The War on Wilderness - Reclaiming Myshkino

[Schweinsteiger 107]

I agree with Death, we need more interesting things in the wilderness to begin with, not just empty expanses without true purpose.

 

I have no problem with towns and military bases, vehicles, helicopters, etc. I have a problem with nothing fun to do. I was under the impression that running would somehow be limited in this update and that hasn't happened. Not that limiting running would be good or bad. It would have to be based off of something real (too cold, get inside, find a jacket or be forced to start a fire or you eventually freeze to death). Some of the weather effects seem to crash on you too fast, other times too slow.

 

The NWAF base isn't spawning as many AKs as before (at least while I was there) but there were at least five SKS's I found within 20 minutes of roaming around. The tents at the NWAF are filled with food more then anything at the moment, some clothing (mainly pants for whatever weird reason) and the occasional tactical vest.

 

I'd like to see more options for improvised backpacks that match the storage capacity of Hunter and mountain backpacks.

[Evil Minion 943]

To sum it up: Instead of using the system as it was intended, after 30 minutes all the 12-year-old kids will get bored and start a competition "Who can build the most stupid building right in the middle of Cherno". Now what happens is: Those buildings completly destroy the atmosphere the game and the "sandbox gameplay" becomes a sandbox in kindergarden where everyone behaves like a 5 year old.

Thats why building should be hard - not the typical game "hard" but really, really hard. And it should take a lot of time. Do you really think those 12-year-olds have the will and endurance to build a giant penis if it took them weeks or even longer to complete? All while staying alive, getting materials and supplies. No - building should be for the sophisticated. Just like building in real life.

 

Same with destruction - if it was easy no building would stand for long. So something that takes a long time to build should also take a long time to destroy. You should not be able to blow up builings with normal stuff but would require very rare items (a shitload of explosives etc..), very high amounts of time (e.g. using an axe to destry a small wooden building) or high effort beforehand (like getting your hands on some heavy-duty vehicles with enough fuel to work properly). Again here - kids should not even bother destroying buildings but rather focus on breaking in somehow - which shouldn't be easy either.

 

Now by making building that hard you might want to save yourself some work and include existing structures which might cause most structures to be build in cities ot towns probably as an extention to a barricaded house. Especially as destruction should be equally hard you might enjoy it for quite some time until it finally gets destroyed. Or you build your base far in the woods but this way you might have some more problems with logistics.

 

In short: If you create a system every 12-year-old can use without much effort you shouldn't be surprised if every 12-year-old uses it without much effort. An the results are what you described. Now if you make base-building hard and destruction as well those kids will most likely just interact with the buildings someone else built.

 

 

Now one use for the wilderness is hiding so we will get buildings there which in turn might cause people entering to look for them. There is no need to add a military base with high level loot to every forest - chances are people will do this for you. However, I would also like to see some resources you can most likely get in the wilderness: Food - sure there should be food spawns in cities but reduced, especially for public/military buildings. Crafting materials - from simple sticks to leather hides to poisonous mushrooms - things you might need for various reasons and are more likely to get in the wilderness.

[-MadTommy 367]

I'd like to 1st state I'm generally against military anything in this game.  However.

 

1. The wilderness left on Chernarus has now been further marginalized by the western north-south axis of high-end military structures.

 

There is tons of wilderness on Chernarus.  It is certainly not insignificant or peripheral, as you appear to be saying.

 

2. The placement of a military base near Myshkino slices a high-traffic path right through the core of this wilderness which, to reiterate, is already shrinking.

 

People having a reason to pass through wilderness areas is a good thing, it actually means the wilderness is used more.  Making these locations more interesting. The days when the only time you would get contact was on the coast or military bases was bad.. adding this base does not shrink the wilderness areas it simply makes them used, that is not the same. there is no point having wilderness with no one in it.

 

Also for a lot of us military bases have nothing we want. Who needs a M4 or special camo when you can find just as effective weapons and camo in barns and such like. I'd prefer an axe and a mosin any day. I see military bases as magnets for a certain player type.. and that's a good thing, players just sprinting from military base to base are simply playing a different game to me.

[Etherimp 1323]

Move the tents to Stary where they belong. We all win.

[Deathlove 2280]

I mean come on there are plenty of ways to make the landscapes interesting.

