[Community Poll] Should Inventory & Backpack be shared between maps?

Should Inventory & Backpack be shared between maps?

  • Total voters
    31
Doc

Doc

Valued Member!
The developers are currently debating an idea which could change the way your server(s) run. Being a community mod, we would like to hear your opinion.

A current idea is to share each of the players inventory/backpack between all the servers that use your hive. For example, if you hosted both a Chernarus and Lingor 2.0 server, character Inventory/backpack would remain the same between the two maps/servers but the Worldspace (ie location) of the player would remain unique to each map.

An example. You can log out of the coast on Lingor 2.0 and log in on Chernarus, loot the barracks for an M9SD and a British assault pack. Now if you logged onto Lingor 2.0, you would still have your gear from Chernarus.

Pro's - it would give a one unified server experience on a server that housed multiple instances with different worls (ie army going from one TOO to another)
Con's - it could promote loot jumping


Community Package - community vote :) You can post opinions and suggestions on this below.
 
I have a conditional Yes -- It should be optional (I don't imagine it would be hard for an admin to not connect the instances, but I just wanted to put that out there).

And it would be very very awesome if it could require players to be in certain locations before map hoping. Gotta drive a boat into a certain zone offshore, for instance. I know that ups the complexity, but I feel you would need to add some difficulty in transporting that loot from server to server to make it justifiable.
 
That's the point with it. We are currently discussing about a generalized database schema and we can only support either or. If that would be in, we would have another table, if not we wouldn't have that.
 
I like the idea, but not sure if it would work.

How would it handle for example, I go from my server with custom weapons, etc. to another server where those weapons may be banned.
 
Crosire said:
That's the point with it. We are currently discussing about a generalized database schema and we can only support either or. If that would be in, we would have another table, if not we wouldn't have that.
Click to expand...
If you're sure you can't have both options, then I'd say don't do it. That's my personal opinion, I won't be using it if this was the case.
 
gdscei said:
If you're sure you can't have both options, then I'd say don't do it. That's my personal opinion, I won't be using it if this was the case.
Click to expand...

I kinda read that too, but I don't see how they can say you can't skip this feature. I probably shouldn't have even mentioned the "make it optional" thought since it certainly would be optional -- If you want linked-inventory servers, they'll be seperate instances or worlds (or whatever terminology they use) on the same database. If you want a server that isn't sharing inventory with the others, you make it on a 2nd database. Nothing that happens in hiveext can change the fact that if you point it to an isolated database, it won't see your other instances.
 
YES YES YES AND YES!!!!!

inventory should be transferable but player position should stay on the specific map. If you die your position resets aswell.
 
As I understand it is that the one server has more than one map? Not about to gather a lot of mega-wow-arms and leave the server to someone else, with another admin, someone else's database must not touch) I recently became interested in order to expand the current Cherno, add to it other islands and so on, but did not really work out, and this option would be a great solution for me, - go to point A, to swim to the boat to point B for example, which will already be on a different map, etc.

Sorry my eng =) It's awful google )
 
It is just about their inventory/backpack, not their position in the world.

However, I think it should be an optional setting to share that over instances.

More intressting would be the following: having 1 profile over all instances / servers! have currently 1 Instances per DB so that ppl cannot ghost over servers with the same map. But because of that they have a complete different profile on each servers. I really would like to see lets say an 'instance_group_id' column additionaly in the survivor (etc..) tables so that you can group them instances together (if you want) and the profile would be bound to the instances_groups.

Because one of the more intressting things (for me) would be to have only 1 profile over all server, but with different survivors on the same map - or optionaly the same survivors on the same map.
 
I also like the idea of having a point on the map where you can join another map, a bridge from chernarus that leads to lingor, for example. The only problem with that could be bandits camping the incoming spawn point.

Multiple 'bridges' would be unrealistic, though different routes into the new map could be possible, cross a bridge, take a boat or charter a plane to create multiple bridges between maps.. Am sure that would get worked out if implemented.

I think the lack of spawn camping in this game is down to the large amount of spawn points and the fact that it would be boring to hang around on the beach waiting to get a kill, there are better ways for a bandit to score.

I guess the insentive for a bandit would be the potential loot that is being carried in. So when you move map your backpack could be 'air dropped' to a nearby location that is only visible on your map, or even only available to your player uid ?

Just some thoughts, off the top of my head :) generally love the idea of persistence between servers, the more that can be done the better in my opinion..
 
i was working on a script where you can get scroll wheel options to switch servers when accessing the computer in a control tower.

If loot gets transferable ill finish the script :)
 
I personally dislike the idea, but hey, if people like it then there's no reason we can't try it! Technically both options are possible, as the other servers could just be using a different database entirely instead of the Instance option it currently uses.
 
Quarterbreed said:
what about loot that isnt in chernarus but in lets say in a diff map, what would happen there
Click to expand...

Ha, well that's a big issue and to be honest, I have no idea. Last I heard, Stapo was thinking about it.
As this is for opendayz.net builds, it may be possible for a universal weapons list or something it if the devs reached an agreement.
 
Doc said:
I personally dislike the idea, but hey, if people like it then there's no reason we can't try it! Technically both options are possible, as the other servers could just be using a different database entirely instead of the Instance option it currently uses.
Click to expand...

You should be able to use the same db for all the maps. Thats what i do now for chernarus/lingor/namalsk/tavi.

Technically all that needs to change is your player location isnt saved to the survivor table and is saved to its own table. thus all maps can grab the players gear from the surivor table, and worldspace doesnt confict.


Doc said:
Ha, well that's a big issue and to be honest, I have no idea. Last I heard, Stapo was thinking about it.
As this is for opendayz.net builds, it may be possible for a universal weapons list or something it if the devs reached an agreement.
Click to expand...

easy enough,

you have 2 options.

1) you modify all servers to have the same loot tables/weapon spawns.
2) when you transfer to a server that doesnt allow the weapon it gets removed.
 
bad idea, differant maps allow differant weapons.. This means the alien rail gun will find its way into cherno.
 
Murdock said:
bad idea, differant maps allow differant weapons.. This means the alien rail gun will find its way into cherno.
Click to expand...

Heres a better idea, if you dont want stuff like the alien rifle on cherno..... dont connect cherno to namalsk.

If you connect mexico to america doesnt that mean that mexican beer ends up in america?


This goes back to the whole rmod argument about people wanting to do everything under the sun to get vehicles on their server with out rmod.
 
Every map has their own loot table with different weapons, it wouldn't be very good to have inventories shared.
 
I like the idea but one question:
Lets say you have two characters; one in Panthera and one in Chernarus. What would happen when you die in Panthera and then switch maps to Chernarus. Would you end up being gearless in the middle of NWAF (or where ever your Chernarus character last logged out)? Is it implied that a death on one server means death on all?
 
I guess with the new system I would see 2 different ways....
Way 1: You end up gearless wherever you logged off
Way 2: Deaths are accross all maps meaning if you die in chenarus, you are dead in other maps too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top