louist

It's not an exploit. Using 1PP to look through walls, though, is.

I agree, 3PP is immensely more visible (something of a pun intended) on videos, which in turn is a reflection of that perspectives greater popularity. But that's not, in my opinion, a reason to get angry. Those who want to play in the 1PP are at a disadvantage against those who use 3PP is undeniable, but that was a big reason behind creating the hardcore servers, to give those who want to play in first person a place to do so without disadvantage. The lack of peripheral vision is, I believe, though I know of no RV developer coming out and saying so, that this limitation, this hinderence of situational awareness, was a motivation for the creation and inclusion of third person in the Arma series. This isn't an alpha issue; it won't change here if it hasn't changed in Arma 3. It's also something no engine can really correct for. It's just the reality of using a small, square screen to simulate vision. And while free-look help's compensate in 1PP, it does so as well in 3PP. And it doesn't really correct for the lack peripheral vision, but merely relocates your view; you still see as little as you do when you stare straight ahead. I play both 1PP and 3PP, depending largely on who I am playing with. I find the two a different experience, sometimes wildly so, but I don't find 1PP harder. What I'm trying to say, though, is that both perspectives have their flaws, and attacking each other for the perspective they choose, when neither needs to be exposed to the other, is a waste of time, if not downright toxic to this community.

From a physical standpoint, any action that telegraphs a hostile intent, such as crouching, pulling out a weapon, or raising a weapon. In terms of speech, long delays, heavy annunciation of certain words, such as "I'M not going to shoot you..." Or a Russian accent.

It isn't just footsteps, and, to be honest, I've found them to be loud up close, but they don't carry very far. Aside from the few meaningless ambient sounds (creaking chain link fences, birds, and the like), the aural world of DayZ is an essentially an empty void. Hearing plays an important role in our ability to localize ourselves spatially, and in assessing our surroundings. Sometimes this is as obvious as telling that a paricular window in your house is open based on the noise. Sometimes it's more subtle, like being able to tell you're wife's reading in bed by hearing the faint rustling of paper from the foot of the stairs. Hell, I've probably gotten so accustomed to the hum of the refrigerator in my apartment that I could tell you what room I'm in, with my eyes closed, based on how faint (or not) the sound is. Or take the movie cliche "It's quiet. Too quiet..." In DayZ it's always too quiet, and not because dayZ is filled with impending doom. The shortcomings, in game, are a major hindrance. Part of that is impossible to correct for, but the devs are working to revamp the game's audio, and hopefully they can fill some of the gap, not just footsteps, but all the various sounds we create as we move around, like creaking floors, creaky doors, or rustling bushes, as well as filling in other meaningful ambient sounds, like running creeks and such. And all this is ignoring the downright buggy implementation of gunshots, which in such a quiet world should be noticeable from a further distance than they currently are. I fully admit that, situation to situation, 3PP creates huge imbalances in favor of campers. I'm not defending 3PP, I'm trying to point out that, the further back you step, the more balanced it becomes. In the image you posted, you could expand the scenario to include a third survivor behind the guy using the camera to peek around the corner, using the same tactic to look at him, so on and so forth. This is only a game-breaking issue when 1PP and 3PP players are mixed together. When you isolate and corrall all the 3PP players into their own servers (as is currently the main purpose in having hardcore and normal servers), then those 3PP players are applying their tactics, as unrealistic as they are, against each other, while the people who would be at a major and permanent disadvantage (1PP players) are free from them. As to the "Fox News" comparison, we both know I was referring to the vitriol constantly spouted by 1PP players at 3PP players. For instance, using terms such as "exploit" is not only using a the word's negative connotation to deamonize a group of players, it also redefines the word, as the mechanic was included for a reason, despite how unrealistic it is, and rather convienently ignores the fact that 1PP allows players to look through walls, an actual exploit. These kinds of misrepresentations and hypocriticisms are exactly the kind Fox News uses to daemonize, say, same-sex marriage. The question is, if you are a diehard hardcore player, and are, as a result, unaffected by the flaws of 3PP, why the name calling? Why fume at the mouth? Whatever normal players are doing has no impact on you. The way they play doesn't change anything about the way you play. Those attacks serve no purpose. Edit: Being able to turn your head is a great feature, as is leaning. But neither fully compensates for what is, even under optimal settings, a very limited field of view. Stand facing a wall, from two feet away. How far can you see the wall extend in you peripheral vision? Dozens of feet? Now do it in-game, and compare the difference. I don't think calling 1PP overly-limited was inaccurate, let alone an exaggeration.

