Discussion: Barricading and Raiding

[Mor (DayZ) 57]

It's not like if fences and locks get implemented, it'll somehow remove the advantages of a well-hidden base.

I am only know about the barricading mechanic that is currently in the works and commenting on that. With that in mind, fences will stand out and will be a huge sign pointing toward your base begging for someone to ransack it, similar to how wearing a Balaclava mask effect your survival rates.

Assuming that this will lead to something more than just tent with a lock hidden in plain sight. I Honestly don't see how it can work unless provided some form of protection (like the plots suggestion). As i noted in MMO PVP there is no viable defense, even if you are super duper awesome hardcore who spend 16hours a day online. Hiding won't be effective for most people, sure some will hide behind private walls and others use exploits placing it on low pop servers and hide it 20min run from any hot spot and only server hope to it to avoid exposure, but ultimately it will its just a matter of time.

So considering the time investment I imagine base building will require, i don't see how it can work without some form of protection. I can already see the rants by some hardcore who spent the last 20h chopping wood and collecting stone to building a base, only to getting KOSed by some "COD kids".

[r.pitura@live.com.au 12]

These arent any real problems. The real problem about barricading is that I can log into ur base. I spot ur barricaded base or house. Then i change server, walk into the spot of ur base/house and then relog in the server before to be in ur base. I think this will never be solved.

This was talked about once b4,and it was said that if there is a persons barricaded house you wouldn't be able to spawn if i remember correctly...

So even if you changed servers and tried to hop it wouldn't allow you to spawn..

[dgeesio 1034]

it shouldnt be hard to log a players logout area and barricaded place. so when a player logs in you could have some sort of radius not allowed to be spawned in on that server. so basically it forces you to spawn outside if that building is barricaded .

Edited October 20, 2014 by dgeesio

[DocWolf 146]

These arent any real problems. The real problem about barricading is that I can log into ur base. I spot ur barricaded base or house. Then i change server, walk into the spot of ur base/house and then relog in the server before to be in ur base. I think this will never be solved.

This is the reason because, at least IMHO, there will not be "bases" in DayZ Standalone.

At least, not the "bases" in the DayZ Epoch sense of the term. In 0.50 we're now testing a sort of lockpick that let you "lock" a door. You can either lockpick it to "open" again or hit with a melee weapon enough times to forcefully reset it to "open". Maybe in the future there will be the option to "board/reinforce" doors with hammers and wood, and the option to "clear" the boarded doors with hammers or "break" them with brute force.

IMHO that's all what we will see: temporary reinforcement of a pre-existing building, but nothing too fancy or permanet. There is no way to actually create realistic/workable game mechanics* that circumvent the problem of log-out, enter the reinforced building in another server, log again in the original server and raid it freely...the only way to prevent it is to make the "reinforcement" part extremely temporary. Like, for example, locking a door that can be opened again easily with another lockpick or with some swings with a maul or an axe.

 

 

 

 

* almost every suggestion that starts with "it shouldn't be hard to..." is, actually, pretty hard to introduce in the game architecture. Introducing for example "forbidden areas" around barricaded buildings where you can't log-in or respawn is extremely hard if you look it from a developer point of view. It's a whole new feature that need to be coded in an already working architecture. It's not exactly an easy task.

Edited October 20, 2014 by DocWolf

[DemonGroover 8836]

Yep it is gonna be tough, but the best option is to make a base that is hard to find, or have multiple stashes around the map so if one goes you still have a base somewhere.

 

I don't think AI (apart from a companion dog i suppose) will ever see the light of day.  Perhaps you will be able to craft automatic gun turrets in the future (i hope not) but i hope that there is never such thing as a totally safe base/zone. 

 

I haven't heard in a while but underground instances were discussed very early in DayZ.  Not sure if the Devs are still going down that route.

[lrp1984 199]

I do not believe there should be any offline protection, I don't see that at all being in the spirit of the game. It's about survival, and as someone else stated, shit happens. I also hope that you lose any control over your barricaded buildings when your character dies and if you want your stuff back you need to break down the barricades like anyone else. This is a tough survival game, and should remain that way.  

