One Thing Needs To Be Addressed [ROADMAP]

[naraga 45]

I've allways advocated that characters need to be server bound, and that servers should be hosted by Bohemmia themselfs.

[Katana67 2907]

Server hopping to negate barricades wouldn't bother me, id never use ahouse as a camp anyway. There will im sure, be a tool in game for removing barricades, so trying to "secure" a house as a base will never be a good idea. All I can see it used for is to alow down zombies, or a tactical advantage (barricade the door to stop yourself being flanked. I really hope we get tents again eventually, that's the best way to make a concealed base.

 

I think the loot respawn will negate hopping to a degree. ATM if you loot all the mill places, that's it. You know whats there and know that will remain the same until server restart. With the loot system, it may be more time efficient to keep re-visiting locations to gear up. Basicly its a variable that will effect this behaviour in players, so we need that in to really assess the state of server hopping fully :)

 

I can guarantee others will use it to teleport into houses, Dean has said as much, and they're working on blocking off areas in which people can spawn. 

 

I'm sure there will be a tool for removing barricades, but that tool SHOULDN'T be to switch servers. Likewise, I'm sure we'll be able to barricade our structures with a variety of materials, which could possibly require different tools (i.e. bolt-cutters, breaching round, axe, explosive charge, etc.) to breach.

 

Similarly, and I've said this earlier on, in order for "re-visiting" locations to be more efficient/expedient/attractive than server hopping, the refresh/respawn timer with loot would have to be INSANELY quick. That, I'm not in support of.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Katana67

[Karmaterror 982]

I can guarantee others will use it to teleport into houses, Dean has said as much, and they're working on blocking off areas in which people can spawn. 

 

I'm sure there will be a tool for removing barricades, but that tool SHOULDN'T be to switch servers. Likewise, I'm sure we'll be able to barricade our structures with a variety of materials, which could possibly require different tools (i.e. bolt-cutters, breaching round, axe, explosive charge, etc.) to breach.

 

Similarly, and I've said this earlier on, in order for "re-visiting" locations to be more efficient/expedient/attractive than server hopping, the refresh/respawn timer with loot would have to be INSANELY quick. That, I'm not in support of.

 

Guess what I mean is its never going to be feasible to set up a house as "your own" because things will exist to get past any defences you put in place. The player traffic will mean that your house will be discovered eventually. So for me at least, concealment is a better option for making a base. That's why I don't mind if they just log in inside the building. Those type of barricades are just "on the fly" zombie stoppers. Or maybe to block a rear enterance so you will hear someone coming in that way while you cover the other door. Maybe im wrong and the barricades are intended for constructing bases, but I hope not. 

 

How about how the loot spawned in the mod? That was reasonably quick, I think it was loot spawns when player is within X metres from the building. Loot despawns if no players within X metres. Sounds exploitable and lets face it.... it is. But the other side of the coin is that you could move between 2 high value loot locations, yet due to loot spawn %, could not find that thing you needed even after visiting both 10 times. In that sense it had balance.

 

I liked that, and it frees up more server resourses for things like zombies and player cap, by having areas with no players spawn nothing. They said in there test builds that they could run thousands of zombies. But with the global item cap thingy, there number is capped and tied into loot item numbers. Id be happy with the loot system from the mod, and give us those thousands of zombies. Was even going to make a thread suggesting they turn loot spawns down by 25% and put a few extra zombies in, because a lot of loot is just repeats atm lol :)

[Dagwood 680]

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to have one character per server. If the server is quiet and you want to play on a full one, who cares if you have to start from scratch. You're going to die sometime anyway and have to start over. At least having multiple characters per server you've got the choice to get back to another geared guy right away if another one dies.

That last sentence is why a public hive is desirable over private servers.

If you have 5 different geared characters on multiple servers, you don't care as much about dying, and your playstyle will reflect that. If your only character is uber geared to the point where you have a big advantage over other players, you might play a little more carefully if losing a needless firefight means you WILL go to the coast as a fresh spawn or have to quit for the night.

Private servers create more unwanted variability in player behavior (yolo deathsquads vs survivalists is an unfair combination)

[Katana67 2907]

Guess what I mean is its never going to be feasible to set up a house as "your own" because things will exist to get past any defences you put in place. The player traffic will mean that your house will be discovered eventually. So for me at least, concealment is a better option for making a base. That's why I don't mind if they just log in inside the building. Those type of barricades are just "on the fly" zombie stoppers. Or maybe to block a rear enterance so you will hear someone coming in that way while you cover the other door. Maybe im wrong and the barricades are intended for constructing bases, but I hope not. 

