A possible safe zone?

[NMEBowen 0]

First of all this is only a suggestion i have no idea how hard the coding is, if its atall possible or what others feelings on the subject would be but its an idea i thought i would put forward none the less.

I have seen a few people say about safe zones and player run trading areas and i thought this may be the idea their looking for.

So how would players feel about a npc run safe zone like the medic camp at balota airfield but on a bigger scale, npc`s in guard towers on overwatch and patroling guards who kill anyone with low humanity allowing survivors to enter who need blood transfusions and the like, the area could not only

be a safe zone for survivors but also a little end game for bandits in clans to group up and attack to get high end loot like nvg`s and long range rifles.

So what would people think of this and any suggestions to improve the idea?

[Kleid 0]

The idea of having NPCs running it would remove the feeling of tension in the game. I think a lot of the tense/scariness comes from not knowing if the area is safe or if the person you're approaching is going to shoot you in the face. Also, if you could just walk in and get supplies you need, it sort of removes the scavenging apocalypse feel going on. It'd be too easy. Bandits team up because they have the ability to communicate and gain the rust of other people out of game and therefore, in the game. If you are someone who does not possess the natural ability to recruit people and team up, you wouldn't have that ability in the game world either. It seems kind of one-sided and harsh, but it wouldn't be much of a survival game if things were done for you.

A safe haven would also attract bandits like mad. They would stay outside of the firing zone and stalk people going in and out of the base knowing they just stocked up.

Lastly, a safe-haven would just provide too much safety for some newbies to leave. If you spend your whole time in a safe haven, you don't gain the experiences of the apocalyptic world ad you don't improve your abilities.

[Techercizer 82]

Nowhere is safe in Day Z. If you want to feel safe, go play a different game.

[Sinaz20 0]

The other difficulty in something like this is that it is almost unenforceable.

How do you keep snipers from shooting into the safe zone or bandits from tossing in grenades? Forcefield?

How do you prevent bandits from camping the exits and just picking off people as they enter/exit?

One could argue that people in the safe zone can shoot out of it, but how do you tell the difference between someone shooting out of a safezone when a friendly accidentally walks in front of your muzzle?

Also, have you ever in your life played tag without the olly-olly-oxenfree rule? You get everyone standing on base, and "it" standing just outside of base with everyone yelling "no guarding!"

Childhood experience, that is. ;)

[aedryan 0]

Having NPC run safe zones would be a nice addition but I think in order to preserve the realistic nature of the game I have few points about your original idea I would change.

1. NPC's pursue murders they've witnessed within the safe zone and within a certain distance outside the safe zone to X boundary outside the came. NPC's investigate gunshots they've heard from within the camp for X amount of time and keep an eye on the relative area of the sound of a gunshot outside the safe zone. Walking into a safe zone with your gun not lowered might cause NPC's to watch you more than others. I don't think they should be auto-attacking players with low humanity, maybe players with excessively low humanity, like -50,000 or so become "known" players to the NPC's who the NPC's shoot on site.

2. NPC's should be able to be killed and respawn 24 hours later out of a random door in a random building in the safe zone.

3. NPC's should only be carrying common equipment like a winny or lee enfield with a makarov, binoculars, and a random smattering of food, water, and other common misc equipment.

4. Safe zones have a maximum occupancy, when it is reached, NPC's warn approaching players to stay back at X distance, shoot warning shots at players feet at Y distance if they still approach, wound players still approaching at Z distance, and shoot to kill players who still try to enter. That being said, players sneaky enough should still be able to sneak into safe zones.

5. There should probably only be 3 of these safe zones, a big one in the south for early game players, and 2 small ones in the northern areas for late game players.

[Fantomblu 1]

I do like the idea of having some type of npc city/camp for trading, meeting up etc..

The only way I can think of to eliminate spawn camping safe areas would be to have a instance based type deal. For example maybe we find radios that can heliport (warp) us to this "camp". Or perhaps a dock area that ferries us to a "safe island". Once we are done with said camp and are ready to leave, the heli or ferry "teleports" us back to a random spawn area (like when we freshly spawn as n00bs).

[snaiperskaya 3]

Your friends are your safeness

[steveman0 0]

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 :)

[Kleid 0]

The little modification I would recommend is to script periodic infected sieges on the safe zones. The longer a zone remains safe' date=' 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.

[/quote']

I can sort of get on-board with that, though bandits would still be hugely attracted to these zones. However, this approach would sort of buffer new players from the initial hiding phase and nudge them towards the survivalist/explorer phase.

[duddbudda 33]

if a safe zone is so important to the survivors in Chernarus then it is the survivors who must band together and enforce it

ask not what DayZ can do for you, ask what you can do for your DayZ

[steveman0 0]

The little modification I would recommend is to script periodic infected sieges on the safe zones. The longer a zone remains safe' date=' 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.

[/quote']

I can sort of get on-board with that, though bandits would still be hugely attracted to these zones. However, this approach would sort of buffer new players from the initial hiding phase and nudge them towards the survivalist/explorer phase.

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.

[arkental 5]

While the safe zone would have a lot of nasty issues in terms of gameplay and griefing which would have to be solved, I am honestly favorable to the addition of one.

However, I would imagine the zone being inland. Either in the northwest part of the map, or even better, in a random location/village differing from server to server. While some might argue the zone would easy mode the game somehow, I feel the common goal shared by survivors/non-bandits could offer a great deal of increased interaction between players that take us away from the SoS mentality.

Let's just say f.ex that the zone is in a random location from server to server. This means that (with global channels disabled) you now either have to a) cover the entire map and hope to get lucky, or b) interact with other survivors for directions or even joining up for the common goal of reaching it.

I would stress that the zone should offer very little aside from some temporary relief from the hazards of the world (shooting disabled?) to facilitate social interaction and encourage players to use it as a hub from where they can go on scavenging expeditions, etc, with others. Some minor incentives like limited "safe" storage (not tent sized, much much smaller) and such could also go a long way towards encouraging players to avoid banditry and stick to the survivor style. In no way shape or form should it be free lootz of epic proportions for anyone however, in fact it could be interesting if to keep the safe zone "safe", players will have to scavenge and supply it with ammunition and consumeables.

Now, before someone jumps in and calls me a carebear: I mentioned incentives for less banditry, yes. But I am in no way saying "WHAAAAA BANDITS TOOK MY BEANS!". I am opposed to rampant deathmatch banditry, and I believe a potential safe zone for survivors to play around with could be beneficial to lessen this. But at the same time it has to be carefully balanced to avoid leaving proper banditry behind. As you might have guessed by now, I prefer incentives to not shoot other players over punishment for doing so.

[steveman0 0]

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?

[NMEBowen 0]

When i posted this i didnt really intend for it to be an absolute safe zone, more of a place that would be safe for a certain time untill bandits decided to come rape and pillage. I really do like the idea of horde attacks, maybe zeds build up around the area and its up to players to help the npc`s clear the area.

I did not intend the area to allow players to gear up only trade and a safe place to log maybe a waterpump there but that would be it.. as far as the guards go maybe not give them nvg`s but large search lights and rifles allowing them to kill any bandit within say 700m allowing players to get with in a decent range with a sniper to pop them off. I really do feel the npc`s should offer some kind of high end gear to make attacking the stronghold worth it.

Keep up with the ideas maybe a dev will read this and take one into game.