So…you think that having a magical button that makes your base 100% invincible from decay is not only realistic, but balances the meta, even though you now also want it to protect bases in wipes, despite the fact that admins perform wipes intentionally to clear players bases, and you now want to make an invincible base that even admins can’t destroy unless they literally raid it.
Congratulations, this is what we call a broken suggestion. If you’re so whiny about losing your base, singleplayer would be great for you.
the admin will be able to reset the map (wipe)
the “refresher” solve the lag, there is no need for total deletion.
only automatic decomposition (decay) will not be possible
there may be several types of wipe:
-normal wipe “refresher work”
-total wipe “refresher no work”
I get too deep into the details
broken suggestion : you have an imbecile commentary
Do you understand now?
other questions?
There are more reasons to wipe rather than just the lag caused by structures. Restarting the map and having everyone start from scratch gives everyone a better chance against each other. Additionally, resetting the world can be really refreshing when you restart and build a completely new base.
However, the lag caused by them seems like the most common cause to reset a server’s world. But I wouldn’t do this with a random button that frequently breaks the immersion that you are in this Survival world (while not realistic you can still become immersed in it). It’s crude and also counterintuitive as @GreatHeroJ pointed out.
An alternative way to solve this issue is to base the despawn timer on interaction and player proximity. What I mean by this is to only despawn bases if the owner hasn’t built on them, used doors, or opened crates inside/on top of their base. If any of these actions is performed then all connecting structures would have their despawn timer of 14 days refreshed (A month is too long). This would mean that small external walls/raided bases that are abandoned would eventually despawn even if the owner was still an active player.
As for barricades, I’d have a proximity counter. Whenever a player walks within 15-20m of a barricade, the despawn timer would reset. Meaning any crates, wooden barricades, or sandbags would all be kept if they were just outside of someone’s base. If they place a random sandbag in a spawn town and never go there again, then it would disappear.
I think this would be a better alternative rather than sacrificing all large bases and all mega-bases through the use of a button with a small refreshing radius.
this means that the structure will be even if the player has left the game (it’s a bad alternative)
a better chance of rebuilding a base near the military (you mean pvp).
in 4.0 should be more pve ( agresive zomby, animals …)
better chance (wtf)
my idea is not realistic?
total wipe is realistic?
its a game BRO
it must be fun and not irritating
total wipe is irritating!
this means that the structure will be even if the player has left the game (it’s a bad alternative)
we have not determine how large the radius of protection will be.
I think it will be very large.
You will have only one large protected base while unnecessary structures will disappear within 7 days of their placement.
It’s really not as bad as you’re making it out to be.
Honestly if you hate wipes to the point that you think they’re a bigger threat than raids, which imo is ridiculous, you should just stick to singleplayer because there’s no wipes there.
Also, if you’re trying to reduce lag without wipes, why would you add a button that just contributes more to lag? Wipes work because they clear bases and other world data, but you now want to keep bases in, which is stupid in itself, because now if you wipe, you’ll still have all the laggy bases you were trying to clear in the first place.
The more you try to defend this suggestion, the worse it gets. Especially when you read a valid argument against your suggestion and proceed to call the person an imbecile.
each player will be able to protect a personal base
of the 35 ruines will remain just those that are protected
Exemple : often plays 20- 24 players
after the decay/wipe will remain 19-22 protected bases
19-22(bases saved by the owners) - 35 (total base) = 15-16 (abandoned bases)
will only reduce bases that are abandoned.
and the living bases are standing.
each player can only protect one area not more. (very balanced)
As someone with over a thousand hours in server management, I can effectively say that you are vastly overstating the positive effect of this suggestion. Having even half the bases after the wipe will still have 70-80% of the lag.
When we wipe servers, we wipe them to clear everything. Your suggestion, on top of having holes in it’s rationale, is not even possible from a coding standpoint. Do you realize that a wipe is literally deleting the server data? What are you gonna do, find some way to hack and encrypt my own server files so I can’t delete it?
