Third person mode & realism

[CaptainObvious 95]

Thankyou lord Dslyecxi for teaching us how to play arma correctly, face palm. Looking at your character kitted out is cool and enjoyable, so do it, and enjoy the game. If pistol animation was added that would be extra cool too. To be honest the gun animations don't look as good as the character animations so can you blame people playing in third.

He started and ended the video saying that it's his way of playing the game, not telling anyone how they should be playing.

[pooroldspike 128]

..third person..when player's are on equal terms I see the problem as negligible...I don't mind jumping on a wasteland server with friends and flicking on third person and you can be sure that I'll use it to peep around corners..

Good for you mate, we 3rd person players are the most dangerous creatures in the known universe..;)

Whenever I begin a game against a 3rd pp I look forward to it as my adrenalin kicks in and I think- "Uh-oh, I better watch myself, this guy knows how to punch!"

Edited May 26, 2014 by PoorOldSpike

[GReeves 10]

I don't like being the guy who jumps into a thread and says "this is pointless"...

But this thread is pointless. Lol. If you're running a milsim group that wants to get the best most uber-reeulistic experience ever (which, to a certain degree, describes me, minus the stupid stuff like calling people "sir" or saluting them), then disable third-person. Problem solved. If you like 3rd-person and you're running an Altis Life Dress-Up-My-Character-And-Look-How-Cool-I-Am server or whatever, then you can use 3rd Person until your brain rots. It's not bothering me.

I think the real issue here is that people are arguing about whether 3rd person IS REALISTIC or NOT REALISTIC. Again, I think that discussion is a bit pointless. It's obvious that seeing over a ridge by elevating my eyes ten feet into the air above my head, or seeing around a corner or over a eight-foot wall magically, or being able to watch my rear while driving an IFV, etc. is NOT realistic because it defies physics.

:)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I don't like being the guy who jumps into a thread and says "this is pointless"...

But this thread is pointless. Lol. If you're running a milsim group that wants to get the best most uber-reeulistic experience ever (which, to a certain degree, describes me, minus the stupid stuff like calling people "sir" or saluting them), then disable third-person. Problem solved. If you like 3rd-person and you're running an Altis Life Dress-Up-My-Character-And-Look-How-Cool-I-Am server or whatever, then you can use 3rd Person until your brain rots. It's not bothering me.

I think the real issue here is that people are arguing about whether 3rd person IS REALISTIC or NOT REALISTIC. Again, I think that discussion is a bit pointless. It's obvious that seeing over a ridge by elevating my eyes ten feet into the air above my head, or seeing around a corner or over a eight-foot wall magically, or being able to watch my rear while driving an IFV, etc. is NOT realistic because it defies physics.

:)

^ Nuf said. ALRIGHT! Lets rap it up people.

[hades198 10]

Good for you mate, we 3rd person players are the most dangerous creatures in the known universe..;)

Whenever I begin a game against a 3rd pp I look forward to it as my adrenalin kicks in and I think- "Uh-oh, I better watch myself, this guy knows how to punch!"

I honestly couldn't hold a straight face after watching that !

I don't like being the guy who jumps into a thread and says "this is pointless"...

But this thread is pointless. Lol. If you're running a milsim group that wants to get the best most uber-reeulistic experience ever (which, to a certain degree, describes me, minus the stupid stuff like calling people "sir" or saluting them), then disable third-person. Problem solved. If you like 3rd-person and you're running an Altis Life Dress-Up-My-Character-And-Look-How-Cool-I-Am server or whatever, then you can use 3rd Person until your brain rots. It's not bothering me.

I think the real issue here is that people are arguing about whether 3rd person IS REALISTIC or NOT REALISTIC. Again, I think that discussion is a bit pointless. It's obvious that seeing over a ridge by elevating my eyes ten feet into the air above my head, or seeing around a corner or over a eight-foot wall magically, or being able to watch my rear while driving an IFV, etc. is NOT realistic because it defies physics.

I think Greeves summed up the situation quite nicely and certainly better than my ramblings. To me this is starting to look like a Call of Duty v Battlefield argument.

But honestly Greeves how can you survive a night of gameplay without being called "sir"? and not yelling at people like an insecure brat... god save the realism community.

