DayZ Double Developer Blog 14th May 2013

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

you should always start out at the coast when you switch to a new server.

that would solve the problem of teleporting but not the other stuff i talked about. just think about it for a minute. you go around place wood on doors and windows. how would the system handle that? would this be saved on your character so when you connect on a random server it suddenly appears there? doesn't sound practical at all.

all that is possible is what we have in the mod. barrikades that are on one server and will get cleaned up eventually. if that's what you want then you already have it.

and i don't see how the number of houses is relevant if objects like barrikades will infinitely keep spawning as loot. loot can travel servers, remember? by this logic there wouldn't have been a problem to just keep each tent and barrikade that was placed so far.

i'm not saying it's impossible at all but these are just the reasons that rocket mentioned in interviews and what you come up with thinking about it using common sense.

as i mentioned. one example would be to do it like in wasteland. have a limited number of base objects spawn and let players fight for them.

hmmm...simply spawn players which change server at the coast...problem solved...

hmmm...not really.....and it also creates other problems like spawn camping..................................... ;)

[Katana67 2907]

This would make noob killing on the coast infinitely worse.

In the current mod paradigm, yeah.

Not in a system where there are hard consequences for not eating, drinking, tending to disease, managing wounds. Not in a system where there isn't extensive ammunition availability/commonality and where high-end weapons require ZERO maintenance. The point being, people will be far less likely to be highly geared and if they are, they'll be consumed with survival activities.

If these systems are in place, as in standalone, not only will transplanted bandits be less capable of killing new people spawning on the coast, they'll be far less inclined to switch servers in the first place. Plus, I don't know about you, but I'd rather not risk my kit to some lucky shot SMLE guy on the coast. Much less OTHER bandits who're already there anyhow.

These are mitigating factors of course, but we can have restricted servers or workarounds to server hopping which may not be 100% effective.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Katana67

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

In the current mod paradigm, yeah.

Not in a system where there are hard consequences for not eating, drinking, tending to disease, managing wounds. Not in a system where there isn't extensive ammunition availability/commonality and where high-end weapons require ZERO maintenance.

If these systems are in place, as in standalone, not only will transplanted bandits be less capable of killing new people spawning on the coast, they'll be far less inclined to switch servers in the first place. Plus, I don't know about you, but I'd rather not risk my kit to some lucky shot SMLE guy on the coast. Much less OTHER bandits who're already there anyhow.

These are mitigating factors of course, but we can have restricted servers or workarounds to server hopping which may not be 100% effective.

Actually, those things would make it even more likely for bandits to switch servers to get kills in my opinion. Rather than camping a hotspot waiting for players to eventually make it passed all the dangers in the world and rather than risking disease or any number of problems the game might throw at them for sitting around looking for easy kills, bandits would simply find a decent gun and hop servers so they can instantly play deathmatch on the coast against poorly armed players. It would turn into nothing but free travel for anyone with more than a hatchet looking to kill other players. Deathmatchers don't worry about eating at the moment anyway. Cans of food are just health they occasionally have to get so they can keep shooting newspawns.

[sav112g 114]

Forgive my ignorance but one streamer said you could get shot at, see where it was from log out onto the different server run to the spot and log back in and kill who ever it was.

Safeguards need to put in if you move onto another server and move you cant get back on the original for half and hour or something as that’s just getting silly.

[Katana67 2907]

that would solve the problem of teleporting but not the other stuff i talked about. just think about it for a minute. you go around place wood on doors and windows. how would the system handle that? would this be saved on your character so when you connect on a random server it suddenly appears there? doesn't sound practical at all.

all that is possible is what we have in the mod. barrikades that are on one server and will get cleaned up eventually. if that's what you want then you already have it.

and i don't see how the number of houses is relevant if objects like barrikades will infinitely keep spawning as loot. loot can travel servers, remember? by this logic there wouldn't have been a problem to just keep each tent and barrikade that was placed so far.

i'm not saying it's impossible at all but these are just the reasons that rocket mentioned in interviews and what you come up with thinking about it using common sense.

as i mentioned. one example would be to do it like in wasteland. have a limited number of base objects spawn and let players fight for them.

Please don't operate under the guise of "common sense", present a counterargument without condescension please.

Okay, so, to address your first point. House barricades would be serverside, not clientside (i.e. they WON'T travel with the player, just like tents).

SA servers have been much more stable, and even if they initially require "clean ups" in the sense that we have them now... I doubt they will in the future.

The number of houses is ENTIRELY relevant. It sets a firm parameter for how many objects are possible, thus dictating the feasibility of the server/client processing load. If there are a maximum of 1000 doors in the world, then there is a possibility of 1000 doors being blocked (thus having to render 1000 blocked doors). Vice having an unlimited amount in the control of the player (i.e. like tents, an infinite number can be placed until the server [theoretically] craps itself).

