Suggestion:20070719 Necrotic Bite 2.0

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Reviewed.

20070719 Necrotic Bite 2.0

'arm. 12:58, 19 July 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
New Skill

Suggestion scope
Zombies and Survivors

Description and Effect Necrotic Bite can be purchased by zombies for 100 XP after purchasing Infectious Bite. "Some zombies now have flesh eating bacteria in their mouths, which gets into a bite wound and eats away at the the survivors flesh." A Necrotic Infection can only be given to a player that already has a Normal Infection. With this skill all successful bites will result in a Normal Infection being upgraded to a Necrotic Infection A Necrotic Infection costs HP in the same way as a Normal Infection does - that is, a survivor with a Necrotic Infection will lose 1HP per 1AP spent (except talking). FAKs do not automatically cure a Necrotic Infection, but still recover HP in the normal way. Success rates depend on whether the FAK is being applied to the player themselves, or to another survivor: FAK applied to self: 50% chance of curing the Necrotic Infection. FAK applied to fellow survivor: 75% chance of curing the Necrotic Infection (rises to 100% if in a powered Hospital and healer has the Surgery Skill). Curing the Necrotic Infection leaves the player with a Normal Infection which can be cured in the normal way - with one FAK. Heals in Powered hospitals by a player with the Surgery Skill cure both infections, clearing both Necrotic Infection and the Normal Infection. The Scent Blood and Diagnosis skills allow any player to distinguish which survivors have a Necrotic Infection. (Note that the Diagnosis skill does not currently detect a Normal Infection.) Survivors who have a Necrotic Infection will have their HP shown in black. Upon being given a Necrotic Infection you receive a warning message: "You have been given a Necrotic Infection! Each action (except talking) now costs you 1 HP. First Aid Kits can cure this type of infection, but success is not guaranteed. Getting healed by a fellow survivor is more likely to cure you." Upon being cured of the Necrotic Infection, you see a message explaining that you still have a Normal Infection: "You are cured of the Necrotic Infection, but are still suffering from a Normal Infection." Zombies are not affected by a Necrotic Infection, just as they are not affected by the current Normal Infection. Upon revive, the player no longer has the Necrotic Infection, but will have a Normal Infection. (This is in line with the way the current infection works - a survivors who dies whilst infected will still have an infection once revived.) Changes since Necrotic Bite 1.0 Infection mechanism changed - no longer need to grasp survivor then bite. A total of two bites need to be landed on the survivor. First successful bite = Normal infection. Second successful bite = Necrotic Infection. Self heals possibly, but not guaranteed: Self heals have 50% success rate, healing others 75%, healing others in a powered hospital (with Surgery skill) 100% Successfully curing a Necrotic Infection leaves a Normal Infection (unless you have the Surgery Skill and FAK another player in a Powered Hospital - that removes both infections). The Normal Infection can then be cured in the normal way. Survivors get warning message when they get a Necrotic Infection. Information needed for cooperation no longer withheld - available to survivors who have Diagnosis or Scent Blood. Potential Questions Why a more powerful infection? The current Infectious Bite is a low-powered skill. Having an infection that is removed with the application of just one FAK means that survivors can carry one FAK on them to heal an infection, so that they can use their AP to achieve what they wanted to that day ('cade, shoot zeds, etc) and then go sit somewhere to let another survivor patch them up. Why is it easier to cure another player than it is to cure myself? This is the main mechanism that makes the Necrotic Infection more powerful than the Normal Infection - by making self-cures not