Suggestion on feeding & health

Out-of-character discussion forum for players of Cantr II to discuss new ideas for the development of the Cantr II game.

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department, Programming Department, Game Mechanics (RD)

User avatar
Sicofonte
Posts: 1781
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Into your Wardrobe

Postby Sicofonte » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:10 pm

I think it is a very good idea.


The system simple: the more deverse food you eat, the more health.

Absolutly simply to understand for newbies, and no too much space needed in the wiki to get informed all the players.


Encourages commerce

Specially of currently useless goods, as some nourishing foods that are ignored since there is another more efficient food yoy can eat.


Anthony, I really don't see why you states that this system would force to full up the inventory with foods.
A (complex?) example just intended for you understanding your error (never for explaining anything to the players):
A char has three kind of food in the inventory, 500 g. potatos (200 g. needed in a day), 200 g. smoked meat (22 g. needed), 44 gr. rice (166 gr. needed). And it's time to lunch.
Potatos: 200/3 = 133
Smoked meat: 22/3 = 7
Rice: 166/3 = 55
As there is no enough rice (only a 80%), a 80% of each food type would bee eaten, and the loop would be repeated, stateing that now 80% of the hunger has been satisfied (so only 20% is needed):
Potatos: 200/2*20% = 100*20% = 20.
Smoked meat: 22/2*20% = 11*20% = 2.
Finally, the char has eaten three types of food in a 80% and 2 kinds ina a 20%. Given the example of Jur, a char with 100 of current health, we have: ((120-100)*10%)*80%=1.6 plus ((105-100)*10%)*20%=0.1, total 1.7 (2 if rounded to nearest, or 1 if just floor) health points earned by that char.


Code: Select all

hunger := 1.0

begin:

foodCount := 0
for each item in inventory
..if item is foodstuff then
....foodcount := foodcount+1

maxFeedRatio := 1.0
for each item in inventory
..if item is foodstuff then
....feedRatio := foodCount * itemAmount / maxDailyAmountFor(item)
....if feedRatio <maxFeedRatio> 0.0 and foodCount > 0 then
..jump begin
else
..loses (1.0 - hunger) * hungerStandardPoints


I think hungerStandardPoint is 5, the percentage substracted from health when the char eats nothing in a day.


And I don't care about code complexity concerning the players: they shouldn't deal with that issues. A chess machine could be quite complex, but the player doesn't have to understant artificial neural networks, self-organizing maps or even the minimax problem, isn't it?
Concerning the code, the only requirement is to be fast, and the only goal is to facilitate playability (easy interface plus diversity plus fun) and realism (again diversity and fun for those realists).
Tyche es una malparida. Espero que Ramnus y Pluto intervengan... o no :P
tiddy ogg
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

Postby tiddy ogg » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:10 am

No, let it die. There are many places where food diversity is impossible, even more of a learning curve for new players, and if it's a prog problem, well... there are far more important things than further complexity.
User avatar
Anthony Roberts
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Postby Anthony Roberts » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:54 am

Personally, my mind has changed on this idea, rereading the post. Jur, I believe this is - presently - a good idea. Mainly because before we had the restriction of the "Find out in game" rule. This rule no longer exists.

Plus, Tiddy, your argument is... well... invalid, to be nice. Learning Curve? When a new player joins, it pretty much tells you to go to the Wiki, and learn what you can. If you don't understand something, you go to the Wiki, and read up on it if a topic exists. Learning Curve? We're trying to eliminate that with the Wiki.

Programming problem? Jur -IS- programming. If he thinks it's possible, then it's possible, and he would be the one to know - I've worked with him before.

You have my support on this suggestion.
-- Anthony Roberts
User avatar
Marian
Posts: 3190
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:16 am

Postby Marian » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:04 pm

I don't really like it, personally...for one thing it makes things harder for travellers. One of my chars went through a lot of trouble to get a salting barrel built in a place thats far, far away from wood so that they could have the lightest food possible, and now if this were implemented they would have to load themselves down with heavy foods on every trip or steadily lose their health?

I'm all for seeing people eat more varieties of food and everything, but this is one of those cases where realism kills fun and it should probably be left alone.

And of course as usual its a suggestion that's more about punishing players for doing things 'wrong' and then trying to force them to do it 'right'. In fact it's always seems like a good amount of the suggestions everybody makes here are like that... If you guys just have to try and make everybody do everything a certain way, couldn't you at the very least lose that mentality?

