Volcane

As stated in the initial post certain kills are justifiable in a rational context. Killing bandit should not really affect the player, two groups who constantly war will not be affected, players who survive with infrequent kills will have infrequent drops and also not be affected. However, players slaughtering new players on the coast will be, players slaughtering players en masse with radar and ESP soon will be - for 99% of the player base there is no consequence to see - for the few there will be - that is unless you think DayZ is just a big deathmatch grief on the coast experience in which I would suggest there are better games to fill your niche. Thank you for posting though all the same and for taking the time to build a strawman.

And I would be inclined to agree with that for most players it should be something we rarely come across and something we shouldn't really have to deal with but a mechanic to introduce consequence to repetitive behaviour. If people are displaying the behaviour of a disease process it does not seem to far fetched to me to give them the whole package - a kind of wrong way around way of doing it but just a thought. Thanks for posting.

To the first sentence I agree if it were not for the fact I added the caveat that for most this would not affect us. The big caveat to the whole idea would be that in a survivalistic environment we would be able to justify a lot more and infrequent kills would should not really affect us. Sorry if I did not make this clear - for most players this should not be a visible part of their game only for those who display truly sociopathic behaviour :-) For the second surely a server held value is 'safe' - although like everyone here I am not aware of the architecture but something that is produced and written server side is 'safe'.

I fail to see how it would be hard to implement what would be hard would be the balancing act of the actual value changes. As for the not realistic - the current system is not realistic - people don't kill other people without consequence on their health. Some people would want that modelled (eg me) others not (I suspect you). Will be interesting to see where Rocket takes it as he seems to have a bit of health modelling in the game however it is very physical in nature which is ironic when most of the problems from conflicts are mental in nature.

Thank you for your comment care to explain why?

Have every player have a stat that controls their sanity or current mental health. As the value drops to dangerous levels then the player suffers hallucinations. At this time the server then introduces false positive players and zombies to the players client therefore making them behave erratically eg firing at nothing which may result in them being attacked by 'real' zombies and alerting players to their location. The level of drop could be directly proportional to the 'justification' of a player kill eg if you was starving you could justify it more if the player killed was a bandit you could justify it more and therefore the actual amount lost could be negated to some degree. One advantage of this is that players that do employ ESP hacks who rack up the kills will have their experience rapidly depleted when the are shooting nothing but thin air and making themselves look foolish and targets - as far as they will be concerned they will be reacting to real foes. For the rest of us the odd kill would be inconsequential as sanity could return slowly over time. As far as I am concerned there is no point in modelling peoples blood types then ignoring the real dangers on the human psyche of actual combat and harming another human which is something that would affect all in such an environment.