Server maturation / lifecycle

[Claytonaj 12]

This was something that occurred to me when reading this thread. Forget, if you would for now, all practical considerations (e.g. whether zombie numbers could be increased to the levels suggested below; or the problems of finding a server), and think hypothetically... (humour me! :D )

What if servers had a dynamic 'lifecycle' and matured the longer they run for, the situation becoming more desperate with time. This could be in respect to things like the availability of ammo and food (becoming increasingly scarce), and the number and behaviour of zeds (becoming more populous and cleverer, colonising the forests, etc). Other suggestions are very welcome!

This would also be linked to the length of time your character has been alive, meaning you could only play on servers that are as 'old'/'mature' as your DayZ character. So there would effectively be several server types, with servers changing as they age, passing through a lifecycle:

• 0-1 hour old -- gentle server (much like things are now)
  
• 1-5 hours -- number of zeds increased 50%
  
• 5-20 hours -- no. of zeds increased another 50% and start to roam forests; food and ammo spawns decreased 50%
  
• 20+ hours -- hardcore server. Food and ammo spawns decreased further 50%; zeds actively hunt remaining players.
  

(Obviously these are completely arbitrary for now, but you get the idea.)

This also lends itself nicely to some sort of endgame / reward for being a great survivor. Perhaps an evac by sea or air after, say, 48 hours. The servers would either reset to 'gentle' mode once everyone has died/quit, or once the endgame scenario has played out (i.e. the servers would be on a two day cycle, according to my arbitrary timings.). The latter is my preference.

As I said at the top, I have given no thought to the practical aspect of this, it's purely a 'what if'. Is this a terrible idea? Any and all thoughts, comments, criticism welcome!

EDIT (27-07-12): Another thought for the end-game scenario: In the final phase of the server life cycle*, the zombies begin to starve (they are just infected humans, after all), or perhaps eat each other (though this might accelerate things too much). In this last phase, as I noted in the original post, I'd like the zeds to actively hunt the remaining players, and this would fit well with the idea that they too are becoming desperate! Without interference, all zombies will die around the 48 hour mark, or players could help kill them off. Players left alive after all the zeds are dead are.. well... survivors!

* I quite like S3V3N's 'seasons' terminology, but it could lead to some confusion. So I'll stick with 'phases'.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Claytonaj

[Stubbies 67]

I've often thought about this, but the scaling and time frames would take a lot of testing to get it right (Which I'm up for). I'm still more interested in the optimization of the game ensuring greater FPS, less bugs and issues.

That being said, I'd like to see weapon deterioration if they aren't maintained - as well as looking shitty. Players becoming trimmer, hardened, ragged. Same with cars obviously, zombies getting more cunning and starving to death would be cool too.... they needa eat. I have so many ideas. I just wish i could sit down with the dev team and put pen to paper :>

[S3V3N 1402]

That sounds good, in addition to the recruit, regular and veteran settings. Sounds mostly possible, except for the zombie spawns, I think it would lag things up too much.

How do you know though, how long a server has been running. I've never seen that display anywhere, except in the Chernarus Life RPG. It could certainly be done.

[hoik 415]

Yeah I like the idea of dynamic systems in this game - for me that is where its longivity lies. If you have a look at the first link in my sig, this is how I can see the PLAYERS having a direct influence on loot dencity/value - I guess it could also be made to influence zombi spawns. I'd also direct you to these two threads on dynamic zombies/loot: http://dayzmod.com/f...on-get-dynamic/ , http://dayzmod.com/f...ffects-in-dayz/ .

Edited July 27, 2012 by Hoik

[S3V3N 1402]

The only important thing to me would be to know how long a server has been running, before I connect. Else I might disconnect in a safe spot and reconnect one some server that drops 200 zombies on my head, in the same location.

[GexAlmighty 54]

I kind of like the idea of the difficulty getting harder as you play more but for multiple reasons this would be a pain in the ass.

1: it would be near impossible to find a server with your characters level in some countries because the servers are also advancing.

2: even if you joined a server in its 0-1 hour slot, you would not be in at the same time that the server started, so you would only have 15 or so mins before the server went to stage 2.

