Bororm

I believe in the last stream Hicks did he mentioned first they are going to get in the new towns, buildings etc then later they will add more "atmospheric" stuff to set the mood.

This game doesn't play out in a vacuum, this argument is the same one I always see and it's extremely narrow minded. No kidding a guy behind a wall can see another player in a particular position, but that doesn't mean the player behind the wall isn't also exposed to the same sort of thing from another angle himself. You find me a location in this game where you can view other players, without ever being exposed at some angle to another player's view yourself. The only one that comes to mind was the castles in the mod, in which you could be on the stairs and aim down at the door and a player entering could not look up at a steep enough angle to return fire. And that was an issue of first person, as you could angle your camera high enough in third any ways. I'm nearly 100% positive they've actually fixed this by increasing the angle at which you can aim upward. It does not matter if the player can't immediately see you back because there is always another location where he will be able to, this means it is a matter of positioning. If you can kill him, he had a chance to see you. It is physically impossible in this game to shoot some one without them having a direct line of fire back, short of cheating. He has more information than you because he chose an advantageous position to gain said information. You need to look at the broader picture. You know how you get around the issue of not knowing whether there is another player in an advantageous location from you? You assume he is there and act accordingly. You play enough and you figure out these positions easily. It's the same thing as playing first person and becoming familiar with popular corners that are going to be camped. Do you run into rooms and not check the corners, then complain that a guy was hiding under the stairs? I'm honestly pretty sick of people saying that third person is flawed, or an exploit, or all the other nonsense. It's not, you just need to adapt to it. If you don't prefer the playstyle that arises from adapting to it, or if you're incapable of adapting to it then that is your personal choice/preference and is perfectly valid. It has nothing to do with the way it works, because it works fine and is in fact fair to everyone involved on the basic level. The advantage, once again, is you are being out positioned and ambushed. Do you complain when you are shot in the back, because you didn't see the guy? No. It's the same principle, yes the guy can see you and adjust his attack accordingly before you can see him, but he also can in a first person scenario where he is out of your field of view. It's the same shit, he is out of your field of view, that is a result of him choosing a better location than you to make use of his perspective. That is him playing smarter than you. It is not biased to say this, it is biased to approach the situation without considering all aspects of it. What you are saying in your post is not considering every angle of the scenario. It's incredibly narrow minded.

How is it an advantage if everyone can do it? If people choose to stay in first person on a third person server, they are handicapping themselves and that is their choice. Why should other people's preferred playstyles suffer because some people want to handicap themselves? Every argument against third person I see is from the perspective of the victim. It goes both ways, everyone is exposed to some one who can do the same back to them. The guy sitting behind the ledge on the hospital roof can be seen by a guy climbing the ladder, without exposing himself, or from a hill behind a tree, or from a doorway, or even a guy down on the ground can make an assumption that hey, maybe there's a guy on that roof and peek the corner from the ground and wait for the guy to make a move. The guy on the ledge still has to expose himself to fire, he can only gain information without exposing himself, but so can anyone else and there's still blind spots. It's an equal scenario in terms of tools, so what's the advantage? The advantage is positioning and not inherently the camera, just as a player in a first person only server can choose a higher elevated, concealed position and get a broader view of some one restricted to the ground. Or how a person can sit in a corner and not move and listen for foot steps to come around the corner. The player in ambush has an advantage because he's chosen a position to make use of all his tools for that exact purpose, but it's never completely risk free because some one can be doing the same to him. You are always potentially exposed in this game to somebody else's view point, from some sort of angle no matter how small. To fire you have to be exposed to to enemy fire, just as a first person server. Each perspective offers pros and cons and it's personal preference. The great news is there's servers for both. I'm all for more server options, if some middle ground wants to be developed great, provide it as a third setting. But plenty of people enjoy how third person currently works, and it has nothing to do with dick waving and all the bullshit people bring into these discussions. It's what we're used to, and we don't have a problem with it, I am genuinely sorry if some people do but I'm not advocating changing their play preferences so why are they trying to change mine? On a personal note: I prefer arma 3 in first person and I prefer DayZ in third, each one for a myriad of different reasons. And one more note: The third person camera is exactly that, a camera. Notice that you get lens flare in third person but not first? The argument that it shouldn't see what your character can't see is silly, it's a third person camera not your character's eyes. That's the entire point. It makes no sense that you can see the terrain and not the players/zombies in that terrain if the argument is that it should be what your character is restricted to seeing. What your character is restricted to seeing is achieved by a first person view.

