November Round-up

[Mazzar 231]

I think it would be somewhat silly for us to assume the standalone is just some revamped version of the mod. 

 

If that were true, we'd see the same map, buildings and terrain with revamped graphics in the form of better lighting and more accessible models.

oh wait...shit

 

 

I can't speak for certain, but it seems this is the wrong way to play the game.  Sure you can run around and die quickly, and maybe find a gun before being eaten by zombies.  In that case, no the game isn't that great

 

People who actually want to survive would take it slow, carefully loot and avoid running around like a headless chicken.  Interacting with other players, either violently or not, will likely get a lot more out of the game.  It depends, I am sure a lot of people will try to play the game like the mod, and be disappointed their old tactics don't work.  I think if people embrace survival, and the devs do a good job, then the game will really shine.  

 

You hear "survival" and that interests you and thats what you want to play. fair enough, but in reality the game wont function solely like that, it never will, because there isnt perma death. you're trying to link reality into the gaming world. if there was perma death, then yeah.

 

 

The game is going to be what the players make of it. All of these things are going to take adjustments depending on the feedback from the testers, which is essentially what every player is because it's an alpha.

 

You're acting like some final version is coming out and that's the way the game is going to be. It's going to be a survival game, and the players are going to have a voice on how best to represent survival in the game.

 

Yes, the dayz mod was a zombie survival. which the players made into a game of manhunt douchebaggery. Whats your point?

Final version or alpha, doesn't matter, i dont see some of these core gameplay mechanics which have evolved, to change. Without radically changing the game, which i also dont see happening.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar

[AnarchyBrownies 1383]

Whats your point?

 

No I think the bigger question is what is your point? Honestly, what is the point you're trying to make?

 

The entire game has changed. It shares very general features with the mod, that's it. It has zombies, those zombies are different in behaviour and number. The whole loot system has completely changed. It's like you've suddenly woken up after a year in a coma and continued a discussion from 2012. I don't mean this in any insulting way, I'm completely confused as to where you're coming from and what you're trying to accomplish.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

I'm not assuming anything, that's the key. Or rather, I'm providing a counter-assumption to demonstrate your assumption which you're then using to make concrete assertions about a game which has yet to release.

 

Not sure where you got the apartments thing, didn't even mention that.

 

The flaws of DayZ mod are in that you never have to find things again, you get them and you're done. You don't have to maintain them. You hardly have to restock. It's not about never having a break, it's about having a more wholesome survival experience.

 

 

Hopefully a combination of rarity, HUGE amounts of loot diversity, and degredation, will keep players busy.

 

1.  Loot is rare so finding everything you need is VERY hard.  Getting enough food to feed your self should be a constant concern.  Water should be even more pressing.  Personally, I think it should take a long time to starve, but food should be equally rare.   Water shouldn't be too hard to come by, but clean water will be much harder to procure.  Purifying water is an absolute must.  E. Coli diseases, Cholera, Dysentery, and Typhoid Fever all come from drinking bad water.  During the American civil war, thousands died to these diseases.  You might get lucky one character and find lots of water, but nothing to purify it with, and eventually succumb to a disease or zombies because of your weakened state.  The next playthrough, you might find purification tools, but not enough water.  Or maybe no gun.  etc etc.  With good balanced scarcity, players will be constantly searching for something the need.

 

2.  That brings me onto my second topic.  Loot diversity.  TONS and TONS of different items that are good for surviving.  Food, water, clothing are the basics.  Add many types of medicine in there + weapons + other stuff like navigation tools and suddenly a player needs a lot of stuff to survive optimally.  Sure someone can get by without some items, but it will be more difficult.  The more items a player needs, the higher the chances that a player lacks a certain key item.  This will fuel most player interaction hopefully.  Not epeen growing kill montages, but instead, the need for in game resources.  Trading for gear, robbing for gear, and murdering for gear would hopefully materialize instead of random killing.  

 

It would be very satisfying to have a successful trade.  A can of beans for some painkillers.  A Makarov and a Mosin-Nagant for some desperately need antibiotics.  Or maybe, since you have the Mosin-Nagant, you could just kill him.  But what if you don't know he has them for sure?  Would you use your bullets?  Would you risk it?  Of course this is all hypothetical, but from what the devs have been talking about, it could very well be possible.  

