bad_mojo (DayZ)

I see you're still not responding to why we should consider the low numbers of first person server as a good indicator of what people think of 3rd being removed. You just fall back on telling me it's never going to be removed. It's like you're afraid to have the discussion I want to have. Like you're scared that if you admit a lot of people want it removed, it'll happen within the hour or something. Oh well, enjoy your ignorance & keep telling us it'll never happen.

Except in that poll, the question asks if third person was removed, how would you react. This can't be judged by looking at the current number of players playing on which servers. So, I'll ask again, why should I accept that line of thinking when my experience in these discussions & things like that poll say otherwise? Why does the amount of first person servers in a split system represent the overall feeling towards removing 3rd person view? It makes no sense. That's like saying everyone has pennies at home in their change jar, so nobody supports the removal of the penny from circulation. People playing third person doesn't mean they can't deal with it being removed. Sway my opinion on this topic, PLEASE!

I'm not against the idea in the video. I would have to test it out for a while and see if I can find faults in it. It seems like a good solution to remove a lot of the exploits. But, I feel like this topic of removing 3rd person should remain at least until something like that video has replaced the 3rd person camera we have now. There's no reason they couldn't remove third person until something like that system can be implemented. I just feel like if that system(removing the exploits) is the end goal, keeping the exploitable view in the game as a placeholder in the mean time is doing the game no favors. What if there are issues with that system? We fall back to the current system?

You realize you can't just say things with no reasoning. Just because you don't think it's a good representation, doesn't mean simply saying that to us will sway our opinions. Why is that poll not a good representation? Why is looking at the current server populations a better representation of a hypothetical situation that has never existed?

Rather than debate his side, he simply refuses to accept my personal experience or any evidence I bring him. Edit: Wreckless, it's over 800,000 now, at least be accurate if you're gonna get all picky over the numbers.

You're the only ones thinking that a low population of first person servers is a good representation of the whole dayz communities feelings towards first person only. Why should I accept that line of thinking when I've seen massive amounts of people saying they would accept the removal of third person? http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5220c5f8e4b09938befb2ec1

Your gear becomes damp after being in the water, so the water logged stuff is being done. Still very work in progress from what I've experienced, but soon enough.

Funny how whenever the disadvantages are brought up the 3rd person people just scream "you're doing it wrong!". Examples used in the video suddenly become "their fault for standing in the open". There's literally NO discussion to be had with some of these third person advocates. At least the first person advocates entertain every discussion brought up and constantly have to repeat their arguments and reasoning over and over again. The third person advocates just ignore our discussion and responses, move onto another topic which they think dismisses this whole debate, and the cycle continues. Funniest shit is the whole "your servers are empty, so you're the minority" conclusion that they seem to have forgotten was brought up by them. They're now trying to say that's specifically the reason we want to force our view on everyone, because we don't have enough full servers. Really, at some point we just need to stop responding to them. They're only making this thread a pointless read for everyone who attempts it. There's no discussion coming from their side anymore, they're just screaming the same crap over and over. Nothing constructive ever comes from talking to a person with their head buried in the sand. Kudos to Rick for keeping up the fight. My brain hurts too.

As long as it doesn't tell them my name I'm good with it.

They could go the route of GTA5 and whichever view you set in the options menu is the servers it displays.

Sigh. I equate nametags to 3rd person view. They're both things added to the game to help the player navigate the virtual world or identify others. While identifying friendlies without nametags, or navigating the world in first person view are more difficult, they're not impossible. So, I don't think they should be relied upon. If those things are in the game, they will be taken into consideration by the developers when new features are added. If they split the hive/game into regular & hardcore, you suddenly have two directions for the developers to consider. I feel like consistency is important in such a unique game. You asked for differences in arma/dayz. So I named things that DayZ removed or changed from vanilla arma2. I'm kind of confused by your replies. I guess you thought because some things worked amazingly in dayz, they should be reverted back to arma2 or integrated into arma3? Arma has always been a completely open military playground. Endless possibilities in customizing that game to suit your exact taste. Then there's DayZ, a consistent experience across the board. I don't really know a whole lot about Arma2, but I do know that the mutiplayer in dayz wasn't the same as vanilla Arma2. The AI zombies you encountered in DayZ were controlled by a players system. In vanilla Arma2, the AI is controlled by the server. How about you answer me a question? Why is it vital 3rd person remains in DayZ?(besides disappointing people obviously)

What did dayz change from Arma? Names tags, squads, markers, teams, HUD, inventory, missions, mutiplayer architecture, it was also the driving force in fixing a lot of bugs in Arma. Why strip 3rd person out now? Because it's "exploitable", and you have to admit if they are going to try removing it, the sooner the better. Also, after having played both options for extended periods of time, I feel like the first person perspective is the more difficult of the two. So, in the spirit of the game being consistently difficult, I think first person should be the only option.

Something like this would be nice..

