Current Gameplay (Not what you're thinking)

[KWilt 157]

So, given the recent changes (and the fact that I'm still stuck on vacation and can't find out myself), how much 'meatier' do people feel the Zeds are? I've heard they're actually a formidable force, now, but that could mean a whole slew of things.

Would like to know, just so I can adjust how I feel the balances are, as per this thread.

[KWilt 157]

Bump, because I'd still like some input on how people feel the 1.7.2 zombies change the dynamic.

Edited July 11, 2012 by KWilt

[abnormalweeny 6]

I am not refuting any of your points. In matter of fact I agree with you. I just wanted to stress on the Non-PVP server idea.

But personally I am all for buffing the zombies and buffing the starting gear a little bit. I don't care if it will be hard for fresh spawn, it should be that way tbh.

Rifles should be a viable choice to fight hordes of zombies, not just your M1911.

IMO

-Zombies don't die from pistol fire to the body. The only way to kill a zombie with a pistol would be to shoot his head.

-Rifles and other high calibers will kill a zombie with 2-3 shots to the body and 1 to the head.

I dont agree the zombies are too fast and jumpy to get a headshot every time without dying

[Somepants 3]

It's legitimately difficult to sneak around zombies now. If you're at normal city distances and doing anything but being prone, a zombie will see you. If you're crouched and approaching a farm, zombies will see you. Occasionally, a zombie will just decide to see you for no reason and with no provocation. This is the only undesirable glitch resulting from the changes. Otherwise, I'm scared to pop off anything louder than a revolver in town because I know it's going to end in some sort of horrific zombie train.

As for PvP and PvE servers, I think the concept is wholly undesirable. The main obstacles to making the current system work as I see them are 1. players per server, as the game is simply way too huge to support more than a quarter of the world experiencing much activity. 2. lack of challenge for equipped players/lack of reason for mobility, as you mentioned. The first problem strikes me as more significant, as even if there was a reason to leave the coast it would just mean that the coast mentality would end up occurring elsewhere, where the higher-tier players establish more bottlenecks to advancement and prevent any real strategic gameplay development. I think there is a critical mass of players that must be obtained in order to create any sort of metagame considerations. Otherwise it's just small tribes callously arguing over plentiful resources, and realistically don't need anywhere but Cherno to fulfill that goal.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Somepants

[KWilt 157]

It's legitimately difficult to sneak around zombies now. If you're at normal city distances and doing anything but being prone, a zombie will see you. If you're crouched and approaching a farm, zombies will see you. Occasionally, a zombie will just decide to see you for no reason and with no provocation. This is the only undesirable glitch resulting from the changes. Otherwise, I'm scared to pop off anything louder than a revolver in town because I know it's going to end in some sort of horrific zombie train.

I've heard of the horrendous instances where you'll be spotted from 100m for no apparent reason. Hopefully this can get fixed. And I'd really like to roll back to 1.7.1.5. The game is tedious as is, and we don't need to artificially lengthen gameplay time by making the only safe way to even look at a city is while proned.

As for PvP and PvE servers, I think the concept is wholly undesirable. The main obstacles to making the current system work as I see them are 1. players per server, as the game is simply way too huge to support more than a quarter of the world experiencing much activity. 2. lack of challenge for equipped players/lack of reason for mobility, as you mentioned. The first problem strikes me as more significant, as even if there was a reason to leave the coast it would just mean that the coast mentality would end up occurring elsewhere, where the higher-tier players establish more bottlenecks to advancement and prevent any real strategic gameplay development. I think there is a critical mass of players that must be obtained in order to create any sort of stable or semi-stable territorial boundaries. Otherwise it's just small tribes callously arguing over plentiful resources, and realistically don't need anywhere but Cherno to fulfill that goal.

Addressing the bottlenecking further into the continent, I don't think that's much of a problem. As the days wear on in DayZ, I actually think bottlenecking is something we should look forward to. However, the big problem, at current, is that there is not reason to let anybody live through your bottleneck right now. Of course, that's also something I'd like to see rocket work on (group dynamics, specifically, where it's better to have that random survivor you've come across alive, rather than dead), but for now, I think the separation of levels is a necessity that would be fairly beneficial.

Granted, those bottlenecks would exist, and hopefully as we reach the end of the development cycle, that's where communes and small settlements start to pop up, but they're also quite easy to bypass. Granted, the bypasses aren't the most convenient, nor safest, routes, but banditos can't exactly cover every square inch of a latitude line. So survivors looking to gamble can still take a shot at cracking the NW airfield or Stary.

