Rocket I love you: Going out of bounds - exploit or acceptable?

[ahyokata 15]

I remember reading a post about this, however it was most likely lost due to the rollback. Rocket, if i remember right, stated that it was fine to be "out of bounds". If you look at the bean finders map, I have been close to the edge, but never passed beyond it. That map shows more of the terrain than the http://avidblur.com/arma2/ map.

[Publik 404]

Still haven't seen an argument as to how setting up tents far away hurts the game or other players. It's just taking an added precaution at the expense of having to travel a long' date=' long way if you die (or even if you don't). What is the logic in condemning this action?

[/quote']

It doesn't hurt the game or other players, but it's still cheap. Player's aren't staying in the desert (for lack of better terms), they're using it as a safe cache to store their gear. It's a cop out.

[BL1P 252]

A mission for arma2 called warfareBE has a script in it that gives you a 30sec timer to return back inside the map once you go out of bounds.

If you dont you die.

This should be implemented in DayZ.

[MoonSpank 0]

Still haven't seen an argument as to how setting up tents far away hurts the game or other players. It's just taking an added precaution at the expense of having to travel a long' date=' long way if you die (or even if you don't). What is the logic in condemning this action?

[/quote']

It doesn't hurt the game or other players, but it's still cheap. Player's aren't staying in the desert (for lack of better terms), they're using it as a safe cache to store their gear. It's a cop out.

Camping the coast with a sniper rifle is cheap too. According to your logic, if you can't easily get to someone's tent they shouldn't be allowed to have one, which defeats the purpose of the tent. May as well remove the item in that case, or give a better alternative.

Surely you see how silly that is, right?

[mikyjax 3]

There are bandits camps, there are survivors camps outside bounds. Find a chopper, fly above. If you re shot at, probably a bandit camp, if they shoot around, they just tell you you are flying an unauthorized area.

Just land, drop your guns and walk to the camp, they maybe need a chopper pilot + chopper.

They won't kill you for your nvg since pile of theim are already there.

There are another style of play than yours. Don't ask Rocket to remove interesting things.

It s not cheap, it s crazy what you can do with arma or dayz.

If one day rocket add ability to plant vegetable ect, we will be able to create crazy stuff from what people first see. What s the problem for you? Read your signature Publik ;)

[noxiousg 5]

Still haven't seen an argument as to how setting up tents far away hurts the game or other players. It's just taking an added precaution at the expense of having to travel a long' date=' long way if you die (or even if you don't). What is the logic in condemning this action?

[/quote']

It doesn't hurt the game or other players, but it's still cheap. Player's aren't staying in the desert (for lack of better terms), they're using it as a safe cache to store their gear. It's a cop out.

And why shouldn't it be possible to stash gear clandestinely? The game forces us to store gear in tents that can only be placed in the middle of open fields. You can't hide things in bounds. In the real world if you want to hide something in the wilderness, it's almost impossible for someone else to find it. Until we're given that ability in Day Z, I'm all for stashing things outside the bounds of the map.

[Publik 404]

Still haven't seen an argument as to how setting up tents far away hurts the game or other players. It's just taking an added precaution at the expense of having to travel a long' date=' long way if you die (or even if you don't). What is the logic in condemning this action?

[/quote']

It doesn't hurt the game or other players, but it's still cheap. Player's aren't staying in the desert (for lack of better terms), they're using it as a safe cache to store their gear. It's a cop out.

Camping the coast with a sniper rifle is cheap too. According to your logic, if you can't easily get to someone's tent they shouldn't be allowed to have one, which defeats the purpose of the tent. May as well remove the item in that case, or give a better alternative.

Surely you see how silly that is, right?

Camping the coast with a rifle still runs the risk of death. Having all of your gear even 1km off the map drastically reduces the chance that it'll be looted. It's just safe and easy. Kinda lame is all I'm saying.

You can see where I'm coming from, right?

[Techercizer 82]

For now there is no way to clean up a town' date=' build city ect.

So for now it s fully legit to me.

That s part of what survivors can do.

No useless killing... but we keep da dam choppers in self-made bases ;)

[/quote']

There's plenty of open space within the boundaries of the map to build a base where zombies don't spawn. Going out of bounds is unrealistic and abusive. This is clear to anyone with something in their skull besides chicken soup.

Or, you know, people who have well thought out opinions that differ from your own.

But you don't want to hear about those guys, right? That would mean you could be wrong, from someone's point of view...

[S1ippery Jim 139]

You should start losing blood akin to flashing thirst if you go out of bounds

[tiri 21]

There are bandits camps' date=' there are survivors camps outside bounds. Find a chopper, fly above. If you re shot at, probably a bandit camp, if they shoot around, they just tell you you are flying an unauthorized area.

Just land, drop your guns and walk to the camp, they maybe need a chopper pilot + chopper.

They won't kill you for your nvg since pile of theim are already there.

[/quote']

I love it how you think that choppers can be found every 100m. That just seems so easy with you, I don't know why I haven't been able to find one.

Please, tell me which server you're playing on, I want too a chopper completely repaired with no leaking fuel tank.

