Give players the tools and ability to occupy houses.

[Josefinko 40]

Pretty straight forward suggestion.

I understand that there are big plans for SA in terms of constructions and big instanced bases.. though,my suggestion applies to what can be done to provide some sense of security to players without the need to drill beneath the ground.

Allowing players to occupy abandoned homes is one of the options. Allow them to occupy houses and lock it's doors, and windows. allow them to fortify it, and allow them to be able to also lose what hidden inside, and the house as well.

The house it self can't be registered to any player, or anything like that. it's a free item that anyone can make a use of it - If a group of players, or an individual player, have pieces of wood and metal and the right tools, they are allowed to fortify the house and lock it up, or in contrast if the team finds a locked house that has already been fortified, with the right tools (such as construction hammer) let them smash the door up and see what inside, and make it their own.

Obviously making construction tools a rare find and the houses as well should be very limited source to give it an advantage over tents for example.

It might not fit in the current mod since such structures should be added to the map rather then come with it. more or less there's a need to plan it out smartly.

In addition since such places may also be considered "hot spots" players that own the house may use its windows and walls as cover to return fire thus inviting strategic gameplay.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Josefinko

[DiazWaffleCrabstro 39]

that would pose large problems, considering you can switch servers and spawn in the same place, have you even played the game? sorry but unless the things you do become bound to a certain server, i dont see this working.

[Josefinko 40]

You're right, it does pose a problem. one solution i may think off is randoming these houses location like helicopter sites. so not every server will look similar.

[LuckyTrident73 8]

I thought most people played on private hives now, so the whole spawning inside a locked house would only be a problem on the public hive. The randomizing idea would still work better of course.

[Dreygar (DayZ) 178]

that would pose large problems, considering you can switch servers and spawn in the same place, have you even played the game? sorry but unless the things you do become bound to a certain server, i dont see this working.

Considering they are going with an MMO Architect, it is possible that all servers and server properties will be linked. Meaning your base on X server will also be on Y server. This is just a possibility and who knows it may be just server dependent like it is now, but I'd much rather see it the other way around.

MMOs aren't as large as some would think. They usually have multiple "worlds" a player joins upon creation of a Character. Those worlds are not linked in anyway shape or form but basically control population. World 1 might be at its limit so you are forced to join World 2.

How this could work with Day Z is connecting each of the servers to a given world. An individual "server" might only hold 50 people, but 3 servers link together to form a 150 person "world" ... if you can understand where I am coming from.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Dreygar

[Michaelvoodoo25 3120]

And grenades to bring them down!

[Josefinko 40]

Speaking of mmo's, if there's something that SA should take from private hives is the bound to server approach but achieving that is almost seem impossible.

What i'm thinking off is something like that:

What's the ideal? Creating a realm of servers(or a server) that allows to bound players to it and share data without creating a situation where one wont be able to get in because of the low population (50-60 on a server) and thus be on queue time pretty much for eternity.

all in all i think that bounding characters to servers is something dayz really need and will make the game ten times better, Achieving that though pose alot of challenges.

What is needed is to increase the world to as such that we can populate it not with 50-60 players, but 500, or 1000.

How you do that? One option might be using existing maps and instance them into one big world. you move from one map to another through an instance, but the data is permanent on all of them, thus the world.

If all the players wanna go to the same location (which may raise a problem) i guess that can be somewhat solved as well by allowing player's cap on each instance. it still wont fix the whole queue issue but it may lower it to something more manageable.

needless to say that there will be a need to cap the amount of players that can even create characters on a server as you obviously dont want thousands trying to connect as there's no solution for that.

all in all i think that it's somehow what the team seem to be planning for the future though the underground idea was in my opinion not a good solution to the problem.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Josefinko

[logan23 118]

Considering they are going with an MMO Architect, it is possible that all servers and server properties will be linked. Meaning your base on X server will also be on Y server. This is just a possibility and who knows it may be just server dependent like it is now, but I'd much rather see it the other way around.

MMOs aren't as large as some would think. They usually have multiple "worlds" a player joins upon creation of a Character. Those worlds are not linked in anyway shape or form but basically control population. World 1 might be at its limit so you are forced to join World 2.

How this could work with Day Z is connecting each of the servers to a given world. An individual "server" might only hold 50 people, but 3 servers link together to form a 150 person "world" ... if you can understand where I am coming from.

I think the end goal is to have as close as they can get to like EVE Online- of one persistent world where everyone one is on.

The reason this is right not not possible is due to map sizes,..in the future and DayZ has large maps and many maps that connect like how MMOs do zones or planets, then it's possible.

But even then due to say server setups per difficulties in DayZ,..we would see a few persistent worlds.

3 years from now- I can see where there are 5 -10 servers per location of the world as it is broken up (Europe, North America, Pacific)

These 5- 10 servers would have several maps and large ones that would allow a thousand or more players on the net whole of all the maps together.

EX. if we take the DayZ mod maps and had them all connected by a boat or chopper--Chernaus = 150 players, Lingor = 60-70, Panthera = 100, Namalsk = 80, Fallujah = 80- 100

This means the Server would have around 500 players, give or take what they want to buffer. Players would be able to choose when a new live, to start on any of the maps.

This is what I think we will see.

I'm not sure how Private Hives work and would this be something they an hold? or would they be setup where they only have a map or two connected ,..which wouldn't matter since they would not have characters who could go to the Public Servers.

[Michaelvoodoo25 3120]

Where's the fun in binding players to servers? No choice? What happens when I meet new friends and we want to play together?