 

If they implement offline protection I can tell you exactly what will happen; people will create a second steam account and buy another copy of DayZ, they'll use this character to build the base, and then only ever log that character on again if they have to to keep the base protected, or to let their main character in. Any mechanic like this would get abused far too easily, which would be far more unrealistic and damaging to the game than the potential unfairness of losing your stuff whilst you're offline.

 

If they add offline protection to appease people crying "unfair", what will be next? Safe zones where PvP is made impossible, because it's unfair to die everywhere and there should be a place players can go to trade safely? A one hour protection where new spawns can't be killed unless they attack someone else, because it's unfair to get killed by other players as soon as you spawn? The ability to "opt-out" of PVP where you can't be killed by players, and in turn you can't kill other players? Only lose 10% of your stuff when you die? Before you know it, you don't have a brutal survival horror game, you have yet another crappy, predictable MMO.

 

If you don't want your base raided whilst offline, the simple answer would be to not build a base in the first place. If you build it, they will come (to knock it down).

[DocWolf 146]

If you don't want your base raided whilst offline, the simple answer would be to not build a base in the first place. If you build it, they will come (to knock it down).

 

 

Or to keep it mobile. Like, for example, using a tent and relocating it often in hard-to-reach areas.

Anyway, I'm skeptical about all this fixed/permanent base rage: I know the devs said they were going to work on them, but I can't see how they can make it work without spending way too much time researching, implementing and testing new features to avoid exploits by players. IMHO the most simple way to have "bases" is to temporarily reinforce pre-existing buildings and having permanent tents around.

 

With the first option you have a sturdy (but fixed) base that can be breaked in if found. The second options offer the advantage of mobility (you can relocate the tent wherever you want) but it will be effortless looted the moment is found. Building new structures, permanently reinforce/lock already existing ones...I don't know, IMHO does not seem viable options at the moment.

[Jex 1104]

I agree, this will cause problems. Honestly, I think it boils down to try and hide your base as well as you can, or make it look intimidating so people wont go near it.

 

In rust there was this one guy that built a tower so high I wasn't sure if it stopped or it was the end of my draw distance but getting to the top I thought "fuck that!"

 

Either build the most piss annoying base to get into and then leave a can of mostly eaten beans as the sole item in your stash or hide your shit real good.

[sixfeetgiantbunnyrabbit 40]

What about if you fortify your base let's say with a lock and it would normally take 10 minutes for an intruder to take that lock down by force, the duration or effort for this process, and therefore the noise and vulnerability to be spotted by zombies and other players, doubles when you logged out inside of your own base, at least simulating your efforts to defend your base while being offline. Same goes for barricaded doors with wooden planks etc. and maybe even the damage caused by traps.

However this effect, and the strenght of your lock/planks etc., degrades over time even if your offline, forcing you to maintain your fortification once in a while. With this concept your base would never really be unraidable (which it shouldn't be) but definitely harder to invade when your willing to protect it, which would make your barricaded stash even more of a home because you would be more likely to stick around it to log off (going to sleep/rest?) inside. And if you don't, cause you're going on an adventurous mission to some military airbase or to find that elusive vehicle part, and don´t make it back to your place the same day, you do it on your own risk, forcing you to make one more of these "tough decisions" rocket more than once said this game should be/is about, and making you plan your trips in advance.

Doubling fortification values is definitely not a realistic approach but maybe in the end an authentic one?

 

 

edited for some horrendous german/english autocorrect suggestions...

Edited October 20, 2014 by sixfeetgiantbunnyrabbit

[Tactical Nuke 47]

I remember reading about underground instances. I like the idea of being able to dig / tunnel out a base.

[Tatanko 5591]

The problem still being that those with enough time on their hands can make progress

There will ALWAYS be people with more time to play a game than you. Life isn't fair.

 

Authentic, realistic, simulation, you can split hairs about definitoins all you want

It would seem you don't understand the concept of nuance in language, particularly when it's very important (like right now).

