DayZ Standalone – Promoting Codependency & Targets of Opportunity

[Westford 12]

DayZ Standalone – Promoting Codependency & Targets of Opportunity

Note:

All comments, suggestions, criticisms are welcome, but please, if you disagree,

explain why and provide an alternative.

Responding with;

No, No and No……..

Or

This is a stupid idea…..

Does not provide the design team with any ideas, which is the purpose of this post.

Be creative and give some details.

Purpose:

The purpose of this post, is to introduce some concept ideas that would promote

• Meaningful PvP
  
• Targets of Opportunity
  
• Codependency
  

Moving away from the standard mainstream fast paced PvP, where the main objective is to get a

high kill count.

There are already a number of these types of games already out there that many of us are familiar with.

And for a large number of gamers, this play style can get boring real fast.

Different skins, different weapons, different backdrop.... it's still the same type of game.

Survival:

The main emphasis of DayZ, is to survive in a post apocalyptic world that has suffered

from a devastating virus with the thousands of Infected people.

Survival could be achieved either solo, or cooperated team play.

Solo should definetly be much more challenging.

Survival Needs:

The basic survival needs boils down to 3 things.

1. Water (fluids)
   
2. Food (need the Baked Beans)
   
3. Shelter
   this does not seem to be a real need as of yet,
   protecting yourself from the elements,
   may be more of a necessity in the Standalone version
   

A weapon certainly helps in defending yourself against the Infected, and other players intent on

taking your items that you gathered, in order to survive.

I have what I need to Survive:

So you gathered all requisite items to survive, what next.

In a post apocalyptic setting, you will probably want to seek out, and join up with like minded people.

A force in number working together have a better chance of survival.

The game has already identified 3 Factions.

1. Bandits (a threat to Survivors & other Bandits)
   
2. Survivors (Humanitarians)
   
3. Zombies - NPC Faction (a threat to all.... or should be)
   

A Safe Haven:

This is not to be confused with a “Safe-Zone” !!

No place is safe…

And a well placed Sniper outside the city, would be major problem for those in the city.

But rather, the ability of a group of players (maybe a very large group),

from either Faction to rebuild the infrastructure in a city of their choosing.

A random city as opposed to a static city, so that neither Faction knows where the other is re-building.

This would then require scouts to recon all cities, in order to identify where there enemy is located.

Roaming Scouts would promote PvP.

A Faction with a Helicopter would definitely have an advantage.

Should there be a limit of 1 city per Faction that can be rebuilt?

Need to discuss, but my initial thoughts are yes, 1 city per Faction.

If the answer is yes, than this again would promote cooperation for both Bandits & Survivors,

and also provide the remaining cities to be infested with Zombies and places to loot.

With whatever method, the designers choose, for Faction identification, this would promote

more cooperation amongst the Survivors, more so than the Bandits.

As Bandits would require much more communication and trust, to trust another Bandit, or Bandit group.

But as the Survivor Faction grows, so does the threat to the Bandits, as they run into larger groups of

Survivors. Also, if a small group of Bandits decide to rebuild a cities Infrastructure, they would be more

successful clearing that city, and defending that city with a much larger groups.

This may promote co dependencies between Bandit groups, to form up, and cooperate against a growing threat……..

an every growing population of Survivors that have decided to form up.

A city would first need to be cleared out of all Zombies.

This may be a major undertaking.

So what can be rebuilt, and what purpose would it serve ?

Survivors Infrastructure:

City Generators

(requires a constant supply of fuel, to keep the Generators online, a shit ton of Jerry Cans

to completly fill the Generator Tank.... how often to refill ?? )

(required components to rebuild…….?)

(can be destroyed with Satchel Charge)

City Lighting

(requires operational City Generator)

(required components to rebuild …….?)

(can be destroyed with Satchel Charge)

Baked Bean Factory (only Survivors can rebuild)

(requires operational City Generator, Water Supply Pump)

(requires empty tin can to resupply yourself with Baked Beans)

(required components to rebuild…….?)

(can be destroyed with Satchel Charge)

City Water Pump

Provides Water Source

(requires operational City Generator)

(required components to rebuild…….?)

(can be destroyed with Satchel Charge)

Bandits Infrastructure:

City Generators

(requires a constant supply of fuel, Bandits would use their Fuel Trucks to refill Generators)

(can be destroyed with Satchel Charge)

City Water Pump

(can be destroyed with Satchel Charge)

City Lighting

(can be destroyed with Satchel Charge)

Fuel Truck Repair Facility (only Bandits can rebuild )

(Fuel Trucks would be introduced)

(Repair Facility can be destroyed with Satchel Charge)

(required components to rebuild…….?)

