finnpalm

Why? I mean what's your opinion on why it's a bad idea?

New zombie animations in testing They are in testing, meaning they're not a final solution.

The new team that's brought in to work on the hunting system is supposed to also look at pathing in the game. Hopefully they'll figure out a fix for the bug. Patience. ;)

Have you seen the movie 28 days later? The idea is, and although they're fictional it's supposed to be believable, that they are infected. Since they're still human they can keep some of their physical traits but over time they would degenerate. In the movie this happens and the survivors are basically able to "wait the zombies out". In this game something similar could be implemented maybe, or to keep it simple there could just be different zombies in different stages of degeneration. But, muscular decomposition assumes they're rotting. They're not rotting, but maybe starving. That could allow for what you suggest. But the "not dead but infected" comment above was directed at the idea that they're not able to move fast because they're decomposing.

Well, I agree, but I was thinking that if you want to measure the actual spread of the weapons you'd have to eliminate the human factor, just like you'd have to lock a weapon in a vice in real life.

As stated before, they're not dead people walking. They're living people infected with a disease.

Just curious, but how do you rule out the human factor when doing your measurements? I'm assuming you don't put your mouse in a vice, but how do you make sure it doesn't move? Like for example removing the mouse and mapping the fire button to the keyboard? I'm sure some people feel like their mouse isn't moving but with modern day gaming mouses and their resolution and gamers usually playing on fairly high mouse sensivity that factor really needs to be ruled out.

I want hand grenades. As an extremely rare spawn of course. I also realised just now that the more different guns there are, the harder it will be to find the right ammo, the right magazines for a particular weapon and so on, and I kinda like that. Amazing how I haven't thought of that until now..

Heh, yeah I didn't mean you should provide me with it. :) I was just saying.

If it is indeed as intended, I'd like to hear the thinking behind it before deciding on whether I think it's a good thing or not. If there is a very good reason for it I mean.

I doubt that's the reason. If it is, it's not "working". :)

Alright. At least you're being honest. I'll just try to duplicate it myself and report it then I guess, unless someone else beats me to it.

Did you report that on the feedback page? I know this is a feedback thread, but in my opinion you should put that up there as well. And please link the report afterwards, so we can upvote it. ;)

Ok, I agree that it should be an easy fix. Why do you reckon they aren't doing it then? Honest question.

Yeah, I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that not thinking that fixing the dispersion should be that big of a priority is ridiculous?

Yet you didn't disagree with it. I said "in a combat situation". You said "in a combat situation". I agreed that when standing still in a shooting range you can consistently hit an A4 paper at 100 m. Please outline those conditions where it would be a piece of cake. And I haven't argued that the current dispersion is fine. I agree. So what exactly in my post is it that you disagree with and find ridiculous?

I think that the best solution to zombies spawning in plain sight is to let the game track your line of sight and have the zombies spawn behind things. It would be much more immersive to see zombies stumble out from behind a bush or around the corner of a house and then come at you. On account of clipping through walls, this bug is being worked on so I won't say anything about that. I also think the best solution is to keep numbers fairly low, and make the zombies more powerful, rather than having large numbers of weak zombies. The reason for this is that it will not cause as much lag. So basically, before we had like what, three zombies in a town? Maybe double that number, make different types (two or three) that move at different speeds, and the faster ones can hit faster but not as hard, and the slower ones will attack more slowly, but harder, and maybe even have a tiny chance of knocking you down (not unconscious, just knocked over so you have to stand up again, or attack from prone). Just a couple of thoughts.

Well, I did say "depending on the particular attachment". You're obviously right. But I'd like to add a couple of thoughts. Plastic attachments that makes a weapon lighter makes it easier to hold a weapon up over an extended length of time. Sure it wouldn't affect accuracy immediately, but the longer you fight the more tired your arms become and instead of giving an over all boost to accuracy, it could make it take longer before your arms tire, perhaps? How does that sound? And I'm pretty sure the bipod only gives a bonus if you're prone and have it deployed, correct me if I'm wrong. All in all, I like your above ideas. Steadying the weapon on a surface (or even the side of an object you're in cover behind) would be awesome. No need to be hostile and call my post ridiculous. Especially since you're not really disagreeing with anything I wrote in it. I bolded the part that is relevant to my reply. Of course (I have never argued otherwise) you can consistently hit the size of an A4 at 100 m in a shooting range while being still and taking your time with the shots, but like you point out, a piece of paper isn't running around and shooting back. Now this leads me to a completely different subject that I think should be discussed at some point. The comparisons with shooting at a shooting range at a still target as opposed to engaging an enemy during tactical movement. Which is more relevant in the game? Now, I know some people here will argue that the weapons are inaccurate while completely still as well, but that's not really that big of an issue in my opinion as long as they're equally inaccurate while moving and shooting. Sure, it should be fixed if that is the case and the numbers are way off, but shouldn't have to be that big of a priority, unless you're consistently sniping (being still) at unmoving targets (unaware of you).

