how to handle property - the issue when being offline

[joe_mcentire 2073]

I've read most recent threads and realized that there are some issues constantly emerging with some ideas.
No matter if vehicles, tents or (eventually implemented) team bases, or team effort ideas (e.g. fixing up and maintaning a power plant), they all share at least at some point one problem:
What happens if you and/or everyone else of your team logs off from the game?
Simple as it is now: abandonment.
But is this still a valid and proper mechanism, is this as good as it gets?

Just some basically developed ideas from myself:

• vehicles, tents

as they are objects, it would be easy to attach some info to these. such as last operator/owner, time owned by this owner etc... Based on these information, these objects could simply log off along with your character as long as you're in a reasonable vicinity to them.

Problem: Is this immersive at all?!

• team bases (hypothetical)

A group could run a "base"-structure. Let's just assume again there is some mechanism that binds the "base" itself to a person.

The main idea here could be that every person (no matter if it is a clan/team/group or not) becomes an owner-"candidate" as long as he is in or again in a reasonable vicinity to that base. The moment he is too far away he loses this candidate status. Now after "X" hours of being candidate you change from candidate to owner. Which means the base-structure lists you as its owner in its properties.

Issue:

So you have to stay in that base for "X" hours?? We are a group of 6 ppl, it doesn't make any sense that all of us must stay there that amount of time!

Another idea could be to implement "quantities" which incorporate the "candidate"-idea. Let's say all candidates that stay "Y" min. together in that base-area would be identified as one quantity. So as long as >= 0% of that quantity stays in the base the "ownership"-timer still will run down. (the same if the quantity is still one single person)

So how to deal with logging off? Of course it is not possible to maintain that ownership by always keeping at least one member of that quantity online. It is impossible.

There are now again three possibilites:

• The base gets abandoned leaving the possibility for everyone to become owner, with the same working mechanism as brought to you before, leaving the owner no chance to defend.
• The base itself is a new instance (meaning loading screen; but only thinkable for tunnel/cave systems in my opinion).
• The base can get locked in some way, so no other can take over the base

Issue for the latter:

What if the base-owner plays on a very unregular basis, leaving no one a chance to take it over?

A "Cool-off" or "Abandonment" timer could be implemented. Let's just say 24/48 hours after the last visit of a member of the quantity the base again is free to take over; meaning the same procedure execution as above mentioned.

It could be more/less fair for the opposing forces and for the team that owns the base as well.

*EDIT:

Of course one idea could be to build bases without the (postulated) idea of a dev-defined and fixed to a point base-area, meaning one can build (with a proper crafting-system) a base wherever and out of whatever one wants. Now go a step further: what if you have some kind of "foundation stone". By placing it you define a new base-area of a radius r = "Z" meter. This gives the chance to build more hidden bases and the chance to define the look of it way more independently. Can be almost ruled out : http://dayzmod.com/f...20#entry1204654

• team effort ideas (e.g. maintaining a power plant) (hypothetical)

This could work similarly as the example above. Let's just focus on the maintenace-part.

Again you must stay at least "X" min/hours at the scene, so the plant/factory/whatever to start working by itself.

Again two possible ideas for the autonomous functioning of the plant:

• You need someone after "Y" hours to come and handle the process so that it won't destabilize/shuts down again (the "LOST"-approach)
• or the "fuck the majority"-approach by introducing passive NPC's that pretend to oversee the process; no one ever has to come back constantly to "press the button". This would also grant the possibility to deliberately sabotage such team efforts, by intruding and killing everyone..

So what do you think about that, or better what do you suggest?!

edit:
Maybe also check this thread out: http://dayzmod.com/f...ge__hl__regular
or this one: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/127431-standalone-suggestion-bases/#entry1227195

Edited July 22, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Uuni 74]

I don't really see the issue with the current system. The game world is intact 24/7 and when you log out only your character disappears from the world. I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with it other than people losing their junk if they leave it unguarded, and I don't see that as an issue

[joe_mcentire 2073]

well for my first point tbh i also could live with the existing mechanism... but think about the second two (and dean is actually talking very vividly about these) there it would be a problem. Why would you invest in building up a base just to lose everything when logged of for, let's say in a very bad case, 1 hour. there this would be an issue. and why not talk about it now?

