Timeline and Infection Progression

So Nelson has stated in a recent interview that he’s having difficulty deciding whether to set the game during the eve of the infection or in the middle of the infection.

I have a simple solution to this problem: infection progression. What I mean by this is that maps have different levels of infection, for example a map like India would be in the advanced stages of infection while a map like Puerto Rico would be in the relatively early stages. This in turn would affect the level of starting destruction to buildings, the types of Turned that spawn, NPC camps (for example maps that are in the early stages of infection still have some level of military presence and martial law, while heavily affected maps would have long fallen into anarchy with bands of scattered survivor NPCs), and loot spawns.

Short post but it’s a simple solution to a novel problem.


Going to expand on examples, hope you don’t mind.

Let’s say the Virus started in Washington DC, if there was a map set there it would be DEEP in the infection, however the virus might not have mutated all that much, due to the fact that most people have already been infected before the virus really started mutating.

Now let’s say the Virus is able to reach Greenland, this would probably take a really, really, long time, so by the time the player gets there the infection is still just starting, but since it’s taken so long for the infection to get there, there has been a ton of mutations with the Virus.


Hmmmmm. I’ve reconsidered, actually. Instead, server owners could choose what stage of infection their map begins at, and gradually the infection level worsens until the map is in its advanced stages.


maybe this could go tied to the difficulty like

Easy=low destruction,higher chances of finding loot(valuable or not) and food,etc,and maybe more Z’s cuz its the beggining and a big part of population was recently infected(not sure about this),and maybe(because its easy) lower damage from Z’s(like if they were noobs at eating brains)

Normal/Medium:hmm the half of what Hard is,i mean its medium,what else could it be?

Hard=a lot of damage to the buildings,very rare loot and food,half the zombies(maybe a lot died of starvation since most humans were already turned),but these would have experience at eatin’ brains?

Just a suggestion of the suggestion

1 Like

Shouldn’t be tied to difficulty since it affects so many things. I much prefer maps just doing this on their own; if its a map set late during the infection then they should have access to tools to make a map that actually feels like it is. This includes being able to deeply affect spawns (for example, on a somewhat late map, you might want all organic items to spawn in low quality, while canned stays at generally reasonable qualities).


Regardless, infection progression would have a large effect on difficulty.

1 Like

Also, if possible without too many performance problems, make maps progressively deteriorate as you play on it

Basically, the game (or maybe map creator/owner of the server the map is on) would determine how ‘infected’ a map is at the start, and this would increase whenever you play on that specific map in the same server (Multiplayer servers could have this too, maybe as an option, and it would reset only if the map gets fully reset).

I think that if this is possible and worth the effort, it could also maybe help with maybe a separate mode where you can perhaps reverse or counter the infection to some extent?


Some of these suggestions seem really nice.
But i think its going to be real hard to implement Deterioration of buildings. but the diffrent types of zombie mutations, npc’s and items sounds really cool tbh

Zombies don’t starve, and the zombies were talking about don’t eat brains.

I don’t think it really will, Nelson just needs to make individual models for how destroyed something is, then he needs to set a timer that replaces all the models with the next version.

This makes it so that if you don’t visit a place for a long time, or will actually feel like you haven’t been there in a while

“That’s not how zombies really work” is a pretty unconvincing argument.

1 Like

Unless of course you are referring to 28 days later, which is an oddity in itself.

Also, the type of zombies that “eat brains” are either the super old fashioned zombies from before resident evil, or plants Vs zombies.

Literally the definition of zombies has changed from brain eating corpses to either corpses that kill people, then those people become the same, or people who got a disease, and when they bite another person, that person turns as well.

This isnt plant Vs zombies, or some old 80s movie, this is a survival game.

Just stop, its a waste of both of our time.

It’s a simple solution, sure, but a needed one? Keep this in mind; just exactly how many players are going to pay careful attention to the amount of NPC’s and the degradation and destruction of buildings? The overall setting, NPC-distribution, and level of destruction in maps shouldn’t be something that is arbitrarily attached to a timeline, or something that is tightly regulated according to various standards; it should simply be up to the discretion of the map maker to decide these factors.

The Turned don’t necessarily have to follow any Zombie tropes or trends unless doing so would actually benefit the game. I’m not saying that having less zombies in harder difficulties would, be good or bad for the game, (whether from the perspective of atmosphere, game balance, marketing, artistic message, or any other measure,) but I won’t accept “the way I define zombies since the 90’s has changed, so the turned shouldn’t be like that” as a valid argument, and I cannot comprehend why you would expect anyone else to either.

No U

But whyoh why would the zombies in UNTURNED be those goofy “Brain eating zombies” that only come out of graveyards.

Also, ti isnt I, that thinks that.

Ask most people what a zombie is, and they will say the SAME THING

You’re both beating around dead horses by this point.

Let’s clear this up. @anon24515308, do you want stereotypical brain-eating zombies? No? That’s what I thought.

@Aj_Gaming, can you accept that the Turned don’t always have to follow zombie tropes? Yes? Good.

Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

sure. I suppose.

Now lets discuss the stereotypical ham sandwich

1 Like

The fuck does that have to do with turned starving after months of being infected? It doesn’t matter what you want them to eat there’s a lot of them to feed and very little infrastructure to get it to them, but none of that should even matter, because we should be discussing why that is or isn’t good for the game, not whether it fits a particular interpretation of the word zombie.

zombies, in this context, are like the black people outside my house:

nobody knows how they got there, but they aren’t going to leave

Which is, most likely, how the zombies would function best for a game like this in terms of balance and game design. Unturned II is not a game about realism; it’s easier for the developer if the zombies just do what they already do: i.e pursue players and provide an ambient threat; which, as such, provides the developer more freedom with the level of zombies in addition to placement. Such unnecessary constraints on zombies aren’t really needed, and they don’t make the game more fun for anyone; what if you like all your buildings to be in order, but also want a lot of zombies? What if you want a small amount of zombies, but want everything to look absolutely totaled? Player choice should be supreme here, in addition to the developer’s intent; not some arbitrary constraint on how zombies are supposed to function due to lore reasons.

1 Like

So, no, you don’t want them. Good. I thought you wanted them for a moment there.