tlane

Woah, hey there... look we don't always need good motives for having particular game mechanics. I mean we have the option to drink disinfectant.. most people don't do it because it's sort of a shitty idea. But it does stand to reason that if you can force someone else to drink disinfectant -- you damn well should be able to drink it yourself. That all said. I can totally see the benefit of zombie camouflage. Ya know, maybe in a more fleshed out manner that has been proposed already in other posts, consider simply that zombies don't attack each other (there has to be a reason for that), but let's look at the other fun part of this particular blunt force approach. Tie some poor bastard up. Dress him up as a zombie. And then drop him off in cherno to wander among the damned until "Capt. Zombie Slayer the Hero of Stoya" shows up and cleanses the land of evil. Magic. A fate worse than death no?

6 day necro is acceptable right? First, I like the idea and mostly support it. Second, I haven't done a search on other topics that have suggested the idea. I'd hope those guys have struck by now informing you how your post is pointless because it's already been said. Third, how about these: Bean-bag shotgun. Tear gas. Mace. Ya know, standard riot gear one might expect to find in a city during the course of a panic-inducing outbreak resulting in much fabulous looting. Fourth, inb4: "THIS IS NOT WHAT DAYZ IS ABOUT!!! DAYZ IS ABOUT %@!$# and KILLING YOUR OWN FAMILY!!!"

I like where your heart is, however gamma correction serves a real purpose. Punishing players who needingly use gamma correction would be unfair and annoying, especially in the manner you've proposed. As for exploiters, many monitors can be gamma corrected via hardware settings. Cheaters who really like to cheat in this way, will find a way. I'm all for "fairness >>> realism" and "fun >>> realism", but your solution is more of a band-aide that is too ineffective to make the sacrifices in realism worth it here. That is, at the very least, my opinion on the matter. I also think that this suggestion has been made before, in some form or another. In any case, I wouldn't consider it high priority.

Last topic update mentioning caffeine (3 September 2013): http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/146885-hud-idea-pleasuresatisfaction-indicatorbar/?hl=caffeine#entry1456652 I would like to see the introduction of a caffeine mechanic and envision it working in the following manner (more or less) given the current state of the stand alone. First there would be two separate meters for caffeine (caffeine and caffeine tolerance) like there is for energy, blood, health, etc. This caffeine meter would start at 0/8000. Drinking soda would increase this caffeine meter by 1000 * 1/n (where n is caffeine tolerance). Drinking soda would also increase the caffeine tolerance meter by 100 (this meter starts at 0/1000). Reaching 5000 caffeine would cause the player to shake slightly while aiming. If the meter is between 100 and 700 the player will go through caffeine withdraws (energy crash + headache). The player will be unable to sprint (double tap W). While the players caffeine is between 700 and 8000 the player will no longer receive the negative effects of low energy (going unconscious), however will continue to suffer all other consequences of low energy. Every game minute that passes the player will lose 25 caffeine and 25 caffeine tolerance. I know this could probably use some tweaking so, I look forward to your suggestions.

You sir have hit the fucking proverbial nail on its fucking proverbial head. My beans to you.

