October Round-up: #DayZDaily

[Aporis 422]

So cherno has approx 300 zombies spawning there... We are all doomed... Nice, we can get maybe 100 zombies going omnomnom on Bandits there, firign a gun is a suicide... 3k zombies total in the world. Wow, thats 6 times more zombies than on biggest servers where there was maybe 500 Zeds at max what i can remember when there still was Debug monitor by default, Thats long time ago i know.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Aporis

[Katana67 2907]

So cherno has approx 300 zombies spawning there... We are all doomed... Nice, we can get maybe 100 zombies going omnomnom on Bandits there, firign a gun is a suicide... 3k zombies total in the world. Wow, thats 6 times more zombies than on biggest servers where there was maybe 500 Zeds at max what i can remember when there still was Debug monitor by default, Thats long time ago i know.

 

Plus, as Rocket said a while back, it'll give the server or hive the ability to control roaming hordes.

 

I think zombies should also be a bigger problem in the wilderness. The attempts at having zombies spawn in the wilderness by the mod development team have been very admirable. But have been hampered by the current clientside spawning system.

 

I really despise the zombies being used as an indicator of a player's presence. I will be really happy to remove that idea from my gameplay repertoire.

[ZlobaRUS54 441]

I hope new zeds make it into Alpha release)) This is gonna be so much fun.

[Katana67 2907]

In another one of my (hopefully) eloquent discussion topics related to SA, I'd like to address the issue of persistent servers/hives. I've spoken on this subject before (with that rascal Fraggle if I recall correctly) in past threads but never really at length. This is one of those topics where people tend to be one way or the other (and a topic where I haven't really formulated a wholly accommodating solution), so I'll attempt to portray both sides to the best of my ability.

 

With the current DayZ paradigm, you get two experiences. One where you can move your character in and out of whatever server and you get the same gear/weapons. The second being that your character becomes limited to a server (via private hive).

 

Personally, I think that the latter experience is the better one. Initially, I seem to remember the persistent characters being a "selling point" for DayZ. I remember Rocket mentioning it as a valued feature. I could be way off, but I seem to remember that very clearly. As DayZ evolved, it became clear (to me at least) that this feature is inherently incompatible with DayZ's unforgiving focus. I don't really like the effects that un-policed private hives have had on current server options, which in my opinion bastardize the DayZ experience (i.e. more vehicles, self-bloodbag, more barracks, etc.) But I do see it as a more viable solution to the problem of character persistence. Now, in Standalone, I hope they have (and keep) a standardized system of servers that aren't necessarily "private hive" but only allow players to have individual characters on individual servers.

 

The problem cited in doing this, is the problem of server hopping. To be honest, I really can't tell when this occurs or if it's still a significant problem. The only time where I've experienced it was to flank a group of hackers to kill them on Skalisty Island, and I was promptly TP'd into the air after I successfully killed them. But it's also more than a "tactical situation" flaw, it's a gear flaw as well. One can log onto an empty server, raid/farm the barracks and then log on to a populated server to cause mayhem. There's nothing particularly wrong with this mayhem, but the way in which it was "earned" inherently circumvents the experience of other players. Now, excluding the idea of highly centralized loot distribution as is present in the mod, this could still be a problem in Standalone.

 

Likewise, there is a bit of inconsistency with regard to player structures and vehicles. Obviously, vehicles/structures cannot and should not be allowed to travel with you across servers (like we currently have with vehicles/tents). The vehicles and space of a particular server are resources allocated to that server. So why are people/weapons/gear not server-allocated resources? This type of cross-server play can offset any potential "player economy" and can also undermine any server cohesion. Furthermore, if a closed server model is adhered to, they can then go about implementing vehicles and structure-building systems which are dependent on that consistency. For instance, you wouldn't then be able to move weapons cross-server to store in your bunker on your home server. Another example is the acquisition of resources to create structures in the first place, which (through my time playing the now dead DayZ+ mod, I can vouch for) is very easy on depopulated servers regardless of item rarity.

