Why make instanced or underground bases?

[Jeremiah Cross 55]

I keep seeing posts about instancing bases, or making it so that when you are offline no one can steal your vehicle or crap from your base. Why? Getting your crap jacked is part of the game.

I also don't understand how adding the ability to dig out an underground base seems like a good idea. Experience leads me to believe it would result in a landscape filled with random, ugly holes for people to fall in.

I'm just wondering why, if they are planning on adding a crafting system, it wouldn't work to be able to build a fortified base.

They could add craftable barriers which are to high to hop over and would do significant damage to vehicles that hit them/can't be knocked down. Maybe would-be raiders would need a satchel charge to get through, though this could and should damage whatever is on the other side, potentially destroying valuable loot.

Add lockable gates with a combination lock that the players would need to keep secret to all but their clan. I've read posts suggesting tow ropes or winches for vehicles, maybe these could be used to pull gates down.

I can think of a pretty long list of structures and upgrades which could be added, granted some of them are probably less viable or advisable than others, but still. Storage buildings/boxes, booby traps, radio towers, power plants/generators, covered parking, crafting benches to allow for bigger crafting projects than what one could do in the wilderness (a dedicated "kitchen" for example, where you could cook and can food; assuming foods get a shelf life, of course.), just to name a few.

To prevent peeps from just planting walls at really dickish locations, a part of base building could be that structures can only be placed within x number of meters of, I dunno, a clan flag, a work bench, a shack. Take your pick. Just have it so that the first thing you do when building a base is to set some form of primary structure that marks its limits.

And before anyone asks what would prevent some douche from planting a base in the middle of Cherno, there is already a system in game for locating what region your toon is in. When you spawn in it tells you where you are. So bases would need to only be allowed in the Wilderness region(s).

The only problem I can see that I can't get around is how would you stop a group of players from each dropping their own markers at max distance from each other and making a massive base. I suppose setting a minimum distance limit between markers would work, but if you pop a marker and it wont let you claim the area because another camp is nearby, half the work in camp hunting is already done for you.

I definitely think camp building should be more than just popping down a few tents and maybe some razor wire if your really serious. At the same time, though, I really hate the idea of instanced bases and Care Bear rules about not stealing someone's stuff. I think adding fortified bases is the best alternative, as it combines both improved security for hard won loot, and the ability for players to build and change the landscape, making their mark on the world. That and raiding/defending one would be pretty epic.

Thoughts?

Edited February 26, 2013 by Jeremiah Cross

[joe_mcentire 2074]

pretty much of my thoughts:

here take a look please: http://dayzmod.com/f...e/#entry1202285

especially to this: http://dayzmod.com/f...20#entry1204654

there would be a problem everyone to place bases everywhere

Edited February 26, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[Mark-o 0]

Exactly what im thinking.If you want to posses things in a zombie apocalypse you better secure that shit and hide it.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

What makes you think that other players wouldn't be able get in while the owner is offline. I would think that anyone could enter the instance if they found the base. I have never heard of the base being locked while the owner is away. This means that people could still steal your stuff at anytime.

Your solutions are fine but I feel it would be simpler to allow anyone into the underground bases

[thesodesa 99]

Base building outside of instances was never an option, considering the amount of players a single server is going to support. I'm wondering why the option of making it possible to reconstruct some of the pre-apocalypse facilities to their former glory and function isn't more popular among the community, considering everybody seems to know about the server limitations by now.

You know, things like an underground bunker, whose electrical systems could be repaired, and a security system activated. A major plantation could be cultivated, but a security perimeter, similar to the electric fence in the second chapter of walking dead game would be needed to keep the zombies out. A central radio tower could be maintained to keep transmissions working across the map. Put a few smaller power plants that could be fixed on the map to produce power to different cities in addition to the power plant in Elektro, that only seems to be connected to the major coastal cities.

Having static control points like these on the map is a completely valid option in my view, and a better option to instancing in as well. The people and player factions in control of these facilities would be in a powerful position, since by controlling a power-plant for example, you could deny power from some parts of the map. You could also make some facilities dependent on each other, for example the bunker could be dependent on a certain power plant to produce its power.

