Zombie infection mechanics explained

[ethanwdp]

Posted a thorough analysis of the source code for zombie infection to Reddit a while back, might as well repost it here.

This should clear up the exact chance of zombie infection and scratch/bite chance.

 

Analysis conclusion:

It's a secret to everybody.

 

Full analysis:

http://www.google.ca

[Geras]

Thin Skinned is suicide. Thanks for sharing these.

[f3rret]

Nice work!

 

EDIT: And thanks for the edit as well.

[BayCon]

Wow this analysis is just spectacular. I always heard that bites had a ~95-6% chance to infect and scratches have a ~60% chance

[BoogieMan]

Very informative, thank you.

[Moose65]

Nice information......so unless I misread something, bites should always cause a zombie infection? (Personally I have never had a character survive a bite despite others claiming to).

 

But......this leads to an even more important question......how do prone to illness and resilient affect zombie infection? In theory, both of these should modify the chances for zombie infection, but I saw no mention anywhere in the post....which means these traits are almost completely useless, especially since they may not even affect normal infections.

[ethanwdp]

how do prone to illness and resilient affect zombie infection? In theory, both of these should modify the chances for zombie infection, but I saw no mention anywhere in the post....which means these traits are almost completely useless, especially since they may not even affect normal infections.

They don't affect zombie infection chance, not sure about normal infection though.

[LeoIvanov]

I think this whole thread is an ellaborate hoax to throw even more people off about infection percentage done by Lemmy on another forum account.

 

Stop muddying the waters! We all know that the real infection percentage is *Gets eaten by zombies*

[ethanwdp]

I think this whole thread is an ellaborate hoax to throw even more people off about infection percentage done by Lemmy on another forum account.

 

Stop muddying the waters! We all know that the real infection percentage is *Gets eaten by zombies*

[Moose65]

They don't affect zombie infection chance, not sure about normal infection though.

 

 

......and this is why we need to know what exactly traits do. If that's true, then they are both 100% useless (considering they existed before "regular" infections), since the trait outdoorsmen stops you from getting colds, then that would mean resilient is completely useless and prone to illness is 100% free points.

 

I wonder how many other traits are broken.

[fluffe9911]

Prone to illness kinda is I use it a lot all it does is make you find out as far as I can tell a lot faster if your going to die from a scratch/bite or not lol

[ethanwdp]

 

They don't affect zombie infection chance, not sure about normal infection though.

 

 

......and this is why we need to know what exactly traits do. If that's true, then they are both 100% useless (considering they existed before "regular" infections), since the trait outdoorsmen stops you from getting colds, then that would mean resilient is completely useless and prone to illness is 100% free points.

 

I wonder how many other traits are broken.

As for your original question (too lazy to quote it), resilient wouldn't affect if a bite/scratch would break the skin, and AFAIK the zombie virus infection is instant. It probably just affects how long it takes the infection to move up through its stages, once it's already in the hosts system. I'll look into the exact programming of it later.

 

But yeah, your unbalanced traits argument stands. It's pretty hard to gauge everything a single trait does, as they're technically just a variable and nothing else. Since they could be called just about anywhere in the source code, I'd have to scour through it all and document any cases of it.

[Kirrus]

We're getting real close to the point we'll ask you to stop digging around in the Java code, which you agreed not to decompile when you purchased the game, Ethan

 

Leave some things to mystery, or if you're *really* gunna break licence terms, at least don't discuss it on our official forums, 'eh?

 

To look yourself, whilst not *officially* sanctioned, isn't a problem. To start using or broadcasting what you find without knowing the full picture -- without seeing or understanding the other code involved, isn't something we'll be too happy about. Just a friendly heads-up.

[ethanwdp]

We're getting real close to the point we'll ask you to stop digging around in the Java code, which you agreed not to decompile when you purchased the game, Ethan

 

Leave some things to mystery, or if you're gunna break licence terms, at least don't discuss it on our official forums, 'eh?

Sorry.

[Kirrus]

 

We're getting real close to the point we'll ask you to stop digging around in the Java code, which you agreed not to decompile when you purchased the game, Ethan

 

Leave some things to mystery, or if you're gunna break licence terms, at least don't discuss it on our official forums, 'eh?

Sorry.

