SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

Alright, not a big deal. Actually, I see my mistake, I was tired this morn. But still, you agree logic is thought. So then, I'm not really arguing against you. If we agree that logic is thought, and morals are a product of logic, then transitively we can say that morals are the product of thought. I'm not denying that, and neither are you. A lot of people who say morals are "objective" are actually trying to imply that morals exist objectively (a.k.a separate from thought, in the outside world). That's why I said we have a semantic problem when we start debating the issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity of morals. Because by one definition, morals are completely subjective, in that they occur within the mind. They don't exist objectively in this case because they don't exist outside of your consciousness. Morals are not physical things or binding laws (clearly, since people break their morals all the time). However, we can also use objective and subjective to talk about the way we are thinking. Subjective being emotional and personal, objective being logical and completely free of bias or personal opinion. Absolute raw logic. But again, humans are not 100% objective creatures. We have natural biases which will always effect our decisions. The survival bias is one of these. Why is it better to be alive than dead? Because we know this state is temporary, and death (as far as we know) is permanent. Therefore it makes logical sense to keep yourself alive to the absolute best of your ability. So why does morality say that putting yourself in danger for the good of others (just one example, not a blanket statement) is a morally righteous thing to do? Because you are protecting others from that same permanent state of death. We see it as noble. This is all very logical, but again, it is still reliant on the observing mind, the existing consciousness, to even be a reality. So in this aspect, morals are clearly both objective and subjective. It really just depends on how you rationalize them. P.s. Jexter. I really don't see why you feel so entitled to come in here and say "I am right! You are wrong! Discussion over!" And simply not address the true debate at hand. We're just having a discussion. This is not "science," it's just a discussion. The fact that you are behaving in such a putrid way demonstrates to me that you really aren't that interested in thinking about what people are saying, but rather just proving the OP wrong. This is the behavior of a troll. If you don't like my points, then why don't you find a more polite way of addressing them, instead of barging into a months' old thread shouting "BOLLOCKS!" Maybe if you had a better approach, I would debate your argument with more respect. Otherwise, what is the point? I don't have all day to argue with assholes.

A: proof that you have not read my entire argument, and therefore undeserving of inclusion on the discussion. B: a very good way to use your own words against you. Take your pick. I never implied that was the truth. If you seriously think that is the summation of my thoughts, then you clearly are not reading and just looking for a straw man to argue with. What I said was that an objective moral code does not leave room for circumstances where killing may be necessary to ensure your own survival. Morality is convenient. Just ask any combat soldier. Says who? You. Other people. People say that genocide is wrong. Without people, there would be no genocide to even commit. The fact still remains that for morality to even exist, it requires a highly advanced conscious mind to make a judgment about a particular event or action. Ergo, morals do not exist separate from consciousness. Even then, I NEVER denied that morality comes from objective thought. If you would have READ my post about the semantics of objective and subjective, then you would comprehend what I am saying. "Morality is subjective" means that it takes place within your own mind. It doesn't matter if the thoughts are logical or emotionally driven, they are still thoughts. Without thought, morality does not exist. Therefore, it is a product of the mind, therefore it is subjective. Again, why don't you look up the definitions of objective and subjective, and you would see that subjective can mean: "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." Morality is a construct of the mind. Therefore it is subjective, even if the mind which constructed it is thinking objectively. (without influence of bias or emotions) However, we all know that human minds are never constantly objective and therefore it stands to reason that morality actually stems from both emotion and logic. It's only logical not to kill because "killing could threaten your own survival." It is emotional to think "this person has a mother, and a brother, and a son, and if I kill him, I will be emotionally hurting many other people besides just this one." That is PATHOS. You cannot deny the emotional aspects of morality. It is exactly because humans are empathetic creatures that we say "genocide is wrong." If we were all completely logical, unemotional reasoning machines, then we would abort all babies with genetic defects and illnesses that could be passed on to future humans. That is also quite logical, if you think about it. Is it moral? Most would say no, it isn't. Because it takes away freedom of choice. It is "cruel." These are pathological responses, not logical ones. It's exactly humanity's ability to be illogical that allows us to have such confusing moral beliefs, complete with exceptions, differences from individual to individual, and so on. Morality is a belief. It's a belief about how one should act. But people have different beliefs, and most people are hypocrites anyway.