 

How about how the loot spawned in the mod? That was reasonably quick, I think it was loot spawns when player is within X metres from the building. Loot despawns if no players within X metres. Sounds exploitable and lets face it.... it is. But the other side of the coin is that you could move between 2 high value loot locations, yet due to loot spawn %, could not find that thing you needed even after visiting both 10 times. In that sense it had balance.

 

I liked that, and it frees up more server resourses for things like zombies and player cap, by having areas with no players spawn nothing. They said in there test builds that they could run thousands of zombies. But with the global item cap thingy, there number is capped and tied into loot item numbers. Id be happy with the loot system from the mod, and give us those thousands of zombies. Was even going to make a thread suggesting they turn loot spawns down by 25% and put a few extra zombies in, because a lot of loot is just repeats atm lol :)

 

Client-spawned anything is awful, hence why everything is being loaded to the servers now in standalone. The mod's loot was not balanced in the least.

 

Likewise, they're not drawing from the same pool of resources to spawn zombies and loot. They have different requirements, so it's not like 25% less loot spawn = 25% more capability to spawn zombies.

 

As to your first point, barricades are what the player makes of them. I have a hard time thinking of barricades as an "on the fly" mechanic. Not only will they REQUIRE the player to gather resources, thus requiring a bit of time and intent... but they also will (surprisingly, as barricades) be BLOCKING off something.

 

Nothing will INDEFINITELY be "your own". It never has been. However, one can take steps to make breaking a barricade more difficult. Like using metal instead of wood. Or putting a padlock on a door.

 

Before, you just had tents. So all the player had to do was FIND the tents, which would make them much more vulnerable than a barricaded house. Where the player would first have to find the house, figure out what needs to be done to break into it, find whatever resources are needed to break into the house, and loot. All while the threat of defensive players is there.

[Katana67 2907]

That last sentence is why a public hive is desirable over private servers.

If you have 5 different geared characters on multiple servers, you don't care as much about dying, and your playstyle will reflect that. If your only character is uber geared to the point where you have a big advantage over other players, you might play a little more carefully if losing a needless firefight means you WILL go to the coast as a fresh spawn or have to quit for the night.

Private servers create more unwanted variability in player behavior (yolo deathsquads vs survivalists is an unfair combination)

 

I don't have an issue with private servers. But I see your point. I never really encountered this issue. I always just played one character at a time.

 

I've always been an advocate of doing away with the public hive. But if they're going to keep it, then they need to address server hopping.

[dgeesio 1034]

I wish it were that simple.

 

However I think you'd still get server hoppers. People would get all the loot they want from one server, and rather than waiting or walking to a new area, they would just hop and loot the same area again.

it is that simple devs made the wrong choice on the engine to use. the very fact that people are doing what the devs arnt for free on mods like breaking point and use arma 3 engine makes you just laugh inside.

 

look respawns 100s zombies. why didnt the dev team just sue arma 3 ? actually rapes my mind.

 

all the stuff we wait for in SA is already done and working in breaking point and other mods being done and are free.

 

 

 

hopping is mainly being done because the loot respawn is screwed. Dayz is plaing catch up but the thing is the more it tries to catch up with stuff already out its losing even more ground. this is what melts my brain as there are so many supposedly working on it.

[BadContrakt 43]

I have only read the OPs post. I have not read any responses.

 

Personally I do not favor any of these choices. When I was watching Dean at Rezzed and when the kid asked him "Won't players be able to server hop and spawn right into our bases?"

 

I instantly came up with an amazing plan to remedy that without having to spawn a fully geared player that logged out at NWAF all the way at the fucking coast, which is ludicrous to even throw a playful paw at the idea. What if you log out of your favorite =ADK= server and go to bed, wake up and =ADK= is down for maintenance but plenty of servers are still up? Being punished for sometimes uncontrollable states is ridiculous.

 

Here's the idea I had right when the kid mentioned base spawning.

 

"No Spawn Beacon"

 

This is a brand new idea and obviously would need some polishing but this is the basic framework.

 

All players get one or maybe they have to find them, craft them, whatever, BEACON.

