Server 'Death' - the end game to end games.

[Rivy 32]

I hadn't seen this thread before ! I really really like this idea. It has a Children of Men vibe going on.

I'd think I'd enjoy this game mode :beans:

[harley001 315]

Eh....Seems like to much. I want a zombie survival game with pvp and realism not a freaking game of life with zombies thrown in!

[logan23 118]

Interesting concept,

I see where your going with the Child feature and it works but only as an optional Server Setup.

The Child Feature should not be in the Vanilla DayZ Standalone since DayZ is an on going, ever changing world.

To have an end means players will be looking for a server that's not on the verge of death.

How this could work:

Rocket has talked about different setups for the Servers for DayZ so that in SeverA format is separate than serverB format. Players can't jump between the two which keeps the rules consistent and fair.

What we could see a special servers that have an almost Roleplay function like your Child /Server death just as we might see servers setup for things like the DayZ hunger games. These would be their own little side Events. Players who want to create a character on these servers can and play this type of format while still having their other character for the DayZ vanilla.

What we could see is using the AI of the Dogs and apply it to the Child.

With the children there is the issue with when they age enough what happens? There are no NPCs in DayZ and these children would work like the dogs where they are a AI companion.

Solution:

The goal is to build a base/civilization where you can drop off the child when they have learned and aged long enough with the player. The Child would then be unlocked for the player and now sit in a room in the base. This is like putting the investment into a bank. These children can be killed but now the player doesn't need to bring them along. You just need to keep the base and children alive so humanity can continue for the future. (Again this is more of a side game which would be fun but would not work as a feature inside all the servers or vanilla but as a side server which those who want to play this server format, could.)

Issues-

What happens if a player kills another player who has a kid and the kid is left alive? Does the NPC stay in the location? do they die?

I can see how players don't see the other player has a kid and shoots the other player and then goes,..oh he had a kid..i don't want to shoot the NPC so they leave the child there. What happens to the kid?

The idea of a kid giving you a buff?

I really don't like the buff. I would rather have the kid be able to care extra gear as you train them.

Players playing on this side game server would be because they want to roleplay this format or cause havoc for those who do.

PvP players who wants you to have a bad day-

Some players will make characters just to cause havoc and kill players and even the kids just for their enjoyment.

You must expect this will happen but the community faction who would enjoy playing this would mostly play by the rules per say.

OP- "So then when the "Ticket" counter reaches 0 no more children will spawn - and by extention all players that now die do so FOREVER (they are locked out of that server) till the last man is left and then the server is resets. THIS IS PERMA-DEATH!"

"Players can logout but are then LOCKED OUT of the server till it resets, if they logout they leave an empty slot that anyone can log into (and then the same rules apply to them) - but if they DIE that slot is removed till the server resets."

Having an Server Perma-death/world would be interesting and to track how long they all last would be an interesting experiment.

In the End, this is a type a feature which I don't think we will see in the standalone but maybe there is a chance when new game types or shoot offs from the vanilla with special theme focus servers,..then we might see this happen.

What do you think,

[GOD™ 2795]

I love this idea, you may have my beans. :beans:

Edited November 27, 2012 by GOD™

[WarpNinja 6]

Having everyone spawn as children, and not the few that you proposed addsd an incentive to survive for a longer period of time, and adds an effect of learning, ie, going from child to adult, from your suggested debuffs this also adds an idea of learning to shoot firearms, like the ideal.

[Samuel P. Tinkersmith 1]

I am an avid roleplayer and would truly appreciate this addition, but I feel that not everyone is like us friend.

Too many people fail to recognize that this is an apocalypse simulator, not just a way to run around shooting people and laughing at them. You are going to be playing with 10 year-olds who don't understand the role they will play in an apocalypse. They just want to be the Big Man and not the fount of innocence you imagine. In ideal world where you would be playing a game that is rated Mature with people who actually are Mature. Too many players are young and raised in a world where winning is all that matters. They fail to understand the big picture, if the humanity was on the brink, who will bring it back? They are not helping us as a species shooting people on sight, just because they might shoot them.

Your Ideas would be perfect in a simulator of the world maybe a decade after the apocalypse, not during.

[Dabaroony 86]

A novel idea, and well thought out, but it imposes too much on the player.

[dekartz 315]

This game is ultimately a sandbox. What you're proposing puts very serious constraints on that concept. Also it rewards one type of gameplay over another, something that sort of goes against what DayZ is about. In addition this opens up an opportunity for easy griefing. (Spawn as kid? Take candy from zombies)

And I always sort of considered the survivors as having washed up on the shore of Chernarus (hence why you start on the beach). The idea that the death of children who just so happened to wash up on the shore of this island-nation deciding the fate of the whole world seems silly.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Dekartz

[hoik 415]

Thanks for taking the time to post all your opinions! Now let me agree, disagree, disect and clarify :P.

