Item spawns rarer on low pop servers, rarer by day than night.

[kander 80]

Ran a quick search as ever, nothing obvious on this issue.. so...

The more I play this mod, the more two things have become apparent which negatively impact the enjoyment (and realism) of the game. I think they can both be fixed with an adjustment of the spawn % probabilities. EDIT: I mean the probability of certain higher-value items showing up, rather than the actual amount of loot available.

1.) It is far, FAR too easy to gear up on an empty or nearly empty server. Spawn in Elektro and you can, with a bit of luck, get an Alice pack and survival gear from the supermarket, military grade hardware from the fire station and a hatful of medical supplies from the hospital in no more than 15 mins. You don't even need to stop to kill zeds if you hit the places up in the right order. This sort of success would take much longer on a higher pop server, when you have more PKers and more competition for loot. Players can then hop to more populous servers and have the advantage over those who have had to work harder and longer for their gear.

2.) It is very depressing to see folk server hop as soon as night falls. People should be encouraged to play the game at night/discouraged from only joining daytime servers. Reduced zed aggro range at night is not enough of an incentive IMO.

Both of these problems could be fixed with a scaling of the loot spawn %s.

Something like, the baseline for 100% (as current) item spawn probability should be when the server is 75% full. If there is more competition, the loot spawn percentage increases to make it more profitable for everyone to go with the extra risk. As the server empties, so the likelihood of useful gear spawning decreases, down to perhaps a level around 30% of standard loot % when the server is (or near) empty. You can still get cool stuff in an empty server (I'm not proposing a limit in this respect) it's just much rarer. This is sort of realistic also as the running around in an environment with lots of survivors gives the impression of a higher population 'pre-infection', the higher the population, the more useful stuff in a settlement.

Regards the day/night issue: similar system really. If you are willing to put up with the dark, the added risks etc you are more likely to get 'cool stuff'. Something like a 20% boost when it is dark.

Both of these should help keep server populations fairly stable and also make the whole experience a little fairer.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts, Zed lovers.

Edited August 16, 2012 by kander

[twitch13 49]

this is actually a really, really good idea. a huge part of the terror of zombies is running into them at night and a huge part of DayZ is the tension and excitement that comes from running into other players. but a player can currently bypass both of these aspects and gear themselves up 100 times more easily by playing on empty daytime servers, and then have an edge on those who are gearing up while fully experiencing the challenges of DayZ.

many beans to you.

[SumoS 168]

Good ideas but frankly a percentage chance is still a percentage chance. There has been a major flux of players in the recent patches due to hackers and glitches and this has left some servers barren.

Night time could be your best defense as well. You are less visible but the other counter is you can barely see. In the beginning I hated the dark, now it is just another ally in some situations.

Bear in mind that some people want to play lone wolf as well on empty servers. Your point could make the game more challenging for them which could certainly increase their enjoyment.

The idea in its current form could use some work but kudos to you for starting it off. Have some beans :)

[Bobcomss 189]

Not sure what to think of this, I do agree with the loot being cut down in general, but reading through it you say more people should = more/better loot...surely that should be the opposite way round?

Not sure how the loot spawns 100% works but I know its pretty random and like you said 15min from new spawn you can get geared up but other times you can be 1-2 hours without so much as a hatchet... in my opinion I think the loot spawn should be decreased in general by 75-50% over all servers no matter of population.

Who knows, guess will have to wait until stand-a-lone :)

Nice thoughts and a decent read :)

AJ

[twitch13 49]

OP did specify that he meant the percentage chance for higher quality loot should be increased/decreased, not the actual amount of loot. i agree that making loot more plentiful in general on high population servers would be unrealistic. i think loot will remain somewhat more scarce on high population servers simply because there are more people looting. but i would welcome a change that increased my chances of say, finding a CZ or an Enfield in a barn rather than the standard 5 hatchets, at the cost of increased risk of being shot by others interested in looting it.

Edited August 16, 2012 by twitch13

[kander 80]

Not sure what to think of this, I do agree with the loot being cut down in general, but reading through it you say more people should = more/better loot...surely that should be the opposite way round?

Not sure how the loot spawns 100% works but I know its pretty random and like you said 15min from new spawn you can get geared up but other times you can be 1-2 hours without so much as a hatchet... in my opinion I think the loot spawn should be decreased in general by 75-50% over all servers no matter of population.

Who knows, guess will have to wait until stand-a-lone :)

Nice thoughts and a decent read :)

AJ

Aw shucks, thanks guys for the beans!

