Fire -> Camp -> Shack -> Log Cabbin ?

[Taiphoz 95]

I am wondering how long it will be before we can really put down some roots, I know that in the next patch or on the exp server they are playing with hunting which is brilliant, but some of us need a place to call home.

 

Something I really need personally to keep me playing, at the moment my game time consists of just wandering around until I see some one, shoot at them, die or live and then repeat, its boring when I know It could be so much better.

 

In the mod our clan built bases, camps, houses, and defended them against big assaults, and we often went out looking to assault other players bases it created a lot of really cool clan v clan and group play something that's really missing from the Standalone at the moment.

 

I recently took a look at Landmark and was thinking that its plot claiming would work really well in dayZ, imagine a Camp Fire was the first step in actually claiming a little bit of the world for yourself to build in, building one would prevent any additional players building any other campfires within X radius, at this point its just a fire treat it as you would normally.

 

However what if we then got an upgrade option on the fire itself, if we have a tent or canvas and sticks or something along those lines then we can upgrade the camp fire to a camp, a ten would then spawn a few feet from the fire in a set position (and not inside a solid object) you know like how you might do it in real life, now you have a fire for heat and food, and you have a tent for storage and keeping out the rain, this upgrade would then increase the radius around the fire increasing the amount of space you have as your own personal land, using this same upgrade mechanic you could upgrade the tent once or twice to increase its space, but ultimately with a bit of additional crafting you could upgrade your tent to a small 1 window, 1 door log cabin, in which you would have a log stove for heat and cooking, some storage things like trunks or drawers, and a door which you can lock with a 3 digit code, this lock could also be up-gradable to 4 ,5 and 6 digit locks to increase your security.

 

With all of this small log cabin and lets say for example 10 meter radius around it, that's only 10 meter square of land the place is HUGE hundreds of players could cabin up in the woods and there would still be bags of room to roam around an empty forest.

 

Finally durability on a camp, if a player does not login and interact with their camp within say 10 days it drops a durability point, 30 days of neglect and a log cabin turns to ruin and downgrades to a tent, 15 days later the tent downgrades to a fire, and 24 hours later the fire is removed from the world.

 

Having a cabin would be amazing, clans could have a group near each other in the woods and would then work to protect that area from any attackers, if done correctly it those who like survival could go off into the wilds build a cabin and just survive avoiding players.

 

those who seek group pvp could build theirs further south in groups and form clans to attack other nearby players and their camps.

 

I mention Shack in the title I realize I may not have outlined it above but just slot it into the appropriate upgrade location between a tent and the full cabin.

 

anyway just a thought.

[Katana67 2907]

Any player construction, should be modular and not linearly upgradable.

 

A fire should be a fire. A cabin should be a cabin. One shouldn't grow/shrink into the other.

 

That, and player-placed construction is heavily dependent on one thing - the amount of available wilderness. The wilderness in DayZ has been markedly, markedly, trimmed from the mod. The northern mountains have been flattened and have cities (and planned cities) directly in abutment. The only piece of wilderness which has been relatively untouched, is the western border south of Lopatino.

 

So, as I said in another thread, there's two things that need to happen for player-placed construction (at least relatively permanent construction) to be successful. One, the wilderness needs to be expanded again. Not sure if this is possible or not, but it's essential. The other option, is having player-placed construction being geared towards fortification of cities/towns.

 

But, allowing players to control territory is essential.

 

The implementation of barricading is slated for Q3 or Q4 (I can't remember which). Which'd be a good start. They've got a long way to go until then though. Things like persistent objects need to get nailed down first.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Katana67

[Whyherro123 2283]

Yep. I disagree with the linearity of your model, but player-built shelters and eventually housing should be awesome.

[Bororm 1156]

I think the direction they're going for base building right now is going to be barricading and converting existing structures into your base basically.  They are looking to make things like fridges/ovens/cabinets into containers, that spawn loot but also presumably that you can store loot in.  

 

I think with the abundance of new towns/houses this could work, the problem of course is balancing the amount of damage these barricades can take.  You don't want it trivial to break into a base, but you don't want it too hard either.

