Base building in hived servers after 0.63 release

[pilgrim* 3514]

On 9/5/2017 at 0:45 PM, sneakydude said:

no use rehashing what the devs say, its moot

On 9/5/2017 at 0:03 AM, Mantasisg said:

protecting your super important base for half of your productive day time for weeks, in a nearly empty server.

19 hours ago, emuthreat said:

Concerning ..//..

CAN you still destroy a tent by driving over it with a vehicle? Or has that been taken out?  ...  It is long long time since I did that...  (Emuthreat , can I call you Luke? -  it was long ago and far away .. )
What ways can you destroy tents - gunfire, grenades, melee weapons, vehicles ??  

There is a reason for this question.

 

 

xx pilgrim

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by pilgrim*
~

[emuthreat 2837]

That was all back from the mod, as I understand it.  Seeing as I've only played SA, it seems irrelevant to this discussion.  And yes, I get what you are trying to do here.  The mod had many mods.

Still, that shouldn't be a detractor from the core playerbase trying to ensure that vanilla DayZ SA is made to be as feature complete as possible.  The more features and systems that are hard-coded into the base game, the less demanding the subsequent mods will be on performance.

I honestly don't understand why you keep harping on about tents.  The whole point of basebuilding will be to provide a means to protect your tents.

 

I say "here is one thing that I think could work for base security, and this is how it might be organized,"  And you go off on a weird enigmatic tangent alluding to star wars and driving over tents in the mod.  1/10 useful contribution to this discussion IMO, @pilgrim*

[sneakydude 480]

Its very hard to comment on anything in Dayz SA vanilla or modding. Right now hit point models are not adjusted, setup to be destroyed etc.. So tents or walls etc.. haven't been really tweaked. Also the introduction of certain items are not working as intended. You want to be able to lay down traps, protect yourself from wildlife, and characters. If you know they have the ability to break into your base, you come back and lay down traps. If the traps themselves disappear after restart, and take 5 hrs to build then traps will be useless in SA vanilla.

We have so many different players here wanting different things, so it is hard to judge what each persons goals are. We have some hunters, we have some PVPers and PVEers that just love to do there own things, and when you put everyone into one game voila a completely awesome experience.

 

This is why i still love dayz sa today, Vanilla or not.

 

But a full proof system has to be made, or we will end up like between Conan Exiles, Ark all the way to Arma 3 Exile.. and somewhere Dayz SA will be lumped into it. I would love to see the real deal with bases here. Then we can have a way better conversation and not just random ideas. I am not putting any idea down, i enjoy reading all of them, just wish we had a concrete structure to go by first. Not having a bunch of images of what a base will look like. All good and dandy, but not having exactly how the base structures will be protected, or a system to avoid having 1000 bases all lined up and a small building blocks all lined up to stop you from building more structures.

 

You see the need to be able to destroy a griefer?

 

 

[Kirov (DayZ) 585]

39 minutes ago, sneakydude said:

Very random points, and very hard to follow.

I agree.

[Kirov (DayZ) 585]

 

On 04/09/2017 at 11:15 PM, pilgrim* said:

OK so to be perfectly clear there is NO WAY you can "lock" a base.

Look at a base in any game ...  OR.. LOOK at the real life USA bases in Afghansitan (on YouTube for instance)
The ONLY thing that secures tha base is FIREPOWER... aint nothing else.. that's all from 0% to 100% what a base is about.   

 

Before I start, lemme just say that I couldn't care less about base building as I'm a loner in this game and I probably won't go far beyond improvised tents, green barrels and buried stash. But:

Real life has nothing to do with anything here, as the troops in Afghanistan don't get to log out in order to deal with RL stuff. If Dayz was "real life", I would be inside my base, I would tend it and I'd wake up when it's under attack. This game being a game, you simply want to punish casual gamers, those who can't take turns on their 24/7 overwatch. For me this is unacceptable and I actively hate those games which expect me either to commit some serious time every day or be forever a push-over in their universe. This is why I don't even touch games like EVE.

