Jump to content

Keeping of the infection temporary


jianu81

Recommended Posts

Not sure I agree with you on this one Rorek- it's a binary decision anyways. Either you're power gaming and you're just going to off yourself, or you're going to continue to struggle.

As I said before, this would let you continue to struggle longer, make the game more desperate, and force you to take other (very NON-binary) risks you normally wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to practice what I preach here & offer an alternative solution that addresses the OP..... How about removing ALL indications of weather or not a scratch or bite has lead to infection & add the chance that the player will just become sick after said event? This would remove the "binary decision" & influence the player to continue to struggle which, as has been stated, is the entire purpose of the game....

As for medications that prolong your life, I still think it strays too close to defining the origins of the "infection".... How is a random anti-viral supposed to treat an act of god or a demonic plague? I'm not saying that, that is what it is.... Just that, that has to be a possibility....

 

EDIT:

How about a 50% chance that the anti-viral would work?..... 50/50 is in-definitive :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, running under the assumption that it has *some* physiological manifestation, and is not solely driven by magic (which is a fairly safe assumption IMO), there's no reason why a broad spectrum treatment such as NSAIDS couldn't delay the symptoms. NSAIDs don't work by attacking any particular disease, they just help your body compensate for symptoms.

As far as taking away indications that you've been affected at the start, I agree. I also think getting infected wounds into the game could act as false positive feedback, so you don't know whether your wound is infected or you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, running under the assumption that it has *some* physiological manifestation, and is not solely driven by magic (which is a fairly safe assumption IMO)1, there's no reason why a broad spectrum treatment such as NSAIDS couldn't delay the symptoms. NSAIDs don't work by attacking any particular disease, they just help your body compensate for symptoms.

As far as taking away indications that you've been affected at the start, I agree. I also think getting infected wounds into the game could act as false positive feedback, so you don't know whether your wound is infected or you are.

 

1: Not according to the devs, I cant be arsed copying & pasting the quote but you remember where I put it :P (I am of course assuming that their intention is to make it IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to even make a legitimate argument either way, that's my definition of undefined anyways.... Though, that quote didn't really imply that at all)

 

Additional thought:

50/50 on any given wound with varying mortality rates would achieve the same result.... In that you wouldn't initially know if the medication was taking effect....

 

To add on my original proposition, I'm suggesting that both the status indicator & health bar be removed.... Given the nature of the game, the damage moodles should be enough of a "life" indicator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree with you on this one Rorek- it's a binary decision anyways. Either you're power gaming and you're just going to off yourself, or you're going to continue to struggle.

As I said before, this would let you continue to struggle longer, make the game more desperate, and force you to take other (very NON-binary) risks you normally wouldn't.

Well, you already have the ability to continue to struggle by staying healthy so that the rate you heal at remains above the rate zombification causes you to take damage. But the OP says he just blows his brains out because it's pointless, even if he can prolong his life by thriving and staying fed. So I'm wondering what exactly would the difference be if there was an entirely separate option (Zomb-away pills for example) that did the exact same thing?

It's still over. It's still an ended life that lives on borrowed time. But what does this second alternative offer that simply staying healthy and fed doesn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest (and to answer your question) I'd rather gorging yourself with a month's worth of food a day wasn't delaying zombification. In the future, I'd like to see just a tiny bit of resilience from being well fed, and more emphasis placed on a (basic) medication.

 

And you're right, for people like him, this would make no difference. But as I said before, what I'm not suggesting isn't really for those people, it's for people like myself who are in it for the ride, not for the destination so to speak.

 

As for what it offers, a little bit more time to desperately cling to life and frantically search  for meds to keep you alive. As we both agree, this game is about the time in between you start the character and you die; in my opinion, having more panic and desperation on the part of the player makes a more fulfilling, meaningful experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, in PZ zombification takes an increasingly large toll on your health the longer it goes on. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

And in nearly all zombie lore in which infection is present, people never turn while they are alive (Rage Virus notwithstanding) they merely get increasingly ill until their body gives out (generally due to a serious fever, a very real thing to die from) at which point they rise as a walker. In otherwords, while PZs zombification process might not cripple and bring the survivor down as quickly as movies show it happening, it seems pretty accurate to the source material.

