Katana67

I bet libraries are a barrel of laughs then. :D I also didn't intend for that reply to be so wordy, but a lot of folks replied while I was asleep.

Right, but I don't think it's that simple. I think you have a point, in that people will be far more preoccupied with other things. But, if the cities are suicide, then wouldn't that encourage people to head north? I'm all for this, but it sort of proves what I'm saying whereby the map really isn't that big when you throw a lot of people in a server (i.e. you'll come across people regularly). I would make the case for this being on-topic. We're discussing aspects of SA as presented by the developers in a setting that is far more discursive than just a separate thread. Plus, it encourages (at least for a short while) people to slow down on the rampant speculation that's been fairly divisive. This is what I was getting at. They cannot have both persistent servers and server-based resources. I think you raise an interesting point, but are muddling two issues. The main hive/server regulates loot spawn for individual servers based upon a global loot list. The economy itself isn't regulated, merely the items used in said economy. But, if we take your point as such, that raises the question of whether or not the current server/map dynamic is really suited for this type of global versus granular treatment. Which is sort of what I was getting at, in that it's problematic when you have global persistence (characters and loot lists) and a server-based system coupled with a finite map with finite resources. But the amount of server hops is irrelevant, I could potentially exist on a depopulated or low-population server for hours on end farming loot. Granted, I have no idea whether or not this will be feasible in SA still, as loot is highly centralized and predictable in the mod. To your first point, yes I agree. This has never been possible, for good reason and it doesn't seem like it will ever be possible. But I was saying that to illustrate an inconsistency in that there are some aspects of persistence (characters, gear, weapons) and some aspects of fixed-server resources (tent storage and vehicles). So that, to me, pulls me out of the whole "living in a world" idea and places me squarely in the "I'm playing a game" realm. Now, it's more complicated than just a typical "immersion" breaker when some systems themselves are designed around persistence and some are designed around static resources. But if a player logs off inside a military area, after having got in, he or she can then switch servers once in a relatively undetected location and just repeat the same loot cycle. It may be more difficult, sure, but it's still possible and much easier than having to enter/exit the military area over again. As for characters lingering after log-off, yeah, that makes sense for a variety of reasons. But it, in my mind, won't solve the issue of server hopping (as it's still possible, just more difficult). But it's a good start. This is why I think that a globally managed loot list is incompatible with a diverse server base. Sure, it works well in MMO servers when you've got everyone actually existing/playing in a persistent world. But in DayZ, much is tied to the individual server and much is tied to the individual character. Perhaps a good solution to this, way down the road admittedly, would be small instanced areas where the player could access the global market in-game. I'm hesitant to advocate for a neutral trading post/zone instance, but something like that in keeping with DayZ's traditional unforgiving nature. A problem with this solution, is that you'd get clusters of high-value items in this instance. Which is a huge flaw and sort of indicates to me why they need to make up their minds on cross-server versus server-fixed because there really are no elegant solutions other than a paradigm shift. This is why I've tried to present server-fixed characters/resources as the most viable solution, as if cross-server systems are implemented one cannot have decent storage/construction or vehicles in that they can be used to store resources garnered from other servers and thus offset any particular economy. Likewise, one could just log off in the area where someone's (theoretical) house is in one server, and log inside it when he/she logs back. Also, I'm not an economist, but I assume all you'd need for a working economy is two parties with different demands, and a potential supply. The number of people could be irrelevant, depending on how the system itself is implemented. This is what I was getting at. But it still could (if we consider the global radio stations) require cross-server travel. If there were certain stations that were server-specific I'd support this wholeheartedly. But I also want trade to occur entirely in-game on a regular basis, hence why I think radios will be a great tool (instead of side-chat) for negotiating trades.

Well what would be the benefit of that? Assuming that they keep the current server model, what're the advantages of multiple accounts over just having a new character created for you when you log on to a different server? This is sort of what I was trying to express. They not only need to make up their minds about server persistence, but the importance of the individual server. They're trying to shoehorn semi-MMO server needs into a FPS server structure and a finite map. So the approach, whatever it is, has to be extremely granular and considerate of however they plan on dividing up the servers. I've said it before, and this is a side-issue, but as large as Chernarus is... it really isn't that big once all the blanks have been filled in and once there are 60+ players on board. Which is why I've always been hesitant when they talk about upping the player count, as I think the map is already being pushed beyond its limits. It's also important to note that we treat Chernarus as a "map" rather than a "world". This is a concept that needs to be explored, and could be a limiting factor.

