WHAT IF: Region's Zombie Spawn was linked to Humanity?

[bbilbo1 149]

you got my beans!

Maybe we could also add the possibility to create Clans like "Cherno's Clan" "Elektro's Clan" for each region and create short and simple quests for the clan (Join the look-out post on the x building of Cherno,prevent any unauthorized stranger from getting into the city/region, guard the X side of Cherno,walk in the streets and kill X zombies to keep the zone 'human' and so on)

Questing, and game-generated objectives are kinda "gamey." And doesn't fit Rocket's feel of the mod... But that's okay, because you don't need a quest system to actually to do that!

That would be completely player-driven. Maintenence and policing are things players would opt to do if they feel like it, and want to maintain the relative peace.

[bbilbo1 149]

Here are some issues I thought of looking at OP's Idea,

Elements of the game world can not persist in an area without players being around it puts to much strain on servers and increases lag for everyone and would also limit your ability to add other cool features that could be using that computing power. Also tracking all of these interactions to the client and to regions would also use up alot of resources that I think would be better utilized in other ways.

If realtime was not used but rather a counting system for a region you run into issues like bandit skins did, over time any areas with loot spawns will become "hostile" areas that have a high number of Z's simply because people go there for gear. Also this is where conflict over gear would occur therefore increasing the hostility of the area even more. Even "friendly" areas would suffer from this I think if things worked as you intended, more friendly players use friendly zones as bases of operation. If things still spawned in these areas the sheer number of people that would be in them looting could possibly overcome the "friendly" actions.

I see what you mean. I was wondering the same thing, myself. I do realize that the system spawns zombies only in areas where players exist to ease stress on the server. But here's ultimately where i think the same thing can be accomplished.

-Players continue to be "servers" for the zombies that spawn in the area. But before that action is taken, I think the player data should query the region's humanity rank to decide how many zombies should appear.

-Servers/The hive already tracks and logs (or at least should be) many, many player actions and data anyway. I don't see utilizing that data to cause more strain on servers. Of course, I could be wrong.

- As you stated you worry that players going to an area simply to loot and leave would cause a unreasonable zombie spawn rate? I feel like a designated Max-Cap to spawn would make that a non-issue, if I understand your sentiment correctly.

Also, it's worth mentioning that this game will constantly be optimized and streamlined. We're nowhere near a final product. At least, I hope we aren't. :-/

Immersion Issue: What would happen if a large group locked down a key area like NW airfield they could be a "Bandit" group but simply use the elements available in your suggestion to spam the area into a friendly zone. I do think taking over an area should be incorporated, but if after you do so and then defend your area from another player I'm not sure that it should then bring back all of the Z's you worked so hard to eliminate.

I think that skills and specialization are a better option to discourage KOS, and that "Switches" within small areas that push out Z spawns/Stop them and loot spawns would work better for clearing areas.

-I *don't* think the constant threat of the loss of hard work such as "securing" a region is outside the theme and feel of this game. do you? :-) Especially if it's all player-driven.

-Tell me exactly what you mean by "spamming an area into a friendly zone?" I really don't understand how this would be done. At least not practically. Also, I would like to remind you that as I originally posted, no area would be completely safe.

Thanks for your input.

Edited August 3, 2012 by bbilbo1

[xximrtwoixx 104]

- As you stated you worry that players going to an area simply to loot and leave would cause a unreasonable zombie spawn rate? I feel like a designated Max-Cap to spawn would make that a non-issue, if I understand your sentiment correctly.

-I *don't* think the constant threat of the loss of hard work such as "securing" a region is outside the theme and feel of this game. do you? :-) Especially if it's all player-driven.

-Tell me exactly what you mean by "spamming an area into a friendly zone?" I really don't understand how this would be done. At least not practically. Also, I would like to remind you that as I originally posted, no area would be completely safe.

I don't mean the rate would be unreasonable, even without a max cap I'm all for as many zombies as rocket can fit in without crashing the servers or making me have a 10k computer.