And with your bandits camp full of ngv, maybe you can tell us about your duplicating friends ?

[mikyjax 3]

Still haven't seen an argument as to how setting up tents far away hurts the game or other players. It's just taking an added precaution at the expense of having to travel a long' date=' long way if you die (or even if you don't). What is the logic in condemning this action?

[/quote']

It doesn't hurt the game or other players, but it's still cheap. Player's aren't staying in the desert (for lack of better terms), they're using it as a safe cache to store their gear. It's a cop out.

Camping the coast with a sniper rifle is cheap too. According to your logic, if you can't easily get to someone's tent they shouldn't be allowed to have one, which defeats the purpose of the tent. May as well remove the item in that case, or give a better alternative.

Surely you see how silly that is, right?

Camping the coast with a rifle still runs the risk of death. Having all of your gear even 1km off the map drastically reduces the chance that it'll be looted. It's just safe and easy. Kinda lame is all I'm saying.

You can see where I'm coming from, right?

If you think to protect choppers, cars stock of gear from other organized clans is easy you should defenitly try.

It s war up there. Just a different one. More strategy, more firepower, more fun.

Keep shooting noob on coast.

[MoonSpank 0]

Still haven't seen an argument as to how setting up tents far away hurts the game or other players. It's just taking an added precaution at the expense of having to travel a long' date=' long way if you die (or even if you don't). What is the logic in condemning this action?

[/quote']

It doesn't hurt the game or other players, but it's still cheap. Player's aren't staying in the desert (for lack of better terms), they're using it as a safe cache to store their gear. It's a cop out.

Camping the coast with a sniper rifle is cheap too. According to your logic, if you can't easily get to someone's tent they shouldn't be allowed to have one, which defeats the purpose of the tent. May as well remove the item in that case, or give a better alternative.

Surely you see how silly that is, right?

Camping the coast with a rifle still runs the risk of death. Having all of your gear even 1km off the map drastically reduces the chance that it'll be looted. It's just safe and easy. Kinda lame is all I'm saying.

You can see where I'm coming from, right?

It's not as drastic as you would think. There are reddit posts daily of people finding and destroying tent cities in the northern boundaries, and stories of clans who will spread out and search the space in a short amount of time. Organized players with intent will find the tents, and the only risk mitigation really is from random players finding your stash. In reality, it's still incredibly unsafe no matter where you set up your tent.

It takes a lot of effort to set up and maintain and protect. If players put forth that amount of work, they deserve the reward of a moderately safe place to call home.

I don't think "that's lame" is a valid argument against it.

[Canaan (DayZ) 0]

How is this considered in Arma2? Is it acceptable there?

Going by the game mode Warfare, where two teams build bases and fight to control the whole map while destroying the other's base, it wouldn't be considered an exploit or abusive.

However, the downsides of having your base off-map extremely outweighed the positives. AI supplies would take forever to get to get to a town (Which effects the amount of "money" players get), fresh players would be boned on going anywhere unless some one gave them a ride, jets + helicopters would find your base in no time when the enemy could access them, and you wouldn't be able to build a Air Station (Which allowed players to buy helicopters and jets).

Basically, ArmA 2 had very bad consequences for going off-map. The worst DayZ has is travel time.

Currently, I personally don't care if people go off-map, but if we ever get the option of fortifying places, then it should be stopped.

[mikyjax 3]

I don't even agree with the fact that it should be stopped later.

One day, there will be zombies up there too.

And you can fly, mark a map (yes you have to draw one) of camps you saw. there will be just more city around primary ones that everybody see.

Why would it ever be a problem? since it s fun.

Sand box guys, don't forget.

[Publik 404]

It's not as drastic as you would think. There are reddit posts daily of people finding and destroying tent cities in the northern boundaries' date=' and stories of clans who will spread out and search the space in a short amount of time. Organized players with intent will find the tents, and the only risk mitigation really is from random players finding your stash. In reality, it's still incredibly unsafe no matter where you set up your tent.

It takes a lot of effort to set up and maintain and protect. If players put forth that amount of work, they deserve the reward of a moderately safe place to call home.

I don't think "that's lame" is a valid argument against it.

[/quote']

I don't really browse reddit, but I'll take your word for it. My point is that you can do the same things on the map, but you run more risk. To build your base off the map just feels like an easy way to mitigate some of that risk. I'd rather us be able to secure cities or build our own fortifications and not be able to go into the desert. If it's a whole other game out there, why even play DayZ at all?

[mikyjax 3]

Because you have to find supplies.

And go in the dayz part of the map to find it.

Big war requiere big supplies. They raid stary like you, the dodge z's like you.

they just "don't do only that" like you

[-AoXo- 24]

Just because you have to come "back" to the map doesn't make it acceptable. Just because there is no invisible wall, or you don't have to circumnavigate prts of the map, or break game mechanics, or do anything that effects other players or the server doesn't mean it's not an exploit. If it was intended to be part of the map it would have detail - it would have towns, forests, and buildings. It's exploiting, it's taking advantage of the fact that you CAN go out there, and the fact that in the name of fairness and not being an ass hat that you should NOT be out there. You know you shouldn't be out there but you're making up reasons for why it is acceptable. The fact is that it's not intended, therefore you are exploiting.