******* There will be no TL;DR section. If you do not have the time or do not care to read please do not respond to this post. Do not reply with "TL;DR <insert inane summary of discussion>"******* What follows is a discussion of why players shoot first and ask questions later, avoid everyone, horde more food than they will ever eat, and seek the help of others. Suggestions will be given that help balance the survival strategies used in DayZ to more realistic standards. To those who read my previous post: Thesis: DayZ is a game about surviving in the zombie apocalypse. You wake up on some foreign beach, unaware of your surroundings, with nothing but a flash light and the feeling that something is horribly wrong with the world around you, and I don't mean that everything is written in Russian. Apart from that, the game has meant different things to different players. Some of us like to scavenge and stockpile, some of us like to explore, some of us like to interact with other players, some of us like to build, and some of us like to kill anyone and everyone we see. The motivations for why we adapt these roles vary but tend to be fairly predictable. In the end I think there tends to be a pretty even distribution of what we'd like to do... However on observation, there is clearly a bias of what we see. Shoot first ask questions later has become the unspoken rule among most survivors. Given that this conflicts with my belief, "a fairly equal distribution of survival strategies", I'm left to conclude one of two things: I'm wrong OR that there is an inherit advantage to the player (or group of players) killing everyone they see before communication is possible. Let's assume I'm correct and that the advantages of unabated player destruction far outweigh the consequences. First, does this reflect reality? If we actually put all the real players who play DayZ under the circumstances that they find themselves in this zombie apocalypse simulator would they operate the same? If not, why? Let's address this. The major differences between DayZ and real life are risk, supply, and ability/knowledge. Risk refers to that of death. Humans have a real fear of death; if we didn't, we would not exist as a species today. DayZ lacks major analogs to this fear of death, the best one being that you lose everything you had scavenged. Supply refers to the relative abundance of necessary materials to stay alive and cause harm to others. Ability/knowledge refers to the technical feats one can accomplish in DayZ: shoot a gun, load a gun, aim a gun, assemble a gun, clean a gun, fix a car, fix a helicopter, perform a blood transfusion, apply a bandage, run for miles without pausing for a break, and so many more technical skills not everyone is capable of performing. Apart from the sadists and the misguided bandits, players kill prior to any form of communication because, apart from equipment and player ability, everyone is equal. It is a risk/benefit analysis. For example you are walking along in DayZ and you see another player: what are your options? (Adding other players into the mix changes everything, so we will assume that we know that no other players are present.) Option A: Avoid the player. Very low risk. Holds risk of player eventually spotting you. Risk is proportional to the amount of gear the player has + their potential to acquire more gear in the near future + the likeliness that they will spot you. Benefits are limited to the low risk. Very low risk/low benefits. Option B: Talk to the player. High risk. Player may be hostile. Risk is proportional to the amount of gear the player has + the tactical position the player is in. Benefits include procuring valuable knowledge and the potential to team up with that player. High risk/marginal benefits. Option C: Talk with and attempt to work with the player. Exceedingly high risk. In order to work with another player you need to trust them, and THIS IS IMPORTANT, their ability needs to outweigh the risk of trusting them + the value of whatever gear they carry. Benefits include having the trustworthy ally: watches your back, gives you food, bandages you, etc. Exceedingly high risk/moderate benefits (varies with how good of an ally the player ends up being). Option D: Kill the player. Low to Medium risk. Risk is proportional to your ability to aim + tactical position + weapon power. Benefits include elimination of a potential threat + gaining any loot player was carrying. Low risk/large benefits So, given we know no other players are present... Option D presents us with the greatest rewards at the lowest risk. This risk lowers as you find better weapons and pick fire fights where your tactical position is strong. For the most part I think all of this is sort of obvious. The most important detail I'd like to point out is that not everyone necessarily WANTS to kill on sight, but that killing on sight will almost always obviously yield the greatest returns relative to the risks taken. Which means most players will optimize towards using a strategy that results in them dying less and getting more stuff. How do we allow players who don't necessarily WANT to kill on sight use their strategy of choice without feeling under optimized? We need to increase the consequences of death. =================================================================== OP Suggested Solution (make death scarier): The ultimate example of this would be the following: Player dies in DayZ, they can never, ever, ever play DayZ again. This is obviously too harsh. So, we know that our balance lies somewhere between death=ban and the current state of the game (lose all of your stuff). We can call this metric we are trying to increase personal player risk. Some, not necessarily original, ideas regarding Increasing personal player risk. The point is NOT to make death riskier (ie easier to die). The point is to make the consequences of dying greater. Specialization concept (I think, Rocket has already touched on this, many certainly have already posted about the idea)... skill mastery/item knowledge/etc lost on death along with gear. Most skills would be locked or suffer massive penalties until the player specializes (specializations are unlocked via earning experience), examples: bandaging, gun usage (HUGE aiming/reloading penalties) perhaps the addition of gun care and maintenance as well, mechanical tinkering (cars/helicopters/etc), lock picking added along with locked buildings/safes/cabinets/etc. Experience would be earned as a direct result of surviving and exploring (places/items). Your ability to gain key skills is based on experience relative to the key skill you wish to learn and that skill would become better with practice. Giving someone a blood transfusion would require medical knowledge of what a blood bag and IV start kit look like. It would also require the knowledge of human anatomy of where to start an IV. The success of such an operation along with potential infection would vary with the players experience. Players with low skill would be likely to botch the operation and cause an infection for the target player. Bandaging seems like a simple enough skill, but a skilled physician, EMT, or someone trained in triage type care will have loads more success stopping bleeding, preventing infection, and securing the bandage. Gun care would be a huge part of the game. Guns that are not cared for would not work properly. Many more items would need to be carried in order to maintain a player's gun (grease, oil, etc). Gun parts would be subject to wear and tear and would require replacement. Guns would more often than not be found complete but inoperable due to the wear and tear of a given piece or handful of given pieces. Ammunition would be EXTRAORDINARILY rare. Ammunition has a high probability of malfunctioning based on its condition. Guns that are not cared for properly would have a high chance of jamming or misfiring. Certain items linked to particular specializations would be indiscernible nonsense to those lacking the specialization or knowledge of a particular item ("It's all Greek to me."). Example: IV Saline, Blood bag kit, defib, epi-pens, etc are all now Medical supplies (you are not familiar with this item). The items shape would take on a generic image to that player. Obtaining items from spawn would be much, much more difficult. Fortunately, this is intended with the increase in the number of zombies in the game. I would suggest increasing the difficulty of zombies: make them hardier, make them scarier (do more damage). Good/functioning items would be more rare. Spawns are filled up with crap mostly: empty magazines, broken gun parts, rotten fruit, empty cans, etc. Finding an unopened can of baked beans should be a glorious moment. Not entirely fleshed out, but I assume you more or less get the picture. Let's make dying suck more. =================================================================== Closing: I opened this topic for two primary purposes. 1. I want to discuss whether my hypothesis is correct or not: Most players shoot on sight because it is an optimal strategy in terms of risk/reward. This does not reflect reality because the consequences for dying are too low and kill on sight has moderate risk of death associated with it while the rewards of shoot first ask questions later are proportionally too large. 2. If you think I am correct I want to know if you have any other ideas on how to increase the consequences of death. The other side of this conversation revolves around the reward from possibly working with other players. What if those players carried something more than just loot? What if they had real, earn-able, valuable skills in game that you couldn't have? What if you could take a skilled medic hostage and force him to treat you? What if you could bargain with a bandit for raided food by repairing their vehicle? The game has already increased the sadism potential of players who are out there just to watch the world burn (people who play for mutilating other players). I mean I handcuffed a guy (told him it was for my own safety), offered to help him, and forced him to eat rotten fruit and disinfectant (but he thought it was rice and baked beans). He thought I was the nicest guy and followed me for the next 10 minutes or so before his stomach imploded and died. I'm still pretty sure he had no idea what killed him. Freak stomach explosion? Likely story. ******* There is no TL;DR section. If you do not have the time or do not care to read please do not respond to this post. Do not reply with "TL;DR <insert inane summary of discussion>"*******

