Dreygar (DayZ)

Seriously? I think this is just you needing to have some type of visual indicator that a person is bad. To go along with your scenario, who is to say the bandit doesn't wash away the blood? More importantly, having skins defeats another purpose... Allowing characters to customize their look with items they find throughout the world, for their advantages or personal choice. Lastly, bandit/hero skins are just to test out the humanity feature which the devs haven't decided on. Though I do agree with the Op, there should be no indicators that a person is bad.. and this subject has been beaten to death. Any interaction with a player should be had in game, no visual cues. So stay cautious and whether they shoot you in the face or you shoot them... so be it.

No, I think that exceeds the disturbing limit. :P

Agreed, I fiddled around with it a lot and I will mess around with the game more out of curiosity. The Arma 2 helicopters were more responsive in throttle response, if descending too fast you could give it more collective/thrust (I really dislike they combine these two features) and save yourself from smashing into the ground. On ToH you couldn't make many adjustments, in my experience.

Maybe you misread something. I know quite a bit about helicopters, thank you. However, the pedals would not work to provide the anti-torque of their design to stabilize the main rotor. It felt like I had no control of the tail rotor.

I think something around 300km was suggested, where as the current is supposedly 225km, but when I counted the actual playable squares it only came out to be roughly 183km.

Has this been suggested? It would be parked off in the ocean, you would have to take a boat or swim (chance of hypothermia depending on the water temp). Would be completely infested with zombies (Running/sprinting zombies won't work for this idea as you're already on a large ship with no where to go, with a hoarde of Zombies) I imagine only the brave or experienced players; and some stupid players would attempt this. It would be a good place to find some good loot, but represent a real danger. Firing anything more than a pistol without a silencer will probably get you killed, unless you had a lot of ammo for your larger weapon to mow down anything that came your way. No respawning zombies. I hate clearing an area just to find more zombies there. Specially on such a large ship that would have a lot of cooridors/rooms/floors and some 500 or so zombies. It would probably be the most sought after and hardest places to loot.

I think this is the general direction the team is going with the game anyway, and a reworked weather system. There is still something about the chenarus map, and probably because it is the one I am most familiar with; but I do not like the namalsk map. I do welcome diversity and would like to see a completely reworked Chenarus with a more modern feel. We currently just have the same buildings recycled and spread around the map, I want to feel like I'm in a real town with some real design to it. Police stations, Grocery Stores, Malls, Strip malls, Neighborhoods, Apartments, etc... Might be a little too much to ask for though.

I guess if Honda called a Civic a muscle car, it would be a muscle car because Honda called it one. What a tool. The game is a first person shooter, end of story. Second of all, if I want to address something someone said in the thread, then so be it. Since you decided to post about my post which I posted about someone elses post, how does that make you any better? Toolbag. Oh, let me edit my thread... I see why you are taking offense, because I commented on something YOU said.. No wonder; and by the way... was something that still never had anything to do with thermals.

PS. Peripheral dots are stupid. Oh hey.. I see a dot to my left... Oh wait, that's a well hidden vehicle/animal/zombie that I wouldn't have otherwise seen. There's a difference between the game TELLING you where something is, and you SEEING where someone is in third person; despite your character physically not looking. Don't get it twisted and think they are one of the same though.

Seeing around obstacles without actually using your character, in my opinion... is a minor issue when you look at the scope of the game. The combination of first person + third person is what gives you a better overall viewing experience. If you reduce the third person field of view (to the point where you couldn't see around a building or obstacle, then you are basically making it first person. (Rough example, in third person you double tap +, and it shrinks your field of view.) In the end, it's not going to happen. If by chance it does happen and this game becomes a first person-only game (Which I seriously doubt) then consider this game a bust. There are many more and important realism factors involved/needed in this game that will already shrink the population as it is. (Removing indicators, skins, etc) So for those 100 people who want to play the game like they are looking through a roll of toilet paper and call that realistic... well, have at it. Tunnel vision ftw.

I agree, adjusting gamma should be removed from the game. I also don't think it should be as dark as it is in some instances. The moon/stars do a great job of adding light in the absence of artificial lighting.

It is the idea to have multiple maps to travel to. You would also be able to spawn in the different maps after discovering them.

