louist

"My name's Brett" "Brit?" "Brett" "Brit?" "Brett"

"Assault weapon," taken literally, just means anything used to assault someone. That includes everything from rocks to novelty Eiffel Tower shaped drink containers. That said, as a non-American, I find much of their gun-control debate to be a farce.

I've been playing it myself, and it is a smoother, sleaker experience. They also have found a nice balance between zombies who are slow, but still pose a threat. But it's also a different game in how it plays, and I don't see it replacing DayZ. There's enough room for both in my opinion.

I can't give you any specifics, not having enough experience with engines, and with no access to RV. But intuition and what little experience I do have lead me to believe that small refinements and tweaks could be made. Beyond that, I think we run into the hard limitations of the engine itself. It's for that reason we won't see satisfying melee combat, for instance. But, if the devs have enough love and time, we may see a better handling of animations, an improvement to the functionality of the hotbar, and such. Things can be worked on an improved, just not to the point where the game plays radically smoother.

No, it would be black on mobile devices, where the background is white, and white on the standard forum, where the background is black. Simply keeping your text color at the default (automatic) setting allows everyone to read it.

The Doom that Came to Atlantic City. WarZ. for all intents and purposes, it still isn't a finished game despite going "gold" in December 2012. I'm still waiting for what I was promised when I preordered :p server sizes, features, map size, are all still below what was advertised and implied as being complete. Stronghold servers still aren't what they were said to be... And so on and so forth. We all know the tale. I could likely find more, if I had to.

I worry about you, Strawman. I really do. There is little realism in the controls, or rather, in how those controls respond to your actions, and how your character responds to them in turn. Character control in SA (and in the RV engine in general) is the definition of clunky. There is no fluidity between movements or individual animations, and each animation is bookended with a pause that makes most actions in SA look like it's performed by a robot. Selecting items in the hot bar is often unresponsive, and as someone else has pointed out, despite slow delays, these selections queue, meaning if your character doesn't seem to be pulling out his pistol after two or three seconds (not uncommon), and you hit the key again, he may very well pull it out, and immediately holster it. There no way for you, as a player, to know whether your input has even registered. Then there is the inability to cancel animations/actions, which can be dangerous and frustrating. Given the ponderousness of both registering the key press for a custom animation (say, pointing) and the animation itself, you're stuck spending a few seconds waiting for the process to end before you can do anything else. And then there's negative acceleration... This isn't about turning dayZ into a twitch shooter, it's about having the controls hew a little closer to reality. SA, as it is, exists in the opposite extreme as a twitch shooter, and is no better for it.

And paragraphs.

The problem I have with that, Jack, though it may very well be correct, is that none of the key features/mechanics that Rocket introduced work towards that goal. Complete anonymity actively works against forming rivalries. In fact, under most instances, they are impossible to form, and alliances are almost as difficult to create, when you can't build the of trust required over a series of interactions. The lack of some sort of character progression makes "perma-death" an empty, meaningless phrase, so there is no real danger to acting recklessly, again encouraging nothing beyond random violence. If he was looking for the types of interactions and the stability of a community that reddit poster suggests, he was going about it the wrong way, in my opinion. You know where you did find people working together, forming alliances, and rivalries? I shit you not, in Epoch. People were so invested in their bases and such that the formed bands and dukes it out.

So, about the time SA goes into Beta? Certainly reassuring.

It's not about access, it's about scope. At a certain point, the amount of work required to change a a set of mechanics just isn't worth the time and effort it would take, and I would wager that's what we're seeing here. BI, with it's full access and greater resources than Rocket's team, has only been able to make fairly minor improvements to the fluidity and refinement of movement in the RV engine with each iteration. Arma III is better, but not much so. At this point, to see the kind of changes players want, would likely require an overhaul of the entire engine. It isn't simply changing variables, it's redefining the limits of the engine, and that's a big task, beyond the manpower and time Rocket has. That's why, as someone aptly put it, character control feels like you're moving a tank, and why melee combat isn't much different than it was in the mod, where axes behaved as extremely short range guns (hense why axes had to be reloaded, and why they left bullet holes). There are limits, and despite Rocket's access, he still has to work within them.