Someone who is well-fed and healthy is going to fight off the encroaching fever and nausea better than someone who is more seriously wounded, less hydrated, or more hungry. While it may be in need of some balancing, I think it makes perfect sense that being healthy can prolong the time it takes you to turn. 

I also see this as a much more plausible and realistic approach to fighting off the infection temporarily than Joe Smith knowing that Valtrex medication or whichever random drug or antibiotic will help him prolong his slow, suffering death. 

And now that I'm in the vein of thought, since it's generally the symptoms of the infection that kill people and not the infection itself, wouldn't it make more sense for things like fever reducers or medications that target the symptoms help prolong the life? That sort of falls right back in to staying healthy in general.

In most depictions of zombification occurring postmortem, I'd compare the infection in a living person to AIDs. AIDs in itself does not actually kill people; it kneecaps and cripples them into being easy prey for nearly any fever, illness, or infection to get the job done. I feel as though PZ follows this sort of idea, whether it was intended or not. 

So with that logic, managing the symptoms via medication sounds like it would be a plausible idea to prolong one's infected life just like being well-rested and well-fed would. I also believe that this is a much more "realistic" solution than Joe Smith preemptively knowing that he needs to stock up on this mysterious medication that he's never seen or heard of before because he already knows it helps fend off the mysterious infection of unknown origin that he's never had before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Let's stop and reevaluate this from the most important perspective. The most important thing being gameplay and fun. Whatever "realism" everyone is trying to argue is entirely secondary as just about any infection mechanics can theoretically be explained by some type of virus, bacteria, prion, parasite, resistance, mutation, whatever.

 

As has been said before if you get infected now you might as well suicide. If you are playing multiplayer you just take your good gear, stash it somewhere and have your next character run and get it.

 

Entirely fatal bites/scratches in zombie filled worlds are great for narrative storytelling in movies and TV. Characters try hiding it, fights break out, and we get to watch the emotion filled road to accepting death.

 

In a game, escaping an epic holdout or battle and then finding out you have been bitten is just an anticlimactic end that usually feels lame. The threat of a single person turning into a zombie in multiplayer just isn't a big enough deal for party members to really be too concerned (especially considering that you are probably just going to stash your stuff and then kill yourself somewhere so you can get back to helping your group).

 

So let's look at another option that gives players more choice and excitement:

 

Proposed Mechanic

1. Zombie bites/scratches have a chance of causing an infection, especially if wounds are not treated.

2. These infections are CURABLE. They cause fairly rapid fever and illness which can be debilitating and fatal.

3. Players can try to fight infections with or without antibiotics, with the latter obviously having higher chance of survival.

 

 

Now if I got bit and infected under these conditions I now have to actually make some decisions since my fate is uncertain. I could decide to run off to the overrun hospital in hopes of getting some antibiotics or if I deemed myself healthy and well off I could try and hunker down and beat the fever. With either choice there's a significant risk of death, but there is a choice and there may not always be a best choice.

 

In multiplayer, instead of just exiling someone or killing someone immediately we now have the added option of taking time out to try to help our companion. Whether that be assisting with scavenging for medicine, using what rare amount the group has, or taking out valuable time to nurse the sick to health. (An option for other players to help manage someones fevers or even feed them at bedside could be interesting, especially if the sickness lasts for days or the player became crippled by it. You would have to really put effort in if you wanted a chance of seeing your friend make it through).

 

So instead of a day or so of boring inevitability we get desperation that actually can create better stories and is more fun for everyone.

 

Would I play any differently or more recklessly now that I know I could be cured of an infection? I personally wouldn't since there's still always the a good chance of death and I really wouldn't want to lose possible in game days sitting around trying to recover.

 

NPC's: This is another chance for NPC's to shine. If an NPC or their party member is sick they would probably become very desperate and willing to trade almost anything for antibiotics (or take them from you). Maybe nursing them to health or helping them out would be a nice way to get a  new ally.

 

I'm not seeing a downside here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I can't think of much other response than "This isn't the game for you." You're misunderstanding the entire point of Project Zomboid, and this is something the developers have said a flat "NO" to. The vast majority of the community agrees. At the end of the day, you want a game that isn't PZ.