Our survivors would consider their base the most important thing in their pathetic and short lives. But our players shouldn't worry about their make-believe bases when spending quality time with their families.

I'm not saying that bases should be invulnerable, but I'd welcome solutions which you may call "unrealistic". The most unrealistic thing about this entire thread is that your character vanishes from Chernarus when you don't play. Everything else just logically follows.

[pilgrim* 3514]

1 hour ago, emuthreat said:

 1/10 useful contribution to this discussion IMO, @pilgrim*

 

48 minutes ago, Kirov (DayZ) said:

Real life has nothing to do with anything here

1 hour ago, sneakydude said:

I am not putting any idea down, i enjoy reading all of them

 

Have you never seen a "ruined" tent? - I saw one yesterday. I asked a simple question. Seems like you folk haven't been following the BI thoughts on bases; even with the artists impressions, demos, rumors, and announcements..
So let's make this easy to follow  - Emuthreat has a thing about doors ( that's no problem to me at all, he has a door fetish, ok it's his life) - BUT tents, which are a constituent element =ATM= of bases, and barrels are too.. they CAN be destroyed, or at least "ruined". We know this.

So if you craft a wooden wall or a wire fence, or a gate, for your 'base'.. these elements are SURELY (Must Be) in the same category as other base elements already in game - ie tents and barrels.. how could they NOT be?
So why this strange obsession that only "doors" can be - unpicked, unlocked or blown up - in DayZ? .. They can't be ruined? (you crafted that door) Wooden walls cant be ruined or destroyed? (you crafted that wall).  ALL base objects are player constructs, erected JUST like tents, they are NOT permanent environment features. They are a different CATEGORY of object.

A permanent game-environment feature (ie a house) you CANNOT destroy with an axe or gunfire etc in DayZ  .. but player-related objects, such as backpacks, barrels, cars, AND - wow - other elements introduced to ADD to the existing "player-object" & "base" elements already in-game - they CAN be destroyed.. (obvious, they will be crafted too, right?)  in THIS game, the  stuff you even partially 'construct' (technically 'craft').. eg a CAR.. can be deconstructed, damaged, ruined, destroyed. You have noticed.

Hence my QUESTION. A little thought makes it an EASY question, and the answer takes you straight to the OBVIOUS gameplay consequence.
And the obvious gameplay PROBLEM.
Some NOVEL SOLUTIONS would be interesting - to avoid the usual <<FPS with BASES>> games.. of which there are many! - and all so so similar!

Thanx for trying to understand. Emuthreat try harder (0/50).

also thanx for not answering the question.. folks .. I wonder why you can't seem to THINK about it.
ask Brian H next time you see him?

xx

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by pilgrim*
not aiming to offend the Iluminati, just being very Simple

[emuthreat 2837]

Okay, I guess I get the disconnect here.  I suppose I was working on the assumption of a base built out of HESCO concertainer barriers, and that the point of entry would be the weakest part of the bulwarks--you know, the rule of thumb for pretty much every other structure that has ever existed, ever...

I'm glad we got that settled.  I hope we can agree, that for all practical purposes, we will not be discussing a base made with a picket fence and a steel framed gate with steel cladding, as that is a ridiculous proposition and a purposefully poor example to choose for a denial of entry discussion.

For clarity, and I guess part of your Standalone Remedial Education, tents act as a solid object, and will stop a vehicle dead in its tracks at this point.  Players can glitch through tents and between them under certain circumstances, and it appears that no amount of gunfire or grenade detonation will damage either the tents or their contents.  I understand that this could change in the future, but for the time being,  tents are solid objects, cannot be locked, and are impermeable on all surfaces except the designed entry.  AFAIK, tents CANNOT be destroyed, they can only be emptied and despawned, at this time.

FWIW, I have never seen a ruined tent, and would suspect this only to be possible if a player was shot while wearing it as a backpack; and I have no idea if a ruined tent could still be deployed, whether it could accept items into the inventory, or if it would still serve as a physical barrier.

