View Poll Results: Would you like Safe Zone Removal as proposed?

61. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    16 26.23%
  • Yes, but a with switch to turn on / off safe zones.

    26 42.62%
  • No

    19 31.15%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1

    02/05/2016 - Feedback Request War Server Safe Zone Removal

    A proposal has been made that safe zones on the War Server be removed automatically once a tribe hits 5 members.

    Would you like to see this in game?

    Would you like to see a variation of this? For example:

    - tribes can allow / disallow PvP with a switch
    - only in medium or high danger zones
    - any other simple variations you'd like to see?

    I encourage all War Server players to participate in this poll.

    Last edited by Xsyon; 02-05-2016 at 11:50 AM.

  2. #2
    Xsyon Citizen millsdo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Arlington, TN
    I like the idea!

    5 members and above is good.
    I think if you are turning it off you are turning it off. Don't have a switch.

    So, turn it off for tribes of 5 or larger no matter the zone.

    Leave it off for tribes of 4 or less.
    “Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.”

  3. #3
    Safe zone as in your own tribe?...allowing anyone that can get into your tribe to gank or greif? No thank you

    I/we, worked hard to get the gear we have and also dont like towering fortress walls.

  4. #4
    A switch to turn off would defeat the purpose in my opinion without an incentive to leave it on.

    I understand there will be the ability later on that will let tribes set a territory they control to OFF, but there's also an incentive to keep it on.
    Last edited by KeithStone; 02-05-2016 at 09:17 PM.

  5. #5
    i think if we have territorys to fight ist enough...The home base is a safe Zone where any Player can Relaxing from pvp but with the amount to Switch ON or OFF.
    A nice Thing what we must have is a Battlefieldmap in game.if a tribe is Building a Territorytotem in a Zone example: if variable" A Better Tomorrow" Territorytotem is Building THEN Switch in MAP Zone 700 to Color which the tribe have settled in the territory totem. and other info:
    -TIME of Building
    - DATE if we can attack this
    - 2 COLORS can we Setting for the two armys
    - and the momentualy amount of REWARDS in the Totem bascet where each tribe can settle by placing those TERRITORYTOTEM.. example: My idea with Territorytotem (ist a Multi totem where we can also can settle for Player Events)

    and eventuely Statistic : how many territorys have a tribe captured/lost last week/Month/all TIME,Rewards earned last week/month/all the TIME and so on.
    Last edited by Whorlok; 02-05-2016 at 11:22 PM.

  6. #6
    I vote: No safe zones for Tribes with 5+ members in Medium or Higher Danger zones. Tribes can stay down by the lake if they don't like it, that can be the switch.
    Last edited by xyberviri; 02-06-2016 at 09:18 AM.
    TokTok - Axe Welding Basket Weaver

  7. #7
    Remove all safe zones of 5+ member tribes. Walls are your safety. Until people can break through walls you are safe anyways.

  8. #8
    I really like the idea the conflict zones idea, the removal of the totem protection in medium or higher areas would give the tribes reason to want those conflict zones.

    We can simplify that idea by having all High+ Danger zones be available for conquest totems, Connect the upkeep cost of the conquest totems to the number of total conquest totems globally. Let the controlling tribe flip the zone to +resources or +safezone.

    DONE, we basically have a game of advance and secure at this point and players that basically only want something to fight can fight over what zones offer more protection or resources. As more and more players or zones fall under conquest the cost should increase, resulting in more things and work for players to do.

    Then Ooloo and Whorlok can work towards protecting the zone they live in by participating in the conquest idea.
    Last edited by xyberviri; 02-06-2016 at 07:07 PM.
    TokTok - Axe Welding Basket Weaver

  9. #9
    Don't think removing safe zones will attract more people to PvP server. Better add safe zones to all low lvl sectors...

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ilius View Post
    Better add safe zones to all low lvl sectors...
    please read over the thread here:

    Specifically this part:
    Quote Originally Posted by Xsyon View Post
    Potential Future Enhancements:
    - On top of the controlled territories: High danger zones could be full loot PvP with slightly higher resource bonuses, medium danger zones could be random loot PvP with no resource bonuses and low danger zones could be no PvPand no resource bonuses (or the same as medium danger zones).
    I vote for that with the idea of no safe zones in medium or higher for bands+.
    (I also vote for all high zones to just be the conflict zones that can be flipped to safe from)

    The fear of loosing all the PvP zones shouldn't be an issue, there already is no PvP. Just leave medium zones alone and there will always be some pvp between the high and low zones.

    How many people have see how many hours others have wasted in Arma on all those territory control missions? that alone is interesting for people.
    Last edited by xyberviri; 02-06-2016 at 01:21 PM.
    TokTok - Axe Welding Basket Weaver

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts