How would you feel if 1st person perspective was mandatory?

[IgnobleBasterd 161]

This game should be 1st person ONLY, but with this engine can't be 1st person. And let me explain why.

 

- Behore anything, we all notice how 1st person in this game doesn't feel as natural as it does in any other game. Your vision is very narrowed, you feel like a midget, anymations are, and im trying to be polite here, unsynched at best. You droop to the floor and can't see shit over the grass (have you ever played paintball or airsoft? Aint no problem in watching over the grass when laying on the floor).

 

All this is a engine problem, and let me explain why this happens:

 

Why do we feel like a midget:

In any other game, 1st person and 3rd person are based on DIFFERENT 3d models. This means, when you switch to 3rd person, your character model changes to a one swited for 1st person. It is not only a camera move, but a complete change of camera position, 3d model, model position, animations, everything. This is due a very simple reason, the usual image you see when playing 1st person (right arm & weapon usually) is not possible as long as your looking from your eyes. 

 

This is fixed by creating a new model, one model designed specifically for 1st person where you can see parts of your own body you couldn't with the 3rd person model and 1st person view.

 

However, ArmA developers, due to lazyness or unconsciouness, decides they ain't gonna do new models for 1st person, so they switch to a more easily way to add 1st person. Move the camera and thats it. But, to see your arm, the camera cant be in your eyes. Easy! lets put the camera at the base of your neck!. And thats why you feel like a midget.

 

Why the narrow vision:

This one is a easy one, FOV is really narrow in ArmA. Though there's also an added problem when switching to 1st person. In any other game, where 1st person has its own models as stated before, the camera isn't actually set at your eyes, but at the back of your head, allowing you some extra space which enhances the peripherical vision feeling. But since ArmA doesn't use 1st person models, moving the camera to the base & back of your neck would just give you a close vision of your nape.

 

And why the animations?:

Again, easy one. Remember the GTA V developers said they had the redo about 5000 animations for the game when adding the 1st person? Well, ArmA developers dont do that. They use the same animations for 1st person as for 3rd person. Now look at Battlefield 3 or 4, watch the same animation (like reloading) from 1st person. Perfectly synched, neat, cool. Now watch the same animation from a 3rd person view (have a friend do it in front of you). Floating (or even invisible) magazines, floating hands not really touching the weapon, unsynched sound... sound familiar?

 

This game should be 1st person ONLY, but with this engine can't be 1st person. Thats why I voted no.

I don't really think these are valid arguments, at least not valid enough.

[IgnobleBasterd 161]

I've played both, and I prefer 3rd person... the end result is the same. Each perspective has an advantage and disadvantage, and everyone that plays has the SAME ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE.

 

This argument again? Seriously, mods need to start giving out warning for this. You don't suffer the same disadvantage when you camp behind a wall.

[emuthreat 2837]

Very true, I'll sometimes sit at the well by the gas station in Cherno, picking apples in a dress, and hiding in the corner.  I don't do this because it is fun and exciting, I do it because I can call out targets entering town for our snipers, from relative safety and superior concealment.  Yes, I am admitting to wall-peeking to gain an unfair advantage, why else would you do it?

[Evil Minion 943]

How exatly does peeking create bad gameplay? That's what 3rd person is about. The other guy can peek you as well.... Again.... how is this bad gameplay? It's fair to both players.

It's DIFFERENT gameplay, enjoy the crappy first person implementation, don't vomit on the gameplay most people want to use. Wait till they fix/polish 1PP and then play to your hearts content.

I contend, there is nothing...NOTHING wrong with 3PP gameplay. Asking the devs to move the camera because 1PP are pissed that their beloved gameplay mode is fubar and have to "settle" for 3PP is really, really silly.

And here we got a third person elitist in full denial how BAD peeking gamplay is. That's the kind of player that lobbies for an exploit to stay in and keep the third person camera in the crappy state it is now.

