Essentially Rust has this concept where bases have this mechanic called Stability
“Stability is a reflection of a structure’s endurance; the more stable, the less likely it is to fall apart. If it reaches zero, it will break instantly upon placement. A stability percentage is visible when mousing over a building object at melee range with a hammer”
Someone recently suggested more ideas for winds in-game, such as categories for wind intensity going all the way up to tier-5 winds whereby then its basically a hurricane.
Now I’m not exactly saying hurricanes should be in the game, but a similar Stability System like the one in Rust would be cool, realistic, and promote realistic base designs. We’ve all seen wacky bases in 3.0 such as skybases, and even worse exploit bases inside of map objects.
And I think this would go in hand with things like tiered winds or other natural phenomenon, whereby unstable, badly structured, or bad foundation bases will be degraded and destroyed over time.
I don’t have many specifics as its just a general idea.
As I said in that same thread, I disagree with this suggestion wholeheartedly. I think other measures should be taken when it comes to base balancing, a stability system works in a game like rust, in my opinion it does not have a place in unturned, remember that in video games going for realism isn’t always the best thing, and it doesn’t always mean it’s balanced.
However, if this were to be implemented, I don’t want to see skyscrapers become impossible to build anymore, perhaps stability would improve per material, providing that the traditional tree types (in Birch, Maple and Pine) are staying in the game, with metal being the best, then it’s suffice to say that base stability would be greater with stronger materials, (Metal being capable of building sky scrapers for example).
I’m aware that the vast majority of Unturned players play “competitive” so to speak, pvp, but there are people who play singleplayer and want to build and be creative with builds. So I think balancing this should not be as simple as just "stop people making large buildings, because to me that’s silly and like I said before, more of an inconvenience than a form of balancing, in my opinion.
This has nothing to do with realism, rather balance. He never even went over specifics, just that some sort of system to prevent skybases should exist, which has been covered many times and is just common sense. If you want to build weird things in singleplayer, you could make or wait for someone to make whatever “creative mod” mod you would want.
Yes? That’s exactly what I was saying. Perhaps you should reread what I said, I’m aware he didn’t go into specifics, that’s why I did. I added to the suggestion by suggesting how the system would work, but no I still disagree and I think this is more realism than balance. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I see it.
Yeah yeah, Rust has a place for that type of thing, I think this feature could work, just providing it’s actually balanced and not just realistic. On top of that, skyscrapers being hard to raid isn’t necessary a bad thing, all you need is a system where buildings need a support, and all you have to do is blow up the first floor of a skyscraper and the whole thing comes down. haha
From my point of view the suggestion rain made is extremely broad and can be taken many ways, I took it as yet another non-specific rehash of a common sense idea, it’s understandable that it could get pidgeonholed into something that would be controversial, but if you only read the post itself, it’s pretty normal. I like big tower bases as well, I just don’t want to see skyscrapers or other weird things, and a system that prevents this is a good thing. Again, due to a massive lack of details, it’s pretty trivial to argue/discuss this outside of interpretations, because of how broad the suggestion is.
Well even if it’s non-specific it’s still good to throw around details and ideas for the idea, y’know?
Also what do you mean by sky scrapers? Are we talking maybe 15 floor buildings? Or like 50 floor buildings? (Excuse the hyperbole)
but like @AtleSt said above,
I think this is also controversial, but definitely doesn’t warrant any expanded or heavily detailed features like stability, since you’d only need to blow out the bottom floor for the entire sky scraper to fall down, and trust me, that sounds easier than it is, but it’s still easier than scaling the entire thing.
I dunno though. What is it specifically that makes sky scrapers so hard to tackle? I get the sky bases, because that requires a copter which can be shot down instantly, but if the scraper has stairs, you can just run up through the top and kill players on your way up, just like normal pvp, what is it about sky scrapers (even massive ones) that’s so op?
I think skybases won’t be a problem in Unturned 4.0. Particularly if you are a person who plays on the official servers. Official servers likely won’t have /tp and /home. Making skybases pointless, afterall, without teleportation, how do you get your loot back in your base if it is in the sky
Ignoring the whole hurricane concept (that was just something that gave me this idea. And speaking of, earthquakes would be cool, too. Imagine if all Unturned buildings, even map ones, were subject to damage, and could fall apart or turn into a decayed state?)
Very similar to my Apex Legends voice-lines and pinging suggestion, if it isn’t broke, dont fix it. Rust’s system is a good example, and never did I say “do a direct copy”, just using it to serve as a foundation (haha, get it) or basis of the concept.
I kept the suggestion broad on purpose so that you guys may converse about how you think it should be, or better yet how Nelson thinks it should be. I think lots of suggestions get blundered and forgotten because the suggestors go too into detail to the point where nobody except themselves can agree with it. For my future posts I want to keep things short and sweet, and so far I’ve received excellent results.
I agree, skybases, at-least in their current state whereby they need no foundation with the ground are overpowered and should be abolished.
The problemo with 3.0 is that Nelson completely disregards modding when he makes official additions to the game, with rare exceptions like Sentries on vehicles (which was a mess on creative servers). In 4.0 I think all systems and mechanics of Unturned should be a true/false system whereby, for instance in this argument, Base Stability can be set to false and then building skybases for /tp /home servers is possible.
Even then, yes, I’ve seen on some occasions groups build skybases on vanilla servers, however more commonly I’d see smart groups do things like this -
All it is, is just a floating defensive platform above Zavod which gives them the ultimate advantage over the entire area. It is connected by a single large metal plate to the ground. Had there been a reasonable stability system this would be impossible.
