Game Design Analysis: Why Cross-Server persistency must die

[Tartantyco 1]

Cross-server persistency, the saving of a character's gear and position across servers, is a game mechanic that serves to cripple the potential emergent gameplay of the mod. As it stands, entropy has all the advantages in this mod and the collaborative efforts of a multitude of players can easily be undone by a few bandits abusing this game mechanic to their own ends.

The mod must strike a balance between players valuing their character's lives and knowing that death is inevitable. Right now life has very little value, and as a consequence it is an expendable resource for causing disruption.

This is not a rant against bandits. Bandits are great. Bandits are one of many facets that should grow organically out of the game mechanics, contextualized within the server environment. So please, do not mistake it for that.

What are the effects of cross-server persistency?

Value: No specific server has any inherent value. People may attempt to atrificially create value by limiting themselves to certain servers, but as long as it is artificial it will be ignored by the vast majority of players, making it worthless. The contents and players of a server, as well as their interaction with each other, is what creates value.

Life doesn't have value, either. As the value of your character is tied to your gear, and you can have gear scattered across many servers and have the ability to bring these onto other servers, the value of ones life is drastically reduced.

Emergent gameplay: This is gameplay where the players create the gameplay through utilizing very simple game mechanics to accomplish complex systems. An example of this is creating persistent entities within one server, such as safe zones. Although we are attempting this the problem lies with how players can compromise any entitiy on one server by using another server to teleport into location. This invalidates pretty much any attempt at creating most organizations, limiting the gameplay to bandits, roving clans, and survivors, all accomplishing just one feat; move and loot.

Another picture could be one where various groups create territories, claim loot areas, engage in wars with other groups, where a rich and deep tapestry of player interaction can occur. And there's still room for the lone survivors and bandits. But this can't happen. Not with cross-server persistency. A single group of players with the aim of destroying these organizations can lay to dust the plans of dozens of organized groups.

Economics: As people can transport equipment from one server onto another the internal economics of a server is dismantled. There is no value in controlling territory containing an abundance of medical supplies or military gear if you can just import it from another server anyway. Of course, the current spawn rates for equipment do a good job of undermining the economy already, but if you can get rare gear onto other servers you can again disrupt the inherent state of the server.

-----

What I think draws a lot of people to this game is the fact that behavior is not based on instructions from the game, but rather it is based on the players themselves, and cross-server persistency is undermining any expansion of this. Emergent gameplay is what will keep the mod fresh, and cross-server persistency will always keep that emergence on a one-dimensonal level.

[Frito Pendejo ☠ 4]

wall of text

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

what frito said

[Legacy (DayZ) 1091]

Can we have legitimate responses instead of one worded posts and just going "What he said"?

[zxcvbn_ 3]

Nope.

I love how you dismiss an entire post just because you want to server hop for easy loot.

[Tartantyco 1]

I do understand that a lot of people find the cross-server persistency very helpful for playing with friends and if there is an alternative that rocket has up his sleeve then I am very happy to hear that, but I see no way around this except through horribly invasive restrictions and byzantine rules that can only lead to more trouble.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

i would rather not wait 30 minutes to get in 1 server because thats where all my gear is

also what do u mean by servers and life not having any value? i can have gear across many servers? what do u mean?

[rocket 16567]

I have a well designed and tested mechanic for preventing server hopping. It's quite simple and very effective.

However, it is disabled currently as it places slight strain on master server and we're currently removing that as much as possible.

The provision of servers is extremely transient. Many servers are coming online but unable to continue, and also we can only accommodate 50 players on most servers. Initially the system was as you described but the feedback was overwhelmingly negative so the current system was designed.

[tails13 0]

I have a well designed and tested mechanic for preventing server hopping. It's quite simple and very effective.

However' date=' it is disabled currently as it places slight strain on master server and we're currently removing that as much as possible.[/quote']

Can you please go into more detail, I'm curious as to how it works.

[Frito Pendejo ☠ 4]

The system rocket implemented has been prasied by people who actually knows what they are talking about, no by some random who doesnt think its right. Now, for the server hopping, as rocket just said, theres things than can be done.

" I dont like my dogs shittin, i will glue their aholes" doesnt work, try givin em less food.

[Tartantyco 1]

Yes, because the current server situation that exists in the Alpha version of the game is going to exist forever.

The reason why the mod is able to provide the gameplay it currently does is precisely because of restrictive game mechanics. The fact that players can be killed in one shot makes them more cautious when moving around. The fact that there is very little difference in the damage output of weapons means that the game doesn't get skewed in the direction of the players who possess those weapons. The fact that you need to eat and drink regularly creates a need that drives player actions. The restrictive mobility inherent to the Arma 2 engine means that fights aren't focused around players running and gunning, bunny hopping, etc.

