Bunker

[Futureismine]

Preamble:

A big problem with this game may be that death or getting raided can have huge consequences. While the developers' intent MAY be that this game have risk and pvp and raiding, players developing their situation for months and then getting raided may, potentially, be too harsh. So much of your progress may be tied up in the quality of seeds and animals that you have.

/Preamble

Bunkers. This (potentially expensive) metal building may be used to store stuff that can NOT be raided as easily as the rest of the base. I comprehend that it might be possible for Personal Claims to be gotten rid of, or taken over. The unraidability of the bunker should perhaps be tied with the Personal Claim. If you own the claim, you can go in. If some of the land it is on is not claimed by anyone, everyone can go in. (I'm not sure if Personal Claims are too easily overcome. The main thing the bunker should do, perhaps, is allow people to somewhat safely claim their stuff and re-establish, either in place or somewhere new.)

This bunker can store one female and one male of every domesticable animal. This may act as a 'savepoint'. You'd have to still keep them fed.

Also in the bunker could be a type of seed bank. Debate could happen on how many seeds of a type and how many types of seeds should be able to be stored.

Also, perhaps, some limited general storage, that would allow a player to keep some chosen items.

The bunker could be a very restrictive building, where you can't put down cabinets, or build anything inside of them. Have premade areas for animals, food and water to feed the animals, seeds, and some limited general storage. Being restrictive is important, perhaps, so potentially not everything of high value is protected.

Thoughts?

[MagicManICT]

Personal claims are not "easily overcome" in means of transfering ownership. It takes 4 RL days to do so. On the other hand, a siege engine (ram or wrecking ball) can break a claim totem with relative ease.

Breaking in isn't as much a problem as anything that can't be broken into usually just gets smashed--"if I can't have it, neither can you."

[abt79]

logging off/alt-vaulting is a thing, also this would easily be exploited to make raids even less feasible than they are currently

[VDZ]

Something like a Strongbox?

This Container can hold up to 25 items in a 5 by 5 grid.

This container cannot be lifted and is hard to destroy, with a Soak of 40. (For reference, Palisades have a Soak of 30 and Brickwalls have a Soak of 50.) Considering this, it is perfect to protect your goods from thieves and vandals. More resource-efficient and less secure storage like Wooden Chests are recommended for less valuable possessions.

A Lock can be applied to the strongbox.

[Sevenless]

Something feels wrong to me with this suggestion. I can't put my finger on it exactly. Partly "If pvp raids shouldn't be able to wipe you out, maybe the raiding mechanic is a problem". Partly "That feels really out of place with the general theme of the game". Second point could be addressed by making it a bit more thematically appropriate (hearth lore or something I guess).

But yeah... overall I don't know why this sits weird with me.

[Futureismine]

Personal claims are not "easily overcome" in means of transfering ownership. It takes 4 RL days to do so. On the other hand, a siege engine (ram or wrecking ball) can break a claim totem with relative ease.

Breaking in isn't as much a problem as anything that can't be broken into usually just gets smashed--"if I can't have it, neither can you."

The concept may have been that you can't break a bunker. Not with any siege or player.

Now, perhaps we could allow those who can enter to break it down, in case they wanted to not have it where it is. If a Personal Claim can be removed fairly quickly, there may need to be some way of ensuring "allow people to somewhat safely claim their stuff and re-establish, either in place or somewhere new." Those with more experience than I in this game may be able to weigh in better here.

Something like a Strongbox?

This Container can hold up to 25 items in a 5 by 5 grid.

This container cannot be lifted and is hard to destroy, with a Soak of 40. (For reference, Palisades have a Soak of 30 and Brickwalls have a Soak of 50.) Considering this, it is perfect to protect your goods from thieves and vandals. More resource-efficient and less secure storage like Wooden Chests are recommended for less valuable possessions.

A Lock can be applied to the strongbox.

This does nothing for animals, perhaps. Animals may be very important. I'm not too sure about how easy 40 soak is to get into. The idea here, perhaps, is to provide a very secure fall-back plan, so if you're somewhat active, you can get your stuff.

logging off/alt-vaulting is a thing, also this would easily be exploited to make raids even less feasible than they are currently

Does logging off currently not render you invincible? I'm not sure how destroying the building you're logged off in would affect you. Not sure what alt-vaulting is. Expand on the last part?

Something feels wrong to me with this suggestion. I can't put my finger on it exactly. Partly "If pvp raids shouldn't be able to wipe you out, maybe the raiding mechanic is a problem". Partly "That feels really out of place with the general theme of the game". Second point could be addressed by making it a bit more thematically appropriate (hearth lore or something I guess).

But yeah... overall I don't know why this sits weird with me.

Having months of work wiped out may be a big demotivator. Having some animals and seeds saved may be a huge boost to getting the player(s) to keep playing, while not severely impacting the spoils of the raid.

If some people really want the game to be like "let me wreck you so badly you don't want to play anymore", then you got me. This would prevent that, maybe.