The reasons Rocket mentioned were (I believe) in relation to PLAYER CONSTRUCTED houses, meaning an infinite number of player houses could be constructed per server. Vice with this, you're just securing houses which are already able to be handled by the server/client/game.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Katana67

[Katana67 2907]

Actually, those things would make it even more likely for bandits to switch servers to get kills in my opinion. Rather than camping a hotspot waiting for players to eventually make it passed all the dangers in the world and rather than risking disease or any number of problems the game might throw at them for sitting around looking for easy kills, bandits would simply find a decent gun and hop servers so they can instantly play deathmatch on the coast against poorly armed players. It would turn into nothing but free travel for anyone with more than a hatchet looking to kill other players. Deathmatchers don't worry about eating at the moment anyway. Cans of food are just health they occasionally have to get so they can keep shooting newspawns.

Personally, I don't regard killing new people as a problem at all. Partly because I don't go to the coast, and partly because there's nobody to blame but yourself. Oh, and partly because you don't actually lose anything worthwhile. All in the current mod paradigm of course.

To address your first point, that assessment is fair. Although, you mention firearms and eating. Two systems that are not really that effective in the current paradigm. Players find fully operational weapons, and instantly gain food/drink "points" by eating with no consequences or even difficulty in finding ammunition. I have no doubt that this would facilitate deathmatching, but it would be offset by the factors I mentioned above.

You're right, deathmatchers don't worry about eating. But they should be forced to, like everyone else, through unforgiving hunger mechanics and sparse loot.

Simply BEING on the coast, even with gear (the likelihood of which would be decreased if the above mechanics I mentioned were in place) would be and should be suicide for both empowered bandits and poorly armed newspawns.

And, this isn't an argument, more of just an anecdote but... the coast is supposed to be a clusterfuck... right?

Edited May 29, 2013 by Katana67

[DaGolem 95]

More and more people turn to other versions of DayZ like Origins or Breaking point... I hate this! I'm the only one left in my circle of friends that still play the original DayZ mod...

No wonder that more and more people going away from the orginal Mod. The original mod has the problem that it getting boring. Only PVP is a challange in this entire Game.

Origins is a way better because of the House building, Master Zombies and NPC thing. It makes realy more fun then the original.

Salvation City is a gread Idea! Because of the NPC´s there is more Teamwork. People working together helping each other.

For me it is totaly clear, if DayZ SA will have no NPC Challanges then it will have the same Problem like the DayZMod... it will getting boring after a certain time and the entire Game will be PVP.

Breaking Point has realy nice Idea´s like the Taser Weapon, or the electric Grid thing, Base Construction...

Edited May 29, 2013 by DaGolem

[Katana67 2907]

For me it is totaly clear, if DayZ SA will have no NPC Challanges then it will have the same Problem like the DayZMod... it will getting boring after a certain time and the entire Game will be PVP.

What if zombies were made more of a threat in SA? /whisper They are!

I've played Origins, and it's every bit as boring/exciting as vanilla. In fact, I'd submit that it's unremarkable due to the uninspired layout of Taviana.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Katana67

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

Personally, I don't regard killing new people as a problem at all. Partly because I don't go to the coast, and partly because there's nobody to blame but yourself. Oh, and partly because you don't actually lose anything worthwhile. All in the current mod paradigm of course.

To address your first point, that assessment is fair. Although, you mention firearms and eating. Two systems that are not really that effective in the current paradigm. Players find fully operational weapons, and instantly gain food/drink "points" by eating with no consequences or even difficulty in finding ammunition. I have no doubt that this would facilitate deathmatching, but it would be offset by the factors I mentioned above.

You're right, deathmatchers don't worry about eating. But they should be forced to, like everyone else, through unforgiving hunger mechanics and sparse loot.

Simply BEING on the coast, even with gear (the likelihood of which would be decreased if the above mechanics I mentioned were in place) would be and should be suicide for both empowered bandits and poorly armed newspawns.

And, this isn't an argument, more of just an anecdote but... the coast is supposed to be a clusterfuck... right?

We'll have to wait and see but giving players an easy and quick way to get to the coast is only going to lead to more deathmatching. I can't imagine any way this wouldn't happen.

[Katana67 2907]

We'll have to wait and see but giving players an easy and quick way to get to the coast is only going to lead to more deathmatching. I can't imagine any way this wouldn't happen.

No doubt, I'm just saying that there would have to be other mitigating factors to discourage PvP in general and add weight to actions such as killing newspawns.

