how to handle property - the issue when being offline

[Uuni 74]

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

Yes, you are leaving them technically unguarded when you log off. Logging off removes your character from the game world so he can't be harmed. You can think that your character is sleeping or whatever floats your boat but that does not affect the things happning in-game

[joe_mcentire 2074]

well as i said before, the real problem is the principle of a base would be made a nonsense of.

quasi giving it away as soon as your are just "not there". To hide bases could make sense when thinking of them being tiny hussein-esque holes in the earth or tiny hideouts between trees. but this i guess is not the idea of bases, as we already have tents that could be placed between trees e.g. and used as such.

Edited February 26, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

But at the same time, "not" giving it away would make everything you made "protected forever" as long as you remain offline, and we can't have that either, otherwise you might aswel have a bank system.

I mean if you where to get attacked, would you really win? You might very well lose too.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Lady Kyrah

[joe_mcentire 2074]

that is the problem i tried to solve it in my initial post. no of course it mustn't be protected forever. someone who has a base, is bound to deal with it somehow regularly, not to lose it. however, it is a matter of proportionality. And this could be solved possibly with my timer-approach. but that is just one way.

so do you have any ideas for that case?

Edited February 27, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Karnesh 21]

Since there are people who does'nt play this game 24/7 they can't watch the camp at all times neither can you in the real world logout, you can't expect people to be online 24/7.. In a real apocolypse you would probably watch your camp or be in your camp most of the time until you needed supplies, but you know, some people got lives outside this game, like kids, school, homework, work, wife and other possible hobbies that takes up time. Why is it so that everytime a gamer that does'nt do anything else completely lack the understanding of having interests outside a game and then flail everyone who wants a little more casual gameplay, it's irrational and elitistic behavior. Im half-in-agreement with the fact of having 100% secure locations is a little stupid, as long as you are online, but if you are logged out of that world, i do not think it's unfair at all to have your things locked and secured until you are back online.

This.

[Never 237]

Well the security provided, as well as the size and scale of your base, should be restricted in realistic terms. As in:

> You have 1 guy and a shovel.

Your 'base' is basically an improvised stash. You should be able to dig a hole, find some way of concealing it, and then have to trust your skill at hiding it enough so when your away it won't be discovered. You may be able to find materials for constructing more but on your own moving those materials and then looking after will be hard work, because it is. Thats what the situation would be in real life, so why should you get your hidden gear protected while your away in game?

> You have 35 guys, a couple of jeeps and a helicopter.

You'll most likely be able to organise better and gather and move more materials, but at a trade off against your base/stash being easy to hide. A fenced off area with an improvised helipad is a LOT easier to find than a geocache after all.

You'd most likely be able to defend it better too, but that depends on your group organisation again, but if your guards all wander/log off, you'll be unprotected, again much as your base would be in real life.

Again there should not be ANY guarantees that your gear is protected UNLESS YOU MAKE THE EFFORTS YOURSELF TO PROTECT IT.

DayZ originally was about rewards = effort put in. That should be maintained at all points of the game/mod quite simply.

You want a base? Cool, work for it. Got a base but want to keep it? Guess what? BACK TO WORK.

At no point should you get anything for free in DayZ. Getting a back up gun and beans because you found enough random tat to build a 'base' is not on. Having a back up gun and beans because your working hard to maintain that option, seems more in the spirit of the mod/game to me.

You want a base, cool, but then you have to work to keep it going, protected and yours. At no point should you be given sole access to it. You got robbed? sucks, but it happens. Learn from your mistake for next time.

Some people may argue 'but what about lonewolfs?' Fuck you simply.

You made your choice when you choose that gamestyle. Clan players are also restricted by theirs.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Never

[wisper 61]

...be able to build double fences and trap infected in between as safety! Yeah!!

Seriously, barriers, traps and some sort of rotation between fellow players for protecting a base that is bigger then a simple stash, should be enough. Individual stash can be hidden, locked away or both with equivallent risk. Would be cool if players could set up also warning signs, like "Entering Back-Stabbers' Band Territory, We Hate You Already".

On a slightly different topic, how about having sleeping avatars while logged off? We would then need to find secure locations to logg off; be that camouflage, locking oneself in a room/car trunk etc, or even paying other players with bases in order to sleep safely inside. Would be far more realistic then just dissapearing.

[Uuni 74]

This.

