Life/Death Calculator = intrinsic value/culture

[KnT47r 51]

Hoik is awesome so he get's a picture!

Great idea brohan, +1 from me

@HDFX - I don't think you've thought about it hard enough. If one was to kill (and statistically die) heaps, there'd be lots of shitty loot. If one was to survive heaps, there'd be shitty amounts of really good loot.

[hoik 415]

haha thanks KnT47r, great pic.

I would like to know if you (the readers) think it would be worth my effort to come up with more concrete math on this - i see people do generally like this idea but with no real input from the dev community (there seems to be very little in general if im frank about it) I dont want to waste my time :) .

[KnT47r 51]

Honestly, the idea is what the devs need, the numbers are just things to be tweaked as time goes on

Without having the official numbers that are stored on the hive there is really little point in working out the math at this stage.

[beagle bond 0]

This is a very good idea, this would be very useful in combating player disconnecting as well perhaps because if you die and your a good player your gonna find better loot to start out with instead of starting back at square 1 which can be boring. What about seasons for it to where every 3 months or so it resets to allow bad players the option of turning themselves around and to prevent permanent top dogs.

[hoik 415]

This is a very good idea' date=' this would be very useful in combating player disconnecting as well perhaps because if you die and your a good player your gonna find better loot to start out with instead of starting back at square 1 which can be boring. What about seasons for it to where every 3 months or so it resets to allow bad players the option of turning themselves around and to prevent permanent top dogs.

[/quote']

Well beagle bond (and you KnT47r :P ) you should checkout my sig-link 'end game to end games', BUT imagine it implemented over the top of this (dynamic loot) idea...

The idea is for the players to control the fate of the server - but it involves some borderline child-killing and is far from fleshed out. I would HIGHLY apreciate any constructive criticism that may evolve this (other) under developed idea into a viable way for players to destroy or save humanity!

[w_epley 37]

Problem with this is, what if you kill a player in self defense? You get shit equipment because some newb tried to hatchet you to death?

[Davidson 0]

Here is an example:

Lowest End of Scale - (Very High Death Count/Low Average Lifespan)

- Loot Density = 100%

- High Quality Loot Chance = 2%

Highest End of Scale - (Very Low Death Count/High Average Lifespan)

- Loot Density = 2%

- High Quality Loot Chance = 100%

Depends on the definition what is high quality.

If everyone is friendly and just shitting in the woods we all will have the chance to finde rocket launchers, but no one will find food and drink? So we all die by starvation because we are to mercifull.

What about the essentials u need to survive, like a hatchet or a box of matches? Are they high or low quality?

Aren't bandages important enough to drop when i can have a javelin in case that no one shoot each other? So why do you need the javelin then?

I guess just random loot spawn is much better. Btw tin cans are cool to distract Z's and essential, will i have a high quality tin can in gold then? :D

[hoik 415]

Here is an example:

Lowest End of Scale - (Very High Death Count/Low Average Lifespan)

- Loot Density = 100%

- High Quality Loot Chance = 2%

Highest End of Scale - (Very Low Death Count/High Average Lifespan)

- Loot Density = 2%

- High Quality Loot Chance = 100%

Depends on the definition what is high quality.

If everyone is friendly and just shitting in the woods we all will have the chance to finde rocket launchers' date=' but no one will find food and drink? So we all die by starvation because we are to mercifull.

What about the essentials u need to survive, like a hatchet or a box of matches? Are they high or low quality?

Aren't bandages important enough to drop when i can have a javelin in case that no one shoot each other? So why do you need the javelin then?

[/quote']

Well I define high quality loot as military style weapons NVGs GPS etc. Food as you say are 'essentials' but in my given example they would be lumped in with 'low quality' loot.

I guess what I mean to say is if its the NAMING of the variables in the example is what disuades you from this idea, replace them with something else (eg: rare quality loot) - Its was just a way to show you how this system could work.

I guess just random loot spawn is much better. Btw tin cans are cool to distract Z's and essential' date=' will i have a high quality tin can in gold then? :D

[/quote']

Better or easier?? I think you're main argument is about the ballancing of the game - really the value of items could only be accuratly gauged by play testing the idea and then shifting items from 'high' to 'low' variables accordingly (IMO).

By 'quality' of an item I mean its rarity not its physical properties - sorry no gold tin can :(

As for the dying in the wood scenario - If you would just complacently die in the woods with your buddies and your rocket launchers your better than most!! This extreme end is supposed to result in chaos and PvP, I think it would be fun!!