 

Again: Only because the other guy can do the same it's neither fair (it's still asymmetrical) nor good for gameplay - it removes tactical options without adding any and also dominates any kind of player interaction. And for a game that aims at authenticity it's twice as bad.

 

Again: You can combat log as well. Is combat logging good gameplay?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Evil Minion

[Bororm 1156]

People who don't like third person just can't adapt to the advanced tactics required, then claim there are no tactics involved and that it's unfair.  I'm sure there's no strategy involved in any RTS game because they all have bird's eye views right?

 

It's about playing that extra step ahead of your opponent, given the extra information you have.  Advantages are created due to positioning, regardless of the camera.

 

But it's easier to cry and wish the game would change for you, so you don't have to.  Learn to play.

[pikmonster 2]

I definitely would eventually get used to having a permanent first person, but since mod I've played mostly third person.

If I was to be asked why I prefer third person, I'd say the two following things:

1. I get to see a complete view of my surroundings.

2. ALT-Look is 10x more helpful in thirdperson

[mercules 1290]

How exatly does peeking create bad gameplay? That's what 3rd person is about. The other guy can peek you as well.... Again.... how is this bad gameplay? It's fair to both players.

 

It doesn't apply to zombies or animals. Which makes scouting for zombies to avoid them trivial. Which makes zombies even less of a threat and they should be a threat.

It also doesn't apply to the guy approaching a building that has no cover around it. The guy on top of the building and see him clearly and pop up to shoot him at very little risk to himself. That means it is not, "Well the other guy can peek." Usually not, because a lot of the best places are first come first serve. There is no counter point where you can peek to see if they are there, you just have to know there is a chance someone is in that position and avoid it or risk it. There is no counter. Which is dumb.

In addition you can gain information without exposing yourself to danger. This makes firefights very boring and basically boil down into two people behind cover watching to see who moves out of cover first and shooting them. Very often a third party or Zombie resolves the standoff by forcing one to move. In 1st person you have to put yourself in danger to keep eyes on the other person's cover. You can actually use suppression fire and other real world tactics that just don't do a thing with 3rd person.

 

Advantages are created due to positioning, regardless of the camera.

You are correct, except in 3rd person the advantage is, "I am in a position where I can see and shoot anyone approaching and they can't see me no matter what they do." 3rd eliminates many tactics. It makes CQC room clearing very easy to do, it removes suppression, and it basically rewards camping a high traffic area from cover. To camp something like a rooftop in 1st person you would either have to remain blind and in cover, or peek out and risk people seeing you. In 3rd you just hide in cover and can still see... wait for person to turn away and shoot them in the back. Very little risk at all. It's boring.

In addition it makes zombies worthless.

[Evil Minion 943]

I'm sure there's no strategy involved in any RTS game because they all have bird's eye views right?

There is less strategy involved if you disable fog of war. Which is basically what peeking does but in a more silly and asymmetrical way. Being one step ahead? Good luck doing this against a camper that can see you but is absolutely impossible to detect himself.

 

And keep that "learn to play" of yours - peeking does create bad gameplay. And it's getting only worse the more people use it. It's not about your "1337 skillz" but about a healthy and authentic experience. If you really want to brag about your ability to exploit the camera perspective you should go to a private server to play with the likes of you.

[scriptfactory 620]

There is less strategy involved if you disable fog of war. 

 

I used to play a lot of SC2 (Gold at my highest). At the lower levels of play strategies such as the "Zerg Rush" and "Dark Templar Rush" are more utitlized. They are risky but since the level of opponent is so low it is easy to get away with risky shit. At higher levels of play you have learned to send out scouts to acquire information and react to certain cues that virtually render these strategies non-viable. Your opponent is required to play more defensively.

 

It seems to me the same reasoning can be applied to DayZ. Knowing information about your opponent and guessing what information they know about you is present in both 1PP and 3PP. The difference to me seems to be the difference between scouting and not scouting.

 

You could argue that this causes "bad gameplay" but you haven't, yet, presented a logical argument for your case.