 

In my view, you cannot have persistent characters and server-dependent vehicle/structure resources together. One system therefore tries to accommodate the other and it becomes an unhealthy relationship which could be easily remedied by just having consistency.

 

The other side of the argument, as I understand it, is primarily concerned (ironically, as I will demonstrate further down) with ideas of a grand community. Cross-server character persistence allows for several very healthy things in-game. Things like item trading and ease of movement for friends who may play on different servers. It also allows for a very flexible system of migration when a server becomes depopulated. All of these problems I will present solutions for or reasons why they may not be big issues.

 

The problem here with trading, for me, is that item trading can take place entirely in-game. One doesn't need a forum, sidechat, or cross-server persistence to arrange a meeting (though some may find it convenient). Finding a radio, actually forging a relationship, and arranging a meet (to do whatever) seems far more in keeping with DayZ's premise and seems a much more rewarding experience. Or, leaving a note at a dead-drop reading "Will trade X packs of antibiotics for Y boxes of 5.56x45 NATO ammunition. Leave the ammunition here at 4PM EST, I will be watching". This opens a whole range of new experiences rather than a reliance on cross-server or extra-server resources. I'm hesitant to critique things like Skype/TS here, and won't due to the probability that they will not/cannot be countered. But, I will say that I do not think they are beneficial to DayZ.

 

The problem of fixed server characters and reasonable migration to play with your friends on another server is problematic for me. On one hand, I do want folks who play together to have that option should they somehow end up on different servers. But, I also think that this problem wouldn't be very significant as people who wish to play together would have to play on the same server anyhow. I'm more than open to suggestion on a "middle-ground" solution to this problem.

 

Server depopulation is also another problematic issue. I understand that there is a very vicious cycle of server popularity. None of the servers that I played last year exist today. If I had a character fixed to one of these servers, I would have to start all over again just to have people to play with. Assuming that the update process is automated/easier for servers (so that servers do not have out-of-date versions of the game), depopulation becomes the biggest factor. Encouraging a server-based community is a potential solution. By fixing characters to a server, one may become loyal to a server and get to know the people in the server. You forge relationships with these people and upon the death of your character, you are still given the option of moving elsewhere or staying put. This would both strengthen communities in specific servers as well as bring in new people to shake up the dynamics of a server to keep it interesting.

 

I'll stop there, as it's getting a bit wordy. Feel free to critique, disagree, present competing/supporting arguments. Yikes, now that I post it it is very wordy, much respect to those of you who read it (and for those of you who don't want to, stick to the bold-italic points).

Edited November 2, 2013 by Katana67

[dvsilverwing 241]

Your signature is very relevant for that post.

[Katana67 2907]

Your signature is very relevant for that post.

 

Was thinking of clearing you all hot for the use of TL;DR, but you're big boys and girls. Lrn2englishplox.

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

I was just wondering about this the other day.

 

I'm not really sure how I feel about this.

 

For authenticity's sake I would say to make gear server dependent somehow but things only get more complicated from there (as evidenced in your post).

 

Some of us who want to play as "purists" are really sort of at the mercy of the people who exploit games.

 

You definitely role play in similar fashion to myself and want to see the game play out in a way consistent with the "rules" you've set for yourself. There's nothing wrong with that but just be aware, people are going to play any way they can and the most I think we can ask for is that it doesn't adversely effect your game. Maybe there is an elegant solution to all of this already being planned that we aren't aware of yet...?

[DerrocK (DayZ) 39]

November Round-up: #DayZDaily

[Katana67 2907]

Some of us who want to play as "purists" are really sort of at the mercy of the people who exploit games.

 

You definitely role play in similar fashion to myself and want to see the game play out in a way consistent with the "rules" you've set for yourself. There's nothing wrong with that but just be aware, people are going to play any way they can and the most I think we can ask for is that it doesn't adversely effect your game. Maybe there is an elegant solution to all of this already being planned that we aren't aware of yet...?

 

Right, but the systems themselves (by virtue of how they're implemented) are being exploited. So, why not change the system?

 

Think of it this way, if we had never even had private/public hives in DayZ and always had our characters tied to the server, then we wouldn't even speak of things like server hopping.

