Dynamic loot tables

[Dagwood 680]

Kind of a basic idea, but it would dramatically affect how the game is played.

Imagine it's 10 years from now and the completed, post-beta stand alone game is preparing for launch. By this point the size of the release would be substantial (I'm guessing) and hopefully more information related to the release and how the game will play would be available.

The idea is that when the game releases and everyone is on fresh characters, the loot spawns would reflect the type and amount of loot that would be available right after the outbreak occurs (first few days/weeks.) this means that military weapons and ammo are prevalent at military installations and helicopter crashes are more common and better equipped (better loot). It also means that supermarkets are still stocked with supplies and hospitals are teeming with meds.

As the game is played and time passes, the devs would alter the loot tables and aforementioned types of loot would become more scarce. Barracks are no longer stocked with weapons and ammo, (or at least not as obviously) and supermarkets and hospitals in cities have been picked clean.

At the same time, survivor made substitutes would become loot/craftable (think lee enfield with bayonet, homemade pain killers, etc).

I think this would not only prevent gameplay from becoming stale, but it would also add a significant amount of authenticity to the game. As an added bonus it might even curb some of the "shoot everything with 2 legs that blinks at me" mentality. If ammo drop rates get to the point where you might never find a dmr mag in 2 weeks of playing (thing GPS/rangefinder status), stashing those 5 DMR mags in a base becomes more attractive than using that ammo to massacre fresh spawns in the south.

Just a sleep deprived idea at 8 am on a Monday. Any feedback or ideas about probable imbalances this might create (or just a nice thumbs up) are always appreciated.

[TheLastEmp 295]

I think that's a bit tricky to implement, but I like the direction your idea takes...

 

 

 As an added bonus it might even curb some of the "shoot everything with 2 legs that blinks at me" mentality. 

 

Bandits hesitate long enough to tell whether or not you are blinking?  False. 

[rossums 2190]

Wouldn't this just give an even bigger advantage to the groups that take all the vehicles and weapons and stash them around the north of the map and just sit and kill new spawns in the bottom half of the map?

[Dagwood 680]

What kind of implementation difficulties do you foresee? Do you mean technical limitations or balance issues?

And this definitely has potential to tip the balance even more in favor of larger, more organized groups. And from an authenticity standpoint, it's the logical conclusion. But as far as gameplay is concerned, I agree that bandit clans would likely hoard ammo and weapons and make life living hell (as they tenderly do for us already).

But I think your average lone or pair of survivors would be MORE likely to attempt to trade or rob another payer for ammo than risk a potentially expensive firefight. At the moment you rarely pick up ammo for, say, the m16 when you are geared with an m14. But if that 5.56 mag or box is incredibly scarce, you might carry it in the hopes that you could trade up for some 7.62 mags. Of course this would only work if the average player was pressed to get even a second mag. If you are carrying 60 rounds of ammunition and you know you can put your target down with about 10, 90% of players will avoid the confrontation with a potentially psychotic 13 year old and just put him down.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Dagwood

[icanfish 13]

What kind of implementation difficulties do you foresee? Do you mean technical limitations or balance issues?

And this definitely has potential to tip the balance even more in favor of larger, more organized groups. And from an authenticity standpoint, it's the logical conclusion. But as far as gameplay is concerned, I agree that bandit clans would likely hoard ammo and weapons and make life living hell (as they tenderly do for us already).

But I think your average lone or pair of survivors would be MORE likely to attempt to trade or rob another payer for ammo than risk a potentially expensive firefight. At the moment you rarely pick up ammo for, say, the m16 when you are geared with an m14. But if that 5.56 mag or box is incredibly scarce, you might carry it in the hopes that you could trade up for some 7.62 mags. Of course this would only work if the average player was pressed to get even a second mag. If you are carrying 60 rounds of ammunition and you know you can put your target down with about 10, 90% of players will avoid the confrontation with a potentially psychotic 13 year old and just put him down.

