Rocket on Ghosting vs Barricading/bases

[HIHBGaming 14]

Tents / cars etc?

Unless it's a house in the middle of nowhere (only a couple exist), nobody sane would live in a zombie infested town, even in a barricaded house!

 

But what if you could kill all the Zeds and barricade the town? Which seems like plausible idea. 

 

Even though barricading will be in I think we'll be seeing tents as well, for those who wish to setup out in the woods,

Edited June 3, 2014 by R.Neville

[Bororm 1156]

In the forest = no zombies.

 

If we're playing that game then

In the town = no zombies.

 

:]

[SneezeJunky 12]

I'm not sure that player built structures will be implemented TBH.

 

1) The map would quickly become full of clutter.

 

2) In an apocalypse type situation where supplies are limited and you don't want to waste man-power or time, why on Earth would you build a base from scratch when you're in an area full of villages, towns and cities full of perfectly good structures?

 

It just makes much more sense to fortify existing structures to me.

 

Completely agree with this. 

 

Though i'm a fan of base building, I wouldn't have it implemented in the core of DayZ. 

 

But a mod like Origins or Epoch would be cool

[FrostDMG 398]

If we're playing that game then

In the town = no zombies.

:]

Every town has zombies and theres ni hoards of zombies in the woods though.

[Bororm 1156]

I mean if we're going by the current state of the game there's hardly any zombies any where man.  So I'd still rather barricade a building.

[Katana67 2907]

I'm not sure that player built structures will be implemented TBH.

 

1) The map would quickly become full of clutter.

 

2) In an apocalypse type situation where supplies are limited and you don't want to waste man-power or time, why on Earth would you build a base from scratch when you're in an area full of villages, towns and cities full of perfectly good structures?

 

It just makes much more sense to fortify existing structures to me.

 

I agree completely, I've been advocating for that very approach for nearly two years. I always thought they should do what they've said in the roadmap, start out with barricading existing structures... then see if player-placed structures are feasible later on.

 

I'd much rather see small villages used as fortresses than the oddly placed HESCO bastioned rectangle in the middle of the woods. But, I still think there needs to be some form of wall/blockade construction that's separate from just boarding up windows and doors. In my opinion, players need to be able to actually control territory. Or else there's really no point to it. Doesn't have to be anything wild, or insurmountable, just a series of walls able to be placed by the player (which would ideally be "jumpable/scalable" by the player as well) so that one can actually fortify a town.

[scriptfactory 620]

I would like the possibility to build stone walls (carrying each individual stone) or fill HESCOs (carrying one bag of sand after another) but I do not like Epoch/Rust style bases. They are super unrealistic and a blight on the landscape. Also, it add more to the strategic aspect of DayZ if players took over towns/houses instead of building a complete fortress in the middle of nowhere.

Edited June 3, 2014 by scriptfactory

[Katana67 2907]

I would like the possibility to build stone walls (carrying each individual stone) or fill HESCOs (carrying one bag of sand after another) but I do not like Epoch/Rust style bases. They are super unrealistic and a blight on the landscape. Also, it add more to the strategic aspect of DayZ if players took over towns/houses instead of building a complete fortress in the middle of nowhere.

 

Plus I just feel it's more "natural" to have bandits commandeering towns, or clans fortifying towns. Sure, there's nothing really "unnatural" about building a log cabin in the middle of the woods, but it inevitably sort of takes away some of that potential interaction.

 

I actually wrote a lengthy proposal a while back, and never posted it, seeing as Rocket (to my delight) pretty much outlined everything I was going to say in the Rezzed roadmap presentation.

 

But I always thought it should be approached in terms of a tiered construction (mostly in terms of how easy-difficult or effective-ineffective it'd be).

 

So you'd have what I called Simple Construction meaning an analog to what we had in the mod (i.e. placing individual sections, like sandbags, tank traps, fences, etc.) Then you'd have Fortification Construction, which is essentially just boarding up windows/doors. Then you'd have High-End Construction, which would be placing structures down a la Epoch. Each tier was balanced by a few things. Ease of construction, rarity of materials, and ease of destruction/circumventing.

 

For example, the Simple Construction concept of erecting a 12x6 section of Corrugated Metal Fencing required the following.

1. Corrugated Metal Fencing (12x6)
   1. Maul required for installation
   2. Hammer and box of nails required for construction
      1. (2x) Metal Stake
      2. (2x) Corrugated Metal Sheeting

As you can see, there are several facets with separate requirements. Gathering of tools, gathering of resources, construction of the item, and installation of the item.

 

Simple Construction isn't intended to provide for security, it's to provide for cover, concealment, and is designed to hamper (not halt) movement. So you could construct a 4x4 wall around a car, but a player could still destroy that wall. Or, he or she could simply scale that wall.

 

 

In other words, the only things that should deny access outright are things like locked doors and barricaded buildings. You can still have this piecemeal placement of walls and the like as long as they're not meant to be indefinite barriers.

[Katana67 2907]

I agree it makes no fkn sense. Why would you barricade a house in a zombie infested town instead of making a camp in a safe location?

Also, people will be attracted to the barrocaded houses and loot them over anything else. Silly idea imo, won't work.