But that would mean that the stash you have is separate from the game world like a safety bank system. I feel this would just create issues

IMO the game world should be separate from your like it is now. Being able to lock up a place with barricades and traps and then logging out inside the walls is a way to protect your base when you are offline. It leaves the option up for counterplay and but you can keep your stuff somewhat safe unless you leave the place unatended for a long time

[joe_mcentire 2074]

-snip-

I see your point, however to be realistic who would be able to be 24/7 - even if you are 35 guys in a clan - in the game to keep your base running? This is simply not possible, unless you see the base as "save haven" where you grant security and a free trade area, to let quasi every passing guy in your base at all time.

The major problem would simply be: who would try to maintain a base when they know they have no chance to defend when not online. The reality would be, there would be some to try at first, because it is all new and cool and whatnot but ppl will soon lose their joy in building and maintaining bases as they see the effort is simply useless in the long run. PPL would simply not use bases any more. Hence you made a huge effort, added a huge feature to the game and it would be in let's say 2 months completely redundant. of course that is just my opinion and my own belief.

edit:

Q: Are we ever going to see dogs?

A: Not in the initial release, more because we have to look at what they bring to the game and the time we would have to spend to get them perfect and the problems we always had in the mod was making them attack others and getting them to work correctly is such a big task for what limited gameplay they bring so there are a lot of things we want to do before that.

..from a Matt Lightfoot interview. This could then be the same argument with bases..

Edited February 28, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[thesodesa 99]

I see your point, however to be realistic who would be able to be 24/7 - even if you are 35 guys in a clan - in the game to keep your base running? This is simply not possible, unless you see the base as "save haven" where you grant security and a free trade area, to let quasi every passing guy in your base at all time.

The major problem would simply be: who would try to maintain a base when they know they have no chance to defend when not online. The reality would be, there would be some to try at first, because it is all new and cool and whatnot but ppl will soon lose their joy in building and maintaining bases as they see the effort is simply useless in the long run. PPL would simply not use bases any more. Hence you made a huge effort, added a huge feature to the game and it would be in let's say 2 months completely redundant. of course that is just my opinion and my own belief.

You just have to make forming big groups a huge advantage. You could have your engineer/mechanics maintaining the place, lone wolves could work as hunters delivering meat in return for safety, scavengers running to cities in search of medical supplies and useful items.

Just make the environment really dangerous and individual players less capable(the amount of loot and tools a single guy can lug around is ridiculous at the moment), so that having people fulfilling different roles in a community type scenario actually becomes a necessity or a near necessity, if not for survival then at least for anything more 'end gamey', like vehicle repairing and managing a working vehicle workshop..

Edited March 11, 2013 by TheSodesa

[joe_mcentire 2074]

You just have to make forming big groups a huge advantage. You could have your engineer/mechanics maintaining the place, lone wolves could work as hunters delivering meat in return for safety, scavengers running to cities in search of medical supplies and useful items.

tbh this is an dayz-utopia - the ultimate goal and end-game of dayz and this is due to mankind never reachable ;)

Ultimately this is Dean's wet dreams come true (this is just most certain!!) ;)

[thesodesa 99]

tbh this is an dayz-utopia - the ultimate goal and end-game of dayz and this is due to mankind never reachable ;)

Ultimately this is Dean's wet dreams come true (this is just most certain!!) ;)

It wouldn't stop people from forming bandit groups on servers and taking over some other base on the map.

[liquidmind 320]

Personally I think any form that locks property to a player so no one else can access ist, is something for wasteland, not for dayZ.

Never raised some very good issues here.

If you play lone wolf, you could hide a tent or stash (neat boxes in Oring!!!) somewhere under a tree. maybe have a few of those.

Very unlikely anyone is going to find it, if he doesn't stalk you. Having the option to camo them with a net or a bush, would add to that.

Underground bases were suggested for larger structures, as they would solve the performance issue, as well as being hidden. If you find the entrance you could access it.

Both is very disappointing for people who like a really nice camp in the woods.

I personally see 2 types here.

a) the camp. where you store your gear, your cars and start off into the day

B) the fortress, where your clan hides and protects itself from rival groups.

having boobietraps, locked door (wood, metal) with different difficulties, maybe a number-lock, so clan-members can enter would give a certain amount of protection.

Another way to possibly defend your fortress would be the option to hire an NPC guard, that you have to give equipment to, and give a task to perform. Huge bases might need several for effective protection. Wether npcs should be used or not is a completely different thing tough.

