Judopunch

Often buttons have multiple uses in this game. For example when you have a long range scope, you can hold right click and actually zoom in with your vision. However this is double bound with 'hold your breath' (used to make a steady shot) You can actually bind both functions to individual keys if you so desire. However the UI for it is not as user friendly as it could be right now.

Shift, rightclick, or space button. (unless you are on a hill, you go slower up hills)

Honestly, I dont think Dean meant what everybody thought he meant when he said that. I believe he should have either been more clear in his implication or not said anything at all.

No because you still have a larger field of vision in 3pp. Giving you an innate advantage.

Imagine if you were in first person. Its even more intense.

Your still a couple steps to far. This isnt a game or a tool yet. Its an alpha. Its like a car still on the assembly line, it has the frame some placeholder wheels, and an engine. It can drive (kind of) but its missing chairs, doors, ect. There are still massive parts of the game yet to be built, and there has been virtually 0 balance or direction in the game-play yet(think loot economy/re-spawn, significantly less chance to find military gear in police stations, food becoming rare.).

But its Thursday!!! :O Did we break it?

I mostly play 1pp, as stated in my first post.. You are getting rude at this point. I never said, implied, or endorsed anything you have stated. I take great offence to the two posts you have involved me in. Not only are you failing at basic comprehension. But now your are fabricating information. My problem with the 'pop or fade in' feature is highlighted in World of Tanks. To this day the spotting and vision mechanics in that game infuriate people and cause problems for new players because it doesnt make sense to have someone disappear and appear. Furthermore I provided a suggestion that would also mitigate the abuse of 3pp by controlling how the camera interacts with the environment and limiting its ability to be pivoted around a corner (that post of mine that im still trying to figure out what you were thinking.)

Why is this a problem? Now if you say 'because its not realistic' Or 'Because it provides an advantage.' Third person already does both of those things. Why would you not just play 1pp only?

... Im asking you for crystallization so that we can have a more focused and coherent discussion. I believe if you cant understand that we are at in impass. I was attempting to make sure I really understand your side of it.

But this is DayZ. When you spawn you spawn with nothing. How would super long engagement and vision change the already drastic difference between a geared and an un-geared player? Or god forbid a group of 10 players who want to camp all the spawn zones with high powered rifles that can reliably hit targets at considerable distances...

Yet again. This is a game. There you go on Dean again, you bought a game you already didn't like and now your complaining about it. I'm about to not give you any more attention. Your also taking your personal interpretation of that quote, that in my opinion is very very very very far off of the context of what he was actually saying. The game already breaks general balance paradigms. Weapon ranges could be half of what they are currently and that would still be true. There are also a lot of questions I have been asking that have not been fully addressed. Im going to take a break now. If you have something concise and well thought out I would be happy to respond to it. I love the game just the way it is. I also know that it is not finished and not only see what it is but what it can become for better or worse. I hope it gets better. I would like, if you are so inclined, for you to provide a compelling solution and a specific example to your problem that takes into account a 1km maximum render distance. Mechanics already in the game. And why it would be a more enjoyable experience for the majority of players than what is currently in the game. I would also like you to consider if some of these things will be added or adjusted naturally as the game is developed.

... ... ... Really? I mean... Im flabbergasted that you would post something so poorly thought out. By moving the camera back 15 feet you have a better view of the area surrounding your character. Yes the 'field of view' in an angular since of the camera lens may remain unchanged. But the field of view of the battlefield has been significantly altered and expanded, because your are 15 feet further back. More is within your field of view. I mean, did you really just post that?

Why is it necessary to even do this. As per the main point of my entire post.

This here is the fundamental thing I think your not understanding. Game design. If the maximum range the game is capable of is 1.2km (lets just say 1.2, though I believe its 1) By making the M4 capable of hitting that range you eliminate the necessity or advantage of having a bolt action rifle. You eliminate game play. You solution is to 'bump up' the distance. That is not within the realistic scope of the games development. There are mechanical and programmatic restrictions on what is possible. The game also needs to be playable by players, I have a super high end rig now, my girlfriend does not though hers is not bad. Even at 1km they are pushing the limits of what an average gaming machine can do. However I hope my example shows you that your expectations are incorrect with what the game is designed around. Primarily that the game is designed around being a game. You should then understand that the range of 300m allowing for an accurate grouping with an M4 real world equivalent of 600-700m. I can etch my name into a tree with a knife in real life, why cant i do it in DayZ? Because its a game, its not real life.

Honestly, why? The problem with third (also first) person is that you can glitch to see THROUGH walls (over or around isnt as much of an issue, see below) I only really play on hardcore servers, because this mod is only trying to emulate first person perspective. If you want third person perspective, you innately have more field of view at all times anyways. It creates an uncomfortable compromise that doesn't really add any benefit. How are you going to make them not 'pop' in if you for example check a corner and a guy IS RIGHT THERE. You have less than half a second to pull the trigger, 'fade in' isnt really an option. Playing in third person has innate bonuses that can not be overcome. If you want realism in the game, play in first person. If you want to play an adventure game play in third. I do not understand why there is a need to 'fix' third person. Its not broken, and I dont see this adding value to third person short of 'trying to make it more like first person. There are also a number of different ways to fix this that dont involve 'disappearing guys'. Lock the camera to your characters point of view, and lower its center to shoulder/chest level instead of hovering above the character. Give the camera a large hitbox with collision detection to prevent people from looking around or over an obstacle to far. I have not seen a compelling reason why something like hiding what you cant see would 'fix' some problem. If you dont like people looking in god mode, there is first person.

