[SA] Map switching - Survival End Game

[Wayze 549]

This suggestion is inspired by ZippyTheClown's suggestion:

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/150046-a-few-suggestions-for-standalone/

 

I like the idea of switching the map. But it should be very, very difficult and if you die you are back on Map 1 again. That would kind of result in a very high character value. If you are on map 2 and it took you 10 hours to get their you will be very glad. But on map 2 the people are way better players then on map 1 because all of them managed to get here. Also every player on map two will be very, very careful because he does not want to die. On map 3 it would be even more extreme. Players who survive like 30 hours just to get on map 3 would be absolute elite players. They know how to avoid players, how to kill them and how to survive.

 

Every map should dramaticly increase the difficulty of survival, meaning:

Less food, less ammo, more zeds, deadly weather conditions etc.

But it also should have some advantages like better weapons. These weapons ofcourse would be even more rare than the ones before, but these weapons would be just available on these maps.

It is very important that once you left a map you are never able to going back.

That would mean that a player would have to prepare before switching the map. It would result in authentic survival behaviour. People who want to play deathmatch just stay on map one, they want be even able to get on map 2 because it is very difficult and additionally to that they would have a hard time to even survive.

Map 2 would be a map full of survival players, who are expirienced and not stupid enough to be killed by zeds or players. Map 3 would have extremely good players who are very, very careful. Map 4....

You probably get what I mean. The more maps you survive the more the game gets into a survival game. The more authentic the behaviour is. You really, really do not want to die if you are on map 4 after playing 50 hours. Nobody would run around calling "friendly?" or playing like a bandit shooting everyone.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Wayze

[dulix11 731]

Aaaannnnnndddddddd what about the troll who will devote his time to killing everyone who gets to said 'Map 2' and / or 'Map 3'?

Edited October 16, 2013 by dulix11

[Korsbaek 1778]

Aaaannnnnndddddddd what about the troll who will devote his time to killing everyone who gets to said 'Map 2' and / or 'Map 3'?

 

This. There would still be KoS'ers on "map 2, 3 and 4". They would just be better than the noobs running around on "map 1".

[AP_Norris 1018]

This. There would still be KoS'ers on "map 2, 3 and 4". They would just be better than the noobs running around on "map 1".

True.

I bet you would likely see proper clans working around the place, actual fortifications when there isn't noobs pouring over as soon as they see it and taking everything in sight.

People might think before they try running in.

[fluxley 2228]

I'd to see something like this implemented, anything to make the game world bigger.

Would tie in nicely with SalamanderAnders idea here http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/149976-long-term-standalone-discussion-globalization-logistics-economy-and-more/

 

Not sure about not being able to return to a previous map though, quite like the idea of raiding parties coming from the badlands.

 

Seeing as creating maps is such a huge task they could speed up the process by getting the community modders involved, Rocket has already said they will be hoping to encourage map makers by providing official tools and maybe even training.

Would be great to see maps submitted for a shortlist and then voted for by the community to be included as expansions to Chernarus.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Fluxley

[rossums 2190]

I don't think you even need to go this far in depth, there are a lot simpler methods to increase difficulty.

If each 'map' had different terrain, it could be used to set the 'difficulty', for example - north of Chernarus could be a Namalsk style map.

Adding in a HEAVY focus in staying warm would already make the game significantly harder (And require heatpacks or warm clothing before moving into the area to reduce chances of hypothermia and death).

If there is a warmer type of map there could be a significant focus on keeping hydrated as well as wearing lighter clothing so you don't overheat.

As you move away from Chernarus the zombies could become greater in number also, thus increasing difficulty more.

I'm not sure if there would have to be a particular reduction of loot if there is a lot of emphasis on certain mechanics (Heat, hydration) in these area as it would naturally make certain items more valuable and certain ones pretty useless (Finding shorts in a snowy area doesn't prove to be immediately useful).