My goal is not to reduce killing. The goal is to allow players who don't enjoy KoS the ability to use strategies that are currently less optimal. The risk/reward analysis explains why those strategies are currently less optimal. Bandits/Sadists would not change their ways due to these changes. As you suggest they would probably become even more brutal -- sounds fun to me. Killing always puts you at the risk of dying and a big one at that. Avoidance will almost always impose less risk. Example: you head to Stary to loot. You reach Stary and per your usual protocol you watch the city for activity. You see another player looting the city. You could shoot the player but this imposes the risk of your location being revealed by other players in the area. You could talk to the player but this imposes obvious risks. You could ignore the player and attempt to loot the city (I think this is the closest option to the risk you are referring to in your argument), similar risk levels to talking to the player, perhaps even more. OR you could just head out of Stary making sure to stay in cover during your exit. The last option I mentioned is arguably the least risk. I agree with your argument relative to reducing KoS in general, but please do not discuss this further. That is not the purpose of this topic. Many other topics have already beaten this to death. The logic behind your argument refers to increasing the risk of death (ie the chances that you will die). Do you mean the suggestions mentioned here impose unnecessary restrictions on players? I had thought most suggestions revolved around giving players bonuses for surviving/exploring/interacting. I personally do not care for the suggestions that involve imposing restrictions, but I feel obligated to list them because they are at least somewhat viable relative to my argument.

