Up to my Old Tricks again: God like powers of Vision

[Dwarden 1125]

you can disable it server side, why You complain about optional option enriching the variety for more players who for example like 3rd person view

expect soon servers to use combined 1st/3rd person settings with 3rd person disabled for infantry and enabled for vehicles etc.

[Frankdatank1218 39]

expect soon servers to use combined 1st/3rd person settings with 3rd person disabled for infantry and enabled for vehicles etc.

Not only would I be fine with this, IMO this should be default on all but the easiest difficulty.

Some issues with other responses:

-"Arma 3 isn't really realistic", it's the most realistic, whenever someone compares ARMA to CoD or BF, or something like those games you all reasonably respond with something similar to "ARMA is different, ARMA is a realistic and tactical game". Yet when I challenge the precious cheat-person perspective then everyone flip-flops the other way. If ARMA wasn't designed to be realistic and tactical then what the hell was it designed to be?

-"It makes up for lack of periphery", Then what are the peripheral indicator dots, the FOV zoom out (keypad "-"),the incremental lean/stances, and freelook for? Those are how I make up for it.

"Some people like 3rd person, it doesn't make them less 'elite' than you", no, some people are okay with it, and it's simply used as a crutch to avoid properly using freelook, and the other methods mentioned above. I'm not saying they're scum for using it, just that ARMA would benefit more from it being off for infantry by default. ARMA's combat is definitely meant to be tactical, and using tactics to be situationally aware and the sense of vulnerability and threat from ambushes and covert flanking are diminished when you can check around corners without exposing yourself or using any specialized equipment (UAV cameras, corner mirrors etc...)

[dsi24 12]

Well, of course, by even having default settings that's exactly what they're doing - essentially "dictating" (a phrase I disagree with) easy settings. I just suggest that the two hardest levels have default settings of 3rd person off. That would be the purpose of even having Difficulty Settings in the first place yes?

This seems like a good idea, the exploitable qualities of third person (hide entire body behind wall, look over wall with out exposing any part of your body, no risk, high reward, etc) should be saved only for the easiest of easy modes. (or co-op, who cares about bots?)

[-Coulum- 35]

Not only would I be fine with this, IMO this should be default on all but the easiest difficulty.

I agree with this. The one thing that I think that third person provides that first person doesnèt in terms of realism, is awareness of what is directly around you - ie what is within a metre of me. I find in first person sometimes I will be getting stuck on door ways or unseen objects I would have easily avoided in real life. In third person this is not a problem however. But the exploits offered by third person far outweighs the realism it offers. Thus why I agree with FrankDaTank1218^^

[defk0n_NL 2]

The reason people like to play third person is because it looks cool to do so.

Also it feels good not to walk like a fridge - what 1st person, controls like.

Basically every arma game. - controls way too stiff for any prolonged gaming session in first person.

Realism is not about giving the player unplayable controls. Things have to be compensated for the fact that on the field you can think it but on a computer you need to provide input to your keyboard. Its really annoying that the game cant compensate moving like every other fps out there.

realism is not about making it difficult but giving the player options.

Smoother controls along with a proper aiming deadzone (you know, the feeling of actually holding a gun.) will allow for more immersion then whats implemented now.

[Dusty926 1]

The reason people like to play third person is because it looks cool to do so.

Also it feels good not to walk like a fridge - what 1st person, controls like.

Basically every arma game. - controls way too stiff for any prolonged gaming session in first person.

Realism is not about giving the player unplayable controls. Things have to be compensated for the fact that on the field you can think it but on a computer you need to provide input to your keyboard. Its really annoying that the game cant compensate moving like every other fps out there.

realism is not about making it difficult but giving the player options.

Smoother controls along with a proper aiming deadzone (you know, the feeling of actually holding a gun.) will allow for more immersion then whats implemented now.

You are suprisingly smart for someone who joined in March of this year.

[concurssi 11]

a proper aiming deadzone (you know, the feeling of actually holding a gun.)

What do you mean by this?

[defk0n_NL 2]

What do you mean by this?

kinda hard to explain, watch my sig ^_^

[g_rider 10]

I can magically see around corners, look over hills when approaching enemies, and get a god like view of the battlefield Via 3rd person. Heaven help my nubile mortal adversary stuck in "real" mode and only using 1rst person.

Why, Just why… Please tell me the main reason why 3rds person even exists?

