High Pop, Low Pop, Why Pop?

[Gdaddy22 299]

Hm.

This way, you would force people to play a certain way.

 

But how the people play the game should be up to everyone himself.

Players shouldn't be forced to play this way, or that way.

If you want tension and action, go on high-pop and/or hardcore-mode.

If you want to play a bit more layed back an relaxed, go on low-pop and/or 3rdPP

 

I, personally, play DayZ just for fun. I run around, gear up, test things, help people, but I avoid action, airfields, etc.

I just don't like it, when I am forced to play in a certain way.

 

Not really, DayZ should be a game that ALWAYS has this tension and action, there is no time for pussies who want be a bit more layed back and be safe on a 1/40 server

It's a hardcore survival game. You don't know what to expect.

[Loopest 60]

You have made a very good point. I think this should be a client setting, not a server setting, because some people are against this and some people would be for this.

[I think my Leg is Broken 46]

I wouldn't.  I'm Ideas, you need to speak to R&D

 

I find this response disappointing. Like, you're willing to throw an initial idea out there, but not actually flesh it out when someone wants to know how you think it would actually work? Is thinking about it really that difficult for you?

 

How about they add a railgun? How would that work? Pffft, let marketing figure it out...

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

I find this response disappointing. Like, you're willing to throw an initial idea out there, but not actually flesh it out when someone wants to know how you think it would actually work? Is thinking about it really that difficult for you?

How about they add a railgun? How would that work? Pffft, let marketing figure it out...

That's how we work in Ideas. You seem a bright chap, you tell us how you'd get round it, were it to be introduced as a fait accomplit.

Oh, and railguns? Pfft. Knife missiles FTW.

[I think my Leg is Broken 46]

That's how we work in Ideas. You seem a bright chap, you tell us how you'd get round it, were it to be introduced as a fait accomplit.

Oh, and railguns? Pfft. Knife missiles FTW.

 

Hehehe X-D have at thee! BOOOM!

 

I'm open to your idea. It seems to have some mileage. I mean, as things stand currently it's a bit of a roulette when you join a server anyway so, as I see it, having no indication of how many people are on the server is tantamount to having an inaccurate indication. It would go someway to addressing the issue of joining low population servers to gear up before joining high population servers and so forth as well.

 

But there are legitimate reasons why having the player count is useful. For example, if you or your friends are new to the game and you want to get your bearings before jumping in the deep end - I guess later on "newbie friendly" servers could help accomplish that though. Conversely, what if you want to find a fully populated server so you can get more action? Having to connect just to find out if there's anyone on there would be annoying and cumbersome. Plus, ultimately, it promotes server hopping, more so in some ways than the current system - unless you could specify a minimum amount of players.

 

Another thing that comes to mind is, later on when bases/tents/camps are added, you're going to want to stay on the same server over time. If you end up joining a full server, you may have issues later on trying to get on there if it's constantly full.

 

I don't really have any idea beyond having a lobby system (a la L4D) or some way to filter servers with x amount of free slots. I think I'd be more in favour of encouraging server loyalty through permanent camps and maybe figuring out other ways of downplaying the gear-up-and-switch approach that a lot of players use currently. Maybe an "I'm feeling lucky" kind of option when connecting would work, as it gives you the option to join at random.

 

So, what are your thoughts?

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

Airlocks. You and your buddies enter a pre-game airlock type of arrangement and click OK when everyone is in. Once you're locked, your server list will now show only servers with space for n or more players, where n is your squad size. The list still doesn't show the total amount of players, just that you'll all fit on.

As for bases and stored gear, that will need to wait for private hives.

Edited May 5, 2014 by alphadogmeat

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Whilst I can envision what you are saying and entertain the thought........    Well, it actually makes more sense then any other suggestion I have seen, this is the anti game, why entertain with anything satisfaction oriented.   In laymans terms, the more pipe laid the better the flow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forgive me Orlok..

Nope, not an anti-game.

Sorry.

 

And to be honest, I don't know that I'd like this feature considering the majority of the servers are empty, and another large portion have only a few people on them. That means that 9 times out of 10 you're going to be joining a server and never see anyone (A couple of those servers may have had people, but only a few).

Edited May 5, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[esuoh 35]

I don't agree with hiding the pop number in the servers. But I do think we should start having 150+ slot servers ASAP. I keep finding no one for hours and hours on end except for Berezino and NE Airfield. People camp there as soon as they spawn and can't find people anywhere else.

[Improvedayz 9]

Honestly 40 should be considered low pop given the size of the map.

[Evil Minion 943]

I don't want to end up joining a low population server just by chance. Even on high population servers you can still go quite some time without ever meeting someone (if its the player count or unfinished dynamics is up to debate). I think people should be able to decide freely here - however your "average gear up speed" should not be affected by your choice of server. But this was discussed before - by making the loot spawn rate depending on player count (over a certain "base number" of items to avoid new servers to be completely empty) low population servers would offer less loot as well as less competition.

 

So low pop gameplay would mainly consist of surviving alone in the wilderness, PvE and running around trying to find some rare loot items. High pop gameplay would mainly consist of interaction, a PvE/PvP mix and competition for rare loot items.

 

People should be able to decide according to their preferences while a balanced loot economy and reasonable cost for switching servers (at least switching servers frequently) should prevent abuse.

 

 

 

And when you assume, that ~50-70% ( ;)) of the regular-players like to play "chilly", the chill-players are a really big part of the game.