I wouldn't call it easier, as a whole. Camping is easier, but that's about it. When it comes to moving around, scouting, and such, everyone else can get the drop on you, and that aspect balances it out. Hardcore is essentially the opposite. I find that standing still is more dangerous, with the limited sight, while moving around and exploring tends to be safer, as the collective limits to sight mean that much more of the map, at any given time, is unseen by players. In terms of realism, until there's a proper, and working, suite of sounds, the overly limited situational awareness of 1PP makes it no more realistic than the overly expanded awareness of 3PP. As others have pointed out, both servers have their share of cheaters as well. I am more worried, though, by how fanatically defensive Hardcore players are. These discussions always devolve into the type of "Fair and Balanced" discourse that would make Fox News proud.

It's actually the opposite. Most players find hardcore easy, and graduate on to 3PP. Those of you stuck there are still in need of practice. Logic at work, my friend.

I'm sorry, I lost the ability to take you seriously after the reference to MTV. I actually had to google to find out if MTV still exists, as I haven't watched it since the 90s. In all seriousness, though, while there are plenty of people who have used a lathe, I would argue that creating a bow from scratch is knowledge that is rare indeed. And having watched history channel is no replacement for proper knowledge and experience, as the History channel is, at this point in time, something of a joke. Unless you believe in aliens.

I feel obliged to point out the parallel between "grinding" and doing something over and over again to improve. You're describing what is essentially the same process, the I ly difference is that one happens in game, and one out.

It's not even very punishing. The number of times I've lost my gear is a small fraction of the number of times I've died. And on this occasions where I did lose it all, I can be back up and running within an hour. It's actually something of a joke.

Given the work it can take for a solo or a small group in Epoch to set up a base and defend it, I wouldn't say that those mods are "easier." Or take Namalsk, where the map is cold enough that you have to work to keep yourself warm, and thus alive. Or the EMP storms that kill you of you aren't indoors. Or even consider the base mod compared to base Arma 2. The mod is by far much more popular, and in Arma 2 there are weapons and tanks just everywhere! There's a lot more at play than difficulty, and even considering this, while there are more vehicles and more weapons in a lot of the mods, it's balanced out with the more frequent combat going on, and people tend to enjoy that.

Lets not use the average joe as the sole argument against something. I doubt the average joe could fashion an arrow that flies straight without a lot of practice, let alone a properly functioning bow. There's a lot at work there. The right type of wood, the correct curvature, width, length, weight, draw, treatment, so on and so forth. And that's for a very basic bow. With laminates... Well, have fun trying to build one with no prior knowledge.