 

 

 

Of coarse i can see it being a rendering nightmare as well! XD

Edited September 19, 2014 by Deathlove

[Deathlove 2280]

I'd like to 1st state I'm generally against military anything in this game.  However.

 

 

There is tons of wilderness on Chernarus.  It is certainly not insignificant or peripheral, as you appear to be saying.

 

 

People having a reason to pass through wilderness areas is a good thing, it actually means the wilderness is used more.  Making these locations more interesting. The days when the only time you would get contact was on the coast or military bases was bad.. adding this base does not shrink the wilderness areas it simply makes them used, that is not the same. there is no point having wilderness with no one in it.

 

Also for a lot of us military bases have nothing we want. Who needs a M4 or special camo when you can find just as effective weapons and camo in barns and such like. I'd prefer an axe and a mosin any day. I see military bases as magnets for a certain player type.. and that's a good thing, players just sprinting from military base to base are simply playing a different game to me.

To be honest an M4 has over 3 different types of optics i prefer over most guns. That and the 60 round couple mags make it an overall more appealing gun than the 101 to an extent. That said you can get the AKM with a 70 round drum but i prefer American made weapons over Russian when i can get them.

[Monkeyrama 4]

I think they should throw out all the towns and only add little camping sites like 1-2 tents with about 1-3 cans of food 2 cans of soda and nothing else, maybe clothing but everything else shall be wilderness and you should craft all you need from scrap. 

 

No weapons, No military shit, no pvp.

[Deathlove 2280]

I think they should throw out all the towns and only add little camping sites like 1-2 tents with about 1-3 cans of food 2 cans of soda and nothing else, maybe clothing but everything else shall be wilderness and you should craft all you need from scrap. 

 

No weapons, No military shit, no pvp.

Well my mind has always been pve focused. And those that do will make the good gear that they find last longer anyways. For those that don't once gear and canned food sources like Rocket was saying get dialed back quite a bit Dayz mode style allot of hard core pvpers will have one of two choices. Ether play smarter and adapt or move on and find another game to play. Those that continue to play it safe will be rewarded much better game wise anyways in the long run.

[ebrim 998]

Less of an issue? Sure. But not by any significant amount.

 

If a location is attractive, it will be a destination. Players will go there in droves, no matter how fast they can run.

 

Likewise, I only worry about player structures "polluting" the landscape when there's not enough landscape...

 

Well something that I don't really see as that critical being less of an issue seems adequate to me. The map still has considerable wilderness, especially in the south and southeast, from a little west of Nedezhdino east to the east is a beautiful large spread of wooded mountains and valleys with only relatively minor towns here and there (aside from Elektro and Cherno on the coast). This actually includes Skalisty Island. Devil's Castle down through Old Fields is also relatively sparse and wild, there' also the Black Lake region on the east coast. We'll probably see the areas west of Novo thinned out a little but again there's plenty of nothing up there right now.

[DerDuderich 149]

One of the main problems of DayZ is (and has always been, even in the vanilla mod) the fact that military lot is the best loot and the only way to get it is to go to the airfield and/or military camps. 

 

This led to players ignoring big parts of the map because the loot you could find there was basically useless if you could go straight for the military loot.

 

I saw this graphic a while back and found it to be pretty accurate:

 

 

So what has to happen:

 

1. Drastically (!) reduce the amount of "military items".
2. Put a shitload of zombies on the airfields and military camps so not every douche server hopper can gear up there within 10 minutes but you need a large group (which is already equipped to a certain level including civil guns) to even be able to survive there.
3. Reduce the amount of fixed military spawns at the airfields and increase the amount of random spawns (helicopters, police cars, trucks, trains, crashed planes, ships) and possible spawn locations ALL OVER THE MAP so you have to actually search for loot instead of going to an airfield and getting your guaranteed military outfit.
4. Make civil items competitive. Screw realism, since military loot is the only useful loot, everything else is currently only a placeholder until you get your military outfit. And this is bad. There need to be (craftable?) civil items that provide bonuses at least close to the military items. Or, let me put it this way: Civil items need advantages, not only disadvantages. Also, I think there should be a slight chance of military items spawning in civil places. I don't know, maybe a soldier brought home his helmet and gun? 
5. Make travelling a risk (will hopefully happen automatically once zombies are more of a danger).
6. Give players a reason to (re-) visit certain locations. E.g. special items (like special parts for vehicles or special clothing items) that only spawn at very special locations (that are NOT the usual "good gear" spots like the airfields). Example: Include the chainsaw but let it spawn ONLY at maybe 2 or 3 lumber mills and randomly appearing "woodcutter camps".

this is Alpha, but I hope we will see most of this happening once the game makes progress. 

