Jump to content
MrAerospace

Shared Bases

Recommended Posts

  The current state of base-building (across so many MMO games, including DayZ) revolves around the idea of individual ownership; Individual players and small groups building and defending their own bases. As we've all seen, it's fraught with problems, and no matter how the developers try to solve it, the meta always seems to go into a death spiral: base raiding replaces all semblance of any other game-play.

  I want to see a paradigm shift. Rather than thinking of bases in terms of individual ownership, we should think of them as sort of publicly owned utility. Instead of the thousands of bases being left unattended when their owners eventually log-out, as per the current model, this idea limits the amount of bases on each server, but shares them out between independent players and groups so these bases can remain occupied throughout the continuous rotation of players on the server.

  This means a total rethink of the way bases are managed on the server, as well as how items and objects function within the base environment:
How do you organize and control the large number of independent players that may/may not simultaneously be using the same base?
How do you handle communal assets like generators, fires, lights, barricades?
How do you handle communal containers and/or vehicles (for things like water/petrol/firewood, etc.)?
How do you handle personal containers so you don't end up with a base completely full of tents, barrels and vehicles?
Could you perhaps have AI characters guard the base if/when no-one is online?

 I  could go on for ages with this while the idea is still fresh in my head, but I think I should open it up to discussion first. What do you guys think: Good idea or not?



   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot to say, but I think it'd become a very long-winded ramble so I'll condense it for now.

I don't think it's a problem to be solved by the game/devs, but the mindset of all of those individual people.
Do they want a "communal space?" Do they even want to work together with random people?
Does it conflict with their other wants, like PvP? Would they attack/grief other people in the same camp?
Does that mean we need a "safe zone" for shared bases? Are people going to camp the border?

Small groups/clans can already pool resources into the same area together. How is this different?

Edited by Dancing.Russian.Man
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we agree on a nomenclature here? I'm already getting confused, and can see this conversation getting very frustrating if we don't stick to the same definitions.
Please add more or offer corrections where you see fit, I'll try to keep it updated, but for now a quick iteration:

Groups/Persons
- Player/s:          Fairly obviously us; real people who play the game. "Individual" is also appropriate.
- Character/s:    Our onscreen avatar. (It's supposed to have a finite life.)
- Community:     The collective group of all DayZ players. Also known as the 'player base'
- Clan/s:             A group of friends/team that plays DayZ together.
- Faction/s:        A collective group of Characters operating a base.

Base Assets:
- Container      Placeable container objects, such as tent and barrels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two types of community = concentrated civic centers (= bases?) as they are ATM with 6.2.
Just ideas-material on how players interact in a deliberately closed & guarded small-space environment : re. "publicly owned utility"

https://forums.dayz.com/topic/237306-my-visit-to-the-un-trade-center/

https://forums.dayz.com/topic/237456-how-messed-up-the-village-community-is/

 

 

Edited by pilgrim*
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think it's a problem to be solved by the game/devs, but the mindset of all of those individual people.

I kinda knew the "'player vs developer' responsibility argument" was going to surface pretty quickly. I had actually planned to head it off in the original post but it would have added to the wall of text, so I left it out. I may regret that decision, I don't particularly want the topic to veer off too far on that tangent.

Suffice to say, I am of an opposite opinion. I believe it is the responsibility of the devs to design the in game tools and mechanics that promote healthy meta-gaming. What I've seen so far of all these open-world MMO's is the same laissez-faire attitude which leads to ad-hoc triage: Bases absolutely everywhere, unbreakable walls/doors and locks, unlootable containers, numpads...

Quote

Do they want a "communal space?"

Here's why I think we need the nomenclature. I'm not sure what YOU mean by a "communal space"?
I think of a communal base/faction container as something like this:

4ijFtm6.jpg

I mean, who wouldn't want a communal base/faction container for something so menial as firewood?
Or maybe something like this as an upgrade to barrels for water storage? 

800px-Empty_IBC.jpg

Quote

Do they even want to work together with random people?