What I mean is that an area with loot, especially good loot will be looted constantly, even if this a "low" increase as you marked it this steady trickle will make all lootable areas into "hostile" zones and those with good loot probably always at the max cap for Z's. I also think that a friendly zone or zone people try to turn friendly will be overcome by this, as more players will go there because there is less risk from bandits/Z's so there will be more looting. I think that the resources used to run all the calculations your mechanic would require could instead just be used to have more z's around good loot locations, would probably use less resources.

How to min/max your mechanic-

Me and my bandit buddies get a makorav and bunch of ammo and a bunch of blood bags(One hospital run could get you at least 10) we then go into the zone and shoot each other in the leg and heal each other over and over until the zone is changed to friendly and Z's are reduced. We then loot to our hearts content. If there is a hospital in the zone we could just sit at it and do it there, while other people in the clan guard/shoot any incoming players. As both are the "High" actions in the system I can guarantee that I can shoot my friend and give him a blood transfusion faster than additional players come into the zone. Thus it will be a friendly zone but filled with pk bandits, thus defeating the entire purpose for the mechanics introduction. This could also be done with food just at a slower rate, probably what we would do while we waited for more blood bags to spawn. Do you see how gamey this makes things be? Players will always min/max everything, maybe not all players but I would say a majority will, this why KOS is so prevelent because players are maximizing their chance for success (Those that aren't griefers I mean).

What I meant about immersion:

I don't think the constant threat or chance to lose what you've worked for is out of place, and I agree that no area should be completely safe.

Your mechanic would directly punish people for PVP, ie defending their area. If a group has been working hard to reduce the number of Z's in an area and then needs to defend their area from another player let alone another group they have just pissed away their work by taking actions that perfectly fit into what they were doing, establishing a zone of control for their group. This makes the mechanic gamey to me, and just another nerf to pvp. "Clear most of the Z's, shoot a trespasser and suddenly there are tons of Z's spawning on you." Do you think players defending their area of control from other players is outside the theme and feel of this game?

Edited August 3, 2012 by xXI Mr Two IXx

[bbilbo1 149]

I think I see what you're saying. And I think you bring up some excellent points. These points are the result of not being as detailed in some areas of my proposal as I should have been. Let me correct that right now:

One thing I think I failed to mention in my proposal is the numbers and scale to which my proposed system would be in place. To be clear, I'm not saying 1 player kill would spawn a swarm of zombies. Nor am I saying 1 or 2 backpacks full of bloodbags and transfusions would make the region friendly. That notion is way, WAY, too small-scale for what I had in mind.

What I'm talking about here is VERY LARGE NUMBERS.

How large?

My idea is that it would take a community of players working together (one way or another) for an extended period of time to influence the region's environment positively or negatively. That means one or two players spamming an action couldn't, practically speaking, be solely responsible for influencing an entire region.

In order to min/max my system on a solo, small-scale, you would ultimately need to repetitively collect incredibly massive amounts of resources. Ultimately, increasing your chances of encountering other players and taking those resources just to spam actions for ridiculously extended periods of logged-in time.

In short, players wont actually see their actions influence a region on a solo-minded scale. Only in cases where there's an strong overabundance of positive or negative Humanity actions, whether that be the result of player cooperation and teamwork, or a more passive, "Everyone ends up doing 'X' here" activity.

Thanks for showing me where I need to clarify and elaborate on my proposal. Being as descriptive as possible helps me put my vision out there.

EDIT: I have updated my original post to clarify this.

Edited August 5, 2012 by bbilbo1

[zq7 67]

This would be easy to exploit.

Get a friend, give him X amount of blood transfusion to get your humanity up = less zombies and you essential could kill other players without any consequences.

[TheHighPhilosopher 4]

I feel like this would make ONLY good players though. Like, everyone would be fighting to help each other out, as crazy as that sounds. The douchy DayZ players are what makes the game challenging and fun. I think there should be small rewards for being "good" and small punishments for being "bad".

[ollox 38]

Really good idea but I would simplify it to injured/dead players in the area raises local zombie spawn rate, while dead zombies in the area lowers it. I don't see why sharing food would decrease the number of zombies.