 

3.  And finally degradation.  Maybe you find a great weapon, but none of the tools to maintain it and after several days in the rough terrain of Chernarus, it is starting to show some wear.  Especially items that prevent zombie damage.  Searching for armor to replace an old set would be a priority for a player.  New shoes would be needed with all the running you do in game.   Etc etc.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

No I think the bigger question is what is your point? Honestly, what is the point you're trying to make?

 

The entire game has changed. It shares very general features with the mod, that's it. It has zombies, those zombies are different in behaviour and number. The whole loot system has completely changed. It's like you've suddenly woken up after a year in a coma and continued a discussion from 2012. I don't mean this in any insulting way, I'm completely confused as to where you're coming from and what you're trying to accomplish.

 

 

He thinks SA will be a reskin of the mod, which I think is false

[AnarchyBrownies 1383]

He thinks SA will be a reskin of the mod, which I think is false

 

Haha you don't have to think it. If that's the claim he's making then there's no doubt you're right.  He's flat out, 100% wrong.

 

If his point is more along the lines of, "regardless of the changes, it will PLAY the same as the mod," then he's going to have to back it up pretty strongly because no one can possibly know that yet. If we're going to make guesses, the different loot system and more numerous and threatening zombies are reason enough to predict the game will play drastically differently.

Edited November 15, 2013 by AnarchyBrownies

[Mazzar 231]

No I think the bigger question is what is your point? Honestly, what is the point you're trying to make?

 

The entire game has changed. It shares very general features with the mod, that's it. It has zombies, those zombies are different in behaviour and number. The whole loot system has completely changed. It's like you've suddenly woken up after a year in a coma and continued a discussion from 2012. I don't mean this in any insulting way, I'm completely confused as to where you're coming from and what you're trying to accomplish.

 

my point was to counter the hype logic which follows all games pre-release. The type of logic peter molenqunex (w/e) used for black & white and fable games.

 

I mean, we'll wait and see who is right after the release. but then, you'll scream, kick, cry and shout "ITS ONLY THE ALPHA". then years will pass and whether or not things change, none of us will be here to say who was right or wrong.

 

The game shares more with the mod than just zombies, this is clearly where you should see your own bias in this discussion.

 

Hopefully a combination of rarity, HUGE amounts of loot diversity, and degredation, will keep players busy.

 

1.  Loot is rare so finding everything you need is VERY hard.  Getting enough food to feed your self should be a constant concern.  Water should be even more pressing.  Personally, I think it should take a long time to starve, but food should be equally rare.   Water shouldn't be too hard to come by, but clean water will be much harder to procure.  Purifying water is an absolute must.  E. Coli diseases, Cholera, Dysentery, and Typhoid Fever all come from drinking bad water.  During the American civil war, thousands died to these diseases.  You might get lucky one character and find lots of water, but nothing to purify it with, and eventually succumb to a disease or zombies because of your weakened state.  The next playthrough, you might find purification tools, but not enough water.  Or maybe no gun.  etc etc.  With good balanced scarcity, players will be constantly searching for something the need.

 

2.  That brings me onto my second topic.  Loot diversity.  TONS and TONS of different items that are good for surviving.  Food, water, clothing are the basics.  Add many types of medicine in there + weapons + other stuff like navigation tools and suddenly a player needs a lot of stuff to survive optimally.  Sure someone can get by without some items, but it will be more difficult.  The more items a player needs, the higher the chances that a player lacks a certain key item.  This will fuel most player interaction hopefully.  Not epeen growing kill montages, but instead, the need for in game resources.  Trading for gear, robbing for gear, and murdering for gear would hopefully materialize instead of random killing.  

 

It would be very satisfying to have a successful trade.  A can of beans for some painkillers.  A Makarov and a Mosin-Nagant for some desperately need antibiotics.  Or maybe, since you have the Mosin-Nagant, you could just kill him.  But what if you don't know he has them for sure?  Would you use your bullets?  Would you risk it?  Of course this is all hypothetical, but from what the devs have been talking about, it could very well be possible.  

 

3.  And finally degradation.  Maybe you find a great weapon, but none of the tools to maintain it and after several days in the rough terrain of Chernarus, it is starting to show some wear.  Especially items that prevent zombie damage.  Searching for armor to replace an old set would be a priority for a player.  New shoes would be needed with all the running you do in game.   Etc etc.

