Global Causality - Within the Scope of DayZ?

[hoik 415]

This idea is to create an ultimate end game that is the overiding story of the game. Put simply, it tries to bring the big picture of DayZ into play - This isn't just your story.

The Doomsday Clock

This is a mechanic that could be used to keep track of how close any particular server/hive has come to utter extinction. It could work like this:

- The 'clock' sits at ten minutes to midnight (Human extinction, end game, total server/hive reset)

- Any death, be it PvP or environmental, moves the 'clock' forward a infintesimal amount. For example lets say 10sec.

- Time can be added to the clock in many ways, my suggestion:

--- every 48hrs the average life expectency (ALE) of the players on a given server is recalculated.

--- Survive for 2x the ALE add 2mins to the clock

--- Survive for 4x the ALE add an additional 3mins

--- Survive for 4+ the ALE and add an additional 30sec for each iteration of the ALE.

These number are of course arbitrary and would require proper ingame testing tweeking/ and thought.

The end game to end games!

So what happens when humanity fails to survive? heres what I think:

- the only way to leave the game is by dying

- The abort button is greyed, much like in the combat logging system. Maybe it is replaced with a suicide button instead? Or a extinction button :) .

- players wishing to join the server are given a warning (maybe?)

- Players have a limited amount of time to contemplate their demise, an hour or two maybe, then the server, players and clock are reset. With people "raging into the night", I imagine the server going to hell would be a chaotic experience!!

Preemptive Q & A

Why would anyone want this?

They may not, so IMO a system like this should be a server setting. Doomsday Clock: Enabled!

Wouldn't this be a griefer/hackers wet dream?

Giving the players the power to do a full reset on a server, yeah I imagine so. IMO this type of system could absorb, to some amount, hacking/mass killings. If a server is repeatedly being hacked in order to bring about a reset, the hacking would have to be of a extreme nature. If this went on unchecked there is obviously a admin problem as well, so that server is probably not worth your time.

Because this idea can effect everyone so dramatically, it may be another reason this idea is best suited for private hives/whitelist servers.

Why would there be an imaginary clock counting down our demise?

Well, there wouldn't. The 'clock' is mearly a metaphore to explaine how this idea works. There should be no (or very very minimal) visual indicators of the overall workings of this idea. Prehaps forums could take a role in how people guage any given server.

I think more important than knowing the exact state of affairs is the knowledge that this system is in play and your every false step, and the false steps of others, matters (pretty awsome IMO).

Why would dying cause the 'clock' to shift towards midnight?

It signifies the loss of you and all your potential to drive humanity forward - if not through your actions, then at the least through your ability to procreate. This should also answer why more time is added for living longer than the ALE.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Hoik

[Beanus 61]

Interesting, it would be fun to race against a clock.

[Steak and Potatoes 13480]

Alot of meat to this heres how I go about it.

[Rivy 32]

Any death being bad for everyone ? I like that :P

And the fact that it adds a global objective sounds neat.

[hoik 415]

Interesting, it would be fun to race against a clock.

I agree, especially if players every action is (potentially) influencing it - for better and worse. But for me, this idea of a "ticking clock" would work best if it was not overly obvious to the player. Just the knowledge that everyone is running towards a cliff, in the dark, would add alot of intensity to the game IMO.

Any death being bad for everyone ? I like that :P

And (if there is no one to replace them) this is completly logical, right? Doubly so in a apocolypse. The thing is Im not sure that this 'larger' view of DayZ is something that players want to consider when they play.

DayZ is all about survival, your survival, period - I don't think this main theme should (or could) be changed, but I do think there should be long term concequences to our actions as a group - this would give everyones actions meaning, both for themselves and those around them.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Hoik

[colekern 1364]

I don't really know what to think about this one. I think it's interesting.

[Riem 164]

I like this. It would add a possible depth to a server that makes being a bandit that much more impacting.

Possibly, there could also be some added effects to the timer getting closer to zero. More zeds could start to spawn, in more concentrated numbers. The spawns for loot could start to become smaller, making items harder to find. Etc, etc.

I do agree that this should be a server setting though, and it would be massive hackbait.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

I would like to take part in something like this, it sounds interesting.

It sounds like a lot of work, and there are obviously going to be issues with deciding how many ticks there are per server etc.

(Players suiciding to get better spawns would be shunned)

If the countdown progression had tangible effects on survival, through spawns and atmosphere, it would be awesome.

