Neutral Zone

[XibaRootS 40]

So i've been thinking about this idea for some time now, and before people come in here saying that the game is not aimed to be like this and blablabla, i just wanna say that is an idea and i will receive any suggestions (positive or negative ones) with no problem, just don't be a douche please :) .

 

So... The idea is quite simple actually, imagine if the dev's took some time to build a NEUTRAL CAMP ZONE with no way to interact with other people stuff (barracks, barrels, etc..) except with your own, BUT in order to place your stuff over by this area you have to pay taxes, this could be made in a weekly or even monthly basis and the payment would be set to be defined by the leaders or the owners of that area on each server;

 

To the owners of the area then... In order to become the owner of that area, you have to be the first person to be at the center of this location and capture some form of WayPoint, this could be a flag, or a house that one member of a team/group had to stay inside for a determined period of time whilst the other members of this team have to protect this area. But what would be the difficulties here? Simple. A Massive horde of zombies along with the most dangerous of all creatures, the players. This Horde could be schedule to be deployed/arrive at the end of every weekly cicle. So to keep being the leader of this area you would have to protect it from zombies and players for say like 45 min;

 

This idea came up to me after playing the game called "Reign of Kings" wich has a similar system. And of course in any surviving situation, you can imagine that communities would be built in order to give longevity to their life since a group has much more chances of survinving longer;

 

It would be also nice if the leaders of this areas could build defensive systems against the always popular campers. Because as in every other game that has a "safe/neutral area" there's always people waiting outside trying to kill you;

 

The Taxes here could be defined with some NPC that the players and the leaders can interact with.

 

What your thoughts? let me know in the posts down below. Thank you all for reading it

 

Rgds ;D

[Espa 711]

Are Romulans on the other side!?!? xD

 

Interesting post though. I'm not sure this could exist in DayZ just based on the PvP mechanics and direction the game currently has - Unless some kind of punishment was dished out by attacking. But simply turning off the ability to kill others doesn't seem very realistic to me. And even if this were activated, there's always the exploit of sitting right outside the Neutral Zone and waiting for people to cross over, shoot them, take their goods.

[Kaffarov37 125]

No, because you are basically turning DayZ into Epoch with it's indestructible safes/safe zones/NPCs that do not belong in vanilla DayZ SA

 

You can do this on your own server once modding is added

[S3V3N 1402]

Yeah, like Zelot said, this is exactly how the trade zones in the mods work. In the mods you go there to sell guns and vehicles and buy other stuff like more guns and other vehicles. The Dayz idea is a bit different. Instead of a "god mode" (what this is essentially), there should be clans working on establishing bases that will get a reputation for trade. The clan members control who enters and make sure they leave their weapons at the gate (which means everyone has to be searched). Then you are brought to a tent for trading and smoke a shisha with the esteemed local warlord ;)

 

Yet, I think you aren't completely wrong about your idea. I've been playing Ark and frankly I quit it, because small clans can't even think about fighting the big ones. Every night (when nobody was online), big clans would saddle up all their big dinos, prepare explosives and breach into all the bases worth of it. There was no way to defend against it, since nobody was home. So the next morning we would always begin at absolutely zero, which you only do so often, until you say: "fuck this game." And never play it again; I haven't even updated it in three months.

 

I think there should be something like a neutral state, instead of a neutral zone. That would mean that to establish a base, several members of a group would have to "sign up" as the creators of that base. When they aren't online, the base cannot be torn down or affected in any way. As a sign for neutral state, the bases could show a blue flag or any other kind of symbol. Camps wouldn't be affected by this, they would be just like they are now. 

If not at least one member from the clan that setup the base is online every 48 hours for a duration of x-hours, or if the combined playtime of all members who set up that base is under ~10 hours a week, this base loses its neutral state ability and can be attacked at all times, even when nobody is online; this way you prevent people from building bases and then disappearing. If a base hasn't been accessed for "x"-number-of-days, it should also lose its neutral state to the same extend.

 

Another thing I could imagine is that bases will draw infected towards them, so they would surround the base like a natural shield, making it very hard for groups to break into them. That would however pose a problem to the base owners aswell, because they would have a hard time getting in and out of their base every time. 

 

---

The reason I suggest this is not because I fear battles around bases, but because I know there will be exploiters who will do nothing else but attack and rape bases when their owners aren't online. If a base is attacked and won over it should either involve a real fight or pose a real thread. The attackers could wait until the owners leave their base, before starting their break-in, but then they cannot know when they return or if anyone else will spawn there. It should add a real sense of danger to the situation, instead of the mind-numbing break in people performed in Ark, where they would just keep hitting the same bloody wall for half an hour, until it gave in and they could enter the base. In my opinion a lot speaks for putting things in a neutral state and it actually adds to the realism, because in real life, you would be sleeping in that base and would take notice of people charging it. If you're offline and lose all your stuff that will just lead to an endless circle of building the most pointlessly confusing base layout, in order to make it as hard as possible for people to break in while you are offline. 