[katipo66 94]

Deleted* iPad and insomnia not good mix :)

Edited May 26, 2014 by Katipo66

[pooroldspike 128]

Poor Old Spike is a 3rd person player..:)

"He has a lean and hungry look...such men are dangerous"

-Julius Caesar Act 1, scene 2

(play vid fullscreen for maximum dramatic effect)

Edited May 26, 2014 by PoorOldSpike

[hades198 10]

MEIN GOTT, that third person. He can see behind him without even looking, this is ruining the game, we need to go back... WE NEED A PATCH!!! Call the devs, start a petition, sue BI, this is the end of realism as we know it!

Edited May 26, 2014 by hades198
punctumacation!

[big_t 1]

Attention 3rd person players:

Here are some guidelines to playing 1rst person only with a better situational awareness and comfort level… of course while feeling the intensity of first person.

1. ALT Key: yep it seems obvious but this is the "freelook" key and enables you move your head and look around your surroundings, much like in real life.

2. Minus Key: This is the "zoom out" key, it give you better situational awareness in close quarters, behind rocks or bushes. I personally map mine to an extra mouse button for ease of access because I use it often.

3. Headphones: Much better ability to locate sounds around you, gunshots, vehicles etc. And also hypes up the intensity :)

4. Time: Just give it time brother, you will be hammering away at your enter button for the first few hours when you want to look over a hill or wall, but trust me, once you let go of those crutches, it's pure combat intensity, how arma was meant to be played :)

T

[katipo66 94]

Video game realism warriors who use zoom :rolleyes:

[Sneakson 1]

Video game realism warriors who use zoom :rolleyes:

Unfortunately there are no computer monitors that offer the same field of view and resolution as natural vision simultaneously so zooming out/in has to be used to give a realistic field of view and realistic resolution.

---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------

I don't like being the guy who jumps into a thread and says "this is pointless"...

But this thread is pointless. Lol. If you're running a milsim group that wants to get the best most uber-reeulistic experience ever (which, to a certain degree, describes me, minus the stupid stuff like calling people "sir" or saluting them), then disable third-person. Problem solved. If you like 3rd-person and you're running an Altis Life Dress-Up-My-Character-And-Look-How-Cool-I-Am server or whatever, then you can use 3rd Person until your brain rots. It's not bothering me.

I think the real issue here is that people are arguing about whether 3rd person IS REALISTIC or NOT REALISTIC. Again, I think that discussion is a bit pointless. It's obvious that seeing over a ridge by elevating my eyes ten feet into the air above my head, or seeing around a corner or over a eight-foot wall magically, or being able to watch my rear while driving an IFV, etc. is NOT realistic because it defies physics.

:)

How about RTFT.

First-person is not realistic. Third-person is not realistic.

That's why we need an update that alleviates some of the unrealism of third-person.

There IS a big freaking problem and that's why the thread exists.

That problem is that apparently a majority of everyone prefers third-person but third-person also allows cheating so first-person players are forced to play third-person or join small, obscure first-person-only servers.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Sneakson

[GReeves 10]

But honestly Greeves how can you survive a night of gameplay without being called "sir"? and not yelling at people like an insecure brat... god save the realism community.

I know, I know. I've never told anyone this before, but...I'm a softie. But I'm doing my best to learn -- my current role model is a guy who screamed at me and called me a "dumb cuntfuck" when I told him I wasn't interested in merging with his hardcore milsim community (after hearing him brag about cussing out his teammate for filing some report incorrectly). That's the kind of man I admire.

[big_t 1]

How about RTFT.

First-person is not realistic. Third-person is not realistic.

That's why we need an update that alleviates some of the unrealism of third-person.

There IS a big freaking problem and that's why the thread exists.

That problem is that apparently a majority of everyone prefers third-person but third-person also allows cheating so first-person players are forced to play third-person or join small, obscure first-person-only servers.

This is my sentiment exactly. I have nothing against people playing in 3rd person mode, the same way 3PP players don't care about someone using 1PP. It's the unfair visual advantage of having the magical periscope to survey the battle field.

As of now there is no way to filter out 1PP locked servers. If they could just put that little checkbox in the multiplayer server list, I'm sure the 1PP servers would fill up. There are plenty of people who prefer 1PP but since it's default 3PP enabled, then 1PP players are forced (if you want to play on a populated server) to play 3PP, or else risk get spotted with the magic periscope over hills and around corners.

