Base Defenses ( Document included )

[Gallagher 20]

Hwo about setting up fixed spawn positions?

In a specific area... if you log out you will spawn at fixed spawn positions within this area. There is still a risk that you set up a camp inside a spawn but this would prevent people from changing servers to overcome a wall or a defence.

[ZombieGrin 3]

Hwo about setting up fixed spawn positions?

In a specific area... if you log out you will spawn at fixed spawn positions within this area. There is still a risk that you set up a camp inside a spawn but this would prevent people from changing servers to overcome a wall or a defence.

I already said in my original thread do not suggest walls. Why did I say that? ( Go read my very first post and find out ) Walls do NOTHING when people can just toolbox them down without any time/trouble

[ZombieGrin 3]

the whole point of viekles is to hide them, if some one finds them someone finds the. IF YOUR FAR ENOF IN THE GAME TO HAVE A HUNDRID VEIKLES, WHAT LOSS IS ONE? YOU CAN JUST RE MAKE THEM IF YOUR REALY THIS FAR IN.

Hiding vehicles is not enough. It is not about losing a vehicle it is about being able to defend your things. Try not to think to hard on this subject please. It is obviously hurting your brain judging by all your typos but let me explain this simply so you might understand. THE POINT IS, IF THERE ARE BASE DEFENSES, BANDITS MUST NOW SIEGE YOUR BASE. THAT MEANS LARGE SIEGE WARFARE BETWEEN SURVIVORS AND BANDITS. IT GIVES A WHOLE NEW PVP TYPE TO THE END GAME. I dont give a damn about losing a vehicle, it's the end game content that base defenses will create that I am interested in. Edited July 11, 2012 by ZombieGrin

[ZombieGrin 3]

Bump!

[chefwillis 33]

I suggest keys/locks. You aren't thinking outside the box. Why the hell would a tent have a lock anyways? The lock would be on some sort of safe; a big ass safe or something similar and lockable and box-like, another reason i suggest a lock is that they can only destroy your tents with explosives and vehicles which are rarer than players stumbling across your shit. So I'm down with locks.

[madzeds 3]

Well.. No offense, but it sounds like you don't want to play a realistic post apocalyptic zombie survival sandbox game set in a post war soviet country.

It sounds much more like you want to play a base building game set in a futuristic or modern setting.

I'm not saying that the two are mutually exclusive, but dayz "as is" is nowhere near what your suggesting. The level of "turrets" and base building your talking about is crazy. How immersive is a survival-pvp-zombie game, where you can basically leave your crap laying around and feel secure in your items safekeeping as long as you log in once a day and fill a generator? You SHOULD have to worry about random people stumbling upon your shit and stealing it. You SHOULD have to restart afterwards, not revel in your drone armies capability in protecting your crappy akm, NVG, and blood bags.... The most funny thing to me is that what your suggesting is SO much more advanced than anything you could protect with it. Tell me one item in this game that is more valuable than an automated targeting turret? That's like me suggesting a nuclear deterrent in a game about farming so that people don't steal your fertilizer. Whats next? O FUCK MAN SOMEONE BROKE MY TURRET!!! ROCKET NEEDS TO ADD ROBOT DOGS THAT PATROL MY BASE TO PROTEXT MAH TURRETS WHILE I EAT HOT POCKETS AND SLEEP!

Sorry, whereas your ambition is great and it would change the game in big ways, I feel that the biggest point of the mod is to show people a world in which nothing is permanent. Be it your vehicles, weapons, food, drink or for that matter your life. At any point if you feel "SAFE" in any of those aspects, something about the spirit of DAYZ as we know and love it, will be lost forever.

[ZombieGrin 3]

Well.. No offense, but it sounds like you don't want to play a realistic post apocalyptic zombie survival sandbox game set in a post war soviet country.

It sounds much more like you want to play a base building game set in a futuristic or modern setting.

I'm not saying that the two are mutually exclusive, but dayz "as is" is nowhere near what your suggesting. The level of "turrets" and base building your talking about is crazy. How immersive is a survival-pvp-zombie game, where you can basically leave your crap laying around and feel secure in your items safekeeping as long as you log in once a day and fill a generator? You SHOULD have to worry about random people stumbling upon your shit and stealing it. You SHOULD have to restart afterwards, not revel in your drone armies capability in protecting your crappy akm, NVG, and blood bags.... The most funny thing to me is that what your suggesting is SO much more advanced than anything you could protect with it. Tell me one item in this game that is more valuable than an automated targeting turret? That's like me suggesting a nuclear deterrent in a game about farming so that people don't steal your fertilizer. Whats next? O FUCK MAN SOMEONE BROKE MY TURRET!!! ROCKET NEEDS TO ADD ROBOT DOGS THAT PATROL MY BASE TO PROTEXT MAH TURRETS WHILE I EAT HOT POCKETS AND SLEEP!