 

Build your base, and you lay the "no spawn" beacon in the middle of your base and that disables player spawning in a range of 50 meters or 100 meter or whatever maybe even 250 meters. So when I spawn in to someone's base I am not reset to the coast I am just "displaced" 100 meters so that way I am safely spawned out of their base and they don't have to worry about me spawning inside and murdering everyone.

 

I know this would probably be a rather intensive mechanic to implement and would probably create a bit of load on the server but like I said it's a framework that needs a bit of thinking.

 

Maybe this has already been thought of and my idea wasn't so great, who knows. But that's my stand on this whole subject.

[Pokerguy12 218]

Server hopping which saves the player's location. Plain and simple.

 

There's been a ton of discussion on it, but the recent revelation of the (tentative or not) roadmap at Rezzed 2014 further underscores the need to address the issue.

 

I am not concerned about whether you think it's right or wrong on a personal level. Nothing could possibly matter less to the game as your silly moral hatred of/conviction for server hopping.

 

The fact remains, that as it stands now, it is detrimental to the included game mechanics (i.e. the loot system). Moreover, the focus of this particular thread will be the ways in which the current server hopping paradigm undercuts the intended inclusions of the development roadmap.

 

Specifically, location-saving server hopping completely and totally neuters the idea of persistent construction. Why barricade a building if one can just server hop into it and loot your stash? Why construct a house if one can just server hop inside? The issue needs to be addressed if these future aspects are to remain intact.

 

I have no issue with server hopping for purposes which are not intended to circumvent in-game mechanics (i.e. hooking up with friends, your server dies, your server loses population, etc.) However, the fact that when one switches servers (so long as you're on the same hive) one's player location is carried over... is truly the fundamental detrimental aspect of server hopping.

 

If you come here looking to demonize or praise server hopping, look elsewhere. Vitriol has no place here, and is the concern of imbeciles when compared to the tangible and pragmatic in-game consequences.

 

I've discussed this before, but now it gains immediacy with the outline of the roadmap. Several approaches have been suggested, none of which I'm sold on. So please, stop acting like I'm championing one or the other.

 

- Reset player location upon switching servers. You keep your gear, but respawn elsewhere (i.e. on the coast)

- Reset player location upon switching servers. You keep some of your gear, and respawn elsewhere (i.e. on the coast)

- Reset player location upon switching servers. You keep only your character's stats, and respawn elsewhere (i.e. on the coast)

- Lock characters down to the individual server within the hives

- Make all servers private hive

 

What approach would you favor? What one of your own would you suggest?

 

EDIT

 

Additional suggestions

- Wait and see about the loot system

- Have players spawn away from or be unable to spawn inside barricaded buildings (According to the Q/A at Rezzed, this is how they're going to approach this particular issue)

- Do nothing and choose to play on private hives

Reset player location according to the individual 'quadrants' rocket mentioned in the presentation is in my opinion the best and most workable practical solution, ever.

[pacific_coast 632]

I have only read the OPs post. I have not read any responses.

 

Personally I do not favor any of these choices. When I was watching Dean at Rezzed and when the kid asked him "Won't players be able to server hop and spawn right into our bases?"

 

I instantly came up with an amazing plan to remedy that without having to spawn a fully geared player that logged out at NWAF all the way at the fucking coast, which is ludicrous to even throw a playful paw at the idea. What if you log out of your favorite =ADK= server and go to bed, wake up and =ADK= is down for maintenance but plenty of servers are still up? Being punished for sometimes uncontrollable states is ridiculous.

 

Here's the idea I had right when the kid mentioned base spawning.

 

"No Spawn Beacon"

 

This is a brand new idea and obviously would need some polishing but this is the basic framework.

 

All players get one or maybe they have to find them, craft them, whatever, BEACON.

 

Build your base, and you lay the "no spawn" beacon in the middle of your base and that disables player spawning in a range of 50 meters or 100 meter or whatever maybe even 250 meters. So when I spawn in to someone's base I am not reset to the coast I am just "displaced" 100 meters so that way I am safely spawned out of their base and they don't have to worry about me spawning inside and murdering everyone.

 

I know this would probably be a rather intensive mechanic to implement and would probably create a bit of load on the server but like I said it's a framework that needs a bit of thinking.

 

Maybe this has already been thought of and my idea wasn't so great, who knows. But that's my stand on this whole subject.

this can be exploited.