People would be fighting over these facilities, and since fairly large groups of people would be required to maintain their function and security, people would be encouraged to band together. Implement the often mentioned mini games to the maintaining and fixing operations, so that people who know nothing about electricity could not for example perform the maintenance operations of a power plant safely.

Seems like a pretty kick-ass end game to me.

Edited March 8, 2013 by TheSodesa

[Jeremiah Cross 55]

What makes you think that other players wouldn't be able get in while the owner is offline. I would think that anyone could enter the instance if they found the base. I have never heard of the base being locked while the owner is away. This means that people could still steal your stuff at anytime.

Your solutions are fine but I feel it would be simpler to allow anyone into the underground bases

I think you missed the point. Your stuff could still be stolen, it would just take more work. You might even log back in to find it all in ruins. Making it your gear is 100% safe while you're offline is ridiculous, but at the same time you should be able to make some effort at securing it beyond simple hiding.

Base building outside of instances was never an option, considering the amount of players a single server is going to support. I'm wondering why the option of making it possible to reconstruct some of the pre-apocalypse facilities to their former glory and function isn't more popular among the community, considering everybody seems to know about server the limitations by now.

You know, things like an underground bunker, whose electrical systems could be repaired, and a security system activated. A major plantation could be cultivated, but a security perimeter, similar to the electric fence in the second chapter of walking dead game would be needed to keep the zombies out. A central radio tower could be maintained to keep transmissions working across the map. Put a few smaller power plants that could be fixed on the map to produce power to different cities in addition to the power plant in Elektro, that only seems to be connected to the major coastal cities.

Having static control points like these on the map is a completely valid option in my view, and a better option to instancing in as well. The people and player factions in control of these facilities would be in a powerful position, since by controlling a power-plant for example, you could deny power from some parts of the map. You could also make some facilities dependent on each other, for example the bunker could be dependent on a certain power plant to produce its power.

People would be fighting over these facilities, and since fairly large groups of people would be required to maintain their function and security, people would be encouraged to band together. Implement the often mentioned mini games to the maintaining and fixing operations, so that people who know nothing about electricity could not for example perform the maintenance operations of a power plant safely.

Seems like a pretty kick-ass end game to me.

I like the idea, but it needs more fleshing out. It would give larger groups something to work towards and keep them busy, I'm just worried it would introduce some enforced system as to how a takeover would work.

[thesodesa 99]

I like the idea, but it needs more fleshing out. It would give larger groups something to work towards and keep them busy, I'm just worried it would introduce some enforced system as to how a takeover would work.

The system I had in mind would be a compromise already, as the actual maintenance and fixing operations would be fairly static, as in they would be done the same way every time. However, why should a takeover mechanic with a running down timer, like in Team Fortress 2: King of the Hill mode be introduced at all? Sure, if barricading is made possible, then the invaders would have to figure out how to get into the facilities, but taking over a facility should in my opinion be as simple as killing every body in there.

Combat loggers would of course be an issue. I dunno, I'd like to take this idea further but am currently out of ideas how to address the logging in behind to captors backs -problem.

Edited February 26, 2013 by TheSodesa

[m.w. vindicator 880]

An underground bunker could have a locked hatch possibly. Also wouldn't it be possible to cover the entrance over with leaves. No one would ever find it unless they have coordinates.

[Jeremiah Cross 55]

I suppose some sort of security system could be implemented. A key code for the entrance or something that the owners would need to set when they take over would be one option. Invaders would need to either crack the code by trial and error, wait for the owners to be moving in and out then rush them, kidnap a member and, i dunno, hold hem for ransom or try to torture it out of them, or maybe just blow it up the entrance, but would then have a major repair to make as soon as they move in. Just tossing out ideas.

I am growing quite fond of the idea of having set "control points" though. I don't think there should be loot spawns there, but the perk of having a highly secure base where you can store your stuff and in some cases vehicles would be a pretty big benefit in and of itself.

As for options as to what these locations could be, I'm thinking an underground bunker is a given, but a few other ideas could be some sort of secure military R&D facility with and underground garage and helipad on the roof, a missile silo, a prison, maybe a secure medical research lab where the zombie virus originated (for some reason I don't picture there being any zeds here, as if they would have all moved on.).

