Suggestion talk:20090321 Multiple Infection Strains

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 20:08, 21 March 2009 by BobBoberton (talk | contribs) (→‎Question)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Discussion (Multiple Infection Strains)

You know, I like this idea. Something like, "You have been bitten by another zombie. You now have 2 separate infections. Each action will now cost 2 AP"? I'd get behind that. I think it should be 1 FAK to each separate infection, because each infection is caused by a separate bite. -CaptainVideo 04:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is one huge problem to this. I'm no doctor or anything that has to do with biology, but it seems to me that all of the zombies in Malton are infected with the exact same strain of the exact same virus. This would make sense because it would keep the game simple, plus it would explain how the reviving process always works when used on a zombie (excluding any zombies with Brian Rot, the reason they don't get revived has to do with a separate issue). I also think considering this is fully man made by NecroTech, I think they would only be creating one strain at a time. Therefore the most recent strain, which is the one responsible for the zombification process, is the sole strain capable of doing what is happening. They didn't have time to create any others, excluding possible the revival strain.

That would mean that if a zombie bites you after you are already infected, it would only be adding more of the same strain to your body. That would also mean that when you cure the first infection, you cure both because they are the same thing.

I guess if you really wanted to implement this, you could put in some blurb about how the strain has mutated on it's own or something, but I think that would create other issues with what is different about this strain and the original one and require the new one to be expanded upon more.--SirArgo Talk 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What about a second infectious bite type skill that has brain rot as a prerequisite? It's easier to justify a "mutation" in the virus in an infected zombie that's been infected for so long (ie, a zombie with Rot). That might make more sense. ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[Damn Edit conflicts!]Maybe, but Brain Rot is only caused by the degredation of the brain from the sole strain in existence. I don't think that the infecteds bodies mutate a new strain after acquiring this skill. Don't get me wrong, I like the direction in which this idea goes. It's an interesting change, but I just don't think it makes a lot of sense. I could be very wrong though.--SirArgo Talk 07:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Infection ≠ the thing that causes zombification. Infection = just plain infection. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 07:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
My idea about it was that a zombie is a breeding ground for all sorts of nasty bacteria and whatnot - and one zombie might be packed full of necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease, whoo) and another might have some nasty kind of flu, mold, ebola, e-coli, lots of different things. When a survivor gets bitten by two of these differing zombies, it makes sense that Ebola + Necrotizing Fasciitis is worse than either one of them alone. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this (as with most of the previous "make infection do 2 damage" suggestions) is that 2 HP is too much. The 1 HP increase might seem small, but it doubles the damage. Infection isn't very powerful except on the recently revived, and 2HP is simply too much for them. With no Body Building, you'd only have 11 AP to find a FAK instead of the 23 AP with normal infection (you stand up with half of your full health, except infection takes the first nibble when you stand up. the last AP kills you). That's a radical decrease, and many, many newbies don't carry a FAK for these occasions. There are very few things more frustrating than being revived only to die of infection. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 17:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, however, 1 HP per AP damage with a newly revived person isn't much of a concern - 23 AP (or 28) to find a FAK or a safe place with people who presumably have spare FAKs isn't too difficult. This would make infections more effective and more threatening. I would definitely still agree that any more than 2 strains (2 HP per AP of damage) is far too debilitating. This suggestion certainly puts more emphasis on hospitals, and would probably encourage always having an emergency FAK or two among new players. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, how about a compromise? Infection does 1 HP per AP and has a 25% chance (or 35%, or whatever, but I would not go as high as 50%) of doing 2 HP per AP? I think the tradeoff would be that we'd really have to have a new skill or change an existing skill so that survivors can detect infections. ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure - but do you mean after one bite or two unique bites? And then would it require just one FAK to cure? --Bob Boberton TF / DW 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think if we incorporated the ability to see infections into a previously existing survivor skill, we could have Infectious Bite get a bump up to doing 1 HP per AP, with a 30% chance of a 2nd HP. If we created a brand new skill to allow survivors to detect infections, then I would suggest a second unique bite (or possibly an "upgraded" version of Infectious Bite) would be necessary to add the 30% for extra infection damage. ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This is all getting too complicated for my liking. I don't think you should incorporate infection sight into a previous skill. I like the idea of percent-chance for damage, though. Perhaps after the second bite it could say something like, "You have been bitten again. You are now very infected and may lose additional damage when you move around." How does that sound? Otherwise it would be the same as a regular infection. -CaptainVideo 04:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea, there's no reason for survivors to suddenly be able to see infections and that's not what I'm suggesting. Zombies can see infection and should still see these doubly infected persons as different from singly infected persons. I would also suggest the wording "heavily infected." Finally, one FAK cure-all sounds good with the system - what do you think? --Bob Boberton TF / DW 04:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm more-or-less on board, but I want to be clear that it can't just be a second bite attack from the same zombie; it needs to be a bite attack from a different zombie (who also has Infectious Bite, obviously). ~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 05:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup yup yup - two bites from unique zeds. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 05:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

how many different bites could stack? Is it just 2? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, max of 2. More unique bites after being heavily infected only deal direct damage, as bites normally do. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)