Let's end this discussion of what effects this will or will not have on existing sadists and bandits. Any argument we have will be based on hearsay and has already been beaten to death in other existing topics. We would just speculate on what sadist/bandits would or would not do. I will refrain from adding any new speculation; I'm asking you to do the same. Crazies, as you describe them, don't care anyway. Don't you think? They have no fear of death... that's what makes them crazies. They will still run around acting crazy. Would they really care about losing their skills when they already didn't care about losing their gear? Let's return to the point of the discussion which you touched on here: "And with what your adding KoS becomes the ONLY option." Based on what? You provide no evidence or reasoning behind your statement, apart from: "then there is never any reason to not blow people away." Which you don't support with evidence or logic. I'm not trying to insult you, just understand I cannot comprehend why you are making the claims you are making. If you want to understand my reasoning, check my argument in the original post. risk vs. reward. If the risk of death (in terms of having to restart) is too low then the reward is always worth pursuing. Players don't need bonuses to survive or excel, player skill knowledge should take the forefront in this regard. The bonuses should be so subtle that you hardly notice you have them until you die and restart. We simply want to increase the consequences of dying to make dying more frustrating. An argument I can accept is whether you consider dying frustrating enough as it is. Let's leave it at personal player preference -- I know a great deal of players have expressed how easy it is for them to restart and I align myself with them. I have found very few players who think death is currently too frustrating, and the ones who have expressed this have been met with a great deal of mockery. "A grind" is only one of the ideas for tuning death consequence. I can totally see how grinding can be boring for many, but some people fucking love grinding. Let's not focus our discussion on this particularly-polarized aspect. As for people who would enjoy a skill-up based mechanic to the game please peruse the forums. I have seen a very diverse set of players interested in employing such a mechanic, not just players who sit down and play for 8 hour sessions every day. Should I provide a list of forum posts? Otherwise you could just search for topics: "skill system" "skill mechanic" etc. Lone wolves already play the style I think the system I am proposing would encourage, at least late game. See option A in my original post. EDIT: Apologies for calling your argument contradictory, I just didn't understand what you meant.

I think your 1st point and your 3rd point contradict each other a bit. First you say: making death taxing would get rid of the crazies. Then you say in your third point that the crazies would have more of a reason to kill you. I agree with your 3rd point. I think it's part of why I like this idea. Make the crazies crazier. Awesome. Remember, I didn't make this thread to get rid of sadists and bandits. I am a sadist. I made this thread to give players who are not sadists and bandits the opportunity to exercise the strategies they would like to use. My argument points out how shoot on sight is the optimal strategy, so everyone should use it as the game is currently implemented. A lot of people seem to ignore this point and go straight to discussing how we should get rid of KoS or keep KoS. That is not the objective of this thread. In response to your 2nd point. Getting geared up is pretty quick and easy once you know what to do. It stops being punishing after a while, gear is easy to come by. Not only that... but if you have just 1 friend he can watch your body while you get back to it. Thus, you lose nothing. As to your edit check out: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/20112-the-only-realistic-way-to-prevent-deathmatching-make-dayz-a-living-hell/ The player here is discussing ideas to make DayZ super fucking hard including making zombies scary as hell.