Military simulator: realism, awesome sfx, tactics, realistic ballistics, life like maps, authenticity of weapons and damage,,, & god like ability to see around corners,,, (facepalm)

Please don't polarize the server list by making it a server option. Deep down you know there is no place for it in a realistic game, remove altogether.

Singing my song brother....

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Its just a difficulty toggle ffs. if you get 3rd person every one does, if you don't no one else does either, simple. Its also very usefull when making mods and missions to improve sit rep and see what is going on and test stuff. So if you dont like it dont use it and find a server that doesn't either. And be patient. In time the servers will lift thier game. Its still early days.

[johncage 30]

---------- Post added at 03:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 AM ----------

The reason people like to play third person is because it looks cool to do so.

Also it feels good not to walk like a fridge - what 1st person, controls like.

Basically every arma game. - controls way too stiff for any prolonged gaming session in first person.

Realism is not about giving the player unplayable controls. Things have to be compensated for the fact that on the field you can think it but on a computer you need to provide input to your keyboard. Its really annoying that the game cant compensate moving like every other fps out there.

realism is not about making it difficult but giving the player options.

Smoother controls along with a proper aiming deadzone (you know, the feeling of actually holding a gun.) will allow for more immersion then whats implemented now.

realism and options or "freedom" are not mutually inclusive. they're two different concepts. a game can be realistic whether or not it gives players many options. skyrim gives players many options-not realistic. train simulator or any other study sim gives the player limited options yet they're highly realistic.

[dsi24 12]

Its just a difficulty toggle ffs. if you get 3rd person every one does, if you don't no one else does either, simple. Its also very usefull when making mods and missions to improve sit rep and see what is going on and test stuff. So if you dont like it dont use it and find a server that doesn't either. And be patient. In time the servers will lift thier game. Its still early days.

It isn't that simple, even when everyone has the ability to exploit third person, the person exploiting it still can't be seen unless the other person is close enough to the object they're hiding behind to exploit third person and see through the object themselves.

[defk0n_NL 2]

---------- Post added at 03:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 AM ----------

realism and options or "freedom" are not mutually inclusive. they're two different concepts. a game can be realistic whether or not it gives players many options. skyrim gives players many options-not realistic. train simulator or any other study sim gives the player limited options yet they're highly realistic.

I am talking about perceived realism and its pretty much mutually inclusive with "options", The train simulator analogy gives a perceived realism through depth of control but seeing the train moves only forward and back does not deter from the fact that the controls are within the scope of realism functioning correctly. As to say arma does not within scope seeing doors can be magically swung open but the character cant auto adjust his pivot without mouse control. (BF3-esque)

[calin_banc 19]

Not only would I be fine with this, IMO this should be default on all but the easiest difficulty.

Some issues with other responses:

-"Arma 3 isn't really realistic", it's the most realistic, whenever someone compares ARMA to CoD or BF, or something like those games you all reasonably respond with something similar to "ARMA is different, ARMA is a realistic and tactical game". Yet when I challenge the precious cheat-person perspective then everyone flip-flops the other way. If ARMA wasn't designed to be realistic and tactical then what the hell was it designed to be?

-"It makes up for lack of periphery", Then what are the peripheral indicator dots, the FOV zoom out (keypad "-"),the incremental lean/stances, and freelook for? Those are how I make up for it.

"Some people like 3rd person, it doesn't make them less 'elite' than you", no, some people are okay with it, and it's simply used as a crutch to avoid properly using freelook, and the other methods mentioned above. I'm not saying they're scum for using it, just that ARMA would benefit more from it being off for infantry by default. ARMA's combat is definitely meant to be tactical, and using tactics to be situationally aware and the sense of vulnerability and threat from ambushes and covert flanking are diminished when you can check around corners without exposing yourself or using any specialized equipment (UAV cameras, corner mirrors etc...)

1. You don't compare with other games, especially arcade-like games, you compare it with real life actions. In RL you can run and jump, you can climb fences, walls, jump or climb through windows, you can make parkour if you like, you can drop or customize your equipment, you can put together more grenades or mines and throw them at the enemy, you can climb tress, shoot from a car while driving it, do all the Splinter Cell moves and advance weapon handling courses/moves, hand to hand combat, take human shields, change uniforms, vehicles are properly simulated etc. ArmA manages to bring together aspects from the military life in a large number and closer to reality compared to other games out there, but it doesn't mean is truly a simulator. Cumbersome control system and inventory do not equal realism. You can say is the closest to an army sim experience than others out there, with this I agree.

