louist

True, but we haven't been given a mandate outlining what feedback we should be providing. The general purpose of the early access is have people compile a list of bugs, criticism, and feedback. This thread certainly applies. Going into threads and attempting to shut them down by telling people the issues they raise aren't important enough to bother with just adds to the chaff these forums are already plagued with. The better option would to let the OPs say their piece and leave it at that. Let their point be raised, added to the list, and put aside.

If the code is clean enough, it's a change that can be made in a moment. It wouldn't impact the schedule. At the end of the day, the OP is offering feedback - exactly what these forums are for.

It isn't nearly that simple or intuitive. Doors are finicky as all hell. Add in the delays in the context menus, or the fact that some doors can be interacted with from the floor above or below them...

It usually only takes me an hour or so on a single, lowly populated server to find one, and I avoid the military bases. Storage garages spawn weapon attachments, and they're my first stop when looking for a LRS.

Eh, we all have a vested interest in keeping these threads on topic. Exploits aren't the issue, in my mind. The scope and difficulty of the system is. Not to mention the performance issues I can see it raising. Hell, the mod lags out on me whenever someone satchels a building. Imagine what a forest fire would do.

That link hardly disproves me. It clearly states that the summer was the hottest recorded in Russian history, and the region was suffering from a draught. Chernarus, meanwhile, seems to have daily rainfall, and (based on the mod, as SA doesn't yet have a temperature mechanic) it frequently gets cold enough that you need a fire or hear packs to stay warm.

Double post :(

It's actually quite difficult to light a living tree on fire in the first place. You need a considerable amount of fuel. Even in the case of natural wildfires, you need pretty dry conditions, and the fife begins with the underbrush, which provides the initial fuel before it starts to consume trees. That's why you see so many fires in California as opposed to, say, coastal British Columbia. Without a lot of dead and dry underbrush, even a lightning strike fails to start a fire. Chernarus, judging by the in-game weather, seems to be a fairly cool and wet country. You would need gallons of gasoline, and even then it may not spread. So I wouldn't call it unrealistic by any means.

Two years is also plenty of time for Dean to change his mind on a number of things or backpedal from overly ambitious ideas, as he's been known to do. I'm not saying his views aren't necessarily still relevant, just that two years, when it comes to Dean's comments on what could and will be featured or finished, is a very long time.

Québécois, svp.

Or ventrilo or steam chat... As it is, they need some buffs if they're to be widely adopted. Wider range, less drain, and so on. That said, they're an extremely cool concept. They just happen to be playing second (or perhaps 5th or 6th) fiddle to VOIP clients.

The problem with your statement is that you assume that survivors are just civilians. We don't know anything about them aside from the title survivor, which doesn't supply us with any useful information. Arguing that they are untrained civilians is as baseless as arguing that they are professional soldiers.

I get the opposite bug, where my character will sometimes get stuck sprinting, and I have to pull out and put away my weapon a few times to fix it.

"Exactly" is a huge exaggeration. The TV show incorporates a number of the major locations and most of the main characters, but so much plays out in different fashions, character relations are different, and so on. Take Carl's killing of Shane. In the show it's a justified action, as Shane is about to kill Rick, and Carl intervienes just in time to save his father. In the comic, Carl's actions are, at best, morally questionable. He kills Shane much earlier on, and in cold blood, based on his own perception (that of a child's, no matter how mature/hardened he might be), that Shane poses a threat. The implications of the two acts are wildly different. Or take the Governor and his relationship to Rick's group. In both he plays a charismatic and deceptive madman, that episode of the story's antagonist, but a lot of his interaction with the group is different. He imprisons and cuts off Rick's hand, which has a huge impact of Rick's state of mind, an impact stronger than the physical loss of a limb. Or his murder or Rick's wife. Or Rick's own cold-blooded murder of the prison inmates. So no, it isn't exactly the same aside from deaths. The characters develop in much different ways.

If the mod was able to do it, the standalone should be capable of it, too. Hopefully it won't be too long before these kinks are worked out.

