Base building - Why is it so important to everyone?

[m.cab 83]

Hey guys,

i asked myself a lot lately why base building seems to be so important to a lot of players.

I see many ppl talking about their bases in other "dayz mod-mods". Players are talking about how important it is to them in the SA and crying that it is not implemented in the mod. Even in all the interview stuff with Rocket he got asked about base building about a hundred times and also mentioned that it is very important to him and he realizes its very important to the players... (this was not a quotation!)

However, i was playing some mod-mods (yeah thats my new favorite word now!) and watched people how anxious they were about their bases. I was with some guys in 'wasteland' and they went gathering building material and building their base for about three hours and i just thought "wtf whats the sense of it?!".

I understand that "having a base" basically doesnt seem to be an illogical thought in an zombie apocalypse, since it usually means safety to a certain degree. Its a place where you can collect and store your loot and achieved items. It can support safety like a fort with big walls and locks but also in a pychological way...you know a "beeing home, feeling safe"-way.

Personally i couldnt care less about base building. For me, it doesnt fit in dayz mod. I want to travel and find rare stuff, meet other players and see the rest of chernarus. For me, the mod is more about 'moving' then 'resting'. BUT that is just MY opinion and playstyle and i dont wanna critizise someone whos into all the base stuff and thinks another way! ...I am just curious!

What i want to ask you guys is, are bases important to you and why is that so? Shouldnt we play minecraft to satisfy the "creating a base apetite"? Am i missing something about the whole topic? Please enlighten me! (:

cheers

p.s. not to forget: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!

[-Gews- 7443]

I don't get the whole base thing either, especially with DayZ's persistent nature. Even in Wasteland, I'm like "let's go find some people to kill" and there's always the ones who go "we need base parts first". :unsure:

[EndEffeKt 87]

I personally think that not the base-building as a single feature is important, but to add content to the game itself. I personally played this game for over a year with serveral breaks, because I always came to the point, where I was asking myself: "What the hell should I do?". I had serveral vehicles, I repaired a Helicopter...What now? I am a friendly person and not interessted in player-hunting, but what is there left to do? I know that you need to be creative and "Write your own story", but to be honest, I am to buisy with my real life to start some big medic thing or tie myself to other ingame social activities that involve beeing there at specific dates. And the more experienced you are with the game the shorter the time is until you reach this point again.

So all in all the base building is a pretty logical way of allowing players to do something useful with their clan and adding some kind of roleplaying environment. We need much more content in the game that can be worked on by geared-up players. Including:

bases

repairing infrastructure

repairing powerplants, Radio towers

A super-duper dangerous military facility only scavengable by multiple players.

etc.

[boxman80 964]

Base building is just the natural progression on the tent and spider hole storage systems already in the game. I think Base building (and barricading) is important as it's something that a lot of players naturally aspire eventually as a kind of end game, particularly groups of players.

We moved to Epoch because it suited our community much better. We have a large group of Day Z players that play as lots of smaller groups, these guys have played Day Z so long now that individual survival goals have become stale and communal goals such as trading and communal base building was a perfect way to maintain interest. These sort of things keep everyone entertained as everyone can do their own little bit to a group project and it gave players more of a reason to carry on playing other than just scavenging and killing. Its very satisfying building a fortified "base" to have some gear and basic equipment stored at.

I think bases building also enhances scavenging anyway. Knowing you have a place where you can store more gear gives you more of an excuse to scavenge more. It naturally expands the scope of your scavenging beyond the limits of what you can carry.

A big part of it is also the challenge of trying to make a secure and secret base that can be as difficult as possible to breach. It's inevitable that all bases and camps will be found, but the longer it takes and the harder it is for other players to break, the more fun it is.

I guess it just appeals to some players more than others. There are still "nomad" players on our server who dont bother, they just roam around raiding other bases and taking what they need/want. This is cool also and just adds to the fun and excitement.

