Suggestion talk:20080210 FAK/Infection Tweak

Before I vote, convince me this is needed. --Uncle Bill 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned somewhere before in zombie lore, the infection dealt by zombies in this game isn't the virus that turns you into zombies -- everyone has that already, and dying only makes it 'set in', so to speak. The infection that we have right now is quite likely to be bacterial in nature. In Max Brooks World War Z, one of the civilians were bitten by a quisling (a human who acts like a zombie due to psychological breakdown), but almost died anyway since he got a staphylococcus infection.

Thus, it makes sense that a FAK would first cure that infection, before tending to other bodily wounds. --Aeon17x 10:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill. I doubt that I can convince you it's needed, because I don't believe it is needed. However, I do believe it would be a positive change. Already discussed in votes, it has the potential to help low-level survivors who are harvesting XP, by giving them more FAK use to bring a survivor to full health from infection. That's one key bonus to the survivors. For higher level survivors, it introduces more tactical variance (how many FAKs to carry), but not to a degree that nerfs them. For zombies, it increases (and yet only slightly) the effect of the infectious bite, which I believe they'll welcome because at the moment it's rather a weak attack, except as part of a global AP-sink. Overall, I think a slight boost to infection (which is what this really is) would be a good thing for the game because it makes it more dangerous. I still feel very safe as a survivor, and anything that stretches my encumbrance budget a bit heads me towards a more exciting game. From a gameplaying perspective, it's always seemed odd to me that the infection cure is essentially free alongside the HP cure, which would happen anyway. Look at it this way: if I get wounded by a zombie's claw attack, by 10HP, a survivor can cure me of my loss with a FAK. If I get wounded by a zombie's infectious bite, and thereafter up to 10HP, the zombie has spent more AP, and yet a survivor can still cure me of my loss with a FAK. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, FAKs are way to valuable to waste on XP farming. BTW Funt, you need to remove one of the FAK suggestions, lest the dupe cannons be fired. --Ms.Panes 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For low-level XP gatherers trying to level up, nothing is too expensive for XP farming. They're not Dupes - don't be silly. One of them is to do with FAK vs. infection only, and the other is FAK vs. infection vs. unpowered vs. ruined vs. ransacked. Anyone who can't appreciate the vast differences between the two needs, oh, I don't know, taken outside and shot - as a mercy to the rest of the human race. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

FAK's are excellent for experience farming. I've leveled up characters very quickly by getting the mall skills and diagnosis, and then using lots of FAK's. And only 2ap to get a FAK in a mall with those skills. --Pdeq^Talk* 00:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FAKs really aren't useful for much else to tell the truth, they're so easy to find and heal so much that the majority of your FAKs should be going towards XP farming purposes, otherwise it's just wasted inventory space until zombies outnumber survivors or you're in a battle against actives.--Karek^maps?! 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the drawback of not getting that extra 5 HP, young medic types would get an extra chance to earn some XP. That fact alone makes the tradeoff worthwhile. I think I can live with this. --Uncle Bill 08:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)