The problem is no one really wants a first person only game, which means they are playing on low-pop servers and are bored. Resorting to play on high-pop 3rd person servers and whine because someone is watching them and they can't see them because of third person. If there were equal people who wanted 3rd person and 1st person you wouldn't hear a peep out of them. You know there is a realistic squad based shooter supposedly in the make (Takedown). Right now it's PC: First person, PS3: Third Person. Xbox 360: Unknown. I am anticipating the release for it on 360, my preferred shooter platform. I will not play the game if they make it third person. Shooter games = First Person only. MMO games = First person / Third Person... with Oculus being the ultimate in current gaming if utilized as planned.

A great idea and currently DayZ doesn't have anything to encourage people to use ingame voice. People use ingame voice to communicate with nearby unknown players to say they are friendly, that's about it. It's impossible to orchestrate a group or over long distances in game currently and that won't even be solved by introducing radios. Sure, radios will be cool and add to the immersion but I'm sure they will be difficult to find and thus not everyone will have one in your group. Plus the lack of security will just resort players to using 3rd party software.. Sadly.

Actually I am correct on everything I said... I wish I had your debate skills in just feeble attempts to say "You're wrong" without any proof. Here is my proof, dumbass. http://www.eurogamer...-and-a-for-dayz

Well, as it sits right now with your method the game probably does consider you in the water as that is the terrain you are working on. Though I don't imagine this being in anyway shape or form a problem with the standalone especially as an instance.

Again, it all boils down to a few select players who want an ultra hardcore first person, but it is equally as unrealistic (points made above). The majority of the group, whether casual to hardcore enjoy having the option of third/first person but those select few want to force their ideas on the majority just because they are playing in low-populated servers and not having as much fun, and whine because when they join the more populated third person servers they feel everyone has a disadvantage with third person... THIS IS NOT JUST A SHOOTER. This is designed to be an MMO Survival game, that has aspiratations of much more than just shooting shit. This is a step towards greatness and away from the "tab target, hit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc to perform attack" which is indicative of MMOs; so be grateful. You are fighting a lost cause, and the fight should be made to keep this game realistic in other ways and stop it from leaning towards the mainstream trash. End, if you want something realistic... Oculus rift is the direction. Making an argument on which is more realistic first person vs third person. They are both unrealistic.

Have I driven across the map on an ATV in 1st person using headlights in the rain/darkness because it was hard to see some obstacles in my path. Through treelines, etc? Yes. Do I go into 1st person to look at loot on the ground to get a better view? Yes. Do I go into 1st person when I plan on shooting? Yes. Do I think driving in vehicles/flying helicopters in 1st person adds to realism? No. Why? Because in real life if I was trying to look around at my surroundings I wouldn't have to negotiate 12 buttons while also negotiating the necessities it takes to actually operate the machine. Does that make it harder? Umm... sure, does that make it realistic? No.

Just incase you didn't know there is a lean function built into the game. Hit Q & E. Works in 3rd person or 1st person. The only arguement I'd make about third person is it is way too accurate to fire a weapon without aiming down the sights. Removing cross hairs fixes that somewhat, but I do like having cross hairs there for close quarters zombie encounters, because accuracy isn't a concern when you're 2 feet away.

lol, had to comment because you're just a walking contradiction. Mario Brothers was a linear game, with only one direction. You had an overview of a large area that let you plan your move.

Wow. Lets compare against a 30 year old side-scrolling game... Reaching a little bit there, aren't you? There is nothing harder, scarier, or better about playing in only first person. You are just whining, like the rest, that others can see you from hidden positions. You know, this was a problem in games like Rainbow Six Vegas, because that's a shooter. This game is not a shooter.

When I play a tactical shooter game, I want first person. This isn't just a tactical shooter game. So I welcome the choice. There is nothing realistic about this game in first person, sorry. When I want to look behind me, I don't look just over my shoulder. I turn my hips, my torso, my head... I can see everything behind me. When I'm driving in a vehicle, I don't just see the windshield/some dash. I see out the side windows, I can see the mirrors, the passenger seat, the entire windshield, etc. That is the kind of realism you'll only get from something like Oculus Rift. Close minded people.

