Forget direction, get dynamic!

[Swi1ch 39]

Edit. The OP is below, but I believe I might not have been completely clear in it about my suggestion.

The idea is not to have zombie spawn rates increase by a set amount per survivor, at one time (For example, each player increases spawn rate by 10 seconds and 20 zombies whilst he is in the town.) This would be a horrible idea, as the game would remain static; player heavy towns would be impossible and therefore boring.

The idea is to have a dynamic system that changes over a longer period of time, so a week for example. After a week is up, the towns with the highest average player traffic get a increase in spawn rates, and the towns with the lowest average player traffic get a decrease in spawn rates.

This would mean that over-saturated areas would become non-viable and players would have to move on to survive. Eventually, as different towns fill up, this would come full circle, as the towns that have been left behind would see a decrease in player traffic and thus a decrease in zombie spawns. To stop the current static state where you know where is safe, where isn't and where you can go get stuff. It would change.

OP:

So I was pondering just now about the current typical activities of survivors ingame, which the vast majority of consist of; deathmatching in Cherno or Elektro, or going to Stary or NW Airbase for gear. I was thinking that players need a reason to go elsewhere, but to add story or quests would ruin the spirit of the game, as the goal is simply to survive.

So I pose to ye this; what if zombie spawn rates were based on player traffic in an area, and not just on that one server, but on all? Right now, most player traffic is in Cherno, Elektro, Stary or NW Airbase. Let's FLOOD these towns with Zed (Backstory; Zed are attracted to food ie: humans, or whatever). I mean more than 1.5.7 rates, I mean if you fart in Chero you get eaten.

What will this accomplish? A dynamic metagame. It will become impossible to survive in these over saturated areas and will force players to move elsewhere. The players ahead of the pack will find the best areas more quickly, and as more and more players (And more zombies) flood in, they will move on. Common, well trod routes will emerge and die as the human populace relocates and relocates again. Wars will break out in less zombie infested towns over the supplies there, until it no longer becomes possible to fight there. Players who are paying attention to the migration paths of both living and undead will be able to get in quickest to the valuable places like military camps when they're beginning to become less saturated.

Gogo metagames!

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

I like this, likewise loot could follow a flow system where zones that are over farmed will yeld less and less items, while zones rarely looted would increase their yeld.

[dreadstorm 3]

I like this idea- means you can't stay in one place for too long, always have to move

[Mice! 1]

Great idea, Kyrah's is good as well.

[thecat100 0]

I like the idea of more zombies per player in a certain area. This would add a challenge in populated areas and force players to move. Although, I think we shouldn't decrease loot if a lot of players are in the same place. It should stay the same as it is.

[Savage117 0]

I agree this is a good idea, and it makes sense for this mod. Very good idea, you have my endorsement.

[FreedomTea 9]

seems to be a lot of support already so i am adding my support too.

Although there are millions of bugs that have to be addressed before something as big as this is implimented, as i could forsee it adding a million more.

[ravilakhani.e@gmail.com 20]

I like this' date=' likewise loot could follow a flow system where zones that are over farmed will yeld less and less items, while zones rarely looted would increase their yeld.

[/quote']

I agree with more zed in popular areas, but not with decreasing loot. There has to be a risk/reward element. Anyone willing to brave the sea of zed should be rewarded with top loot. Or at least high spawn rates on loot.

[mooncabbage 2]

The problem with this suggestion is the risk of over-balancing the mod, which would destroy the flavour. Particularly the idea of having zombies per player in the area. That makes every area the same. As it is, cherno and elektro ARE more dangerous, and I dont think that's a bad thing.

[Srel 3]

I agree with the increased spawnrate and the decreased spawnrate, however the spawnrate advocates have a point; risk and reward is important.

[Swi1ch 39]

I agree with the increased spawnrate and the decreased spawnrate' date=' however the spawnrate advocates have a point; risk and reward is important.

