Does DayZ need aeiral transport?

[FlimFlamm 509]

There are several ways to have construactable modular vehicle and prevent server hopping from becoming a major issue. Engines could be something that you cannot put in your backpack, in your hands, or on your back (so they cannot be brought to another server). In order to move them you could require some sort of push cart that can also be constructable. That is one solution, but also parts can become a part of the central economy, (per server, or globally) with only a certain number of engines existing and hence a limited number of powered vehicles. There are many other ways to curtail outright failure of a system and limit player abuse.

The difficulty of actually acquiring the parts and tools to build a vehicle in real life isn't an easy chore, and in a zombie apocalypse, while not having to pay for anything, it would be more difficult for sure. That said, in order to build a makeshift buggy in a zombie apocalypse you are going to need a secure place of residence where you can begin storing the parts you have accumulated (or else hide them in a remote location and pray nobody finds them). While you are investing time and evergy into gathering parts, your place of residence will require possible defense and maintenance, and you will require food, guns, ammunition, and medicine in case of emergency. The hunt for parts will be long and tiresome, you wont always be able to find the parts you need (fuel tank, engine, metal for chassis, wheels, etc...).

 

Once you finally get all the parts and tools to put one together, then you need fuel. The completion of a modular vehicle will represent the culmination of potentially weeks of time and effort and risk spent completing all the necessary tasks. The reward, much like the holy grail V3S Hicks wants to see, would be a very dear piece of equipment that in DayZ logic, players will gladly die for (regardless of how much roleplay dictates they want to live). The thought of losing something you have worked for weeks toward (while maintaining everything else) would make you paranoid, and tending toward unwillingness to put the vehicle at risk for any reason. Eventually it will be stolen or destroyed, and the resulting pain and feeling of loss that will be induced will far exceed the pain that any luck based V3S has ever caused.

 

It's not necessarily just the joy of lucking out and finding a vehicle that makes them fun, it's the pain of losing one, or the feeling of taking one away from someone, for me anyway, that creates suspense and high stakes. Constructable vehicles can be ridiculously diffiuclt to complete (as difficult or more difficult to find and repair one), while simultaneously co-existing with traditionally spawned in vehicles.

 

The model you are suggesting is that you find a V3S via luck, and then put some work into it to get it up and running. (luck +work =vehicle)

The model I am suggesting merely replaces the luck of finding a broken down vehicle with a bunch of work. (work + work + work + work + work = vehicle). That said, the work of putting together a car from raw resources and parts you must also find via luck is still a system that incporporates luck, it just spreads out the vehicle lottery into more numerous smaller and more winnable lotteries.

In the end, modular vehicles that players can themselves construct can end up being more difficult to acquire than spawned ones could ever be, regardless of them spawning in a broken condition. The main appeal here is that me and my grandma can sit down and invest a bunch of time and have something to show for it rather than just playing the 'will i find a vehicle, be able to repair it with nearby parts, and not get shot' lottery. My grandmother is religious, and she hates the slots. She believes in the value of hard work!

 

You want vehicles to be rare and awe inspiring right? You want them however to be accessible so players can experience them without having to fight over a few rare ones right?

 

This is the perfect way of supplementing existing vehicles and achiving that. (while also delivering on the customization promise)

 

"there is a distinct and unique feeling that you get from something like a vehicle, that requires people to come together to maintain it, to protect it versus popping say a Tavianna server or modded DayZ mod server and finding a vehicle in a couple minutes, it just doesn't have the same importance. It's almost a completely different game," (from your link)

 

Here is a thread I recently made which details a conceptual system : http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/223970-modular-vehicles-conceptdiscussion-thread/

 

I'm going to make an edit which adresses your objections, any additional criticism you might feel inclined to share would be most welcome in the thread. :)

Edited April 14, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[XallZall (DayZ) 22]

I was unable to vote on the poll for whatever reason, might be already closed.

I picked all types of aerial vehicles.

Make allot of them damaged with missing parts, such as no weapons or rockets etc, and make them rare.
Maybe even have only improvised weapons on them, or weapons from land vehicles etc.

 

[Grimey Rick 3417]

This thread is still going? Lol. Just give up, they put helicopters in the Mod because it was easy to do, people got used to them, now they have to put them in the Standalone because they've become a staple of DayZ. It sucks, but it's true.

However, people trying to justify why the inclusion of them is sensible/realistic/authentic is beyond ridiculous. They were fun in the Mod because it was a less serious game focused more on PvP, but in a game where people are complaining about realism/authenticity left, right, and center, there's virtually no metaphorical room left for random people being able to pilot a helicopter on a whim.

THAT ISN'T REALISTIC, so stop complaining about run speed, stamina, splints magically fixing broken limbs (lol) and a plethora of other random things in every god damn thread.