[Katana67 2907]

I think the direction they're going for base building right now is going to be barricading and converting existing structures into your base basically.  They are looking to make things like fridges/ovens/cabinets into containers, that spawn loot but also presumably that you can store loot in.  

 

I think with the abundance of new towns/houses this could work, the problem of course is balancing the amount of damage these barricades can take.  You don't want it trivial to break into a base, but you don't want it too hard either.

 

The roadmap says they're starting out with barricading (Q3), and then might move to persistent player-placed structures (Q4/QX).

 

I think barricading will be a great start, and is something that I've advocated for as a first step in construction for two years... often in the face of raving masses who thought it was impractical.

 

I wrote a long proposal for barricading a while back (and never posted it), but I think barricading should be done in concert with some sort of persistently placed walls or fences. Otherwise, just having a random building on the corner of a city won't be very useful. You need to actually be able to carve out a bit of white space between your building and the rest of the world.

 

That and every fortification should have a suitable, and specific, counter. Like a crowbar, for wooden window barricades. A breaching round for locked doors. Or thermal lance/explosive charge for reinforced metal doors. Stuff like that. It shouldn't be generic (i.e. toolbox) and the counters should be relatively difficult to find in relation to the items/fortifications they're countering.

 

That, and I think there needs to be a difference between a barricade and a wall/fence. The latter is just there to provide cover and prevent easy access. The former is there to prevent outright entry. So, for example, you could have a walled-off area, and incorporate the ability to "climb" a wall (leaving the player vulnerable).

Edited May 25, 2014 by Katana67

[Bororm 1156]

The roadmap says they're starting out with barricading (Q3), and then might move to persistent player-placed structures (Q4/QX).

 

I think barricading will be a great start, and is something that I've advocated for as a first step in construction for two years... often in the face of raving masses who thought it was impractical.

 

I wrote a long proposal for barricading a while back (and never posted it), but I think barricading should be done in concert with some sort of persistently placed walls or fences. Otherwise, just having a random building on the corner of a city won't be very useful. You need to actually be able to carve out a bit of white space between your building and the rest of the world.

 

That and every fortification should have a suitable, and specific, counter. Like a crowbar, for wooden window barricades. A breaching round for locked doors. Or thermal lance/explosive charge for reinforced metal doors. Stuff like that. It shouldn't be generic (i.e. toolbox) and the counters should be relatively difficult to find in relation to the items/fortifications they're countering.

 

That, and I think there needs to be a difference between a barricade and a wall/fence. The latter is just there to provide cover and prevent easy access. The former is there to prevent outright entry. So, for example, you could have a walled-off area, and incorporate the ability to "climb" a wall (leaving the player vulnerable).

 

Yeah that's what I was thinking too, in terms of specific tools to counter specific locks/doors.  People are going to probably scream about realism, yet again, (I can break a door/lock with X what's this bullshit that I need Y???) but there's really no way to balance it without getting a little bit gamey.  It would be a good thing for crafting too, maybe you'd have to craft some explosives or a tool, gathering some fairly rare parts.  I think they should aim for it taking near equivalent effort to break into a place, as it takes to create it.  That way you expend a lot of effort to get in some where, and it's a gamble for the attackers whether it will even pay off.  You might use your rare c4 or whatever to get into a base, only to find the guys had jack shit.

 

Epoch was interesting in that you could build your own structures, but people typically would barricade existing ones because:

1) you were already given a bunch of walls/a nice structure by using existing ones

and

2) you couldn't break said walls of existing structures (typically any ways, there were of course destructable buildings in the mod)

 

It was nice though, because you were able to expand onto it, people would build towers on barns or whatever, and then use the barn as a garage.

 

We'll see how it goes in SA, I have confidence whatever gets added will be fun if nothing else, because it's always fun to build and change the environment regardless of how practical it is.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Bororm

[Chaingunfighter 917]

The roadmap says they're starting out with barricading (Q3), and then might move to persistent player-placed structures (Q4/QX).

