[POLL] - 3PP / 1PP and seeing round corners

[floj 393]

With greater awareness of your surroundings, you can tell when you are hidden, you can realistically see around objects that you should easily be able to see around in real life without majorly exposing yourself.

You can move more precisely, more stealthily, sticking to cover much more realistically.

I actually agree with this and it's one of the only positive uses of 3PP for me...but, it doesn't require ANY other player or NPC entities to be shown in 3PP for it to work. It's how I'd implement it for hardcore mode, allow you to check your immediate surroundings for background camo and to check your body for wound locations to work out where an enemy is shooting from (although really this should be easy enough to figure out with good sound design). No need to ever show other players or zombies on there, let alone have them visible over 7ft walls :)

[-Gews- 7443]

With greater awareness of your surroundings, you can tell when you are hidden, you can realistically see around objects that you should easily be able to see around in real life without majorly exposing yourself.

You can move more precisely, more stealthily, sticking to cover much more realistically.

So the argument here is you can see where your character's body is a bit better, and you don't have to stick your whole head out...

...versus being able to use an invisible periscope to see over ten foot walls, around corners, etc, all while your character remains 100% behind cover, not looking out at all, and impossible for anyone to detect...

I know which point of view presents the bigger flaws when considering any form of "tactical" gameplay. The only non-exploitative reason for wanting to include third person is "I like to look at my character" and I don't think that's a very good reason.

rocket2guns: "I find I am using third person alot in DayZ SA while running long distances, or to "check" my character (like to see where I am shot to check direction of firer), but then third person is so exploitable in prone.

So we are going to try both forcing first for prone, and the "sucking camera in close" and see which works best.

Agree too, crouching would really benefit from a more "over the shoulder"

[kiwi_laurel 24]

I agree that it could do with some tweaking for balance and realism, but to remove it completely is absurd.

You should be able to see over any wall that is realistically able to be seen over in real life, ie a 7ft wall would be no issue, however a 10ft one would be impossible without a step.
 

Until there is a realistic alternative to placing nearly your entire head around a corner to see, there isn't really much of an option other then to have 3pp.


Honestly, how it is at the moment is fine and works, sure, there may be some unrealistic traits, but hey, 1pp shares many of those some traits, just at the other end of the scale.

There is no reason to not have 1pp dedicated servers, the gameplay is different and you essentially end up with 2 games for the price of one.

[Space Milk 195]

OP you should have put a i play 1pp option but dont want 3pp fixed, or it is fine.

[sobieski12 835]

With greater awareness of your surroundings, you can tell when you are hidden, you can realistically see around objects that you should easily be able to see around in real life without majorly exposing yourself.

You can move more precisely, more stealthily, sticking to cover much more realistically.

 

There is nothing realistic with the 3rd person camera, the simple fact that you don't need to expose your body in seeing an enemy players is just pathetic. 

* Your problem is that you need to expose you head slightly to see an enemy in 1st person... Good thing that is actually realistic.

 

Imagine the U.S. military had implemented a 3rd person camera on our service men, we would have little to no casualties in urban environments.

* But sadly we need to deal with reality.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Sobieski12

[kiwi_laurel 24]

There is nothing realistic with the 3rd person camera, the simple fact that you don't need to expose your body in seeing an enemy players is just pathetic. 

* Your problem is that you need to expose you head slightly to see an enemy in 1st person... Good thing that is actually realistic.

 

Imagine the U.S. military had implemented a 3rd person camera on our service men, we would have little to no casualties in urban environments.

* But sadly we need to deal with reality.

Yes, but in 1pp view you have to expose nearly your entire head to see, often more! How is that more realistic?

Imagine if the U.S. Military service men all had to look through a square box, weren't able to feel, couldn't use their hands except for a few basic things like holding and firing a weapon, couldn't even push a bush slightly over in order to see past it.

You get what I'm saying?

There are certain limitations to a game, and a 3rd person view provides a slight alternative to these limitations.

[floj 393]

OP you should have put a i play 1pp option but dont want 3pp fixed, or it is fine.

True I should've done, but it's too late now. I don't think it's too much to assume that 1PP players don't agree with the exploit though - but I try not to concentrate on group A really, for me the interesting thing is the proportions of B+C against D

 

I doubt very much that 1PP is gonna be enforced as the only option, or dropped as an option. It's how the 3PP servers are dealt with that interests me since I much prefer 1PP but am forced to play 3PP or not at all with certain friends.