I see where your going with the Child feature and it works but only as an optional Server Setup.

Agree - I know this idea isn't everyones cup of tea.

The Child Feature should not be in the Vanilla DayZ Standalone since DayZ is an on going, ever changing world.

To have an end means players will be looking for a server that's not on the verge of death.

IMO having a "Doomsday" scenario, like this idea would only enhance dynamics in dayz. The"end game" (in this scenario) is highly dynamic and when it occurs is not defined by the mechanic - but rather the players. The world will be "ever changing" until we stuff it up!

As for your thoughts on servers, I agree. If there were some sort of RPG hive alongside the vanilla hive that would be cool.

What we could see is using the AI of the Dogs and apply it to the Child.

With the children there is the issue with when they age enough what happens? There are no NPCs in DayZ and these children would work like the dogs where they are a AI companion.

Solution:

The goal is to build a base/civilization where you can drop off the child when they have learned and aged long enough with the player. The Child would then be unlocked for the player and now sit in a room in the base. This is like putting the investment into a bank. These children can be killed but now the player doesn't need to bring them along. You just need to keep the base and children alive so humanity can continue for the future. (Again this is more of a side game which would be fun but would not work as a feature inside all the servers or vanilla but as a side server which those who want to play this server format, could.)

Issues-

What happens if a player kills another player who has a kid and the kid is left alive? Does the NPC stay in the location? do they die?

I can see how players don't see the other player has a kid and shoots the other player and then goes,..oh he had a kid..i don't want to shoot the NPC so they leave the child there. What happens to the kid?

Alot of this is answered in the OP. Formost, my idea is that the children will not be NPC's - they will be players. Understanding this should clear up the rest of your questions - unless you are proposing you would prefer that they were NPC's, then you're questions still stand :) .

The idea of a kid giving you a buff?

I really don't like the buff. I would rather have the kid be able to care extra gear as you train them.

I use the term "buff" because it is a gamey term that we all understand - what I actually mean is that they should have limitations and advantages that are logical to a child. How far you want to take this is the question IMO.

Some logical "buffs/debuffs" would be:

• they are less likely to be detected by zombies
  
• they take more sever damage from combat (zombies or whatever)
  
• they can carry less items than an "adult"
  
• they get hungry and thirsty quicker
  
• they get colder faster
  
• their sprint speed is slower
  
• *any more?*
  

One of the main "features" of being a child is the ability to choose to switch off friendly fire on a player by player basis - eg, you meet a stranger, and ask them for help - then assure them of your intentions by switching off friendly fore towards them.

The idea was to create a way for children to be a catalyst for in game grouping. This is important for this idea, but I think there must be a better, less obvious soloution. Any input here would be welcome.

PvP players who wants you to have a bad day-

Some players will make characters just to cause havoc and kill players and even the kids just for their enjoyment.

Absoloutly, in a twisted way they are required to make the game work. They are the "badguys"!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having everyone spawn as children, and not the few that you proposed addsd an incentive to survive for a longer period of time, and adds an effect of learning, ie, going from child to adult, from your suggested debuffs this also adds an idea of learning to shoot firearms, like the ideal.

Lol - it immediately brings to mind Lord of the Flies - would be cool, and probably very messed up :) .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Snip*

I agree with your sentiment - but at the same time I like to belive that there is room enough in a game like DayZ for all types of players, no matter their playstyles or opinions of what DayZ "is". You should do as you like - but I do think there should be concequences for our actions, maybe not as immediate or obvious ones, but things that will effect the players later down the track.

I agree that this idea may be better suited to a more desolated population.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This game is ultimately a sandbox. What you're proposing puts very serious constraints on that concept. Also it rewards one type of gameplay over another, something that sort of goes against what DayZ is about. In addition this opens up an opportunity for easy griefing. (Spawn as kid? Take candy from zombies)

I would really like to know how this type of idea makes DayZ less of a "sandbox". Also, I dont understant how it rewards a single type of play? If your refering to this "give a health boost to friendly" that was a shitty example and not really the direction I had in mind for "buffs" :) .

The reson for "buffs" which players get if they are marked friendly, was to ballance out the effects of having to look after a child, who have inherent "debuffs".

So in my example, if you want the security that a child can bring, then you have to pay for it with food - as children get hungry faster than adults (you can debate this - Im just making stuff up here!)

And I always sort of considered the survivors as having washed up on the shore of Chernarus (hence why you start on the beach). The idea that the death of children who just so happened to wash up on the shore of this island-nation deciding the fate of the whole world seems silly.

lol, as silly as reanimated corpses wanting to eat brains...yes. But I understand, my scenario doesn't nececarily mesh with the scenario you have formulated yourself - but ask yourself: where are all these people washing up on the beach coming from? A automated, boundless, biolab? There are limits to humans as a resource, if we wipe eachother out faster than we replenish ourselves, we will go extinct.

