SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

Where's the vote for "I wouldn't mind having a less exploitable, context sensitive 3rd person camera?" And also first person only servers would still be possible in the standalone. So I'm having a hard time seeing why this is such a heated debate. The people who advocate first person back up their claim by showing that first person servers are populated in the mod. Well if that is true, then you have ultimately defeated your own argument. Particular servers in the Standalone will continue to mandate first person perspective, and therefore first-person junkies will be sated. People who don't mind third-person could play third person servers. The real issue at hand is that third person provides too much visual information. That's it. If it was more limited, then its use as a "periscope" would be amputated; therefore gun play would still be drastically improved, because players would have to take more risks to get visibility of other players. Why can't we just find a middle ground? It would make the game better for everyone, not just the people who like this or that. I can't run 4000 km in first person in this game. It makes me feel seasick and it's also kind of boring. Yeah, maybe I want to admire my new shirt. So? Who are you to judge? Also, consider damage to your backpack. In real life, you would feel the damage to equipment. You would feel blood on your back. You can't portray that information in a video game. Visual cues are helpful for situational awareness. Take The Last of Us, for example. Third person? Yeah. Exploitable? Not really. In fact, that game is fucking hard. So what it really boils down to is again, realism vs. authenticity + a little fun every once in a while. For crying out loud, it is a game after all.

Why does this thread exist again?

You'd also need tools like a hammer to drive the nails into the plank. Or duct tape to turn them into little throwable spikes.

I don't think Hall and friends are going to bow to the whims of the whiny little shits who can't handle simple strategy like infection control. At the end of the day, I wouldn't call this game a "simulator" per se, but rather a hardcore survival strategy game. Is it 100% realistic? Of course not. No game is 100% realistic; it's pretty much impossible. But I don't think you have to worry. The Dev team has already confirmed almost a dozen real world diseases and medications for each, plus splints, stamina, weight based inventory, ect. ect. In short, let's just wait for the Standalone and see what happens. I highly doubt the team is going to nerf the game for CoD kiddies.

Dayz is a modification of Arma 2. The third person element is from Arma 2. It was there before "DayZ" ever existed. The fact of the matter is that the first and third person functionality of the game were already designed long before Dean Hall got his hands on it. But because of the unique environment of DayZ - which I think you will agree is very different from Arma 2 - it might actually demand a slightly different approach. So what we are basically saying is this: DayZ needs it's own third person perspective, different from that of Arma 2 (the game it was originally built on) because it will contribute to making DayZ a more unique experience. " Every stream, every video, nearly every screenshot, how most people play = third person." All this proves is that most people take the path of least resistance. Again, why do games like Battlefield choose to be first person only games? Why does Dead Space choose to have a slow, closer up third person view? Because it denies the player information, which creates suspense and tension. Every stream of Battlefield is in first person view. It doesn't prove anything. People play a game by the rules that the game defines. The developers have to decide if DayZ is going to be a game that says a: "Just switch to third person and abuse the head swivel functionality while prone so you can see around this corner and therefore gain an unfair advantage over another human being," or b: "Third person view has limitations so that you will have to take more risk as a player and therefore provide a more suspenseful experience for everyone." Just because a feature already exists and is widely used and even exploited does not mean that it shouldn't be changed.