Restrictive game mechanics are what create the gameplay you enjoy, but because you have experienced it you accept it also. Your initial reaction were I to propose any of the above mechanics to a game that did not possess them would be derision and rejection of the idea, and I ask that you do not jump to that conclusion for the same reasons with this, but try to consider the argument and provide your own.

[SEM (DayZ) 5]

Cross-server could be removed when we will have 5k slots on each server. Otherwise it would be pain in ass if you would have character on popular server. It's hard already to find free slots.

[Tartantyco 1]

I can only hope that it is an efficient mechanic, rocket.

I hesitate to believe it will allow for the emergent gameplay that is possible, but would love to hear more about it. I had some ideas myself, but found that they did not function as efficiently.

[rocket 16567]

Tartantyco raised the valid issues around server-hopping. They're accepted issues. They're not super high priority because the priority at the moment is things like people not getting into the server and direct chat and other very serious bugs. Once these are fixed, this kind of thing will be explored.

[Frito Pendejo ☠ 4]

Tart, i dont need more arguments or a 5000word thread, you are describing a MMO, if you want a mmo, go play a mmo. This isnt a mmo.

Nothing personal bro, but this mod didnt get where it is now just because, and i do believe cs persistency is one of the pilars of that. There a MnB mod who did something like this and did very well too, maybe its what just players want? 5000 constant people playin seem to think so.

[Tartantyco 1]

Yes, I can tell that you do not like words Frito.

[Frito Pendejo ☠ 4]

I like not to whine and kill zombies. :)

lemme know when your book gets released :D

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

wow... so ignorant frito

anyways tarantyco, why do you say life has no value

[Tartantyco 1]

Slight exaggeration on my part. I has almost no value.

Loot is too frequent and you don't lose enough when you die for life to be very valuable. Bandits are generally better equipped, which shows that killing survivors is generally more rewarding that not doing so. As such, life is not a valued commodity.

[ErwinRumble 33]

How about no.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

disagree, my life has plenty of value to me at least, i have been alive for a couple weeks now and have pretty much everything i want, only thing left i want is a rangefinder

its easy to find average gear and basic survival items, but finding really good weapons and nvg is incredibly difficult

[mentok 0]

I think this would only work if servers could support 500 or so people at a time. This is because, as others have mentioned, you dont want to wait an hour to get into ur server because thats where all ur stuff is.

Though, currently it seems that there is little potential for a server community due to the cross server persistence.

PS: I dont play games like cod because of all the little immature kiddies running around with their low IQ's and squeaky voices. Reading forum posts by people like frito creates disillusion with this game as well.

Frito: do yourself a favor and pick up a book that's not "see spot run".

[ouberlord 4]

I would argue that life would mean even less if cross server support died. What is to stop me from making a character I care about on one server, and then just being a raging kamikaze survivor on others? With cross server support in place I only ever have that one character, which means that regardless of the server every action I take has consequences, and any character is the culmination of the choices I've made over my last play sessions regardless of on what physical server I happened to be playing on.

[MR DELICIOUS 297]

I'm glad to hear rocket talk about server hopping. It's a bit unprecedented to have this level of direct contact with the developer.

Personally, I like your analysis tarantyco, however I feel that due to the technical reasons of server transience and being stuck on a server with certain clans as the admins a single server policy will cause many more problems than it solves. Ultimately, it appears to me that people gravitate to one or two servers. I play Dallas 9 if I want daylight at night, and AU Arma 1 or 2 normally.

To me, it seems like server hopping itself isn't the problem, the problem is 1 the ability to server scroll through the back room of the barracks and 2 the ability to evade all forms of defenses a clan might have set up by logging out behind them.

Essentially, it seems to me that the merry go round matrix we've got going can be stopped mechanically (you're not allowed to rejoin a server for ten or fifteen minutes after logout - or something more refined than that) or it can be controlled by a game mechanic (forcing people to "safe" logout somewhere secluded, in the same place you can build a campfire for instance).

In either of those ways, play isn't limited by exterior means (server admins, server being down, server changes hands etc) and the problems each get their fix.

Also, imagine being forced to play on one of the spam-clan servers for the rest of your surviving life.

[darkseed79 0]

This post of mine is pretty much just a glorified +1, but that's a very valid point you're bringing up there OUberLord. Cross server persistancy may have it's share of issues at the moment but it's one of the biggest reasons why the game is as good as it is. The game is currently in alpha and rocket says he has a way to prevent server-hopping so let's just wait for now and see how it goes.