 

I think barricading will be a great start, and is something that I've advocated for as a first step in construction for two years... often in the face of raving masses who thought it was impractical.

 

I wrote a long proposal for barricading a while back (and never posted it), but I think barricading should be done in concert with some sort of persistently placed walls or fences. Otherwise, just having a random building on the corner of a city won't be very useful. You need to actually be able to carve out a bit of white space between your building and the rest of the world.

 

That and every fortification should have a suitable, and specific, counter. Like a crowbar, for wooden window barricades. A breaching round for locked doors. Or thermal lance/explosive charge for reinforced metal doors. Stuff like that. It shouldn't be generic (i.e. toolbox) and the counters should be relatively difficult to find in relation to the items/fortifications they're countering.

 

That, and I think there needs to be a difference between a barricade and a wall/fence. The latter is just there to provide cover and prevent easy access. The former is there to prevent outright entry. So, for example, you could have a walled-off area, and incorporate the ability to "climb" a wall (leaving the player vulnerable).

Can't imagine that a crowbar would be too hard to find, but then again, neither would wooden boards and a hammer with nails (you'd only be boarding up buildings in areas you were temporarily defending or had already controlled and just wanted added defense for anyway). Also, you probably wouldn't need a specific breaching round to shoot open a lock per say, so long as the round was powerful enough; I'm sure a blast from the IZH-43 would knock any lock clear off.

Thermic lances & explosive charges, on the other hand, would definitely be reasonably hard to come by. Still, I can imagine tossing a frag grenade/firing a 40mm shell from an M203 at a door would do the trick, so it'd definitely take some work to make it compatible with everything. It would be very weird to need a crowbar to pry off wooden planks but sit around for hours smashing the planks with a sledgehammer and not break them down.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[Taiphoz 95]

I think barricading a house cannot be counted as a player base, at least not something of value there is nothing stopping a player simply server hopping to get past your door or your boarded up wall or what ever, will this stop zombies, probably but then have zombies EVER been that much of a threat that you would actually go through all the steps required and time required to board up a house? specially one that cant keep other players out.

 

As for the linear nature of the upgrades will instill a sense of progression, if it's all open then there would be nothing stopping a player just building the final building which I think would be a massively bad idea, having it linear in progression not only means that the player gets that sense of accomplishment when their done but the time investment and work required means the player would be less willing to simply abandon it on the first sign of trouble, "Oh no a player found us, quick run away and build a new cabbin"?? no thanks.

 

I grant you that being able to place the next upgrade in the landscape within your build radius would be nice tho, I simply didn't think of it as being essential, but I guess it might very well be more important if you want to ensure your cabbin door and windows face a specific direction, so yeah that would be nice now that I think about it, but keeping the linear upgrading just allowing the player to place the item where they like whithin the players build radius.

 

ALSO, I think the building itself should be on stilts, or raised in some way to prevent players from being able to server hop inside to negate your door, if the structure is raised some how then any server hoppers would simply be on the ground underneath and still OUTSIDE of your precious cabbin, whats the point of a locked door if some one can just server hop past it.

[Katana67 2907]

I think barricading a house cannot be counted as a player base, at least not something of value there is nothing stopping a player simply server hopping to get past your door or your boarded up wall or what ever, will this stop zombies, probably but then have zombies EVER been that much of a threat that you would actually go through all the steps required and time required to board up a house? specially one that cant keep other players out.

 

As for the linear nature of the upgrades will instill a sense of progression, if it's all open then there would be nothing stopping a player just building the final building which I think would be a massively bad idea, having it linear in progression not only means that the player gets that sense of accomplishment when their done but the time investment and work required means the player would be less willing to simply abandon it on the first sign of trouble, "Oh no a player found us, quick run away and build a new cabbin"?? no thanks.

 

Rocket has said that they're going to have a method of discouraging server hopping to get inside buildings (which is still a problem with player-placed structures as well). IIRC, Rocket said they're going to implement a "zone" inside of fully barricaded buildings as to make them impossible to server hop into.

