emuthreat

It protects the things inside of it from damage. For instance, you can put one inside your cargo pants, and if you break your legs, the contents of the case may still be usable, while the case has been ruined. Also, they are persistent, as Mr. Hates Dead has said.

It would be very helpful to emergent and organic game-play, if weapons could be engraved permanently until despawn. Once someone finally gets their favorite zombie killing pistol tricked-out they can then engrave their name or "woot" or pretty much any other short format phrase they like. This could be applied to many different items, if a knife or screwdrive were required to engrave hard items, but a only a pen were required to write on other types of items. A good benefit of this feature would be that you can verify players as hostile actors if they are found in possession of certain marked items.

When I get hand fatigue from running, I will adjust so that my thumb is on shift and my index finger is on the W key. Also, I have a pair of nail clippers and a nickel that I use to jam the running keys when I need to go get a new beer and/or get rid of a used beer.

On Xbox 360, one of my favorite hobbies in Black Ops2 zombies was to get annoying and abusive kids' parents to come and shut-off/destroy their machines. Kinekt sensors made this process much more direct, as I could be clearly heard talking through the family's television. I don't know why exactly it is, but people really don't like overhearing some 20-something telling their foul-mouthed little shit children that they could hear a domestic violence case brewing in the background, or that the street drugs currently being delivered in the kitchen surely cannot be as good as the salesman is purporting them to be. Those Kinekt sensors, lemme tell ya, they had some real range and fidelity in those mics. I don't think that it should ever be on the table to avoid adding features to an adult-themed game, because of how children could misuse them. We don't complain that bar stools are too short for for most 8-year-olds, or that billiards games should not be played during nap time.

I figure people wishing to tag their weapons for security and identification purposes would try to choose something a little more original. People will always try to makes dicks out of whatever new tools are available, it doesn't mean people should stop producing them.

That's a good outlook to have on bases, as an avenue to increased player interaction, rather than permanent secure storage. Every time you get robbed, it will make for the equivalent of a randomly generated "milkrun" to find a replacement for the item. If it is a pretty regularly populated server, it could possibly create a detective mission where you runaround and interrogate everyone you can find on the server. I hope that eventually we can engrave items, especially guns, with our own specific etchings to assist in identifying thieves by finding them in possession of your stolen items.

My playstyle has always been persistence-based; and since the addition of tents, barrels, and now vehicles, I would describe my in-game goals as mostly logistical. If you do it right, a random death in a non-critical area, is simply a free excuse to grid a different quadrant of the map for fresh vehicle spawns.

^^^This guy gets it. That whole emergent player behavior facilitated by in-depth game mechanics requiring specific and complex actions to be taken in order to secure a strategic advantage, thing... Is DayZ SA actually a 1st/3pp RTS game? DEEP.....

Have you been talking to Ned Ludd? I hear it's a great way to recoil at the mention of using technology to achieve superior results.

This is why a mix of both fortified bases, and concealed stashes is the best approach. Nothing else in the game could live up the the feeling of triumph you would get from getting killed alone in your big base, then running back to near your base in a half hour, eating-up from some semi-coastal stashes, and grabbing an SVD that you strategically hid on a hillside overlooking your base. One should always prepare both escape stashes to help survive a retreat from their bases, and assault stashes to mount a retaking attempt, around their bases to prepare for an incursion. They will happen. Even on low-pops, I find camps.

I take issue with your cherry-picking of the 40-foot container, rather than the vastly more common (80% of all conatiners) 20-foot container. But even then, your math just does not correlate with reality. Let's be honest, the containers in game look like the 20-foot variety. Do you know what a tow truck is and how it works? They tilt the bed, and align it with the ground near the object to be loaded, and then a winch is used to drag (or in ideal circumstances, roll) the object onto the bed, which is then raised back to its level position for travel. There would be a lot of traffic congestion if a flatbed equipped with a winch was unable to load a disabled vehicle, commonly weighing more than 3 tons. So, assuming that we could eventually fix a V3S chassis with a tilt-bed and winch, this would absolutely be possible and feasible.