guaranteed by holding a FAK or two in case you get infected. A survivor with a Necrotic Infection requires at least 2 FAKs, and on average 3 FAKs, to self-cure (2 to remove the Necrotic Infection, one more to remove the Normal Infection). This makes an infection a much more serious event, getting closer to how worried you arguably should be when bitten by a zombie. Cure rates for FAKing other survivors are higher to encourage cooperation between survivors. Having a positive incentive to work together increases the fun of Urban Dead (as opposed to a negative incentive where not working together has a negative effect and working together keeps you at the level you were at before). Note that even a survivor with no healing skills has a better chance of curing the Necrotic Infection that a survivor trying to self-cure? This means that even newbies can positively contribute to a group of survivors, whilst still keeping the Necrotic Infection relatively powerful compared to the Normal Infection. What are my chances of inflicting a Necrotic Bite? If your goal is Necrotic Infection only (and assuming a maxed-out zombie) it would be more AP-efficient to just continuously Bite the target. (If you used Claws first to get the Tangling Grasp bonus, then your average success rate of landing a bite tends to 25% - see column F on this Grasp+Bite table). One successful bite inflicts the Normal Infection, a second inflicts the Necrotic Infection. Let's compare the chances of both: Num of AP spent Chance of Normal Infection Chance of Necrotic Infection 1 30% - 2 51% 9% 3 65.7% 21.6% 4 76.0% 34.8% 5 83.2% 47.2% 6 88.2% 58.0% 7 91.8% 67.1% 8 94.2% 74.5% Link to working coming soon. Why does it take so many bites to get a reasonable chance of inflicting a Necrotic Infection? Although the current infection is low-powered, it does have power - even survivors who seek to carry around a precautionary FAK still have to use AP looking for FAKs (rather than completely relying on other players to heal them). This means that an infection does have an 'AP-cost' for survivors (though it's low because the Normal Infection is healed so easily). The Necrotic Infection requires more FAKs to be cured, and so has a higher 'AP-cost' for the survivors. By making inflicting a Necrotic Bite also have an AP cost, we go some way to balancing the cost to the survivors. Upon revive, a Necrotic Infection is 'downgraded' to Normal Infection. Why? Currently, if a survivor dies and has the Normal Infection, they will still have it when they they are revived. I think that this skill would be overpowered if players were revived and still had the more powerful Necrotic Infection. This skill would be overpowered if it could continually kill a player (cures are not guaranteed, remember). Not guaranteed means that you are held hostage to the RNG, which (as we know) can string together a surprisingly long series of misses/failed searches etc. There are two possible ways stop this happening: Dying causes a Necrotic Infection to revert to a Normal Infection. Do not allow zombies to have the Necrotic Infection 'flag' at all. Revives (revivification syringes) downgrade a Necrotic Infection to a Normal Infection These are code choices for Kevan. The end effect in-game is still the same. Summary of Main Effects upon Urban Dead Makes a bite a potentially serious proposition. There is another positive incentive for survivors to cooperate, this places more value on survivors who have the Surgery Skill, and encourages all survivors to buy healing skills earlier than they might usually. When infected in a wasteland the effects would be serious but not insurmountable: Zombie-held suburbs would become (even) more dangerous and require more planning from survivors to have successful trip there. In highly populated suburbs and large sieges healing others would become the most effective tactic by far. The stronger infection would still have a larger cost to fix overall, most noticeable the stronger form of infection would make re-barricading while active zombies are around even more costly/dangerous.