Where you say giving players an "easy and quick way to get to the coast is only going to lead to more deathmatching"...

I say, "removing ease of access to weapons, ammo, and other kit is only going to reduce the likelihood of deathmatching"...

I think the end result would be somewhere in the middle.

Personally, I'd rather characters be restricted to the server entirely. But they seem keen on having persistent characters on multiple servers, so with the current paradigm, we've got to flesh out these workarounds.

[twinturbonet (DayZ) 294]

I bet you're pretty new to DayZ, but your "member since" states otherwise - I seriously hope not that your just another troll. If you'd been playing the last couple of months and could really see the difference and the recent "number of player" drop you'd realize that "blaming it on their so called friends" is pretty legit.

Not new. I don't disagree that the mod has lost players, but do you really think your friends are not going to come back when this shit drops? Lol please, you know damn well they will.

Bitching about how long the game takes and pretty much threatening that your friends won't play the game now won't make the game come faster. You might as well stand in the line with the rest of the haters.

Edited May 29, 2013 by twinturbonet

[Mr Mouse 61]

Wanting the game to keep living is totally different from your false impression and prejudices about all forum posters.

It's not a "false impression" though; it's an opinion based on what I've witnessed throughout the communities spanning various gaming genres, having played consoles since the Audio Sonic Pong machines. You see the same whining and bitching everywhere. You might have a different opinion, but it's certainly not a "false impression."

Regardless, my comment was aimed at gaming as a whole, not the DayZ mod or forum posters.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Mr Mouse

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Personally, I'd rather characters be restricted to the server entirely. But they seem keen on having persistent characters on multiple servers, so with the current paradigm, we've got to flesh out these workarounds.

^This.

This would solve so many issues such as ghosting etc. If every character was tied to a server in the way they are with private hives now I would be a happy chappy. I like being able to move servers to trade etc but the cons outwiegh the pro's for me.

[AnarchyBrownies 1383]

This would solve so many issues such as ghosting etc. If every character was tied to a server in the way they are with private hives now I would be a happy chappy. I like being able to move servers to trade etc but the cons outwiegh the pro's for me.

People undervalue starting from scratch. Starting from scratch at each server is exciting and it changes up the game a lot. People always complained about the endgame with the mod but never took any risks for getting there and refused to risk their gear once they did get there... then they called the game boring...

I absolutely think your character should be tied to the server. This doesn't help for trades, but maybe trades shouldn't be so convenient. Maybe your trades should be limited to whatever gear is in the world you're playing on. (I'm not saying you, Fraggle, would disagree with this). Nothing wrong with that! Like you said, cons outweight the pros for server hopping. Plus in this way you could have one profile and still have multiple characters, just spread out on different servers. Not sure how they were planning on dealing with this in the standalone.

[Private Evans 1303]

In this case...

will it be possible in the Sa to change the server during combat and to respawn inside buildings ? Any info ?

PS: both should be impossible

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

Please don't operate under the guise of "common sense", present a counterargument without condescension please.

why so iffy? i'm just sharing my thoughts on the topic. how would i know what exactly you meant by securing a house? you simply asked for the option. how about just going into detail next time instead of getting all debaty on me.

it's true that just getting an option on a house's door to barrikade it would probably work. still it remains highly unpractical due to the main database saving positions. you just taking people getting put on the coast as granted ignoring that it never was in dayZ and probably won't due to the other problems it brings.

sure if it was like that you could lock down a house. but why would you even bother, if after playing on another server you will be put on the coast again? in general i wouldn't assume the SA getting rid of position saving, they could've done that before and they didn't due to it taking a feature away from the whole concept (save everything including where you are) and the obvious problems it would cause. you just saying you don't care about them doesn't make them go away.

on the barrikade thing. how would that work (i'm genuinely interested)? you would have wood in your inventory and then could lock down any door? if so, like anything else, people will get the needed loot from every other server and soon everything will be blocked. without required objects even faster. i don't see why that isn't obvious. and what then? can they be destroyed? what's the benefit, if they can be easily destroyed? lock down a house, log out, come back, everything is gone becasue someone simply had to remove one barrikade to get in. doesn't sound like something i would wanna invest my time into.

i'm not saying the idea sucks. just pointing out that looking at the bigger picture taking everything into account, it doesn't really sound practical or worth investing into to me. if you would present a thought through concept i'd roll with it but you didn't so far. and to set this straight. i'd love a feature like that. but i think it's not likely having heard rocket talk a lot about underground stuff as a compromise.

Edited May 29, 2013 by badbenson

[Private Evans 1303]

If you have nails, wooden planks and a hammer (items) in your inventory you could interact with doors (scripted) and temporary barricade them. From the outside you would need for example satchel charges or grenades to destroy the door (or 10 minutes of hatching)...not that difficult.

