MrAerospace

If the terrain resolution is too difficult to change, what about Terrain Altering Objects: rather than creating a physical object (such as rocks, trees and buildings) this object itself intersects, and adds highly localised detail to the terrain map, in strategic places such as roads, rivers/creeks, forests edges, etc. (look up edge effects for some interesting reading) Imagine the possibilities: - Added complexity to roads and railways (such as engineered cut and fill slopes both laterally and longitudinally), - Terrain masking - rapid terrain changes around the edges of woods and gullies, offering a rapid way to break visual contact (reducing the need and repetitiveness of object masking) - Leading to much tighter and closer squad level manoeuvring, (making for faster tactical decisions alongside larger strategies) - Rather than needing large, isolated forests out to the west, terrain altering objects can help create more seclusion; ideal for camps and bases.

Not really. The devs already have randomised colour variation in place for leaves already, so I'd say tweaking it from yellows to greens would be fairly simple at this point. The bigger issue is the in-between periods, when leaves are shooting and shedding. One requires leaf sizes to be altered (possibly along with secondary unfurled models, as well as flower blossoms too) and the other needs a complex leaf drop system (to be realistic, leaves do not all shed at the same rate; there is a progression when they drop which depends on environmental effects (such as forest physiology, geographic location, species, etc.)

My solution: An in game fatigue mechanic. That way, players actually need to stop running around and rest up as part of the game, and, adverse conditions offer the perfect opportunity to do so.

Why not just make sepsis a thing? Bacteria that survive inside the mouth of humans are uniquely adapted to the human body. It's why if you're bitten by another human (to the point of breaking the skin), you are at extreme risk of infection. The infected in DayZ are far more likely to be eating pretty nasty stuff too, so the odds would skyrocket. Of course, it'd kinda mean you'd need to have the damn things bite rather than slap, but, I'm holding judgement on that until I see the zombie attack system.

QwopZ? You are right about balancing simulation and fun though, there are many parts of DayZ that could do with this level of detail over something as simple as driving.

The current state of base-building (across so many MMO games, including DayZ) revolves around the idea of individual ownership; Individual players and small groups building and defending their own bases. As we've all seen, it's fraught with problems, and no matter how the developers try to solve it, the meta always seems to go into a death spiral: base raiding replaces all semblance of any other game-play. I want to see a paradigm shift. Rather than thinking of bases in terms of individual ownership, we should think of them as sort of publicly owned utility. Instead of the thousands of bases being left unattended when their owners eventually log-out, as per the current model, this idea limits the amount of bases on each server, but shares them out between independent players and groups so these bases can remain occupied throughout the continuous rotation of players on the server. This means a total rethink of the way bases are managed on the server, as well as how items and objects function within the base environment: How do you organize and control the large number of independent players that may/may not simultaneously be using the same base? How do you handle communal assets like generators, fires, lights, barricades? How do you handle communal containers and/or vehicles (for things like water/petrol/firewood, etc.)? How do you handle personal containers so you don't end up with a base completely full of tents, barrels and vehicles? Could you perhaps have AI characters guard the base if/when no-one is online? I could go on for ages with this while the idea is still fresh in my head, but I think I should open it up to discussion first. What do you guys think: Good idea or not?

1) Membership of a faction would not be in the form of an in game (physical) object. As much as that would help recognition between other players, it could too easily be stolen and reused by others. It would have to be something that cannot be removed from the character, like a tattoo (as an example). 2) Players should be able to exchange gear if they like...as for stealing from another player's stash, I was thinking of using character based instances for this, so that theft from a personal stash is impossible. (And if it is a character based instance, it can be removed upon a character's death...preventing players from running straight back to their stash) 3) Membership of a faction would have to be divorced from any individual player's discretion, because if we're sharing a base over the entire server, the original faction founder/bosses will eventually have to log off.

