Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-07-21, 17:56

Rengo

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    Argentina

TIME PLAYED

10 h Friendly in Cherno

Community Reputation

2 Newcomer

Account information

  • Whitelisted NEW WHITELIST
  • Last played 4 months ago

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Rengo

    DayZRP mod February content update

    Great work thank you all! Health indicator is not a big deal, the stance of your character and movement speed already reflects your health very well.
  2. @Mexi Man, no need to apologize and no problem at all. I apreciate your honesty and thank you for having this discussion in the first place. You could have ignored it after your first reply. Tbh I just played a couple of hours during low-pop time tuesday night. Met 2 players, one of them robbed me. Had an excelent experience. 100% would recommend this sv for RP enthusiasts. You are not wrong on making those assumptions, all the cases and examples I made could be easily missunderstood as it was me. I was talking about possibilities, things that have a high chance to occur. Those are the scenarios you think about when designing a rule, wich is the reason of why I started this thread. To discuss about a certain rule (or lack of it). You don't need to have a rule for every possible scenario, but you need to have every possible scenario for a rule for it to be effective. Maybe that's the reason you see 'a lack of compromise' on me, because I'm not compromised at all. I was trying to come up with ideas to sort out a certain rule. And I believe by experience the moment you compromise arround a specific idea, it is hard to see outside that box and it might prevents you from adopting a better one. So I believe compromise in such case can be a counterproductive/self-defeating behavior to adopt. Don't confuse the MEAN with the END of the goal, the later one never changed throughout the discussion (to provide a balanced RP interaction during raids, nothing to do with items or avoiding raiding at all). I'm gonna stick with the knowledge taken from this thread, and listen to what experienced players in this community like you, have to say. After all, the main goal is to have a populated server, and if the current state of the rules already achieve that I say they don't need changing at all. Thanks for bearing with me on this post, I'm a game designer and as such I tend to spend more time thinking on games than actually playing them! It was an interesting chat here, and I'm looking forward to meet you all IC and do some raiding See you on Chernarus!
  3. @Mexi In the end, it's not actually a rule to protect the base, forget the base and the gear on it. It's about a chance for the defender side to be online during a raid and have an enjoyable RP. What you mention is a very nice thing. But it doesn't changes the matter that the australian guy (no ofense again, just time zone example), will come online and raid when me and my friends are sleeping/working/etc. @Para That's usually the only period of time some people has to play. Maybe say 4 out of 7 days, since most people's weekends starts on fridays. What is the reason behind raiding in the first place? If you say gear, IMO you are missing the point. Everything you do should be based upon RP, good progressive RP if can be. So why raiding an empty base in the first place? "I need supplies" What's so wrong about being able to raid just a few days of the week, the game (and specially RP) is not all about raiding. It's just a feature. Thanks for your opinion and honesty, to be fair I never tought it could be implemented after reading several posts regarding similar issues. I just wanted to throw it into discussion and see if we could come up with a crude draft of a rule idea regarding this (IMO) 'gap'. @Eagle Excuse me I didn't found any posts regarding base raiding only on weekends (I'm not discussing it didn't happen). But I can't imagine reports being a problem if the destruction feature is disabled in the first place. It would be phisically imposible to do it during 'forbidden' days.
  4. We share a very good point here. I've been thinking about this aswell, 'what if I never meet the owner of that shack arround the corner'. What if It turns out to be an australian guy (no offense, just time difference example), who connects on dead hours and works as a squirrel all night? Like you say, this could be a potential problem. He probably couldn't get raided, because you would never catch him online due to time zones. Now being an issue that the hostile part of the interaction is missing. What if we try to find middleground here. What do you think about this option? Set up a defined time lapse during weekends (rush hour) to allow vanilla base destruction. Rest of the week, base destruction would be disabled from the outside. This would give the defender side a greater chance to be online during a raid, and everyone would have (more or less) equal opportunities and chances this way. Plus those folks who enjoy peacefull settlement lives could have a relatively quiet opportunity to enjoy their type of RP too, and bases/settlements would have the entire week to recover from the bloody weekend. @Eagle; @Para; @Dusty; @Pep; @Mexi; @neom; @Veryniceperson; @Samaritan; @XieAngel
