Discouraging server hopping for loot

[82ndab-Bravo17 1]

After getting severely annoyed at once again breaking a leg trying to get over the barbed wire that was blocking yet another building entrance, I came up with an idea for limiting the advantages that players are getting by doing this and then server hopping into the buildings to get the loot.

If you re-enter the last server that you were on, you would still spawn as now, back where you left from, but if you went to a different server you would spawn somewhere within 50 or 100 ft of where you were. This would mean that you are less likely to spawn back into the same building, thus unable yourself to get at the loot that you had locked all non-server hoppers out of.

This would also lessen the advantage of players who server hop to get out of a pvp fight and come back in a better position, since after 2 server hops they wouldn't know exactly where they would be coming back in, and could easily find themselves in a worse tactical situation than before.

[3rdparty 229]

hmmm, 50m - 100m aint that far really, i see this as better for discouraging ghosting.

The only solution to this whole problem might actually be just reducing the number of servers, increasing the numbers of people they can hold. And, i hate to say it peeps, fix survivors down to a limited number of them (so peeps can at least have the option of choosing night and day, some peeps can only play some periods of the day). Maybe once their life is up they have more freedom to rechoose which servers.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Check out my solution. It's a bit more fleshed out and I think it works.

[ARBY 3]

I think if you log into a different server right after logging out of another one you should be spawned randomly within a 2 kilometer diameter around were you last were.

[Specter911 2]

The only solution to this whole problem might actually be just reducing the number of servers' date=' increasing the numbers of people they can hold. And, i hate to say it peeps, fix survivors down to a limited number of them (so peeps can at least have the option of choosing night and day, some peeps can only play some periods of the day). Maybe once their life is up they have more freedom to rechoose which servers.

[/quote']

The problem with that is, say each server can hold 200 people which im unsure they could handle.

Right now there is 14000 on, that means 70 servers.

The problem with this, is even if you locked players regionally to their servers(which alone will be bad as that splits the community) Almost every area will be filled with players killing each other with the KoS mentality.

Thus it will literally be a death match in every server at decent loot spots due to high loot areas being a warzone.

Aswell I agree Zedsdead idea wins over most of other's ideas to fix the same problem.

[3rdparty 229]

MMm maybe, but i dont think its outside of developers capacity to increase map size and increase number of players. (Also they are not attached to just one server, but a limited number)

Although no where near as graphically intensive, there are plenty of MMOs that hold larger numbers of players.

And there are examples over the last few years of FPS games with servers hosting large numbers, I mean MAG can hold like 200, 250+ peeps? Shit game, but still.... and their servers are atrocious for that matter. Hmmm. Well that was a few years ago, i refuse to believe that FPS servers cannot and/or will not get to the techniological point of holding all players, and seeing as weve had fps servers with 50 players for over a decade now, i think its time we started thinking limited massive servers, in size and occupation