Going to the "next" world after death

[Nuigurumi 5]

I was reading some forum posts about how death is not penalizing enough, because all you have to do is to go to your corpse/tents/teammates to get your gear back. I got this rather obvious idea which I haven't seen discussed yet:

Each player has a global number of deaths (or incarnations/lives/whatever) attached to the account permanently. Each world/server has a number, too. The player is only allowed to enter a world, which number is exactly equal to his incarnation number.

For example, when you first start playing, it's your 1st life, you can enter only "world #1" on any server. You die, and it becomes your 2nd life, so you can enter only "world #2" on any server, but you can't get back to "world #1". Your corpse, your tents, your gear from your previous life - they are all still in the "world #1" on the server where you left them, but you will never see them again. Your teammates, if you had any, can only join you after they die, too, so their life count will be equal to yours. Sort of "parallel realities", so to speak...

As I see it, it will make your death way, way more unpleasant, and without all those questionable half-measures like "block you from the server for 30 minutes", "make all your tents instantly despawn" or "make your own loot unlootable for you". When you die, you really start fresh, no matter how much stuff you had in your backpack and your tents. If you have teammates, you wouldn't even want to suicide for better spawn location, because it will kick you out into the yet next world, further away from them.

I am not sure how much load it will add to the server - obviously, we can't have a separate server for each "world #", because those numbers will be getting quite big. So maybe the idea is unrealistic performance-wise. Or maybe it all can be packed inside a single server, since most stuff will be identical across the worlds.

What do you think?

[declan223@gmail.com 271]

And the glitchy deaths?

[gloopsgf 35]

Friends..... Friends.... I don't wanna be lonely

[Guest]

Because that's not going to be broken in any way by a hacker.....

[Dancing.Russian.Man 1631]

Glitchy BS deaths would force your friends to also kill themselves, which would just piss everyone off.

Besides, servers are currently struggling with maintaining ONE world without latency. Barely any servers can do that without any desync. Think what would happen if one server was hosting 5 or 40 worlds, especially if someone just keeps killing themselves?

[Ivanuvo (DayZ) 117]

This would probably also make servers incredibly empty, as everyone would be on different worlds.

[Paddy0610 278]

Anybody got an #247 Server? i think thats how much i died since the beginning of dayz lol.

[tombom 28]

I don't think this is good at all. No disrespect i love seeing ideas but this should just go straight to the graveyard bud :/

[TheDesigner 1197]

No. People who play in groups want to play together. Not everyone in the SA will be a lone-wolf and punishing them for that is not right.

Edit: my post does sound harsh, but it's not meant to be. With the underground bases Rocket is striving for, this would ruin that concept. I want Dwarf Fortress DayZ style.

Edit edit: on a positive note, you could have everyone on the same map but different loot throughout the worlds and players and zombies from different worlds would be invisible to other worlds. Zombie lag would be horrible, but its another thing to think about.

Edited February 4, 2013 by TheDesigner

[OrLoK 16185]

Hello there

A really, really interesting idea indeed. It would give value to ones life.

But, the idea is a little flawed. Keep working on it. There's a gem there, it just needs polishing.

Rgds

'LoK

[BSB Jimmy 360]

nononononno

[indominator 95]

imagine when the game is launched, only one world for first life, then people would kill themselves to get to the more empty servers, but they would all fill up and the wait to login would be a disaster, maybe if only you got disconnected to the server when you died, it would be a bigger punishment than it is now and if you want to go back to the same server you would have to reconnect which is a trouble sometimes

[Clumzy (DayZ) 377]

Imagine introducing a friend to DayZ, and you want to play together:

Friend: So, wher can I find you?

You: Well, I'm on a different world, please kill yourself 89 times so we can play together.

Friend: ...

It's a cool concept, but it would be too flawed for people in situations like this.

[Hetstaine 10852]

1 through server 99 empty..server 100 with 100/100 players with 4000 spamming join server.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

The core concept is there. Looting one's corpse is cheap and rather stupid/ immersion breaking. Same goes for tents/ vehicles.

The idea of separate worlds wouldn't really work.

The time limit bans would probably work better. Maybe the player would have to wait 10min before rejoining the game. This would help a bit. 30min temporary ban would make people think a little more about there actions, but like you said, it is pretty "gamey".

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

interesting concept, but it's regulated to much.

[OrLoK 16185]

hello there

the concept is amazing, but flawed. let's try to think how it could work?