If it was just the part about eating a variety of foods, (or even take it further and make it just a variety of cooked foods) to get your health above 100, maybe even gradually heal someone who was injured and didn't have access to healing food, then sure I could see myself being for that...I've tried RPing a cook and it would be nice to actually be able to make a profit on sushi and pancakes and things instead of just doing all that work and then giving them away.

But then of course there's the part about punishing everybody who doesn't want to deal with carrying around a bunch of different food types everywhere they go, on top of all the other micromanagement (just about all newspawns, and probably most people in general), and then taking away healing food while you're at it to make combat even less likely to happen (I'm sorry but none of my chars are ever going ot get in a battle when they know they'll have to wait till lunch time the next day before being able to heal any....) and that's where I stop supporting this.
User avatar
formerly known as hf
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: UK

Postby formerly known as hf » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:13 pm

I'm not sure about this.

On the one hand, I welcome it - although I'd say it's a bit to strict as advertised. I think it should be less about a variation of food, but prepared vs. raw foods.

Marian is right about it causing difficulty for travellers - if they then have to collect a variety of foods.





As an alternative. How about a diet of only raw foods slowly increases tiredness.
But that a constant diet of prepared food - even if it's only one type - decreases tiredness?


That way, travellers are not affected - as they will already likely be taking prepared food.

It would boost the appeal of prepared food for the general populace - something which needs to be done (as most characters still live on raw carrots...) And it'd make cooking a viable job...
Whoever you vote for.

The government wins.
User avatar
Oasis
Posts: 4566
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 5:30 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Oasis » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:19 pm

I like it, HF! Let's do it! (oops, sorry, formally HF)

It shouldn't affect tiredness so much that it becomes a big problem immediately, but slowly over time, if that's all someone eats, it should have a noticable affect.
If you're going through hell...........keep going!
...............................................................
Former GAB chair, PerD chair, PD chair
Frits
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Frits » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:28 pm

That reminds me of a old post.. uhm anyway, there were more factors mentioned that determined health. A char spawns at 67% health, that's the minimum unless you get hit or bitten (or ill).
Health increases by wearing multiple layers of clothing, owning a house or vehicle and a bed, a change of work every so many days and a varied diet.
Sometimes you catch a cold, 5 points down and you recover 1 point a day automatically. It should also decrease during very bad weather so that left just a few new implementations wanting.
So it's not just health but a sense of wellbeing added to the same stat. If it's more sensible to suggest and discuss them one by one i'm going to have to believe you. We may be better off discussing this suggestion first: So it's not just health but a sense of wellbeing added to the same stat
User avatar
Oasis
Posts: 4566
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 5:30 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Oasis » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:55 pm

Now you're making it sooooo much more complicated, and it will never be implemented. One piece of the puzzle at a time, and I don't think developing a well-being stat should be the first. It can be added later, and everything adjusted. Let's just do this prepared-food one first, so the benefits can be seen soon.
If you're going through hell...........keep going!
...............................................................
Former GAB chair, PerD chair, PD chair
Frits
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Frits » Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:11 pm

No i do not intend to make it complicated and that's a subjective opinion. I also do not intend to let all chars do projects at lesser speed due to lower health. I should have been more curt but i was trying to remember things said...
Let's take one step backwards, health is one thing, tiredness is another and just as servicable for this suggestion, where does being wellfed fit in to?
User avatar
Sicofonte
Posts: 1781
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Into your Wardrobe

Postby Sicofonte » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:01 pm

Marian wrote:if this were implemented they would have to load themselves down with heavy foods on every trip or steadily lose their health?

Just two kind of foods would be enough to avoid any loss, and you don't need to have more weight, just more diversificated. Any traveler can have a kind of vegetable and smoked meat in her/his inventory.

Marian wrote:I'm all for seeing people eat more varieties of food and everything, but this is one of those cases where realism kills fun and it should probably be left alone.

Everyone tends to say that forcing the chars to do more things kills fun. But it is preciselly the diversification what makes me gat fun -shrugs-.

Marian wrote:And of course as usual its a suggestion that's more about punishing players for doing things 'wrong' and then trying to force them to do it 'right'. In fact it's always seems like a good amount of the suggestions everybody makes here are like that... If you guys just have to try and make everybody do everything a certain way, couldn't you at the very least lose that mentality?

I don't agree at all. The most of the suggestions are intended to allow new behaviours, not to force everyone to behave equal. Maybe you have a victimist mentality that you could change.

Marian wrote:If it was just the part about eating a variety of foods, (or even take it further and make it just a variety of cooked foods) to get your health above 100, maybe even gradually heal someone who was injured and didn't have access to healing food, then sure I could see myself being for that...