3: Too many Zeds! The frame rate for everyone on the server would be hell by stage 3, if not stage 2

Edited July 27, 2012 by GexAlmighty

[hoik 415]

That being said, I'd like to see weapon deterioration if they aren't maintained - as well as looking shitty. Players becoming trimmer, hardened, ragged. Same with cars obviously, zombies getting more cunning and starving to death would be cool too.... they needa eat. I have so many ideas. I just wish i could sit down with the dev team and put pen to paper :>

I agree with the weapon degredation - but would extend this to food items like meat, there should be an expiry date - even on items like beans. This would make cultivation of crops (as I've seen suggested elsewere) a interesting part of the game (people cultivating wheat, guarding it from raiding parties etc, barter economies forming...). I also like the idea of long term survivours looking raggedy-assed!

[3rdparty 229]

I had played with this idea, but in terms of server populations and environental impact. Ie servers with established groups and large permafixtures have increasingly less medicines/canned food/drinks and ammo spawn in them.

Interesting thread on seasons here though

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/45512-seasons

Edited July 27, 2012 by 3rdParty

[Claytonaj 12]

... if you joined a server in its 0-1 hour slot, you would not be in at the same time that the server started, so you would only have 15 or so mins before the server went to stage 2.

3: Too many Zeds! The frame rate for everyone on the server would be hell by stage 3, if not stage 2

I accept that this would currently be unworkable, in terms of numbers of zombies. But hopefully in future..

I was just thinking about timings. At least in the first couple of phases it would probably be sensible for anyone playing on a server when it transitions to the next phase to be taken with it and have their 'player age' (so to speak) automatically set to the minimum for the new phase. This would iron out that obvious crease...

[hoik 415]

I had played with this idea, but in terms of server populations and environental impact. Ie servers with established groups and large permafixtures have increasingly less medicines/canned food/drinks and ammo spawn in them.

Interesting thread on seasons here though

http://dayzmod.com/f...c/45512-seasons

Definatly like the season idea - as for server poulation and environmental impact, I recomend you read my first sig (fixed now) - it can create a highly dynamic, cyclicle scenario (but unlike season, they will be hard to predict).

In the end this game needs to have more dynamic scenarios to maintain the intital tention and fear of the unknown. Loot maps kill the game IMO.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Hoik

[Claytonaj 12]

In the end this game needs to be more dynamic scenarios to maintain the intital tention and fear of the unknown. Loot maps kill the game IMO.

So true. Things are way too predictable as it is now. I love the idea of the map adapting according to the way its been played, and that is completely compatible with what I'm suggesting here. As far as my lifecycle 'phases' go, the way that players have behaved in phase 1 could be fed in to phase 2 (and so on) in various respects -- like in the distribution of loot or ammo, or the behaviour of the zombies. This would make for a fundamentally different experience and challenge each time you play!

I really like the concept of the individual player having to play on servers that are the same age, which is what makes this different, as far as I can tell, from the other threads you've linked to. A newborn survivor could not spawn into a hardcore 'mature' server, where time and player actions have already shaped the environment to a large extent; but players who have survived for many hours (days even) enjoy a far more intense experience as the situation becomes ever more desperate.. Who knows, this might even engender some sort of camaraderie amongst survivors! (Maybe I should've sold this idea as the solution to PVP! :P )

Edited July 27, 2012 by Claytonaj

[S3V3N 1402]

Take my idea for factions into consideration and combine it with the seasoned servers. It would work very well, I think and create unqiue scenarios on the different seasons. If you are in a military faction and join a different server, you will keep your rank and report to a different group (leader), but essentially things didn't change for you.

As the server progresses so does the group and your rank within it. The only problem with my ranks is that at some point everyone would be General - unless the server resets, or there is a final goal to the game.

Ah, sry, this may all be a bit yadda-yadda, without knowing the faction thread I am refering too. Both ideas together work great. Claytonj - are you a writer too by any chance?

thread:

http://dayzmod.com/f...matter-of-time/

Edited July 27, 2012 by S3V3N

[Claytonaj 12]

S3V3N, I'm with you as far as creating objectives (beyond looting and PVP) that require/encourage cooperation. But I don't agree with the idea of factions as the means to do this.

In your thread you say "Factions will create goals, and goals will clash with the other faction's goals."

I would instead say that goals will create factions, and factions will compete to achieve goals. Taking this a little further, players -- given the means to do so -- will eventually be able to create goals for themselves, so it will all be driven by players for players, without the need for a narrative, like your factions, to begin with.

[edit: BTW I'm not a writer by profession, I'm about to train to be a teacher! :D I do love writing though.]

