BeefBacon

As a pessimist I doubt it, but that'd be all kinds of wonderful. Hicks standing on a stage saying ".60 is LIVE", pyrotechnics go off behind him. "Look under your chairs and you'll find your very own DayZ .60!" I would approve of that immensely.

I suppose it'll actually be four days, given that it probably won't be released over the weekend. It's annoying (if they are indeed holding its release) but understandable. Though also not understandable because I'm pretty keen on playing .60 this weekend. I don't now what to think any more.

I don't know. Are you saying it's been ready for a while now? I can see it being ready maybe a couple of days ago an so they're holding it for PAX. I don't see a problem with that. Now that all these clues are surfacing that .60 is close, however, I am getting very impatient - I don't really care for months, and now it's (maybe) days away I cannot wait. Who knows, maybe they plan to release .60 in time for PAX so they can join a full server or something (though people running around in dresses and fire extnguishers might not be the best way to show off .60). Maybe we're looking at it too closely. Given that the devs have made numerous comments about how badly they want to release .60 I can't imagine they'd want to purposefully push it back - not for more than a day or two anyway.

They wouldn't upload a version for PAX though, would they? They'd just have it on a hard disk. Fingers crossed for this week or next. If they have a working build I hope they don't wait for PAX, but it's understandable if they do.

I've never been a bandit. It's not for want of trying, I'm just really bad at the game. I'm the sort of bandit who'd get the drop on you before slipping on a banana peel.

The visible part of an object can be rendered while the invisible part isn't rendered. If you can see their leg, then only their leg renders rather than either rendering their entire body or rendering nothing at all. If that isn't possible then a threshold can be set so that objects are rendered just before they become visible, rather than at the exact moment they become visible. While this second option could still be exploited, it'd be considerably harder - and any wall peeking would be limited to a tiny angle that would be unlikely to confer a significant advantage. It wouldn't be that exact script, or even necessarily something similar. The video showcases a concept - you can only see stuff in 3pp that you would be able to see in 1pp. It's the concept that is broadly being discussed, not the actual script and how it functions.

That's not a good argument. You're basing that assertion off of a script that some guy probably made in an afternoon. I imagine a large team of dedicated developers with considerably more resources and access to the core of the game and its engine would be able to do a better job. Tightening the camera can only do so much. I suppose it's possible that the camera could intelligently detect scenarios so that it restricts itself dynamically, though. I wish the devs would do this sort of thing in experimental. Experimental just seems to be a platform on which people can stress test and find bugs for stable - there's nothing very experimental about it.

I quoted the OP. I appreciate your attempts to view this topic objectively, but it's very difficult to talk about 3pp without mentioning, even implicitly, 1pp. Remember that it has been stated by the devs (or a dev, this was a while ago) that 1pp is how DayZ is meant to be played. That is an important aspect of the discussion as that view directly impacts the way DayZ is being designed. It creates a dissonance where the game is being designed one way, but people are playing it another. The result is that either a compromise sometimes has to be met when it comes to design decisions to make them affect two distinct styles of play, or certain elements of the game (backpacks obscuring vision, for example) are ignored entirely depending on whether you're playing in 1pp or 3pp. However, I will make some effort to try and avoid the topic of 1pp, especially given we seem to agree on what the actual problem is. 'Peeking' or 'wall peeking' are terms I use to refer to all kinds of 3pp peeking. You'll notice I used the example of a sniper on a roof in my mini essay. Having a different word for different kinds of peeking seems unconstructive - what about walls that are broken at the bottom? That's broken-bottom-of-wall peeking of course. I also tried to cover points made in favour of 3pp, but concluded that it provides no actual benefit to gameplay outside of aesthetic (being able to see your character) and lessening the impact of poor performance. I've seen a few people mention the crosshair in the past. I don't necessarily think that it's a direct result of 3pp, but I think that it exists in the way that it does in order to facilitate hip fire in 3pp. I would remove it completely, but keep a dot in the center of the screen. The dot doesn't represent where we're aiming, but it provides a point of reference when we're trying to pick things up. I would very much like to know if the devs are aware of this occlusion thing. If they are, what do they think of it? Is it feasible? Do they have a better idea? Is peeking something they even intend to address outside of minor changes to camera angles?