Sorry, whereas your ambition is great and it would change the game in big ways, I feel that the biggest point of the mod is to show people a world in which nothing is permanent. Be it your vehicles, weapons, food, drink or for that matter your life. At any point if you feel "SAFE" in any of those aspects, something about the spirit of DAYZ as we know and love it, will be lost forever.

One item worth defending... Helicopters ( which are more rare than any item in the game once working ) and is worth defending and with the games current state it cannot be defended when you are offline. It takes a lot of time to get a Helicopter working again and it takes even more time to find one to fix and use in the first place. You log off and Johnny noob runs up, hops in and flies off to crash it or leave it somewhere for someone else to crash it. In a post apocalyptic world people would be rebuilding a structured lifestyle with a base camp. This concept allows for this to happen.

[ZombieGrin 3]

I suggest keys/locks. You aren't thinking outside the box. Why the hell would a tent have a lock anyways? The lock would be on some sort of safe; a big ass safe or something similar and lockable and box-like, another reason i suggest a lock is that they can only destroy your tents with explosives and vehicles which are rarer than players stumbling across your shit. So I'm down with locks.

I find it funny that you say I do not think outside the box when you fail to realize that if you have a large organized camp... with tents, you probably have at least 1 vehicle nearby. If there is a vehicle nearby then they are going to run over your shit with it or shoot it until it explodes ( and blow up your tents ) or shoot out the tires and hull until its unusable or a hundred other troll things to do. Locks do need to go in for sure but those cannot be the only ways to keep our possessions safe from trolls and bandits.

[villanut 1]

One item worth defending... Helicopters ( which are more rare than any item in the game once working ) and is worth defending and with the games current state it cannot be defended when you are offline. It takes a lot of time to get a Helicopter working again and it takes even more time to find one to fix and use in the first place. You log off and Johnny noob runs up, hops in and flies off to crash it or leave it somewhere for someone else to crash it. In a post apocalyptic world people would be rebuilding a structured lifestyle with a base camp. This concept allows for this to happen.

The helicopter being pinched while you are logged off is exactly the same as you being asleep and your camp being raided and that is possible,although you would have people taking turns to guard your camp (which obviously isn't possible to have someone logged on at all times) So I think camouflaging would be a much better and realistic option, nothing should be completely safe in this game,I think if turrets and similar ideas are implemented the game will just end up being another online shooter with zombies.

Camouflage and burying items and have a map generated of the position so you can go back and retrieve it (which if your killed or robbed another player could try to find it).But stopping players from server hopping etc would make a major difference,the game is supposed to be about the experience you have trekking half way across the map to the airfield for example,you might get killed you might not.

Also barricading houses and using locks and broken vehicles to block off and protect is far more realistic than finding automated turrets.

This is supposed to be a very harsh difficult game world and that's what makes it so refreshing and enjoyable,don't take this the wrong way ZombieGrin but it sounds like your annoyed about one of the things that make the game so different it's realism, the fact you have to constantly worry about losing your gear and starting again,but even though I don't like your turret idea I think it's great your taking the time to go in to detail about new things to improve the game.

Edited July 16, 2012 by villanut

[Ribano 46]

The map isnt big enough to just lose your loot if somebody is "lucky" enough to stumble across it. there is only limited space on the map that isnt on through routes to other locations so all it would take is a part of 4 to run through the north and break into every camp on the way. Auto turrets seem out of place within the game.

what i'd propose is that you cannot break into a camp unless a player from the other team is within the server. if someone is there they can defend it, if they are not near it thats their own problem. it gives people the choice of whether to man their camp or leave it to chance.

i know its not entirely realistic but it seems to me that its the best way of doing it unless you just want huge treasure pools that offer an easy alternative to looting buildings in the first place

[chefwillis 33]

I find it funny that you say I do not think outside the box when you fail to realize that if you have a large organized camp... with tents, you probably have at least 1 vehicle nearby. If there is a vehicle nearby then they are going to run over your shit with it or shoot it until it explodes ( and blow up your tents ) or shoot out the tires and hull until its unusable or a hundred other troll things to do. Locks do need to go in for sure but those cannot be the only ways to keep our possessions safe from trolls and bandits.