[/quote']

I feel this would still contribute to risk reward, because more infested towns would be super risky due to zombies, but the lesser infested towns would be at more risk from players, in the towns and along the routes. At the moment, the current risk/reward system is super static, as you know pretty much for sure where you are safe, where you aren't, and where the good stuff is.

The problem with this suggestion is the risk of over-balancing the mod' date=' which would destroy the flavour. Particularly the idea of having zombies per player in the area. That makes every area the same. As it is, cherno and elektro ARE more dangerous, and I dont think that's a bad thing.

[/quote']

I don't mean at a single time (1 guy = 10 zed, 2 guys = 20 zed etc) I mean over a longer period. So after a week or whatever, Cherno and Elektro have had so much average traffic that the zed number goes through the roof, forcing people out. Meanwhile the towns with the least average traffic get a decrease in zed. Eventually that would shift again, and at some point people would start going back to Cherno and Elektro.

The idea is to try and give some reason for people to explore without shoe-horning in a random plot. It also allows for some cool emergent gameplay; How about a dedicated group enacting a cordon on NW Airfield on as many servers as possible to deliberately force down average traffic, in order to raid it in peace themselves?

You could potentially avoid overbalancing by having Rocket just decide to f**k with us. Instead of letting the zombie numbers evolve, he could just say "Ok guys, lots of people chilling in Zelenogorsk, good luck with that now." and tank the survival rate by flooding in zed.

I get the impression that the two of you understood my OP to infer that spawnrates would be on a static scale; each player in a town increasing zed rates in that town at that time, rather than a dynamic, long-term system. If that is the case, I assume my OP is not clear about my suggestion and I can change it.

Edit. I changed my OP, I hope it is clearer now.

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

It was very clear to me from the begining, have the game change as players get their bearing to push them out of their confort zone.

I would love to see cherno evolve into a zombie infested tincan wasteland where no one dare go. At least for a little while.

[HardTarget 27]

The only issue I see is with those few villages that have next to nothing in terms of usable items/spawn spots (such as Pusta and it's meager spawn spots), but I assume that as well can (over time) be adjusted.

The idea that zombies slowly (Maybe a week is a bit much, but it sounds reasonable) and dynamically adapt to how often players go about certain areas is great. No longer will it be "Cherno/Electro are bad places, and NWAF is the place to go for gear" (Something which has never changed, despite the fact they are hell-holes people still dive head-first into them). These places would end up over-saturated by zombies that so much as sneezing would topple 30+ zed on you (assuming you were trying to be sneaky), and firing off a Lee Enfield would be the same as putting it to your own skull. Instead, it'll be "Okay, NWAF is flooded to hell, let's hit the SWAF/NEAF instead", which over time will also end up flooded, while the lack of activity at the NWAF will cause it to open up again (using the military-grade gear just as an example).

I understand why people visit these areas, they ARE the big cities, most possible looting points, etc, but I must say it's beyond easy to just ignore the cities and loot out of, say, Zelenogorsk with next to NO ONE ever bothering to prop their heads up. Berezino tends also to be a fairly weak spot at times, despite the fact it arguably has almost as many spots to get stuff as Electro.

Quick-Thought: Also, this will create flows in how often people can get/obtain gear. Since Electro/Cherno and the NWAF are THE places to go to get gear, the times that they end up flooded by zed will cause a dramatic drop in available items, causing player tensions to rise amongst each other over even what may have been meager. Since people always go for the easy-loot areas first already, the times they are flooded will create a natural "dip" in resources one can easily obtain, making that particular time span (current suggestion of 1week) far more brutal to survive in due to difficulties of gathering gear/food/etc. Once the dip passes and the main areas clear out, the amount of food and gear overall will then jump back up as people flood back in. A sort of dynamic "flow" to resources themselves, infact.

Overall: +1, so long as this doesn't involve a huge amount of strain on the already-strained master server, and can be negated somehow to simple, easy-manage statistics.

