Battlefield 3 vs DayZ dispersion

[Judopunch 523]

Bullet goes out of the barrel with a little dispersion. The gun itself moves around on the screen. Sprint around in DayZ a bit and try and line up a shot. That sway is what should make the difference.

You make it sound like thats the only factor. Your oversimplifying what you want. If we cant make it like a game than we need to make it more like real life, is what I believe your problem with the game is. Therefor, we need to add a couple things, stiff neck, arm falling asleep, soar muscles.

 

Arm strength, gun balance, pack balance, adrenalin, fatigue, bugs, atmospheric pressure, wind, wind differences, moisture, elevation, where the moon is, heart beat, how hungry you are, vision problems, numb fingers, infection, fear, bugs, needing to pee, distracting noises, trigger squeeze, amo load, amo quality, mechanical wear, sighting of the scope, thickness of your clothing, trigger pull distance. In a short list. 

 

But thats not realistic. People always say this, but if you pull the trigger incorrectly and nudge your gun off target by even the smallest amount you shot will loose accuracy. More importantly these details are not required to make the game work right. I have yet to see a compelling argument that would support adding this level of 'realism' to the game and how it would make the game more fun.

 

And even if somehow they perfectly simulated reality (which would not necessarily make it a better game) someone would still be unhappy with something.

 

So the question I pose to you is this. What VALUE to GAMEPLAY would you be adding to make 'weapons more accurate' as you seem to want. Also keep in mind, that a mag-pull equipped M4 meets all of your requirements for accuracy.

[Judopunch 523]

1. Weapon sway

2. Recoil

3. Weight

4. Weapon "Speed", or how fast your weapon transitions from the "down" to "up" positions.  As well as how fast you can put away or take out a weapon...

 

 

These are just some basic examples of ways attachments could effect "handling" within the game w/o using excessive cone of fire mechanics...

Why do you believe that the cone of fire mechanics are excessive? What would be better about having say, a laser accurate weapon? All of your 4 are already in the game except Weight (to my knowledge) and I would actually like to see more weapon sway especially after a good long run.

 

Edit: sorry this is unclear. How would you go about making weapons more accurate from a game design perspective. What elements would you create/modify and how / how much? Why would this be better? I challenge you to be more specific than a 1-4 list.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Judopunch

[Publik 404]

So the question I pose to you is this. What VALUE to GAMEPLAY would you be adding to make 'weapons more accurate' as you seem to want. Also keep in mind, that a mag-pull equipped M4 meets all of your requirements for accuracy.

Point is the Magpul M4's stats should be the stats for the stock M4; I think they might even be too much (Gews would probably have the numbers for that).

 

What value to gameplay? When did DayZ care about balancing gameplay? The value I get is when I point my gun at a thing a few hundred meters away, I can be confident that I can hit it. I should get that confidence out of a modern weapon platform, not a surplus WWII rifle. If the plastic on a weapon doesn't affect accuracy, I can pick what parts I prefer for my play-style. If I'm always cappin fools in Elektro, I might care for the CQB stock. If I have trouble managing my recoil, maybe I'd like a compensator over something like a suppressor? If my guy carries a lot of extra crap and I need to trim my weight, maybe I want to pick the lightest parts available? When there's a "best build" for a weapon there's a problem. The game stops being about the experience and becomes about collecting all of the right M4 parts to make the thing half-decent.

 

If we cant make it like a game than we need to make it more like real life, is what I believe your problem with the game is.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. My issue with the game is I think Rocket's a knob and the development is focusing on the wrong things in the wrong order. Hunting? Why? I can survive off cans of beans. What DayZ needs is base building and a bigger baddie for us to point our guns at. Weapons being horribly off is a secondary issue for me, it's just that it's so easy to fix.

 

Why do you believe that the cone of fire mechanics are excessive?

Why do you believe that they aren't?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[Judopunch 523]

this guy did a good test from 100m. Arguments could be made that the QCB's accuracy is to greatly diminished. The rest seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[Judopunch 523]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. My issue with the game is I think Rocket's a knob and the development is focusing on the wrong things in the wrong order. Hunting? Why? I can survive off cans of beans. What DayZ needs is base building and a bigger baddie for us to point our guns at. Weapons being horribly off is a secondary issue for me, it's just that it's so easy to fix.