I know we don't have to acknowledge this, after all this is a game, but then there is a very clear lack of responsibility - given this is a sandbox game, I understand that responsibility is not nececarily what people want.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Hoik

[dekartz 315]

Server 'Death' - the end game to end games.

This idea is aimed at creating the 'realistic' outcome of excessive PvP

It's less a system to enhance gameplay and more a system to punish PVP by basically saying "PVP too much and you lock everyone out the server". I see very little benefit from this idea. No increased immersion, no added authenticity (The idea that the whole world is Chernarus is silly), and only has some admittedly interesting roleplay elements to it. (WTB Thousands of "Boy" and "Man" combos)

Edited November 28, 2012 by Dekartz

[logan23 118]

You mention that these kids would become players or controlled by players?

I think it would function better as an AI like the dogs.

Since we have a real 24 hour cycle, there is no way that the kids would become adults.

The children are just a way to give the players a goal or purpose.

Again this would only work on a Side game for DayZ like the possible DayZ hunter games. This would be for those who would want to play this type of game. This would never make it into the Vanilla DayZ Standalone.

On the idea that having a kid with you will give a real buff is not really possible. Having a kid with you as a side kick means more noise made for aggro Zeds, more resources to feed both of you but you do get more room to carry items.

The key to this type of function is to find away where you can have that bonding experience with the AI Child so you don't want to send them away into a herd of Zeds.

"IMO having a "Doomsday" scenario, like this idea would only enhance dynamics in dayz. The"end game" (in this scenario) is highly dynamic and when it occurs is not defined by the mechanic - but rather the players. The world will be "ever changing" until we stuff it up!"

Actually the who design you presented is a mechanic since there is no proof that having the child count would doom humanity. There is the constant chance that people from outside the map would come by. So this is a mechanic to places a false belief that child count = 0 then GameOver.

Dynamic- "Characterized by continuous change or activity."

The situation you present is dynamic until there the counter = 0 and its game over which then ends the dynamic.

Your feature is more about adding a timer or a possible lose game function.

Functions like these work for small time periods of time.

They do not work for long several weeks game periods since if your player character is on this and suddenly the child count drops greatly then you will lose everything when it had nothing to do with your choices.

If you have a game over, you need a I win button as well. This would keep the events short verses players playing several weeks and suddenly finding out they can't respawn or they lost because of some mechanic.

Players want to have choice. They want to know that I died because they decided to go to the barn and get killed by a Zed. Ownership of your death is important. This is one of the reasons why players don't like snipers since they come out of no where and kill them verse bumping into a player and having a gun fight but you know you died because of your poor judgement.

Again, this would need to be built into a actual win and escape area or die and humanity survivors are doomed in this location.

On a side note, the idea of having kids could be an issues with certain country rules on games.

Edited November 28, 2012 by logan23

[Rivy 32]

Just to clarify, I'd love this as an alternative game mode. I wonder if those who dismiss it because it's not "the real deal" would be okay with that.

[hoik 415]

It's less a system to enhance gameplay and more a system to punish PVP by basically saying "PVP too much and you lock everyone out the server". I see very little benefit from this idea. No increased immersion, no added authenticity (The idea that the whole world is Chernarus is silly), and only has some admittedly interesting roleplay elements to it. (WTB Thousands of "Boy" and "Man" combos)

Its supposed to give the player some perspective, its meant to make killing other players a decision rather than a given - that is where it tries to build immersion and authenticity.

It does take some liberties, and it does "punish" excessive PvP - and not only does it lock you out the server, it then erases all your hard work and you have to start again :o . Ok, I admit this is rather harsh and unimaginative - and is directly aimed at influencing people who dont see dayZ as anything else than a arena for thoughtless PvP. I suppose this could be seen as me pushing my own agenda and trying to dictate to others what I think dayZ is actually about.

I genuinly want to find a way to give people a reason to care about others in dayZ - without making them care. The problem is players have no real value in themselves, so the only value you can actually give them is by directly relating their lives to something detremental like - killing a server or loot drops, or prehaps inherent skills/perks. This is where my interest lies. Thank you for your post, I apreciate your perspective.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Hoik

[dekartz 315]

Killing other players is already a decision. I personally haven't killed any players (and have been in the position to do so plenty of times) not because I was worried about some consequence, but because I didn't want to.

[hoik 415]

Yeah, and thats a very cool nuance of dayZ: Doing things because of your own personal code. But I guess for myself this simply is not enough - not killing someone has no real game value - killing them does.