Also sneakson, I wouldn't say the Majority prefers 3PP, any polls I've seen about the issue shows a huge support for 1PP on regular and up servers.

POLL:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149711-3rd-person-view-and-difficulty-levels

Here is another one I found:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/armed-assault/197516-arma-3-difficulty-poll-3.html

one more about wasteland:

https://zombies.nu/community/threads/3956/

So anyway, I have not seen a poll yet where people prefer 3PP over 1PP,

Edited May 26, 2014 by Big_T

[hades198 10]

I know, I know. I've never told anyone this before, but...I'm a softie. But I'm doing my best to learn -- my current role model is a guy who screamed at me and called me a "dumb cuntfuck" when I told him I wasn't interested in merging with his hardcore milsim community (after hearing him brag about cussing out his teammate for filing some report incorrectly). That's the kind of man I admire.

See this is the kind of leadership the realism community needs, we'll ban third person, we'll make all our communities super selective, we'll abuse people who are new or like wasteland etc, for those who actually want to have fun in a realistic setting we'll swear and abuse at them too and then we'll just sit back and relax while the realism community doubles in size each year

[Sneakson 1]

This is my sentiment exactly. I have nothing against people playing in 3rd person mode, the same way 3PP players don't care about someone using 1PP. It's the unfair visual advantage of having the magical periscope to survey the battle field.

As of now there is no way to filter out 1PP locked servers. If they could just put that little checkbox in the multiplayer server list, I'm sure the 1PP servers would fill up. There are plenty of people who prefer 1PP but since it's default 3PP enabled, then 1PP players are forced (if you want to play on a populated server) to play 3PP, or else risk get spotted with the magic periscope over hills and around corners.

Also sneakson, I wouldn't say the Majority prefers 3PP, any polls I've seen about the issue shows a huge support for 1PP on regular and up servers.

POLL:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149711-3rd-person-view-and-difficulty-levels

Here is another one I found:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/armed-assault/197516-arma-3-difficulty-poll-3.html

one more about wasteland:

https://zombies.nu/community/threads/3956/

So anyway, I have not seen a poll yet where people prefer 3PP over 1PP,

The first thread mentioned has nothing to do with it.

The second one has only a small amount of votes in an elitist community.

The third one doesn’t show a significant difference and again deals with only a few votes.

Checking how many 1st-person servers there are compared to 3rd-person servers would be a better measure.

I have not done so but at least in DayZ (the mod that is) there are currently 4% first-person only servers, or 7% of non-empty servers according to a DayZ Commander search.

[big_t 1]

The first thread mentioned has nothing to do with it.

The first thread has everything to do with it. If 3p was only enabled on recruit level only, many many full servers would be 1rst person only.

Any way you slice it from the results of that poll: Most people want 3PP only enabled on recruit. That shows a strong support for 1PP . BI does nothing.

In the current state 3PP is enabled by default on all but elite if I'm not mistaken.

Checking how many current 1PP servers when by default 3PP is enabled is a poor test. As in many digital set ups scenarios the "default" is what people mostly use, call it sheep mentality or the will to play it safe. Change the default and change the way the game is played. It's human nature (see RSA and the default Dual_EC_DRBG encryption scandal for more on this)

T

[drebin052 323]

If 3p was only enabled on recruit level only, many many full servers would be 1rst person only.

...and we're back to square one.

As explained by plenty of posters previously, it is up to the server admins to enable or disable it. You cannot force people to use FPV exclusively just because you want it.

Any way you slice it from the results of that poll: Most people* want 3PP only enabled on recruit. That shows a strong support for 1PP* . BI does nothing.

* citation needed

There are also those who are fine with the way things are at the moment. Don't speak on behalf of everyone just because of the results of a forum poll...

Not to mention that the devs have more important issues to solve than to implement a "fix" for something that isn't even an issue to begin with.

Checking how many current 1PP servers when by default 3PP is enabled is a poor test. As in many digital set ups scenarios the "default" is what people mostly use, call it sheep mentality or the will to play it safe. Change the default and change the way the game is played. It's human nature (see RSA and the default Dual_EC_DRBG encryption scandal for more on this)

You don't want it? You disable it.

That server has TPV enabled? Don't join it.

You want your own server to only have FPV? Then enable the restriction.