Edited July 27, 2012 by Claytonaj

[hoik 415]

I really like the concept of the individual player having to play on servers that are the same age, which is what makes this different, as far as I can tell, from the other threads you've linked to. A newborn survivor could not spawn into a hardcore 'mature' server, where time and player actions have already shaped the environment to a large extent; but players who have survived for many hours (days even) enjoy a far more intense experience as the situation becomes ever more desperate.. Who knows, this might even engender some sort of camaraderie amongst survivors! (Maybe I should've sold this idea as the solution to PVP! :P )

Your right, this is really the key to your idea - and I really like it :)

Edited July 27, 2012 by Hoik

[hoik 415]

This also lends itself nicely to some sort of endgame / reward for being a great survivor. Perhaps an evac by sea or air after, say, 48 hours. The servers would either reset to 'gentle' mode once everyone has died/quit, or once the endgame scenario has played out (i.e. the servers would be on a two day cycle, according to my arbitrary timings.). The latter is my preference.

As I said at the top, I have given no thought to the practical aspect of this, it's purely a 'what if'. Is this a terrible idea? Any and all thoughts, comments, criticism welcome!

As far as end games go - I wonder what your opinion would be of my idea (see the last link in my sig). It probably goes too far in some aspects, but what do you think of players influencing the life-time of a server??

[S3V3N 1402]

S3V3N, I'm with you as far as creating objectives (beyond looting and PVP) that require/encourage cooperation. But I don't agree with the idea of factions as the means to do this.

In your thread you say "Factions will create goals, and goals will clash with the other faction's goals."

I would instead say that goals will create factions, and factions will compete to achieve goals. Taking this a little further, players -- given the means to do so -- will eventually be able to create goals for themselves, so it will all be driven by players for players, without the need for a narrative, like your factions, to begin with.

Id

The thing about goals is - they are not persistant - factions are. I rarely play on the same server and was hoping to make things easier through factions. What you might have missed is:

a) there is no need for anyone to join a faction, you can do the same things alone, just not as efficient.

b ) factions create goals within themselves too, so there may be uprising or splinter groups that will organize their own agendas, even though they work under the cloak of a faction for a while. It may benefit players, but that doesn't mean they cannot abuse the system.

c) player of the same faction are encouraged to work together rather than shoot each other. They are free to differ, but they have less reason to than now.

What I proposed is nothing more than a mechanic that keeps things flowing and allows the higher tier player to find something more than loot in the game. Factions are my tool for story development. Combined with your season servers they would also be a stable entity on every server of the same season.

Edited July 27, 2012 by S3V3N

[Claytonaj 12]

Hoik, could you fix your sig? Since the forum changed those old links won't work. I'll take a look at your end-game idea, sure! :)

[hoik 415]

Hoik, could you fix your sig? Since the forum changed those old links won't work. I'll take a look at your end-game idea, sure! :)

There, fixed!

[Claytonaj 12]

S3V3N, I completely see what you want to achieve with factions, with their persistence, and I appreciate that it would be optional and only loosely bind players together. However, I am still wary of anything that superimposes a narrative to the game beyond its starting conditions. You're in Chernarus, there are zombies, there are other survivors. The real promise of DayZ -- whether or not it ever lives up to it -- is in putting the players in as close to complete 'control' of what happens thereafter as possible and seeing what they decide to do. Players could create the factions you're talking about, right now. The question is why don't they? And it's better to ask and explore that question, and possibly answer it before engineering and shepherding players into the thing you want to see them do.

IMO one of the major problems right now is the availability of weapons and the extent to which this is unduly influencing the way the game is played, and the experience it creates and the way it then obliges others to operate (e.g. shoot on sight for fear of being shot first). To be fair, players are only doing what they are being encouraged to do, given so many guns and so much ammo; there presently isn't enough variety in the game to easily get creative. I spend all my time in DayZ creeping, watching other players from the treeline, and generally avoiding contact (I have never 'murdered' anyone, nor will I). Allowing players to leave messages for others (on paper, painted on walls etc.) would be a first good step in the direction I want to see things go. It would allow me to engage with others, even only indirectly. Radio broadcasts would also be great. Communication is so limited, generally people communicate with a bullet, or not at all, because there's nothing else to do. I realise I'm rambling, but I think it's all relevant! Sort of. :)

Edited July 27, 2012 by Claytonaj

[S3V3N 1402]

S3V3N, I completely see what you want to achieve with factions, with their persistence, and I appreciate that it would be optional and only loosely bind players together. However, I am still wary of anything that superimposes a narrative to the game beyond its starting conditions. You're in Chernarus, there are zombies, there are other survivors. The real promise of DayZ -- whether or not it ever lives up to it -- is in putting the players in as close to complete 'control' of what happens thereafter as possible and seeing what they decide to do. Players could create the factions you're talking about, right now. The question is why don't they? And it's better to ask and explore that question, and possibly answer it before engineering and shepherding players into the thing you want to see them do.