 

Why do you believe that they aren't?

 

I think that the developers have a pretty damn good handle on how to build a video game. Now, if there are still problems when it is finished in a year or so we can talk about what they need to change. However you are speaking of things that you do not understand, and/or may not be within the scope or vision of the developers final product.

 

Unless you are using the QCB butt-stock, I find it very hard to believe that the guns are to inaccurate to be effectively used in the average engagement distances in dayz..

[taco86 156]

Well if I had to be specific about how exactly I'd like a m4a1 and system that allows for modular upgrades ect implemented... I'd first start by defining the characteristics which directly effect weapon accuracy.  These would include, Quality level of the weapon, Quality level of the barrel (new attachment), Type of barrel, quality of the ammo, and the type of ammo.  This would mean that the only things that effects the cone of fire of the weapon (mechanical accuracy) are these specific components...  In essence, a pristine m4a1 with pristine 75-77gr match ammo (new), and a pristine 16" 1/7 stainless lined match barrel ( also new) should be shooting right around 1 moa groups at 100m.  In contrast, a badly damaged m4a1 with badly damaged m855 rounds (5.56 green tip), and a badly damaged 14.5" mil spec 1/7 barrel could be shooting 25+moa groups at 100m.

 

The other components, such as grips and stocks should only effect "weapon handling".  This would mean sway rate (how fast it sways), sway distance (how far it sways), felt recoil (how far/fast as well as where the muzzle moves after firing), and speed (how fast you're weapon transitions between ready states, as well as how fast you can take out or put away a weapon).  Simply as a "For the sake of argument" example, all pristine m4a1 with pristine "precision" components, bipod + prone, as well as being rested and healthy/energized/hydrated should result in very little weapon sway and very little muzzle climb/recoil.  Standing with badly damaged components should result in a lot of movement in terms of both sway and recoil, which in turns makes placing accurate shots at long range extremely difficult.

 

Edit: Match barrel would have a weapon handling penalty compared to 14.5 mil spec (longer and heavier), regardless of quality level.  Quality level of optics should determine how aligned or zeroed the sights are.  The severity of the misalignment should be determined by the quality level, the direction the misalignment is in should be random.  Pristine optics should be more or less dead on with the aim point of the gun, badly damaged or ruined should be way off.

Edited March 26, 2014 by taco86

[rickenbacker 190]

Like I said "GAME" mechanics. 

 

You could also make an argument about how significantly ergonomics effects accuracy. Pointing that barrel in a 1mm different direction could have an impact of changing your landing spot by several centimeters at 300M.

 

But ya. This is a game. Mouse and keyboard to shoot your gun.

 

 

My point is that what we see in the game (i.e. a perfectly lined up sight, that doesn't move during the trigger pull) doesn't reflect what happens (the weapon "sways invisibly, spreading the bullets all over the place). It's counterintuitive and stupid. 

And how would you account for that with a gun, in a video game. 

 

 

 

Sway, shake, misaligned sights... There are many realistic ways to show the human factor in games. 

[Publik 404]

I think that the developers have a pretty damn good handle on how to build a video game. Now, if there are still problems when it is finished in a year or so we can talk about what they need to change. However you are speaking of things that you do not understand, and/or may not be within the scope or vision of the developers final product.

 

Unless you are using the QCB butt-stock, I find it very hard to believe that the guns are to inaccurate to be effectively used in the average engagement distances in dayz..

Now now, let's not start throwing shit at each other. My low opinion of Rocket is an opinion and you should respect that. I've watched this buffoon since a month or two after the initial DayZ Mod released. "I used to be a fanboy like you, then I took a hacker to the knee", as the meme goes. 2 years is plenty of time for me to grow to understand/dislike a person. I could lean into him but that'd be off topic.

 

Regardless of which butt-stock I'm using, the actual groupings a weapon can do in optimal conditions (prone, rested, etc) should not change. The CQB stock apparently decreases the time it takes to shoulder the weapon and increases the dispersion. It has no effect on recoil or weapon sway, the parameters where a CQB stock would make sense having some impact.