I must say though there are some sweet places even on a well explored map like Chernarus to put large bases and compounds. On our server we built some "bare bone" structures across the map that had the potential to be secured and made into team fortresses, the idea being all our teams and groups have an opportunity to build a good base and attack each others as time goes on.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Box

[Wayze 549]

If you can build houses in this game other players should be able to get in! I have the idea of saving items forever, it makes the game really boring.

And bulding proper houses is really unauthentic, I mean who the hell would build a house in a zombie apokalypse? Find a good house and luife there, that's it. Actually you would have to wander anyway because of food etc.

But like I said, if SA has building houses or underground bases other people really should be able to get in there. The harder it gets to build the house, the harder it should get to get into the house

[RJTurneR 112]

Wasteland would be a pointless mod if there was no base building. Personally, I hate bases on DayZ, the whole Origins thing looks cool, but seems a waste of time IMO. I've always been more of nomad, just always on the move, no where is home.

As for Wasteland though making a base is brilliant and really does bring out the creative and even somewhat strategic side of people. I get a kick out of having a group of us with a base, hoarding vehicles and weapons, shouting "Come and have a go if you think your hard enough".

I've built 100's of bases in Wasteland and it never gets boring. A lot of people just plant a base anywhere but I enjoy really looking for places that have somewhat of an advantage and then building a base there. Example I once built a base on a flat plain next to NWAF, no hills overlooking it, no elevation. I had two depots next to each other, two small camps on the corners, and then long tall walls stacked on each other to give us double high walls. No one could get near us, it was brilliant, and the admins even took it as a template and used it as their AI base. I still enjoy getting a vehicle, throwing weapon boxes in there, and just go tearing people up, which I found is more entertaining in ArmA 3.

[Crazy one 124]

I want to travel and find rare stuff, meet other players and see the rest of chernarus. For me, the mod is more about 'moving' then 'resting'.

I'm exactly the same, i will always be a nomad player doing this even in the Stand Alone bases just don't do it for me, but each to their own.

[boxman80 964]

But like I said, if SA has building houses or underground bases other people really should be able to get in there. The harder it gets to build the house, the harder it should get to get into the house

I disagree with the first part and agree with the second part.

Looking at it from the other side of the coin; it should be hard to build bases and camps and the onus should be on the builders to take every long winded and time consuming effort to secure a camp as best they can. If they do a good job of it why should it be still vulnerable to some random individual to just wander in and destroy everything? There has to be an incentive to do a communal effort.

Dont get me wrong. I agree that it shouldnt be just an easy option for every player to be able to build their own "safe" little corner that no one can get access to. No I think there should be lots of factors taken into a account for a base, things that could be overlooked so there can still be weaknesses in a defence. In most cases Id say the fact it should take a group a while to be able to realistically secure a camp properly, making it vulnerable until it is fully secured. That way it would be next to impossible for players to do on their own because of how long it takes and the likely hood a camp would be discovered before complete.

I kind of agree about building "houses" as complete object like. I like how Epoch's base building works where you can only build basic elements like deer stands, sand bag bunkers, Hessian walls etc.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Box

[Death_Dealer 3155]

I'm all for taking over pre-existing buildings.

Sort of like 28 Days Later, how that one guy blocked off his apartment's stairwell and lived in his apartment safely.

Of course you would eventually have to leave those comforts to go out and get food, supplies, and water.

As for actual base building, things like small makeshift sheds are very possible to make, even by yourself. I don't really know what comes to mind for you guys when someone mentions the word 'base', but I just think small sheds and stuff like that.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Death Dealer

[-Gews- 7443]

As for Wasteland though making a base is brilliant and really does bring out the creative and even somewhat strategic side of people.

Bases are amazing in Wasteland, my favorite thing is finding a giant enemy base... you'll never catch me building one though, yawn, not interested, boring, tedious, dull, ennuyant.

I guess it depends on the kind of bases, so far the standalone is talking about instanced bases as the only feasible option. That's bad. Nothing should be safe from marauding players and I don't see how instanced bases can be raided.

I think some kind of camouflaged camps or earthen and wooden fortifications are more appropriate than either the proposed "underground bases" or the huge Wasteland monstrosities.

