base destroyable?

[Arthur Dubrovka 376]

1 hour ago, emuthreat said:

Stronger locks and reproducible keys would be one good way to share base access.

This would one believable mechanic. For example.

1 hour ago, emuthreat said:

At the very least, the time needed to demolish a wall should be about 10 minutes.

I don't know really. Maybe it shouldn't be like "I have an axe and now I KNOW I just need to hold left mouse button for 10 minutes and I'm in". Maybe different tools have different chances to break through. Sledgehammer 15%, hammer 5% and so on. There will always be the chance you get the Honeypot but you never know. And maybe the tools get ruined very fast.

 

1 hour ago, emuthreat said:

As far as ownership mechanics, I don't really see a need, or a way to realistically implement it.

It don't has to be a buddah belly. Something believable for shure. A small bulletin board. A self-made little office or a workbench, I don't know. Something where informations and status of your base is aggregated. I don't know how they plan the decay of bases but I think they should be repaired from time to time. Do you remember those first Arma 2 Mods where you had to check every single wall if it decays in the next few hours? Oh man... not very comfortable gameplay.

A opportunity to check the state of your base and the ownerships doesn't seem to unrealistic for me. But I doubt something like this would be implemented.

[scriptfactory 620]

The bases in Exile mod for Arma 3 are almost perfect. A bit wonky but they mostly work. The keypad mechanics, the impenetrable walls (necessary), the storage system, the maintenance mechanics, etc. I barricaded up a house and really lived there with a friend.

The problem is, DayZ feels different. There are no NPCs, no missions, no reason to have a base besides RP...

Also, realistic damage to bases means you can't go offline. I don't see it working without some extensive and powerful defense systems (a la Rust).

[pilgrim* 3514]

6 hours ago, emuthreat said:

.  But hey, somebody's gotta put in the work for salty cunts to come and despawn, amirite?

Most players who want BASES - want bases so they can RAID each others BASES - face the facts.   <good grief>

[INomadZ 211]

It feels like some of you want super realistic mechanics like in real world which is impossible in this time and age. The best you can do is to join a local Air Soft Club/Events and attend Tournaments like Silo does. And go Hardcore Camping from time to time. You can't achieve certain things/features/mechanics some people wish to be in DayZ, unfortunately. If you are not disabled and healthy enough to go out and do survival stuff there are plenty of options available. Otherwise, you have to deal with the limits modern day games have. There will be always game or immersion breaking bugs/glitches, etc. OR maybe just suspend your bodies thru cryonics and wake up after 1000 or so years to play super realistic survival sim? :)

[Guy Smiley 534]

Bases are not and were never meant to be impenetrable fortresses.  Not sure why people keep assuming it's their safe spot.  You don't want you base to get raided?  Don't build a giant beacon that says, "HEY LOOK AT MY SUPER DUPER AWESOME BASE!!"  Create it way off the beaten path where people never venture   Keep it small and have a few stashes around.  Again, why are people assuming they should be able to store enough gear to outfit an army is beyond me

[emuthreat 2837]

10 hours ago, Arthur Dubrovka said:

I don't know really. Maybe it shouldn't be like "I have an axe and now I KNOW I just need to hold left mouse button for 10 minutes and I'm in". Maybe different tools have different chances to break through. Sledgehammer 15%, hammer 5% and so on. There will always be the chance you get the Honeypot but you never know. And maybe the tools get ruined very fast.

I remember spitballing ideas on here months ago about what kinds of ways to break into bases might be implemented, and the idea came up of needing multiple tools to successfully breech a base.  Something like the sledgehammer would be almost indestructible, but very inefficient at doing and real concentrated damage.
It would make sense if a crowbar (also very hard to damage from normal use )could be the most efficient tool for loosening up the first layers, with an axe as a less efficient and more easily damaged/consumed option.  Maybe something like using a shovel to undermine the posts, and then use a sledgehammer to knock the wall down would also be appropriate.
I do a fair amount of demolition IRL and almost always start with a prybar and then a sawzall to weaken key points, then use either a sledge or a 3-4 lb cross peen hammer like the ones found in game.  I never use an axe, because good ones are somewhat expensive, and easily ruined from misuse.  But a splitting maul...  Lots of possibilities there...
It would be good if they could somehow code in a methodology, or order of operations, with scalable success rates based on the tools used and the order in which they are used.
Start off demolishing a sheet metal clad wall with an axe, and you should expect to lose some blood in the process without heavy working gloves.

