I still think instanced bases is the worst thing you could do to Dayz.

[scaramoosh 162]

I love Dayz for being seamless and open world, it's what makes it good, everyone sharing the same space. The worst thing you could ever do to Dayz is having all these loading screens and giving people their own space because all that happens then is everyone ends up in their own bases underground and not in the world. I'm also against these types of games that aren't seamless, I cannot play an MMO that isn't like that and that is why I haven't played one since 2005. You'll end up with what happened To EQ2 for example, no one is in the world anymore, they're all in some instance somewhere, the same happened to WoW where you might as well not have a world. I know that's to the extreme, I'm just dead against the whole idea and think as soon as it makes its way in, I'll be gone.

Dayz Origins is doing something far more interesting, I know it's a basic start but it's way better than the little effort Dean Hall put in before giving up and focusing on SA. I mean putting sandbags and barbed wire that was broken and had no restrictions was hardly a good indicator to go by on world building. It's easy to just say, you cannot build within a certain distance of things like the premade towns, but also doing something more than something that served no purpose and zombies could just walk right through.

It works for Skyrim because it is a Single Player game, it has no impact on world population, this could just be a waste of time and a disaster for Dayz.

[-Gews- 7443]

I'm leery of the instanced bases too. I'd rather they just left them out.

[DemonGroover 8836]

But what happens when the world gets over populated with surface structures and bases? I think this was the main concern for the Devs.

I don't have a problem with instanced bases just as long as anyone can find them and potentially rob/destroy them. I also am not a fan of anything too high tech.

[applejaxc 2500]

But what happens when the world gets over populated with surface structures and bases? I think this was the main concern for the Devs.

I don't have a problem with instanced bases just as long as anyone can find them and potentially rob/destroy them. I also am not a fan of anything too high tech.

You beat me too it. If there are too many structures on the map, load times take AGES... like back in the beginning of DayZ.

My question to you is, how would they be robbed and destroyed?

My question to the forums is, what the fuck do we need underground bases for in the first place? What happened to choosing the old industrial building in the middle of nowhere (I don't know it's name), setting up roadblocks gearing up with some sniper rifles and defending a prefabricated structure? This is the apocalypse, not a rebuilding simulation.

[m0nkeyb0i 0]

But what happens when the world gets over populated with surface structures and bases? I think this was the main concern for the Devs.

What about something similar to Wasteland? Have a limited amount of resources to build a base above ground that decays with time. Linking objects (that have been placed by a player) in a certain radius together so less data to track. Give it a decay rate of say 3 days, if it's lived in then the structures around stay longer but have to be maintained to keep alive with scrap metal, wood, sand. Then if it's abandoned, the objects will vanish and be distributed around the map again.

[DemonGroover 8836]

You beat me too it. If there are too many structures on the map, load times take AGES... like back in the beginning of DayZ.

My question to you is, how would they be robbed and destroyed?

My question to the forums is, what the fuck do we need underground bases for in the first place? What happened to choosing the old industrial building in the middle of nowhere (I don't know it's name), setting up roadblocks gearing up with some sniper rifles and defending a prefabricated structure? This is the apocalypse, not a rebuilding simulation.

I would hope that instanced bases aren't "safe zones" where you and your clan can store stuff and hideout in relative safety. If this is the case then i want no part of them.

I want to be able to find a hatch, enter it and completely loot or satchel charge it if i want. But then the problem could eventually arise where there are hatches everywhere. I am very interested into how the Devs hope to solve these issues.

[applejaxc 2500]

I want to be able to find a hatch, enter it and completely loot or satchel charge it if i want. But then the problem could eventually arise where there are hatches everywhere. I am very interested into how the Devs hope to solve these issues.

That's exactly the argument I have been using; safezones are for pussies, but if we have a "Way in" we wind up with essentially the same thing as just having tents everywhere.

[jamieledgeway@hotmail.co.uk 216]

Why not be able to construct a type of bushcraft shelter, with branches, leaves etc. Different types as well. It would fit with the survival aspect. Maybe in addition to a better looking tent, or tents, as well.

Don't like the idea of being 'teleported' to some magical underground hollow. Not DayZ.