 

I'll try to come up with a more condensed "TL;DR" version tomorrow so it's less dense, and post it on the November thread whenever that happens. And, as a disclaimer to all, it may seem semi off topic for me to pose these questions/discussions here, but I feel that this is is a much more discursive type of thread as opposed to me making separate threads about issues which have been posed before.

[Recalibar 28]

Maybe we should just have multiple accounts; that way everyone's happy.

 

[YZ250 248]

Maybe we should just have multiple accounts; that way everyone's happy.

 

 

 

Yeah and a Shop where we can buy Ammo ,respawns and Weapons to name but a few :D

[Katana67 2907]

Maybe we should just have multiple accounts; that way everyone's happy.

 

Well what would be the benefit of that? Assuming that they keep the current server model, what're the advantages of multiple accounts over just having a new character created for you when you log on to a different server?

 

This is sort of what I was trying to express. They not only need to make up their minds about server persistence, but the importance of the individual server. They're trying to shoehorn semi-MMO server needs into a FPS server structure and a finite map. So the approach, whatever it is, has to be extremely granular and considerate of however they plan on dividing up the servers.

 

I've said it before, and this is a side-issue, but as large as Chernarus is... it really isn't that big once all the blanks have been filled in and once there are 60+ players on board. Which is why I've always been hesitant when they talk about upping the player count, as I think the map is already being pushed beyond its limits. It's also important to note that we treat Chernarus as a "map" rather than a "world". This is a concept that needs to be explored, and could be a limiting factor.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Katana67

[Aporis 422]

Well what would be the benefit of that? Assuming that they keep the current server model, what're the advantages of multiple accounts over just having a new character created for you when you log on to a different server?

 

This is sort of what I was trying to express. They not only need to make up their minds about server persistence, but the importance of the individual server. They're trying to shoehorn semi-MMO server needs into a FPS server structure and a finite map. So the approach, whatever it is, has to be extremely granular and considerate of however they plan on dividing up the servers.

 

I've said it before, and this is a side-issue, but as large as Chernarus is... it really isn't that big once all the blanks have been filled in and once there are 60+ players on board. Which is why I've always been hesitant when they talk about upping the player count, as I think the map is already being pushed beyond its limits. It's also important to note that we treat Chernarus as a "map" rather than a "world". This is a concept that needs to be explored, and could be a limiting factor.

Not to worry yet, we still don't know the spawn system, and we do know that they have been balancing the map the hell out, and as large as cherno already is.

Its gonna be even larger with these smallet suburban areas around it, and as you can enter 90% of the buildings, I'm pretty sure even 10 players will disappear to cherno as they would disappear on a massive haystack, but hey theres still Elektro.

 

These extended smaller towns we don't even know yet.People thinkin that going to those 2 cities is a suicide, remember they have 200-300 zombies roaming there, and as they are alot harder to beat now.

Smart People are most likely gonna avoid that place unless its absolutely necessary to go in there, and only time will tell if its gonna be just a massive zombie onslaught and then massive pvp zone. We just have to keep our hopes up and ejoy the trip.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Aporis

[boneboys 7988]

On Topic only.

[BelMarduk 169]

In another one of my (hopefully) eloquent discussion topics related to SA, I'd like to address the issue of persistent servers/hives. I've spoken on this subject before (with that rascal Fraggle if I recall correctly) in past threads but never really at length. This is one of those topics where people tend to be one way or the other (and a topic where I haven't really formulated a wholly accommodating solution), so I'll attempt to portray both sides to the best of my ability.

 

With the current DayZ paradigm, you get two experiences. One where you can move your character in and out of whatever server and you get the same gear/weapons. The second being that your character becomes limited to a server (via private hive).