At any rate, standing there spamming a tool should either take a very long time, or destroy the tool before too much meaningful progress is made; requiring the breeching party to come well-prepared.
As it stands, demolishing base elements is much too easy.

I think you are onto something with a base bulletin board.  Makes me wonder how difficult it would be to make a board where the person who erects it can add other players to the list, by having both players present and click the same prompt at roughly the same time.  Not sure what the utility would be though...

6 hours ago, pilgrim* said:

Most players who want BASES - want bases so they can RAID each others BASES - face the facts.   <good grief>

Yep, I tend to agree, depending on your definition of what "raid" means.  Breech entry, take as much as you can carry, rearrange the furniture, so to speak; maybe ruin a few things for fun.  All part of a good endgame play loop.
But being able to completely erase dozens of man-hours of work in a matter of minutes, well that's a different story.  The concept of despawning is just so...  unrealistic.  
Make the destructive players have to take their time; build a fire, put items into the fire until they are ruined, remove the hot items safely or take damage, to make room for the rest.  Hell, even take out the stockpile of firewood in the base and build a REALLY BIG FIRE to destroy more stuff at once.

My main issue is how easy it is for a player to abuse game mechanics and take an entire base out of existence in a matter of minutes.

For a little perspective, I've been jointly responsible for building, defending, stocking, organizing, and continually rebuilding a very public base on a very popular server for over a year now.  We counted it as a major success to have the base still standing when the EU players come back online, and a fuckin' miracle to not have to completely rebuild for more than a week at a time.  It takes a lot of effort to maintain a large base, especially when there are periods of a few hours when nobody can stand guard.  Even with a 24 hour guard regimen, all it takes is one successful attacker to kill the guard(s) and throw everything on the ground and get far enough away for decay timers to activate before the night watchman can make it back from the coast.

Hell, I bought a second copy of the game, just so I could keep one on deck to log back in after running my coastal spawn partway back, and stick around hidden close enough for despawners to leave; and then go about the mundane chore of erecting all the tents and putting most of the good gear back in place for the next shift.

One of my most memorable moments in DayZ was arriving at base just minutes after all the EU players logged off for bed.  I had only a shotgun, and there were two people inside claiming to be people who I knew they were not.  I spent almost a half hour, creeping around the perimeter, taking sound shots through tents and metal walls, until they managed to hit me enough times to ruin my last 8 shells.  I had to leave to loot for ammo and heal up a bit.  I came back to find about half of the tents laying on the ground, as we got in the habit of painstakingly stuffing them full of bark or single stack of common ammo to frustrate despawners.
The funny part was that all of our clothing and gear tents had piles of ruined pants, vests, boots, helmets and jackets inside; as evidence of every shotgun blast that found it's way through the walls.
These fellas spent a half hour, ruining our stockpile of clothing by soaking up shotshells I was firing at them.  Even though they tried to despawn the base, I spent the next 20 minutes laughing to myself at every ruined article of clothing I found, while re-erecting all the tents they had tried to despawn.

 

Even though that was a particularly fun night for me, because of the comical way it played out, it is indicative of the biggest problem with DayZ persistence as it relates to basebuilding.  It is just too easy to play as a completely disruptive force. 
There is absolutely no balance regarding the time it takes to gather and organize materials for endgame play, and how much time and effort it takes to completely erase all of that progress.

If you plop down a couple tents in a grove of trees and come back from a Tisy run 4 hours later and find it all gone, it's reasonable that someone could have packed it all off to their own base
If a large group of cooperative players spent half a day and a collective 36 man-hours making a large base and it is gone in one hour without supervision, then that speaks to a major imbalance in the gameplay mechanics.