Your backpack counts as a chest slot item, so being shot in the front of the chest ruins shit in your backpack as well. The reason you might seem to have less shit ruined in your backpack some times is probably to do with having essentially 3 layers of "protection" on your chest, in the form of your shirt, your backpack and your chest holster/vest assuming you're wearing any combination of them, where as your pants have just the one layer. That would be my guess any ways. Condition of your items matter as well, as a pristine shirt being shot by a smaller caliber round might have a chance at not completely ruining everything inside. More often than not of course things do all get ruined, but there is some chance involved. There are also hitboxes for your limbs as well, so one could speculate that a shot to the arm might ruin your shirt but not your pack, although considering that a backpack counts as a chest item I'm not sure that their hitboxes for items themselves are that detailed. Maybe a shot to the arm ruins your gloves?

It's a work in progress. The alpha is for adding in systems, the beta will be for balancing things so I wouldn't expect it to change before then though I suppose it's possible. It is pretty much guaranteed to change at some point.

Keep playing or give up. This is the game, those people aren't ruining the game, they're playing it. You can't expect everyone else to change because you're new. Also, learn to navigate.

Third person isn't an exploit, everyone has the same tools. Adapt to the situation and treat blind spots as potential enemy locations. The map is properly designed around the use of third person and there are extremely few locations where a person using third person can't also be seen by another person at some angle doing the same. In short, it's an even playing ground, and the issue isn't third person but positioning something anyone can take advantage of. Play smarter, it doesn't need to be "fixed" as nothing is broken.

I don't trust anyone who isn't in my group in this game. I consider everyone hostile unless they prove otherwise, and it takes more than running away with their gun to prove that to me. If the OP is being sincere about not wanting to kill this guy, the guy had a better chance of living to actually comply. He had no way of knowing that obviously, and made a poor choice. The OP was hostile, he's made no secret of that. This isn't about doing the right and wrong thing, it's about interacting with players and in this case holding people up. The OP was hostile, the guy running was neutral but that doesn't mean he was a pacifist.

This wasn't KOS, he didn't kill on sight. The OP never claimed to be friendly. I actually never say I'm friendly either when holding people up. I'm not doing it to be their friend, even if my intentions aren't purely malicious. As people have stated it's an act of aggression to begin with. I think you can still trust some one who isn't out to be nice to you, and this guy could have made an effort to trust that he wouldn't be killed or "tortured" or whatever else. It's on the aggressors to win that trust if that's their intention, but it's also on the victim to give it. How a victim acts plays just as much of a role in the end result of an encounter as the captors. You don't know that the guy was peaceful either, he could have ran out and flanked and attacked them. Letting him just run off with no sense of his intentions isn't really an option if your goal to begin with is to control the area. Mithrawndo wanted to give the guy the option of not being killed outright and the guy didn't want to take it. Without the other guy's side of the story we don't know what he might have done, all we know is given the situation he made a pretty poor choice of trying to run.

I haven't used a gaslamp since shortly after launch but last time I did it illuminated the area even when in my inventory. Did they fix that? Any ways, I'm in agreement that being able to hang it on your pack or something would be a good addition. Maybe glowsticks will function similar to how they did in the mod and serve the same purpose.

I prefer the double barrel and magnum.