[FlimFlamm 509]

This thread is still going? Lol. Just give up, they put helicopters in the Mod because it was easy to do, people got used to them, now they have to put them in the Standalone because they've become a staple of DayZ. It sucks, but it's true.

However, people trying to justify why the inclusion of them is sensible/realistic/authentic is beyond ridiculous. They were fun in the Mod because it was a less serious game focused more on PvP, but in a game where people are complaining about realism/authenticity left, right, and center, there's virtually no metaphorical room left for random people being able to pilot a helicopter on a whim.

THAT ISN'T REALISTIC, so stop complaining about run speed, stamina, splints magically fixing broken limbs (lol) and a plethora of other random things in every god damn thread.

 

You are being quite obtuse with regards to the discussion at hand.

 

Helicopters are gonna be in, yes, but the real fight (at least from your camp) should be about arguing for as sensible/realistic/authentic types of aircraft as possible. The same goes for ground vehicles. The discussion that takes place now has a good chance of influencing the decisions of the dev team, so unless you are honky dory with aircraft that strain credulity like military helis or ground  gun mounted APC vehicles, now is the time to speak up.

 

P.S, I have never once complained about things being too difficult. I only complain about a lack of content and petition for the addition of more!

Edited April 14, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[pilgrim* 3514]

Yes because helicopters are badass!

 

 

In Real Life

First rule of flying

NEVER take one of these ANYWHERE NEAR a guy with an AK

 

you got that ? Ask any pilot.

[Velenon 13]

I don't want them but if they must be included.

 

1) I would like them to be rare and extremly hard to keep running/repairing.

2) They are not locked! and therefore not god mode vehicles that cannot be stolen if you are stupid enough to land it in an open field and leave it unguarded. i.e. it should be a group vehicle.

3) Like tents they are vulnerable to being "raided" when not logged in.

4) They are transports with an internal inventry.

5) Most importantly, it should be possible to damage them aswell as kill the people within the heli, also the passangers should be able to shoot out of the heli doors with their normal weapons.

 

Alternatively have a few single person heli's like the gyrocopters that are also hard to run but can be kept by a single person, but leaves them vulnerable to being shot down as they have no protection.

 

Balance, everything must be balanced, add anything you want but "I win" buttons/vehicles/gear destroy the feel of games, this is about surviving after all, cherno is supposed to be a hard place to live.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Velenon

[Grimey Rick 3417]

You are being quite obtuse with regards to the discussion at hand.

Helicopters are gonna be in, yes, but the real fight (at least from your camp) should be about arguing for as sensible/realistic/authentic types of aircraft as possible. The same goes for ground vehicles. The discussion that takes place now has a good chance of influencing the decisions of the dev team, so unless you are honky dory with aircraft that strain credulity like military helis or ground gun mounted APC vehicles, now is the time to speak up.

P.S, I have never once complained about things being too difficult. I only complain about a lack of content and petition for the addition of more!

Judging from your post count, you're obviously new around here. The odds of this thread even being read by development, let alone influencing any major decisions, are quite slim. I don't care what they add at this point; I'll adapt. I'll play the game for what it is when it's released regardless if it's authentic feeling or not. At the end of the day, I'm a DayZ fan.

However, I've already made my point of view clear. Let them add whatever they want. I just get a kick out of realism buffs supporting the idea of random people figuring out how to pilot aerial vehicles "on the fly" (pardon the pun). I'm not necessarily a realism fanatic, as this game includes zombie-like creatures, but I wouldn't mind seeing it lean more towards The Last of Us rather than Mad Max. TLoU is how I've always envisioned a zed apocalypse. Besides a downed UH-60 you see at one point, there's no aerial presence. And it's fucking awesome. I love the idea of each player being forced to scrounge through areas, always feeling vulnerable. I don't want there to be an end-game in DayZ where you've survived long enough that you feel safe. And let's face it: in the Mod, after you'd acquired a chopper, it was pretty much gg.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Grimey Rick

[pilgrim* 3514]

There will be one helicopter per server
The local admins will own the helicopter
They will stop other players from messing with it
Usually by kicking any players who try
They will use it to spot tents and vehicles
And loot and destroy them
Usually while the owners are logged off
If you object to this endgame you will be kicked

This is the endgame, legal or not, like it or not.
good call

Why would you do anything else ?

[Whyherro123 2283]

There will be one helicopter per server

The local admins will own the helicopter

They will stop other players from messing with it

Usually by kicking any players who try

They will use it to spot tents and vehicles

And loot and destroy them

Usually while the owners are logged off

If you object to this endgame you will be kicked

This is the endgame, legal or not, like it or not.

good call

Why would you do anything else ?