Morality is a concept that is driven out of collective self-interest. It defines the difference between right and wrong. Clearly if a person is punished for a certain action, it means that another person thought that behavior was "wrong" and therefore deserving of punishment. If a person obeys societal morals, then they enhance their own ability to survive by earning acceptance among their fellow man. That is a logical inference which supports itself. Ancient society imposed laws for the same reason ours does today - because there are "immoral" people, who would hurt or cause destruction to society. Even then, we have "right" and "wrong" (moral) ways of punishing human beings who have committed crimes. Basic morality is an evolutionary necessity. However, as we become more advanced and our methods of hurting each other become more nuanced and advanced, morality has to adapt. But again, you cannot define the main goal of "objective" morality. If a universal moral code exists, then what is it's purpose? How could morality exist if conscious beings did not exist? It simply couldn't. Morality requires a mind - an observer - to become an idea. Other than that, it is not a material truth. It is simply an idea within the mind.

That, and also the limitations of the a.i. behavior. Isn't their attack similar to throwing a grenade or shooting a weapon? My supposition is that the a.i. isn't really designed to do that while running, thus they stop, attack, then continue pursuit. In the long run, they've just gotta build new zombies from the ground up. Faster, stronger, more agile zombies... with grapple capabilities, and rag doll physics, and decapitatio- We can still dream, can't we?

The fact that people enforced laws shows that they thought certain actions were immoral. But if a person assaulted someone in the United States and removed their victim's eye, they wouldn't have their eye removed. So clearly our concepts of morality have changed over time. Even in punishment you can see a society's idea of "morality." Now we have habeus corpus, and freedom of speech. We consider those to be "moral" doctrines. But a thousand years ago, we didn't think that was true. Why is that? It's because we as a species have advanced and our subjective ideas about morality on a whole have changed. We have never grown up in a society that didn't tell us that murder was wrong. Your mother undoubtedly told you that. It's not a personal judgment, it's a logical assumption about human nature. Basically nobody has a mother that says "it's okay to kill people, Timmy, as long as you don't get caught." It's scary to think other people don't recognize the same "objective" morals as you, because that means there are people out there who are willing and able to violate those morals. Stop right there. http://io9.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-declaration-that-animals-have-conscious-awareness-just-like-us http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/animals-consciousness-mammals-birds-octopus-120824.htm http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/21/the-emotional-lives-of-animals/ http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf There is evidence to suggest that animals have a similar level of consciousness as humans. Just look at monarch butterflies. They fly from Canada to Mexico, with nothing but their wits. Most humans couldn't do that without a map at least. Again. Human understanding increases with time. There may come a day when people generally accept the "objective" morality of treating animals as humanely as humans. It's not likely, however, because humans have their own subjective ideas about morality. Tell me, what is your criteria for "true" morality, then? Is it, for example, the maximum reduction of suffering of all conscious beings? Maximum pleasure? Is it justified retribution? What exactly is the "goal" of true morality? Is it, for example, "survival at all costs"? That would imply very different types of behavior. That would imply behavior like slaughtering millions upon millions of other conscious creatures for the benefit of mankind... I knew subjective and objective was a bad argument to start...