You can freely travel between the areas but you will have to keep track about which clothing will benefit you in which area as well as what supplies you are going to need - it will put more emphasis on stockpiling certain items (Heatpacks, water) rather than ammo, weapons and vehicle parts which is a trade-off you have to make if you want it to be easier.

 

Edit: Bit more to add.
By requiring certain gear in certain areas to be optimal it will definitely give a sense of progression (You will most definitely need to get warm clothing and heatpacks before heading to snowy area) but the progression isn't articially implemented with specific 'levels' you need to get to to advance.

It will feel a lot more natural and allow the developers to put more mechanics which require certain clothing or items to work properly and thus force players to choose between a Warm Wool Coat which keeps you warm but doesn't provide much defence or Ballistic Vest which will provide a little protection to low-calibre rounds but won't provide much in the way of heating.

It makes the end-game more.. varied.. for which area you are in, there won't be a single 'Best Set' over the entire map, certain items provide certain benefits and a certain trade-off for those benefits (weight, warmth, protection etc.).

Edited October 16, 2013 by Rossums

[Gwraspe 318]

exactly what rossums said

[Wayze 549]

This. There would still be KoS'ers on "map 2, 3 and 4". They would just be better than the noobs running around on "map 1".

Who said different? Who said that a survivor has to wait until he shots? Who said that KoS is no proper survival technique?

In my opinion KoS is legit. But people who KoS just for fun won't enjoy the game.

 

I think DayZ SA will change the game. People who kill for fun won't enjoy it because they won't find any weapons. This is not something Map switching will solve, this is a key element to DayZ SA. If you find a makarov you will be as lucky as finding a Heli + AS50 on one spot in the vanilla DayZ.

On map two finding a makarov will be like finding a spaceship in DayZ mod. And finding ammo? Well, you can call yourself the luckiest man ever if you even have two full mags.

 

I really hope this will be the case in the SA, that it will be a proper survival game and that people who KoS for fun won't even be able to do it because of the lack of ammo.

 

If you get to map 5, you will have no ammo left. Finding a mag will be as likely as getting hit by a plane. You won't run around like a maniac, the constant thing you will have to do is finding food, escaping zombies and avoiding players.

 

@Rossums

I do not want to increase the difficulty, I just want a proper survival game. The most important part for a game, to be a survival game, is having character value. You play to survive, you use weapons to survive, you do everything to survive.

In DayZ it is the other way around. You kill to keep your weapons, you survive to keep your weapons. Your life is just an excuse to kill other players. Like I said so many times, why do you even play DayZ? Is it really to survive? No f*cking way, if it was the case you would just run around with a coke and beans and hide in the woods. You get yourself some weapons. But why? You don't need them to survive, you just need them to have fun. To kill bandits or survivors. To kill zombies. DayZ fails in being authentic even in it's core part.

 

If like you said there would be an area in DayZ that is "hard", well... and? I don't care if I die.. why would I? I just could go over there again. 20 minutes and I am back again. I want to fear for my characters life, I want to fear that something is lost that I never am going to have again. Sure it would be way easier to implement a character development system, but as people don't give a sh*t about it, I thought maybe some maps would change it.

 

I just want the game to have player interactions similar to a real life scenario. I want to put my weapon down if a bandit stands behind me. I want to be as feared that I don't even look at him. Maybe he is carrying a banana? Well, I don't know. I don't want to risk it. I will just do what he says, so I have a chance to survive. In DayZ as you know it you would just be like "F*ck it if he takes my weapon I could respawn and there would be no difference" *peng* *peng* -immersion dead-.

And I don't want to play it. I don't won't to be like "Hmm he is a bandit and I am a dude walking around in a city, what would I do if it was real life? Hm, probably I will give up..."

I want to be like "Holy f*cking sh*t what the f*ck am I supposed to do?!" *hands shaking/pulse 170*

The problem, if the gear is everything I can lose, then whatever the other guy will do, even if it is a whole group of bandits, I will try to kill them all. Why would I give up and give them all my weapons? What difference is there to death?