[abt79]

logging off/alt-vaulting is a thing, also this would easily be exploited to make raids even less feasible than they are currently

Does logging off currently not render you invincible? I'm not sure how destroying the building you're logged off in would affect you. Not sure what alt-vaulting is. Expand on the last part?.

My point is that alt-vaulting (the very common practice of holding all your valuables on a logged-off character during raids) makes this suggestion pretty redundant anyways.

Having months of work wiped out may be a big demotivator. Having some animals and seeds saved may be a huge boost to getting the player(s) to keep playing, while not severely impacting the spoils of the raid.

If some people really want the game to be like "let me wreck you so badly you don't want to play anymore", then you got me. This would prevent that, maybe.

To expand on my other point, I do believe a raid should (with effort proportional to the size/strength of the claim/village/city being raided) be able to absolutely decimate a settlement, such that it exists only in memory. This is a game that places high priority on often-limited natural resources: forageables, dirt and clay nodes, spawns within key locations such as swamps, even the land itself. If a player erects a base on a spot that is inconvenient to you/your production of goods it should be at least possible to rid yourself of the offending structures if some diplomatic agreement can't be reached.
Whether or not you and I want the game to be that way is rather irrelevant since the developers do.

[Futureismine]

My point is that alt-vaulting (the very common practice of holding all your valuables on a logged-off character during raids) makes this suggestion pretty redundant anyways.

To expand on my other point, I do believe a raid should (with effort proportional to the size of the claim/village/city being raided) be able to absolutely decimate a settlement, such that it exists only in memory.This is a game that places high priority on natural resources: forageables, dirt and clay nodes, spawns near key locations such as swamps, even the land itself. If a player erects a base on a spot that is inconvenient to you/your production of goods it should be at least possible to rid yourself of the offending structures if some diplomatic agreement can't be reached.
Whether or not you and I want the game to be that way is rather irrelevant since the developers do.

On alt-vaulting: Can they hide animals?

I'm not advocating that people shouldn't be able to remove you from the area, perhaps. The bunker could be made to be able to be taken over, and also subject to decay if not on a Personal Claim. And also destroy-able by owner(s).

[Sevenless]

Something feels wrong to me with this suggestion. I can't put my finger on it exactly. Partly "If pvp raids shouldn't be able to wipe you out, maybe the raiding mechanic is a problem". Partly "That feels really out of place with the general theme of the game". Second point could be addressed by making it a bit more thematically appropriate (hearth lore or something I guess).

But yeah... overall I don't know why this sits weird with me.

Having months of work wiped out may be a big demotivator. Having some animals and seeds saved may be a huge boost to getting the player(s) to keep playing, while not severely impacting the spoils of the raid.

If some people really want the game to be like "let me wreck you so badly you don't want to play anymore", then you got me. This would prevent that, maybe.

I feel like I covered your point, but to be fair I'm used to playing modern worlds where sieging was entirely bent on destroying bases and loot was fairly negligible. Sounds like siege changes this world has bent it back towards raiding, which was much more common back in legacy.

You can most definitely already achieve bunkers or vaults that would be safe from casual raiding if you want though. Separate claim deep underground at the end of some random tunnel. Animals can be hearthed if they're leashed to you, making moving them back and forth pretty easily with an alt.

[Futureismine]

I feel like I covered your point, but to be fair I'm used to playing modern worlds where sieging was entirely bent on destroying bases and loot was fairly negligible. Sounds like siege changes this world has bent it back towards raiding, which was much more common back in legacy.

You can most definitely already achieve bunkers or vaults that would be safe from casual raiding if you want though. Separate claim deep underground at the end of some random tunnel. Animals can be hearthed if they're leashed to you, making moving them back and forth pretty easily with an alt.

Whether the motivation is looting or destroying bases... the point, perhaps, is having a safe fall-back. I'm maybe getting to the point of repeating myself. The major achievement should be a preservation of quality gain. Raiders being able to oust you from an area and you losing the base entirely is still on the table, perhaps. Maybe I'm miscomprehending a point you're trying to make.

Onwards.. the current best solution may be to have a second place detached from your main base, and a decent bit away from your main place. While you may be able to use hearth fires to teleport somewhat, there may be still some travel needed (example, I place hearth fire in new location, walk back to get animals). Also, one may need to get to the new place somewhat regularly to put new animals with higher quality and to supply with food and water.

Building such a place right next to your main may invite that getting raided/looted, too. Having the appearance of it being a safehouse (whether near or far from your main) may invite getting raided/looted. Just having it be another raidable place that you didn't check in ~3 days may make it a sketchy alternative to having an un-raidable bunker.

it (mentally) may be a big thing if players can be like 'Ok, if I log on a day from now and my base is raided, there's still a great chance I can get some really important stuff and resettle.' This may allow for players not needing to be really active to defend a raid. They can maybe simply take the risk that they will log on and their base is done for. This may also help some players get into the game who would otherwise be like 'why put months into this game when I could just lose everything but some FEPs and LP.'