No... Now that might not cause grief, as such, but it does remove some nuance from the game. Other issues are largely subjective. Immersion, for example - some say 1pp is more immersive, others say 3pp is more immersive. 3pp may well be perpetuating the hip fire crosshair that is currently in-game, and that has no business existing in a hardcore survival game. DayZ seems to be a game that is being designed for 1pp, but has 3pp slapped on top of it, the sole reason being that the mod had it. The wall peeking thing is the main issue. If wall peeking was somehow fixed, but any other issues related to 3pp remained, I don't think many people would complain too much. If everyone was honest and swore some solemn oath to never wall peek, there wouldn't be a problem. Peoples' issue isn't with 3pp itself, I certainly don't mind being able to pan around in third person, the issue is that it can be exploited. The best solution I've seen is the occlusion thing - if you can't see it in 1pp you can't see it in 3pp.

I'd play 1pp more if the performance was better - providing of course that my mate wanted to play 1pp as well. 1pp from a gameplay perspective is objectively better. Wall peeking is an exploit, and it is an unfair advantage regardless of whether everyone uses it or not. Let's say there was a type of wall that maybe had a funny collision mesh which allowed you to see through it when you stand at a certain angle. Would that be fair because everyone can do it, or would it be an exploit? Let's say there's any easy way to duplicate items, so you give yourself infinite ammo. Would that be fair because everyone can do it, or would that be an exploit? "Well those obviously weren't intended by the developers!" I hear you cry. I have a hard time believing that the devs were sitting around a table discussing how they want players to be able to peek around walls in 3pp. In fact they've made some effort to reduce our capacity to wall peek. Imagine a sniper lying prone on a roof in 3pp. They can see you, but there's no possible way that you can see them. 1pp is centered around risk/reward. You poke your head out and you risk getting spotted, but you are rewarded with information. You wear a big backpack (as the OP mentioned) and you can't look over your shoulder, but you are rewarded with more inventory space. In 3pp you can peek over a wall and see if there are any zombies, completely shitting on a large part of the PvE aspect. A while back, probably in .57ish I went into a fire station on a 1pp server. I found a flare gun and thought it'd be fun to shoot it into the sky, since it was night time. As I'm leaving the station I get shot at by a PM73 and I panic fire the flare as I'm running back into the fire station. The flare covers up the sound of me positioning myself near the stairs so I can cover the back door with my MP5, but if he tries moving in through the front I'll hear him. The flare dies down but I don't move. He managed to hit me a couple of times - I didn't bleed, but for all he knows I'm dead. Minutes pass, and I consider making a run for it, but I don't know if he's waiting for me. Eventually I see him peek through the back door, and I kill him - but then I wait. Maybe he has friends. After a couple more minutes I bolt, and I survive. By waiting in the station I had a secure position and good cover, and by not moving at all I was able to convince him I was dead, but I sacrificed information. I had no idea if he was alone or in a group, or what he was doing. Did he leg it after he failed to kill me? Is he waiting out front? Is he going round the back? He has no idea if I'm alive. If I am alive, did I go to the top? He didn't see me go up. I can't be waiting this long, I must have logged. He decides to go round the back to see if I'm even there. He takes a risk and he pokes his head out, but I had the better of him. I took advantage of his lack of information, and later took a risk when I ran out because I didn't know if he was alone. Now imagine that exact scenario, but we're both equipped with magical periscopes that allow us to see each other. So at best 3pp detracts from gameplay. At worst it's an exploit. What pros does 3pp confer? It doesn't increase FoV, but it does increase awareness of your immediate vicinity, including behind your own head. DayZ is a game that focuses on our characters, and it's nice to be able to see what we look like in the environment - when I play on 3pp servers (which is most of the time since 1pp is underpopulated and there are some really good 3pp private servers) I like to travel in 3pp because I like to look at my character. For some, 1pp can cause nausea caused by head bob (which can be disabled) and the horrible frame rate, which is set to improve. So the pros don't exactly weigh out the cons. I've never heard an argument in favour of 3pp, from a realism or authenticity standpoint, that made me go "that's a good point." People like 3pp because they like being able to peek over walls, they like to see their character and, in fairness, 3pp is easier on the head brain when you're lucky to scrape 30fps. Barring the frame rate issue, there doesn't seem to be a viable argument for 3pp to exist besides "I like it." As @St. Jimmy said, this seems to be a good solution. Maybe not this exact script since it doesn't seem very precise, but something like it would be perfect. It would remove many of the inherent issues of 3pp while not getting rid of 3pp. I'm not in favour of removing 3pp. If the devs suddenly decided to remove it, I'd get used to it pretty quickly, but I don't think I'd actually support its removal. A compromise as shown in the video above sounds ideal. Everybody wins and threads like this can disappear forever.

