I get what you're saying cas, but what happens when the map changes again? If we returned to Chernarus in Jan or Feb as planned would we then force everyone to abandon their namalsk character? People don't invest much in story lines that will only last a few weeks or months. Think of how dead the server is in the weeks leading up to a lore wipe. Everyone figures they'll just stop and take a break until the wipe. Many don't even bother wrapping things up in their current storylines.
I hope for new things in the new map too, but just having the option to move characters from chernarus to namalske, and then back again (whenever that is), is really important because it allows people to have the option to continue their storylines. In my opinion, doing it any other way would just cause a lot of damage. If we forced all new characters, I think we would see a temporary pop increase (because people would want to explore the new map), but then rp would suffer because people would not invest as much into characters that may only last until January.
I think the uncertainty around this issue is causing damage. I think it should be made very clear to everyone that characters and groups will be able to transfer from one map to the other, and back again (or better yet, onward to some other map).
+1 to this.
It's these changes that keep the server going nowadays. And that's not a bad thing. It's just means that it's important to acknowledge that each change will only improve things temporarily. So keep changing things up and to keep the server going.
Really original ideas, Evin. Your post got me thinking about zombie dynamics a bit, and generally I don't do that because I'm a little tired of zombies as a game mechanic. Idea 3 was especially interesting.
1, 2, 4 , 5, 6 and 8: These I don't want because It doesn't add a new problem to solve or new rp scenarios. It seems to me that it just makes existing problems (avoiding/killing zombies) more difficult and like I said, I'm a little bored of zombies as they are. I'm not saying they should be removed. Just saying that I don't get a lot of satisfaction from surviving a close encounter with zombies anymore because it seems routine. And 8 in particular, that's been done within the last year. Zombies were made pretty hard to kill, and personally I prefer them being weaker for the aforementioned reasons.
3: This idea I like because it could introduce new rp situations. I can imagine being trapped in a house with a stranger and being worried that the zombies will break down the door. That feels fresh and new. I'm not sure if it's possible, but it might be cool because it could lead to unique rp situations.
7: It's cool you mention this because I think this is kinda already in the works! Tank zombies and sprinter zombies are a thing, though I don't know if they spawn naturally or not. But yes, this would be cool.
I love outlandish ideas, personally
Cool event! I've always enjoyed rping with you all.
I disagree with all the pushback against this event. Imo this event introduces MUCH more opportunities for conflict than it eliminates. It's only a few hours that this group asks for no hostilities. And once that event is done, anything can happen. After making a big show of taking Zeleno, many groups will have much greater ic reason to take issue with them that they did before. This generates a lot of rp opportunity and I think it's great.
I don't think the real value of this idea comes from shooting hostages. I think the value comes from more authentic hostage situations where there are consequences for choices made. I think there is a lot of emphasis in this conversation on what will go wrong (and it will go wrong, absolutely) but the bottom line is, people who abuse it usually will not get away with it, because if the hostage is unsatisfied with the encounter and puts up a report, the onus is on the hostile party to prove they were justified. Sure, some situations will be sloppy and mistakes will be made, but I think that the good outweighs the bad significantly.