Generators or Cities Lights:

Once a Cities Lights are operational, the Zombies would spawn less frequently,

and perhaps in lesser numbers.

If the City Lights or Generators were destroyed (Satchel Charge), or runs out of fuel,

then hordes of Zombies would begin to move in on the city.

Zombies would not spawn directly in the city, but from a distance and from all or a few different directions, but there would be many of them.

This would require that Faction to again, clear the city, requiring a number of players, coordinating together, to be successful, and get the Generator operational again.

Bake Bean Factory:

If this concept was introduced, then the amount of canned Baked Beans currently available

that is randomly looted, would need to be reduced.

Bandits would need to either raid a Survivors’ city to resupply their Baked Bean inventory with empty

tin cans, Satchel Charge the Baked Bean Factory (eliminating the Survivors food supply), or take over the Survivors City.

A Survivor’s City, that has been taken over by the Bandit faction, would provide the Bandits with an

operational Baked Bean Factory. Bandits could resupply with empty tin cans.

Survivors could either Satchel Charge the Factory (Bandits cannot repair the Baked Bean Factory),

or retake the City.

One strategy would be to destroy the Generator, wait for the Zombies to move in on the city, as

a diversion.

Fuels Trucks:

Both factions can repair a Fuel Truck to be mobile .

But only Bandits can repair storage tanks in Fuel Trucks at the Repair Facility in their City.

But in order to make use of the fuel trucks storage capacity, it would need to be fully repaired at the Bandits repair facility.

With a Fuel Truck, Bandits can resupply a large amount of fuel at fueling stations…..,

So they have a much larger mobile capacity, to fuel their vehicles, and also their Generator.

A Bandits Fuel Truck can be Satchel Charged primarily; weapons fire would have some effect, but would require a lot more rounds, to destroy the truck.

A Bandits Fuel Truck can be stolen, and then used by the Survivors.

Fuel stations local to Bandit Cities would be potential targets of opportunity, as this may be where

Bandits fill the Fuel Trucks.

Survivors can only repair a Fuel Truck’s storage capacity at the Bandit’s Fuel Truck Repair

Facility.

If this concept was introduced, then the amount of Fuel a Jerry Can, can hold, would need to be reduced, or, increase the amount a fuel, a vehicle requires.

How many operational Fuel Trucks can be out in the world , unlimited or not ?

Good question.

The components required to rebuild/repair both the Baked Bean Factory & the

Fuel Truck Repair Facility, should not be a common loot item, and further, once a Faction’s City

Infrastructure is up and running, (Generator, Lighting, Water Pump), then the likelihood of

that Faction City spawning an item required by the opposing Faction, would be higher, than a random city.

This would encourage opposing factions to either raid, or approach with stealth to the opposing Faction’s City, and search for the required component(s).

Trading Hub:

In this scenario, I could see the strong potential for trading, particularly in a Survivors City,

As there would inherently be more trust amongst the Survivors.

Since the Bandit Faction has no means of producing Baked Beans,

could they trade a fully functional Fuel truck, for a Truck load of Beans ?

Absolutely, and I’m sure that trade would be risky for both sides.

Just as the Survivors may initiate the trade, as they need an operational Fuel Truck.

An opportunity for a temporary truce ...... or an ambush ?

Factions ability to Build/Repair:

I think that in order for a Faction to be capable of building or repairing a Cities infrastructure,

An individual’s Humanity or Bandit level, needs to be high enough, where they cannot simple

tip the point scale, but need to be established with a consistent high figure.

This would reduce the possibility for a Survivor to flip their humanitarian points to become a Bandit, repair a Fuel Truck, drive off, and perform humanitarian type deeds quickly, and swap back to being a Survivor, with a fully operational Fuel Truck.

The Lone Wolf:

I don’t’ want to be part of a large group in order to survive….

Absolutely, but it will be harder, and more challenging.

Baked Beans, and other canned goods will be scarce, but hunting is an option.

The animals need to be hunted with stealth.

Not be able to run up to a goat and kill it with a hatchet.

Instead, you need to stalk the animal, and shoot it.

If the animal senses your presence, they will run.

Dogs are being introduced into the game.

And as I understand it, a player will have the ability to to train the dog to hunt.

I assume that the dog would be able to track and kill small game (which provides some meat),

but for large game, your dog can only track.

When tracking large game, will the dog be barking and making a lot of noise for you to follow ?