Bobcomss, I completely agree that loot should be massively scaled down - particularly military weapons and particularly sniper rifles. I actually get the impression that if this had not used the Arma II engine, Rocket would not have included so many military grade weapons.

The reason I suggest that better loot should be available on more populated servers is that it's much harder to come across. Another player may have picked it all up in a given location or you may simply have been murdered half a dozen times before you even get a chance to get anything good. On an empty server you can simply run to NW airfield, shake the zed train and then have the pick of the place with no competition and without having to look over your shoulder.

What I mean by 100% is that my understanding of the loot system from reading the forums and looking at loot maps is this, using the example of a residential spawn:

Item spawns. It will spawn as trash - except there is for example a 5% chance it will not be trash but a bandage, 3% chance heatpack, 1% Winchester, etc. etc. This all adds up to maybe 60% trash, 40% 'something else'. These figures are estimated/invented, but they represent the '100% DayZ baseline'

With my proposal, the probabilities at empty server are, just as an example;

item spawns: it will be trash except it will be 1% likely to be a bandage, 0.6% heatpack, 0.2% Winchester. etc. etc. Totals 92% trash, 8% useful stuff

Hope this makes as much sense to you lot as it does in my head!

Cheers, K

Edited August 16, 2012 by kander

[SumoS 168]

Not sure what to think of this, I do agree with the loot being cut down in general, but reading through it you say more people should = more/better loot...surely that should be the opposite way round?

Not sure how the loot spawns 100% works but I know its pretty random and like you said 15min from new spawn you can get geared up but other times you can be 1-2 hours without so much as a hatchet... in my opinion I think the loot spawn should be decreased in general by 75-50% over all servers no matter of population.

Who knows, guess will have to wait until stand-a-lone :)

Nice thoughts and a decent read :)

AJ

Nice input AJ. I too feel like loot is too common.

In the apocalypse I would expect their to be a major shortage of everything, except zombies to shoot. The main problem is this is a shooter. Or people think it is at least. So a shortage of ammo would be a major problem.

Personally, I would see a shortage of ammo and decent weapons as a much more engrossing experience. Where if you find any weapon upgrade it would be a big deal. Instead of people creating amazing load-outs. Ultimately this has been made redundant due to duping anyway but once that has been dealt with it would be great to see a reduction in items overall. reducing rarer items according to the server population would be an interesting idea as well.

[Fector 29]

I'm kind of torn on this.

Although it is sound reasoning, from a 'pvp balance' kinda pov, in my opinion, players should have the freedom to choose their playstyle without getting penalized for it.

This different playstyle might get interpreted as pve vs pvp - and as such, not in the intentions of the game. But favoring a certain level of population might also be an individual player's way of customizing the game to his or her respective vision of a zombie apocalypse.

In the current state of the game, it seems as if there was an unusual high amount of snipers, camping the cities. Those players allegedly choose to do so, because they have nothing else to do, aka boredom. And even if it's not my personal cup of tea (might as well be, because I'm still new, though), I couldn't blame them.

This boredom is a known problem ofc and is going to be adressed, partly by giving players the means of creating things (crafting, base building) in standalone.

My guess would be, that the current state of affairs (e.g. players avoiding highpop servers) will change drastically anyway. Not by penalizing players on lowpop servers, but by giving the players incentives and means to cooperate or to engage in pvp (not the onesided kind).

People avoiding highpop servers, no incentives to cooperate (trusty friends aside), the fear of getting spawn camped near the cities, the lack of goals/content in endgame (e.g. player created content, like bases) are obviously all linked together and I am quite confident that this will get fixed by the introduction of new features and content in standalone.

It is very likely, though, that we'll see different problems in the future, but we'll be here to spot and fix those as well, I guess. That being said, I do not think that the 'problem' of players choosing lowpop servers isn't really a problem imho and even if it was, it doesn't have to be adressed specifically, as it'll sort itself out in the above described way.

On the topic of server hopping and avoiding night time, I have a similar prediction and opinion. With the duping problem we are experiencing, nvgs are abundant. Starting out on a night server, though, running through the dark with the tiny beam of your flashlight and an approximate 30 people can see everything, clear as day...and they're hunting you, because they have nothing else to do...is not everyone's favorite playstyle. Some might enjoy the thrill of it anyway and with the freedom to choose the timezone of your server, everyone can find the right server for his or her playstyle.

At the moment, the only thing that encourages players to stick to a specific server are tents and vehicles, aka camps aka what is announced to get expanded on and (hopefully will) transform to be a fully fleshed out endgame content in the standalone. The more players will be able to shape their environment, the more faithful to the server they will be (think minecraft maybe).