 

 

This is ..... pretty much what is going to happen, not only with helicopters, but the ground vehicles as well. They will be hoarded by the server owner/admin

 

The "second" reason why I am/was against aircraft being included

 

The "third" is the fact that whoever owns an aircraft can hunt down camps and such with effective impunity. Past a certain distance, vegetation and trees "fade out" (it happened in the mod, I've noticed it in the Standalone as well). When you are 1000 feet in the air, you can effectively look "through" trees and bushes. Say goodbye to camps!

 

At least with ground vehicles, there is still terrain to worry about.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Whyherro123

[FlimFlamm 509]

Judging from your post count, you're obviously new around here. The odds of this thread even being read by development, let alone influencing any major decisions, are quite slim. I don't care what they add at this point; I'll adapt. I'll play the game for what it is when it's released regardless if it's authentic feeling or not. At the end of the day, I'm a DayZ fan.

However, I've already made my point of view clear. Let them add whatever they want. I just get a kick out of realism buffs supporting the idea of random people figuring out how to pilot aerial vehicles "on the fly" (pardon the pun). I'm not necessarily a realism fanatic, as this game includes zombie-like creatures, but I wouldn't mind seeing it lean more towards The Last of Us rather than Mad Max. TLoU is how I've always envisioned a zed apocalypse. Besides a downed UH-60 you see at one point, there's no aerial presence. And it's fucking awesome. I love the idea of each player being forced to scrounge through areas, always feeling vulnerable. I don't want there to be an end-game in DayZ where you've survived long enough that you feel safe. And let's face it: in the Mod, after you'd acquired a chopper, it was pretty much gg.

 

Finding a heli was not GG in the mod unless you had an impenetrable base with unlimited fuel in which to park it. The first time I found a heli I didn't know how to fly it and I crashed it. The second time, me and some guy flew up north, where he shot and robbed me. The third time I think I flew around in fear for awhile before running out of fuel and stranding myself in the extreme north, where I starved.

 

Owning and maintaining a helicopter might be a part of what people normally consider the endgame, but there is really no GG at any time. No matter what happens, you are still inevitably in a never-ending struggle against starvation, disease, the elements, zombies, and human bandits. Since the mod had easy as pie survival (zombies sucked, no common disease, food common, guns common, vehicles common) people then had time and nothing else to do other than to fly around looking for people to kill.

 

This is the crux of where we differ in opinion on aircraft in the standalone. If maintaining a helicopter is actually difficult, then people flying them around player hunting and putting them at risk for senseless reasons becomes a much more risky and purposeless affair. Getting shot at is likely to cause more realistic damage to your heli, and getting shot at yourself means your precious heli and gear stand a good chance of being ruined. Along with the sheer difficulty of everything else, players will, in a very direct way, have much less time and capability to spend flying around player hunting.

 

The standalone is making everything more difficult, more demanding and more complex. New features of the standalone are going to limit the ability of players to player hunt from helis in the following ways: Helicopters will be more difficult to acquire than on the mod; Helicopters will be less armored and beefy; Helicopters will have weaker attack capabilities; Fuel will be more difficult to acquire in every way; parts and maintenance will be more involved and more difficult in every way; the clothing, food and medical supplies, guns, and misc crap that the pilot and crew need as a supply kit for player hunting is harder to get and more valuable than the mod. The result is less overall time to get straight down to player killing, and less of a desire to do so because of the increased risk.

 

Given the sheer difficulty and complexity of everything else, the absolute end game feature of flying around killing people (unless you are a hacker or get extremely lucky) will be something exhibited rarely, and only by the most affluent and hardworking (and therefore deserving) groups. It means you are too successful, and this should in many cases be indication that something needs to be made more difficult.

 

I'm going to go on petitioning the community and developers to fulfill a better vision of DayZ (I think we have similar visions about immersiveness) and to have difficult to acquire and fly makeshift aircraft and very limited standard or otherwise aircraft. More diversity and more difficulty gives us more of a challenge and more things to do. The more difficult 'something' is to acquire the more of that very specific DayZ feeling of total loss that 'something' is capable of inducing. That particular feeling of loss simultaneously measures and encapsulates why the original DayZ worked.

 

You see bases and aircraft as powerful trapping of success, but I see them as costly liabilities requiring constant love and reassurance from large groups.

 

Whether your a lone-wolf with a tent and a bicycle, or a large militant group with a fortified base and and a few vehicles, you always could be moments away from losing it all. How well you can secure your own survival is the true end-game, and it cannot be done indefinitely. Finding a balanced hierarchy of access to resources along the way will ensure that unlike the mod, there are no M2 humvee or M134 Mi-17 like vehicles which can fly and drive up and down the coast and fuck the game up entirely. Players should still be able to fly  and drive up and down the coast fucking the game up, but their weapons should not be as powerful as in the mod. The idea of wasting ammunition, fuel, food, medicine and putting your vehicle at risk just to kill a few bambis to just about any group should seem like the most stupid, dangerous, and costly waste of resources imaginable.