[Michaelvoodoo25 3120]

I am a wanderer of the Chernaurs infected zone.

A mans home is his castle, which means I could lay siege to others! this would offer another way of playing for me.

I never got into the use of tents or hoarding items so a base would be useless to me. But, it would offer more gameplay objectives.

+1 for blocking off exsisting buildings

[Owain1122 218]

I'd much rather be able to go to pre existing buildings and boarder up the windows/holes, lay barbed wire around the perimiter and reinforcethe door. However I'm not one to settle down.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Owain1122

[Crazy one 124]

I'd much rather be able to go to pre existing buildings and boarder up the windows/holes, lay barbed wire around the perimeter and reinforce the door. However I'm not one to settle down.

It would be a nice addition to be able to do little things like this, even us nomadic players need a place to rest once in a while :)

[Wayze 549]

I disagree with the first part and agree with the second part.

Looking at it from the other side of the coin; it should be hard to build bases and camps and the onus should be on the builders to take every long winded and time consuming effort to secure a camp as best they can. If they do a good job of it why should it be still vulnerable to some random individual to just wander in and destroy everything? There has to be an incentive to do a communal effort.

Dont get me wrong. I agree that it shouldnt be just an easy option for every player to be able to build their own "safe" little corner that no one can get access to. No I think there should be lots of factors taken into a account for a base, things that could be overlooked so there can still be weaknesses in a defence. In most cases Id say the fact it should take a group a while to be able to realistically secure a camp properly, making it vulnerable until it is fully secured. That way it would be next to impossible for players to do on their own because of how long it takes and the likely hood a camp would be discovered before complete.

I kind of agree about building "houses" as complete object like. I like how Epoch's base building works where you can only build basic elements like deer stands, sand bag bunkers, Hessian walls etc.

There are many reasons why I don't like the idea of secure houses:

1. It would be unathentic as hell if there were houses you could not enter at any way

2. players can get really dominating and other players on the server have no chance against them because they save their progress

3. what dayz is all about is that you can lose everything, build a house and you have saved, no need to be afraid of anything, the core of dayZ dies

4. as you are not afraid of anything you will go and hunt players for fun, trolling and other stuff

5. there would be a real end game, after a while players would have 0 things to do because they have everything saved in a base (saw that happen to a LOT of players in DayZ mod)

6. players who play alone have probably no chance to get a house, big groups with houses though can find your tent and take everything to their base

7. players who are not afraid of death will just run around and ruin the expirience for many players because they actually want to play it proper

8. the houses were more like a end game for the mod, but SA will be VERY different from the mod. Like Dean said the items will be WAY harder to find, it will be WAY harder to survive. So in that sense you don't even need the end game, if surviving is really that hard in SA

9. building houses is really unrealistic, who would build a house in a zombie apokalypse?

There won't be houses in DayZ SA anyway, Dean talked about underground bases with security system. I like that idea that you can make your own security system so other players can hack it.

[WBK 176]

I think it would work if DayZ existed at a slower pace with more realistic time-elapse features. For instance, if walking was the default movement speed, and a true stamina and weight system was built in, plus hunger, thirst, bleeding, resting, recovering etc. all occurred within a literalistic time-frame, then base-building would not only work, it would be essential. A base would be a place to recover, hide, rest, wait, defend/attack (if found) and so on. With a slower movement speed, land would be traversed far slower, and bases would be less likely to be found, which is kind of the entire point of having one. IRL, if you had a base, it would be hidden enough so as not to likely be found within a year.

As it is, DayZ is relatively fast-paced (comparing to RL guys, not other games), and so it doesn't work. People aren't in game 12-24 hours at a time. There is no point for having bases, except as glorified tents, showing off and a possible end game for some. Their only objective use would be to store gear, and unless made for the reasons above, no one would make them because they'd be so easily seen.

Underground base-building is even worse. In what world would an underground base be dug out, designed, constructed and fortified before someone made a simple, above-ground shed? As an eventual feature (maybe in DayZ 2 in 2017 :P) I would like it, but not with the current style of play, and not before overland base-building has been implemented and ironed out.

