Suggestion:20080129 Change infection/revival

	Removed
	This suggestion has been removed from voting Author Vote to kill, justified as "It's Fine As Is".

20080129 Change infection/revival

Kolechovski 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Balance Change. Suggestion scope
Everyone. Suggestion description
THE BASICS SUGGESTED:

Infection now causes 2 HP damage per action. Revival now only restores 13 HP (or 15 HP to Bodybuilders) upon standup. Infections do NOT last through revives.

THE SUPPORTING DETAILS:

Even though they’ve been killed, and I see no reason a change is needed, for some reason, suggestions about beefing up infection keep cropping up, so I have an idea that might change it to work for all sides.

First, many people claim that infection is not powerful enough, especially involving revives. I personally feel the opposite is true. When someone gets infected, it’s usually during a zombie siege. In that case, other zombies often come along and finish off the infected before they can get away, or some survivor must spend a lot of FAKs to undo all the infections that constantly get spread around. Mostly, the survivor ends up dead. They often don’t get cured at RPs either, leaving them still infected upon revival. This means that unless they carried spare FAKs (which most newbies don’t know to do), they have to halt their plans and head to a hospital (or some other indoor place quickly) to await cure, however long that takes. Essentially, a good day is lost, or at least ½ of one. And those that don’t make it in those 23 moves they have (often thanks to rampant overcading) die on the streets, where nobody is around to see it happen. Either way, something that can kill you in a day on its own is pretty powerful, especially after revive.

Still, since many seem to think otherwise of it, here’s a rendition that may appease all. Infections become severe, costing 2HP loss per move, creating that “urgency” that many feel is missing. However, infections are cured through revival if the infected winds up dead. After all, if some powerful juice can cause you to regrow broken bones, revivify dead body cells, regenerate damaged skin, and fight off the bacteria that’s been rotting away at you, then how does it fail to miss the bacteria that gave you the infection?

Now to those that complain that simply dying and reviving just gets easier if no FAKs are around, we could adjust revive HP to be 13 (or 15 for Body Builders), so the reviving juices restore life, but not much else. This would force those who revive to seek specialized care to fully return from the dead (as in full health), while infections are of serious concern (who wants to risk dying quickly and nearly getting killed again after a revive with only 13 HP?). It would also fix the logic flaw of infections lasting through revive. With this, infections are made hugely serious, but not newbie-killing (as many infected revivers are). So maybe this will finally fix the complaints about infections not being powerful enough without overpowering it.

With this change, infections are now more likely to be used due to their severity, but they won’t annihilate everybody over and over without being reinfected.

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. KEEP - Because Axe hack voted Kill... no really, it makes sense I guess, so you get a keep!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I think its a dupe - Until then, keep.Studoku 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Keep THe GAME IS UNBALANCED! INFECTIONS ARE CURED EASILY, BY A SINGLE FAK! SHOTGUNS DO TEN DAMAGE, BITE DOES FOUR DAMAGE AND GIVES YOU AN EASY TO GET RID OF INFECTION THAT DOES ALMOST NO DAMAGE! --The Gecko PKer 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep Infection isn't taken seriously as is, this will add a bit of urgency. --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Kill As WOOT and that Frozen Flame guy above me. Oh, and the fact that the common 2x kill is the only form of taunt in the game, and everybody seems to hate taunts, despite (some of) them being good ideas... ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. It's fine the way it is. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Kill - Over this on the talk, nerfs infection because many players end up dead by the zombie before it can take any real toll, and makes it not even close to as widespread,not even counting the fact that all the infectees would be surrounded by survivors since the beginning of their infection.EDIT: would let survivors level faster as well--Zach016 17:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   Re- I'm curious how a nastier infection allows faster survivor leveling?--Kolechovski 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   Re-getting up with less health means more FAK's to heal=xp, as does losing health faster=more health to heal=more xp.--Zach016 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Kill - As Axehack.--Kolechovski 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Kill- I do not see how this change will make infection more balanced.-- BKM 20:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Kill - Current system in place is better.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Kill - No plx, as above. --Vandurn 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Kill - as every voter other than keep--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Kill - The current system is fine. While my survivor would like infections to go away upon death, overall this suggestion would suck a lot worse for her. This would basically eliminate all those euphoric moments when you "get lucky" and have enough life left to find a FAK to save yourself. And really, if a zombie breaks into a safehouse, and bites 10 people but otherwise leaves them uninjured, they shouldn't be as likely to die as if the zombie gave a good beating and an infection to 2 or 3. --Ms.Panes 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Kill - Leave it as is. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 11:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Kill - There's no fun in just number tweaks. At least similar suggestions included a skill for these things. --Pdeq^Talk* 18:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Kill - Once implemented, I think you'd find zombie sieges succeeding almost all of the time. This increases the amount of AP used on a revived survivor, and it is already pretty high. An overpowered buff with no drawback/benefit for both sides. --Ciaran Deckardson 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - finely balanced as is. I've heard the argument that FAKs are too easy a fix, but I don't buy that. Like anything a survivor uses, there are (sort-of hidden) AP costs in finding each and every FAK, and encumbrance costs in carrying them, and AP cost in applying them. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Spam - This would make infection next to useless. As you yourself said, most of the time the bitten ends up dead or healed before their next logon. Thus, boosting the damage has very little effect for pre-mortem infections. The main advantage of infection isn't the damage it causes, it's the AP that gets used on getting rid of it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Spam - As above. --Hhal 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Dupe - I'm positive I saw a suggestion like this somewhere in the archives. I'm going to go have a look. #Spam - Nope, cant find it. Tis now a spam due to nerfing revives and most importantly infection. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Spam - As Midianian. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep - Yes, nerfing infection like this is really cool, and not at all totally retarded. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Spam - Massive nerf to an already useless thing.--Karek^maps?! 07:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)