Ok, first off you didnt read my post well enough or you at least didn't understand what I wrote. Yes I understand that vehicles are often near large camps, but that is a risk that must be thought of and can be avoided, such as moving your vehicle not near your camp. The only thing locks would do is reduce your chance of you crap being stolen temporarily. Vehicles are rare, so it will much rarer for a single tent to be demolished/looted. Also, you should make large camps in general in this game. They should be spread out in a certain vicinity from the a each tent to avoid detection. I can't tell you how many times I've raided tents because they were large groups or vehicles with them, they were very easy to spot.

[G0V3RNM3NT4L 132]

There's a reason tents are camoflauged... to remain hidden. The safest base is a base that is hidden. As said multiple times, being stealthy in this game will get you a lot more than carrying the biggest gun. If I can sneak up on somebody with a fire ax, their M249 isn't going to do much.

[ZombieGrin 3]

The helicopter being pinched while you are logged off is exactly the same as you being asleep and your camp being raided and that is possible,although you would have people taking turns to guard your camp (which obviously isn't possible to have someone logged on at all times) So I think camouflaging would be a much better and realistic option, nothing should be completely safe in this game,I think if turrets and similar ideas are implemented the game will just end up being another online shooter with zombies.

Camouflage and burying items and have a map generated of the position so you can go back and retrieve it (which if your killed or robbed another player could try to find it).But stopping players from server hopping etc would make a major difference,the game is supposed to be about the experience you have trekking half way across the map to the airfield for example,you might get killed you might not.

Also barricading houses and using locks and broken vehicles to block off and protect is far more realistic than finding automated turrets.

This is supposed to be a very harsh difficult game world and that's what makes it so refreshing and enjoyable,don't take this the wrong way ZombieGrin but it sounds like your annoyed about one of the things that make the game so different it's realism, the fact you have to constantly worry about losing your gear and starting again,but even though I don't like your turret idea I think it's great your taking the time to go in to detail about new things to improve the game.

If this was real we would hear the helicopter or vehicles being stolen and have a chance to wake up and defend it. Unfortunately that is not an option so there has to be ANOTHER way to defend while we are offline. Turrets and electric fences powered by petrol fueled generators would help fix that... It is totally balanced and if you are smart and play well you can counter the turrets and electric fences. Unfortunately everyone who is against this idea are probably bad solo players who wouldnt stand a chance against a well defended player compound. So no wonder so many of these casual bad players say its a bad idea. The turrets would need to be near a generator ( have to find a generator AND a generator in the first place ) both can be shot and damaged to be deactived ( Cannot put them in open areas because they will just get sniped ) and they require constant fuel runs to keep the generator running to power the defenses ( Meaning if you are patient you can cut off supply lines to refuel the generators )... The ideas I suggested are balanced and effective. Not liking this idea without providing any reason other than "I dont like it, this is stupid" sure shows the rest of the community how much you can flex your creativity,

[chefwillis 33]

There's a reason tents are camoflauged... to remain hidden. The safest base is a base that is hidden. As said multiple times, being stealthy in this game will get you a lot more than carrying the biggest gun. If I can sneak up on somebody with a fire ax, their M249 isn't going to do much.

Very true. But then again the tents camo is very bad. It doesn't really do a good job of being camouflaged.

[ZombieGrin 3]

Very true. But then again the tents camo is very bad. It doesn't really do a good job of being camouflaged.

even if it was insanely camouflaged it still isnt enough. Someone will just take your stuff without a fight. I dont want permanently safe gear only that there be a fight for it when you try to take what someone else has secured for themselves ( as it SHOULD BE )

[madzeds 3]

One item worth defending... Helicopters ( which are more rare than any item in the game once working ) and is worth defending and with the games current state it cannot be defended when you are offline. It takes a lot of time to get a Helicopter working again and it takes even more time to find one to fix and use in the first place. You log off and Johnny noob runs up, hops in and flies off to crash it or leave it somewhere for someone else to crash it. In a post apocalyptic world people would be rebuilding a structured lifestyle with a base camp. This concept allows for this to happen.

I am Johnny noob.

I have found a working helicopter not far outside a town.

I did crash it.

I didn't raid their camp, and I was shot at before entering said heli. (Their sniper needs practice.)

As much fun as it was for them to find that heli, fix it, use it to set up there base, take it out to raid, and covet it. I guarantee I had 10x the amount of fun running up to it as fast as I could in a serpentine and stealing it.

Sorry, but your clans idea of fun is THRIVING. MY idea of fun is SURVIVING.

I think we both know which of those things this game is about.