 

Personally, I think that the latter experience is the better one. Initially, I seem to remember the persistent characters being a "selling point" for DayZ. I remember Rocket mentioning it as a valued feature. I could be way off, but I seem to remember that very clearly. As DayZ evolved, it became clear (to me at least) that this feature is inherently incompatible with DayZ's unforgiving focus. I don't really like the effects that un-policed private hives have had on current server options, which in my opinion bastardize the DayZ experience (i.e. more vehicles, self-bloodbag, more barracks, etc.) But I do see it as a more viable solution to the problem of character persistence. Now, in Standalone, I hope they have (and keep) a standardized system of servers that aren't necessarily "private hive" but only allow players to have individual characters on individual servers.

 

The problem cited in doing this, is the problem of server hopping. To be honest, I really can't tell when this occurs or if it's still a significant problem. The only time where I've experienced it was to flank a group of hackers to kill them on Skalisty Island, and I was promptly TP'd into the air after I successfully killed them. But it's also more than a "tactical situation" flaw, it's a gear flaw as well. One can log onto an empty server, raid/farm the barracks and then log on to a populated server to cause mayhem. There's nothing particularly wrong with this mayhem, but the way in which it was "earned" inherently circumvents the experience of other players. Now, excluding the idea of highly centralized loot distribution as is present in the mod, this could still be a problem in Standalone.

 

Likewise, there is a bit of inconsistency with regard to player structures and vehicles. Obviously, vehicles/structures cannot and should not be allowed to travel with you across servers (like we currently have with vehicles/tents). The vehicles and space of a particular server are resources allocated to that server. So why are people/weapons/gear not server-allocated resources? This type of cross-server play can offset any potential "player economy" and can also undermine any server cohesion. Furthermore, if a closed server model is adhered to, they can then go about implementing vehicles and structure-building systems which are dependent on that consistency. For instance, you wouldn't then be able to move weapons cross-server to store in your bunker on your home server. Another example is the acquisition of resources to create structures in the first place, which (through my time playing the now dead DayZ+ mod, I can vouch for) is very easy on depopulated servers regardless of item rarity.

 

In my view, you cannot have persistent characters and server-dependent vehicle/structure resources together. One system therefore tries to accommodate the other and it becomes an unhealthy relationship which could be easily remedied by just having consistency.

 

The other side of the argument, as I understand it, is primarily concerned (ironically, as I will demonstrate further down) with ideas of a grand community. Cross-server character persistence allows for several very healthy things in-game. Things like item trading and ease of movement for friends who may play on different servers. It also allows for a very flexible system of migration when a server becomes depopulated. All of these problems I will present solutions for or reasons why they may not be big issues.

 

The problem here with trading, for me, is that item trading can take place entirely in-game. One doesn't need a forum, sidechat, or cross-server persistence to arrange a meeting (though some may find it convenient). Finding a radio, actually forging a relationship, and arranging a meet (to do whatever) seems far more in keeping with DayZ's premise and seems a much more rewarding experience. Or, leaving a note at a dead-drop reading "Will trade X packs of antibiotics for Y boxes of 5.56x45 NATO ammunition. Leave the ammunition here at 4PM EST, I will be watching". This opens a whole range of new experiences rather than a reliance on cross-server or extra-server resources. I'm hesitant to critique things like Skype/TS here, and won't due to the probability that they will not/cannot be countered. But, I will say that I do not think they are beneficial to DayZ.

 

The problem of fixed server characters and reasonable migration to play with your friends on another server is problematic for me. On one hand, I do want folks who play together to have that option should they somehow end up on different servers. But, I also think that this problem wouldn't be very significant as people who wish to play together would have to play on the same server anyhow. I'm more than open to suggestion on a "middle-ground" solution to this problem.

 

Server depopulation is also another problematic issue. I understand that there is a very vicious cycle of server popularity. None of the servers that I played last year exist today. If I had a character fixed to one of these servers, I would have to start all over again just to have people to play with. Assuming that the update process is automated/easier for servers (so that servers do not have out-of-date versions of the game), depopulation becomes the biggest factor. Encouraging a server-based community is a potential solution. By fixing characters to a server, one may become loyal to a server and get to know the people in the server. You forge relationships with these people and upon the death of your character, you are still given the option of moving elsewhere or staying put. This would both strengthen communities in specific servers as well as bring in new people to shake up the dynamics of a server to keep it interesting.