But wait, of course you’re the correct one, and not everyone else in the entire community because literally nobody agrees with you. Clearly that means all of us are wrong and you’re right, because it’s your suggestion so it must be good, right? /s
if abandoned bases are removed by themselves, you do not need to give total removal
“refresher” has a limit so you can not make extremely huge bases that lead to the lag.
so there is no need for admins or total deletion.
my system will make it clean in the server, the server does not need admin intervention (auto delay after 7 day )
with the exception of protected bases.
without anger, but I would like the years of those who are addressing me.
it seems to me that I am doing the work of clarification in vain
Being honest here, the more you try to clarify your suggestion, the more crazy it seems.
I’m not attacking you directly, but your logic and the points you bring up are really unusual and some even contradict your previous points. In the end, the community and I have spoken, and we don’t approve of this suggestion. After the extra info you provided behind why you want this into the game, it makes you look misguided and makes an already not-so-good suggestion look even worse. It doesn’t help that you’ve resorted to calling the community “imbecile” or “blind” or having a “phobia of change” either, as this makes you look immature.
So yes, your explanation may be in vain. Just face it, this isn’t as good of an idea as you think it is.
There needs to be some system at least instaed of a simple wipe. What about decay? Kinda like the sligthy older version of rust where if the player is inactive (not logged on for a while) the building or the floors would slowly lose health (decay) and then you could repair it with resources it was built out of and maybe metal would need both metal and a blowtorch to repair… And not repairing wood whit blowtorches?
It may be a bit of a copy from rust but it would be good compared to this and what we have currently.
a player are more than two base. Right?
My system forces the player to have only one.
the refresher works similarly to a Claim flag,
but it must always be activated to identify the desired base.
I do not see how anyone could abuse this.
-the administrator can delete completely if he / she wants to
Or maybe your grammar is so spotty that half of it is impossible to read?
Anyways, the current system works perfectly fine, the decay speed just needs to be increased. There’s a reason why other games have taken the same approach.
Actually, 4.0 will probably have a stability system, so no, you can’t build floating skybases anymore, nor can you cover an entire location in structures.
Based on the two images you provided it looked like a small compound of buildings. Then once it was wiped you would lose everything in your area other than the medium-sized center building. So if that’s not the case and it does permit large bases, how large is this radius?
No it wouldn’t? If the player logs off then he wouldn’t be within a 15-20m radius of the barricade. And if he logged out near one and rejoined (within a 15-20m raidus), then it’s highly likely that he has been using it within or near his main base.
To clarify, in my system no structures are saved after a server wipe since that is the intended purpose of having a wipe to begin with. (See GreatHeroJ’s post).
A better chance in combat situations. After a few weeks there is usually a group or two who are the best players on a server. Once you force everyone to start from scratch they will have a fair chance at killing one another.
And just because 4.x is intended to be a more PvE-centered game doesn’t mean we should ignore and neglect problems with PvP. Brushing it off as if PvP doesn’t matter is absurd.
I thought the idea was to remove the issue of having a total wipe? That was what my alternative idea was intended for. Structures and barricades that were unused by their builders would be removed after a number of days, thus limiting the lag, and thus reducing as much of a need (if any) for a server wipe.
And I explicitly said it wasn’t about realism. It was about being immersed, meaning when you play you’re just thinking about it like you’re inside the game. Not that you’re constantly stressing about a server wipe removing your base, so you constantly press this button to keep it safe. When you don’t think much about a server wipe at all (like you would if you were regularly pushing this button) then you can feel more like you’re within the game and thus enjoy it more.
No it doesn’t… If the player is offline then he is not within the proximity of a barricade. He is offline, he isn’t in the map so he can’t be near any barricades. And they can’t interact with anything inside the base while offline either.
If you’re still confused, read my clarification.
“Very large” is very vague. Give it a size and then we’ll work from there (Ex: 10 structures long, 10 wide, and 5 tall).