 

I don't think it's intended to replace persistent storage items (i.e. tents).

[nimmerzz 17]

They should do this with regular ghosting as well. Anytime you log off then back in it should spawn you in a radius of a 1/8th mile. 

[pillock 850]

The only thing I really don't want is impenetrable combination locks. 

 

Padlocks and chains, which can be broken open using a crowbar or axe are fine, but nothing impenetrable - and that includes barricades. I want to be able to smash my way into someone's place, but I also think we ought to be able to set booby-traps to 'discourage' this sort of behaviour.

 

I dislike the idea of loot or territory being "owned" by any particular character or group. You can barricade a structure, but it shouldn't be "yours" - it should just be a barricaded structure. Ownership could come from having the correct key for a padlock, or from knowing how to enter the structure without setting off the booby-trap.

[Katana67 2907]

The only thing I really don't want is impenetrable combination locks. 

 

Padlocks and chains, which can be broken open using a crowbar or axe are fine, but nothing impenetrable - and that includes barricades. I want to be able to smash my way into someone's place, but I also think we ought to be able to set booby-traps to 'discourage' this sort of behaviour.

 

I dislike the idea of loot or territory being "owned" by any particular character or group. You can barricade a structure, but it shouldn't be "yours" - it should just be a barricaded structure. Ownership could come from having the correct key for a padlock, or from knowing how to enter the structure without setting off the booby-trap.

 

Though I disagree with your last bit (nothing's really ever "yours" in DayZ no matter how many walls you put up around it), I agree that anything involving a lock or barricade, needs to be counterable. Not just counterable, but requiring a specific counter. Using a generic "toolbox" to deconstruct things won't work in my mind, neither will using a common item to defeat a lock. Realism will have to be suspended in this case, but I'd want destruction/infiltration to be a capability that not everyone will have at any given moment.

 

If you make padlocks able to be removed by a crowbar (something that's currently common), then there won't be much utility in even locking your stuff in the first place.

 

Now, if you make it so that the rarity/effectiveness of a lock is proportional to the rarity/effectiveness of its counter, then I'm all for it.

[sloasdaylight 129]

I agree completely, I've been advocating for that very approach for nearly two years. I always thought they should do what they've said in the roadmap, start out with barricading existing structures... then see if player-placed structures are feasible later on.

 

I'd much rather see small villages used as fortresses than the oddly placed HESCO bastioned rectangle in the middle of the woods. But, I still think there needs to be some form of wall/blockade construction that's separate from just boarding up windows and doors. In my opinion, players need to be able to actually control territory. Or else there's really no point to it. Doesn't have to be anything wild, or insurmountable, just a series of walls able to be placed by the player (which would ideally be "jumpable/scalable" by the player as well) so that one can actually fortify a town.

 

I'd like to see both as a possibility. Both have their drawbacks and their benefits. Barricaded buildings obviously are more secure, but they're more likely to be stumbled upon. Player placed stashes/tent cities/etc. are less secure, but are less likely to be found. Depending on the group/player, one may be more suitable than the other for their particular play style, and I would like both to be viable options for players.

 

Plus it also makes a little bit of sense when you think about it. During a zombie apocalypse/massive infestation with people running around killing each other on site (as exists in the game world currently, and existed since its inception as the mod), putting your base with all your supplies in a city where both run the potential of being a serious threat doesn't make much sense, at least to me. Yes, you can barricade a building, but if a zombie horde shows up and shambles through town, they could break down your door (depending on how strongly fortified it was), and kill you/ruin all your shit. Plus, there are literally roads leading other players directly to your door in towns, which means that if someone saw you go into your barricaded building, all they would need to do is make note of the town and the type of building you were using, and then come back later with their boys and break it down, as opposed to trekking through the wilderness to find your campsite (admittedly, not as hard as it should be, what with dayzdb, but still).

[Briljin 102]

I wonder what would happen if more than one player barricaded the same building, just they did it upon different hives.  What happens if they some day play upon the same hive.

[sloasdaylight 129]

I wonder what would happen if more than one player barricaded the same building, just they did it upon different hives.  What happens if they some day play upon the same hive.

 

Stuff like this is server based. So it would depend on whose server they spawned in on.

 

Player A on Server/Hive A spawning into his building would be there.

Player B on Server/Hive B spawning into his building on Player A's server would spawn on the beach, and vice versa.

[pillock 850]

Though I disagree with your last bit (nothing's really ever "yours" in DayZ no matter how many walls you put up around it), I agree that anything involving a lock or barricade, needs to be counterable. Not just counterable, but requiring a specific counter. Using a generic "toolbox" to deconstruct things won't work in my mind, neither will using a common item to defeat a lock. Realism will have to be suspended in this case, but I'd want destruction/infiltration to be a capability that not everyone will have at any given moment.

 

If you make padlocks able to be removed by a crowbar (something that's currently common), then there won't be much utility in even locking your stuff in the first place.

 

Now, if you make it so that the rarity/effectiveness of a lock is proportional to the rarity/effectiveness of its counter, then I'm all for it.