[madzeds 3]

Unfortunately everyone who is against this idea are probably bad solo players who wouldnt stand a chance against a well defended player compound. So no wonder so many of these casual bad players say its a bad idea. The turrets would need to be near a generator ( have to find a generator AND a generator in the first place ) both can be shot and damaged to be deactived ( Cannot put them in open areas because they will just get sniped ) and they require constant fuel runs to keep the generator running to power the defenses ( Meaning if you are patient you can cut off supply lines to refuel the generators )... The ideas I suggested are balanced and effective. Not liking this idea without providing any reason other than "I dont like it, this is stupid" sure shows the rest of the community how much you can flex your creativity,

"Everyone who disagrees with me is bad. The turret I'm suggesting is weak, useless,and easy to kill. Unless there is someone there to feed it (some one who could, say perhaps, defend a base.) I have the best ideas ever. Anyone who disagrees is a dummy."

Fixed.

P.S. Your welcome.

P.S.S. I am not a bad "solo" player. I have and will continue to seek out friendly players to join my group and we will acquire vehicles to have fun with. I will not cry when those vehicles go missing due to a bug or some jerk off catching us off guard and taking it.

Edited July 17, 2012 by MadZ

[t0pz 173]

I like the idea, but it will not work, at least not with the current dynamics of the game, simply because:

a ) Server hoppers WILL be able to warp to the location, into your fort. Restricting people from logging into a server due to a fort being there is NOT a solution the mods OR server hosts will agree to. Not to mention the people who happen to log in to someone's fort without knowing so, simply because that is where they last logged off on another server. Also, how will the server determine who are the "owners" of a fort? It's not like it recognizes who is allowed to be in it. Access should be entirely free and the responsibility of the people who built it.

b ) I can see the forts becoming quite popular in the long run, causing large amounts of them across all servers, making quite a few areas inaccessible for new players, giving them little chance to get around / scavenge (Yes, i know "That's reality, life is unfair, etc." however the game should be playable for everyone).

c ) If you want the fort to still be there after you disconnected, it would have to be somehow "indestructible / inaccessible" to others during that time, which does not seem realistic. If people want, they can certainly storm the place while it is unattended. Now the fort belongs to someone else. So, if the original owners logs back in, are they considered server hoppers? Certainly not. So what's to stop others from doing so?

All in all, the idea itself has great potential, however the whole concept has many flaws in logic, fairness, and stability. It needs to be somewhat balanced and stable.

Edited July 17, 2012 by t0pz

[villanut 1]

If this was real we would hear the helicopter or vehicles being stolen and have a chance to wake up and defend it. Unfortunately that is not an option so there has to be ANOTHER way to defend while we are offline. Turrets and electric fences powered by petrol fueled generators would help fix that... It is totally balanced and if you are smart and play well you can counter the turrets and electric fences. Unfortunately everyone who is against this idea are probably bad solo players who wouldnt stand a chance against a well defended player compound. So no wonder so many of these casual bad players say its a bad idea. The turrets would need to be near a generator ( have to find a generator AND a generator in the first place ) both can be shot and damaged to be deactived ( Cannot put them in open areas because they will just get sniped ) and they require constant fuel runs to keep the generator running to power the defenses ( Meaning if you are patient you can cut off supply lines to refuel the generators )... The ideas I suggested are balanced and effective. Not liking this idea without providing any reason other than "I dont like it, this is stupid" sure shows the rest of the community how much you can flex your creativity,

I did make other suggestions,but I don't think you want to listen to other peoples ideas.

Not only is coming across automated turrets unrealistic but it will change the game from one about the experiences you get trying to survive, to one just about attacking/defending bases.Using barricaded houses for small loot,hiding items and being able to create some sort of compound using old vehicles etc as a defensive barrier are more realistic options.

As for keeping vehicles safe, apart from some sort of compound (which even the one I suggested would be risky and might spoil the game) What about being able to remove an engine part so it won't start? So unless you find another you can't use it anyway,but if it was possible to keep vehicles completely safe for a player who fixed it when offline that might mean we end up with too many people in vehicles,unless respawning of parts is limited

Edited July 17, 2012 by villanut

[ZombieGrin 3]

"Everyone who disagrees with me is bad. The turret I'm suggesting is weak, useless,and easy to kill. Unless there is someone there to feed it (some one who could, say perhaps, defend a base.) I have the best ideas ever. Anyone who disagrees is a dummy."

Fixed.

P.S. Your welcome.

P.S.S. I am not a bad "solo" player. I have and will continue to seek out friendly players to join my group and we will acquire vehicles to have fun with. I will not cry when those vehicles go missing due to a bug or some jerk off catching us off guard and taking it.

You are bad and your attitude proves it. Your nothing to lose attitude only shows you are at the bottom of the barrel.

[ZombieGrin 3]

I am Johnny noob.

I have found a working helicopter not far outside a town.

I did crash it.