  5. How come a base would become a safe zone? You could still get raided and killed inside of it, in fact you would be more likely to die in your base now that it can only be raided when you are there. The survivalistic aspect you talk about, would persist. The only change being, you would need to RP in order to get them, just like you do with everything else; you RP. I don't see the problem on being forced to RP on a RP based community. People claims the community is not about gear and hoarding loot, it is about good RP. Well, don't we have a problem then when people breaks into an empty base avoiding any interaction with the base owner in order to get their supplies? And no matter how well the owner repairs, seals, and improves the wall. It will get teared down in just a minute when he is offline. We agree on this one. Yes, you would need to RP with the owner (or at least a member) of a base. It makes sense for me, at least in a RP community.
  6. Wall penetration would be possible, trough RP. As I stated above, in several posts; disabling base raiding is not on discussion. You couldn't, like I said it would require to forbid closing military loot-spawns buildings. You would be able to build a base at VMC, just make sure you are not blocking any entrances to buildings where military loot spawns. Refeer back to point 1, you could enter only trough an interaction and proper RP. Bases, would still be breachable. Loot economy, would not be afected.
  7. Can you describe a bit what that system consisted about please? At first glance, it doesn't sounds like an interaction was the goal of a base raid cooldown.
  8. Lets try again, I never said there should be a rule that people can't break into camps. I'm saying there should be a rule that ensures there is an interaction (RP) when a raid occurs. In order for this to be possible, both parties have to be present in the first place. I already stated above the difference about realism and game balance when it comes to rules. Following your example, if I'm starving and I see a guy with his back turned on me.. plus I have a gun in my hand, what is the logical thing to do for a psychopath? Don't look after realistic rules in a controled enviroment such as a RP server, if you think things should be done like YOU WOULD DO IN REAL LIFE; then there should be no rules at all in the first place. And the NVFL rule would be an important aspect of what I'm proposing, not the opposing thing like you say. Let me put an example about it, let's say you find a camp with your friends and you scout it. Turns out there is a lonely little survivor inside, so you and your guys approach the front door and knock.. "Let me in, Let me in, little pig or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your head off". That counting as a hostile initiation, the little pig would be forced to interact and 'probably' let the wolves in. Otherwise it would be considered NVFL from the pig, because the wolves threaten to kill him/ set the camp on fire/ whatever.. Well, the difference is quite obvious for me here. To rob someone you are forced to have at least a boring interaction, if you are lucky enough you might enjoy an interesting one. To rob an empty camp on the other hand, you just need to get in - grab the stuff - get out. No interaction, no roleplay at all. I think we are missing the point here, the problem is not the stuff, the stolen gear or the walls destroyed. It's about the lack of interaction in a roleplay based server. How come raiding an empty base progresses RP? Can you bear with me stating it's more enjoyable for both ends of the sword, when there's someone else in the other side of the wall? I agree with you here, but in this case there is not a single rule about RP during raids and that causes to be none RP at all (leave rule 4.8 out of the equation, because that's about a different subject; griefing). I don't agree with the 25% rule neither as I stated above, I just quoted the entire rule and pointed out the important part. Enforcing an interaction. We are not discussing ways to prevent bases from being raided, it's about creating an enjoyable RP interaction out of it. The rule would have nothing to do about protecting gear neither, it's about interactions. And speaking about preventing a raid from happening IC'ly, if an interaction was necesary to raid (following with the pig example), the pig could offer a deal or the pack of wolves could extort the little pig for, lets say X ammount of nails or ammo per week, idk. How can you achieve this if the wolves only raid when the pig is at the office? And the pig doesn't even knows who the wolves are. Loot economy would stay as it is. You would still be able to raid bases, no one ever stated the opposite. I don't have a base and probably never have one, instead I'll stick to hiding stuff under a bush wich I'm sure has a larger effect on sinking the loot economy when most of the players relies on it.
  9. Thanks for bringing this point of view into the discussion neom, because I believe there are many players that share it. I share it aswell, but not in a RP server. Let me tell you the reason, regarding the points you've made: There is currently nothing you can do to prevent people from breaking in when you are not online. With the right tools and just a single duct tape, no matter how many layers you have.. it can be done in a few minutes. Even if you build it in a remote location, someone will eventually find it, is just a matter of time. First, I'm not saying you can't break in at all; I'm saying there should be an interaction between both parties in order to improve the roleplay experience of base attack - base defence mechanics. With the current state of the rules, many people awaits for the base to be empty in order to raid. So, where is the interaction in that kind of situation? Don't forget this is a roleplay