Take again the examples above. Anyone could happily go out and collect firewood ALONE, and still be contributing to the 'faction'/base in ways that work for them. However, IBC's are a pain to move large distances, and would need a truck and at minimum two people to collect.
So long as there are a variety of tasks that can be performed, then joining a faction caters for both individuals who don't want to work with randoms and those that do.

Quote

Does it conflict with their other wants, like PvP? Would they attack/grief other people in the same camp?
Does that mean we need a "safe zone" for shared bases?

Attacking and griefing others in a base happens already. I would like to avoid a 'safe zone' situation if that could be done, but I think certain inbuilt laws/rules need to exist to discourage that sort of toxic behaviour nonetheless. (I'd give anything if bases had the same AI guards as Ammu-nation does)
I'd go even further by saying unprovoked attacks on faction members OUTSIDE the base should even be included. We've got functioning radios now, this would be the perfect reason to use them. A quick squelch on the radio could provoke an automated animation sequence (touching a shoulder, taking a knee, waving, etc) or, when a player is nearby, but out of vision, maybe a quick radio squelch would let you know the other guy is a friendly. 

Quote

Are people going to camp the border?

When would that ever not be a thing?

Quote

Small groups/clans can already pool resources into the same area together. How is this different?

Yes, they can. Notice how many bases end up on each server when each individual clan chooses to do that on their own though? I'm aiming to find a way to prevent hundred of those bases popping up.

Edited by MrAerospace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pilgrim* said:

Here are two types of community = concentrated civic centers (= bases?) as they are ATM with 6.2.
Just ideas-material on how players interact in a deliberately closed & guarded small-space environment : re. "publicly owned utility"

https://forums.dayz.com/topic/237306-my-visit-to-the-un-trade-center/

https://forums.dayz.com/topic/237456-how-messed-up-the-village-community-is/

Thanks, perfect examples of a disorganised/chaotic faction (The Village) and an orderly faction (The UN Trade Centre) and seeing these two videos juxtaposed was one of the reasons why I started this topic in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not your traditional MMO that you're thinking of.  There will be no player housing, locked crates/stash/bank in vanilla.  Most likely when modding comes out you will get to achieve to build your dream home and surround it with walls and pretty flowers without the threat of players being able to access it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guy Smiley said:

This is not your traditional MMO that you're thinking of.  There will be no player housing, locked crates/stash/bank in vanilla.  Most likely when modding comes out you will get to achieve to build your dream home and surround it with walls and pretty flowers without the threat of players being able to access it.

This is an interesting statement because this raises the question... What is base building going to be like in DayZ? But the bigger question should be... Will it be fun and worth while? I see things like no item security, the volatile nature of your base, backstabbers and disorganization like in the Village and it makes me skeptical on the direction base building will go.

Edited by DannyDog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DannyDog said:

This is an interesting statement because this raises the question... What is base building going to be like in DayZ? But the bigger question should be... Will it be fun and worth while? I see things like no item security, the volatile nature of your base, backstabbers and disorganization like in the Village and it makes me skeptical on the direction base building will go.

Well, from the very vague information that's been around, base building isn't going to be like Rust or Minecraft where you need to go out and harvest materials.  From what I've read, base building is going to be barricading the already established houses, town/city entrances, making camps etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so here's my first attempt at defining my ideas into something tangible. Hope you enjoy:

THE FACTIONS

   To avoid servers getting overcrowded with bases, you need to limit their numbers. However, within the current system if you limit the number of bases to X; the first X players/clans on the server will get their base at the expense of everyone else. How do you think that will affect the amount of base-raiding that occurs?


   So, to make a limited base idea viable, you need to limit the amount of bases without excluding people from using them. That necessitates a base sharing system. The question is, how do you implement base sharing in a functional way that caters to multiple groups AND individual players in a way that reduces all the player induced problems that come with it?

