An easy way to build bases

[thesodesa 99]

I was never really interested in the idea of base construction, since I'm unlikely to ever build anything because i don't have enough time to invest into the game to actually achieve something on that scale.

What I actually mean when I say that I want structures is that we should have some sort of functional facilities on the map. For example I don't think anybody would be able to lift a new rotor assembly on a chopper without some lifting equipment found at the mechanic's/car shop or a construction yard. Now, to operate this equipment you would have to restore power to the area where the shop is, which is why I've been raving about the power station in Elektro.

These are the types of things I'm interested in, not actual bases.

These facilities would of course have to be restored to a functioning state, which would be a fairly challenging task. This would lead to more cooperation, because without a functioning hydraulic lifter ain't nobody fixing that car or choppa.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

I wonder how people where lifting engines before. Oh right, using a hoist :)

[thesodesa 99]

I wonder how people where lifting engines before. Oh right, using a hoist :)

Does that mean you somewhat agree with me, or are you just making fun of me? :(

[Private Evans 1303]

We are still talking about different things. I agree that some advanced construction mechanics would be very cool to fortify a house, block an entrance or to temporary fortify any place you want. BUT sorry this is not what I Imagine for an endgame scenario and for possible rollplaying .

bases should eventually have the potential to serve as some kind of end-game. to use them to re-establish a society...well as mentioned eventually..

In this case predefined structures like suggested would work a lot better as "bases" than temporary camps and hideouts that could easily be destroyed and looted as soon as the "owner" goes offline.

[Death_Dealer 3155]

There's no point in hiding gear/vehicles in already known spots, as they will more than likely get stolen and/or destroyed fairly quickly.

[thesodesa 99]

There's no point in hiding gear/vehicles in already known spots, as they will more than likely get stolen and/or destroyed fairly quickly.

Which is why the 'already known spots' would house the functional facilities instead of player bases.

Remember that the reason why the discussion about the modifiable static structures sprung up is because it would be guaranteed to cause the smallest performance hit on the server compared to the other construction options outside of instancing, which is very important because: http://dayzmod.com/f...20#entry1227452.

This could be implemented like this: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/125758-why-make-instanced-or-underground-bases/page__st__20#entry1227485

If for example you want there to be a lot of zombies and loot spawned at once, you are going to have to sacrifice some other things to achieve that.

Edited March 11, 2013 by TheSodesa

[Private Evans 1303]

There's no point in hiding gear/vehicles in already known spots, as they will more than likely get stolen and/or destroyed fairly quickly.

why do people never read the op ??

Predefined bases or structures would be built by using static fences, walls and buildings etc which can not be decunstructed or destroyed The only way to get in is through the entrance which can be locked. This way gear and vehicles would be safe inside the bases. This is one of the main aspects of the the whole thing. As I stated one then more time " a base that can easily be destroyed and lootetd as soon as the owners are offline is more or less useless"

Remember that the reason why the discussion about the modifiable static structures sprung up is because it would be guaranteed to cause the smallest performance hit on the server compared to the other construction options outside of instancing, which is very important

Predefined structures would use mainly statics ..that's the point :rolleyes:

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

Predefined bases or structures would be built by using static fences, walls and buildings etc which can not be decunstructed or destroyed The only way to get in is through the entrance which can be locked. This way gear and vehicles would be safe inside the bases. This is one of the main aspects of the the whole thing. As I stated one then more time " a base that can easily be destroyed and lootetd as soon as the owners are offline is more or less useless"

This idea, as you suggest it, should NEVER become part of DayZ.

The two highligted statements are examples of concepts contrary to the most basic point of the game.

Your life and everything you hold dear should always be at risk, otherwise there is no challenge.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

This idea, as you suggest it, should NEVER become part of DayZ.

The two highligted statements are examples of concepts contrary to the most basic point of the game.

Your life and everything you hold dear should always be at risk, otherwise there is no challenge.

Precisely, that's an example of what i was refering to when i talked about the game devolving into a "capture and hold" minigame.

Does that mean you somewhat agree with me, or are you just making fun of me? :(

I was pointing that there are low tech alternatives to what you felt required a fancy and complex machine.

[Private Evans 1303]

Precisely, that's an example of what i was refering to when i talked about the game devolving into a "capture and hold" minigame.

I was pointing that there are low tech alternatives to what you felt required a fancy and complex machine.

It is really sad to see that people just can think black or white ..."An easy way to build bases" means only one way how large bases could ( easily) work using predefined structures. I never said this is the only way that bases/camps/fortification should be handled in the SA. I also like the idea of underground bases and I also would like to see constructing mechanics to build temporary camps or to fortify buildings and stuff.

But if we are really talking about bases for something like endgame scenarios, places that would require teamwork, scenarios where large groups would try to restore civilisation..places that medics or military units could use for rollplaying, then it would be a pain in the ass if we could place only some shitty barricades that can easily be deconstructed or destroyed.

NO one would be that stupid and spend a whole day with constructing a base just to find it destroyed and looted next time he joins the game...sorry but this does not make any sense !!!!!! We would end up again with clans and bandits hiding their stuff in tents on different servers and parking their vehicles and helicopters far beyond the playable map ...which really sucks !!!!