I have A LOT of experience with basebuilding.  From strings of solo-built stash networks, to small collaborative efforts that get big eventually, to a truly major undertaking in terms of DayZ basebuilding capabilities. I fully understand and accept that players will rob or destroy bases; it's all part of the game.
But there should be a balance, and heretofore, there just isn't.

And I hope you can understand, it's not just me.  There are scores of regular players on the private server I call home, who have their own bases and regular zones of control.
Come by at night, take a few tents, and all the best guns; eat all the food, poison the stored water stocks, etc. No problemo, it's just pat of the game.
Log on in the middle of the night, and erase the entire progress of two or three large groups--Every. Fucking. Night.  ...You gonna get blacklisted on that server.  It's unsporting, abuse of game mechanics; just generally being a dick for the schadenfreude.

It's a lot of work; for the server owners and admins, who have to process the reports; for the players who have to continually rebuild their bases every single fucking day; for the boots on the ground who have to record the incidents and check pulses and submit tickets with ironclad proof and timestamps.
And it is all unnecessary, because the game handles basebuilding in such a way that wanton destruction and glitch abuse is far easier than it should be.

And I think that is what is at the core of this discussion.  That basebuilding is not yet viable in a balanced manner.  The risk-to-reward scale favors destruction far more than organization.

I'm sure they can find an appropriate balance of effort required to make a base, compared to the effort and time required to completely erase it from the server. Spaghetti help us if they ever implement a good simulation of wildfire.

Edited November 16, 2018 by emuthreat

[Arthur Dubrovka 376]

3 hours ago, emuthreat said:

Even though that was a particularly fun night for me, because of the comical way it played out, it is indicative of the biggest problem with DayZ persistence as it relates to basebuilding.  It is just too easy to play as a completely disruptive force. 
There is absolutely no balance regarding the time it takes to gather and organize materials for endgame play, and how much time and effort it takes to completely erase all of that progress.

And I hope the devs take a look at all other survival games and mods to think twice about how to handle the problems which occurred at basebuilding. After 5 years of development I hope they did a little research :)

[pilgrim* 3514]

6 hours ago, emuthreat said:

The concept of bases despawning is just so...  unrealistic.  

(..cough..) I think that's a glitch in the game, ET..

So Bases are pointless on public servers? - because obviously ATM anyone can hop in inside them however strong the walls and gate  - And you think this is OK ? 
Do you think that's DELIBERATE POLICY on the part of BI ?   They are maybe doing this destroy any  possibility of playing base-defense games on public servers ?
Because if any player can hop into your base when you're not there, then it's NOT YOUR base..  it's just some place on the map with a lot of stuff lying around, AND it's easy to spot from far away.

So do you think BI need to FIX this big game-play problem ?
OR do you think public shard servers should be abandoned/stopped completely?  Is BI aiming for dumping the public hive and leaving just mods & totally private severs with no public severs anymore?

BI are VERY OBVIOUSLY focusing on the console market. (and no one can blame them for that).

So, most important - what is the opinion of console players on how to play BASES on the public hive ? 

Let's just look at the future and predict what is going to happen.

hmm?

 

     * * *   ; * * *     * * *     * * *

 

p.s. = between friends, E.T.  - you have played on ONE SERVER (with an Admin) for a year - YOU have a way of playing DayZ that you like - that's GOOD, I'm pleased for you.
And we all agree that glitches, hollow walls, cheats, etc should not be exploited - the game designers do their best to eliminate these as they are found.
BUT
We all ALSO KNOW the rules of warfare, scouting, resistance, melee, raids, foraging, contact, attack, battle, skirmish, regular & irregular forces  = the REAL WORLD RULES =  right back from ancient times.. And there is a LOT of this in DayZ.
RULE 1 = you do NOT attack the Enemy at their point of MAXIMUM FORCE.. you do not wait until they EXPECT YOU and are lined up behind their STRONG DEFENCES ..  you attack unexpectedly, you concentrate on their weaknesses, while they are asleep, or off duty or have their backs turned, when they are spread out, when they are soft, when points are unguarded, you destroy their supplies, you create confusion, you demoralize, you come by unexpected routs, you flank them, you raid, you steal and loot, you destroy their means of defense,  you capture, you snipe, you infiltrate, you interdict, you use their material against them, you destroy their supplies..you kill and destroy and take prisoners the SAFEST way you can to WIN & to SURVIVE  .. this is the baseline FACT of combat.

