Ultimate server settings poll (What should go and what shouldn't?)

[evulclown@gmail.com 191]

I have a solution. Bring your head into the game and use TrackIR. The only thing this game lacks is the fov you have IRL. I'm sure that's what most players are missing when they say you aren't "in the game even if you havea physical body unlike in other shooters".

Buy me track IR, like seriously. That you even need such an expensive external product as track ir to remove some clunkiness (as I stated earlier) speaks volumes for why there's third person in the game.

[alyas 14]

Don't mess with third person. It's not an unfair advantage if everyone can use it.

It is not a fair advantage when a sniper is sitting on top of a building doesnt have to poke his head out to see if your in his view yet or not.

Third Person is for those that want to hide behind a wall waiting until they can pop out and shoot at someone.

I only play on servers that have 3rd person off as well as Crosshairs. I get that its not your play style, but it doesnt mean it wont give you an advantage at times.

[Redshift 58]

Crosshairs

PRO:

• Some weapons have bad iron sights (Maybe drop those weapons then?)
  
• ??? (Being able to shoot from the already highly exploitable 3rd person view?)
  

CON:

• Too accurate for long ranges (I don't really know because I don't use them)
  
• It's very unrealistic overall
  

I have to make a couple of points on this. Crosshairs are not at all accurate, not at close range and certainly not at long range. I am referring to while you are in 3rd person view, I don't honestly know how accurate they are in 1st person. I prefer 3rd person for playing, but always switch to ironsights to fire my weapon because of the accuracy issues. The times that I have tried using the crosshairs I have wasted half a clip missing the zed I was aimed at before pulling up ironsights only to accurately put the zed down with a single shot.

As for realism, I would argue that point also. IRL when you are holding a weapon but not actively aiming through it you are still generally aware of where it is pointed. This is because you have a high degree of familiarity with your own body and spatial awareness. No you can not pinpoint aim with a gun at your side, but you know "generally" where it is pointed and you know this in more specific terms than "somewhere in front of me". Where as in games like this without crosshairs all you know is that your weapon is pointed "somewhere in front of me" with no degree of certainty. So in this way crosshairs are more realistic than not having them.

I like corsshairs being turned on, though not for aiming (as I already said). The reason I like them is that they make it much so easier to target things on the ground. Without them I tend to feel like I am blind and just waving my hands over the ground hoping to stumble across the loot pile that I know is right in front of me. Combine with how tricky it can sometimes be to interact with tents, or vehicles (having to be in exactly the right spot to refill or open the gear menu), and crosshairs become much more important in gear/inventory management than they are for combat.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Redshift

[outcast569 4]

Your pros and cons list is highly skewed by your own opinion and views. Meaning its not accurate to atleast the couple players I know personally and probably more.

[panque 45]

I have to make a couple of points on this. Crosshairs are not at all accurate, not at close range and certainly not at long range. I am referring to while you are in 3rd person view, I don't honestly know how accurate they are in 1st person. I prefer 3rd person for playing, but always switch to ironsights to fire my weapon because of the accuracy issues. The times that I have tried using the crosshairs I have wasted half a clip missing the zed I was aimed at before pulling up ironsights only to accurately put the zed down with a single shot.

As for realism, I would argue that point also. IRL when you are holding a weapon but not actively aiming through it you are still generally aware of where it is pointed. This is because you have a high degree of familiarity with your own body and spatial awareness. No you can not pinpoint aim with a gun at your side, but you know "generally" where it is pointed and you know this in more specific terms than "somewhere in front of me". Where as in games like this without crosshairs all you know is that your weapon is pointed "somewhere in front of me" with no degree of certainty. So in this way crosshairs are more realistic than not having them.

I like corsshairs being turned on, though not for aiming (as I already said). The reason I like them is that they make it much so easier to target things on the ground. Without them I tend to feel like I am blind and just waving my hands over the ground hoping to stumble across the loot pile that I know is right in front of me. Combine with how tricky it can sometimes be to interact with tents, or vehicles (having to be in exactly the right spot to refill or open the gear menu), and crosshairs become much more important in gear/inventory management than they are for combat.

Actually, that would not be "Somewhere in front of me" but at the middle of the screen. I can easily hit a target on close combat without a crosshair in the body and I think thats fairily realistic and that a crosshair is unecessary, but I don't really care that much if that is removed or gone.

Your pros and cons list is highly skewed by your own opinion and views. Meaning its not accurate to atleast the couple players I know personally and probably more.

Then what are YOUR Pros and Cons? People often critsise the op for it's bias, but they never actually say what should be added or removed... Lack of a point or laziness I suppose. I am adding what people write here, even what I don't agree with, but it pisses me off when someone just comes and whine it's biased.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Panque

[The_Man 393]

Your OP is bias because I don't see any box to check off where all settings will stay in the current format and it will be up to the server owners to decide. By adding/removing options you are taking the power from server owners (which is an important issue!) and putting in the hands of the developers. Your post assumes that the developers will do this. We have no idea if they will. You should have two options that show this. Does keeping all the options mean that the developers will enforce all those options across all the servers? Your poll doesn't say. Just saying "It might happen" isn't really enough. Having the options will show the developers if the community/server owners think it should happen!