 

1. This game is set in eastern europe. Im a ukrainian, living in australia, myself. If this game wants to follow realism, then wells should be found every damn 100 meters. Wells are as common as trees over there. And you wont get sick from wells. Edit: You should also then see crops growing too, wild ones especially. Eastern european logic is all about sustainable and independent living.

 

2. This topic follows realism, what about homeless people? do they need go shop at Kmart every 3rd day? and antibiotics are not the only things keeping you from getting sick, theres increased immunesystem action and alcohol to keep things clean, including food digestion carrying pathogens.

 

3. Realism again. I dont think weapons degrade after shooting out 5 mags, or within afew days.

 

My point is THIS, theres plenty of new mechanics, the game may well change abit, we'll see more people in cities. But the old gameplay of the DayZ mod will fundamentally stay the same, and realism doesnt seem to be all that realistic.

 

You guys want spooge all over this hype-train, i get it. im just being realistic.

 

edit: You guys think your character will start being ill after 48-72 hours of not having water? literal game playing time? or will it be sped up? Comon, think about this. Pick either realistic survival or mod.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar

[Mazzar 231]

Actually i take it back you guys.

Many games have promised features and gameplay and have always fallen short in some regard.

 

But not this one guys, this is the one game that will deliver. This will be the one time in history where all the hype and fairytales will follow through.

it will be glorious

[Katana67 2907]

Again, why can't there be a downvote bean interface?

[AnarchyBrownies 1383]

my point was to counter the hype logic which follows all games pre-release. The type of logic peter molenqunex (w/e) used for black & white and fable games.

 

I mean, we'll wait and see who is right after the release. but then, you'll scream, kick, cry and shout "ITS ONLY THE ALPHA". then years will pass and whether or not things change, none of us will be here to say who was right or wrong.

 

The game shares more with the mod than just zombies, this is clearly where you should see your own bias in this discussion.

 

We'll see who's right about what? What conversation are you having and with who? All anyone has said is obviously things are a lot different. We know that without ever having played it. We know looting is completely different, we know there are drastically more zombies and we know that their behaviour has also changed. We also know the disease system has changed/is in the process of being changed and we know there is item degradation. Simply put, we know the game has changed a lot. Everyone is hyped up to play it, not hyped that it will play perfectly and in a certain way. It's an alpha and it's pretty clear it's going to be a messy play experience. Who knows what will happen.

 

And what bias are you talking about? I said the only thing the standalone shares are general features. Zombies was an example. But the details have changed. The zombie system is a lot different, even if you only count the fact that there are so many more of them and the fact that they spawn server side. The map is the same, but the map has been given a face lift. There is loot, but the loot system has changed. You have to eat and drink, that's the same too. You can still change your clothes, but there are more clothing options and your clothing degrades.

 

You're not being realistic, you're trying too hard to be anti-hype and not making any sense. Sure if you don't want to get hyped, good for you. I'm excited, but not hyped. And considering the changes made to the fundamental aspects of the game, there's good reason to believe the standalone will play much differently. You're blindly looking to act like you're so immune to excitement and you're just as bad as the overhyped children. You're completely ignoring the fact that important aspects of the game have changed, which will presumably alter gameplay significantly, and because you're ignoring this you're able to conclude that it will be the same. THE CORE, FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE GAME HAVE CHANGED.

 

 

EDIT: And reading your last post you're again making weird assertions about people claiming the game is going to be some perfect dream. Who here is saying this from the last two-three pages-  of the people who are actually addressing you?

Edited November 15, 2013 by AnarchyBrownies

[Mazzar 231]

Haha you don't have to think it. If that's the claim he's making then there's no doubt you're right.  He's flat out, 100% wrong.

 

If his point is more along the lines of, "regardless of the changes, it will PLAY the same as the mod," then he's going to have to back it up pretty strongly because no one can possibly know that yet. If we're going to make guesses, the different loot system and more numerous and threatening zombies are reason enough to predict the game will play drastically differently.

 

 

 

EDIT: And reading your last post you're again making weird assertions about people claiming the game is going to be some perfect dream. Who here is saying this from the last two-three pages? The people who are actually addressing you.

 

 

I dont know, who were you talking to? and about what?

Its okay for you to predict the game will be different, but its not okay for me to predict it wont be?