Matthew 7:12. In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Luke 6:31. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye." - The Code of Hammurabi (dramatically predates the Bible) These ideas pre-date the ones you are sourcing, and they were around even before that. The point is that this is a very simple, logical conclusion that most human beings agree with, and yet continue to break. So either all human beings are all hypocrites, or capital punishment for murderers and child rapists is objectively justifiable. You can't have it both ways. Those are the logical problems presented by an objective view of morality. Subjective morality, on the other hand, allows for contextual exceptions and alterations over time to moral codes. You can clearly see which view fits reality. People learn morals from other people. That is one of the main pillars of society. It's logical to cooperate with your fellow man most of the time. But sometimes context creates moral exceptions and dilemmas. That's because we are constantly learning and there is no "one moral truth." The right or wrong decision in any given situation depend on the deeper context and realistic implications of your actions. On another note, I think we have a major semantic issue when it comes to "objective" and "subjective." We can "objective" it to talk about the way we are thinking(without emotion or personal bias), but we also tend to use it in a way that has come to mean "exists on it's own." Morals are the product of both objective and subjective thought. They are driven by both logic and emotion. However, they do not exist without consciousness. You cannot have moral law in the absence of intelligent consciousness. Asteroids don't avoid planets because hitting them would be "wrong." Since morality takes place in the mind of a conscious being, then it is a subjective construct. It is "taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." (taken from the free dictionary) Another issue with the idea of a perpetually existent moral code is that it doesn't leave room for amorality. You constantly are wondering "is this moral" or "is this immoral," when really there's no such thing. For example, is eating a hamburger "moral?" Well to a vegetarian, they would say it is immoral (against their morals). But many other people would disagree. The reality that eating a hamburger is amoral until you as a conscious being associate a value judgement to it and examine cause and effect. The act of eating a burger itself could never be logically immoral to most human beings. Even if it means a cow died at some point, you didn't personally kill the cow, so the action itself has no moral value whatsoever. This means that the morality of that action does not objectively exist on it's own - it only exists within the conscious mind.

Actually one could argue that your point about religion demonstrates morality is subjective, because those documents claimed to be morally educational documents of the time. We can use our "reason" today to look at those documents and say "well actually what character a or b of the bible or the Qu'ran did here is actually not moral." Well then that means that the common morality of the day has advanced. Let me just ask you this. Who was the first person who told you that killing was wrong? Your mother. Why does it make sense for a mother to tell her offspring not to kill other people? Because violence begets violence - so it makes sense to be non-aggressive so that other members of your family and tribe will be non-aggressive towards you. That's logical. However, as you said, logic is fallible. Sometimes it is necessary and even acceptable to kill another human being, in certain contexts. If we look at morality as an extension of logic and reasoning, and we concede that logic is fallible (indicating that it is influenced by subjective thought and human error), then we must concede that morality is fallible and also subject to human error. Assuming you are like most people, you have never murdered anyone. So how can you know that it's a bad thing to do? You have no practical empirical evidence to form that conclusion. Same reason you don't jump off a building - because common knowledge (a.k.a your mother), and logic, tell you not to. Since other people have murdered in the past, we can learn from that experience and pass it down via oral and written communication to future generations. It is possible to not know what you are missing. Human understanding has increased over time. We used to be unaware that the world was round, or that matter was composed of super-tiny particles. We used to not know how humans came into existence. It stands to reason that our values have changed as our understanding of the world has increased.

I can't argue about norms in DayZ. I try my best not to murder, but in my experience, the "norm" is that other players try to kill me and I am forced to defend myself. I think cooperation should be rewarded with safety and capability. The more people you have, the more you can accomplish (this is true in life). I think that's the most elegant way to go about it in DayZ. Undoubtedly, groups of people will fight each other, probably for resources or territory. To me, that is the most authentic gameplay balance DayZ should try to strike; possible to survive on your own, but capable of doing so much more with the cooperation of others. Right now it seems to me that the game simply needs more map content, team oriented objectives, a more dangerous environment, non-lethal methods of subduing opponents, ect. All that content and gameplay functionality will undoubtedly affect the way we behave in the game. Let's not get into objective vs subjective morality right now. That kind of argument makes my head hurt... You start having to talk about God, and it's all downhill from there. For the record I agree that morality is subjective. However, I think certain moral codes of conduct are highly logical, which means they become highly accepted, and then people call them "objective." Because humans are generally emphatic beings, we tend to try to align our morals with people around us, and so the assumption is that everyone accepts these "objective" moral codes.

