Cross-server inventory and location preservation is a mistake.

[Morietti 0]

I would say, as long as disconnect to avoid death and such is fixed, i wont look at hooping as an issue at all. I dont loot at it as a issue now even.

[heathy87 1]

still it takes up space that can be used for other things, such as revenue building projects, this isn't an mmo so we do not pay for the upkeep of the data centre or the space we use on it. yeah one character or 10000 characters still won't take up much space, but once you have 1,000,000 characters it starts taking up space, and it starts requiring constant upkeep. which requires hiring ppl. This is not a subscription based game, so how can you expect the perks of such a system without paying the upkeep.

it still doesn't make any sense because why would i realistically have multiple characters in a survival game that is meant to give you just one character, do we live in the multi verse or something? 'oh today isn't going to well is it phill, lets hop over to one of my other phills and see if that server is any better' this sort of thing doesn't really fit in with keeping you playing your one character, instead it basically turns it into ALTS-ARE-US.

I can see the exploits now, ppl just creating new characters on servers just to grief, they don't care about dying or losing their ALT, because their main character won't lose anything.

[justwrath 23]

+ 1 Totally valid points

-1 the reality of tying players to an individual server is too problematic' date=' e.g. you often can't get a slot on your preferred server, so you would spend the majority of your DayZ time staring despairingly at the server browser or restarting elsewhere.

[/quote']

I did consider that, but I don't really seem to have much trouble getting into my preferred server. Plus there might be more slots available on your preferred server if it weren't full of day-trippers trying to find NVGs and silenced weapons.

Necessitating having a couple of secondary games going on other servers I think is preferable to the current state of affairs where people are reaching the endgame too easily and quickly and then finding themselves with nothing to do but shit on everyone else for fun. This isn't an anti-PvP statement, it's just an anti-boredom statement.

Thirdly, there's always the possibility of signing up for a password protected server or having reserved slots for your preferred server(s). Hell you could even play single player if you really wanted, that'd probably please a lot of the anti-pvp crowd, and their progress gained in private wouldn't be able to negatively affect any other servers

I'm sorry but global persistence is the major draw of this game and what separates it from a lot of other gaming experiences. Is the system currently easily exploitable? Yep. Is it a problem? Sure. That being said you don't just trash an idea because the end user is using it in a bastardized manner. The onus is on Rocket to try and work a solution that will at least dull the effects of the problems at hand, and I'm willing to give him all the time he needs. Your solution is far too drastic and kills the spirit of what's been built here.

Some possible solutions could include increasing the time your body is physically attackable when you dc from 5 seconds to say 30 seconds. It might also be worth looking into to create "no-spawn" zones. If you dc in a certain area, say the NW airfield, it respawns you in your new server randomly on the map. This kind of uncertainty would make people think twice about taking the easy route.

Of course these ideas are easy for me to say. I have no idea how difficult they would be to implement. I just know that killing persistence is a bad idea and a poorly thought out solution. The servers are too unstable and being tied to just one goes against the spirit of pc gaming in general.

[heretic (DayZ) 76]

Another thought that may be relevant. This game is in Alpha now, by the time it's a retail stand-alone game, do you think that people who end up paying money to play are going to be willing to put up with any of the penalties you suggest?

[jafit 0]

+ 1 Totally valid points

-1 the reality of tying players to an individual server is too problematic' date=' e.g. you often can't get a slot on your preferred server, so you would spend the majority of your DayZ time staring despairingly at the server browser or restarting elsewhere.

[/quote']

I did consider that, but I don't really seem to have much trouble getting into my preferred server. Plus there might be more slots available on your preferred server if it weren't full of day-trippers trying to find NVGs and silenced weapons.

Necessitating having a couple of secondary games going on other servers I think is preferable to the current state of affairs where people are reaching the endgame too easily and quickly and then finding themselves with nothing to do but shit on everyone else for fun. This isn't an anti-PvP statement, it's just an anti-boredom statement.

Thirdly, there's always the possibility of signing up for a password protected server or having reserved slots for your preferred server(s). Hell you could even play single player if you really wanted, that'd probably please a lot of the anti-pvp crowd, and their progress gained in private wouldn't be able to negatively affect any other servers

I'm sorry but global persistence is the major draw of this game and what separates it from a lot of other gaming experiences. Is the system currently easily exploitable? Yep. Is it a problem? Sure. That being said you don't just trash an idea because the end user is using it in a bastardized manner. The onus is on Rocket to try and work a solution that will at least dull the effects of the problems at hand, and I'm willing to give him all the time he needs. Your solution is far too drastic and kills the spirit of what's been built here.

