Talk:Suggestions/26th-Jan-2007

Pernicious Infection

Timestamp:	Keovar 18:13, 26 January 2007
Type:	New skill.
Scope:	For zombies.
Description:	Overview Sometimes, in older zombies the necrotic virus mutates into strains that are harder to cure. Bitten survivors may relapse a while after they have been cured. Objectives Introduce a skill that honors and rewards dedicated zombie players in much the same way as Headshot does for survivors. Rather than making it a copy or direct analog of that skill, make it follow the theme of the eventual zombie "goal"; to convert humans into more zombies. Also, try to instill a sense of fear or mystery with infections, to better represent the theme they evoke in the movies. Details Pernicious Infection is a zombie skill that requires 7 other zombie skills (survivor ones do not count), among which must be Infectious Bite and Brain Rot, to qualify for. The cost is somewhat less than that of Headshot, but the prerequisites are more exacting. When a survivor is infected by a zombie with this skill, there is a 50% chance that the infection is pernicious. There is no indication to either player whether this has happened or not. When a pernicious infection is cured, 50% of the time it will be completely cured, and 50% of the time it will simply go into remission. Again, there is no indication of which result has happened. A survivor in remission may act normally with no recurring damage, but there is a 10% chance per day of a relapse. When the infection is cured again, there is another 50% chance of complete cure or remission. This cycle would continue until a full cure takes effect. The numbers above are only suggested as a starting point. Naturally the occurence of pernicious infections, the chances of a lasting cure, and the odds of a relapse in cases of remission can be varied and tweaked as needed over time. Discussion I was asked to move this here, so that I may be thrashed. ;) Yes, it's intended to be somewhat annoying, but then, logging in every day to a headshotten-zombie is rather annoying too, and that happens much more frequently than this would. If you get the pernicious infection at all, it's only 10% chance of a speedbump being thrown into your day's play, whereas any zombie that actually goes near humans has to stand up from headshots on a daily basis. Yes, the infection is cleared permanently upon rising as a zombie, but if you are revived and reinfected, you don't retain any sort of immunity from it happening again. Once a "cure" puts the infection into remission, further heals will not affect it, because the infection is not active at that time. If the infection is inactive, that means the virii are resistant to the standard treatments and while the treatment has put the symptoms (recurring damage) into remission, they may return as the mutant strain multiplies. Perhaps a Necrotech lab would have the facilities to detect dormant infections and fully cure them before they flare up again.--Keovar 26 January 2007 I like the idea but you should put a limit to the infection. Teorically a survivor could be infected forever as this stands now. Change that and you'll have my keep. --Deras 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Each cure attempt has a good chance to fix it, so that makes it indefinite but not forever. Also, becoming a zombie (and then getting revived) cures it as well. I could add that any cure done within a Necrotech lab has a 100% chance of a permanent cure. Survivors would likely take their chances with a normal cure at first (75% odds of being in the clear with just one cure - there's the initial 50% resistance check to keep it from being pernicious in the first place, and the 50% chance for a total cure on the first attempt). If it relapses, then they can seek a guaranteed cure. --Keovar 26 January 2007 Well, you didn't SAY death and/or revive would cure it. Would it JUST be revive or death as well? Also, as Funt pointed out, having it not affect 5th level or lower is a bad "balance" attempt. Make it, say 65% cure, 35% remission. Also, would this REPLACE the regular infection or be a seperate choice (drop down says "bite" or "pernicious bite")?--Pesatyel 03:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC) How about keep it 50/50, but it is always cured completely in an NT by an NT tech or in a hospital by someone with surgery? That is, someone with medical (or zombies-specific) training can cure it 100% given the right equipment, but joe soap may screw up if he's doing it in an alley with dirty bandages? This would also help out the newbie aspect... I'm pretty sure the first thing a newbie does when infected is go "I'm sick! What the hell do I do now? If only the map was littered with places which pretty obviously say "healing here"! Oh, wait..." Also, hospitals are generally VS already, and, as always... anything to reduce mallcentricity--Gene Splicer 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Given that, I'd go the OTHER way. Make it 65% that is goes dormant if it can be cured (relatively easily) in either an NT or Hospital. The other possibility would be that, even when "cured" in the NT or Hospital, there is a, say 5% chance, it ISN'T cured (just remission). Basically the hospital/NT cure isn't perfect.--Pesatyel 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I think that it would be best if the 100% success rate heals occur in NTs, hospitals, and those who have surgery and/or are scientists. How about making this skill only accessible when zombies are level 10+, just like the survivor Zombie Hunter skill? Maybe keeping the heal to remission ratio initially at 50:50 and then after every successive heal augment the heal by 5%, such as 50:50 after the first heal, 55:45 after the second one, 60:40 after the third, and so on. -- 03:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Votes
Insert keep votes here
Kill Votes
Insert kill votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes
Insert spam/dupe votes here

---

FAK Change

Timestamp:	Labine50 MH|ME|P 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Balance Change
Scope:	Malls.
Description:	Ok, the game is broken on quite a few levels, but when you can find medical supplies faster in a mall than in a hospital, you know for sure the game is screwed up. What I'm proposing is simple, change the hospital find rate for FAKs to 20%, and take the mall rate to about 13% without bargain hunting.

