Katana67

More usable/attractive locations + more players = higher player distribution across the map. I'm not talking about exploration here folks. Buildings unto themselves do not add feet to the two-dimensional boundaries of the map. They encourage folks to spread out and thus you will be encountering people more often. Density does not necessarily mean "centralization" or "concentrated" if you look at it from an overall perspective.

If you consider the map in terms of player distribution, it will be the same or denser (given that they're putting more urban areas in). In an anecdote, you won't be encountering people running in the woods so much as you will be encountering people in buildings. The overall rate of encounters doesn't change as per the overall size of the map. Who cares if the player is in or merely next to the house, the player is still there.

No, in fact I suggested the opposite. Having breaks in the wall would lead to the possibility of the infection breaking out of Chernarus. As to who built the wall, I dunno, bordering Russia? NATO? WHO? <Insert whatever in-universe analog you want>?. Take your pick.

That's a HIGHLY specific scenario. For the majority of people sitting on the ground who approach the wall, it will just be a wall. It won't be immersive for everyone in every scenario, but it will be more immersive than a blank piece of paper at the end of the Mona Lisa.

That's true, but I'm talking in terms of potential player distribution throughout the map... it will be the same or denser. It doesn't matter that a player's running around in a building in Pustoshka, I'm still gonna' have to shoot him. Add more players, forces more encounters. I like to be able to think for a minute before having to fight again. Overall square footage of the map boundaries will not change. (Granted, I've not seen the new areas of the map, but what I have seen leads me to believe that they're just putting cities in the northern wilderness).

What about them? They can't be stored outside of the boundaries can they?

I think it's a more viable solution for two reasons - immersion and practicality. A wall would fit nicely into a potential narrative of Chernarus as "contained" or "quarantined". Likewise it could be used as a plot device to deem whether or not the quarantine was successful or if the infection got out. Lore aside, it's much more reasonable to me to have a wall than having a bland grass-less plain that's only there due to map restrictions. At least a wall would solidify the idea of a boundary, rather than leaving an unfinished terrain/heightmap readily visible to the player. I don't think a forest would work simply because it might be too resource intensive to render exponentially more trees than is already being rendered. Likewise it's not really a boundary then if it's made into a forest, it's just a deception. Which brings me to the crux of the issue, which I've stated before. Chernarus ain't that big. 50 players is pushing it in my opinion, so I'm not sure why they're thinking of exponentially increasing player count without massively expanding the map and why they're not therefore looking into procedural generation. I get why they're not doing it (i.e. because it's difficult) but you have to then work within the constraints of Chernarus.

I haven't thought about it much. I'd certainly like to see the borders be more than flat plains with nothing there. Maybe have the map lined by a concrete quarantine wall with guard towers? Maybe have some holes in the wall or at checkpoints in the wall which could leave the option open for the infection spreading?

I remember this being a big deal for the developers, not sure why though. I always felt the natural landscape of Chernarus to be lacking, specifically with regard to the forests (i.e. colonnades of trees), the lack of a coherent water system (i.e. ponds and lakes that flow/feed nowhere), and a lack of geological structures (i.e. boulders, cliffs, gulleys, etc). I've spoken about this before, and someone (maybe Fraggle?) had mentioned the area between NEAF and the coast (near Olsha) that has some great forests. I had never been there until a few months ago and it is a great starting point. Most of the map's forests should resemble this area. Small gulleys in the ground, a bit of underbrush with rocks, with a thick canopy of trees.

I honestly do not intend to be condescending when I say this, and would like to address your critique wholly, but is it so difficult to keep track of what server you're playing on? I remember this being a big deal back in the day before mods and private hives. It would solve nearly every problem you outline. I used to write it down on a piece of paper, and now you've got DayZ Commander's favorites function. But the problem is that servers (as per the current paradigm) do not last very long given the migratory status of players who can just jump ship whenever they wish. I feel this is adequately demonstrated in private hives, I've been playing on the same private hive server in Overwatch for three months. I've never played on the same vanilla server for anything longer than a few weeks (although I'm sure some of those servers are going strong). I don't play that often anymore, maybe once a week or so. I completely understand the significance to you in having a flexible (what I'd term "convenient") system. I do not mean to do a disservice to your particular experience, but to me it's just anecdotal evidence. I'd much rather have a better system which is more accommodating to the game than the needs of the players.

