Game Design Analysis: Why Cross-Server persistency must die

[Tartantyco 1]

Well, that's easy. You have to invest time in your character before he is able to kill or be killed by other players.

Soblem prolved.

[darkseed79 0]

A solution that comes with its own set of big problems and it only solves a problem that would come about as a result of removing CS persistency. Back to the drawing board.

[HoboWithAGlock 25]

If you remove server interconnectedness, you are doing two drastically problematic things:

First, you are removing from the player character a gigantic percentage of the community and limiting him to the specific amount limited by the server cap. I can't imagine that this will be the end solution to the problem, and in all honesty, if it is, I can't imagine that the game will last very long afterward.

Second - and in my opinion even more importantly - you are making a character's life even more worthless than it is now (assuming they are limited to a specific server). If you can create an amount of characters limited only by the number of servers, you can have an endless supply of "screw around" characters that only serve to sate your PK needs. This, in turn, will create an artificial value for specific servers that exist in congregated areas (think US, NY, UK, etc).

[Frito Pendejo ☠ 4]

Well' date=' that's easy. You have to invest time in your character before he is able to kill or be killed by other players.

Soblem prolved.

[/quote']

World of Dayz :rolleyes:

[x7steelers7x 1]

The problem is trying to get back onto a server you left.. It's almost impossible with the amount of people playing

[Rec0n412 9]

disagree' date=' my life has plenty of value to me at least

[/quote']

This in part, it what Tart is talking about. Your life has value to YOU, but to no one else. In the same way that no one else's life possesses any value as far as you are concerned(in-game of course, I have no idea if you are a sociopathic monster in real life.).

Therefore, you shoot on sight. Or, at any rate, that is the natural response of most players when confronted by another player. in fact, that is the most commonly propagated response on the server. That you either eat a lot of buck-shot, or you shoot first and ask questions later.

in regards to the topic at hand, I agree Tart. Yet, there are more important issues at hand than bandits server-hopping so they can instantly teleport into a fortified survivor camp. I imagine that this will become a priority once the mod has moved beyond establishing basic in-game mechanics.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

so how exactly would only playing on one server create value for other people?, either way they are still a threat to my safety so i will kill them

[.:14A41:.Pvt.p4lztZ 3]

(forcing people to "safe" logout somewhere secluded' date=' in the same place you can build a campfire for instance)

[/quote']

I guess that just leaves the middle of a field. Grr! Hehe.

I swear I was attempting to place a fire EVERYWHERE (in the woods, on gravel roads, forest clearings)! Getting flat this, no objects that. But I know what you mean.

I don't like this either. But I don't want to be stuck with certain players. And I don't want to have to feel out a server to feel conformable with who I'm playing with. I just want to play. I mean it all comes down to the players. But I'm not sure how to get them all in line without having to shove thing's down there throat, be it with game mechanics. Don't think it's possible. Humans...

[Nedak 10]

Adjusting the system is a much better solution.

Getting rid of the persistence would cause massive server-wide issues and on top of that GIANT wait times.

[Frito Pendejo ☠ 4]

What about server admins giving a certain area those respawn restrictions, based on well established clans? Needs a lot of communitywork tho

[lev 39]

Nope.

I counter nope your nope and thus you are now wrong. If you can't see the merits of the first post you are obviously ignorant about Arma2/DayZ/real life and are a CoD or BF3 fan boy. The End.

The OP brings up plenty of good points. Its hard to develop this open world and emergent game play when persistence is limited to position and gear.

Server hopping fixes part of the issue but how do you successfully implement ideas such as building outposts and defenses? If you try to do this, you are "limiting" yourself to a server. Ideally the world would be bigger and A2 netcode would support many more players however, in its current state, another solution needs to be implemented. Of course this isn't to say other issues shouldn't take priority, but this should be given some thought and should not be dismissed with a single "nope"

[Frito Pendejo ☠ 4]

...and your idea is?

[m3anmarin3 0]

I don't think you really can make other people value another person's life, due to life having next to no meaning in any other game out there. You could let the player know somehow just what they have taken away from the person they have killed, but it would still be artificial. I personally don't kill people I come across, unless they pose a threat to me, and will strive to help people because of how much I value my character's life. You can't force someone to feel empathy if they can't relate themselves.

I see what the OP is trying to say, hell I've been a victim of server-hopper before (that bastard bandit who spawned behind me in ZUB you know who you are). But the CS persistence kinda keeps the game alive, at least down here in NZ where our servers are in a constant state of shuffling about. It would make it incredibly frustrating to be limited to one server that may or may not be there the next day.

Maybe a system could make the player re-spawn within a certain radius of where they left off, or closer by if they have built a fireplace or tent or similar.

[Landen 2]

you cant loot an area you just spawned in as far as ive seen, the loot and zombies dissapear in the area unless other players are there too.

as for safe zones, lkie camps people make with several tents and vehicles. well, if you hide them, they wont be found.

i hop servers, not in quick succession but when a friend comes online, or if we are trying to get into servers together etc.

but also, when i havent played in daytime for several days and i just want to be in daylight so i switch into a euro server.

now, if they made several servers, for each time zone, and had more accurate dasy/night cycles (like how its night at 8 or 9 pm even though its bright until 10 or 11). then it would be alright, to have a server, where you enter it for the first time, and it becomes the server your character solely exists on. ensuring you a spot on that server only.

however, as things are where there are connection issues with some servers, or player limits on servers, then a master server persistence is required.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

have it so after you leave a server you cant rejoin a different one for 5 or 10 minutes? that might help a bit

[Jugg 33]

Agreed with 99% of the op. At minimum items should be server restricted to prevent smuggling and inflation.