[FlimFlamm 509]

In Real Life

First rule of flying

NEVER take one of these ANYWHERE NEAR a guy with an AK

 

you got that ? Ask any pilot.

 

Confirmed. If in real life if you hear the tink of a bullet on the rotor or fuselage or the pop of gunfire below, any pilot worth their salt instantly begins internally weeping, pissing and shitting themselves, and they instantly gain as much speed and distance from the source as possible while potentially maneuvering left or right to spoil any continuing fire.

 

Owning and operating aircraft in DayZ SA can be as much of a hassle and risk as it feels rewarding. Everyone in a 2km radius can see you land and likely hear you, and you have probably attracted more people on your way to any given Landing Zone. In order to have safe protocols you can basically only land in areas that you are sure are player free, and then the zombies you might attract may also present insane problems by creating hordes. All in all helicopters and planes will be best used for reconnaissance, player drops, and very quick and organized pickups at secured LZ's.

Edited April 15, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[FlimFlamm 509]

There will be one helicopter per server

The local admins will own the helicopter

They will stop other players from messing with it

Usually by kicking any players who try

They will use it to spot tents and vehicles

And loot and destroy them

Usually while the owners are logged off

If you object to this endgame you will be kicked

This is the endgame, legal or not, like it or not.

good call

Why would you do anything else ?

 

As it stands tents are invisible from a particular distance. I see no reason that at the extreme distances trees begin to disappear (or their foilage), so too can tents and medium sized player constructions. Or, the developers could acknowledge this problem and fix the rendering side of things.

 

As for the problem of badmins keeping aircraft all to themselves, I hate this and I think it wrecks what the game could be. Let me make my own auto-gyro (with great difficulty) so I don't have to have to meta bandits and badmins just to get in the air.

[FlimFlamm 509]

This is ..... pretty much what is going to happen, not only with helicopters, but the ground vehicles as well. They will be hoarded by the server owner/admin

 

The "second" reason why I am/was against aircraft being included

 

The "third" is the fact that whoever owns an aircraft can hunt down camps and such with effective impunity. Past a certain distance, vegetation and trees "fade out" (it happened in the mod, I've noticed it in the Standalone as well). When you are 1000 feet in the air, you can effectively look "through" trees and bushes. Say goodbye to camps!

 

At least with ground vehicles, there is still terrain to worry about.

 

Presumed rendering issues aside, Why not let me make 1-4 man buggys and 1-2 man auto gyros by implementing a complex and content creating modular vehicle system? So long as actually constructing a vehicle is quite difficult, what at all could go wrong?

[Whyherro123 2283]

 

 

Whether your a lone-wolf with a tent and a bicycle, or a large militant group with a fortified base and and a few vehicles, you always could be moments away from losing it all. How well you can secure your own survival is the true end-game, and it cannot be done indefinitely. Finding a balanced hierarchy of access to resources along the way will ensure that unlike the mod, there are no M2 humvee or M134 Mi-17 like vehicles which can fly and drive up and down the coast and fuck the game up entirely. Players should still be able to fly  and drive up and down the coast fucking the game up, but their weapons should not be as powerful as in the mod. The idea of wasting ammunition, fuel, food, medicine and putting your vehicle at risk just to kill a few bambis to just about any group should seem like the most stupid, dangerous, and costly waste of resources imaginable.

(Bolded already emphasized)

 

I disagree with the bolded part.

 

If a clan puts in the work to have a stable, self-sustaining farm, with various workshops powered via a generator (and that, in turn, powered by a ethanol via a still), with buildings, and vehicles, all defended via fortifications (earthworks [dikes and ditches], wooden palisade walls, barbed wire barricades, etc), then they should, by all means, be able to enjoy the "fruits of their labor", with proper maintenance.

 

However, it should require astronomical levels of work, materials, and time to get to that point. A large farm? Lots of digging. Same thing with earthworks. A wooden palisade around your compound? People to cut the trees, drag them back, and dig the ditches for the palisade (AKA lots of labor, materials, and time).  

 

 

By that point, that clan stronghold might as well be the "focal point" of the server, as they have essentially rebuilt civilization. Traders congregate in front of the palisade, as they are guaranteed protection from the clan in return for some of the "profits". Bambis travel to the stronghold, both to see the "mythical" base, and for work. After all, ditches need to be dug and things need to be carried, and they could work on "outside" (as in, outside the fortress) labor crews in return for food and maybe some "pay" (AKA a base of exchange set by the clan and traders).