Ok, sorry, but you do go a very long way around the question. Let's not get bogged down with philosophy and just stick to the topic. 1) I'm suggesting internal rules for factions only. Raids and attacks are another topic for another day. 2) This idea would concentrate a lot of players together into the same base, and not all at the same time either. I think it's safe to say that the players themselves would be incapable of upholding/enforcing self imposed rules. So, yes I think any base/factional rules would need to be built-in, just to make gameplay functional. 3) Asking for suggestions on these rules, is where I think the mix-up occurred. I was getting ahead of myself a little, but I was thinking that some of the in-built rules could have some variations to them, to suit different types of factions. For example, a set of rules for a relatively peaceful faction might not be the same for a faction of cannibals. I mean, the former might impose a "fine" (handing over some loot) for breaking the rules, while cannibals might just shoot someone in the leg for the same crime.

What's your point? That no laws should exist? If you wanna go down that path, IRL laws governing good and bad communal behaviour existed way before we stupid monkeys ever turned up and started messing up the planet with our towns, villages, castles, bomas, walled cities, kraks, hill forts, or inhabited enclosures.

Ok, so here's my first attempt at defining my ideas into something tangible. Hope you enjoy: THE FACTIONS To avoid servers getting overcrowded with bases, you need to limit their numbers. However, within the current system if you limit the number of bases to X; the first X players/clans on the server will get their base at the expense of everyone else. How do you think that will affect the amount of base-raiding that occurs? So, to make a limited base idea viable, you need to limit the amount of bases without excluding people from using them. That necessitates a base sharing system. The question is, how do you implement base sharing in a functional way that caters to multiple groups AND individual players in a way that reduces all the player induced problems that come with it? The first thing to do is unite all of the same bases users into a collective group under a single set of rules. It doesn't seem appropriate to call the group a clan, so I looked at games that did something similar, and ARMA 3: Breaking Point (BP) came to mind. The way BP handled multiple groups with slight variations in their rules was interesting, so the notion/term 'faction' seemed appropriate for DayZ. The next step is to create the laws and punishments. Beginning with what behaviours need to be stopped or curtailed, so far I have three fairly loosely associated 'crimes': Aggression/Murder. (Both inside and out of the base.) Theft/Destruction of Property. Griefing/Harassment. (Handcuffing, inciting others to aggression) However, when it came to setting laws for each of these, BP recognized that players and teams enjoyed playing the game in different ways; some wanted to be cannibals, others a military group, still other as survivalists, etc. Each of these groups would have different variations of laws and punishments amongst themselves. So for now, I'm leaving the laws open ended. What would crime and punishment be amongst cannibals/survivalists/military groups/etc.? Also, a big problem I'm having is trying to figure out how to enforce any of these laws. It's not wise to let faction members be the judge, jury and executioners, (See the Village videos above.) Nor is it much fun to have such strict security that it grinds game-play to a halt (See the =UN= trade center). I am constantly drawn back the idea of AI being the perfect guards/sentries and law enforcers within a faction; I think GTA5's Ammu-nation store clerks being by far the best example of a no-nonsense approach to preventing stupid behaviour. The last thing to address (for now) is how characters can join a faction. Leaving should simply be packing up your stuff and walking out, but what about joining? You don't want to just let anyone through the front gates, they might just be there to steal stuff or even learn the base layout for a later raid...so how about having an initiation task/mission? An interesting side-note, if an initiation task was needed every time a player respawns, you'd prevent them from immediately picking up where they left off, at least creating some meaning to perma-death. (I intend to address this issue even more, further down the track)

Thanks, perfect examples of a disorganised/chaotic faction (The Village) and an orderly faction (The UN Trade Centre) and seeing these two videos juxtaposed was one of the reasons why I started this topic in the first place.

