Gamewiz

Thanks of the informative post. Apparently most others in this thread can't read the OP. ;) IGN says release Q3 of this year? Really?

I apologize but apparently I'm a little detached from this recent-ish news. Is War Z related to Day Z? Or is it separate from what Rocket is doing here entirely? From what little I've heard about this, it's an actual standalone MMO game that was in development before DayZ was a mod yet somehow they have virtually the same name? I'm a little confused and if someone to clarify what this is all about I would be very grateful. :) PS: Oh, and please no fanboy remarks or DayZ-hater remarks. I would just like some facts, not about how War Z is going to destroy DayZ or how WarZ is a fraud and will never happen.

I don't think there needs to be classes either, but character progression does yield unique roles. Classes are just a set way to define your playstyle from the start while character progression defines your playstyle while you are playing.

Great post! I look forward to dissecting it. :P If/When it goes standalone, you can be fairly certain they'll do away with the current Hive server structure they have going now. Due to limitations of being a mod for ArmA II, DayZ is limited in what it can achieve "behind the scenes". Implementing a system similar to what I described in my OP would completely resolve the Alt-F4/server hop exploit, because it's a single server cluster. And you wouldn't be able to hop through different phases ingame while in combat and the cooldown to change phases/instances would be rather large to help stem any sort of abuse. Agreed on this point. :) I usually don't play sandbox style games, but in order to remain a true zombie survival apocalypse MMO, it would have to be sandbox. That's just the best way to handle it. Trust me, I'm not completely sold on the idea of character progression as well. The point was just to keep players playing, and give some unique traits beneficial to the player to reward them for their particular playstyle. Whatever form that may be, I believe it should absolutely make it into the final product. Agreed again. Let's hope if/when DayZ goes standalone that rocket creates a more traditional UI. That is why a standalone version needs to be properly researched in terms of what game engine is used to make sure it can support more traditional zombies in greater numbers. It is absolutely possible to achieve with today's technology, rocket and his team just need to make sure they choose the right engine should they decide to go that route. :) The splint idea I'm a little hesitant about because it starts down the slope where it can get very complicated, very quickly. As long as broken bones aren't something that take an long amount of time to heal, and the requirements to fix it are easily achieved (like getting morphine is fairly easy as long as you raid a hospital), then that's fine. I just don't want to be out for even 30 minutes due to a broken bone. I want to get back to playing, not staring at a screen waiting for my broken bone timer to expire. ;)

I'd love some more feedback on the features I suggested above. :)

I am in full agreement with everything you said. The ideas I'm throwing out are there for the players (and hopefully rocket) to read, to bounce ideas off each other, and hopefully provide a little incentive to rocket to let him know there are those of us out here who look forward to seeing what he has in store. :) No decision, especially one such as large as server infrastructure, should be made hastily.

That is the ideal scenario, but that is still assuming the average size of the playerbase, something MMO games aren't very good at determining. That's why you need backup plans to manage the population to provide the proper feeling you want to achieve. In most MMOs, that's making sure places feel full, busy, robust. In DayZ, you have the hardest scenario to achieve... enough survivors in your area so you don't think you are the only survivor on the planet, but not too many or the zombie apocalypse doesn't seem so serious anymore. Yes, you can prevent overcrowding by just making the world bigger. But that's increased cost and time for the developers. AND that is assuming you have the player population to fill that world. If not enough people play, then you spent additional time and resources creating a larger world that now feels completely empty. That's why the developers need to create a decent-sized world just the way they want it, customizing it to the lowest number of expected players based upon market research data, then use control methods (aka phasing) to monitor overpopulation. You can't just shrink the world down due to under population, but you can fix overpopulation by "enlarging" the world by masking the true player population through phasing.

I support the right to voice your opinion, but I'll disagree with your assessment. ;) (Agree to disagree!) That's why I made it very clear I hate Cryptic games (maybe it wasn't clear enough, but I'm saying it now! :) ). But the way they handle their servers was (I thought) similar to Eve in that they utilize one larger server for the entire population (in comparison to games like WoW or SWTOR that use separate servers, each with separate populations). I might have gotten some things mixed up then in that case. Basically what I am referring to is the more detailed example I provided in my OP. If Eve doesn't provide multiple phases of the same area, then DayZ couldn't be like Eve. The primary reason it wouldn't work is because no matter how large you make it, you'd have "hotspot" areas (like cities) that will become too populated with players and destroy the entire immersion factor of that city being overrun by zombies. You have to use phases (if not of the entire world, then at LEAST for the major hotspots) to keep the human population in check to the AI zombie population. It's a must. That was the entire point when referencing the infrastructure. You have to create the illusion of only a few survivors against hordes of unlimited zombies even though there will be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people all playing the same game. :)

I don't disagree with that at all, I just want to add more personal value to my character. I'm not saying that once you max your skill in pistols you can shoot someone in the right toe and insta-kill them, I'm just saying it's minor increases to give your character a personal customization to better fit your playstyle, not game-defining roles that pigeon-hole you into playing one specific way.

Then just store your gun in that tent and go for it. You have nothing to lose.

Looks like someone found your hideout.

If you read my suggestion it was that skill progression is NOT lost upon death. In fact it's the only thing you don't lose when dying. For me, it's there to promote player retention so that they don't feel like they keep starting over every time they die. Right now in the game, your only source of progression is the gear you have. So when you die, you essentially start over like it's a brand new game. By introducing skill progression which is NOT lost, you give the players something to continuously work for without fear of losing it. And this doesn't reduce the death penalty at all.

Shooting that one player will yield minimal rewards to skill progression with whatever weapon you decided to use. You want to level up a weapon? Best to use it again a bunch of zombies as they are far more plentiful than other players. I highly doubt leveling up your skills would change any behavior in how players react to each other. /shrug This is one of those things that is just personal opinion. Character progression is just a suggestion to further promote player retention. As with anything I've posted, it's merely personal preference in what I'd like to see.

It's an example, not a set law. It's also one of those situations where gameplay supersedes realism. If you wanted true realism, then if I shoot you once it the chest it should kill you or completely incapacitate you, regardless of the weapon I used, every single time. And if I shoot off your hand, you don't get to use it for the rest of the game. Or heck, if I kill you, you die permanently and you have to buy another copy of the game. See how the more realism you interject the worse it can get? What I provided was one small example showing that skills upgrade your character in some way. In that one small example, I made gameplay more important than realism. Step away from that one minor feature and look at the broader picture.

I would highly recommend you continue to read past that part as I knew that section would probably be the most disagreed with. :) The reason I put in that suggestion is for player retention. Should this turn into a standalone game, especially if it becomes a sandbox-style MMO, it needs a way to hold players in despite the many many harsh deaths they will experience. You need to give SOMETHING to the player that they can hold onto, otherwise as they continue to die over and over and continue to start over like they just first installed the game, the less motivated they will become. Give the players something they don't lose (but still keep death the harsh penalty it is now) and you keep the players in the same mindset they are now, WITHOUT taking away their will to keep playing.