 

Well yes, it is a simulator, but it's also a game. A GAME. It can have realistic aspects, but it's not real life and you can't make it real life. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of realism just to make the gameplay better and more interesting.

Somebody who gets it! :) DayZ cannot be real life, and I don't know why anyone is deluding themselves into thinking it should be.

 

- slow clap -

 

Great, so the forum is full of simple-minded dolts too, and here I thought it was just reddit.

 

Well, fuck this shit, I'm out.

Don't let the door hit you.

[pillock 850]

- slow clap -

 

Great, so the forum is full of simple-minded dolts too, and here I thought it was just reddit.

 

Well, fuck this shit, I'm out.

 

Don't let simple-minded dolts like me put you off. There are plenty of proper people here as well - it's not such a bad place, really.

[pillock 850]

I've suggested this before, probably in more detail, but the most obvious way I can think of to make barricading viable in terms of time investment and theft risk is to tie building and dismantling such structures to specific (uncommon) tools and, most importantly, to a comprehensive stamina system.

 

That way, you can spend time and (character) energy on building up a solid defensive fortification in the knowledge that not every Tom, Dick or Harry Bandit loner who passes by is going to be able to break in (or else it will be prohibitively time and energy consuming for them to do so).

 

You shouldn't expect to be able to knock up a near-impregnable fortress within a matter of minutes, but neither should you expect to be able to break into one without considerable time and effort, and without it taking a significant toll on your character's physical fitness. That way, it could be balanced, and there would be no need for arbitrary bullshit like "player ownership" of loot or barricaded parts of the map, or for disappearing stashes or suchlike.

[DocWolf 146]

I've suggested this before, probably in more detail, but the most obvious way I can think of to make barricading viable in terms of time investment and theft risk is to tie building and dismantling such structures to specific (uncommon) tools and, most importantly, to a comprehensive stamina system.

 

That way, you can spend time and (character) energy on building up a solid defensive fortification in the knowledge that not every Tom, Dick or Harry Bandit loner who passes by is going to be able to break in (or else it will be prohibitively time and energy consuming for them to do so).

 

You shouldn't expect to be able to knock up a near-impregnable fortress within a matter of minutes, but neither should you expect to be able to break into one without considerable time and effort, and without it taking a significant toll on your character's physical fitness. That way, it could be balanced, and there would be no need for arbitrary bullshit like "player ownership" of loot or barricaded parts of the map, or for disappearing stashes or suchlike.

 

 

The problem with "hard to break" boarding/renforcing is simple: players will use this feature to harass other players. Like, for example, boarding up good loot buildings or strategic vantage points...yeah, it's realistic, I get it. But how it will translate in gaming experience? Not in a very good way, I fear.

 

On the other hand, "easy to break" boarding/renforcing is much easier to manage: you can fortify buildings, and have a base for your operations with solid walls, a roof and plenty of space...but your base is fixed, and with the right tools (lockpick, axes, mauls) anyone can break in with some time. For example, in EXP 0.50 word of the street says that if you "lock" a door with a lockpick you can reset it to "open" with several hit of a melee weapon, or simply "unlock" it with another lockpick. The other option for base ownership are persistent tents: easy to redeploy in hard-to-reach areas, but offer no solid protection like walls, fences and such. Such solutions have the merit to keep the game fluid, and avoid most of the players' abuse other systems could allow.

Edited October 20, 2014 by DocWolf

[pillock 850]

The problem with "hard to break" boarding/renforcing is simple: players will use this feature to harass other players. Like, for example, boarding up good loot buildings or strategic vantage points...yeah, it's realistic, I get it. But how it will translate in gaming experience? Not in a very good way, I fear.

 

On the other hand, "easy to break" boarding/renforcing is much easier to manage: you can fortify buildings, and have a base for your operations with solid walls, a roof and plenty of space...but your base is fixed, and with the right tools (lockpick, axes, mauls) anyone can break in with some time. For example, in EXP 0.50 word of the street says that if you "lock" a door with a lockpick you can reset it to "open" with several hit of a melee weapon, or simply "unlock" it with another lockpick. The other option for base ownership are persistent tents: easy to redeploy in hard-to-reach areas, but offer no solid protection like walls, fences and such. Such solutions have the merit to keep the game fluid, and avoid most of the players' abuse other systems could allow.