I didn't raid their camp, and I was shot at before entering said heli. (Their sniper needs practice.)

As much fun as it was for them to find that heli, fix it, use it to set up there base, take it out to raid, and covet it. I guarantee I had 10x the amount of fun running up to it as fast as I could in a serpentine and stealing it.

Sorry, but your clans idea of fun is THRIVING. MY idea of fun is SURVIVING.

I think we both know which of those things this game is about.

Thriving and Surviving is one in the same...

[ZombieGrin 3]

I like the idea, but it will not work, at least not with the current dynamics of the game, simply because:

a ) Server hoppers WILL be able to warp to the location, into your fort. Restricting people from logging into a server due to a fort being there is NOT a solution the mods OR server hosts will agree to. Not to mention the people who happen to log in to someone's fort without knowing so, simply because that is where they last logged off on another server. Also, how will the server determine who are the "owners" of a fort? It's not like it recognizes who is allowed to be in it. Access should be entirely free and the responsibility of the people who built it.

b ) I can see the forts becoming quite popular in the long run, causing large amounts of them across all servers, making quite a few areas inaccessible for new players, giving them little chance to get around / scavenge (Yes, i know "That's reality, life is unfair, etc." however the game should be playable for everyone).

c ) If you want the fort to still be there after you disconnected, it would have to be somehow "indestructible / inaccessible" to others during that time, which does not seem realistic. If people want, they can certainly storm the place while it is unattended. Now the fort belongs to someone else. So, if the original owners logs back in, are they considered server hoppers? Certainly not. So what's to stop others from doing so?

All in all, the idea itself has great potential, however the whole concept has many flaws in logic, fairness, and stability. It needs to be somewhat balanced and stable.

Throw some ideas out to stabilize it but it is totally balanced when it comes to requiring team play to make it work. Base defenses are for people who want to take the games surviving a step further past "Hide a tent somewhere no one can find it"

[ZombieGrin 3]

I did make other suggestions,but I don't think you want to listen to other peoples ideas.

Not only is coming across automated turrets unrealistic but it will change the game from one about the experiences you get trying to survive, to one just about attacking/defending bases.Using barricaded houses for small loot,hiding items and being able to create some sort of compound using old vehicles etc as a defensive barrier are more realistic options.

As for keeping vehicles safe, apart from some sort of compound (which even the one I suggested would be risky and might spoil the game) What about being able to remove an engine part so it won't start? So unless you find another you can't use it anyway,but if it was possible to keep vehicles completely safe for a player who fixed it when offline that might mean we end up with too many people in vehicles,unless respawning of parts is limited

I have commented on peoples ideas who are posting decent ones. I dont think you actually read the posts I made and instead latch onto 1 or 2 words you don't like and then make comments on those instead. Please read my document in full as well as the previous comments. Automated turrets are infact a reality and are being used my many countries as we speak so it is NOT unrealistic at all. Far more "realistic" than a zombie apocalypse by the way.

[ZombieGrin 3]

The map isnt big enough to just lose your loot if somebody is "lucky" enough to stumble across it. there is only limited space on the map that isnt on through routes to other locations so all it would take is a part of 4 to run through the north and break into every camp on the way. Auto turrets seem out of place within the game.

what i'd propose is that you cannot break into a camp unless a player from the other team is within the server. if someone is there they can defend it, if they are not near it thats their own problem. it gives people the choice of whether to man their camp or leave it to chance.

i know its not entirely realistic but it seems to me that its the best way of doing it unless you just want huge treasure pools that offer an easy alternative to looting buildings in the first place

The problem i have is that if you have vehicles, inexperienced idiots will come and drive them off and get them destroyed ( helicopters especially ) That means all that work you and your friends took fixxing it is now gone all because some kid thought it would be cool to try to do a backflip over cherno ( or something equally as stupid )

[villanut 1]

I have commented on peoples ideas who are posting decent ones. I dont think you actually read the posts I made and instead latch onto 1 or 2 words you don't like and then make comments on those instead. Please read my document in full as well as the previous comments. Automated turrets are infact a reality and are being used my many countries as we speak so it is NOT unrealistic at all. Far more "realistic" than a zombie apocalypse by the way.

Well a fair point,but automated turrets wouldn't just be lying around everywhere it's new technology not readily available and as I said before it would just make the game about attack/defend bases.

Also you say you make posts about decent ideas other people have but you ignore mine which are more fitting for the game than what your suggesting,I don't just latch on to one or two words I read your document and wanted to post about it because I feel this would spoil a game that's actually different from all the rest.

Even if you didn't use turrets to defend a base the main problem is they would pop up everywhere and that's all the game would be about.

Edited July 17, 2012 by villanut