I did exactly the opposite. You're arguing against yourself. I never claimed to be "doing science." What, and you do have a lab? As if you're better than me? Fuck off troll. You aren't providing constructively to this discussion. You don't have any real data to back up your claims, either. You used a film to make a blanket statement about human nature, that's called starting with a conclusion and then finding evidence to fit it. Then I point out obvious exceptions to your conclusion, and you call me "unscientific." Good job contradicting yourself at every turn. My view of morality allows for exceptions, which is why I'll be keeping my view, thanks. I acknowledge that they are related. "punishment very often doesn't stop people who kill outside the game, if it did there would be fewer prisons" Of course it doesn't stop them, but the fact that prisons exist are proof that morality is a socially constructed and enforced concept, which people can choose to not follow. You must admit, social pressure (law) probably does prevent some people from killing. I'm not saying that human beings are constant killing machines. However, people do get angry. Some people, if it weren't for the presence of society and punishment, would murder. Out of anger, greed, jealousy, fear. All I'm saying is that human beings have the capacity, as you so eloquently pointed out. A lot of people find this hard to swallow, because it is a reflection of themselves and others that they don't want to admit to. If we were suddenly thrown into an apocalyptic situation like DayZ, we would behave differently than we do now. We might do things that we would normally consider "wrong." I also acknowledge that players kill other players out of a lack of empathy, due to necessity. I also agree that making the game more difficult would help reduce KoS, by encouraging team work. That's actually one of the major points of this thread, but people got sort of hung up on the morality argument... "A game without conflict would be no fun." Exactly. So make the environment provide more of that conflict, so the players don't have to constantly create it themselves. You know, Ozelot. I agree with a lot of people. I'm simply stating my ideas. If you want to debate me, or add to the discussion, that is your prerogative. If not, then why are you posting in this thread? This is just how advanced apes (humans) worry when we learn to worry with words. Shooting down debate simply because "it's subjective" is not constructive.

Okay I don't know what it is that makes you want to try to "disprove" me. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about because if you would have read my posts you would realize that I recognize the expansion of human understanding and that morality is a flexible, changing concept. I even argue for an evolutionary view of morality. I'm talking about two distinctly seperate moral codes. The way we behave in games does tell us something about human nature. Clearly once the rules of death, pain, and physical experience are removed, people "KoS because it's fun." That's exactly my point. We behave divergently in a video game than we would in real life. You're arguing the exact same point I am. I'm talking about morality within the construct of a video game. Not in real life. I would say the scientific method is in fact lost on you. The scientific method is an open-minded way of producing theories and ideas based on observation and evidence, and then testing those theories through experimentation. Just because I have a theory based on the evidence that I have observed, does not mean that I don't understand the scientific method. In fact, it proves quite the opposite. Obviously you are just producing straw man arguments and trying to defeat them to prove your idiotic little ad hominem attack. If you really understood what I was saying, then you would realize that we're actually in agreement and you are just a fucking troll. There's nothing scientific about the droll you just posted. ;) For example, you use a fictional film as evidence that all human beings "need" social interaction or else they'll "go insane like Tom Hanks in Cast Away." Yet I can google names and biographies of literally thousands of ruthless psychopaths who committed horrible streaks of murders; given the same situation, they would just beat any companion they had over the head for their meat. Your anecdote "proves" nothing.

Authenticity.

Thank you for pointing out an issue that has existed since early 2012. :emptycan:

Lol, I dunno. WBK replied. First of all, I would just like to point out that this is not generally my personal modus operandi in-game. I typically don't go around killing other players. I attempt to be as friendly as possible, but more often than not other players kill me when I give them too much trust. That's the major flaw in your argument. You're making the assumption that having another person with you is always good. What if you try to be friends with someone and they kill you? Or they tend to attract lots of zombies or other players by doing stupid things? What if they put you in jeopardy? For the mot part, I agree with you. In terms of reality, I agree with you, because in reality humans experience pain, hunger, hot, cold, and other physical limitations which necessitate teamwork. Killing other potential friendlies is it's own consequence, in real life. However, I think currently characters are simply not valuable enough in terms of cooperative gameplay. Unfortunately, the reality of this game is that having another person with you is generally more of a liability than a benefit. I'm simply pointing out that morality applies differently to games (especially this one) than it does to real life, so clearly the game needs to provide less motivations to kill other players and more motivations to work together. Nobody should be "punished" for pvp. The punishment should be the absence of that other human being. But as of right now, that absence is not very debilitating. In fact, I survive the longest as a lone wolf. That in itself tells you something about the gameplay dynamics currently at work in DayZ.

I think the fact that this feature is under such intense protest is proof that it would indeed make killing other players less profitable. The ones protesting are the ones who are afraid to lose their profit.

Uhg, another one of these... I won't even bother.

