Idea: What if bases would only load for online players?

[Nicklander 13]

I don't like basebuilding as it currently is in DayZ, it's annoying, unrealistic and poorly designed. Isn't it the most boring thing ever to just shoot a few magazines and throw a couple grenades at a wall? The only scenario where base rading is actually interesting is when both the raiders & the defenders confront. However the way DayZ is designed this scenario is not only unlikely but also pointless, just wait till your enemies logged-off and then raid their stuff, as simple and stupid as that. That's extremely bad game design if you ask me. It's better to not have a feature than to have one that sucks.

So what if bases would actually only load if the baseowners are online? The servers also won't get spammed with basebuilding, since you can only see bases of players that are logged in, therefore not breaking the immersion. This way when you actually find a base, you know raiding it will be a challenge. Baseowners could install an alert system with the new features of 1.18 update in case someone attacks while they are somewhere else on the map. There would also have to be some mechanics to prevent exploits. For example: Leaving bases active for an hour after the owners logged off to counter combat logging and allow raiding. Or also: Prevent raiders to just login inside of bases.

It's just a thought I had. I believe DayZ's current engine doesn't allow dynamically loading/unloading objects quickly, but it would for sure make basebuilding a whole lot better. What do you think?

Edited May 31, 2022 by Nicklander

[Parazight 1599]

The concept of ownership in a collapsed society is not authentic. 
 

The concept of ownership isn’t possible with this game engine. 
 

As you said, it’s not possible with this engine. Why suggest something that would knowingly require a total rework of the engine?

[Thundermight 43]

10 minutes ago, Parazight said:

The concept of ownership in a collapsed society is not authentic. 
 

The concept of ownership isn’t possible with this game engine. 
 

As you said, it’s not possible with this engine. Why suggest something that would knowingly require a total rework of the engine?

Quite sure ownership is possible with this game engine. We can even see modded servers that do it for basebuilding (selling bases) and no one else is allowed to build in that sold area. 
 So yes, it can be done for sure.
But there come a few questions tho.
 In that system there will be some huge bases, how can you make that viable to servers don't melt when a big base owner log in? 
 How can you manage people that logoff midfight to avoid losing their loot (or their base in that regard)?
 How do we handle clan base?
 
 To be honest i kinda think thats the direction basebuilding will have to go in order to be "balanced". I do think it is pretty good atm (maybe will change with 1.18) but the problem still with people raiding when enemies are logged off and there will be no fortification buff enough to deal with that.

[Nicklander 13]

2 minutes ago, Parazight said:

The concept of ownership in a collapsed society is not authentic. 
 

The concept of ownership isn’t possible with this game engine. 
 

As you said, it’s not possible with this engine. Why suggest something that would knowingly require a total rework of the engine?

I don't want ownership or protection in DayZ. Bases from offline players should just not appear on the map. Offline players should not impact the gaming experience of online players. If a player is offline, he should not have ANY influence on other online players.

It currently is not possible in the engine, yes, but it easily could be: Every building that a player places is registered under his name, so when he's offline all of his builds should just not appear at all. It's not hard to implement and would even improve server performance. There could also be a feature for clans where a bunch of people can form a "builder group", once one member of the group is online, all buildings of the group are loaded.

[Nicklander 13]

2 minutes ago, Thundermight said:

How can you manage people that logoff midfight to avoid losing their loot (or their base in that regard)?

I wrote that in OT. It works like it works in pretty much any PvP game: Combat log. So if a player logs out, the base would still be active for a certain amount of time, for example 1 hour.

4 minutes ago, Thundermight said:

 How do we handle clan base?

Read what I wrote above.

5 minutes ago, Thundermight said:

 In that system there will be some huge bases, how can you make that viable to servers don't melt when a big base owner log in? 

There could be a limit of how many blocks a player or a "group of players" can build. It would prevent spamming or overloading servers and would also encourage to build efficiently & realistically, nobody wants to see omegabases anyways.

[Thundermight 43]

1 minute ago, Nicklander said:

I don't want ownership or protection in DayZ. Bases from offline players should just not appear on the map. Offline players should not impact the gaming experience of online players. If a player is offline, he should not have ANY influence on other online players.