Ok, so we have a number of suggestions available including some ideas pulled from other threads related to the threads directed purpose. Remember, emphasis should be put on the following: changes result in a higher value player (death sucks more), realism, difficult to abuse, and efficient implementation (not something we have discussed). For reference GodOfGrain is an outside source (separate thread) pointed out by JoostVoorDeel. The link to that thread is: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/158609-sa-suggestion-introduction-of-microskills/?hl=%2Bskill+%2Bsystem Let's give credit where it is do (may not be 100% original just as it is in the thread) and formalize the categories. Death timer: thomas28 + Applejaxc propose the use of a death timer varying anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours. Natural born talent: Unhek suggests that players are born with certain innate skills that do not become apparent until late game. Losing skills: Subject42 + GodOfGrain (see microskills thread) Subject42 suggests that skills could become lost when not used for a period of time. GodOfGrain envisions a system where outside forces will cause you to temporarily lose bonuses earned from skill gains such as getting shot. Skill through item/player exploration: Unhek suggests that players should be able to earn skills by reading books or learning directly from presence of another player. Grinding skills (learn by use): Unhek + raxbit suggest a system where players will earn improved skills by using skills. Skills are not locked. Ex. bandaging 50 times will allow the player to bandage faster. Abuses: player spams skills in order to level up. Reloads over and over again. Shoots every dear he sees just to gut it. etc. Earning skills by surviving: GodOfGrain suggests that players should earn subtle bonuses for lasting longer. Everything is based on how long the player has survived in real game time. See his post on microskills. TheSzerdi proposes a different but similar system within the thread. Abuses: afk'ing in order to gain skills. TheSzerdi suggest 15 minute afk autokick. Use of macros to avoid afk autokick (ie run in a circle automagically). TheSzerdi suggests that macro players are uncommon and even with success they would likely come under duress due to the likeliness that an immobilized bot player is found. Composite systems: Grinding skills + skills earned by surviving: Player earns a new skill after a period of time. The skill earned is based on the most used skill. Let's collect more outside sources to try and cement these ideas a bit more. Let's try to fit new suggestions to these categories and create new categories as necessary. Let's look for the abuses of each category type. Let's talk about the efficiency and technical challenges behind implementing a given system. My gut and minimal scripting experience lead me to think that time alive bonuses will be the most efficient and easy to implement. Please point out where I have missed something important such as who deserves credit.

The game doesn't tell us either way. Foreign in the sense I used it just means unrecognizable. So, for any player when they first start playing the beach is not one they have ever seen before. Unless they are an honest to god Chernarussian in real life (like you're suggesting?).

I really like the system you laid out, it's simple and for the most part difficult to abuse. We should take some time to identify abuses and consider possible glitches in the games code that allows for abuse. (someone sitting there reloading their gun over and over again while no one is around). What do you think of a combination system? Two requirements have to be met for each skill improvement and are reset for the next skill improvement. Survival time + 50 reloads. Perhaps add in exploration elements as well. Bandaging 50 times + 24 hours of survival time, you will bandage 0.5 seconds faster. Other possibilities could include:Reloading - after 50 reloads + 24 hours of survival time, you will be able to reload 0.25s faster, 0.5s after 200 reloads + 72 hours of survival time (after first level gain)Caveat: A reload counts when the player has fired 50 rounds and reloads (prevents reload spamming, or switching between empty and full magazines)I think we would also break down reload skill for each kind of reloading mechanism. Mosin reloading requires a completely different skill set and should scale differently. Gun Care - maintaining a weapon will result in slower item degradation Athlete - after running for 2 hours in game time, increase the amount of time you can sprint without running out of breathEscape - after being handcuffed 10 times (each handcuffing must be performed by a different player, the variable storing which players have handcuffed you persists after death ie obtaining this skill in the next life requires you to find 10 more players to handcuff you), gain the ability to slip out of handcuffs after 3 mins of being handcuffed. It may be sensible to buff this skill.Repair - after fixing 10 engines, gain the ability to repair engines faster, and use scrap parts to repair damageChemist - if junk medicine is added then after taking drugs 50 times, ability to craft drugs out of various chemicalsImprovising - after crafting 100 items (including at least 5 of each possible craft able items), you gain access to a few unique recipes, having a degree of skill in particular field will add a unique item in that field i.e. having improvising and gun care will allow you to make an improvised gun with low durabilityHunter - after gutting 50 animals, you will gain an extra meat from each guttingOdor - after being attacked by 100 different zombies, zombies will be slightly less aware of you making it easier to sneak(not sure I like this skill - seems overpowered and we don't know if it makes sense with the mythos: do zombies smell us? )Melee - after 100 melee strikes melee weapon will degrade slower, after 500 the weapon will break bones/cause bleeding/knockdown more often (with select weapons) Some additions:Lock picking (rests on the addition of a locked door mechanic): after unlock 50 unique doors the player is less likely to break his lock picking tools (50% down to 10%), after unlocking 200 unique doors the player is faster at unlocking the door.Nutritionist after eating 50 fresh fruits the player gets a 300% to energy acquired from eating fresh fruitIron belly after eating 50 rotten fruit the player is 1/10 as likely to get sick from it's consumption.Pack rat (player learns how to pack his bags and pockets better) after 24 hours of non-consecutive, elapsed game time with a completely full inventory the player will receive a 10% bonus to his inventory. This bonus applies directly to each item with storage and always rounds up to the nearest extra slot: an 8 slot vest would become a 9 slot vest. a 30 slot bag would become a 33 slot bag. 4 slot jeans would become 5 slots jeans. etc. More suggestions and modifications to the current suggestions would be awesome. Remember all skills are lost on death. Skills should be subtle bonuses, nothing game breaking. Watch dog this and discuss what are game breaking bonuses. Unhek also mentioned potentially adding natural born talents. Would it make sense if talents were then bonuses to these skill growths? Or innately having a handful of skills?