[thejarofflies@gmail.com 12]

I don't really see the issue with the current system. The game world is intact 24/7 and when you log out only your character disappears from the world. I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with it other than people losing their junk if they leave it unguarded, and I don't see that as an issue

I think there is a big difference between leaving you "junk" unguarded because you went to get some blood bags from cherno, and leaving your stuff unguarded so you can log off, go to sleep, and go to work the next day...

But personally I don't like the idea that the stuff (that you cannot carry) should somehow be bound to you character.

Don't like the idea for the NPC's also.

I have put some ideas here http://dayzmod.com/f...ge__hl__regular (again a lame way to bump a thread) i's a long post, but i think it's worth reading because in my opinion it's the best possible solution that doesn't break the game in any way (at least I couldn't find it) and pretty much helps in a way that you would be more frequent on a particular server even though you are not that frequently online.

[thesodesa 99]

I have an issue with instanced bases be they underground structures or not, because I still get the image of a huge cave entrance appearing in front of me out of nowhere once the owner of it logs in. They do have their pros and cons like the op says, though I think it'll be impossible to have these on servers with more than 100 people. Even if a single base would require at least 5 people to operate, you could still have 20 bases on a single server.

How would the transitions between the main map and the bases be handled?. I say 'main map' because the only successful implementations of instanced homes are in some of the more well known MMOs, where there is a loading screen between your home and the main world, and the house in inaccessible to other players. I'd rather not have loading screens in the game if possible, and the fact that these things would be inaccessible to bandits, for example, takes away from the game that DayZ is.

I do really like the idea of maintaining/fixing static server bound structures that already exist on the map or that could be added in the SA, to open up new possibilities for players. Assembling a locomotive(player operated) to travel on the tracks between the coastal cities. Fixing and maintaining a power plant so some of the other facilities on the server/map, like the radio tower or a water purification plant could be operated.

There is still the issue of logging out, but I seriously can't think of any way to address this without instancing.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TheSodesa

[thejarofflies@gmail.com 12]

well for my first point tbh i also could live with the existing mechanism... but think about the second two (and dean is actually talking very vividly about these) there it would be a problem. Why would you invest in building up a base just to lose everything when logged of for, let's say in a very bad case, 1 hour. there this would be an issue. and why not talk about it now?

I agree completely. It's obviously an issue for some... Discussing about it won't hurt anyone. I we manage to find a solution great, if we don't no harm done.

[Uuni 74]

well for my first point tbh i also could live with the existing mechanism... but think about the second two (and dean is actually talking very vividly about these) there it would be a problem. Why would you invest in building up a base just to lose everything when logged of for, let's say in a very bad case, 1 hour. there this would be an issue. and why not talk about it now?

How do you mean losing everything in 1 hour? If a server loses the data it's not really the players fault and should be adressed differently. If you mean that you lose your stuff when you go to sleep because someone sneaks in and takes your junk, that's your own 'fault'. Be glad that you weren't inside and get yourself killed in sleep. I think a key part of making a base is hiding it. With the tents already I've seen a great deal of hiding tent cities, I expect things only to get better in tha SA where we get proper bases

The best way i think to adress this is having locks that take a serious amount of firepower to punch through or just a key which you can give to members of your group. Keys would fit nicely in the toolbelt without consuming an item slot or any of that nonsense. Keys aren't even a necessity. The bandits have to sleep as well so it's not like people are trying to assault you 24/7 unless you set up your base in a high traffic area. Remember that we will be getting all those nice traps in the future as well so you can add a little more protection in the vicinity of your base of operations with a few bear irons for those unwatched hours of night :]

Having an open discussion about stuff like this is awesome!

Edited February 24, 2013 by Uuni

[joe_mcentire 2073]

i mean the latter and i guess this is not just so easily dealt with as just being "your own fault". I think it would be fair to give the owner of a base at least a fair chance to defend it somehow.
There are some problems that arise:

• Why should anyone bother to attack a base when they now they can simply take all the stuff and take it over, when the owner's gone?
• Why should anyone bother to build a base when they now they can simply lose their stuff and lose the base, when they're gone?

Those two points would make a mockery out of the idea of building bases.

But I just had another useful idea concerning how to hide bases.... i'm going to edit the initial post

Edited January 27, 2014 by joe_mcentire

[Uuni 74]

i mean the latter and i guess this is not just so easily delt with as just being "your own fault". I think it would be fair to give the owner of a base at least a fair chance to defend it somehow.

