Suggestion:20101006 Zombies feeding from a corpse infect the corpse

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Undecided Suggestions.

20101006 Zombies feeding from a corpse infect the corpse

Spud 23:33, 6 October 2010 (BST)

Suggestion type
Zombie Skill Extension (to Digestion tree).

Suggestion scope
Both human and zombie corpses.

Suggestion description
Basically this applies Bite logic to Feeding from corpses; the corpse gets infected when the zombie (with Infectious Bite) chows down on them. You can already carry an infection while dead, so this won't change much, it just seems like a logical addition to me.

It would come with messages approopriate to both the victim and the feeding zombie, such as "You have passed your infection to the corpse you just snacked from" and "The zombie that just took a bite out of you also gave you a nice infection, enjoy." except properly written to fit in with the game, I've had a few beers.

Feed could use the help, as it is it just gives you 4 health for 1ap - most zombies would rather wait for ?rise and save a lot of AP. This change would give Feed more of a reason to exist in UD.

This change would work much like syringes on a queue of zombies, it would only affect the freshest corpse. If two uninfected bodies were buried under one infected corpse they would be left alone, for fairness and to fit in with the current game mechanics. The guy on top is fair game.

If the corpse receiving the bite is revivifying, they will not be infected, inkeeping with the zombie spitting out the revivifying flesh and generally having a hard time with the cocktail of chemicals swimming around the corpse's soon to be flowing bloodstream. The corpse may already be infected however, and I see no need to tell the zombie that - even the standard bite fail message will probably be adequate in this situation.

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 - Yarp. 23:36, 6 October 2010 (BST)
2. Keep - Nothing to add. RinKou 23:37, 6 October 2010 (BST)
3. Yes. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:40, 6 October 2010 (BST)
4. Woo --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:44, 6 October 2010 (BST)
5. Keep Zazz harmanbargar ahm nahm nahm. -- Spiderzed▋ 00:07, 7 October 2010 (BST)
6. Sex Yes! - Balanced, realistic, and simple. I applaud your competence. However, allow me to clarify how feeding works. If there are only reviving bodies, you are given the option to feed, but it does nothing. It doesn't even cost an AP. It just explains why the bodies are inedible. If there are both reviving and dead bodies, you automatically ignore the reviving bodies, and just eat the dead ones. If a dead body has been fed upon 10 times since it died, zombies will no longer eat it, but instead move on to the next. If all bodies are reviving/overeaten, you will be unable to feed. This suggestion does not ask to change any if this. By what is being suggested, reviving bodies are excluded from infection, and you can infect every dead body, it just takes 10 AP to finish with each, and unless you're feeding for the health, you probably won't want to spread just one infection per 10 AP. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:14, 7 October 2010 (BST)

   Thanks, I didn't know the full details on how feeding worked, why didn't you post this the first time I fed this through the suggestions system :D I like how this'd work even more now I know about the 10ap thing. Cheers! Spud 00:37, 7 October 2010 (BST)

7. Keep - I don't even know why I'm bothering to vote with this overwhelming majority. I like this idea. --keepster33 01:57, 7 October 2010 (BST)
8. Keep - I was sad when I had to remove the last version of this suggestion. I'm very glad you put it back up. —Aichon— 05:42, 7 October 2010 (BST)
9. Keep Mattiator 14:28, 8 October 2010 (BST)
10. Keep - Makes sense.--ZIPO/Talk/◆◆◆/CAPD 00:06, 12 October 2010 (BST)
11. Keep - As Above.--Sargent Havok 10:46, 14 October 2010 (BST)
12. Fuckyes - Why isn't my vote here, yet? ~m ^T! 01:08, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - I thought I'd already voted kill for this... It achieves nothing, helps griefing. -- LEMON #1 06:10, 7 October 2010 (BST)
2. Nerfs regular bite attacks even more. When attacking a survivor (especially indoors), you'd be stupid to bother biting them at all now, instead opting to "feed" on them after they drop, at 100% to hit for an infection -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:45 7 October 2010 (BST)
3. Kill - Boxy and ddr make good points.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:22, 7 October 2010 (BST)
4. kill - too strong and annoying----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 05:50, 8 October 2010 (BST)
5. Kill - Survivors are already throwing away medkits enough as is, in an invasion. Also, coagulated blood doesn't flow, and so can't be infected.--• LtZurSee slapped your nose with a newspaper for a heal from CORAM (0 seconds ago) 15:30, 8 October 2010 (BST)
6. I still don't like it. - User:Whitehouse 11:17, 13 October 2010 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Seen this before and voted no last time. -Dezonus- ^(talk) 22:59, 11 October 2010 (BST)

   The reason you saw it before is that it was removed due to a technicality. This is just the original suggestion having a second chance - so you really should vote 'no' instead of 'spam' based on your reasoning. 23:01, 11 October 2010 (BST)

---