 

The point I'm trying to make is: There is a whole lot of "wilderness" in Chernarus. You just never go there because...why? It's useless since only like 5% of the map provide useful loot and 4 of these 5% are or in the top northwest corner surrounding the NWAF...

Edited September 19, 2014 by DerDuderich

[Evil Minion 943]

That map is a little old right now as we got different spawns. But in relation to those spawns the red are is actually a good thing to have (also you get pretty good loot there as well).

1. Drastically (!) reduce the amount of "military items".
2. Put a shitload of zombies on the airfields and military camps so not every douche server hopper can gear up there within 10 minutes but you need a large group (which is already equipped to a certain level including civil guns) to even be able to survive there.
3. Reduce the amount of fixed military spawns at the airfields and increase the amount of random spawns (helicopters, police cars, trucks, trains, crashed planes, ships) and possible spawn locations ALL OVER THE MAP so you have to actually search for loot instead of going to an airfield and getting your guaranteed military outfit.
4. Make civil items competitive. Screw realism, since military loot is the only useful loot, everything else is currently only a placeholder until you get your military outfit. And this is bad. There need to be (craftable?) civil items that provide bonuses at least close to the military items. Or, let me put it this way: Civil items need advantages, not only disadvantages. Also, I think there should be a slight chance of military items spawning in civil places. I don't know, maybe a soldier brought home his helmet and gun? 
5. Make travelling a risk (will hopefully happen automatically once zombies are more of a danger).
6. Give players a reason to (re-) visit certain locations. E.g. special items (like special parts for vehicles or special clothing items) that only spawn at very special locations (that are NOT the usual "good gear" spots like the airfields). Example: Include the chainsaw but let it spawn ONLY at maybe 2 or 3 lumber mills and randomly appearing "woodcutter camps".

I agree with all points but 4. You don't need to screw realism (at least not very hard). With the other points players will end up using civilian items more often. Now for clothes there are some things to consider:

• make them more durable (right now they get destroyed by as few as two zombie hits)
• divide storage into pockets that get gradually unusable when the clothes get damaged
• ruined clothing should lose all its positive properties (protection, storage etc.)
• you should be able to tear ruined clothes into rags (though a lower number of badly damaged ones)
• to repair clothes you would need other clothes of similar material

Now as civilian clothes are much more common this would make them much easier to get and maintain making them more practical than military clothes. This can also be done with weapons - most civilian weapons would use ammo that is more abundant than that of most military firearms and the more complicated the action the more involved their maintainance:

• a break action would only need a cleaning kit
• a bolt action would require to remove the bolt first
• other actions would require disassembling the weapon
• automatic weapons might degrade faster

As for vehicles - fuel. Military ones usually need a shitload of it and if there were different types the one used by them (most likely Diesel fuel) could be a little more rare as well.

 

In general military or similar buildings (police station, prison etc.) should spawn much less other items especially food. The main source of food should be supermarkets and the wilderness followed by residential homes (village houses should have more than city apartments). For clothes city apartments and shops should be prime targets. For tools industrial areas and barns.

 

Now in the North there are open spaces clearly intended to become towns - and I have no problem with that as its not much wilderness to begin with. However they should not insert towns in more developed parts of wilderness to give the animals some space to dwell - which directly inproves the experience of playing there (e.g. hunting, stalking, camping).

[Tatanko 5591]

Skalisty Island ( the bigger one, close to Kamyshovo ) is still a nice place to go.

That it is. I hope they do some nice finishing touches to it later on, but I don't want it to change much from the way it is now. It's a haven of sorts.

