Limiting 1 Character per Server to Prevent Server Hopping?

[Masi_23 3]

You log-in the same place you logged out inside a server.

This can be a Server Admin option so people can go about their way, hopping on other unregulated servers.

This would actually render bases (safe havens) in the game legit. As is the life in sandbox game as intended.

What do you guys think?

[Rhygar666 26]

bullshit, server are working shitty, needing to restart every 4 hours or they dont work properly, or they just get offline, new (Beta) Patch that doesnt work whatever, as long as that is not fixed your idea sucks.

[Grimlok (DayZ) 134]

They are already working on a fix for serverhopping. And no. We dont need "Safe" places in DayZ. That's just stupid. Like i have told many people before. If you want the game to be made easier for you then just go play another game, the majority of the community here does not give two shits about safe havens or being safe in general, when they squash carebears like yourself.

[SillySil 295]

It could work but only with bigger server population. Much bigger map 200-500 max players and server bound. Can't see it happening in arma tho. Maybe in standalone.

[Masi_23 3]

@ Grimlok - Majority? Do you have sources/statistics to back that up?

Building fortified bases/safe havens would add a new element into the game. Specially for co-op (I admin a small clan of 25+ people). Albeit it is in Alpha, this mod has started to feel repetitive (for me at least, and im sure many others who have played this since its early days).

@ SlillySil - yeah, i'd imagine other people would be turned off if they see a big fortified base on the horizon. Perhaps some limitations should be enforced with building. A bigger map with more population would be great. Clan wars? A horde of 300 plus zombies slowly marching towards your base? Epic.

Also, i heard Rocket is experimenting with the ability to build underground bases. Is this true?

Edited July 26, 2012 by Masi_23

[BL1P 252]

Its the only way to stop the server hopping exploits.

But every exploiter will call this Idea shit and try to give reasons why it wont work.

If this was done, a good way to alow players onto other servers would be to increase the spawn locations to encompass all of the map edges North,East,South and West.

Then if you logon to a diffident server than the one you where on last. you spawn at one of the spawn locations with a 50% chance you will be in a similar spawn location as when you left but you would be on the map edges.

New lifers Eg. respawns would still spawn at original spawn locations along the coast.

A larger map would be good for later when standalone.

I tested a map for arma2 the other day called sands it is 41km x 41km. I am suprised they haven't just doubled the content in the cheranus map yet.

Edited July 26, 2012 by BL1P

[Swineflew 480]

The only "safe haven" I'd condone is a player run safe haven and I think that would only work if players could distinguish between who is who better, which I think is being worked into the game eventually.

An artificial safe zone is just stupid, and no I don't server hop or altf4 or any of that stupid crap, the idea itself is just bad.

[Masi_23 3]

Then why have the sandbags and barbed wire fences?

I think it's well in the idea of a 'sandbox' IMO. I'm sure rocket had building bases/fortified perimeters (be it large or a small one) in mind when he put those in the game.

An interview with rocket talking about underground bases: http://www.dayz.co/r...bases-and-more/

Edited July 26, 2012 by Masi_23

[RapturJesus 90]

I think what he means by a "safe haven" is basically just being able to build things like a fort. Which I think is a cool idea but people would abuse being able to build things. They already do with what we have.

Anyway to your original idea...

I think a character per server is.. meh. Mainly because servers update when they want to and the ping can go from 16 to 567 in a matter of seconds. I don't want to abandon a character just because a server went to shit.

[Swineflew 480]

Didnt watch the video, the caption alone talks about having the security be "hackable" by other players.

Hence not safe.

Also fence and barricades don't magically make people bulletproof or unable to shoot.

You're asking for a DMZ or artificial safe zone and that's 100% against the nature of the game.

[drewmaw 56]

I like server attached characters :)

You shouldn't have tried to shoehorn safe-zones into an otherwise great topic.

[Masi_23 3]

@ Raptur - Tue. It can get out of hand flooding the servers.