 

Of course, all of this is hypothetical, and only my personal viewpoint of what Day Z should/could be, but the point remains: If you want "stability", it should be attainable, after a LOT of work, materials, and time. The "rebuilding of society" should be possible, and so long as you properly maintain your facilities and defend it, you shouldn't "be moments away from losing it all". As a caveat, very VERY few groups would be organized and driven enough to achieve that level of building. Most groups would have a small garden and a boarded-up building, and as such, they would be "on the precipice" a lot more.

 

Wow.... I went more than a little off topic. I apologize.

[Whyherro123 2283]

Presumed rendering issues aside, Why not let me make 1-4 man buggys and 1-2 man auto gyros by implementing a complex and content creating modular vehicle system? So long as actually constructing a vehicle is quite difficult, what at all could go wrong?

Because 1) It isn't really all that "authentic" 2) It is against the "theme" of the game, as evidence by quotes from the devs and 3) With server-hopping, any and all mechanics made to limit anything in the game (AKA making parts rare, etc) become meaningless, as someone can just pop in and out of servers for a few hours and loot parts. Compound that with a clan doing the same, as well as duping, and within a couple of hours, said clan already has 15 buggys and 10 autogyros. Protip: it is already happening, and has been happening, even with the .55 loot shenanigans.

 

Server-hopping should be fixed, or at least limited severely (more stringent effects with changing servers rapidly.), because until then basically any implementation of a loot-economy or scarcity, especially with regards to vehicle parts, becomes little more than a speedbump to hoppers. "Difficulty" as well, because if any player in the game can build an autogyro, regardless of how "difficult" it is, they will.

[FlimFlamm 509]

(Bolded already emphasized)

 

I disagree with the bolded part.

 

If a clan puts in the work to have a stable, self-sustaining farm, with various workshops powered via a generator (and that, in turn, powered by a ethanol via a still), with buildings, and vehicles, all defended via fortifications (earthworks [dikes and ditches], wooden palisade walls, barbed wire barricades, etc), then they should, by all means, be able to enjoy the "fruits of their labor", with proper maintenance.

 

However, it should require astronomical levels of work, materials, and time to get to that point. A large farm? Lots of digging. Same thing with earthworks. A wooden palisade around your compound? People to cut the trees, drag them back, and dig the ditches for the palisade (AKA lots of labor, materials, and time).  

 

 

By that point, that clan stronghold might as well be the "focal point" of the server, as they have essentially rebuilt civilization. Traders congregate in front of the palisade, as they are guaranteed protection from the clan in return for some of the "profits". Bambis travel to the stronghold, both to see the "mythical" base, and for work. After all, ditches need to be dug and things need to be carried, and they could work on "outside" (as in, outside the fortress) labor crews in return for food and maybe some "pay" (AKA a base of exchange set by the clan and traders).

 

Of course, all of this is hypothetical, and only my personal viewpoint of what Day Z should/could be, but the point remains: If you want "stability", it should be attainable, after a LOT of work, materials, and time. The "rebuilding of society" should be possible, and so long as you properly maintain your facilities and defend it, you shouldn't "be moments away from losing it all". As a caveat, very VERY few groups would be organized and driven enough to achieve that level of building. Most groups would have a small garden and a boarded-up building, and as such, they would be "on the precipice" a lot more.

 

Wow.... I went more than a little off topic. I apologize.

 

It's good. I like it. I want all of this.

 

But you have to also remember that what goes up must come down, and the higher the climb, the bigger the fall. All it would take is one fuck up. For the mine field to be improperly replenished. For the front door to be left open and unguarded, and BAM, bandits are all up in your shit killing peeps left and right. The clan is summoned to TS and amidst the shedding of tears everyone is frantically logging in and trying to re-secure their 'civilization'. But it's too late. The bandits ransack and take everything that isn't nailed down, and destroy everything that a sledge hammer can break.

 

After the bandits leave and the clan is able to regroup and occupy the ruins of their old lives, they will inevitably our of anger and hatred resort to themselves robbing and pillaging  other bases in order to rebuild a more nefarious version of their own.

 

And the cycle continues...

[FlimFlamm 509]

Because 1) It isn't really all that "authentic" 2) It is against the "theme" of the game, as evidence by quotes from the devs and 3) With server-hopping, any and all mechanics made to limit anything in the game (AKA making parts rare, etc) become meaningless, as someone can just pop in and out of servers for a few hours and loot parts. Compound that with a clan doing the same, as well as duping, and within a couple of hours, said clan already has 15 buggys and 10 autogyros. Protip: it is already happening, and has been happening, even with the .55 loot shenanigans.