 

I'll stop there, as it's getting a bit wordy. Feel free to critique, disagree, present competing/supporting arguments. Yikes, now that I post it it is very wordy, much respect to those of you who read it (and for those of you who don't want to, stick to the bold-italic points).

I really do not play vanilla DayZ much any more. I have been recently playing Epoch. Obviously I have been playing private hives. I bought Arma II the 4th of May, 2012 specifically for DayZ mod. I have but one issue with public hive concept. Meta gaming/server hopping. That's huge IMHO. I don't however think that's a bigger problem than of your private server going down (and all your time into 'random dayz spawn number x^23'). I think it will come down to exactly what the public hive policies are, specifically when persistent base building is implemented.

[Private Evans 1303]

Since economy ( loot spawn) will be regulated by special main servers ( as far as I understand), global trading  will be an important  feature of the SA. Not forget to mention that the official featured  radio stations will also not be tied to just one server , I think making all players feeling part of the same world even if they are playing on different servers should be a main aspect of the game. Question is how to handle this without allowing server hopping, combat logging and meta gaming and forcing players to use ingame mechanics instead.

[pxxl 259]

Since economy ( loot spawn) will be regulated by special main servers ( as far as I understand), global trading  will be an important  feature of the SA. Not forget to mention that the official featured  radio stations will also not be tied to just one server , I think making all players feeling part of the same world even if they are playing on different servers should be a main aspect of the game. Question is how to handle this without allowing server hopping, combat logging and meta gaming and forcing players to use ingame mechanics instead.

Exactly. There will be only x amount of NVG for x amount of live servers. For the server hopping part they could log how many times you switch a server in a certain time span and give you a warning that the next time you hop.. you die..  :thumbsup: 

The combat logging is already tackled in the mod right? A simple timer for when you are engaged in combat.. so i don't see why that wouldn't be copied to the SA.

[Avallanche 121]

I don't believe cross-servers radios will be possible. To many people talking (thousands) would be a real mess...

[Wayze 549]

In another one of my (hopefully) eloquent discussion topics related to SA, I'd like to address the issue of persistent servers/hives. I've spoken on this subject before (with that rascal Fraggle if I recall correctly) in past threads but never really at length. This is one of those topics where people tend to be one way or the other (and a topic where I haven't really formulated a wholly accommodating solution), so I'll attempt to portray both sides to the best of my ability.

 

With the current DayZ paradigm, you get two experiences. One where you can move your character in and out of whatever server and you get the same gear/weapons. The second being that your character becomes limited to a server (via private hive).

 

Personally, I think that the latter experience is the better one. Initially, I seem to remember the persistent characters being a "selling point" for DayZ. I remember Rocket mentioning it as a valued feature. I could be way off, but I seem to remember that very clearly. As DayZ evolved, it became clear (to me at least) that this feature is inherently incompatible with DayZ's unforgiving focus. I don't really like the effects that un-policed private hives have had on current server options, which in my opinion bastardize the DayZ experience (i.e. more vehicles, self-bloodbag, more barracks, etc.) But I do see it as a more viable solution to the problem of character persistence. Now, in Standalone, I hope they have (and keep) a standardized system of servers that aren't necessarily "private hive" but only allow players to have individual characters on individual servers.

 

The problem cited in doing this, is the problem of server hopping. To be honest, I really can't tell when this occurs or if it's still a significant problem. The only time where I've experienced it was to flank a group of hackers to kill them on Skalisty Island, and I was promptly TP'd into the air after I successfully killed them. But it's also more than a "tactical situation" flaw, it's a gear flaw as well. One can log onto an empty server, raid/farm the barracks and then log on to a populated server to cause mayhem. There's nothing particularly wrong with this mayhem, but the way in which it was "earned" inherently circumvents the experience of other players. Now, excluding the idea of highly centralized loot distribution as is present in the mod, this could still be a problem in Standalone.

