Character bound to server?

[FieldMedic 7]

The premise is that a character would be bound to the server you started it on. Change servers and you would start a new character on the server you switched to. Your other character would still exist on the previous server and you could go back to it at any time.

This has a number of advantages, namely, removing server hopping, allowing for the safer deployment of camps and bases, the formation of a server 'community' and the reduction (in conjunction with a logout timer) of combat disconnecting.

There are, of course, obvious disadvantages to this. You wouldn't be able to move your established character between servers to play with friends, or if your main server is down or having trouble. The medic people wouldn't be able to jump around helping assist people since their character would be tied to a single server. Since the servers are run by the individuals and not BiS there's nothing to prevent a server from shutting down permanently, taking your character with it.

The one big counter point to these disadvantages is that re-establishing yourself (collecting gear, moving off the coast etc.) doesn't take very long in comparison to other progression games and so moving to a new server wouldn't necessarily set you back weeks or months of work like it would in a traditional MMO.

[FieldMedic 7]

Going to give this one more go at the first page before it slides into obscurity!

[Redshift 58]

Server problems, hackers infiltrating servers, the unreliability of servers to stick to their posted in game times, admin abuse, and the fact that I want nothing to do with nighttime (I like being able to see the gun I am holding in front of my face thank you very much). Not to mention what would happen if your chosen server is full so you can't play the character you have been working on.

Too many problems with it. Plus the server hopping and combat logging can be fixed other ways, supposedly Rocket already has a fix for it and is trying to optimize the fix before releasing it.

[Virfortis 111]

So, minecraft style servers?

I can dig it, if nothing else because then players can pick and choose the admins, thereby picking the establishes rules, thereby ending a lot of the community crap we have.

[whocares 1]

Just some not playing style related reasons:

- server runs wrong patch version

- server full

- server offline

- server discontinued by the host

Other reasons:

- "distributing risks" from above by having tents on different servers

- server at wrong time (night?)

- playing with friends that happen to be on a different server

And yes, I play only one character at a time.

[Addicted (DayZ) 32]

My vote is no, if only because of the cheaters/hackers that are running rampant, let alone the negatives you've already mentioned.

Imagine being tied to a server that the troll cheater is also locked to. No thanks.

[mattygarry@hotmail.co.uk 23]

Yes and no.

I dont think that server only characters are needed due to some things others here have mentioned (hacked servers, broken servers, being kicked etc) but what would be decent is a kind of character selection screen. Say a maximum of 5 characters per account and when you log into the server you simply select which one you wish to play.

With the whole lose all your crap when you die thing (dont get me wrong, I think its great) having the option to play another character thats not so high risk would be nice once and a while. Running around on my almost 1 week character that has an M107, NVG's, Coyote bag, M4A1 Camo SSD and an M9 SSD can be pretty tense and well, if my team mates arent around its insanely risky for me to be playing at all at the moment.

[Valec 55]

Most of the reasons you people are against these ideas is because you want to avoid functional game mechanics(avoiding night time? I mean, should that really even be an option?)

A lot of the other suggestions.. christ. It's like you guys think this is WoW. Nobody cares how uncomfortable you feel being at risk of losing your gear. You aren't meant to be attached to it in the first place.

Personally, I like the idea of server-bound characters. Find a server you like and play the shit out of it. If they don't update often enough/admin abuse, you find a new one. Eventually everyone will find a home server.

A friend of mine suggested a similar idea previously, however he also added that server transfers might be necessary with this setup. Some sort of formal process that isn't instantaneous. Personally, I don't think that's even necessary, because starting from nothing is always fun.

[chunkeymonkey79 86]

I'm going to say no because some people out there will undeniably derp and forget the number/name of the server, therefore losing their progress and getting butthurt.

[Dr. Toros 8]

Player location and loot should be saved to the server. Stop combat logging and everything is so much better.

Suddenly, no more teleporting to a better location. No more server hopping, so loot is harder to get. The same people will play on the same server, so you'll start to recognize names of other players who play at your time.

Also, lol at people wanting to spread tents on multiple servers so they have an easier time getting their pixels back. It doesn't take long to begin with.

[Tenkula 3]

how about somekind of collectible item/token/whatever that gives you option to switch server? or just giving option to switch server and then preventing switching for 24hours i.e.?

that would also prevent lotta server exploit thingys

Edited July 21, 2012 by Tenkula

[bassist05 69]

Most of the reasons you people are against these ideas is because you want to avoid functional game mechanics(avoiding night time? I mean, should that really even be an option?)

A lot of the other suggestions.. christ. It's like you guys think this is WoW. Nobody cares how uncomfortable you feel being at risk of losing your gear. You aren't meant to be attached to it in the first place.

Personally, I like the idea of server-bound characters. Find a server you like and play the shit out of it. If they don't update often enough/admin abuse, you find a new one. Eventually everyone will find a home server.

