[Suggestion] Scaling loot chance based on player count

[ChaoticRambo 4]

My idea is very simple:

Base the spawn chance of loot on the number of people in the server.

The reason I think this is a good idea is because from my experience so far, the real threat in this game are other players rather than zombies. So why should someone be able to join a server with no one in it and go raid the airfield or cherno or name any other location. It obviously is much more difficult to raid those locations in lets say and 80 person server.

So why not simply make the rarity of items scalable to the number of players on a server.

For example:

Lets say the GPS unit has a 1/40 chance of spawning inside a house in cherno in the current game build. (I have no idea what the actual chances are for this)

So lets make a formula that is:

(spawn chance) = (max server size) / [(max server size)*(1/(current spawn chance))] * [(current servers population) / (max server size)]

This formula is easily adjustable depending on what the maximum size of server currently is.

Lets see it in action:

Current Max Server Size = 80

Current Spawn Chance = 1/40

Current Servers Population = 40

(Spawn Chance with 40 server population) = (80) / [(80)*(1/(1/40))] * [40/80] = 1/80 spawn chance for a GPS in a 40 person server (half of what it would be in an 80 person server).

One more example:

Current Max Server Size = 80

Current Spawn Chance = 1/40

Current Server population = 20

(80) / [(80)*(1/(1/40))] * [20/80] = 1/160

This provides a risk / reward scenario for those people who like to play in small servers so they can avoid players more. Now they have to think, would I rather join a small server and more easily avoid people, or join a big one and try to have a better chance at getting loot.

Just an idea.

[ChaoticRambo 4]

Did this get no replies because it was a stupid idea or because people don't understand it?

[LumberBack 43]

dont mess with peoples loot... its like a poison for some people...

[malice42 4]

When I read the thread title, I was all "Meh."

Then I read your excellent explanation, and I feel as if this proposal is perfectly sound and would do a great deal to improve the dynamic of risk vs. reward that some players exploit.

A+ Idea

[THEOTHERJESTER 12]

I think you are the only one to ever include a mathematical formula in their suggestion, something that a programmer can read and understand. I wouldn't be surprised if they included this simply because they don't need to do anything just copy and paste your formula.

Besides that I like the idea, it really increases the reward for going into dangerous games. And at night when no one is on it decreases the chance of that lone guy in the game getting super powerful gear at the airfield.

Also for those people who play on those 2 ppl max servers, sucks for them because they'll never get anything good! LOVE THIS IDEA!

[connorsrm 0]

I think its an excellent idea, and well represented mathematically. To play devils advocate, some people might disapprove of effectively punishing individuals that prefer the PvE atmosphere and playstyle as a pose to the PvP playstyle, or "you don't get anything unless you play it my way" mentality.

Nonetheless it seems fair if the top tier gadgetry requires the danger.

[ChaoticRambo 4]

I think its an excellent idea' date=' and well represented mathematically. To play devils advocate, some people might disapprove of effectively punishing individuals that prefer the PvE atmosphere and playstyle as a pose to the PvP playstyle, or "you don't get anything unless you play it my way" mentality.

Nonetheless it seems fair if the top tier gadgetry requires the danger.

[/quote']

No, I don't necessarily see it this way.

Just because you play on a large server does not mean you will HAVE to encounter Bandits. Heck, I joined a server the other day where groups of survivors were successfully hunting down bandits to help the new players.

I think naturally playing on a larger server makes things more difficult and makes you cover yourself more. I always join large servers simply for the risk of encountering other people whether I am playing a survivor or a bandit, either way it adds more to the game.

Honestly, my ideal server would be 200 people (if the server could handle it).

And the thing is, it doesn't mean loot wont spawn, just that its going to be far more rare if you are playing in a server with only yourself it in.

[hoik 415]

Would be great to condence the no. of players on servers - really like your math, maybe you could have a try at a solid formula for my idea (in my signiture). It runs along simular lines, I use some really rough psudo code as I only have a very basic understanding of programming - would love to see if you could :D.