 

 

I sneakily edited a paragraph in there, have a check

[Blasted_Taco]

We're getting real close to the point we'll ask you to stop digging around in the Java code, which you agreed not to decompile when you purchased the game, Ethan

 

Leave some things to mystery, or if you're *really* gunna break licence terms, at least don't discuss it on our official forums, 'eh?

 

To look yourself, whilst not *officially* sanctioned, isn't a problem. To start using or broadcasting what you find without knowing the full picture -- without seeing or understanding the other code involved, isn't something we'll be too happy about. Just a friendly heads-up.

 

Someone is about to get visited by the Spiffo mob and getting their knees broken tonight huh

[Moose65]

As for your original question (too lazy to quote it), resilient wouldn't affect if a bite/scratch would break the skin, and AFAIK the zombie virus infection is instant. It probably just affects how long it takes the infection to move up through its stages, once it's already in the hosts system. I'll look into the exact programming of it later.

 

If bites are 100% fatal, then that isn't much of an issue. I knew it didn't help in preventing a bite or scratch, but I thought (especially from the wording), that it could help lower the chance for you getting the "zombie infection" from a bite/scratch, thus acting as a second safeguard. If it in fact does none of this, then its broken and useless, seeing as the only other infection that matters is a cold, and outdoorsman prevents those.

 

 

We're getting real close to the point we'll ask you to stop digging around in the Java code, which you agreed not to decompile when you purchased the game, Ethan

 

This is strange, because way back when I was asking for specifics, I was told to dig through the code myself. I understand you may not want it on the official forums, but a lot of people do like to know this specific information, especially since so many traits are confusing on what exactly they do, and many of them have hidden perks and/or simply don't work at all.

 

Would this information be appropriate on the wiki then, since generally people who go to a wiki are looking for specific information such as this (perhaps in a cleaner format).

[f3rret]

At one point, there was a bit of mystery about whether bites were 96% or 100% fatal.

[EnigmaGrey]

At one point, there was a bit of mystery about whether bites were 96% or 100% fatal.

You might even say having a mystery was the point.

[Rathlord]

Generally speaking (and keep in mind neither I nor Kirrus is looking to speak for TIS as a company here) I think TIS would prefer if some of this specific information wasn't made public, because it unravels some of the mystery of the game and that can ruin the fun. And if you put information out there, people will read it, even if they don't necessarily want to or wouldn't have gone looking for it without it being readily available.

 

That being said, we don't try to control the content of the wiki. All I can tell you, for sure, is that TIS would prefer if the information not be spread. If people really want to look, they can do that for themselves.

[Moose65]

Generally speaking (and keep in mind neither I nor Kirrus is looking to speak for TIS as a company here) I think TIS would prefer if some of this specific information wasn't made public, because it unravels some of the mystery of the game and that can ruin the fun. And if you put information out there, people will read it, even if they don't necessarily want to or wouldn't have gone looking for it without it being readily available.

 

That being said, we don't try to control the content of the wiki. All I can tell you, for sure, is that TIS would prefer if the information not be spread. If people really want to look, they can do that for themselves.

 

Fair enough I suppose, but that brings me back to a problem I mentioned a few months ago when they were asking for balance feedback for traits.

 

When we don't even know if some traits work, or what they even affect, it makes it hard to judge them. Case in point again, I bring up Resilient, and to quote the tooltip exactly: ""Less prone to disease. Slower rate of zombification."

 

This trait was brought out long before medical infection, so I'm under the assumption that it doesn't affect regular infections (which I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing any notes about it). Just going by the text, I "assumed" that it was a second layer of defense against zombification (at least from scratches), and if for some reason you didn't take outdoorsmen (which at 2 points theres no reason other than RP to not take), gave you protection from colds and infection via scratches.

 

But, with the code revealed above (which may not be complete), indicates that it does not affect "zombie" infection chances. I know you could argue that its not a "disease", as they've stated before that it could be space wizards for as far as we know. But with this new knowledge, that trait is now completely worthless, when before I considered it essential for anyone wanting to have extra protection from zombification. As a side effect, that also makes prone to illness completely free points, since colds are the only thing you have to worry about, and outdoorsmen makes you immune. This completely changes my views on both traits, from resilient being useful and a auto include in my builds, while prone to illness being viewed as a death sentence, to resilient now being completely awful and prone to illness another free point no brainer for all builds (since it gives -4, and outdoorsmen completely cancels it while giving you +2).

