Seasons in the standalone wich are sync. With the real world.

[kuusj98 0]

I thought of an idea, wich may be awesome.

My idea is, to have seasons wich are real time with the real world, and so the weather.

Now I know that the seasons vary troughout the world, so the must be a central point from where to get the data from.

I have seen another great idea, its that grass and vegitation grows over time, If that is possible with the resources available, it would be very nice to have such thing implemented with the seasons part.

It would be so awesome to have like snow and trees with no leaves in the winter, or summer, where its hot and you need cover from the sun.

I personnaly think if this idea is a bit worked on, it could be really awesome. And ofcourse if the servers and clients it can run.

Give your honoust opinoin on this idea and I would love to hear what you think of this.

-kuusj98

(Sorry if I made some mistakes in typing, English is not my native language)

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

I suggested seasons a long time ago. I'd really love to see the gameworld (and survival aspects) change throughout the seasons. In my suggestion though I thought maybe each season in-game could last 1 month. 1 month of a long cold winter in game time would be enough sort keep most people happy.

[[email protected] 2416]

1 month of a long cold winter in game time would be enough sort keep most people happy.

That'd probably be a better way to implement such a feature.

Seasons synched to the real world would take too long to pass for gameplay to see any discernable change of pace. A quicker tick-by would allow changes to make a more noticable impact on play-style.

It might even be more suitable in bursts of a week or two at a time, so more characters stand a chance of living through many seasons.

I might be rambling now, but I'm pretty sure I've got a rough idea of what I mean.

Whatever the case may be, it could only work properly if all servers are in the same season at all times. ("properly", in this context, being an entirely subjective term ^_^)

EDIT:

By that I mean, servers "season" should all be winter at the same time, spring at the same time etc.

Not always winter. That would be missing the point of seasons in the first place.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Chabowski

[kuusj98 0]

I suggested seasons a long time ago. I'd really love to see the gameworld (and survival aspects) change throughout the seasons. In my suggestion though I thought maybe each season in-game could last 1 month. 1 month of a long cold winter in game time would be enough sort keep most people happy.

That is even better indeed, maybe people dont get bored if the seasons take less than 4 months :P

[kuusj98 0]

And how the crap does it come that my BF3 avatar is on this forum?

[mzltv 2281]

As much as I like the idea, you've got the problem of different seasons occuring all over the world simultaneously, so you'd need to decide which seasonal transition to follow...

Additionally, if you decide to make it something that is decided in terms of the player's physical location, and specific to that individual, then what you're suggesting means the guy you've teamed up with, in say.. Australia, would suffer the negetive effects of winter there whilst you're experiencing the summer effects..

I hope that makes sense. I can ramble like a motherfucker at times.

[[email protected] 2416]

If it were to follow natural seasonal progression, Russia would be a decent basis for the system, considering Chernarus is kinda Eastern-bloc.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

I have a thread on this too. I don't think seasons should be synced to the real world. That seems silly.

[kuusj98 0]

I have a thread on this too. I don't think seasons should be synced to the real world. That seems silly.

"Silly", nothing is stupid if you are thinking of ways to make a great game even better.

Then, seasons as mentiont earlier by someone, go per month, and the season itself is from a central location, like Russia, thats where the game actually plays. It isnt silly in any way my big friend, lets say another idea I thought of: a personal home wich you can build on specific regions and with specific building materials. That also is I think, a pretty good idea, maybe mad and undoable, but its a idea.

[kuusj98 0]

As much as I like the idea, you've got the problem of different seasons occuring all over the world simultaneously, so you'd need to decide which seasonal transition to follow...

Additionally, if you decide to make it something that is decided in terms of the player's physical location, and specific to that individual, then what you're suggesting means the guy you've teamed up with, in say.. Australia, would suffer the negetive effects of winter there whilst you're experiencing the summer effects..

I hope that makes sense. I can ramble like a motherfucker at times.

It DOES make sense in every way, I mean, ofcourse it would be nuts to chain it to the players physical location, that also binds you ti the fact it MUST be real time and ofcourse the server you are running the game on would cry so hard if it has to handle 4 seasons at a single time, thats 4x the power needed to run it, or you must do it client side. But then there would be many room for "tweaking" some files so its always summer or spring.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

"Silly", nothing is stupid if you are thinking of ways to make a great game even better.

Then, seasons as mentiont earlier by someone, go per month, and the season itself is from a central location, like Russia, thats where the game actually plays. It isnt silly in any way my big friend, lets say another idea I thought of: a personal home wich you can build on specific regions and with specific building materials. That also is I think, a pretty good idea, maybe mad and undoable, but its a idea.

A centralized location seems much more realistic. I think the game's seasons and weather should be separate from real life though. I feel that having weather that is "real" wouldn't add anything to the game that normal in game seasons/weather would add. I feels like LOTS of work for little to no gain

[Talibambi 119]

As well as seasons, I would also like to see food/water supply affected by extreme weather. Im sure that this has already been discussed.. but I couldnt find it in my search of the forums.

Basically my idea is for either an event that will last a week or so and only happen once a month (or once every few months), or even a dedicated server setting where the drought can be enabled permanantly, or completely disabled. I really want to see the environment pressure players to behave in ways that they necessarily wouldnt under regular cirumstances.