 

This is a huge problem in DayZ, in my opinion the by far biggest problem. I don't know if Dean has a genius idea for that (he said they are working on it), but if that does not change, I will be kind of disappointed.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Wayze

[rossums 2190]

-snip-

I feel that the only way to increase (friendly) player interaction is by forcing player to work together to fight a common foe - the zombies and the environment.

The different zones wouldn't really increase the difficulty of the game overall, but focus on different areas of survival - this would also allow a certain feeling of progression without artificially implementing 'levels'.

The difficulty for certain areas though definitely needs tweaked - cities for example:

Everything you need is right on your doorstep, houses, supermarkets, pubs, hospitals but a laughable amount of zombies to 'defend' the area - increase the level of zombies in areas like these would strike a finer balance between risk and reward compared to now, it would also give players a reason to loot the 'low-level' houses rather than running straight through Elektro or Chernarus with no ill-effects.

The reason most people fight at the moment is due to the difficulty of the game overall and the triviality of avoiding certain mechanics - there is nothing really to do when you have a weapon or two and a little food - survival is almost guaranteed and food/drink plays no real role other than you have to do it every half-hour or so to make sure you don't die.

If there is a lot of higher-level or rarer loot found out-with the Chernarus area, e.g. in a Namalsk-like zone - players are going to have to travel an extreme distance from southern Chernarus as well as have to find the required items to ensure their survival before they can progress to the next zone (With a decent chance of survival - obviously you could risk going into a blizzard wearing underpants and a motorbike helmet but you're going to drop in temperature FAST).

If weapons and ammo are the most valuable things to players now, changing that for certain regions will force players to adapt and either kill/team-up to survive - different area dynamics will mean that certain things are more immediately valuable than others.

Most players at the moment don't give a shit about dying, they will spawn cycle to get one near a city, run through and pretty much be guaranteed an AK-74 or a Lee Enfield then head to the airfield (Which a lot of people HATE for being so far), by opening the map further north and west it will dramatically increase the distance players have to travel and put a lot more emphasis on more basic survival techniques rather than stockpiling guns and ammo to fight with.

Might need to keep an extra pair of shoes, boots for the snow, a heavy jacket, heatpacks, food, materials to create a fire in a pinch - it's not harder per se - it just requires focus in a different direction compared to the current state of DayZ - the terrain may be harsher, forcing you to think differently than on Chernarus where temperature is not an issue but the different rewards may be an incentive for a lot of players to make the journey.

[Wayze 549]

I feel that the only way to increase (friendly) player interaction is by forcing player to work together to fight a common foe - the zombies and the environment.

The different zones wouldn't really increase the difficulty of the game overall, but focus on different areas of survival - this would also allow a certain feeling of progression without artificially implementing 'levels'.

The difficulty for certain areas though definitely needs tweaked - cities for example:

Everything you need is right on your doorstep, houses, supermarkets, pubs, hospitals but a laughable amount of zombies to 'defend' the area - increase the level of zombies in areas like these would strike a finer balance between risk and reward compared to now, it would also give players a reason to loot the 'low-level' houses rather than running straight through Elektro or Chernarus with no ill-effects.

The reason most people fight at the moment is due to the difficulty of the game overall and the triviality of avoiding certain mechanics - there is nothing really to do when you have a weapon or two and a little food - survival is almost guaranteed and food/drink plays no real role other than you have to do it every half-hour or so to make sure you don't die.

If there is a lot of higher-level or rarer loot found out-with the Chernarus area, e.g. in a Namalsk-like zone - players are going to have to travel an extreme distance from southern Chernarus as well as have to find the required items to ensure their survival before they can progress to the next zone (With a decent chance of survival - obviously you could risk going into a blizzard wearing underpants and a motorbike helmet but you're going to drop in temperature FAST).

If weapons and ammo are the most valuable things to players now, changing that for certain regions will force players to adapt and either kill/team-up to survive - different area dynamics will mean that certain things are more immediately valuable than others.