I'm with you there. if larger capacity servers aren't stable enough... I don't even want to think about that.

Two points: first, if everyone has access to the same ability, it can't be considered an advantage. Second, as other people have pointed out, the "zoom" isn't really zooming in. The default view is simply zoomed out. There's nothing super-human going on. It's simply a compromise being made to simulate, if poorly, reality. As I posted earlier in the discussion, if the two modes were reversed, if the "zoomed in" view was default, and you could press a button to "zoom out," and access a wider FOV, no one would be complaining.

My main issue is more with the flow from one action to another. RV handles transitions poorly, regardless of speed. Arma III's version of the engine deals with it better , but we'll never see true refinement in that area. But that's part of the package, and you do indeed get used to it.

I want to way in here, in regards to the OP (not the derailment). In the early 2000s, I was a huge DoD player, as part of a large and active clan. We ran, at our height, 6 servers over three games, paid for entirely through donations. At first, these were member donations, to cover our server costs. As we grew, we opened up donations from the community itself. We didn't offer VIP perks, we just asked that if people enjoyed our servers, and the communities they fostered, that players consider donating. We ended up "making" a fair bit of money, some months bringing in almost ten times our costs. So in that regard, you CAN make money. But that was never our intent, and we did our best to reinvest the money. We opened new servers, increased our Teamspeak capacity, expanded to new games, paid for a proper website and host, and even produced a few runs of merchandise. But had we set out to make money, through exorbitant VIP packages, and such... I doubt we would have made anything. People respected our community and enjoyed playing with us, and that goodwill and reputation was the source of our income. I think we would have built up a very different community and reputation if our goal had been to make money. I haven't been part of that clan in some time, but now I have a longing to check them out and see how they're doing. Edit: if memory serves, the only time we used money on unrelated costs was to send some care packages to a clan member in the American armed forces.

That's a false comparison. 3PP can be used to give one person a district advantage over another. The guy looking around the corner of a wall while remaining hidden has a district advantage over his target. The "zoom," however, doesn't confer any one-sided advantage, it can be equally used by all parties at all times, so it isn't an advantage, per se.

Getting used to them isn't the same as having good controls, though. I'm not complaining, as it serves no purpose and we aren't going to see any real change. Even so, the clunkiness can't be disputed.

Watch the fucking tone, bro. Some of my best friends are crab-human hybrids.

Oh, I understand that, but I'm wondering if the difference is predictable enough that the satellites themselves can make the corrections, essentially "lying" about it's own time, if that makes sense.

We have to live with it. Without a new engine, or a reworking to the extent that, effectively, we'd end up with a new engine, we're stuck with the legacy of Operation Flashpoint. I'd love to see smoother controls as well, but realistically, we won't see them.

I don't doubt you, but shouldn't that correction be automatic? The question then, is whether those corrections are handled planet-side or satellite-side. I have no idea, myself, but if the satellites alter the time stamps, GPS should run for a while, no?

You get a feel for it with time, as well. I mean, I can't give you a very accurate estimate of distance, but I've become so used to the LRS that I can account for bullet drop accurately 90% of the time.

But... But... Lions don't live in jungles!

Clearly you were late to join the Internet party. I'm only a year younger than yourself, and I first was exposed to LOL in 1997, before any current tweens were even born. Fuck, that makes me feel old.

GPS specific devices might still work, but even with the satellite network running, cell phones wouldn't be able to access them. Our cellphones have to jump through a lot of hoops just to connect with the service. If power to the cell towers drops, or power to the data centers your carrier uses to authenticate your signal/permission fails, you're hooped. As you said, though, while the Internet would fail, setting up small networks wouldn't be terribly hard if you have the cables on hand.