What I would like for you to consider, in regards to the obvious consequence of player placed object degradation, is what happens to ruined items and player placed objects; and how long the inevitable result of ruining an object is delayed before said object is made irrelevant.
Like I said, I have never seen a ruined tent, perhaps I will try to make one here this afternoon to play with for a while

I do not know if you are saying that a player with a machine gun 500 rounds of belted ammunition, or a player with 5 grenades, or a single V3S cargo truck should be able to severely damage a HESCO to the point that it would immediately cease to server as a barrier to entry; or that once ruined, they will despawn.
That is a balancing issue, which can be solved by adding a zero or two to any aspect of base wall structures that can bee too easily abused.

I think many of us are more concerned with what systems will be in place to complete the concept of basebuilding, rather than how current mechanics can be abused to negate any future additions to basebuilding provisions.

 

What I do know, is that you go quite a bit out of the way to avoid directly saying what you are trying to say; it is unnecessary, annoying, and impedes any meaningful discussion.

It also comes off as intentionally condescending and dickish; which contrasts wonderfully with your apparent lack of contemporary knowledge regarding the subject at hand.

 

Perhaps if you asked clear questions, you would get clear answers. Perhaps if you took any time in the last year to play the game and learn the current basebuilding mechanics, much of your "contributions" to this discussion would not be necessary.

 

[Sqeezorz 839]

my Little coment .... watch self:

Edit: in my opinion are a single grenade to less for destroy a Wall (like at prison !).. one or two grenades per stage ok (pristine/worn/damaged/badly damanged and then ruined) or grenades are very rare.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Sqeezorz

[pilgrim* 3514]

1 hour ago, emuthreat said:

FWIW, I have never seen a ruined tent, and would suspect this only to be possible if a player was shot while wearing it as a backpack; and I have no idea if a ruined tent could still be deployed, whether it could accept items into the inventory, or if it would still serve as a physical barrier.

Found one yesterday, Official Hive.. standing. Nothing in it.. looked pretty cr@p

 

1 hour ago, emuthreat said:

dickish

missed the point, of course.. I cant say it simply enough because you have already a fixed idea of "what is a base and how it works"
You got this fixed idea from 100 games, NOT from DayZ. You have played DayZ enough to know that.
- so I'll drop out of this non-discussion right now and let you sort yourself out.
I don't like CURRENT THIS SINGLE ACCEPTED common "base" concept as it already exists in 150+  popular simplistic <<FPS BASE-BUILDING>> games.

WHY ?
- because they are all the BLOODY SAME

is that hard to understand?

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by pilgrim*
- checking definitions of 'Afghan terrorists', 'dickish' & 'sense of humour'

[sneakydude 480]

You Pilgrim are not completely incorrect. We do have 150 different games that use the same concept of base building. We can clearly see they, the devs follow a simple guideline.

This is all mechanics and coding, balance etc... to make something completely different then other base building games.

I would sorta clarify some of our intentions are based off of real life damage systems. What if i threw a frag at that wall, would it simply fall? would it explode etc... Which can be adjusted with coding, graphic animations and hit box control.

Yet we see the basic animations, simply disappear or fall as a complete object. Nobody for years really has changed that.

 

As far as the way, the devs code or make base building features for us? i hope it is as real as it can get.

To lock a base down by access code, you can not break it, well Meh boring.

That is just me though.

 

[philbur 476]

4 hours ago, Sqeezorz said:

my Little coment .... watch self:

Edit: in my opinion are a single grenade to less for destroy a Wall (like at prison !).. one or two grenades per stage ok (pristine/worn/damaged/badly damanged and then ruined) or grenades are very rare.

Meh...Don't want to sound like I'm trolling you...but a grenade will not "destroy" a wall, for the most part. It is primarily a weapon used to concuss and injure enemies via fragmentation. There are several variants that have more specific applications, but for general breaching there is really no substitute for Shaped Thermite\C4, RPGs, or Det Cord. These should absolutely be rare (if not impossible) to find and should be RUINED if they get exposed to rain. If I found a satchel charge, for example...the LAST thing I would do is stuff it in my backpack, lest the rotten detonator go off prematurely!