Than fundamentally you are only an person with abias opinion. Who no amount of logic or reasoning will appeal to you. By this post you are bassically confirming a few things. 1) You hate the developer and the way he builds games AND YET YOU STILL PAYED FOR DAYZ SA. That is very confusing to me. There is a reason that I didnt buy the Diablo 3 expansion. 2) You have such a strong opinion but have never tested or researched exactly what is effecting your weapon from a game play perspective. Your ignorance is getting in the way of you making a valid point. 3) I do like the idea of weapon sway being more of a factor, however, do you see less people complaining if its weapon sway vs dispersion? How would you incorporate more 'skill' i suppose. Because honestly dispersion is just an approximation of weapon sway without the visual feedback. If you would like, my post above this one has my thoughts on why the weapons are balanced in the way they currently are.

How far would you take it? Why is it better to use a more complex system. Would you say that the current in game accuracy is fine but you are finding a lack of information being fed to you as a player? Also calling it counter-intuitive is a bit.... .... every video game on the planet is using some version of recoil/dispersion this unless the game is a hit scan quake spin-off. There is absolutely nothing counter-intuitive about it. I would be willing to try a version of DayZ where you could headshot people with an M4 100% of the time from 600m, but I am sure that I wouldn't enjoy it. The guns are a feature of the game. The game is about interacting with players in a zombie apocalypse. It is not a rifle simulator. I would also not find it fun to be continually shot by some guy sitting on a hill over a mile away, because I stopped to take a drink of my canteen. From a game design perspective 1km is pretty much the maximum range you can engage people. The server doesnt draw much beyond that, further many peoples computers can not handle rendering information at that distance. therefore from a game perspective, we can look at the roll of each weapon in context. Not the real worlds context, the games. Consideration 1) Maximum target render 1km. Consideration 2) Assume we dont want to build a completely new way to manage how guns and weapons work from how their game is already set up. 3) Create an experience for players that rewards skill and knowledge without violating 2. Than we can break into ranges Melee, short, medium, long, extreem. With a maximum distance of 1km, we have melee at 3m, Short is the realm of pistols and shotguns, lets say 3m-100m lets say Medium, where assault weapons could have a happy life, lets go with 200-400m Long range the realm of rifles, 400-900m Extreme, luck probably plays into this in any situation 1km. Rifles, knowledge, chance. By moving effective ranges of weapons even by 500 you remove game-play based around positioning and the limits of the actual game. What do you think? Edit: The point Im trying to make is that this is just about exactly how the game is currently set up

I think that the developers have a pretty damn good handle on how to build a video game. Now, if there are still problems when it is finished in a year or so we can talk about what they need to change. However you are speaking of things that you do not understand, and/or may not be within the scope or vision of the developers final product. Unless you are using the QCB butt-stock, I find it very hard to believe that the guns are to inaccurate to be effectively used in the average engagement distances in dayz..

this guy did a good test from 100m. Arguments could be made that the QCB's accuracy is to greatly diminished. The rest seems perfectly fine to me.

Why do you believe that the cone of fire mechanics are excessive? What would be better about having say, a laser accurate weapon? All of your 4 are already in the game except Weight (to my knowledge) and I would actually like to see more weapon sway especially after a good long run. Edit: sorry this is unclear. How would you go about making weapons more accurate from a game design perspective. What elements would you create/modify and how / how much? Why would this be better? I challenge you to be more specific than a 1-4 list.

You make it sound like thats the only factor. Your oversimplifying what you want. If we cant make it like a game than we need to make it more like real life, is what I believe your problem with the game is. Therefor, we need to add a couple things, stiff neck, arm falling asleep, soar muscles. Arm strength, gun balance, pack balance, adrenalin, fatigue, bugs, atmospheric pressure, wind, wind differences, moisture, elevation, where the moon is, heart beat, how hungry you are, vision problems, numb fingers, infection, fear, bugs, needing to pee, distracting noises, trigger squeeze, amo load, amo quality, mechanical wear, sighting of the scope, thickness of your clothing, trigger pull distance. In a short list. But thats not realistic. People always say this, but if you pull the trigger incorrectly and nudge your gun off target by even the smallest amount you shot will loose accuracy. More importantly these details are not required to make the game work right. I have yet to see a compelling argument that would support adding this level of 'realism' to the game and how it would make the game more fun. And even if somehow they perfectly simulated reality (which would not necessarily make it a better game) someone would still be unhappy with something. So the question I pose to you is this. What VALUE to GAMEPLAY would you be adding to make 'weapons more accurate' as you seem to want. Also keep in mind, that a mag-pull equipped M4 meets all of your requirements for accuracy.

And how would you account for that with a gun, in a video game. Your context is missing from your quote, here is the next paragraph. “So I wanted to see what happened if I break the balance. What if I put the player in a situation that is essentially hopeless where every part of the world is out to get them and if they make one mistake that mistake could cost them their character’s life?“

Like I said "GAME" mechanics. You could also make an argument about how significantly ergonomics effects accuracy. Pointing that barrel in a 1mm different direction could have an impact of changing your landing spot by several centimeters at 300M. But ya. This is a game. Mouse and keyboard to shoot your gun.

In DayZ the game mechanics allow for different parts to effect the operation of the weapon, inspired by real life. The QCB for example is treated to be in the retracted position, this allows you to ready the weapon (space bar) In about half the time of the other buttstocks, however, due to the 'shorter buttstock' you will not be able to shoulder the weapon as effectively so the game reduces your accuracy. Using mag-pull parts the weapon is very very accurate even out to 300m. The stock parts the weapon is accurate to probably around 200. Different pieces basically add or subtract stats from the accuracy, as do your stance and if you have a bipod deployed or not. (i believe if the bipod is deployed and your standing its supposed to make you less accurate). The system is not quite complete I believe (not sure) and is also definitely not intuitive (like most of the game).