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

[The_Man 393]

People are used to being lame, since everyone else is doing the same.

This is indicative of your poll. It doesn't make sense. "An ultimate" set of rules to apply to every server is such a large assumption and I think you might confuse quite a bit of people. We don't even know if a standalone is coming, let alone a brand new server setup. If you want to make assumptions then the logical one is that if it is based on the ARMA III engine then there will be multiple difficulty levels.

Anyone with eyes can see that the community wants all of the features. Not just one single set. So how about we stop calling people lame who play on recruit and regular servers? Elitism is lame. Join the military if you want realism.

Edited July 29, 2012 by The_Man

[panque 45]

This is indicative of your poll. It doesn't make sense. "An ultimate" set of rules to apply to every server is such a large assumption and I think you might confuse quite a bit of people. We don't even know if a standalone is coming, let alone a brand new server setup. If you want to make assumptions then the logical one is that if it is based on the ARMA III engine then there will be multiple difficulty levels.

Anyone with eyes can see that the community wants all of the features. Not just one single set. So how about we stop calling people lame who play on recruit and regular servers? Elitism is lame. Join the military if you want realism.

If you read it closely, it says ULTIMATE server settings POLL. It's the ultimate pool for server settings. Talk about assumptions...

A standalone IS coming. Not only the dev team shows clear signs that this is likely to happen, but clones are popping out. It's not such a big assumption,

Do you even know what an engine is? If DayZ uses ArmA 3's engine, it can very well take every setting of. Hell, they could probably develop a remake of pong on that engine. RPG Maker 2000 sure could and it's not even an engine lol

If the community wants every option and the devs should deliver it, why we don't have PvE servers? Or servers without zombies? Because the focus here is being an authentic zombie sim... I've never called people who play on recruit and regular servers lame, I've called people who abuse 3rd person lame, and yes, it is lame. You absolutely HAVE to do it in a server that allows it so you aren't at disadvantage but IT IS lame. Funny that you are telling me to join the military. I could tell you to go play CoD and BF if you don't want realism. You are just being pointless.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Panque

[enforcer1975 1111]

You have to think out of the box. Most pvp games don't have 3rd person but they are arcadish. ArmA which is supposed to simulate realism supports 3rd person due to the fact that it is mainly a pve game, i don't count the comment of a BIS member that you can see the models better and because of the feel you get when you move your body around.

It's funny how players want a realistic experience so they start playing ArmA yet they refuse to play it in 1st person. We had these discussion over and over in the ArmA leagues, in the end nothing really happened. Everyone didn't want to give away their advantage of having a third eye or beeing able to see what's going on outside their tank which made them virtually untouchable unless you were good with AT launchers at longer ranges or got them from behind. Yet everyone complained how unfair it is....contradiction anyone?

There also needs to be a poll about graphics setting someday. You should not be able to completely turn off any setting that could give you an advantage f.e. with shadows turned off, post processing off because beeing wounded makes you view blurry. Even the mediocre rigs should be able the handle minimum settings on every detail aspect.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Enforcer

[RIGHTLY 87]

If anyone here has played on a life server when your right next to someone in the game their name comes up. You need to be RIGHT there like a meter away from them for their name to show on your screen. I always thought this should be in the game for friend identification.

[panque 45]

If anyone here has played on a life server when your right next to someone in the game their name comes up. You need to be RIGHT there like a meter away from them for their name to show on your screen. I always thought this should be in the game for friend identification.

Edit: Forgive me, completely misread your post. Kind of makes sense, but friendly fire would still happen from time to time.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Panque

[dsi24 227]

Actually, if you aim at a person that is 600m away from you, it'll say Survivor(Herp) 600m

He's talking about Chernarus Life or whatever the RPG server is.

[SirDoom 6]

Honestly, I'm fine with all of those things, because different servers can all have different settings and tailor to different players. The hardcore players can stick to servers with none of those things, and those who want a little more user-friendliness in the game's interface can keep their settings. No harm to anyone in this*.

If we're talking about one group of settings for all servers, simply "keep or remove" isn't enough. You'll want to find balance between the two. You want to keep things realistic, but completely removing features on the interface in the name of realism hurts the game. Features should be tweaked and added, but not removed.

