Jump to content

Photo

Camp Space

space bunk room

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1
Timoskander

Timoskander
  • 8 posts

Everyone's posting ideas, all nice and cool, new buildings, new stuff, all very nice, BUT the proverbial is hitting the fan when it comes to SPACE. I do not think I am the only one that thinks we're running out of space in the compound. Con should create ways to economise space, things like:

*bunk beds (Admit it, the beds are taking LOADS of space),

*more efficient storage (Example: Not 3 wood storages, but only 2, that have a bigger initial and per level capacity)

*being able to stick buildings to the wall (You don't really need acces to the back of an ammo locker, do you?)

 *bigger compound building (The alley behind the hangar, warehouse or whatever that is, is quite useless isn't it? Expanding the hangar,warehouse, whatever, on that space would greatly help),

*Ability to combine/put on top buildings. (You could put the beacon up on a tower, or the Radio tower in a barricade junction)

 

These are my ideas so far. What do you guys think?


  • 2

#2
fusurugi

fusurugi
  • 168 posts

I would put the floodlights in the barricades or place rain collectors and gardens as well as the radio tower on top of the hall.

And piling storage... I wouldn't put any more IPCs (water storage) on each other than the 3 we already have at level 10. makes 'em too unstable.

Maybe combine two or more of those stacks into one, but that makes it that much more inflexible to litter around the compund.


  • 0

#3
Timoskander

Timoskander
  • 8 posts

I don't really like the top of the hall idea, since it would be rather unrealistic, since they can't climb it, and even if it had a ladder, you can't get that many resources up there, but the rest is nice


  • 0

#4
FlyingNinjaBoar

FlyingNinjaBoar
  • 395 posts

how do u loot the roof then? 


  • 0

#5
fusurugi

fusurugi
  • 168 posts

I don't really like the top of the hall idea, since it would be rather unrealistic, since they can't climb it, and even if it had a ladder, you can't get that many resources up there, but the rest is nice

Are you forgetting they could rig a crane up?

 

how do u loot the roof then? 

Ladders.


  • 0

#6
LPGD

LPGD
  • 1,222 posts

Are you forgetting they could rig a crane up?

 

Ladders.

But you don't just leave ladders laying around for raiders to climb, and they are too bulky to carry.

 

What if a small, fire- escape style staircase was built leading up to the roof? There could be sniping positions on the roof, usable for both sides, so it is a double edged sword.


  • 1

#7
Timoskander

Timoskander
  • 8 posts

Gardens on top of the hall is not plausible, don't tell me they'll use the crane to bring mounds of soil up to the roof. The idea of buildings on the roof is a bit uncool in itself since you can see the roof is curved, the whole building is made of sheet metal, so that much weight on it could make it collapse. The idea of sniping positions on it, well, that one isn't bad at all.


  • 0

#8
LLiquid

LLiquid
  • 2,533 posts

There is still plenty of room around the compound if you are organised.

 

Bunk beds have been suggested to death.


  • 0

#9
wonderfish

wonderfish
  • 49 posts

Having built everything and having a third of the compound empty I seem to be missing something essential?

 

Limited space is part of the challenge. A feature, imo, not a problem.


  • 0

#10
Zingman

Zingman
  • 3,179 posts

Compound design is an integral part of the game.

 

There is more than enough space if you're making the right decisions on what to prioritize on defense, properly fitting everything together like a puzzle, etc.


  • 0

#11
nx0817

nx0817
  • 1 posts

I was gonna make a new post, but I found this realted one so I'll just my idea here.

 

The comment about limited space being a good challenge is right. But realistically, a larger compund would mean a more powerful player. I mean, if you were a ruler with a large army, would you live in a shack or a castle?

 

I just started so I'm not there yet, but I'm hoping there would be a feature wherein we could overtake other player's compound. But to be fair, the player will have an option: to continue fighting or to surrender. If they surrender, they will be a subordinate of the winning party. If they continue fighting, and lose, they will have to start all over again in a diffrent location on their own (the survivors in that compound will be added to the winning player's group). If they win, then they can live another day.