Most players at the moment don't give a shit about dying, they will spawn cycle to get one near a city, run through and pretty much be guaranteed an AK-74 or a Lee Enfield then head to the airfield (Which a lot of people HATE for being so far), by opening the map further north and west it will dramatically increase the distance players have to travel and put a lot more emphasis on more basic survival techniques rather than stockpiling guns and ammo to fight with.

Might need to keep an extra pair of shoes, boots for the snow, a heavy jacket, heatpacks, food, materials to create a fire in a pinch - it's not harder per se - it just requires focus in a different direction compared to the current state of DayZ - the terrain may be harsher, forcing you to think differently than on Chernarus where temperature is not an issue but the different rewards may be an incentive for a lot of players to make the journey.

I don't think there should be zones at all in the game. And I also think that every place should be unique and have advantages. If there would be zones it would result anyway in playing on 2-3 differents spots. Right now in DayZ I just spawn in cherno or electro, go to stary and NWAF. Boring.

 

But I think you misunderstood me. I don't want friendly player interaction. I want authentic player interaction. I don't want people running around like "Friendly? Hey mate are you friendly I gonna team up with you".

No way that happens in real life. It would more be like "Stop right there or I f*cking shot you piece of sh*t!". Both nervous as hell, in the end shooting each other out of fear...

This is what I want. I want the game to be a survival game. I want to be so feared that I even sell my soul just to survive. I really, really don't like it when people just run around trying to team up with others. It is so immersion breaking, it is like they wouldn't care for their life. They just want a cool expirience. It is not even close to dynamic.

 

Finding someone friendly should not be a given, but an expirience that is so unique and rare that I will be sad after the guy I played with died. I want to be paranoid and I don't want that to be because I don't want to lose my gear. I just want to fear my characters death.

[rossums 2190]

I don't think there should be zones at all in the game. And I also think that every place should be unique and have advantages. If there would be zones it would result anyway in playing on 2-3 differents spots. Right now in DayZ I just spawn in cherno or electro, go to stary and NWAF. Boring.

 

But I think you misunderstood me. I don't want friendly player interaction. I want authentic player interaction. I don't want people running around like "Friendly? Hey mate are you friendly I gonna team up with you".

No way that happens in real life. It would more be like "Stop right there or I f*cking shot you piece of sh*t!". Both nervous as hell, in the end shooting each other out of fear...

This is what I want. I want the game to be a survival game. I want to be so feared that I even sell my soul just to survive. I really, really don't like it when people just run around trying to team up with others. It is so immersion breaking, it is like they wouldn't care for their life. They just want a cool expirience. It is not even close to dynamic.

 

Finding someone friendly should not be a given, but an expirience that is so unique and rare that I will be sad after the guy I played with died. I want to be paranoid and I don't want that to be because I don't want to lose my gear. I just want to fear my characters death.

I don't mean actual 'zones' - I'm just not sure of a better way to put it without it sounding silly.

Certain areas would naturally have better loot (Cities, bases) but are also naturally more likely to be a tougher area to go to due to population (and thus, zombies).

Specific areas would also have more specific items to loot that are potentially more rare in other areas - encouraging players to these regions of the map if they want a better chance at a certain weapon or clothing piece.

I think 'friendly' was a bad choice of words too, I meant more in a 'Okay, we are both in trouble of dying here either of us shoots, I need this, you need this, Put it on the floor and walk away or we're both going to end up dying' type of deal - nobody wants to engage and risk dying but nobody wants to potentially allow the other person to get the upper hand - basically an encounter that didn't involve them immediately shooting each other.

There are numerous ways that could play out, one could kill the other, they could kill each other, they could trade and continue to survive, they could trade and turn on each other - many, many possibilities other than 'be nice' or 'be a dick'.

More like a mutually beneficial 'trade' rather than friendliness - if players were thrown into situations like this in a remote area there is the chance that just making a deal would be better than you both hacking into each other with a machete and bleeding out.