---

Problem with this is' date=' what if you kill a player in self defense? You get shit equipment because some newb tried to hatchet you to death?

[/quote']

No, but it reduces the chances of good loot 'droping'. As DayZ is ATM I agree the system might not effect the game world as intended - the main thing it would need is a better univerasl/intuitive communications system and possibly a well implemented surrender mechanic.

[hoik 415]

Just a shameless self bump - I WANT SOME BEANS!!! (Also, I want my jesus pic back... :( )

[xximrtwoixx 104]

i dont lke this idea tbh because if you have camping snipers whop kill everyone they will get all the loot

Dude is right, think about it. Majority is friendly and survival time grows, better loot starts dropping. Those that remain aggresive and are kiling will obtain more loot and likely better loot than thos that don't. Sounds like the system now actually....

This will always be the case, cheaters win IRL and camping snipers win more....

@OP

Idea is novel, I especially like that the mechanic self levels itself.

You failed to consider the fact that in any system that generates loot and has no cap nothing is rare only *Harder* to get. It may take you an hour farming or server hopping, but you can get it just as easily as you could any other item. This isn't true scarcity and because of this people/actions will not be able to be driven off of loot, because its all infinite even without hacks. Loot needs to be capped somehow IMO, then a system like yours coulg help add value to other people, but I really don't think many people think that far ahead.

[hoik 415]

Thanks for the reply.

I see the point in your scenario, and I think I should first point out that this idea isn't meant to be a deterant for PvP, elitism or any other naturally occuring scenarios in DayZ - rather all its trying to do is compell the players to think about the larger ramifications of their actions (Haha, yeah, I know how that sounds).

But if the system was implemented well, I think that it could be so subtle, as well as pervasive, that having to think about how you are effecting the game world will be a given - to question it would be as silly as asking why dont you just jump from the sixth floor window to the ground, as its the quickest way down...

Just a couple of questions for you:

If it will always be the case that cheaters win etc. then why is this a issue with this concept? Cheating is a byproduct of rules, and as my idea really imposses no black and white restrictions/rules on players behaviours, I dont see how 'cheating' is an issue (aside from hacking of course)??

Fairness (IMO) has no role to play in a world like DayZ, unless we the players decide that it should. So IMO there needs to be tools that helps players do this. Identifying players as individuals so they can be associated with their actions, as well as better ways of communication would be a good start. And there are many very good threads out there that do try to directly takle these issues.

Also I don't quite understand your distinction between something being 'rare' and 'harder to find'? IMO if you ballance the percentages for items drops correctly you could make it so that special items are so scares as to be mythical!!

Also your point about 'true' scarectiy - would that mean your in favour of a server having a set amount of resources, then you play the server till everthings consumed and start again?? Could be fun!! But would making resouces finite really lessen a players focus on them or make item 'farming' more prevelent?

EDIT:

I had a read of your excellent post on 'Dynamic Hard Loot Drops' (here for those that are interested: http://dayzmod.com/f...hard-loot-caps/ ) and see you have addressed these two questions there. I say hell yes to item caps!

To conclude, I realise my idea isn't going to dramaticly change the dynamics of player interactions (which I think is its strong point) - but what I think it can do is give players a common understanding of how their actions effect themselves as well as other players around them - It make them aware that thier actions have concequences, even if they may not be imediate. IMO this is vital to build any kind of 'realism' in DayZ as we have to care about others even if it is at the most basic level - other wise its is simply suicide (Players selfishness(eg, execessive PvP) bringing the end of humanity, would be a awsome game mechanic IMO).

Edited September 17, 2012 by Hoik

[KnT47r 51]

I want my jesus pic back...

Ask and thou shalt receive

Edited August 29, 2012 by KnT47r

[hoik 415]

Hey, back at you jesus!.

Also, did a bit of a edit and will soon add zombie spawning and hordes to the mix!

Also, how do you edit the title :blush: ?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Hoik

[dubghall 36]

This idea is fucking brilliant and is a much more well-thought out and developed version of some amorphous concepts I've been tossing around with friends.  I will checkout the dynamic zombie spawning system switch provided too.

I really hope this concept or something like it catches on - it is evolutionary, adaptive, and doesnt force players any one direction.  For example if you want to KOS... you ruin gear and you decrease the capacities of the environment to resupply you with gear.  Awesome - no one can whine about being punished for KOSing,... because THEY would be punishing themselves in a completely realistic long term way.  It would be like them complaining that they have to eat/drink or they starve "WAH I dont want to be limited".