@ Swineflew - I never said it does. No barricades or fence will make anyone invincible. You can destroy any building in game if you want. But that's the idea - you do anything you want in a sandbox. It's up to you.

Dude: I'll fortify myself inside a hospital.

Guy: Fine, ill bring the whole place down with a bunch of grenades.

"I think we've got a pretty good handle with the 'Ok there's a zombie apocalypse, you need to survive, so you go about and team up with your friends or what not', but what then?" - Rocket

He goes on saying how the replayability is light at the moment, which gave his team the idea of building structures. Over ground, it just clutered the world, so now they're thinking underground - which he said is just a matter of 'When'.

Mind I ask, what is the nature of the game?

@ drewmaw - :D

Edited July 26, 2012 by Masi_23

[Swineflew 480]

I think your misuse of the word safe haven may have detracted from what you're trying to say.

Yes I support bases and barricades and fortresses and all that, but I don't want any of them to be "safe". Easy to defend is fine, but safe isn't a word that should be associated to a place if it's still somewhere that can be assaulted and you could die.

[Masi_23 3]

Just add 'r' to it and put 'places'.

Safer places. :beans:

Edited July 26, 2012 by Masi_23

[Swineflew 480]

Just add 'r' to it and put 'places'.

Safer places.

See, now we are on the same page, although server hopping would still be an issue with a character per server, people would just move their chars to a good spot on a few servers and cycle between them for goodies.

It would slow down the speed at which they get gear, but I don't think it would eliminate server hopping.

I could be wrong about that.

[KWilt 157]

I'm all for this idea.

You're gonna be the guy who refunds me all the shit I lose when a server unexpectedly closes down because the owner doesn't make rent, but doesn't tell anybody, right? Or, when I can't get into the server because it's already full, you're gonna be the guy standing on the beach of a different server handing out stuff so that I can actually play the game without having to start over for no apparent reason, right?

Point is, with the system we have now, it'll never work. Servers go up and down way too often, which is not the cause of alpha, so that's not a proper complaint on the dev's side, and can't be fixed by them. And since the populations are capped at 50, you'd never be able to get more than a few groups on a single server.

So, in short, no.

[Sinoby 39]

I've thinking about it for a long time. It will not only stop server hopping, but will allow to develope some type of comunity - if you kill a person you will not be able to jump to other server and have no problems with that. People will start to recognise each other later on and it will be a bit different to what we have right now.

But for all that to work we need 1) bigger servers 2) stable servers 3) more ways to customize looks of your character.

[tosh 2]

I hop from server to server to find the right server. One that is not laggy as heck, one which is the same timezone as it states in the server info - ie daylight when its says its supposed to be, and one that is not hacked.

I do not see this a duping or cheating .. its a matter of finding a server that isnt going to ruin your gamming experience for the night.

I would love to play on the same server night after night .. maybe get to know some of the other people .. but servers are up / down / un-patched / in need of reboot or otherwise "wrong".

I do not think that limiting my ability to keep trying servers to find the "right" one is a bad thing.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Tosh

[Masi_23 3]

@ Swine - good point, but who would enjoy waiting for hours on end for loot? :D I know i wont :D

Edited July 26, 2012 by Masi_23

[Zymi 64]

Wut? So every different server I join I'll log back into where I logged out on that particular server?

[Masi_23 3]

@ Zymi - Yes, that's the idea.

bumping previous reply:

@ KWilt & Sinoboy - like i mentioned, it can be optional. It is up to if you want to join a server attached character or not.

But yes, a larger map, population limits, and dedicated servers should come first.

Or maybe, only locations will be attached? You can log out and still maintain your gear, regardless of server types? This would allow for more players to cycle into the servers, essentially getting rid of the player attached limit of 50, 75, or 100 chars.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Masi_23

[Zymi 64]

Players will exploit this.

Server hopping will go nuts. Set a few up for NWAF barracks, Stary, Berezino, Hospital tents, and key Sniper locations.

[Masi_23 3]

What? Can you rephrase.