+1 for winches. +1,000,000 for transportable shipping containers.

How would we recognize base ownership, and may it be shared? If it can be shared, how easily can the "share conditions" be spoofed?

I think Funkdoc makes a good point with regards to balancing base durability, with vulnerability. I'm leaning towards a doctrine of "only build as much as you can personally oversee." For instance, a single, lone-wolf player could conceivable secure a small number of vehicles, and use those to transport over time, a large enough amount of building materials to construct a base suitable for a clan of twenty. Should that player be able to assure the security of such a base on his own, facilitated solely through heavy-handed durability timers? Would that player not better suit xis needs by building a relatively small, and more hidden base, rather than a larger and *artificially more durable* base? Even five minutes of pounding on a wall with a sledgehammer seems like enough exposure and risk to reward the invading player with access. After all, they could have set-up concertainers outside the walls to give them a higher resistance to entry than the walls provided; or perhaps they have placed their concertainers hidden just behind the weaker walls--providing a surprise technical limitation to the invader who saw walls, and only thought to bring tools appropriate to destroy wooden/tin walls. If i show up with two friends, and we each have two grenades to put up against a single fence, and single row of concertainers, I would full expect that we should gain entry to the base; if we don't, I cry foul. Better still, if a lone player builds a base larger than they are personally capable of monitoring to ensure security, would that not be an opportunity to go out into the server seeking friendly players with whom to share this large base? I mean, that's what I been doing with my bases. When I get to the point where I definitely know that I have too much shit, I go looking for other players to wow with my massive stockpiles. All but one of the players that I have taken to my bases have been honest, and were even a bit hesitant to start equipping themselves from my redundant sotckpiles for a few days. I have to ask people to do chores like cutting firewood, and helping me cook, or hunting down spare tires, before most people feel comfortable taking anything that I've offered them from my base. And the one who lied to me and stole, was betrayed by his accomplice who later met me and had a change of heart about stealing from such a helpful player. The rat was passive-aggressively insulted for a couple days voice comms (while he didn't know that I knew it was him), eventually hunted down and fraudulently "friendly" fired upon at Stary tents, and then finally killed a second time and humiliated when we came to bring him back his gear from the "friendly fire incident"--all very good emergent gameplay too, I might add.

This is really only a problem for private servers, as anyone on the public hive is free to loot up on any server they wish, and are free to come back and mount a coordinated assault on the base in question. Peter said the walls will be able to be demolished from the outside by common tools such as crowbars. And private servers can, of course, be wiped by the admins if they feel that abuse is taking place.

Two words: molotov cocktail.

The sooner they add the basebuilding mechanics, the sooner they can begin analyzing our feedback to tackle all the *cough* bugs *cough* associated with that aspect of the game.

I just know that the 8-day timer implemented on .59 in early March has been a disaster for most people who liked setting up camps. It drove me to hoard vehicles as non-decaying persistent storage, which just created new problems. I honestly believe that the only viable solution is to make the servers robust enough to handle prolific player activity, in the form of long-term bases--even for people who prefer to only use a couple tents and a few barrels in the trees, scattered across different locations throughout their chosen server. If they are to accommodate mods, then I would think they must leave ample headspace for additional elements to be added to the map. This is why limiting persistence as a means to free up server resources seems like a half-measure. In terms of loot economy concerns, I have none. Suppose that a group of people manage to hoard-up a significant enough amount of loot to prevent it from spawning. This would surely take up a lot of in-game hours, a noticeably large physical presence in the server, lots of ground covered, and frequent trips to certain areas for tents and barrels; this would create quite a presence, along with regular patterns of movement, that should be readily detectable by other players on the server. The bases would not be untouchable, but would rather require a concerted effort to find a base--which I think is a good thing to provide complex and organic missions generated solely by the players. If this were done on a low-population server, where no other players are around to detect the patterns of movement and track down the stockpiled goods, who cares? There is absolutely nothing about public hive game mechanics that would prevent any player on any public server from being able to diligently hunt-down an über-hoarder's base. Even if someone had managed to monopolize resources on a very popular server, all players would still be free to gear-up on other servers and hunt down the robber-barons of the popular server. Naturally private servers will be privately administered as the owners see fit. Tuning the game to make it consistently easy and predictable to find loot, by causing relatively rapid decay of active camps, is never going to be a feature I want to see in the vanilla game. It negates all of the risk taken by exposing oneself in the process of collecting that gear, of being careful to never be followed back to base, if the server just cleans it up weekly. I want to be able to run around a server finding completely empty military zones up and down the map, and from that experience of finding very little loot, know that there is a high-density pilfering opportunity hiding somewhere on that server. Doesn't it seem more organic and immersive to walk onto a server with sparse resources, and be able to take that as a sign of the high intensity of looting activity on that server? What if a clan wants to establish a seed repository, and does the work collecting all packets of seeds on an entire server, to ensure a monopoly on their chosen item of trade? Should the game makers preclude them from that opportunity because other people need opportunity to find the seeds freely? And yes, Luc, I know that last bit is pretty much laissez faire capitalism, but it's just a game. : P