Great job on this thread - i will support the idea as long as it is around!

One little suggestion though (i dont have alot of time right now so this might be addressed elsewhere or in an above comment, if so, i apologize)...  For this to work you MUST have a system that encourages players to populate the same servers repetitively.  If they can just dodge the ones they've contributed to ruining then the only thing that will happen is that servers will go down or be reset once "ruined".  (note that the concept of ruining a server could be pushing it too far in either direction on the loot table adjustment, depending on the cultural goals of that server).  When the server "doesnt look like it should" it will be abandoned or reset - and a large part of your brilliant idea gets dodged.

I understand that this should leave some servers that are type A (long lifespans, high quality tech, little food) and some that are type B (opposite), and that this is AWESOME... but if the culture of the GAME at large is bent too far in one of the directions then all existing servers of Type "whatever" could be deemed unplayable.  You and I both know that server titles would be modified to reflect the state of loot in order to attract playerbase, etc.  So a hopper wouldnt have to chip in for long to find out the loot table and server culture - it would likely be in the title of the server in leetspeak shorthand.

If however you find ways to reward people for sticking to their "home" server, without penalizing them too much if they had to "move". THEN this idea would be free to impact players in an incredibly dynamic and rich way.  It would also solve alot of other incidental troubles we've all noticed (server hopping, difficulties meeting people in game, lack of community or social interaction beyond KOS).

PS - for KOS trolls - I AM NOT KOS UNFRIENDLY, and will fight to maintain ideas that keep KOS a valuable option for the game - The one stated by HOIK btw is ONE of these ideas!  When a server is too "fat" and there is not enough food.. you will need to KOS the shit out of it. Support it!

PSS - Also, I think this would fit really nicely with systems that adaptively reward social support (whether between bandits or survivors)... for more info see a post on Mental Constitution I made here:

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/162490-mental-constitution-socialsurvival-mechanic-for-immersion/page-2#entry1643206

Edited January 8, 2014 by spcmonkey

[Chaingunfighter 917]

This in of itself would actually increase the problem of server-hopping, as it would be a lot easier for a group of people to go onto an empty server and kit up on 'exotic' loot. Even though it would be rarer, the loot they would find is better and if they were patient enough it could easily make a huge exploit, not to mention how this would affect server stability. It might work to prevent KoS to some degree, but in all honesty just breaks the realism and doesn't solve all of the problems it intends to.

[hoik 415]

One little suggestion though (i dont have alot of time right now so this might be addressed elsewhere or in an above comment, if so, i apologize)...  For this to work you MUST have a system that encourages players to populate the same servers repetitively.  If they can just dodge the ones they've contributed to ruining then the only thing that will happen is that servers will go down or be reset once "ruined".  (note that the concept of ruining a server could be pushing it too far in either direction on the loot table adjustment, depending on the cultural goals of that server).  When the server "doesnt look like it should" it will be abandoned or reset - and a large part of your brilliant idea gets dodged.

If however you find ways to reward people for sticking to their "home" server, without penalizing them too much if they had to "move". THEN this idea would be free to impact players in an incredibly dynamic and rich way.  It would also solve alot of other incidental troubles we've all noticed (server hopping, difficulties meeting people in game, lack of community or social interaction beyond KOS).

 

Yes having a consistent player base is a key part of this idea - I'm not sure but I think this idea (which is a further iteration of the life/death calculator, or what I prefer to call global causality) could help in balancing out the influence of nomadic players - http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/105714-global-causality-within-the-scope-of-dayz/

 

It is a major issue with the idea, but I don't think it is detrimental to it.

 

PS - for KOS trolls - I AM NOT KOS UNFRIENDLY, and will fight to maintain ideas that keep KOS a valuable option for the game - The one stated by HOIK btw is ONE of these ideas!  When a server is too "fat" and there is not enough food.. you will need to KOS the shit out of it. Support it!

 

To embrace all types of play is at the core of the idea - all I could really hope is that it made some people think for half a second before pulling the trigger...

 

 

This in of itself would actually increase the problem of server-hopping, as it would be a lot easier for a group of people to go onto an empty server and kit up on 'exotic' loot. Even though it would be rarer, the loot they would find is better and if they were patient enough it could easily make a huge exploit, not to mention how this would affect server stability. It might work to prevent KoS to some degree, but in all honesty just breaks the realism and doesn't solve all of the problems it intends to.

