DayZ... and what it can become.

[Gamewiz 12]

I'm sure many of the suggestions I'm about to offer have been talked about already, but I wanted to get my thoughts, opinions, hopes, and expectations out on the table regarding this game. This is probably going to get a little lengthy, but I want to make sure I cover everything. To be clear, I'm looking at the big picture... that means moving away from being a mod and how I would personally like for this game to function as a standalone game.

Before I begin, let me state I love this game. Not for what it is now, but for what it can become. It's a blast to play right now, don't get me wrong, but since we all know ii is a mod in Alpha stage of development, that means it has a ways to go before it can be considered a completed game. The potential for this game is quite large, so hopefully my one little post can help to contribute to the overall direction and purpose of the game WITHOUT compromising the core purpose of what this game is and how it functions now.

***Everything below is just my personal opinion of how I would love DayZ to be done as a standalone game. If you disagree, that's fine, but let's keep it civil!***

The Core

Infrastructure

Let me just start off with saying that this game screams to me as being a sandbox-style MMO. In fact, when I first heard about this game that is what I thought it was until I realized it was just a mod for another FPS game. The only components missing from what we have now in order to turn it into an MMO is the infrastructure. Ideally I think this game would shine in a format similar to something like Eve, or any of the MMOs built by Cryptic Studios. Now, I have no love for any of the MMOs Cryptic Studios has created, but the server infrastructure is what I'm referring to that should be mimicked.

That means one server with multiple "shards" or "instances" of the same world. You would create a population cap on each shard so that you never have to worry about survivor overpopulation and break the immersion that you are just one of a few survivors left on a world full of zombies. I believe this to be a better solution than the more standard method of creating multiple servers like how WoW, SWTOR, WAR, etc., handle it. Doing it the traditional way makes it harder to manage the population and for a game like this, controlling the population is paramount to maintaining immersion and the overall core setting of the game.

I will give an example to further break this down. Keep in mind these numbers are just examples, not the exact numbers I think they should be.

Let's just use Chenarus (the setting we currently play in) as the example. Let's say there is a soft cap of 100 players and a hard cap of 150. When you log in, let's say you are placed into Chenarus 1, with a current population 99. You make the 100th. That immediately has the server auto-create Chenarus 2, so that anyone else that logs in right now will go to Chenarus 2 instead, maintaining a health population in Chenarus 1. You can manually switch to Chenarus 1 only if the hard cap of 150 players isn't reached yet. That way if your friend was playing in 1 and you auto-joined to 2, you can still join up with your friend as long as the hard cap isn't reached. If it has, then he can switch shards and join up with you instead. Switching between shards can only be done when not in combat and would have a semi-long cooldown to do so (like 30 minutes to an hour) so as to avoid abusing. This allows friends and clans to still play with each other, but maintains immersion and proper player population.

The Environment/Setting

First and foremost, this would be rated a mature game. The setting needs to be essentially the same feeling that we get now (except we really need to make night a little lighter so we don't all turn up the gamma just to see a tiny bit at night). What has been currently achieved is a great starting place. Vast forests and meadows, rolling hills, cliffs, mountains, the coast, towns, cities, and small farms... what is already presented is a perfect setting, it just needs to be polished.

My only suggestion is to make the cities larger. Realistically, what I'm suggesting can only be accomplished with one city just due to time and cost to develop it properly, but one large city should be enough. Entering the city should be one of the most dangerous, but most rewarding, activities in the game. Dangerous not only in the amount of zombies that would be present, but also because it would be easy to get lost, stuck with no way out, complex, etc. Every building should be able to be entered, no "fake" buildings like we currently see (I understand that what we see is due to ArmA II limitations). There needs to be larger buildings and skyscrapers, like the one large apartment building we see in Cherno (but can only enter the lobby...). The more complex the city, the better it becomes.

I know what I'm suggesting regarding the city is going to be the most difficult and probably the only part of my suggestions that might not be possible, but achieving as close to it as possible is all I'm striving for.

Everything else in terms of settings is perfect. Keep the small towns, the farms, the woodlands, the meadows, etc. The setting once you venture out of the cities is absolutely perfect and I wouldn't change a thing.

Sandbox vs Themepark

I've typically been a fan of more themepark-oriented MMOs. But a zombie apocalypse is a sandbox MMO in every single way. The way DayZ currently operates is completely sandbox. The developer created the setting and the players create the content. This should be no different in the standalone version. The developers' sole purpose should be to create a realistic and immersive setting and give the players the tools to create their own content according to how they want to play without the ability to destroy the setting/environment to the detriment to other players (aka, the failed experiment with the sandbags and wire fencing that Rocket admitted needs to be changed).