For example, until detailed character customization is in the game, some way to identify players has to be in the game. That doesn't mean you should be able to spot players hundreds of meters away and know just how far they are away from you though. Simply removing nametags as they stand without adding anything to take their place removes the ability to tell which of the guys standing next to you is your friend and which is the stranger who wants to kill both of you.

The way I see it, there are arguments for keeping features, and arguments for *changing* features, but none for flat out removing them. All you're doing is making the game harder to use, and while that might appeal to seasoned vets, you have to keep in mind that when someone new starts this game they are likely to have a hard enough time figuring out how to use basic game controls. I know this game is supposed to be more realistic than user-friendly, but if in reality you were dropped on the coast of a zombie-infested continent, learning how to open a backpack or use a flashlight are not going to be issues, whereas the game interface makes them issues for newbies.

*When I say no harm, I mean no net loss or gain. You can make an argument that you could go to a "noob server", gather equipment, then go have an advantage in a vet server. You fail to take into account that the regular servers are easier to use for everyone, not just you. If there are snipers watching all the good spawns on vet servers, there will be snipers who can use your nametag to snipe you even more accurately on the easier servers. On top of that, you could just log onto a very-low population vet server and stock up with no risk of being sniped due to lack of people. Removing easier features won't stop the "stock up on server X for an advantage on server Y" problem. As it stands, all server differences give players is a choice, not any real advantage or disadvantage.

[panque 45]

...

Agreed to an extent. Most features need tweaking, but not everything we are talking about here is a feature (Maps showing your position and the direction you are facing while there are compasses and gps on the game is not a feature for instance). Nametags need tweaking until we can wear custom clothing and stuff, then it can and perhaps should be completely removed.I don't see how things like tpv are going to help a survivor to open his backpack. Less zombie damage is far enough to make the game more bearable to noobs. Taking 3rd person view away would greatly reduce the danger of getting shot while looting a big city, so that should help more than harm.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Panque

[The_Man 393]

If you read it closely, it says ULTIMATE server settings POLL. It's the ultimate pool for server settings. Talk about assumptions...

A standalone IS coming. Not only the dev team shows clear signs that this is likely to happen, but clones are popping out. It's not such a big assumption,

Do you even know what an engine is? If DayZ uses ArmA 3's engine, it can very well take every setting of. Hell, they could probably develop a remake of pong on that engine. RPG Maker 2000 sure could and it's not even an engine lol

If the community wants every option and the devs should deliver it, why we don't have PvE servers? Or servers without zombies? Because the focus here is being an authentic zombie sim... I've never called people who play on recruit and regular servers lame, I've called people who abuse 3rd person lame, and yes, it is lame. You absolutely HAVE to do it in a server that allows it so you aren't at disadvantage but IT IS lame. Funny that you are telling me to join the military. I could tell you to go play CoD and BF if you don't want realism. You are just being pointless.

The ultimate servers settings already exists. You aren't adding anything new to it. Just removing things. Ultimate would contain all the options+more which would allow server owners to decide how they want their community to enjoy the game. I'm not being pointless. I am pointing out the obvious here. This has worked for all of these games. It does not fracture a community. It merely helps a community expand and allow players to progressively get better if anything.

Why don't we have PvE? Or servers without Zombies? The premise of the game is the zombie apocalypse. This involves both zombies and people. It is a (Player vs Player) Vs Enemies. That has nothing to do with with the options you mentioned above. The options you mentioned above are things already in place by the ARMA engine. Don't get me wrong man I agree these options need polishing. It is in Alpha after all. Removing them is pointless to me. What I am saying here is that the options are fine. The history of BI's games + communities prove that. It would be detrimental to the mod to remove them. You will effectively be upsetting the community. I always bring up L4D because those developers knew that killing the Vanilla versus was a bad idea. It would do bad things to the community. They attempted balance in different ways. They didn't remove all Healthkits and replace them with pills. They changed the frequency of health kits.

For example: Making 3rd person only work in running mode. This would not let users have an advantage when peering around corners and walls and would let people who get motion sickness to not get sick.

What do you think about that?

[andrestander (DayZ) 37]

For example: Making 3rd person only work in running mode. This would not let users have an advantage when peering around corners and walls and would let people who get motion sickness to not get sick.