[Owain1122 218]

I think Dean Hall said that Over ground base building was unlikely because of performance issues.

[m.cab 83]

I think Dean Hall said that Over ground base building was unlikely because of performance issues.

Yes and he also mentioned that chernarus is big but not big enough for a lot of bases so he had that "underground basebuilding" idea. I dont remember in which interview/devblog he talked about that ):

[pxxl 259]

Don't compare Wasteland to DayZ. It fit's perfectly well in Wasteland because you have the 2 teams OPFOR and BLUFOR and the independats who can also create their own groups. Having a main base for your team to work out of is great because you are gathering Armored vehicles, tanks and choppers.

Still i would love to have a hatch that leads to my own "swan station" in DayZ. A game that is about gathering as much as it is about surviving your back pack is going to run out of space sooner or later and having a booby trapped underground base would be awesome to store some of those items. And off course grow some hydroponics and trade/sell that on a street corner in Cherno.

Edited July 9, 2013 by PXXL

[boxman80 964]

There are many reasons why I don't like the idea of secure houses:

1. It would be unathentic as hell if there were houses you could not enter at any way

2. players can get really dominating and other players on the server have no chance against them because they save their progress

3. what dayz is all about is that you can lose everything, build a house and you have saved, no need to be afraid of anything, the core of dayZ dies

4. as you are not afraid of anything you will go and hunt players for fun, trolling and other stuff

5. there would be a real end game, after a while players would have 0 things to do because they have everything saved in a base (saw that happen to a LOT of players in DayZ mod)

6. players who play alone have probably no chance to get a house, big groups with houses though can find your tent and take everything to their base

7. players who are not afraid of death will just run around and ruin the expirience for many players because they actually want to play it proper

8. the houses were more like a end game for the mod, but SA will be VERY different from the mod. Like Dean said the items will be WAY harder to find, it will be WAY harder to survive. So in that sense you don't even need the end game, if surviving is really that hard in SA

9. building houses is really unrealistic, who would build a house in a zombie apokalypse?

There won't be houses in DayZ SA anyway, Dean talked about underground bases with security system. I like that idea that you can make your own security system so other players can hack it.

Just to point out I think you are speaking after experiencing or with Orgins in mind. I wasnt particularly talking about houses specifically, more about player strongholds,camps, bases in general using basic elements that can be crafter to make strucutres or barricades that can then be employed how paleyrs see fit to secure their own corners of the map.

Anyway to play devil's advocate to your post;

1) There's already houses you cant access in Day Z just becasue they are there as part of the landscape. I know these are likely to be reduced in Day Z SA but the fact is we already have been playing with them for over a year quite "authentically". At lest f you found a house that someone had made an efffort to try and barricaded or defend (for what ever reasons) you would at least know it was done in-game by a real person. Probably for a good reason too, i.e. there's goodies inside.

For me that's EXACTLY what Day Z is all about. Remember it's OUR story.

2) That sounds more like a server issue. Why play on a server that's clan or group stacking? It would, and already does, vary from server to server - yea I dare say some players would dominate a server with a big base, but that's no different to how it is now? Besides that, some players do like a challenge and I dare say there would be quite a few people who got a thrill form sneaking around on a server where there was a big dominant group on.

It doesnt really spoilt the game now does it ? And how many clan servers are there out there right now where the admin spawn with weapons or have protected admin bubbles around bases? If anything this at least gives other players a chance to protect some of their stuff when they are offline on a server of their choosing

3) I agree that DayZs biggest attraction is it's a game with high stakes. This is great and makes playing the game lots of fun. However The biggest purpose a "base" serves is to protect gear for when you arent in this virtual world. For me having a base just means players need to be a bit more wily to get that gear you have made the effort in scavenging and building up inside a base camp. It means instead of some random no-skiler-bob just jumping in a chopper and scanning the map in 10 minutes they would have to do things like setting up sieges, ambushing players when they are online, using covert tactics to observer player routines, planning proper raids when players are online - that sort of thing. It opens up the door to a much better and more strategic game play.

