安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題的作者已將一篇留言標為問題解答。
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
The zombie infection is different and doesn’t require a wound to become infected. It uses the same moodlet so it’s hard to tell if it is that or a wound infection if you get both.
They can kill you. They also produce the queasy to fever moodlet and can be fatal if you don’t spend time resting and healing.
What I know - if you have a food you can ignore the common infection: you can not disinfect and not change the bandages and not remove the bandages at all. Nothing critical ll not happen.
There is a possibility that the common infection increases the character's fatigue and causes drowsiness. Maybe... Maybe not... Maybe it was somthing else...
And - queasy is a good thing in winter. Your body will receive additional heat.
Another truth about PZ is - dirty rags is cheap and good disinfectant and antibiotic... two in one.
Most of my cuts in my most recent playthrough were from sprinting and then falling over, or getting scratched by a zombie.
I looked on the wiki and apparently they also changed zombified infection chance of scratch (when I looked at it a while back, scratches were 25% zombified chance). Its like 7% now, but they added lacerations (basically old zombified chance of scratch). The wiki says a bite is 100% now, but I remember looking at it awhile back and it said it was 96%, did they change that?
Apparently there were some bugs in the code that sometimes a bite could be survived. I think that has been fixed.
But, with the lacerations, RNG has been against me. The last 6 characters I had all got zombification from a single laceration. (100%)
And that’s absolutely fine if you have food and time to take it easy... but in games I have had with large numbers of zombies and scarce food, wound infections can be fatal... and this is with zombie virus deactivated (no transmission no lethality).
Only hand injuries are critical, everything else is nothing that someday will heal by itself. But wounds of the hands still cannot be treated immediately, exactly when necessary, but after it is not in a hurry. And If you injure your character's hands, then you do not need to practice medicine, but think about what you are doing wrong.
Doesn't really matter, honestly. If it does kill, then it does. If it doesn't kill, it SHOULD.
It's a fact that's been older than history that untended wounds can develop runaway bacterial infections which are very likely to kill. Being a realistic based simulation that this game is, it would make sense that they would include one of the most basic medical practices because it CAN kill you. The question should be why it isn't killing. The problem is, hardly anyone is looking into that.
Think of it this way. Every one of the treatable injuries you can get will be fatal if left untreated, except for broken bones and (supposedly) infections. The former is understandable, but it has noticeable effects on your character which could directly influence your survival, and therefore serve a reason to be treated. The latter (supposedly), however, could be left untended for the duration of the injury without any drawbacks, aside from slower healing (which is hardly worth considering in this case). In that sense, why are they in the game? What purpose does it serve as an injury that would convince you that it's anything more than a 'mild inconvenience?'
I'm more interested to know whether it was intended to kill or not. These stories don't give answers. One side could be misled, or the other, negligent. Perhaps even both.
No matter which, I'm getting the sense that something is wrong with it either way. If it is supposed to kill, people should not be getting away with 'patch it and forget it' all the time. If not, that raises a question about how the others are dying in the first place. Sure, there are logical ways to say it is what it is, like lucky RNG or misdiagnosed cause-of-death. However, you could not get me to believe that for as many times as this debate occurs, everyone on one side of the argument has made the exact same mistake in their conclusion.
The. Facts. Don't. Add. Up.
The stories of both sides make every bit of sense that they should be right, but one cannot be right without proving the other wrong. It is not possible to die from an infection if you cannot die from an infection, but if you die from an infection, then you must be able to die from an infection.
See the problem here?