Camouflage Cars

[Ben Steele 2]

Me and my mate Sam think it would be really great to be able to camouflage any car using crafting to be able to cover the car with logs and twigs and foliage. To be able to cover it anywhere in the map in the woods would be a great feature in the game. 

[drgullen 596]

I guess I don't see the point in doing this -- someone would eventually find the "camouflage" and whether they could tell what was underneath it or not, it would get destroyed by a grenade or by tearing down the camouflage.

If the point is to protect/save the car for future use, you'd be better off parking it inside a barn and then barricading it off with password-protected doors.  This is still vulnerable to being broken into however.

I usually just leave it up to fate.  I take the spark plug and battery out and keep it in my inventory when I log out.  If the car is there next time, great, otherwise it gives me a new goal for that session -- find another car.

[green_mtn_grandbob 594]

6 hours ago, Ben Steele said:

Me and my mate Sam think it would be really great to be able to camouflage any car using crafting to be able to cover the car with logs and twigs and foliage. To be able to cover it anywhere in the map in the woods would be a great feature in the game. 

Have you tried using the netting that is in the game?

[Parazight 1599]

Quote

Have you tried using the netting that is in the game?

Exactly!  All you need is a fence kit, 2 logs and the camo netting.  It doesn't need to re-skin the vehicle.  If you're parking a car out in the middle of nowhere, in the woods, then a fence will suffice.  You can put up a fence, with camo and drive right thru it, too.  So this way, you don't even have to do anything to maintain it.

[Ben Steele 2]

On 1/4/2020 at 5:35 AM, Parazight said:

Exactly!  All you need is a fence kit, 2 logs and the camo netting.  It doesn't need to re-skin the vehicle.  If you're parking a car out in the middle of nowhere, in the woods, then a fence will suffice.  You can put up a fence, with camo and drive right thru it, too.  So this way, you don't even have to do anything to maintain it.

Ok so why not just combine camo netting to the car to completely cover it, easy peasy lemon squeezy innit

[Parazight 1599]

6 hours ago, Ben Steele said:

Ok so why not just combine camo netting to the car to completely cover it, easy peasy lemon squeezy innit

Is it?  Code doesn’t write itself. Is it easy?  Have you written code and done big fixing on this title?  I haven’t, but I imagine doing something requires time and resources whereas the option we have now requires nothing. 

[Asmondian 372]

The idea is good and completely reasonable dude. It should also be a thing for barrels. Its definetly harder to find a tent / vehicle / barrel if they have a camo pattern on them that if you just leave those bright colors contrasting with the rest of the vegetation.

[Ben Steele 2]

On 1/13/2020 at 3:05 AM, Asmondian said:

The idea is good and completely reasonable dude. It should also be a thing for barrels. Its definetly harder to find a tent / vehicle / barrel if they have a camo pattern on them that if you just leave those bright colors contrasting with the rest of the vegetation.

Asmindian, thank you, I think you're on my wavelength, it's just a suggestion, parasite or whatever his name is seems to be looking for a counter argument, whereas I am simply suggesting to the developers some ideas from my little brain, I hope they see my ideas and agree with me. If however it is too much for them then they can ignore my suggestion and move on to something easier. Either way I think the developers get sooooo much criticism. When I were a lad I would have bitten your arm off for quality game like dayz. Parasite just isn't aware of how lucky he is sitting there judging me from his commode in his tiny bedroom. Btw , yes camo barrels, brilliant! Great idea mate. Peace out. 

[Parazight 1599]

3 hours ago, Ben Steele said:

Parasite just isn't aware of how lucky he is sitting there judging me from his commode in his tiny bedroom.

Cute insult.

In my opinion, your suggestion is extraneous.  We don't need camo for cars.  The wooden fence posts with camo on them work just fine.  It's not like we have to hide from helicopters, anyway.  Honestly, at the current development pace, I'd rather see bugfixing and adding unique features.  Not different ways to hang up camo netting.  Lets work on crafting, bows, stability, or something else first, okay?

[Asmondian 372]

18 hours ago, Parazight said:

Cute insult.

In my opinion, your suggestion is extraneous.  We don't need camo for cars.  The wooden fence posts with camo on them work just fine.  It's not like we have to hide from helicopters, anyway.  Honestly, at the current development pace, I'd rather see bugfixing and adding unique features.  Not different ways to hang up camo netting.  Lets work on crafting, bows, stability, or something else first, okay?

Your argument doesn't make sense and thats why the guy probably thinks you are doing something else rather than just providing feedback to a suggestion.