Again my main point is that totally securing a base should be very very difficult and very time consuming that would encourage team work. A base's contents would and should be vulnerable until a base is completed over a long period of time. Even then there could be things such as maintenance that would need to be done to ensure base stays safe. Not to mention things that need to be done to ensure oversights havent been made.

4) No. I disagree. I have base on my server that we've built and I am still affraid of losing gear and kit. Additionally I am also paranoid that people are watching me when Im at our camp. THeres also the fear that you arent sure who to trust - the more people you have involved in your base the better, bigger and quicker it gets together but the more risk of someone turning or doing something silly to compromise your base.

Also theres more of a risk of people finding your base and going out their way to destroy it or think of inventive ways to get your guys in or out of it.

For me it just adds layers to the game. As with any good zombie novel or movie - the zombies soon become a secondary fear behind that of other players.

5). Again disagree.I have won everything there is to win in Football manager games since 1992 - I still buy every game each year! What end game is there in day z now? Kill players? Find/build a chopper? Get fully kitted up?

Personally I think it adds ANOTHER, and much better and even "authentic" end game for some players, thats all. And just because it's achieved it doesn meant that players wont want to do it again and again, making each camp more succeful than the last.

6) Again I wasnt speaking specifically about houses, I dont play origins I play Epoch which is a lot more realistic for want of a better term. Building camps with basic materials such as sheds, shacks bunkers etc is something any player can and does do. I would agree that a single player is probably going to be restricted on a map the size of chernarus as to what sort of structures they could build or fortify. On their side though they would have secrecy and the ability to make stealth hold ups, in quiet places that wouldnt attract attention. Maybe construct a fortified shed here, or a boarded up existing house in a quiet village somewhere. It is indeed possible.

Again im not talking about once a player builds a single structure it's completely fortified. I'd say you would have to have something like being able to construct perimeters and things like that to ensure a "base" stayed safe - all things that attract attention and take time to secure.

That way "lone wolves" would still have a chance of building camps or places to use, relying on choosing a good location and subtlety, teams would be able to secure areas but wouldnt be able to keep it as subtle. Both ways have their own strengths and weaknesses.

7) People do that right now anyway.......

8) Even better - makes it even harder to build a base then. You would only expect truly dedicated teams to be able to achieve it.

9) You used "unrealistic" when talking about a zombie game. Its the primary sin! Again Im not talking about building HOUSES! Play Epoch and check out the base building on there. You have to build things from basic elements and the structures you build are mostly storage items that need to be secured with perimeters and things. Its very "realistic" in that respect.

That aside in any post apocalypse book or film i've enjoyed one thing that is common is some people try to rebuild a society. At some point people can and do start working together (good or bad) to build strong holds and secured areas of people. Id say it's a very much a "realistic" target end game.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Box

[Wayze 549]

Just to point out I think you are speaking after experiencing or with Orgins in mind. I wasnt particularly talking about houses specifically, more about player strongholds,camps, bases in general using basic elements that can be crafter to make strucutres or barricades that can then be employed how paleyrs see fit to secure their own corners of the map.

Anyway to play devil's advocate to your post;

1) There's already houses you cant access in Day Z just becasue they are there as part of the landscape. I know these are likely to be reduced in Day Z SA but the fact is we already have been playing with them for over a year quite "authentically". At lest f you found a house that someone had made an efffort to try and barricaded or defend (for what ever reasons) you would at least know it was done in-game by a real person. Probably for a good reason too, i.e. there's goodies inside.

For me that's EXACTLY what Day Z is all about. Remember it's OUR story.

2) That sounds more like a server issue. Why play on a server that's clan or group stacking? It would, and already does, vary from server to server - yea I dare say some players would dominate a server with a big base, but that's no different to how it is now? Besides that, some players do like a challenge and I dare say there would be quite a few people who got a thrill form sneaking around on a server where there was a big dominant group on.

