One Character Per Server

[OMFGaTaco 1]

Just an Idea to help solve the 'passworded servers' problem:

Like other games with multiple people on them, there are separate servers/worlds (whatever you want to call it) that require a new character to play in. Take World of Warcraft for example (yes I know its an MMO game and its different than this): there are different worlds that require a new character to play in.

This lead me to an idea: What if the developers setup the character creation to be through servers instead of the whole entire mod itself?

If this would be done, multiple problem would be lifted (i.e. server raids from clans, potential passworded servers to be lifted, etc.)

Any thoughts on this?

[thatcommiekid 57]

I know lots of people who want this and a lot of people who dont its a pretty big debate at the moment.

[Bash Arkin 266]

Just an Idea to help solve the 'passworded servers' problem:

Like other games with multiple people on them, there are separate servers/worlds (whatever you want to call it) that require a new character to play in. Take World of Warcraft for example (yes I know its an MMO game and its different than this): there are different worlds that require a new character to play in.

This lead me to an idea: What if the developers setup the character creation to be through servers instead of the whole entire mod itself?

If this would be done, multiple problem would be lifted (i.e. server raids from clans, potential passworded servers to be lifted, etc.)

Any thoughts on this?

No bad idea. Fact, not opinion, Admins would have to much control over the game.

[zipper 69]

This has been suggested several times. Should try to search the forums first.

In regards to your idea, yes I agree there should be one character per server. Maybe even two. It would instantly solve two major problems the community currently has with DayZ.

1. Server hopping for loot.

2. Trust.

To all the people that are going to ask "What happens when the server goes down, or gets shut down?"

You deal with it. It isn't a big deal, and in the long run we are here to test the game for Rocket. If you have to create a brand new character then so be it. One character per server greatly helps strengthen the trust between people playing, since you will start to see the same people over and over. You will learn who the bandits are, and you will learn who is there to actually help you out. This is the only reasonable suggestion I have seen that can actually reduce the shoot on sight mentality, without punishing or rewarding people for how they play the game.

The only problem with this idea right now is there is only one hive server. Since it would require a large expense to be paid by the people developing the game, it would make more sense to just implement this once the final version of the game is released. We are, in the end, here to test.

[Para-Trooper 0]

Im an admin that is just playing this for the teamplay and fun of shooting zombies. It is a good idea. Infact saying it is a bad idea is simply wrong. Admins later will simply adapt the game anyhow.

I believe the developers and yourself are forgetting that this game WILL BE MODDED TO HELL after its release.

Be honest, Counter-strike, BF3, any shooter EVER, has had the game modded by the people running the server. The simple fact is if they do this, NO HACKING BS CAN OCCUR BETWEEN SERVERS.

The idea Taco has is to limit people going BETWEEN SERVERS. Frankly if you have a problem with it, you more then likely server hop for firing-position.

There are too many exploits and locking servers and characters to them WOULD END THAT.

Also, if we are "Just testers" then we shouldn't be able to buy servers that cost $100 dollars per month. Part of those proceeds go to the developers and they could have a lawsuit on their hands. Seeing as money is being exchanged for goods and services.

Im cancelling my server and disgusted I cant even get my money back for buying Arma 2 off steam.

What a complete joke.

Seriously, no one will keep playing. All the money Arma made off steam will dissappear.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Para-Trooper

[ChinWooMan 34]

I would love and wouldn't at the same time. What if you join a server for let's say about ten days. You have your beautiful camp with two cars.

(Ten days later) Server Hoster: Oh god! I can't pay for this anymore.

(Server shuts down) You: Really... Now my progress is all gone.

This idea would be awesome if someone responsible or someone that knows the server will be on for long.

[zipper 69]

I would love and wouldn't at the same time. What if you join a server for let's say about ten days. You have your beautiful camp with two cars.

(Ten days later) Server Hoster: Oh god! I can't pay for this anymore.

(Server shuts down) You: Really... Now my progress is all gone.