 

Well... If a building is boarded up (ie. all available entrances are locked/barricaded) then that building should stop spawning new loot. The building itself would become a 'persistent storage container', but would no longer function as a loot spawn point until someone broke it open again. Also, if you barricade a building shut, then YOU would no longer be able to get in (or out) without the right tools, either.

 

If you want to collect a backpack full of food, then barricade yourself into a firestation or ATC tower, then that should be possible - but you shouldn't be able to loot-cycle all to yourself. And if you barricade it shut from the outside, then all you;re doing is griefing the freshspawns who run straight to these places from the beach (and those people deserve to be griefed). Anyway, it should never be impossible to break a barricade - it would just be quite difficult and require specific tools and lots of manpower (or time).

[DocWolf 146]

Well... If a building is boarded up (ie. all available entrances are locked/barricaded) then that building should stop spawning new loot. The building itself would become a 'persistent storage container', but would no longer function as a loot spawn point until someone broke it open again. Also, if you barricade a building shut, then YOU would no longer be able to get in (or out) without the right tools, either.

 

If you want to collect a backpack full of food, then barricade yourself into a firestation or ATC tower, then that should be possible - but you shouldn't be able to loot-cycle all to yourself. And if you barricade it shut from the outside, then all you;re doing is griefing the freshspawns who run straight to these places from the beach (and those people deserve to be griefed). Anyway, it should never be impossible to break a barricade - it would just be quite difficult and require specific tools and lots of manpower (or time).

 

 

You're right, but even "erasing" boarded buildings from the loot spawn table could mean griefing other players if the boarded construction is hard to break...imagine boarding a police station in a small town, or a fire station. You're effectively cutting that building off the spawn table, meaning in that server the area where you dug in will see fewer XYZ item spawns. Now imagine an organized clan boarding up strategic buildings and cutting off their loot...or, imagine such clan boarding up key building and setting up sniper nests, creating a small no man's land. Such areas would be a no-no for anyone, because the more time pass the more "reinforcements" people can add to buildings...meaning more and more time and resources would-be raiders would need to put the defences down.  As I said, it's realistic...but that does not mean it would be funny or even enjoyable in a game.

 

The solution (IMHO) is allowing "weak", easy to break boarded/reinforced buildings. You can still cut off important buildings from the spawn table, you can still force people to avoid your carefully planned network of bases...but you also know that those advantages are temporary at best: all that is needed to circumvent that chainlink fence is a pair of pliers. All that is needed to break in those locked doors are lockpicks or a few swing of an axe or a maul. All that is needed to balance your advantages (unpassable walls, solid cover and such) is a little time and common items.

Edited October 20, 2014 by DocWolf

[Evil Minion 943]

Possible ways to fix this:

- An absolute way to fix this would be for the server to declare your property (you have x amount of persistent containers and barricades around a building, therefore, you are tied to this building). When you log off, after, maybe ~20 minutes, all the stuff logs off with you. People are told they cannot build/ place persistent objects around this building because it is claimed, and it just spawns regular items on the loot table.

   Sounds extreme, I know, but it is an absolute fix that ensures people who simply have lot's of time don't stomp on people who want to play semi-casually (couple hours each day or less).

- An AI that takes over your character and defends your building. 

 This would likely be difficult to implement, and difficult to implement properly. having the AI stay inside the house, take cover and be a challenge for other survivors would be difficult to code. Still the unfair factor, as you may feel you would have been able to defend your base better.

- Absolute barricading. You can assume what this means, the problem is that you would be immune to raiding even while you were online, unless barricaded items are only breakable when you are online. However, if people take over a military location, then the server just lost a high loot spawning location to some player that may never come online again.

Sadly all those ideas are deadly for the gameplay experience and should absolutely not be in game. Especially the first and last ones propagate extremely unauthentic and static gameplay and screw over any kind of dynamics and the perma-death feature. Owenership should only be measured the same way it is in real life: by cultural aspects. Now cultural aspects should not be hardcoded - otherwise they cease to be cultural and start being a magical function that screws over the players and emphasizes rules-lawyer gameplay.