Grow up man

 

Edit: Also this stems from the post about robbery gameplay mechanic someone posted. Robbing a noob of his canned beans, by sourrounding him with people. I said it was pointless. Which deviated into other things. Follow the conversation. I cant point out black and white details if you wont follow the start of the convo.

 

Lets end the topic here, if the alpha is drastically different and the fundemental mindset and gameplay differs from the mod. you were right. and you're not allowed to cry "ALPHA ALPHA ONLY ALPHA", if it isnt.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar

[Katana67 2907]

I dont know, who were you talking to? and about what?

Its okay for you to predict the game will be different, but its not okay for me to predict it wont be?

 

Edit: Also this stems from the post about robbery gameplay mechanic someone posted. Robbing a noob of his canned beans, by sourrounding him with people. I said it was pointless. Follow the conversation.

 

"...but in reality the game wont function solely like that, it never will..."

 

"But you wont, people will gear up and head to guns location (airbase w/e)..."

"And yes, gearing would be easy..."

 

You're doing more than predicting and hypothesizing. You're asserting with the supposed illusion of "reality" on your side.

 

Most of the people replying to you are qualifying their remarks with "It could be...", "It will probably be...", etc. You're speaking too "matter-of-factly" for your assertions to be considered predictive or hypothetical.

 

We're all aware of the origin of your reply. But your reasoning is what is being called into question.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Katana67

[AnarchyBrownies 1383]

I dont know, who were you talking to? and about what?

Its okay for you to predict the game will be different, but its not okay for me to predict it wont be?

Grow up man

 

Edit: Also this stems from the post about robbery gameplay mechanic someone posted. Robbing a noob of his canned beans, by sourrounding him with people. I said it was pointless. Follow the conversation.

 

No, again you can't have a discussion because you're choosing to ignore the changes that have been made.

 

If fundamental aspects of the game have changed, it LOGICALLY stands that it is more likely it will play differently.

 

You're choosing to ignore the changes and conclude it will be the same. So your argument comes from a complete unwillingness to look at facts, which is baffling to me.

 

And if you DO acknowledge these fundamental changes then you're left with this absurd argument: The fundamental aspects of the game have changed, but it will be the exact same.

 

If you're going to say something like that, you're going to have to come up with an argument of why, despite core changes, it would be the same. You haven't done that. Your best argument has been "people are hyped, and games have been hyped before and not been as good as advertised, therefore the game will be the same." That's not an argument at all.

[Mazzar 231]

 

And if you DO acknowledge these fundamental changes then you're left with this absurd argument: The fundamental aspects of the game have changed, but it will be the exact same.

 

No, i dont think fundamental changes will be made. im saying the fundamental gameplay will stay the same. Mechanics may differ abit, but FUNDAMENTAL = SAME.

 

even i dont know where this convo is now. Lets wait til the alpha, and one of us can point fingers and laugh at the other, okay? good?

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar

[Mazzar 231]

Most of the people replying to you are qualifying their remarks with "It could be...", "It will probably be...", etc. You're speaking too "matter-of-factly" for your assertions to be considered predictive or hypothetical.

 

We're all aware of the origin of your reply. But your reasoning is what is being called into question.

 

I understand, thats fair. If it were true. Quote below me. Things have changed, doesnt mean things will be different. By that, i mean, running up, quick gear and then heading to gun store. The replies have been that loot wont spawn like that anymore (despite that only being speculation). You guys then go on to say how realistic the survival will be, the constant hunt for food and water, clothing too. I reply back with it wouldnt be realistic to find no guns at an army base, yet find them in some old ladies apartment. I also go on to say, that if it were realistic survival, then things would be different and not so dangerous. We're talking about 2 topics which cross over.

 

You guys seem to be talking from the standpoint between melding reality with gaming. It wont work, it wont happen. Thats like arguing why we cant create proper AI for robots.

 

The entire game has changed. It shares very general features with the mod, that's it. It has zombies, t

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar

[AnarchyBrownies 1383]

No, i dont think fundamental changes will be made. im saying the fundamental gameplay will stay the same. Mechanics may differ abit, but FUNDAMENTAL = SAME.

 

even i dont know where this convo is now. Lets wait til the alpha, and one of us can point fingers and laugh at the other, okay? good?

 

Fundamental changes already have been made, what do you not get about that? It's not a question we have to wait to have answered. We already know there have been significant changes to core aspects of the game.

