Suggestion talk:20080203 Infection Detection Device

Discussion (Infection Detection Device)

Have ur way with it. Got the idea a bit from a combination of the thing (game) and some zombie movie--Zach016 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this be a new device or would you let DNA scanners do this? A nice side effect if the DNA scanners could do it would be that you could tell a zombie was infected and FAK them before performing a revive. --Uncle Bill 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea.Studoku 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going for a new device so you would have the encumberance and search AP added on to the new ability, but if enough people here voice that they like your way better, so be it.--Zach016 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll vote for it either way. The DNA scanner upgrade would be more convenient, but a new item might have an easier time passing. --Uncle Bill 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a really cool idea, I think it's a nice compromise between telling infection and encumberance. Still I think that a DNA extractor upgrade would be good. Still, I'd leave it a bit to get more people to decide on whether it should be a new item or not.

I vote that this ability be included in the dna scanner since IIRC survivors show up on the list of people you can use the extractor on. Scanned infected people would be marked with an * or something so you don't forget that you scanned them and can't get more xp. I also think having a chance to be infected when using a dna scanner isn't that great since you don't get infected scanning zombies. --Cpt Masterson 03:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Acoustic Pie 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Im waiting for people to comment on the % they may find acceptable for the vial to break (whether it be 0 or more), and although the DNA extractor would be convient, It requires a skill to use...--Zach016 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then again that would still make since, although I would rather the skill be first aid myself as its more oriented to the living.--Zach016 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You want to scan a zombie to see if an infection is present? You'll get a 100% success rate because they're a zombie! The virus is coursing through their systems causing them to be walking around and not a immobile conversation piece known as a permanent corpse. The infection skill doesn't give a zombie the virus, it just lets them pass it on through their saliva. -- Iscariot 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to whether or not they died of infection (and will still have one when they're revived. --Uncle Bill 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How the hell are you going to get a portable device to differentiate between the active virus that reanimated them and the minute amount of the same virus, that's also active, that killed them? Magic?

I'd probably let this go as an upgrade to Scanners inside a powered NT, just like syringes get a boost inside powered NTs, but on a permanent basis on a portable device? No. -- Iscariot 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was limited to powered NTs, that would be completely useless and not worth the time it takes to suggest it. How do you feel about limiting it to use on survivors only? --Uncle Bill 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My (immediate) problem with this isn't the game balance, it's the flavour behind it. For all we know the virus is present in all characters in Malton, just it requires death to suppress the immune system long enough for it to take over and reanimate the body. Limiting it to survivors (i.e. alive survivors) would cure (potentially) some of the flavour problems, but is still an obvious survivor buff, it will have a hard time passing. Even if you made another piece of equipment (paying for the ability with encumbrance), I can't see it getting through. Though it's one of the better survivor buff we've seen on these pages for a while. -- Iscariot 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So wait it can't differanciate between a virus that you can still cure while they are undead? Not even counting the fact that not everyone wakes up with an infection in the first place unless bitten, even though they've been undead with that virus for a week and a half. Its pretty safe to say that the infection used against survivors is a mutation if not a whole different infection that went along with the rotting corpse thing they have going on. A survivor killing you with bullets turns you into a zombie, not nessicarly this infection all the time, so it could very well detect this infection, no one said it was the same virus.--Zach016 02:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"pretty safe to say" - Where did you get your qualification from then, Doctor? This goes back to the flavour behind the outbreak, which we don't know therefore your speculation is worth precisely nothing, especially since as it doesn't address your own example of why survivors that are shot turn into zombies rather than just die. My personal theory (which as it addresses these hole could be seen to more valid until His Lordship Kevan The First rules on the matter) is that the virus was released by NT intentionally. It is present in the system of every character in Malton. Death (by shooting, suicide or zombie) puts the metabolism into a state of arrest that allows the virus to take hold and reanimate the body (the time to take hold being the stand-up cost). Syringes are calculated by NT to reduce the virus level to the point where the immune system can fight off the virus and allow the body to resume its normal functions (again, the stand-up cost). Infectious Bite gives the same virus, but at an increased dose that damages the immune system and metabolism (represented by the damage per action) which therefore shuts the body down to the point the virus can take hold. As a syringe is carefully calibrated to the standard rate of infection, someone who has been infected by IB has an increased amount of the strain in their system that remains and continues to do damage after revivification. This is why I'd support this idea in a powered NT, as like the syringes, the system of NecroNet would be able to kick in and alter the scanning parameters as the dosage of syringes is increased now. -- Iscariot 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"which we don't know therefore your speculation is worth precisely nothing", as is yours. It could still very easily come along with the territory, yet be a completly different virus, making your arguement against it being against the flavor, screw itself over. Plus under your reasoning it could be calibrated to search for the increased count of the virus in someones system, zombie or human, therefore falling under your logic and still well do-able. It could very well be a device created by necrotech through pleminary studies of the infection/virus and its effects.--Zach016 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike your explanation, mine encompasses survivor deaths unrelated to zombies, yours has large holes in it. Regardless I'll now spam this to death using Hel characters as justification. -- Iscariot 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This made no sense... The orginal virus could still be there all the time, but needs sufficent quanties to produce the virus that infects (my logic), and I covered under your logic as well. I neithier see the holes, nor how having technogly makes this a hel character justification. If you would like to point out how mine had holes while considering the whole story I will agree with this justifaction.--Zach016 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

NO Infection is weak as is, don't make survivors able to detected it, this would just result in more easy XP gain and a weakening of one of the weakest things in the game.--Karek^maps?! 03:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, I disagree as well. Although it would allow an extra source of xp, it would not stack for one player (i.e. you can't scan the same person twice and get xp), and it will only grant an xp as long as the scanning gives a chance of infection itself, and it successfully detects an infection (trade-off to make it worth doing) with only a 1xp gain per infectee. Also because of the fact that any survivor can just ask, or you can use an fak on any lone survivor (very little point to scan) this adds an extra Ap (APs if mutiple wounded) to the healing process elsewhere (causing a different kind of drain), encumberance (why I want it to be a new item) and the somewhat hidden cost of finding it (small but notable). Its not an automatic detection when you walk in the room so it woulden't have a very large impact on the overall infection status due to its likly lower rate to be used (yet most likly noteably high enough for it to be worth voting for), would stop the small push for it to be detectable (I see a susgestion every now and then), and would open the door to strengthing the infection itself.--Zach016 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this; if you are in a powered hospital and have the diagnoses skill, infections show up in just the same way they do for zombies who have the scent blood skill. That means people who are infected should head to a (powered) hospital, where somebody can SEE they are infected, and cure them. Almost makes role play sense, no? As it is, powered hospitals are currently under used, amounting to weaker versions of mall drug stores.  Swiers 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then its an all around buff against it with absolutly no downside, not what im going for--Zach016 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Why not call it "medical equipment" and give it a slightly higher encumbrance (somewhere between 6 and 10?) It could be like the science class's equivalent of a toolbox. Also, I don't like the idea of it only working in some places and not others, but what if it had a better chance of working in a powered hospital or Necrotech facility? (Or even just in a powered building?) --Uncle Bill 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would call it medical equiment but to what ends? People may believe that it would allow you to heal more with an fak (Although I like it as a seperate suggestion to do just that, trade off of encumberance of carrying more items for the AP to find more FAK's, potentialy wasteful depending on the health of the person). The rest is somewhat ok but I don't believe it needs to go above too much encumberance, or no one would bother to carry it and it would become another unused item.--Zach016 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

---