"spawning near your friends" is an easy-mode concept that has never been resolved by the devs.

they know they need a steady stream of scrubs to keep buying the game based on youtube whoring.

place the beacon in your base, another clan's base, at nwaf... hop until you've ghosted and hoarded everything.

no thanks.

[pacific_coast 632]

what happens when that one rotten banana that didn't get picked up stops the entire north east quadrant from respawning the loot?

 

randomized. individual. loot. respawning.

 

picked up a magazine, but nothing else in the room?

 

only the magazine's drop spot will respawn a loot item, and not another magazine.

Edited March 29, 2014 by pacific_coast

[Karmaterror 982]

 

 

Likewise, they're not drawing from the same pool of resources to spawn zombies and loot. They have different requirements, so it's not like 25% less loot spawn = 25% more capability to spawn zombies.

 

 

 

Well that's how they explained it.....they have a global item cap. If they don't spawn loot they can spawn thousands of zombies. But as it is now theres thousands of loot items and only a few zeds. So, if they turned down loot they could (theoretically) spawn more zombies.

 

Yeah you will have to search for the stuff to build a barricade, but I just don't think they gonna last long vs respawning zombies and player traffic. With tents they didn't have security....but the security came from placement and concealment. Someone will find a barricaded house 10x faster than a well placed tent in the woods. Then its just a matter of loot the right tool and return. I hope both make it in game, id love to see what people use more. Physical security or locational (concealment type) security.

 

The "on the fly" bit means you may throw one up if you have the parts to just give a bit of flank protection during a firefight. I carnt see anything we can knock up while under siege from the zombies to be more than a rushed temporary type thing. Like you block one of the orange house doors, cover the other, and if someone tries come in the back ya hear a hammer or whatever breaking it down. Or the zombies clawing at it. Tactically I thing barricades will be great, as a base building thing....not so sure.

 

Anyway, back OT, If a house was fully barricaded the server could boot you to main menu with some sort of message "Your current location is unavalible on this server", so you have to swap server and move away. They can mark "no log in zones" like barracks and stuff, so they may be able to write a script that checks all that houses barricade sites, then decides weather you can log in there or not :)

[Pokerguy12 218]

I wish i could offer a more insightful analysis and critical examination but at the moment we don't have enough information about the loot spawning mechanics and systems to start any indepth discussion about.

I believe the server hopping problem is closely tied to loot spawning and the solution lies in the two being a single integrated system, other than that i say we wait for more information and see. In the meantime do not let this issue die down and become forgotten.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Pokerguy10

[pacific_coast 632]

imagine the lag and desync if you actually looked/stood near to a 100+ zombies?

 

i don't think we will ever see "10,000 zombie servers"

[Katana67 2907]

Reset player location according to the individual 'quadrants' rocket mentioned in the presentation is in my opinion the best and most workable practical solution, ever.

 

See, I'm not sure what they mean by quadrants. I mean, if they mean "divide the map up into four sections" then those are some VAST expanses of diverse loot locations (some with more value than others). It could be useful for a solution for server swapping, but it couldn't only involve the quadrants. I mean, it could spawn you CLOSER to valuable loot locations in theory. So there would have to be some discrepancy there. Not sure as to whether it'd be worthwhile implementing such a complicated solution, when one could just have all-private hives.

 

Tactically I thing barricades will be great, as a base building thing....not so sure.

 

I think it will be useful in both respects. I know that I'll be barricading an isolated cottage to store stuff in for sure. I think you're underestimating the significance that this will have for basebuilding. The tactical element is more time sensitive, based upon resource happenstance, and assumes that we will not require tools to set up. We don't know that much about the system at this point. But I assume it won't be something that can be done under fire. They've said that they're trying to emulate TDL's barricading system, and it is quite cumbersome (for good reason).

Edited March 29, 2014 by Katana67

[Dagwood 680]

How about relocating you to blackforest or other low traffic, well covered spots? Or only doing so if you switch servers from a high priority spot?

This might punish players that are forced to switch servers when servers crash and such, so is far from perfect.

I also think relying on respawning loot to eliminate server hopping is naive. Gamers are lazy and they take the easy route in online gaming.

*lightbulb*

logging out in a tent saves your (and perhaps your squad's) position. If you logout on server one in your tent, when you log on to server 2 you are in the same spot. But if you logout on server 2 without entering a tent first, your spawn location is random.

Could go into more detail but I'm mobile. How could this be broken or exploited? What it punish legitimate players too much?

