Flambo (DayZ)

This scenario only pertains to novice players. Experienced players do not enter 1-exit buildings with zombies chasing them. I would very much like to see a solution to the ease with which zombies can be lost by running through a building. Making them run indoors would be one option, but it also requires fixes to zombie pathing/glitching through walls when running. Another option would be to make zombies surround buildings that have been entered by an aggroed player, though this would likely require either improved zombie AI, or more zombie spawns, and each of these have their own technical troubles. It is also important to note that entering a building is NOT the only way to lose zombies. Zombie line-of-sight is easily broken by other methods, such as turning quickly around several corners, running through a cluster of bushes, or running up a steep hill/into a forest.

I think this is a good idea, but I do not think it would improve the quality of the game much in its current state. This idea would make zombies more interesting, but as the current best zombie strategy is to sprint through them and lose them in multi-exit buildings, making some zombies take more hits/do more damage/see better would not make zombies any more challenging overall. I would much rather see changes that make zombies remain challenging even to players who are aware of the best methods for dealing with them.

Typically, the only difference between regular and veteran is crosshairs are usually disabled on veteran servers. My reasoning is that crosshairs are the stuff of traditional Deathmatch FPS games, and that CH:off servers will therefore have fewer of those sorts of players.

No, it isn't. In any scientific experiment, experimenters are careful to control all variables not related to their experiment. In DayZ, there are too many uncontrolled variables to list. Bug fixes, amount of documentation, gameplay changes with regards to zombie behavior, number. Addition of new items, mechanics, etc. Changes in game popularity/player base composition. Changing the gear players start with is only one of these many variables. If this were an experiment, when it was done, the researchers would say "well, we sure saw a lot of changes in player behavior over the course of the experiment, but with so many variables, we have no idea where the changes might have come from."

Putting yourself in a position where you can't use a gun for a while has its value. A bandit will still shoot you, but a nervous survivor with an itchy trigger finger might feel a little bit at ease.

You make good points, but your proclamation that DayZ's world and server infrastructure must be designed according to the same principles as existing games ignores Rocket's own statements that DayZ's existence and success is in defiance of these principles, and the developers and studios who abide by them. DayZ's mission, as I understand it, is to do something that existing games do not. Rocket calls it an anti-game. This does not mean that the lessons learned by other games' successes and failures should be ignored. This means that serious time and attention should be given to the issue of DayZ's final world and server infrastructure, so that a sound decision can be made as to whether DayZ's development should play it safe in this regard, or strive for something riskier but greater.

This is the major hurdle in designing DayZ to work like EVE does, with a single, non-instanced shard serving all players. That does not make it impossible. Though it would not work with the current world layout and spawning mechanics of DayZ, these could potentially be redesigned to severely reduce the likelihood of survivor overcrowding. More to the point, having the game decide how many people are permitted to be in a single area runs strongly against the spirit of DayZ. It has been stated endlessly on these forums that DayZ does not and will not hold the player's hand, or enforce any specific style of play. Ideally, the world would be designed to accommodate any large number of players in such a way that localized overcrowding was unlikely, but it would be completely uncharacteristic of DayZ to be designed in a way that made intentional, localized overcrowding impossible.

I understand where you are coming from when you compare this game to EVE. However, the comparisons to Cryptic MMOs do not make sense to me. I bring this up because the way EVE manages population with shards is dramatically different than the way you describe. EVE has two shards: China, and everybody else. Here's an article about it: http://wiki.eveonlin...iki/Tranquility In EVE, a shard is a centralized cluster of servers that can manage tens of thousands of players concurrently. Generally, overcrowding of specific in-game areas is managed by the hugeness of the game world, and the ability of players to change their respawn point. Ideally, DayZ would one day be run on something like this, though the challenges involved would be quite daunting. On a more general and personal note, I don't understand drawing design ideas for DayZ from anything Cryptic has done. All of their games have either a.) been trash, b.) almost nothing in common with DayZ or c.) both a and b.

Didn't they start something like this back in 2001? I wish I could remember how it turned out.