Grimey Rick

Everyone has different tastes, but I think your assessment is pretty ignorant. I win 99% of the PvP encounters I experience in DayZ, even against squads, by myself. I might go 3:1 in Battlefield on a decent server on a good day. Much more challenging. The mod barely qualified as a survival simulation. And as far as brain activity is concerned, I'd bet my house that there's far more brain activity going on while playing Battlefield and making constant split second decisions for the entirety of the time you play, as opposed to DayZ where you blunder around for hours without encountering anyone. Then when you finally do, you either attempt a conversation, get shot at, or shoot the other person. This game ain't exactly hard, let's face it. I love it, but I'm not going to blatantly lie for it, ha. I also don't follow your logic pertaining to DayZ and its "depth". Of what dost thou speaketh?

What's wrong with Battlefield? Very fun game, much more challenging online than DayZ/Arma. I'm confused.

I get it. It's just a clunky, unnecessary feature that has no other purpose than trying to give virtual reality simulation to a random guy sitting at home on a 19" monitor. It doesn't work. It's ugly. It's basically a jimmy-rigged way of trying to accomplish something that isn't possible without thousands of dollars worth of hardware. My suggestion is that we keep it simple, make it prettier, and move on? So many other games do it. Why does DayZ have to be the game that doesn't? Then, these same people argue that we keep 3PP -- mind, these are the same people crying realism in every other thread. Can't have it both ways.

You can try to justify it all you want. First of all, why do you feel that things need to be to scale? It's a video game. Nothing will ever be to scale. The entire right click zoom feature is a crutch. You can spot people just fine without it. Things don't need to be bigger than they are in your default field of vision unless you acquire a scope or binoculars. You want to simulate the human eye on a screen? Okay. Make things you're not currently focused on blurry. Make things you are currently focused on sharper. This game will never replicate proper field of view/depth of view until you're hooked up to a virtual reality simulator WHICH THIS ENGINE WAS DESIGNED AROUND, right? When they stopped using RV, they tried, and succeeded, selling it to the public. I'm sure somewhere along the way features were removed and added in order to make games playable on a desktop computer. This stupid zoom feature is one of those things. It literally makes zero sense.

Our ability to spot movement while unzoomed is perfectly fine. Speaking for myself, I can spot movement half a kilometer away without having to zoom in. That's how it is in real life, too. If I zoom in, I'm then able to potentially tell you how well geared that person is... at 500 meters! Completely ridiculous. I can make shots in DayZ using iron sights that I can't make in Battlefield in nearly identical situations. Doesn't make sense. The zoom feature is nearly as powerful as the PU scope. Also completely ridiculous. There's literally no reason to have this "feature" in-game, as the developers seem to be realizing. They're slowly phasing it out, which is good.

Be that as it may, the zoom function didn't make sense at all. Never did. AA is, whether you like it or not, how you achieve depth of field on a screen. Not by magically giving the player a free scope when they right click.

GTA5 on PS4/XB1/PC does it quite well, albeit automatically -- there's no button to press to initiate it. And I really have to disagree with Pilgrim and Gews (why do I always feel racist when I read his name? Soft or hard 'G'?) here. Zooming in as a concept to "focus" is a terribly flawed mechanic. It even goes against the very definition of the word. Battlefield 4 maps, although not nearly as large as Chernarus don't have a zoom button, and for all intents and purposes, someone 300 meters out in that game is just as tiny as someone an equal distance out in DayZ. If you only have a 1X RDS/iron sights, you're probably not going to hit him. You need a scope of some sort, right? I still don't get why this is such an issue. Arma added a lot of silly mechanics back in its heyday, and unfortunately several of them have stuck, and to the point of it causing an uproar over a mechanic that didn't make sense in the first place.

By making things in the distance (say 50+ meters away) and in our peripherals blurry. Right click could sharpen them as long as the button is held. Look at an item, say your television, from ten feet away. When you're looking at the screen, everything around that focal point is blurry. When you "focus" on your Blu-ray player on the shelf below your television, it doesn't magically zoom in, lol. They really need to shift the focus away from Arma and start focusing on AA.