[joe_mcentire 2074]

I suppose some sort of security system could be implemented. A key code for the entrance or something that the owners would need to set when they take over would be one option. Invaders would need to either crack the code by trial and error, wait for the owners to be moving in and out then rush them, kidnap a member and, i dunno, hold hem for ransom or try to torture it out of them, or maybe just blow it up the entrance, but would then have a major repair to make as soon as they move in. Just tossing out ideas.

what if the owner logs off for about a month? (well you could hack...but no, i do not accept this argument right now)

As for options as to what these locations could be, I'm thinking an underground bunker is a given, but a few other ideas could be some sort of secure military R&D facility with and underground garage and helipad on the roof, a missile silo, a prison, maybe a secure medical research lab where the zombie virus originated (for some reason I don't picture there being any zeds here, as if they would have all moved on.).

that would also deal with the premise that you cannot freely set and build bases (as in Wasteland), and that could be one solution

[Karnesh 21]

Im not against instances that can't be raided, mostly because the internet is full of a-holes that does'nt deserve the chance to troll people, i've had enough of those raiding my tents then destroying it for fun and im not even a bandit, i don't mind people stealing stuff, but the destroying of your personal storage really bothers me when i can't be there to shoot them in the face.

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 plausible 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.

As for options as to what these locations could be, I'm thinking an underground bunker is a given, but a few other ideas could be some sort of secure military R&D facility with and underground garage and helipad on the roof, a missile silo, a prison, maybe a secure medical research lab where the zombie virus originated (for some reason I don't picture there being any zeds here, as if they would have all moved on.).

I like this idea.

[Never 237]

At OP,

The one huge reason why the devs are thinking of 'instanced' bases is down to the flaws in the server system.

No point putting all that work in just to have some one sever hop past your fence.

I really don't agree with any kind of 'safe' storage though. NO player should ever have a 100% secure stash. They should have a mix of options to fhide stuff, preferably ones that can be combined, but it all NEEDS to be on map and NEEDS to be only as safe as can be improvised. I.E: never totally secure.

[radrussian1 (DayZ) 23]

its actualy pretty obvious why we cant build above ground. computers dont just run on magic. they have limitations.

[joe_mcentire 2074]

we could give predefined areas where bases would be possible, therefore you have a determinable amount at all time

[m.w. vindicator 880]

I suppose some sort of security system could be implemented. A key code for the entrance or something that the owners would need to set when they take over would be one option. Invaders would need to either crack the code by trial and error, wait for the owners to be moving in and out then rush them, kidnap a member and, i dunno, hold hem for ransom or try to torture it out of them, or maybe just blow it up the entrance, but would then have a major repair to make as soon as they move in. Just tossing out ideas.

I am growing quite fond of the idea of having set "control points" though. I don't think there should be loot spawns there, but the perk of having a highly secure base where you can store your stuff and in some cases vehicles would be a pretty big benefit in and of itself.

As for options as to what these locations could be, I'm thinking an underground bunker is a given, but a few other ideas could be some sort of secure military R&D facility with and underground garage and helipad on the roof, a missile silo, a prison, maybe a secure medical research lab where the zombie virus originated (for some reason I don't picture there being any zeds here, as if they would have all moved on.).

A keylock would be pretty high tech for a apocalyptic bunker. I was thinking along the lines of a padlock. Some of the things you mentioned are a little too syfy. An Underground R&D facility?? How did a guy make that with shovel?

[Delta Smoke 01 765]

Fairly clear that you have not done your homework on this OP. At no point have vehicles been linked with the planned underground structures, and at no point will they be "safe" from being raided.

Also using an instance would add performance due to the load not always beng dropped on the server.

[thesodesa 99]

I don't think I've ever explicitly said that things should be 100% (no such thing) secure. I'm actually fine with the map as it is, with regards to your equipment being very vulnerable. I just have an issue with the fact that there is nothing else to do, other than PvP, since I don't play this game because it's an excellent first person shooter, because it isn't. In fact the character controls and movement are so unrealistically clunky that it's actually pretty terrible in that regard(This will be fixed, I know).