Now an AI might work in some ways: Having a companion animal watching your stuff for example. Human AI would not work properly and most likely contradict the game aspect of (non-zombie) humans always having the same capacities as other (non-zombie) humans. Also note that "your animal companion" is not an ownership relation but rather a consequence from the animal AI. If you neglect your dog I would totally like it if someone could "steal" its affection.

So how to make barricading useful? First by cooperation - more people sharing one base means a higher probability of someone guarding it. Then by making barricades sufficiently advanced they would end up as an "end game feature" requiring another "end game feature" to get past. So they still work against anyone not in possession of the right tools. And in the end making those tools harder to get and to use than in reality might compensate for offline hours.

It should always be possible to raid barricades - but the effort and risk involved should roughly match the effort and risk of building them. Also ghosting should be prevented by adding a "safe zone" on a zone sufficiently barricaded (like a house with all entrances locked) - to log in inside a safe zone you would need to log out there first leaving some signature (not ownership either as everyone inside should be able to do it). Everyone else gets moved outside when attempting to spawn there.

[pillock 850]

You're right, but even "erasing" boarded buildings from the loot spawn table could mean griefing other players if the boarded construction is hard to break...imagine boarding a police station in a small town, or a fire station. You're effectively cutting that building off the spawn table, meaning in that server there will be fewer XYZ item spawns. Now imagine an organized clan boarding up strategic buildings and cutting off their loot...or, imagine such clan boarding up key building and setting up sniper nests, creating a small no man's land. As I said, it's realistic...but that does not mean it would be funny or even enjoyable.

 

The solution (IMHO) is allowing "weak", easy to break boarded/reinforced buildings. You can still cut off important buildings from the spawn table, you can still force people to avoid your carefully planned network of bases...but you also know that those advantages are temporary at best: all that is needed to circumvent that chainlink fence is a pair of pliers. All that is needed to break in those locked doors are lockpicks or a few swing of an axe or a maul. All that is needed to balance your advantages (unpassable walls, solid cover and such) is a little time and common items.

 

 

But if it were easy to break down the barricades, I don't think people would bother building them in the first place - and that would be a shame. They certainly wouldn't risk storing their collected surplus gear there.

 

I think it would be fun and enjoyable to have an organised group board up the key loot locations in a small town - it would make lone survival from looting more difficult and force people on to the land to survive, if that's how they want to play; it would encourage people to team up with strangers to break through the barricades; it would give a deeper sense of player involvement in the environment, allowing a server to evolve more dynamically. I'm not suggesting for a minute that breaking barricades should be impossible - but it should be difficult enough for them to be worth building. By tying physically strenuous activity like construction and dismantling to stamina, you'd make players pay for their decisions in real gameplay terms. If you;re hungry and/or sick, fatigued, injured, etc, you;re not going to try and break into a fortified structure - you;re going to get yourself strong first, or you're going to team up, before you take on those sorts of challenges. Adds longevity and purpose to the other survival aspects in the game.

[DocWolf 146]

But if it were easy to break down the barricades, I don't think people would bother building them in the first place - and that would be a shame. They certainly wouldn't risk storing their collected surplus gear there.

 

I think it would be fun and enjoyable to have an organised group board up the key loot locations in a small town - it would make lone survival from looting more difficult and force people on to the land to survive, if that's how they want to play; it would encourage people to team up with strangers to break through the barricades; it would give a deeper sense of player involvement in the environment, allowing a server to evolve more dynamically. I'm not suggesting for a minute that breaking barricades should be impossible - but it should be difficult enough for them to be worth building. By tying physically strenuous activity like construction and dismantling to stamina, you'd make players pay for their decisions in real gameplay terms. If you;re hungry and/or sick, fatigued, injured, etc, you;re not going to try and break into a fortified structure - you;re going to get yourself strong first, or you're going to team up, before you take on those sorts of challenges. Adds longevity and purpose to the other survival aspects in the game.

