Returning NPC population to secured towns

[Optimist (DayZ) 6]

What if - in the later stages of this game - when you start securing towns, restoring power, you can wipe out all of the zombies within and then NPC civilians slowly start to spawn within.

It will then be up to the group who restored the town to protect it and its inhabitants. Zeds who manage to get in can attack the civis and in turn, turn them into Zeds.

An advantage of having more civilians within a town is that the more you have, the more loot spawns. Not sure if this is possible, but NPCs could collect loot from surrounding areas and return it to a location within the town.

This idea would certainly give a purpose to protecting built up areas.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Optimist

[riesenkartoffel@gmail.com 7]

no

[schrapple 119]

Get ready Optimist, you're about to get torn to pieces by the hacks and exploiters. They will begin by screaming and crying that "that's not what rocket wants" while they hack and exploit (which I'm quite sure is are two other things he never wanted but the irony of that will fly clean over their heads). What the hacks and exploiters don't want is legit players banding together clawing back at the unfair advantage they currently have over other players, which is what a safe area will help us to do. Don't take what the turkeys say to heart, just remember that these "puritans" of day-z are they very people who destroy other peoples experience and play the game in a manner never intended by it's creator.

On the matter of a safe/trading camp, I would like to see something and your idea has an interesting point with regards to towns growing and coming under attack. Maybe as the town grows it could attract skilled NPC's who could repair cars/weapons, open cross server trading posts or teach new skills.

[Rhygar666 26]

Edited August 28, 2012 by Rhygar666

[schrapple 119]

^ Warned you Optimist.

[Optimist (DayZ) 6]

May I ask, why not? I would understand such a limited intellectual response had my suggestion been "I know what would make this game great: Let's make hacking part of the experience.", but that is not the case. If you're going to say "No" at least give a reason why.

@Schrapple - i like your idea

[Bobcomss 189]

Sorry OP I couldn't see this happening in a game like this, yes have player owned areas and "safe areas" for storage but NPC should be kept out of he game all together

[Optimist (DayZ) 6]

Sorry OP I couldn't see this happening in a game like this, yes have player owned areas and "safe areas" for storage but NPC should be kept out of he game all together

I'm just wondering why people object to NPCs so much?

[Bobcomss 189]

I'm just wondering why people object to NPCs so much?

Dont get me wrong NPC in games like Mass Effect or Skyrim are needed as it gives purpose to the player and the game...

If NPC was added to this game then it would be like giving the survivors a story to follow which this game dont need.

I just think that player built areas should be added which I believe Rocket is? that should be purely player run... and I dont know why hackers and scripters are bought into this as this is about stand-a-lone where there wont be any :)

[schrapple 119]

Sorry OP I couldn't see this happening in a game like this, yes have player owned areas and "safe areas" for storage but NPC should be kept out of he game all together

What about passive NPCs? they would just wander around waiting for zombies to attack the town and eat them? Or NPCs who perform a specific job that a human player couldn't like repairing something or trading things?

[Rhygar666 26]

this game doesnt need npcs or safe zones, i mean come on its the whole trill about the game, you are never safe, you could die everywhere and anything could happen to you, and btw you suppose such a zone would be safe? all bandits would camp this area and shoot everyone trying to enter or leave and that would just make this much more worse, you can always make a camp with a few of your friends somewhere, be happy with that.

[Bobcomss 189]

What about passive NPCs? they would just wander around waiting for zombies to attack the town and eat them? Or NPCs who perform a specific job that a human player couldn't like repairing something or trading things?

I cant see what a passive NPC would be to the game other then another target to shoot at... and I saw a thread the other day that all survivors should spawn with a random skill such as "mechanic" "medic" which I thought was pretty good...that would also remove the need to "Special" NPC players... and gain...NPC just make a target...