The loot one is a big one, especially in terms of the new global loot list/control. It would allow folks to potentially stack the deck in terms of loot on one server after having farmed and/or looted with minimal risk on an empty server. Whereas if the servers are locked, one cannot bring in loot to said server. It's a problem with how the servers are done (i.e. segmented) and the presence of both persistent and fixed server resources. I don't agree with it being immersion breaking. Having to cross servers, logging in and out, is much more immersion breaking to me. I mean, you actually break up your gameplay. The game is what you make it. If you put more time into it, you're going to get more out of it. The game shouldn't be structured around accommodating people who have little time to play it. That said, those people can still play it, you've just got to be aware of that and play accordingly. And, again, it's more a fault of the server structure that you'd have to reset your position more than anything else. If you want to continue your character at Stary Sobor that you left, then log into the same server, it's a fairly simple solution. Nothing's preventing you from doing that in this instance. I am sort of starting to subscribe to Rocket's logic of "make the player count bigger so that we no longer need server persistent characters". I think that your tent idea is incomplete. What if one has friends? Those friends could offload the loot from a tent into their own. Killed person gets a new tent, cycle repeats. Tents need to disappear when you die. But again, this is one of those cases where the system itself needs to be changed. Otherwise, you're short-changing the server persistent items (like tents, storage containers, and any form of construction they plan on implementing). That and there's no reason that one couldn't access his or her tent after dying, so why would you? What would it say "Sorry, you died. You can no longer use your hands to open this tent that is clearly here". That is a far more immersion breaking solution in my mind. I don't care much for the "no respawn inside buildings" deal. That really doesn't bother me that people can spawn inside buildings. That and 1km ain't that far to run, so it's nothing like the hassle (and danger) of having to spawn on the coast on every swap. That and absolutely NOTHING should be done to accommodate "streamers", nothing. If you willingly broadcast your location to the masses, you are liable to get shot. One cannot endorse a "meta-game" (i.e. TS, forum trading, radio, cross-server characters) and discard the "meta-game" that is stream sniping because it's annoying. I find all but one of the previously mentioned "meta-games" annoying and would be willing to have it be server-specific as well (i.e. radio stations). It wouldn't make them obsolete, it would limit them to the server. The systems still exist. One can still have a "market" on server X, spread diseases on server X, have a radio station on server X, etc. Again, if they're going to have segmented servers they have to treat them as such. If one is going to make the case for cross-server characters, then one has to enter into a conversation about how the server structure/paradigm is going to be reworked. I think spawning on the coast at every swap is the base and most effective method of countering the detriments of cross-server characters. It has a consequence. You do not get immediate access to your location on server X and you have to contend with the potential clusterfuck on the coast. That and even if one just keeps swapping from empty server to empty server, one has to constantly make the trek to find loot. Agreed. Although I'm not sure about one stash. I'd rather have no limit on stashes, but have it all disappear upon the player's death. Perhaps a good compromise would be to have player stashes linger, but once you die your stash (and the items inside) gradually decay. It would have to be on a relatively fast timer.

All of the above, but will get back to you tomorrow once I've had some sleep.

This is a fair critique. But to that I'd submit that if you make characters tied to the server, servers will be more likely to persist because players will become more attached/invested in these servers (thus leading to a longer-lasting server as well as a healthy community). Of course, I can't even remember what server I started out playing on. It's probably long lost due to updates or just gone the way of the dodo in terms of player population. But that's the thing, if these are officially sanctioned servers (not administrated) then they'd ostensibly update automatically. Likewise, the aforementioned "server loyalty" that I've described makes it less likely that the server would fall into obscurity in terms of a low population. I think the compromises we've all suggested are the way to go if they're going to have cross-server characters at all. In fact I'd submit that they're wholly necessary to fix what I consider to be a broken system.