How exactly does zooming in compare to human eyes focusing? If they want to do it right, when you right click the mouse, it should sharpen whatever you're looking at, not zoom in... Really, am I the only one who thinks that? Force AA on some level to blur things in your peripheral vision and ~50 meters out, right click to sharpen. If people can't run DayZ because of forced AA, then they need to spend some money upgrading. Seems pretty simple to me.

hay guy can i run DayZ?? rig in sig lol ty

Badmins who think they're amusing/funny on global voice chat have got to be the most annoying thing on the internet.

Well I'm describing the exact same thing, and mine isn't caused by latency/frame rate issues. At any given time, either myself or my wife moves visibly slower than the other person. As stated before, we can be completely healthy, fully energized and hydrated, and it still happens. We've even switched gear and had the same result.

Then why does it happen to me and the wife? Both have very good computers, same 150/50 connection. Neither of us ever lags as far as frame rate or latency; desync is the only thing we suffer from every now and then. It still happens to us...

I don't think it's hardware related at all. When I play with my wife in the same room, on the same 150mbps connection, with very similar rigs (mine is in my signature, hers is my old 5.2GHz 2600K/32GB RAM/RAID 0 120GB SSDs with a GTX 760), one of us always seems to run faster than the other at any given time. We can be fresh spawns, or fully kitted. It doesn't matter if we're both healthy with nothing in our hands. As a matter of fact, my wife recently ran FASTER than me with her SKS in her hands while my Mosin was on my back. If anything, the only reason I'd believe without substantial proof would be packet loss/desync.

#welcometolastyear

You're not a good troll bro. Not at all eloquent. Also, nothing I like more than a good old fashioned cop out. When you can explain to me how being able to peek around corners and over ledges at zero risk to your avatar is balanced/good game design for a survival game in which it can literally take you days to gear up in, we'll continue this conversation. In the meantime, your terrible quips will be sorely missed.

I'm still waiting for the rebuttal explaining to me how I'm wrong in my sentiments pertaining to the blatant imbalance of 3PP. Thanks.

Thanks for that insightful post. Did I not JUST explain how I'd prefer to play in 3PP but refuse to due to the blatant abuse of the camera angles? As far as immersion, explain to me how running around staring at your character's ass is more 'immersive' than you yourself being the character? Why are games like Outlast and Alien: Isolation in 1PP, do you think? Not sure of the answer? Because it's MORE IMMERSIVE. It puts you IN the character. You only see what they see, you can't magically see around corners or over ledges. Sorry, but that's not immersion. Paint it however you'd like. You can PREFER whichever mode you'd like. Just like I PREFER 3PP, but I have the brainpower to realize it's a game-breaking mechanic. Not only regarding PvP, but scouting towns for zombies, etc. Also, why are you bringing up FIFA? Lol.

It doesn't matter what you prefer. It doesn't matter what I prefer. 3PP is broken, and horribly imbalanced. If I had to choose, I'd pick 3PP for no other reason than it's more visually appealing. But, y'know, there's that whole "broken" thing where you can see over walls and around corners without your opponent being able to reciprocate.

...and the fanboyism continues. It's all good. I'm immune, bros. I've been having this conversation for a year and a half now. You guys play 3PP for an unfair advantage. Just admit it. (; "NO WAY MAN, 1PP GIVES ME MOTION SICKNESS AND, UMMM... I LIKE TO SEE MY CHARACTER!" Yeah. Right.

There is a specific purpose... not sure if you're serious, can't read, or have lost your mind. The specific purpose we've already mentioned multiple times is to make a game that's challenging while maintaining some semblance of balance. Choosing the easy route is not just human nature either, many animals choose laziness over unnecessary exertion. Humans are different because we can choose to push ourselves for no other reason than wanting to be challenged, like pushing ourselves through those last few reps on the bench, or creating a game that's a cut above every other generic trash game out there.

Sir, I've been where you are. I gave up months ago. The development of this game is, and has always been... special? It's easier just to stop caring, play and post every now and then, and just see how it turns out in 1.0.

I care because the whining of the masses about such a cosmetic feature is going to ruin the game in the long run. Such is the way of life on every level of retail, though. And I'd play 1PP too, but, y'know, 90% of the servers are empty because easymode 3PP. Someone else hit the nail on the head when they gave an example about giving people $50 to either run a mile or sit on a bench for a few minutes. Humans suck and always choose the easy route. If you feel that all of those people are playing 3PP so that they can appreciate their characters, then lol.

Lol, this. So much. /thread