Safe Zone

[Polnadian 0]

Everything is up in the air, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this suggestion!

- Safe zone is a town chosen at random on a server-to-server basis that is walled off and has no zombies spawning inside of it.

- Staffed by heavily armed A.I.

- A.I. can be killed and looted, along with the entire safe zone.

- Players forced to holster their weapons.

- Traders and a currency system (?)

- Safe storage that only you can access. Resets on death.

- Gates open automatically to freshly spawned players, while players with at least X zombies killed/murders must pay to enter with food, drinks, or ammo.

Now, the purpose of this "safe" zone would be to have a hub where players can group up or plan their next move. It can also provide a good environment for trading, or perhaps an "end goal" for bandit groups.

[Failbait 60]

No thank you

[Polnadian 0]

Could you at least explain why?

[DevilDog (DayZ) 455]

I don't mind a safe zone, but it would have to be done right. The idea with AI ect is not to my liking. Also the biggest problem with a safe zone is that people will get murdered going in or out.

Just contact the Trading Company and they can help keep you safe for a trade.

[Failbait 60]

Could you at least explain why?

Certainly!

I wish there to be no non-infected NPCs in this game, ever. I wish that players like yourself who want these things would continue to go make them happen themselves.

The power is to do this is actually at your fingertips right now! I believe in you - the players who want constant PvP are making their own world. You and those like you are not pushing back at all - just caterwauling to uncaring mods and a community that has heard it a million times to fix it for you.

That's not how the world works, and apparently this game is realistic enough that it's not how the game works. AND I LOVE IT.

[zorisx 7]

Could you at least explain why?

I'd rather have a community make their own safe zone rather than someone holding our hands and doing it for us.

[Ginger Beard 0]

no, everything should be completely player driven.

[Polnadian 0]

Ah, so many of you dislike having any non-zombie A.I. I understand why, but I thought it would be a good idea so bandits can't just wait until everyone inside the safe area logs off to clear the place out.

Anyways, instead of safe zones spawning in, how about giving players a way to build them? The current emplacements are enough to stop players from entering a building, but not much else, and toolboxes are common enough. Perhaps large walls can be built that require a large amount of wood. These walls would be 10+ feet tall and the only way to get rid of them would be fire (takes a while), explosives (instant, low risk), or smashing through them with a large vehicle (instant, pretty dangerous).

Please, don't be afraid to post, I want to hear your thoughts on the matter!

[FlashHawk4 44]

I say players do it. There really isn't anything that stops a law enforcement approach to this game, except communication, which may or may not be addressed in the near future. As for now, there's stuff like Skype, Ventrilo, Teamspeak, Mumble, etc. etc...

I say yes to fortifications, but remember what those look like now...ass hats who put wire in front of every door they want to just because they can. Now imagine that with what you described.

[Polnadian 0]

I say yes to fortifications' date=' but remember what those look like now...ass hats who put wire in front of every door they want to just because they can. Now imagine that with what you described.

[/quote']

Yes, but that will be alleviated by making the wooden walls very expensive. How about 20 wood, that way, quite a few trips are required or a vehicle is needed.

[Higgypig 0]

An NPC driven hub? this isnt some lame top-down rpg mmo dude. If players want it bad enough, they will do it.

[Nasty Wet Smear 4]

No thanks. This'll ruin the "lonley, nowhere is safe" feeling.

[UndeadAssassin 23]

the only way that i can see the gates not being camped are gates are protected to a 150m radius and any loot lost within that radius should be collected and the player can get thier loot at the end of the day or the loot will be sold to the highest bidder in an auction scene.

so any campers wont get the gear anyway.

[chrismgtis 55]

Everything is up in the air' date=' I'd love to hear your thoughts on this suggestion!

- Safe zone is a town chosen at random on a server-to-server basis that is walled off and has no zombies spawning inside of it.

- [s']Staffed by heavily armed A.I.

- A.I. can be killed and looted, along with the entire safe zone.

- Players forced to holster their weapons.

- Traders and a currency system (?)

- Safe storage that only you can access. Resets on death.

- Gates open automatically to freshly spawned players, while players with at least X zombies killed/murders must pay to enter with food, drinks, or ammo.