 

A fort - a BASE - is a Great Vulnerability for an "enemy" or any "unknown force" you come across right now. You can use their Base against THEM much much better than they can use it against you.

 

And this is REALLY TOTALLY STUPID  in a game like DayZ where more than half the players are mil. geared to the teeth and want to fight.  A base that could PROTECT you from those "bad nasty" players would be interesting, could be USEFUL .. jeez - that's why the Ancient Celts built HILL FORTS.. and every culture since then has done the same. If you have a "defensive structure" that you CAN NOT DEFEND then you are an IDIOT. And if an attacker does not make use of weaknesses then the attacker is an IDIOT.

If you claim you are "rebuilding society" then tell me -  in the IRL society you live in how many Tanks, Bunkers, Aircraft, Nuke submarines, Carriers, Missiles, ICBMs, do you have to DEFEND your "peaceful society"?.. if they were all built out of balsa wood, and anyone could steal them in the middle of the night, would they be useful? .. you'd feel a bit stupid, right ? 
So 3 starving Vikings with AKs hop into the middle of your base and kill you while you're making your tasty stew round the campfire...  that's a HELL of a WEAKNESS in the DESIGN of your FORTIFICATION, mate.  -  I'd MUCH rather be out in a tent hidden carefully in the woods.

I'd get those weaknesses of design seen to, if I were you  .. but not by complaining to the Server Admin and having the "nasty players" banned..  THAt wont change the problem of BASES for 99.99 % of all DayZ players around the world. And they SURE DONT want to be told they must all play like you.  This is DayZ, - this is not My Second Life

 

Only the design and mechanics (including locks, ownership, material strength, vulnerabilities,  and login rules) can decide if bases are playable or not.

We need to know the DEVS plans for bases. (and need to hear them before the console players go crazy with frustration)

xxP

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by pilgrim*

[walnussbaum 26]

I do not understand the planings of a combination lock as well. Who got the great idea to design this item and push a patch "2 seconds" later live to destroy this lock. How does this lock even has a meaning in game? That's just question a dev needs to anwer, we know they would not. They just read and take part of it when it becomes a much larger thread. Nevermind I hope a statement will come.

Second. Basebuilding is such a long breath-taking process while you need to earn a lot of ressources. It takes time. How does it have a signification when you only need an axe and 2 minutes to destroy it? There is non.
It could be easy, to allow destroy only from the inside of a wall, something like that.

[Guest]

Tweet of 07.11.2018: "Introduction of the basic construction". Better you do not write something like that anymore. It only makes us angry if you advertise something. There are so many bugs, you can really only cry.

-Many objects will despawn a day later

-The entire base building does not last a day. Pallets hover at 50 meters height.

- You have Lada + VS3. We do not have both! Because the Lada does not work at all.

And to top off it, you've made the breakup of the base so relieved that nobody likes basebuilding anymore. It's a joke in my eyes. How do you stand up at Gamescom and say, "Here's Dayz, the best Survivor game!" ??????.... 

[emuthreat 2837]

6 hours ago, pilgrim* said:

Only the design and mechanics (including locks, ownership, material strength, vulnerabilities,  and login rules) can decide if bases are playable or not.

Yeah, I think we are on the same page.  Bases have not been very viable because it is too easy to exploit poorly designed game mechanics to remove bases in a matter of minutes.