 

Server-hopping should be fixed, or at least limited severely (more stringent effects with changing servers rapidly.), because until then basically any implementation of a loot-economy or scarcity, especially with regards to vehicle parts, becomes little more than a speedbump to hoppers. "Difficulty" as well, because if any player in the game can build an autogyro, regardless of how "difficult" it is, they will.

 

1) Saying that something is not 'authentic' without explaining what that really means is not an authentic form of argument because the ambiguity of the world leaves much room for argument and gives little indication of which definition your are using and how you are applying it. I think that small makeshift vehicles rebuilt from old broken ones is entirely authentic.

 

2) The devs said that we are going to have customizable vehicles. As far as I'm concerned this is direct indication that modular constructable vehicles are within the theme of DayZ SA. The only thematic issues I think you are talking about is difficulty, which is not inherent at all in constructable or modular vehicles. If anything they are more difficult.

 

3) Engines and chassis specifically are things that people cannot put into their hands, onto their back, or into their backpack, hence, they cannot be transferred across servers. Aditionally servers can limit the number of engines or chassis in order to limit the overall number of constructable vehicles. Instead of having a hard cap of 10 or 20 vehicles per server, they can have soft caps where it gets harder and harder to find all the right parts based on server/global economy. This way vehicle limit can reflect server population in a meaningful way.

 

I am completely with you in regards to server hopping. I never understood it, I don't like it. I think it sucks. Something needs to be done about it. If engines alone are limited and non transferable from server to server then there is little to no chance of what you are saying will happen.

[Whyherro123 2283]

It's good. I like it. I want all of this.

 

But you have to also remember that what goes up must come down, and the higher the climb, the bigger the fall. All it would take is one fuck up. For the mine field to be improperly replenished. For the front door to be left open and unguarded, and BAM, bandits are all up in your shit killing peeps left and right. The clan is summoned to TS and amidst the shedding of tears everyone is frantically logging in and trying to re-secure their 'civilization'. But it's too late. The bandits ransack and take everything that isn't nailed down, and destroy everything that a sledge hammer can break.

 

After the bandits leave and the clan is able to regroup and occupy the ruins of their old lives, they will inevitably our of anger and hatred resort to themselves robbing and pillaging  other bases in order to rebuild a more nefarious version of their own.

 

And the cycle continues...

1) Don't need a mine field. In fact, a minefield would probably be "too hard" to maintain. All you need is the "threat" of a minefield, or beartraps, or even Punji-stakes. Low (effectively none) maintenance, and all the effectiveness of an antipersonnel mine.

 

2) If anybody, much less this hypothetical clan, leaves their front gate unlocked and unguarded, then they essentially deserve to be bent over the barrel and reamed out. I am assuming that this clan is competent and organized enough to avoid this, much like any real-life counterpart would be if they "got that far".

 

3) The whole point of there being fortifications is not "force" in and of itself, but instead the "threat of force". Imagine you are a bandit, gazing upon a palisaded camp, surrounded by 2-3 rings of ditches. You've heard from the trader you just killed that the clan that owns said camp has punji-stakes and beartraps in the ditches, as well as up to the base of the wall, which is itself regularly patrolled by guards on foot, accompanied by guard-dogs to sniff out anyone trying to sneak through the ditches. In addition, the treeline has been cleared away from the first ditch, meaning that you would have to cross 100m of open ground until you reached the first ditch, all while under fire.

 

The only "safe" way to get to the fortress is to follow the path up to the main-gate, where there is an open field right next to the gate for traders. Said road is defended by 2-3 small bunkers, made from logs and dirt, and could feasibly "hold" an LMG. All of these bunkers have overlapping fields of fire, meaning while you are trying to take out one bunker, you are under small-arms and LMG fire from the other two. 

 

Not including the small arms and sniper fire from the compound itself, or from the traders who would be .... quite put out to see their favorite (as well as safest and most profitable) trading location taken out.

 

At that point, your really have to decide: waste a lot of time, ammunition, and personnel attacking this, as well as being blacklisted by the traders on this server, or say "fuck it" and attack traders once they've left the safety of the compound?. I am willing to bet that 99% of bandits would choose option 2.

 

NOTE: the above compound, while feasibly and realistically the "top of the line" in basebuilding, would not be all that difficult to construct, even with hand-tools, just merely time-consuming and materials-heavy. Work-gangs of bambis could be directed in digging ditches with shovels, and directed in cutting down trees (from the ditch out to 100m, would give enough trees for a palisade, some buildings, as well as the mentioned bunkers). Using a tractor would cut both the time and labor required for ditch-digging and earth moving exponentially, and I expect any clan "worth their salt" to use a tractor for farming purposes anyways

 

I would really like to see tractors with different attachments be a viable vehicle in-game. Rototiller for farming plots, bucket for digging, attachable mulcher for cutting down brush and trees, etc. All very useful for basebuilding, and capable of being powered via diesel fuel or ethanol.