How does a fence with a camo net would be a better or even a good way to hide a car in a forest? Is even geometrically stupid. You would only hide the vehicle from one angle of view and you limit yourself to the - not so flexible - positioning system of fences that would force you to do it in a quite open and flat area. A simple Camo net as an attachements for vehicles plus the addition of a camo coverage model (just like with tents) wouldn't represent an immense amount of work either.

Vehicles currently have peristence issues and in many cases they just disappear or move to a random position when you leave them inside a structure or between two trees. Tents are too heavy/big to transport to a remote location and its positioning is very restrictive according to the surface in the forest (people just don´t hide tents in the forest anymore for that reason). The bases (basebuilding structures) are just not worth it because of their lack of balance as you well know. Most people simply hide loot in wooden crates around the map, inside glitches or under trees. That storage item is extremely OP and it's been breaking the CLE and eliminating any possibility of obtaining high tier weapons because the max caps are reached. Allowing alternative, efficient and realistic methods to hide things that are not as OP/broken as the wooden crates would definetly help the game in many ways right now. I don't think that's a trivial suggestion.

On the other hand, if you expect every suggestion to be aligned with the "priority list" that you think the devs should have (List that we don't know about because there is no roadmap and the communication is almost null since one year) then you'll probably have to repeat your reasoning in each and every suggestion thread.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Asmondian

[Parazight 1599]

3 hours ago, Asmondian said:

Your argument doesn't make sense and thats why the guy probably thinks you are doing something else rather than just providing feedback to a suggestion.

Okay, this thread isn't some elaborate, Asmondian-esque type of suggestion.  It's two whole sentences.  And by some new forum user with some 12 sentences total on these forums.  I didn't go into detail on purpose, but apparently I should.

3 hours ago, Asmondian said:

How does a fence with a camo net would be a better or even a good way to hide a car in a forest? Is even geometrically stupid. You would only hide the vehicle from one angle of view and you limit yourself to the - not so flexible - positioning system of fences that would force you to do it in a quite open and flat area. A simple Camo net as an attachements for vehicles plus the addition of a camo coverage model (just like with tents) wouldn't represent an immense amount of work either.

Personally, I've hid lots of cars in the forests.  Yes, you need to find a flat patch of land.  It's not hard to do.  I'm still stashing cars in the wilds of southern Livonia.  If you know that clipping will totally flip out your car then you take notice of where to park.  Yes, I've lost cars to trees with claustrophobia.   You build fences around cars (just the posts and a netting) to protect and hide your car.  The game is not that restrictive.  If you're investing into building a car then finding a place to hide it and conceal it with posts is trivial.  It is not at all difficult to 'navigate the positioning system of fences' in the open woods.  Watchtowers, yes.  Fences not so much.  Usually, you're just building two fences, so you only need so many materials.  Camo netting on fences also sync up to the way the trees blow in the wind without having a silhouette of a car attached to it.   And you don't need to have the fences right next to the car.  It only needs to break line of sight.  

I've hid many cars on populated, official public servers this way to great success.  It's not hard and it works great.  Do you hide cars on public servers too?  Your concerns of placement and hiding have been a minimal issue for me.

Honestly, if you want to go pro having cars then you hide tires in buried drybags.  Car parts in buried crates/sea chests.  You store the parts in storage containers for later use because they are easier to hide and less unstable.  Maybe you pull the battery and plug when you log, yea?!  This.

Work related, you just drive thru the fence and park.  You don't even have to re-attach an item after you're done driving.  On the real life side, it requires work for the programmers, for something that seems redundant to me, for something that already works fine.  A rare case, perhaps.  I'll drop that argument of it taking away development time because, really, it isn't a great point to make, besides the fact that I don't even need it.  

4 hours ago, Asmondian said:

The bases (basebuilding structures) are just not worth it because of their lack of balance as you well know. Most people simply hide loot in wooden crates around the map, inside glitches or under trees.

Yea.  Pretty sure I said this exact thing in your basebuilding suggestion thread.

 

 

 

[Asmondian 372]

Its all good dude. You don't have to play the ironic smart ass every time.

It just feels that any suggestion that alters the status quo of the game a little bit you just feel the need to criticize it by forcing a lot of broken pieces together to end up saying that what is currently there is enough for the game. If something is missing then: "We don´t really need it". If something is broken then "even bug free wouldn't add much to the game" or "there is a work around, don´t complain". If people experience major issues then: "never in your experience". I continually see how big Dayz/Devs fans uses this logic maybe because they consider every suggestions to be criticism of the game or the devs work, but thats not really the case.

The idea es simple, clean and useful. We don´t have to get used to broken/missing features and always look for a work around to bugs and unbalances just to achieve a smiliar result.

[drgullen 596]

4 hours ago, Asmondian said:

The idea es simple, clean and useful. We don´t have to get used to broken/missing features and always look for a work around to bugs and unbalances just to achieve a smiliar result.

