DayZ should always be about survival...

[scriptfactory 620]

Fortifying bases would be good, and I think this should come when vehicles come since you don't really need bases until there's vehicles. 

 

I hope Epoch-style base building doesn't come for a long time.

 

I would much rather see the DayZ experience focus around fortifying existing buildings and using them as their bases. No hoarding of vehicles in a base. No NPC traders. This would lead to larger groups/clans taking over apartment buildings or police stations in towns because they would be big and easy to fortify and defend.

 

If you want to keep your vehicle it should be hidden from sight (add vehicle camouflage + lockable garages). Every player should have a chance to steal a vehicle or siphon its gas.  Bicycles would be prized over cars because they could be dismantled and stored safely.

[thesodesa 99]

I agree with your second point, servers shouldn't be too different, at least when it comes to vanilla DayZ.

I'm not too keen on taking away the possibility of a group becoming self sufficient through farming, hunting, foraging building alarm systems etc.

 

The first thing I would try to do in an apocalypse would be to set up a safe haven with a large community, since together people are stronger, as long as they take care to not to poop anywhere close to where they keep their food. Hygiene is important.

Edited April 4, 2014 by TheSodesa

[cels 43]

If I saw a camera I would just shoot it...

[Sula 1205]

What a great thread.  This is what I call a great discussion.  No kids posting nonsense or abuse, just detailed, thorough discussion on a very interesting subject. :thumbsup:

 

Personally, I think there are many different ways of surviving and come a holocaust I think we'd see people surviving on their own initially but also trying to get together with others.  It's why we exist in cities, we crave other humans.   Well not all of us and not all "other humans".  I could kill my brother in law without a second thought!. <_<

Edited April 4, 2014 by Sula

[oxymoron (DayZ) 3]

they should stick to the basics, yes. i dont want this game to be a stealthy TF2/Left 4 Dead bastard. i want it to be kinda an antigame; hard surviving, rare loot, threat of getting shot, strong zombies in connection with a realistic gameplay, and some goals to achieve. simple, easy and good.

 

cant wait for tents and vehicles tho. they shoulod be rare as fuck and hard to build up. but i guess it will take some time since things would all disappear when a server restarts. we can start talk about it when loot respawns and night will be more fun, so servers dont get restarted every 4 hours

 

there are some things i thought about what players could do in the future.

maybe players could invade a radio tower or something and send massages to everyone using walkie talkies /radios,

maybe the possibility to build one or 2 draisine's to use on the railroad track on a railwaystation

etc

this would create some more ''hot spots'' for players to go and do something, instead of military bases only

Edited April 4, 2014 by oxymoron

[Gubbjeveln 18]

Is anyone else worried that this game might get too far from its original point in the future? I mean, many people want some sort of security cameras and similar things for this game so they can occupy a place entirely and stay there. Personally I think it would go too far, since this game is about survival, not anything like that. Cars are fine, maybe even an unarmed helicopter, and some sort of tents and sleeping places, but that's pretty much about it. Also I'm against of million different kind of servers, since I hate when so many games have 100 bullshit servers and 2 good servers. Anyone agree with me, at least with the first part? 

Hey, I read a good suggestion. Every time you respawn you are hungrier than when you logged off, like -50%. To that I wanted to add that why not make it so that if you logg off (or servercrasch, whatever) and you log in you are hungy, but THEN if you within, say 10 min log in to a erlier server (ie battle log) then you spawn STARVING and low on blood.

 

This way you are (if not stacked with supplies) forced to explore and loot before you go to sniperhill to shoot at fresh-spawns. That´s neat huh?

 

And already we can help to make life more ... hmm ... interesting for those psycho-murderers on sniper hill. I have found that it is easy to herd those Z´s to almost any location and then outsprint them...sometimes even where you want them, and even standing in a bush or so. 

 

I have had some great fun lately, having my "guard-dogs" saving me from bandits.

 

Try it, it might, at least, make the game more thrilling for them snipers. Just for now at least.