I really am not sure what you're trying to argue NexVentor. I'm talking about map flow as it pertains to spawns, and I'm advocating a return to what worked well in the mod. The map has been altered, they can either adjust their change of making Balota a high loot area (this is the source of all the spawn changes, the devs have said so themselves) or change the map flow completely. The mod is extremely relevant as it's still the same map, just with alterations and provides a good basis to start from. A discussion about spawn points without considering map flow or its affects on game balance in general is pointless as they are intertwined. I just watched a stream by Hicks today which made it pretty clear they have no intention of changing Balota, and that they are happy with current spawns. They want you to spawn on the east coast, and make your way "inland" to the NWAF and Balota. I personally wouldn't consider balota to be "inland" in a technical sense, but I suppose from the viewpoint of starting on the east it's not entirely inaccurate. It's obvious they are considering map flow, even if I disagree and believe starting everyone in a smaller location is a bad idea the concept is still the same. You spawn on one side of the map and move to the other for higher end gear. I think that can work, but I think the end result is a lot more condensed spawning which just leads to more of a clusterfuck for people spawning as it creates an artificial hotspot. Hicks is constantly saying there's actually more spawn points now, but what he fails to realize is that even if that's true they are in a smaller area. Throwing people around the entire map randomly is the most artificial means possible of forcing players to use more of the map and has huge implications when base building becomes a thing, regardless of if you put a system in place of not allowing spawns to be near camps. The map is not as big as people seem to think it is. When base building and all that gets implemented, do you really want people spawning effectively outside your door? 500m is nothing, it's not even the length of the neaf. Honestly I think most of the people advocating spawns around the entire map are just unfamiliar with the map to begin with and don't realize just how small it actually is. I often see one of the major reasons for the approach that it will force people to learn to navigate and disorientate players. This is extremely short sighted as most people who have been playing for a significant period of time are capable of figuring out where they are almost immediately. The result is still suiciding for a better spawn, and a higher likelihood of getting one closer to some major loot locations. The map in the SA and in the mod are the exact same dimensions, the difference is there is more usable space in the SA.

I said the mod had good map flow, not the SA. The mod had a lot of empty space as well, but it was more common to have people hit routes such as elektro to stary to nwaf to neaf back to the coast etc. The SA provides no real incentive to go inland currently in comparison. In the mod, the nwaf was the predominant place to gain high end weaponry, and the only place to get some items like satchel charges or rocket launchers (which were both very rare). Heli crashes were also a nice way to get people to move around the map. Would be nice if those made some sort of return.

It's not why wouldn't they chat with him, but why didn't the guy interact with him in any capacity which is a valid question and multiple perspectives have resulted from the discussion, the main one seemingly being that most players would rather not interact in a situation like this because there's a high probability of being "humiliated or tortured."

There's that bug as well, where ejecting and reloading the gun does fix it. Or swapping out parts of the gun such as taking off a bipod/scope and putting it back on. That one's been around for a while. But I think the bug the OP is referring to is the new one that popped up in .44 where guns just simply don't function at all, to the point of not even being able to aim down them. It's pretty bad!

Happens with all guns. Have had it happen with mosin, sks and m4. You can't aim down sights or anything as mentioned above. Can't fire, reloading doesn't fix it, swapping out parts doesn't fix it. Only relogging does as far as I can tell. No ruined status on the weapon or ammo so it's not that. This started with .44 as also mentioned above. Just a fucked up bug, I'd say if you're looting a gun make sure it works first before taking it into actual combat. Horrible surprise.

I went ahead and did a quick test of some shotgun spreads. Didn't have a ton of ammo so it was just quick and dirty to get an idea. 30m 50m 15-20m 5-10m and finally both barrels simultaneous at 30m I personally feel the spread at 30m should be more inline to the one at 20ish. If you look at the 30 meter spread, at least half the pellets would be hitting outside a human sized target. You're probably looking more realistically at about 1/4th of them landing. I suppose the alternative should be an increase in pellet damage, as 50% of them isn't terrible but in my experience individual pellets are rather weak in the SA. It may be unrealistic to have that tight of a spread at 30m, but from a balance stand point I believe there should be a slight tweak in either option. For a bit of perspective, 30m is roughly the equivalent of the width of an airfield hanger. Oh and here's a special bonus, for anyone who ever wondered what a blaze rifle firing both barrels at once looks like spread wise I was really hoping it was gonna be tight and secretly the most awesome weapon to give people a double dose of 7.62.

First shot he was moving, but only like 5m away and walking slowly. It broke his legs, so second shot he was hardly moving at all, just crawling a little bit. He was only wearing a t-shirt too. One of the guys I killed was fully kitted and died in one shot, about the same range. Damage on all guns is very inconsistent I find, and I think lag is a big factor but other things are also at play. I think the shotgun isn't necessarily any more wonky than other guns per se, but the fact that the way it fires means it's maybe a little more obvious when things do go shifty. You spray a bunch of pellets and lag/weird damage calculations get thrown in all at once.