   The first thing to do is unite all of the same bases users into a collective group under a single set of rules. It doesn't seem appropriate to call the group a clan, so I looked at games that did something similar, and ARMA 3: Breaking Point (BP) came to mind. The way BP handled multiple groups with slight variations in their rules was interesting, so the notion/term 'faction' seemed appropriate for DayZ.
   The next step is to create the laws and punishments. Beginning with what behaviours need to be stopped or curtailed, so far I have three fairly loosely associated 'crimes':

  • Aggression/Murder. (Both inside and out of the base.)
  • Theft/Destruction of Property.
  • Griefing/Harassment. (Handcuffing, inciting others to aggression)

   However, when it came to setting laws for each of these, BP recognized that players and teams enjoyed playing the game in different ways; some wanted to be cannibals, others a military group, still other as survivalists, etc. Each of these groups would have different variations of laws and punishments amongst themselves. So for now, I'm leaving the laws open ended. What would crime and punishment be amongst cannibals/survivalists/military groups/etc.?
   Also, a big problem I'm having is trying to figure out how to enforce any of these laws. It's not wise to let faction members be the judge, jury and executioners, (See the Village videos above.) Nor is it much fun to have such strict security that it grinds game-play to a halt (See the =UN= trade center). I am constantly drawn back the idea of AI being the perfect guards/sentries and law enforcers within a faction; I think GTA5's Ammu-nation store clerks being by far the best example of a no-nonsense approach to preventing stupid behaviour.

   The last thing to address (for now) is how characters can join a faction. Leaving should simply be packing up your stuff and walking out, but what about joining? You don't want to just let anyone through the front gates, they might just be there to steal stuff or even learn the base layout for a later raid...so how about having an initiation task/mission? An interesting side-note, if an initiation task was needed every time a player respawns, you'd prevent them from immediately picking up where they left off, at least creating some meaning to perma-death. (I intend to address this issue even more, further down the track)

 

Edited by MrAerospace
Formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In every town, village, castle, boma, walled city, krak, hill fort, or inhabited enclosure on earth since time began = IRL =  arguments, melees, fighting, murder, or massacre, revolution; has broken out, leaders have been overthrown, the innocent have been shot or trodden underfoot, invaders climb over the walls at night, friends stab each other in the back, looting theft & death appear without warning,  or war has passed through and left the place an abandoned smoking ruin.   - just saying..  Are there exceptions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your point? That no laws should exist? If you wanna go down that path, IRL laws governing good and bad communal behaviour existed way before we stupid monkeys ever turned up and started messing up the planet with our towns, villages, castles, bomas, walled cities, kraks, hill forts, or inhabited enclosures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MrAerospace said:

 IRL laws governing good and bad communal behaviour existed way before we stupid monkeys ever turned up

hmm.. did these IRL laws you speak of apply to the stupid monkeys way before they existed? Are we talking pre-neanderthal here, or the ancient laws of the cosmos in general?
How & where did these laws come from (I can't find ANY reference to them) ? Our 17-18 century (er..) "social" philosophers (Bacon, Hume, Kant, Locke) .. (let's just skip over Confucius, Freud, Marcuse, Bakunin, Jung and Plato, ok?) - they came way AFTER the stupid monkeys turned up.


IRL can YOU point to any ONE semi-durable community which has not defended itself against other communities, has not made war on other communities, and has not suffered from internal dissent, civil war, revolution, empire, theft, slavery, injustice, riot, violent regime change, invasion, betrayal, murder ?   I mean of course, any group of human beings that have existed in social close proximity at any time in .. say..  the last 4000 years?  Anywhere?  (let's say 4000 to stay 'recent' and historical OK?). Any examples?  Socrates ended up drinking poison, ya know. Caesar was stabbed . etc (plenty of etcs where those came from). Any exceptions?

Of course your base problem is the enforcement of property rights (gear, stashes) and in what way the game itself (not the players) will lock or block or control "ownership" on behalf of the players.  Eg.  - here is a barrel (not hidden) : who has the right to open THIS barrel and who does not? Can it be broken open? How? - these are pre-set game decisions, not player decisions.