 

 

The map still has considerable wilderness, especially in the south and southeast, from a little west of Nedezhdino east to the east is a beautiful large spread of wooded mountains and valleys with only relatively minor towns here and there (aside from Elektro and Cherno on the coast). This actually includes Skalisty Island. Devil's Castle down through Old Fields is also relatively sparse and wild, there' also the Black Lake region on the east coast. We'll probably see the areas west of Novo thinned out a little but again there's plenty of nothing up there right now.

The first chunk includes places like Kopyto and Castle Rog that are great destinations, too. You pretty much just named all my favorite areas of the map  :P

 

As for the Northwest still being sparse, that won't last long. I remember when I first started playing the Standalone that the far north seemed incredibly intimidating because it was just vast swaths of nothingness. Now the eastern half of that nothingness is full of towns! :)

Edited September 19, 2014 by Tatanko

[Whyherro123 2283]

That map is a little old right now as we got different spawns. But in relation to those spawns the red are is actually a good thing to have (also you get pretty good loot there as well).

I agree with all points but 4. You don't need to screw realism (at least not very hard). With the other points players will end up using civilian items more often. Now for clothes there are some things to consider:

• make them more durable (right now they get destroyed by as few as two zombie hits)
• divide storage into pockets that get gradually unusable when the clothes get damaged
• ruined clothing should lose all its positive properties (protection, storage etc.)
• you should be able to tear ruined clothes into rags (though a lower number of badly damaged ones)
• to repair clothes you would need other clothes of similar material

Now as civilian clothes are much more common this would make them much easier to get and maintain making them more practical than military clothes. This can also be done with weapons - most civilian weapons would use ammo that is more abundant than that of most military firearms and the more complicated the action the more involved their maintainance:

• a break action would only need a cleaning kit
• a bolt action would require to remove the bolt first
• other actions would require disassembling the weapon
• automatic weapons might degrade faster

As for vehicles - fuel. Military ones usually need a shitload of it and if there were different types the one used by them (most likely Diesel fuel) could be a little more rare as well.

 

In general military or similar buildings (police station, prison etc.) should spawn much less other items especially food. The main source of food should be supermarkets and the wilderness followed by residential homes (village houses should have more than city apartments). For clothes city apartments and shops should be prime targets. For tools industrial areas and barns.

 

Now in the North there are open spaces clearly intended to become towns - and I have no problem with that as its not much wilderness to begin with. However they should not insert towns in more developed parts of wilderness to give the animals some space to dwell - which directly inproves the experience of playing there (e.g. hunting, stalking, camping).

Pretty much:

 

for "military" (HAHAHA, what do you consider military? In-game, there is really only one "non-military" firearm, the Blaze 95. Literally all of the other firearms have been/are used by some military force in history), add in weapon maintenance and jams. Over time, firearms get dirty and degrade. They also have an increased chance of jamming after going for a while without maintenance. Automatic/cyclic firearms would be the most affected, while manual weapons would be the least affected. What to know what firearms would not be affected by jams? The Blaze 95, IZH shotgun, and the .357 Magnum. If it takes 20 minutes of cleaning and disassemble a day in order to effectively use that M4/AKM/AK101, then some people might switch.

 

Not my clan. We have a specialized division in my group, that are focused solely on logistical support. When (I seriously hope) it gets implemented, we will be the "second Line" troopers, cleaning firearms, reloading ammunition, growing food, and chopping wood for fires. So, while you guys are suffering from debilitating malnutrition-related diseases, hypothermia, and a jammed rifle, we can come in and sweep you off the map.

 

Amateurs study tactics, Veterans study strategy, Professionals study logistics.

[Irish. 4886]

-la sumarizia-

 

Forced player interaction. Which should be welcomed by almost every player out there. 

 

The map is large enough as it is.. no need for more places to hide from everyone else in the game. There is just no need, when you look at the map to add or save the trees in my opinion. Using photoshop and the dayz map, I can see that Chernarus is roughly 40-50% forest/wilderness.. so why any needs saving is beyond me really? 

 

I respect and understand your view, but Im not seeing the validity in it. Do you really think we need woods everywhere?

 

Is there truly not enough for you as is? Because honestly Katana, its crazy to me if you say no. Cray, cray.. :)

Edited September 19, 2014 by lrish

[Tatanko 5591]

Not my clan. We have a specialized division in my group, that are focused solely on logistical support. When (I seriously hope) it gets implemented, we will be the "second Line" troopers, cleaning firearms, reloading ammunition, growing food, and chopping wood for fires. So, while you guys are suffering from debilitating malnutrition-related diseases, hypothermia, and a jammed rifle, we can come in and sweep you off the map.