Yes, but you need "ownership´" to do that. Just imagine you do your base on police station in electro and logoff, do i, not knowing there is a base there make myself one there too, what happens when we both are logged in? So yes, you need ownership of that space. 
 One can argue that you shouldn't be able to build in some builds or even inside a city, but you can't have 2 bases from different people in same place and hope that it will work (in the system you imagine).
And, as i've said, i've seen it done in community servers, so it can be done.
 The way i see is that bohemia was way too conservative with adding game changers. But as for this last update they are start looking unafraid, which is good.

[Thundermight 43]

Don't get me wrong, i do have personal answers to those questions too, my point on "how you do X?" was on bohemia's point of view, as they must consider it in a more broad spectrum.

[Nicklander 13]

17 minutes ago, Thundermight said:

Yes, but you need "ownership´" to do that. Just imagine you do your base on police station in electro and logoff, do i, not knowing there is a base there make myself one there too, what happens when we both are logged in? So yes, you need ownership of that space. 
 One can argue that you shouldn't be able to build in some builds or even inside a city, but you can't have 2 bases from different people in same place and hope that it will work (in the system you imagine).
And, as i've said, i've seen it done in community servers, so it can be done.
 The way i see is that bohemia was way too conservative with adding game changers. But as for this last update they are start looking unafraid, which is good.

This problem is also easy to solve. There is already a database of all builds placed on the server (which has to be loaded when a certain player joins), while not all builds are loaded for the players, the server knows of all those builds. So before a player can build in the first place, there needs to be a check to prevent building near already exisiting structures that are currently not loaded. The game just won't let you build near unloaded objects. After some time of inactivity or players not logging in the unloaded bases could get deleted so that new people can build there again. I wouldn't call it ownership, ownership generally means that your base is actually protected like on some community servers.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Nicklander

[Thundermight 43]

1 hour ago, Nicklander said:

This problem is also easy to solve. There is already a database of all builds placed on the server (which has to be loaded when a certain player joins), while not all builds are loaded for the players, the server knows of all those builds. So before a player can build in the first place, there needs to be a check to prevent building near already exisiting structures that are currently not loaded. The game just won't let you build near unloaded objects. After some time of inactivity or players not logging in the unloaded bases could get deleted so that new people can build there again. I wouldn't call it ownership, ownership generally means that your base is actually protected like on some community servers.

Yes, thats ownership in a nutshell.

[Parazight 1599]

18 hours ago, Nicklander said:

This problem is also easy to solve. There is already a database of all builds placed on the server (which has to be loaded when a certain player joins), while not all builds are loaded for the players, the server knows of all those builds. So before a player can build in the first place, there needs to be a check to prevent building near already exisiting structures that are currently not loaded. The game just won't let you build near unloaded objects. After some time of inactivity or players not logging in the unloaded bases could get deleted so that new people can build there again. I wouldn't call it ownership, ownership generally means that your base is actually protected like on some community servers.

"oh look, I can't build here because someone has a base here but it's not rendering because they're offline.  Looks like it's time to set up a bunch of tripwires.  I think we'll camp across the street and wait for this guy to log in!"

or.

"I waited all this time because I knew there was an offline base here.  The guy logged in, I shot him right away, but he logged off right away so all of his base loot 'unloaded' and now I can't loot it.  Not fair!"

No, your ownership idea isn't gamey at all.  Totally authentic.  'easy to solve'

[Derleth 1357]

Having invisible base plots around the map locking you from building - even though nothing can be seen there - would be an awful, awful mechanic.

The only way to feasibly enable offline "protection" from raids would be make to bases invulnerable when the owners are offline. That would also require strict limitations to base building, to avoid absurdly large hoarder bases. You'd have to make a system where you first build a flagpole to which the builder and any number of other players are connected. To that flagpole you'd be able to assign a certain number of base elements. Say, for example's sake, 2 watch towers, ten fences, two tents and four barrels. Or whatever. More than that would not even be possible to build. Nor would it be be possible to build anything anywhere without a flag pole. Then, with all connected "owners" of the base offline, the flag pole would somehow indicate "out of office" and the base elements would be indestructible and locked.