 

There's absolutely something stopping the player from building the "final" building, which isn't really a term if one endorses "modular" construction (i.e. someone can build whatever they want). Rarity, for one.

 

Look at it this way, if I want to build a wooden shack... I'd have to forage for wood, forage for construction materials, find a spot, and build it. If I want to build a HESCO bastion'd fortress, I'd have to find the HESCO bastions, transport them to a spot, find sand, fill up the HESCOs, and construct the fortress.

 

Point-being, simply because something isn't artificially linear, doesn't mean that there's no arduous process through which the player is investing time/effort/risk. Making common materials common, and rare materials rare, helps provide a tiered system of effectiveness (i.e. wood being more common than concrete, concrete being more common than metal, metal being more common than reinforced steel, etc.) and forms a tiered system unto itself in terms of how rare certain items are, and thus, how much effort/risk a player has to expend in finding said items.

 

Can't imagine that a crowbar would be too hard to find, but then again, neither would wooden boards and a hammer with nails (you'd only be boarding up buildings in areas you were temporarily defending or had already controlled and just wanted added defense for anyway). Also, you probably wouldn't need a specific breaching round to shoot open a lock per say, so long as the round was powerful enough; I'm sure a blast from the IZH-43 would knock any lock clear off.

Thermic lances & explosive charges, on the other hand, would definitely be reasonably hard to come by. Still, I can imagine tossing a frag grenade/firing a 40mm shell from an M203 at a door would do the trick, so it'd definitely take some work to make it compatible with everything. It would be very weird to need a crowbar to pry off wooden planks but sit around for hours smashing the planks with a sledgehammer and not break them down.

 

Which is why realism has to be suspended in this particular instance.

 

You can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to open any lock with any weapon and still have the locks/fortifications be useful. They require specific counters.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Katana67

[scriptfactory 620]

I think barricading a house cannot be counted as a player base, at least not something of value there is nothing stopping a player simply server hopping to get past your door or your boarded up wall or what ever, will this stop zombies, probably but then have zombies EVER been that much of a threat that you would actually go through all the steps required and time required to board up a house? specially one that cant keep other players out.

 

If player location was saved per server instead of per hive this would not be an issue. Log into a new server and get a random spawn location. Player locations should be reset upon death. This would also fix ghosting and server hopping for loot.

[xalienax 621]

I think the direction they're going for base building right now is going to be barricading and converting existing structures into your base basically.  They are looking to make things like fridges/ovens/cabinets into containers, that spawn loot but also presumably that you can store loot in.  

 

I think with the abundance of new towns/houses this could work, the problem of course is balancing the amount of damage these barricades can take.  You don't want it trivial to break into a base, but you don't want it too hard either.

it should be proportional. there should be simply baricades easily constructed by single person- but rather weak and quicklly broken into with axes and the like. on the othe rhand resources requiring teamwork and/or vehicles to transport in meaningfull quantities like heavy guage metal parts, brick, or concrete block should be a very slow complicated build but be a total NIGHTMARE to break into requiring basicly a team effort having people cover you from zombies while you go throug some very loud and slow process to get in.

 

Basicly if a group of people are willing to devote weeks to construction and improvments it should take atleast 30-45mins to defeat a passible section, imho.

[xalienax 621]

If player location was saved per server instead of per hive this would not be an issue. Log into a new server and get a random spawn location. Player locations should be reset upon death. This would also fix ghosting and server hopping for loot.

I really agree.

 

imho the hive brings almost nothing original or special to the game aside from exploitation potential. unless server hopping why does it even matter if your gear carries over? theres no plans as far as we know to take constructions or vehicles with you betwen servers. you cant directly interact with those on other servers, it really adds nothing.

[scriptfactory 620]

I really agree.

 

imho the hive brings almost nothing original or special to the game aside from exploitation potential. unless server hopping why does it even matter if your gear carries over? theres no plans as far as we know to take constructions or vehicles with you betwen servers. you cant directly interact with those on other servers, it really adds nothing.