This would be a good indicator of how dangerous a location is when approaching. Bandits wouldn't be able to camp one area because it would become overrun with zeds and people would start avoiding it.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Ollox

[IAmMarshicus 1]

I like this idea, it will add some life to DayZ.

[ollox 38]

I feel like this would make ONLY good players though. Like, everyone would be fighting to help each other out, as crazy as that sounds. The douchy DayZ players are what makes the game challenging and fun. I think there should be small rewards for being "good" and small punishments for being "bad".

This is not rewarding good players for the sake of it, it's a logical effect that having dead bodies lying around would attract more zombies and killing zombies would reduce their numbers. Does that make it harder for bandits? Yes, deal with it. I can't believe we have bandits complaining about this after all the shit they give others about being "care-bears". It's logical, useful and adds to the game.

[bbilbo1 149]

This would be easy to exploit.

Get a friend, give him X amount of blood transfusion to get your humanity up = less zombies and you essential could kill other players without any consequences.

Not really, As I explained in my post directly above yours.

Edited August 5, 2012 by bbilbo1

[decoman 45]

I like BazBake's suggestion of having bandits (blatent murderers) attract more zombies when approaching buildings. ^^ http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/55532-what-if-regions-zombie-spawn-was-linked-to-humanity/page__st__20#entry538905

Edited August 5, 2012 by Treehugger

[bbilbo1 149]

I feel like this would make ONLY good players though. Like, everyone would be fighting to help each other out, as crazy as that sounds.

This system wouldn't "make" anything. It simply enhances the decisions that players are already free to make.

The douchy DayZ players are what makes the game challenging and fun.

You are entitled to your opinion.

However, it's a bit over-reaching to say "being a Douche makes the game fun." Many folk would tend to disagree. But again, it's all opinon. Everyone individually decides what makes the game fun.

I think there should be small rewards for being "good" and small punishments for being "bad".

"Punishment" and "reward" are terms that would insinuating players are doing the "correct" or "incorrect" things. Not so... That's not what this proposal is about.

This is about enhancing the world to give consequences to all actions. That's a completely different thing from biased punishments and rewards.

[bbilbo1 149]

I like BazBake's suggestion of having bandits (blatent murderers) attract more zombies when approaching buildings. ^^

That's an obvious mechanic meant to punish one particular play-style. Rocket is against that.

[decoman 45]

That's an obvious mechanic meant to punish one particular play-style. Rocket is against that.

Very well. I do find the notion of "a play style" to be self reflexive and ultimately void of meaning with regard to game design, because of the paradox of there being game mechanics in a game like DayZ or Arma 2 in itself hardly being designed for certain play styles (except games like "Predator vs Aliens", where colonial marines fight predators and aliens, or the predator plays against the others, or the aliens play against the others). So a "play style" would as I see it come to mean some kind of sentiment that exsist at the side of the game mechanics, which is ok, but is imo best if substantiated by being somehow glorified or substantiated in some way. Because if a playing style were to understood solely to be a privilege of anti social behaviour, one might want to speculate why this is benefitial if directly conflicting with other "play styles". One sensible excuse imo would be to tailor game mechanics for play styles to some extent. This way, I attempted to debase the notion of "punishment" as being relevant to game design and for promoting the very idea that we were talking about. :)

Edit: Rewrote a sentence with regard to this notion of mine about there being a paradox. I guess a clarification is in order. The paradox would be that if there are game mechanics, that sort of excludes play styles coming into it as a part of design.

Edit2: I guess one could easily argue that by omitting something or not adding something, that could actually have been a real intention explicitly made for being relevant with regard to other parts of the game design (for a game).

Edited August 5, 2012 by Treehugger

[indominator 95]

very low humanity players dont get attacked by zombies?

[bbilbo1 149]

very low humanity players dont get attacked by zombies?

Um, no... Read my original post, and try again.

Not at all what I'm talking about.

[xximrtwoixx 104]

@Op I think your added details do a better job of explaining things. In the end I still don't like any "mechanic" that would encourage players to take gamey actions like injuring themselves or each other to influence some intangible counter that represents something that is, to me, completely disassiociated from the rest of the game world.

Also I was serious when I asked you if you believe players/groups defending areas of control is outside the spirit of this game?