 

Well the idea was never aimed at stopping people from server hoping, it is aimed at giving the player value - i can understand that by 'cultivating' a empty server you are in essence preforming a 'anti-social' act (in the context of this idea) you are skirting the system and are able to influence other servers without feeling the impact of your actions - this is actually quite detrimental to my idea :( . I think we need to take into account the abilities of the new loot drop system in SA. I believe they are capable of dictating the number of any particular Item that can be spawned across all servers. To me this implies that it will actually be possible to implement this idea not on a server by server basis but as a truly global scale. So rather than our actions influencing just the single server, they effect everyone everywhere and there is not escape!!

 

The statement of 'breaking realism' I don't quite understand. This idea simply takes into account that the player is living multiple lives, over and over again, in a relatively small area. It tries to lend the game and the player a slightly larger perspective of their role within this world over time - If anything I feel it tries to add realism to a quite unrealistic situation.

 

----

 

The main problem I wanted to solve was to give the players a definitive 'gamey' value that is intrinsic to themselves - I think this idea achieves this. All the other impacts this idea may or may not have on how people play the game are purely theoretical.

[Wolfguarde 108]

Very well thought out idea, and I like the concept of it.

However, I don't see it following the theory if it were actually implemented in the game. I've seen something similar before, can't remember where (may have been Aion)... but the basic idea was that PvP intensity would ebb and flow with each faction's control of a field, which would result in a steady resource distribution from the nodes on that field. In theory, it's a good system - faction 1 hits the field hard, captures everything, the top 100 contributors to the capture are rewarded with currency and items needed to obtain rewards. Faction 2, lacking rewards and presumably having a higher interest in obtaining them due to the lack of revenue, group up and overwhelm the other side by force of numbers, and the balance swings the other way. In practice, each side was so brutally determined to dominate the field that once they held most or all of it, they never lost anything - they became so good at keeping the advantage that they never lost it. It universally broke the morale of most of the players on each server, even after they implemented a balancing mechanic - which simply resulted in a certain balance being kept on the field, with a coalition between both factions making sure nobody took anything they weren't supposed to.

I bring this up because while the mechanic and balancing is different, I suspect something very similar will happen if this is implemented - you'll get people so hellbent on dominating the PvP field once their 'faction' (clan, group, whatever) is geared up that they'll just rip into anyone who challenges them - or simply keep killing until any chance of good gear spawning is minimal, thus maintaining a severe advantage and total dominance in any conflict on their server. They can duck in and out of other servers they've tabbed for good gear distribution - they can have a scout play one for a few days, mark its rough loot percentages, move on - without loosening their grip on their base server, effectively shutting it down and probably killing it in the long term. As players begin moving away from elitist/hardcore-dominated servers, those servers will die, and eventually you'd wind up with a small selection of servers dominated by a clan or two each who use them to deathmatch. With an organised group doing this kind of thing it can become incredibly difficult to dislodge them, as they're usually co-ordinated enough to reclaim the gear of dead comrades and keep hold of it. Wiping the whole group becomes steadily more difficult the better their gear gets, and trying to do so in a server whose gear distribution they've deliberately skewed for their benefit would be next to impossible without having a fully geared group of your own - which runs the risk of giving them more gear if you lose.

I hate being brutal about this, but I would hate to see DayZ fall apart the way Aion did because of a mechanic like this. It is a good idea, but unfortunately there are a good number of people who like to exploit this sort of mechanic simply for the sake of bolstering their ego. They would slaughter the game balance wherever they went and make a massive chunk of the available hives unplayable if this was a vanilla mechanic.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Wolfguarde

[hoik 415]

Wow, quite a pessimistic outlook - but also a valid one :). All I can really say is that, yes, I guess that is a possible outcome. My only retort would be that in DayZ there is really no 'win' condition. Yes players will be able to manipulate servers and influence other players in one way or another (this is after all the purpose of the idea, and from which all the 'social' aspects can be derived), it may be good for some and bad for others but I don't think it could be definitively said that one style of play (or 'loot cycle state') is actually better than another. I think that as an individual, playing amongst these clans/factions, it would still be enjoyable and playable. But I guess I'm just being an optimist :P.

 

I think this might feed into what I think is the Achilles heel of this idea and that is how to handle the problem that persistent characters across multiple, independent servers presents to the individual 'economy's' which will evolve. Like I mention in my previous post, what if rather than players actions influencing loot on a server by server basis, loot (across all servers) was influenced by the actions of all the players across all servers?