 

Well, I think it should be kept fairly intuitive, so you don't have to learn lots of abstract combinations of items/processes for performing what is actually a fairly simple task - keep bashing something until it breaks! Padlocks and chains, as well as barricading material, could come in a variety of types and strengths, with the tougher ones being rarer. Different tools/melee weapons could also have characteristics that make them better at performing certain tasks. 

 

I think it also needs to combined with other game-mechanics, such as the health status and physics, so that you expend energy more realistically and can move larger objects around.

 

In terms of health, your "food" and "energy" level should be separated. Eating could still give a boost to your energy, but only up to a point - so that overfilling yourself actually reduces your energy. All physical activity, from walking, running and fighting through to lifting weighty items, cutting wood, erecting barricades, crafting, and knocking stuff down with a sledgehammer, would expend varying amounts of energy - and once you're knackered, you become feeble until you're sufficiently rested. That way, attacking a barricaded or locked structure would be time- and energy consuming. This not only gives more value to team-work, but it allows a variety of ways to get creative with barricading.

 

You could use a vehicle to drag/push a heavy object (like another vehicle or a large rock or tree-trunk) in front of a doorway, so nobody else can open it unless they can shift the obstruction. Alternatively, you could barricade and booby-trap a series of lock-up garages with explosives, only hiding your loot in one of them - someone wanting to gain access would have to spend time and effort getting in, only to be blown up when they eventually succeed, thereby discouraging others from making the same attempt.

 

I don't think this sort of thing requires much gamey abstraction: it does, however, require game mechanics that are complex enough to handle intuitive decision-making.

[Briljin 102]

Stuff like this is server based. So it would depend on whose server they spawned in on.

 

Player A on Server/Hive A spawning into his building would be there.

Player B on Server/Hive B spawning into his building on Player A's server would spawn on the beach, and vice versa.

 

 

Good to know, thanks.

[over9000nukez 199]

Problems could potentially arise anyway.

Say you log out in a town and the next day you log back in and it warns you there is a player in the area, first, the other player is probably now fucked since you know that player is there so the likelihood you're going to kill him if you have a weapon is high. The other problem is that it could spawn you a mile or so away from the 'zone' and completely lose your bearings.

it would be hilarious if you knew where someone logged out, then you made a barricade around them, and made the area around your property, on a private hive of course.

[execpro22 128]

Sorry if there was already a thread on this, I didn't see one but I admittedly didn't look so hard =P

 

 

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/2742is/once_base_building_is_added_how_will_they_go/chx7hn0?context=3

 

 

So this seems like a pretty straightforward solution.  I could see potential issues if the footprint of the zone is poorly defined, but hopefully they make it extend past the actual structure.  Potential issues with say, barricading a single room in an apartment/multistory house could arise (does this zone register vertically?  That could cause issues with logging out above/below), but perhaps that just won't be a possibility or their system will be good enough for it to work.  We'll just have to wait and see!

 

 

 

Cant wait for some jackhole to barricade everyone of the barracks in the airfeilds so no one else can have acces to them.....

[sloasdaylight 129]

Cant wait for some jackhole to barricade everyone of the barracks in the airfeilds so no one else can have acces to them.....

 

Barricades are not a magical force field that deny other players access to the barricaded area permanently, they're simply fences/sandbag walls/etc that are secured in some form or fashion by another player/group/clan. They can be torn down, destroyed, presumably they will be able to be climbed over (maybe? hopefully?) to allow other people (or even the original creator, if s/he lost his/her key to a padlock for example) access to what's inside. The only thing that is being talked about here is preventing people from ghosting into a base and jacking everything out of it.

 

That said, barricading barrack or military tent city isn't a bad idea, assuming you can get enough time and material to do so. You'd probably have to do it at night with camp fires, flashlights, flares, and lanterns illuminating your working area, which would of course act like a huge HEY HERE I AM beacon.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

 You'd probably have to do it at night with camp fires, flashlights, flares, and lanterns illuminating your working area, which would of course act like a huge HEY HERE I AM beacon.

Or you can just up your gamma because they refuse to fix it and not worry about lighting at all.

[sloasdaylight 129]

Or you can just up your gamma because they refuse to fix it and not worry about lighting at all.

Perhaps. It would make sense to me though that they could be able to put a bit of code into the game that would require it to either be day time, or have a source of artificial lighting present during the construction process.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Perhaps. It would make sense to me though that they could be able to put a bit of code into the game that would require it to either be day time, or have a source of artificial lighting present during the construction process.

That's just it tho.  You can either build or barricade in the day or crank your gamma at night.  No need for artificial lighting.  I do not like the whole gamma exploit but seen as how BiS refuses to acknowledge that there is something wrong, DayZ will stay just that day, no night.

[Bororm 1156]

Cant wait for some jackhole to barricade everyone of the barracks in the airfeilds so no one else can have acces to them.....

 

Break it down, an airfield barricade aint even gonna last a day.

[hefeweizen 254]

 I do not like the whole gamma exploit but seen as how BiS refuses to acknowledge that there is something wrong, DayZ will stay just that day, no night.

Or they're just waiting to change the renderer to something that'll be closer to Arma 3 during night time and jacking up the gamma won't make such a massive difference.