server after all and as I stated in the post rules are set to bring balance, not realism. I share the point that you should be allowed to do so, as long as there is an interaction. And once again, this is a survival game but a RP server and rules are meant to bring balance, not realism. As an example, If I should be allowed to do what it takes to survive I could kill a guy and eat him to prevent starving, but that would ruin the experience for that person. Many of the rules don't make sense if you look at them from the point of view of a survival game, because they have to be adapted in order to fit roleplay. To make it clear, the only thing that I'm suggesting to enforce is an interaction between both parties of a raid; to prevent this from happening when one party is missing. Let's say my friends and I can play only on weekends, or my play style/character doesn't fit into a big faction or group that can be online most of the time. We would not be able to defend our base, even tho we would like to engage into a raiding situation because simply we are not there. Then I'm or we are doomed to not be able to enjoy such a feature. Gear would still be stolen, preventing raiding is not the point. And instead of limiting hostilities it would do quite the opposite in fact, as a hostile interaction can't be initiated unless there is some one to interact with. I agree with you here because I (and probably everyone) usually do the same thing.. Would you agree with me that this is more entertaining when someone is defending it? A fight can't occur if there is no one inside the base. And that's the whole point I'm making here, to enforce an interaction. Not to prevent raiding at all, just to ensure there is someone there at the moment you do it. Just to make sure at least a bit of RP occurs, and is not simply a 'get in-grab-get out' mechanic. Thank you, this sounds interesting and is actually something good that could come out of a raid with no defenders. Sadly I believe this could apply to a very narrow spectrum of raids, because most of the time you never figure out who did it. Since it was probably done by a single guy who stashed your stuff under a bush nearby, that will eventually forget where it was. Such scenario would be nice, but it's doubtly that things will develop that way very often. I think it's more likely to ocurr that you find nothing, and the situation repeated itself the next weekend when you came online and found your shack raided. And once more time, bases would not be "unraidable", thus hoarding would not be a problem since items would still get stolen either way. The only difference being, that there was someone present at the moment of the raid, and an interaction was forced to occur. I left your first sentence for the last because this is a very important, if not the most important part of developing such a rule as the one I'm speaking of. And that's the issue of bringing balance. Like the balance between an Atacker and a Defender in a hostile initiation; there has to be an equal, or as equal as possible chance to achieve victory for both sides of the conflict. When and how to enforce an interaction during a raid is here to discuss. Turning off destruction is an option I brought on the table as an example to be analized, discussed, tweaked or ditched; in order to achieve the goal of enhancing roleplay during base raiding. Please, try leaving the 'no' out of the equation for a moment and come up with an idea to make of this mechanic an enjoyable roleplay experience for everyone involved. An option could be, to disable base protection during rush hours at weekends. At least this would give a chance for defenders to be at their base during a raid.
  10. I don't see a way to enforce or quantify that, even if there was a way to do it.. it would be a pain for the staff. I would completely ignore that part of the rule, and take only the last sentence that I pointed out. I would also add a mod to prevent lock hacking with macros (wich only takes minutes), that way the only way to breach would be trough RP with someone from that base. There are existing logs regarding basebuilding that could be used, for example if someone boosts or glitchs into a base and deconstructs it from the inside. I guess maybe the server already counts with that. If you are talking about item management logs, no. I don't know of any existing logs regarding that matter. Thanks for your opinion!
  11. Hi everyone, newcomer here. I've read the rules a few times, and I'm suprised not to find any rules regarding base building/raiding other than the griefing one (4.8). This is ofcourse, a RP community and every rule is designed to provide a good interaction between both parties. I don't understand the reason behind a lack of rules regarding interactions during base raiding, currently this leads to people raiding bases without any kind of RP because they wait for it to be empty in order to avoid that. I've been reading different posts and complains in the forums about this, from people that probably gave up on building because they don't find any sense on spending so much time, in something that won't be there the next time you come online. Finding several of these post under the suggestion section, I figured it would be more apropiate to bring this one under the discussion one. EDIT - Please read the opinions below this post before making your reply, since some ideas are clarified there. - I'm not discussing preventing bases from being raid, or gear from being stolen. It's about creating an enjoyable interaction between both sides of a raid. Loot