Focusing on the idea of 'small tribes' as well, I would love to see that evolve more as the game goes on. As mentioned above, group dynamics are something I look forward to in the future, but right now, as we establish our 'clans', I think we have a very good opportunity looking ahead. As these tribes, whether nomadic or stationary, evolve further through conquest and claimants, we'll eventually be able to set up those settlements, and all the pieces still fall into place. Lone wolves can still come and go as they please among these tribes and eventual-communities, and these tribes and communities can either clash or ally themselves with each other.

Again, this all relies on group dynamics, as well as the advanced communication I'm hoping rocket will supply us with in the next few coming updates. But for now, as it is, I'd like to drive the small groups and tribes with 'ze phat lewt' to move more northward and prepare everything for the next coming updates.

In short, as it is right now, I'd like to see those low/mid resource survivors to either hang near the coast (not exactly on the coast, but pretty much the southern-most two or three klicks) or to travel northward to try their hand at getting themselves military-tier weapons. This allows this group of players to team up fairly easily with the common bond of low-survivability, and move more northward with safety and precaution. Meanwhile, those who have established themselves with the military-tier weapons can be busy in the north, looting the larger towns, collecting up the vehicles, and setting up their camps.

As I've said, none of this is currently possible with the total lack of trust and willingness among most survivors, due to a lack of easy communication and mixed bag of paranoia and lack of knowledge, but as soon as rocket gives us radios, we might actually be able to pull this off.

(In hindsight, if half of this doesn't make sense, don't worry. I'm kinda half as confused as you. Little tired. I'll try and clarify what I can later. Right now, though, there's no way I can even be asked to try.)

[thetamsen 57]

Cool story bro.

People would go in PvP servers with a makarov, get a lucky kill and loot NVGs, SVD's etc., and go back and play PvE.

What the mod really needs, is STRONGER ZOMBIES INLAND.

Instead of spawning 80-120 zombies in the NWAF, go put 60 zombies with twice as much health and make them take only the half of the damage from headshots, so that everybody will have difficulties up there, which could also be quite fun. That way, freshly spawns who only has a makarov and a hatchet and are lucky enough to find a bike, won't be able to loot the entire barracks and get full end-tier equipments in less than 1 hour.

[KWilt 157]

This, ladies and gentle men, is what I've been waiting to see.

Cool story bro.

Thank you. I wrote it myself.

People would go in PvP servers with a makarov, get a lucky kill and loot NVGs, SVD's etc., and go back and play PvE.

The problem with this is that I PvP and PvE characters wouldn't be mutually exclusive. So you couldn't farm quips in the PvE then pass them out in the PvP like sugar-coated... equipment. (Fuck, I really need sleep.)

What the mod really needs, is STRONGER ZOMBIES INLAND.

Instead of spawning 80-120 zombies in the NWAF, go put 60 zombies with twice as much health and make them take only the half of the damage from headshots, so that everybody will have difficulties up there, which could also be quite fun. That way, freshly spawns who only has a makarov and a hatchet and are lucky enough to find a bike, won't be able to loot the entire barracks and get full end-tier equipments in less than 1 hour.

I was waiting for someone to make this suggestion. I didn't want to be the one to do it and then nobody else even consider. But yes! I feel this is definitely one way to solve the problem. Maybe not entirely, but it's a step.

This gives the bandits something to challenging that's on par with survivors. And, if one of those low-tiers does get up to the barracks, and happen to actually loot it successfully, then it's actually something to cheer about for once.

---

Alright, I need to fucking sleep. See yinz in 12 hours, maybe.

[Somepants 3]

Yeah, the zombies sometimes glitch and manage to spot you from unreasonable distances. Had a friend spawn in, and while we were chatting about something a zombie ran some 200m down a road and over a hill to kill him on the beach. As for time, I didn't notice a major speed change. If anything, I felt that my ability to crawl at max speed let me progress faster than stop-and-go crouch walking.