It doesnt really spoilt the game now does it ? And how many clan servers are there out there right now where the admin spawn with weapons or have protected admin bubbles around bases? If anything this at least gives other players a chance to protect some of their stuff when they are offline on a server of their choosing

3) I agree that DayZs biggest attraction is it's a game with high stakes. This is great and makes playing the game lots of fun. However The biggest purpose a "base" serves is to protect gear for when you arent in this virtual world. For me having a base just means players need to be a bit more wily to get that gear you have made the effort in scavenging and building up inside a base camp. It means instead of some random no-skiler-bob just jumping in a chopper and scanning the map in 10 minutes they would have to do things like setting up sieges, ambushing players when they are online, using covert tactics to observer player routines, planning proper raids when players are online - that sort of thing. It opens up the door to a much better and more strategic game play.

Again my main point is that totally securing a base should be very very difficult and very time consuming that would encourage team work. A base's contents would and should be vulnerable until a base is completed over a long period of time. Even then there could be things such as maintenance that would need to be done to ensure base stays safe. Not to mention things that need to be done to ensure oversights havent been made.

4) No. I disagree. I have base on my server that we've built and I am still affraid of losing gear and kit. Additionally I am also paranoid that people are watching me when Im at our camp. THeres also the fear that you arent sure who to trust - the more people you have involved in your base the better, bigger and quicker it gets together but the more risk of someone turning or doing something silly to compromise your base.

Also theres more of a risk of people finding your base and going out their way to destroy it or think of inventive ways to get your guys in or out of it.

For me it just adds layers to the game. As with any good zombie novel or movie - the zombies soon become a secondary fear behind that of other players.

5). Again disagree.I have won everything there is to win in Football manager games since 1992 - I still buy every game each year! What end game is there in day z now? Kill players? Find/build a chopper? Get fully kitted up?

Personally I think it adds ANOTHER, and much better and even "authentic" end game for some players, thats all. And just because it's achieved it doesn meant that players wont want to do it again and again, making each camp more succeful than the last.

6) Again I wasnt speaking specifically about houses, I dont play origins I play Epoch which is a lot more realistic for want of a better term. Building camps with basic materials such as sheds, shacks bunkers etc is something any player can and does do. I would agree that a single player is probably going to be restricted on a map the size of chernarus as to what sort of structures they could build or fortify. On their side though they would have secrecy and the ability to make stealth hold ups, in quiet places that wouldnt attract attention. Maybe construct a fortified shed here, or a boarded up existing house in a quiet village somewhere. It is indeed possible.

Again im not talking about once a player builds a single structure it's completely fortified. I'd say you would have to have something like being able to construct perimeters and things like that to ensure a "base" stayed safe - all things that attract attention and take time to secure.

That way "lone wolves" would still have a chance of building camps or places to use, relying on choosing a good location and subtlety, teams would be able to secure areas but wouldnt be able to keep it as subtle. Both ways have their own strengths and weaknesses.

7) People do that right now anyway.......

8) Even better - makes it even harder to build a base then. You would only expect truly dedicated teams to be able to achieve it.

9) You used "unrealistic" when talking about a zombie game. Its the primary sin! Again Im not talking about building HOUSES! Play Epoch and check out the base building on there. You have to build things from basic elements and the structures you build are mostly storage items that need to be secured with perimeters and things. Its very "realistic" in that respect.

That aside in any post apocalypse book or film i've enjoyed one thing that is common is some people try to rebuild a society. At some point people can and do start working together (good or bad) to build strong holds and secured areas of people. Id say it's a very much a "realistic" target end game.

1. But we are not talking about DayZ mod are we? We are talking about the SA in which the houses will be enterable. DayZ is getting more and more authentic, and not less.

2. So what should a clan do? Being alone on a server? Tell me a reason why not make the bases enterable with enough effort? If you build a house with much effort why can't I break into it with much effort? It just does not make any sense. If you have a big clan (which you would need to build such a stronghold) you would have to guard this stronghold constantly. Get 100 people in your clan and lets roll. Maybe like 1-2 hour shifts, everyone has to do it once a week. Hate the idea of unrealistic unbreakable doors.