 

I'm not having an argument that needs to wait until the alpha, I'm asking you to make a point that makes sense. You attacked people for thinking the game would play differently when they have good reason to think it will play differently. You, on the other hand, have provided NO reason to think it will be the same. Of course no one can no for sure until we've played the game but logically it makes sense to assume it will play differently.

 

Epoch plays differently than vanilla for example. It will be like that. But epoch encourages more deathmatch because it allows you to hoard weapons easier. If you make the game basically impossible to play solo (because of zombie danger/ loot scarcity for ex.) then it will force people to cooperate more. So every change that gets made changes where gameplay is along the spectrum of Survival-Deathmatch.

[Katana67 2907]

I understand, thats fair. If it were true. Quote below me. Things have changed, doesnt mean things will be different. By that, i mean, running up, quick gear and then heading to gun store. The replies have been that loot wont spawn like that anymore (despite that only being speculation). You guys then go on to say how realistic the survival will be, the constant hunt for food and water, clothing too. I reply back with it wouldnt be realistic to find no guns at an army base, yet find them in some old ladies apartment. I also go on to say, that if it were realistic survival, then things would be different and not so dangerous. We're talking about 2 topics which cross over.

 

Right, and what I was trying to highlight when I first replied to you is that to make the argument you're making (that the systems being implemented won't fundamentally affect the gameplay) you have to disabuse yourself of the assumption that the systems are unchanged from the mod.

 

You're saying "quick gear and then heading to the gun store", which is a function of the mod. The continuance of this circumstance is predicated on several premises. The most prominent one is that the loot system will not affect the flow of "gearing". It's a bit more than speculation, when Rocket and the developers have confirmed the increased rarity of certain items. Likewise, with the advent of near-100% interiors (if they keep the current mod loot system which is tied to buildings) they will have to spread the loot out. As right now, in the mod, there are only a few places in each town to look so the logic here is that there is an increased chance of finding loot in a limited area. Vice with the SA (by virtue of more enterable buildings) the loot will be spread out and you'll be less likely to find significant items in a given building.

 

Succinctly put, you're basing your assertion (that the loot system's change will not affect gameplay) based on suppositions that aren't known. We don't know if military loot will spawn in the centralized fashion as it does in the mod. We have no idea of the rarity (both overall and in terms of where they spawn) of certain items, from assault rifles to cans of food. However, we do know that items in general will be rarer than in the mod (as per developer statements).

 

Nobody's commenting on the "realism" of any system, as it's a fairly nebulous concept. They're commenting on the inclusion of specific systems insofar as it concerns gameplay.

 

Likewise, "realism" certainly doesn't need to be applied across the board. As Dean has said he's willing to implement systems which are not 100% faithful to reality.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Katana67

[AnarchyBrownies 1383]

I understand, thats fair. If it were true. Quote below me. Things have changed, doesnt mean things will be different. By that, i mean, running up, quick gear and then heading to gun store. The replies have been that loot wont spawn like that anymore (despite that only being speculation).

 

Quote below you still stands. Again, it has changed quite drastically. Going from a couple hundred zombies to thousands is a big change. Also, the amount of any loot can be changed depending on feedback from the alpha. So if it's too easy to do exactly what you described, the community can give feedback on that and push to have it changed.

 

And it's not speculation. Dean has already explained that loot now spawns server-side and will be able to keep a cap on the maximum number of a certain item available. So not everyone can run around with an AS50. NOT SPECULATION.

[Mazzar 231]

*snip*

 

 

^ Fair enough (In reply to katana). If we dont apply realism across the board AND spread all loot across, with some sort of chance of spawning an RPG in ol' mrs o'conners room from the retirement village up the road, then maybe the gameplay towards quick gearing will change.

BOOM! dispute settled.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar

[Mazzar 231]

 

And it's not speculation. Dean has already explained that loot now spawns server-side and will be able to keep a cap on the maximum number of a certain item available. So not everyone can run around with an AS50. NOT SPECULATION.

 

So, if i get a group of friends, and we loot everything on the map, day1. Then stash it in a tent, far away. What happens?

(Yes, getting all the loot will be harder, but lets say we got lucky, we found the 4 AS50's on the map or w/e)

 

you fix one problem, another pops up

 

Edit: Or, a server has been running for weeks, everything has been found and stashed. Somebody new joins, what happens?

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar

[zfleming12 395]

Seriously guys? Let's calm down here alright?

