Early Game Survival and Group Size

[Evil Minion 943]

Now there is a lot of talk about gameplay but most seem to focus on gameplay elements like weapons, looting, cooperative goals etc.

 

Lets talk about the earliest stages and how much of a challenge they should be. Do people like to live in a dangerous world using cooperation (or betrayal) to overcome challenges or do they want to be able to stand alone without much hazzle? How fast should most people traverse the initial survival phase and finally focus on getting better equipment?

 

Now the dificulty level of this stage depends on group size. Cooperation usually allows for faster progression and more power you can use against your environment while playing alone will most likely be much harder. Now large groups also need organisation otherwise they might not be able to sustain their numbers.

 

The question is basically about the "optimal group size" for surviving the early stages - the number of players to provide a challenging experience with a good success rate. Low numbers usually mean a easier gameplay with cooperation mostly speeding up progression while high numbers indicate a very challenging environment requiring cooperation for bare survival. Here being alone would drastically increase the difficulty level of the game.

 

 

[stinkenheim 249]

Personally I'd put an option of 'potential threat' under how you view players because that's the main thing I think when I see someone. They aren't a rival or a friend until I've made contact. Until then they are just a possible threat, if I dislike the look of them (the way they act in game) or can otherwise come to a conclusion about their play style then it will greatly impact on how I deal with the situation.

Certainly for me, they aren't business partners or prey, mostly because unless I'm a very new spawn I have no need of their gear and I don't KOS without reason.

As for group size, solo play should be doable but you won't be able to carry all the gear you need to survive off the land without a base camp somewhere. Therefore 2-4 players should be optimal, enough bodies that you can hold down an area if needed, people to provide overwatch on loot runs, people to go scavenging, people to get certain items like firewood, worms etc. ideally I'd play with 4 players, 2 to go hunting for food, 2 to go on equipment runs into towns (preferably 1 over watching).

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Doesn't matter the group size.  Your chances of dying are still going to be the same whether you're alone on with 20 people.  That sniper will still single out a target and take them out.  As for early on, you have a smaller chance to survive with a larger group due to food scarcity(when they actually make is scarce).   Try divvying up a can of beans between 10 people and see how far that gets ya :p

[Evil Minion 943]

One out of 20 seems much less than one out of one. A bigger group could cover more space in order to find food and might be more effective in hunting and securing the kill (both players and NPC animals). Working together does not mean you have to form one big group all the time but cooperating to stay alive.

[ryanincalgary 20]

The real problem is everyone looks the same in this game. Without name tags like other games it's impossible to tell Dave from Dan who just wandered into your large group and decided to unload on you. I've seen a fire fight video's of large groups and most people die from friendly fire. 

[Evil Minion 943]

There is no need for name tags. A wide variety in clothing allows for some temporary identification up to medium or even long distances. And a wide variety in faces (character creation) allows for permanent identification over short distances. Now the first can be expanded on by allowing to attach batches to your clothes and the second can be expanded on by allowing things like tatoos.

 

The fact that it is mostly "negative distrinction" meaing you can only tell that someone is not the person you know isn't too much of a problem.It helps in firefights and also in general group play. The more options there are the better the chances for "positive distinction" meaning to actually recognise a specific survivor. Here the short range (you need to see the face clearly as clothes can be switched) is not a problem as this only affects friendly encounters anyways.

 

But thats a little too far into the game here - focus of the poll is survival within the environment and how much help/cooperation should be needed here.

[Tatanko 5591]

I would like it to be possible to survive on your own, but I would like it to be much more difficult than if you are in a small group.

[sachad 1016]

Ideally all playing styles should be equally challenging, so that there is no "right" way to play.

[Whyherro123 2283]

Ideally all playing styles should be equally challenging, so that there is no "right" way to play.

 Negative. Surviving alone vs in a group, even a small one, is so  much more difficult, you wouldn't even understand.

 

I teach a wilderness survival class. I demonstrated how groups make everything easier. It took me about 4 hours to build a shelter ( a real one, with insulation, waterproofing, and whatnot), a fire, and gather enough firewood to last the night.