Rgds

L

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

Well, i might be miss understanding, but I don't like how there is teirs to lifes... being on your 3rd life, shouldn't force you to play on the 3rd server.. It would cripple the social network of the game and seem rather confusion.

Though I do think you shouldn't be able to play on the server you die on for a short period of time... let the world turn a little, but you should always be able to return to it.

Originally, I though he was asking for something like heaven or hell, where after you die you go there for a little while. lol

Edited February 5, 2013 by Bullfrog

[PracticalTactical 164]

I could see this working if servers were a large amount of people but I think it would get pretty sparse pretty fast due to how fast people die.

hello there

the concept is amazing, but flawed. let's try to think how it could work?

Rgds

L

Half of your posts are "Hello there, Rgds, 'Lok". Why bother?

[Nuigurumi 5]

GLITCHES

And the glitchy deaths?

Because that's not going to be broken in any way by a hacker.....

Glitchy BS deaths would force your friends to also kill themselves, which would just piss everyone off.

Essentially, what you're saying is "there are glitches in the game, which can cause death, so as a workaround let's make death really meaningless". Glitches have to be fixed. Hackers have to be dealt with. They are ruining the game experience, regardless of how many separate worlds are there in the game. And there's nothing fundamentally unfixable about them, either.

PERFORMANCE

Besides, servers are currently struggling with maintaining ONE world without latency. Barely any servers can do that without any desync. Think what would happen if one server was hosting 5 or 40 worlds, especially if someone just keeps killing themselves?

I must admit I have no experience with creating MMO games, so I may be totally wrond here, correct me if you can, but I think that for a properly written and optimized game server the load will be more or less proportional to the number of online players currently in game. So what's the difference between 50 players in one world and 50 players scattered throughout the worlds? Perhaps the latter scenario will cause even less server load, because there will be less players interacting with each other. In the extremely unlikely event of this idea being adopted, it WILL require changes in the game servers, so it is probably not even relevant to discuss preformance or glitches of the current game servers now.

on a positive note, you could have everyone on the same map but different loot throughout the worlds and players and zombies from different worlds would be invisible to other worlds.

My thoughts exactly, although how much that would really help with the performance is unclear.

EMPTY SERVERS

This would probably also make servers incredibly empty, as everyone would be on different worlds.

I could see this working if servers were a large amount of people but I think it would get pretty sparse pretty fast due to how fast people die.

Yeah, I thought that would probably be the biggest problem. Although, would that necessarily be a bad thing? Maybe if you meet other survivors only very rarely, it will force people to cooperate more, thus changing the social dynamics, making them die less often and balancing the issue? Another solution could be a centralized cloud, or something, sort of like it's made in Starcraft 2 now, where you don't even need to select your game server...

Another possibility is to kick you out of your current world not on every death, but like on every 10th death, or something. Would decrease the number of worlds, too.

MISUNDERSTANDING

Anybody got an #247 Server? i think thats how much i died since the beginning of dayz lol.

I specifically mentioned those wouldn't be separate servers, but rather each server would hold all worlds possible (of course only simulating those with people currently playing).

imagine when the game is launched, only one world for first life, then people would kill themselves to get to the more empty servers, but they would all fill up and the wait to login would be a disaster, maybe if only you got disconnected to the server when you died, it would be a bigger punishment than it is now and if you want to go back to the same server you would have to reconnect which is a trouble sometimes

No, it wouldn't be a single global server for every world, either (see above).

[disorder 344]

The SA will probably better with mmo style instances which you can then switch to with people in the same party

[Nuigurumi 5]

I posted the second half of my post, addressing other comments (about teams, friends and while timeouts won't work), but it disappeared. Well... to hell with it.

[OrLoK 16185]

I could see this working if servers were a large amount of people but I think it would get pretty sparse pretty fast due to how fast people die.

Half of your posts are "Hello there, Rgds, 'Lok". Why bother?

hello there

Why not?

Rgds

Lok

[OrLoK 16185]

Also, Keep on with the idea, it is broken but worth persuing.

[B00tsy (DayZ) 19]

I like the part of where you lose your tent etcetera, when you die you start fresh with nothing but beanz. Bodies and tent should be deleted after you die.

Edit to add, that my current character with great gear is almost out of blood. Obviously I am going to login to an unpopulated server, jump of a building and then get my gear back with a new character. Would be cool if this were not possible.

Edited February 5, 2013 by B00tsy