Absolutely necessary changes

[super pretendo 2]

There are some structural problems with how the gameplay is currently set up.

1. Clearing zombies form towns is currently completely irrelevant in the long run; they will just respawn for the next guy that crosses by. This is contrary to what should be required, decision making as to whether cull the horde of zombies should certainly be there. If every player choose to not thin the horde, the zombies should slowly build up to a certain point, where they would be much harder to manage. This makes an actual effect on the persistent world if you clear a town. I just can't stress this enough, if players want to take it upon themselves to mow down zombies as a group, it should actually have consequence. Zombies piling up is a GOOD thing!

2. Allow players to have semi-permanent habitation of buildings/areas. In this small areas zombies and supplies should not spawn, so players realistically only fear incursions from the outside. BUT, players setting up camp should somewhat attract hordes to lay siege to their residence from the outside, not stupid indoor spawns that make no sense. Double edged sword.

3. Instead of zombies just spawning at settlements and standing around, they should (at least some of them, spawning in towns can remain but see suggestion 1) spawn in remote locations in the inland wilderness where players are very unlikely to be, the move out in groups toward settlements and eventually the coast. This creates a feel of zombies actually roaming as hordes that is always in zombie fiction, instead of just guys standing around in towns. It also gives the chance of exciting zombie encounters int he wilderness.

4. Higher player caps for servers! I know there is stability issues, but that can of course be solved. While chernarus is a perfect, expansive and immersive world for a zombie survival map that is just the right size, 50 players spread over it is way too low. 100, 150 or even 200 player caps seems perfect for such a map. Players rarely ever encounter eachother except if they artificially plan it with chat or friends, and encountering players and working together (or even fighting!) is the most fun part of the game.

[nexerius 0]

There are some structural problems with how the gameplay is currently set up.

1. Clearing zombies form towns is completely irrelevant in the long run; they will just respawn for the next guy that crosses by. This is contrary to what should be required' date=' decision making as to whether cull the horde of zombies should certainly be there. If every player choose to not thin the horde, the zombies should slowly build up to a certain point, where they would be much harder to manage. This makes an actual effect on the persistent world if you clear a town. I just can't stress this enough, if players want to take it upon themselves to mow down zombies as a group, it should actually have consequence.

2. Allow players to have semi-permanent habitation of buildings/areas. In this small areas zombies and supplies should not spawn, so players realistically only fear incursions from the outside. Of course they should respawn, but at a dynamic rate. Zombies piling up is a GOOD thing!

3. Instead of zombies just spawning at settlements and standing around, they should (at least some of them, spawning in towns can remain but see suggestion 1) spawn in remote locations in the inland wilderness where players are very unlikely to be, the move out in groups toward settlements and eventually the coast. This creates a feel of zombies actually roaming as hordes that is always in zombie fiction, instead of just guys standing around in towns. It also gives the chance of exciting zombie encounters int he wilderness.

4. Higher player caps for servers! I know there is stability issues, but that can of course be solved. While chernarus is a perfect, expansive and immersive world for a zombie survival map that is just the right size, 50 players spread over it is way too low. 100, 150 or even 200 player caps seems perfect for such a map. Players rarely ever encounter eachother except if they artificially plan it with chat or friends, and encountering players and working together (or even fighting!) is the most fun part of the game.

[/quote']

+1

But 200 server was like 400 dollars or something monthly i think.

But my suggestion is that there should be some circles on the map that showed infected rates in those areas. ( Red(dangerous) to green(safe) And those circles could mean if the area was safe or not. The circles could be invisible, and just be in the code or something. So the areas regained some of the zombies if noone cleared out for a while.)

[super pretendo 2]

yeah and once zombies reach critical mass imo in the red areas due to no players culling them, they should roam to new towns.

[Hesher (DayZ) 2]

nice ideas, i was thinking something similar, but no need to remove local zombies from towns, the game is set that you restart completely after each death so the experience should be "new" to that avatar. so some kind of mix of idea is needed.

[super pretendo 2]

I know, I believe that I said in my post tat local zombies shouldn't be removed, just to have dynamic spawn

[andrewjs 11]

1. I don't want to go to a city where a group of people wiped out all the zombies, I want there to be zombies otherwise whats the point of a zombie game.

2. I don't care

3. I'll agree with this one

4. 50 is fine, I run into people just the right amount of times. Also problems with hardware, software, and money isn't worth it for a greater number of people.

And we don't need a map of safe zones that's the excitement of exploring.

[super pretendo 2]

1. I don't want to go to a city where a group of people wiped out all the zombies' date=' I want there to be zombies otherwise whats the point of a zombie game.

[/quote']

There will be zombies, just less. Sorry, this is a persistent world game where other players can and should affect your gameplay

4. 50 is fine, I run into people just the right amount of times. Also problems with hardware, software, and money isn't worth it for a greater number of people.

How worth it is for the developers and server owners to decide. You can only really expect to see another player in electro or cherno. For such a colossal world with potential for cool, organic random gameplay emerging from players, I see no reason to settle for the worst. Such a huge map calls for at least 100

And we don't need a map of safe zones that's the excitement of exploring.

I never suggested safe zones, I don't think there should be any

[goatsenator 11]

I'd like to add in that the standard ArmA id system needs to be taken out. I'm talking about pointing your crosshair at a guy 500 meters out (even if you don't see him) and his name pops up on your screen with his exact distance from you. It basically gives your position away if you want to PvP or want to avoid it. It makes it to easy to find people you wouldn't otherwise see and is extremely frustrating!

[super pretendo 2]

I'd like to add in that the standard ArmA id system needs to be taken out. I'm talking about pointing your crosshair at a guy 500 meters out (even if you don't see him) and his name pops up on your screen with his exact distance from you. It basically gives your position away if you want to PvP or want to avoid it. It makes it to easy to find people you wouldn't otherwise see and is extremely frustrating!

I'd say make it work max to 30 meters, just because you cant otherwise distinguish people like you could irl by faces

[Banicks 55]

#4 isn't something that can be done effectively for server hosts at the moment.

Currently you need roughly 4TB per month to host which, in AU$ is around the 400 mark. Hosting a higher number than that will increase the required bandwidth, so on and so forth. I believe 1.7.1 is reducing the overhead code (?) but as to whether this will reduce the amount of UL/DL strain on the servers, don't know.

I like the idea of clearing a town, but opposingly, if that town is cleared then loot should stop spawning/spawn at a much slower rate - however at the end of the specific time frame a decent amount of loot spawns - making it wortwhile to hold a town in the first place. This would increase the number of organised PvP incidents over town ownership and also give way into what really needs to be introduced into DayZ - which is a PvE element.

As it stands you get nothing for eliminating zeds (other than the planned leadership board), people simply avoid them via stealth to obtain what they want. Especially when they will simply respawn, over, and over again. Clearing a town, and occupying it for a period of time should trigger a PvE event of a load of zombies. Thus owning a town would require a decent group of survivors/bandits and should ownership fail, evacuating the town and make good their escape (reference to 28 weeks later intro scene).

This would add a decent element and incentive to grouping, makig people double thing and lowering the "herp der he has x and i dont, *bang*" Of course it will still happen, but the element is there and it still retains the core of mistrust.

[Blaise 1]

I like all your points. Except maybe 4. I like the desolateness of Chernarus.

And if you feel you need human contact at some point, go to Elektro ;)