 

Not sure about that...the potential for griefing is too much.

In EXP 0.50 we're testing a calories consumption system/stomach capacity/weather temperature mix wich is very demanding. The various builds/patches are progressively going towards an hard survival game...think how the playstyle changed with the simple introduction of consequences for prolonged exposure to elements. DayZ is slowly becoming a game where, unlike 0.47/0.48/0.49, you're not always energyzed/hydratated merrily sprinting around with a backpack full of pristine stuff. Considering this idea, I find the concept of "hard to break" fortifications very worrysome.

 

People will be hungry/starving for most of their playing time. And you can't really advocate large groups cooperation with 50 or 75 player servers...this is not a MMORPG, it's a multiplayer game. That means if "hard to break" fortifications are implemented, there will be groups of people having strong advantages in certain servers, advantages that, once acquired, other people will find quite difficult to balance. If my organized group of 10 people "holds" a strategic building for three or four real-life days that means we have a lot of time to reinforce it, making the possibility of a raider break-in progressively unlikely. Not impossible, of course...is it realistic? Of course it is. Is it funny or enjoyable? No way. It's not even remotely funny.

 

The only way to have "bases", then, is to create "easy to break" fortifications. In this way you're not holding a base to hoard items like in Epoch, but you're holding it to gain some kind of strategic advantage. Or, as in vanilla DayZ Mod, you can choose to actually hoard things, but choosing mobility over defence. Pop up a tent in a secluded area and hope for the best.

Edited October 20, 2014 by DocWolf

[pillock 850]

Not sure about that...the potential for griefing is too much.

In EXP 0.50 we're testing a calories consumption system/stomach capacity/weather temperature mix wich is very demanding. The various builds/patches are progressively going towards an hard survival game...think how the playstyle changed with the simple introduction of consequences for prolonged exposure to elements. DayZ is slowly becoming a game where, unlike 0.47/0.48/0.49, you're not always energyzed/hydratated merrily sprinting around with a backpack full of pristine stuff. Considering this idea, I find the concept of "hard to break" fortifications very worrysome.

 

People will be hungry/starving for most of their playing time. And you can't really advocate large groups cooperation with 50 or 75 player servers...this is not a MMORPG, it's a multiplayer game. That means if "hard to break" fortifications are implemented, there will be groups of people having strong advantages in certain servers, advantages that, once acquired, other people will find quite difficult to balance. If my organized group of 10 people "holds" a strategic building for three or four real-life days that means we have a lot of time to reinforce it, making the possibility of a raider break-in progressively unlikely. Not impossible, of course...but is it realistic? Of course. Is it funny or enjoyable? No.

 

The only way to have "bases" is then to create "easy to break" fortifications. In this way you're not holding a base to hoard items like in Epoch, but you're holding it to gain some kind of strategic advantage. Or, as in vanilla DayZ Mod, you can choose to actually hoard things, but choosing mobility over defence. Pop up a tent in a secluded area and hope for the best.

 

I think this is where we differ. I would answer "yes" to that question.

 

Having organised groups holding territory is absolutely what I expect DayZ to be like, eventually. If you want to live on that server, you could try trading with them, or you could stay out of their way, or you could try to form a group of your own to break their dominance. They aren't going to control the whole map, after all - there'll always be places for you to go.

 

Otherwise, the game won't progress from what it is now: it'll just be random individuals running around doing their own thing, ignoring or killing each other whenever they meet. Useful, longer-lasting barricades will give the game different dynamic - for the better.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Pillock

[DocWolf 146]

I think this is where we differ. I would answer "yes" to that question.

 

Having organised groups holding territory is absolutely what I expect DayZ to be like, eventually. If you want to live on that server, you could try trading with them, or you could stay out of their way, or you could try to form a group of your own to break their dominance. They aren't going to control the whole map, after all - there'll always be places for you to go.

 

Otherwise, the game won't progress from what it is now: it'll just be random individuals running around doing their own thing, ignoring or killing each other whenever they meet. Useful, longer-lasting barricades will give the game different dynamic - for the better.