 

Look up "hill-forts" for what Neolithic/ Bronze-Age people were capable of using only hand tools. And the compounds I refer to do not have to be nearly as big

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_fort

[FlimFlamm 509]

Presumably the clan size and level or organization you describe represents the top 1% of benevolent players. Eventually the top 1% of malevolent players will hear of their success and will mount a series of attacks. It will start with things like men posing as traders in order to get close and throw grenades over the wall in conjunction with snipers taking out anyone of merit. It can happen in the wee hours of the morning when most of the clan is logged off, and given that the bandits have much less to lose, their tactics will be as aggressive as possible.

 

Eventually at some point the base will fall, but that's not an issue, it's nature. A base such as this can have a good long run but eventually will decline for whatever reason.

 

Regarding hill forts, I completely agree with your desire for more dynamic possibilities for players to work with...

 

So the question I then must ask, which brings us back to the thread, is with all their security and LMG's, and sniper and constant surveillance, what threat do a couple of 80's lookin survivors and their tandem auto gyro really pose?

 

(I'm the one with the sweet jacket)

 

Edited April 15, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[pilgrim* 3514]

..//..

I see no reason that at the extreme distances trees begin to disappear (or their foilage),

..//..

As for the problem of badmins keeping aircraft all to themselves, I hate this and I think it wrecks what the game could be.

 

good to see someone keen on gameplay

 

1) Get binocs - go up on a hill and scan far away forest. You see sticks with no foliage or branches, you see flat green "grass". you SEE trucks and tents clearly.

Try it. This is a dayz graphics property - use it, abuse it, do what you like with it: it is how the game works.

In an aircraft, to spot tents and vehicles, you just have to look from high enough. the trees are invisible, the gear is visible.

 

2) as for "badmins"... they are in fact typical "admins" not special people.. When you played the mod - if there was one heli on a server, did YOU know any admin who would NOT own it?

WHY would they not get the heli for themselves?

Admins who ownd the heli were more than 90% of ALL admins.

And they HATE to loose it - so admins VERY OFTEN kick players who mess with "their" heli. They are the majority. They do not consider that they are "badmins". they think you are breaking the game because you found their camp. You get a bad name for doing that.

 

In the vanilla mod this was typical normal behavior to protect the admin's helicopter. I hunted helicopters (because in the "helicopter endgame" you can't do much else) and its perfectly normal to have a furious admin kick you because you wasted his chopper.

 

(lol)

Usually you were lucky if they didn't kick you first, to empty the server just so they could fly it safely.

(I'm easy about all that, never been my problem, ya know.. it's just how it is)

 

Maybe you play on a private hive where it will be the clan who has the helicopter - and the admin is "only" the clan boss who decides what to do with the heli. In that case you get kicked from the clan when the arguments happen, not just from the server. Same thing I guess?

 

Anyway FlimFlamm - check out what I said about trees. Its a simple graphics thing with DayZ. Just a parameter. you need binoculars or a scope + a hill. A helicopter is easier and a lot faster.

 

SO - for aircraft in dayz there are two important considerations:

 

a ) the ways admins act on Public servers and the structures in place to make sure they act correctly  (there are threads about this) - [unresolved]

b ) the way middle-distance and far-distance textures are rendered in DayZ  (there are threads about this too) - [unresolved]

 

Nobody mentioned these two KEY gameplay elements so far in this thread. but if you want gameplay you have to deal with these things. right ?

 

xx

Edited April 15, 2015 by pilgrim

[Heatofbattle 49]

good to see someone keen on gameplay

 

1) Get binocs - go up on a hill and scan far away forest. You see sticks with no foliage or branches, you see flat green "grass". you SEE trucks and tents clearly.

Try it. This is a dayz graphics property - use it, abuse it, do what you like with it: it is how the game works.

In an aircraft, to spot tents and vehicles, you just have to look from high enough. the trees are invisible, the gear is visible.

 

2) as for "badmins"... they are in fact typical "admins" not special people.. When you played the mod - if there was one heli on a server, did YOU know any admin who would NOT own it?

WHY would they not get the heli for themselves?

Admins who ownd the heli were more than 90% of ALL admins.

And they HATE to loose it - so admins VERY OFTEN kick players who mess with "their" heli. They are the majority. They do not consider that they are "badmins". they think you are breaking the game because you found their camp. You get a bad name for doing that.

 

In the vanilla mod this was typical normal behavior to protect the admin's helicopter. I hunted helicopters (because in the "helicopter endgame" you can't do much else) and its perfectly normal to have a furious admin kick you because you wasted his chopper.