How do you propose it should or could be simulated? On the account of attachments, depending on the particular attachments, they can affect all kinds of characteristics of a weapon, like for example accuracy and recoil handling. But one thing I'd like to see (don't know if this is already in the game) is some sort of adjustment for the weight of the weapon when turning. For example the faster and more you turn with the weapon up and aiming down the sights the harder it is to control it, and you lose accuracy temporarily until you steady your aim again. When lowering the weapon before turning and then raising it again to fire this accuracy loss should be negated. Small movements should also bring with it some accuracy loss, albeit very small. But large sverves should definately affect your ability to aim.

This. I think that will solve some of it. At least for the players getting their legs broken.

Well, I'm currently trekking through the north, and in the hours I have played I have yet to see a single zombie. It's completely empty up there, so I can't really comment on the actual mechanics, other than that they don't seem to spawn in the far north at all. I've passed through completely unlooted towns and haven't seen a single one.

That's a very good shot. Had it been a person it would have been among the longest distance sniper kills in the world. What's the recommended distance for the TRG-42? EDIT: Just googled around for a bit and you would have taken thirteenth place for that distance (sorry for making it sound like a competition).

Well, personally I see third person perspective as a good enough trade off. If they were to implement a system that allows you to seamlessly adjust your view height, like in Arma 3, and along with support for track IR, I'd be all over Hardcore in an instant. But we're not there currently, so I play that which feels more immersive to me.

Are you following me? I can see that you have viewed my profile, and now you're suddenly replying to every post I make in every thread I post in, after we disagree in the "hate 3rd pp" thread? You're seriously creeping me out now. Especially since you accuse me of being the one that's throwing "hissy fits" while you're the calm and collected one. It's not hard to see that you're making that up completely by just reading your posts in the "hate 3rd pp" thread. Or maybe you've gone back and edited them to make it seem otherwise (good thing I have all replies forwarded to my inbox so I can read them there). I wouldn't put that past you considering your all over behavior. Effective range for the M4 in DayZ is 400 m. That's very far. Without magnifying scopes it will be hard to hit a human size target at that range. And you say that's the average? So assuming it's a flat curve there are people who consistently hits targets at 600 m with an M4? 700 m? I don't buy that. At 500 m irl you will of course be able to damage something, but you might not be able to hit it at all, assuming you can even make out the target at that distance. Sure you'd be able to consistently hit a target at a 100 m while being still and taking your time with the shots. Try doing jumping jacks and push-ups for 20 to 30 seconds before taking three to four shots at 100 m in around 15 seconds. Done? Now try it at 200. Again, I'm not saying the dispersion in DayZ is good, but an effective range of 400 or 500 m can't possibly be the distance at which you can consistently hit a target, unless you have magnifying optics. Yeah I'm sure you can no scope 360 a bird farther than 100 m. Don't tell me, the bird is in mid flight too, right? And you're doing it while drinking a beer and solving a rubik's cube with your toes at the same time, I'm sure. To adress the point, I said I might not have the numbers exactly right, but they are along those lines. It takes a lot more bullets than you'd think to take out an enemy in real life combat. EDIT: Actually, don't bother replying to me anymore. I've put you on ignore. You're creeping me out, stalking me around the forum and nitpicking about my posts, starting flame wars and whatnot. And you certainly don't have a clue what a strawman argument is.

Ok, since you clearly are letting your rage cloud your brain too much I'll give it one more go clarifying. You're nitpicking. You're so busy raging on something you don't like you still don't manage to see with your own fucking eyes that the picture rendered is wider if you watch it in third person view than it is in first person view. Blah blah blah field blah blah you don't understand blah. I don't give a shit if I'm not using a term to your liking. The view that is rendered is wider in third person no matter what you want to call it. You're making a strawman argument, ironically enough, by arguing against my choice of words. They're not the point I'm making. Well, keep waiting. Because that's just another strawman argument. It's not a relevant point that I've made. It was a fucking paranthesis (also I never said triple A or reputable. I said respectable, but you either lack the ability to comprehend or your desire to flame just makes you conveniently ignore that). Now, you can sit there and cry because I don't agree with you. You can even have the last word if that comforts you somehow. I don't give a shit. You're not adressing my points (simply going "nuh-uh" doesn't count), you seem to think that people who prefer third person view somehow encroach on your preferred play mode and you somehow think that if you find one small error in someone's argument you can invalidate all their points. Go play hardcore and let those who want to play regular do that. You're seriously getting angry over something that isn't, or shouldn't be a problem. What a sorry case you are. Going to leave you now. I know you'll try to provoke me into replying to you again. Your kind always does that. You're just here to argue.