 

Amateurs study tactics, Veterans study strategy, Professionals study logistics.

So well said! (Check my signature... been the same since January ;))

[Katana67 2907]

The map is large enough as it is.. no need for more places to hide from everyone else in the game. There is just no need, when you look at the map to add or save the trees in my opinion. Using photoshop and the dayz map, I can see that Chernarus is roughly 40-50% forest/wilderness.. so why any needs saving is beyond me really? 

 

I respect and understand your view, but Im not seeing the validity in it. Do you really think we need woods everywhere?

 

Is there truly not enough for you as is? Because honestly Katana, its crazy to me if you say no. Cray, cray.. :)

 

No, I don't think we need woods everywhere. I've never asserted this, ever.

 

I'm saying we need some wilderness and a robust wilderness at that. A lot of the map is wooded (although I'd contend that most of it is just fields and cities now), but it's not wilderness if it's in immediate abutment to large towns and/or high-value locations.

 

The wilderness we had in vanilla Chernarus was passable. People could hide vehicles/tents with relative security (although this is presumptuous, as I found vehicles/tents in the woods all... effing... day). But that wilderness has been carved up. Just look at the north, it's plain to see.

 

Take the upcoming horticulture feature. I'm not going to waste time setting up a garden if it's either immediately adjacent to a high-end loot location (which much of the untouched wilderness in Chernarus now is), or, if it's on a commonly traveled pathway to a high-value area (which nearly all of the wooded areas are now, or are going to be, in Chernarus).

 

Like it or not, the true utility of the wilderness is being able to add value to things like vehicles/storage/construction by hiding them. I'm not going to waste time building up a cabin, only to have it be on the freakin' road to Myshkino. And with the marginalized wilderness, the areas in which it actually is viable to set up persistent structures/storage locations become all the more uncommon. This results in a "narrowing" of viable locations, which results in easier pickings for those who would seek these valuable resources out. In short, fewer places to hide... easier to tell where people are hiding things.

 

All or most of the true wilderness of Chernarus, has been completely marginalized and has had towns/cities/military camps placed in direct abutment.

 

And forcing player interaction is good to an extent (although one can argue that "forced" anything is completely against what DayZ is), but it can be done in multifaceted ways. Rather than univalent ways.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Katana67

[Katana67 2907]

I'd like to 1st state I'm generally against military anything in this game.  However.

There is tons of wilderness on Chernarus.  It is certainly not insignificant or peripheral, as you appear to be saying.

 

People having a reason to pass through wilderness areas is a good thing, it actually means the wilderness is used more.  Making these locations more interesting. The days when the only time you would get contact was on the coast or military bases was bad.. adding this base does not shrink the wilderness areas it simply makes them used, that is not the same. there is no point having wilderness with no one in it.

 

Also for a lot of us military bases have nothing we want. Who needs a M4 or special camo when you can find just as effective weapons and camo in barns and such like. I'd prefer an axe and a mosin any day. I see military bases as magnets for a certain player type.. and that's a good thing, players just sprinting from military base to base are simply playing a different game to me.

 

Well, I mean just from a visual point of view... the wilderness has shrunk. I won't really waste time arguing that, because it's just so plain to see in a comparison between Chernarus and Chernarus+. The northern corridor upon which they're adding cities is evidence enough of that, an area that was previously a wooded mountain range (which has now been replaced with empty fields and future city plots). I don't think you can really argue that the wilderness hasn't shrunk, because it has. There hasn't been any "added" wilderness, only added urban locations and fields (hence why when they showcase the map additions, they are always focusing on what new city was added).

 

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/185396-save-the-trees-man-marginalized-wilderness/

 

I argue that the wilderness should be a destination unto itself, not a pathway. But we need to actually have wilderness in the game for this to be applicable, which is why I'm here.

 

Similar to your "specific type of player" argument, I am a specific type of player. The kind who dwells in the wilderness. The kind who wants to live off the land. The kind who wants to raid the property of others. Like you, I don't want to be forced into playing with others who are "playing a different game."