Had some goon tell me tonight that the reason he wall glitches is because the "game is unfinished." That was his excuse, that since the game is incomplete it's ok for him to cheat. There's some very special people out there.

I personally like it without auto run, it's a minor inconvenience that I feel adds something to the game. It demands that slight bit more of interaction from the player, and in some cases can cause a small amount of discomfort. Yeah people are going to jam shit on their keys any ways, I do it myself some times (I like to use my swiss army knife, keeps me in the mood =P) but even doing that it's still less convenient than just hitting a button once. That's a good thing for this type of game. Something I think people should put more thought into is all the tiny factors that add up to make DayZ what it is. I think it's often overlooked that a lot of the quirks and inconveniences of the controls and the gameplay are actually what make the game intense. It's a dangerous thing to streamline too much or you will lose some of that. Am I saying it's the end of dayz should they put in auto run? No of course not, but it's all those little bits that add up and you take too many away and the game becomes something else completely.

I gotta say I find the accuracy to be shit on both but in my experience the m4 is the best weapon in the game right now, in everything but sniper distances where obviously the mosin wins out. That isn't to say that other guns can't compete, DayZ pvp is more about many other factors than weapon alone, but the m4 is the most versatile gun currently. If you use a bipod and even just a few mp parts the thing is pretty accurate (for the standalone, it's a piece of shit compared to arma), you can head shot reliably up to 300m on stationary targets on the first shot using a bipod and prone. The thing is obviously hugely inaccurate if you aren't using a bipod and prone, and without mp parts it's got laughable spread. The thing is, which I've come to realize, having 60 rounds is not to be overlooked. Yes you're going to miss a lot of shots, but the sheer volume of rounds you can send towards a target at medium ranges means you're quite likely to hit them. Close range it's pretty much no contest. There's skill involved and I'm not saying some one with another gun can't overcome an m4 (I killed a guy who had an infinite ammo mag m4 with a 1911 and 7 shots) but the advantage is 60 rounds compared to 10 at the most. The rate of fire is fast as well, and the amount of shots to kill honestly isn't that bad. All that said, I hardly use the thing. I prefer shotguns and magnums, and most of the other rifles before an m4. But when I do end up grabbing one, I definitely feel a world of confidence knowing I have 4-6x the ammo of anyone I'm going up against. TL;DR: you can kill people with any gun. both the m4 and sks have shit accuracy, with the stock sks having a bit better. However the sheer amount of rounds you can pour at a guy with an m4 makes it the superior weapon in close quarters and it actually competes well enough at medium ranges. the downside is the m4 has absolutely 0 style points and is the go to weapon of pretty much every butthole in the game. It's all personal preference in the end. Also, to those saying the guns have been artificially balanced or whatever, the problem is actually quite the opposite. Nothing has been balanced yet. They simply don't give a fuck at this stage of the alpha about balance. Balance will likely come in beta and beyond. So I'd say get used to shitty guns, because I really doubt the devs care yet.

I wouldn't mind seeing this added. Also a spotlight, like a large 2 handed flash light with an intense directed beam for illuminating things far off. It would also be nice if they redesigned how direct works to begin with and added a separate volume bar to increase it as it's often difficult to hear people in direct. Obviously that would be beneficial to implementing the bullhorn as well.

Thought I'd share some experiences from tonight since they pertain a bit to the topic. Sorry they are a little long. Story 1: Story 2: In the end both scenarios ended up more interesting for me. I died in the first one, but the alternative would have been blasting a guy who has broken legs then dealing with some more gun fights. Fun as well, but when all is said and done I'll take what happened even with myself dying at the end. Second guy was saying all the right things and pretty much doing everything right except for the key factors that #1 he'd just killed 2 of my friends and #2 he had me and my buddy pincered, whether he was with the other guys or not. There was pretty much nothing he could have done to make me want to surrender. It was still a more interesting encounter than if one of us had simply popped around the corner and shot each other immediately.

Just shot a guy full on, at least 90% of pellets hitting on both shots point blank, and he didn't die. Had to hack him to death with my machete. Of course I also 1 shot a couple guys as well. The damage is just so random.

Forced variety is just as boring as no variety, if not worse. Everyone should start the same then develop in the direction they prefer, not have built in classes. One of the major principles of DayZ is freedom of choice and a sandbox experience.