Now, the purpose of this "safe" zone would be to have a hub where players can group up or plan their next move. It can also provide a good environment for trading, or perhaps an "end goal" for bandit groups.

Yea, don't like the idea. Sorry. Not so against a 'safe zone' but traders and what not - absolutely not. Getting items the way we currently do is how it should be.

[FrIEND (DayZ) 9]

No thanks

[WhiteTigerShiro 25]

Players being able to clean-out a city, at which point nothing spawns in there while it's "occupied" (including no more loot spawns), I could agree to. It'd be awesome to have a group of players band together to take over Cherno or Electro, set-up player-made walls, and then it'd just a haven for that group of players.

However:

It shouldn't be automated in any way. Player actions only.

Nothing is to stop players from opening fire within the city walls. Anarchy/Betrayal should be a very real threat, forcing the occupying players to establish a guard that takes down any threats.

As mentioned, loot will not spawn in any area that's considered "taken over" by players, so you can't just set-up a barrier around Cherno and just start farming the market and church non-stop. You'll have to send players to unestablished cities (or rival-held cities, because that'd be an awesome PvP mechanic) to get supplies.

So yes on being able to hold cities, rather than just setting-up tent cities; No to any form of automation (including auto-holstered weapons).

Edit: Of course, this implementation would have to come after they fix the issue of server-hopping. In the current state of the game, no one would go through the hassle of setting-up a base like this because of how easily a rival group could just server-hop to spawn inside city walls for a raid. It's one thing when a group is able to sneak into the perimeter undetected, but it's another entirely when they can just "teleport" inside.

[ZomboWTF 527]

No, never, sorry, this is a survival game, just giving people a safe spot for no reason is not gonna work well

bandits will camp it, farm the AI guards, and snipe the entrance badly (hell, i would do it if they wouldnt)

that "safe zone" would be the entirely most dangerous place on the game, lol...

just set up a camp for yourself and try to protect it

[aidanweld@gmail.com 6]

Did someone say Heavily Armed? > : D

"Staffed by heavily armed A.I."

[Gareth_Sims (DayZ) 8]

Players being able to clean-out a city' date=' at which point nothing spawns in there while it's "occupied" (including no more loot spawns), I could agree to. It'd be awesome to have a group of players band together to take over Cherno or Electro, set-up player-made walls, and then it'd just a haven for that group of players.

However:

It shouldn't be automated in any way. Player actions only.

Nothing is to stop players from opening fire within the city walls. Anarchy/Betrayal should be a very real threat, forcing the occupying players to establish a guard that takes down any threats.

As mentioned, loot will not spawn in any area that's considered "taken over" by players, so you can't just set-up a barrier around Cherno and just start farming the market and church non-stop. You'll have to send players to unestablished cities (or rival-held cities, because that'd be an awesome PvP mechanic) to get supplies.

So yes on being able to hold cities, rather than just setting-up tent cities; No to any form of automation (including auto-holstered weapons).

Edit: Of course, this implementation would have to come after they fix the issue of server-hopping. In the current state of the game, no one would go through the hassle of setting-up a base like this because of how easily a rival group could just server-hop to spawn inside city walls for a raid. It's one thing when a group is able to sneak into the perimeter undetected, but it's another entirely when they can just "teleport" inside.

[/quote']

This I like, having safe zones sounds like a good idea on paper but IMO it should be a player driven zone and having no server/NPC intervention would be the only way to keep the game the way it is now,

I think players being able to set up forts around city locations and claim them is a fantastic idea but it would need to be done carefully to avoid people blocking buildings as they now do with wire..., All in all i like the idea of zones but agree that if it happens it should be done by the players ONLY

[ninthtj 1]

I disagree with this idea, I think it takes away from the idea of Day Z and ruins immersion. We are trying to survive a zombie apocalypse, nowhere should be safe.

[Womb Raider 92]

No, not unless it is made by players.

It is never going to be implemented.

[James2012 0]

Yes please! If there was a safe zone with a economy maybe players could meet up there and trade weapons / sell them to each other.

and maybe have it so the npcs only sell what has bin sold to them so its not unlimited.