 

And you're essentially proving me right when you say "it attracts a certain player type" in that it becomes a point of attraction. I want the wilderness itself to be viable (i.e. to supply a given gameplay archetype) rather than just shoving more military bases into the wilderness for more of the same.

 

To summarize, what I want is more wilderness so that it can be allowed to become a destination unto itself. Not less wilderness, with more high-value locations dotting it.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Katana67

[-MadTommy 367]

Well, I mean just from a visual point of view... the wilderness has shrunk. I won't really waste time arguing that, because it's just so plain to see in a comparison between Chernarus and Chernarus+. The northern corridor upon which they're adding cities is evidence enough of that, an area that was previously a wooded mountain range (which has now been replaced with empty fields and future city plots). I don't think you can really argue that the wilderness hasn't shrunk, because it has. There hasn't been any "added" wilderness, only added urban locations and fields (hence why when they showcase the map additions, they are always focusing on what new city was added).

 

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/185396-save-the-trees-man-marginalized-wilderness/

 

I argue that the wilderness should be a destination unto itself, not a pathway. But we need to actually have wilderness in the game for this to be applicable, which is why I'm here.

 

Similar to your "specific type of player" argument, I am a specific type of player. The kind who dwells in the wilderness. The kind who wants to live off the land. The kind who wants to raid the property of others. Like you, I don't want to be forced into playing with others who are "playing a different game."

 

And you're essentially proving me right when you say "it attracts a certain player type" in that it becomes a point of attraction. I want the wilderness itself to be viable (i.e. to supply a given gameplay archetype) rather than just shoving more military bases into the wilderness for more of the same.

 

To summarize, what I want is more wilderness so that it can be allowed to become a destination unto itself. Not less wilderness, with more high-value locations dotting it.

 

Ok... i understand.  But marginalised does not mean the same as shrunk.  I think that is where we differ.  You could reduce the wilderness and at the same time make it more important.  I think this is just a misunderstanding of the word marginalise.

 

I too like to live in the wilderness... but what i don't like is the feeling that i'm alone, I want people moving through the wilderness..making it far more dangerous.

Edited September 20, 2014 by MadTommy

[Rags! 1966]

I'm hoping that everything will be much more spread out so there are reasons and opportunity to actually travel to places. That being said, a spread out map is only the first step in what I would like to see...which is high population servers of a hundred or so but having those spawns be spread out all over the map so that meeting players has a more organic and natural feel to it. 

 

I would love to see another living soul in Pustoshka. or Zelenogorsk.

 

Or 74.8% of the map that nobody bothers going to. 

[harteman 155]

With the advent of .49, we have seen the displacement of the Balota miltiary complex to Myshkino. I had previously assumed that this displacement would take place between Balota and the newly revealed "Tisy military base" in the NW corner of the map. However, I was wrong.

 

It is perhaps presumptuous of me to be taking issue with how the developers are improving the map. But I can't help but notice several things.

 

1. The wilderness left on Chernarus has now been further marginalized by the western north-south axis of high-end military structures.

 

2. The placement of a military base near Myshkino slices a high-traffic path right through the core of this wilderness which, to reiterate, is already shrinking.

 

3. The placement of a military base near Myshkino offsets the north-south axis of high-end loot locations further westward (almost to the border of the map).

 

4. One of the few small villages remaining (most of which are now substantial full-on towns or cities), Myshkino, is now a high-value location.

 

Now, to reiterate my points from my "Save The Trees" thread, it seems that the wilderness is not being expanded... or even preserved... but is being actively marginalized. This is a negative aspect of the map development for many reasons. Chief amongst which, is a lack of variety in terms of player structure/storage/vehicle locations (thereby forcing them into urban centers). But moreover, it makes the map more homogenous. It's now just a series of pretty-much-the-same towns, punctuated by the occasional high-end military location. Rather than an organic, varied, landscape.

 

Plus, I am personally biased to Myshkino. So there's that.

 

So what do I think should happen? One of two things. Either have one less high-end loot location, because the Tisy military base will be a factor (and is already pretty dern close to the border). Or, displace the Myshkino base somewhere north of Lopatino (along the road).

 

EDIT - To be clear, I am certainly not against change. I embrace it. Just not this particular change.