By bottlenecking I was referring to the equipment/tier bottlenecking. I don't think it's a bad thing in general, but I think the current noob-tier bottleneck is really hampering the social growth. It spurs noobs to fight against bandits, but disables the ability of the noobs to participate in the conflict so they get frustrated and quit. Mostly I worry that new content will only end up serving to fortify such barriers. Stabilizing this situation is currently within our means, but let's say we get together 12 people to obsessively clear Cherno, Elektro and Balota of bandits and use this as a recruiting method to bolster their ranks (because, shit, they don't wanna do this themselves all day. they got vehicles to hunt.) Say they get ten more people doing this. That's already half the server, and I think getting ten noobs on your side would, as you train them, inevitably pay off in terms of actual manpower. So suddenly there's a half-server superpower which everyone else on the server needs to either unify against or most likely crumple under. I think half the server could pretty easily hold the Balota/Komarovo area and have most all the equipment they could ever need. But then that's it. There's no real depth to this, it's a pretty binary situation. It's more or less Red vs Blu: DayZ. They'd be able to take and hold territory, but it's not like resources are limited enough to make territory a real consideration. It would inevitably get old and leaves no room for growth, only splintering and reformation.

Perhaps that example is a little extreme, but scaling it back much further ends up leaving us with the current situation: disparate factions of four to eight people who have no particular reason to interact outside of boredom. 10 people don't have the manpower to hold more than one city very securely against any organized force. And having the sort of complicated socio-political interactions that breed a true complexity of conflict would, I argue, require no less than five separate factions. If it were three, one would just become a kingmaker. Were it four, it's probably just a 2v2 (which lets be honest is just a 1v1). Five, though, feels like about the right point for groups of 10 to start backstabbing eachother habitually. But even then, it's what? Ten dudes attempting to obsessively hold on to one single city? It lacks a sense of grandeur, not to mention that two groups deciding to pair up pretty quickly turns it into a 2v2 kingmaker situation.

I suppose my point is that even if the situation were stabilized, we don't have much room to work with anyway.

I think I'm getting lost in the sweet dreams of the distant future though.

Anyway, wilderness zombies would probably go a long way towards forcing bands into competition with eachother right now.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Somepants

[KWilt 157]

Yeah, the zombies sometimes glitch and manage to spot you from unreasonable distances. Had a friend spawn in, and while we were chatting about something a zombie ran some 200m down a road and over a hill to kill him on the beach. As for time, I didn't notice a major speed change. If anything, I felt that my ability to crawl at max speed let me progress faster than stop-and-go crouch walking.

Well, the reason this is such a problem (other than bull examples of being seen while in tall grass from 100m while they were staring at the sky) is that their senses have been buffed, but their spawn distance hasn't been changed at all.

As of right now, a zombie will run at you, and you will kill him. You will probably aggro more zombies. While you're dealing with those zombies, the zombie you killed will respawn at a minimum of 30m away, and instantly aggro on you. Lather, rinse, repeat, die. I'm really surprised that rocket didn't expect this, at all.

By bottlenecking I was referring to the equipment/tier bottlenecking. I don't think it's a bad thing in general, but I think the current noob-tier bottleneck is really hampering the social growth. It spurs noobs to fight against bandits, but disables the ability of the noobs to participate in the conflict so they get frustrated and quit. Mostly I worry that new content will only end up serving to fortify such barriers. Stabilizing this situation is currently within our means, but let's say we get together 12 people to obsessively clear Cherno, Elektro and Balota of bandits and use this as a recruiting method to bolster their ranks (because, shit, they don't wanna do this themselves all day. they got vehicles to hunt.) Say they get ten more people doing this. That's already half the server, and I think getting ten noobs on your side would, as you train them, inevitably pay off in terms of actual manpower. So suddenly there's a half-server superpower which everyone else on the server needs to either unify against or most likely crumple under. I think half the server could pretty easily hold the Balota/Komarovo area and have most all the equipment they could ever need. But then that's it. There's no real depth to this, it's a pretty binary situation. It's more or less Red vs Blu: DayZ. They'd be able to take and hold territory, but it's not like resources are limited enough to make territory a real consideration. It would inevitably get old and leaves no room for growth, only splintering and reformation.

That's actually what I'd like to see happen eventually. As you said, in the current state, that's going to be half the server in a single group. However, when (I guarantee it will eventually happen) we get 100+ servers, it'll be the core of setting up larger groups of survivors vying for land-ownership and protection.

See, look it as a form of work-system. Say, you spend 10+ hours holding Cherno. You are then given compensation for your time. You made the example of being able to simply go look for a car on your own. But what if you could be payed in cars? You might want to take that risk with your group, going out to find a vehicle to call your own. Or, you could ensure your ownership. Or, hell, if your group really feels up to the gun, they could steal a vehicle from the large group.