 

If a player has more than one compound, they can designate a main base and the other compounds will be like camps or something. The main base will be able to build more advanced structures than the camps. If they won the compound from a player who didn't surrender, they also win the survivors in that compund and the player can reassign survivors to different camps.

 

The camps and the base will have shared resources, so resources scavenged by one camp will automatically shared by the others and the base. Benefits from advanced structures that the main base constructs will also be enjoyed by the camps.

 

One main thing is, to overtake a compound, the other compound should be conected to the main base either directly or through other camps since it doesn't make sense if they are making the compound "larger" yet the addiitonal camp is all the way across the map.

 

I'm not sure if this is feasible, but it would give the game more appeal since limited space will also limit the growth at some point.


  • 0

#12
fusurugi

fusurugi
  • 168 posts

I was gonna make a new post, but I found this realted one so I'll just my idea here.

 

The comment about limited space being a good challenge is right. But realistically, a larger compund would mean a more powerful player. I mean, if you were a ruler with a large army, would you live in a shack or a castle?

 

I just started so I'm not there yet, but I'm hoping there would be a feature wherein we could overtake other player's compound. But to be fair, the player will have an option: to continue fighting or to surrender. If they surrender, they will be a subordinate of the winning party. If they continue fighting, and lose, they will have to start all over again in a diffrent location on their own (the survivors in that compound will be added to the winning player's group). If they win, then they can live another day.

 

If a player has more than one compound, they can designate a main base and the other compounds will be like camps or something. The main base will be able to build more advanced structures than the camps. If they won the compound from a player who didn't surrender, they also win the survivors in that compund and the player can reassign survivors to different camps.

 

The camps and the base will have shared resources, so resources scavenged by one camp will automatically shared by the others and the base. Benefits from advanced structures that the main base constructs will also be enjoyed by the camps.

 

One main thing is, to overtake a compound, the other compound should be conected to the main base either directly or through other camps since it doesn't make sense if they are making the compound "larger" yet the addiitonal camp is all the way across the map.

 

I'm not sure if this is feasible, but it would give the game more appeal since limited space will also limit the growth at some point.

 

uuuuh.... no.

Taking away someone elses compound? Are you nuts?

Forcing them to play under your rule? Are you a capitalist?


  • 0

#13
Timoskander

Timoskander
  • 8 posts

I was gonna make a new post, but I found this realted one so I'll just my idea here.

 

The comment about limited space being a good challenge is right. But realistically, a larger compund would mean a more powerful player. I mean, if you were a ruler with a large army, would you live in a shack or a castle?

 

I just started so I'm not there yet, but I'm hoping there would be a feature wherein we could overtake other player's compound. But to be fair, the player will have an option: to continue fighting or to surrender. If they surrender, they will be a subordinate of the winning party. If they continue fighting, and lose, they will have to start all over again in a diffrent location on their own (the survivors in that compound will be added to the winning player's group). If they win, then they can live another day.

 

If a player has more than one compound, they can designate a main base and the other compounds will be like camps or something. The main base will be able to build more advanced structures than the camps. If they won the compound from a player who didn't surrender, they also win the survivors in that compund and the player can reassign survivors to different camps.

 

The camps and the base will have shared resources, so resources scavenged by one camp will automatically shared by the others and the base. Benefits from advanced structures that the main base constructs will also be enjoyed by the camps.

 

One main thing is, to overtake a compound, the other compound should be conected to the main base either directly or through other camps since it doesn't make sense if they are making the compound "larger" yet the addiitonal camp is all the way across the map.

 

I'm not sure if this is feasible, but it would give the game more appeal since limited space will also limit the growth at some point.

Nicely thought of but, it's just a bit too much, It's still a zombie apocalypse and it would be insane to manage, plus that the thing with surrendering and living under your rule? Yeah that's waaay to far, the multiple compounds would have been feasible, but it just doesn't really fit. This idea started with making the compound "larger", not exactly "larger", but more efficient spacing, such as sticking structures to the walls, combining structures, sticking a structure to one another and so on.


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: space, bunk, room