[Josefinko 40]

Where's the fun in binding players to servers? No choice? What happens when I meet new friends and we want to play together?

Technically you can always create new character on a new server (referring to private hives).

Sure, you wont be able to move your already built up character from one server to another though imo the pros overcoming the cons in that case. the possibilities are really great if players are bound to a server. it gives options in terms of server dynamics, community events, ingame trade, total autonomy that fits perfectly to the whole dayz idea, again, in my opinion.

[dekartz 315]

I prefer the linked-hive concept personally. I mean, community events ingame trade, and so-on already take place, so confining particular characters to particular servers wouldn't encourage that any further than it does now. And say a particular server goes down. You lose days, weeks, etc of progress to technical difficulties as opposed to bandits or whatever.

[Charb 298]

So... what is this post about? Seems a little cluttered in here...

Player housing. Server Hopping as an exploit. Underground Bunkers as alternate player housing.

- Fortifying a house with wood, how is this any different than barbed wire or tank traps?

- If there was a way to code it, prevent a player from spawning into a home which is "boarded up" preventing server hopping, also preventing anyone from "living" in a house. making it more a tactical position.

- What tools used to remove wooden boards? Hatchet of course !!!

- Why do we need ownership of a house? People unable to hide tents properly?

- What about the instanced player bunkers? Sadly we need more info. do you create a "portal" anywhere you choose? That would be the proper way to do it imho.

[Michaelvoodoo25 3120]

Nah, I don't see much fun trying to play with the local clans and teams who only reason for playing is to control resources like vehicles and bandits who's only aim is to ruin everyone else's fun, all on a set server!

I don't want to be locked to a server when later on rocket releases control and allows private hives all over again, each with their own preferences and benefits!

The community will make more steps than rocket does, like it does now, and offer more to the players / community.

That plus my rebellious streak which does not like being told what to do and where to play

[logan23 118]

Nah, I don't see much fun trying to play with the local clans and teams who only reason for playing is to control resources like vehicles and bandits who's only aim is to ruin everyone else's fun, all on a set server!

I don't want to be locked to a server when later on rocket releases control and allows private hives all over again, each with their own preferences and benefits!

The community will make more steps than rocket does, like it does now, and offer more to the players / community.

That plus my rebellious streak which does not like being told what to do and where to play

What we see with Private hives in the Mod will most likely not transfer to the SA- because this is a game , not a mod. And second Rocket and team need to balance and test features.

You can't get proper data for a final game if you have 20 private hives running all kinds of different settings.

I predict that Private have will get to tweak a few setting but nothing like what loot is allowed and not,..more with server player cap, 1st person only , etc. nothing that will take away from testing.

We all have to remember that this is a Game not a mod in the SA. Different rules apply.

[Dreygar (DayZ) 178]

This is yet another example of what the mod limitations have done to how people perceive the game. There are a lot of people who prefer the community server ran stuff, which is something I'm not for.

Letting the community run the servers is definitely the easy way to go, but would much rather get a more genuine experience of game run servers that create something like I mentioned above.

There is no point in having a public hive unless everything transitions from server to server. Your tent, your vehicle, your whatever. Which means creating one massive world that everyone can connect to. If groups are large enough to control a section of the map, then so be it and kudos to them. Just means another group will have to form to combat or ally with them. Like I said it creates a more genuine experience.

[Josefinko 40]

It's obviously off-topic but as mentioned by dreygar, i as well think letting anyone running a dayz server will not result in a desired outcome.

Fact of the matter is that public hive structure doesn't offer much freedom, at all. when the server is shaped by the players playing on it then real magic may occur. the players are incharge of what's happening rather than an admin. this can only occur when players commit to one place that they invest their time on and is monitored by professionals, and not by size of pockets.

ideas like mention on this topic, good or bad, afaik will be impossible on a public hive structure. i hope the direction the team took is to take control over the servers rather than leaving it to the community because at the long run everyone running their own business is fitting an FPS game rather than what DayZ striving to be, which is anything between mmo to an rpg.

Gotta keep in mind that the combination of MMO and FPS is not new, though dayz brought a whole new meaning to it and it is very fitting to follow traditional mmos here. for a game like planetside2 it might not be the case.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Josefinko

[Jonsse 69]

Pretty straight forward suggestion.

I understand that there are big plans for SA in terms of constructions and big instanced bases.. though,my suggestion applies to what can be done to provide some sense of security to players without the need to drill beneath the ground.

Allowing players to occupy abandoned homes is one of the options. Allow them to occupy houses and lock it's doors, and windows. allow them to fortify it, and allow them to be able to also lose what hidden inside, and the house as well.

The house it self can't be registered to any player, or anything like that. it's a free item that anyone can make a use of it - If a group of players, or an individual player, have pieces of wood and metal and the right tools, they are allowed to fortify the house and lock it up, or in contrast if the team finds a locked house that has already been fortified, with the right tools (such as construction hammer) let them smash the door up and see what inside, and make it their own.

Obviously making construction tools a rare find and the houses as well should be very limited source to give it an advantage over tents for example.

It might not fit in the current mod since such structures should be added to the map rather then come with it. more or less there's a need to plan it out smartly.

In addition since such places may also be considered "hot spots" players that own the house may use its windows and walls as cover to return fire thus inviting strategic gameplay.

I think that's a great idea. Naturally since you can log in and out there are some issues with things like this. But being able to fortify a house would be very interesting, if for nothing else than sandbox 101. With the way DayZ works now the idea is slightly ludicrous naturally, but we all know(or at least some of us) that it's not the way Bohemia Interactive wants the world to be in the future. You have my vote on the suggestion ballot.