 1PP players as well, 128:43 Sample sizes can be used to infer analysis of the population as a whole. That's why surveys and polls can be used in so many fields of study.

You shoulda kept up, I aint playing til the desync is fixed. The only news in 20 pages is that you can no longer use the popularity of 3PP servers in your argument. And so you have nothing left but the same old logical fallacies and trying to smear the issues over more and more pages with some slow paced sidestepping of the issues. You still have no argument against implementing these fixes except for 'I want the exploit' So where were we 21 pages ago: Tighter camera angles or an implementation of the 4th person mod will fix this confirmed exploit which only a minority of players want to keep in the game.

Not really constructive to the discussion...but then nothing new from you there is it. Sigh... So where were we 20 pages ago: Tighter camera angles or an implementation of the 4th person mod will fix this confirmed exploit which only a minority of players want to keep in the game.

Yeah once the exploit that the minority want to keep is gone, I hope so, til then, let's keep on laughing at their pitiful attempts at argument.

It wasn't vague at all, he seemed quite clear about the matter. Anyway, glad this thread's on the front page still, it's helping the poll gain traction

If they'd seen him coming miles away, why would they leave themselves so exposed? Why not setup a proper ambush and hide behind the same wall that the player is using in the screenshot...which is exactly what would have happened.

It's a few pages back, cba to find it so have fun looking yourself - it'd have been easier if you hadn't filled the thread with so many circular arguments that coulda been answered on wikipedia or by applying some basic logical thought but I guess you reap what you sow.

Nah, but Rocket's already workingon patching out the exploit, so enjoy it whilst it lasts. Guess he listened to the majority.

WoW is not a cover based, ranged combat shooter. The only objection you raised to the poll was for the second part, I added that part purely as a red herring to distract from the far more interesting stuff in the first part. So, yeah that part was flawed with not enough options. Diversionary tactics, one of Sun-Tzu's bread and butters.

Nope, to show you that most players on 3PP servers don't like the exploit, since that was one of the crutches for your argument. Now it's gone, you have nothing. So it was 100% effective for what I needed it for.

Arma?

Ken. More 3PP players do not want the exploit than do want it. 1PP servers are irrelevant in this discussion. You lost bro, get over it. You're just the vocal minority trying to muddy the waters.

I think he's still talking about knowing the location of the suppressing group, the fact that this then enables a flanking group to move up unobserved has remained unobserved itself.

That's completely tangential to what you're talking about...yet again, just avoiding facts and sending us round and round in circles. The people flanking you, do so silently. You get pinned by one squad/person suppressing you whilst another performs the flanking maneuver. And FYI: Tracer bullets make traces, most bullets don't. Snipers would be pretty pissed off if all their bullets left a nice little line showing where they'd come from. Jesus I feel dumber even discussing stuff with you.

If you're suppressed, you cannot observe to see if you are being flanked, unless you poke your head up into the bullets. It's a completely separate part of gameplay to stealth. So, it still screws suppression.

Ask him if he downloaded anything to improve his framerate...

Sounds like an ass, so probably Eeyore

Never played Socom, but have played 3rd person tactical shooters, they're great for coop and singleplayer, but I dislike them for multiplayer and spent some time a few weeks ago trying to find one that is played at a competitive esport level as a sign that maybe there is in-depth pvp aspects to them. The only one I found was World of Tanks, which has a ton of processing dedicated to visibility mechanics. For me, to see if a game has deep and rich pvp options, it's best to see if it's played competitively, if it's not, it probably has a shortfall somewhere within the design. I think 3PP pvp has the shortfall of giving too much observation power to both teams, which will lead to stagnation and stalemate when played at a high level. Once both players are aware of each other, there's no incentive to be the first to move. There's examples everywhere within this thread of players coming up against this ceiling. One thing that Socom does seem to have(after a quick google) a much tighter, over the shoulder camera angle, like GoW/Res Evil, which does nerf the over/round walls exploit a lot, but not completely. I'm still hoping for 400 ish so we can do the 99% accuracy with much tighter error margins :)

Cmon, just imagine you're about to turn a corner with a load of zeds around it, all looking at the corner. In 3PP, you see them from safety, backtrack slowly and carefully move around them. In 1PP, you peek, get seen and then have to try to run away (gonna be a bitch when the stamina is balanced better) or fight. Both immediately make your current situation more perilous both to the first group of zeds themselves, as well as any other zeds or bandits in the area who might be drawn to the commotion. Also it changes the experience. Only one of those situations might need new underwear.

We're still in alpha. Every feature they add is gonna change the balance for each game. Even a backpack makes a difference, you can't see over your shoulder with a mountain backpack in 1PP. So this means we have to stop running and physically turn to check our 6 if we're using one., this results in slower movement, which results in more food and water to travel the same part of the map, which means either water and food spawns have to be different or the basic mechanics have to be different, a tin of beans might last an extra 5minutes for 1PP - otherwise one game will be unsatisfactory for PvE (either too hard or too easy). It affects the PvE against zeds, 3PP players can easily search towns and avoid zeds whilst doing so, 1PP players might be more likely to accidentally turn a corner into a zombie and get hit, therefore might need more medkit spawns, different blood and health meters and regeneration and of course also need to take longer to safely check through a town, so again food and water needs will be different. It affects feature implementation, 1PP players might want mirrors and periscopes as items to give them abilities to see around corners. 3PP players will think that's a waste of dev time. 3PP players might want kewl takedown animations when they kill someone in melee, 1PP players think this is a waste of resources. So yeah there's a ton of extra work to be had, some of it optional, a lot of it only benefitting one side or the other. EDIT: That's why you really don't want to have to develop for two different playergroups at the same time, and why Im an advocate of making 3PP as similar to 1PP as possible, ie removing the exploit or severely reducing it's capabilities so taht the two playstyles are pretty much identical, I am a liberal in this matter, others are more hardcore and think 3PP should be removed entirely :o

Both of this sounds arse over tit to me. Someone attacking a defended room, has to show more exposure in 1PP as he enters, he cannot survey a room from 100% safety before entering. How does this swing the advantage to the attacker? Someone can camp an area completely unseen on a rooftop or behind a wall in 3PP...or they have to at least expose themselves slightly to observe in 1PP. I'd say even a slight bit of exposure gives the non camping player a fraction more of a chance rather than someone remaining completely invisible and giving no chance.