 

(lol)

Usually you were lucky if they didn't kick you first, to empty the server just so they could fly it safely.

(I'm easy about all that, never been my problem, ya know.. it's just how it is)

 

Maybe you play on a private hive where it will be the clan who has the helicopter - and the admin is "only" the clan boss who decides what to do with the heli. In that case you get kicked from the clan when the arguments happen, not just from the server. Same thing I guess?

 

Anyway FlimFlamm - check out what I said about trees. Its a simple graphics thing with DayZ. Just a parameter. you need binoculars or a scope + a hill. A helicopter is easier and a lot faster.

 

SO - for aircraft in dayz there are two important considerations:

 

a ) the ways admins act on Public servers and the structures in place to make sure they act correctly  (there are threads about this) - [unresolved]

b ) the way middle-distance and far-distance textures are rendered in DayZ  (there are threads about this too) - [unresolved]

 

Nobody mentioned these two KEY gameplay elements so far in this thread. but if you want gameplay you have to deal with these things. right ?

 

xx

Admins should not be able to kick without a good reason imo, and the far off textures NEED to be fixed, this irks me immensely.  

[FlimFlamm 509]

good to see someone keen on gameplay

 

a ) the ways admins act on Public servers and the structures in place to make sure they act correctly  (there are threads about this) - [unresolved]

b ) the way middle-distance and far-distance textures are rendered in DayZ  (there are threads about this too) - [unresolved]

 

Nobody mentioned these two KEY gameplay elements so far in this thread. but if you want gameplay you have to deal with these things. right ?

 

xx

Regarding A:

 

If players piece together custom vehicles all on their own, then this will partially combat the almost unavoidable issue of admin thievery. Admins are going to have a much harder time convincing themselves stealing custom vehicles isn't unacceptable abuse. There could still be a problem of badmins hoarding all the best engines and what not, but they would need to put in much more effort to do so and would probably rather steal the prefabs.

 

Regarding b: This is something that might be problematic even without aircraft and will require some preventative measure on the part of th devs to overcome. It would be a shame to condemn aircraft because of a fairly unrelated bug issue.

Edited April 16, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[FlimFlamm 509]

I recently made a thread about Autogyros which i whink are one of the most realistic and authentic options for Aircraft in DayZ. given there is roughly a 66% concensus that aircraft should be implemented, I think we should start discussing what would be good options in order to influence/aid the developers. Here is is, from the suggestion section:

 

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/224163-autogyros-in-dayz/

[BeefBacon 1185]

I don't think DayZ needs aircraft, but I certainly think the game would benefit from them. I wouldn't want to see Apaches and side-mounted miniguns, but I think transport choppers that can be fired from by inhabitants would be wonderful. 

 

A well-placed shot by virtually any firearm - bar stuff like .22s - should be able to take out the pilot or damage the rotor. Certainly they shouldn't be flying tanks.

 

Fixed-wing aircraft I'm not too keen on. The map seems far too small to accommodate them. On the other hand, airstrips and land that can be used as airstrips would suddenly become extremely valuable as a place to fortify rather than just as a place to loot, so I could certainly get along with single prop light aircraft, 4 seat max.

[FlimFlamm 509]

I don't think DayZ needs aircraft, but I certainly think the game would benefit from them. I wouldn't want to see Apaches and side-mounted miniguns, but I think transport choppers that can be fired from by inhabitants would be wonderful. 

 

A well-placed shot by virtually any firearm - bar stuff like .22s - should be able to take out the pilot or damage the rotor. Certainly they shouldn't be flying tanks.

 

Fixed-wing aircraft I'm not too keen on. The map seems far too small to accommodate them. On the other hand, airstrips and land that can be used as airstrips would suddenly become extremely valuable as a place to fortify rather than just as a place to loot, so I could certainly get along with single prop light aircraft, 4 seat max.

 

Around a Cessna sized aircraft is ideal I think for rare prefab planes. An An2 Cargo plane would be the biggest type of plane that I would feel comfortable with, but that is pushing it. There ought to be only one of them per map.

 

Sure DayZ doesn't need aircraft. It could be released as it, it doesn't actually need anything. It wouldn't do very well as a game, but that's how it is.

 

The better question is "want" rather than need.  What does the player-base want rather than what do they need.

 

Sometimes the community is foolish and they don't know what is good for them, and good developers will ignore their shitty ideas and make the game in spite of them. In this case developers don't even need to speculate about what would be best. The history of the original DayZ and the mods that followed in many ways tell the tale of how aircraft are used in DayZ, and the changes to the game that were made to accommodate the ensuing issues.

Edited April 18, 2015 by FlimFlamm