Hello, friend. Rocket himself has said more than once that the "zombies" are the 28 Days style infected humans, not undead.

If the developers made the game to be played that way, then why would I? The way 3PP functions has been a staple of the series and the RV engine since as far back as I can recall (though my memories OPFP are, admittedly, beyond hazy). So implying that it's a hack (which your example does) is no better than blindly calling it an exploit. They're playing a in a developer sanctioned way, and my enjoyment isn't dependent on their choice, so on what grounds should I start going around calling them "pussies" or claiming they're "CoD noobs," as many here have done? Being upset (and I'm not sure I would be, as I don't see an issue with playing a game-mode the developers created) is not an excuse for the vitriol some HC proponents are spouting. I never enjoyed console shooters, and I don't see the appeal of games like Halo or CoD. I think PC shooters are far superior. But I don't go around telling people they are wrong for enjoying something that I don't, and can't. The problem with missionaries or proselytizers is that their help is often unasked for, unwanted, unneeded, or a combination of the three. I have no issue with people arguing in favor of HC, only with the attitude and rhetoric they choose employ. If you want more people to play on those servers, then by all means, sell them on the benefits of doing so, don't bash them or their choice. Personal attacks and blatant disregard of facts have no place in a debate, nor does generalizing an entire community. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that I'm not accusing you in particular, but merely addressing the attacks and general negativity that has been expressed in this thread and others.

I don't deny it cheapens the experience, as that is entirely subjective, and I happen to believe it myself. My point is merely that neither is easier or harder than the other, because both, while being completely different, even out. This holds true for your X-ray and teleporting argument. Yes, getting a kill would be easier. And not dying would be harder. Until zombies become a threat, 1PP won't be harder. When they do, that limited vision, against an opponent who doesn't suffer from it, will make hardcore harder.

May I point out that in 1PP, you can currently see through walls?

I can't, he's too stylish, in his puffy jacket, beanie, and big orange backpack.

I find the opposite to be true. I lose myself in third person much more readily than in first.

I'll admit that I don't have to stoop to personal attacks, if that helps. We are, in fact, disagreeing. We're disagreeing, as far as i can tell, on the what constitutes difficulty, or, perhaps, how to compute it. Your argument ignores the competitive aspect of the game, which fundamentally changes your definition of difficulty. Is a limited view going to make the game more difficult on a limited scale? Sure. But on a macro scale where you take into account other players? No, it doesn't, and here's why: The 1PP's limited field of view and lack of peripheral vision means you aren't as aware of your situation at any given time. It is harder to spot an enemy, harder to track their movements, and harder to avoid being flanked by his friends, making it easier for him to beat you. But expand your viewpoint to include your opponent, and what do you find? His limited view makes it harder to spot you, harder to track your movements, harder to avoid being flanked by your friends, making it easier for you to beat him. So what is the net change? Nothing. He has no advantage over you, and is at no disadvantage against you. If you and he are equally skilled and equipped, and the terrain doesn't favor one of you over the other, you won't have a harder time to beating him. I don't see anything here you can disagree with, yet you do.

It's neither an exploit not cheating, by definition.

Clearly we won't agree on the issue. Set let me pose a different question: is it harder to take out a camper in 3PP or 1PP?

I think your analogy fails to fully address the issue. Lets begin with the premise that the only real threat to a player is another player. Zombies are essentially just a nuisance at the moment, and starvation isn't an issue people many people succumb to. Agreed? So lets return to the boxer. Sure, covering one of his eyes will make knocking out an able bodied (able eyed?) boxer harder. But in the ring of hardcore servers, every opponent the boxer meets are also using one eye. His odds of winning are unchanged, as he is at no disadvantage against any other boxer. That's like playing on a server where, say, the only way for one player to kill another is with a headshot. That's not easier or harder, as the "advantage" you have in PVP survivability is the same one everyone else has. And an "advantage" shared by everyone isn't, by it's very definition, an advantage at all, it's the status quo. Once zombies become a real threat, then I can agree that hardcore's limited visibility would make it harder than 3PP. As it is, though, it's not.