As you said, though, it might eventually become a staple of RvB, where you have two evenly matched teams, clashing left and right over every resource they can find. But hell, isn't that was should be happening when we're trying to secure our own livelihoods in an apocalypse? As for the limitation of resources, I feel that if survivors actually occupy a spot long enough, then there should be a degradation to loot spawn, to the point where it will go nil eventually. (Maybe the same could be done with zeds, but we'll toy with that mechanic when it becomes feasible.) So they're forced to either move, venturing on to find a new settlement to run dry, or they work with scavs, collecting loot from across the continent in return for possible protection and security while within the settlement's "walls".

I suppose my point is that even if the situation were stabilized, we don't have much room to work with anyway.

I think I'm getting lost in the sweet dreams of the distant future though.

Ah, but there is so much room to work with, actually. The big problem is that it all lays in the player's hands. So if the players don't want to do anything after this, then what?

DayZ has clearly shown that power-struggle is a staple, in that we all want the best weapons as fast as we can get them. So once these groups start forming, and leaders and councils are put in place, who's to say that coups won't be planned? Or that raid won't happen overnight where two opposing tribes team up for a one-night stand, just to fuck over another tribe and steal their resources?

There is always something to do in these situations. It's just a matter of whether players actually want to do it. If they're content with sitting around, simply waiting for the scavs to get back with that coyote backpack full of beans, then yeah. It's gonna be boring. But that's on the fault of the player. If someone is bored, hell, they could attempt to commit genocide in the middle of the settlement if they'd like. Whatever they want to get a kick from. But unless they're prepared to died or kill a helluva lot of people, it's not gonna work well in their favor.

Anyway, wilderness zombies would probably go a long way towards forcing bands into competition with eachother right now.

My main problem with this, though, is that zombies pretty much become an RNG of 'am I going to actually survive' if you're aggro'd. You'd lose the safety and security of running through woods to lose zombies, and running through towns without a weapon is suicide as of right now.

If we don't want the lifespan to drop, I think we should sway away from pretty much throwing inescapable situations at survivors. As is, I've already run for 4km with a single zombie constantly following me before. I don't need to aggro more, unwillingly, while I'm trying to shake just one.

[Electrolyte 4]

I brute force always. Sure I may not live for a month, more like 2-3 days, but you can definitely brute force through zombies with a little effort and creativity.

[Techercizer 82]

I came into this thread expecting to read about how electric current could add new and interesting options to Day Z. I guess this thread was not what I was thinking I was not thinking.

[KWilt 157]

I brute force always. Sure I may not live for a month, more like 2-3 days, but you can definitely brute force through zombies with a little effort and creativity.

Eh. If that's your game, and you're fine by it, it works. I won't hinder anybody if they're that suicidal. You can play however you want to play.

I came into this thread expecting to read about how electric current could add new and interesting options to Day Z. I guess this thread was not what I was thinking I was not thinking.

Sorry to disappoint you, Tech. Though, if you've got a more thoughtful topic title, I'd love to hear it. Always thought 'Current Gameplay' was stupid.

[Techercizer 82]

Well if you're in the market for one, I'd probably do something like "balancing early and end game" or "scaling difficulty between players: why pvp is a vital part of Day Z's endgame"

Edited July 12, 2012 by Techercizer

[KWilt 157]

Well if you're in the market for one, I'd probably do something like "balancing early and end game" or "scaling difficulty between players: why pvp is a vital part of Day Z's endgame"

Definitely like that latter. Thanks and cheers.

EDIT: Actually, I don't even know if it's possible to edit titles anymore. I guess I could just shoot Legacy a PM or something if need-be, though.

Edited July 12, 2012 by KWilt

[Benlandia 73]

The game is not tiered in any way because there is no leveling system and/or required level to use any item. A person on his first play through can (with a bit of luck) get kitted out heavily within the first hour of playing the game (run into cherno/elektro and find high grade military gear).

There is a large difference between a learning curve and a tier based system for gear. When I first installed the game I had difficulty starting a new character. Now, most experienced players can get properly kitted out within an hour and not have to worry about zombies. Once you find a hatchet it's just a matter of time before you have military grade gear from deerstands.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Benlandia

[KWilt 157]

The game is not "tiered" because there is no leveling system and/or required level to use any item in the game. A person on his play through can (with a bit of luck) get kitted out heavily within the first hour of playing the game.