[connorsrm 0]

I think its an excellent idea' date=' and well represented mathematically. To play devils advocate, some people might disapprove of effectively punishing individuals that prefer the PvE atmosphere and playstyle as a pose to the PvP playstyle, or "you don't get anything unless you play it my way" mentality.

Nonetheless it seems fair if the top tier gadgetry requires the danger.

[/quote']

No, I don't necessarily see it this way.

Just because you play on a large server does not mean you will HAVE to encounter Bandits. Heck, I joined a server the other day where groups of survivors were successfully hunting down bandits to help the new players.

I think naturally playing on a larger server makes things more difficult and makes you cover yourself more. I always join large servers simply for the risk of encountering other people whether I am playing a survivor or a bandit, either way it adds more to the game.

Honestly, my ideal server would be 200 people (if the server could handle it).

And the thing is, it doesn't mean loot wont spawn, just that its going to be far more rare if you are playing in a server with only yourself it in.

I still agree with you, (just playing devils advocate) but what about the increased difficulty associated with dealing with a plethora of zombies guarding loot, without the possibility of assistance. Wouldn't it be easier to loot a gps from a building surrounded by 20 zombies with those a team of friendlies, rather than alone. Similarly wouldn't survival in general be easier since many essential tasks, (ie: blood transfusion) cannot be accomplished without assistance.

[PintOfBass 0]

I don't like it for this reason.

I roll with a group for about 3/4ths of my playtime. This change would have less effect on me since I have a group to do over watch while someone does the looting, even on a full server a group of 7-10 organized people can more or less deny access to say the northern half of the NW airfield. So this would not hurt my "farming", I am not doing the internet thing of arguing from victim hood in other words. It would crush the hopes of a solo player, in attaining those NVG's or one of the rarer m4/m16 variants. To get that solo you either need to be extremely lucky in that there is not a group like mine at the place you want to loot and further that the item actually loaded. Since I can farm a barracks in relative safety when my group is out in force even on a full server this change would only make what I think your trying to fix much much worse.

The current mechanic of having agreeable items have an equal spawning chance across servers is more of a balancing factor then a 'cheese' one.

[lodestar 3]

I wonder how much the OP actually did tried to loot stuff on an empty server.

Unless you are an admin and created a passworded or a server for just one player to do that, which would be against the rules, it isn't that easier.

First, rare loot spawn is scarce already. Once I was in a server with only 3 other people and I went back and forth between Stary and NW Airfield a dozen times and got absolutely nothing worth it. Got lots of ammo and an M4A3, but no GPS, no NVGs. Funny thing is, I was looking for an sniper rifle, and next day the server was full so I decided to loot deer stands. After 3 or 4, I found a DMR. As I understand, this reproduces exactly your suggestion.

Second, you're not so safe looting high traffic areas on a low population server. If you are smart enough to do that, other people are too and it's very likely that you'll meet. Also, server hoppers are a major issue, since you may be alone on the server looting the barracks, then someone else spawns next to you.

[nashable 45]

Just as a suggestion, you may want to cap the formula to a bottom end (stop solo players) and also offer a little bonus for those on nearly full servers (90%+)

(spawn chance) = (current players in server) / [(current players in server)*(1/(current spawn chance))] * [[(current servers population)-1] / [(max server size) / 1.1]]

So if 1 person is playing on their own the loot chance = 0 and once a server goes over 90% then it will actually increase the loot chances beyond the base amount (to balance the lower drop rates at other times).

I'd imagine longer term you may want to build something around bonuses based on the Server Max that way loot spawns are balanced against the higher risk and more people looting.

[KWilt 157]

I don't necessarily like this idea. In theory, it's a great idea. But realistically, all it would lead to is people having to hop from server to server depending on the time of day.

I personally like to stick with one or two servers, simply because in those servers I tend to have tents or vehicles in my possession. Also, since I found my nifty little NVGs, I also have no hindrance dealing with the night. However, given this system is implemented, I'm going to be forced to either just stop playing or switch servers to a day server, because I'm not going to purposely penalize myself just because I've dedicated myself to a certain server.

Overall, as I said, I can see this idea being worthwhile. But until servers stop losing 90% of their traffic past 10PM, it's only going to hinder those who enjoy gaming on specific servers.