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 - I think I've said enough. 'arm. 12:59, 19 July 2007 (BST)
2. Keep - Very nice, only thing I dislike is Diagnosis detecting Necrotic infections, I feel that should take an additional skill. But hey whatever, great suggestion.--Karek^maps?! 13:04, 19 July 2007 (BST)
3. Keep - you've put so much effort in the suggestion. i just cannout reject it now --Duke Garland_T^{LCD SSZ} 13:20, 19 July 2007 (BST)
4. Keep - Very nice. You've put a lot of effort into this and it shows. Viceroy Chili Cheese Dog 13:30, 19 July 2007 (BST)
5. Keep - I voted to keep the original suggestion, and so i do to this one. Though i think that chances to heal it with no surgery should be dropped to 25% and 50%.--KiT 13:41, 19 July 2007 (BST)
6. Keep - Wow.... Took a long time developing, this one, didn't it?--Seventythree 14:03, 19 July 2007 (BST)
7. keep - A solid suggestion thats benefited from a lot of hard work! just shows that the talk: pages are good for this kind of thing :) --Honestmistake 14:25, 19 July 2007 (BST)
8. Keep - Well balanced and actually quite simple, despite the long description. _. ^. _{. swiers} 15:31, 19 July 2007 (BST)
9. Keep It'd add a new gameplay dynamic, and let's face it, this must have taken a lot of work to sort out. --DrBowman 18:02, 19 July 2007 (BST)
10. Keep - I like that you've added the Diagnosis, and a chance to self heal the Necrotic Infection. Not too harsh, but another "tool" in the "tool-box" for zombies --Ryiis 18:54, 19 July 2007 (BST)
11. Keep-The kind of buff zombies need. Not straight-up higher percentages or nerfs to barricades, but ones that make the survivors spend time fighting zeds outside of combat as well as in it.--Grigori 19:28, 19 July 2007 (BST)
12. Keep - Meh.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:16, 19 July 2007 (BST)
13. Keep -- Definitely not strong enough now, but it's better than nothing. --Firemanrik 21:00, 19 July 2007 (BST)
14. Keep - As Grigori. --Midianian 21:31, 19 July 2007 (BST)
15. Keep - I agree, so long as the diagnosis is kept. --Howard Bentley 22:54, 19 July 2007 (BST)
16. Keep - Well thought out and within reason. Doesn't make zombies over powered but focuses on making the zombies burn up more human AP. A good balancing tool for sieges and small break ins. --Mayor Fitting^{Talk RR} 00:40, 20 July 2007 (BST)
17. Keep - far more reasonable than 1.0 (which I voted kill for), and now you have my keep --Vault 02:10, 20 July 2007 (BST)
18. Keep - Fun and balanced. --Perne 05:46, 20 July 2007 (BST)
19. Keep - Another great bite mechanic. Me like. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 08:01, 20 July 2007 (BST)
20. Keep - As Grigori. --Gateking 12:14, 20 July 2007 (BST)
21. Keep - I still find it a little complicated. As whoever, you decide! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:52, 20 July 2007 (BST) On second thoughts, I don't find it complicated. Hoorah.
22. Keep - Still feels like it needs something, but I'll give it my support. Biting is fun. --Druuuuu 19:26, 20 July 2007 (BST)
23. Keep - Well thought-out. I like it. Gives the zombies an extra boost. --Heavy DDR 20:09, 20 July 2007
24. Keep - Nice one arm :') Brainz 21:52, 20 July 2007 (BST)
25. Keep - Its going, its going, its gone!!! Great suggestion for both sides, this will increase survivors chance of surviving *yes it sounds odd, but it will increase amount of people healing*. Cloud6272 04:30:00 (GMT) 21 July 2007
26. Keep - yeah i always thought getting infected by a zombie should be a more serious problem for someone than it is in this game.--Bebopking 14:57, 21 July 2007 (BST)
27. Keep - Reason for others healing you faster then you can "You Panic as you try to heal yourself and spill your antibiotics, your infection is still present" or "with nerves of steel, you patch yourself up" something like that --BLooDCLotT 15:25, 22 July 2007 (BST)
28. Keep - An effective weapon in an indirect way without being overpowered.--Insomniac By Choice 01:53, 26 July 2007 (BST)
29. Keep - My survivor will absolutely hate this innovation, being in a "wasteland" type suburb (limited TRPs). It will mean that keeping a couple of FAK's for emergencies may not be enough to ensure survival. But I see that there is a need to increase the zombie held suburbs in Malton... it's just not an apocalypse when most suburbs are survivor held, and you can just run to the nearest "green" suburb if you're in trouble -- boxy ^{T Nuts block it! DA} 15:54, 26 July 2007 (BST)
30. Keep - For all the reasons given both above and on the talk:suggestions page.--Pestilent Bob 00:27, 27 July 2007 (BST)
31. Keep - OK, I'm changing my mind completely and giving this a keep. It deserves a shot at Peer Review. --The Hierophant 00:57, 27 July 2007 (BST)
32. Keep - Zombies could use a new skill that is closer to headshot in terms of survivor inconvenience it causes, and infectious bite is too weak for that. Plus the above reasons mentioned.--Kali Magdalene 00:58, 27 July 2007 (BST)
33. Keep - I like it. Infections aren't supposed to be easy things to remove anyways. -IyandaCloud 01:00, 27 July 2007 (BST)
34. Keep - Lends an interesting perspective to the game, and it's about time zambahz got a decent new skill. --Goolina _{Gore Corps} 01:06, 27 July 2007 (BST)
35. Keep - Sounds like lots of fun. --Murgel 01:21, 27 July 2007 (BST)
36. Grrr! - More dangerous zombies=better better UD!--Lachryma^☭ 04:08, 27 July 2007 (BST)
37. Keep - Nyah! A nice skill that isn't overpowered so that the Trenchies can't whinge! --Heiki 10:45 27 July 2007 (BST)
38. Keep - Very nice if you ask me. From the prespective of a survivor (previously) and now a zombie it looks great now no one can just go and get healed which was way to easy in the past. (i know i have been healed from it before) Private Grif 07:29, 30 July 2007 (BST)
39. Keep - Sounds great to me. Well thought out. Mrxak 04:13, 2 August 2007 (BST)
40. Keep - I'm primarily a survivor and I LOVE this because of the increased danger it implies. Plus, it gives us Medics a reason to buy a skill (Surgery) that I find mostly useless otherwise. --Animi 22:21, 2 August 2007 (BST)
41. Keep - i like it, at the moment i just don't care about infection enough to spend XP on it, this makes it more worthwhile--User:Toastergargletop 01:20, 27 may 2008