If you call wall peeking and getting killed by wall peeking campers "chilly" then yes. I think most people play third person because its implied to be the "default" version and the way this game is supposed to be played. And maybe because its a little easier to get into because you can see your stance. However, aside from that small bit of learning* first person would probably make for a more enjoyable and "chilly" experience.

 

*Which is more like "getting used to" than "studying". Also given the other base mechanics of the game this minor effort is almost neglectable.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Evil Minion

[General Zod 1118]

I play with a clan of 5+ people, if we don't see how many free slots are there, we must now find a server via trial and error ? 

Brilliant idea, clearly you have thought out all the problems it might cause, instead of looking at it from your own perspective. 

[slim_dusty 2]

As the problem is more with reducing the people just jumping onto low pop servers to loot farm could they not just implement a % of players figure and anything under 50% full only shows up as 50%

[General Zod 1118]

Self centered, self opinionated and arrogant much ???

 On the otherhand the introduction of a 'Random' button included at the server page would I think eliminate any particular problems. Those that want the random element of server choice would be happy and those that enjoy choosing their own server for whatever reason would be accommodated hopefully that would keep the majority of the player base satisfied.

Already in the game, above change server, you have "Play" button which puts you on a random server. 

[boneboys 7988]

Already in the game, above change server, you have "Play" button which puts you on a random server. 

This should put you on the last server you played.

[General Zod 1118]

This should put you on the last server you played.

I see, still close to random since there might be any number of players there. 

[boneboys 7988]

Ignore the troll by the way or better still Report.

 

Topic cleaned.

[Evil Minion 943]

<something arrogant and self-centered the mods removed>

Fine for you but not fine for most people so it should concern you (if not you can keep your ideas to yourself). There are better options to get the results you want than forcing players to join random servers. In fact your suggestion actually conflicts with most (all?) ideas on how to stop (excessive) server hopping - so its actually pretty damn bad.

 

I can see the reason behind limiting access to empty servers to avoid giving server hoppers too many targets but forcing every player on a random server would probably just spread them thin resulting in much less tension, makes server hopping more desirable in the process, has people end up on worse servers (like that "24/7 daylight, 1 hour restart" crap) and makes finding the right server pain in the ass. For what? A minor increase in risk for server hoppers and low pop fans? More people trying out hotspots?

 

Edit:

Sorry, for basically conserving that post.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Evil Minion

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

Fine for you but not fine for most people so it should concern you (if not you can keep your ideas to yourself). There are better options to get the results you want than forcing players to join random servers. In fact your suggestion actually conflicts with most (all?) ideas on how to stop (excessive) server hopping - so its actually pretty damn bad.

 

I can see the reason behind limiting access to empty servers to avoid giving server hoppers too many targets but forcing every player on a random server would probably just spread them thin resulting in much less tension, makes server hopping more desirable in the process, has people end up on worse servers (like that "24/7 daylight, 1 hour restart" crap) and makes finding the right server pain in the ass. For what? A minor increase in risk for server hoppers and low pop fans? More people trying out hotspots?

 

Edit:

Sorry, for basically conserving that post.

 

I already addressed the issue in post 31.  If you're going to jump on an old thread and start gobbing off, at least make an effort to read it first.

[Evil Minion 943]

All I can see there is a workaround on how to play with your buddies. Not a bad idea by itself but still not the answer to what I just wrote. For me it seems like the original suggestion has way too few upsides and far too many downsides so I would rather see a "balance type" solution instead of a "matchmaking type" one.

[General Zod 1118]

Airlocks. You and your buddies enter a pre-game airlock type of arrangement and click OK when everyone is in. Once you're locked, your server list will now show only servers with space for n or more players, where n is your squad size. The list still doesn't show the total amount of players, just that you'll all fit on.

As for bases and stored gear, that will need to wait for private hives.

Still no good, we join as a squad and end up on a server with 5 other people, having NOTHING to do. What than we hang around with our dicks in our hands until more people join ? 

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

Still no good, we join as a squad and end up on a server with 5 other people, having NOTHING to do. What than we hang around with our dicks in our hands until more people join ? 

 

Sounds like a plan.  It ties in quite nicely with your contribution to the discussion thus far.

[General Zod 1118]

Sounds like a plan.  It ties in quite nicely with your contribution to the discussion thus far.

Well at least I didn't resort to name calling like you, thus contributing more than you. In the end I'm not the one called troll here. 

Your plan simply doesn't give two shits about players who play in larger group, it's either because you get killed or tormented by those or you're just selfish and think only about your own play style, but trust me devs won't do anything that will mess this much with clans and groups, they will get to much backfire.

Most people here wants to reduce server hopping and increase interaction and you come up with and idea that will increase server hopping and force interaction on those who do not want it. 

 

In addition, right now clans and groups looking for PvP join high pop servers and "PvP designated" areas, such as  Berserkerino (berezino) which allows those who seek solitude or non lethal interaction either join lower pop servers or avoid hot combat zones and enjoy their peaceful existence while not being interrupted by those who seek to kill all that moves (a win win scenario).

Your plan will make that impossible and those clans / groups will go after all those who are near, which will result in 1000 times more KoS crying. 

Edited September 1, 2014 by General Zod

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

Your plan simply doesn't give two shits about players who play in larger group

 

Ding.  Have a banana.

[General Zod 1118]

Ding.  Have a banana.

Well in that case any further discussion is pointless. Luckily devs are no short sighted. 

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

OTOH, the prospect of watching pvpers dying of colds in their "hot combat zones" is just too appealing...