Underground settlements?

[iashford 73]

While I think underground settlements are a really fun idea, I personally feel that zombies would become even less meaningful. In a zombie apocalypse, I can imagine safe zones would eventually have zombies trying to raid them, however an underground settlement seems a lot safer, and runs little to no risk of getting a zombie break in.

I would personally like to see not only underground settlements, but also above ground ones, maybe even just in established buildings. Then you can build fences to keep out the zombies, but they're still breakable. I think above ground settlements should be available, made much easier to establish, but also run the risk of being more dangerous to snipers and zombies.

What do you guys think? Should there be both above and underground safe settlements, or just underground

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Above ground settlements have been ruled out because of people spamming the map. Also it'll lag the servers.

[a4410 10]

Yea I kinda want the underground bases taken out, they're way to good. I know alot of clans that exploit them for duplicating items.

EDIT : Sorry my left this tab open and my brother decided to troll...

Edited September 5, 2012 by a4410

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

What?

[SystemiK 366]

The reason that underground construction is favored by the devs is that the current building materials in the game (wire fence / sandbags / tank traps) have been largely only used for griefing, such as blocking all the entrances to loot spawns etc. Taking construction underground into an instanced setting not only alleviates the "spam" element of of building materials, but it also offers the benefit of not having much impact on server / client performance. It's kind of a win win situation vs. creating even more problems if done above ground.

[Dankine 377]

Yea I kinda want the underground bases taken out, they're way to good. I know alot of clans that exploit them for duplicating items.

don't think i've ever wanted to post a facepalm picture more

[Skat3rat 1633]

Rocket has talked about making underground settlements an option in stand alone. He talked about it in the interview he had with SideStrafe.

[iashford 73]

Yeah I suppose you guys are right. But there are ways around it, like only being able to build fences, etc. in established settlement areas, rather then anywhere at your own free will.

I don't know, I just feel like having only underground settlements really take out that interesting, survival dynamic of having a zombie infiltration

[Dankine 377]

am sure there will still be ways for zombies to get in

[iashford 73]

Rocket has talked about making underground settlements an option in stand alone. He talked about it in the interview he had with SideStrafe.

I understand that, hence the subject at topic. I didn't just randomly make it up lol

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Rockets talked about being able to set traps inside your base so there's loads to look forward to.

[Lonrem 62]

Yeah I suppose you guys are right. But there are ways around it, like only being able to build fences, etc. in established settlement areas, rather then anywhere at your own free will.

I don't know, I just feel like having only underground settlements really take out that interesting, survival dynamic of having a zombie infiltration

Don't worry, Rocket has said that you'll be able to make underground lairs to store things, farm things, etc. Not that they'd be safe from zombies or other players. To paraphrase Rocket from a recent interview: "How do you keep people from attacking underground locations? I don't, the players do."

[Bizmal 19]

While I think underground settlements are a really fun idea, I personally feel that zombies would become even less meaningful. In a zombie apocalypse, I can imagine safe zones would eventually have zombies trying to raid them, however an underground settlement seems a lot safer, and runs little to no risk of getting a zombie break in.

I would personally like to see not only underground settlements, but also above ground ones, maybe even just in established buildings. Then you can build fences to keep out the zombies, but they're still breakable. I think above ground settlements should be available, made much easier to establish, but also run the risk of being more dangerous to snipers and zombies.

What do you guys think? Should there be both above and underground safe settlements, or just underground

I think above ground won't work. I don't mind the below ground idea as long as u loose it if you die. Having a permanent base even after death would make death less meaningful. If you loose the fear of death the games done.

[SystemiK 366]

The most interesting thing I have seen Rocket mention about the underground "bases" is that he envisions them being something which you could spend YEARS working on. Think about that for a minute....

[Jon Snow (DayZ) 51]

Yea I kinda want the underground bases taken out, they're way to good. I know alot of clans that exploit them for duplicating items.

This is my friend Eric from the future, don't mind him.

Anyways I think underground is the way to go

[iashford 73]

Okay, you guys have definitely put my concerns at ease now. I still wish we could have above ground settlements, but I definitely feel better about the underground ones. Kinda reminds me of fallout haha

I guess what remains left to be seen is how well settlements are even going to go on servers that only hold 250 players.

[Dankine 377]

I guess what remains left to be seen is how well settlements are even going to go on servers that only hold 250 players.

how do you mean?