First, a disclaimer: the search tool isn't great. In using the search function with the key words, for instance,"broken arms" and "broken+arms", the results returned contained every individual instance of either word, including any threads/posts about broken features, broken loot spawns, and every instance of someone using the term arms to refer to weapons, or the act of arming oneself. So, not having seen anything along these lines in the last week or two, I've opted to start a thread. Broken legs are a dayZ staple, and for good reason; combat should have consequences more nuanced than simply depleting health. There should be an effort to returning your character to full health. That said, all that I have read regarding improvements to the medical system involve introducing either temperature or disease mechanics. That's great, but we could do more! What about broken arms, which make using a rifle or two-handed weapon ineffective or downright impossible? Or expanding the current broken leg disability into two effects, broken legs and sprained ankles. My main motivation behind this is that legs break for, like, no reason. Hyperbole, I admit, but our legs do break at an incredible rate. Instead of having a zombie attack, or skidding down some stairs break legs, have them cause a sprain, which is fixed in the same way that a broken leg is now. Broken legs, then, could result from more extreme trauma, such as bullet wounds, damage from melee weapons, or greater falls. Broken legs are also a little too easy to fix, currently, and I wouldn't mind seeing that process made more complicated than simply injecting morphine or applying a splint. Additionally it would make sense to apply a "healing" time to such recoveries. I don't think you should be sprinting around the second after you've applied a splint. Reducing players to a walk or fast walk would make some sense. I've also heard nothing about incorporating the mod's shock/in pain status, though the existence of painkillers suggests it will make a comeback. Along those lines, adding head trauma or concussions, which disorient sight or throw off aim could be interesting. Any thoughts on these, or any impairments you would like to see? Again, it's possible these are already planned, but I haven't come across mention of more than weather effects and diseases.

Awesome news about broken arms! I didn't notice that in the patch noted that were posted.

There may indeed be references out there. I don't frequent reddit, and I've only watched a handful of Rocket's videos. That said, most of that information tends to trickle on to these forums, yet I haven't noticed anyone discussing it.

I enjoy playing a number of rogue-likes, where death can reset dozens of hours of play, if that counts.

I voted no, as calling it realistic, in this case, is debatable. While our heads do bob around a fair bit, our brain filters that out, to a large extent, minimizing the impact in most situations. Our eyes also track and focus despite this bob, meaning that it's largely our peripheral vision that registers the difference. In the RV engine, however, this bobbing is applied universally, causing the entire visual field to bounce about. Our brains don't easily compensate for this motion (though I admit, after an hour or so it becomes less jarring, but the sensation returns the next time I play), so the effect isn't exactly realistic, even if the intention is.

Item usage also causes decay. The screwdriver I was using as a can opener became ruined after using it.

This is the third topic created about this in the last day. Please use the search function (or your eyes), and try not to flood these boards with what amounts to spam.

Blasphemy! Clearly you're in league with the devil!

No way. Everyone knows the distance between a barn and warehouse is 200 meters.

I find your distinctions a little troubling. On the one hand, while anything could indeed be used as a weapon, some objects are designed specifically to be weapons, and serve little use beyond that. Likewise, anything could be used as a tool, with varying efficiency, but some items are designed specifically as tools, and have little use beyond that. A "gun" or "rifle" or "handgun" is designed as a weapon. Sure, you can use it for other things, but it's hardly the best "tool" for, say, hammering nails, just as a ruler is hardly the best "weapon" for hunting deer. Getting hung up on the technicalities behind what constitutes a weapon as opposed to a tool does nothing to serve any meaningful discussion, and more often than not is used to dodge the issue or derail it entirely. I speak as someone who has fired as mall handful of weapons, and enjoyed the act, though I have no cause to own any. I don't see how that changes the facts, though.

Or those instances where you're choosing "open door," "close door," and "open door" again before realizing you're interacting with a door the floor below you.

The opposite of everything listen in the thread, essentially? Fluid animations, responsive controls, character movement that doesn't feel like we're controlling tanks, so on and so forth.

Knowingly doing so is. But look at the "fix" for Burlap sacks, which finally had them blacken your screen. If they took it off, they ended up with two sacks. Those players didn't knowing exploit the bug, though the end result is the same.

I see your point, in regards to turning, and I don't argue against that system, merely how it is implemented. As it stands, the faster you try to turn, the slower you will actually turn. It's an odd choice, and one that is jarringly unintuitive. Rather the negative acceleration, there should be a hard limit to how quickly you turn. I think we would both like to see the same end result, but where you are fine with the implementation, many people are not.