 

The core problems:

1. Baseline stats are too low, across the board
2. Attachments make changes to the incorrect stats
3. In general, the preference of a cone-of-fire system over a more realistic weapon-sway system and the general idea that "balance for the sake of ___ is OK" is worrying

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[Judopunch 523]

My point is that what we see in the game (i.e. a perfectly lined up sight, that doesn't move during the trigger pull) doesn't reflect what happens (the weapon "sways invisibly, spreading the bullets all over the place). It's counterintuitive and stupid. 

 

Sway, shake, misaligned sights... There are many realistic ways to show the human factor in games. 

How far would you take it? Why is it better to use a more complex system. Would you say that the current in game accuracy is fine but you are finding a lack of information being fed to you as a player? 

 

 

Also calling it counter-intuitive is a bit.... .... every video game on the planet is using some version of recoil/dispersion this unless the game is a hit scan quake spin-off. There is absolutely nothing counter-intuitive about it.

 

I would be willing to try a version of DayZ where you could headshot people with an M4 100% of the time from 600m, but I am sure that I wouldn't enjoy it. The guns are a feature of the game. The game is about interacting with players in a zombie apocalypse. It is not a rifle simulator. I would also not find it fun to be continually shot by some guy sitting on a hill over a mile away, because I stopped to take a drink of my canteen.

 

From a game design perspective 1km is pretty much the maximum range you can engage people. The server doesnt draw much beyond that, further many peoples computers can not handle rendering information at that distance. therefore from a game perspective, we can look at the roll of each weapon in context. Not the real worlds context, the games. 

 

Consideration

 

1) Maximum target render 1km. Consideration

2) Assume we dont want to build a completely new way to manage how guns and weapons work from how their game is already set up.

3) Create an experience for players that rewards skill and knowledge without violating 2.

 

Than we can break into ranges Melee, short, medium, long, extreem.

 

With a maximum distance of 1km, we have melee at 3m,

Short is the realm of pistols and shotguns, lets say 3m-100m

lets say Medium, where assault weapons could have a happy life, lets go with 200-400m

Long range the realm of rifles, 400-900m

Extreme, luck probably plays into this in any situation 1km. Rifles, knowledge, chance.

 

By moving effective ranges of weapons even by 500 you remove game-play based around positioning and the limits of the actual game. 

 

What do you think?

 

Edit: The point Im trying to make is that this is just about exactly how the game is currently set up

Edited March 26, 2014 by Judopunch

[Judopunch 523]

 

Now now, let's not start throwing shit at each other. My low opinion of Rocket is an opinion and you should respect that. I've watched this buffoon since a month or two after the initial DayZ Mod released. "I used to be a fanboy like you, then I took a hacker to the knee", as the meme goes. 2 years is plenty of time for me to grow to understand/dislike a person. I could lean into him but that'd be off topic.

 

Than fundamentally you are only an person with abias opinion. Who no amount of logic or reasoning will appeal to you. By this post you are bassically confirming a few things.

 

1) You hate the developer and the way he builds games AND YET YOU STILL PAYED FOR DAYZ SA. That is very confusing to me. There is a reason that I didnt buy the Diablo 3 expansion.

 

2) You have such a strong opinion but have never tested or researched exactly what is effecting your weapon from a game play perspective. Your ignorance is getting in the way of you making a valid point.

 

3) I do like the idea of weapon sway being more of a factor, however, do you see less people complaining if its weapon sway vs dispersion? How would you incorporate more 'skill' i suppose. Because honestly dispersion is just an approximation of weapon sway without the visual feedback.

 

 

If you would like, my post above this one has my thoughts on why the weapons are balanced in the way they currently are.

[Publik 404]

How far would you take it? Why is it better to use a more complex system. Would you say that the current in game accuracy is fine but you are finding a lack of information being fed to you as a player? 

 

 

Also calling it counter-intuitive is a bit.... .... every video game on the planet is using some version of recoil/dispersion this unless the game is a hit scan quake spin-off. There is absolutely nothing counter-intuitive about it.