Ghosting is a major problem with the public hive in general.  The advice I've always gotten was "try playing on private servers."  It's on the developers to decide if they want this to continue to be a possibility.
To a certain extent this is still the preferred manner of unsporting griefing tactics used even on private servers.  Go to a known base in the middle of the night, don't despawn anything, just log out in a corner and wait until the server is full.  Log back in, spray everyone down with automatic fire, and log off.  Repeat until dead, and then gear up and try again.

These problems are more than just basebuilding, and not easy to solve in a way that won't cause other issues.  But to me, the simple solution is to make a selection of public servers that are not part of a hive.  Problem solved, as far as ghosting goes.
As for combat logging as an ambush tactic, I remember when players would make a weapon action cycle noise upon login; but in cases of accidentally logging in near another player, it gives an unfair advantage to the static player.

Assuming that hived servers are to simply be avoided for basebuilding, we are only left with durability and difficulty of forced entry.
Sure people can come to visit all friendly and then "crash," only to log back in to kill people cheaply later, but once you kill them, they need to come back and do it again; and you might just let them in far enough to shoot them in the head in the comfort of your base.
In the village, we told visitors not to log off in the base, because combat logging attackers were a daily occurrence.  I've shot dozens of players in the head, just because their game crashed while they were standing in a corner.  What can one do, but apologize and store their gear?
This is a simple enough fix for login issues in a base.  if i don't know and trust you, and you log off in my base, you will log back in on the coast.  Problem solved...  Unless their game crashes or the server kicks them.

Do we need something like @Arthur Dubrovka suggested, by which a player can only be given server permission to log back in in a defined area by some shared ritual of confirmed base owners?  It would be nice, but I wouldn't say necessary.

[sneakydude 480]

42 minutes ago, emuthreat said:

Yeah, I think we are on the same page.  Bases have not been very viable because it is too easy to exploit poorly designed game mechanics to remove bases in a matter of minutes.

Ghosting is a major problem with the public hive in general.  The advice I've always gotten was "try playing on private servers."  It's on the developers to decide if they want this to continue to be a possibility.
To a certain extent this is still the preferred manner of unsporting griefing tactics used even on private servers.  Go to a known base in the middle of the night, don't despawn anything, just log out in a corner and wait until the server is full.  Log back in, spray everyone down with automatic fire, and log off.  Repeat until dead, and then gear up and try again.

These problems are more than just basebuilding, and not easy to solve in a way that won't cause other issues.  But to me, the simple solution is to make a selection of public servers that are not part of a hive.  Problem solved, as far as ghosting goes.
As for combat logging as an ambush tactic, I remember when players would make a weapon action cycle noise upon login; but in cases of accidentally logging in near another player, it gives an unfair advantage to the static player.

Assuming that hived servers are to simply be avoided for basebuilding, we are only left with durability and difficulty of forced entry.
Sure people can come to visit all friendly and then "crash," only to log back in to kill people cheaply later, but once you kill them, they need to come back and do it again; and you might just let them in far enough to shoot them in the head in the comfort of your base.
In the village, we told visitors not to log off in the base, because combat logging attackers were a daily occurrence.  I've shot dozens of players in the head, just because their game crashed while they were standing in a corner.  What can one do, but apologize and store their gear?
This is a simple enough fix for login issues in a base.  if i don't know and trust you, and you log off in my base, you will log back in on the coast.  Problem solved...  Unless their game crashes or the server kicks them.

Do we need something like @Arthur Dubrovka suggested, by which a player can only be given server permission to log back in in a defined area by some shared ritual of confirmed base owners?  It would be nice, but I wouldn't say necessary.

Maybe BI needs to contact Epoch, and Exile devs.

[Ho Lee Schiet 0]

Agree, pretty strange but for now I prefer to accept it till further patches.

[Arthur Dubrovka 376]

3 hours ago, sneakydude said:

Maybe BI needs to contact Epoch, and Exile devs.

Or at least take a look what was done, what's good, what's bad... but I think/hope they did that already.