[TheBowski 2]

I think this is a great idea. As HardTarget stated, it really doesn't have to have any effect on the master server, each server could change dynamically on its own. I like the time period, maybe reduced to 4 or 5 days. I think this would work great if combined with more options for better fortifications, such as craftable wooden walls.

[hoik 415]

Wow, Im glad you pointed your thread out to me Swi1ch! Dynamisim (for me) is the key to making DayZ work in the long run. There should be a lot more disscussion around this area.

Quick-Thought: Also' date=' this will create flows in how often people can get/obtain gear. Since Electro/Cherno and the NWAF are [b']THE places to go to get gear, the times that they end up flooded by zed will cause a dramatic drop in available items, causing player tensions to rise amongst each other over even what may have been meager. Since people always go for the easy-loot areas first already, the times they are flooded will create a natural "dip" in resources one can easily obtain, making that particular time span (current suggestion of 1week) far more brutal to survive in due to difficulties of gathering gear/food/etc. Once the dip passes and the main areas clear out, the amount of food and gear overall will then jump back up as people flood back in. A sort of dynamic "flow" to resources themselves, infact.

Overall: +1, so long as this doesn't involve a huge amount of strain on the already-strained master server, and can be negated somehow to simple, easy-manage statistics.

In a spasem of serendipity my (detailed...) post on a dynamic loot sytem can be found here: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10295

Its the other half of the equasion!

[bryantjudoman 3]

This is a really neat idea. I support it. However i also think the loot should be good for those who risk entering the more dangerous areas.

[psycho84 0]

I like this idea. Including reduced spawn rates for populated areas.

Kinda sounds realistic as well. An area becomes populated, loot is picked clean, zombies move in attracted to the commotion.

[digital0 22]

Me likes. Imagine if you meet someone on your way out and by some miracle you don't shoot each other telling him:

"Don't go there man, place is a zed hellhole now"

And he goes

"Us a pussyman bomboclat me se find my own way"

And minutes later you can see from the hilltop down into the city how he gets ripped apart by a horde of zeds, screaming, kicking, begging. You light your cigar going "told you so.." cue 80's action movie soundtrack while you turn around and walk of into the sunset. Looking for the next place to survive another day...

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

The zombie increase should be absolutely ridiculous , i know by experience that players are creatures of habits, and even if the popular spots ended up crowded with zombies they will KEEP GOING THERE until it's absolutely impossible to survive.

[ispudgun 1]

Quite a nice idea, I really like it. Though I suggest maybe having a maximum amount of zombies for each town/city as they differ in sizes.

[Swi1ch 39]

The zombie increase should be absolutely ridiculous ' date=' i know by experience that players are creatures of habits, and even if the popular spots ended up crowded with zombies they will KEEP GOING THERE until it's absolutely impossible to survive.

[/quote']

I think unfortunately it would be limited with the Arma2 engine, but this was my intention. With the game as it is now, if I were to implement this myself, Cherno would be beyond a death trap. A highly coordinated group (20+) all with automatic weapons and plenty of ammunition might just make it from one side to the other, thus making it pointless to enter.

Quite a nice idea' date=' I really like it. Though I suggest maybe having a maximum amount of zombies for each town/city as they differ in sizes.

[/quote']

I can kinda see an argument for this. It would make establishing camps/holdouts in smaller towns more viable long term, but I fear it might break the game and it would become party time in one of the small towns instead.

If a small town was capped at a certain zombie limit, players may find a way to work around it and create a permanent base there, removing the dynamic I would like to see in the game. Rather than seeing 30 players hanging around Pusta because even with dynamic spawns there's not enough zombies to deal with all of them, i'd rather see 3 or 4 players desperately trying to defend the town from human intruders, to protect their safe spot that would otherwise be compromised by new faces and the inevitable zombie bump.

[TTThatguy90 0]

that would be a really good idea. I love when I'm in a building and i see a horde of zeds chasing another player but yeah good idea keeping intense in areas where people most likely head too