DieBrotmafia

Even though I would like to stay on topic, a short comment on the whole facebook thing: Every single thing we heard about it so far suggests that Oculus can continue as planned and even got more freedom compared to their old investors. Palmer etc. did not have the majority since they got the $ 75 million investment. They recently said Oculus is gonna stay open and won't become a closed platform nor that you would need a facebook login. People could have asked the same question about google a long time ago. Why would a search engine create a video hosting platform (youtube)? Why would a search engine create smartphones and get into the hardware industry? Do you see any of the walled garden that e.g. apple uses on android? Do you see tons of ads on android phones? No, you are free to install whatever the heck you want. Facebook sees the potential of VR and wants to create a platform that people WANT to use, like youtube. They want to be the first. This does not mean they will restrict any access to third parties in any way, and everything we heard so far confirms this. People use youtube because they want to and because its a great platform. Facebook supporting OR will allow them to create some VR platform that you can use - if you want - in the long run. They won't restrict access to other platforms because in the short run - adoption would suffer as people aren't getting as much value - in the long run competitors would have an advantage. Look at google does with android. Look at what facebook does with instagram or whats app - they did change basically nothing. Now back on topic: I am a bit worried since these performance problems always existed since Arma 2 and I wonder if they can even be solved in the engine.

Will DayZ ever work on the Oculus Rift? I thought about this since some time, since Dean mentioned a long time ago he would implement Rift support... But the Rift needs STABLE 75-90+ fps, no drops. Lots of people with ridiculous strong computers report something like 40 fps or less e.g. in Chernarus. Is there anyone that gets stable 60+ fps everywhere? IMO the Rift would enhance DayZ immenesly as a simulator, but won't be usable if the FPS problem is not solved. Could it be possible to increase performance within the next 6 months so one could get stable high FPS as required or is the game engine so "flawed" in this regard that it likely won't ever be fixed?

While the engine is not perfect, I can't think of a better engine. Which engine would you have preferred that can give you a realistic looking 220km²+ map that is nice for the survival aspect?

The gloves have nothing to do with that. Fighting without gloves is NOT more dangerous for the person getting hit, its actually more dangerous for the person throwing the punch as you can easily fracture your hands that way. One punch KO happens in real life, this does not mean it happens all the time. Lets make it realistic and give it some 20% chance of knocking someone unconcious, then everything is fine.

I guess most want it the way it was in Arma 2. It makes no sense to be that unprecise. What is the real effect of your shots being unpredictable? Instead of the player with more skill, the player with more luck wins. You will have longer firefights, but is it rewarding to win because you were lucky? You can take a lot of time to ambush another player from 300 meters away, observe him for a few minutes, do your best to center your crosshair exactly on the head of his character... And then miss. He turns around, shoots (maybe not even accurately) and kills you. Sounds really unfair. Normal people in real life can't shoot that well. Most beginners of FPS can't shoot that well either. Try shooting a moving target 300 meters away if you are a beginner in FPS and especially Arma, I predict you won't do that much better then a normal person would in real life. The skill that players have in this game is acquired skill, no need to take the benefits of said skill away and make the game roulette to some degree or somehow handicap players by making weapons arbitrarily inaccurate.

If all my friends want to play TP + FP, I'll join them. Right now we have ONLY TP + FP servers. Adding FP only servers would not change ANYTHING to the worse, it would give me the opportunity and more choices to at least play FP if there are no friends to play with or if all my friends WANT to play FP. More choices is a good thing. Somehow nerfing third person would not change a thing in principle, this would still mean a compromise is made. Instead of the compromise that I and my friends will switch between TP + FP and FP only every now and then the compromise would be a nerfed TP view, which I'm sure my friends who like TP the way it currently is would also not be happy with. Its just a fact, people have different tastes and you can't make a solution that makes everyone play on the same server and is still fair and not some kind of a compromise. Add TP only and TP + FP servers and thats it. You are wrong if you think somehow nerfing TP view so its "fair" to play with FP views isn't a compromise for the people that currently like TP the way it is.

Who cares if the player base is separated? What is the problem? As long as enough servers are full, I could care les if I play with "half" the player base or all players, I can only encounter 50 of them on any given server anyway. I could understand your concern of separating the player base if the base was only 50 players to begin with.

If you want to play FPV only and your friends don't, obviously you have to compromise. There should certainly be FPV only servers. There should be TPV enabled servers as well so everyone can play the way he likes. Maybe we could even add a third kind of server, where FPV is enabled but TPV is nerfed the way you suggest. Though in my opinion this is a fallcy. What if your friends don't want to play on a server where TPV is nerfed? What if they want to be able to shoot in 3rd person view? You'll have to make a compromise anyway, there is NO way around that. I don't like the suggestions you made, because the main advantage of TPV is that you are able to get an awareness advantage. You're not shooting your enemy through the wall anyway, you'll have to face him before you shoot and then it doesn't matter if you have third or first person, the advantage is created because you saw him before he was able to see you. As DayZ is a slow game anyway, as long as you don't make switching views incredibly long, there is close to no disadvantage created. I don't see an issue with people being able to play TPV servers and then switch to FPV servers. If you think you can loot more easily in TPV think again, the bandit can make use of TPV as well balancing your "advantage" out. I don't think its easier to loot in TPV servers as everyone got the same advantage, you won't see the bandit on the roof in TPV servers and you won't see the bandit behind the wall in FPV servers, to me there is no difference as long as its not TPV vs FPV on the same server. So simply add servers that enable FPV only and everyone is happy. A compromise has to be made if you have friends that prefer a different options, nerfing TPV would also be a compromise so I deem it redundant but if you like give this option as well.

Its unrealistic and I'd also like it lowered. In real life if you shoot someone you wont somehow destroy all of his beans and items with a few shots, maybe you're unlucky and damage a single item but that many?

Nice. See, thats all it takes, a small update every 7 days or so and we're happy to know its still being worked on.

Making a game that YOU like is the first step in making a game that people will like. Thinking about what people are supposed to like (which is different from your own taste) is not a good idea in my opinion.

Even if you can't render grass, you can make the character harder to detect. E.g. make the colors disappear somewhat or make him float a bit into the ground when he is lying still (already possible in Arma). I don't like the thing about holding a button to aim, whats the point? If people want to aim they'll just stick a penny on the button. I like the freedom DayZ gives without being judgemental about wheter people want to play the way they do. Steering people in a certain direction isn't what this game used to be, at least not in such an obvious manner.

No it isn't. At least not entirely. If I were to develop a game that runs only on the fastest computer in the world, is it the fault of the people that have a slower pc? Or is it just that my game is badly optimized? Yes people should get a decent computer before complaining. But even a lot of decent computers that can run almost all other new games just fine, e.g. Battlefield 3, Crysis, Assassins Creed 3, Skyrim etc... struggle with DayZ. To that extent its not just the fault of the gamer pc but also the fault of DayZ itself, maybe 50/50. My computer isn't the best, allright. But there is no game that runs as poorly as DayZ as soon as I approach e.g. elektro.

Did this change have something to do with the new patch 1.7.5.1?