Right, but the systems themselves (by virtue of how they're implemented) are being exploited. So, why not change the system? Think of it this way, if we had never even had private/public hives in DayZ and always had our characters tied to the server, then we wouldn't even speak of things like server hopping. I'll try to come up with a more condensed "TL;DR" version tomorrow so it's less dense, and post it on the November thread whenever that happens. And, as a disclaimer to all, it may seem semi off topic for me to pose these questions/discussions here, but I feel that this is is a much more discursive type of thread as opposed to me making separate threads about issues which have been posed before.

Was thinking of clearing you all hot for the use of TL;DR, but you're big boys and girls. Lrn2englishplox.

In another one of my (hopefully) eloquent discussion topics related to SA, I'd like to address the issue of persistent servers/hives. I've spoken on this subject before (with that rascal Fraggle if I recall correctly) in past threads but never really at length. This is one of those topics where people tend to be one way or the other (and a topic where I haven't really formulated a wholly accommodating solution), so I'll attempt to portray both sides to the best of my ability. With the current DayZ paradigm, you get two experiences. One where you can move your character in and out of whatever server and you get the same gear/weapons. The second being that your character becomes limited to a server (via private hive). Personally, I think that the latter experience is the better one. Initially, I seem to remember the persistent characters being a "selling point" for DayZ. I remember Rocket mentioning it as a valued feature. I could be way off, but I seem to remember that very clearly. As DayZ evolved, it became clear (to me at least) that this feature is inherently incompatible with DayZ's unforgiving focus. I don't really like the effects that un-policed private hives have had on current server options, which in my opinion bastardize the DayZ experience (i.e. more vehicles, self-bloodbag, more barracks, etc.) But I do see it as a more viable solution to the problem of character persistence. Now, in Standalone, I hope they have (and keep) a standardized system of servers that aren't necessarily "private hive" but only allow players to have individual characters on individual servers. The problem cited in doing this, is the problem of server hopping. To be honest, I really can't tell when this occurs or if it's still a significant problem. The only time where I've experienced it was to flank a group of hackers to kill them on Skalisty Island, and I was promptly TP'd into the air after I successfully killed them. But it's also more than a "tactical situation" flaw, it's a gear flaw as well. One can log onto an empty server, raid/farm the barracks and then log on to a populated server to cause mayhem. There's nothing particularly wrong with this mayhem, but the way in which it was "earned" inherently circumvents the experience of other players. Now, excluding the idea of highly centralized loot distribution as is present in the mod, this could still be a problem in Standalone. Likewise, there is a bit of inconsistency with regard to player structures and vehicles. Obviously, vehicles/structures cannot and should not be allowed to travel with you across servers (like we currently have with vehicles/tents). The vehicles and space of a particular server are resources allocated to that server. So why are people/weapons/gear not server-allocated resources? This type of cross-server play can offset any potential "player economy" and can also undermine any server cohesion. Furthermore, if a closed server model is adhered to, they can then go about implementing vehicles and structure-building systems which are dependent on that consistency. For instance, you wouldn't then be able to move weapons cross-server to store in your bunker on your home server. Another example is the acquisition of resources to create structures in the first place, which (through my time playing the now dead DayZ+ mod, I can vouch for) is very easy on depopulated servers regardless of item rarity. In my view, you cannot have persistent characters and server-dependent vehicle/structure resources together. One system therefore tries to accommodate the other and it becomes an unhealthy relationship which could be easily remedied by just having consistency. The other side of the argument, as I understand it, is primarily concerned (ironically, as I will demonstrate further down) with ideas of a grand community. Cross-server character persistence allows for several very healthy things in-game. Things like item trading and ease of movement for friends who may play on different servers. It also allows for a very flexible system of migration when a server becomes depopulated. All of these problems I will present solutions for or reasons why they may not be big issues. The problem here with trading, for me, is that item trading can take place entirely in-game. One doesn't need a forum, sidechat, or cross-server persistence to arrange a meeting (though some may find it convenient). Finding a radio, actually forging a relationship, and arranging a meet (to do whatever) seems far more in keeping with DayZ's premise and seems a much more rewarding experience. Or, leaving a note at a dead-drop reading "Will trade X packs of antibiotics for Y boxes of 5.56x45 NATO ammunition. Leave the ammunition here at 4PM EST, I will be watching". This opens a whole range of new experiences rather than a reliance on cross-server or extra-server resources. I'm hesitant to critique things like Skype/TS here, and won't due to the probability that they will not/cannot be countered. But, I will say that I do not think they are beneficial to DayZ. The problem of fixed server characters and reasonable migration to play with your friends on another server is problematic for me. On one hand, I do want folks who play together to have that option should they somehow end up on different servers. But, I also think that this problem wouldn't be very significant as people who wish to play together would have to play on the same server anyhow. I'm more than open to suggestion on a "middle-ground" solution to this problem. Server depopulation is also another problematic issue. I understand that there is a very vicious cycle of server popularity. None of the servers that I played last year exist today. If I had a character fixed to one of these servers, I would have to start all over again just to have people to play with. Assuming that the update process is automated/easier for servers (so that servers do not have out-of-date versions of the game), depopulation becomes the biggest factor. Encouraging a server-based community is a potential solution. By fixing characters to a server, one may become loyal to a server and get to know the people in the server. You forge relationships with these people and upon the death of your character, you are still given the option of moving elsewhere or staying put. This would both strengthen communities in specific servers as well as bring in new people to shake up the dynamics of a server to keep it interesting. I'll stop there, as it's getting a bit wordy. Feel free to critique, disagree, present competing/supporting arguments. Yikes, now that I post it it is very wordy, much respect to those of you who read it (and for those of you who don't want to, stick to the bold-italic points).