There are some problems that arise:

• Why should anyone bother to attack a base, when they now they can simply take all the stuff and overtake it, the owner's gone.
  
• Why should anyone bother to build a base, when they now they can simply lose their stuff and lose the base, when they're gone.
  

Those two points would make a mockery out of the idea of building bases.

But I just had another useful idea concerning how to hide bases.... i'm going to edit the initial post

I gotta agree I'm starting to see an issue here (sorta). I guess it really comes down to what benefits are you looking for when you build a base. Are you looking for a place to store your stuff or are you looking to establish a settlement where you spend most of your time. If it's the former it can be fixed with locks, if it's the latter it's much harder thing to deal with. The only thing I can come up with now for the latter is just to have enough people around to guard the place, don't know how that would work out though. Locks can kinda help as well as barricading the entrance before logging out as they can't just serverhop in like they could in the current iteration of dayz. I think that barricading a place up for the night is a legit strategy, you'd need at least a functional vehicle to break thru and that's enough effort to take over a place imo.

[Rutch 4]

In EVE Online (yes a little far fetched, as that's in space but hell), POS(Player Owned Structures) are captured using a system like this:

A structure has 1000 "fuel" and 1000 HP

When another group attacks the structure and drops the health to zero(or stops at 1), the structure goes into reinforced mode. Meaning it is impossible to interact with it(You can't use any of the structure's things). It will also start consuming fuel, once the structure is out of fuel it will unlock, meaning the attackers have succeeded and can now capture the structure.

The rate at which fuel is consumed could be changed to rocket's/the community's liking. The only way to regain control of the structure's attributes, perks, entry etc is by repairing it to 100%(Or perhaps 70%) HP.

Now, since Dayz is non-sci fi, the idea should be a little bit changed:

A base may have at max 1000 points.

Players may raise or lower the amount of points a base has, depending whether he wants to keep the base or take it!

A player attempting to lower or raise the points will do an animation taking a couple of seconds, and when that is finished it will drain/raise the points by 10(Subject to change)

When the base reaches 0 points it will unlock, and the base will be capturable by other groups.

Meaning your base is always secure untill you leave for such a long period that a group of people can drain it to 0 points. And if you log in noticing someone has attempted to lower the points, you and your group will have to put effort in raising the points again.

In my opinion this gives large groups the advantage they deserve, a larger group would also raid a base better etc, yet it still gives alot of protection.

[joe_mcentire 2073]

hmm.. but in the worst case (for the defending party) how long would it take from start to finish of this procedure.

Tbh i don't like the idea, that someone has not even a fair chance to defend his/her base. Your suggestion would approve this (if I'm not mistaken).

So i say if you're too long offline you're yourself to blame. But i don't like the idea to build up a base the whole day then go to sleep and wake up the next day/morning and your base is already gone...

Oh another issue:

But you could log in just for a short time to reset the abandonment-timer again, leaving no one ever the chance to overtake the base!

Well spotted random guy. We could implement a counter (counting time in which a member of the quantity is within the base-area) that is connected to the abandonment-timer, meaning the timer only resets itself if the counter reaches "Z" min/hrs. This would add to the immersion as a base would highly unlikely be left alone without guards.

This idea binds the owner at least a reasonable amount of time to his/her base, when playing giving others the chance to plunder/attack.

Edited February 25, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Uuni 74]

IMO they should just allow heavy barricading so people couldn't just walk in. You would clearly see if someone had broken in while you were away and it if they did it right, it wouldn't be too easy to break into the bases

[ImageCtrl 719]

The world continues to live when I am offline. I love this part of dayz.

Cars, tents etc do not need new rules.

I think that this should not be any different at untergoundbases.

Undergroundbases should be invisible after a short time.

Let's say in the first stage you can see a hole with a ladder.

After some more work on it, you can hide the hole. (optically invisible)

It is only findable by knocking the ground. (no ownership needed)

Seeing someone going in hole, then knocking the ground, then finding and enterable.

NPC, pleas noooooo.

Some Traps yes.

This way the base is a part of the living world.

This way the base is a relatively safe location.

[joe_mcentire 2073]

The world continues to live when I am offline. I love this part of dayz.

Cars, tents etc do not need new rules.

I think that this should not be any different at untergoundbases.