Rule 66 : Players will ALWAYS sooner or later do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they CAN DO . This is the only certainty.  In DayZ this is "the human condition".  It is what DayZ is about.   Are you looking for built-in gameplay rules or for an ideal society? 

Serious question, no disrespect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shared Bases:

On a modded Server = Ok.

On Vanilla = Not Ok.

I hope on Vanilla all things are possible, no restrictions, no rules, with all things and mechanics. Pure DayZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, sorry, but you do go a very long way around the question. Let's not get bogged down with philosophy and just stick to the topic.

1) I'm suggesting internal rules for factions only. Raids and attacks are another topic for another day.

2) This idea would concentrate a lot of players together into the same base, and not all at the same time either. I think it's safe to say that the players themselves would be incapable of upholding/enforcing self imposed rules. So, yes I think any base/factional rules would need to be built-in, just to make gameplay functional.

3) Asking for suggestions on these rules, is where I think the mix-up occurred. I was getting ahead of myself a little, but I was thinking that some of the in-built rules could have some variations to them, to suit different types of factions. For example, a set of rules for a relatively peaceful faction might not be the same for a faction of cannibals. I mean, the former might impose a "fine" (handing over some loot) for breaking the rules, while cannibals might just shoot someone in the leg for the same crime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MrAerospace said:

Ok, sorry, but you do go a very long way around the question. Let's not get bogged down with philosophy and just stick to the topic.

1) I'm suggesting internal rules for factions only. Raids and attacks are another topic for another day.

2) This idea would concentrate a lot of players together into the same base, and not all at the same time either. I think it's safe to say that the players themselves would be incapable of upholding/enforcing self imposed rules. So, yes I think any base/factional rules would need to be built-in, just to make gameplay functional.

3) Asking for suggestions on these rules, is where I think the mix-up occurred. I was getting ahead of myself a little, but I was thinking that some of the in-built rules could have some variations to them, to suit different types of factions. For example, a set of rules for a relatively peaceful faction might not be the same for a faction of cannibals. I mean, the former might impose a "fine" (handing over some loot) for breaking the rules, while cannibals might just shoot someone in the leg for the same crime.

you mean (eg) - if you have a pass to Base X you can get in and out freely - and no one with a pass to Base X can attack each other INSIDE Base X

This would have to be a very simple system.

It would not be possible to stop players in the base exchanging gear or just stealing some other person's gear stash   - With a "non agression pass" you couldn't stop this from happening. (in case of stealing gear, the players involved would have to go fight about it outside the base)

Would this "pass" be a physical in-game object like a key or a pass card  that the base builder could copy and give to people he wanted to?

if it was an ingame object people could steal it or loot it from a victim outside the base, but with the pass they couldn't attack anyone inside the base. And the pass would have to be be un-droppable inside the base.

Kind of thing?

Can a copied pass be copied again and given to another player, or is this a "one boss" base, where only one person can "make" passes?

If you hit someone over the head outside the base and took their pass they wouldn't e able to get back in.

If you obtained a pass you could loot the base and no one could stop you until you left.

*

< IMO any special rules for a faction in Base X (- non aggression - or - do what you like - or - no cannibals - would be difficult to implement in-game, this would have to be a tick-list to be simple enough  and even 'possible' to implement). Those rules would be included with the Base X entry card. >  I don't know if the BI devs would go for this - or if it would catch on with players. Moot.

 

..hmm ?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Membership of a faction would not be in the form of an in game (physical) object. As much as that would help recognition between other players, it could too easily be stolen and reused by others. It would have to be something that cannot be removed from the character, like a tattoo (as an example). 

2) Players should be able to exchange gear if they like...as for stealing from another player's stash, I was thinking of using character based instances for this, so that theft from a personal stash is impossible. (And if it is a character based instance, it can be removed upon a character's death...preventing players from running straight back to their stash) 

3) Membership of a faction would have to be divorced from any individual player's discretion, because if we're sharing a base over the entire server, the original faction founder/bosses will eventually have to log off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×