[Arthur Dubrovka 376]

3 hours ago, emuthreat said:

Do we need something like @Arthur Dubrovka suggested, by which a player can only be given server permission to log back in in a defined area by some shared ritual of confirmed base owners?  It would be nice, but I wouldn't say necessary.

I would love to see some new mechanics of basebuilding in dayz but maybe it's a mod thing. In my opinion it could go much further. Barking dogs which alarm you if someone ttys to enter. Maybe NPC's which need food, water and equipment and to defend a base in offline times. But that's something which never will happen in vanilla. :)

BTW maybe I visit the Village...I'm in love with the idea of always keep the direct chat on! I play a a character on that server. Maybe we meet each other.

[Arthur Dubrovka 376]

49 minutes ago, Arthur Dubrovka said:

Maybe NPC's which need food, water and equipment and to defend a base in offline times.

Damn it would be sooo nice if your mates and you are on a scavange run and you gave your guard a radio and it informs you with a call that Intruders try to raid your base.

Btw sorry for my bad English, I'm not a native speaker :)

Edited November 16, 2018 by Arthur Dubrovka

[Dopplerman 55]

Easy concept (maybe not so easy to implement) to prevent people from ghosting into bases; add something such as a "Base layout" where when you place it and add "x" amount of resources to it, it would claim something like 50 sq ft of area. Make it hard to craft so people can't go around claiming the whole map, and make the item model something like a functioning fire place for example. This "Base Layout" would have options to add or remove players to the whitelist, deciding if someone can or cannot log into the server inside that "base layout" area. If someone un whitelisted tries to log into the server on your "Base layout" area it would simply spawn them like 5-10 feet outside of the edge. They would clip together nicely making expanding your base easy (if you have the resources). This item would only prevent people from logging in inside the base though, making sneaking or breaking in the only way to enter someone else's base on a public server. This item would also not be required to build a base, as it would then give people more incentive to craft one so they don't have people ghosting into their base. Mind you this entire idea is pointless until the integrity of bases is worked on, as it would be faster to just saw down the walls then it would be to ghost in as of right now.

[Solopopo 330]

On 11/13/2018 at 7:54 AM, pilgrim* said:

Many folk are shouting "bases bases" because it sounds sooooooooo cool, .. er..  for some reason.. but THEN WHAT ??

no answer ?

ANY answer ?

What are you on about? Base building doesn't sound cool, it is cool. That's why the developers spent five years trying to get it in the game... 

I'd imagine players expect to be able to build a base which locks that is at least a little difficult to break into so they can store vehicles and items on the server. They probably expect only well geared players to stand a chance getting in, and only after a good bit of work. Base building like this exists in several other games and mods similar to DayZ, and even in the original mod, and it definitely serves a purpose in those games. In those games bases act as hubs which house convenient items you can use all in one place, and yes, people do hunker down in their bases and try to defend them from people who surround the base. Typically explosives are used to break walls, which are hard to craft and take a long time to plant. The explosive itself is valuable, meaning there is less incentive to break into smaller bases. It's also loud and lets everyone within a wide radius know what you are up to.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Solopopo

[Sqeezorz 839]

Well, what do the players expect what they will find in a base?

Tents full of special tools / ammunition / explosives / whiskey / cigarettes / cash / dog excrement bags or drugs ???

I think the smart player or the smart group will bury their "BEST VALUES" treasures in stashes and store them X times more secure than in easy-to-find bases.

The best players will not let anything in a base that's worth so much effort.

(at the moment the whole base building is not yet personalized, so it is always in the construction phase for all participants ... therefore they are not worthy of protection).

 

[Arthur Dubrovka 376]

2 hours ago, Sqeezorz said:

I think the smart player or the smart group will bury their "BEST VALUES" treasures in stashes and store them X times more secure than in easy-to-find bases.

That's true... and as long as it stays like that, bases are completely useless. A base is like a big "SALES - GUNS N AMMO FOR FREE" sign. Beside of RP.

[pilgrim* 3514]

5 hours ago, Solopopo said:

What are you on about? Base building doesn't sound cool, it is cool. That's why the developers spent five years trying to get it in the game... 