And this is pretty exclusive, not something we want to do in the community, do we? This is the same line of thought I exposed in the “official servers encouraging p2w” post. It goes along the lines of -
“if you wanted the fair experience then you should’ve gone out and bought the pass to play the official servers”
How do sky-bases on Vanilla servers work? The players certainly can’t get to their base to deposit loot. Therefore its not really a base, and more of something they built one and deleted the route to. I don’t think that is a problem. Its completely useless and a waste of resources.
I would like to say that I don’t NOT support a stability system, however Nelson’s development time should be invested into balancing the Vanilla experience. For instance, stability is not needed in the vanilla experience, because players cannot access bases that are floating.
The base you have pictures above (assuming it is completely floating) is very easily raid-able. And if it does have one small path, then it would get raided in one night.
So, sky-bases are not over-powered in Vanilla game-play. The game-play that is Nelson’s job to balance. Therefore, I don’t see the need to implement a stability system.
When modders created /tp and /home. (An unbalanced mechanic that makes sky-bases OP). Let them balance it by modding in a stability system. Nelson doesn’t need to create features that balance unbalanced systems that he didn’t create.
Also you don’t need to pay anything for a balanced gaming experience. Just play vanilla servers, which are balanced. Or play on modded servers which have balance. Lazy modding isn’t Nelson’s problem.
I think that is a high priority, yes. And I think this should be apart of the Vanilla experience. That doesn’t mean it cant be in the vanilla game.
We held onto this base for over two weeks on a mostly full server. I suppose you underestimate large, cooperative groups. We used the small base as a sphere of influence and a way to build up lots of resources very quickly, to which we then distributed and used to create much better longer-term bases.
Perhaps you jumped the gun and assumed this was supposed to be a full-on offline-raid defended base. It was simple, yet effective. And when it was inevitably raided and the raiders got what little supplies we had left, we simply rebuilt it and went on with our sphere of influence.
I’d claim having a big sphere of influence on a floating metal plate was pretty over-powered for our group, and we had quite the advantage. Had we never been able to build it, we’d have to build a more practical base design that requires more thought and effort.
I also noticed that throughout your entire argument you pay no mind to other wacky base designs that do not entirely have to be sky-bases, and jumped straight to “skybases” and then defending your argument by claiming they’re “non-vanilla”
If you read the post, you’d realize why your line of thought is flawed. Maybe read and put some great thought into it.
Perhaps it isn’t his problem. Its everyone’s problem.
The double negative meant that I am neutral to stability being added. Aka not against it, I just feel it is not needed.
Quite frankly I think the creativity and custom builds that Unturned 3.0 free forming building allows is quite cool. I’ve played Rust quite a bit as well, but in that game all bases look very similar, little ingenuity in my opinion.
I’ve played almost all of my 1500 hours in Vanilla Unturned, owning several Vanilla servers as-well.
I think we both know that Air Vehicles and Sky bases in Vanilla is out of the realm of reality. They burn fuel too quickly to be used that way. The only way to gather enough fuel for air vehicles is with Pump-Jacks. Which require land access.
I will shamelessly plug a video I made back in 2016 with the strongest base design I had found at the time for Vanilla. We rigorously tried making sky-bases work. They really just don’t.
The answer is no. Simply because there will be Vanilla servers that are not official. How do I know they will exist? I plan to run some. I love Vanilla with non-abusive admins, and I will provide that to people whether they pay or not. Official servers only provide an additional source of not pay to win servers. Doesn’t promote them.
That seems like a cool idea. Whether or not something like that is over-powered. I just don’t know. I never have created towers specifically for vantage points. Maybe it is. Not sure. Are skyscrapers in the cities over powered? Height is strong, but allowing players to be smart and give themselves height is cool.
Over-all I think the cost to having a stability system hurts some creativity, and doesn’t solve any major problems for the Vanilla experience. Which I believe is the only thing Nelson should concern himself with balancing. Its okay to disagree with me. I’ve though about it, that’s how I feel.
But if stability got added it wouldn’t be a big deal. I just think Nelson’s time is better spent elsewhere.
I’ve always wanted at least some basic structural integrity in the game so that sky bases won’t be possible. If there’s nothing below supporting a base then it will break down instantly as wooden logs.
floors count as foundation, because they go down like that (unless UII will have differences between floors and foundations) so I think that hovering bases should not be possible. Cantilevered structures should be able to be built with a limit of 1 roof panel that sticks out past the main base.
So tall buildings should be possible, just not very tall. perhaps 7 floors maximum.
I’ve played 6,000 hours, wrote a few guides, and host tons of servers. I know who you are and watched your content, then you died sadly. :(((((((((((((((
When we built a skybase we hoarded vehicles in order to keep air vehicles away from others. We know how to exploit and manipulate the vehicle spawning system effectively, and it has worked before. They dont seem to work because it just requires so much effort and dedication. Personally I’ve only built 3-4 skybases myself on vanilla with my group, but each time it was a complete success and was never raided till the server itself went down. Its definitely rewarding given the effort.
I don’t think you read the post and the comments to great extent and thought, and if you did, this is not the place to debate it. If you want to talk about that post, you should tell the mods to get rid of their dumb auto-lock system, or ask them to manually unlock it and talk about it there. I plan to host some too, however, I’m hosting vanilla servers as we speak for 3.0 and guess how popular those are.
In my idea, generally speaking I do not care how tall buildings can get. For instance, perhaps adding more pillars will = more stability, and thus allows for higher buildings. It would cost more resources to increase base stability - THIS is also not including redundancy to prevent raiders from making a base unstable in order for it to fall apart (similarly how Rust works. A raider could, if they wanted to, wipe your foundations and the rest is history)