 

Yes, but in 1pp view you have to expose nearly your entire head to see, often more! How is that more realistic?

Imagine if the U.S. Military service men all had to look through a square box, weren't able to feel, couldn't use their hands except for a few basic things like holding and firing a weapon, couldn't even push a bush slightly over in order to see past it.

You get what I'm saying?

There are certain limitations to a game, and a 3rd person view provides a slight alternative to these limitations.

Imagine lying on a flat roof with a raised parapet around the edge. Now look at the ground on the other side of the parapet. You have to raise your whole head, shoulders, possibly even your waist as well if it's a wide lip, up on top of the parapet to see down on the other side. Or nothing at all and just use 3PP.

 

Now edge along a wall and enter a room. You have to put most of your body into the doorway to be able to peek around 180 degrees and see the other side of the wall that you're about to round. Or just nothing in 3PP.

Edited January 18, 2014 by phlOgistOn

[kiwi_laurel 24]

 

 

Imagine lying on a flat roof with a raised parapet around the edge. Now look at the ground on the other side of the parapet. You have to raise your whole head, shoulders, possibly even your waist as well if it's a wide lip, up on top of the parapet to see down on the other side. Or nothing at all and just use 3PP.

 

Now edge along a wall and enter a room. You have to put most of your body into the doorway to be able to peek around 180 degrees and see the other side of the wall that you're about to round. Or just nothing in 3PP.

 

Of course, it has it has its downfalls, but the same can be said for 1pp view.

No matter what, corners are always an issue, 1pp view is to limiting, requiring to much exposure in order too see around, making the risk much higher then it should be, 3pp exposes too much for no risk at all. Essentially you change the way the game is played at these points, usually swinging the advantage from the defender, to the attacker.

In the end it is a game, and as such, sacrifices to realism have to be made.

I much prefer the 3rd person approach, it provides much more realistic movement and basic gameplay, and when it comes to cqc, generally it can go either way, rather then simply rewarding the player who camps it out. Which to me is important.

[floj 393]

No matter what, corners are always an issue, 1pp view is to limiting, requiring to much exposure in order too see around, making the risk much higher then it should be, 3pp exposes too much for no risk at all. Essentially you change the way the game is played at these points, usually swinging the advantage from the defender, to the attacker.

 

 when it comes to cqc, generally it can go either way, rather then simply rewarding the player who camps it out. Which to me is important.

Both of this sounds arse over tit to me.

 

Someone attacking a defended room, has to show more exposure in 1PP as he enters, he cannot survey a room from 100% safety before entering. How does this swing the advantage to the attacker?

Someone can camp an area completely unseen on a rooftop or behind a wall in 3PP...or they have to at least expose themselves slightly to observe in 1PP. I'd say even a slight bit of exposure gives the non camping player a fraction more of a chance rather than someone remaining completely invisible and giving no chance.

Edited January 18, 2014 by phlOgistOn

[svisketyggeren 662]

You do know only a 1 % of people that play DayZ will vote on this.

Thats 10 000 ppl...I already explained in another thread that thats more than enough participants in a poll modelling a population of 1 million.

[Skinup69 24]

This poll has along way to go then! Good luck with a change.

Thats 10 000 ppl...I already explained in another thread that thats more than enough participants in a poll modelling a population of 1 million.

[kiwi_laurel 24]

Both of this sounds arse over tit to me.

 

Someone attacking a defended room, has to show more exposure in 1PP as he enters, he cannot survey a room from 100% safety before entering. How does this swing the advantage to the attacker?

Someone can camp an area completely unseen on a rooftop or behind a wall in 3PP...or they have to at least expose themselves slightly to observe in 1PP. I'd say even a slight bit of exposure gives the non camping player a fraction more of a chance rather than someone remaining completely invisible and giving no chance.

Someone attacking a defending room in 3pp can pear in without risking his neck, and from there can make a tactical decision as to what to do, they may be able to see someone proning on the ground watching the doorway, they now have a chance, they can pop out and try to shoot them, chances are they guy waiting will probably kill him, but the attacker may catch him by surprise and come out on top.

In 1pp this is heavily biased to the defender, who can just sit there and wait, the attacker most likely won't even know about the defender, stroll on in through the door and get shot.