Basically keep the sandbox setting that already exists. It is a core part of what makes DayZ such a great game and that needs to not change. Also a Sandbox game allows for a smaller budget and development time because the developers just have to worry about the setting, not what players do in that setting. One of the reasons SWTOR has such a massive budget is because it lead you through each and every piece of content in the game. It provided a nice story-telling experience, but it lacked the open-ended feeling of a sandbox game and created a massive development time to polish each aspect.

Character Progression

Currently the only form of progression in the game is gear acquisition. That is good, but there needs to be more incentive. What I propose is a skill-based progression, NOT level-based progression. In a nutshell, the more you use something, the better you get at it (with diminishing returns and caps to point allocation so you don't max every skill in the game). There also needs to be a ton of different skills in the game. You use bandages, morphine, blood packs, etc., a lot? Then you start to reduce the time it takes to apply those bandages, or an increase to how much blood is renewed in using blood packs. Using an AK-47? Increase to your accuracy, damage, etc. using assault rifles. Those are basic examples, but the point is the more you do something, the better you become at it.

I would also recommend what I like to call starting characteristics. These give small incentives and/or changes in a player's gameplay to provide some variation. As an example, when you are creating your character you get to choose one characteristic that gives your player some backstory. If you choose "park ranger" then you are given a hunting knife and compass to start. Or you roll a "butcher" and receive a small passive buff to the amount of blood you recover when eating meat that you've cooked. Or you can choose "paramedic" and you start with a few extra medical supplies. Or "soldier" and receive a small passive boost to your accuracy and damage with assault rifles.

These are all hypothetical examples and easily up for balance and adjustment as required.

I stress this final point... starting roles are meant to provide purpose to each player's backstory, NOT define how they play going forward. They provide starting variation, not to pigeon-hole players into certain "classes".

Lastly in this section, let's talk about death in the game. I love how you lose all your gear in the game. It's a harsh penalty, but without it, players would behave radically different than they do now. It needs to stay this way. I'm going to add to this system however, but we lack a few things. Right now a penalty is given upon death. That's the penalty to dieing. What we need is an incentive to keep living (not just a punishment for dying), and a reason to keep playing AFTER you die.

The incentive to keep living could be in the form of a passive "Survivor Buff" that slowly gets stronger (to a capped limit so it's not endless) the longer you are alive. I'm not sure exactly what it would do, but a suggestion could be to have it passively level all your skills by small increments. Basically the longer you stay alive you gain a passive buff to every skill in the game. But upon death, this buff is lost and it starts building all over again.

The incentive to keep playing after you die is your actual skill progression. That is not lost. If you've made your character awesome with assault rifles then you'll still be awesome with them after you die... you just have to find another assault rifle. This makes it so that you don't feel like you've lost EVERYTHING in the game, which after awhile can be very disheartening. Not losing skill progression provides the incentive to keep playing.

Gameplay

Combat

One of, but not the core aspect of gameplay in the game. The way it handles currently is fine, it just needs some polish and tweaking. That's mostly due to it being in Alpha and being a mod. So ultimately I have no complaints in the area of combat as long as it continues to be polished yet maintain the overall feel it currently possesses. I will suggest a few additions to it below

One major change is to please allow us to jump. I know the horrid "bunny hopper" experience wants to be avoided, but the current alternative (press "v" to do a little animation that only sometimes works on objects and you never know which object it will work on) just doesn't work. Just make it to where, if you jump, it slows your run speed down and reduces accuracy on your weapon for 1-2 seconds. That will stop bunny hopping very quickly when people realize it only makes them die faster.

The second option is to expand on the current system of getting injured. The broken leg feature is a good start, but there needs to be more types of injuries while in combat (these are in addition to the features like loss of blood and various effects it has on you, losing temperature, etc that come from not only combat but from survival blunders). Take an example from a game like Fallout. If I should someone in their arm, they should have greatly reduced accuracy with their weapon. I shout them in the leg, they can't run or walk anymore. Make more parts of the body have different outcomes on how it effects your ability to control your character.

Survival

I believe this to be an even larger aspect in gameplay for this game than combat. This entire game is about surviving... and so the gameplay needs to reflect that. HOWEVER, it does not need to become so realistic that it is a detriment to gameplay, but more on that in a section below.