3. There will be no chopper scanning anymore. DayZ SA will change immensly the gameplay. There will be no 99999 AS50 in the game, the players will be lucky as hell if they get even 1. The problem is that there will be not much loot and as soon as players start to collect weapons and ammo the game starts to get unbalanced. It will result in the same problem, 9999 AS50s for everyone. Or, if Dean restricts the number, it will be unbalanced because the clan guys will have all AS50 of the server in their bunker. (I know there won't be any AS50s in SA, just an example)

4. I don't think DayZ wants to be a zombie novel, it reminds me more of The Road or maybe 28 Days later. Sure in the mod the Zods are no problem, but this could chance immensly in the SA. I also think that zombies will get secondary after a while, but maybe we are wrong. What if it's really hard to find ammo. What if the Zombies actually can get you while you are running. What if the zombies will be a threat? Then you have to sneak around, shooting another player in a city could mean nothing less but your own death. Maybe all of this will change, we don't know yet.

5. Dont compare Football manager with DayZ please. I know people, and I know lot of them got bored because there was no end game. Like I said I think this will change dramaticly in SA, because everything will be controlled by a main server. No 500 DMRs, no 5 mags for your weapon, no 999 morphines and bandages. You actually will have to fight for it. Also DayZ SA gives us way more things to do than just building a house.

6. ...

7. Like I said before you cannot compare the mod with the SA. Gameplaystyle will change. I think there will be many, many people that will be really disappointed because it will be too hard to survive.

8. Who would dominate the servers.

9. Unrealistic was the wrong word, I meant unauthentic. Having something that is undestroyable is ridicilous. So I cant open your door with blowing a improvised explosive on it?

But the discussion is senseless. Dean already said there wont be any houses etc to build on the ground. He is thinking about an underground system, but nothing more.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Wayze

[boxman80 964]

1. I said in SA it would be reduced. My point was has having un-enterable buildings in the mod stopped people playing? If anything having secured area done by a player (not necessarily un-enterable) is more authentic than having an unentarable building that's just part of the landscape.

2. Again you have misread or misinterpreted what I have said. The point being, having a clan dominate a server is irrelevant to the game it's self, its a server balancing issue. Its up to an individual if they decide to play on server that's dominated by a group or not. If players are not joining a server, then it's up to the server administrator to address the fact that a single group is dominating and driving away individuals.

At worst it's basically people exploiting the system, but again, who do they hurt by doing this? More likely themselves as by your own admission the server would be empty, which was kind of my point. If large groups exploit more secure bases and over do it, they only hurt their own servers as players move on to a more balanced server.

A more flimsy system based around current measures isnt worth the effort if the only way to protect it is as you say having a big clan guarding it 24/7!. I dont know what world you live in but here in the real one, you will be hard pushed to get large groups to sustain a shift pattern to guard in-game resources. Besides, isnt this just another way of a large group or clan dominating a server too? If anything you are encouraging elitist groups and again adding to the problem YOU highlighted of large clans dominating a server.

3. You are talking specifics and going off the point. I was saying there's already an unbalance in the fact that the effort to break or compromise a base/camp currently is considerably less than that, that is required to secure it. In simple terms it's not worth trying to secure something presently because no matter what you do, someone can find/take/destroy your hours of work in minutes.

This is irrespective of how difficult it is to source gear. In fact having less gear available to scavenge only goes to re-enforce the fact that better means of securing personal items, especially for gear that remains online when a player isn't, is needed.

4. This is just environmental conditions, you're talking. Having more secured players camps isn't going to reduce a players will to survive in game, just because some of the gear they have aquired is saved there. Your original point was that having players' gear safer would make them less concerned with their health and taking more risks or trolling - I cant see having more secured player fortifications decreasing player competitiveness at all, or at least any worse than it does at the moment when players get sick of scavenging and start trolling.

I play Epoch currently with 100% undestroyable safes in and I havent noticed it detracting from players' wanting to stay alive. If this were the case do you think Epoch would be so popular?

5. Please dont mistake me for an idiot mate. I'm quite aware of the difference between Day Z and football manager. I clearly wasn't comparing FM to Day Z, I was again making a point that was completely lost on you. Next time I'll draw you a picture instead if you like?