Edited January 21, 2016 by S3V3N

[ZomboWTF 527]

There is such a thing as epoch describing exactly what you mean, how many other people allready pointed out

 

I guess the ability to mod the game later will make this possible, but it sure is a long road ahead to even think about that...

[Etherious 907]

No, there should never be such a thing. This is DayZ not Epoch / Overpoch. However, I am sure people will mod such things into the game when modding comes, no doubt.

[blackberrygoo 1416]

Please no :( ePoch ruined dayz mod , along with dayz over watch ... that is all .

[yazar8 584]

No, there should never be such a thing. This is DayZ not Epoch / Overpoch. However, I am sure people will mod such things into the game when modding comes, no doubt.

 

 

Please no :( ePoch ruined dayz mod , along with dayz over watch ... that is all .

 

I am afraid this is true and the same thing will happen with SA and at some point vanilla SA will die. This is why I am trying to have much as fun as I can before this modding support is out and the game will be ruined. I think EA is much more fun than the released game haha.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Yazar8

[Grimey Rick 3417]

douche systems offline

 

This is a terrible idea. However, I like you as a person and I'm sure we'd be fast friends.

 

douche systems online

[Etherious 907]

Please no :( ePoch ruined dayz mod , along with dayz over watch ... that is all .

DayZ Overwatch wasn't that bad. THe only problem the initial version of it had was the weapon, and ammo spawn rate was too high. Well, and they armored vehicles with miniguns. Only two things that were bad. :)

[Merc. 37]

Yeah, like Zelot said, this is exactly how the trade zones in the mods work. In the mods you go there to sell guns and vehicles and buy other stuff like more guns and other vehicles. The Dayz idea is a bit different. Instead of a "god mode" (what this is essentially), there should be clans working on establishing bases that will get a reputation for trade. The clan members control who enters and make sure they leave their weapons at the gate (which means everyone has to be searched). Then you are brought to a tent for trading and smoke a shisha with the esteemed local warlord ;)

 

Yet, I think you aren't completely wrong about your idea. I've been playing Ark and frankly I quit it, because small clans can't even think about fighting the big ones. Every night (when nobody was online), big clans would saddle up all their big dinos, prepare explosives and breach into all the bases worth of it. There was no way to defend against it, since nobody was home. So the next morning we would always begin at absolutely zero, which you only do so often, until you say: "fuck this game." And never play it again; I haven't even updated it in three months.

 

I think there should be something like a neutral state, instead of a neutral zone. That would mean that to establish a base, several members of a group would have to "sign up" as the creators of that base. When they aren't online, the base cannot be torn down or affected in any way. As a sign for neutral state, the bases could show a blue flag or any other kind of symbol. Camps wouldn't be affected by this, they would be just like they are now. 

If not at least one member from the clan that setup the base is online every 48 hours for a duration of x-hours, or if the combined playtime of all members who set up that base is under ~10 hours a week, this base loses its neutral state ability and can be attacked at all times, even when nobody is online; this way you prevent people from building bases and then disappearing. If a base hasn't been accessed for "x"-number-of-days, it should also lose its neutral state to the same extend.

 

Another thing I could imagine is that bases will draw infected towards them, so they would surround the base like a natural shield, making it very hard for groups to break into them. That would however pose a problem to the base owners aswell, because they would have a hard time getting in and out of their base every time. 

 

---

The reason I suggest this is not because I fear battles around bases, but because I know there will be exploiters who will do nothing else but attack and rape bases when their owners aren't online. If a base is attacked and won over it should either involve a real fight or pose a real thread. The attackers could wait until the owners leave their base, before starting their break-in, but then they cannot know when they return or if anyone else will spawn there. It should add a real sense of danger to the situation, instead of the mind-numbing break in people performed in Ark, where they would just keep hitting the same bloody wall for half an hour, until it gave in and they could enter the base. In my opinion a lot speaks for putting things in a neutral state and it actually adds to the realism, because in real life, you would be sleeping in that base and would take notice of people charging it. If you're offline and lose all your stuff that will just lead to an endless circle of building the most pointlessly confusing base layout, in order to make it as hard as possible for people to break in while you are offline. 