Hah, I wish I had such luck. That's very gentlemanly. Nah, in my case both my friend and I died in an excellent example of why you should always shoot first rather than give some shifty bastards the benefit of the doubt. It was actually kind of hilarious. We're in Zelenogorsk and spot these guys 'stealthily' creeping towards us. Instead of shooting them we keep our distance, but it quickly becomes apparent that they're not friendly, and they shoot first. We traded fire and ran away from each other. My buddy and I got split up. I go into a shed, bleeding, when I see my mate run by "you just ran past me, I'm right here" he doesn't see me "you practically just looked at me" he still doesn't see me, so I bandage. My mate runs in and starts trying to punch me out "why are you..." oh. No, turns out it was one of the guys who tried to kill us, only he was wearing the exact same clothes as my mate. I shoot him twice with my Winchester, he runs away. Tragically, my mate did finally spot 'me' behind him, which is exactly where I said I was. "That's not me!" too late. By this point I know there's at least two of them, but one of them has no ammo. I try to save my mate but he dies as I get out into the street, I shoot one of them again and they scatter. I move to a better position as I take more fire. I know my mate had an SKS so I wanted to deny the unarmed guy that advantage. I try to flank round to my mate's body to grab the SKS, but it's not on his body any more. Sure enough, SKS fire is spammed out of a side alley and I die. Basically everything, including how bad we are at the game, conspired against us. We, or I, would probably have been fine if two point-blank Winchester shots to the chest had proved lethal - It may even have been three shots as I'm not sure which one I hit in the street. That's DayZ.

I shot a guy twice in the chest at point blank with a Winchester and he was fine. I think sometimes it's just a bit screwy. In my case the guy just bled a little. @Rags! "Enfusiastic about 0.60" I see what you did there.

I'm not against this. I suppose my only concern is its feasibility. Like if society collapsed a week ago, my first instinct wouldn't be "I want to mount a skull on a pike and wear somebody's face skin on my face."

I've not played DayZ since January. I was disappointed when we didn't get .60 at the end of Febuary, and I suppose I'm faintly disappointed when new versions don't include features I'm specifically looking forward to, but am I disappointed in DayZ as a whole? Absolutely not. If the devs turned around right now and said "muwaha, it was all a ruse, we just wanted your early access money! Look upon an unfinished game, that we never had any intention to finish because we are the true embodiment of evil, muwaha!" I'd have gotten my money's worth out of DayZ, easy. So no. It's not a disappointment. Games take time to develop, especially when the groundwork has to be torn up. The scope of DayZ is far greater than its 'rival' survival games, and that contributes to its development time as well. Remember that the Standalone was originally just going to be a polished version of the mod, but the devs decided to make something better. If they'd just made a polished version of the mod, then why not just play the mod? The standalone will be better than the mod - different at the very least. That takes time.

I don't think many people agree with me, but .55 was the most fun I've ever had in DayZ. It was so difficult, but so rewarding. I never starved to death, I just moved inland and searched the places other people hadn't bothered to check. I eventually got to the point where I was actually in pretty good condition. I might not have been energised and hydrated all the time, and I may not have had a fully kitted M4, but I was in good nick. I found myself actually picking up food whenever I found it, because I didn't know when I'd next see a can of peaches. In short, it was awesome. For anyone with any interest, I made a video showcasing my success. However, I can see why most people didn't like .55. I'm hoping we'll see diversity without too much division in the community. I'd love something really survival focused, but at the same time I'd love to see something like STALKER with mutants and radiation and so on, or something like one of those silly DayZ mods with tanks and things. I'm hoping DayZ, at its core, is more or less finished by the time modding becomes available. I can see 'vanilla' falling to the wayside very quickly indeed, especially if it's missing most of the features of the finished game. People would take it upon themselves to 'finish' it themselves, and I don't know if that'd be a good thing. It might seem premature, but I'm very interested to see how DayZ progresses past 1.0. Do map tools come under modding, or would people be allowed to create new maps for vanilla before modding tools (for new mechanics, weapons and so on) are made available? Are there any plans to release new official maps, post 1.0 perhaps?

@SirEpicTickles Some early access projects will deteriorate, for sure, but mostly in the case of smaller projects produced by unrenowned developers. BI cannot afford for DayZ to fizzle out because no one will buy a BI game again if that happens. Reputation is important in the games industry - in any industry really. Sometimes that reputation revolves around individuals (Peter Molyneux, John Romero for example) but it usually revolves around companies and teams. I think that a lot of developers, especially smaller ones, were overzealous in their adoption of early access. As time goes on, however, and developers learn when early access is appropriate, I think that issues related to early access will become less of a problem.