Again you are arguing against your own argument! Having the ability to construct a player fortification OR secure an area BETTER making it "relatively" safe/safer (or at least takes a LOT of effort to break!) is actually ADDING end game content for many players. The more achievable objectives there are in the game, the better for some players as long as these objectives are not essential game methods or enforced, its all good!

6?

7 Having the environment being harder again for me only supports being able to construct fortifications/barricades and areas they are "relatively" safe.

8 See your own bloody argument on point two!!!!! Either they would play on an empty server (your words not mine!) or players would rise to the challenge of playing against a dominant group.

9. I have specifically said "better secured" or talked about time consuming efforts to attack bases and player structures to enable better base building that wasn't just a waste of time and effort. At push, yes, I would say indestructible, but purely in the interest of better balance to prevent peoples being discouraged from doing it.

However if you are going to play the idiot card and talk about "realistic" then how about this as a solution, using your logic;

- We do away with choppers (as no one would be able to fly them)

- Loot doesnt respawn. Once its taken it's gone for good.

- Once you get shot in game you are dead forever and you dont respawn on the coast. You can never play the game again (this means players really WILL be scared of dieing! - Hows that for "authentic" ?)

- Your player needs at least 6 hours sleep every day and stops to take a shite at least once a day

- If your character runs for too long he pukes his ring up

- Do away with all the military weapons as people dont just leave them unsecured lying around

- Have no medical supplies accessible to players as they are always locked away and the only way to get them is to blow doors off locked structures with C4 - except you wouldnt be able to find any C4 as it's not going to be just left on some barracks floor! No, it's going to be inside some massive bomb proof vault that Joe Everyman has absolutely no means of getting inside!

Problem solved, now following your realistic - sorry "authentic" approach, we can now have base building and NOT worry about people destroying or raiding it as 9 time out of 10 a simple lock and key will be enough to secure it.

Oh as you failed to see the blatantly obvious in my previous post I best point out I was actually being sarcastic lol No, now lets be serious from here...

Edited July 9, 2013 by Box

[jubeidok 495]

Because some people got it caught in their head that you would somehow have time to spend half your day building structures in a world where there are already plenty of standing structures that one could fortify. Somehow a bunch of less than apprentice level carpenters are going to build something that is more impressive and structurally sound than anything already standing. Hmm, go figure.

[plexico 386]

I disagree with the first part and agree with the second part.

Looking at it from the other side of the coin; it should be hard to build bases and camps and the onus should be on the builders to take every long winded and time consuming effort to secure a camp as best they can. If they do a good job of it why should it be still vulnerable to some random individual to just wander in and destroy everything? There has to be an incentive to do a communal effort.

Dont get me wrong. I agree that it shouldnt be just an easy option for every player to be able to build their own "safe" little corner that no one can get access to. No I think there should be lots of factors taken into a account for a base, things that could be overlooked so there can still be weaknesses in a defence. In most cases Id say the fact it should take a group a while to be able to realistically secure a camp properly, making it vulnerable until it is fully secured. That way it would be next to impossible for players to do on their own because of how long it takes and the likely hood a camp would be discovered before complete.

I kind of agree about building "houses" as complete object like. I like how Epoch's base building works where you can only build basic elements like deer stands, sand bag bunkers, Hessian walls etc.

No one should ever be able to have a 100% safe base. If they put a lot of time into it, it should be harder to raid, but it should ALWAYS be raidable. Clan war wouldn't be fun if the clans had a super safe hiding spot they can re-stock at every time they lose a battle. It should take a lot of work to build the base and the same amount to infiltrate it.

[Jamz 253]

Personally I'd only be interested in base building if it required a very large number of players (20+) working together to complete and maintain each one. Otherwise I'll continue to lone wolf and sleep rough in the SA.

[Hetstaine 10852]

I just want to be able to build basic platforms in trees, knock a few pieces of wood into a trunk to make a ladder or have a rope type ladder i can pull up after me.

Not many people look up ;)