I kinda knew the "'player vs developer' responsibility argument" was going to surface pretty quickly. I had actually planned to head it off in the original post but it would have added to the wall of text, so I left it out. I may regret that decision, I don't particularly want the topic to veer off too far on that tangent. Suffice to say, I am of an opposite opinion. I believe it is the responsibility of the devs to design the in game tools and mechanics that promote healthy meta-gaming. What I've seen so far of all these open-world MMO's is the same laissez-faire attitude which leads to ad-hoc triage: Bases absolutely everywhere, unbreakable walls/doors and locks, unlootable containers, numpads... Here's why I think we need the nomenclature. I'm not sure what YOU mean by a "communal space"? I think of a communal base/faction container as something like this: I mean, who wouldn't want a communal base/faction container for something so menial as firewood? Or maybe something like this as an upgrade to barrels for water storage? Take again the examples above. Anyone could happily go out and collect firewood ALONE, and still be contributing to the 'faction'/base in ways that work for them. However, IBC's are a pain to move large distances, and would need a truck and at minimum two people to collect. So long as there are a variety of tasks that can be performed, then joining a faction caters for both individuals who don't want to work with randoms and those that do. Attacking and griefing others in a base happens already. I would like to avoid a 'safe zone' situation if that could be done, but I think certain inbuilt laws/rules need to exist to discourage that sort of toxic behaviour nonetheless. (I'd give anything if bases had the same AI guards as Ammu-nation does) I'd go even further by saying unprovoked attacks on faction members OUTSIDE the base should even be included. We've got functioning radios now, this would be the perfect reason to use them. A quick squelch on the radio could provoke an automated animation sequence (touching a shoulder, taking a knee, waving, etc) or, when a player is nearby, but out of vision, maybe a quick radio squelch would let you know the other guy is a friendly. When would that ever not be a thing? Yes, they can. Notice how many bases end up on each server when each individual clan chooses to do that on their own though? I'm aiming to find a way to prevent hundred of those bases popping up.

Can we agree on a nomenclature here? I'm already getting confused, and can see this conversation getting very frustrating if we don't stick to the same definitions. Please add more or offer corrections where you see fit, I'll try to keep it updated, but for now a quick iteration: Groups/Persons - Player/s: Fairly obviously us; real people who play the game. "Individual" is also appropriate. - Character/s: Our onscreen avatar. (It's supposed to have a finite life.) - Community: The collective group of all DayZ players. Also known as the 'player base' - Clan/s: A group of friends/team that plays DayZ together. - Faction/s: A collective group of Characters operating a base. Base Assets: - Container Placeable container objects, such as tent and barrels.

That makes a lot more sense, (rather than all that 'tactical sense' stuff). I think there's a lot of potential for this sort of character design, especially when characters are essentially the driving narrative to DayZ. As for grass...can we have something like this please?:

Has anyone tried a depth of field effect based on the character's focal point? So, if for example, someone is hiding around the corner, they won't be able to make out/focus on anything beyond maybe a few centimeters or so past the wall they're hiding behind.

Ok, but how long will you continue to play the game if every time you log out, someone finds your base and steals/destroys everything you've collected?

Ghosting into a base is a solvable problem. 1) Find a way to alter login co-ordinates, it should be limited to within a certain distance (albeit a fairly large distance) from the player's logout co-ordinates. 2) Randomize it at all times. You don't want players to learn a meta where if they've been teleported as they log in, it means there's a base/camp/stash nearby. 3) Design regions on the server where logins are restricted. If the randomization system generates co-ordinates within a region, it tries again until it succeeds. 4) Assign those regions to a tent/bed/camp/whatever. 5) Also assign those regions to players themselves. If the player logs out inside their own defined region, the login co-ordinates are not randomized. - You don't want to be teleported out of your own base every time you login. 6) Make the restricted regions pretty large. For example: 50m radius.

Love the hurricane lantern idea. Very useful item when the electricity is out. If you ever used them though, you'd know that gasoline is quite a poor choice of fuel.