Remember my argument does not refer to players who like to KoS (bandits + sadists) so none of what you are referring to applies to my hypothesis. I don't like the idea of punishing KoS, and that is not what the goal of this thread is.

The idea is not poorly crafted or presented. I however think that it sacrifices too much for the satisfaction of only a fraction of the player base (hearsay of course, how could I know what most people want?). A few points: Loot quality is mostly subjective. Perhaps the firefighter's ax is the best melee weapon in the game... is that intended? Doesn't it seem like the majority of melee weapons would have alternative functions in a later version of the game? How do you reconcile utility with melee power in terms of loot quality? The concept becomes even more confounded with weapons/food/tools. Why do we want to encourage players to fill up servers? Based on your argument I think players more or less are already making the assessment of what they would LIKE to do. Players who play on low population servers, are in your eyes (my words, not yours), sacrificing fun for uncontested loot. Perhaps those players are simply playing a loner style where they want to avoid others as much possible... why punish them? I admit there is a need to balance loot on servers, but I think that will be done when loot re spawning is added.

This is a truly and innovative idea. As little as I care for humanity as a mechanic of the game... Your idea has been presented in an excellent fashion, and I think it would be a cool feature in the game.

I think that's an excellent point. I really like the idea of limited skills as opposed to outright locked skills, but I tried to think of things in terms of realism. In some cases locking a particular skill just makes more sense: such as performing a blood transfusion or fixing a car engine. If we don't lock these skills then the potential for catastrophe should be extraordinarily high: kill blood transfusion recipient, blow up car. Whereas I think putting huge penalties on skills such as gun cleaning, aiming, and driving should be the norm for most cases in the system I proposed. I don't like the idea of learning through doing because of how exploitable it is (I could be wrong about this though). The ability to become better at something should be heavily locked to your ability to survive longer. EDIT: "I guess you mean, the benefits that OTHERS are alive and not dead." I think this is more or less the argument I bring up in the end; it's just the flip side of increasing the consequences of death. If dying sucks more it's because you had more to lose and other players are likely to see value in that given they are also quite limited.

I really, really like the idea of natural talents, especially if they are hidden and subtle. I am concerned however that many would not share this sentiment and view it as a sort of a bullshit mechanic. A lot of players like the RPG style of the game and want to craft their character as much as possible in their own image. It could be very frustrating to fancy yourself a genius and medicinal mastermind and find out your only talent is aiming and shooting. Here's to hoping though - you have my beans.

If I understand you correctly, you affirm that I am correct, and then offer that we should instead increase the risk of dying by making zombies more dangerous? I think my argument more so regards how having skills will force players to be more careful about the risks they take because death results in a loss of whatever skills/knowledge there players has gained. I think you make a good point here though when you describe how these skills will also directly effect the situations players find themselves in. Abusers will need to assess yet another element before ending another players life.