 

I would be willing to try a version of DayZ where you could headshot people with an M4 100% of the time from 600m, but I am sure that I wouldn't enjoy it. The guns are a feature of the game. The game is about interacting with players in a zombie apocalypse. It is not a rifle simulator. I would also not find it fun to be continually shot by some guy sitting on a hill over a mile away, because I stopped to take a drink of my canteen.

 

From a game design perspective 1km is pretty much the maximum range you can engage people. The server doesnt draw much beyond that, further many peoples computers can not handle rendering information at that distance. therefore from a game perspective, we can look at the roll of each weapon in context. Not the real worlds context, the games. 

 

Consideration

 

1) Maximum target render 1km. Consideration

2) Assume we dont want to build a completely new way to manage how guns and weapons work from how their game is already set up.

3) Create an experience for players that rewards skill and knowledge without violating 2.

 

Than we can break into ranges Melee, short, medium, long, extreem.

 

With a maximum distance of 1km, we have melee at 3m,

Short is the realm of pistols and shotguns, lets say 3m-100m

lets say Medium, where assault weapons could have a happy life, lets go with 200-400m

Long range the realm of rifles, 400-900m

Extreme, luck probably plays into this in any situation 1km. Rifles, knowledge, chance.

 

By moving effective ranges of weapons even by 500 you remove game-play based around positioning and the limits of the actual game. 

 

What do you think?

1. 1km is too low and ought to be bumped up. If I can make a shot at 1.2km and still provide enough energy to the bullet to incapacitate or kill, why stop me? To prevent KoS? That's punishing a valid play-style in favor of another.
2. We already have a system in place that allows for weapon attachments that modify the stats. The weapon sway is available somewhere in the code because your sprinting affects that value. Changing which attachments affect what should be trivial for any adequate programmer.
3. The only way to reward skill is to make weapons skill-based, not luck-based. Currently, unless you've hopped to find all of your gucci parts, using weapons like the M4 is a dice roll.

We're also not suggesting that you should be able to easily secure a headshot at 600m 100% of the time. Firstly, who aims for the head? Center of mass ftw. Second, we should be able to suppress a target at that range with accurate fire, and probably hit somewhat reliably if we have the optics to line up a shot and are in a good shooting position. I do, however, expect to reasonably hit a target at 300m, even with a stock M4.

 

This is off-topic

Than fundamentally you are only an person with abias opinion. Who no amount of logic or reasoning will appeal to you. By this post you are bassically confirming a few things.

 

1) You hate the developer and the way he builds games AND YET YOU STILL PAYED FOR DAYZ SA. That is very confusing to me. There is a reason that I didnt buy the Diablo 3 expansion.

 

2) You have such a strong opinion but have never tested or researched exactly what is effecting your weapon from a game play perspective. Your ignorance is getting in the way of you making a valid point.

 

3) I do like the idea of weapon sway being more of a factor, however, do you see less people complaining if its weapon sway vs dispersion? How would you incorporate more 'skill' i suppose. Because honestly dispersion is just an approximation of weapon sway without the visual feedback.

 

 

If you would like, my post above this one has my thoughts on why the weapons are balanced in the way they currently are.

Logic appeals to me. I feel that what I'm suggesting is quite logical. If I could drop a zombie at 300m in the mod, I expect that in the standalone.

1. I wouldn't say "hate". Don't respect, probably, don't trust, definitely. The mod was fantastic. The first 3 months of that were hands down, the BEST gameplay I've ever experienced. Then the hackers started pouring in and cheat reports fell on deaf ears. FTC put on a trade even every single weekend for 3 months (that's Friday-Sunday, one a day) and had a hacker shit on the party almost without fail. On one of our first ops we had one use an A-10's main gun to destroy our outpost. I purchased standalone because I support the idea of DayZ, and because I expected to get the mod but with nice additions. The inventory system is alright and there are a lot of changes under the hood that I can appreciate. The number of hackers (what drove me from the mod and killed FTC) is greatly reduced. I've only seen 2 hackers in DayZ so far. However, the standalone is rapidly diverging from the mod and the developers don't seem to be focusing on the right stuff in the right order. We don't need hunting right now, we need base building. We don't need more guns, we need base building. We don't need police stations and high-value loot in every city.
2. You have no basis to claim these things.
3. Dispersion is a bad mechanic to prioritize. At some level it makes sense, but it should not be the main factor in landing a shot. Player skill (IE the ability to achieve an outcome regardless of the situation) cannot exist if the weapon's ability to hit a target is as random as it is.

