Talk:Safe Area

This tactic has been tried and failed. To pull it off, you need mass support in an area. You won't get it. You may get 3 or 4 signatures, but without the controllign groups in an area signing, you aren't going to get anywhere.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to start this idea in Old Arkham, I'm trying to get support in the group I'm in first

I'll get the responses I got when I tried to create the Dulston Safezone treaty about a year back.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Survivors:

Survivors think that the system shall be abused by other players, namely PKers and zombies. They believe nothing would be to gain by staying here, and that it would be to the detriment of their survival. They feel that they shall still be targetted. They believe it is a waste of action points, and that it will result in easier killings for PKers. They also think that the building would be constantly attacked by zombies.

Solutions:

Survivors could avoid these by not utilizing the system at all. This however, would have no point, and mean there would be no point in signing the treaty. They could therefore remain as they are, and hunt any PKers who enter the building. This would have no error to them, but would instead mean they didn't sleep in the safe zone, an unprioritized building. Once again, they wouldn't sign the treaty. However, by doing this, PKers may sleep here, and this would lead to easier PKer kills. Also, attacking zombies would be deterred.

However, in light of its uselessness to the majority of survivors, it is sufficient to say that survivors should not sign the treaty.

Zombies:

Zombies feel that it is a ploy by survivors for easier kills, and that it shall be used by survivor groups to harm them. They think that it would be a pointless venture.

Solutions:

Zombies could elect to use this as an experience farm for lower level zombies, with higher level zombies breaking down the cades and low level ones feeding. However, in this case, it would be short-term if they signed it.

Therefore, Zombies should not sign the treaty.

PKers:

PKers believe that the main flaws with this system are that they already have such safehouses, solely for PKers, and that there would be unfair havok created by the three sides in the same place. They think that it is out of their way, and therefore, majorly useless. They consider the treaty to be relatively pointless.

Solutions:

PKers could use this as a hunting ground to kill survivors, though this would somewhat eliminate the point of sport. Also, PKers could use this as a safehouse for quick kills.

Therefore, PKers could sign the treaty, but also could not.

The Overall issue:

The overall issue demonstrated between the three groups is that they each believe the other two would abuse the situation, and use it for easy kills. Therefore, they are reluctant to sign the treaty. The solutions for these problems denote that the building, if a safezone, would become a guerilla warfare point, with only unknowing players staying in the building, to get killed off rapidly. Therefore, it has become clear that it would be foolish for any group to sign this, as there would be no safezone at all.

--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How said anything about a building? this is just an open street! Anyway, if many groups in an area support a safe area it would still be very useful. I stand by my belief.

And I'm sure all of the one people on your list agree with you.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)