[Evil Minion 943]

You could argue that this causes "bad gameplay" but you haven't, yet, presented a logical argument for your case.

Mainly because this topic is actually not about "how does peeking affect gameplay". There are plenty of topics out there where the effects of peeking are explained and in actual fact I did add some points in my former posts. So I am just linking a video here.

 

Let's move back to the scouting example: "Zerg Rush" is a thing. It may be risky but if your enemy does not scout to acquite that information it can work out. Also scouting is useful to locate your enemy and allows you to strike first while spotting those scouts in return can give your enemy vital information about you knowing his position. Now remove fog of war. Zerg rush is no longer a thing and scouting is no longer required. Instead of carefully moving your scouts to stay informed about enemy movements you get them for free, reducing the amount of viable strategies significantly. And now remove fog of war but only for the player who just happens to be closer to the nearest cliff - do we want to call it "fair" because everyone has the same chance to be the lucky one?

[scriptfactory 620]

Let's move back to the scouting example: "Zerg Rush" is a thing. It may be risky but if your enemy does not scout to acquite that information it can work out. Also scouting is useful to locate your enemy and allows you to strike first while spotting those scouts in return can give your enemy vital information about you knowing his position. Now remove fog of war. Zerg rush is no longer a thing and scouting is no longer required. Instead of carefully moving your scouts to stay informed about enemy movements you get them for free, reducing the amount of viable strategies significantly. And now remove fog of war but only for the player who just happens to be closer to the nearest cliff - do we want to call it "fair" because everyone has the same chance to be the lucky one?

 

Without the fog of war you would have access to all information about your opponents current status but not his plans. It reduces the amount of cheap strategies available to players and forces more focus on micro-management (effective unit control), resource management (more efficient priotization is possible) and defense (reducing waste).

 

Reducing the fog of war for a single player is somewhat equivalent to the strategy of using invisible scouts. This is a real strategy in SC2 and you have to plan for this possibility in actual matches. You don't cry for the units to get removed or nerfed... well, I guess weak players do that.

[Evil Minion 943]

Without the fog of war you would have access to all information about your opponents current status but not his plans. It reduces the amount of cheap strategies available to players and forces more focus on micro-management (effective unit control), resource management (more efficient priotization is possible) and defense (reducing waste).

So it does reduce the number of strategies (the "cheap" part is debatable) and basically reduces the dimensions the game is played in. Thus it leads to less diversity and arguably amplifies the effect of micro-management etc. Do we really want this? Do we want PvP to be reduced to an equivalent of a quickdraw duel? In a game that is meant to be authentic and where you would expect authentic gameplay? Not to mention that it would also help in PvE unless zombie detection would be tuned to work in a similar weird way. Strategy and excitement comes from having options and tradeoffs and peeking reduces both.

Reducing the fog of war for a single player is somewhat equivalent to the strategy of using invisible scouts. This is a real strategy in SC2 and you have to plan for this possibility in actual matches. You don't cry for the units to get removed or nerfed... well, I guess weak players do that.

Invisible scouts that cost nothing, can be everywhere at once and do not allow for any counterplay. That's a plain and free advantage to one side without having to choose or even giving up something in return.

What does peeking give to gameplay? What does peeking take from gameplay? What do we want more in a game like DayZ?

[raBit. 79]

I prefer 3rd person, but will play 1st occasionally just to change it up.

I have 1100 hours so far, and I would honestly probably play ALOT less if it was mandatory.  probably would not be playing the game by the time its full 1.0 release.

 

I don't mind the peaking over walls and laying down watching everyone. its equal for everyone.

I enjoy putting different outfits on my dude, not just cloths, but matching outfits.  preference is the red track outfit, or green track outfit. and police uniform.

 

but like I said I would probably quit this game, but at the same token, the direction of this game is not exactly what I want to play.  So I might not even be playing once its full released.  And yes I knew what this game was when I bought it, and what it is going to be when finished.  I feel I have already gotten my money's worth out of my 1100 hours already.