@SMoss I've mentioned before that while I understand that game development takes time, I am a little disappointed at .60's delay. Despite that, I'd rather you work on getting a solid .60 rather than releasing some buggy mess now to appease the whiners. I have other games I can play. When .60 I am going to play the shit out of DayZ for a week or two, and then I'll slink back into the shadows as I await .61 - I've done pretty much the same since I bought into DayZ, and see no reason to do any different. I can see why people are upset. A lot of the roadmap goals - probably most of them - haven't been met on time. People expect feature X by date Y and when they don't get it they throw a tantrum. Announcing what you're working on now and what you will be working on in the near future is the best way to go about it, so I'm glad that's what you're moving towards now. A lot of people are frustrated, probably not least of all you guys - especially when you get messages every day berating you for your perceived slow development. Even if development is particularly slow - and I'm not convinced it is - people whining about it doesn't achieve anything. Constructive criticism is quickly becoming a lost art, I think, as is patience. These people should just sit back and check for an update every week or so. No update? Do something else.

I'd like for there to be some sort of tag or icon or something that appears whenever a developer responds to a forum thread - especially if it's a suggestion thread... not that suggestion threads are often answered by devs, but still. What people in the community are saying and thinking of is nice and all, but my main interests lie in what the devs think. Being able to easily see what's attracted the attention of the devs and, more importantly, what they've said in response would be great. It could maybe even be an optional thing on the off-chance a dev didn't want to draw attention to a thread or for whatever reason.

I'd much prefer a sling. Very difficult to aim - not because it's particularly inaccurate but because, say, timing is a factor or there's some other mechanic that makes it a reasonably effective weapon if you know what you're doing, but utterly useless if you've not practiced. It should also have a fairly short effective range. It should be good for knocking players out with a headshot and for damaging limbs (breaking/fracturing arms and legs) rather than for outright killing people or zombies. Now, in real life a good shot with a sling can shatter a femur or turn your brain to paste... but videogames. A catapult like this would be fine, though. I can't imagine they'd be very common, however.

I've never met a hacker in all the time I've been playing DayZ. I hope this makes you feel better. But no, that does suck. Dying to bugs and hackers in any game isn't really acceptable but as others have said, this is early access. Expect bugs. Expect incomplete security features. Don't get attached to your gear, especially since .60, when it eventually hits, will wipe your character anyway.

DayZ gets a lot of bad press, which is a shame. I work with game developers, so I know that a game takes a very long time to develop - or if you're doing it right it does. Most people hear about a game a few months, maybe a year or two, before it's released. In the case of DayZ, we've been able to see it develop pretty much from the start, but people still expect it to be released after a few months. It probably doesn't help that a lot - most, probably - of DayZ's development is under the hood, so to speak. I suppose people aren't impressed by progress that they can't see, even if it lays the foundations for the game itself. I think it's best to avoid things like roadmaps and ETAs, because when you don't meet them that provides ammunition for naysayers. Shit happens that sets things back. I think that showing us what you're working on now, and giving us some idea of what you will be working on in the near future, is the best way to go about it. No deadlines or anything like that because, as you say, it's disappointing and frustrating for everyone when those goals aren't met. Hell, I'm the sort of person who only really plays DayZ when the big updates come about, and I get that development times can be long and all that sort of thing, but I'll admit that even I was disappointed when .60 wasn't released last month. I get it, and I'm glad that you're working on making sure .60 is fabulous - I'd much rather get .60 'late' than receive it as a buggy mess - but I did feel a little let down. Despite that, I'm unwavering in my looking-forward-to-ness of .60.

Oh God. Make DayZ into a military simulator. And then somebody would take that military mod and turn it into a zombie mod... ad infinitum... Yeah, that'd be kind of interesting to see. I'm keen to see what the community comes up with when modding is finally made available.

Right. Remember the game isn't finished yet. That's actually one of the points @Rags! made - this isn't a survival game yet. Currently, shooting people is one of the only things to do in the game. There are no other threats or concerns and ammunition is fairly easy to come by. If zombies were a major threat, weapons were hard to come by and food was scarce then yes, I expect people would probably make more of an effort to work together - which is where a lot of the tension comes in. "I need the help of this guy, and we've agreed to share the loot, but can I trust him?" sort of gets shat on when you can see a spooky aura around him that shows you how many people he's killed, because then you know not to trust him which gets rid of a lot of the tension that makes the game enjoyable.

I'm almost certain this is planned. In STALKER I think you just reload your weapon and it clears the jam which is a nice, elegant solution.

There's a kill counter? I thought that was just a concept, I wasn't aware it was actually being added in-game, or that other players would be able to see it. Can't say I'm in favour of it either.