Your mechanic directly punishes PVP, even after you say the total numbers being influenced are huge, pvp is still being counted and punished.

I do agree that the enviornement needs to be dynamic at some level, and that areas of control should be established by players and Z number should also be able to be reduced. I simply think that a player or groups direct actions should influence this for them real time rather than attempt to set up some serverwide initiative via counters. I want to be concerned about my friends, our saftey, our supplies, etc. not worry about a metaphysical counter, if the counter was actual Z's left in the area I may be interested though.

I think if you want a mechanic that enhances the world by allowing persistance to actions, ie clearing towns/safe zones then Z management and building are way more important than tracking humanity. The tangible things like z's, safe houses, loot, food, water are all things that could be expanded upon to give players both a more immersive and dynamic experiance. Also there is no motivation to take gamey actions in this type of system.

Also I think that without some semblance of immediate impact or positive gain players will have no motivation to take friendly actions, so they will continue to KOS and thus every area will become a hostile only area at max Z's. To me its alot of wasted effort to get exactly where we are now.

Edited August 6, 2012 by xXI Mr Two IXx

[hoik 415]

Great idea, I am on the same page as you in many ways. DayZ needs to get dynamic, no matter the end method chosen (IMO)! And by making the 'humanity' aspect of the game indirect to the player (rather than being told directly - you are good, you are bad...) it allows the players to evaluate other players actions and judge them accordingly. This is THE only way to implement a humanity system IMO - of course this needs other things like unique player identity so that players can be associated with their actions.

Also, I noted that in one post you were against the idea of player action effecting loot drops, why? To me this would be a very effective way to both give every player value to themselves as well as eachother (in lew of the actually caring about eachother as human beings) as then their lives will directly associated to loot, and its the thing that everyone values - if implemented in the right way it could also result in a effective supply and demand mechanic.

Please have a read of my first sig-link on how this could work, it directly tackles loot/life dynamics, I would value your opinion :)

[bbilbo1 149]

I've been out of town for a while, so it's been some time since I updated.

It's good to see (mostly) positive reactions to this proposal. Keep the feedback coming, folks.

[Bearded McGee 121]

Great idea.

I'm thinking, though, that only having one modifier of zombie spawn rates could be, er, not enough.

Another modifier could be the average zombie population ratio to the average number of zombies killed during the last 24 hours.

The more players work toward clearing up a town, the fewer zombies would spawn in the near future.

Making so that an organized cleansing of a small town could leave it relatively zed free. As long as there's a minimum modifier, never allowing Zed spawn rates to fall under a certain ratio, this could work.

[sixfeetgiantbunnyrabbit 40]

Someone please do this. Awesome idea. Would give a new dynamic to the whole map. Areas with high Zombie count would over time propably shift into safer places because people HAD to work together just to survive. And vice versa. And then vice versa again.

[hoik 415]

Great idea.

I'm thinking, though, that only having one modifier of zombie spawn rates could be, er, not enough.

Another modifier could be the average zombie population ratio to the average number of zombies killed during the last 24 hours.

The more players work toward clearing up a town, the fewer zombies would spawn in the near future.

Making so that an organized cleansing of a small town could leave it relatively zed free. As long as there's a minimum modifier, never allowing Zed spawn rates to fall under a certain ratio, this could work.

Yes, I like this idea as it is a very direct/ logical way of modifying zombie spawning - of course it is the balancing, like in the OP, which is the tricky part!

Personally, I think more generalised guages of behaviour (like this average zombie/kills ratio) would take the attention away from specific actions (like suggested in the OP) effecting the game-world and redirect it towards the overall conduct of a player. I realise this is the intention of the OP, but I think it is because there are such specific actions relating to outcomes that there is the feeling that this idea can be easily exploited.

So, for example, what if co-operation/'good' behaviour/humanity was guaged by the average death by PvP? If this was compared against no. of players (ever) it would give a good over all indication of co-operative behaviour without a focus on specific actions.

The average life expectancy of players could also be used as possible guage, as it indicates survivalist behaviour.

So, what I would like to see is the exact outcomes you propose, just built on a more generalised set of data.