The only way to make someone fear the death of their character means they are going to lose something of value (be it their rare weapons or their time having to progress to a far-away area).

The 'It is very important that once you left a map you are never able to going back.' I couldn't see working - the only way to get players to progress to a new zone is by offering them something in that zone that they otherwise couldn't get in an other zone.

'Locking' them out of an area is just artificially forcing players to progress rather than giving them the choice.

Riskier areas that require more than just brute-force could hold higher-end weapons would entice players to visit these areas if they want to potentially gain an advantage.

The amount of preparation it requires (In both items, food, clothing and defence) and the scarcity of items would definitely add value to a character for me - I wouldn't want to have to spend hours collecting various supplies to be shot before continuing on into a snowy, mountainous region.

Locking a character into a zone just seems superfluous - if players have scavenged supplies and travelled into a very harsh environment it's in their best interest to remain undetected, especially if they have less means of defence since they had to swap it out for supplies necessary to survive in a harsh climate.

[Wayze 549]

The 'It is very important that once you left a map you are never able to going back.' I couldn't see working - the only way to get players to progress to a new zone is by offering them something in that zone that they otherwise couldn't get in an other zone.

'Locking' them out of an area is just artificially forcing players to progress rather than giving them the choice.

Riskier areas that require more than just brute-force could hold higher-end weapons would entice players to visit these areas if they want to potentially gain an advantage.

The amount of preparation it requires (In both items, food, clothing and defence) and the scarcity of items would definitely add value to a character for me - I wouldn't want to have to spend hours collecting various supplies to be shot before continuing on into a snowy, mountainous region.

Locking a character into a zone just seems superfluous - if players have scavenged supplies and travelled into a very harsh environment it's in their best interest to remain undetected, especially if they have less means of defence since they had to swap it out for supplies necessary to survive in a harsh climate.

Like I said in these maps they would have weapons they cannot find in the previous ones. They have a choice. They can stay on map 1 forever. The problem with "going back" is that it could cause immens problems. You just go back to a friend and get your food.

 

Sure, getting back would be ok I guess, if it would be very, very difficult. Getting back would be even more difficult than going further. Also people surely would like to see these new areas, and there would be a natural way for progress. Another end game. People do not have to shot each other because of boreness but they can try to reach map 5 or something.

 

There are no "zones", you have chernarus. You repair a boat or I don't know and leave chernarus. Then you are on an island or in texas (I don't know xD).

 

 

And I think you are wrong, or you just did not understand what I mean with "life". You do never fear to lose your life. You fear to lose your gear, your weapons. That means you do not live for survival, but for weapons. What do you need these weapons for? KIlling other players. What is the one logical consequense? Using the weapons. And what should you shot?

...

Edited October 16, 2013 by Wayze

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I don't think maps should work like a part of your "level" or anything. I'd prefer the free ability to move from map to map at any time, based on geographical movement. Locking people out of areas could be absolutely devastating to gameplay. Eventually, all the Chernarus servers would be completely empty, because all the players would be stuck in other maps. Not to mention, you would be forcing a division in the community. What if someone goes to the next area and then the next day his friend wants to meet up in Chernarus? You've now removed that option for them, which more than likely means they just won't play the game. Non-freedom = bad news bears.

 

Returning to old areas is not a bad thing. Moving items across areas, again, is not a bad thing. If we want trade to become important, then the logistics of moving high value supplies from other map areas will seriously add to the equation. It should be a player's choice to move from area to area, not the game's choice.

 

The major issue with an "end-game" as we call it, is just that. Everyone's idea of an "end-game" is totally subjective... One person wants to accomplish A, and another person wants to accomplish X. Therefore ramming people through map after map as a form of end-game is actually taking away a lot of personal freedom when it comes to your own goals and ideas about how the game should "end."