For what its worth I'm more then happy to have different survivors on different servers. I'm also sure that more servers will launch over time making limitations less of an issue.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

smuggling and inflation? is that really a problem?

[nakor 2]

I gotta disagree with the OP, for the most part. CS persistence is a valuable part of the game, at least at this stage. This is a sandbox game and the majority of the "value" that is assigned to different aspects of the game IS created by the players. If players choose to create value on a specific server, well that is an option too. Personally I find that CS persistence brings a certain level of chaos and uncertainty to the game that really heightens the value of the game play. You can log in a "safe spot" but if you switch servers, there could very well be a half-dozen bandits over the next hill that will jack your shit. Each server is in effect its own little world. Jumping worlds is definitely a powerful advantage that can be abused, but it also comes with its own risks. Frankly the ability to create "safe zones" and massive fortifications would result in a certain level of stagnancy in the game. Would the game really be better if gangs of players could fortify the areas around the best spawns? IMO no. As for transporting equipment between servers and the subsequent devaluation of rare spawns, I think you are exaggerating the problem. Even with a large group.. its not unusual for one person to wipe 3-4 players out of a 6 man group. Resulting in every tent. On every server. Despawning. Yes, they can go get that loot, but you are talking about A LOT of time invested in collecting and maintaining a stockpile of loot in this fashion. And, you know what.. I can get EQ that is powerful enough to cope with anyone in under 30 minutes. So if thats how they choose to play the game, well its a sandbox. More power too em.

[Dr Klunk 11]

+1 Nakor

I have been reading this thread with great interest, as this is a very important issue. As I have been playing this game only from 1.5.6, I have no knowledge about the original concept mentioned by rocket, now disabled. I would be greatful if someone could descibe this "simple solution".

That said, I agree that cross persistency is pretty much one of the reason why this game works...already in Alpha stage; it can be played in numerous ways; You can play it as a shoot out - only running around in cities with you handgun, playing like it was CoD. You can play it as a solo survivor, scavaging the outposts of villages and farms for hours, staying away from other players. You can play with friends, also as survivors, as solo bandit or as organized bandit clants..or a mix....and you can play it on many servers if your ordinary server is full, down etc etc.

Now, the game has to support all these aspects of the game and game styles in order for it to be a game for us all. If we had a non-cross persistecy world, where your life is only valid...and continued with all your gear... on ONE server, this game would be run by the organized survivors/bandits. With them taking over whole areas on a server; such as towns, villages and airstrips, these important areas would be totally unavailable and lost for players who are not in organized groups.

Now I understand this problem with teleportation through the use of a paralell server in order to infiltrate a group's otherwise impenetrable bastions, and I haven't any immediate solution for that. Of course one could make players always spawn in specific spawn areas when joining the servers and not where they left the last server; but that raises quite a few other issues that might not be of benefit for anyone.

will continue following this thread.. as I said.. it's a very important issue. I strongly advocate the cross servers persistency.

[jonryan32@gmail.com 2]

I heartily agree with the issues raised in the original post. These are things that have to be addressed as they're rather important to the atmosphere of the game. However this being in alpha I agree with rocket that this does not need to be a current priority.

I also disagree with the proposal of how to deal with this. I agree with mostly everybody in this topic, cross server persistence is also an important mechanic.

The problem is we need a solution that allows both to coexist. A solution I personally can't think of but I have faith in rocket and look forward to seeing what he has up his sleeve.

[mrcheapy 1]

this game is a mmo constrained by 50 man server size.

if you could get 150 man server or w/e then you could get rid of cross server persistency

[dromagewok@hotmail.com 164]

Persistency is one of the reasons I play this, so no.

[mind_grenade 24]

I think a workaround is important, but persistency is so important. There are only 6 local servers for me, which are almost ALWAYS full. If I were restricted to my shit on ONE of those servers, I would never have it.

Persistency is great.

[fenrix 9]

easy enough to stop server hopping but will make getting in somewhat difficult if player structures are not restricted in locations.

well my method would be this.

Player places defensible structure/object.

hive/login servers are notified of location and server. (or a local system which is local server only to cut down on db server loads and make logging in faster)

server hopper logs in to server with defensive structure close to spawn in location

hive login servers detect player and sees player would spawn in or too close.

server hopper is disconnected/refused connection.

that is what I would do.

depends entirely how the defensive area system is working.

would need to be able to join groups with leaders ect so that members can log in when inside the defensive area.

this could be expanded in a messy resource intensive way by checking player locations and only allowing join if no player is within X radius of your spawn in location unless they are part of your group (assuming we have groups)

[DaPessimist 1]

And who is going to pay for these hundreds of persistent servers? Because that's how many it will take to accommodate all the current players.

Maybe Rocket can call up Blizzard or EA and pitch his idea? :D