If all things fall apart, I think you can hire some asian players for a few dollars a week to guard your base :-D

[joe_mcentire 2074]

well you won't find much supporters for the NPC idea, that's evident.

but where are your suggestions for being offline?!

- well you could hire ... someone... i guess...WHO WOULD DO THAT? what happend to society....

[Never 237]

The major problem would simply be: who would try to maintain a base when they know they have no chance to defend when not online. The reality would be, there would be some to try at first, because it is all new and cool and whatnot but ppl will soon lose their joy in building and maintaining bases as they see the effort is simply useless in the long run. PPL would simply not use bases any more. Hence you made a huge effort, added a huge feature to the game and it would be in let's say 2 months completely redundant. of course that is just my opinion and my own belief.

You seem to have read around my point.

I agree with you, you would be making a huge effort to build it. but my point is this:

It will also take you a huge effort to maintain

and more importantly:

It will take you an even bigger effort to protect.

Its a zombie apocalypse and everyones fighting for their lives. Would should your big shiny base be safe from other hungry players forced to do stupid things for a meal? It shouldn't. AT ALL.

It seems you looking at it from the perspective that you put the work in, so its yours. Thing is, DayZ is a survival mod. Protecting you shit is kinda a huge part of staying alive to put it bluntly. You also seem to be looking at it from just your view point. But again DayZ is open world, so everyone else's gamestyle is equally valid, even if it fucks with yours.

Its a matter of people having different perspectives on the game, and noones stuff should be safe, its simply NOT THAT KIND OF GAME. Look at it this way, say we have two players, A & B, and they are thinking about bases:

A) I could build a base, hide my guns and food, fences would be good. But theres bandits and looters fucking EVERYWHERE so i better be careful.

B) i could build a base but then its basically a giant sign saying 'HERE IS WHERE I KEEP MY STUFF'.

See the difference? Both ways of thinking are equally valid and have their place in a mod thats basically about the last scraps of humanity murdering each other over tins of beans!

With each choice you make a sacrifice, but hey thats Dayz deal with it.

build a big base and be a target, or be a careful squirrel and hide your stuff well. Thats the beauty of DayZ you CAN do what you want, but don't expect it to be easy, and certainly don't expect people to not what to kill you for whatever you have.

but where are your suggestions for being offline?!

i've given you my suggestions.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Never

[ollox 38]

I don't want to sound rude but your English isn't great. However, I like your ideas and you've obviously put a lot of time into them. So I've put some time into them too! I have re-written an edited version of your OP with a few of my own suggestions in square brackets:

Reading through the recent suggestion threads I've noticed a few recurring issues regarding persistence and ownership. Whether the subject is vehicles, tents, or the as yet unimplemented team mechanics (building a base, running a powerstation, etc.) the same question is always asked: What happens when you and your team log out? As it currently stands, items remain in the world, completely unprotected and available to any passer by.

But is this mechanic viable for the future? Is this as good as it gets?

Here are my thoughts on possible solutions:

Vehicles and Tents

Since they are objects it should be easy to attach some data to them such as last operator/owner, time owned by this owner, etc. and based on this information the objects could simply "log-off" along with the owner's character, provided they are in the vicinity of the objects. However, would this be too safe for Day Z?

Team Bases (hypothetical)

Let's assume that groups will be able to maintain bases, and we'll also assume that these bases can be assigned an owner.

Every person within the vicinity of a base becomes a candidate owner of it until they move out of the vicinity, which results in them losing candidate status.

After "X" hours of being a candidate, the player becomes the owner of the base.

For teams, the entire team would stake ownership as a collective and only one member would have to remain near the base for the entire team's candidacy timer to keep counting down.

[Ollox says: how about greater numbers near the base making the timer count faster?]

But what happens when we log out? It's not possible to keep one member logged-in at all times.

The base could simply be abandoned, but that seems unfair since the team had to put in time to secure it in the first place.

The base could be "locked", preventing anyone from taking over the base; but this locks up the map, and who knows how long the owner will be logged out for? It's far too safe for Day Z.

The base could be instanced, meaning that there would be many copies of the same base that could be used by different teams at different times.

The base could have an "abandonment" timer that protects the base for a day or so after which it is "abandoned" and free again for anyone to grab.

[Ollox says: The base could remain owned by the logged out team indefinitely until a rival team tried to break in. It would take several attempts to break in and there would be a cool-down period between attempts, to give the owners a chance to log back in and repair the damage. The base could also have a security level, which could be upgraded by the owners, that would determine how many break-in attempts the base could withstand before it is overrun.]