This is not in the spirit of the discussion, please see the KoS thread: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/154460-so-kos-official-sa-kos-discussion-topic/ Why bandits or people who are sadistic kill is not part of this discussion (we are focusing on players who use the strategies they do because it is optimal, not preference), do not bring up these points here. They are off topic and already well addressed elsewhere. DayZ is whatever YOU want it to be, you can read this in most any interview the creator, Rocket, has given. Remember, that what YOU want is not necessarily what I want. This thread does not address what DayZ is or should be. The suggestions made here should be about offering more to DayZ through balancing. The current system is in my opinion flawed because personal risk (death consequence) is too low and pushes players toward a play style that is optimal - according to my argument this is mostly a shoot on sight mantra. I have argued that this optimization does not reflect reality for the reasons stated in my argument. I suggest you reread the forum post and decide if you have anything to add in those terms: does increasing personal risk make sense? If you agree, state that, then you should add suggestions for doing so. If you disagree you should explain why and provide examples or evidence. Anything else will take away from the discussion and lead us into a flame war over a separate topic. I do not want to hear anything more about "punishing" players for their behaviors as they relate to some morale compass. There is no karma system and there will likely be no karma system. If you want there to be a karma system as you are suggesting you should add to those threads that are already discussing it.

Do you have an alternative suggestion for a negative effect during withdrawal? It needs to be punishing enough to counter the positives. What if the window of decreased sprinting were shorter? What if for that time period you consumed energy hella faster? EDIT: Oh and dude... I would fucking shoot some major amounts of heroine in this game. Total role playing experience. (hell the needles are already in the game) Also can you link some sources for the pen and paper games you were referring to directly in the thread? That would be rad.

Personally I fucking love to KoS (not all the time though, just when my sadistic side is showing). My post is just addressing that many players feel forced into KoS because it's the optimal strategy (see my argument). I don't favor respawn timers so much just because it's too punishing on the consumer. A forced 10 minute break as Applejax suggested smells about right but would only help to prevent some of the spawn-scumming to get a better spawn point. What I'm talking about should be traumatic, like when you need to get to an important interview or exam and you cannot find your car keys. Your heart should race when a bullet flies over your head. I'm not sure any amount of cool down time is going to quite accomplish that. You need to lose something that is valuable to you. Items could do it if they were rarer. I only suggested the experience system because I know how exploitable the item system can be (create stashes, transferring items from your friends).

I was thinking more along the lines of a rare drop: like a book that gets consumed. Perhaps this book would require that your character has lived for a specific amount of time or has visited enough hospitals. Something harder to exploit. EDIT: Antibiotics should work as well whoever uses them just for realism.

I 100% agree that at some point the risk of interacting with another player will become too high (I'd totally be a hermit and just watch people), but that would be after you've built your character up. The thing is, during the process you may come to rely on some other player to get to that point, if survival is more difficult at the start. I disagree that shots will be fired more because your personal player risk is too high to do so. It's safer to take your time and raid a house or barn in the countryside. In a more realistic scenario (leaving out the sadists/bandits) attacking another person is done in desperation, not as a survival strategy. I think we may be able to agree on a number of scenarios in world history to serve as analogs to a zombie apocalypse. If we took the time to decide which scenarios work best we could start looking at what people actually do to each other. I'm going to contend that for the most part it's only a small portion of the population that takes on the bandit/sadist role and the rest are adopting their own survival strategies (that do not involve robbing/killing everyone they see). For a small list of examples let's go with: Nazi Germany - Berlin (During the Russian invasion), Polish Ghetto (Nazi Germany's occupation of Poland), Louisiana, New Orleans (Post hurricane Katrina), Southern United States (Civil War - after the union began practicing total war tactics), Dark Ages (Plague). That was a horseshit mechanic in WarZ. (you could pay to revive yourself if I recall correctly) I don't hope to see anything quite like that, pretty close to the death = ban mechanic. ;) I agree regarding XP. If it's done, it has to be done in a sensible way; this is not World of Warcraft. I do think some skills don't make sense for everyone. I sort of doubt that you, Shadyfizzle, know how to perform a blood transfusion, aim/fire/clean a gun, can run for miles without losing your breath, and many other such feats (not suggesting that you directly said you know how to do those things). Would locking some of these skills to some sort of system make sense? If so, what could we use instead of XP? Remember that I'm not set in my ways here. I think the XP system I'm suggesting is actually technically difficult to pull off so I was hoping to mine/farm more ideas from people such as yourself. Perhaps increasing the difficulty in item farming will be enough.

Applejaxc too stronk.

I think it sounds reasonable. I mean if you put a bullet (axe, crowbar, arrow, etc) in their head you probably know what they look like. I like the idea of a stat tracker as long as it's something we use for personal use only. +1 from me