Suggestion:20080203 Infection Detection Device

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


Stop hand.png Closed
This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.


Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing


20080203 Infection Detection Device

Zach016 06:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type
New Item

Suggestion scope
Survivors/Infection

Suggestion description
Well, a new item made by Necrotech, Heres the basics:

  • 4% encumberance
  • 2% chance of finding one in a hospital (unlit), 3% in a Necrotech (again, unlit)
  • for 1 Ap you can "extract" any one players blood and test for an infection
  • 5% chance the vial will burst giving no reading. If the player you are scanning is infected then you will become infected
  • The device is never used up, and like the DNA scanner can only scan one person at a time, although this person can be alive or undead.
  • successful scan where an infection is detected merits 1xp
  • If you scan a player with an infection a second time, third time etc., no xp will be awarded

Uses:

- Deciding who gets an FAK from low supplies

- Way to find who needs an FAK without diagonsis

Note: The disscusion from talk:suggestions is located on the disscussion page. A brief mention is made on both the flavor, and the effects on infection this would have.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
# justification ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


Keep Votes

  1. Wow... That was a lot easier to read than I expected... Oh, and the idea is good, even if I'd never use it ;P ~A`Blue`JellyTME*V*I*L*? 06:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep Mr suggestor almost always gets to votes keep--Zach016 06:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak keep- Meh. Studoku 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Not a device I'd use (being wounded is good enough a reason to heal someone), but seems like another amusing toy for survivours. --Pgunn 10:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Keep/Change - The idea of testing a zombie may not make sense, as the zombies blood is ALWAYS infected, but it's saliva is only when it gains 'infectious bite', other than that it's ok... --Captain Neo 12:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Keep - It makes logical sense, and with a small buff for survivors comes the drawback of risking infection. Nice balance. --Ciaran Deckardson 14:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. I get a new toy? - Yay! doc crook 14:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Weak Keep - Nowadays, anyone with 56 health grouped around several others with the same reading are definitely infected. --Private Mark 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Keep - This is what survivors and doctors have been waiting for. Infections are nasty and bad. --Vandurn 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Weak Keep - Fair enough. Looks like a nice survivor AP waste to me. --Druuuuu OcTRR 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Weak Keep - Eh...It needs more work, but not a bad start.--Kolechovski 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Keep Seems ok, variations talked about in discussion. --Cpt Masterson 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Because it is unfair and unreasonable to allow braindead zombies be able to tell who is infected, but not survivors. --Heretic144 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Keep - I'd totally give up my wirecutters for this! --Uncle Bill 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Keep - This item is dumb, and crap. Why bother? Either a person needs healing, or they don't. I support stupid players wasting their AP and encumbrance. - Grant (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Keep - Good suggestion; a new way to get XP is always good, but it needs some more work.--Jamie Cantwell3 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - trying to heal someone who is already at full health would cost the same AP, so it doesn't help those without diagnosis. As to detecting infection, meh, you either heal them when you suspect it (low, 46 or 56 HP) or they tell you -- boxy talk • i 09:20 3 February 2008 (BST)
    Re -what if it didn't cost an AP if used on a survivor(zombies stll cost an AP) with full health? That would help against the AP sink for newbies without diagonsis, without affecting those with diagonsis (sorry for all the Re's)--Zach016 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    Then it would be overpowered. A free action, except when it provides useful information. Newbies need to concentrate on getting diagnosis, not searching for this useless device. Infection isn't that big a deal... just carry an emergency FAK at all times. If survivors are to stupid to figure out this simple tactic, and can't ask someone for a heal, then they deserve to die of infection -- boxy talk • i 14:01 4 February 2008 (BST)
  2. Kill - Not just useless, but counter-productive. The APs used on determining who has an infection could be spent on doing something useful instead. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kill Why not just heal the person? --Jon Pyre 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Kill As Jon Pyre. - Headshot Hal 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Kill. I don't think it nerfs infection, I just think it's useless. Karaburma 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Useless.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Kill - an item that helps zombies more than survivors: not cool--CorndogheroT-S-Z 13:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Kill - FYI - there is never an infected survivor at full health. The only way to be at full health once infected is with a FAK, with heals infection as well. The only useful time for this is if a friend is a zombie, and then you're already spending 10ap to revive them. One more AP spent may not sound like much, but if it's a hostile area it is critical. I like the overall idea, but it's simply not practical.--Actingupagain 15:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. kill - i like the way it is right now more, for roleplaying reasons of all people looking sick and pale etc. --~~~~ [talk] 19:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Kill - As Actingupagain --└Frozen┘┌Flame┐ 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. I am on a voting spree, but to make this vote valid, I'm in agreement with the above voters. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Kill - While a good idea, i find myself asking why you would want to spend an extra AP to determine if someone is infected. Keep working on it, I am sure you will get it right --Raynor16 03:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Kill - I fear that the AP spent by this item would not be worth it. If one truly is concerned about someone's infection status, they will likely be willing to spend a FAK to remove the infection status anyway. Adept Omega 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Kill - Another piece of inventory-clogging junk to throw away is exactly what survivors don't need. --Anotherpongo 14:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - nerfs an already piss weak zombie skill. Not needed, and attempting to heal people is cheaper AP wise than this, so it actually hinders players without diagnosis. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Not only does this needlessly nerf one of the weakest things in the game it does it with no downside. Also, there's essentially no wasted AP for someone with diagnosis, which is to say most everyone.--Karekmaps?! 11:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    Re - no downside really? I figured a chance of getting infected was a downside, and having diagonsis has nothing to do with finding an infection, especialy if you have 1FAK to ten wounded...--Zach016 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    Re'- Infection is not a big deal, 5% of anything is not a downside, especially when it's something like this that will only be used when success is pretty much guaranteed.--Karekmaps?! 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Spam - waste of AP. If they're <=50/60 OR <=40/50, then heal them. Otherwise, it's a waste of AP and FAK. Whether or not they're infected, doesn't really matter. (Still, infection is a useful tool for zombies, whatever they say - it's an AP-sink.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    Re - but finding someone who is infected would give you an extra xp as well as a garrenteed heal (without diagonsis), and if you only have 1FAK, and they're 10 wounded all around 50HP, woulden't it make logical sense to want to heal the one who's infected. Yes they can tell you, but they need to be active to do so, and it doesn't help those who arrive after. Just use it smartly.--Zach016 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    Re - 1XP is hardly worth it. I could spray paint a police station instead. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Flawed - as Karek and funt and what not.... --/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Spam - Let's see, what shall we use: Hel characters, nerfs infection or unsure of its flavour basis? I'll submit all three. -- Iscariot 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Spam- This is a stupid suggestion, it is flawed and needs major work. -- BKM 23:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestion:20080203_Infection_Detection_Device&oldid=2043663"