What we have now is excellent, it just needs to be expanded upon.

Make hunting more like hunting. If I spot a deer or a boar, I shouldn't be able to walk up to it and hack it with my hatchet. I should be able to easily spot me and I need to be able to properly track it and sneak up on it to get within range to bring it down with whatever weapon I have at the time.

The current method of using bandages, morphine, blood packs, heat packs, etc... is fine the way it is. I would not want to make it anymore complicated otherwise you end up on the verge of reducing fun for the sake of realism. It strikes a healthy balance right now. It can be adjusted and tweaked slightly, but do not make it more complicated.

Truthfully, because this is one of the core parts of the game, it handles it very well right now. I'm weary of making suggestions to change anything because surviving in this game functions great (minus any bugs). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

User Interface

The one aspect of this game that I truly dread. I know how to use it, but that doesn't mean it works. This may be mostly the fault of ArmA II and not DayZ, so I pray that this goes through a major overhaul when DayZ goes standalone. I'm mostly referring to bag and interface management.

I should be able to easily switch between my hatchet (melee), main weapon, and sidearm effortlessly. I should be able to open up my character inventory and bag inventory separately and navigate items between the ground, the object I'm looting, my character inventory, and my backpack with nothing more than a simple drag and drop mechanism. When approaching a tree, I should be able to right click on a tree to open a small interface wheel that determines what actions I can do on that tree, NOT having to go to my hatchet in my inventory and right clicking it to get wood from the tree. And never should I disintegrate an item just because my bag couldn't hold it. Give me a warning that there is no room in the bag for that item, don't obliterate it.

The less time I have to spend with my inventory open, the better. I want it to be intuitive and this UI is by far and large the most unintuitive interface I have ever come across in my over 2 decades of gaming.

Zombies

Clearly they are still being worked on right now, but I wanted to give my opinion in how they should move, react, be killed, etc. I want them to be the more "true" zombies, aka your standard zombie you see in most movies and games that still to the traditional model. I don't want ultra-fast arcade style zombies like in Left 4 Dead, or super mutated "breed x" zombies that have unique traits and are harder to kill. We don't need boss zombies. Let's keep this traditional. What is traditional, you say?

First and foremost, the thing that makes them so terrifying is that they seem unstoppable. They don't tire, they don't give up the chase, and most importantly, they only die by trauma to the brain (aka, shoot them in the head). Some may think that having to do only headshots makes it too hard, but that is only one aspect of a traditional zombie. The other aspect is that they are typically slow moving (until they become essentially frenzied in large groups and can achieve a medium speed run towards you).

Keep in mind these things are virtually brain dead. All they possess is basic motor skills (they can walk and sometimes run), and they want to eat. That's it. They can't swim, they stumble up stairs, they can't climb ladders, and they won't try to use tactics against you. That means they won't try and flank you... each zombie is going to take the shortest visible path straight to you.

Their awareness isn't great, but it's not horrible. If they see you, they'll know you are living by your looks and your scent. If they hear strange noises (pretty much any sound that you can cause), they'll be attracting to it but until they see you, they won't be running at you. If they hear something they'll start to move that way to see what the sound was due to basic curiosity.

What this means is that, in small numbers, zombies are not a large threat. It's when you fire off that gunshot (which then attracts all surrounding zombies in the area) or stumble into a mob of zombies that spot you, that they become a real threat. It's then when having to shoot them in the head becomes difficult because there are so many and they are moving quickly towards you, and they do NOT tire and give up the chase unless you are able to out maneuver them.

Another defense against these zombies is they still react to getting hacked and shot with bullets. They may not be killed when you shoot them in the chest, but enough bullets in the chest can slow their movement or knock them down, and shooting off their legs will definitely slow them down. We need to be able to "disable" zombies in case we miss them in the head or if there are too many and we just need to quickly remove their ability to give chase to us.

Lastly, obviously we'll need zombies to spawn up in order to keep the population of zombies at a high level should some be killed. They need to appear to be endless, so keep a set amount on the map at all times. When one is killed, another spawns elsewhere randomly on the map. The only thing is that they need to spawn outside of the view of other players. Nothing breaks immersion like seeing a zombie appear right in front of you out of thin air. HOWEVER, zombies do like to come out of nowhere it seems, so just make them spawn out of the line of sight of players. This creates the illusion that "no where is safe" but doesn't break the immersion. Just because I cleared house behind me doesn't mean I shouldn't watch my back...