 

The main reason Rocket wants this is to encourage cross-server hopping for rare items once there is a global loot table. It is a bit confusing that he thinks server-hopping is both good and bad for gameplay but he has mentioned this on a couple of occasions. I do think that at least player locations should be saved on to a specific server even if he wants a global loot table...

Edited May 25, 2014 by scriptfactory

[Katana67 2907]

Not to derail the conversation, but yeah, I agree that private hives or server-fixed characters are the easiest solution. But I do recognize the convenience and perhaps even merit of cross-server characters.

 

That said, I too am a bit confused as to why Rocket is encouraging server hopping for rare loot. It's sort of like he's thinking we're playing a traditional "MMO" whereby we're all in the same instance. But we're not, it's essentially trying to force a MMO-style approach onto a highly granular FPS server division. I just don't foresee it working so long as we're all playing on different servers, vice in the same "world."

[hells high 676]

I recently took a look at Landmark and was thinking that its plot claiming would work really well in dayZ

 

I disagree. If you build something in the world of DayZ you should have to protect it, or hide it well.

 

I like the idea that you can build in the world and get your own little setup going but it should be just as vulnerable to looting or even being taken over as any level designer placed structure. You should have to set booby traps or maybe even loot padlocks and chains and whatnot (that could be broken of course) to protect it.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Hells High

[Deathlove 2286]

I am wondering how long it will be before we can really put down some roots, I know that in the next patch or on the exp server they are playing with hunting which is brilliant, but some of us need a place to call home.

 

Something I really need personally to keep me playing, at the moment my game time consists of just wandering around until I see some one, shoot at them, die or live and then repeat, its boring when I know It could be so much better.

 

In the mod our clan built bases, camps, houses, and defended them against big assaults, and we often went out looking to assault other players bases it created a lot of really cool clan v clan and group play something that's really missing from the Standalone at the moment.

 

I recently took a look at Landmark and was thinking that its plot claiming would work really well in dayZ, imagine a Camp Fire was the first step in actually claiming a little bit of the world for yourself to build in, building one would prevent any additional players building any other campfires within X radius, at this point its just a fire treat it as you would normally.

 

However what if we then got an upgrade option on the fire itself, if we have a tent or canvas and sticks or something along those lines then we can upgrade the camp fire to a camp, a ten would then spawn a few feet from the fire in a set position (and not inside a solid object) you know like how you might do it in real life, now you have a fire for heat and food, and you have a tent for storage and keeping out the rain, this upgrade would then increase the radius around the fire increasing the amount of space you have as your own personal land, using this same upgrade mechanic you could upgrade the tent once or twice to increase its space, but ultimately with a bit of additional crafting you could upgrade your tent to a small 1 window, 1 door log cabin, in which you would have a log stove for heat and cooking, some storage things like trunks or drawers, and a door which you can lock with a 3 digit code, this lock could also be up-gradable to 4 ,5 and 6 digit locks to increase your security.

 

With all of this small log cabin and lets say for example 10 meter radius around it, that's only 10 meter square of land the place is HUGE hundreds of players could cabin up in the woods and there would still be bags of room to roam around an empty forest.

 

Finally durability on a camp, if a player does not login and interact with their camp within say 10 days it drops a durability point, 30 days of neglect and a log cabin turns to ruin and downgrades to a tent, 15 days later the tent downgrades to a fire, and 24 hours later the fire is removed from the world.

 

Having a cabin would be amazing, clans could have a group near each other in the woods and would then work to protect that area from any attackers, if done correctly it those who like survival could go off into the wilds build a cabin and just survive avoiding players.

 

those who seek group pvp could build theirs further south in groups and form clans to attack other nearby players and their camps.

 

I mention Shack in the title I realize I may not have outlined it above but just slot it into the appropriate upgrade location between a tent and the full cabin.

 

anyway just a thought.