Yes, defending in 3pp can mean you can camp unseen, and watch your enemy, but you still must expose yourself in order to fire, and if the guy attacking is aware of you, then that is risky, and it could go eitherway.

[Skinup69 24]

Both of this sounds arse over tit to me.

Someone attacking a defended room, has to show more exposure in 1PP as he enters, he cannot survey a room from 100% safety before entering. How does this swing the advantage to the attacker?

Someone can camp an area completely unseen on a rooftop or behind a wall in 3PP...or they have to at least expose themselves slightly to observe in 1PP. I'd say even a slight bit of exposure gives the non camping player a fraction more of a chance rather than someone remaining completely invisible and giving no chance.

Wrong. The defending player can do the same thing as the attacker in 3rd person.

In 1st person the defender would have to show himself too see or look and if the attacker is smart he would wait for that in 1st person.

You see depends on the player so you answer means nothing.

Plus someone in 1st person mode can camp a roof top, if u wanna be a noob then go do that.

Not hard to peak on a roof top in 1st person.

With the small area of view in 1st person he would be unlucky to be seen if no one knows he's there.

Again it's up to the player in both views on there course of action.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Skinup69

[kiwi_laurel 24]

Honestly, if you haven't played a decent tactical 3rd person shooter (and to be honest, there aren't many around nowadays) then you arguement is invalid.

Without having the experience of playing such a game, how can you comment on how the game plays?

I spent the best part of 3 years playing Socom 2, and the rest playing a mix of the rest of the Socom series and every major fps since.

I can tell you without a doubt which perspective provides the better gameplay and most realism overall.

If you have only ever played 1st person tactical shooters then you really are missing out.

[svisketyggeren 662]

This poll has along way to go then! Good luck with a change.

I said thats more than enough...u need a sample of 100 participants to model a population of 1 millon with a 10% error margin. Do some research on the Bell curve to understand this.

[floj 393]

Honestly, if you haven't played a decent tactical 3rd person shooter (and to be honest, there aren't many around nowadays) then you arguement is invalid.

Without having the experience of playing such a game, how can you comment on how the game plays?

I spent the best part of 3 years playing Socom 2, and the rest playing a mix of the rest of the Socom series and every major fps since.

I can tell you without a doubt which perspective provides the better gameplay and most realism overall.

If you have only ever played 1st person tactical shooters then you really are missing out.

Never played Socom, but have played 3rd person tactical shooters, they're great for coop and singleplayer, but I dislike them for multiplayer and spent some time a few weeks ago trying to find one that is played at a competitive esport level as a sign that maybe there is in-depth pvp aspects to them. The only one I found was World of Tanks, which has a ton of processing dedicated to visibility mechanics. For me, to see if a game has deep and rich pvp options, it's best to see if it's played competitively, if it's not, it probably has a shortfall somewhere within the design. I think 3PP pvp has the shortfall of giving too much observation power to both teams, which will lead to stagnation and stalemate when played at a high level. Once both players are aware of each other, there's no incentive to be the first to move. There's examples everywhere within this thread of players coming up against this ceiling.

 

One thing that Socom does seem to have(after a quick google) a much tighter, over the shoulder camera angle, like GoW/Res Evil, which does nerf the over/round walls exploit a lot, but not completely.

 

I said thats more than enough...u need a sample of 100 participants to model a population of 1 millon with a 10% error margin. Do some research on the Bell curve to understand this.

I'm still hoping for 400 ish so we can do the 99% accuracy with much tighter error margins :)

[svisketyggeren 662]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still hoping for 400 ish so we can do the 99% accuracy with much tighter error margins :)

http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5220c5f8e4b09938befb2ec1

 

Just saying, poll with almost 5000 participants. 2700 say they woud be glad to get rid of 3rd person entirely. 1400 say they would be sad to see 3rd person removed.

 

Ppl calling the 1st person crowd a minority better open their eyes. The majority of dayz players want 3rd person removed.

 

bad_mojo sums up the polls nicely in this post http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/162565-fix-not-remove-third-person-perspective/page-14 the trend is obvious from the numbers.