Realism vs Gameplay

A great saying from another lead designer was this: "Realism is the servant of the game, not the master.". This game definitely needs to have aspects of realism to it because you want it to feel like you are truly trying to survive in the modern world right after a zombie apocalypse. But don't get so in depth with the realism that it detracts from the gameplay or the "fun factor". Breaking a leg and having to use morphine to fix it is great. It's a health balance between not ever being able to break a leg, or the alternative of that you can't walk on it for 3-5 weeks and have to locate morphine, a splint, and someone that has basic medical knowledge of how to fix a broken bone. If I get shot, using a bandage to stop the bleeding and either eating some cooked meat to get more blood or using a blood pack is great. What's not great is running over a health pack to instantly heal you, or the alternative of going through the complex medical procedure of removing the bullet, fighting infection, and being laying on a virtual bed for weeks trying to recover.

Just make sure they you don't get so caught up in adding realism to the game that you turn the game into a simulator. Let's play a game that hints at real life situations, not participate in a real life simulator.

That about covers everything for now. If I think of any other ideas or suggestions I'll edit it, but congratulations to those of you who made it all the way through. ;) I'm eager to hear your suggestions! I enjoy DayZ and have great hopes for what it can become.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Gamewiz

[Huuwap 25]

I appreciate how much time you put into this post, but I couldn't read past the section on skills, namely "the more you use something, the better you get at it (with diminishing returns and caps to point allocation so you don't max every skill in the game)." The game is fine as is in this respect. The more you play and become familiar with the weapons, the better you get with them.

Honestly, the only thing that needs to improve is how buggy communication between the client and the server is.

[sonicrainbrony 136]

Please tell me how I deal more damage with my weapon if I get more skilled at using it...

[Gamewiz 12]

I appreciate how much time you put into this post, but I couldn't read past the section on skills, namely "the more you use something, the better you get at it (with diminishing returns and caps to point allocation so you don't max every skill in the game)." The game is fine as is in this respect. The more you play and become familiar with the weapons, the better you get with them.

Honestly, the only thing that needs to improve is how buggy communication between the client and the server is.

I would highly recommend you continue to read past that part as I knew that section would probably be the most disagreed with. :)

The reason I put in that suggestion is for player retention. Should this turn into a standalone game, especially if it becomes a sandbox-style MMO, it needs a way to hold players in despite the many many harsh deaths they will experience. You need to give SOMETHING to the player that they can hold onto, otherwise as they continue to die over and over and continue to start over like they just first installed the game, the less motivated they will become. Give the players something they don't lose (but still keep death the harsh penalty it is now) and you keep the players in the same mindset they are now, WITHOUT taking away their will to keep playing.

[Gamewiz 12]

Please tell me how I deal more damage with my weapon if I get more skilled at using it...

It's an example, not a set law. It's also one of those situations where gameplay supersedes realism. If you wanted true realism, then if I shoot you once it the chest it should kill you or completely incapacitate you, regardless of the weapon I used, every single time. And if I shoot off your hand, you don't get to use it for the rest of the game. Or heck, if I kill you, you die permanently and you have to buy another copy of the game.

See how the more realism you interject the worse it can get? What I provided was one small example showing that skills upgrade your character in some way. In that one small example, I made gameplay more important than realism. Step away from that one minor feature and look at the broader picture.

[sixbarns 217]

"Character Progression" aka "More reasons to shoot on sight"

[Huuwap 25]

The only thing necessary for player retention is easily accessible meta game resources and a decent community. Maybe some in game group functionality. If you play solo you will either love the game or hate it. Almost anyone can find a reason to waste time in game with a regular group though.

[Gamewiz 12]

"Character Progression" aka "More reasons to shoot on sight"

Shooting that one player will yield minimal rewards to skill progression with whatever weapon you decided to use. You want to level up a weapon? Best to use it again a bunch of zombies as they are far more plentiful than other players. I highly doubt leveling up your skills would change any behavior in how players react to each other.

The only thing necessary for player retention is easily accessible meta game resources and a decent community. Maybe some in game group functionality. If you play solo you will either love the game or hate it. Almost anyone can find a reason to waste time in game with a regular group though.

/shrug This is one of those things that is just personal opinion. Character progression is just a suggestion to further promote player retention. As with anything I've posted, it's merely personal preference in what I'd like to see.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Gamewiz

[Virfortis 111]

Shooting that one player will yield minimal rewards to skill progression with whatever weapon you decided to use. You want to level up a weapon? Best to use it again a bunch of zombies as they are far more plentiful than other players. I highly doubt leveling up your skills would change any behavior in how players react to each other.