This idea could do with a trial server (wish I knew how to set this up)

[hoik 415]

Possibly, there could also be some added effects to the timer getting closer to zero. More zeds could start to spawn, in more concentrated numbers. The spawns for loot could start to become smaller, making items harder to find. Etc, etc.

If the countdown progression had tangible effects on survival, through spawns and atmosphere, it would be awesome.

This idea could do with a trial server (wish I knew how to set this up)

Yes and yes! Having this mechanic effect many elements of the game in a 'cause and effect' manner is exactly what I envisioned, but of course then things start getting very complex.

These are my thoughts on the mechanics of dynamic zombies, dynamic loot and how causality could make a 'humanity' system make sense.

These are taken from various (older) threads:

ZOMBIES

Hey, heres an idea for dynamic zombie hordes!

It can be applied to any idea that involves 'zones' or 'regions' whos spawn multiplyer/density can be effected by the players.

- every 24-48 hours a wondering horde of zombies is spawned.

- it will have a max cap, and zombie multiplier just like 'zones'

- the spawn density can be determined by average server PvP (the higher the PvP the larger the initial horde) - The Doomsday timer could easily be used instead.

- the hordes destination will be the 'zone' with the lowest spawn multiplier! (this indicates that there is high co-operation in this area = a larger population/bases)

- A hordes spawn multiplier is effected by the 'zones' it passes through, EG: 'zones' with a high z-multiplier will add a large no. to the horde multiplier etc.

- Any 'zone' that a horde wonders through gets a reduction in its z-spawns (indicating that a no. of zombies have joined the horde!)

For me a dynamic wondering horde has alot of metagaming possibilities as well as some end(ish) game possibilities. It will become a quick reference for the 'demenor' of the server (a large horde would mean that the server is very agressive).

It will become a dynamic flashpoint for confilict as it will attract players because: The horde will eventually lead players to the areas of high co-operation/bases.

This is attractive to both players who want to co-operate and those that want to kill! It gives highly co-opertative groups an end(ish) game, and aditional reason to clear 'zones' and create bases/fortification.

From: Dynamic zombies spawn rates ( http://dayzmod.com/f...es-spawn-rates/ ) A very interesting thread IMO.

LOOT

If we want genuine freedom than our actions require global causality - we may be able to do what we like but there are always concequences, good or bad. Then the players need tools to enforce rules/concequences of their own on those that are effecting the server/world in a bad way (according to each individuals/groups POV).

EG. of global causality (choices based on freedom)

- Put essential/exotic items on oposite ends of a sliding scale. The scale dictates items spawning (density and frequency).

- the average PvP/Co-operative behavior of a server adjusts the scale - the Doomsday mechanic could slot in here.

- high (PvP) deaths keeps the slider at the 'essential' end of the scale: This means the spawn chance of 'essential' items is high and the spawn chance of 'exotic' items is low. The overall density of items is high.

- High Average Life Expectancy (ALE) moves the slider to the 'exotic' end of the slider meaning the spawn chance of 'exotic' items is high and the spawn chance of 'essential' items is low. The overall density of items is low.

- There is now a clear definition of a players value to themselves and others.

This IMO is a rather simple way of making causality effect the one thing all players value (minus hackers) their loot. If the least this idea did was make people pause a moment in thought before they pulled the trigger I think it would be a success!

Of course this is not a cure all, there would have to be a mirriade of other tools implemented into the game, not the least better identification and communication.

From: Crumbling Metagame Needs Fixing ( http://dayzmod.com/f...e-needs-fixing/ ) Not the greatest thread :( .

HUMANITY

Taking this idea of causality even further, I think it could be the key to creating a genuine 'humanity' system.

While I think skills are a good way to give indivduals value to each other (and themselves) - I also think that causality should be considered as a means to influence peoples actions. If you make everyones actions (from PvP, to scavenging food/items, to running around the woods doing nothing, etc.) effect the world around them in a unbiast manner (it will still be good for some and bad for others) then you can let the players peers determin what is moral and what is immoral dependant on their point of view.

This knowledge of concequence to ones actions is what could give players pause when it comes to taking certain actions. They can also weigh up their options and then act accordingly. IMO this type of system leaves the door wide open for interpretation while giving players a sense of responsibility for the negative out comes of their actions as well as the positive.

From: Humanity ( http://dayzmod.com/f...ty/page__st__20 )

So this is where my mind is at in terms of causality in DayZ. It may be a bit grandious/idyllic, but IMO it is not at all beyond the sope of what can be done in DayZ.