 

Likewise, there is a bit of inconsistency with regard to player structures and vehicles. Obviously, vehicles/structures cannot and should not be allowed to travel with you across servers (like we currently have with vehicles/tents). The vehicles and space of a particular server are resources allocated to that server. So why are people/weapons/gear not server-allocated resources? This type of cross-server play can offset any potential "player economy" and can also undermine any server cohesion. Furthermore, if a closed server model is adhered to, they can then go about implementing vehicles and structure-building systems which are dependent on that consistency. For instance, you wouldn't then be able to move weapons cross-server to store in your bunker on your home server. Another example is the acquisition of resources to create structures in the first place, which (through my time playing the now dead DayZ+ mod, I can vouch for) is very easy on depopulated servers regardless of item rarity.

 

In my view, you cannot have persistent characters and server-dependent vehicle/structure resources together. One system therefore tries to accommodate the other and it becomes an unhealthy relationship which could be easily remedied by just having consistency.

 

The other side of the argument, as I understand it, is primarily concerned (ironically, as I will demonstrate further down) with ideas of a grand community. Cross-server character persistence allows for several very healthy things in-game. Things like item trading and ease of movement for friends who may play on different servers. It also allows for a very flexible system of migration when a server becomes depopulated. All of these problems I will present solutions for or reasons why they may not be big issues.

 

The problem here with trading, for me, is that item trading can take place entirely in-game. One doesn't need a forum, sidechat, or cross-server persistence to arrange a meeting (though some may find it convenient). Finding a radio, actually forging a relationship, and arranging a meet (to do whatever) seems far more in keeping with DayZ's premise and seems a much more rewarding experience. Or, leaving a note at a dead-drop reading "Will trade X packs of antibiotics for Y boxes of 5.56x45 NATO ammunition. Leave the ammunition here at 4PM EST, I will be watching". This opens a whole range of new experiences rather than a reliance on cross-server or extra-server resources. I'm hesitant to critique things like Skype/TS here, and won't due to the probability that they will not/cannot be countered. But, I will say that I do not think they are beneficial to DayZ.

 

The problem of fixed server characters and reasonable migration to play with your friends on another server is problematic for me. On one hand, I do want folks who play together to have that option should they somehow end up on different servers. But, I also think that this problem wouldn't be very significant as people who wish to play together would have to play on the same server anyhow. I'm more than open to suggestion on a "middle-ground" solution to this problem.

 

Server depopulation is also another problematic issue. I understand that there is a very vicious cycle of server popularity. None of the servers that I played last year exist today. If I had a character fixed to one of these servers, I would have to start all over again just to have people to play with. Assuming that the update process is automated/easier for servers (so that servers do not have out-of-date versions of the game), depopulation becomes the biggest factor. Encouraging a server-based community is a potential solution. By fixing characters to a server, one may become loyal to a server and get to know the people in the server. You forge relationships with these people and upon the death of your character, you are still given the option of moving elsewhere or staying put. This would both strengthen communities in specific servers as well as bring in new people to shake up the dynamics of a server to keep it interesting.

 

I'll stop there, as it's getting a bit wordy. Feel free to critique, disagree, present competing/supporting arguments. Yikes, now that I post it it is very wordy, much respect to those of you who read it (and for those of you who don't want to, stick to the bold-italic points).

First, I want to make clear that I really do not care about this. You can have it your way, no problem. But I think there are some additional aspects we should consider here.

 

I haven't played DayZ for quite some time, but I never was able to transport my vehicle or my tent across a server. Seems really stupid, the solution would be simple: Don't add it to the game.

Well, and there was another problem you were talking about. People who server switch for farming loot. Well, people would most likely do that in military areas, where good weapons are more likely. But, I think standalone has two really simple solutions for this:

Zombies and serverside characters.

I see it like that, if you want to get inside a building of a military area, you first have to take out a huge amount of zombies. I am talking about 20 zeds (if you are careful and they don't detect you at all), which is quite difficult. But, let's say someone serverhops inside a building, as zombies do spawn at server restart, the guy in this buidling will be dead before he even sees his character. Additionally, if he wants to log out, the zombies will rip him apart, because if you leave a server your character will stay on the spot you logged out for a certain time, unprotected.