No, he means that by levelling your character, you then kill so that you aren't set back to start.

What we need are ideas that reduce or eliminate the KOS mentality, BUT that would clearly not favor the bandits, so Rocket will have no hearing of it. DayZ is designed for bandits, and until someone makes a better game, DayZ is just a fad.

[Gamewiz 12]

No, he means that by levelling your character, you then kill so that you aren't set back to start.

What we need are ideas that reduce or eliminate the KOS mentality, BUT that would clearly not favor the bandits, so Rocket will have no hearing of it. DayZ is designed for bandits, and until someone makes a better game, DayZ is just a fad.

If you read my suggestion it was that skill progression is NOT lost upon death. In fact it's the only thing you don't lose when dying. For me, it's there to promote player retention so that they don't feel like they keep starting over every time they die. Right now in the game, your only source of progression is the gear you have. So when you die, you essentially start over like it's a brand new game. By introducing skill progression which is NOT lost, you give the players something to continuously work for without fear of losing it. And this doesn't reduce the death penalty at all.

[Huuwap 25]

Technically, there is no death penalty. Gear is just a quick run away. Yeah, you lose weapons, nourishment and medical supplies when you die, but that (I hope) is not the reason you're playing. See that, right there, is why this game should remain as flexible as possible. You might play to farm gear and kill zombies. Player X finds joy in sniping noobs in Cherno and Electro. Player Y wants to avoid everybody and survive for a month. Personally, I like playing with a group of friends and searching out other groups of players to engage in combat in the zombie apocalypse setting.

There is not one playstyle and there is no set framework in this game due to it's sandbox nature, and that makes feature addition difficult. In a game without a set goal, the more basic and stripped down, the better.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Huuwap

[Gamewiz 12]

Technically, there is no death penalty. Gear is just a quick run away. Yeah, you lose weapons, nourishment and medical supplies when you die, but that (I hope) is not the reason you're playing. See that, right there, is why this game should remain as flexible as possible. You might play to farm gear and kill zombies. Player X finds joy in sniping noobs in Cherno and Electro. Player Y wants to avoid everybody and survive for a month. Personally, I like playing with a group of friends and searching out other groups of players to engage in combat in the zombie apocalypse setting.

There is not one answer and that makes feature addition difficult. In a game without a set goal, the more basic and stripped down, the better.

I don't disagree with that at all, I just want to add more personal value to my character. I'm not saying that once you max your skill in pistols you can shoot someone in the right toe and insta-kill them, I'm just saying it's minor increases to give your character a personal customization to better fit your playstyle, not game-defining roles that pigeon-hole you into playing one specific way.

[Huuwap 25]

I completely support the game telling you that you're a pistol master because you have 3k infected headshots and 30 murders with your revolver, but to give any sort of edge, even .10% over a stock character, would break this game.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Huuwap

[Flambo (DayZ) 50]

Ideally I think this game would shine in a format similar to something like Eve, or any of the MMOs built by Cryptic Studios. Now, I have no love for any of the MMOs Cryptic Studios has created, but the server infrastructure is what I'm referring to that should be mimicked.

That means one server with multiple "shards" or "instances" of the same world.

I understand where you are coming from when you compare this game to EVE. However, the comparisons to Cryptic MMOs do not make sense to me. I bring this up because the way EVE manages population with shards is dramatically different than the way you describe. EVE has two shards: China, and everybody else. Here's an article about it: http://wiki.eveonlin...iki/Tranquility

In EVE, a shard is a centralized cluster of servers that can manage tens of thousands of players concurrently. Generally, overcrowding of specific in-game areas is managed by the hugeness of the game world, and the ability of players to change their respawn point. Ideally, DayZ would one day be run on something like this, though the challenges involved would be quite daunting.

On a more general and personal note, I don't understand drawing design ideas for DayZ from anything Cryptic has done. All of their games have either a.) been trash, b.) almost nothing in common with DayZ or c.) both a and b.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Flambo

[Gamewiz 12]

I completely support the game telling you that you're a pistol master because you have 3k infected headshots and 30 murders with your revolver, but to give any sort of edge, even .10% over a stock character, would break this game.

I support the right to voice your opinion, but I'll disagree with your assessment. ;) (Agree to disagree!)