A friend of mine suggested a similar idea previously, however he also added that server transfers might be necessary with this setup. Some sort of formal process that isn't instantaneous. Personally, I don't think that's even necessary, because starting from nothing is always fun.

Ok I keep hearing people saying, "LOLZ DONT GET ATTACHED TO YOUR GEARZ LULZ". Then why even play the damn game? If you're not getting any pleasure out of getting gear, then why even play? So you can sit in the woods eating pigs and drinking from your canteen whenever you play? Where is the fun in being like "Oh look, a mk 48, oh well, who gives a shit, i'm just gonna get murdered" *walks off*. If you're not invested in your character then why care if you die at all? Why not run through cherno as soon as you spawn waiting to be shot? Cause who cares, gear is pointless right?

Loot is a huge part of this game whether you like it or not and loot is a huge part of your character and the immersion. If you don't get attached your character then you are not immersed in the game and frankly, in my opinion, not playing the game as intended.

Edited July 21, 2012 by bassist05

[jdk761@hotmail.com 8]

how about somekind of collectible item/token/whatever that gives you option to switch server? or just giving option to switch server and then preventing switching for 24hours i.e.?

that would also prevent lotta server exploit thingys

this is more or less exactly what i was going to say, just putting a timelimit on switching characters to other servers would solve so many issues

[myskaal 50]

Not in the current state of things, no.

IF:

Visibility at night improved

Hacks are no longer an issue

Alt-f4 is done away with

Servers all consistently run the same versions

Server admins could not abuse their power

Then yea. I'd be all for it.

[yahhzoo 10]

No. I want to be able to play with different friends on different servers with my same character. What if you server is full and you want to play your main character? Doesn't sound like fun to me.

[Rising (DayZ) 99]

I like the idea of one big ass unofficial server with a cap of ~200, that is basically separate from the hive and has a standalone database. These servers should be very limited in number.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

In theory, it's a good idea.

In practice, there's simply no way to reliably determine ahead of time whether the steward of your server is a reputable, professional and mature individual with the ability to provide and maintain a stable gaming experience, or a group of 14-year-old suburban jagoffs who pooled their lawn-mowing money together to rent a server which they will not maintain, will refuse to update, will shutdown every time one of them gets shot and which will go offline at the end of summer when they all go back to high school and forget about DayZ because all the girls in their class grew boobies.

Edited July 21, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[sixbarns 217]

I'm slowly beginning to like this idea. Not yet though..

It's just... the hackers are getting annoying. This wouldn't fix that but it might go a long way to getting them banned from the game totally.

[Shag 90]

I'm not going to vote for now. It kinda has legs, but there are at present too many obstacles.

1 - server full

2 - server disappears for days on end

3 - server shuts down

4 - network issues on server

5 - spoils the "death is permenant" part of the game. get shotm meh, I have 7 other high level characters dotted around.

these are just five issues i though up in 10 seconds flat.

[Dr. Toros 8]

I'm not going to vote for now. It kinda has legs, but there are at present too many obstacles.

1 - server full

2 - server disappears for days on end

3 - server shuts down

4 - network issues on server

5 - spoils the "death is permenant" part of the game. get shotm meh, I have 7 other high level characters dotted around.

these are just five issues i though up in 10 seconds flat.

There's a reason that persistent games do not operate off of privately owned and operated servers.

The right way to do it would be to use the 15 million day z has made, and put up 100 official servers.

[Redshift 58]

There's a reason that persistent games do not operate off of privately owned and operated servers.

The right way to do it would be to use the 15 million day z has made, and put up 100 official servers.

I don't believe DayZ has made any money at all, ARMA2 sales have been made, but not DayZ itself.

Secondly even if they did this and put up 100 servers.... you realize that would be over 7000 players per server? Not sure about you but that seems awfully crowded to me. Even if you assume only 1/10th of the players per server were playing at any given time that is still over 70 people playing per server, which is more than most servers hold atm.

[deathwizard77@gmail.com 28]

I think the better choice in all of this would be groups of servers. So say their is 4 styles of servers A servers. B servers. C. servers and D. servers. All A servers are A charchters etc. and on. This would also allow you to play with different groups of friends and stick together not have to spend an hour to get close to each other to have to go 30 min later and get nothign done together.

[Lin (DayZ) 22]

I think Private servers, were people keep coming back, will build up a better community. You will get to know each player on the server and how they act/play (they KoS? Friendly?) and form relationships and it would provide a more intiment feeling with the server, and your surroundings.

[rome 58]

I think Private servers, were people keep coming back, will build up a better community. You will get to know each player on the server and how they act/play (they KoS? Friendly?) and form relationships and it would provide a more intiment feeling with the server, and your surroundings.

And then it allows some kind of a reputation system on the server.

After a month or two you will know not to trust this guy or you will like this other guy who helped you once.

I like this idea.

If servers can host 100 or more persons then it is more than enough.

Edited July 21, 2012 by RastaKoueR