So, problem vanished, hopefully. That would ofcourse require zombies to be in buildings, in military areas. Someone who spawns inside a building, would have almost no chance of survival. The zombies will attack him, even if he takes them out as the zombies scream they lure all of the zombies outside of the building (maybe like 30-40 depends on how well protected the area is) to him, which would result in certain death.

Approaching a military area on the other side should be a very difficult task and time consuming task. It should be a great risk and result in most attemps into a violent death.

 

Another aspect is the economy. As there will be very rare items in the game, they would have no value if the servers were locked. Who needs the best weapon ingame, if you cannot even get out of the server with it? And additionally I don't think that 100 players are enough for a working economy. I really think that people will form groups and operate on certain servers. Like trading servers. This would be some sort of end-game, because, tjhe people trying to protect it would have constantly something to do. Secure the safety of the trading area. On the other side there are the bandits which will try to rob the place. Would result in very interesting situations.

Ofcourse all of this won't be possible without constant characters.

[finalstraw 193]

I don't believe cross-servers radios will be possible. To many people talking (thousands) would be a real mess...

 

That will be server only, but Radio stations will be heard across all servers.

[Private Evans 1303]

...no more trading threads on the official forums but Instead  player (server) organized market days anounced via  radio stations...

[voddler (DayZ) 367]

...no more trading threads on the official forums but Instead  player (server) organized market days anounced via  radio stations...

Brilliant idea! Radios will be an interesting thing to use indeed. Calling for help, tricking people, trading.. Lots of possibilities.

[Wayze 549]

Brilliant idea! Radios will be an interesting thing to use indeed. Calling for help, tricking people, trading.. Lots of possibilities.

If you have a radio, which will be highly unlikely, then yes.

[Katana67 2907]

Not to worry yet, we still don't know the spawn system ...

 

These extended smaller towns we don't even know yet.People thinkin that going to those 2 cities is a suicide, remember they have 200-300 zombies roaming there, and as they are alot harder to beat now.

Smart People are most likely gonna avoid that place unless its absolutely necessary to go in there, and only time will tell if its gonna be just a massive zombie onslaught and then massive pvp zone. We just have to keep our hopes up and ejoy the trip.

 

Right, but I don't think it's that simple. I think you have a point, in that people will be far more preoccupied with other things. But, if the cities are suicide, then wouldn't that encourage people to head north? I'm all for this, but it sort of proves what I'm saying whereby the map really isn't that big when you throw a lot of people in a server (i.e. you'll come across people regularly).

 

On Topic only.

 

I would make the case for this being on-topic. We're discussing aspects of SA as presented by the developers in a setting that is far more discursive than just a separate thread. Plus, it encourages (at least for a short while) people to slow down on the rampant speculation that's been fairly divisive.

 

Meta gaming/server hopping. That's huge IMHO. I don't however think that's a bigger problem than of your private server going down (and all your time into 'random dayz spawn number x^23'). I think it will come down to exactly what the public hive policies are, specifically when persistent base building is implemented.

 

This is what I was getting at. They cannot have both persistent servers and server-based resources.

 

Since economy (loot spawn) will be regulated by special main servers (as far as I understand), global trading will be an important  feature of the SA. Not forget to mention that the official featured radio stations will also not be tied to just one server, I think making all players feeling part of the same world even if they are playing on different servers should be a main aspect of the game.

 

I think you raise an interesting point, but are muddling two issues. The main hive/server regulates loot spawn for individual servers based upon a global loot list. The economy itself isn't regulated, merely the items used in said economy. But, if we take your point as such, that raises the question of whether or not the current server/map dynamic is really suited for this type of global versus granular treatment. Which is sort of what I was getting at, in that it's problematic when you have global persistence (characters and loot lists) and a server-based system coupled with a finite map with finite resources.

 

 

For the server hopping part they could log how many times you switch a server in a certain time span and give you a warning that the next time you hop.. you die..