Well I only need mention a fellow like Jeffrey Dahmer, or H.H. Holmes, Albert Fish, Andrei Chikatilo, or John Haigh, or Ted Bundy, to find someone who would not fit into the model of "people will not kill without provocation." They knew other people thought it was wrong, but they clearly didn't agree or didn't care either way. But otherwise, what you say is mostly true. I would personally find murder reprehensible. It would take time, serious motivation, and repetition for me as a human being to get used to killing other people. It has in DayZ. Why? Because I think it's basically wrong, but in certain context, it can be right. Not that it is morally correct, but that it is the correct or necessary course of action in that context. Consider this; why is it acceptable to kill cattle in the millions for human consumption? Some people would argue that it is immoral towards the animal; others would argue that it is moral to the human race. So what is "moral?" I am simply defining "moral" as "the difference between right and wrong." My point is that an individual's definition of "right" and "wrong" behavior can change, or be alternate to your own. If you look at morality as a code of "right and wrong" conduct (which people live by), then that would indicate that their view of morality can change. In DayZ, you could say "it's wrong to kill other players." But often times the context of the situation has changed the individuals opinion to to the inverse. My version of morality is exactly the opposite unbreakable or absolute. My definition of morality allows for morals to change in terms of context and experience, and also for morality to be an individualized construct which is actually dependent on integrity. "A code that humans live by-" Precisely. If I live by a moral code of conduct that allows me to kill people in certain situations (like for self-defense), then clearly my morality - the code that I live by - has adapted to that context. Just because I feel bad about it doesn't change the fact that I did it. But that's a strictly semantic argument, and it really only applies to DayZ, because DayZ is a congruent situation. What I'm basically trying to say is that as players we all live by two divergent moral codes - real-life morality, and DayZ morality.

Since large caliber weapons and other military gear are going to be quite rare in the standalone, and crafting is becoming more and more important, I thought it would be mighty interesting to see functionality like this. Similarly, I have seen people shoot 9mm rounds from their .40 caliber pistols, and .40's out of .45's. Ideally if this capability were implemented, each shot that used a non-standard, or makeshift form of ammo would cause wear and tear to your gun, and with repetition the gun would break down entirely. Just an interesting thought for the desperate survivor who happens to have a .40 cal pistol, and a box of 9mm bullets, and finds himself in a jam. Also, maybe there could be a 1/1000 chance or something that the gun would catastrophically fail and possibly even injure you in the process. Plus it would make for some great moments. Imagine that .50 calber rounds were this extremely rare ammo type and you've been carrying one of these things around with you, for good luck or whatever. You happen to find a shotgun, when you spy a lone gunman coming your way. He has a bullet proof vest on, and you have no shotgun shells. Thinking quickly, you take your one lucky .50 cal round that you have modified with some duct tape and load it into your shotgun... Feedback? Has anything like this been suggested before?

Breaking your own gun is not exactly an ideal position to put yourself in. It means you have to find another one. And actually, people often do use the wrong type of ammunition in their pistols, on complete accident. Why prevent it? If someone chooses to use the wrong ammo for their gun, that's their choice. But again, eventually that gun is going to break and they'll have to find another one. The blown-out cases would cause the pistol to jam on a regular basis, and using makeshift ammo would deal less damage. The consequences are still there. Also, how can you say that people don't care about their character, when they clearly kill each other to keep their own characters alive? When it comes down to combat efficiency, anyone thinking logically would prefer to use the correct bullets if they found them.

Of course. I said in the original suggestion it should have a chance of critical failure which would render the gun useless and probably hurt or kill the user. I think your theory about the gas expansion is correct; if it weren't for the space around the bullet, this little trick probably wouldn't even work in the first place. It's even possible that the gas escaping around the bullet in fact helps prevents it from striking the wall of the barrel and ripping the barrel to shreds, but I wouldn't trust it a whole lot. It's not something I would do under any normal circumstance, obviously.

Indeed. So either way, you get the same results. Therefore both logically and logistically it doesn't make sense to melt the bullet down to make a crappier version of it just to shoot it out of a shotgun, when you could have done that just as easily before. It's an improvisation. You don't spend probably weeks trying to melt down a bullet to improvise with it. You do it right then and there in the simplest (and probably rudimentary) fashion possible. But also, simply removing the bullet from the casing is actually taking away from it's potential energy. There's no way you could manufacture a shell that is as air tight and packed full of gunpowder as a manufactured .50 caliber bullet. So actually one could argue that it would still be far less effective.