This reply shows you are a teacher, not a writer. Teachers know how to repeat things, writers invent them. You will never find true story developing out of thin air with the current DayZ setting. The reason why nothing is created in game (only destroyed), is because there is abolutely no incense in doing so. You don't benefit from trying to organize anything, you benefit only from PvP and organizing bigger looting raids. If anything, the only part of the game that is developed at the moment is bandit gameplay. Everything weighs heavily towards it, and that is what I am trying to counteract with factions and the season server idea you had.

Edited July 27, 2012 by S3V3N

[hoik 415]

IMO one of the major problems right now is the availability of weapons and the extent to which this is unduly influencing the way the game is played, and the experience it creates and the way it then obliges others to operate (e.g. shoot on sight for fear of being shot first). To be fair, players are only doing what they are being encouraged to do, given so many guns and so much ammo; there presently isn't enough variety in the game to easily get creative. I spend all my time in DayZ creeping, watching other players from the treeline, and generally avoiding contact (I have never 'murdered' anyone, nor will I). Allowing players to leave messages for others (on paper, painted on walls etc.) would be a first good step in the direction I want to see things go. It would allow me to engage with others, even only indirectly. Radio broadcasts would also be great. Communication is so limited, generally people communicate with a bullet, or not at all, because there's nothing else to do. I realise I'm rambling, but I think it's all relevant! Sort of. :)

The thing is all gamers are so so used to being dictated to - you say you haven't killed anyone and you never will - that is your choice and NOTHING ELSE - it has been ingrained into us (gamers) that if you CAN do somthing in a game than you SHOULD (or at the least, there is nothing 'wrong' with it if the game doesn't tell you its wrong). To me you and everyone who chooses not to kill are infact implementing a 'high-morality' , and those who succumb to KoS (for whatever reason) are choosing a 'Low-morality' even if the game does not give you a "gamey" indicator to tell you. And as far as perks/values for high/low humanity they are self evident. Those who don't KoS have a value relative to others who choose to play the same style of play, ESPECIALLY seeing as they are so rare. Those that KoS have very little value as they over-saturate the market (EDIT: Actually their value is THAT THEY KILL ON SIGHT, they provide alot of the tention and uncertanty - though they are over-represented at the moment. What Im trying to say is that even random psychos have their place.) :) .

The problem is this idea can not be translated to others in a gamey way - but, as you say, a solid communication system would allow individuals to asses others and take risks accordingly, letting those with a tendancy for 'high-humanity' to form groups with like minded people and reap the natural benifits of grouping up - those that choose 'low humanity' can continue on their merry way and infact ENHANCE the gaming experience of 'high-humanity' players, just as 'high-humanity' players enhance the game experience of bandits.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Hoik

[Claytonaj 12]

S3V3N, leaving aside the gaping and unwarranted generalisation that teachers aren't inventive people (your experience at school might not have been a happy one, but don't tar an entire profession with the same brush; doing so hardly invites me to think that you're all that creative yourself), you haven't actually contradicted what I said in that last post. I completely agree that PVP is the only gameplay that's overtly rewarded in the game as it is. Where we differ is in how we see that being changed. I say give players more freedom of choice to express themselves. I actually do believe that compelling stories are already emerging from DayZ, albeit so rarely that it seems like they aren't. They're so diluted by the general fragfest. What would allow more creativity, and more variety in the experience of playing, and therefore more varied stories, are more ways of communicating. If I could leave a message for a stranger, in a house in Elektro, asking them to come to Stary Sobor at dusk, even if I never go to Stary Sobor, or if the person who finds the note never does, I'm reaching out to others in a way that the game currently doesn't permit me to, and that other player has had their experience enriched by some element of intrigue. They've been given a choice! Do I go to meet this person, or not? What if we both go to Stary Sobor at dusk, and fall in love and get married and live happily ever after! :P Surely you can see the potential in this, and that is only the tip of the iceberg...

Hoik I'm with you on that last post. Have you played the Stanley Parable? Just out of interest...