[Katana67 2907]

How about relocating you to blackforest or other low traffic, well covered spots? Or only doing so if you switch servers from a high priority spot?

This might punish players that are forced to switch servers when servers crash and such, so is far from perfect.

I also think relying on respawning loot to eliminate server hopping is naive. Gamers are lazy and they take the easy route in online gaming.

*lightbulb*

logging out in a tent saves your (and perhaps your squad's) position. If you logout on server one in your tent, when you log on to server 2 you are in the same spot. But if you logout on server 2 without entering a tent first, your spawn location is random.

Could go into more detail but I'm mobile. How could this be broken or exploited? What it punish legitimate players too much?

 

Only issue is that I doubt tents, if looted rather than constructed, will be commonplace. Might be a good idea. But I'm not sure I like it.

 

I'm beginning to favor the private hive approach. As Rocket's intended fix for structures only fixes one issue.

[Dagwood 680]

Ok how about a big campfire instead?

[IshFingers 26]

Maybe this is too 'hardcore', but maybe... When you log out out, your character stays in-game. Resting, sleeping, whatever, but the point being your character is still surviving somewhere in the world.

Now hear me out: When a player logs out, they are forced to find a suitable location; be it discreet or secure (after barricades are implemented) - meaning a player cannot just log off in a possible danger zone, susceptible to zombies, players or the environment.

Add tents/campsites into the mix and you could safely 'rest' in the wilderness. Similar to barricades, they're impervious (if that's their intent) to zombie assault and environmental hazards. Though human players could still break in.

There would/should be benefits to resting/sleeping, notably regenerating fatigue. Possibly speeding up sickness or mending parts of your body which are in pain. The offset to this is the obvious vulnerability you are under whilst logged out. Though I don't think you should die of hunger/hydration (or sickness etc.) whilst under this status. Just suffer ill-effects if you're logged out in an open area.

Maybe this is asking too much. After all, a character would have to be stored on the server; you couldn't really distinguish between a resting player and an active player unless there were major changes. It also favours a hardcore play style above a more casual one - I.E. Encouraging regular log-ins (daily) than perhaps once or twice a week. It also doesn't help people who have to log off for real issues.

Any maybe Chernarus is just not big enough to find suitable places for everyone to rest in peace (pun intended). Though it would offer some sort of functionality to those enormous apartment buildings most of us just don't bother exploring after the first walk through.

It's wishful thinking though. There are far too many hitches/game-breaking elements which could enable such a system without very long consideration. Though this would be (IMO) the ultimate in survival MMO and completely eliminate server hopping when combined with the log-in counter. Though by this point I'd assume server hopping would be the least of our concerns. I mean, who cares if someone's logged in nearby when you desperately scramble for a safe place to sleep.

These are just the ramblings of a spur-of-the-moment idea which I don't doubt will be slated for many, many reasons. But if done right -and of technology allows effective implementation - then it could be the next step in the 'realistic survival-horror' genre.

[Dagwood 680]

^^ it's been suggested before and you're right, the map just isn't big enough to support this. If it was ten times the size it would be plausible. Unfortunately, the ap is ONLY 225 sq/km and the servers can only support 150ish players at once.

Plus there would be issues with DCs, unannounced server crashes/restarts and many more.

I wish we could do it that way too :(

[pilgrim* 3513]

..//.. the focus of this particular thread will be the ways in which the current server hopping paradigm undercuts the intended inclusions of the development roadmap.

 

Specifically, location-saving server hopping completely and totally neuters the idea of persistent construction. Why barricade a building if one can just server hop into it and loot your stash? Why construct a house if one can just server hop inside? The issue needs to be addressed if these future aspects are to remain intact.

 

This is 'ghosting' in fact (moving from one server to another and back to gain an advantage over an opponent).. server-hopping is something else..but point taken. Good point too.

You are absolutely right that it becomes a different order of problem if player-structures/private areas/barricaded rooms or locked houses are introduced.

 

When a player logs out, his position is saved not only by map location (2D grid location) but also by his altitude, ie - player location is saved in all three dimensions.

 

[ In case I am wrong about the following, can someone put me straight please? ]

 

For the 2D flat grid location there are some problems (almost no problem at first sight) If a player logs in to a 'private area' of any kind, constructed by another player, his login location can be moved to outside that area. For this to work the whole boundary of the private area must be saved when it is constructed, it is not enough to say 'this door is locked, barricaded, etc')

 

This is possible, it can be done 'fairly easily' in itself. So the unknown player, on logging in is placed outside that area.