Maybe a good option would be small boxes of primers (blasting caps, for example) that would be found realistically within the civilian areas as well as military camps\vehicles. These, combined with common chemical compounds (found on farms) can be just as effective for breaching and anti-personnel devices. (IEDs, for lack of a better expression)

I hope that the devs spend a bit of time at a real demo range (like they have at the small-arms ranges) to better understand the applications and limitations of the various East Bloc, NATO, and civilian explosives and devices.

(This is a retired Armored Crewman and EOD service member talking)

[philbur 476]

1 hour ago, sneakydude said:

You Pilgrim are not completely incorrect. We do have 150 different games that use the same concept of base building. We can clearly see they, the devs follow a simple guideline.

This is all mechanics and coding, balance etc... to make something completely different then other base building games.

I would sorta clarify some of our intentions are based off of real life damage systems. What if i threw a frag at that wall, would it simply fall? would it explode etc... Which can be adjusted with coding, graphic animations and hit box control.

Yet we see the basic animations, simply disappear or fall as a complete object. Nobody for years really has changed that.

 

As far as the way, the devs code or make base building features for us? i hope it is as real as it can get.

To lock a base down by access code, you can not break it, well Meh boring.

That is just me though.

 

It would take some seriously serious development time to get this stuff "right" for SA.

When I first bounced around Cherno and Elektro a few years ago I always thought that having the ability to "barricade" buildings would be about as much "base building" as I felt I needed...and I guess I still feel that way.

Following this conversation reminds me just how hard it is going to be for the team to find a common ground that will be balanced enough for the majority of the player base.

You guys have made all the arguments already, but one.... How about NO base "structure" building? I see the value in providing us players with the ability to make it difficult for other players to take what you have from you...but the idea of established "bases" just sounds too much like a Meta-feature that might be better off as a Mod. (or at least just as a private server thing).

Barricaded windows, doors, booby traps, and maybe log\vehicle barriers...but in my opinion...anything beyond these rudimentary impediments and I fear that the PVE and Infected elements will get lost.

Arguments that support watch towers, locks, and fortifications are all a really cool idea that I HOPE will work out....but this would polarize the overall player base and I HOPE it wont turn into (as you guys have already pointed out) barren servers with huge bases crammed into all the strategic locations across the map...just like the big DayZ Mod...Mods.

Worst case, I suppose, would be to have to create a MOD that would strip away the "excessive" base building features if people just want to "survive", but I always thought THAT was one of the core pillars the devs were trying to maintain.

Gonna be fun to see what happens to the in-game "feel" when this stuff gets released either way!

[Guy Smiley 534]

I see two sides to this whole base building thing.  One group wants to create sky fortresses and not use the already abandoned buildings to setup their bases and the other group wants to use the buildings already in game and just be able to barricade them.  I for one do not want the whole Rust/Ark base building

Edited September 7, 2017 by Guy Smiley

[Komalt 27]

On 8/28/2017 at 7:59 AM, OscarBlindeye said:

Hello, just wondering if base building will be encorperated in hived servers? If so won't players just be able to ghost inside of people's bases simply by switching servers?

Unfortunately no matter how you cut it.  Hopping servers is just a bad and unsolvable issue when it comes to PvP fighting.  This is why non-hived private servers are going to be servers that will have more realism and less exploited tactics such as server hopping for player advantage reasons.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Komalt

[MrAerospace 87]

Ghosting into a base is a solvable problem.