 

;)

[smoq2 221]

I think that many of us (or at least I am, but I'm still for it) are afraid of base building due to the assumption that large groups could barricade off some vital spot on the map which would limit our gameplay.

 

A bit of thinking is calming me down though:

 

A. What kind of manpower would they need to hold a village/city/military base in the long-term? 30 people so that at least 5 would be online at any given time and keep it secure? Possible in only very few instances... Most of the time building anything in a popular location would result just in loss of materials.

 

B. Well, I pretty much imagine this would happen in reality as well. Valuable surroundings would quickly become occupied, provided that it can be occupied in the first place. If for some reason I will find myself on a server (and once the game is finished I plan to stick to just one server) where e.g. whole Berezino is a big fortress, I'll just treat it as a part of the reality around me, turn around, and make the best of what this given world has to offer. :)

 

Hope this helps at building a constructive and enjoyable approach. :)

Edited April 4, 2014 by retro19

[scriptfactory 620]

I think that many of us (or at least I am, but I'm still for it) are afraid of base building due to the assumption that large groups could barricade of some vital spot on the map which would limit our gameplay.

 

I'm not worried about players barricading a whole area as much as I am worried that the defense will be too hard to break through. A whole area being blocked off is fine as long as there is a way for a single player to get around the defenses. This would keep the game interesting. I don't want something like in Rust where you need C4 to raid a metal base.

[zeroy 240]

So long the one life principle remains and that no missions/objectives are added then it will remain about Survival. After that people may choose to play in a manner deemed not survivalist but that's them.

[smoq2 221]

I'm not worried about players barricading a whole area as much as I am worried that the defense will be too hard to break through. A whole area being blocked off is fine as long as there is a way for a single player to get around the defenses. This would keep the game interesting. I don't want something like in Rust where you need C4 to raid a metal base.

 

That is what I meant - making an area inaccessible unless you go to great lengths in order to get through.

The rest of my post still applies. I.e:

 

For how long will they be able to keep it that way?

 

and

 

The map is big, we can still venture into some other place.

 

All in all, it shouldn't be a big problem (at least for me) as long as it's properly implemented and would require a gargantuan investment of time, resources and planning, not just a few awkwardly looking blockish walls sticking out of the ground, at which point very very few groups would even consider doing so, and even if, they would have to consist of disciplined and mature players who would not blockade a town "for the lulz".

Edited April 4, 2014 by retro19

[dayy 173]

Can't wait for 'base building' but, as people said. These bases cannot require super high grade camo/explosives etc. to break into. But, at the same time, I feel they should not be raidable by a simple one man operation. That would cause waaaay to many trolls. My personal plan for a base is simple, find a base in the middle of nowhere, fortify it with a few hidden traps, maybe a few of those tank traps used since WW1 (hopefully) make it really discreet. 

 

As for cameras, maybe a makeshift form of camera, which would show an extremely low quality image on a screen, not perfect, but still gets the job done. In addition, traps are a must. Regarding what everyone is saying about vehicles, think, in an apocalypse, everyone is in a rush to escape, therefore vehicles will litter streets, military roadblocks would also be prevalent. So, I feel as though fully operational cars, helis etc should be rare, yet, it should be super easy to scrap together a car from different parts found from other cars that litter the road. It wouldn't be perfect, but enough to get the job done. 

 

For those whom disagree, think about it. Let's look at the current state of the country all of us are playing in... Everything is deserted, no traders have moved in, no other people than us, zombies aren't to scratched up, they actually look pretty recently infected, therefore, this whole catastrophe could not have happened more than maybe 13 months to 2 years ago.... So, there will be plenty of bits and pieces which can be put together to make something awesome, kinda like Dead Rising 3 (albeit, not so crazy and unrealistic).

[gibonez 3633]

I'm not worried about players barricading a whole area as much as I am worried that the defense will be too hard to break through. A whole area being blocked off is fine as long as there is a way for a single player to get around the defenses. This would keep the game interesting. I don't want something like in Rust where you need C4 to raid a metal base.