Other possibly ownable locations such as factories and powerstations would be acquired in a similar fashion, but these are operating facilities so we must talk about how they would function.

Once activated, the facility would run automatically with the exception of occasional malfunctions that a member of the owning team would have to remedy.

[Ollox: I really don't like the idea of NPC's so I removed that! :P]

[Ollox: Perhaps some repairs, and the initial activation of the system, would require spare parts that would have to be scavenged for?]

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

You might also like to check this thread out: http://dayzmod.com/f...ge__hl__regular

[joe_mcentire 2074]

I don't want to sound rude but your English isn't great.

Really why on earth do you want to start a conversation like this?! why are you doing this to me :(... but thanks for correcting me.

but now as i read it..haha some phrases sound weird

edit:

[Ollox says: how about greater numbers near the base making the timer count faster?]

good idea indeed

[Ollox says: The base could remain owned by the logged out team indefinitely until a rival team tried to break in. It would take several attempts to break in and there would be a cool-down period between attempts, to give the owners a chance to log back in and repair the damage. The base could also have a security level, which could be upgraded by the owners, that would determine how many break-in attempts the base could withstand before it is overrun.]

again, i like the overall idea

[Ollox: I really don't like the idea of NPC's so I removed that! :P]

Well I know most ppl are somehow offended by this idea ;)

[Ollox: Perhaps some repairs, and the initial activation of the system, would require spare parts that would have to be scavenged for?]

well we could say a house (with several doors) turns into a base just the moment it is only accessible by its main door, which implies any other has been boarded-up by the player

Edited February 28, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[thesodesa 99]

One option is to limit the amount of equipment one can carry and add weight to items. I don't think an entire toolbox should fit into a tool belt for example. This way some guy who's just stumbled upon someone's camp couldn't take all of their stuff away without a vehicle. This would also make vehicle fixing more demanding, because carrying multiple heavy tires and jerry cans around would suddenly become rather challenging because of the new weight limit and reduced inventory size.

Put these 2 together and the efficiency of would be -thieves is reduced by quite a bit.

Edited February 28, 2013 by TheSodesa

[joe_mcentire 2074]

well yes correct weights would lead the game in another completely new direction

edit:

Q: Character equipment, weights and stamina?

A: Again that is something that we can look at now with weapons as objects, we can now fix weight, durability etc to them but again it's when we do it as ultimately what we want to do is release standalone and have the public foundation release then start doing hopefully weekly updates depending on how they go where we can do things like add scopes, weights, attachments etc. The new inventory system is still based on backpack size but it's better done with different items taking up different amounts of space.

Edited February 28, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[ImageCtrl 719]

Bases are no "tiny hussein-esque holes in the earth". This is bigger I believe.

I believe all want it bigger. Think most of us want no "global inventory" and want be scared in loosing of something or all.

Hard to discuss without knowing what rocket wants. Want share some options.

NPC´s are ok, when they are offline players.

vehicles, tents

Same rules like always. Tents works like cars. (no owner needed. Find them, loot them, grap them or destroy them)

team bases (hypothetical)

First ownership is the guy starting the base.

Team bases are the same rules like no team bases. All depends on trust like outside.

Ownership get lost when you die. The guy who have atm most equipment brought in the base get ownership.

Ownership get lost when someone get 10x more equipment in the base than owner. This guy get ownership. Bases need recourses always from outside. Recourses/equipment can get broken by using them.

Recourses/equipment have nothing to do with ownership. (Recourses/equipment have owners, must not be owner of the base)

Owner can give away ownership for rooms. Same rules for rooms like bases.

When you are in your base you have options what "profession" you are doing today ("profesions" like guard, medic, electrician and so on) and how you act.

(profesions give you the skill to use "equipment" in the base)

They act like this when you are offline in the base also. (you set them how to act)

Nothing is save in the base, months of work can be destroyed. All items could be stolen/destroyd if your settings how to act are stupid (noob) or risky (expand base to fast).

Other players can "work professions" in your base. (you set guard, medic, electrician and so on to "available" or give the "work profesions" someone directly)

Offline "work professions" are always friendly to base.

Other players can "sabotage" your base. Sabotage (destroy something / steal as many avatar can carry, get this way maybe ownership) influenced only the base not players.

"Base owner" "work professions" offline / can get only knocked out and the better strategy / equipment wins (Equipment give you "the skill" to do something.)