I want what I believe is best for DayZ. Of course that's going to coincide with my personal preference. Weather that preference is catered for in server settings is irrelevant, I'm not concerned with my gaming as a player of DayZ. I'm concerned with the development of this game as a hardcore survival simulation. A good comparison was if they added the ability to do medical procedures on yourself. But, it was a server setting. Some people wouldn't want that to even be an option in DayZ. I've never felt like third person fit into arma, so the more you guys bring up that history, the more I just roll my eyes at that argument. DayZ changed a lot of things that were a part of Arma, it's not like Arma was ever killing in sales, most of us haven't played this series for the last 10 years, so it's a rather pointless argument to keep bringing up to me every post. If there's good reasons why it's been a part of the series all this time, argue those, don't just point at it's presence as reason enough to keep it.

You're pretty much spot on here. It's as irrational as people demanding 3rd person stay in the game. We all just want what we think is best for DayZ.

I'm guessing the hardcore/regular hive isn't enabled? I have the same character weather I join 3PP:Off or On.

The fact that you guys are so supporting of the system in that video shows that this discussion is not pointless. Even with the split servers. I'm not saying removal is the only solution, but it's the solution I would go with. Build the game around the first person perspective, get that working perfectly, and then work on reintroducing 3rd person in a better way. Perhaps using the method in the video. I personally don't care for the visuals of that method, but it does eliminate most of the problems. Point is, until they change the way third person can be used, this will always be up for discussion.

This thread & discussion are not pointless until 3rd person is removed completely. The original post questions why we have to settle for splitting up the servers when they could remove it entirely. It's not about us getting to play in first person, it's about the game and what we feel would improve it.

Please find me a post where I say I'm hardcore for playing in first person. You're just going back to the false assumption that we still play on 3rd person servers. Focusing on the fact that first person servers fell into obscurity in the MOD. Totally ignoring the fact that people are currently playing on them in the standalone. Myself included. Here's your reply when I asked you why you assume we don't play on first person servers...

Pointless thread is still pointless. OP falsely assumed the rubber banding was triggered by a patch, but there was no patch that day.

Us thinking 3rd person view is easy mode doesn't mean we think we're better people than you. You guys need to stop making this a personal issue. We're discussing the mechanics of a game in development. Nobody is right or wrong, we all just have different opinions about how it should be. Ever think we might be calling it "hardcore" because that's specifically what the developers themselves are calling the "first person only" hive? Calling it hardcore and claiming we're hardcore, are two very different things. I didn't see anyone puffying their chest claiming they're some kind of hardcore warrior survivalist. But, I'm not reading into it like you I guess.

Press caps lock and say hello.

I think this will come into play a bit with the diseases. Catching something with long term affects won't really matter if you die hours later, but it gets real serious if you're in a situation where you can survive long term.

The game goes to great lengths trying to encourage not killing each other, yet some people still choose the easiest way out. They are too comfortable being cowards. They will avoid a risky situation at all costs, even if it means a worse outcome. I feel like the fear of "losing" at DayZ prevents a lot of people from experiencing all that this game has to offer. But, the reality is nobody wins at this game, we all die sooner or later. What really makes DayZ special, at least for me, is the risky situations I get myself into, the times things get out of my control for a bit and my heart starts beating a littler faster. I have to make the best of it and pull myself out. When you're out to kill people. The world is going to look hostile to you. That's not to say a friendly player will see no hostility. But, it's amazing how much people don't want to chase down someone and kill them for no reason. They'll kill someone if it's convenient. But, if their prey starts running, mission accomplished, watch that area, make sure he doesn't return, but no need to track & chase some nobody that shits dangerous. On the other hand, hunting players pits you up against the players you come into contact with. If your first instinct is to kill them, you will inevitably put yourself in much greater danger. Real dangers as well, not just psychological dangers like someone fleeing from a dangerous situation faces. They're scared of the unknown... is he still chasing me? While somebody engaged in a firefight is rightfully scared for their life, either that or they feel nothing anymore because they've desensitized themselves to the violence in this video game. It's kind of a catch 22. I want to put myself in danger to feel these emotions. But, killing people on sight I feel would limit my experiences to only one type of situation, that I've already explored in not only the arma/dayz series, but lots of other games. I have no doubt killing on sight would keep my characters alive longer and put me in more threatening positions where I could use my "skill" to kill my attackers and feel good about pulling myself out of that situation. The problem with that is, it's like jerking off instead of getting laid. There's no surprise, there's no unknown, it feels all safe and routine.

Why wouldn't it be smarter to knock a player unconscious, strip him of his gear, break his legs, feed him some rotten food and then leave him. Essentially putting him in a worse position than a fresh spawn, but still not killing him. Potentially giving you more time before they could return with gear. It's better to have a weak player in your server than a fresh one. Or worse, if they quit due to dying and somebody with full gear fills their slot. It is a game after all.