Edited October 16, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[rossums 2190]

I don't think maps should work like a part of your "level" or anything. I'd prefer the free ability to move from map to map at any time, based on geographical movement. Locking people out of areas could be absolutely devastating to gameplay. Eventually, all the Chernarus servers would be completely empty, because all the players would be stuck in other maps. Not to mention, you would be forcing a division in the community. What if someone goes to the next area and then the next day his friend wants to meet up in Chernarus? You've now removed that option for them, which more than likely means they just won't play the game. Non-freedom = bad news bears.

 

Returning to old areas is not a bad thing. Moving items across areas, again, is not a bad thing. If we want trade to become important, then the logistics of moving high value supplies from other map areas will seriously add to the equation. It should be a player's choice to move from area to area, not the game's choice.

 

The major issue with an "end-game" as we call it, is just that. Everyone's idea of an "end-game" is totally subjective... One person wants to accomplish A, and another person wants to accomplish X. Therefore ramming people through map after map as a form of end-game is actually taking away a lot of personal freedom when it comes to your own goals and ideas about how the game should "end."

This is what I'm feeling too - if people are to go to another area, they have to WANT to go there.

If there are multiple regions of the map the only way to encourage them to do so is provide items or an experience they can't get anywhere else on the map, 'locking' players into an area just wouldn't work for DayZ.

With areas that have various requirements (Well, not requirements but items that will make the area a lot easier, e.g. warm clothing in the snow) the players have to make a conscious decision to travel to a far away area but they are still free to travel (somewhat) easily to wherever they want and trade items that are perhaps more useful in one area than another (heatpacks wouldn't be worth all that much if it was warm enough not to warrant them).

Forcing players to do something (e.g. Move to area x and NEVER return) just doesn't work, people just find a way to game the system (Such as killing people as soon as they switch maps or staying in zone 2 and preventing people from advancing).

[AP_Norris 1018]

I hope all the maps are kinda unique.

Germany might have gun and car factories.

But less helpful DIY stuff like building materials.

[Wayze 549]

I don't think maps should work like a part of your "level" or anything. I'd prefer the free ability to move from map to map at any time, based on geographical movement. Locking people out of areas could be absolutely devastating to gameplay. Eventually, all the Chernarus servers would be completely empty, because all the players would be stuck in other maps.

Why would the be stuck in other maps? People die, and as the other maps are way more dangerous you will very probably die, very soon. There will just be a very few number of players who even got to map 3...

If you die you are back on map 1. ^^

Edited October 17, 2013 by Wayze

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Why would the be stuck in other maps? People die, and as the other maps are way more dangerous you will very probably die, very soon. There will just be a very few number of players who even got to map 3...

If you die you are back on map 1. ^^

 

Hmm. Then what is the point of preventing people from doubling back? The only reason I can see is to keep people from moving gear. But moving gear across servers is essential to trade. I just don't see why it's necessary to restrict player movement. If someone wants to return to Chernarus, isn't that their prerogative? It's not like Chernarus is some amazing candyland full of beans far as the eye can see, where nobody shoots each other and happiness reigns supreme. Returning to Chernarus would be just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, as the frontier cells - because it would be more highly populated by players. There are risks involved in every decision players make in DayZ. Again, this would be forcing players through an advancement process rather than letting them experience unique, individual advancement.

 

Maybe someone's idea of an "end-game" is to run supplies from Chernarus to the frontier, to trade with other players. It's not like you can cross the map boundary from one place and BAM suddenly you're standing in the middle of the Stary Sobor Supermaket, and you have all teh beanz. You still have to make a physical trip across a dangerous map, which means you can die along the way.

Edited October 17, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Wayze 549]

Hmm. Then what is the point of preventing people from doubling back? The only reason I can see is to keep people from moving gear. But moving gear across servers is essential to trade.

Trade? We don't even know if trading will work. And like I said these maps are kind of hardcore survival instances. So people won't trade, because they don't trust each other. If they do, they die and end up on map 1 anyway.

 

And again, I do not totally disagree with coming back. It should just be very difficult, the same as getting on there.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Wayze