Plus, as Rocket said a while back, it'll give the server or hive the ability to control roaming hordes. I think zombies should also be a bigger problem in the wilderness. The attempts at having zombies spawn in the wilderness by the mod development team have been very admirable. But have been hampered by the current clientside spawning system. I really despise the zombies being used as an indicator of a player's presence. I will be really happy to remove that idea from my gameplay repertoire.

Well, they've demonstrated a while back that they worked on zombie pathing. I'm not sure if they've scrapped that entirely toward their new zombie AI initiative (nor are we sure how far along that is). But yes, all he said is that serverside zombies are working en masse.

So, that's one of my interpretations of why Rocket is, potentially, broadcasting this success now. It is in no way based on fact, as I'm just speculating. Making the claim that this has delayed anything is a bit presumptuous at this point. Again, the more important thing to note is that other things have changed since then (i.e. network bubble and server back-end). So not only have they been focused on other issues, but they might not have even been able to test it all working together simply because a variety of systems weren't complete.

It may have been either theoretically possible back then, or hadn't been tested with all of the additions/changes they've made since then. I think the concept of serverside zombie spawns was working back then, but as to whether it was working in conjunction with the other systems is more questionable.

I think they'll have to find a balance. I really enjoy stealth, and miss it from the early days. But I also enjoy firing my weapon from time to time. So, I think it needs to be approached carefully. I think, for starters, zombies need not have 100% omniscience of your exact location. If I fire a weapon in a town, those zombies don't have direct line of sight or direct auditory detection. So why is it then okay for them to converge on my EXACT location and home in on me regardless of whether I move or not? I think that an "area" effect needs to be implemented, akin to police in a game like GTA. Where the zombies are prompted to explore a general area, and only when certain circumstances are met (direct line of sight, proximity audio, or another gunshot) then they have knowledge of your exact position. This could be further offset by extending the overall range which zombies can hear gunshots, but decreasing their ability to have immediate access to your exact position. That and I think, at least with the current mod paradigm, too much emphasis is placed on the zombies hearing you rather than seeing you. In my opinion, they are entirely too dependent on you making noise. I remember Rocket saying that their eyesight isn't so good, but their auditory perception is what they rely on. That's fine, but you have to then appropriate those qualities in-game in a manner that makes sense. Things like crawling prone in a building, or even just kneeling carefully, still trigger zombies when you're making as little noise possible without being static. Point being, as per the mod, you can't even really be stealthy even if you wanted to. I think that needs to be looked at again.

"Engine-based" zombies could just be a poorly worded reference to serverside zombie spawns. But, if they've somehow revamped zombies already, I'd like that too. Really didn't like the state they were in circa Gamescom (right?).

Thank you. I'm not sure why we need updates on the server population at any given moment. Just fueling the almighty (and in this case irrelevant) fire of speculation.

When keepin' it real... goes wrong...

Yeah, but I'm not sure I'm in support of that though. I'd much rather have a singular stream of information, rather than a bunch of different streams. Granted, this simply might not be possible with the vast amount of outlets that we have now. That and I think a lot of people's disillusionment comes from a misplaced sense of importance on a developer's PR/information release campaign. I can't for the life of me remember the information released prior to the release of a game assuming such a level of importance as to potentially divide a community. It just simply didn't happen, in the age before video blogs and things like Twitter, people just accepted what they were given. This might seem silly in retrospect, but there was a distinct difference in what gamers thought themselves owed prior to release relative to present circumstance. I can't really put my finger on an exact time where this change happened, but I don't remember this being a problem ten or even five years ago. And to be fair, I wasn't engaged in the discourse of the time, so I can't really vouch for people's potential dissatisfaction on games in the past. For instance, I never have heard any discussion of any dissatisfaction with the information of... oh... say... Battlefield 2... prior to release (even though I'm willing to bet my lunch money that it was VASTLY less information than a modern Battlefield game PR cycle). I'm a grad student who wants to write boring papers for a living, sort of goes with the territory. :D