That video makes the grass look like a liquid. At a short distance, individual stems blend into a surface, which shows a distinct wave motion. Instead of all those ideas like sinking the player model down into the map, or that alpha layer stuff, what if grass was rendered as a surface layer similar to how water is? I mean, it'd be more opaque, be less reflective of light and have different colours, (depending on the types of grasses or crops you're emulating), as well as needing to follow the map contour instead of a horizontal layer, but apart from those few design criteria, I honestly don't see how there's that much difference between how water and grass would be depicted at even a medium distance. I mean, what'd be the difference between a player wading through 1m of water, or 1m of grass? The player walks along the map contour, and the lower half is masked by the water surface.

In an ideal 3D system, there would only be one realistic limiting factor: Volume Let's say you have a 20L bag. Does it matter whether you fill it with 20L of gold or 20L of feathers? They both take up the same amount of space, no matter their weight, so using weight as an item limitation is a poor design. However, you'd likely destroy the bag trying to pick it up with 20L of gold in it. So, instead of the bag type and condition as a weight limit, I would propose that weight carried in excess of a certain value would increases the wear rate of the bag. To satisfy the original idea, that certain value and consequential rate of wear could vary between bags. Which leads to the need for consequences at the point of failure: I don't like the idea of losing items out of the bag, because that's going to cause a lot of resentment from players. I would instead propose that the moment a bag wears out, one of the shoulder straps breaks, and the bag can no longer be carried in the backpack slot.

Gotta say, those trees really do make a difference, although, I'd tighten the colour variation a little more. That sort of change really gives off the impression that different seasons are a possibility. Well done. May I offer a few ideas on how to improve trees and forests? 1) Forests aren't just a bunch of lone standing trees placed closer together. Forests cause a lot of physiological differences in trees compared to a lone free standing specimen. As the canopy closes over, trees must compete for sunlight. This forces them to grow straight and tall, (forking and branching of the main trunk is almost non-existent), and trees shed many of their lower branches and foliage. In a game, that adds up to a huge reduction of polygons per tree. 2) The edge effect should be a significant factor in forest designs. Where the canopy no longer intercepts sunlight, lower tree branches and undergrowth begin to thrive. The build-up of undergrowth along the boundaries of forests (between fields, forest clearings, lakes, rivers and roads) is usually an effective visual barrier, that is not only very useful for fighting/tactical purposes, but can also be used as a means of seclusion, a very important aspect of camping in this game.

And you could quite easily do that if/whenever you escape that valley.

I actually think the opposite should be more of the norm. Ruthlessly force players to be spawned as far away from where they died as possible, with no way to game the system for better spawn points. EDIT Although, I'm fast coming to the conclusion that maybe PvP centric players would be better off concentrated into a neat little valley in a small corner of the map where it is difficult to escape from, has all the weapons they could want and basically serves their need to play fast and die young without ever needing to leave. Basically a PvP hell.

100% on the ragdolling. Yes, the old boneless ragdoll system is bad especially the frictionless body part, however that can all be resolved to give a much more realistic system (hopefully). If that's the case, then unconsciousness should trigger ragdolling the same way as death. I would also prefer not to have characters uncontrollably stand up upon regaining conciousness, but rather give control back to the player to decide when to get up. (at least to the extent they haven't been tied up or stuffed into a car boot). As for shock, I've extensively written up on it before:

I don't think it's altogether such a bad idea. Think about this, every kitchen cupboard and drawer has crockery, cutlery, glassware, etc. The same 'junk' rule applies to fridges, bookshelves, wardrobes, bathroom cabinets, & the list goes on and on. There'd be so much junk lying around in world containers that it'd be far too taxing to add ANY of them to the Central Loot Economy. However, what if there was a client side "junk economy" system that could be used to help populate the DayZ world? Precise quantities & specific types of items become unimportant, they don't need to be tracked by the server or from player to player...it's just junk, there's so much of it, it doesn't matter.