2. Those dot's may help indeed and a proper FoV would help a lot (ArmA 2 feels at times like a console port with terrible FoV settings thought for large screen TVs :D), but the movements of your avatar are a different matter. They do help in perceiving the environment around the character, but their major role is to better engage the enemy and put yourself to cover. Stuff like small cameras that can be used to see around the walls and under doors, just like in SWAT series of games, the ability to climb walls, windows, open/breach all doors and perhaps walls, rappel down or climb on ropes, faster transitions between animations etc., these would make in time the use of 3rd person camera not so much a requirement... other than it's nice to see the avatar. :)

PS: Would you also not allow people with more than one monitor to play because the "see" more than you do?

[Frankdatank1218 39]

PS: Would you also not allow people with more than one monitor to play because the "see" more than you do?

Seeing a larger FOV is both still realistic and doesn't allow for seeing around walls with zero exposure, so no. I don't care about people having visible FOV's closer to what real humans have, that's not where my issue lies. It's in seeing over/around stuff magically. Plus the field of view you get on a normal monitor in third person is still lacking compared to two or monitors, it's not the added FOV of 3rd person that is the problem. I keep my character's head on a swivel via freelook (soon I'll use TrackIR) so I can easily make up for it by looking around a lot which is a good habit anyway.

I do however agree that in singleplayer or solely Co-op gamemodes there is no reason to restrict infantry third person.

I hope I haven't conveyed an attitude of "3rd person user are stupid noobs", because that's not what I'm saying that and I'm sorry if I portrayed that attitude, I use third person myself (begrudgingly) because if enemies can exploit it I might as well also do so to even things out, but it still damages the tactical gameplay. As a very long time ARMA/OFP1 player (I was editing missions when you were in diapers :P) I sincerely believe this will help the gameplay, no offense, no QQ-ing, just an honest assessment of what will improve gameplay and tension.

Edited March 11, 2013 by FrankDaTank1218

[calin_banc 19]

Seeing a larger FOV is both still realistic and doesn't allow for seeing around walls with zero exposure, so no.

I agree, it is a viable option, but it's still a big advantage for the other player with the largest resolution. My biggest issue with 1st person only, is the small FoV (the one that you'll get when you press "-" should be the default one); the fact that I can't climb obstacles like walls, fences, cars, different cover objects like grass or bushes that are not rendered the same for all the players, a capable server of giving 60FPS, stuff like that. :)

As long as is kept there as an option, I really don't see a problem with it. Hardcore players will play around with the settings and modds anyway.

[Frankdatank1218 39]

As long as is kept there as an option, I really don't see a problem with it. Hardcore players will play around with the settings and modds anyway.

First off, if you are referring to it as a personal option, that solves nothing, if I personally choose to not use it but someone else does, I'm just going to be further disadvantaged.

If you are referring to it being a server option, there are almost ZERO 3rd person off servers in A3, and even still in ARMA 2, unless it's an ACE mod server, 3rd person off is rare. It's just not fair and realistic, if I stay out of the line of sight of a player's eye, I should be rewarded with being out-of-sight and having the element of surprise. If the player can omnisciently see me anyway it's a severe detriment to tactical gameplay, and tactical gameplay and core gameplay in ARMA are one and the same.

Flanking and surprising enemies are very key in tactical gunfights, third person essentially ruins this.

[dmarkwick 261]

The arguments are well understood and have always been around, but there's no getting around the fact that the server admins have set them up this way. The only really workable solution is to find like-minded servers & frequent those.

[calin_banc 19]

It's a personal options starting from the moment you join a server and know it's rules - with or without 3TPW. If so many of them are running using 3rd person, that must mean a lot of people like to play like that. Just use the other ones.

I can agree with no 3rd person view as long there's no ultra-widescreen support either. Essentially they do the same thing, granted, in a different manner. :)

[SavageCDN 231]

Not only would I be fine with this, IMO this should be default on all but the easiest difficulty.

-"It makes up for lack of periphery", Then what are the peripheral indicator dots, the FOV zoom out (keypad "-"),the incremental lean/stances, and freelook for? Those are how I make up for it.