Edited April 30, 2013 by thehet

[ZlobaRUS54 441]

I think houses In Origins are pretty well implemented, at some point gameplay evolves from lets round around scrounging for supplies to let's rebuild civilization.

[reidloS doG 38]

Did anyone listen to that hour and a half long video on the blog? He said multiple times, this whole thing is an experiment. It all might just burn and die. I'm paraphrasing that last part.

@OP

Rocket gave up on the mod? What right do you have to say that? Seriously though, he gave up to create a game over a mod. A dream game, the thing we have all been wanting.

To address your concerns on the "everyone ends up in their own bases underground and not in the world." What is the point of playing DayZ then? You can go buy Gary's mod for that matter if you think that kind of gameplay really matters to DayZ players. But it doesn't. You do get your solo players who never see anyone and just live off the land, but I doubt these people could even acquire the materials to build a base let alone make it themselves. It should have to be a group venture to make a base, but regardless, bases are a form of safe storage. Something to call home. I played on a Vigilant Addiction Server that modded DayZ to have 4 bases above ground. At the end of every "month" the bases were open season and shit hit the fan. I know you have played DayZ Origins, but that is unlimited homes. We will most likely never know the capability of what Origins can do because the audience is so low no one could actually test the build out on a large scale. If every ten man group on the server could build a base above ground, well, you know what happens to servers with people who loot cycle on it. The game just can't handle this type of gameplay.

The whole point of the game is to try and fulfill the zombie Apocalypse dream: fend for yourself and have somewhere to call home. I would love it if the base could only hold one or two people, just to make it difficult to get anything in or out of the base.

But having a place to store things is not a bad idea. I'm not even for having it be lock free, a passcode system much like the one in origins would work great. With that, you could have rare batteries to run the keypad, and also have to upkeep the underground base so that it doesn't cave in. I think a underground base should be more trouble than it is worth, but to me it's worth anything. I'd labor as much as I could to put a toilet paper in the base and say, "It's safe."

I see no problem with the idea above. A rare battery would mean you'd have to work to keep it, and making sure it doesn't cave in will make sure the server doesn't get overloaded with unused "underground" tents. Heck, I'd be fine IF IT WASN'T EVEN ENTER-ABLE I just want a freaking place to put my toilet paper safely.

[bfisher 561]

I guess I'm having trouble envisioning what sort of gameplay people have in mind with bases.

Do people want an impenetrable locker where they can stockpile their guns and beef steaks? Because I think that sort of defeats the purpose.

Do people want to create a fortified house where they can hide like Dr Robert Neville? Maybe spend their evenings fortifying or crafting weapons?

I never really base build anyway. I don't see the advantage of being tied to a fixed spot. I'd rather just carry what I can and scrounge around when I need more.

[aussiestig 681]

My question to the forums is, what the fuck do we need underground bases for in the first place? What happened to choosing the old industrial building in the middle of nowhere (I don't know it's name), setting up roadblocks gearing up with some sniper rifles and defending a prefabricated structure? This is the apocalypse, not a rebuilding simulation.

Maybe people eventually realised that there is literally no fun end game in vanilla DayZ. Just setting up a sniper isn't fun, you need to be doing something, you need objectives and things to do to keep DayZ interesting, and they need to take time to do. Origins does this perfectly.

Edited April 30, 2013 by AussieStig

[dgeesio 1034]

i think basic stuctures are okay but the base zones are stupid. this also depends on how many there are of you doesnt it. if on own a small tent or like would be needed with a group it would obviously be bigger.

in towns cities you would take to a house if it was available would you not ? so this seems a good idea to do.

[Mos1ey 6301]

To be honest I'd rather base building was just left out all together. In a 'real' apocolypse you wouldn't waste time building an above ground structure, you'd fortify one that was already there, and I could see instanced bases causing problems.

[-Gews- 7443]

To be honest I'd rather base building was just left out all together. In a 'real' apocolypse you wouldn't waste time building an above ground structure, you'd fortify one that was already there, and I could see instanced bases causing problems.

I know, right, why would all these survivors eschew taking one of Chernarus' thousands of completely empty houses... :lol:

[p4triot 207]

That's exactly the argument I have been using; safezones are for pussies, but if we have a "Way in" we wind up with essentially the same thing as just having tents everywhere.