What do you think about that?

I will run into the wall and keep holding W on my keyboard while moving my mouse to look around the corners.

Even better: Alt key disabled during third person mode

[The_Man 393]

I will run into the wall and keep holding W on my keyboard while moving my mouse to look around the corners.

Even better: Alt key disabled during third person mode

I believe ARMA can measure ones speed. Running into a wall would be 0 MPH/KMPH and it wouldn't activate. I'm not sure though.

[SirDoom 6]

Agreed to an extent. Most features need tweaking, but not everything we are talking about here is a feature (Maps showing your position and the direction you are facing while there are compasses and gps on the game is not a feature for instance). Nametags need tweaking until we can wear custom clothing and stuff, then it can and perhaps should be completely removed.I don't see how things like tpv are going to help a survivor to open his backpack. Less zombie damage is far enough to make the game more bearable to noobs. Taking 3rd person view away would greatly reduce the danger of getting shot while looting a big city, so that should help more than harm.

I kind of agree on the maps. I'd personally like the GPS to be a bit more common at the expense of taking the GPS-like features off of the map.

As far as zombies go, I actually think they should be buffed a bit, but with their movement fixed. Right now, zombies aren't really a threat to anyone with a hatchet. They do very little damage, and the only time I've ever run into issues is when they break my legs on the first hit. Only problem is that they're really buggy. Fix the fact that they move like a kid with ADHD who just drank a whole pot of coffee, buff their damage, and maybe lower the chance of them breaking your legs by hitting you once or twice, and they'll be in a good spot. As opposed to the "This zombie is either going to be a non-issue, or break my legs and cause me to pass out until I have under 1000 blood" area they're in now.

Third person... still, no comment. I wouldn't be opposed to having 3rd person servers and 1st person servers, with people getting a unique character on each set of servers to avoid abuse. I do agree that it's really hard to balance 3rd person view, but I'm against removing it entirely. The difference between the two options here isn't as minor as it is with the other features, it's almost like a completely different game mode. Perhaps it should be treated as such.

[panque 45]

The ultimate servers settings already exists. You aren't adding anything new to it. Just removing things. Ultimate would contain all the options+more which would allow server owners to decide how they want their community to enjoy the game. I'm not being pointless. I am pointing out the obvious here. This has worked for all of these games. It does not fracture a community. It merely helps a community expand and allow players to progressively get better if anything.

Hard to argue with someone who can't read. Read my post again, especially the part about how it's the ultimate pool, not the ultimate settings.

Why don't we have PvE? Or servers without Zombies? The premise of the game is the zombie apocalypse. This involves both zombies and people. It is a (Player vs Player) Vs Enemies. That has nothing to do with with the options you mentioned above. The options you mentioned above are things already in place by the ARMA engine. Don't get me wrong man I agree these options need polishing. It is in Alpha after all. Removing them is pointless to me. What I am saying here is that the options are fine. The history of BI's games + communities prove that. It would be detrimental to the mod to remove them. You will effectively be upsetting the community. I always bring up L4D because those developers knew that killing the Vanilla versus was a bad idea. It would do bad things to the community. They attempted balance in different ways. They didn't remove all Healthkits and replace them with pills. They changed the frequency of health kits.

Things that work with arma (essentially a PvE game) don't work with DayZ. It's a completely different experience. Removing 3rd person would upset the community now, but if it wasn't present from the beginning, the mod would be just as successful, if not more, since DayZ fpv makes playing DayZ a much more tense and immersive experience, which is what makes this mod great after all. I know people would be pissed if 3rd person view was removed, but I doubt they would stop playing. The ones who get sick mostly don't turn headbob all the way downand don't give a chance to fpv. There is still some headbob when it is all the way down tho.

For example: Making 3rd person only work in running mode. This would not let users have an advantage when peering around corners and walls and would let people who get motion sickness to not get sick.

What do you think about that?

I think completely removing headbob would be a better fix. I don't know, but i think that most of the people who get sick from playing ArmA on fpv don't get sick from playing other games. The camera should be more like those then.

