Game Design Analysis: Why Cross-Server persistency must die

[Trips (DayZ) 32]

Prevent cheesing out of gunfights - force a disconnect timer of 10-20 seconds or so in which the character kneels down and is basically defenseless.

Prevent teleportation due to server hopping - tweak where characters respawn. Nothing like sending them back to the coast, just bumping them a few dozen meters distance away from things like other players, loot, zombies, or even whole structures. Would also keep you from spawning and getting killed totally at random by someone who just happens to be around as a matter of coincidence (as happened to me earlier today - hope that guy enjoyed my M16A2 with no ammo and the revolver with a single bullet left, anyway).

Cross server persistency needs to stay.

[Jamesbiff 4]

this should be implemented ONLY when there are suitable servers for everyone to play on. As it stands, forcing people to play on the same server or lose all their stuff will only serve to kill the mod, because there are simply too many people.

Its a good idea, but at the moment, it would only serve to kill the mod faster than the drawbacks of cross server persistency.

[septuscap 42]

Dumb idea as anyone with a brain has said. If your server is full you'll never get to play on it. And players will probably act out by being even more ruthless on other servers while waiting to get into their server (or just quit the mod b/c this is such an insanely stupid idea).

[thomas.bowyer@hotmail.co.uk 25]

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.

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.

[/quote']

have faith in the dev.

and secondly, it is like any game. going to be subject to player restrictions based on scumbags exploiting. I mean, exploits are around in most games, its just a matter of who is shady enough to use them to get ahead. I like to think most of the people who will stick with this Dayz project long term, arent that kind of player. and the ones that ARE will be weeded out pretty fast.

[Pirate (DayZ) 0]

I agree with Tartan, I also would like to add that this would make Reputation a lot more important than it is now, which would hopefully make teamkilling more meaningful. However, I think it would not work for the alpha. I hope that a standalone Day Z would have this though.

[feda 2]

I would stop playing if my character was NOT persistent across servers. Getting into one specific server is a matter of luck right now. I'm not going to wait for 30 minutes to get to play the one character that has survived the longest and has the best stuff. If all servers were to become separate, then the value of survival would be greatly diminished.

[reapo22 1]

Cross-server persistency' date=' 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.

[/quote']

What are you talking about? Cross-Server persistency is what is making this mod happen. If you go onto that server browser now, most if not all DayZ servers are full. Joining ONE server to get to your character is not only troublesome, but just plain stupid.

As for "no value" in a server, once again, what the hell are you talking about. You literally have to be careful with everything you do. Who you choose to talk to, who you choose to band with, where you choose to go. If you aren't careful, then you DIE.

[thebigJ_A 0]

I'd never play again without persistent servers.

And i don't even know what he was talking about regarding someone having loot on all different servers. I can't have gear scattered over many different servers. I have my gear. Maybe i have a tent on a server, that's it. Where's the problem? So his "life has no value" argument falls apart, too.

I've never, ever played a game where my character's life, or those of my partners, has more value. If I spent days gathering good equipment, and I lose it, that's a big deal. If I barely survived a raid to a hospital to get blood packs for my needy friend, then get killed on the way back, that's a big deal. (It happened today. I was actually emotional about it. I've had seriously moving experiences, seeing the psychology of how I and others act in this game. It would all fade if there were just the same x number of people always on.)

And I scoff at the thought that a specific server having no value is a problem. So what? A server is a tool, a platform. If I don't have any pride in "Virginia 12" or whatever, so? It's not what this game is about, at all. Just look at the stories coming out of this, like on RockPaperShotgun, that's what it's about.

Server hopping MIGHT be a problem, though I don't see it, except in the hypothetical case of people logging in behing the as yet unimplemented fortifications. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater, though?

Persistence is one of the best things about this game. I'd argue it'sone of the primary reasons the game has blown up.

I'm new here, so maybe my voice doesn't carry much weight, but I vote No to the OP's ideas.

[BurstFire (DayZ) 1]

it can be controlled by a game mechanic (forcing people to "safe" logout somewhere secluded' date=' in the same place you can build a campfire for instance).

[/quote']

Very bad idea. Some people just need to leave, they shouldn't be forced to have to do something like that and if you don't, you lose your progress >_>

What I've found is that if I save in a tower (and other places with loot), to carry on the next day because it's safe, loot that would typically be there, isn't. Which is a good thing.

Also, no cross-server persistency shouldn't go at all. I like being able to play on different servers with a main character, makes it easier to play with multiple friends, plus it means I can avoid nights which are very unrealistic on this (hopefully will be fixed). Also means different players to deal with, possibly more friendly ones. Sort out the minor loot issues and it's no longer a 'real' problem.

[AlarmedBread (DayZ) 3]

I think most of it would be fixed by a timer when you spawn in/out maybe with some audible cue to alert other players someone has spawned nearby. This would give anyone put in danger of a server hopper plenty of time to deal with the situation. Would also promote finding safer save points. It's very frustrating to secure a building inside and out, then have someone spawn in and kill one of your guys who was collecting loot.

[Tartantyco 1]

One option could be to have a few locally persistent servers and the rest cross-server persistent. But I'm not sure what the workload would be for that.

[gloopy 6]

I think you should be tied to a specific server.

Maybe not for alpha since it's enjoyable to be able to play on different servers especially if you are a big group and one server is full. However, being tied to one server would be excellent for gameplay.

[RealSourLemonade 1]

I think you should be tied to a specific server.

Maybe not for alpha since it's enjoyable to be able to play on different servers especially if you are a big group and one server is full. However' date=' being tied to one server would be excellent for gameplay.