[merrfack 90]

Why not just take them out of the game, and tents. Make it to where you have to hold and control. Just an idea, doesn't mean i'm all for it.

[keosan24 55]

Okay, you guys have definitely put my concerns at ease now. I still wish we could have above ground settlements, but I definitely feel better about the underground ones. Kinda reminds me of fallout haha

I guess what remains left to be seen is how well settlements are even going to go on servers that only hold 250 players.

You are clearly talking about WarZ and not DayZ. Im pretty sure you will have to find the correct materials to start a underground base, then find the materials to add onto it and maintain it.

[iashford 73]

You are clearly talking about WarZ and not DayZ. Im pretty sure you will have to find the correct materials to start a underground base, then find the materials to add onto it and maintain it.

I'm not talking about WarZ. I'm thinking that the standalone was gonna be around 250 players, because a few moths ago when rocket said he ported dayZ over to the arma3 engine, he said it could easily support 200-250 players. I'm assuming that still stands?

I understand that you have to find materials, I think that it's exciting, I guess my concern is just how many people are going to be bothered. While yeah, settlements will need maintaining, they have to be somewhat easy to establish, or at the very least, easy to establish when you have other team members.

@Dankine

I mean, my concern is if servers can only hold 250 people, theres not a lot of icentive to build settlements if said settlement is server bound, and you might have barely anyone to even start up a town with.

@Bizmal

I don't think you should lose your safe settlement, but I do think keys should be necessary to enter the entrance to the underground base. When someone dies, their key can be lootable, so the killer can try and find the settlement. I think a very rare grate/fence cutter should also be obtainable to gain access to other peoples entrances. Maybe different levels of security require different ways to break thru?

[Dankine 377]

I really don't see that being a problem, especially if zombie difficulty and number is increased.

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

Do people even want 250 players on a server? Seems a bit over populated even with a larger map.

Anyway, my only issue with underground bases is entering and leaving them.

There you are, about to enter whatever door/hatch the game grants you for your base (hopefully it's camouflaged to some extent). You scroll your wheel and select enter. You wait for the loading screen to finish and now you're in your underground base. Cool. Unfortunately a player saw you lookibg at the ground and then vanish or go down a hole to whatever loading trigger. Now he waits. You decide to leave your bunker and while you're waiting for your loading screen to complete you die to "friendly fire". You're killed while your screen is still pitch black. You spawn back and run to your entrance to find your bunker looted.

This will become a common occurrence in game unless they plan on fixing the delay between spawning and being able to control your player. Obviously they shouldn't do anything that prevents players from following you to your bunker but the vulnerability this loading process brings is a pretty big deal. I hope they've considered this and at least grant us multiple entrances/exits with some type camo and a loading in stance other than standing straight up with arms waving begging for a bullet.

[keosan24 55]

I'm not talking about WarZ. I'm thinking that the standalone was gonna be around 250 players, because a few moths ago when rocket said he ported dayZ over to the arma3 engine, he said it could easily support 200-250 players. I'm assuming that still stands?

I understand that you have to find materials, I think that it's exciting, I guess my concern is just how many people are going to be bothered. While yeah, settlements will need maintaining, they have to be somewhat easy to establish, or at the very least, easy to establish when you have other team members.

Mind quoting what he said, not saying oh a few months ago he said blah blah the actual post he made quote it.

well based on what fraggle has said everything that rocket has said about the standalone is neither confirmed or denied, which means that the standalone could support 250 people or only 75 after everyone gets the stand alone and then see how well the servers do with all the stress.

Edited September 5, 2012 by keosan24

[Sir Diealot 46]

While I don't really dislike the idea of underground construction, (as long as it's done right, which I'm sure it will) I'd also rather first have the ability to fortify existing buildings and such. As a few examples; locking doors, boarding up windows, fixing/raising fences, chainlocking gates and such. It also seems more realistic, atleast the way I see it. The structure would be there, 'all ready', you just need to make it 'safe'. Digging holes in the ground wouldn't be the first thing on my mind, were a situation like this presented to me. I think. :D

[DemonGroover 8836]

I just hope these bases arent super high tech things that we can just build out of nothing.

Think about it, if you and your buddies were to build an underground base in your back yard what would it look like?

The frigging Umbrella Corporation base from Resi Evil or a hole in the ground, some tin sheeting and a tarp over the top?

Edited September 5, 2012 by DemonGroover