Something like the above is certainly technically possible to do in the game - variants have been made in mods - but is this something we want? No, it is not - because it goes directly against the "authentic" nature of DayZ. No limitations, no arbitrary rules for gameplay reasons. There is no ownership in DayZ. This includes the possibility that someone breaks in to take your shit when you're away. It happens in real life, it happens in-game - and it sucks - but that's just the way it is. Also, an offline protection and ownership system would further strain server performance with a bunch of authentication checks going back and forth for every single base and player. Simply put, it would add a layer of complexity to the game that is really not needed.

What is needed is a way for base builders to make their bases more durable and a general rebalance of time to build vs time to tear down.

Until then, I simply don't build bases on regular servers. I carry what I need. Freedom!

Edited May 25, 2022 by Derleth

[DayzDayzFanboy 1280]

Bases shouldn't be invulnerable. If you don't want someone to breach your base, don't build one. I honestly don't get why people build them in the first place. 

[Girth Brooks 570]

People build because bases work is most other survival games. Just not this one. 

They shouldnt be invulnerable either. 

Don't worry guys! Dayz is just behind the curve a bit! Like behind 4-5 years!

I mean, It's not like RUST has a working DAYZ mod that has more to do than this actual game. Oh wait......

[Nicklander 13]

7 hours ago, Parazight said:

"oh look, I can't build here because someone has a base here but it's not rendering because they're offline."

I don't think players would be running across the whole map trying to find offline bases and camp there 24/7, that's ridiculous and really not worth it. If they wanna build a base but it turns out there is already one nearby, they will either get far away from it to avoid conflict or build a base themselves not too far away if they are up for a fight. Building bases could also only be allowed outside of residential/military areas, offline bases somewhere in the forest aren't bothering anyone and are also much harder to find accidentally.

7 hours ago, Parazight said:

Looks like it's time to set up a bunch of tripwires.

You can't set up tripwires since you can't build inside bases, so how is that a problem? People can set up traps outside of bases, but that's the challenge of DayZ, you gotta be careful. The radius of how big the build protection around offline bases is can be adjusted, so you won't find tripwires right in front of your doorstep.

7 hours ago, Parazight said:

I think we'll camp across the street and wait for this guy to log in!

People trying to attack your base from across the street is exactly what you want. Your job is to build a base so you can have an strategic advantage over your enemies. The chances of you camping at a basespot waiting for people to log in are slim, nobody would do that unless they know for sure that someone is about to log in. If the pressure and attackers get too massive, you will have to move your base, that's logic.

However there is a valid problem that needs to be addressed: What if an attacker is camping inside an unloaded base while it's being loaded? I'm not sure what's best to do in this situation, but I'm sure there are solutions for this exploit that are acceptable. There could be a servercheck that triggers when this happens. In this case the game could tell the attacker to get out of it in a certain amount of time before the base loads or either he will just get killed.

7 hours ago, Parazight said:

The guy logged in, I shot him right away, but he logged off right away so all of his base loot 'unloaded' and now I can't loot it.  Not fair!"

Did you even bother to read my previous posts? I explained the idea of combat logging multiple times now. Obviously the base won't unload in this case and the attacker can loot.

7 hours ago, Parazight said:

No, your ownership idea isn't gamey at all.  Totally authentic.  'easy to solve' 

It seems to me you are too conservative. The current situation is that basebuilding sucks and urgently needs innovation and creative ideas, you can't deny that. By eagerly defending the status quo, you're not making it any better either. How about just bringing in some creative input yourself, you surely have some ideas to solve your own concerns as well.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Nicklander

[Nicklander 13]

5 hours ago, DayzDayzFanboy said:

Bases shouldn't be invulnerable. If you don't want someone to breach your base, don't build one. I honestly don't get why people build them in the first place. 

Agree.

6 hours ago, Derleth said:

Having invisible base plots around the map locking you from building - even though nothing can be seen there - would be an awful, awful mechanic.

The only way to feasibly enable offline "protection" from raids would be make to bases invulnerable when the owners are offline. That would also require strict limitations to base building, to avoid absurdly large hoarder bases. You'd have to make a system where you first build a flagpole to which the builder and any number of other players are connected. To that flagpole you'd be able to assign a certain number of base elements. Say, for example's sake, 2 watch towers, ten fences, two tents and four barrels. Or whatever. More than that would not even be possible to build. Nor would it be be possible to build anything anywhere without a flag pole. Then, with all connected "owners" of the base offline, the flag pole would somehow indicate "out of office" and the base elements would be indestructible and locked.