You need to learn how ballistics work. When a ballistic is fired it begins to rise during the arc, gain speed (bullet rise). You zero your target based upon where you want the projectile to hit on its way down (bullet drop). Bullets don't just fire in a straight line, and begin to fall. Educate yourself before you try to educate others. Bullets arc. If your zero is on 300m, and you try to hit a target 50 meters away you actually have to aim above. Shorter distances are more level with your sights because the arc occurs in the mid-range of the projectile's path. For instance, you zero your M16 at 25 meters on a simulated 300meter target because the projectiles path at 25 meters is similar to its path at 300 meters. Aiming down your sights at center mass at either of these targets will hit it right where you aim. However, aiming at 50-250 range and you have to alter your aim to hit the target, IE you have to aim above. As for all those hardcore people out there complaining about the third person view... again... why? Oh, because you're worried about someone having an "advantage" ... the FPS aspect of this game is hardly the major focus, it's just what you are focusing on... I suggest playing a FPS that is in first person then. This is a game much more than a FPS. I don't find playing in FPS, other than when shooting, enjoyable. Right now I get the best of both words when having the option... and I'm sure a First person only server will be available to you when the game releases, so why are you trying to force everyone to play in first person only? Oh... right, because very few servers want to play in first person so you are forced to come to third person games... and while a million players want to have the option you think it should be forced on them to play in first person only because maybe a few thousand want to play that way... Right...

ArmA accuracy is very simple indeed. There is no bullet rise, only bullet drop. Very little windage correction needs to be done. To call it a simulator is very far-fetched, as it's not completely accurate. The ease of aquiring targets and making very minute adjustments at extreme distances, firing, reaquiring, firing, reacquiring, firing... Can be done pretty rapidly in this game. Ie, very unrealistic and not a good simulation. .50 Caliber weapons are heavy, have huge recoil, and generate a lot of dust when fired. Making it difficult to reacquire target till it settles/view returns. So firing from anything but a supported position is unrealistic. M249/M240 are also heavy LMGs that can be hip fired but are generally supressive weapons and not that accurate. Though while in a supported position they can be very effective in both accuracy/supressive fire. Assault Rifles, same deal. Yes you can fire them easier from unsupported positions but only realistically accurate to about 150 yards by the average trained soldier. The fatigue of trying to acquire the right sight picture and maintain good trigger squeeze to shoot a 300m target using iron sights in an unsupported position can be pretty intensive. What the game does is take some elements of realism, but inevitably it is a game. HARDLY a simulator. It just blends realism/fun better than COD/Battlefield/Medal of Honor and so forth of the more "arcadey" games.

The way I see it being achievable would be instance only. The instance is global on any given server, meaning people can come and go. I don't mind it being far out in the ocean, and wouldn't even mind if you could swim to it. Here is what I envision. You could swim, climb up a ladder. As soon as you hit "climb up ladder" it loads you into the instance. Vice versa, as soon as you hit "climb down ladder" it loads you out of the instance and back into the water. Same with boats. You drive your boat out, park it beside the ship and "climb up ladder" , or if there is a lower deck of the ship where you could "climb aboard ship" then it would load you in/out of the instance. Helicopters could land on the deck and upon "get out of helicopter" you would exit the helicopter and load into the instance on the helicopter pad, and respectively you would load out/fly away from the helicopter pad. Now here is how the zombies would work. As soon as one player enters the instance it becomes active. I think 500 zombies on a large carrier/cargo ship is efficient and the instance should be able to handle the workload. It would also allow for a lot of detail work to go with the ship, creating a massive "map" of the interior of a ship from all levels and rooms.. hence the need for a large ship. Loot would be randomly moved about so no player knows the best spot to get the best stuff. At any given time the ship has been left playerless, ALL zombies would be present upon re-entering. It would be very risk/rewarding. I imagine the amount of time it would take the players to clear the entire ship to be in the multiple hours, with a lot of people... even more so with less. (Anyone, again, can join at any given time) To prevent the ship from just being a hot spot to get good loot, loot would have really long recovery times (Maybe a few days or even week). Example, fresh loot would be almost anything and bountiful. The more players loot, the less loot respawns upon re-entry until the loot resets randomly (few days, week) No one will really know what loot is there, or how much of it is there. They could clear the whole thing and get very little in valuables because the ship has already been looted dozens of times over the course of those days. It would offer gameplay that is challenging and can be rewarding, but the randomness of being able to find that fancy new NVG or just crap loot because it's been raided over and over again is even greater of a challenge. Imagine flying onto the ship with a full pack of 8 buddies (Huey, 8 people) and you are making your way... Someone gets attracted by zombies, begins to be overran and fires off their loud weapon to mow down what was in their path to escape. Now, all zombies within range begin to investigate that sound from all angles... The intense moment of that player/group as they try to battle their way back to the helicopter to escape, and I imagine many will be overrun from their foolishness. Now there are 4 dead bodies in the middle of the ship, with all the loot/weapons they came with and now lost. Bodies would expire in about an hour, I think that's fair. Do they rearm and attempt to go retrieve some of their valued items? Do they even have enough munitions to make it through the layers of zombies once more??? Decisions... decisions...