We have been getting used to broken/missing features and using bug workarounds since the Alpha first released in December 2013!

I think suggestions like these need a priority check.  I want at least some (since we're doubtful to get all) of the remaining missing things put back into the game first before time is spent working on something like a car camouflage.

I have no idea how many people are involved in the development of DayZ these days, but I suspect it's a heckuva lot fewer than the 86 that Eugen Harten said were a part of the team back in late 2018.  Let's be honest here -- suggesting any new things is mostly irrelevant at this point -- we'll be lucky to get even close to .62 parity.

[green_mtn_grandbob 594]

.62 parity.  .62 parity.  .62 parity.   .62 parity.

 

[Parazight 1599]

4 hours ago, Asmondian said:

Its all good dude. You don't have to play the ironic smart ass every time.

It just feels that any suggestion that alters the status quo of the game a little bit you just feel the need to criticize it by forcing a lot of broken pieces together to end up saying that what is currently there is enough for the game. If something is missing then: "We don´t really need it". If something is broken then "even bug free wouldn't add much to the game" or "there is a work around, don´t complain". If people experience major issues then: "never in your experience". I continually see how big Dayz/Devs fans uses this logic maybe because they consider every suggestions to be criticism of the game or the devs work, but thats not really the case.

The idea es simple, clean and useful. We don´t have to get used to broken/missing features and always look for a work around to bugs and unbalances just to achieve a smiliar result.

Can we please dial back the hyperbole a bit, hmm?   This is hardly every time.   My post history does not indicate that I attack every idea.  Don't make stuff up.

Will I be more critical of implementing new suggestions now that we're out of beta and into 1.0?  Yes.  Was I open and encouraged more brainstorming during alpha?  Yes.  Should BI be trying to focus on finishing up DayZ?  Probably.

[Asmondian 372]

21 hours ago, drgullen said:

We have been getting used to broken/missing features and using bug workarounds since the Alpha first released in December 2013!

I think suggestions like these need a priority check.  I want at least some (since we're doubtful to get all) of the remaining missing things put back into the game first before time is spent working on something like a car camouflage.

I have no idea how many people are involved in the development of DayZ these days, but I suspect it's a heckuva lot fewer than the 86 that Eugen Harten said were a part of the team back in late 2018.  Let's be honest here -- suggesting any new things is mostly irrelevant at this point -- we'll be lucky to get even close to .62 parity.

I agree 100% with your thoughts. This kind of additions will probably be way low in the priority list (or not even consider at all by the devs) and its just understandable. But thats why its called suggestions, not requests, so it does not means that we can´t provide feedback about it since some guy can take some ideas and carry on them through a mod. I think I mentioned the same thing in some other comment: Due the state of Dayz development right now most of the suggestions that do not imply a minimal QoL change would probably became irrelevant. But we should leave that to the devs.

20 hours ago, Parazight said:

Can we please dial back the hyperbole a bit, hmm?   This is hardly every time.   My post history does not indicate that I attack every idea.  Don't make stuff up.

Will I be more critical of implementing new suggestions now that we're out of beta and into 1.0?  Yes.  Was I open and encouraged more brainstorming during alpha?  Yes.  Should BI be trying to focus on finishing up DayZ?  Probably.

Then it was probably just my perception dude, I didn't mean to "pigeonhole" you. It's just that I usually read these forums and every time I came across a comment from you I see a certain repetitive pattern where you "attack" any criticism / suggestion / QoL change based on the idea that "whatever is currently in the game is good enough and everything just works fine". As if you were gatekeeping every time or you were part of the BI dev team.

I think the problem is that we are in a strange position since we are talking about finishing Dayz when we don´t really know what the hell it means. A parity with 0.62 is finishing Dayz? Helicopters? 2015 Roadmap? 2018 Roadmap? We just don´t know. Its not an early access anymore so it could end tomorrow as far as I know. Dayz is still a very WIP product even in its core (Engine) and the alpha, beta and 1.0 labels don't really mean anything.

Thats why I do think there is still room for small QoL suggestions/improvements like this even if they are not (reasonably) high on the priority list. Mainly because further updates also have some new content / tweaks along with bugfixes and performance improvements. It's always been like that. Take belts for example: Why spending time on them? It was a completely trivial addition to the game, developed and implemented after 1.0 when the game clearly had more important things to do. Same with other changes like rotating items in the inventory, the distance of the VOIP, the locks on the containers and doors to indicate that they cannot be opened... a lot of things that are completely secondary but still took place.

Again, we are talking about suggestions here, not requests. Whether the devs ever consider them or not will depend strictly on them. I just suggest to stop believing that we can represent the will and opinion of the developers in every comment thus rejecting any idea.