Something like the above is certainly technically possible to do in the game - variants have been made in mods - but is this something we want? No, it is not - because it goes directly against the "authentic" nature of DayZ. No limitations, no arbitrary rules for gameplay reasons. There is no ownership in DayZ. This includes the possibility that someone breaks in to take your shit when you're away. It happens in real life, it happens in-game - and it sucks - but that's just the way it is. Also, an offline protection and ownership system would further strain server performance with a bunch of authentication checks going back and forth for every single base and player. Simply put, it would add a layer of complexity to the game that is really not needed. 

What is needed is a way for base builders to make their bases more durable and a general rebalance of time to build vs time to tear down.

Until then, I simply don't build bases on regular servers. I carry what I need. Freedom!

I played on community servers with protected bases and I agree with you that it's not an authentic experience. Raiding needs to be possible. But what's the problem with bases just unloading when offline? With my idea bases don't even need to be unrealistically strong, so you also don't need to fire hundrets of ammo at it. Having invisible base plots around the map is the drawback, but there won't be a ton of those on the server either as long as there are restrictions and inactive bases get deleted regularily. I think the positives still clearly outweights the negatives in my idea.

The current system will always suck, no matter how hard they try to rebalance it. Does it really matter if you fire one more grenade at it or a few more bullets? Even if Bohemia would make bases 4x stronger, it's not going to make basebuilding any more interesting, because it won't fix the underlying issues.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Nicklander

[THEGordonFreeman 664]

Because a base is player built, every wall, door, nail, wood plank, barrel, tent, and all of those containers inventory items, is loaded to each player within 500m of that base.  Another reason why Vehicles desync, and if said vehicle has 2 or 3 players in it when it hits that 500m bubble of the base... LOOK OUT.  I use to be able to find ANY base in the woods by when you hit that bubble, it's still possible to do even today on busy servers.  This engine was never designed correctly to handle bases and all the components it takes to build them.  Base building, much like vehicle physics was on the back burner of figuring out how to make them work properly.

They would have been better off just letting people board up existing structures instead of building new ones.  In fact, I just found a community server where  base building is just limited to securing existing buildings and using tents and such.  And you can only "own" a couple of containers including tents and lean-to's per person in a 500m area.  Which REALLY helps performance.  Server had 50 on last night and I saw a couple of people driving vehicles.  I later saw one of those vehicles bouncing in the air near Grishino.  The DayZ Gods claimed more victims.

This engine needs an enema so all the mechanics work properly on it.  Never should have went Beta, never should have went full release one month later, until the underlying mechanics worked properly.

[Thundermight 43]

On 5/25/2022 at 10:39 AM, DayzDayzFanboy said:

Bases shouldn't be invulnerable. If you don't want someone to breach your base, don't build one. I honestly don't get why people build them in the first place. 

Then you shouldn't be posting in this topic at all!
 Thats the true beauty of dayz, you can have a handfull of players, and none of them plays the same game.

Now back to the topic, Derleth's idea was most reasonable here so far. To be honest i do think we need more durable walls, but i don't see how it would work in practice. you see, even back when you could shot throught metalsheet and hit wooden frame, i always repeled any invaders, regardless what i was doing. Farming nearby and hear shots on base direction? Went back instantly and base was saved (or ar least went down with a hard fight), but when it was on late hours, went every friend was sleeping, i was always impossible to do anything, regardless of how many bear traps or landmines. Even those old barbed wire glitches (build on frame and make everyone who passes throught be in slices) didn't hold people back, because there was no "competition", so to speak.
 I can see how you think that "even more fortifications" would solve, but believe me, i've always played on 1pp oficial servers, and as much as i was playing with 4 friends, only 2 of us was actively farming, and we got a barrel full of grenades week 2 (considering we use quite a lot in pvp). So yeah, there is no fortification enough if there is no one online to take advantage of that.
 
I do think bohemia is really considering a big change in basebuilding, they are certainly aware of the impact that 1.18 will cause in basebuilding(no pun intended). But what worries me is that most servers are bad already as it is, if basebuilding becomes a thing, there will be a crapload of people doing it, and servers will certainly melt. Remember when damp items increased weight? Was a good change on paper, on practice melt down servers, and they had to pull it back a week later after it was released.