Also, see the link in my signiture "choices based on 'freedom' " for my orignal idea of players actions effecting loot quality/quantity.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Hoik

[Roac 19]

Looks like a pretty good idea. TAKE ZE BEANS.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Leburgerking

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

I remember reading your post in "Crumbling Metagame Needs Fixing" but I wasn't entirely sure I understood what you meant (and that topic was a mess, until it got derailed ^_^)

If this can (conceivably) encourage people to value the life of an in-game character and take responsibility for their own wellbeing (instead of jumping off a lighthouse), it would definitely suit DayZs depiction of an apocalypse.

[hoik 415]

@ Chabowski, thanks for taking the time to read the post.

The issue of how to get players to care/value the life of their characters, as well as others around them, has pretty much been on my mind since I first got to know DayZ.

I do think that 'conceivably' there is a way to give players lives intrinsic value that all players agree upon - and will (to some degree or another) influence how they approach any given situation.

Simply put, all I want is to encouraging players to think about their actions - not that Im immune to stealing a car from under a players nose - driving franticly around in a circle, while under fire - crashing it into a wall and then commiting mutual suicide with him :o . Doing stupid things for whatever reason should always be a part of the experience of DayZ, and as (with my idea) you can only get people to care if they want to, Im sure it always will be. Which makes me think, what is the worth of a game mechanic that is only effective if people choose to 'buy' into it??

EDIT: let me know if Im making sense :) .

Edited November 11, 2012 by Hoik

[starwarsfan@gmx.de 450]

It's a very interesting concept and sounds worth experimenting with.

[wolfstriked 143]

What about instead of time clicking forward the spawn chances get worse and worse?

[hoik 415]

What about instead of time clicking forward the spawn chances get worse and worse?

Yes, but you need something to refrence in order to determine what the loot spawn chances should be (you are talking about loot spawn chances?), otherwise the values will be arbitrary. The 'clock' could act as that refrence. Also, remember that while the clock will be steadilty counting down, it also has the potentially to go up! What would happen to loot spawn chances then? It gets better and better?

Associating loot drops with the 'clock' ties in closely with two inherent problems:

1. Players adding so much time to the clock, killing the server is almost impossible
   
2. Players loose so much time, killing the server is inescapeable
   

Having the clock add time in relation to the Average Life Expectancy (ALE) is meant to act as a 'fail safe' against extremes at each end of the 'clock', the idea being that a server on decline (high death rates) would have short ALE's, so then its easier/takes less time to live 2 or 4xALE and therefore easier to add time to the clock. Servers that have low death rates would have longer ALE's, so then it is harder/takes more time to live 2 or 4xALE.

I think adding loot to the mix would bring an entirely new dynamic to the 'count down'.

If all we did was make loot harder to come by as the clock counts down and easier to find as it goes up, I think we'd inflame the extreme ends of the 'clock' - without adding any 'balancing' mechanics. So:

- As the clock goes down - make loot quality drop but make the quantity of spawns go up.

- As the clock goes up - make the quality rise, but make the quantity of spawn go down.

Heres a little picture I painted in another thread:

At the low end of the scale - with plentiful food supplys and low level weapons - there will be a tendancey for chaos and violence. But as groups organise, setup basecamps, restore vehicles and develop culturally acceptable behaviour, naturally the average lifespan will rise and the death count will go down. But this in turn will lower the amount of available resources while better arming the community. If the community continues to work in pure co-operation, their technology advances whilest resourse deminish further and further. The average death count plummets while the Life expectancy rises till it leeds to a tension point where resource become so limited the only way to survive will be to turn on eachother - the death count sky-rockets, life expectancy plumets - and it all begins again!

"This is key. The cyclic nature of this dynamic is very important..." - Malleovic

From: Life/Death Calculator = Intrinsic value/culture ( http://dayzmod.com/f...c-valueculture/ ) My first thread on the subject!

I could be wrong - let me know!