I understand where you are coming from when you compare this game to EVE. However, the comparisons to Cryptic MMOs do not make sense to me. I bring this up because the way EVE manages population with shards is dramatically different than the way you describe. EVE has two shards: China, and everybody else. Here's an article about it: http://wiki.eveonlin...iki/Tranquility

In EVE, a shard is a centralized cluster of servers that can manage tens of thousands of players concurrently. Generally, overcrowding of specific in-game areas is managed by the hugeness of the game world, and the ability of players to change their respawn point. Ideally, DayZ would one day be run on something like this, though the challenges involved would be quite daunting.

On a more general and personal note, I don't understand drawing design ideas for DayZ from anything Cryptic has done. All of their games have either a.) been trash, b.) almost nothing in common with DayZ or c.) both a and b.

That's why I made it very clear I hate Cryptic games (maybe it wasn't clear enough, but I'm saying it now! :) ). But the way they handle their servers was (I thought) similar to Eve in that they utilize one larger server for the entire population (in comparison to games like WoW or SWTOR that use separate servers, each with separate populations). I might have gotten some things mixed up then in that case. Basically what I am referring to is the more detailed example I provided in my OP. If Eve doesn't provide multiple phases of the same area, then DayZ couldn't be like Eve. The primary reason it wouldn't work is because no matter how large you make it, you'd have "hotspot" areas (like cities) that will become too populated with players and destroy the entire immersion factor of that city being overrun by zombies. You have to use phases (if not of the entire world, then at LEAST for the major hotspots) to keep the human population in check to the AI zombie population. It's a must. That was the entire point when referencing the infrastructure. You have to create the illusion of only a few survivors against hordes of unlimited zombies even though there will be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people all playing the same game. :)

[Flambo (DayZ) 50]

If Eve doesn't provide multiple phases of the same area, then DayZ couldn't be like Eve. The primary reason it wouldn't work is because no matter how large you make it, you'd have "hotspot" areas (like cities) that will become too populated with players and destroy the entire immersion factor of that city being overrun by zombies.

This is the major hurdle in designing DayZ to work like EVE does, with a single, non-instanced shard serving all players. That does not make it impossible. Though it would not work with the current world layout and spawning mechanics of DayZ, these could potentially be redesigned to severely reduce the likelihood of survivor overcrowding.

More to the point, having the game decide how many people are permitted to be in a single area runs strongly against the spirit of DayZ. It has been stated endlessly on these forums that DayZ does not and will not hold the player's hand, or enforce any specific style of play. Ideally, the world would be designed to accommodate any large number of players in such a way that localized overcrowding was unlikely, but it would be completely uncharacteristic of DayZ to be designed in a way that made intentional, localized overcrowding impossible.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Flambo

[Gamewiz 12]

This is the major hurdle in designing DayZ to work like EVE does, with a single, non-instanced shard serving all players. That does not make it impossible. Though it would not work with the current world layout and spawning mechanics of DayZ, these could potentially be redesigned to severely reduce the likelihood of survivor overcrowding.

More to the point, having the game decide how many people are permitted to be in a single area runs completely against the spirit of DayZ. It has been stated endlessly on these forums that DayZ does not and will not hold the player's hand, or enforce any specific style of play. Ideally, the world would be designed to accommodate any large number of players in such a way that localized overcrowding was unlikely, but it would be completely uncharacteristic of DayZ to be designed in a way that made intentional, localized overcrowding impossible.

That is the ideal scenario, but that is still assuming the average size of the playerbase, something MMO games aren't very good at determining. That's why you need backup plans to manage the population to provide the proper feeling you want to achieve. In most MMOs, that's making sure places feel full, busy, robust. In DayZ, you have the hardest scenario to achieve... enough survivors in your area so you don't think you are the only survivor on the planet, but not too many or the zombie apocalypse doesn't seem so serious anymore.

Yes, you can prevent overcrowding by just making the world bigger. But that's increased cost and time for the developers. AND that is assuming you have the player population to fill that world. If not enough people play, then you spent additional time and resources creating a larger world that now feels completely empty.

That's why the developers need to create a decent-sized world just the way they want it, customizing it to the lowest number of expected players based upon market research data, then use control methods (aka phasing) to monitor overpopulation. You can't just shrink the world down due to under population, but you can fix overpopulation by "enlarging" the world by masking the true player population through phasing.