I cannot play 24 hours a day, and in an hipothetical zombie apocalypse is not realistic at all that my camp is abandoned 22 hours per day, so isn't that unrealistic to have safe zones ingame. At least when Im offline. If Im online then Im on my own defending my properties. But I would rather people to lose his stuff 'on track', not because they're at work at the moment.

Im not that much into underground instances, I like them more for the thrill to have a underground bunker than for useful purposes. But I would enjoy a way to save a camp while you're not playing, like the camp unlogin with you or something similar.

[mzltv 2281]

I've gotta say, OP raises a valid point I never took into consideration :unsure:

[mzltv 2281]

What would be wrong with implementing a base-building system that's kin to that used for the CTI gamemode in ArmA2? It's a simple place-and-build... would it eventually cause frame issues or something?

[taco241 393]

I agree with Gews and most of the sentiments here. Underground bases seem silly. Why would a survivor start excavating and pouring concrete, buttressing dirt walls, trying to waterproof it , etc. etc.?

LEt's make use of existing structure. Add a few more buildings (which I believe will happen anyway), and maybe some old APCs that can be used as locked storage and barricaded shelter. A clan or group could take over a small village but would have to stick around to protect it or risk being pillaged. Locks/boarded windows, etc. could be added, without the need to design an elaborate instancing system.

[dgeesio 1034]

To be honest I'd rather base building was just left out all together. In a 'real' apocolypse you wouldn't waste time building an above ground structure, you'd fortify one that was already there, and I could see instanced bases causing problems.

what if you were driven out into open fields like maybe most of chernarus for eg :lol:

if there aint no house you need some shelter and it would be either a tent or some make shift lean to or hut.

some cave areas would be nice :)

[iPewPewU 5]

Make it so you can destroy other peoples buildings with rare weapons such as an RPG ! Fixed the problem of having too much buildings.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

Didn't rocket say he would consider barricading houses or other structures. Couldn't we have barricading an base building underground.

[drayson 158]

Ultimately it's to easy to survive. Managing to get geared up as a high end sniper is a matter of luck almost as much as it is a matter of skill and patience so you will get geared pretty quickly if you are persistent. What do you do then? There is nothing to do.

Gathering materials to make a home, base, trading post, whatever is the next step but why bother going through all the trouble to build something if some random person trashes it while you are sleeping? Pointless.

[applejaxc 2500]

I cannot play 24 hours a day, and in an *hypothetical zombie apocalypse is not realistic at all that my camp is abandoned 22 hours per day, so isn't that unrealistic to have safe zones ingame. At least when Im offline. If Im online then Im on my own defending my properties. But I would rather people to lose his stuff 'on track', not because they're at work at the moment.

Im not that much into underground instances, I like them more for the thrill to have a underground bunker than for useful purposes. But I would enjoy a way to save a camp while you're not playing, like the camp unlogin with you or something similar.

And that's the shit-out-of-luck circumstances of playing an online game. Stop playing or stop working.

[svisketyggeren 662]

I love Dayz for being seamless and open world, it's what makes it good, everyone sharing the same space. The worst thing you could ever do to Dayz is having all these loading screens and giving people their own space because all that happens then is everyone ends up in their own bases underground and not in the world. I'm also against these types of games that aren't seamless, I cannot play an MMO that isn't like that and that is why I haven't played one since 2005. You'll end up with what happened To EQ2 for example, no one is in the world anymore, they're all in some instance somewhere, the same happened to WoW where you might as well not have a world. I know that's to the extreme, I'm just dead against the whole idea and think as soon as it makes its way in, I'll be gone.

Dayz Origins is doing something far more interesting, I know it's a basic start but it's way better than the little effort Dean Hall put in before giving up and focusing on SA. I mean putting sandbags and barbed wire that was broken and had no restrictions was hardly a good indicator to go by on world building. It's easy to just say, you cannot build within a certain distance of things like the premade towns, but also doing something more than something that served no purpose and zombies could just walk right through.

It works for Skyrim because it is a Single Player game, it has no impact on world population, this could just be a waste of time and a disaster for Dayz.

but what do u do in the real world when u take a elevator up or down in a building? Do u get load-screen-waiting-angy in the elevator?