Edited November 12, 2012 by Hoik

[hoik 415]

I found this interesting zombie mod (also for arma) called Dynamic Zombie Sandbox ( http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/32853-dynamic-zombie-sandbox-version-10/page__hl__%2Bdynamic+%2Bzombie+%2Bsandbox ). It has alot of features that could directly translate to this idea, heres a snipet:

DZS has 36 parameters that the host can choose. These allow you near endless customization of your Zombie experience. You can play in the day, the night, the dusk,with fog, with rain, with clear skies, or make it a surprise. You can start with weapons, without weapons, with/without maps, with your friends, in the middle of nowhere. You can find weapons in buildings, in cars, and in ammo boxes. Loot can be plentiful, or extremely scarce. The mission can have hundreds of cars, or a scant few. Zombies can sense you from miles away or can be fairly stupid. The only limit is your server, and you don't even need a dedicated.

If I had a bit more of a clue about coding I would give it a go! but alas...

[FaustianQ 8]

A bit of a bump/necro, but as to the inverse quality/quantity issue, all it will do is force a very organized system in which you'll have large groups preemptively stockpiling everything, then forcing deaths to allow proper resource gathering again, while still having the old stockpiles, and resources will accumulate. Unless the system is set up towards inevitability (IE, the clock will strike midnight even under the most organized or best conditions) you'll get large poliferations of resources so long as there is some kind of organizing body to control the ALE and overall population, eventually to the point that the organizing body can provide for everyone so long as they keep at it.

To a degree, that's great, but you've set the system up in which it is organization, instead of empathy or sociopathy, which is favored as a metagame tool. I don't know if you want DayZ to devolve into a choas vs order scenario where it's metagamer societies vs griefer brigands - it'll be less about the apocalpyse and more about the pre-apoclypse.

It sounds fun in my head though, and if people want to metagame the spawns then you instantly provide meaning to everyones actions, and actually have "quests" to a degree almost instantly, with people doing necessary and important functions to keep the meta-ing alive, such as forming Cop/ranger groups to keep the Brigands out, and if the Brigands are doing a hell of a number, they may even have to take them alive just to prevent the inevitable slid towards reset!

Edited November 26, 2012 by FaustianQ

[hoik 415]

Wow, you paint a very interesting picture. For me the question is, in a game like dayZ, is the level of co-operation (that you suggest will happen) even possible? I think the fact that you can be so completetly annonomous ATM is what drives against this notion - but I would definatly like to see if it could!

The point you make about stockpiling loot in preperation for tougher times is very apt. What if every "doomsday" server was started at a random point on the "clock"? Would not knowing the exact nature of your server/world be enough to influence hording, or do you think it would just reinforce "hording" as the default setting??

As for making the focus orgonisation rather than morality...this is a bit anoying - because its true :P. The problem is morality can not be something that is implemented as a game mechanic - computers are...computers and not human beings. I think organization/resources should be the favoured metagaming tool for the computer - because this is something that it can "understand".

The hope is, by having people implementing this tool against other people, you can then form some sort of morality that isn't based on a defined code - but rather on how players view the actions of other players in context to what is happening around them in the game.

Is this just total bunk, or could this actually work? (If Im making sense :) )

Anyway, nice post!

Edited November 29, 2012 by Hoik

[FaustianQ 8]

Wow, you paint a very interesting picture. For me the question is, in a game like dayZ, is the level of co-operation (that you suggest will happen) even possible? I think the fact that you can be so completetly annonomous ATM is what drives against this notion - but I would definatly like to see if it could!

The point you make about stockpiling loot in preperation for tougher times is very apt. What if every "doomsday" server was started at a random point on the "clock"? Would not knowing the exact nature of your server/world be enough to influence hording, or do you think it would just reinforce "hording" as the default setting??

As for making the focus orgonisation rather than morality...this is a bit anoying - because its true :P. The problem is morality can not be something that is implemented as a game mechanic - computers are...computers and not human beings. I think organization/resources should be the favoured metagaming tool for the computer - because this is something that it can "understand".

The hope is, by having people implementing this tool against other people, you can then form some sort of morality that isn't based on a defined code - but rather on how players view the actions of other players in context to what is happening around them in the game.

Is this just total bunk, or could this actually work? (If Im making sense :) )

Anyway, nice post!

You have no idea. I'm part of a near 250 man clan, if standalone is cheap, we could easily get 50 guys handingly this. Places like Reddit and SA have more then enough capability to organize externally to metagame at the level required. The games internal anonimity has nothing on the players external capability to organize. In fact, I'd say that metagamers would intially shun "randoms", and be composed almost entirely out of people who alreayd know each other.

Differing times won't actually be an issue, especially if there are any tells. Unless the system is setup from the very beginning towards an inevitable reset, any metagaming group will attempt to take control of the clock (all the variables are in the players hands, so they will). Not knowing or having random times will just set the precedent that rules will be stricter and the metagaming will happen sooner (usually upon reset).