They did something like this with 2017. You could build deer stands and all kinds of stuff just out of the wood. I would love to see a more complex building system for latter on.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Deathlove

[hells high 676]

Also, the experimental patch has me REALLY excited for what kind of things we can expect. So your point about there not being much to do is in the process of being taken care of, and my faith was restored in what this game can be. Hunting cooking and fishing are all already there on experimental. You can build fishing rods and dig up worms with a shovel to go catch your lunch. I killed a cow with a machete and skinned it to make a backpack and fill said backpack with steak.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Hells High

[Deathlove 2286]

Also, the experimental patch has me REALLY excited for what kind of things we can expect. So your point about there not being much to do is in the process of being taken care of, and my faith was restored in what this game can be. Hunting cooking and fishing are all already there on experimental. You can build fishing rods and dig up worms with a shovel to go catch your lunch. I killed a cow with a machete and skinned it to make a backpack and fill said backpack with steak.

I personally like the stag model they choose for the Deer.

[Bororm 1156]

The main reason Rocket wants this is to encourage cross-server hopping for rare items once there is a global loot table. It is a bit confusing that he thinks server-hopping is both good and bad for gameplay but he has mentioned this on a couple of occasions. I do think that at least player locations should be saved on to a specific server even if he wants a global loot table...

 

Yeah this is one of the only things I don't really agree with Rocket on.  He cited helicopter parts as an example, of having to hop servers to go find a part for your helicopter.  So what's that leave, a bunch of useless helicopters per server, because there's only so many parts?

What happens when a clan or whatever just hangs onto it, logs out with it or whatever?  How do you know which server it's on to go after it?  What happens when people just crash the helicopter almost immediately?

There's just so many weird things that go along with it.

 

I mean hopefully they can find solutions and make it all work, but I feel they've painted themselves into a corner with this server set up.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Which is why realism has to be suspended in this particular instance.

 

You can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to open any lock with any weapon and still have the locks/fortifications be useful. They require specific counters.

I have to disagree, but then again I don't know whether locks will be implemented to begin with.

I'm all for suspension of disbelief on a lot of issues (like the Mosin with the LRS and the bolt), but honestly locks that are immune to any round except for this one which just happens to work goes too far for me. For reinforced metal doors (if it goes that far), you could argue that grenades would not work because they are not that powerful of an explosion and exert their energy in all directions, whereas a shaped/breaching charge forces the energy mainly onto the door. Still, if it boils down to it, I don't want to be completely locked out of a town for the sole reason that I don't have a very rare breaching charge when I have an RPG-7 that doesn't work simply for game reasons.

[Whyherro123 2283]

In reality, me and 3 of my buddies built an 8 foot by 12 foot log cabin a couple of years back on his land in Maine, with a main floor for cooking and gear storage and a loft for sleeping, in about 4 days of solid (think 12 hours a day) work. Granted, we made that thing NICE, with a split-log floor, table, shelves, benches, stone-and-wood fireplace and chimney, and waterproofed the walls and ceiling with clay and pitch.

 

 

So, it is possible, just don't expect to do it alone, and have it done with a click of a button.

[trupciks 23]

I would like just tents witch you can hide in objects like was in vanilla mod! Know that it was glitch, but anyway, everyone was checking every inch on the map just to find corner of tent. And that means than anyone can get your stuff if they find it.

[Bororm 1156]

I would like just tents witch you can hide in objects like was in vanilla mod! Know that it was glitch, but anyway, everyone was checking every inch on the map just to find corner of tent. And that means than anyone can get your stuff if they find it.

 

I'd rather see a better designed stash/tent/container whatever, that you don't have to glitch to actually stand a chance of hiding.  If they're redoing it, they should do it right.

[ld-airgrafix 403]

Tents, and stashable loot should have been implemented before the release of alpha , its amazing how few have only asked for this, most want cars and helicopters

[xalienax 621]

The main reason Rocket wants this is to encourage cross-server hopping for rare items once there is a global loot table. It is a bit confusing that he thinks server-hopping is both good and bad for gameplay but he has mentioned this on a couple of occasions. I do think that at least player locations should be saved on to a specific server even if he wants a global loot table...

i think the global loot table idea is horrible too. seriosuly there is no benefit to cross-server loot economy or characters aside form emere convience, at the expense of being exteremely exploitable.