 

Yea most likely balance issues, like Rossums said groups of players would have a bit more of advantages, but yea it's a cool concept wouldn't be that easy to implement, but you kinda adding what dayz aftermath mod kinda does which in my opinion is a good idea, but yea balance issues would be a problem, because many people play alone, but in other hand like you saying this would make player to group up :).

 

Good Idea ;)

 

Keep Surviving  :beans:

[Dagwood 680]

Concerning the, group vs lone survivor balance issue/debate: I think it is worth mentioning that with the improved AI in the standalone, groups of players will be forced to expend more ammunition for security than a lone survivor. A large group is more likely to be using a vehicle, and even while on foot in a town they will be higher profile and sneaking will be a less viable option.

Plus with the improved server architecture (and increased player count per server) hiding gear from prying eyes will likely be much more difficult; unless they decide to add those stupid, instanced caves that are inaccessible to other players (which as far as I know have not been confirmed).

Several of you have mentioned implementation difficulties. Could you be more specific?

[Korsbaek 1778]

This would get really interesting 10 years after release... 

[Chaingunfighter 917]

I'm sure that if they take 10 years to release the full version of the game, most of the community will already be gone by then.

 

But, I'm not sure how this could reliably work out for the whole of the community. I mean, even if the large bandit groups couldn't necessarily hide it, they would still be able to defend it considering they have much more resources and have hoarded it all. 

This also seems like it would punish people who purchased or heard about the game later than others, as this would clearly be advantaging those who got early access or bought the game immediately following release.

This could be server-wise, where (if it chose to) some servers could have the loot respawns gradually become trashier and older, until the server eventually reset and everything went back to square one.

That way, people could still play the 'classic' way where loot remained consistent, and then others could also play like this.

I'm not sure that putting it into a time frame of 10 years would be very good though, I'm sure it would have to be condensed into like 24-36 hours before loot became almost completely bad. 

[Dagwood 680]

The 10 year part was a joke about the release date that has changed more than a few times. I think a one month cycle would work. This would also give players incentive to survive the entire cycle. Maybe recognition for logging a minimum of X hours and surviving the entire month?

[AP_Norris 1018]

There should be a slider that goes, days, months, then years after outbreak.

The main loot that gets harder to find with time is weapons and food followed by meds.

However you may come across houses that hint at survivor activity ad encampment before the time of the game which would have a small stockpile of such things.

This would mean between finding food and ammo you would have to be very sparing to stay alive for any amount of time.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

The 10 year part was a joke about the release date that has changed more than a few times. I think a one month cycle would work. This would also give players incentive to survive the entire cycle. Maybe recognition for logging a minimum of X hours and surviving the entire month?

I still think that it should be a serverside option, though, because not all servers are based around this kind of gameplay.

 

There should be a slider that goes, days, months, then years after outbreak.

The main loot that gets harder to find with time is weapons and food followed by meds.

However you may come across houses that hint at survivor activity ad encampment before the time of the game which would have a small stockpile of such things.

This would mean between finding food and ammo you would have to be very sparing to stay alive for any amount of time.

 

Medicine would probably go just as quickly as food and weapons would, somewhat even faster than weapons (Not guns and ammo, but more basic melee weapons like knives and baseball bats and such) 

Medicine is such a valuable resources, and most medicines (Especially important ones like Antibiotics) 

Edited August 13, 2013 by Chaingunfighter

[AP_Norris 1018]

Medicine would probably go just as quickly as food and weapons would, somewhat even faster than weapons (Not guns and ammo, but more basic melee weapons like knives and baseball bats and such) 

Medicine is such a valuable resources, and most medicines (Especially important ones like Antibiotics)

Depends how quickly the infection spreads.

If it takes a day or more for someone to die then I'm sure people may attempt to get antibiotics.

But realistically are you going to stick up and food and self defence or worry about things that may not even happen.

Not to mention hospitals would be zombie hotspots,

The only realistic idea is that so much of the medicine was used on hospital patients once they were infected and supply routes were struggling.