[Parazight 1599]

5 hours ago, Thundermight said:

Then you shouldn't be posting in this topic at all!

No.  This suggestion is for the vanilla experience.  The OP's suggestion might be okay for a mod, but if you're making suggestions for vanilla, then everyone can react to it.

We don't need to fix basebuilding.  We need to get rid of it.

On 5/25/2022 at 12:44 PM, Nicklander said:

The current situation is that basebuilding sucks and urgently needs innovation and creative ideas, you can't deny that.

I deny that.  Base-building doesn't need innovation and creative ideas.   It's a mechanic that has never fit.  It should be removed as it's not necessary for survival.  Maybe the servers would run better if they did.

[DayzDayzFanboy 1280]

8 hours ago, Thundermight said:

Then you shouldn't be posting in this topic at all!

Hmm, but that's the point of a public forum.  There are one or two people on here that seem to forget that and think that because they've played the game since 1927 it gives them some sort of editorial authority. Anyway, the point I was making is that there is no benefit to base building. You're far better off hiding your loot. This isn't Ark. Maybe boarding up the odd window. But even then, what's the point. You make a base to protect your gear then you're guaranteed to get raided. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by DayzDayzFanboy

[boggle 51]

Wouldn't this just allow someone to log off in the area where the base was, and then log in some other time when that base owner is typically online? Then raid their base?

 

Idk, it seems messy. I don't really care for base building, or at least how it's implemented in dayz. I DON'T like seeing "bases" littered everywhere that are nearly impenetrable. I wish they'd just stuck with barrels and tents honestly. Allow us to craft more sneaky stashes. Bc at the end of the day, I just want a place to secure my loot. 

 

Basebuidling is a blight on this game. I'd take reliable vehicle physics any day over base building. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by boggle

[Shift 25]

A possible middle ground could be that a base can only be broken into when the player who built the base is logged into the server. If that player doesnt log into the game for 48 hours - the structures despawn. Like walls, gates, watchtowers etc. The crates and barrels and tents etc. remain. And a player should spend no less than than one hour continuosly (not accumulated over the period) to reset the timer. Might be 2 hours or more. And player must spend this time inside of base (or just inside of a certain radius from something like a flagpole), maybe there should be a way to tell other players that a player is online and base is raidable, like a certain mark appears on the gate or a certain sound or maybe a certain message is played on a certain frequancy within a certain radius from the base, or maybe the audio message plays across all server but it carries and identification of a base which gets printed on gates and walls, so as to alert players of a certain base becoming vulnerable without uncovering the location of the base, at the same time it will make radios actually useful on big maps like cherno and livonia. But for that to make sense it should be very hard and costly to rebuild the base. Like, knowing when the 48 hour protected period expires, a player can just log in at that moment and quickly rebuild the gate and log out and have another 48 hours of protection without needing to defend the base. Maybe the solution to enable this offline protection would be some sort of rare and valuable artifact that is activated or built into the base (kind of like a flagpole with flag) that turns it indestructible when the owner is not online. And if the owner fails to spend the required time ingame for 48 hours, both the structures and the artifact despawn and you need to loot or create or farm a new artifact to make the base indestructible while you're offline again. Also the period of protection should probably fluctuate, like, never less than 45 hours but never more than 50 hours, maybe there should be a visual que at least inside the base, like with flag slowly lowering on the flagpole. When the base loses its protected status because the player hasnt refreshed it by being in the game, this should also be announce on the radio. I think all or most of this can be implemented with existing game engine.

[Nicklander 13]

On 5/27/2022 at 1:28 PM, Parazight said:

I deny that.  Base-building doesn't need innovation and creative ideas.   It's a mechanic that has never fit.  It should be removed as it's not necessary for survival.  Maybe the servers would run better if they did. 

I created this topic to discuss some ideas. I would love to see basebuilding mechanics in the game that would actually fit, that for sure needs innovation and creative ideas. It would require a completely new system. But yes, that's just a dream.