[Katana67 2907]

^ Fair enough (In reply to katana). If we dont apply realism across the board AND spread all loot across, with some sort of chance of spawning an RPG in ol' mrs o'conners room from the retirement village up the road, then maybe the gameplay towards quick gearing will change.

BOOM! dispute settled.

 

Erm. I was saying that you DON'T have to apply "realism" across the board, both in that it's a very vague concept and in that it often doesn't serve gameplay.

 

The "quick gearing" is provided by several things.

- An overwhelming presence of (low-end) weapons in cities/towns, as well as ammunition

- A highly centralized and guaranteed military loot system (i.e. barracks, tents)

- A lack of harsh mechanics to cause people's gear to degrade (thus requiring repair) and for people to maintain themselves (disease, food, water)

 

It's not about realism, it's about including mechanics to add complexity and consequences to survival.

 

There is a more eloquent solution to placing a loot chance of high-end items in regular households, as you suggest. Part of it is increasing the rarity of ammunition in general. Likewise, the weapons have to degrade and be found in differing conditions. High-end loot can still spawn in centralized and logical locations, but those locations should be either dynamic or spread out moreso than in the mod so that looting is less of a guarantee and more of a risk.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Katana67

[Katana67 2907]

Seriously guys? Let's calm down here alright?

 

The conversation has been pretty civil.

[Mazzar 231]

Erm. I was saying that you DON'T have to apply "realism" across the board, both in that it's a very vague concept and in that it often doesn't serve gameplay.

 

I understand, i was just stating that, if so, then it works out.

 

 

It's not about realism, it's about including mechanics to add complexity and consequences to survival.

 

This is probably the best way to look at it.

 

The conversation has been pretty civil.

 

As far as the internet goes, i agree.

 

 

 

So, server-side limited supply of items. Whats the solution there?

If all items are stashed and a new player joins, what are his choices? Use melee items until you starve?

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar

[AnarchyBrownies 1383]

So, if i get a group of friends, and we loot everything on the map, day1. Then stash it in a tent, far away. What happens?

(Yes, getting all the loot will be harder, but lets say we got lucky, we found the 4 AS50's on the map or w/e)

 

you fix one problem, another pops up

 

Edit: Or, a server has been running for weeks, everything has been found and stashed. Somebody new joins, what happens?

 

That would be a cool problem I think. The good news is on a server of 50-150 people, that team probably couldn't wreak havoc on everyone. Unlike in a situation where there are 50+ AS50s in the hands of 50+ players. But it would be cool in that maybe that team would become a target for another team (or individuals). So stalking might become something that happens more often in the game, in order to find where players are stashing things.

 

Another issue would be what if those players quit and the AS50s just sat there?

 

*NOTE* I think we're both using AS50 as an example, I don't think there's a plan to have them in the game. But it works for the discussion.

 

EDIT: I didn't completely answer the question about new players. But I guess it would depend on how rare each item is. There's no reason that new players should be entitled to an equal chance at loot. If the loot is taken, then it's taken. There's nothing wrong with that. But that would probably only be a problem for things like high-end gear anyways and they'd just have to find it stashed or kill whoever has that gear with a different weapon... or play without it. I don't think this issue will apply to survival necessities like food.

Edited November 15, 2013 by AnarchyBrownies

[Mazzar 231]

AS50 = High powered rare gun for this discussion.

 

So the problem here is this,

 

1. They will have to re-implement spawning somehow (Food would have to already have some sort of auto random spawning, but we're talking bout guns)
or

2. Items used for 1-2+ days will disappear and respawn elsewhere

 

Both solutions are not appealing. Spawning is appealing abit to me, but then hoarding isnt either.

This is where you cant say the game has changed by using the loot system as an example. From the info we know, it then clearly has problems. (Unless theres a solution we dont know about)

 

Edit: Solution 3 - Servers go for limited days. e.g. Server X - 13/45. meaning it is day 13 and the server will reset in 45 days.

This would cause server side, play ratio problems though. Newbs wouldnt want to join a server that would be at 40/45.

 

Edit 2: Solution 4 - The best solution. All gear you carried is tagged with your name (whoever picks it up = their invisible tag) On the players death, their items get redistributed.

(But what if they dont play for weeks? or are impossible to kill, since all weapons are stashed?, scarce ammo maybe...but still)

 

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mazzar