economy (hoarding) would not be a problem, since raiding would still be allowed. Griefing (rule 4.8), is not the subject of the discussion. It's a good and necesary rule but it doesn't contemplates interactions. The most common opposite ideas about this matter states that if you don't have the manpower to protect a base, you should stick to hiding stashes. Some say an indestructible wall would be "unrealistic". I'm gonna make it short stating my pov on these cases.. First, not everyone has the time availability to protect a base, hardly enough to build one. Not everyone want's to be part of a big faction or group, and you shouldn't be prived from an important feature of the game such as base building because of that. And for the folks that wave the realism flag, don't miss the point that rules are set in a game to provide balance, not realism. A good example of this are the current rules regarding hostile interactions, no one would think those are "unrealistic" rules, because that's not the goal of them. The goal of this community as far as I understand, is to provide a good RP experience for everyone involved in an interaction. Base building is a very important feature of the game, and the lack of rules regarding interactions during base raiding, causes to be none interaction at all during a raid. Even tho this is a veteran community, I see rules are not writed in stone. In fact, they were improved not too long ago. This is why I want to leave a suggestion on this post and have a discussion about it aswell. Designing rules for a game it's not an easy task, specially RP rules in a sandbox game like this. That's why I want to bring on the table an example of a different community (wich name I won't say), regarding this matter. It's important to mention that base building in military loot-spawn areas is forbidden. You can build in Tisy for example, but you need to leave an open entrance to buildings where military loot spawns. EDIT: I don't share the first part of this rule, just the last sentence. I just quoted it entirely. This last sentence is for me, the most important aspect of the rule; it forces an interaction during a raid or takeover. And a stand-off on this case can be a very fun moment, which due to the lack of rules we are unable to experience here. Now, is this a "perfect" rule? I'm sure it isn't, and maybe it is very far from it. But at least, it is a starting point from where it can be shaped taking into account every possible scenario we can imagine. And specially, every abuse that can be made from that rule. I'm new in this community, and I'm just giving my feedback here. I just couldn't avoid to notice the big gap that exist regarding interactions during base raids. I believe that such an important feature can't be ignored and left outside of the rules, because that means it is left outisde of the role play. Forcing interactions on these cases will improve the roleplay experience for everyone, and will incentivize the construction of more bases and settlements. Please note that I'm not talking here about unbreachable bases, my whole point is to make an interaction out of it. Thus hoarding wouldn't be a problem, since items would continue to be reachable. Thanks for reading, and please share your opinion so we can develop a healthy discussion on this matter! - Rengo. EDIT (last post update): Set up a defined time lapse during weekends (rush hour) to allow vanilla base destruction. Rest of the week, base destruction would be disabled from the outside. This would give the defender side a greater chance to be online during a raid, and everyone would have (more or less) equal opportunities and chances this way. Plus those folks who enjoy peacefull settlement lifes could have a relatively quiet opportunity to enjoy their type of RP too, and bases/settlements would have the entire week to recover from the bloody weekend.
  12. Forester is a 63 years old Takistan war veteran, he lived his entire life in Kamensk. Most of it, under the USSR flag. He joined the VDV when he was a teenager and ended up going to Takistan with the 345th. He retired when the soviet union fell apart, to finally became a Forester and take care of the northern woods of South Zagoria, alternating between tracking down poachers and guiding field trips. As he grew older he started to spend more time up in the forest, specially after his only son perished in the civil war fighting for the CDF. Being uncommunicated during the events of the 7th of July, he remained on duty during that week. On the morning of the 10th of July, the sound of jets and explosions in the distance woke him up in his cabin. As he traveled back to Kamensk he saw it being hammered by grad rockets. Without hesitation, under battery fire he went in search of his wife only to find his house empty. Aswell as the entire village, it was a ghostown. Afraid of a new civil war, Forester tought about checking Sverograd hospital and schools in case she was taken there as a refugee. He arrived in the early hours of the 11th, only to find the city diving into chaos, gunshots and sporadic fires as he saw a large column of cars jammed trying to flee west. When he finnally aproached the hospital, at that moment he didn't understood what was going on in front of his eyes. His only hope was, that she was not in there. Weeks and months went by, last broadcast he heard was about people coming down south trying to help. Forester went back into the woods, roaming arround South Zagoria's schools and hospitals. Keeping the flame of hope alive, that one day he will find her.
×
×
  • Create New...