There is a large difference between a learning curve and a tier based system for gear. When I first installed the game I had difficulty starting a new character. Now, most experienced players can get properly kitted out within an hour and not have to worry about zombies. Once you find a hatchet it's just a matter of time before you have military grade gear from deerstands.

But weapons are tier'd. You can't apply a learning curve to weapon strength. The gun either does x amount of damage, or y amount of damage.

Player experience does not effect that at all.

So, your point's pretty moot.

I really don't understand why it's so hard for people to wrap their heads around it.

The M1911 is a superior gun to the Makarov in every way. Thus, it is a higher-tier weapon.

The AS50 is superior to the CZ550 in every way. Again, a higher-tier weapon.

There is no if, and, or but about it.

Edited July 12, 2012 by KWilt

[Zecknaal 2]

I think in terms of adding gameplay and incentive for players to stay north, you need to consider a more drastic change. I don't think that loot changes are going to ultimately be enough to convince people not to just come back south and farm newbs. No matter how you tweak the drop rates, eventually some clan is going to get the god-stash and getting more loot will become irrelevant.

This is where I'd really love to see some manner of base-building come into play. I don't know if that's in terms of building a base in a field from scratch, or taking and holding a town (which I'd like better). If you wanted to incentivize staying north, you could make the northern towns easier to hold, or more richly rewarding to hold. I'm not sure exactly how that would work. I also think you could coax at least some temporary cooperation if you could use these to set up some kind of trading posts, or other communal activities. It would give you a reason to care if people die every time they get within 100m of your town.

To lend some credence to the idea, I'll draw a few comparisons to Minecraft. Both DayZ and Minecraft are pure sandbox games. In Minecraft, you start the game, and the first thing you do after making a hovel is go and look for better loot (in game terms, ore). And you do this again and again and again until you have all the redstone, iron, diamond, and whatever else you need, enough to last until the end of time. At that point, your focus begins to shift from gathering to building. Building a bigger, better, more badassed fortress is what makes you keep playing the game.

Now, I'm not going to say that Minecraft = DayZ. Obviously there is a greater focus on building in what is effectively digital lego land, but that doesn't mean there aren't parallels, or that DayZ couldn't add a lot of great gameplay by drawing on inspiration from a great idea like Minecraft.

[Benlandia 73]

But weapons are tier'd. You can't apply a learning curve to weapon strength. The gun either does x amount of damage, or y amount of damage.

Player experience does not effect that at all.

So, your point's pretty moot.

I really don't understand why it's so hard for people to wrap their heads around it.

The M1911 is a superior gun to the Makarov in every way. Thus, it is a higher-tier weapon.

The AS50 is superior to the CZ550 in every way. Again, a higher-tier weapon.

There is no if, and, or but about it.

You must also remember that loot spawns on a percentage chance. One person on one server may have different luck than on another server. Also, I never said that experience changed the damage values of a weapon. The fact that your comparing this game to any sort of MMO or level-based system makes all of your points pretty moot.

This is not a game. This is an anti-game.

It's meant to be cruel and unfair.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Benlandia

[KWilt 157]

I think in terms of adding gameplay and incentive for players to stay north, you need to consider a more drastic change. I don't think that loot changes are going to ultimately be enough to convince people not to just come back south and farm newbs. No matter how you tweak the drop rates, eventually some clan is going to get the god-stash and getting more loot will become irrelevant.

Loot changes won't ever incentivize staying north. Loot is a grab-and-go that you only need to stop for every once in a while. That's why this current system doesn't work. Hell, even if ammunition and weapons were rarer, it still wouldn't work. It'd only further cause an imbalance between those with high tier and lower tier weapons. Continuing on...

This is where I'd really love to see some manner of base-building come into play. I don't know if that's in terms of building a base in a field from scratch, or taking and holding a town (which I'd like better). If you wanted to incentivize staying north, you could make the northern towns easier to hold, or more richly rewarding to hold. I'm not sure exactly how that would work. I also think you could coax at least some temporary cooperation if you could use these to set up some kind of trading posts, or other communal activities. It would give you a reason to care if people die every time they get within 100m of your town.

To lend some credence to the idea, I'll draw a few comparisons to Minecraft. Both DayZ and Minecraft are pure sandbox games. In Minecraft, you start the game, and the first thing you do after making a hovel is go and look for better loot (in game terms, ore). And you do this again and again and again until you have all the redstone, iron, diamond, and whatever else you need, enough to last until the end of time. At that point, your focus begins to shift from gathering to building. Building a bigger, better, more badassed fortress is what makes you keep playing the game.