[Deus19D 1]

I've read quite a bit of these posts, and to be honest, I think I'm going to avoid weighing in on my opinions about the matter. But, I do have one question/suggestion regarding nameplates. Has anyone offered the compromise to only show nameplates within a certain distance? Sort of like the glow with chemlights, you would only be able to see them within say 50m. It might offer the best of both worlds, no scanning woodlines for opposing players, but within a reasonable distance you would be able to tell friend from foe. It was just a thought I had.

Deus

[The_Man 393]

Hard to argue with someone who can't read. Read my post again, especially the part about how it's the ultimate pool, not the ultimate settings.

Things that work with arma (essentially a PvE game) don't work with DayZ. It's a completely different experience. Removing 3rd person would upset the community now, but if it wasn't present from the beginning, the mod would be just as successful, if not more, since DayZ fpv makes playing DayZ a much more tense and immersive experience, which is what makes this mod great after all. I know people would be pissed if 3rd person view was removed, but I doubt they would stop playing. The ones who get sick mostly don't turn headbob all the way downand don't give a chance to fpv. There is still some headbob when it is all the way down tho.

I think completely removing headbob would be a better fix. I don't know, but i think that most of the people who get sick from playing ArmA on fpv don't get sick from playing other games. The camera should be more like those then.

Please don't make fun of my reading skills when you don't know the difference between a Poll and Pool.

Also, no. Yet another assumption on your part. Many people that get motion sickness from video games are not affected in just one game. Google it. It is a problem affecting many people and third person tends to allow those people longer periods of play. I can't play games like Borderlands, anything from Valve, and anything from Bohemia Interactive without third person. This is besides the point though. I think this poll is a good idea as it will show why we will end up keeping all the options and leave it up to server owners. Every option appeals to different players. It is ultimately up to the server owners as they are who pay for the hosting. Taking that option away would upset me if I was paying upwards of 50 bucks a month.

[evulclown@gmail.com 191]

Your OP is pretty biast from the outset really, but still.

Just to say that third person is not "really unrealistic".

It is in fact more realistic than first person only because of the game engine limitations. That is exactly why it was added to ARMA 2 in the first place. The game is clunky as hell in first person and unrealistically limiting in what you're allowed to do (Simple things like moving your fucking head up so you can see over grass without crouching?). Third person negates that.

"seeing over things" is a moot point, in the real world I would do things to see over objects that are simply impossible in this game such as creating peep holes, using mirrors or periscopes, peeping over things with a tiny portion of my head etc).

Edit:

I can imagine the "you're wrong" arguments that will follow. Do not even begin to start an argument white knighting the game engine. It has its limitations and that's fine -- It's exactly why third person is in the game.

Don't go telling me the human body isn't capable of doing x thing. The game does not model what the average human can do in first person mode effectively. Even the ability to look around is so clunky and takes more time than you could possibly do in real life. BIA are well aware of that fact -- Hence third person, that you can clip through walls occasionally is an annoyance but is possible in first person too.

And finally, do not think that you would "crouch" when in an ambush position where it should be possible to be prone.. Seriously. Do you think someone would silhouette themselves on top of a building in real life? You'd make loop holes to peep through so that you do not show your body. Such as this but a lot more subtle:

http://i255.photobuc...41/Picture4.jpg

Read some books on urban combat / sniper tactics. Here are a few starters:

http://ecx.images-am...L500_AA300_.jpg

http://www.ospreypub...1761411-th2.jpg

http://ecx.images-am..._SH20_OU02_.jpg

First person only as implemented in Arma II is unrealistic and goes against the grain of basic tactical fieldcraft 101. And for the record, i'm not a roof camper.

Edited July 29, 2012 by itputsthelotion

[panque 45]

Please don't make fun of my reading skills when you don't know the difference between a Poll and Pool.

Guess forgetting differences between words of a language that is not your own is much worse than repetitively distorting a title... Oh well.

Also, no. Yet another assumption on your part. Many people that get motion sickness from video games are not affected in just one game. Google it. It is a problem affecting many people and third person tends to allow those people longer periods of play. I can't play games like Borderlands, anything from Valve, and anything from Bohemia Interactive without third person. This is besides the point though. I think this poll is a good idea as it will show why we will end up keeping all the options and leave it up to server owners. Every option appeals to different players. It is ultimately up to the server owners as they are who pay for the hosting. Taking that option away would upset me if I was paying upwards of 50 bucks a month.