You quoted the part of my response that did not contain the legitimate and common reasons that stable servers can go down; such as admins resetting for whatever personal reasons they may have. Have you played on an "official" public server and experienced this often? I spent most of .59 on a public server where I was in communication with the admins, and I cannot remember having a large number of server resets. It was a pretty low populated server, but the time I spent on higher population servers never seemed to have much issue on .59 either. This makes me wonder if you have any hardware or connection issues, if stable is "unplayable" due to server resets. I urge you to go back and read the disclaimer that you agreed to upon purchase. There is to be no guarantee of stable, playable servers during the alpha period; especially not on experimental. I don't know what to tell ya. Aside from a few hours of CTD when trying to log into exp. last week, I have had the same experience as most experienced players. Experimental has been crashing sporadically, and sometimes very frequently, since .60 came out. It's the first big push of the major technical integration stage, so I suppose that is to be expected for a while. With regards to your "constructive feedback" about the crashes: A quick perusal of the experimental patch forums will verify that this is a well-known issue, and has been since the day hour of the patch. So yes, thank you for the input, Bohemia is well-aware of the problem. I wouldn't expect stable servers until all the features have been added to the game, as each new addition has to be meshed into the existing machine on-the-fly. There are still at least two major steps similar to this one that have to be taken, before you should expect anything resembling a polished and playable experience. Sorry. For what it's worth, .60 is the beez kneez.

That's the point, I think. It will be up to each player to find their own public server to call home; fighting over control of resources among the other players on that server. It is, and always has been, a game designed to suit "interdimensional warfare" between the players calling different servers their home. All of this live-out-of-your-backpack stuff has just been for practicing looting and shooting; the real game is still quite a ways out at this point. If you find a server has been dominated by another group, you have two options: Go find another server to play on, or fight the current masters of the server for control of the map. What's wrong with that? If we have to wait for mods to be made, so that long-term basebuilding is viable. then the developers have failed to make their game. Vanilla should work. In the current state, any form of basebuilding is pretty much pointless. We need to demand 4 week persistence on storage containers, and a decay reset mechanic that actually works.

But it has everything to do with "not understanding" what an alpha is. The developers made it quite clear that YOU should not buy this game until it is finished. You ignored the warning, and came here to complain about it. As far as experiencing frequent restarts on .59 stable, perhaps you were on a clan server full of bad drivers who knew the admins; it can sometimes be common to restart the server to right a flipped car. My advice, pick one or two servers that you like, and stick to them. Having a bunch of KOS warriors constantly filling up the two-or-three most popular servers is kind-of a joke. And even those might get reset occasionally just to let somebody's friends into the server when it comes back online.

I was getting the impression on .59 that inventory items stored inside ruined clothing/backpacks would slowly degrade in condition over time.

All this talk about uptime, and nobody gives a thought to updog, SMH...

If you survive a walk through Chernogorsk about an hour after eating 15 grams of cubensis, you will fear nothing ever again. Might be a cool initiation right for a berserker death-squad, but yeah, probably not the safest thing to do in the apocalypse.