Discussion

• It's a simple suggestion.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest having putting newspapers in the malls instead of hospitals. I also think the mall % should be LOWER. I mean a DRUGSTORE has more medical equipment available then a HOSPITAL? Oh, and I fixed your text (at least what I THINK you mean to say).--Pesatyel 03:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just be happy if newspapers in hospitals were replaced with "old magazines." --Uncle Bill 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for this. Malls are uber-forts atm, and I always head for a mall rather than a hospital when I need FAKs because of that balance. If the FAK-finding chances were reversed it'd make a lot more sense, plus would give survivors a reason to hold onto their local hospitals. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep this because: "Ow, a zombie bit off my legs! Instead of heading to the hospital for a first aid kit, I think I'll just pop into the local drugstore for one, because they have more first aid kits than a hospital" dosen't make sense. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 10:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be a little bit hesitant about this. It could mean that hospitals become EHB'ed because they are so useful. Then newbie characters would be really snookered, especially if they didn't start off with any combat skills. --Toejam 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hospitals already tend to BE at EHB. Also there are a LOT more Hospitals than malls.--Pesatyel 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it does make sense, however there are more hospitals than malls. And you can heal 15HP in a powered hospital, don't forget that one. So it's kind of moot point then, isn't it?--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This would cause all hospitals to cade up to EHB - which is going to hurt new players the most. I have no problem with FAKs being easier to find in malls - it's the black market. (The idea that anything of any use is just lying around after over a year of quarantine is stupid in itself.) --Funt Solo 14:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't that imply "trading" or "NPCs"?--Pesatyel 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the survivors go for a shit, and eat, and fart, and scratch their arses - none of those things are included in the game because they're incidental. I'm assuming an incidental black market. (Because otherwise, where's the food coming from? Why hasn't the ammo run out? Exactly how many portable generators are in that shop, anyway?) --Funt Solo 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't there be a black market everywhere else? Why in the world is it held only in Malls? Why not a black market ina warehouse? To me, there is just an infinte amount of gennys, food, ammo, etc. that is looted. It's the most realistic way of understanding.--ShadowScope 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Malls: force of habit. Anyway, it's just the way I have it roleplaying in my head. Your head is your concern. --Funt Solo 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

However you choose to justify it, it doesn't change the fact that malls are "overpowered."--Pesatyel 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pesatyel - that's an opinion, not a fact. I don't think malls are overpowered. They're a focus of available supplies, yes. They're also the most dangerous place (bar a building with no 'cades, or the street) to sleep. I've been PKed more times in Malls than anywhere else. In fact, I think I've only ever been PKed in Malls. I think there's an advantage to malls being PKer and zombie magnets - it makes it easier for me to avoid both. So long as all the idiots are killing each other there, my characters are safe elswhere. The more you reduce the magnetisism of the malls, the worse it'll be for my characters. QED. --Funt Solo 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, because it has "always been that way, it should stay that way?" They are overpowered because there are really only three reasons to got ANY other buildings once you have the mall skills: To find a VS barricade, to go to an NT or for those people who don't want to sleep there (for a variety of reasons, but I guarantee they are within a few AP of the mall). And I must not be visiting the same mall as you as I rarely EVER see anything "dangerous" (at most a GK once in awhile). So its best to focus on roughly 10 squares of a suburb...and ignore the other 90?--Pesatyel 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You just put a lot of words in my mouth, there. I think they're fine, you don't. It's a difference of opinion. Live with it. --Funt Solo 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I did, I apologize. Can you explain the logic that it is better to focus on 5 buildings leaving 95 utterly useless by comparison? I don't buy the "malls are dangerous" argument either. The only reason *I* don't sleep in one is because I don't want all the spam the next day.--Pesatyel 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

well i kind of agree with both Funt and Pesatyel? the mall is a focus for continued supply drops because it is a focus for survivors (and has a bloody big roof!) but hospitals are big too and many have designated landing pads for air ambulances so i have no problem with improving the search rate in them. Perhaps another science skill "pharmacist" could give the same search rate benefits available to mallrats? that way its not a free gift and gives me something to spend xp on... i do think it should give the shopping and bargain hunt bonus combined but only in the hospital... or grudgingly the drugstore too!--Honestmistake 17:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC) *just a note to make it clear... the pharmacist bonus would not stack!

That's just it, if you ignore the "black market" idea and presume "unlimited supplies" it doesn't make any sense that a DRUGSTORE would have more easily found medical equipment than a HOSPITAL. It is more a matter of balance, as I see it. Once someone has the mall skills there is NO reason, none what so ever, to search anywhere else but an NT. That just doesn't make sense to me. And if you go with the "black market" idea (which, isn't TOO bad) why would it ONLY work in malls?--Pesatyel 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that FAKs should be harder to find in malls. However, Funt's point that search rates in malls also simulate trading has validity, even though I would bet money that idea was not part of Kevan's design. You could also argue that the hospitals were the first place to get stripped of supplies. That said, I would vote for a simple swap of the FAK search rate between hospitals and malls.--SporeSore 14:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think the idea of a blackmarket in supplies would not counter the idea of stuff being 'sold' at the hospitals! They are a major focus for survivors and would therefore be a major target for supply drops! Personally i see it not so much as a black market but as occasional forays by the army bringing in much needed stuff to help those trapped in the city, obviously they would not stay and would avoid interaction with those who are no doubt riddled with the infection.--Honestmistake 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

---