[IIxSubmarinex 13]

I think it would be a great idea, but maybe not where if you save them towns are zed free, more like save them they give you something or something , just to add that extra feeling. it gets a bit boring sometimes by itself

[schrapple 119]

I cant see what a passive NPC would be to the game other then another target to shoot at... and I saw a thread the other day that all survivors should spawn with a random skill such as "mechanic" "medic" which I thought was pretty good...that would also remove the need to "Special" NPC players... and gain...NPC just make a target...

They would only need to exist in protected towns, if the town is defended it would grown (if it isn't they would get killed by zombies), the more people the more services available to the town. I agree that players having skills would be good, but if a town (once it had grown to a certain size) could offer things that players couldn't do for themselves then it would add a motivator to support a town which would expand game play in a different direction,

I'm not in support of a protected area imposed on the world ( I love the notion of the game free forming without a central controller), But I think we badly need not only the tools but also the motivators to make things like this happen.

[xximrtwoixx 104]

They would only need to exist in protected towns, if the town is defended it would grown (if it isn't they would get killed by zombies), the more people the more services available to the town. I agree that players having skills would be good, but if a town (once it had grown to a certain size) could offer things that players couldn't do for themselves then it would add a motivator to support a town which would expand game play in a different direction,

I'm not in support of a protected area imposed on the world ( I love the notion of the game free forming without a central controller), But I think we badly need not only the tools but also the motivators to make things like this happen.

I think we need more of the stick than the carrot to motivate players. As long as people can escape in some way, altf4 or even play DM in the south rather than actually try to survive, then they will take un-authentic actions because they can escape the dayz experiance. This is the biggest design challenge IMO, how to force/entice people into having a horrible experiance that they have no control over, that is what Rocket is trying to do. Most players are giant pussies and get pissed when they can't be "rambo" and are forced to be joe blow average civilian zombie/bandit fodder.

I agree that there needs to be more content, but I think it will take more of the stick than the carrot to get people going on any paths. All forms of escape must be removed, and then the neccessity to seek out or form a group needs to be increased, the necessity for that group to take in randoms also needs to be increased. In its current state there is no motiviation to play with randoms, its actually against your interest to risk days/weeks worth of work for 1-2 hours of co-operation.

[Goof Juice 39]

The whole problem with the objections people are making is that in a realistic scenario as zombies die in an area they don't come back and with that brings the benefit of having safe havens. For a mod touted for realistic zombie play within a game praised for realism it only seems logical. And for people saying the game doesn't need story, it already kinda does. You can use the radio at green mountain and get a hint as to why this area got fucked. The story doesn't have to be overt and beat you over the head with it, but it can be subtle and in the background so that players who want to find it can to gain a bit of immersion and other people can go play their zombie sandbox game and kill players. It makes sense for the future of a game like this even if its just minimal and somewhat window dressing.

[bazbake 456]

Just because people have started calling it the endgame does not mean you need to actually end the game. With 100 players you could easily secure every habitation on the map, wipe zombies off the face of the planet, and then it would be a game of civilization from the ground up.

[Bearded McGee 121]

I'm all in for safe havens of sorts.

A few points should be modified out of your idea, however, OP.

• No better loot out of a safe haven but WORSE loot. You don't want players sitting in the haven. You want loot to be significantly reduced in town, forcing players to venture out. Also, realistically, there's only so much that can be salvaged out of a town before supplies run dry.
  
• No NPCs; keep the haven and interactions player driven. Players fills in the role of NPCs by setting up shops, trading and giving taxi rides for a price. Imagine an economy based on ammunition? Basically a Metro 2033 type meta.
  
• Never totally free of zombies; You should never be able to get a zone free of Zeds. Reduce the spawn rates a lot or create some sort of haven mechanic. Say you got a small town like Olsha zombie-free, then every so an then, you get a few groups of zeds making for the town by the road and surrounding forest.
  

I covered some of those point more extensively in another thread;

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/87515-dynamic-zombies-spawn-rates/

Incidentally, my idea is not to create an actual haven mechanic but dynamic zombies spawn rates, leaving for the POSSIBILITY of player driven safe-zones.