[panque 45]

Your OP is bias because I don't see any box to check off where all settings will stay in the current format and it will be up to the server owners to decide. By adding/removing options you are taking the power from server owners (which is an important issue!) and putting in the hands of the developers. Your post assumes that the developers will do this. We have no idea if they will. You should have two options that show this. Does keeping all the options mean that the developers will enforce all those options across all the servers? Your poll doesn't say. Just saying "It might happen" isn't really enough. Having the options will show the developers if the community/server owners think it should happen!

>.>

OP =/= poll

All the power should be at the hands of developers. Hosters gonna host.

My post doesn't assumes nothing. The Idea is seeing which settings people like or dislike. As you can see, most people don't like stuff such as nametags and magical maps. If most of the community thought everything should be up to the server owners, those wouldn't be the results, because those people would be voting that everything should be kept. Nametags and magical maps are utter bullshit in a game that aims for an authentic experience, those shouldn't even be options. The only reason they are is because it works well for ArmA (Even then I doubt most ArmA servers use those).

Do you wan't me to add a PRO to all the settings saying "Server owners should get to decide everything because they pay to host"? Because that's the only fairly reasonable thing I've managed to extract from your posts thus far.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Panque

[The_Man 393]

>.>

OP =/= poll

The power should be at the hands of developers.

My post doesn't assumes nothing. The Idea is seeing which settings people like or dislike. As you can see, most people don't like stuff such as nametags and magical maps. If most of the community thought everything should be up to the server owners, those wouldn't be the results, because those people would be voting that everything should be kept. Nametags and magical maps are utter bullshit in a game that aims for an authentic experience, those shouldn't even be options. The only reason they are is because it works well for ArmA (Even then I doubt most ArmA servers use those).

Do you wan't me to add a PRO to all the settings saying "Server owners should get to decide everything because they pay to host"? Because that's the only fairly reasonable thing I've managed to extract from your posts thus far.

The reason why these server settings exist is to help train new players. There is a lot to grasp in ARMA for a new player. These settings are training wheels. You don't become dependent on them. I know this for a fact because I am a seasoned player in these games from BI. If DayZ wants to be successful then it will keep all the settings as options for the server owners. The only way I could see them getting rid of these settings would require a MASSIVE overhaul which would take much longer than 6 months (Did you forget they want to release the standalone before Christmas 2012?)

I speak from experience where you speak from what exactly?

[panque 45]

The reason why these server settings exist is to help train new players. There is a lot to grasp in ARMA for a new player. These settings are training wheels. You don't become dependent on them. I know this for a fact because I am a seasoned player in these games from BI. If DayZ wants to be successful then it will keep all the settings as options for the server owners. The only way I could see them getting rid of these settings would require a MASSIVE overhaul which would take much longer than 6 months (Did you forget they want to release the standalone before Christmas 2012?)

I speak from experience where you speak from what exactly?

Nametags and the magical map don't help DayZ noobs. Stuff like lesser zombies do. This stuff works diferently in ArmA because as a noob you will mostly be doing PvE. Also, target distances don't matter that much because itens like rangefinders will be given to you if you are a sniper, you don't have to find them. You will have a GPS from the start on most missions as well.

No, getting rid of those settings would be ridicously easy if they go standalone, just add some default values and remove options from the menus. If they want to do that right now, even easier, all they must do is post on the forums that all servers must turn these options off otherwise they will be blacklisted on the hive (Same way servers that turn battleye off do). I assume when you say you speak from experience, you mean experience on playing ArmA II, not developing software, because that last statement was WAY off.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Panque

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

without 3rd person theres no way noobs can play this..

its hard enuf to learn the game as it is..

having all these things as server flags is the best solution.. find a server set up for how you want to play.. everyone is catered to, instead of forcing just 1 play style on everyone..

[droznig 20]

I'm severely disappointed with the results of this poll.... It's hard enough to find a populated server that doesn't have the idiot friendly settings.(half the "veteran servers are sporting idiot friendly settings too) I've seen it happen with a lot of games before, people whine that it's "too hard" then when the developers make the game easier everyone loses interest and the game dies.

People think they wan't all these easy mode settings, but truth is, even if they don't realise it, harder games are more fun and they will keep playing them longer. They think they want the game to be easier, but once you indulge them they will lose interest. Most people are retarded, that's just how the world is, they just want cheats basically, and cheats ruin a game whether they realise it or not. Why do you think so many people use hacks...

If one person is cheating, it's wrong, if everyone is cheating it's OK. If I use a hack, it's your fault that I'm cheating because you aren't using a hack, if you used a hack too, then it would be OK. Everyone start using hacks, because we are never going to be able to stop everyone from using them, but maybe we can make the game fair and more enjoyable if everyone starts using them.....right? Because that's the argument that half the posts here are making as I see it.