You could say that I'm biased. I disagree with a lot of Rocket says and does. You could also say that you're biased, albeit in the other direction.

 

If Rocket calls DayZ a flawed concept and chooses to cash in at the end of the year, let him. Good riddance.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[gibonez 3633]

Why do you believe that the cone of fire mechanics are excessive? What would be better about having say, a laser accurate weapon? All of your 4 are already in the game except Weight (to my knowledge) and I would actually like to see more weapon sway especially after a good long run.

 

Edit: sorry this is unclear. How would you go about making weapons more accurate from a game design perspective. What elements would you create/modify and how / how much? Why would this be better? I challenge you to be more specific than a 1-4 list.

 

Those are all in game but nowhere near the as severe as thy would be in real life.

The weapons in game feel like t hey are being held by a robot super stiff.

[Judopunch 523]

 

1. 1km is too low and ought to be bumped up. If I can make a shot at 1.2km and still provide enough energy to the bullet to incapacitate or kill, why stop me? To prevent KoS? That's punishing a valid play-style in favor of another.

 

This here is the fundamental thing I think your not understanding. Game design. If the maximum range the game is capable of is 1.2km (lets just say 1.2, though I believe its 1) By making the M4 capable of hitting that range you eliminate the necessity or advantage of having a bolt action rifle. You eliminate game play.

 

You solution is to 'bump up' the distance. That is not within the realistic scope of the games development. There are mechanical and programmatic restrictions on what is possible. The game also needs to be playable by players, I have a super high end rig now, my girlfriend does not though hers is not bad. Even at 1km they are pushing the limits of what an average gaming machine can do.

 

However I hope my example shows you that your expectations are incorrect with what the game is designed around. Primarily that the game is designed around being a game. You should then understand that the range of 300m allowing for an accurate grouping with an M4 real world equivalent of 600-700m. I can etch my name into a tree with a knife in real life, why cant i do it in DayZ? Because its a game, its not real life.

[taco86 156]

 I can etch my name into a tree with a knife in real life, why cant i do it in DayZ? Because its a game, its not real life.

And the worst analogy of this thread award goes to!....

 

P.S.  Look up the definition of "Megalomania"

Edited March 26, 2014 by taco86

[Publik 404]

This here is the fundamental thing I think your not understanding. Game design. If the maximum range the game is capable of is 1.2km (lets just say 1.2, though I believe its 1) By making the M4 capable of hitting that range you eliminate the necessity or advantage of having a bolt action rifle. You eliminate game play.

 

You solution is to 'bump up' the distance. That is not within the realistic scope of the games development. There are mechanical and programmatic restrictions on what is possible. The game also needs to be playable by players, I have a super high end rig now, my girlfriend does not though hers is not bad. Even at 1km they are pushing the limits of what an average gaming machine can do.

 

However I hope my example shows you that your expectations are incorrect with what the game is designed around. Primarily that the game is designed around being a game. You should then understand that the range of 300m allowing for an accurate grouping with an M4 real world equivalent of 600-700m. I can etch my name into a tree with a knife in real life, why cant i do it in DayZ? Because its a game, its not real life.

That 1km is variable. Arma can push that out to whatever you want. I'm not sure what ShackTac uses but I'd be willing to bet it's around a 2-3km draw distance. The reason DayZ chugs right now is that it's not optimized. I'd also be willing to bet they don't have object occlusion on right now, so when you look into Elektro the engine renders every single building, not just the ones that are visible.

Nowhere did I say hit a target at 1.2km with an M4. Maybe an M24 from the mod. The point still stands. If a weapon can hit at 1.2km in real life, I don't see why not in a survival sim, based on a military sim. If an M4 is reliable to 300m stock, why not let it be in the game? For arbitrary "balance"? The Good Lord Rocket Dean Hall said that DayZ was supposed to be an anti-game and ignore concepts like "balance" that other games make their core.