Why do you have trouble accepting that this whole thing is optional? Is it because you believe this is how Arma must be played to be "fun" and therefore, everyone else has to do it this way as well, regardless of opinion or playstyle?

[big_t 1]

...and we're back to square one.

As explained by plenty of posters previously, it is up to the server admins to enable or disable it. You cannot force people to use FPV exclusively just because you want it.

Not forcing anything merely stating that it should not be default setting seeing as many people want it only active on recruit/noob settings.

But wait you say there server count shows different, that is because it is default and no way to filter 1PP servers.

.

* citation needed

There are also those who are fine with the way things are at the moment. Don't speak on behalf of everyone just because of the results of a forum poll...

Not to mention that the devs have more important issues to solve than to implement a "fix" for something that isn't even an issue to begin with.

This isn't junior high debate class, you don't know how to use "citation needed". I clearly stated "from the results of that poll: Most people* " and you say citation needed?..uhh the citation is "the referenced poll" so nice try but no.

I agree the devs are most likely have bigger fish to fry at the moment but would it be so hard to put a check box in a server menu or leave default off?

.

Why do you have trouble accepting that this whole thing is optional? Is it because you believe this is how Arma must be played to be "fun" and therefore, everyone else has to do it this way as well, regardless of opinion or playstyle?

As I stated earlier I don't care if you like to play 3PP, it's just that there many who Express the need to play 1PP but are frustrated with the options. This can easily be addressed with a few small steps.

Here are 2 very recent posts (note this an "internet citation" :))

May 23rd

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?178135-First-person-only-and-no-tags-servers

May 18th

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?177898-New-Player-friendly-hardcore-servers

T

[pooroldspike 128]

Is it too late for somebody to put up a poll in this thread (or can only the thread starter guy do it?)

The question should be- "Do you prefer playing as:

a- 1st person

b- 3rd person

c- no preference

I mean for all we know, only 50 guys play 1st person, but ten thousand play 3rd, so until we know, we're just whistling dixie and making unsupported guesses and hunches

Edited May 27, 2014 by PoorOldSpike

[[frl]myke 14]

Is it too late for somebody to put up a poll in this thread (or can only the thread starter guy do it?)

The question should be- "Do you prefer playing as:

a- 1st person

b- 3rd person

c- no preference

I mean for all we know, only 50 guys play 1st person, but ten thousand play 3rd, so until we know, we're just whistling dixie and making unsupported guesses and hunches

I don't see the use of a poll. It is an option that can be set by player and server owner. IMHO this could be end of discussion (personal opinion).

[ProfTournesol 956]

Myke;2698143']I don't see the use of a poll. It is an option that can be set by player and server owner. IMHO this could be end of discussion (personal opinion).

Same opinion on my side. On both points.

[pooroldspike 128]

As I mentioned earlier, my beef is that you can't see yourself in 1st person; for example this is all you see..

..but hitting the 3rd person key shows you could be running around without any pants..:)

[RushHour 11]

Must be hard in real life then without 3rd person for you. Maybe you have no pants on right now? Have you checked?

ALT is a wonderful thing, use it.

[enex 11]

It's interesting how in arcade first person shooters infantry is always first person...however

players in arma have issue of comfort zone.

Sure you can't see behind you in life, neither higher but if it makes playing game easier

people will use it, that's how we work.Sadly that leaves ALT and stance adjust which

are unique to arma and no other games posses lonely in a dark because they have no use

when you can see from elevated position.

The message that I'm trying to bring across is that with this comfort zone you give away

adrenaline rushes, memorable engagements, risks vs reward type of situation unique arma

features and controls that you are missing with 3d person on.

To prove my point I will post this if somebody did not saw it yet

2:40

With 3rd person on you are restricting yourself to a lot of fun.

Edited May 28, 2014 by enex

[[frl]myke 14]

With 3rd person on you are restricting yourself to a lot of fun.

The definition of "fun" is different from person to person. What is "fun" for you is not necessarly "fun" for me.

Personally, when i'm on foot i stay with 1st person. But when i'm in a vehicle i switch often to 3rd. That is since a game simply misses a lot of feedback that i do have in real life (limited view on the screen, missing movement feedback and so on). For me, 3rd person does compensate these given limits. But as i said, this is how i define "fun" and doesn't have to be true for others.

And that's why it is optional. Play it the way it is "fun" for you and don't try to dictate what has to be "fun" for others.