We are talking about just the tents, right?  I have no problem with this, and don't mind things being more spread out, encouraging more traveling.  The tents are hardly the holy grail as far as item loot tables go.

 

What I really don't want to see are areas that become known for particular things.  For example, I wouldn't want an area to be known for guys hanging out in the woods roughing it, because then that is where everyone would go to kill them.  I don't want all the decent loots like this either.

 

Spread it out all over the place.

[SamualACarver 7]

Well the problem is that this so called "player made environment" feature will NEVER work. In any game.

 

Just take a close look at "sandbox" games that already allow players to build buildings and structures. You'll then observe two things:

 

1. Player exploiting the system

   The first half of players will for example build rediculously high "sniper towers" right in the middle of big cities, block the entrance to important loot buildings or build stuff under water. Or - good example - take minecraft: People will take great pelasure in destroying other players buildings, build a giant penis and so on. To sum it up: Instead of using the system as it was intended, after 30 minutes all the 12-year-old kids will get bored and start a competition "Who can build the most stupid building right in the middle of Cherno". Now what happens is: Those buildings completly destroy the atmosphere the game and the "sandbox gameplay" becomes a sandbox in kindergarden where everyone behaves like a 5 year old.

2. Players hiding from each other

   The other half of players will build cool buildings, but because they are afraid of the first half of idiots, they will try to hide those buildings deep in the "wilderness", at the borders of the map.

What's the result:

 

Stupid buildings in cities, cool buildings FAR FAR AWAY in the forest and the rest of the map is nothing but empty and boring.

 

This is exactly the problem why devs are currently NOT talking about "base building" but about "barricading". They will hopefully never allow people to build their own buildings because that would destroy the game.  

 

And this is why we need a cool map with many different diverse locations...

I agree with you it would suck if Dayz went that way. I'm new to Dayz and havent played any games like it but I've watched a few videos of the mod and another game kinda like Dayz with massive bases and stuff. I saw a video of someone building a tower on that other game (cant remember the name) but they basically chopped down trees then magically had wood panels to stack together to build with. I thought that was stupid.

I think Dayz should be realistic with building and if it was it would pretty much eliminate the problems you pointed out. I'm a carpenter and building a house is not at all an easy process even just an average size home can take months to complete. You shouldnt be able to chop down a few tress and have a house built in 30 mins. If Dayz took a realistic approach to building structures building anything more than a log cabin or stone house would be nearly impossible.

I think the process for building even a small log cabin should be something like this.

Clip from the movie "Alone in the wilderness" about Dick Proenneke a man that went to live alone in the Alaskan wilderness. This is him building his log cabin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJKd0rkKss#t=112

Building even a small cabin is a lot of work and you need a lot of tools.

I dont think that Dayz should include every detail in the building process of a log cabin but a Player should have to gather up at least 4-5 different tools, some rope and a variety of different building materials.  To build a small cabin should probably take 20-30 man and game hours. So a single Player building a cabin in the woods should have to spend 20-30 game hours to build a small cabin. If you had 5 Players building one it should take 4-6 hours.

Building a stone structure should be the same way.

Also realistically you should be able to take apart other structures and use materials from those but you would need a vehicle to transport the materials to your building site.

Doing it like this would keep people from building massive elaborate structures and doing stupid sh*t like you mentioned. A small cabin in the woods would be a very valuable thing.

In the Dayz world there isnt any electricity and if there were it would be limited. There is absolutely no way anyone is going to build a massive multi-story building much less a concrete and steel military type base.

If it was set up this way Players would be more likely to use already existing structures and fortify them. I think that it would be awesome if Players would have to claim a structure and then secure and defend it. It would be cool if clans could lay claim to a village or town or base and other Players and clans could fight to take them over. Making the building process more realistic and difficult to do would make claiming even a small village very hard to do. Pretty much you would have to build a log or stone wall around the entire village like a mid-evil village would have been. Something that would take 100's of man game hours. A clan of ten could maybe build a log wall around a small village in 10-20 hrs. A lot of work and time but the harder you work for something the more important it becomes to you. Completing a project like that would be a great accomplishment for a clan.

 

Creating a system like this will greatly reduce the amount of structures Players wil build and will also give the "wilderness survival" Players a lot more to do.