[Flambo (DayZ) 50]

That is the ideal scenario, but that is still assuming the average size of the playerbase, something MMO games aren't very good at determining. That's why you need backup plans to manage the population to provide the proper feeling you want to achieve. In most MMOs, that's making sure places feel full, busy, robust. In DayZ, you have the hardest scenario to achieve... enough survivors in your area so you don't think you are the only survivor on the planet, but not too many or the zombie apocalypse doesn't seem so serious anymore.

Yes, you can prevent overcrowding by just making the world bigger. But that's increased cost and time for the developers. AND that is assuming you have the player population to fill that world. If not enough people play, then you spent additional time and resources creating a larger world that now feels completely empty.

That's why the developers need to create a decent-sized world just the way they want it, customizing it to the lowest number of expected players based upon market research data, then use control methods (aka phasing) to monitor overpopulation. You can't just shrink the world down due to under population, but you can fix overpopulation by "enlarging" the world by masking the true player population through phasing.

You make good points, but your proclamation that DayZ's world and server infrastructure must be designed according to the same principles as existing games ignores Rocket's own statements that DayZ's existence and success is in defiance of these principles, and the developers and studios who abide by them. DayZ's mission, as I understand it, is to do something that existing games do not. Rocket calls it an anti-game.

This does not mean that the lessons learned by other games' successes and failures should be ignored. This means that serious time and attention should be given to the issue of DayZ's final world and server infrastructure, so that a sound decision can be made as to whether DayZ's development should play it safe in this regard, or strive for something riskier but greater.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Flambo

[Gamewiz 12]

You make good points, but your proclamation that DayZ's world and server infrastructure must be designed according to the same principles as existing games ignores Rocket's own statements that DayZ's existence and success is in defiance of these principles, and the developers and studios who abide by them. DayZ's mission, as I understand it, is to do something that existing games do not. Rocket calls it an anti-game.

This does not mean that the lessons learned by other games' successes and failures should be ignored. This means that serious time and attention should be given to the issue of DayZ's final world and server infrastructure, so that a sound decision can be made as to whether DayZ's development should play it safe in this regard, or strive for something riskier but greater.

I am in full agreement with everything you said. The ideas I'm throwing out are there for the players (and hopefully rocket) to read, to bounce ideas off each other, and hopefully provide a little incentive to rocket to let him know there are those of us out here who look forward to seeing what he has in store. :) No decision, especially one such as large as server infrastructure, should be made hastily.

[Gamewiz 12]

I'd love some more feedback on the features I suggested above. :)

[Jaydixxy 0]

It all sounds good, but I don't think we'll be getting DayZ to go standalone for quite some time.

[Dr. Toros 8]

I completely support the game telling you that you're a pistol master because you have 3k infected headshots and 30 murders with your revolver, but to give any sort of edge, even .10% over a stock character, would break this game.

This is so wrong I'm forced to comment on it. No, no it would not. This game is not going to be broken if all characters stop being exactly the same. In fact, being different would actually encourage cooperation.

To address your other post about progression already being in, no, it's not.

You can become more familiar with a gun with use, but handling a gun is not the only thing in this game. Being a first responder and cpr instructor, I can tell you that the ability for everyone to effectively use everything but bandages and painkillers without training is unrealistic.

The broken leg/morphine relationship is also stupid. Splints should be made out of wood and 2 bandages, and if used on yourself would give the ability to walk but not run for 5 minutes in game. Someone else reduces the time, with someone with high medical skill splinting so you can run on it immediately.

Morphine should let you run on it for 5 minutes, but then wears off and your leg is still broken.

This change would A) make broken legs less worth respawning over and B) eliminating magic morphine.

[Huuwap 25]

This is so wrong I'm forced to comment on it.  No, no it would not.  This game is not going to be broken if all characters stop being exactly the same.  In fact, being different would actually encourage cooperation.

To address your other post about progression already being in, no, it's not.

You can become more familiar with a gun with use, but handling a gun is not the only thing in this game.  Being a first responder and cpr instructor, I can tell you that the ability for everyone to effectively use everything but bandages and painkillers without training is unrealistic.

The broken leg/morphine relationship is also stupid.  Splints should be made out of wood and 2 bandages, and if used on yourself would give the ability to walk but not run for 5 minutes in game.  Someone else reduces the time, with someone with high medical skill splinting so you can run on it immediately.

Morphine should let you run on it for 5 minutes, but then wears off and your leg is still broken.

This change would A) make broken legs less worth respawning over and  eliminating magic morphine.

