Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

    Thread for discussion of today's update.

  • #2
    Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

    I certainly would have appreciated a little bit of notice before hand on this seeing as we've been saving up some of these items in hopes of using them soon. Where is our opportunity to hit back and use up our remaining explosives to get back at whoever expended a large amount of satchels to get into our base prior to the update today? All our stuff is now gone and without parachutes or explosives to blow our way in - we have no chance to get it back.

    Again - definitely would have appreciated some advance notice on this one. Doesn't sit to good with me.
    |TG-6th|CorpDuty

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

      There are lots of other ways to get what you want, use your imagination. The server is evolving, and you should try to evolve with it. Theres plenty more vehicles/gear to be had one way or another. At least now bases can be secure as intended, and we can all start getting more tactical again. I know TG can, and now will, do better than hit and runs on unmanned bases. It's just a game, lets try to have more fun with it, and less wheh.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

        Unable to play until later but I can say that the M136 and satchel being removed seems to invalidate
        much of what Wicken's had said a few days back.

        If there is a gate then I don't have an issue with anyone doing anything like this, just satchel the gate.
        Meh. Base building will become the name of the game. Good thing I was securing supplies... ULTRA FORT TIME! My Sand Castle of Impenetrable doom will afford me endless security while loot farming.

        ---

        Also I would like to say that we were holding our supplies and had the explicit doctrine of only attacking bases
        during times when it was known that at least one member of the base was online.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

          I kinda agree with corp. At least one server restart warning prolly woulda been nice to use up the party favors in grand style at the very least (or in my case, a glorious death). I like the changes a lot, however.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

            Oh my god, Ytman, something I said several days ago is rendered invalid by something that happened afterwards, how weird! It must be a conspiracy!

            Also I would like to say that we were holding our supplies and had the explicit doctrine of only attacking bases
            during times when it was known that at least one member of the base was online.
            Bravo, ever thought of actually attacking something other than bases, you know, stuff that shoots back. Sorry that the developments may have frustrated your ability to blow up stuff inanimate objects.

            Ever thought, any of you, that the people that devote their time to making a special version of the mod, are just trying to fix it, you know, make it as good as possible for you.
            Last edited by Wicks; 05-26-2013, 10:11 PM.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

              The 4th of July is just around the corner and that would be a great time to set them off in the middle of Sabina or a certain place in Branibor.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

                No. I don't have my tinfoil RP hat on Wicks ^^

                It was just a connection between the concept that you posited, and I had agreed with;
                bases should be contestable. That concept had much rendered the topic and OP at least
                in my mind sort of resolved. I know you are not the admin nor the one providing the creative
                guidance and also you should know, from our talks at least, that I'm not trying anything malicious.

                I understand we want our super leet bases and we want to have ways to make our things safe
                from any malicious actors, because the internet is full of people who don't care and because we
                know the realm of DayZ favors careless maliciousness than structured cooperation, but with the
                advent of base building that is truly impenetrable and the prevalence of the mentality that
                any and all base building is legitimate (except in cases where the bridge is concerned) we are
                fast approaching a game that is more about who can out build who than tactics or strategy.

                The spirit of DayZ is that death is ultimate and that all action comes with risk and that ultimately
                we are not the only arbiters of our fate; other people and things and even glitches all conspire to
                weave a fabric of experience.

                I think, ultimately, we are at a point when we are admitting that even in the apocalypse we must
                be, and all our actions as well, safe from harm. And truly thats what bases do, particularily the
                sprawling megaopolisis where five people are free to horde any spoils they so desire as long as they
                were first to them.

                It is making a game of what was called by rocket as the 'Anti-Game'.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

                  I am not a fan of the removal of parachutes and explosives. Just because you put walls around a compound, should not mean you have an impenetrable fortress. Due to the limitations of the game engine, it is not possible to climb over walls. In real life, if a group wanted entry into another group's camp, they would likely breach it silently by scaling the wall. In the show Walking Dead, the survivor groups have "secure" locations which have high walls, and armed guards. And yet, it is still possible for them to come under attack and have their "secure" location breached.

                  Yes, I agree it is lame to attack a group's base when they are not on. But at the same time, I think it is detrimental to the server environment, if all the groups start hoarding vehicles, and leave nothing for the non hoarding groups. Para-borne assaults, and explosives are the best way to counter massive vehicle hoarding.

                  On the topic of AT4's, they hardly do damage to wall structures. They also take up a lot of inventory space. The only thing they are useful for, is taking out vehicles. They are also hard to get. I don't see what the issue with the AT4 is, if it is essentially a vehicle ambushing weapon?
                  |TG-73rd|Socomseal
                  |TG-73rd Member| Former TG Irregular ArmA Platoon Leader| Former TG ArmA Admin XO| TG Pathfinder - Spartan 1 |TGU ArmA Instructor |Former TG-18th Member| |Former TG-1st Member|

                  "Its easy to argue about issues from afar. But until you have experienced the issue first hand, you have not seen all the facts."

                  Carver you will be cut off for a long time before reinforcements can reach you "I am the reinforcements the main force is only coming to bring me body bags and to clean up the mess Im about to make" - General Carver

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

                    1) Sounds like buildable ladders are in order then, or at least a ramp, because I know how much VBS loves dynamic ladders.