Because you and a some people get sick on every fps doesn't means most of people who get sick from DayZ gets sick from every fps. I guess you are making assumptions here too.

The poLL actually shows that nametags and maps working like gps+radar shouldn't be in the mod. Some other options that are getting more positive votes lack any decent favorable PRO, like waypoints and death messages. As I said multiple times I don't have many hopes of tpv ever being removed (Mod would still have the same success if it was released without it tho), but I do like the idea of a character that was created on a tpv server not being able to join a fpv one. Server owners pay to host DayZ, but the hive sets the rules, they know what they are paying for and they know rules can change anytime. It's alpha after all. The game philosophy of being authentic shouldn't be changed to please server owners.

[panque 45]

Your OP is pretty biast from the outset really, but still.

Just to say that third person is not "really unrealistic".

It is in fact more realistic than first person only because of the game engine limitations. That is exactly why it was added to ARMA 2 in the first place. The game is clunky as hell in first person and unrealistically limiting in what you're allowed to do (Simple things like moving your fucking head up so you can see over grass without crouching?). Third person negates that.

"seeing over things" is a moot point, in the real world I would do things to see over objects that are simply impossible in this game such as creating peep holes, using mirrors or periscopes, peeping over things with a tiny portion of my head etc)..

The game isn't that clunky on first person, but it does demand you to get used to it. Third person is an overkill to those limitations you mentioned. I kind of doubt you would carry a periscope on a zombie apocalypse and peep holes are very situational (Won't be able to do that through a concrete wall or a three for example). About raising your head, it's not a limitation, it's just an unimplemented feature which wouldn't be that hard to develop (would work a lot like pressing q and e). I would rather ask for that feature than to have the overkill that is 3rd person view. 3rd person view is in no way more realistic than 1st person view. I will add your points to the PROs list tho, since I agree with them to some extent.

Edit: On your edit, interesting stuff, but I still think third person view is an overkill. If you raise your head a bit or make a peep hole your fov will be very limited and thats not the case with tpv (Your fov actually gets much bigger, enough to spot someone behind you lol. I think adding some more movement possibilities (Which is being done in ArmA 3, if Im not mistaken I saw a trailer that portraits stuff like this) is much more of a correct answer. Creating peepholes would probably be too hard/impossible to implement decently, but having a few scattered around wouldn't be that bad (like those holes you may find on concrete walls around chernarus, not the ones which you can crawl through, but the partially broken ones right besides them)

Edited July 29, 2012 by Panque

[dsi24 227]

Your OP is pretty biast from the outset really, but still.

Just to say that third person is not "really unrealistic".

It is in fact more realistic than first person only because of the game engine limitations. That is exactly why it was added to ARMA 2 in the first place. The game is clunky as hell in first person and unrealistically limiting in what you're allowed to do (Simple things like moving your fucking head up so you can see over grass without crouching?). Third person negates that.

"seeing over things" is a moot point, in the real world I would do things to see over objects that are simply impossible in this game such as creating peep holes, using mirrors or periscopes, peeping over things with a tiny portion of my head etc).

Edit:

I can imagine the "you're wrong" arguments that will follow. Do not even begin to start an argument white knighting the game engine. It has its limitations and that's fine -- It's exactly why third person is in the game.

Don't go telling me the human body isn't capable of doing x thing. The game does not model what the average human can do in first person mode effectively. Even the ability to look around is so clunky and takes more time than you could possibly do in real life. BIA are well aware of that fact -- Hence third person, that you can clip through walls occasionally is an annoyance but is possible in first person too.

And finally, do not think that you would "crouch" when in an ambush position where it should be possible to be prone.. Seriously. Do you think someone would silhouette themselves on top of a building in real life? You'd make loop holes to peep through so that you do not show your body. Such as this but a lot more subtle:

http://i255.photobuc...41/Picture4.jpg

Read some books on urban combat / sniper tactics. Here are a few starters:

http://ecx.images-am...L500_AA300_.jpg

http://www.ospreypub...1761411-th2.jpg

http://ecx.images-am..._SH20_OU02_.jpg

First person only as implemented in Arma II is unrealistic and goes against the grain of basic tactical fieldcraft 101. And for the record, i'm not a roof camper.