 

As a side note, being able to respawn in Survival games is likely going to be taken out someday and only be allowed in Sandbox, so bear that in mind.

 

If you want a game where infection isn't deadly play Sandbox and turn it off or play another game.

 

Edit: And, as an additional side note, you missed the entire point of this thread, too. This was never about making the infection not be deadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re talking about whether to include something that holds off infection longer and we have people countering about how that is mostly pointless, which is why talking about not making it pointless is relevant.

I  think that the point of PZ is to tell an interesting story of “How you died.” As you said a few posts earlier it’s about the journey and not the destination. However, it’s not fair to dismiss OP's opinion as someone who is only concerned with “Winning.” When we all know there is no winning.  Even survival mode is just a sandbox with preset game settings. We all play to try to have a fun game and maybe accomplish some personal goals. We could make getting infected a better experience/journey.

I’m an avid player of roguelikes.  I do not fear permadeath or difficult games. I’m not arguing that most players  should be able to essentially live forever. [inclusions of long-sighted features like farming are more towards the “live forever” side of things than this suggestion is].  I am for making things more interesting.

 

 

[While talking about hunting for meds to slow infection] This would in no way lower the tension or dread of being infected- it turns the game into an even more desperate hunt for meds to try to keep yourself alive long. That's what the whole game is about really, a dead man's desperate attempt to delay the inevitable...

 

in my opinion, having more panic and desperation on the part of the player makes a more fulfilling, meaningful experience.

 

 

So we're both in favor of hunting pills when infected, I just think having the possibility of halting infection until another bite would do a better job of giving the player these desired feelings. In popular media the infected act in desperation because they retain some glimmer of hope (“maybe there's no saliva in the wound.” “We will find a cure.”, “Maybe I am immune.”) As players of a game we know that there is literally 0% chance of being cured from zombification in current builds and there is therefore no desperation. That exciting gameplay simply isn’t present. If a player thinks there's even a 5% that they might live if they get some pills they are going to try a whole lot harder than if there is no chance or if they know the pills may just buy them a few hours.

What’s the fear here? Are people worried that zombie cures means the game will be filled with carebears playing The Sims?  Nothing says the game has to be easy because people have a chance of living through infection.  Difficulty can always be tweaked through zombie difficulty, resource rarity, etc. Arbitrarily making things these things harder, like being randomly killed by an infected scratch does not necessarily make the game better though. There are ways to make things hard without limiting player options, not to mention players aren't going to like a losing a character to a small scratch from a minor mistake, especially when things like lag or bugs are likely to contribute to minor wounds like that.

As far as what we've previously been told by devs...devs aren’t infallible gods and they do change their minds. I’ve seen  them say ‘No’ to multiplayer and a couple of other features that we now have. Even if they remain steadfast there's no reason not to talk about it. Modders often get ideas from this forum and there will surely be many mods on how infection works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of points- it's worth noting there absolutely is a chance of surviving being bitten. It's just really small. If you want that extra panic of getting sick and not knowing, you can take the hypochondriac trait (as I do).

 

You've never seen the devs say no to multiplayer. Since the very first day they always said it was something they were interested in doing but not sure if they'd do. As of at least two years ago they had confirmed it as a yes.

 

There's a huge difference between multiplayer and an actual game design decision, though. Multiplayer was a maybe because it's time consuming and poses certain issues; never because they didn't want it in their games. All of the developers- all of them- are completely firm that getting infected means dying. It is an absolute cornerstone of PZ- one of the core features of this game and not something that will ever be changed.

 

You're more than welcome to talk about it all you want- I never said you weren't- but it's a waste of your time. There are certain things that devs must be firm about with their vision for the game, and this is one for TIS. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, you need to respect them in two ways:

 

1) They're the one making the game, and it's their vision that has brought it here, and

2) That maaaaaybe they know a little more about game design than you or I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As above.

Yes, I'm sure the devs have changed their minds about things in the past - but no cure is pretty much the no. 1, unbreakable rule

That's not me saying it's a bad idea, but it's not for this game and it's never going to happen. If it does, I shall provide YouTube footage of hat eating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...