 

Thoughts?

Edited January 11, 2014 by Hoik

[XA3 17]

Awesome thread, read most of it(the long posts)

Dont understand the problem with server hopping though, is it hard to make servers not, connected like they are now?

The opposite of a hive i mean

Edited January 14, 2014 by XA3

[TYS 25]

How about the players stats follow the player. As soon as they enter the server, their stats influence the server and change loot etc immediately! Their stats will always carry over from the previous server. As soon as they leave a server the scales will tip a bit to compensate. So it doesn't matter which server they are on, they could commit one murder on 20 different servers, when they go on the 21st server they will still have "20 murders", thus influencing the loot. Works in the other direction. There is no escape for your actions!

 

Could be tied in with this:

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/101579-perma-identity-nickname-is-permanent-nickname-as-face-cover-face-conceal-nickname/

Edited January 14, 2014 by TYS

[stophboy7 1]

This is an excellent idea!  The issue of server hopping needs to be solved, and can easily be solved, in another way:  Character creation is by server, as in most MMOs.  The only caveat for Day Z is that each server would only allow a player to have one character on it at any given time.

[Wolfguarde 108]

Wow, quite a pessimistic outlook - but also a valid one :). All I can really say is that, yes, I guess that is a possible outcome. My only retort would be that in DayZ there is really no 'win' condition. Yes players will be able to manipulate servers and influence other players in one way or another (this is after all the purpose of the idea, and from which all the 'social' aspects can be derived), it may be good for some and bad for others but I don't think it could be definitively said that one style of play (or 'loot cycle state') is actually better than another. I think that as an individual, playing amongst these clans/factions, it would still be enjoyable and playable. But I guess I'm just being an optimist :P.

 

I think this might feed into what I think is the Achilles heel of this idea and that is how to handle the problem that persistent characters across multiple, independent servers presents to the individual 'economy's' which will evolve. Like I mention in my previous post, what if rather than players actions influencing loot on a server by server basis, loot (across all servers) was influenced by the actions of all the players across all servers?

 

Thoughts?

 

It's an idea. I think you would find that private hives would sooner or later badger for private loot tables though, although that's not really relevant to either of our points.

Having said that, I can see the same thing happening on a wider scale, albeit with a shallower impact, with full coverage. The most skilled shooters stack up on guns and other gear in the early stages, then go absolutely nuts and engage in wholesale slaughter for weeks/months at a time. The balance would swing slightly back toward average every so often - when gear gets too scarce and they leave off to go play elsewhere - but I honestly don't think it would ever move toward the loot-heavy side of the balance.

This is just my opinion, mind. As you said, I am somewhat pessimistic in my outlook. I do, however, feel that I know for the most part how PvP players will treat their games - or servers - as a general rule. If I could actually hit with more than one shot in ten, it's probably a problem I would contribute to. I play games like this mostly for PvP, rather than for the rest of what the content offers.

 

How about the players stats follow the player. As soon as they enter the server, their stats influence the server and change loot etc immediately! Their stats will always carry over from the previous server. As soon as they leave a server the scales will tip a bit to compensate. So it doesn't matter which server they are on, they could commit one murder on 20 different servers, when they go on the 21st server they will still have "20 murders", thus influencing the loot. Works in the other direction. There is no escape for your actions!

 

Could be tied in with this:

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/101579-perma-identity-nickname-is-permanent-nickname-as-face-cover-face-conceal-nickname/

 

You could use that to abuse servers, though, I think. Kind of like DDOSing a server... you and your clan go on a server whose owner/population you don't like and just don't log in anywhere else, making it your 'home' server and permanently skewing its loot tables toward scarcity for however long your attack goes on for. I can see a lot of people doing this when they decide they and their group want to leave the game, or simply because the owner bans one or two of their members, justified or otherwise. People are vindictive on the internet.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Wolfguarde

[TYS 25]

Hmm I see. Will have to ponder this. 

[hoik 415]

Seeing as the 24 hour server restarts testing on experimental, and the conversation it has generated around loot distribution/ scarcity etc, I thought it a good time to electrify the neck-bolts on this old thread. I think it'ed be great to get some fresh perspectives on it!

 

For me loot is the core of this game, everything derives from how it is handled - with some creative management of the loot I think you could generate a genuinely unique game play experience in Dayz.