The challenge I’m working on right now is making district infection something you feel when you play. The map shows a percentage, but a higher number doesn’t yet mean a harder fight.
I’m exploring two connected ideas: faster zombie spawns at higher infection levels, and adjusting how much infection each completed stage removes. The charts below help me compare the numbers before putting those changes into the game.
One idea I'm testing on paper is to tie district infection to spawn frequency. The current proposal gives districts at 0-10% infection no extra spawn pressure. Above that, the bonus rises gradually, reaching 50% faster spawning at 100% infection. That means a gap of 0.9 seconds between spawns becomes 0.6 seconds. The first experiment would keep the number of enemies in a wave the same. They would arrive closer together, giving you less time to deal with each one before the next appears. It would make the infection number something you can plan around before deploying: how much pressure are you prepared to take on?
I'm also looking at the infection reduction earned by completing stages and securing a run. The current ladder gives a total reduction of 6, 12, 18, 24 or 30 infection points, depending on how many stages you complete. One candidate changes that to 4, 9, 15, 22 or 30. The idea is to make a short run a smaller dent while preserving the reward for going all the way. Each additional stage would contribute more than the last. These are totals, not amounts added together. Under that proposal, securing three stages earns a 15-point reduction, not 4 + 9 + 15.
This internal animated chart to compare different starting infection levels and reduction values. It shows infection falling as stages are completed, and how that would lower the spawn-rate bonus on a later visit. The short video cycles through 12 combinations, including a gentler two-points-per-stage option, the current rewards, and the proposed ladder. The soundtrack is Six Feet Under from AUNOZ.
It's a tool for exploring the relationship, not a prediction of exactly how a campaign will play out. The chart leaves out nightly growth and other campaign effects, and we haven't validated this proposed difficulty curve through full playtesting yet.
None of these balance proposals are live. I'd start by testing the connection in Safehouse Siege, with training protected from the extra pressure. Other districts have their own pacing and would need separate attention. There is also a trap to avoid: losing makes infection worse, and harder fights could then cause more losses. We want neglected districts to feel threatening without turning a bad run into a hole you can't climb out of. Would you rather tackle a heavily infected district early, or build up your upgrades before taking it on? And does faster spawning sound like the right way to make infection felt?
-DustyEffsky