 

 

Roll up to their base in that badboy.

[4AcrossIsEmu 13]

I agree this is the element that drew me in and I hope this game is punishing.

[Pandema 352]

I'd be fine with them adding security cameras and what not, as long as theres a way to smash it.

 

You wanna put security cameras up to watch outside you base? K, I'm going to put a .45 through it and walk away.

[Puredeath 8]

But I don't want to survive... I want to live and thrive, rebuild my home town defend it and try and get things back go a form of normal. Like what I would do in a real situation like this.

That and I want to have a city or area secured where zombies can't spawn as like a safe haven. For new spawns, and the veterans alike to meet up share supllies, get away from the fact that they had to kill their own infected family, group up, create a city that is only successful because of people working together to do more than survive.

But instead you suggest that we have to keep looking over our backs, for zombies and players alike, constantly move and look for basic necessities almost constantly and never try and create a sense of social or community interaction outside of your group of 5-6 guys killing everyone they see afraid to go near other survivors.

[Whyherro123 2283]

But I don't want to survive... I want to live and thrive, rebuild my home town defend it and try and get things back go a form of normal. Like what I would do in a real situation like this.

That and I want to have a city or area secured where zombies can't spawn as like a safe haven. For new spawns, and the veterans alike to meet up share supllies, get away from the fact that they had to kill their own infected family, group up, create a city that is only successful because of people working together to do more than survive.

But instead you suggest that we have to keep looking over our backs, for zombies and players alike, constantly move and look for basic necessities almost constantly and never try and create a sense of social or community interaction outside of your group of 5-6 guys killing everyone they see afraid to go near other survivors.

Yeah, pretty much. I want a game that develops over time, using the playerbase as a springboard. In real life, I wouldn't want to have to constantly move around from destroyed town to destroyed town, braving starvation, the elements, and the beasts in human form, both living and dead, for a can of beans and some ammo. I would want to eventually move into a stronghold, where I can work for a productive end, and sleep at night without fear of being eaten. I am willing to bet that for 99% of the human population, the whole "woo hoo no laws total freedom!" bit would get real old, real fast. Especially once they realize that they now have to work for EVERYTHING they want.

 

Granted, I don't think the engine could support towns, with agriculture, industry, and the trappings of civilization, but I digress.

TLDR: keeping the game locked to a theme of loot-n-shoot is foolish, both from a real-life perspective, and from a developmental standpoint. You can only loot the same buildings so many times before you get bored. But, have something to work for, something to LIVE for, and the game will become that much more better.

[TIC 1050]

Is anyone else worried that this game might get too far from its original point in the future? I mean, many people want some sort of security cameras and similar things for this game so they can occupy a place entirely and stay there. Personally I think it would go too far, since this game is about survival, not anything like that. Cars are fine, maybe even an unarmed helicopter, and some sort of tents and sleeping places, but that's pretty much about it. Also I'm against of million different kind of servers, since I hate when so many games have 100 bullshit servers and 2 good servers. Anyone agree with me, at least with the first part? 

 

I think the problem is that DayZ lacks a storyline. With one, there would be more focuses entirely based along the story. Without having one, this is probably intentional to make room for development and a reason for us to develop our own story.

[Puredeath 8]

Yeah, pretty much. I want a game that develops over time, using the playerbase as a springboard. In real life, I wouldn't want to have to constantly move around from destroyed town to destroyed town, braving starvation, the elements, and the beasts in human form, both living and dead, for a can of beans and some ammo. I would want to eventually move into a stronghold, where I can work for a productive end, and sleep at night without fear of being eaten. I am willing to bet that for 99% of the human population, the whole "woo hoo no laws total freedom!" bit would get real old, real fast. Especially once they realize that they now have to work for EVERYTHING they want.

 

Granted, I don't think the engine could support towns, with agriculture, industry, and the trappings of civilization, but I digress.

TLDR: keeping the game locked to a theme of loot-n-shoot is foolish, both from a real-life perspective, and from a developmental standpoint. You can only loot the same buildings so many times before you get bored. But, have something to work for, something to LIVE for, and the game will become that much more better.