[/quote']

Being tied to one server would bring about the emergence of clan servers and destroy gameplay (methinks?)

one dominant group would appear on each server and if they are dicks then that server would be rubbish for everyone else.

[MickeyKnox (DayZ) 1]

Simply look at all the glowing impressions that have caused this mod to spread like wildfire, cross server persistent characters are the core of this game. Take it away and you may as well have this be just another arma 2 edited mission.

[sfvkye 3]

I support cross-server persistence. If this was disabled two weeks ago you wouldnt of got half the people playing it now.

I dont want to know the same 50 people.

[Evilsausage 87]

Since servers crash constantly and sometimes are impossible to join. It would be very frustrating for the player to only have 1 server he can play on.

And like many have said its nice to meet new people.

The only problem i have with cross server thing is how easily a player can go to a place with good loot. log of join another server, loot that place, log of to another and keep doing that.

[Shimmler 4]

Another picture could be one where various groups create territories' date=' 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.

[/quote']

And how do you expect that to happen with the limit of 75 people?

[svenson 0]

Most ppl here dont get the key from the initial post. Its about "values" and not how to prevent server hopping.

My ideas for "persistant values" in a cross-server environment:

* values can be saved and "reinstantiated" (manually) by a user/group.

* a value disappears when its saved.

* values can be reinstantiated on every server (=transfered)

* a value (e.g. fortification) is not fixed to a position, but it has some instantiation restrictions (e.g. distance to other values, out of spawn area, time between instantiations, etc.).

All you need is something to form up groups, sharing the ability to save or instantiate (common) values. Call this feature: Aristocracy.

[_triumph_ 1]

The issue is with scarcity and being able to spawn on top of an area that could be considered high value over and over and over again by server hopping. Not the persistence itself.

You want to see obvious areas that are going to take an investment to get to, have a somewhat clear reward but can end up with a player losing out big time. The games current balancing act needs some more work and the server hopping is destroying that trade off by making the only resource spent a players time instead of time, actions, and potential to interact with the world and other players.

Being able to camp and hop high valued targets instead of coming into some place away from points of interests, away from newbie spawn zones, and with a group or not based upon preference is detrimental to game play.

Would be nice to see newly spawned players taking shelter at something away from a hot area like a Dear Stand or a group to spawn at a northern or western edge of the map implying that there is terror deeper in the map along with additions to the lesser traveled areas of the map. And to pay for features players could have to invest resources for safety or some other balance handle to promote going out into hell and taking chances the next time they play.

[Kolchak (DayZ) 5]

How about we let the Dev Team make logging in stable before we start telling them to mess with it. System is buggy enough as is, we go dumping more on top of them, the character server throws a rod, then we're all out of the game for a good long while.

[zippy32 1]

I'm one person who probably wouldn't be playing as much if there wasn't the persistancy of the loot/character, as it's a major draw to me. If changes were made I would still play, but I'm not convinced if I would keep coming back.

Why? For the main reason already stated - you can't guarantee you'll always be able to get onto your server where all your "stuff" is.

I like it how it is, you get to see different people playing, but still feel like you are playing in the the same area as you did last time you logged in on a different server. It feels like one continuing story with one character rather than having three different stories and characters on the go.

There obviously is an exploit with server hopping when you are in a good loot area - one solution (and I freely admit I am no coding techie so this might be impossible to implement) could be to have it so that when you log back in, if it's not the last server you played, you spawn IN THE VICINITY of where you logged off, but not EXACTLY where.

This could be a map wide feature, or just for certain areas (where the most server-hopping occurs, I'm guessing at military airports).

As I said, I've not idea if this is a good idea or if it's possible, but it's a solution that popped into my head.

But yeah, cross server persistancy is a great feature and I would be sad to see it go (if it ever did.)

[Tartantyco 1]

You will still have character persistency, just not cross-server persistency as it is too exploitable and undermines a lot of the gameplay possibilities.

---

And how do you expect that to happen with the limit of 75 people?

First of all, you can have much more than 75 people on. Second of all, you don't have the same 75 people playing 24 hours a day, and most people will likely be outside of these communities.

Kolchak, I said nothing about ripping out the cross-server persistency today or in the near future. Too many people in this thread are making assumptions that do not make any sense, muddying the waters. Try to keep to what I actually said and not extrapolate too much on what you might think I'm saying.

[pyrokinetiq 1]

I clicked on this thread after reading the title planning an angry response, but after the first two paragraphs, I can't agree more.

Really the only downside of having progress be server-independent is that you only want to play on that server - if your preferred server goes down or is full, you're going to have to wait (which will worsen the problem of players mashing enter to get in to their preferred server)

But I do agree on most of OP's points - especially because right now if a player gets in shit, they can just hop server and continue on. But this way at least if they disconnect to avoid death, if they join another server they'll have to start over, which should encourage pvp disconnecters to reconnect to the server, giving their assailants another attempt at getting the kill they deserved.

[blackaciddevil 0]

I agree with you Tartan!

I think it should be some servers that you can use for server-hopping/PvP servers (which you choose when you create you character) and some other servers that you are locked to, with more RPG (choose when you create you character).

AND I don't think this is something the devteam will implement right now, today, in an hour or so (some people seems to think so).

[vivalarazala 1]

Well i havent seen a guy do that just yet. Unless that nanogram guy tried to do it to me!

The server restarted and we both spawned beside each other.

Except i spawned earlier!

So when i see him i shoot him instantly killing him!

Which gave me some good loot! but idk i think it was accidental?

I dont agree! Rockets is coming up with something so i guess im ok with waiting for that