Sausage, I like you, but come on. Why is it that Arma is one of the very few shooters that supports TrackIr? Why would it allow you to simply press Alt and move your head independently from your body? Why would there be a "lean" function? Why would status effects like shivering, breathing heavily, injury, ect. affect your first person view and aim? Why does Arma 3 have so many different stance and lean positions? The game was obviously designed with first person simulation in mind. I think you are forgetting that the "Arma" series has come from a line of real military simulators for the purpose of training real combat soldiers. Saying that it's always been meant to be a third person shooter is somewhat preposterous. Even third person shooters of today like Gears of War, Splinter Cell, Dead Space (a horror game), ect. all have limited third person cameras. They generally don't allow you to move your head around independently from your body, which makes certain forms of wallpeaking nearly impossible. Those games have cameras that react dynamically to the environment. They are designed that way to be generally more "fair" than what we have in Arma right now. And don't get me wrong. I like third person view, as well as first person. I like seeing my character, and the more comfortable FoV. However, it is extremely exploitable. Third person at least needs some limitations. Also I think if you examine Fraggle's posts you will find that he also does not want to "get rid" of third person entirely. We're simply pointing out it's current flaws. To deny them and say "It's a third person game, (i.e. it's already like this) so don't change any aspect about it." That's a pretty weak argument against the real case at hand. Even people who use third person to their selfish advantage, like me, admit that it is overpowering.

A video with rocket himself. Give me a minute to find it... Damn. Can't seem to locate it. It was a live stream with Hall. As I remember it he said "Right now I have it at the point where the player can draw on any item." I wouldn't make it up for kicks, anyway.

Already confirmed for the Standalone. Players can draw (or paint, I guess) on any object.

The question isn't really "who likes what" here. The question is why do those games choose to force first-person perspective? Because it's more fair in firefights. I myself have used third person to simply annihilate enemies in DayZ. It's just... wrong. Having constant knowledge of your opponent is an exploit. Just because anyone can exploit it doesn't mean it isn't an exploit. One time I had an extremely interesting firefight at the long barn just outside Cherno, where both I and the other player were abusing 3rd person. We played cat-and-mouse for almost 15 minutes - running, weaving, trying to surprise each other. Eventually I trapped him in the barn where his third person would not help him, and I killed him. While it was exhilarating, it was also kind of pathetic. I had been forced to adapt a play style that incorporated the same exploitation as everyone else, and I was just the better exploiter. That's all. It fundamentally reduces the value of the game play when a mechanic is so overpowering. I would suggest simply creating a new third person perspective that is less exploitable. A camera that is slightly closer to the player and over the shoulder, with the same FoV as first person, which can maybe even approach the player as they look down, would seriously help. This way you couldn't just watch a player over a wall with complete visibility. It's just absurd.

I think mules and horses would be great, but let's not forget that the whole "dog" subject was dropped rather suddenly. Unfortunately it's probably going to be another year or two before we see anything like that. Still, I can dream can't I?

I refuse to give you any more beans, but keep putting up the good fight. I think you're hitting the nail right on the fucking head here. Prior to the numerous mods that were released, vanilla DayZ was far more interesting and populated. The problem is that the game can't progress any further with mods. The features that simply must be implemented, the ones that need to work properly - they have to be designed and programmed at a source code level. I think it would be nice to see the dev team offer some kind of route to "official mod" status, for certain developers. It would be nice to see 3rd party content that could be screened and incorporated into the official game. Like Namalsk, for example. I really like that map, and I'd like to see it in the Standalone. Kind of how the mod team was implementing community made assets recently. I do like map - and even some gameplay - diversity, but I don't like that servers can just "give out" loot, vehicles, weapons, ect. It's a shortcut. Might as well just make a "custom server" on L4D that gives you infinite ammo and godmode. It would be fucking easy and boring - a.k.a not a game. You might as well play monopoly and just print off money for everyone so nobody loses. It's just ridiculous. So really I think the question here is how do we get a middle ground? How can we allow community made assets (which can be extremely refreshing and can extend the lifetime of a game) without sacrificing the gameplay that actually defines DayZ as it's own game. Basically, we need to be able to mod DayZ without breaking it's fundamental rules.

Why not just play a server that forces first person?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_wolf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_brown_bear You're right about the cougar thing though. That's more of an American hiker's worry. At one time Europe was home to many species of big cat, however. So it's theoretically possible that in the wake of the decimation of the human race, big cats could repopulate those areas...

Very well put. Contrast in game play is very important. Besides, I consider the running to be akin to most MMO "grind."