Sorry I missed that post. But if it could be reattached by anyone, and it wouldn't be separate from the gun, then what's the point? A player would just pick up a gun and automatically check the firing pin, and then fix it. It's like saying "all vehicles should have keys. But those keys would always be inside the vehicle. You'd just have to select an action from the menu to use the key." I do think weapons should have safeties though. Many times I have accidentally hit my mouse button and fired my gun.

Not that I'm opposed to it... But I'd rather see more buildings, towns, and modern infrastructure first. More "historical" sites in the woods would be cool too though. On a completely unrelated note, this is the kind of stuff I think we're going to see in Godus when players start infringing on each other's territory. It's going to be interesting...

I'm just visualizing the bandit who goes around systematically removing bolts and firing pins from weapons until eventually you can never find a working gun on the map. As dulix said, it's too intricate. There are many details the OP has failed to address, so clearly some explanation is necessary. Are the firing pins and their locations persistent? Would weapon parts randomly spawn around the map? What real advantage or gameplay value would this even provide? Usually, if I can't fit a gun in my inventory, I just leave it behind. I don't see many situations where this would be useful to the gameplay in any significant way.

Exactly. this suggestion is not only about firing a .50 bmg round from a shotgun, but also using pistol rounds in slightly larger bore weapons, like .38 special in a .357, 9mm in a .40, .40 in a .45 handgun. (and by the way these do not require any kind of tape or modification to work. You can just load a 9 mm round into a glock .40 and shoot it.) These are more practical examples of makeshift ammo usage which I have observed directly in real life. The .50 bmg is just an outstanding demonstration of what guns are actually capable of. I think a lot of people like to approach firearms as these perfect little idealistic machines that have set damage values and statistics that they can track through numbers (which is great for video games), but the reality is far more physical than that. For example, the amount of lead cake inside the barrel can affect your muzzle velocity. We could have a discussion all day about whether or not using a gun as a blunt force tool is a good idea, when the real question should be, "can it be done and what would be the effect on the gun?" You could use a pistol as a hammer. But over time, the frame would become warped from the stress of those impacts. Certain functions would stop working over repeated abuse - the gun might cease to accommodate magazines, or magazines might "stick" in the grip when you try to reload. The slide mechanism might become misaligned in a way which would cause the pistol to do peculiar things. I can give a real-life example of a Glock I had to fix; every time I shot it, the slide would remain locked back in the open position, instead of closing and chambering another round. It turned out to be the slide lock, which I just had to fiddle with and use some common sense to repair. But that repair took a crucial five or six minutes which would have probably killed the user in a firefight. Personally, I would like it if the team tried to approach guns in this way, which allows for things like "abuse," malfunctions, and maintenance. So maybe it's not such a "minor" suggestion, but I think it's worth looking at once they have weapons working in the SA. Melt the bullet with what? And I guess they just have bullet casts lying around that they can pour the molten metal into? Oh yeah and apparently they have the ability to somehow refine and seperate melted lead, copper, and steel? Because that is the composition of most modern bullets. They are lead/steel cores with copper jackets. Bullets are not made of pure lead anymore. Furthermore, manufactured bullets are almost aerodynamically perfect because they are made with very powerful, precise machinery. Machinery which you would not have access to in this situation. Let's not forget you'd need a shell and a brand new primer, which you also would not have access to. All of this means that homemade bullet < manufactured bullet. There's no logical or practical reason to do any of that. Any bullet you made in these conditions would be the equivalent of a 19th century musket ball.

Then you would realize why your idea doesn't actually avoid it at all. You would see a hero player, walk up to him, and then blam, he'd shoot you in the face because actually he was a bandit who chose a hero skin. Every time we go around your argument falls into the same hole. Why would you allow people to set their own skins if skins are based on reputation? It makes more sense to simply start everyone at neutral and then assign "reputation" (a.k.a humanity) for actions that they do. but then, that's how the humanity system works right now. And as Inception pointed out, DayZ is never going to give players bonus carrying capacity or running speed for their humanity. Everything you get you have to earn. Even if they allow base building or fortification of existing structures, they wouldn't be safe from theft or use by other players.