I'd personally like to see another feature, though I am not too sure whether it would be technically feasible or even wanted at all. Bigger maps (including some way to allow people to group up easy without being exploitable as quick travel - but that's another story) and higher player caps - some middle ground between mmo style and the current fps style. Put this together with base building and possible other minecraftian elements and I'd not only be one happy zombie, but players would be forced-by-incentive to play on a chosen home server (ofc keeping the ability to switch servers, unlike mmos).

But again, this might be neither wanted, nor technically feasible.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Fector

[kander 80]

I'm kind of torn on this.

Although it is sound reasoning, from a 'pvp balance' kinda pov, in my opinion, players should have the freedom to choose their playstyle without getting penalized for it.

This different playstyle might get interpreted as pve vs pvp - and as such, not in the intentions of the game. But favoring a certain level of population might also be an individual player's way of customizing the game to his or her respective vision of a zombie apocalypse.

In the current state of the game, it seems as if there was an unusual high amount of snipers, camping the cities. Those players allegedly choose to do so, because they have nothing else to do, aka boredom. And even if it's not my personal cup of tea (might as well be, because I'm still new, though), I couldn't blame them.

This boredom is a known problem ofc and is going to be adressed, partly by giving players the means of creating things (crafting, base building) in standalone.

My guess would be, that the current state of affairs (e.g. players avoiding highpop servers) will change drastically anyway. Not by penalizing players on lowpop servers, but by giving the players incentives and means to cooperate or to engage in pvp (not the onesided kind).

People avoiding highpop servers, no incentives to cooperate (trusty friends aside), the fear of getting spawn camped near the cities, the lack of goals/content in endgame (e.g. player created content, like bases) are obviously all linked together and I am quite confident that this will get fixed by the introduction of new features and content in standalone.

It is very likely, though, that we'll see different problems in the future, but we'll be here to spot and fix those as well, I guess. That being said, I do not think that the 'problem' of players choosing lowpop servers isn't really a problem imho and even if it was, it doesn't have to be adressed specifically, as it'll sort itself out in the above described way.

On the topic of server hopping and avoiding night time, I have a similar prediction and opinion. With the duping problem we are experiencing, nvgs are abundant. Starting out on a night server, though, running through the dark with the tiny beam of your flashlight and an approximate 30 people can see everything, clear as day...and they're hunting you, because they have nothing else to do...is not everyone's favorite playstyle. Some might enjoy the thrill of it anyway and with the freedom to choose the timezone of your server, everyone can find the right server for his or her playstyle.

At the moment, the only thing that encourages players to stick to a specific server are tents and vehicles, aka camps aka what is announced to get expanded on and (hopefully will) transform to be a fully fleshed out endgame content in the standalone. The more players will be able to shape their environment, the more faithful to the server they will be (think minecraft maybe).

I'd personally like to see another feature, though I am not too sure whether it would be technically feasible or even wanted at all. Bigger maps (including some way to allow people to group up easy without being exploitable as quick travel - but that's another story) and higher player caps - some middle ground between mmo style and the current fps style. Put this together with base building and possible other minecraftian elements and I'd not only be one happy zombie, but players would be forced-by-incentive to play on a chosen home server (ofc keeping the ability to switch servers, unlike mmos).

But again, this might be neither wanted, nor technically feasible.

Like your thinking, esp about a much bigger map idea. Re the choosing your own play style, I don't think it would suffer for my idea, for example - if you play as a solo woodland survivor you don't need all the military hardware. For clearing zeds or scaring off a fellow survivor who stumbles across your patch a Winchester or CZ 550 would be more than enough. If you get bored with this playstyle and want to 'step up' to potential PVP on another server it will feel like a true challenge.

[Fector 29]

Well, there probably are as many zombie apocalypse styles as there are people phantasizing about them. While some might prefer slow'n'shambling (e.g. me), others do prefer the runners (e.g. Rocket...damn :(...), some might see themselves in a desolated environment, spending whole days without directly meeting another human being, others want to see themselves in a tight spot, crowded with other survivors lurking behind every corner.

It really depends on the map size, the player cap/server structure, the incentives for player interaction of both the friendly and the hostile variety and the overall situation in standalone, I guess.

My point more or less is, that your idea might be a viable approach to the current situation, but probably won't be needed anymore, when standalone begins. In the meantime, with all the bugs, glitches and various issues, I'd say - let it be as it is in that respect, so people are able to avoid the aspects, they dislike the most.

edit: I agree with most gear not being needed, really. But again, with the current duping situation, it is hard to assess how it would really play out, if everything was going as intended.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Fector

[kander 80]

Gotcha.. thanks for the clarification