Agreed. You said it much more concisely than I did, appreciated. I was hesitant to include the idea of carrying "some but not all" items with you upon switching servers, as that begs the question "Where do you draw the line?". I mean, for weapons do you draw the line at secondaries? Melee weapons? Do you not get to have any weapon when you switch? Do you get to keep your backpack? I assume some clothes will be "better" than others in SA (i.e. LBVs, bulletproof vests, holsters, certain camo clothing, etc.) so even looted clothes may not be appropriate to carry over. I just didn't want to open that potential can of worms.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I really can't see any benefit in it at all. It's a feature of convenience, pure and simple. It makes playing with your friends and trading "easier" and that's all. But it doesn't enhance these systems, it doesn't make them better. It just facilitates them, and making things "easier" or "convenient" has never been in the lexicon of DayZ in my opinion. Of course, there's a limit and the system needs to function smoothly. But that should never come at the expense of the game. The detriments of server-hopping and the potential offsetting of a (now globalized) loot list are far more concerning to me than the convenience of being able to switch servers at will. In short, having server-fixed characters would discourage servers from falling out of favor (which is the only real reason I could see cross-server characters being permissible) because people would become attached to them. This is of course provided for by the ARMA 2 highly-segmented server design, which in my opinion doesn't lend itself to DayZ at all. You certainly could make the argument that it's a simpler system or that it's easy to implement. But I have a hard time finding merit in the system unto itself. There are a few compromises I think that could be made if cross-server characters are going to be the norm forever. One is to reset the position of your character upon a server switch, this would prevent easily-traded goods and discourage offloading loot from one server to another. You'd not only have to contend with the perils of the coast, but you'd actually have to walk to the place in which you're storing the loot. So it would become extremely tedious looting, resetting back to the coast, walking up to your tent/friend, and then switching back again. Second, it could be possible to have your character (i.e. your kills, headshots, blood, etc.) switch without having your items be cross-server entities. Third would be to implement some type of cooldown timer (on the order of hours) when you'd be prevented from switching servers (I'm not particularly fond of this one). The point here is that it is an action which requires a hefty consequence if it's going to be included. It should not be easy or practical in most situations and should only exist to provide a menial level of flexibility should your friends be on a different server or should the server you're playing on fall out of favor. Other than that, steps should be taken so that it is not used to transfer loot or to allow the player to reorient him/herself in order to gain an advantage. I've said this countless times now, but the developers really need to make up their mind regarding player persistence. In my mind, you cannot have a wholesome storage, construction, or loot system without locking the characters to the server. Any discussion of cross-server characters has to be accompanied by a discussion of how the segmented ARMA 2 server paradigm is to be re-worked, in my opinion. EDIT - I kind of understand Rocket's logic, in that if you make the server populations large enough they become communities unto themselves with sustainable economies. So therefore, cross-server characters are redundant (if you see cross-server trading as legitimate or necessary). But my disagreement with that is his qualifier of server population, whereas I say it doesn't matter and that the characters should be locked to the server regardless.

What the hell? Why is a server-specific character contingent upon server populations? It's a matter of balance and practicality (i.e. being able to server hop and all the negatives that accompany that with regard to anything persistent). Not player count. Limit the character to the individual server and you bolster the effectiveness of any potential loot economy, trading, construction, and storage mechanics. I really do not understand why they're so fond of cross-server characters. It does nothing but cheapen the experience in my opinion and impose silly restraints on any number of potential mechanics which have yet to be implemented. Still think that if they insist upon having cross-server characters, one's position should revert to the coast at each server swap. I get that the new loot system might lend itself to a sweeping treatment of all servers, but that doesn't therefore mean that characters should be able to move across servers. One cannot have items be persistent and server-based. You have to draw the line at the server if you're not going to have a traditional "MMO" style player population. It's actually the inverse of what Rocket is saying. If one has an exponentially larger population one doesn't need server-specific resources because the server itself is large enough that it accommodates a sizable percentage of the whole playerbase, whereas if one has a smaller population one does require server-specific resources to even out the experience for all.

Christ, every time I see the idiotic "Will we see any maps other than Chernarus?" question, I die a little inside.

Thanks! Was just wondering what happened to them. Saw them a while ago and never heard about them again. I suspected that the Mauser may have been a placeholder for the Mosin, but I'd never seen it in vanilla ARMA 2 so I assumed it was a one-off creation.

The fuck happened to the Mauser? Or the AK-74?

Writing a proposal for a construction mechanic in Standalone (for funsies) is a bad idea when you're supposed to be writing a 20 page term paper. /sigh

Agreed. I just want some form of granularity with regard to how zombies interact with the player. The aggro system now is between a lobotomized blind cow versus a laser-guided missile with no in-between.

Part of it has to do with making zombies more powerful innately (i.e. giving them more resistance/health and having them deal more damage). But a part that gets glossed over a lot is the way that they interact with the environment and sense things. I still think they should implement some system akin to the police system from GTA. You alert a zombie via direct LOS. Or you alert a zombie through firing your weapon/making too much noise. Zombie(s) have brief access to your exact location and rush you. If you move/hide successfully, they go into a reduced (but still heightened) state of aggravation and look around for you. If they don't find you, they resume loitering. I really hate how it works in the mod where they have 100% access to your exact location regardless of whether or not you're still being loud/visible after having aggroed them.

Thanks! Interesting read. Though I'm a bit at odds with how it's relevant. I think the lore needs to be explored and outlined by Rocket, in fact I've spoken at length about this before on multiple occasions. But I think this recent tweet from Rocket is more to do with how they affect gameplay than anything, and how they're depicted in terms of variety.

Good... good... Some need to be sprinters (I think most of them should be). But regardless of my personal opinion, they need sprinters. That and they just plain need to do more damage per-hit. DayZ+ was great and it really made zombies a threat just by having them do more damage. But, with the wonkiness of the mod, it just sort of got frustrating getting smacked down to the ground by a zombie in one hit when you're five feet away at full sprint. Have we actually heard about any changes to how zombies do damage to the player?

Actually, that provides for zombie hordes. Rather than tracking their intimate moves across a field, if nobody is around, the server can reduce the calculation for distant zombies. So, in theory, it could lessen the load of having zombie hordes.