The dead of someone is only possibel when two players are online. "sabotage" possible by "work professions" and from outside.

Caught "sabotage" never get access to benefits from this base again.

Other players can "raid" the base. (destroy up to 100%, depens on explosiv items / steal as many avatar and cars can carry including owner vehicels, get this way maybe ownership) They win the "raid" when online and offline players all loosed.

"Base owner" "work professions" online / normal pvp fight.

"Base owner" "work professions" offline / can get only knocked out and the better equipment wins (weapons/bullet-proof vest and so on). Attacker get broken bones/damage/knockout/loose all equiped items involved in the raid (cars/weapons/clothing and so on) and never get access to benefits from this base again if he is loosing. A "raid" can only started from outside. Online "work professions" can "sabotage" at the same time and follow the rules of "sabotage".

Other players can "get help" in the base. (never get caught "sabotage" "raid" in this base)

Change items, get medic, get cars repaired and so on. (All dependent on owner settings and equipment. Equipment give you "the skill" to do something.)

[slivniku@gmail.com 93]

Huh, this is some long thread, took me a whiiiile to read it through, my 2 cents on the subjects

IMO you are looking at bases from the wrong perspective (especially this "ownership" term).

The main question is, why will we build bases?

If one builds a base to stash stuff there, it is only right others can loot the base, as you are in a way denying them loot while you don't really need it, fore if you did, it would be on your character

The base itself is brick/mortar/soil, underground or on-ground doesn't really matter. So IMO if you build a base, and if someone raids it while you aren't there, the base itself will remain. It may be damaged a little as the raiders had to gain access somehow, your loot will be gone, but most of the work remains, you simply repair the damage and go on with building. (this is based on an assumption that if it takes a player x minutes to dig a ditch, it will take another player same x minutes to fill that ditch; who would really bother to do that while raiding?)

And if you are lucky enough to catch the perpetrators in the act, you will have a jolly fun time flushing them out.

[joe_mcentire 2074]

that's right. and tbh i don't think dean and matt do think of hideouts to store your loot, more of creating points of support and ultimately something to reestablish a societal system. i think this could be really the ultimate and legitimate end-game for dayz

Edited March 1, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Hetstaine 10852]

IMO you are looking at bases from the wrong perspective , especially this "ownership" term.

The main question is, why will we build bases?

If one builds a base to stash stuff there, it is only right others can loot the base, as you are in a way denying them loot while you don't really need it, fore if you did, it would be on your character

The base itself is brick/mortar/soil, underground or on-ground doesn't really matter. So IMO if you build a base, and if someone raids it while you aren't there, the base itself will remain. It may be damaged a little as the raiders had to gain access somehow, your loot will be gone, but most of the work remains, you simply repair the damage and go on with building. (this is based on an assumption that if it takes a player x minutes to dig a ditch, it will take another player same x minutes to fill that ditch; who would really bother to do that while raiding?)

And if you are lucky enough to catch the perpetrators in the act, you will have a jolly fun time flushing them out.

that.

Of course some people will take the time to trash the base, unlucky really. I do not want a game mechanic giving ownership to the base based on some calculation. Basically whoever is there at the time is the 'owner' of the base. You build it you risk it. On or offline.

[joe_mcentire 2074]

the idea behind this ownership-calculation/timer was to mildly "force" ppl to play the game and to interact with them. Else they would lose their base and it would get abandoned again.

Well i completely understand arguments against ownership or timers that "lock" your base away from others the time your are offline. but i was really thinking about how it would make sense to implement such huge ideas like bases. Because there is, in my mind, a given possibility this all could turn out completely dissatisfying and could lead to a massive implementation which wouldn't be used by anyone eventually.

And again:

that's right. and tbh i don't think dean and matt do think of hideouts to store your loot, more of creating points of support and ultimately something to reestablish a societal system. i think this could be really the ultimate and legitimate end-game for dayz

It would lead the game into another new direction, so this should be dealt with really carefully and thought through very thoroughly.

Edited March 1, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[slivniku@gmail.com 93]

aha, so if I understand this correctly, ownership would be implemented so bases that are not in use for X amount of time would be destroyed/gone - so they wouldn't overburden the servers?

well, if they are underground and instanced, that shouldn't be an issue; if they would be on ground, than "occupancy" timer IMO would do it - if nobody is in a base form more than 124 hours - gone...

I guess we will be able to comment/suggest better once rocket gives a more detailed description of his idea...