[MoonSpank 0]

' pid='111027' dateline='1339740099']

Just because you have to come "back" to the map doesn't make it acceptable. Just because there is no invisible wall' date=' or you don't have to circumnavigate prts of the map, or break game mechanics, or do anything that effects other players or the server doesn't mean it's not an exploit. If it was intended to be part of the map it would have detail - it would have towns, forests, and buildings. It's exploiting, it's taking advantage of the fact that you CAN go out there, and the fact that in the name of fairness and not being an ass hat that you should NOT be out there. You know you shouldn't be out there but you're making up reasons for why it is acceptable. The fact is that it's not intended, therefore you are exploiting.

[/quote']

Or the map isn't finished because it's alpha. You're doing a lot of assuming.

[tiri 21]

Because you have to find supplies.

And go in the dayz part of the map to find it.

Big war requiere big supplies. They raid stary like you' date=' the dodge z's like you.

they just "don't do only that" like you

[/quote']

No. Most of the people out of the map are duping like crazy and they need nothing but that.

[Publik 404]

' pid='111027' dateline='1339740099']

Just because you have to come "back" to the map doesn't make it acceptable. Just because there is no invisible wall' date=' or you don't have to circumnavigate prts of the map, or break game mechanics, or do anything that effects other players or the server doesn't mean it's not an exploit. If it was intended to be part of the map it would have detail - it would have towns, forests, and buildings. It's exploiting, it's taking advantage of the fact that you CAN go out there, and the fact that in the name of fairness and not being an ass hat that you should NOT be out there. You know you shouldn't be out there but you're making up reasons for why it is acceptable. The fact is that it's not intended, therefore you are exploiting.

[/quote']

Or the map isn't finished because it's alpha. You're doing a lot of assuming.

The map isn't finished because it is. There's nothing out that way, because BIS (they made the map, not Rocket or the DayZ staff) didn't have the resources to continue the map out that way. It's like that on the Takistan(sp?) map as well.

[MoonSpank 0]

' pid='111027' dateline='1339740099']

Just because you have to come "back" to the map doesn't make it acceptable. Just because there is no invisible wall' date=' or you don't have to circumnavigate prts of the map, or break game mechanics, or do anything that effects other players or the server doesn't mean it's not an exploit. If it was intended to be part of the map it would have detail - it would have towns, forests, and buildings. It's exploiting, it's taking advantage of the fact that you CAN go out there, and the fact that in the name of fairness and not being an ass hat that you should NOT be out there. You know you shouldn't be out there but you're making up reasons for why it is acceptable. The fact is that it's not intended, therefore you are exploiting.

[/quote']

Or the map isn't finished because it's alpha. You're doing a lot of assuming.

The map isn't finished because it is. There's nothing out that way, because BIS (they made the map, not Rocket or the DayZ staff) didn't have the resources to continue the map out that way. It's like that on the Takistan(sp?) map as well.

So you're saying for a fact that the map is as finished as rocket wants it and he has no intentions to alter it for DayZ? He has no intention or ability to edit buildings or add/remove new ones?

[mikyjax 3]

it s part of imagination. Just tell your mind it s not "not intended" just tell your mind it s desert with nothing, where military camps are setup.

Where soldier have to fight against other soldiers who want your supplies.

There is no goal in dayz, just find yours. If you want to rule the map and have all you need to survive, ffs, where is the problem?

Why asking for a freaking wall? players ask for wall now?? wtf happened?why do you want to reduce the game.

One day rocket will probably spawn zombie around players up there too... they'll deal with it. It s just awesome...

[wazthatme 9]

TBH i see nothing wron with it i mean its still free game to loot it if you find it so yea

[Publik 404]

---Clipped---

So you're saying for a fact that the map is as finished as rocket wants it and he has no intentions to alter it for DayZ? He has no intention or ability to edit buildings or add/remove new ones?

If he does he's going to need a much larger team. The problem with adding new buildings is the modeling time, and even if you have artists to make the models you need level designers to map the terrain. It's really time-consuming, and said time could be used to do stuff like make the game stable or fix bugs. Also, the map is the size it is because that's what the engine can safely support. Arma3 is supposed to have much more modeled space, which is in part due to the fact that the engine is better.

[MoonSpank 0]

---Clipped---

So you're saying for a fact that the map is as finished as rocket wants it and he has no intentions to alter it for DayZ? He has no intention or ability to edit buildings or add/remove new ones?

If he does he's going to need a much larger team. The problem with adding new buildings is the modeling time' date=' and even if you have artists to make the models you need level designers to map the terrain. It's really time-consuming, and said time could be used to do stuff like make the game stable or fix bugs. Also, the map is the size it is because that's what the engine can safely support. Arma3 is supposed to have much more modeled space, which is in part due to the fact that the engine is better.

[/quote']

Do you know this is a limitation for a fact based off what rocket has said, or are you presenting an assumption that backs up your side of the argument? I would genuinely like to know.