 

But the amount of server hops is irrelevant, I could potentially exist on a depopulated or low-population server for hours on end farming loot. Granted, I have no idea whether or not this will be feasible in SA still, as loot is highly centralized and predictable in the mod.

 

But I think there are some additional aspects we should consider here.

 

... but I never was able to transport my vehicle or my tent across a server. Seems really stupid, the solution would be simple: Don't add it to the game.

 

Well, and there was another problem you were talking about. People who server switch for farming loot. ... But, I think standalone has two really simple solutions for this:

 

I see it like that, if you want to get inside a building of a military area, you first have to take out a huge amount of zombies. I am talking about 20 zeds (if you are careful and they don't detect you at all), which is quite difficult. But, let's say someone serverhops inside a building, as zombies do spawn at server restart, the guy in this buidling will be dead before he even sees his character. Additionally, if he wants to log out, the zombies will rip him apart, because if you leave a server your character will stay on the spot you logged out for a certain time, unprotected.

So, problem vanished, hopefully.

 

Another aspect is the economy. As there will be very rare items in the game, they would have no value if the servers were locked. Who needs the best weapon ingame, if you cannot even get out of the server with it? And additionally I don't think that 100 players are enough for a working economy. I really think that people will form groups and operate on certain servers. Like trading servers. This would be some sort of end-game, because, tjhe people trying to protect it would have constantly something to do. Secure the safety of the trading area. On the other side there are the bandits which will try to rob the place. Would result in very interesting situations.

 

Of course all of this won't be possible without constant characters.

 

To your first point, yes I agree. This has never been possible, for good reason and it doesn't seem like it will ever be possible. But I was saying that to illustrate an inconsistency in that there are some aspects of persistence (characters, gear, weapons) and some aspects of fixed-server resources (tent storage and vehicles). So that, to me, pulls me out of the whole "living in a world" idea and places me squarely in the "I'm playing a game" realm. Now, it's more complicated than just a typical "immersion" breaker when some systems themselves are designed around persistence and some are designed around static resources.

 

But if a player logs off inside a military area, after having got in, he or she can then switch servers once in a relatively undetected location and just repeat the same loot cycle. It may be more difficult, sure, but it's still possible and much easier than having to enter/exit the military area over again. As for characters lingering after log-off, yeah, that makes sense for a variety of reasons. But it, in my mind, won't solve the issue of server hopping (as it's still possible, just more difficult). But it's a good start.

 

This is why I think that a globally managed loot list is incompatible with a diverse server base. Sure, it works well in MMO servers when you've got everyone actually existing/playing in a persistent world. But in DayZ, much is tied to the individual server and much is tied to the individual character. Perhaps a good solution to this, way down the road admittedly, would be small instanced areas where the player could access the global market in-game. I'm hesitant to advocate for a neutral trading post/zone instance, but something like that in keeping with DayZ's traditional unforgiving nature. A problem with this solution, is that you'd get clusters of high-value items in this instance.

 

Which is a huge flaw and sort of indicates to me why they need to make up their minds on cross-server versus server-fixed because there really are no elegant solutions other than a paradigm shift. This is why I've tried to present server-fixed characters/resources as the most viable solution, as if cross-server systems are implemented one cannot have decent storage/construction or vehicles in that they can be used to store resources garnered from other servers and thus offset any particular economy. Likewise, one could just log off in the area where someone's (theoretical) house is in one server, and log inside it when he/she logs back.

 

Also, I'm not an economist, but I assume all you'd need for a working economy is two parties with different demands, and a potential supply. The number of people could be irrelevant, depending on how the system itself is implemented.

 

...no more trading threads on the official forums but Instead  player (server) organized market days anounced via  radio stations...

 

This is what I was getting at. But it still could (if we consider the global radio stations) require cross-server travel. If there were certain stations that were server-specific I'd support this wholeheartedly. But I also want trade to occur entirely in-game on a regular basis, hence why I think radios will be a great tool (instead of side-chat) for negotiating trades.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Katana67

[sav112g 114]

Realising how lazy I’m getting I just cant be arsed reading a wall of text these days. I’m sure its good stuff but I’ve not read any of it.