                    2) Are frag grenades and m203/320 explosive rounds still widely available from military spawns?

                    I'd be lying if I said I thought that the removal of explosives, if not a little abrupt, was a bad thing. Not sure about parachutes. Probably because I don't go anywhere near an airfield.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

                      Socom, I think the point is that any and all structures, no matter where or how built are meant to last
                      forever and should never see a malicious soul. You can't have ANY explosive exist because ultimately,
                      as with building materials, there will eventually be enough to do whatever you must.

                      Think of it as dynamic UCB, except theoretically, everywhere.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

                        Hmm interesting stuff. As I understand it base building was an attempt to give the player base some form of permanency, protection, and a sense of accomplishment. I think its worked effectively in that regard. In some of my and the 73rds more nefarious adventures, I have seen some truly intricate and impressive "base" building going on. Here's looking at you 42nd :wink . My question would be whats the end goal here. What are the options to attack a base. We have the obvious way, explosives and at4. This has been eliminated due to the server update. There is the "gooberish" tactic of offensive building to gain entrance to a base, but this can be negated through more defensive building techniques. There is the airborne option using choppers, but I can imagine more ingenuous building make this impossible to accomplish with out long and dangerous falls. Not to mention these would end up being one way trips. The para option was also eliminated in the update. The final option I can see is waiting for the base to open its doors and try and attack them then. This would seem to be the right answer as it lets both "sides" be on at the same time and fight it out, till you relies a simple system of "air locks" would stop this in its tracks. This brings me back to my questions. Is the goal here to eliminate base attacks. If so I would say just make a server rule and use the current "base building" as a stop gap against those elements outside TG who don't visit the forums everyday.

                        This brings up a second question I have, and is directed at all those in general who build bases. Once you build you mega fortress o'doom, horde all the food and vehicles you want, what then. Whats the point here. Is there something coming down the pipe I'm not aware of. Farming, factories, government, or other really cool neato wow stuff. This is a problem with Dayz in general, but once you get geared up what do you do. In most typical games that's when people go on the war foot and attack other players. The current base building mechanic as cool as it is only delays this same progression and adds a very defensive element to it. This is I feel leading to the problem where in an attempt to fight "offline fighting" we have eliminated online fighting in regards to "bases". If we are trying to make bases impervious then they really only serve a purpose of a safe "warehouse" to put stuff between pvp action. If anything I personally feel this eliminates a lot of the "risk" in this game, and an attempt to have pvp on a my terms only style. If that is the case fine, I guess I would just ask people to drop the facade about it.


                        A thought just came to me. Get everyone together, pull resources and "build" and arena. Say 1 km x 1 km enclosed space, set up for pvp. This could be a group project to build our own "Thunderdome". This way we could bring the community together while still having options for pvp.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

                          So many things I need to clear up. It's late, so this may make no sense and miss a bunch of points - I'll have to swing back in the morning and clean it up ;)


                          1) Nothing has changed with respect to our philosophy on bases. They take time to save-for, build, and stock, and are meant to be a persistent home in the game. It's not balanced if 5 weeks of work by 5 people can be undone in 15 minutes of mischief by one person. Yes, IRL, you could scale a wall and breach a base, but then you'd also find a half dozen heavily armed survivors sleeping lightly inside that base. For such reasons, from early on, we configured gates and double-high containers to be indestructible. When it comes to base-related things, let's please try to stay away from slippery-slope fallacies and just see how things play out :) We can always adjust on the fly.

                          2) As the 42nd, 6th, and the Bled crew have had their bases breached with satchels, we've learned more about how they work. We discovered that, despite the fact that they're configured as non-destructible, gates could sometimes be destroyed w/ satchels! Is it when they're clipped into another object? Or when they're not clipped enough they're vulnerable? Who knows! THEN we discover that a doublehigh beside a gate got destroyed. Why? Is it because the gates were clipped into it? Who knows! Further testing reveals that a double-high can be taken down directly with satchel charges. The moment I learned that, falling back on the original logic of #1, I immediately requested that satchels (and M136's) be purged from the DB... and make-it-so, Apophis did :)

                          3) With regard to the timing of this update: In the admin forum, we have a prioritized list of To-Do's; bugs to fix, new features to investigate, and values that need tweaking and tuning. Our general MO is that once we figure something out, we push those changes live ASAP, without advanced warning. The lack of warning is mainly just because we're not sure when or even if we're going to figure something out. e.g. Removing parachutes has been on the to-do list for a couple weeks... turns out it was surprisingly difficult to do! This being said, I'm happy to take suggestions for alternative protocols when it comes to releases. How can we do server-updates better?



                          edit: JF ninja'd me :D Some great insights and questions in there...
                          Last edited by WhiskeySix; 05-27-2013, 09:49 AM. Reason: grammar

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

                            It looks like the changes are pushing infantry engagements and first person interactions, while trying to end the juvenile sand castle stomping.
                            Viking

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 5/26/2013 Update: Discussion

                              Originally posted by DaViking View Post
                              It looks like the changes are pushing infantry engagements and first person interactions, while trying to end the juvenile sand castle stomping.
                              Why do you see it as juvenile?

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X