This idea would be awesome if someone responsible or someone that knows the server will be on for long.

You deal with it and move on to another server. You aren't supposed to get attached to your gear anyway remember?

[federik21 42]

You can use Dayz sanctuary servers.

You will have a brand new character, and every character is stored into a local database of that server.

[Frank Irony 3]

IMHO this is a bad idea. For every new character you need the resources of the hive server. If you would create a new character for every server you join i assume data mass on the hive would skyrocket, causing more lag, disconnects and desynch. Please keep in mind there are more than 800k players right now, and 100+ servers.

[ChinWooMan 34]

You deal with it and move on to another server. You aren't supposed to get attached to your gear anyway remember?

Uhm, actually do you know what getting attached to a certain kind of gear is?

Stop being aggressive towards me for no reason, second time I see you doing it to me.

Don't get attached to your gear for example, having your best gear on you all the time on raids,killing sprees,Cherno sniping etc.

Now before you talk even more crap please do some research before you aggressively reply to me again.

What you meant to say in your little post is, "Don't get attached to your tent camp" which I never stated anywhere about it. And by the way obviously everyone would get attached to their tent camp, all of their hard work remains in them which everyone moves there camp every once in a while.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ChinWooMan

[ZombifiedShark 8]

I think that this would be best if dayZ owned or controlled all the servers. I also think this is the direction the game should go in.

[zipper 69]

No, what I meant to say was exactly what I said. I do not try to put words in your mouth, so don't do it to me. If you sense my posts as being "aggressive" towards you, perhaps you need to re-evaluate the way you are reading them. If you had bothered to read my first post you would have seen that I covered the exact scenario you were asking about.

Yes I know what being attached to your gear is. Your post illustrates that you do not.

[Para-Trooper 0]

Alll good points, but money is being exchanged for servers.

So DayZ is making a profit off them already.

They already have money coming in especially via steam.

You cannot put the responsibility on the server owners,

the developers have to realize that this game may be "their baby",

but blacklisting should frankly be considered illegal unless a refund is offered upon being blacklisted.

Otherwise Im out a 100 dollars just for trying to have fun with friends ON MY SERVER!

This game will surely fail if they try to change how people own/operate their own servers.

As per server load for Arma, Im sure if "world of warcraft" can do it, they can too, give me a break!

Otherwise EVERYONE WILL BE PLAYING SANCTUARY MOD.

Locked servers should have locked characters, enough said.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Para-Trooper

[zipper 69]

I think that this would be best if dayZ owned or controlled all the servers. I also think this is the direction the game should go in.

I don't really think it could be done any other way. What Federick21 said was also an interesting idea that could work, but I don't see how they could maintain doing that for the life of the game. It would be interesting to see if this could be tested before final release. I'm sure there would be a lot of useful data collection that could be gained from doing it.

[Chris! 5]

Strongly disagree. If one server crashes I don't want to start over on another. If I want to play with my european friends I don't want to make a new account. This would mean your entire stats are dependent on the server host......... Bad idea.

[Para-Trooper 0]

Strongly disagree. If one server crashes I don't want to start over on another. If I want to play with my european friends I don't want to make a new account. This would mean your entire stats are dependent on the server host......... Bad idea.

server-jumping-Sniper.

[Donaghue 3]

Much as I think the arguments in favour of this are awesome, I would be against it. I have enough trouble finding servers with room to play as it is, and starting from scratch on each new server would not be enjoyable (probably the main reason I play DayZ :) ).

I've never heard of this particular system being used in another game before, and I think it adds to the charm. I can buddy up with friends on another server with an established character if I want to, or migrate to one with less lag without being penalised. There are plenty of other suggestions for clamping down on server-hopping snipers and such that permanently locking down characters seems unnecessarily heavy-handed.

[LeOverlord 150]

[Carlc4 0]

This would be fine if servers were reliable enough to host a lot of people 24/7, but they are not. Sometimes I can't get back onto a server that I was previously on. So I'd rather not have to start a new character just because the server is having issues.