 

Edit: Also, you can't etch your name into a tree not because it's a game, but because some poor programmer wasn't ordered to make it happen.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[finnpalm 312]

That 1km is variable. Arma can push that out to whatever you want. I'm not sure what ShackTac uses but I'd be willing to bet it's around a 2-3km draw distance. The reason DayZ chugs right now is that it's not optimized. I'd also be willing to bet they don't have object occlusion on right now, so when you look into Elektro the engine renders every single building, not just the ones that are visible.

Nowhere did I say hit a target at 1.2km with an M4. Maybe an M24 from the mod. The point still stands. If a weapon can hit at 1.2km in real life, I don't see why not in a survival sim, based on a military sim. If an M4 is reliable to 300m stock, why not let it be in the game? For arbitrary "balance"? The Good Lord Rocket Dean Hall said that DayZ was supposed to be an anti-game and ignore concepts like "balance" that other games make their core.

 

Edit: Also, you can't etch your name into a tree not because it's a game, but because some poor programmer wasn't ordered to make it happen.

 

All engines have limits to how far away you can render something, how fast an object can move and so on. While you may be correct in that Real Virtuality 3 can render things further away than 1 km (I don't really know), that does sound a bit far. It would be nice with an official word on what limits the engine has.

[Publik 404]

All engines have limits to how far away you can render something, how fast an object can move and so on. While you may be correct in that Real Virtuality 3 can render things further away than 1 km (I don't really know), that does sound a bit far. It would be nice with an official word on what limits the engine has.

Here's 10km while in a jet on Arma 2.

That number might seem high if you're comparing to arcade style games like CoD or BF.

[Judopunch 523]

That 1km is variable. Arma can push that out to whatever you want. I'm not sure what ShackTac uses but I'd be willing to bet it's around a 2-3km draw distance. The reason DayZ chugs right now is that it's not optimized. I'd also be willing to bet they don't have object occlusion on right now, so when you look into Elektro the engine renders every single building, not just the ones that are visible.

Nowhere did I say hit a target at 1.2km with an M4. Maybe an M24 from the mod. The point still stands. If a weapon can hit at 1.2km in real life, I don't see why not in a survival sim, based on a military sim. If an M4 is reliable to 300m stock, why not let it be in the game? For arbitrary "balance"? The Good Lord Rocket Dean Hall said that DayZ was supposed to be an anti-game and ignore concepts like "balance" that other games make their core.

 

Edit: Also, you can't etch your name into a tree not because it's a game, but because some poor programmer wasn't ordered to make it happen.

Yet again. This is a game. There you go on Dean again, you bought a game you already didn't like and now your complaining about it. I'm about to not give you any more attention.

 

Your also taking your personal interpretation of that quote, that in my opinion is very very very very far off of the context of what he was actually saying. The game already breaks general balance paradigms. Weapon ranges could be half of what they are currently and that would still be true.

 

There are also a lot of questions I have been asking that have not been fully addressed. Im going to take a break now. If you have something concise and well thought out I would be happy to respond to it.

 

I love the game just the way it is. I also know that it is not finished and not only see what it is but what it can become for better or worse. I hope it gets better. I would like, if you are so inclined, for you to provide a compelling solution and a specific example to your problem that takes into account a 1km maximum render distance. Mechanics already in the game. And why it would be a more enjoyable experience for the majority of players than what is currently in the game. I would also like you to consider if some of these things will be added or adjusted naturally as the game is developed.

[gibonez 3633]

Here's 10km while in a jet on Arma 2.

That number might seem high if you're comparing to arcade style games like CoD or BF.

 

Rendering players past 3km should be a priority.

 

ACE does a fine job I have cranked up the settings and have been able to see players at 10 km while you cannot see the players without optics it helps in keeping watch when you have a pair of binoculars.

 

As far as gameplay is concerned long view distances where players are rendered result in more careful and thoughtful gameplay.

 

You would be able to spot groups at kilometers away and then decide how to either AVOID them or Engage them.

[Judopunch 523]

 

As far as gameplay is concerned long view distances where players are rendered result in more careful and thoughtful gameplay.

 

You would be able to spot groups at kilometers away and then decide how to either AVOID them or Engage them.