1) Find a way to alter login co-ordinates, it should be limited to within a certain distance (albeit a fairly large distance) from the player's logout co-ordinates.
2) Randomize it at all times. You don't want players to learn a meta where if they've been teleported as they log in, it means there's a base/camp/stash nearby.
3) Design regions on the server where logins are restricted. If the randomization system generates co-ordinates within a region, it tries again until it succeeds.
4) Assign those regions to a tent/bed/camp/whatever.
5) Also assign those regions to players themselves. If the player logs out inside their own defined region, the login co-ordinates are not randomized.
    - You don't want to be teleported out of your own base every time you login.
6) Make the restricted regions pretty large. For example: 50m radius.

[emuthreat 2837]

8 hours ago, pilgrim* said:

Found one yesterday, Official Hive.. standing. Nothing in it.. looked pretty cr@p

But could you put anything in the inventory of the ruined tent?  I didn't test ruined tent today, went to The Village.  You should too.  It may help to develop an understanding of how basebuilding a works in DayZ right now.

It is a complete clusterfuck without a controlled entry point.  People can easily sneak in and rummage around for a disguise while picking off players and changing clothes in between.  It's still pretty fun, but a controlled gate would serve a valuable purpose.

Didn't mean to run you off; I was just getting tired of all the BS and riddles instead of having a clear and concise discussion about basebuilding.  I didn't think that it was too much to ask.

 

Things I do know about basebuilding:  Tents and barrels are a thing, and will likely continue to be.  Craftable storage chests and buried storage will be a thing.  Basebuilding materials currently planned will allow wood and sheet metal walls, wood towers of a certain maximum height, HESCO barriers, barbed wire, electrification, floodlights and generators, and a gate of some sort.  Barricading buildings has also been suggested to have been in the works.

If you can find your way to stating specifically what it is that you don't like about the direction things appear to be going, and feel kind enough to articulate reasons for those beliefs, I would be interested to hear about that.

I would be very curious to hear why anyone thinks that a a persistent open world MMO set in a zombie apocalypse full of roving gangs of murderous bandits, should not allow players to organize people, vehicles, and materials towards fortifying and defending a chosen area.  It kinda makes the genre...

[IMT 3190]

I think breaking into bases should depend on how well "fortified" the base is. You can already imagine if someone spent 100 hours working on a base and someone walks up on your base and destroys it in 3 seconds, it will be very frustrating. This would lead to nobody using the base building features which is one of the important aspects for a (post-apocalyptic) survival game, in my opinion. But neither should it be impossible to break into someones base.

My solution to this? Make it possible to hide or camouflage your bases very well. If you put some effort into it, you will be able to hide things in real life to a point where someone has literally to collide with the object in order to find it.

We all know how the developers think about base building. The question is, how will they implement it? A lot of arguments given in this thread is pure a balancing issue. I'm confident that the developers have the right idea about base building (or barricading an already existing structure). It's not a secret that the developers are enthusiastic themselves and can't wait themselves to get their hand on the final product.

All we can do is wait, see and then give our feedback. Speculating is pointless because the only thing we have seen are loose things and we're making a conclusion based on the little we've seen. We will have to wait until everything gets mixed together and the bigger picture is clear to us.

6 hours ago, philbur said:

Meh...Don't want to sound like I'm trolling you...but a grenade will not "destroy" a wall, for the most part. It is primarily a weapon used to concuss and injure enemies via fragmentation. There are several variants that have more specific applications, but for general breaching there is really no substitute for Shaped Thermite\C4, RPGs, or Det Cord. These should absolutely be rare (if not impossible) to find and should be RUINED if they get exposed to rain. If I found a satchel charge, for example...the LAST thing I would do is stuff it in my backpack, lest the rotten detonator go off prematurely!

Maybe a good option would be small boxes of primers (blasting caps, for example) that would be found realistically within the civilian areas as well as military camps\vehicles. These, combined with common chemical compounds (found on farms) can be just as effective for breaching and anti-personnel devices. (IEDs, for lack of a better expression)

I hope that the devs spend a bit of time at a real demo range (like they have at the small-arms ranges) to better understand the applications and limitations of the various East Bloc, NATO, and civilian explosives and devices.