Edited January 18, 2014 by svisketyggeren

[wild_man 4442]

the small noise begin by dyslecxi  is slowly become deafening roar ;)

 

we must continue so rocket can't ignore :)

[minime1000 78]

I like 1pp but I play on 3pp servers cause surviving till I am all geared up is so much easier and takes (compared to 1pp servers) zero effort. When I am geared up I go on a 1pp server. Hope they remove the 3pp entirely or separate hives.

[HunterJay 81]

http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5220c5f8e4b09938befb2ec1

 

Just saying, poll with almost 5000 participants. 2700 say they woud be glad to get rid of 3rd person entirely. 1400 say they would be sad to see 3rd person removed.

 

Ppl calling the 1st person crowd a minority better open their eyes. The majority of dayz players want 3rd person removed.

 

bad_mojo sums up the polls nicely in this post http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/162565-fix-not-remove-third-person-perspective/page-14 the trend is obvious from the numbers.

 

Most people who would vote to keep 3PP are playing the game not on the forums. The majority of DayZ forum members who gave a shit enough to even look at this topic want 3rd person removed. All the 1PP whiners come on the forums and use their time to bitch about a game mechanic the majority of the population is enjoying right now. Remove it and the 3PP whiners will flood the forums and bitch about the exact same thing, except in much larger numbers.

 

Look at the General Discussion page, how many topics about removing/changing the 3PP. Very few, and the ones out there are all repeatedly posted on by the exact same people. A big reason why people come onto game forums is to complain. The massive 3PP supporting community has nothing to complain about, therefore there not even here to defend themselves. 

 

So stating "The majority of dayz players want 3rd person removed" is utter fallacy. And any outside poll is only going to be voted on by those who have an issue with the current system. Not by the majority of DayZ players who are actually playing while enjoying themselves and not on the forums complaining or voting to have a vital game mechanic to some restricted or removed from the game.

[Zombie Jesus 723]

I swear I am not trying to be a dick but these polls do not tell you much about the general playerbase. It is a somewhat good indicator of what people on the forum think and that is all, even there it is not that useful since it was not a random sample and is being taken only by those who stumble across the question on the forums. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias

 

As a quick snapshot of the forum's attitude it somewhat works, but no other conclusions can be drawn from the poll about the actual DayZ SA player population. 

 

/mathnerdrantover

 

 

http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5220c5f8e4b09938befb2ec1

 

Just saying, poll with almost 5000 participants. 2700 say they woud be glad to get rid of 3rd person entirely. 1400 say they would be sad to see 3rd person removed.

 

Ppl calling the 1st person crowd a minority better open their eyes. The majority of dayz players want 3rd person removed.

 

bad_mojo sums up the polls nicely in this post http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/162565-fix-not-remove-third-person-perspective/page-14 the trend is obvious from the numbers.

 

 

Good for us it falls prey to the exact same sampling bias that I just linked. A reliable poll will randomly sample people with everyone having the same chance of being surveyed. This poll and the poll you linked do not fit that category making them both irrelevant. 

 

"The majority of dayz players want 3rd person removed." 

 

The sad part of that quote is I bet you actually believe what you are saying. First problem is the ONLY objective source of information we have is server lists and server populations and that clearly shows that you are wrong. People point out that they play on 3PP servers due to friends not wanting to play (which points to a higher percentage of people wanting 3PP only but whatever) and not enough servers with low ping (which also points to lack of demand). Those are both true but even with those factors I find it hard to believe a full 58% of the general DayZ playerbase wants 1PP as the only option when so few 1PP servers are populated. 

Edited January 19, 2014 by Zombie Jesus

[svisketyggeren 662]

Ahh denial...the truth about the sample is probaly that 1st person ppl are severly underrepresented. Im just saying that based on nothing because im in denial. Most likely real value close to 90% 1st person advocates

[HunterJay 81]

Ahh denial...the truth about the sample is probaly that 1st person ppl are severly underrepresented. Im just saying that based on nothing because im in denial. Most likely real value close to 90% 1st person advocates

 

Denial is a nice term, I'd call it complete ignorance.

[Zombie Jesus 723]

Ahh denial...the truth about the sample is probaly that 1st person ppl are severly underrepresented. Im just saying that based on nothing because im in denial. Most likely real value close to 90% 1st person advocates

I bet when you failed a math test you just told your teacher they were in denial.

[svisketyggeren 662]

I bet when you failed a math test you just told your teacher they were in denial.

Okay