If people would read the the op more carefully they would understand that I am not talking about 100% safe bases . There should be of course ways and tactics to attack and overtake such places and there should also be a time limit for how long this bases could stay safe without player activity. But attacking and overtaking this places should only be possibe when players are inside the camp and not when everybody is offline and has no chance to defend it.

Also I am not talking about dozens of bases placed all over the map...only a very few structures that also has been suggested and discussed here :

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/122076-huge-structures-in-dayz-sa/

I am pretty sure that if not a few huge structures in the SA ( this includes instanced and underground bases) will provide safety for your stuff while being offline, we will never see something like an endgame happening !

Edit : finding a safe place is one of the main aspects of all zombie novels and movies . in " Day by Day Armageddon" written by J.L Bourne the survivors use a Titan missile launch facility as their base...and guess what..it is safe inside (booooooooo) ;)

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

And then you arrive to the problem where the base "owner" will never log on to keep the base 100% safe.

You cannot give an offline protection to something that remains permanently in the game world, it's not fair to those who are playing while you are not, the game should give priority to those who are playing, not those who aren't.

I'm sorry if it's not cool for those who don't have much time to spend, but it's only fair that the world keeps on going while you are offline.

Your personal inventory is already protected while you are offline, anything you leave to the "elements" and is still there when you come back is a bonus.

[trichome (DayZ) 198]

Having pre-defined bases is a bad idea. Bases should be able to be built anywhere otherwise all you will get is people waiting till the owners of the base go offline then just move in and rape it. People will soon get fed up of that shit and just not bother with bases

[Private Evans 1303]

And then you arrive to the problem where the base "owner" will never log on to keep the base 100% safe.

You cannot give an offline protection to something that remains permanently in the game world, it's not fair to those who are playing while you are not, the game should give priority to those who are playing, not those who aren't.

This is good point and thats why I suggested to use a simple timer script to check player activity inside the base ( such a script could check the time frame of player activity and also the number of players that have been active inside ) If there is no or not enought player activity inside,the base would be abandonned ( simulating that it was not guarded for a too long time) The base would be open for everyone and zombies and loot would start spawning again....

Edited March 12, 2013 by Private Evans

[Private Evans 1303]

Having pre-defined bases is a bad idea. Bases should be able to be built anywhere otherwise all you will get is people waiting till the owners of the base go offline then just move in and rape it. People will soon get fed up of that shit and just not bother with bases

please read the op first thx :)

[thesodesa 99]

Having pre-defined bases is a bad idea. Bases should be able to be built anywhere otherwise all you will get is people waiting till the owners of the base go offline then just move in and rape it. People will soon get fed up of that shit and just not bother with bases

This is why the facilities should have other functions besides just working as barricadable bases. Make it so that replacing or installing an engine to a car is impossible without some kind of hoisting equipment found only in car shops, which again wouldn't work without restoring the power to the region. Then it would be in everyone's best interests to keep the shop and power plant in a working order and people would be less likely to trash the place.

I could come up with other examples like this but am currently too lazy to type them out :).

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

But if we are really talking about bases for something like endgame scenarios, places that would require teamwork, scenarios where large groups would try to restore civilisation..places that medics or military units could use for rollplaying, then it would be a pain in the ass if we could place only some shitty barricades that can easily be deconstructed or destroyed.

On the very basest level of logic, if you have created a large enough community to achieve complex goals such as, hosting a protected trading zone, you should have enough members that "safe" bases are not really needed.

Timer/ownership scripts are also not necessary, and in context (authentic anti-game, remember) don't make sense.

The OP and following posts make the construction and defense sound so simple it's trivial.

Those who follow DayZ and appreciate the relentless struggles and unforgiving brutality we're faced with, should not want such a feature.

To put it bluntly, what you suggest just sounds like cheating.

Civillization is measured in the actions and interactions of people. Not indestructible storage caches.

EDIT:

@Sodesa - The ability to occupy functional buildings really does sound more end-game than just building bases.

Joe_M and I were discussing something along these lines before, in a topic about encouraging teamwork.

I can't post links in this browser. I'll edit one in later if I remember.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Chabowski

[Private Evans 1303]

On the very basest level of logic, if you have created a large enough community to achieve complex goals such as, hosting a protected trading zone, you should have enough members that "safe" bases are not really needed.

Timer/ownership scripts are also not necessary, and in context (authentic anti-game, remember) don't make sense.

I think no clan or group can manage to guard a camp or base 24/7 ....this is absolutely nonsense. I am also pretty sure that the instanced underground bases will work in a similar way.

Edit :

What you call trivial looked very good to me in "The walking Dead"..they went into the prison, killed the zombies and locked the gates....It is much more unrealistic that a group of survivors would start building a base, instead.they would look for the right building or structure and try to overtake it.

.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

What you call trivial looked very good to me in "The walking Dead"..they went into the prison, killed the zombies and locked the gates....It is much more unrealistic that a group of survivors would start building a base, instead.they would look for the right building or structure and try to overtake it.

Thay take watch, defend themselves and work together.

As a matter of fact, they're not safe (I don't know how far you've seen. Spoilers? I'll not go further)

More to the point, there will be defensible buildings in SA. I have no doubt about that. (plays right into my previous idea)

It's your suggested mechanics that are trivial. (walk in, kill zeds = INDESTRUCTIBLE BASE)

IRL, if you close a gate, It doesn't mean attackers have to wait for your "timer" to run out.

Before this descends into petty squabbles, try and take on board what folks have been telling you.