You could think of all kinds of contrived gameplay systems and mechanics to try to mitigate the abuse caused by the exploitation of a meta-gaming tactic, but they can have unforseen consequences and open up new avenues for abuse and griefing. I think it's so much simpler and healthier to simply close the loophole altogether.

But how about a compromise: Make cross-server characters a local server option. Servers that allow a global/multi-server character are the same as the servers we have now. Servers that don't allow global characters make you start a new character without affecting your global/multi-server character. This is making sure of course that there are clear indications on the server selection screen as to which kind of server you're joining

[BL1P 252]

One Character per Server.

Bleeding when offline.

It is the only solution atm.

Until then players will keep exploiting the game.

[justwrath 23]

+ 1 Totally valid points

-1 the reality of tying players to an individual server is too problematic' date=' e.g. you often can't get a slot on your preferred server, so you would spend the majority of your DayZ time staring despairingly at the server browser or restarting elsewhere.

[/quote']

I did consider that, but I don't really seem to have much trouble getting into my preferred server. Plus there might be more slots available on your preferred server if it weren't full of day-trippers trying to find NVGs and silenced weapons.

Necessitating having a couple of secondary games going on other servers I think is preferable to the current state of affairs where people are reaching the endgame too easily and quickly and then finding themselves with nothing to do but shit on everyone else for fun. This isn't an anti-PvP statement, it's just an anti-boredom statement.

Thirdly, there's always the possibility of signing up for a password protected server or having reserved slots for your preferred server(s). Hell you could even play single player if you really wanted, that'd probably please a lot of the anti-pvp crowd, and their progress gained in private wouldn't be able to negatively affect any other servers

I'm sorry but global persistence is the major draw of this game and what separates it from a lot of other gaming experiences. Is the system currently easily exploitable? Yep. Is it a problem? Sure. That being said you don't just trash an idea because the end user is using it in a bastardized manner. The onus is on Rocket to try and work a solution that will at least dull the effects of the problems at hand, and I'm willing to give him all the time he needs. Your solution is far too drastic and kills the spirit of what's been built here.

You could think of all kinds of contrived gameplay systems and mechanics to try to mitigate the abuse caused by the exploitation of a meta-gaming tactic, but they can have unforseen consequences and open up new avenues for abuse and griefing. I think it's so much simpler and healthier to simply close the loophole altogether.

But how about a compromise: Make cross-server characters a local server option. Servers that allow a global/multi-server character are the same as the servers we have now. Servers that don't allow global characters make you start a new character without affecting your global/multi-server character. This is making sure of course that there are clear indications on the server selection screen as to which kind of server you're joining

That's not going to do it for me. Splitting the community and limiting people who would play with a friend on his server but his character isn't transferable and it would severely limit player pools. It would also in reality, create two different games with two sets of rules. That isn't a solution. The solution is to keep the core of this game intact and let rocket come up with a scenario, such as the ones i suggested, which are both viable options, despite your vague protestations to the contrary.

You're suggesting amputation for a small cut. As stated before, this game being in alpha, an immediate fix, especially a drastic bastardization as you suggest, isn't necessary.

Players will find ways to exploit every game you can think of. Changing the entire feel of the game for a few d-bags isn't a solution. tweaking the system to deter them from such behavior is..

[jafit 0]

That's not going to do it for me. Splitting the community and limiting people who would play with a friend on his server but his character isn't transferable and it would severely limit player pools. It would also in reality' date=' create two different games with two sets of rules. That isn't a solution. The solution is to keep the core of this game intact and let rocket come up with a scenario, such as the ones i suggested, which are both viable options, despite your vague protestations to the contrary. [/quote']

This feels very stretched like you're struggling to think of arguments against the idea. Bobby can't play on Timmy's server with his ghillie suited M4-SD wielding endgame character because Bobby is on a single instance server. Poor Bobby...

Also no it won't create two different games, unless you're somehow suggesting that server-camping the NWAS for the best loot is what Rocket had in mind for a legitimate game activity in DayZ?

No It'll be one game, and on one set of servers you'll be able to see the effects of blatant meta-gaming, while on the other servers you'll be able to see how games would develop without the meta-gaming, or at least no more meta-gaming than is present in any other online game.

And don't give me that nonsense about being lmited by

You're suggesting amputation for a small cut. As stated before' date=' this game being in alpha, an immediate fix, especially a drastic bastardization as you suggest, isn't necessary. [/quote']

The game is in Alpha, now is the perfect time to experiment with core gameplay concepts like this to see what works best.