During a drought, some (perhaps ALL) of the ponds (and lakes) would "dry up" completely:

For example; in Chernarus, you could have it so that only Pobeda Dam and one or two other fresh water sources were still around. This would lead to more people needing water from the same sources. (More chance for disease and human contact). This would help open the door for a distillation mechanic, where people could capture sea water, boil it and distil it in order to get drinking water. Once again this would lead to more human contact (on the coastal areas).

During the drought, apart from the few water sources that remain, the only way of getting drink would be from cans at loot spawns. Those who have the correct equipment would be able to manage during a drought with regards to drink, but those who are unprepared would have to stick to looting. The more people who die, the more who will not have the equipment to survive by collecting water from the freshwater sources, meaning more competition for stuff in loot spawns.

During a drought, animal spawns would be reduced due to lack of water:

The spawn rate of animals during a drought would be reduced heavily. (lets say 80% less). The animal spawn's could even be tied to the remaining water sources. With the density of animal life reducing the further away from a remaining water source. This would mean that you would have to hunt on an opportunistic basis. Leaving a cow alone so you can hunt something later might end up killing you. That or you have to stick to the towns and cities' loot spawns. (more compeittion and human contact chance) For a higher chance of hunting an animal you would have to work out a risk:reward. Are there too many people near the water sources? Would you have better luck hunting far away from water than you would near the water?

Food/Drink Loot spawn reduction:

To be even more ruthless, food and drink spawns could also be reduced during this period. Though I would suggest this would be something that would need more thought as to whether or not it should be implimented. I mean its not like a drought would affect the supply of tinned goods in peoples houses - the fact that people are turning to these loot spawns would in itself reduce the supply of tinned goods by an unspecified amount already. This would be for more of a hardcore mode I would suggest.

(Would be nice to be killed by a bandit who really DID need my beans, rather than beause he was just a douche)

Cannibalism:

We have all heard of the pros and cons of cannibalism. Im fairly sure I dont have to go into any real detail here. But suffice to say that lack of food might "force" people to resort to cannibalism.

I feel these chances would create a more dynamic experience. There would be more legitimate banditry, co-operation, and/or human contact. As it stands I dont think that dayz is really about survival. Its more about people "killing other people because its fun" or some such. Id rather people who do kill people - even if its to kill me - do so for legitimate reasons.

New equipment (for bases and vehicles): Water Storage

I think it would be interesting if you could find empty water containers and put them inside vehicles at the expense of either storage or seats (depending on the vehicle.

Take the offroad pickup truck for example. You could stick the storage containers on the back and then use this water at your campsite as your freshwater supply instead of having to make runs to other sources. Different vehicles could house different size containers. Meaning some vehicles would be better for holding your water supply than others. (A hatchback would suck compared to an offroacd pickup or Bus for example) Your water supply being stockpiled in this way may make you a hub for survivors, or even make you a target since you have some valuable equipment during the drought period. If bandits have this mobile fresh water source then it would make them a target also. But this wouldnt be something that a solo bandit could make on his own within a reasonable timeframe.

Eventually these containers could be used in base contruction in the same fashion. Only they would be permanant fixtures to a base instead of a vehicle. Having a vehicle and a base with the containers equiped would allow you to resource transfer. Meaning you could drive your bus to a lake. Fill your containers with freshwater and then drive it back to base. You could then park next to your water containers at base and transfer the water to your actual base water supply.

This method of refilling a base would lead to you needing armed guards when going to get freshwater. Bandit groups would have ample cause and opportunity to ambush you.

This would add more utilty and greatly increase the value of some vehicles over others. A Hatchback with a water storage system may be worth holding onto over another vehicle without such a system installed. It would once again make you weigh the risk:reward.

If bases are instanced then I dunno how this could really be implimented. Perhaps have something set outside the base which will pump it into your supply? Im sure that there have been much better ideas than mine about this.

New equipment (for bases and vehicles): Farming

The water you store could also be used as part of an irrigation system. Where you could farm. This could either be on the surface, or even subterranean as part of your base

Winter:

In winter the water supply from lakes and ponds could be unavaliable due to them freezing over. But if you have a tin pot (or something that can hold water) then you can just collect snow and melt it. So water in winter wouldnt be the issue. Reduced animal life would be the issue. I would want a severe reduction in animal life in the winter time period. Once again this would make people hunt (though not in the same areas) and make more people have to raid to get supples from spawns. (or resort to banditry)

Closing:

Im a survivor, not a bandit. But even I would like the environment to force me to consider being a bandit. Not out of malice. But because I NEED what someone else has. If Im not part of a surivor group (or the survivor group sucks), I want the environment to punish me. To make me have to make hard choices. To make me have to do what I need to in order to survive. I want bandits to have to resort to co-operation. I want them to struggle to survive too, or at the very least shoot out of nessessity rather than because they are douchebags.

As it stands, the environment is not my enemy. I barely even notice it. In fact the only part of the environment I have even begun to take seriously are the newly improved zombies. But the ACTUAL environment? I never really notice its there. I want the game to make me want to have to set up a camp that hopefully can survive the winter months. I want to have to stockpile food and drink. I want that if I get raided of my food and drink then Im going be going "FUUUUUUUU".

Seasons and extreme weather would work nicely together IMO. The basic mechanics that could be used for both of them are more or less identical, just the drought would lead to a more extreme scenario.

/hides under a rock to escape the oncoming abuse.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Talibambi