 

The concerns in this post are very VERY real. I have a huge concern on how the developers plan to control base raiding when the owner of said base is not online. Without any type of restriction, there will be no real incentive to build "hey look at me" bases in DayZ.

 

Without some type of restrictions, I think most would agree to go with stealth than strength, ie:

Camouflage tents,

Traps,

Barrels

Edited January 22, 2016 by yocheco619

[Etherious 907]

The concerns in this post are very VERY real. I have a huge concern on how the developers plan to control base raiding when the owner of said is not online. Without any type of restriction, there will be no real incentive to build "hey look at me" bases in DayZ.

 

Without some type of restrictions, I think most would agree to go with stealth then strength, ie:

Camouflage tents,

Traps,

Barrels

They have already mentioned there will be no restrictions though. This is a survival game not minecraft. If you're gonna build a huge base, be prepared for all the evil people to raid the shit out of it.

[Merc. 37]

They have already mentioned there will be no restrictions though. This is a survival game not minecraft. If you're gonna build a huge base, be prepared for all the evil people to raid the shit out of it.

 

Is that really what anyone wants though? What do you want?  

 

I can understand it being a survival game, that's not in question. Not sure what you can do in minecraft, I'll ask my 8 year old nephew on that point. 

 

I guess my concern comes from how base building will be executed by players. The only way to ensure some type of security to this base you and your mates spent hours putting together, it would have to be built on low pop public, private, or private shard servers. is that really want they want to happen?

 

Don't get me wrong, if that's where we end up, I'm fine with that. I play the lone wolf hunting style. I just want this game to be successful and engaging in a long term sense.

 

My recommendation, building upon S3V3N's post, is that base being extremely difficult to break into or only enter able when one of the "whitelisted" players of that base have DayZ launched. Or maybe in that server, whatever. Spitballing here.

Edited January 22, 2016 by yocheco619

[S3V3N 1402]

Is that really what anyone wants though? What do you want?  

That's the point of the matter. It's not about making the game feel restricted, but giving the functionality a point of existence. If whenever you build up a base it gets raped while you're offline the consequence will be that you stop building bases. It depends if the devs only want large clans to be able to build a base, because they might have a couple of people online at all hours or if the ability to maintain a base should be something you can do with a smaller group. Even for a large clan it would be quite impossible to keep things running over a longer period of time, because some people will get into the clan only to get access to the base and weapons, i.e. abuse the confidence placed in them. That would be fine too, because it is realistic, but on the long run it just means it's too much hassle for most of the playerbase to even build a base, because they have to maintain several layers of trust and security measures within their own clan to even make it work slightly. And it would be a bad thing and feel wrong if groups of 3-5 are excluded from base-building, simply because there is no means of protection that makes sense. I do see barricading as a likewise interesting idea for smaller groups, though.

 

It's very difficult to come up with a good design for this, and I'm actually more open to giving everyone access or the option to attack a base at any time, but I've seen this go terribly wrong in many other open world games and particularly the Dayz mods. It's become a sport to rape someones base when they are offline, blow up all their shit and steal what you can. In the mods you can still glitch into bases very often and I expect no less from the standalone. The perfect base-building will be a process that's time-consuming to get right and I wish that for once the devs think about consequences and "what if" scenarios, before they throw a mechanic at us that ends in a more frustrating than rewarding experience. A lot of things are half-baked due to the nature of an Alpha, but if you just think of base-building in terms of creating the assets and game mechanic to set them up, there is no concept behind the base-creation itself. 

 

One thing that could make base intrusions interesting are the tools and skills needed to enter into a base. For example - to cut through a fence you might need a wire-cutter. To disable an electric fence you might need skills at disarming fuses or breaking power circuits. This would give you access to the outer perimeter. To breach the inner walls then, you might need a tow truck to tear in a wall or a door - or you would need lockpicking skills in oder to get through the doors. Once inside a base you'll need to deal with traps set up (I hope traps within a base can be made persistent, so you don't have to rebuild them whenever the server restarts). The inner doors of a base could be protected by spring gun traps and wire traps with grenades on them. Caches could be rigged with sleeping gas or bombs/explosives. It's like getting into an Egyptian tomb, slow and dangerous and every step should need keen observation and require some skill or tools you don't take out on a hunting trip. The problem with that kind of base however would be that it's a total pain in the ass for anyone living there - unless the traps are disabled for the owners of the base. Otherwise some poor member might log off outside the main base building and get shot by their own trap when they enter the base. There is really no golden measure to do this right and satisfy everyone.