(This is a retired Armored Crewman and EOD service member talking)

The only way for explosives like grenades or bombs to destroy walls and what not, is if there is no way the pressure can escape. This is something the Germans misjudged when bombing Stalingrad completely to the ground. At least, they would think that would happen. Instead once one or two bombs where dropped on a building, some walls were blown out which created ways for the pressure to escape. This meant that with each bomb, the building got less and less damaged.

As a result, Stalingrad was left with half destroyed buildings making it a sniper heaven.

[sneakydude 480]

We will have glitches into bases. They will wiggle, force a glitch and sneak into a base. It will happen, until patched. Exactly like Arma 3 Exile where it pushes you out of the building and pops up a warning unable to enter... then posts a screen shot, and a info package to the devs to investigate and ban you from the server.

 

Wouldn't life be so easy if we had this?

[Sqeezorz 839]

@philbur i accept your "critic" over destroying. The videos were only meant to show that the Devs can add objects to the map that respond to "Physical Influence". A wall burst with simple grenades is really not very realistic, therefore my edit. Since there is no other "explosive charge" (in the moment) ingame, I've commented so. (more realistic would be a barrel with a full Casoline canister and 2-3 Garden Lime ... the whole is then ignited with a grenade in the barrel ^ ^ Boam only go fast to cover).

 

 

Again to the video, Wall can  be destroyed, so it can also be the tents or barrels can be destroyed .. it is at the Devs what they allow.

Another point on which I have yet no real answer. Why, will we build bases? For fun ? Out of boredom ? Because there are things or mechanics in the world of Chernarus that will almost "force" us to have a base (eg because of diseases, or animals, or certain infected, or other players, or because the weather in the domestic fcuking can be hard, or Seasons, or because eating will be the greatest concern).

sry, but I have never come to a point where I had to say: hey, I need a base, or hey we should find people to build at a "certain point" a base. Pure because of PVP I would never build a base .... in any case never on a public or official server .... only on a private for a defined purpose.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Sqeezorz

[IMT 3190]

9 minutes ago, Sqeezorz said:

Another point on which I have yet no real answer. Why, will we build bases? For fun ? Out of boredom ? Because there are things or mechanics in the world of Chernarus that will almost "force" us to have a base (eg because of diseases, or animals, or certain infected, or other players, or because the weather in the domestic fcuking can be hard, or Seasons, or because eating will be the greatest concern).

sry, but I have never come to a point where I had to say: hey, I need a base, or hey we should find people to build at a "certain point" a base. Pure because of PVP I would never build a base .... in any case never on a public or official server .... only on a private for a defined purpose.

So you have a place to call home. A place where you can go to after a day of doing what ever and rest. I almost always logout at our base so esentially everytime I play, I go home.

[MrAerospace 87]

Ok, but how long will you continue to play the game if every time you log out, someone finds your base and steals/destroys everything you've collected?

[Mantasisg 172]

Just make a possibility to make bases less vulnerable. It is hard to get a car going, should be hard to open a crate with strong lock or enter a fancy base with strong locked gates.... Thats it.

Anyone remember a teaser where it was announced a feature to be able to hide crates under ground ? 


Another option - clans mode, so there would always be some players from a clan online.

However, even if you would be online guarding the base alone it would not matter. You just would get stealthed.... But first of all you would have to wait a few days for that to happen. Sounds fun.

DayZ needs gameplay which gathers players together, not something motivating for everyone to be lone wolfs playing in next to 0 population servers.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Mantasisg

[philbur 476]

4 hours ago, Sqeezorz said:

Again to the video, Wall can  be destroyed, so it can also be the tents or barrels can be destroyed .. it is at the Devs what they allow.

Heh heh.... If I was on the Dev Team I would push for a trip to the Demo Range to "research" the possible explosives available in the game...Blowing stuff up for fun?...without getting shot at?.... Hell Yeah!

Gimme a litre of gasoline and one of those precious barrels and say goodbye to your little fortess, guys.

(Fastest Land Animal on the Planet?....An Explosives Ordinance Disposal Tech on his first BAD day at the office!)