 

JMO

[Weyland Yutani (DayZ) 1159]

This is mostly just curiosity as I'm pretty damn sure the devs aren't going to try and remove 3pp as an option, there's evidence against such a thing, but I'm curious to see how people feel about 1pp vs 3pp so this poll question is a good way to try and chart the demographics!

 

Personally I enjoy 1pp much more than 3pp. After playing in some 1pp servers 3pp feels odd and uncomfortable. 3pp is much more convenient at times, it increases your view distance by giving you a higher vantage point, you can look around corners and see on top of objects like wardrobes. 1pp is more of a challenge because of this. My two cents.

These threads are about as boring as "to the guy I killed at x."

 

1PP is dead, get the funk over it. Nobody plays it for a reason. This is coming from a person that played 1PP for 5-6 months straight with a few thousand hours in-game. 1PP is not more of a challenge at all. Now idea how you people believe that. 3PP is way more of a challenge due to the viewing angles and how to counter said viewing angles. 

[Coheed_IV 381]

1PP is not more of a challenge at all. Now idea how you people believe that. 3PP is way more of a challenge due to the viewing angles and how to counter said viewing angles.

What? I guess you mean the current game where infected are not a real threat. Looking for danger on the coast is not the game. 1pp will always be more difficult if infected are the real threat, like the mod.

I apologize for bringing this awful thread back up.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Coheed_IV

[wooly-back-jack 294]

atm I am playing alot of wasteland A3 on 1st person only and I am loving it, the 1pp servers are generally rammed too, strange

[gibonez 3633]

I would be fine with it.

 

As would everyone here.

 

They might complain for a week or two but after the initial outcry things will calm down and people will adjust.

 

The actual number of people who will actually stop playing are insignificant. Most are just blowing hot air.

[scriptfactory 620]

The actual number of people who will actually stop playing are insignificant. Most are just blowing hot air.

 

1PP mode is unplayable for many people currently (including me). If they did force it I would guess than a significant portion of the current playerbase would just write this game off.

[gibonez 3633]

1PP mode is unplayable for many people currently (including me). If they did force it I would guess than a significant portion of the current playerbase would just write this game off.

 

Frame rate does not change with the perspective. third person is no more playable than first person.

 

I would bet that the player counts would not change one bit if they removed third person view.

 

One such example is RUST they outright removed third person view because it was detrimental to gameplay, they got some negativity at first and then overwhelming support for the decision and guess what it has more players now than dayz, h1z1 or any of the other survival games.

[pilgrim* 3514]

..//..

 

They might complain for a week or two but after the initial outcry things will calm down and people will adjust.

 

The actual number of people who will actually stop playing are insignificant. Most are just blowing hot air.

 

 

.//..

I would bet that the player counts would not change one bit if they removed third person view.

..//..

 

wow !            " most are just blowing hot air "   ?

        lmfao

                 - are you real ?

Edited May 31, 2015 by pilgrim

[Zboub le météor 250]

from a purely selfish point of view, i would like 3PP removed so 1PP servers could be full again, not just 4-5 private servers.

 

i'm OK with 3PP though, i just don't like the things like camping on top of hospital or fire station in electro using 3PP to scout the surroundings and take shots when its safe... not an interesting gameplay IMO

Edited May 31, 2015 by Zboub le météor

[NuckFuts 265]

Keep 3PP but make it so you can't pan your view around and it's of a fixed frontal POV in the direction your facing, problem solved :)

Edited May 31, 2015 by NuckFuts

[Parazight 1599]

How would you feel if 1st person perspective was mandatory?

 

I have no idea how I would feel.  It would be a colossal waste of time thinking about how I might feel, mostly because this will never happen.

[Evil Minion 943]

It would be a colossal waste of time thinking about how I might feel

You must be really slow. :P

 

Though it might not happen it's still interesting to know how people feel about it. However, there is no reason to remove third person. Peeking can be fixed by other means.

[roguetrooper 201]

My signature...