Makeshift safezones

Unturned II U4 Discussion
1

So I saw someone comment about barricading and clearing a town to make a safezone of sorts for resting, so here’s a few ideas for that.

Before it can become an actual safezone, it needs to have survived a horde without zombies breaking through. There are 2 ways to do this. Get a natural horde, or get a horde beacon/ sound maker to attract a horde.

Points in certain parts of the town where shop npcs will spawn once the town is turned to a safezone. If the area for the Npc to spawn is blocked off, it won’t spawn. Maybe a few quest npcs will show up as well.

Horde attacks on the safezone. So after the first horde, occasionaly there will be more hordes, which progressively get larger until the town falls. During a horde players can equip and use weapons to defend.

Possibly if theirs an intact railroad track going through your town/safezone, you will get railroad shipments from other towns/ the military/coalition from outside the map.

If a town/safezone falls, it can’t become a safezone for say, 20 days.

Possibly you start off with makeshift walls, then you upgrade to metal walls, and so on. To compensate for the increasing amount of infected during each horde.

Possibly for protecting this town, you get stuff like food, some weapons. Medical supplies. Ect.

Also, maybe a few npcs could help defend against the hordes. They would probably act pretty much like senties. Firing at zombies but not players? I dunno thus one isn’t really going well in my head I guess.

Only low tier locations can become safezones You happy now?
.

My train of ideas looks like the wrecked train know Ireland.

After people keep assuming stuff I rewrote the post so people can get it through their thick skulls.

Player made safezones, which a players can enter and trade with npcs. More of the reason people would set these up is so they can have shops closer to their own base than the Npc camp across the entire map from you. The player would have to set up numerous barricades and defences, as we as possibly specify where npcs that defend will be at. Possibly the Npcs that defend won’t defend unless no players who have helped defend before are nearby. The npcs would provide for themselves, and might lower prices on stuff if you help defend the safezone. Any crates in the safezone will be destroyed when it’s created, and the items inside will be sold by random npcs. Players cannot fire weapons except during a attack from a horde, there is a short range around the base where you can pull out a weapon, a longer range where it’s basically forced pve so players don’t snipe people in the safezones. Players in the longer range can’t damage other players until 20 seconds till they leave the outer circle. Npc will also sell stuff they have collected, from “scavenging trips”

Yes, now it is complex af, but I’m sick of people assuming stuff.

2

I’m not really sure if this would really fits well with how Unturned II would be… you know… in cramped space. And that it might be a little bit abusive…

But anyhow. That’s would spice things up. And probably makes RPs more enjoyable.

1 Like
3

No, I don’t know. Also, it’s not abusive because you have to protect it to get the rewards.

4

Talking about protecting the high-tier loot spots. Like military bases and whatnot.

I believed that it would be like protecting the regular base… refuel the place and make sure it’s not raided. (Altho. Can this makeshift safezone be raided by raiders?) Expect now you own about… said 1/“military locations in that map.” And by that you could block the rests from getting good loots. So that might be the problem.

Again. What are the chances of that happening.

5

Hello, Aj_Gaming.
It has come to my attention that you’re stealing intellectual property of myself and with that being said, i’m filing a copyright strike to your channel, unless further negotiations take place.

6

When i first made up this idea, i thought of a town like Everett or Montague. Little towns with low to mid tier loot. Military bases, location in dead zones and other high tier loot locations should remain untouched, so gameplay loot progression doesn’t get hurt. The barricades and NPCs could probably be killed and destroyed by players that can do so, but that would put them on sort of a blacklist, similar to Rust’s camps, when you pull out a weapon for more than 5 seconds or perform any hostile action in the camp’s area, the turrets and scientists automatically shoot you on sight when you reach the camp’s vicinity. But i think it would be better to keep such locations invincible to any player-based damage, zombie hordes on the other hand, can surely just waltz right in and kill and break all they want. Combine that with the benefits that players can get from such safezones and you have a reason to protect them from zombie hordes every now and then. And also the dropped loot from zombies themselves. And in case of blocking areas and such, i think there should be a “blueprint” style barricade around. Players can go into the location and donate a certain amount of resources that are required to build the reinforcements around the location. Once all the resources are accounted for, the barricades and so forth will be built on pre-mapped spots around the location, that way players won’t be able to go in and place sandbags and locked doors at everything. In case they do this BEFORE the safe zone has been established, a wipe of any barricades in the location’s vicinity would be wiped and as i said before, block the placement of player-placed barricades in the safe zone, as long as it’s still holding up and registered as a safe zone.

Also, @Aj_Gaming thanks for making a topic about that, feel free to add whatever you want onto the idea. Cheers!

7

You shouldn’t block people from getting loots in general. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do that either.

I think with how higher the loots that place contains should have a cost of bigger horde hitting that base more than say… a farm. That way. It’s like un-directly saying “Maybe you shouldn’t camp here” to the campers. Again. That’s just in my opinion.

8

Your post reminds me very well of this:

Anyway… I’m saying it again, just like I did back then: your idea of clearing out and securing buildings or towns with the help of NPC’s would be really neat in singleplayer, but exploitable and then unnecessary in multiplayer.

It has been talked about NPC settlements similar to the Coalition’s ship, as there can be different factions (max 3 or 4 per map imo) which the players could do progression with to attain reputation and gain some benefits from them in the latter, being these more trades, discounts, maybe daily free low-tier stuff, calling paid supply drops, med evacs, maybe combat assistance and even airstrikes. Said this, it’s good to remark that if apart from that we have stray NPC’s as companions that shows up when we clear up and secure a building, then the previous feature would be nearly pointless, would make even big maps be cluttered with so many characters and would allow almost everyone to go zerg with the half or even a third of the required players and effort, lol.