Well, you could put 8 m4's in a backpack in real life, and you could probably carry them all. But it would take up almost all the room in your bag, pus they'd be sticking out, and they'd be pretty heavy. I mean 8 x 7.5 lbs = 60 lbs, which is probably above the comfortable carrying capacity of any average human being. So yeah, you could carry 8 m4's. Would it be practical? Probably not.

Um, excuse me? I never said anything about Gas, or petrol. The way Americans twist stuff? I'm just pointing out that the only reason we have to run great, boring distances is because everything is spread out. I don't see your point, or why you seem to be yelling. Also, in case you didn't know, the word "gas" in American English is short for Gasoline, which IS a liquid. But that of course that is beside the point; I never even said the phrase "gas station" in the post you replied to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline Gasoline /ˈɡæsəliːn/, or petrol /ˈpɛtrəl/, is a transparent, petroleum-derived oil that is used primarily as a fuel in internal combustion engines. It consists mostly of organic compounds obtained by the fractional distillation of petroleum, enhanced with a variety of additives. The words you are arguing are synonyms.

Ask him about the dynamic bleeding system he mentioned, and if this means we could see some kind of dynamic injury system, maybe organ damage and different kinds of broken bones? - Are we going to see more "surgery" based player healing? - What kind of cooperative game play mechanics can we look forward to? - How goes development of player made barricades and other structures? - How goes development on zombies and their interactions with said barricades? I've heard the zombies have animations for tearing things down. Sounds kind of promising...

Of course. That's pretty much human nature in a nutshell. And it goes both ways, you know. If you capture someone else's base, chances are the owners are going to show up at some point because they know it's location. Maybe they even logged out inside the base, which might make it very easy for them to kill you and reclaim their property. Or you could kill them, of course. But you should be prepared for a counter-attack, because those players are probably not going to just give up on something they worked on so hard. The point is that stealing a base could actually be more risky than constructing your own. Personally I'd rather build my own hidden base than try to take someone else's. I would take adequate measures to hide my gear somehow, knowing that other players might find it while I'm logged off. It would be very discreet and remote, of course.

I think the real problem here is that Chernarus is currently composed mostly of empty space and forests, which means all points of interest and loot areas are very spread out. Simply fleshing out the map more, adding more towns, buildings, interesting sights, ect. will help with this. If there were simply more towns and interesting sights to go to, then you wouldn't have to spend the better part of an hour going from hot-spot to hot-spot. So basically what I'm trying to say is that the reason we spend so much time running is because there's actually very little to run to. If every town has enterable stores, houses, and other buildings, then we're going to be spending a lot more time indoors.

I have been wanting a weight based inventory system. It's logical and organic.

This.

I was bored so I came back.

It's funny, I'm never quite sure what is or isn't inside the capabilities of the VR engine. I thought the same thing when rocket proposed the idea of "spray painting items and guns." I was like, "yeah, right, in your dreams Dean Hall. Arma 2 can't support that..." And what do you know, they have already implemented a drawing mechanic. But really, the hardest part about my idea would be the animation trees. I think it's feasible. I also think human shields are technically feasible, but I don't know if I'd want it implemented anyway.

I like that this idea makes hiding your face a logical choice the player has to make rather than a requirement. It's a very good idea, which is obvious since OP was in October of 2012, lol. But seriously. Permanent names, a must have. The player should get one and only one chance to name their character, which will be attached to the CD key. Changing it should be impossible. It would be very nice to see some accountability on the side of player ID, that way some asshat named "Dan" can't just betray you for your helicopter and disappear forever. I want to be able to hunt down my nemeses.

"Currently I have it at the point where the player can draw on any item" - Dean "rocket" Hall. So yes. Cocks. Cocks everywhere. I'm almost certain the devs are going to go as libertarian as possible with this project, so I don't think the cocks are really any of their concern. The important thing is that we can draw the cocks; and we can also write messages. Hey, this is my three-hundredth post. Cool.