Kill Votes

1. Kill - No. I don't think zombies need anymore kind of bites. As it is bites do absolutely nothing besides making the infected waste ap trying to find a fak. And if they died of infection trying to find them, that sucks. No need to do anything more with it. Happy Wooty? Even I don't like some zombie suggestions. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n} 14:17, 19 July 2007 (BST)
2. Kill - As Sonny. more bites so they waste more Ap ? It's like an equal trade off...--Wooty 17:09, 19 July 2007 (BST)

   RE: Whilst balanced can sometimes mean vote kill, this does actually add more potential strategies to the game. The skill is balanced so that the scales aren't tipped dramatically one way or another. It's actually the deeper level of how the Necrotic Infection is applied (and defended) which make this effective or not. Vote for more tactical options in-game? 'arm. 19:47, 19 July 2007 (BST)

3. Kill - Just because somethings thought out, doesn't make it inherently good. The bite is powerful enough, and we don't need to give more advantages to just sitting outside one building, breaking in daily and biting people. -- SgtBop^{Talk|Maris Viridis} 19:50, 19 July 2007 (BST)

   You're right - well thought out != inherently good. However the bite is not powerful. It might do 4 damage, rather than the claws 3, but because of its lower accuracy it's less powerful than claws. See this table for the actual figures. Because of that, there would never be any point to biting if it weren't for infection. Infection is the only reason to bite a survivor. At the moment, infection only has an AP-cost to the survivor side and rarely kills any survivors. My suggestion actually finds a way for an infection to be deadly, whilst adding an extra layer of defence - survivors can heal each other in an organised way and it will become ineffective to bite survivors the number of times required to inflict the stronger infection. 'arm. 20:24, 19 July 2007 (BST)

4. Kill- No matter how much you expound upon it, even if the word count surpasses the body count of both world wars combined, it still doesn't change the fact that bite doesn't need another upgrade, and this suggestion has been made infinitely before. Nalikill 04:13, 22 July 2007 (BST)
5. Kill - Biting is already a powerful skill and should not be upgraded. Not everyone carries a FAK around to undo a bite, especially new players. This would just make the game less fun for survivors. Suggest a new zombie attack if you really see the need, but don't upgrade an existing one, especially bite.--Pdeq 10:22, 23 July 2007 (BST)
6. Kill - I disagree that Biting is not powerful. A zombie can get three things out of a successful bite. 1.Deal Damage. 2.Heal Itself. 3.Infect a Survivor. Three results for 1 AP on a successful attack more than makes up for it's lower hit percentage. Especially in a real time fight. With this it would get 4 results, the additional being it sets up the survivor for suffering the effects of Necrotic Bite. That’s just a bit too efficient for only 1 AP. Nothing against the work you put onto it, which is impressive.--Sara M 19:07, 25 July 2007 (BST)