<facepalm>

[Sqeezorz 839]

2 hours ago, Arthur Dubrovka said:

That's true... and as long as it stays like that, bases are completely useless. A base is like a big "SALES - GUNS N AMMO FOR FREE" sign. Beside of RP.

-For *RP communities, basebuilding is already very good, as he is willing to do right now (who does real RP does not need a lock on his base).

- For real *PVE servers, the basebuilding is already good.

-For pure PVP servers ... who needs bases? Or who has the time and nerves to build a base? Or why ... this is not an action.

- So only the public servers and the free communities remain. And just for this it needs a relatively stable structure, and a balance between "construction time (includes the raw materials)" and "destroy / penetrate (includes also the materials to do this successfully) only then it will in this playstiyles (all the you can imagine) funny and very different.

* This applies only to such groups, the members have their own and the thoughts of Com. understand and live.

[Solopopo 330]

On 11/19/2018 at 11:47 AM, pilgrim* said:

<facepalm>

What exactly are you face palming? You wrote several paragraphs trying to justify why it's okay that base building is broken. Apparently your argument is that base building sucks anyway so we just shouldn't care? Is that seriously your argument? We should just be okay with broken features which they delayed the development of the game to include? Because honestly I facepalm at that. Your premise is ridiculous man, but what's even more ridiculous are the extreme lengths you go to in your post to emphasize your ridiculous premise, as if it is some ground braking revelation, when it is really just a looney defense of base building being broken right now.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Solopopo

[pilgrim* 3514]

9 hours ago, Solopopo said:

What exactly are you face palming?

 

 Search  "base building"
  FOUND 4692 RESULTS

Search  "base-building"
FOUND 257 RESULTS

Search  "bases"
FOUND 10975 RESULTS

Search  "base" in Content Title only
FOUND 600 RESULTS

*

Search  "the developers spent five years trying to get it in the game"
FOUND 1

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by pilgrim*

[Man Parts 241 686]

On 11/13/2018 at 7:54 AM, pilgrim* said:

Folk were ranting about BASES a WHILE back and I asked this REALLY OBVIOUS question before. Seems like no one gets the point ?

In what way does "a base" help in defence against anything at all?

This is a subject that has not been looked at, or answered, or questioned, or mentioned, or discussed..  what is the ADVANTAGE of "a base" in ANY kind of gameplay?  Does it "lock", is it vulnerable when you are not online, does it protect you from snipers or does it make you sitting ducks? How do you get in and out? How do other players get in and out? Who does it "belong" to?   - what is it FOR ?

- Maybe you have bonfires and parties in there while the "enemy" gets under cover with all his weapons trained on your gate and waits for you to come out ? 

- Or he waits till you log out and then breaks in (or walks in) and takes all your stuff ???

Who "owns" a base ?.. Is one player the owner and permitted to log in and out inside the base, or can he "nominate" other owners who can also log in and out in there.. and can THEY nominate others or cross them off the list? Or can anyone inside that base log out and in there, just by walking through the gate into the base ?

How do you "capture" a base so that it is yours and not the previous owners? - the same way you "capture" a tent ? (ie - a tent belongs to anyone who uses it, like a car)..

Do you need a key or pass that you carry around in the game, so if someone kills you then can take it and get into your base?

So WHAT is this imagined "engame" gameplay around bases?  HOW is it different IN ANY WAY from gameplay around any standard military structure already planted in the scenery?

Player walks into "your" base while you're logged off  - he takes it to pieces and loads it into "your" truck, and drives off..  hmm ?

Many folk are shouting "bases bases" because it sounds sooooooooo cool, .. er..  for some reason.. but THEN WHAT ??

no answer ?

ANY answer ?

does anyone have any clear idea of how they  expect a "base" to FUNCTION  ??
Or is it just a decoration for private servers ?

xxP

 

What's the point of Day Z if that's the case?

Edited November 22, 2018 by Man Parts 241