Realistically speaking, DayZ will not get any big gamechanging updates anymore for sure. We'll get bugfixes, a couple weapons & items, maybe an enfusion update for the vehicles, but that will be it for DayZ. I would be really surprised if Bohemia came up with a completely new basebuilding system, that's just way too much effort that won't pay off financially. It's currently best to just completely DELETE basebuilding out of the game. But the thing is that gamedevs are usually way too proud & arrogant to just own up to bad gamedesign. So what will happen instead is just... euhh... nothing I guess? Except for a few tweaks here and there. Let's face it: The game is done.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Nicklander

[THEGordonFreeman 664]

DayZ was completed in December of 2018, it had been in early access Alpha status for YEARS, then went Beta for 1 month in November of 2018, then went full release around December 18th 2018 so the Christmas Xbox money grab could occur.  Base Building works as designed.  Vehicles work as designed.  Promises that the vehicle physics will be fixed have come and gone TWICE now.  Supposedly for a 3rd time, we will have vehicle physics fixed by the end of this year.  Considering BI's historical track record with "improving" features and mechanics in this game, I would not hold my breath.

[Parazight 1599]

2 hours ago, Nicklander said:

I created this topic to discuss some ideas. I would love to see basebuilding mechanics in the game that would actually fit, that for sure needs innovation and creative ideas. It would require a completely new system. But yes, that's just a dream.

Realistically speaking, DayZ will not get any big gamechanging updates anymore for sure. We'll get bugfixes, a couple weapons & items, maybe an enfusion update for the vehicles, but that will be it for DayZ. I would be really surprised if Bohemia came up with a completely new basebuilding system, that's just way too much effort that won't pay off financially. It's currently best to just completely DELETE basebuilding out of the game. But the thing is that gamedevs are usually way too proud & arrogant to just own up to bad gamedesign. So what will happen instead is just... euhh... nothing I guess? Except for a few tweaks here and there. Let's face it: The game is done.

So, you agree with me then.  Great.  Except for this proud and arrogant assumption.  That's not really how it works.   Production is based off of money, not feelings.  Developers write code based off of instructions given by the people who pay them, even if they think it's bad.  So we can't really point the fingers at the developers.  Hell, almost all of the people who were familiar with the technology left the company.  This is not an efficient way to develop anything.

We have no real communication from the company, despite years of people giving feedback on a tracker that is overly convoluted.  So, we can only see what they've done in the latest update.   What we have is a bunch of new base-orientated objects (IEDs and bomb related stuff) but no improvements to base-building itself.  We can't even board up pre-existing structures in vanilla, but for some reason it's important to have many different ways of breaching a base.  It's really just throwing things into the game at this point with no real high-concept gameplay loops being completed and polished.  It's just adding more shit on top of a pile of other things that don't work.  So disheartening.

Ideally, the game would benefit from innovation and creative ideas, but it's like trying to make your car better by somehow adding more doors and wheels.  That's what offline base-phasing is, adding more doors to an already existing car. 

[Nicklander 13]

17 hours ago, Parazight said:

So, you agree with me then.  Great.  Except for this proud and arrogant assumption.  That's not really how it works.   Production is based off of money, not feelings.  Developers write code based off of instructions given by the people who pay them, even if they think it's bad.  So we can't really point the fingers at the developers.  Hell, almost all of the people who were familiar with the technology left the company.  This is not an efficient way to develop anything.

We have no real communication from the company, despite years of people giving feedback on a tracker that is overly convoluted.  So, we can only see what they've done in the latest update.   What we have is a bunch of new base-orientated objects (IEDs and bomb related stuff) but no improvements to base-building itself.  We can't even board up pre-existing structures in vanilla, but for some reason it's important to have many different ways of breaching a base.  It's really just throwing things into the game at this point with no real high-concept gameplay loops being completed and polished.  It's just adding more shit on top of a pile of other things that don't work.  So disheartening.

Ideally, the game would benefit from innovation and creative ideas, but it's like trying to make your car better by somehow adding more doors and wheels.  That's what offline base-phasing is, adding more doors to an already existing car. 

By innovation I don’t mean to simply add more features to a broken base. I mean to have the courage to complete redo broken stuff.

The last thing we can hope for is that they update the Enfusion engine in DayZ so that vehicles will get fixed. Other than that I think they should just move on, leave DayZ behind and make a new game. Their focus should 100% be put on Arma4.