   It's a minimum of 2 (two) AP to inflict the Necrotic Bite, with an average of around 5.5 AP. Normal Infection only takes 1 (one) AP, with an average of 2 AP. So Necrotic Bite take about 2.75 times more AP to inflict. And the Normal Infection is lame because it only requires them to use a FAK, it hardly ever kills anyone. Nothing against the effort required to read the whole suggestion, which is immense :P. 'arm. 19:35, 25 July 2007 (BST)

   I'm not talking about inflicting Necrotic Bite for 1 AP, I said setting up to suffer, which is a result. Another Zombie could always inflict the second bite, which would be saving it AP.--Sara M 19:51, 25 July 2007 (BST)

   Sorry, mis-read you comment there. But whilst they 'only' have Normal Infection they are guaranteed a cure with just one FAK. Basically, I wanted an infection which was actually likely to kill, and I think I have succesfully made a balanced version. However some people disagree that UD needs that type of infection, and I respect that opinion. 'arm. 21:26, 25 July 2007 (BST)

7. Kill - Zombies have enough skills. They can standup for 1-6 ap when killed and don't have to get revived when they die unlike surviors. Also bite with infection is useless compared to maxed out claws.--Major Striker 02:38, 26 July 2007 (BST)

   I think you mean to say that bite is useless compared to claws - because claws do more damage. I agree that the current infection is nigh on pointless - if a survivor isn't killed by the zombie attack, he's not likely to die from the the infection. FAKs are needed to heal survivors anyway, so infecting them doesn't carry an extra cost. The only point of infection should be to kill. And my suggestion finds a way for an infection to do so, but in a balanced form. If infection can kill, then is isn't useless - my suggestion stops infection being useless. 'arm. 03:01, 26 July 2007 (BST)

   Look the point is zombies have enough skills already while surviors have alot of equipment so it's balanced. Zombies don't need a super infection because most surviors are killed with claws and in a mall type setting if you did infect someone with this, they would be healed pretty fast so I still say kill and stick to claws.--Major Striker 15:46, 26 July 2007 (BST)

   KILLIt just sucks.Chill 23:31, 26 July 2007 (BST) Vote removed by user.

   RE:You know, it doesn't smack of maturity to vote Kill on my suggestion just because I have had to keep telling you how to use the wiki properly. Or that you got your two friends to vote Kill too (assuming they are not just your sockpuppets). At least you signed properly, once you remembered how to vote. 'arm. 00:26, 27 July 2007 (BST)

   Sorry 'arm I got rid of it and I apologized to you on the Vandals page.Oh and no offense to you but I hope i don't see you again.Chill 03:47, 27 July 2007 (BST)

   kill I just don't like the idea.Lock 23:38, 26 July 2007 (BST) Alt of Chill -- boxy ^{T Nuts block it! DA} 01:25, 27 July 2007 (BST)

   Crap Utter ShiteJigsaw 23:45, 26 July 2007 (BST) Alt of Chill -- boxy ^{T Nuts block it! DA} 01:25, 27 July 2007 (BST)

8. Kill Sorry for my late vote. I've been busy otherwise I'd have given you more feedback.. This version is too underpowered I'd say. Bite mechanics are extremely difficult to balance and this one is a bit overcompensating.-- Vista  +1  21:27, 30 July 2007 (BST)

   I dunno, I quite like the balance between the effect in populated suburbs and wastelands. And I wouldn't underestimate the power of 50% chance to cure. 50% chance doesn't mean 2 FAKs and then you're cured. I play as a zombie mostly and we have 50% accuracy of claws. There are many times when I string together 6-8 misses in a row in a survivor. 6-8 FAKS and *still* not cured? I'd be pissed if I was a survivor. Many people consider the current infection strong enough (I'm clearly not one of them), and this is a subtle strengthening of that infection, whilst giving a fun positive incentive to work together and increase the fun of the game. (Zombie could also work together to give the Necrotic Bite - Normal Infection left to the lower zeds, Necrotic Infection added by the higher ones.) 'arm. 03:00, 31 July 2007 (BST)

9. Kill Because this suggestion is really thought through and serious I don't like turning this down, but I think that the zombie bite is good enough as it is--Sachaztan 09:48, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes