Going to the "next" world after death

[Nuigurumi 5]

FRIENDS & TEAMS

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

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.

Yes. Death is baaad, m'kaaay? You shouldn't die. Playing with friends would emphasize that even more. If you die, not only you lose all your stuff, but your team will lose a member and be at a disadvantage. You will try not to die even harder. They will try healing you at all costs, instead of shooting you in he face, waiting until you return Kenny-style and giving you back your gear. Commiting mass-suicides after losing several important members would probably happen. Anyway, your teammates will join you sooner or later, one by one or all a once, doesn't matter. While alone in a new world, you can start establishing camps, collecting supplies etc. to equip them better when they arrive, so the social aspect won't disappear.

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.

Good point, completely forgot about that, despite being in a similar situation myself more than once. We can have a programmable suicide button - enter "89", press the button, and you're there. Can probably be abused, though. Better yet, you send your friend an invite, by accepting it he sets his life count equal to yours.

TIMEOUTS

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".

Won't work. Just a simple example, imagine yourself with a broken bone and low health meter, crawling around with your vision fading in and out, looking for food and medical supplies - it will probably be faster to suicide, wait your 10~30 minutes, run back to the corpse to take your stuff, than to restore your health from that condition. The only thing timeouts may help against is suicide-respawning. Big timeouts (and I mean BIG, maybe even progressive) may help, but how about those who don't have all day for playing?

It would cripple the social network of the game and seem rather confusion.

Confusing, you say? More than stuff disappearing from your inventory or the process of equipping your hatchet and reloading it so you can swing it? I'd argue it'd be nothing in comparison. Besides, even those glitches aside, it's not a casual game, and as such it is inherently confusing, and it takes getting used to, and everybody is aware of that.

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

I didn't think of anything like that, but the idea seems interesting. After you die, you go to hell (an unappealing, boring place) and have to find (fight?) your way back to the upper world.

[Dancing.Russian.Man 1631]

I must admit I have no experience with creating MMO games, so I may be totally wrong* here, correct me if you can, Trust me, I 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. That would be correct if we weren't talking about ARMA 2(and DayZmod) or the Standalone. The engine and netcode for ARMA 2 and DayZmod has already been made, so it's practically impossible to "write and optimize" the servers so they would run properly. ARMA 2 has so much detail, is so client-driven, and keeps track of so many things in such a way that hosting even 5 maps the size of Chernarus on a single server(worlds, as you call them), will cause problems like FPS lag, desync, and overall performance issues. The way that MMOs are hosted and kept up is done via "megaservers" of sorts. Nobody outside a business is going to be able to afford one, nor will they have the space for one, or several like some games have. So what's the difference between 50 players in one world and 50 players scattered throughout the worlds? 50 players in one world would only require you to constantly calculate around 40-550 zombies at a time, assuming where they are on the map and the amount of spawns the map has. if there were 50 people spread across 5 "worlds", you would need to keep track of a whole lot more, as the worlds would still have to be very closely synced together if you were supposed to move from one world to another WITHOUT having to switch to a different server. Perhaps the latter scenario will cause even less server load, because there will be less players interacting with each other. But the amount of interaction with the server doesn't change. 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 performance* or glitches of the current game servers now. Correct again. The ARMA 2 and most likely DayZ Standalone engines/netcodes aren't designed to host a vast amount of worlds per a single server, so the workload would be enormous, if it was even possible to code in the first place. (Due to limitations of the engine design.)

Edit; Redness for justice.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Dancing.Russian.Man

[radivmoe 47]

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.

i would give you my beans, but you are New Conglomorate. Vanu is the way to go =P

Edited February 5, 2013 by radivmoe

[PracticalTactical 164]

hello there

Why not?

Rgds

Lok

I won't even bother. Not worth my time arguing with an administrator over this.

[OrLoK 16191]

I won't even bother. Not worth my time arguing with an administrator over this.

Hello there

There's no argument at all. You don't like how I post whereas for example I don't like your avatar particularly.

I don't lose any sleep over it and nor should you.

let's get back on topic shall we?

Rgds

LoK

[Rekli 995]

why not just add this: If a Player dies his tents despawn and the loot inside it spawns back in?

[radrussian1 (DayZ) 23]

i like the idea but its way too complicated. you could force a lockout on a server if you die on it. say an hour, where you can go to another server and keep playing and then come back and possibly salvage what you had on your body/tents.

[BwobBwub 660]

We already have this: The Debug area