 

 

I think you're looking at the issue from the perspective of someone who can play on private servers: an organized real-life community that plays the same game in the same server. A clan, an outfit, a guild...something like that. While having lords of Grishino and barons of Pavlolvo in such an environment could be effectively funny and interesting, in public servers wich are usually the largest part of the servers avalaible at launch? Not so funny. That would end with disorganized mobs of casuals against organized groups of players holding key areas...resulting in a very poor gaming experience for the majority of people playing.

 

I agree however with you about the mid/end game possibily being the creation of in-game communities/clans and more or less permanent bases...either fixed like boarded buildings or mobile like "tent cities".

Edited October 20, 2014 by DocWolf

[pillock 850]

I think you're looking at the issue from the perspective of someone who can play on private servers: an organized real-life community that plays the same game in the same server. A clan, an outfit, a guild...something like that. While having lords of Grishino and barons of Pavlolvo in such an environment could be effectively funny and interesting, in public servers wich are usually the largest part of the servers avalaible at launch? Not so funny. That would end with disorganized mobs of casuals against organized groups of players holding key areas...resulting in a very poor gaming experience.

 

Again, I disagree.

 

Disorganised mobs of casuals assaulting an organised group's defences? Sounds brilliant to me! Then if the mob succeeds in taking the building, they probably start fighting amongst themselves over the loot. I think that would be hilarious and a lot of fun.

 

And on a public hive server, your "base" would be under threat from other organised groups, who could hop into your server and much more effectively launch an assault anyway. Again, it would give purpose to that PvP aspect, rather than people fighting each other just for 'something to do'.

[gcriseightysix 32]

I completely agree with the "lose your stuff, tough shit" approach as it will provide for the most realistic dynamic to the game. a way to solve this issue would be to implement Safes in which a played can find and deliver (through means of a vehicle) to their building of choice with the option of bolting it to the floor. It would carry say roughly 50 inventory slots, so the player has to choose his/her most valued inventory to be safe from robbery. boom. done. 

[doctorbadsign 645]

These arent any real problems. The real problem about barricading is that I can log into ur base. I spot ur barricaded base or house. Then i change server, walk into the spot of ur base/house and then relog in the server before to be in ur base. I think this will never be solved.

 

I think it can easily. Once a building is barricaded it becomes a occupied zone and anyone other than the base owner cannot log in inside it. I places them outside again.

[Mor (DayZ) 57]

I've suggested this before, probably in more detail, but the most obvious way I can think of to make barricading viable in terms of time investment and theft risk is to tie building and dismantling such structures to specific (uncommon) tools and, most importantly, to a comprehensive stamina system.

 

That way, you can spend time and (character) energy on building up a solid defensive fortification in the knowledge that not every Tom, Dick or Harry Bandit loner who passes by is going to be able to break in (or else it will be prohibitively time and energy consuming for them to do so).

 

You shouldn't expect to be able to knock up a near-impregnable fortress within a matter of minutes, but neither should you expect to be able to break into one without considerable time and effort, and without it taking a significant toll on your character's physical fitness. That way, it could be balanced, and there would be no need for arbitrary bullshit like "player ownership" of loot or barricaded parts of the map, or for disappearing stashes or suchlike.

It is pretty much the system that was implemented in one of the mods for dayz. However, iirc they did have "ownership" e.g. to prevent people who can't break into you base to place some basic walls at your entrance so you'd be stuck.. but it could be removed if the player mange to break into your base.

The problem with "hard to break" boarding/renforcing is simple: players will use this feature to harass other players. Like, for example, boarding up good loot buildings or strategic vantage points...yeah, it's realistic, I get it. But how it will translate in gaming experience? Not in a very good way, I fear.

You assume that we would be able to choose and pick what and where to board i.e building structures, however, i got the impression that the current mechanic will be much more limited and straight forward i.e. you'll be able to pick one of the numerous small residential buildings and reinforce it. For the undiscerning eye it would appear the same, for those who will look closer there would be a different texture on the door (with a lock), i.e. a hideout in plain sight.