 

However - there is the altitude problem - suppose the private area is a single floor of a house (not the roof, not the ground floor) or a construction near a steep drop. If the player who logs out on the building's first floor then logs in to a server where that floor is private, he will be displaced to some height above the surrounding ground level.

 

Also, it must be ensured he does not log in to a roof or other floor or room that is not itself private, but has his exit blocked by a player construction

 

And that when displaced, he is not logged in to a 'closed' room ( one of the famous glitch rooms) or on to the roof of a shed, inside a gas tank, off the edge of a dock, etc

 

So for the horizontal element: if the player logs to a 'private area' he is simply relocated horizontally. But a test must be made to ensure he is clear of various obstacles or 'traps' - this cannot be done simply by 'collision avoidance' as there are non-play spaces that the player cannot escape from. These are not 'listed' on the server as the player normally cannot access them.

 

The vertical element requires a second test (to 'lower' the player to the local ground level before his login is finalised). This also requires detection of non-play spaces and obstacles.

 

In the current game, these tests are not required - a player logs out only in a place he can reach in-game - a hill, a flat roof, whatever, and so the server logs him back in the same 3-D location without checking that he is in a playable location. Of course he is.

 

A relatively easy way to deal with this is only to have player-built constructions in the country, on level ground, and displace the stranger's login to just outside the structure. For 'privatised/barricaded single-story village houses there is the same non-playable area problem.

An alternative (much more work?) is to have a universal grid of 'safe' log in points, and displace the stranger to one of these grid points close by, while doing the height test to log him in on the ground and not above or below it.

 

I'd like to hear a developer or scripter with experience of THIS engine say how far from the mark are these ideas.

 

Anyway - as a general outline - this is the stuff that needs to be considered.

 

xx pilgrim

Edited March 29, 2014 by pilgrim

[zombie1 (DayZ) 0]

When I first start the game...I go high ping, low pop. I stay til I have to leave or get the "Recieveing no message". The little yellow/red icon in the lower right corner comes up. Then I will either choose to leave (because usually I get disconnected from sever) or just flat out get disconnected. Not sure why, it happens, but it happens more than I would think it should. Don't really see why there should be a penalty for that.

 

 

Since, it is Alpha...why should anyone really care about server hopping, at this point? When it goes live, low pop servers become high pop as people funnel into them, anyway. Seems to me, there is more of a problem with server admins abusing the servers than the players anyway....

 

No matter what you do, people always find away around it. Like not being able to respawn on your own (crawled for 4 hours due to this awesome idea, trying to find something/anything to kill me, all thanks to a glitched barn, up north). Read the reason was...so players can't keep spawning to get better spawn points....hate to be the bearer of bad news...but when you spawn on the coast, it is not hard to find something to kill you, anyway...same result...little extra time. Better option, is an "I am stuck" option on a 30 minute cooldown. Would be less furstrating for players with legit reasons, why they need to do it. Of course, the players still have the option to go hug a ZED today, til they get close to where they want to be.

Edited March 29, 2014 by zombie1

[Dagwood 680]

^^^you meant that you choose LOW ping.... Right?

[entspeak 374]

Don't know of this has been mentioned yet... On my phone, so hard to navigate all the pages. Rocket mentioned spawning in "player controlled areas." This will do two things: prevent server hopping to bypass a barricade and respawning inside your area when you die. As I understand it, though barricading will be added before player controlled areas and I'm not sure if it goes in before private hives. Either way, on public servers, barricading won't provide protection until they add player controlled areas.

[Katana67 2907]

Don't know of this has been mentioned yet... On my phone, so hard to navigate all the pages. Rocket mentioned spawning in "player controlled areas." This will do two things: prevent server hopping to bypass a barricade and respawning inside your area when you die. As I understand it, though barricading will be added before player controlled areas and I'm not sure if it goes in before private hives. Either way, on public servers, barricading won't provide protection until they add player controlled areas.

 

Agreed. I think the proposal by Rocket for these controlled areas is a good solution to the use of server hopping to get inside of player structures. But I'm just wary as to what criteria are going to be used to dictate what constitutes a controlled area. I mean, does it have to be drawn by the player? Does it just appear around any barricade? Does the building have to be fully barricaded for it to work?

 

We'll have to wait and see on that one.