The issue is that since it presents a wipe, a lot of people interested in keeping thier gear will also join the metagamers - it's the only way to keep everything you've worked for. There will in fact only be a few people who will actually attempt to kill at that point, as they'll lose everything. You'll essentially have two sets of people playing the game, with one groups entire purpose being ruining the game for the other guys, literal defintion of griefer. if you want to prevent this, then you need to present a way in which metagamer societies will end up in conflict.

What you need, potentially, is a potential victory condition, a way to wind the clock so far back, that with enough gathered resources, civilization is "reestablished", again reseting the server. Further, since these groups are going to form to control resource gathering, set up the ability to create a server faction they can join, and once joined, they can't switch until reset, with a maxmum limit to the number in a faction. Then allow only one faction to share in the victory condition once achieved. Victory brings tangible benefits for those who won upon restart, so winning itself doesn't hurt as hard as compared to those who lost.

Bam, no need for griefers, each player will be legitimately fighting for thier factions victory yet causing the clock to tip ever more towards reset no matter what happens. Concerned slightly with this potentially killing lonewolves and bandits however, since they have no VC besides keeping the metagamers forever at war, and thus keeping thier stuff - they'd actually go from fairly easy to play to being very difficult to play.

IMHO, this is fine though - an apocalypse should be about the end times, whether man succumbs to it, or if he truimphs over it and proves his worth. Currently, we don't have an apocalypse, we simply have something worse then Somalia, in which no one is even trying to seize power. That's not natural - in the wake of a collapse someone is ALWAYS ambitious, someone ALWAYS will seek to establish thier version of order, someone is always lusting for power. I can see KoS, I can see brutality and needless cruelty, what is missing is the ability to organize and control.

You're suggestion provides that, with some modifications.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

I get where you're coming from ,Q. But turning the game in to faction wars kinda defeats the "survivor vs. situation" theme of DayZ.

I'm fairly certain that if a faction managed to monopolise the "clock" in a server, then that server would become immensely unpopular to anyone other than that group.

(or those who don't realise what's going on)(or another willing group trying to wrangle it from them)

A Victory Condition also seems to be outwith the style the dev-team looks to be heading towards.

Just my two hundredths of a Euro

EDIT: If the clock can ONLY count down, then the best you could hope for, is to hold out until the end.

Which I think would be more fitting, since it's already how things work.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Chabowski

[Guest]

I don't have time to read all of this but it sounds interesting can someone make a summarized version? Thanks.

[hoik 415]

Differing times won't actually be an issue, especially if there are any tells. Unless the system is setup from the very beginning towards an inevitable reset, any metagaming group will attempt to take control of the clock (all the variables are in the players hands, so they will). Not knowing or having random times will just set the precedent that rules will be stricter and the metagaming will happen sooner (usually upon reset).

I agree, this makes sense. But like chabowski said, if a metagaming clan were to dominate a server, they would in effect kill it.

The issue is that since it presents a wipe, a lot of people interested in keeping thier gear will also join the metagamers - it's the only way to keep everything you've worked for. There will in fact only be a few people who will actually attempt to kill at that point, as they'll lose everything. You'll essentially have two sets of people playing the game, with one groups entire purpose being ruining the game for the other guys, literal defintion of griefer. if you want to prevent this, then you need to present a way in which metagamer societies will end up in conflict.

These are some interesting points. In regards to this: I don't think you can discount the selfishness/shortsightedness of players, especially in a arena like dayZ, where you are in no way associated with your actions. I relate it to something like smoking - we all know its bad for our health, but many of us indulge in it to varying degrees anyway. Its easy to do and makes us feel good on the short term - we know the long term effects, but brush these aside for the here and now.

This is a good point - I'll have to have a think about this.

What you need, potentially, is a potential victory condition, a way to wind the clock so far back, that with enough gathered resources, civilization is "reestablished", again reseting the server. Further, since these groups are going to form to control resource gathering, set up the ability to create a server faction they can join, and once joined, they can't switch until reset, with a maxmum limit to the number in a faction. Then allow only one faction to share in the victory condition once achieved. Victory brings tangible benefits for those who won upon restart, so winning itself doesn't hurt as hard as compared to those who lost.