Now, I'm not going to say that Minecraft = DayZ. Obviously there is a greater focus on building in what is effectively digital lego land, but that doesn't mean there aren't parallels, or that DayZ couldn't add a lot of great gameplay by drawing on inspiration from a great idea like Minecraft.

That's why I've proposed base-building. It gives a group a reason to hang around an area, as they will invest themselves in building this home to use.

The one problem we have, though, is how to incentivize building a base in Vybor, rather than Cherno.

Eventually, everyone (theoretically) will have all the top tier weapons. Hell, they might all have two of each. But what do we do at that point, other than shoot other survivors? That's another reason to focus more on this base-building and group dynamic growth. As a group grows in numbers, their survivability tends to spike dramatically. When you've got an armada of 15 guys walking around with a variety of mid-to-high tier weapons, you don't want to fuck with them, and you're more likely to cooperate with them civilly. Granted, there's no guarantee that they won't shoot you on sight, but there are draws for that. Why would a group want to shoot you when they could employ our services, trade with you for your possible goods that you're willing to scav?

As we start to set up this hierarchy system, whether physically in game through ranking, or through simple metagaming aspects, cooperation will grow. We'll stop shooting on sight, and we'll start looking for the worth in the player, rather than their items.

Granted, you'll still get the groups of assholes who want to roam the lands, killing all in their wake for giggles, but that's where these communities come as a safe-haven. Granted, you'll never be entirely safe, but who is really going to start shooting up a community with multiple guards sitting, just waiting for you to make a stupid move.

(In essence, I think where Minecraft excels in it's building in late game, DayZ will excel in it's communication and cooperation in late game. No reason to shoot someone, because your gun is already better than theirs. And if they're stupid enough to shoot at you when you're traveling with a group of armed guards to take your gun, they deserve to be back in the brine.)

---

You must also remember that loot spawns on a percentage chance. One person on one server may have different luck than on another server. Also, I never said that experience changed the damage values of a weapon. The fact that your comparing this game to any sort of MMO or level-based system makes all of your points pretty moot.

Loot also spawns in percentage chances in RPGs, and those are definitely tier'd. Don't see what point you're trying to make.

And yes, you did refer to the power of a weapon in your comparison of a learning curve to a tier. Clearly, you seem to think that because this game has a learning curve, some weapons aren't better than others (thus, making them tier'd). And if you don't, then why did you bring the subject of a learning curve at all?

I'm not looking for personal experiences. I'm looking at facts and numbers. It is fact that some weapons are superior to others. If that isn't tiering, the I don't know what is.

This is not a game. This is an anti-game.

It's meant to be cruel and unfair.

Was wondering when that was gonna pop up.

The next time you die, close ARMA II, remove it from your computer, and never speak of DayZ again.

Because in an anti-game, there are no do-overs, and there are no respawns.

[Somepants 3]

I was giving some more thought to the coastal problems, and I think the only way people are going to move north and stay there is the introduction of strategic resources and trade. Specifically, the north's main advantages lie in its greater amount of natural resources, as well as roads tending to converge on single cities. I also remember that certain towns have things such as mines, and the inevitable introduction of electricity and manufacturing will cause them to have more importance. Towns that don't have resources are either important for supply routes (imagine you have to drive a truck over to the mines to get a good load of stuff, and imagine if some assholes ambushed your convoy, stole your truck, and sold it and the ore back to you because you didn't have good control of the route), or as in the case of most of the heartland cities, large flatlands and farming infrastructure. Don't forget control of all those powerlines running everywhere.

Until all of that's implemented, though, (which I think it definitely will be; the map is just so perfectly constructed for it and rocket's mentioned gathering electricity) increase in playercount would likely encourage people to move slightly further north for sheer safety. There just isn't enough legitimate conflict happening right now, but enough noobs stealing all the dinner bells and beans will eventually make Cherno unappealing. Perhaps consider starting a dinnerbell distribution network on your local server.

However, I think slightly stronger zombies inland (hardy farmers/miners and the like. lumberjack zombies sneaking their plaid axe-wielding carcasses around the forests?) and more zombies overall on the coast might be a dynamic worth exploring. Eventually high-powered rifles and slug rounds would be the preferred weapons for the inland open plains, sparse buildings, and tough zombies, while the coast's mountains, urban sprawl, and zombie density would be better suited for automatic weapons and pellets.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Somepants