People that change servers simply should not spawn inside buildings....

Edited May 29, 2013 by Private Evans

[Katana67 2907]

if you have nails, wooden planks and a hammer (items) in your inventory you could interact with doors (scripted) and temporary barricade them .From the outside you would need for example satchel charges or grenades to destroy the door (or 10 minutes of hatching)...not that difficult.

Jesus tits, THIS!

Maybe I should skip speaking in long-winded sentences and stick to bullet points.

[Katana67 2907]

why so iffy? i'm just sharing my thoughts on the topic. how would i know what exactly you meant by securing a house? you simply asked for the option. how about just going into detail next time instead of getting all debaty on me.

Normally, and I'm guessing you're not a native English speaker (nothing wrong with it, just is evident in your spelling and syntax), people tend to know what I'm saying. So by saying "use common sense", which is condescending by the way, I would think you'd be pleased with my intelligent and mature response.

So, I'd appreciate you not equating "debaty" with "pissed". Debates are good, you however were debating something that you misunderstood. The ad hominem as well won't get you far either, I am not required to disclose EVERY single intimate detail of an idea in a brief original post (which was sufficient enough), so don't fault me as a person.

And for the record, the several posts I put forward went into considerable detail (in addition to my OP). There's no precedent for clientside construction following players from server to server, so I figured that was self-explanatory.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Katana67

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

There's no precedent for clientside construction following players from server to server, so I figured that was self-explanatory.

the problem here is not that i'm no native speaker. the problem is that you think i'm after you. i never said you said anything like that. i was thinking out loud about concepts that are different from what we have now in the mod, because i'm interested in more persistence than gear and position saving. i tried to focus on problems with your vague request to maybe spark some ideas for solutions.

but i get it. you don't seem to want to talk about the actual points but rather try to win some argument you are imagining here. so i'll leave you to that. if not, maybe try to address my points instead of patronizing me because you feel the need to come out on top.

debates are good if they are fertile. everything else is just pointless internet sparing.

Edited May 29, 2013 by badbenson

[Katana67 2907]

the problem here is not that i'm no native speaker. the problem is that you think i'm after you. i never said you said anything like that. i was thinking out loud about concepts that are different from what we have now in the mod, because i'm interested in more persistence than gear and position saving. i tried to focus on problems with your vague request to maybe spark some ideas for solutions.

but i get it. you don't seem to want to talk about the actual points but rather try to win some argument you are imagining here. so i'll leave you to that. if not, maybe try to address my points instead of patronizing me because you feel the need to come out on top.

debates are good if they are fertile. everything else is just pointless internet sparing.

I apologize, but you were the one telling me to "use common sense" and then using a logical fallacy because you didn't understand the premise of my (previously articulated) argument by saying that I had not outlined it thoroughly. Which, through the course of a debate, you are interpreting as a personal attack.

I addressed your points, I even said... verbatim... "to address your first point". Followed by a step by step counterargument, which you dismissed entirely and it is now evident that you misunderstood what I was saying. It really doesn't get much clearer then that. You focused on problems with an argument you thought I was making (i.e. clientside spawning, constructable houses) which I wasn't in support of at all.

I'm not going to continue this line of thought, unfortunate that it had to be this way and that you think I was attempting to defeat you rather than respond in defense of my argument.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Katana67

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

You focused on problems with an argument you thought I was making

sorry dude but i really have no interest in dealing with your personal issues. i just told you that i never thought you were saying anything of the client side stuff. i also never said that you need to use common sense (i expect that from people...). i was just pointing out that i obviously wouldn't know any real details about the SA and that interviews and common sense are the sources of my information. you are just reading stuff into my posts because...i don't know why to be honest.

just read my last post again without your angry internet debate nerd filter and you'll find a lot more than just that, regarding actual problems with your "proposal". but yea, it couldn't be more evident that that's not what you are after...

[Katana67 2907]

sorry dude but i really have no interest in dealing with your personal issues. i just told you that i never thought you were saying anything of the client side stuff. i also never said that you need to use common sense (i expect that from people...). i was just pointing out that i obviously wouldn't know any real details about the SA and that interviews and common sense are the sources of my information. you are just reading stuff into my posts because...i don't know why to be honest.

just read my last post again without your angry internet debate nerd filter and you'll find a lot more than just that, regarding actual problems with your "proposal". but yea, it couldn't be more evident that that's not what you are after...

Again, won't be continuing this line of discussion/thought. My apologies.

[DemonGroover 8836]

OK let's move on guys

[RyanK (DayZ) 40]