That’s why I’d like to see NPC partners just in singleplayer, which would be a really good addition to make it better. Teaming up, securing houses, buildings or even entire towns in multiplayer should be totally up to players.

TRIGGERED

Now seriously, luring a horde on purpose to claim a building doesn’t seem intuitive, and it’s so 3.x imo. It’d be better if you just clear the building within and a certain area around it before claiming, as barricading and building all the utilities needed to do so will make some noise and attract more of the turned anyway.

Proggressive horde growth is nice for games which have as base mechanic holding an outpost against incoming hordes. But for Unturned there will be already a horde mode implemented to comply that function, so I suggested it to work based on settlement size and player activity on default survival maps, so it’s ok if you don’t want to build that much for the sake of not having to face bigger and bigger hordes totally alone. You never know when you can f*ck up and neglect something important to keep your base, so the usual 10 zombies that raids you every day finally gets on your base, lul.

DISCLAIMER: only way I’d agree with hordes of turned attacking buildings once a day is making these last longer. Otherwise, it’d be annoying, so I suggest smart hordes periods or something alike.

1 Like
9

We for a base to completely failed, all the zombies have killed all the npcs. Simple as that. If you can defend at least 5 Npcs for the duration of the horde, your base will stay a safezone of sorts and such. Also, all loot will stop spawning in the town, so again, everyone. Wth is it exploitable, it’s basically just for players to work together, and build a safe place for them and everyone else.

10

Add safezoning every military locations. And you the recipe for an explotable feature. But I still like the idea.

11

Dude, I added onto the other guys topic, and he responded here, with “high tier locations won’t be claimable this way”

Isn’t it obvious it would work that way?

12

I have another solution but yeah that would work.

Also please edit that into the desc if you don’t mind.

13

Comrade Lenin is very disappointed in you.

14

Too complex and unnecessary for Nelson to add over other things.

15

Why is it unnecessary. And it isn’t Complex. Basically it’s just adding a safezone node to a place after meeting certain requirements and the npcs don’t even move around. It isn’t necessary but it’s useful for getting players to work together.

16

It is exploitable by the fact that anyone can go “zerg” just with the help of the NPC allies… Now imagine how OP current zergs would be if this is implemented in multiplayer like that, because it’s really naive to think that groups wouldn’t want to claim even larger zones knowing that each player can ally up to 5 NPC’s each.

It would be a pretty good alternative to counteract offline raiding against other players, ok so far, but now think about this:

  • Zombies could now offline-raid your base (because of your NPC’s)… That should never happen.
  • Maps will be bigger, but maybe also the player limit. If it’s done like that, it could probably lead to claim not just small or med towns, but also large cities, which could lead to plenty of chaotic situations, beginning of course with performance issues and going to a very long etc.
  • You’ll have more mouths to be fed, as for reasons of balance, these NPC’s wouldn’t probably be able of going to loot for themselves. This is assuming that they don’t keep themselves healthy and nourished out of nowhere, like in 3.x.
  • NPC’s would outnumber players, which is detrimental for all the previous and lots of other reasons.
17

When did I ever say that you allied with them? You did make a safezone, but that doesn’t mean they will go help you do everything. It would basically be a player made 3.0 safezone. FFS, why does everyone assume this and that. This isnt my settlements post. This is a player made safezone for all players. Not a “build a base and npcs which you have to do everything for will move in”

Some days I don’t get why people assessment I said this and that. Positive that I said they would farm for themselves if they even need food.

Maybe I wasn’t specific enough. Here, let me once again, TYPE WHAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT!

Player made safezones, which a players can enter and trade with npcs. More of the reason people would set these up is so they can have shops closer to theirain base than the maps Npc camp across the entire map. The player would have to set up numerous barricades and defences, as we as possibly specify where npcs that defend will be at. Possibly the Npcs that defend won’t defend unless no players who have helped defend before are nearby. The npcs would provide for themselves, and might lower prices on stuff if you help defend the safezone. Any crates in the safezone will be destroyed when it’s created, and the items inside will be sold by random npcs. Players cannot fire weapons except during a attack from a horde, there is a short range around the base where you can pull out a weapon, a longer range where it’s basically forced pve so players don’t snipe people in the safezones. Players in the longer range can’t damage other players until 20 seconds till they leave the outer circle. Npc will also sell stuff they have collected, from “scavenging trips”

Yes, now it is complex af, but I’m sick of people assuming stuff.

18

It clearly states here that you dictate a safezone’s condition by NPCs rather than players…

And while we’re on the topic of that I really don’t think NPCs should be involved at all. At the very most I guess they could move in, but the logic of having to defend NPCs as opposed to the safezone itself makes little sense.

19

More of its a way to determine whether or not the safezone is overrun.

But I never said zerg clans could make the safezones massive bases, or you would have to feed and water them.

20

I stated all these concepts as I think that safezones working on UII as they do in 3.x shouldn’t even exist nor by default nor made by players. And yes, it is really complex and it’s still pretty “exploitable” imo, because:

  • NPC’s that can move in anywhere a player stablishes a safe zone aren’t really something balanced; you can’t complaint on how easy is to get stuff if you suggest that you can set a public shop nearly anywhere.

  • This totally enters in conflict with the reclaiming lands idea, so it would be pretty counter-intuitive whether you want to establish a general safezone or a reclaimed area as a base for yourself.

  • People already takes advantage in 3.x of not being shot inside safezones… A forced PvE with timer doesn’t seem intuitive nor realistic to me either. I’d prefer NPC’s to take out anyone who dares to shoot in their territory instead.

Beyond what we’ve both said, I think NPC’s can do everything you stated but inside and around their respective territories or owned areas, and not anywhere a player decides that NPC’s can move in.