The security system example in the bunker that I gave was just that, an example of how people who know how to program and handle electrical circuitry in real life could set something like that up in a static pre-defined underground area provided by the game. I might just as well have used plumbing for an above-ground structure as the example.

Edited February 27, 2013 by TheSodesa

[Private Evans 1303]

obsolete

Edited February 27, 2013 by Private Evans

[liquidmind 320]

"instanced" in this context only means that the base itself is not saved as a part of the map, but there is a "rabbithole" in the world, that links to that world. You would have to reload when entering the base, but as they are a seperate gameworld, they wouldn't affect the performance of the map.

As I understand it, that's all about seperating it from the game. It doesn't mean that only the player who created it may enter. It only means that instead of transforming the map, adding more items to it, they might outsource those, so the performance stays the same.

For the general need of underground bases. Ask yourself what a server would look like if you could only build above ground and everything you build stayed there forever. You couldn't play on any server that's online for a longer time, just because the amount of objects in the map slows everything down.

Edited February 27, 2013 by liquidmind

[Private Evans 1303]

obsolete

Edited February 27, 2013 by Private Evans

[joe_mcentire 2074]

hey guys again fyi: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/125576-dayzgame-shosho-feb-2013-interview-with-matt-lightfoot/

Matt lightfoot already talked about some of the issues

[Jeremiah Cross 55]

Im not against instances that can't be raided, mostly because the internet is full of a-holes that does'nt deserve the chance to troll people, i've had enough of those raiding my tents then destroying it for fun and im not even a bandit, i don't mind people stealing stuff, but the destroying of your personal storage really bothers me when i can't be there to shoot them in the face.

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 plausible 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.

I play casually, maybe a couple of hours during the week and a bit more on weekends. I have a wife, four kids and a full time job. I can't be on 24/7 yet I accept the fact that my crap will get stolen. That's why I set my camps up in remote locations, moving them occasionally, and always keep my most treasured possessions on me. When I first started the game, I knew I wouldn't be playing a whole lot and didn't even bother setting up a camp.

This was intended as a suggestion for content for larger groups of more serious players, people who are on regularly and have enough members that they could keep a pretty good eye on a base. Since big groups tend to have lots of gear I thought this would make raiding their base more challenging, but the reward would be worth it.

A keylock would be pretty high tech for a apocalyptic bunker. I was thinking along the lines of a padlock. Some of the things you mentioned are a little too syfy. An Underground R&D facility?? How did a guy make that with shovel?

I think you're confused, we're talking about having pre-existing structures now, that groups could repair and maintain. If it's a pre-existing structure, why couldn't there be an electronic lock? The power would need to be restored to the facility before it was operational, but keypad locks do exist. I wasn't saying an underground research facility, I was thinking more of a normal office building with an underground parking garage. Which, yeah, actually does exist, too. What's Sci-Fi about a prison, a missile silo, a medical research facility or a military one? I'd say the existence of Zombies in the game is far more Sci-FI than any of those.

"instanced" in this context only means that the base itself is not saved as a part of the map, but there is a "rabbithole" in the world, that links to that world. You would have to reload when entering the base, but as they are a seperate gameworld, they wouldn't affect the performance of the map.

Ok, that alleviates some of my fears. I was thinking it would be an "owners only" type of instance. As long as it can still be raided, I'm more or less okay.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Jeremiah Cross

[Ohly 26]

Exactly what im thinking.If you want to posses things in a zombie apocalypse you better secure that shit and hide it.

about hiding your things : http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/124493-bury-your-stuff/

[thesodesa 99]

Ok, that alleviates some of my fears. I was thinking it would be an "owners only" type of instance. As long as it can still be raided, I'm more or less okay.

The problem of server hopping behind the owners of the structure isn't solved, unless it is an owned instance that random people can't enter. Therefore I'm still against instances, because I want to have the possibility of going everywhere on the map.

Edited March 16, 2013 by TheSodesa

[Jeremiah Cross 55]

The problem of server hopping behind the owners of the structure isn't solved, unless it is an owned instance that random people can't enter. Therefore I'm still against instances, because I want to have to possibility of going everywhere on the map.

That or they could remove the ability to server hop and make it so your character on each server is unique to that server.