Undergroundbases should be invisible after a short time.

Let's say in the first stage you can see a hole with a ladder.

After some more work on it, you can hide the hole. (optically invisible)

It is only findable by knocking the ground. (no ownership needed)

Seeing someone going in hole, then knocking the ground, then finding and enterable.

NPC, pleas noooooo.

Some Traps yes.

This way the base is a part of the living world.

This way the base is a relatively safe location.

so you suggest only " 'Nam-style bases " or "Saddam-Hussein-experience holes"...that's a little bit odd to say at least.

The NPC idea in this special case was merely an idea ofsome kind of "living" props. They should just signal to someone hey this place was rebuilt and is now running.

Edited February 25, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[ImageCtrl 719]

Yes, "Saddam-Hussein-experience holes"... :P

Was not thinking about carports in the undergroundbase. Let me rethink about it some days. B)

[joe_mcentire 2073]

i know...there seem to be just easy solutions and answers to all of this, but if you think thoroughly it gets tricky ;). When we talk at least about implementing bases this has to be addressed first, or else - at least i think so - bases could rapidly become useless and/or a waste of time

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

Nothing stored should be off limits to other players and I would hate to see artificial limitations in place to protect hoarders. Locks on a makeshift door wouldn't stop anyone with a crowbar, hatchet, handgun, or powerful rifle. Barricades can eventually be broken down no matter how well constructed. Traps are always a good idea.

These underground bases have all sorts of issues, least among them 100 player servers with massive amount of traffic, so I'll be interested in seeing how they pull it off but these bases wont be added for a while from the sounds of it.

I would support stash boxes buried underground that can hold a couple guns or items. Only players who knew the exact location could get to them, assuming they had a shovel or entrenching tool. That poses other problems though and adding some way for other players to detect them would be essential.

[ImageCtrl 719]

I believe that I need play "Space Station 13" first to get an idea of the direction rocket wants to go. It's easier to discuss this topic after playing it i think.

[shadowjack 254]

I think some folks need to get over their gear fetish. If i had my way when you die your tents, vehicles, stash, ect die with you. Otherwise the game becomes overrun with elite/rare gear

[joe_mcentire 2073]

but this topic...it is not about death?! ;)

Edited February 25, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[joe_mcentire 2073]

recent interview with Matt Lightfoot:

Q: Have you ever thought about taking things from Wasteland such as missions?

A: We want to have something for players to do as sort of an end game, the problem is how can we do that within server limitations. Wasteland has base building but because that is done above ground it means an ever increasing number of items are saved to the server which eventually starts to lag down the server. It's really how we achieve an end-game without affecting everything else. We have spoken about instanced underground base-building as an idea and that's something we are yet to decide on, so like on Skyrim you've got your main land and when you go into a dungeon there is a separate loading time for that, it's a separate world space which would eliminate the problem with items. That's one idea but it's not something we are going to be looking at until the second half of the year really.

so i guess the idea of absolutely free placeable bases will be scrapped...

Edited February 25, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

My two cents, ownership doesn't "exist" in a natural sense, it is a purely artificial human invention. It is natural that such a principle become difficult to uphold in a state of lawlessness.

[shadowjack 254]

My two cents, ownership doesn't "exist" in a natural sense, it is a purely artificial human invention. It is natural that such a principle become difficult to uphold in a state of lawlessness.

I wouldn't say it is artificial. Rather it is temporary. You possess "it" until someone bigger/stronger/faster/smarter/better armed/the environment/an opportunist takes it from you

Note: added oppotunist, CraigChrist gets the credit ... and beans

Edited February 26, 2013 by ShadowJack

[thejarofflies@gmail.com 12]

I wouldn't say it is artificial. Rather it is temporary. You possess "it" until someone bigger/stronger/faster/smarter/better armed/the environment takes it from you

or in this case, until you go offline

[Dr. Goner 661]

I don't really see the issue with the current system. The game world is intact 24/7 and when you log out only your character disappears from the world. I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with it other than people losing their junk if they leave it unguarded, and I don't see that as an issue

But are you technically leaving it unguarded, if you log out right next to it. As far as realism in the game is concerned, and I know we're all concerned with that, when I log out what is my character doing in this immersive world? Sleeping, away, I'm not sure. I understand what the OP is getting at. When I log out right next to my items should they be fair game?