 

Even now chopping down a large tree should take 15-20 mins of steady chopping. Some people may think that is boring but if you want or need the wood you should have to work for it and earn it.

[pillock 850]

I agree with you it would suck if Dayz went that way. I'm new to Dayz and havent played any games like it but I've watched a few videos of the mod and another game kinda like Dayz with massive bases and stuff. I saw a video of someone building a tower on that other game (cant remember the name) but they basically chopped down trees then magically had wood panels to stack together to build with. I thought that was stupid.

I think Dayz should be realistic with building and if it was it would pretty much eliminate the problems you pointed out. I'm a carpenter and building a house is not at all an easy process even just an average size home can take months to complete. You shouldnt be able to chop down a few tress and have a house built in 30 mins. If Dayz took a realistic approach to building structures building anything more than a log cabin or stone house would be nearly impossible.

I think the process for building even a small log cabin should be something like this.

Clip from the movie "Alone in the wilderness" about Dick Proenneke a man that went to live alone in the Alaskan wilderness. This is him building his log cabin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJKd0rkKss#t=112

Building even a small cabin is a lot of work and you need a lot of tools.

I dont think that Dayz should include every detail in the building process of a log cabin but a Player should have to gather up at least 4-5 different tools, some rope and a variety of different building materials.  To build a small cabin should probably take 20-30 man and game hours. So a single Player building a cabin in the woods should have to spend 20-30 game hours to build a small cabin. If you had 5 Players building one it should take 4-6 hours.

Building a stone structure should be the same way.

Also realistically you should be able to take apart other structures and use materials from those but you would need a vehicle to transport the materials to your building site.

Doing it like this would keep people from building massive elaborate structures and doing stupid sh*t like you mentioned. A small cabin in the woods would be a very valuable thing.

In the Dayz world there isnt any electricity and if there were it would be limited. There is absolutely no way anyone is going to build a massive multi-story building much less a concrete and steel military type base.

If it was set up this way Players would be more likely to use already existing structures and fortify them. I think that it would be awesome if Players would have to claim a structure and then secure and defend it. It would be cool if clans could lay claim to a village or town or base and other Players and clans could fight to take them over. Making the building process more realistic and difficult to do would make claiming even a small village very hard to do. Pretty much you would have to build a log or stone wall around the entire village like a mid-evil village would have been. Something that would take 100's of man game hours. A clan of ten could maybe build a log wall around a small village in 10-20 hrs. A lot of work and time but the harder you work for something the more important it becomes to you. Completing a project like that would be a great accomplishment for a clan.

 

Creating a system like this will greatly reduce the amount of structures Players wil build and will also give the "wilderness survival" Players a lot more to do.

 

Even now chopping down a large tree should take 15-20 mins of steady chopping. Some people may think that is boring but if you want or need the wood you should have to work for it and earn it.

 

In the Twitch stream that the Hicks chap did last week, he seemed to suggest that player-built structures would be very limited. From what I gathered, even log cabins are way beyond what's planned. There may not even be any 'building' at all - just barricading existing structures and putting up fences around your campsite.

 

I totally agree with what you say about cutting down trees. Chopping down a tree with an axe is one of the most exhausting things you can do in DayZ's context - it should take some time, and once stamina is in the game, it should tire you out a lot.

[Calvin Candie 189]

They really just need to add more wilderness proportional to the new cities and stuff they add.

It would also be cool to have some true wilderness closer to the center of the map. It's a bit boring that the only real forests are in the north and west edges of the map.

Please explain. I do not understand "more wilderness" point of view.

There is plenty of vast forests and valleys throughout Chernarus. In all parts of the map.

What exactly is wilderness? How big should it be? What should it have?

If I run through trees for 5 minutes I am pretty much in wilderness! No need to create another 50 km2 of forests, lakes and mountains. They are all the same anyways!

Edited September 20, 2014 by Calvin Candie

[petetheEat 15]

Myshkino is one of my favourite places to go to escape from the raiders and the bandits and the roadrats who seem to be spreading further every day. It used to be that as long as you stayed out of Berezino and the East coast then you'd be safe to wander alone, but as more and more high value cities are popping up, the wilderness and its safety is shrinking.

[petetheEat 15]

Oops double post.

Edited September 20, 2014 by petetheEat