If you get the kill, that would be a lot of meat, but the barking dog could be a risk.

If desperate for supplies, you could travel to your Factions main Hub, if you know where it is.

Conclusion:

What I outlined here, are just examples of creating codependency’s between the 2 Factions, and

within a Faction.

Creating targets of opportunity, required by both factions, to survive.

Suggestion Sub-Forum:

Some of these ideas I outlined have been suggested by other players, particularly the ideas

concerning the rebuilding of a cities infrastructure. (Generators, Lighting)

Multiple Ideas provided by ruarz

Great suggestions, my idea with Faction Cities could be the Factions main infrastructure hub,

and a base (bases) might be built nearby. But not next door so to speak.

Again the question would be how many Cities/Bases can 1 Faction build/re-build ?

Multiple Ideas provided by TanX

Great list of suggestions to make survival more of a challenge.

****************************************************************************************************************

Moderators, if this post should be merged, no problem.

My suggestion does touch upon both ruazr’s & TanX’s post to some degree, but not entirely.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Westford

[Acix 132]

you clearly have not listened to any of Rockets interviews regarding 90% of the issues you are talking about here. Trading hubs, meaningful pvp, instances ect he doesnt want to include because he wants the players to be the ones to incorporate these things themselves. He had hoped the forums would work as a trading hub and believes any type of in game currency kills the ideas behind the game. Though you raise some good points and have some interesting ideas they more than likely will never be included or incorporated into the game due to the vision Rocket has for this.

[Westford 12]

you clearly have not listened to any of Rockets interviews regarding 90% of the issues you are talking about here. Trading hubs, meaningful pvp, instances ect he doesnt want to include because he wants the players to be the ones to incorporate these things themselves. He had hoped the forums would work as a trading hub and believes any type of in game currency kills the ideas behind the game. Though you raise some good points and have some interesting ideas they more than likely will never be included or incorporated into the game due to the vision Rocket has for this.

Actually, I have listened to around 3 of his interviews. ( sounds like there's a few more)

I do not recall any discussion concerning PvP, but meaningful PvP could be interpreted many

different ways.

Currency has no place in this game, there is no value.

Concerning Trading Hubs, this is a figurative term in my outline.

Players can trade at any location today.

Would a Faction controlled City or Base be a location that many players of the same Faction

might gravitate to ?

If yes, would they feel comfortable trading there, or would they feel more comfortable trading out in the wilderness ?

I am NOT suggesting, adding any Trading Mechanic, just a concept of a location designed by the player.

They choose where they decide to meet up.

The sandbox environment definitely sets the stage, not sure how much codependency would

actually be player created, on a larger scale.

Do you recall what Rocket had mentioned concerning Survival – What Next ?

Appreciate the input, I'll see if I can find these other interviews I missed.

EDIT:

I'll also add that I do understand part of the vision for DayZ, which is a survival experience.

And in a Sandbox environment, the ideal scenario is to provide the players with the tools to create their own content.

So the question would be, what additional tools would be provided.

Rocket has also stated, that he would like to see cooperation amongst players, which there is currently, I’ve added suggestions to create more, and on a larger scale.

The concepts that I outline should not be taken as literal, but were examples of creating

some codependency.

Would a codependency between opposing factions be a good thing for this environment, and what tools would need to be added for the players to create that codependency.

From what I have read from Rocket here on the forums, ideas are welcome, but as you stated, they may not be in line with the overall vision.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Westford

[xDIx Revenge 51]

I like this ideas. However they seem to be more of a different style to the original direction of the game. Using this as a different mode or something would be quite interesting. Kind of a "conquest" survival style mode.

Construction shouldn't be limited by factions. Teaming up shouldn't be a "you have to be in this city" game. I like how well thought out your ideas are, but i think you're straying to far from the meaning and purpose of this game.

Also a little problem i just thought of. What happens if i host a new server, get me and my mates together. Build both a bandit camp and a survivor camp, take control of both, and kill anyone who comes near? If im a survivor in the "survivor faction" city, and i kill... what happens to that city? How is it controlled / who owns it? Lots of problems, but an interesting thought to a different mode of gameplay.

+ 1 Beans for a mature, well thought suggestion.

[adamtheheretic 106]

What about ghosting, with persistent servers players could jump right into your fortified town.

As well as that, survivors and bandits aren't opposing factions, they're different types of play. You can't assume all bandits want to work together as well as survivors wanting to work together, also the addition of the new hero skin would that mean there should be a hero faction as well?