But this is DayZ. When you spawn you spawn with nothing. How would super long engagement and vision change the already drastic difference between a geared and an un-geared player? Or god forbid a group of 10 players who want to camp all the spawn zones with high powered rifles that can reliably hit targets at considerable distances...

Edited March 26, 2014 by Judopunch

[Publik 404]

But this is DayZ. When you spawn you spawn with nothing. How would super long engagement and vision change the already drastic difference between a geared and an ungeared player?

For those that aren't always freshly spawned on the coast.

 

Still off-topic

Yet again. This is a game. There you go on Dean again, you bought a game you already didn't like and now your complaining about it. I'm about to not give you any more attention.

 

Your also taking your personal interpretation of that quote, that in my opinion is very very very very far off of the context of what he was actually saying. The game already breaks general balance paradigms. Weapon ranges could be half of what they are currently and that would still be true.

 

There are also a lot of questions I have been asking that have not been fully addressed. Im going to take a break now. If you have something concise and well thought out I would be happy to respond to it.

 

I love the game just the way it is. I also know that it is not finished and not only see what it is but what it can become for better or worse. I hope it gets better. I would like, if you are so inclined, for you to provide a compelling solution and a specific example to your problem that takes into account a 1km maximum render distance. Mechanics already in the game. And why it would be a more enjoyable experience for the majority of players than what is currently in the game. I would also like you to consider if some of these things will be added or adjusted naturally as the game is developed.

When did I say I hated the game? I love the idea of DayZ, I just think Rocket's weak and not worthy of my respect or trust. That's an opinion, just like your opinion that everything's fine an dandy.

 

I and others here have provided solutions. I encourage you to reread them and consider their impact on the game.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Publik

[gibonez 3633]

But this is DayZ. When you spawn you spawn with nothing. How would super long engagement and vision change the already drastic difference between a geared and an un-geared player? Or god forbid a group of 10 players who want to camp all the spawn zones with high powered rifles that can reliably hit targets at considerable distances...

 

How is the render distance a problem or fuck how is the group of players at fault here.

 

This is a sandbox and they can do as they see fit. If they find enjoyment in killing fresh spawns there should be nothing set in place to protect the fresh spawns.

 

Whats with the hand holding or the thought that we should make sacrifices to the render distance merely to protect some groups of people in unlikely situations.

[Judopunch 523]

For those that aren't always freshly spawned on the coast.

 

Still off-topic

When did I say I hated the game? I love the idea of DayZ, I just think Rocket's weak and not worthy of my respect or trust. That's an opinion, just like your opinion that everything's fine an dandy.

 

I and others here have provided solutions. I encourage you to reread them and consider their impact on the game.

... Im asking you for crystallization so that we can have a more focused and coherent discussion. I believe if you cant understand that we are at in impass. I was attempting to make sure I really understand your side of it.

[Publik 404]

... Im asking you for crystallization so that we can have a more focused and coherent discussion. I believe if you cant understand that we are at in impass. I was attempting to make sure I really understand your side of it.

Crystallization on what? I and others here feel that the weapons in DayZ are too inaccurate and are not conducive to a skill-based game. This is because at the moment dispersion is the primary factor in deciding if a bullet hits a target, not the player's actual skill at lining up a shot or managing their weapon sway. Additionally, attachments to weapons apply arbitrary bonuses to unrelated stats, like how Magpul additions increase the accuracy of the M4 or the compensator on the Mosin. Weapons in DayZ should behave reasonably compared to their real life counterparts. Lastly, balance for the sake of balance is not an idea DayZ should be built upon, it surely wasn't that way in the mod.

 

What else is there to crystallize?

 

More to the point:

I had to take a drive downtown to expedite a paper with the business people (40 work days to file an LLC? wtf? Another $35 for the state to make it 8...) with my buddy John. John is a fellow programmer and a student at my alma mater. He's ex-marine and I asked him what his grouping was at 300m. I'm told that it's the size of a quarter at 300m prone, 7-9/10 hits on a human sized target if standing or crouched. Granted, this is with an M16, but it's essentially the same gun.

[hoffa (DayZ) 71]

This thread is going places

 

 

Screw you, I spat my juice all over my screen :D