 

A neutral state would be the easiest fix for a lot of problems. Because it would mean that only bases that are actually populated or have their owners online at that time can be attacked. The downside to this is that most people would build their base near the coast and when they die near/at their base, they would just cycle through respawns, until it spawns them close enough to the base to take on the attackers again. That is presuming we won't have the option to respawn in our bases (like we can in many mods). I think in the end it will be a combination of capture the flag and defend the area that makes it possible to successfully attack a base. The reason why I'd want a small group of people to sign up as base-owners is because I don't like the idea of hijacking other people's bases. You can break and enter, but you should not be able to completely overtake them. That is, unless the base has been given up or not accessed by its original owners for a longer period of time. In the end it will be a variant of capture the flag, no matter what the devs come up with to make it harder or slow down the process of attacking. All I'm asking for is that the defenders are actually given the adequate tools to counter an attack and repel the attackers. It would be quite funny for example, if we could herd infected (or predators) and put them in cages in the inner perimeter of our base. And then when the attackers breached the walls and enter feeling already victorious, the base owners retreat to their inner sanctum and release all the infected, which then - involuntarily - help with the base defense, giving the defenders an edge. Of course none of that should be easy to do, but there should be multiple layers and options for defenses, and I don't want to end up with automated turrets or something similar that would just ruin the low-tech and makeshift nature of basebuilding for me.   

Edited January 22, 2016 by S3V3N

[Etherious 907]

Is that really what anyone wants though? What do you want?  

 

I can understand it being a survival game, that's not in question. Not sure what you can do in minecraft, I'll ask my 8 year old nephew on that point. 

 

I guess my concern comes from how base building will be executed by players. The only way to ensure some type of security to this base you and your mates spent hours putting together, it would have to be built on low pop public, private, or private shard servers. is that really want they want to happen?

 

Don't get me wrong, if that's where we end up, I'm fine with that. I play the lone wolf hunting style. I just want this game to be successful and engaging in a long term sense.

 

My recommendation, building upon S3V3N's post, is that base being extremely difficult to break into or only enter able when one of the "whitelisted" players of that base have DayZ launched. Or maybe in that server, whatever. Spitballing here.

Base building is mean't to be an end game. However, it's also supposed to be a danger if you want to build one. If you restrict other players from raiding the shit out of other players bases then it's unfair, and quite frankly not fitting in a survival game. I can completely understand if the players need to acquire tools or certain vehicles to raid someones base, that is fine. But, when you start placing these "whitelisting" or "neutral" states, it's completely stupid. That shit belongs in mods not in vanilla DayZ.

Edited January 22, 2016 by DJ SGTHornet

[S3V3N 1402]

Base building is mean't to be an end game. However, it's also supposed to be a danger if you want to build one. If you restrict other players from raiding the shit out of other players bases then it's unfair, and quite frankly not fitting in a survival game. I can completely understand if the players need to acquire tools or certain vehicles to raid someones base, that is fine. But, when you start placing these "whitelisting" or "neutral" states, it's completely stupid. That shit belongs in mods not in vanilla DayZ.

If you don't bother thinking about the consequences of base building or don't want to discuss the matter, but instead come here with a pre-made decision to turn everything down, you won't progress past your own decision or be able to open up to other people's arguments. That's not how a discussion is created and the point of this thread and forum is discussion, not being right or dismissing arguments without weighing them first. Fact is basebuilding hardly ever works in open world games - I'd challenge you to show me any open world game like Dayz, where base building isn't a complete mess. The ideas we're exchanging here are meant to present better options for Dayz, instead of believing in the frustrating prospect that there are none.

 

You don't have to read everything we wrote, but at least present your part of the argument, instead of just saying "no" and "let the mods do it".

Edited January 22, 2016 by S3V3N

[Etherious 907]

If you don't bother thinking about the consequences of base building or don't want to discuss the matter, but instead come here with a pre-made decision to turn everything down, you won't progress past your own decision or be able to open up to other people's arguments. That's not how a discussion is created and the point of this thread and forum is discussion, not being right or dismissing arguments without weighing them first. Fact is basebuilding hardly ever works in open world games - I'd challenge you to show me any open world game like Dayz, where base building isn't a complete mess. The ideas we're exchanging here are meant to present better options for Dayz, instead of believing in the frustrating prospect that there are none.

 

You don't have to read everything we wrote, but at least present your part of the argument, instead of just saying "no" and "let the mods do it".

I've been reading you, and yocheco's posts. So, IDK what you're trying to get at. Anyways, I just said what would be ok. Did you skim through my post? If they added certain tools or vehicles to open up base buildings materials then that is OK. Perfectly fits DayZ, what I said DOESN'T fit DayZ is whitelisting or neutral zones.

Edited January 22, 2016 by DJ SGTHornet