 

Long story short, if we could at least get better tooltips or explanations on traits that would go a long ways towards clearing up things. While having exact numbers is nice, I understand they may not want to reveal that, so at least saying "hey, resilient does help prevent (zombie) infection", or that they intend for it to work with regular infections, would help a lot. Right now players have to dig to find lots of information, like Night Owl being completely broken, or baseball player providing a bonus to swing speed with bats.

 

Sorry for the long post, but the trait system could definitely use some better tooltips, and if possible, an short explanation on the more confusing ones for what their intended/not intended to do. They can keep infection rates hidden if they really want, but at least it would be nice to know if something like resilient or prone to illness does or does not affect it, or if its simply currently not implemented, but intended to, later on.

[EnigmaGrey]

It's only useless if you want to min/max and have prior knowledge of this, though. For the setting, and for the normal user, it's appropriate to have it obfusucated and potentially meaningless.

Traits and professions often aren't meant to be clear, but having feedback on what people feel those traits do, is still important.

Look at the respawning discussions to see how knowing precisely what happens sort of ruins people's perception of the game's mechanics.

(I'll leave the "you can doesn't mean you should" disucssion for . . . others.)

[Moose65]

It's only useless if you want to min/max and have prior knowledge of this, though. For the setting, and for the normal user, it's appropriate to have it obfusucated and potentially meaningless.

Traits and professoins often aren't meant to be clear, but having feedback on what people feel those traits do, is still important.

Look at the respawning discussoins to see how knowing precisely what happens sort of ruins people's perception of the game's mechanics.

 

I somewhat remember the respawning mechanics discussions from way back. Its been awhile, but I think most of it was caused by confusion on how it worked, with people thinking zombies could repop in front of them, or inside their base, until it was clearly explained.

 

I think a lot of it had more to do with "respawn" being a dirty word, and confusion on how it would work, since people were still hung up on the idea that it was feasible to have zombies constantly spawn in from the edges of the map, but that isn't really possible due to the CPU issues it would cause? Been awhile, but thats what I'm recalling from it.

 

I'm having a little bit of trouble though understanding how useful feedback is when a lot of times it could be simply a placebo effect players are responding to. They may feel safer when they take traits like resilient (like I did), and report that its useful and fairly budgeted, but then report that prone to illness is a death sentence (again, because of how I believed it worked, and the few times I took it I quickly got a zombie infection from scratches, thus giving feedback that this skill is a horrible negative), when, if that code snippet is correct, its indeed free points.

 

Again, it may be obvious that I like to min/max a build at times, for example, if I'm wanting to build someone extremely resistant to zombies, I always take self defense class, thick skin, and resilient (under false pretenses). I also understand that some people don't want exact information revealed. Honestly, I would be happy with a middle ground, with traits telling what they help with, but not necessarily revealing exact numbers. Easy example would be baseball player. Currently it states "+1 Blunt Accuracy". Would it be so harmful to change to "+1 Blunt Accuracy. Slightly faster bat swings." Or if for example, resilient went from saying "Less prone to disease. Slower rate of zombification." to saying "Less prone to colds. Slower rate of zombification." (under the assumption it doesn't work against infection or zombie infection).

 

Mechanics are still hidden, and tooltips are more clearer on what they do.

[Blasted_Taco]

It's only useless if you want to min/max and have prior knowledge of this, though. For the setting, and for the normal user, it's appropriate to have it obfusucated and potentially meaningless.

Traits and professions often aren't meant to be clear, but having feedback on what people feel those traits do, is still important.

Look at the respawning discussions to see how knowing precisely what happens sort of ruins people's perception of the game's mechanics.

(I'll leave the "you can doesn't mean you should" disucssion for . . . others.)

 

Yup, came here to said that.

 

Is like that ONE kid who stayed up all night in Christmas faking he was sleeping so he can see Santa Clause and then went to the neighborhood to tell the other kids what he saw.

 

So please don't be that kid and let the mystery stay and if someone ask let them search for themselves.

(To this day i still fucking hate you Carlos you god damn sneaky fucker) 

[Kirrus]

Certainly, a trait descriptions update is a suggestion worth making formally, in the suggestions forum, if you've some example suggestions that'd be useful as well.

 

Remember the team is partially English, Canadian, American and French, so they're not always the best at english-language descriptions (Sorry RJ, you know I love you really)