"My exploit is realistic and these pictures prove it!"

If you don't want to skyline yourself on a roof don't stand/crouch/prone right at the edge dumbass.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Dsi1

[Nadasdy 1]

Nametags need to go but I want to keep third person for the time being. May not be realistic but neither are zombies. If they did some sort of fix to first person view where you wernt bouncing all over the place while running, or made it where it was tolerable like in BF3 then it wouldnt be an issue for me if they got rid of it but it is ridiculous atm.

[evulclown@gmail.com 191]

"My exploit is realistic and these pictures prove it!"

If you don't want to skyline yourself on a roof don't stand/crouch/prone right at the edge dumbass.

"You're wrong and I can't even back it up with a fact to prove it!"

Piss off.

[evulclown@gmail.com 191]

The game isn't that clunky on first person, but it does demand you to get used to it. Third person is an overkill to those limitations you mentioned. I kind of doubt you would carry a periscope on a zombie apocalypse and peep holes are very situational (Won't be able to do that through a concrete wall or a three for example). About raising your head, it's not a limitation, it's just an unimplemented feature which wouldn't be that hard to develop (would work a lot like pressing q and e). I would rather ask for that feature than to have the overkill that is 3rd person view. 3rd person view is in no way more realistic than 1st person view. I will add your points to the PROs list tho, since I agree with them to some extent.

Edit: On your edit, interesting stuff, but I still think third person view is an overkill. If you raise your head a bit or make a peep hole your fov will be very limited and thats not the case with tpv (Your fov actually gets much bigger, enough to spot someone behind you lol. I think adding some more movement possibilities (Which is being done in ArmA 3, if Im not mistaken I saw a trailer that portraits stuff like this) is much more of a correct answer. Creating peepholes would probably be too hard/impossible to implement decently, but having a few scattered around wouldn't be that bad (like those holes you may find on concrete walls around chernarus, not the ones which you can crawl through, but the partially broken ones right besides them)

You however actually answer someone and that's nice to see.

Yours and my definitions of clunky differ a lot, every game needs some learning I will not debate that one iota -- I'm a person who leans towards over the top controls in games. And I appreciate you've got the mussle memory down to press wildly on the keys but that does not mean it isn't clunky. There is a reason that head tracking camera devices are championed by Arma II and it's not just for the vehicle combat.

We can get into minor debates over the "real world abilities the game does not poses" all day to be honest, just to counter the ones you said -- A piece of broken glass or mirror would be all over the floor in a town and it takes nothing to pick one up with a rag and use it to peep over objects. I think it's a rabbit hole we both shouldn't be going down though.

I'm one of the people who suffers from motion sickness too with Armas first person I think there's quite a high percentage of people who do, but that's okay I don't expect an entire game to cater to my "sickness". If arma 3 negated the biggest limitations that arma 2's engine has then it would be fine to have third person off -- But we're currently on arma 2 so that's a moot issue until standalone rolls by.

[shahan159@hotmail.com 2]

Get rid of the fucking third person. Jesus christ all these videos on youtube where all people are using third person to ambush people then thinking they did a good job makes me fucking cringe.

Got motion sickness? Too bad, the majority should not cater to the minority.

[Slitter 11]

Yeah, you shouldn't see over the terrain or over a piece of grass, in fact you can't in real life.

Just wanted to point out that first person is as unrealistic as 3rd person just in the opposite direction.

You see way to much in 3rd person, while you see way to less in first.

3rd person gives you the awareness of where your body is without looking down (ever had to look down to know where exactly you stand in RL? Not often i guess.)

Looking over grass and bushes is possible in reallife while prone... guess people weren't in military here and had to crawl some distance.

Third person gives you all the awarenessyou would have in RL (+ some special corner looking stuff that shouldn't be possible, i agree on that) while first person cuts all your peripheral few and is oddly placed (and don't get at me with the stupid dots that should be remove in the firsplace)

edit: just finished reading the topic and realized that "itputsthelotion" allready said what i tried but better ^^ (should always read the topic till the end before answering i guess ^^)

Edited July 29, 2012 by Slitter

[enforcer1975 1111]

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".