steveman0

I'm a new player so I'm sure that doesn't really help but I had a zombie aggro me without a clear cause. I was prone in the grass behind the building that I think another was hiding in. I'm not sure how I got his attention unless he wandered around and stepped on me. I got up and ran away but I couldn't lose him and eventually went down after risking a tree stand hoping for a weapon. Could just be bad luck though.

Seems like it should be easy to add it to the scroll menu. Makes sense to have it.

I think this misses the purpose of the game. It isn't supposed to be a deathmatch, survivor vs. bandit or otherwise. The system won't encourage that and it shouldn't try to since that isn't really the point. If people are deathmatching then something should be done to stop it, not encourage it further.

Are Intel cores leading the pack right now? I see little mention of AMD cores and it always happened when I looked to build my PCs they were always the better price per power by a large margin. My Phenom 2 X6 was like 150$ compared to an equivalent power Intel at a minimum of double the price. I don't know the current market though but it may be worth investigating.

I'm not sure there is a need to limit safe zones to specific map locations. There are already a number of tools that enable players to set up a camp like the wire fence kit, tank traps, and tents. Just those three things alone and the tool box to use them enables you to build a defensible perimeter from infected and player vehicles and tents enable communal storage. A few players with a small assortment of supplies could set up their own encampment pretty easily with those. All that is really needed is sort of defense to fight off infected. Perhaps gun emplacements like 50-cal machine guns that can be player operated. A small team of survivors could keep that safe as long as they have the supplies. This raises another risk reward scenario. Do you place your camp in a city where supplies are abundant but face tougher resistance or do you place it in the wilderness where you'll have fewer foes but fewer supplies?

[NEW] Alternate optional server mode: Hardcore co-operative - Zed spawn rate increased 2x-4x, increased food, water, temperature decay rates, FF off, intended for moderate sized group play (~5).

I think I'd prefer bandits assaulting safe zones then sniping newbs on the beaches. At least it's a choice to go there and you choose to balance the risk and reward. Considering what a safe zone offers I think that it is a fair trade-off that you might need to contend with bandits. Depending on what the safe zone offers, the ones defending it would likely be at the advantage so the bandits assaulting it would need to consider the risks they face in trying to attack it. The other thing to consider is that if the safe zone can be constructed anywhere the survivors choose as opposed to a limited few predetermined locations, it may be possible to keep the location hushed and let word only spread among friendlies. At least for the smaller encampments. I think this is also good to give new players somewhere to meet with more experienced players and maybe learn a thing or two or even find a traveling companion for those who'd rather not go as a lone wolf.

I've been following the forum for a few days and I plan to pick up ArmA 2 soon to play the mod. From everything I've read in the forums this sounds like the kind of thing that would be really useful. It seems when people get bored they turn to banditry to keep interest in the game. This may serve as an alternative for would be bandits with a small modification. The little modification I would recommend is to script periodic infected sieges on the safe zones. The longer a zone remains safe, the more dangerous (number) the infected sieges become. The idea being that a safe zone isn't completely safe and the longer you sit around in the zone relaxing the more you should fear sticking around. This turns the safe zones into a decision like anything else in the game. Although you might stop in for a short while to refill your canteen and trade with other players to fill up on ammo or just get a meal for the day, you will need to think about the risk of staying around too long and risk getting caught in an overwhelming attack. Players who've been around a long time and are bored of the usual survival aspects can take up the role of protecting the safe zones and policing them from infected and bandits. Or even these players could be the ones to set them up in the first place. Others have discussed the idea of player run safe zones. Perhaps NPCs could be involved but maybe these zones don't exist unless players gather resources necessary to construct them in the first place. For example, spare weapons are required to initialize the safe zone in the first place. Upgrades such as guard posts would need to be constructed by using scrap metal, toolboxes, wire fencing, tank traps, etc. The strength of the safe zone would then be directly related to the player involvement. Perhaps you get a team of survivors that can keep one active for a day or two, maybe it doesn't last more than a few hours when the first assault hits. In short, I think this sort of idea lends well to long term play to possibly offset the boredom the veteran players seem to be facing. This would give them quite the goal to devote their resources towards. A sort of post-apocalyptic survival tower defense :)