Seems like you are talking more about class types and less about progression. No classes needed IMO. Edited July 17, 2012 by Huuwap

["Lost" Alice 205]

I like most of your ideas :)

[dreman04 18]

Since you took the time to actually make a well spoken post, I'll try to do the same with my reply :)

I agree with you on a lot of things.

As far as infrastructure goes, I'm not in the know-how of how hive servers and whatnot work, but I will say that something feels off. I've thought about it for a while now and posted in a different thread that I don't feel like the world is as "persistent" as it should be. I had suggested making your character save on a server to server basis but people shot that idea down pretty fast. While I agreed with them that in DayZ's current state that would not work, I do think something needs to be done to COMPLETELY stop alt+f4 and server hoping. I don't know what the solution is to that problem but it needs to be addressed for standalone, dlc, whatever this mod turns into.

I like the environment so far, and it's definitely headed in the right direction. I would love to see larger urban areas with higher risks and higher rewards. I think DayZ did it backwards. I think players should spawn in the wilderness THEN move to the larger, coastal cities. Not the other way around. I'd love to see all buildings being open with bigger more complex shapes designs. Like you said, I'd love to get lost in a city. I understand ArmA II engine is a limitation here, but that's where I'd like it to head. I do like the variation in environments too like woodlands, meadows, farms/field, cities, creeks, rivers, etc. so it's definitely doing that part right.

I have never played EVE, but I would love for this game to stay strictly sandbox style. I used to love shadowbane with their user generated cities and GvG mindset. I would really like to see player made settlements where you'd either have to fend off bandits or raid depending on what side you're on - or perhaps even rivalries between surviving settlements. For any of this to happen though, we need to go back to infrastructure as I don't think we're anywhere near being able to do this.

As you guessed, I'm not sure how I feel on character progression. While I understand your points were made simply to get the conversation started, I do not think increasing weapon or item skills is the answer. I'm thinking maybe either vanity items that stay with you even after death or unlocking items with which you could choose to spawn with for your next respawn. Example: say you are the master of survival and have been out in the wilderness surviving for weeks. There should be an achievement in there for something like that. Let's say you could change the color of your outfit or dog companion (I heard dogs were in the works). Or maybe you could sacrifice your starter bandage or flashlight for matches or hunting knife so you could get back into the woods quicker. I don't really know, I'm just throwing ideas out there but I agree with whoever posted that damage and/or accuracy shouldn't ever be increased. I also agree with you though in that something needs to carry over from death to death or else after so many deaths I'll probably be too unmotivated to start over. But maybe that's just me.

I think combat and survival are good where they are. They just need some minor tweaks here and there to maybe limit the abundance of military grade weapons, but other than that I like where we're at for these. I bet server hoping has a lot to do with their abundance too though, so again, refer to fixing infrastructure.

OMG, the user interface is absolutely terrible. I don't know if this is ArmA's fault or what, but I've never played a game where 90% of the learning curve involved looking at the controls menu. NOTHING is intuitive and almost nothing follows general control standards we've grown to learn from other games. Switching weapons/items in your bag and inventory is a nightmare. The bag and inventory aren't easy to navigate through at all, and it's all too easy to delete items (I know, it's alpha, chill out). But if these things aren't addressed, they will be absolutely game breaking.

I would also like to see the "traditional" zombies instead of the 28 days later rage infected. Not sure if any of this is true, but I heard Rocket went with the rage type due to limitations of ArmA engine though. The number of slow/traditional zombies needed to actually be a threat is too much for ArmA to handle. If we stick with the rage infected guys, I would like it if they weren't 100x times faster than I am only to catch up, do nothing, catch up, do nothing, and repeat their stupid dance until I find a house or tree to break their line of sight. I would want them to run just as fast as I can, only I would have an endurance meter and not be able to run balls to the wall hours on end. They however never quit or slow.

I've also commented on my opinion on realism vs fun in another thread somewhere, but to summarize I agree with you in that it's a very fine line to walk. I would only sacrifice a little bit of realism if it meant a lot more fun (and never the other way around). Like someone else mentioned, the morphine thing is kind of stupid. I don't think you need to be a doctor to know that morphine doesn't heal broken bones. Introduce a split please and make it easier to acquire but longer to heal. You can make a splint out of almost anything... including your hatchet or rifle. I would not like it to be so realistic though that a grenade going off near me made me permanently lose my hearing. It's a fine line to walk, and I really hope Rocket includes the community on any of those decisions.

Like I said before, I have high hopes for DayZ, and I really look forward to seeing how it develops. I wonder if we'll be able to compare it to counter-strike and DOTA someday.