 

It took a group of 3 people 1 hour to accomplish the same. 

 

You will eventually get diminishing returns on group size vs "effectiveness" ( A larger group will require a  larger shelter and a larger fire, stripping a larger area of supplies faster), but that is why you split larger survivor groups up into smaller, individually-tasked groups. ( For example, group A has 3 people. They go ahead of the main party, finding the fastest/most effective trail, removing obstacles, etc. In Day Z, these could be your forward scouts. Group B has X people, does general group stuff. Group C has 5 people, they cover your backs to make sure nobody falls behind, etc. In Day Z, they make sure you don't get ambushed from behind.)

 

Larger groups also help with the division of labor. One group can build the shelter, one can build the fire and collect wood, the other can gather water and cook.  Get 10x as much done in half the time.

[friendlypilot 37]

depend how quickly you want re kitting , and also wait for cars they all be crying for a clan soon enough lol

[pillock 850]

This poll is about group sizes for the early stages of the game, yes? That's the phase where you are still hungry, cold and lacking decent gear?

 

The thing with DayZ in its current form is that group size has very little bearing on this; what matters is where you spawn. If you're at Novod, Elektro or Cherno, it's a piece of piss to find food, clothing and equipment; if you're out in the sticks at Poxycoastalnowheregorsk, it's a bit more challenging.

 

This says to me that come 1.0, all spawn points should be a significant distance from a major town - and with the inclusion of more stamina/fatigue/sickness mechanics, plus more zombies and dangerous animals, it should be made impossible (or very difficult) to survive a run there straight from your spawn.

 

Being in a group makes it even easier in larger towns, because you can watch each-other's backs, pool bandages and loot faster. Being somewhere smaller, on the other hand, can make it harder, since the little food and clothing you find has to be shared between several needy survivors.

[harteman 155]

Doesn't matter the group size.  Your chances of dying are still going to be the same whether you're alone on with 20 people.  That sniper will still single out a target and take them out.  As for early on, you have a smaller chance to survive with a larger group due to food scarcity(when they actually make is scarce).   Try divvying up a can of beans between 10 people and see how far that gets ya :P

Group size matters more than anything.  

 

When that sniper sends you to a respawn, your squadmates will kill him, and protect your gear til you get back.

 

It is like you never died.  Almost.  And you get to take the snipers gear as well.  In the end, a net positive for the group.

[friendlypilot 37]

Group size matters more than anything.  

 

When that sniper sends you to a respawn, your squadmates will kill him, and protect your gear til you get back.

 

It is like you never died.  Almost.  And you get to take the snipers gear as well.  In the end, a net positive for the group.

 

finally someone with the knowledge and concept of dayz

[omgwtfbbq (DayZ) 1069]

I always lone-wolf it and my characters last weeks on end before I get killed by someone else. In other words, survival isn't very difficult at the moment and if the option is available in the future, I'm going to play offline alone/with friends because everyone's a dick.

[hotcakes 348]

In its current iteration, the most effective groups are four-man fireteams. Any higher and you'll have a lot of annoying communication.

[Rags! 1966]

 Negative. Surviving alone vs in a group, even a small one, is so  much more difficult, you wouldn't even understand.

 

I teach a wilderness survival class. I demonstrated how groups make everything easier. It took me about 4 hours to build a shelter ( a real one, with insulation, waterproofing, and whatnot), a fire, and gather enough firewood to last the night.

 

It took a group of 3 people 1 hour to accomplish the same. 

 

Larger groups also help with the division of labor. One group can build the shelter, one can build the fire and collect wood, the other can gather water and cook.  Get 10x as much done in half the time.

 

As an Eagle Scout and somebody who was in ESAR, I can definitely agree that in survival games, other people are the greatest resource for flesh efficiency and safety.

[Evil Minion 943]

So we agree the lower the optimal number of players the easier the gameplay? This is not about firefights but about basic survival (food, other supplies, hunting, gathering, camping, zombie fighting etc.) only!

[grindstone50k 208]

Have you ever played with a large group? "Herding cats" doesn't even cover it.