Also, I read your end game thread, and there are some interesting ideas there! I'll comment on it in due course. However, I just had a thought of my own for an end-game scenario:

In the final phase of the server life cycle*, the zombies begin to starve (they are just infected humans, after all), or eat each other (though this might accelerate things too much). In this last phase, as I noted in the original post, I'd like the zeds to actively hunt the remaining players, and this would fit well with the idea that they too are becoming desperate! Without interference, all zombies will die around the 48 hour mark, or players could help kill them off. Players left alive after all the zeds are dead are.. well... survivors!

* I quite like S3V3N's 'seasons' terminology, but it could lead to some confusion. So I'll stick with 'phases'.

[S3V3N 1402]

Yes, I really don't like teachers, because most of them sucked. I do have three university diplomas and speak four languages, if that makes you feel more comfy among us intellectuals ^^

It doesn't matter. I think the common understanding is that there have to be tools to make that story, whether is is a kind of endgame scenario (which I thought about and dismissed, because it creates an actual final goal to the game), or if it is only about communications and interaction in general. The fragfest must stop, the farming must end. It is very well possible that there will be factions emerging from within the game, but they will go through a lot or external processes and getting organized on teamspeak, etc. before they can actually take action. That's what I don't like, because it seems to me there are easy ways to fix that.

blackboards, graffiti, a piece of paper in the bank and numbered lockers at the hotel - all of that can be used to leave a message. None of it seems difficult to create. Running around and looking for better loot doesn't cut it for me, on the long run. The exploration of the map is over after 1-2 weeks and then you are left with what? I still haven't found out. My game is the same like it was 2 days ago. I evade other players and find nothing new of interest.

You may be right about one thing - items can create factions, we don't need factions to be build in, but it will still mean a butthurt of pain to the people, who are actually organizing them. I wanted something a little bit more accessible, but I guess it will all have to happen on external forums. If we want items to create factions there has to be a moral system like in real life. If that means the players ingame will have to go crazy or develop unhealthy addictions to cope with countless murders they committed, idk. But something needs to be in place to make sure the players can develop a post-apocalyptic society with different shades of grey and not only bandits and civilians.

Since items will create factions, I suggest placing more items that make sense and removing some of the ones that are least popular. The problem is surely that one item takes the same amount of ram as do 50 of the same items, but when you keep adding more and more it will slow things down to extremes. So there has to be a finite number of items. Those should make development of more varied stories possible.

[Mallissin 7]

I think realistically you'd have a bell curve of zombies based on the day.

So, day 0 servers would have few zombies, tons of simple loot everywhere (common weapons) and perhaps even friendly NPCs that patrolled or held certain locations in the big cities.

Day 30 servers would have tons of zombies (as they come out of the wilderness or start to migrate to find food) but better weapons would be around from the military presence but barely any friendly NPCs.

Day 90 servers would have few zombies (they are running out of food too), but little loot and no friendlies at all.

Day 365 servers would have only hatchets and empty cans everywhere, no zombies, and everyone is REQUIRED to run around spouting crazy gibberish nonsense or a teeth-clenching, saliva seething growl.

[Claytonaj 12]

Mallassin, you've got the right idea! A sort of normal distribution of zeds through the life cycle is what I was thinking when the second end-game scenario occurred to me.

S3V3N, it's good to find common ground! :) I also have three degrees! One bachelors, two master's degrees (a PhD one day, when the time is right). I've also been obliged to learn Swahili and Romanian in the past, having lived in various places. My upcoming teaching degree is a step along a pretty mazy path (perhaps ending in academia). I didn't intend to question your intelligence before, but you seem so eager to doubt mine based on the scant information you have about me. Let's call it quits.

I know what you mean about the difficulty of getting organised without resorting to external fora or teamspeak etc. Having things happen entirely in-game is also the way I'd like to see it. It's a really interesting problem, and it's not the way everyone wants to play the game. Then again, the difficulty of forming associations, the problem of establishing trust in others, would be a massive hurdle in a post-apocalyptic situation IRL, so I have to wonder why should it be purposively facilitated in DayZ? As a 'simulation', perhaps DayZ is doing a pretty good job of relating the immense difficulty of this situation, socially. I don't know about that, I'm just thinking out loud really.. More items, like you say, is the way to go; more things to do. Let players create the world they'd want to see, and not only those who'd see a world full of weapons (they could have their place, but let me have mine too).