I think that there are two (or three and probably more than that) main issues here, that are in danger of being seen as the same. I'm not saying you're explicitly endorsing this, but I just want to indicate a potential danger which I've seen with other posters. One, in my mind, is a (real or perceived) lack of communication. I don't particularly agree with this, as I think we've been given an adequate amount of information over the past year and that Rocket has indeed been very forthcoming. Not everyone shares that sentiment, and I recognize that. Things could be improved, but things are not as dire as they appear either way. If one only cites the frequency of devblogs, then their information release cycle is very disparate. However (and I know you're aware of this) the Twitter and Reddit feeds have been abuzz with information over the past year (not to mention the information/footage we get from Rocket's convention/conference visits). Often times Rocket's Reddit sessions are more revealing than the devblogs themselves. Two, is the actual progress of the standalone. While the two issues can be linked, a lack of information doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of progress overall. They could be withholding information for a variety of reasons. To be fair, the absence of information doesn't necessarily mean that things are incomplete or somehow in question. In fact, I'd sort of take the opposite position whereby we've been brought up to speed fairly quickly on the changing progress of the standalone (troubles with the network bubble, zombie AI, June testing window predictions, the transition from reworked mod to standalone, crafting a new version of the engine, etc.) Which brings me to a third possible issue, one that is certainly more up to interpretation and isn't necessarily reliant on the output of information. A third possible competing issue, one that I feel is largely overlooked, is the nature of an evolving development. Project necessities change, game auspices change, system requirements evolve. So even if they're lagging behind, it is prompted by the demands of their development and not by incompetence. Which is why I think they, if I'm reading the information right, waited so long to consider hiring audio staff. It just wasn't in the focus of development for a long period of time and now that the necessities of development are changing, they're adapting. Where one might read their late hiring of audio staff as negligent or incompetent, another might read the hiring as a sign that they can now begin to focus on ancillary game additions rather than the more important (to proper function) largely back-end game systems.

Well we were debating the merits of the removal of sidechat (ostensibly), not explicitly the idea of the admins being omniscient with regard to chat. That was a side issue.

Is that because release is so imminent that we don't even need no stinkin' devblogs no mores?!? /ultimatespeculationmachine

It's at least 1am in the Czech Republic, they could be sound asleep for all we know.

Only if you haven't freed your mind.

Blue pill or red pill reality?

Never did I cite ad hominem as one of the fallacies you expressed. But you certainly did just there!

Glad to see you post though! You always seem to like what I have to say, and are from the northeast. Therefore entitling you to much respect.

You're operating under the assumption, that you as an individual are speaking for a majority. Your argument would be far better served if you disassociated yourself (and your argument) with the "legitimacy" brought upon by citing a supposed majority opinion (when in reality you're merely expressing your own opinion). The assumption made here, is that a majority opinion is infallible and must supersede that which may otherwise be a more wholesome solution. Critique my argument, not the likelihood of whether it'll be achieved or the readiness by which it will be accepted. You have presented counter-arguments, but expressed them in a way that ignores any potential solutions and is solely operating in the current (flawed) paradigm. You're also citing other disparate instances of hacking, as if that is a demonstration of the failings of a global chat system as a concept. When in reality, BF3 is a separate game with different back-end security than ARMA/DayZ, as well as a different chat interface. They are implemented, and can be fixed, differently. The backbone of your argument, as I understand it, is that hackers cannot be adequately reported without a global chat system as it exists now. Likewise, it is that new players require in-game assistance via a global chat system. You're assuming that these things cannot be otherwise achieved than through a global chat system. I have made counter-arguments to these points, the first being a separate "Admin" channel which allows the reporting of hacks/bugs without broadcasting this to the entire server. The second being that DayZ, as a concept, is inherently unfriendly and unforgiving to new players. There are also multiple extra-game outlets available, as others have indicated, to help new people. Also, you're assuming that we should then cater systems based upon the likelihood of something (hacking) occurring rather than the system itself being wholesome. EDIT - To be technical, the fallacies expressed in your argument are as follows... - Argumentum ad populum (arguing in appeal to a majority) - Correlation proves causation and/or Post hoc ergo propter hoc - False dilemma - To an extent, the "Nirvana" fallacy whereby a solution is rejected outright because it is not (or potentially not) perfect.

I agree, that's what I was trying to get at. You can't have the possibility of a system being hacked dictate the system itself.