I understand where you're comming from, and it is a good addition to this suggestion. But does a "victory" condition give too much direction to the game (any more than a "loose" condition)? The thing is - with my "loose" condition everyone looses out, whilest the "win" condition everyone looses out - but for the winning clan. I suppose this makes sense though - if you were the group who put the most effort into dragging people back to civilisation - you would have some perks in that said society.

I think there is potential here - just unsure how to make it fit (my ideals :P ).

Bam, no need for griefers, each player will be legitimately fighting for thier factions victory yet causing the clock to tip ever more towards reset no matter what happens. Concerned slightly with this potentially killing lonewolves and bandits however, since they have no VC besides keeping the metagamers forever at war, and thus keeping thier stuff - they'd actually go from fairly easy to play to being very difficult to play.

Cool and cool - I really like both of these outcomes. For me, the pottential of your take on this idea would hinge on how factions are made/organised. I remember reading a threat where it was suggested that the use of particular items/locations might be how factions could be formed within DayZ.

IMHO, this is fine though - an apocalypse should be about the end times, whether man succumbs to it, or if he truimphs over it and proves his worth. Currently, we don't have an apocalypse, we simply have something worse then Somalia, in which no one is even trying to seize power. That's not natural - in the wake of a collapse someone is ALWAYS ambitious, someone ALWAYS will seek to establish thier version of order, someone is always lusting for power. I can see KoS, I can see brutality and needless cruelty, what is missing is the ability to organize and control.

Agree with your sentiment. I think the best thing about this idea is the potential for it to be all inclusive - fot those people who choose to take on the bigger picture as well as those whose only interest is the chaos.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Hoik

[hoik 415]

Brainstorm anyone?

What I'd like is some alternative suggestions to just outright killing the server when the "clock" hits midnight, something thats is less final than a server reset but just as undesirable - the idea is to keep the game in play so as not to loose its dynamic quality.

(Im not really concerned how they would be implemented - just want some ideas)

A couple I thought of:

* Airborne Epidemic (based on rockets disease idea) - all the death and chaos brings about a widespread epidemic.

* Military Purge - Due to all the chaos and violence the area has brought the attention of the millitary on itself.

* (based on FaustianQ's version) all clans are disbanded - it is free-for-all for a set amount of time.

More suggestions welcome!

[FaustianQ 8]

I get where you're coming from ,Q. But turning the game in to faction wars kinda defeats the "survivor vs. situation" theme of DayZ.

Sadly, if Rocket wants to give any organizational benefit to the players, that's pretty much where it is heading. Rockets reasoning for not including safe zones, that player shsould make them, can only be done by a certain level of organizational strength.

Further, Hoiks suggestion also leads into this as a natural progression from a small group wanting to metagame the loot, to eventually server control to get the best loot.

I'm fairly certain that if a faction managed to monopolise the "clock" in a server, then that server would become immensely unpopular to anyone other than that group.

(or those who don't realise what's going on)(or another willing group trying to wrangle it from them)

That's the whole point of a VC in which only one faction can celebrate in, to prevent the monopolization of an entire server. Further, you underestimate the proclivity of an entire group from outside the game coming to take the current factions stuff.

A Victory Condition also seems to be outwith the style the dev-team looks to be heading towards.

Just my two hundredths of a Euro

EDIT: If the clock can ONLY count down, then the best you could hope for, is to hold out until the end.

Which I think would be more fitting, since it's already how things work.

Then the whole idea won't be implemented, since it is also a VC. As a bandit, I could get a group together to force the restart of the server - that's is my VC. Having a VC at the opposite end in which one group escapes being punished is merely means to an end, to prevent the idea from falling into a single metagamer group from basically civilizing it to death.

I disagree with the clock counting purely down, very deterministic and nihilistic. DayZ should only tell such stories if the players allow it to happen, players should also be given the opportunity to save humanity.

[FaustianQ 8]

Brainstorm anyone?

What I'd like is some alternative suggestions to just outright killing the server when the "clock" hits midnight, something thats is less final than a server reset but just as undesirable - the idea is to keep the game in play so as not to loose its dynamic quality.

(Im not really concerned how they would be implemented - just want some ideas)

A couple I thought of:

* Airborne Epidemic (based on rockets disease idea) - all the death and chaos brings about a widespread epidemic.

* Military Purge - Due to all the chaos and violence the area has brought the attention of the millitary on itself.

* (based on FaustianQ's version) all clans are disbanded - it is free-for-all for a set amount of time.

More suggestions welcome!

Can't think of anything off the top of my head, will come back to this.