So...am I understanding you correctly in that 3rd person is not 'realistic' but peripheral indicator dots are a good compromise? If you play on Veteran mode you will never see these things (or squad indicators, or on-map markers, or death messages, etc).

You get real FOV when you are zoomed out - by default.

3rd person is just a cheat. What situational awareness? My real situational awareness doesn't allow me to see around corners while I'm facing the wall.

My situational awareness doesn't allow me to see over and behind stone walls. I can't peek into windows unless I use my own eyes. I also don't see my own body from 4 meters behind.

But I treat 3rd person as a way to just check new infantry/vehicle/weapon mods. MP with a 3rd person is a big no no for me.

However thankfully we still have the option to enforce 1st person so it's not a tragedy for me.

You are focusing on the one aspect of the argument that perhaps has merit.. for all the other reasons 3rd person is perfectly valid.

Look... up to now Arma 1st person has been.... clunky at best.... hence the popularity of 3rd person view. Yes it is better now... try driving a humvee in A2 in 1st person and come back to me.

Also helps when you want to look around while prone in a grass which obstructs your view - you can't just raise head in Arma, you can only stand up or get in crouched position, which makes you a target.

So the 3rd person view helps a lot in such situations, being more like a workaround for lack of movement options, than being a cheat.

One of many examples of why 3rd person is popular.

[TheBeard 1]

Is it not equally balanced? You have the same ability to use third-person as your enemies.

[Frankdatank1218 39]

So...am I understanding you correctly in that 3rd person is not 'realistic' but peripheral indicator dots are a good compromise? If you play on Veteran mode you will never see these things (or squad indicators, or on-map markers, or death messages, etc).

You are focusing on the one aspect of the argument that perhaps has merit.. for all the other reasons 3rd person is perfectly valid.

Look... up to now Arma 1st person has been.... clunky at best.... hence the popularity of 3rd person view. Yes it is better now... try driving a humvee in A2 in 1st person and come back to me.

One of many examples of why 3rd person is popular.

"So...am I understanding you correctly in that 3rd person is not 'realistic' but peripheral indicator dots are a good compromise? If you play on Veteran mode you will never see these things (or squad indicators, or on-map markers, or death messages, etc)."

Yeah, they are less unfair than third person. What is your point? Are you trying to mock me and point out some contradiction? I play on Veteran in A2 and I do fine, IT'S POSSIBLE PEOPLE!! It's not unreasonable to expect to play well with only 1st person.

"Look... up to now Arma 1st person has been.... clunky at best.... hence the popularity of 3rd person view. Yes it is better now... try driving a humvee in A2 in 1st person and come back to me."

I do that ALL the time with freelook on and "WASD" to steer.

"You are focusing on the one aspect of the argument that perhaps has merit.. for all the other reasons 3rd person is perfectly valid."

What other reasons? That it's cheap? That it allow player's who are in prone to have far too much power as their view is no longer limited by grass, low obstructions, and a very low point of view? That it allows you to see behind you without looking ("eyes in the back of your head")? That aiming in that perspective sucks?

What reason is there? If your reason for using something cheap and unfair is something like "well people aren't good enough to play without it" then I suppose we should allow hacks, because some people can't do well without those.

And the dumbest argument is that you can't see well in prone and the only way to raise up over grass is to crouch/stand, THEN WHAT THE HELL IS SNIPER PRONE/HIGH PRONE FOR?

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Is it not equally balanced? You have the same ability to use third-person as your enemies.

So would you be okay with anything as long as it's available to everyone?

Edited March 11, 2013 by FrankDaTank1218

[big_t 1]

Is it not equally balanced? You have the same ability to use third-person as your enemies.

This point keeps coming up but it does not address the issue. I don't want to use 3rd person, or constantly switch back and forth between the two to keep at an even playing field with the enemy. It cheapens the experience.

If BI implemented an option to remove all foliage, would you say "ok I'll just use that setting as well because everyone else has access to it " Or "hey man it's a free world, just pick servers that don't enable the option of foliage removal" ?

[TenBensons 10]

This again, the removal of an optional component that many people like? The answer is offensibly simple - set up the server. If the option is not set up on the server, petition the admin, you might find it's there because that's how they want it.

This.

[dsi24 12]

It doesn't matter how realistic or not 3rd person is when it's so exploitable in PvP gameplay.