If we could build walls and gates and the like, and keep zombies for spawning by having fires, a town could be built. I don't want to have prefind areas for players to build a town. I'm thinking of an area outlined by walls or barricades, built by the play to encircle an area where they keep lit up so that zombies and undisired players alike have a difficult time getting into.

[mgc 92]

If we could build walls and gates and the like, and keep zombies for spawning by having fires, a town could be built. I don't want to have prefind areas for players to build a town. I'm thinking of an area outlined by walls or barricades, built by the play to encircle an area where they keep lit up so that zombies and undisired players alike have a difficult time getting into.

Agreed, no coded town areas. All settlements should be player made.

No Z spawning zone inside the enclosed area? And how if so desired?

[hefeweizen 254]

But I don't want to survive... I want to live and thrive, rebuild my home town defend it and try and get things back go a form of normal. Like what I would do in a real situation like this.

Lol. Why does everyone think they'd be Rick Grimes in a zombie apocalypse? That totally isn't what you'd do in real life, in real life what you'd be doing is trying to eat people because you were turned into a zombie within the first two days after patient zero. However, DayZ affords you the fantasy of actually surviving Z-Day and going on to be the 1 in a several hundred thousand who aren't infected. It is probably the least realistic aspect of DayZ, so be happy that you get even that.

As far as I'm concerned, DayZ should always be a struggle or people will just start killing each other for lulz. I hope base building is limited to existing buildings and that they don't hold up well at all, especially if you'd don't have someone logged in clearing the zed/bandits away from your barricades.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Hefeweizen

[mgc 92]

snip

 

I hope base building is limited to existing buildings and that they don't hold up well at all, especially if you'd don't have someone logged in clearing the zed/bandits away from your barricades.

Imo bases should be untouchable 5 minutes after the last base member logs off. It should take less than 5 minutes to break and enter provided you have the right tools.

[hefeweizen 254]

Imo bases should be untouchable 5 minutes after the last base member logs off. It should take less than 5 minutes to break and enter provided you have the right tools.

Not worded well. Explain what you mean by "bases should be untouchable 5 minutes after the last base member logs off",  do you mean they should likely be in ruins five minutes after the last person logs?

Edited April 5, 2014 by Hefeweizen

[mgc 92]

Not worded well. Explain what you mean by "bases should be untouchable 5 minutes after the last base member logs off",  do you mean they should likely be in ruins five minutes after the last person logs?

I mean you shouldn't be able to interact with bases if there's nobody around to defend it.

This solves the "Some kid blew up my base while I was at work" problem.

To prevent abuse, I proposed a 5 minute grace zone in which the assailants can break and enter.

[hefeweizen 254]

I mean you shouldn't be able to interact with bases if there's nobody around to defend it.

This solves the "Some kid blew up my base while I was at work" problem.

To prevent abuse, I proposed a 5 minute grace zone in which the assailants can break and enter.

The hell? So your stash would be completely safe when you weren't guarding it? Pffft.... No, that is terrible and will never be in the game. I ain't much for neckbearding but that seriously makes me want to scream "GTFO carebear" at my TV screen.

Losing your stuff is part of DayZ. Nothing is ever safe if it didn't log out with your survivor, that won't ever change. Don't want someone jacking your loot while you sleep/work? Hide it better.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Hefeweizen

[mgc 92]

The hell? So your stash would be completely safe when you weren't guarding it? Pffft.... No, that is terrible and will never be in the game. I ain't much for neckbearding but that seriously makes me want to scream "GTFO carebear" at my TV screen.

Losing your stuff is part of DayZ. Nothing is ever safe if it didn't log out with your survivor, that won't ever change. Don't want someone jacking your loot while you sleep/work? Hide it better.

We can't play DayZ 24 / 7 so concessions to realism are allowed and imo in this case necessary. If this was real life, I'd have my base guarded 24 /7. Wouldn't you?

Edited April 5, 2014 by mgc