It is just it.

Marian wrote:But then of course there's the part about punishing everybody who doesn't want to deal with carrying around a bunch of different food types everywhere they go

Not punishing the people that doesn't do it, but awarding the people that do it. The variables are tuneable, The base health could be 90 and 10% per each food type (then no one would go under 100% health unless starving or harmed)


Marian wrote:none of my chars are ever going ot get in a battle when they know they'll have to wait till lunch time the next day before being able to heal any....

But, Marian, that should be this way. I mean, as in real life or any multiplayer game: to get harmed hurts. You can expect to be invincible (that is, to be able of engaging in combat without the worry of being harmed and having big opportunities of winning the battle) in 1 player games, where you are the only consciente player. That is what I understand form your statement: you won't fight if you know that you'll get harmed and not able to heal up in a long period of time, applying logic, you will fight if you know you won't get harmed and will win the battle. If everyone thought as you, no one would fight ever.
Marian, let's think this rule would be for everyone, not just for annoying you, so everyone would be in the same boat, with the same disadvantages. You can't heal instantly, but anyone else can't heal instantly. The game would be the same, but more logical.
Tyche es una malparida. Espero que Ramnus y Pluto intervengan... o no :P
User avatar
Marian
Posts: 3190
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:16 am

Postby Marian » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:47 pm

I don't have time to write a long post but I'll just say that I still don't agree with a lot of your points. For one thing the removal of healing food also removes one of the few strategic parts of combat, (and the only part where there's any real uncertanty of what your enemies capable of).

Without anyone being able to heal a two on one fight or even a one on one fight where one person has better skills is always going to end the same way. So if this is added the only "fights" you're going to see are ones where the reslts are predetermined - and there's already more then enough of that thanks to dragging and locks. (but that's another thread...)

Now I might be okay with some changes to eating, especially if it encourages prepared foods, but there's no way I can agree with any of your suggestions for healing food. If anything there should be even more ways to heal, not less...projects, furniture, medicine, all of that shoudl have different effects. That would make for this variety you're saying you want.

Anyway, it's like you're suggesting two completely seperate drastic changes at once, and I'm not even sure if they should have gone in the same thread.
Schme
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:21 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Schme » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:29 pm

For the love of Christ, don't implement this.
"One death is a tragedy, a million is just statistics."
Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Anthony Roberts
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Postby Anthony Roberts » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:48 pm

This is exactly why we have the forum for our suggestions, to discuss the suggestions and make change.

Sicofonte:

- What if there were no loss to health if you don't have a variety of foods? So what, you only have Carrots. I think to make it more open-ended, as you say...

Not punishing the people that doesn't do it, but awarding the people that do it.


...It just makes sense to raise health, but don't lower it. Or even only lower it if you're above 100 units or percent (I think this is what you said? I didn't quite understand your point, though.)

Marian:

- Your point is very valid, when it comes two-on-one competition. Do also realise however that reality stands there too. You have better chances of winning a battle with two-on-one. (Okay, not ALWAYS if you're fighting like Jackie Chan or something... but you know what I mean.) - So then, why not spice up the idea a bit? Make it so that you can use 'x' grams of healing foods based on the amount of sickness or injuries you have (Example: You can use enough healing foods to bring you up only 50% of your total health. So if you're at 50% health, you can eat enough to get to 75%)

- This would prevent characters from healing instantly with a mass amount of healing foods and keep them as an active part of the game, WHILE only allowing you to heal completly by eating a variety of foods to keep yourself healthy.

Thoughts?
-- Anthony Roberts
User avatar
deadboy
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:41 pm
Location: England

Postby deadboy » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:51 pm

Schme wrote:For the love of Christ, don't implement this.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we" - George W. Bush
User avatar
SekoETC
Posts: 15526
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Postby SekoETC » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:19 pm

If it was made so that hunger cannot go below 40 or 50 or something if you're eating at least one type of food, but could only be improved by eating various types of food. I think it's very possible to acquire at least two types of food on any major area of Cantr. People shouldn't be living regularly on mountains and deserts anyway, unless they know the tricks (it might be necessary to add more options such as eating tortoise eggs as a daily additional food).

Anyway, if a person was malnourished then they would do worse in combat. Just like Anthony said.

I was thinking one thing not long ago, and that is implementing disease that affects hunger. It might not kill you, but it would make you weak and more vulnerable to running out of food. Also I would like the effects of hunger to be visible. Someone at 50% should be notably thin, while at 100% they would be in good flesh. It should be possible to go over 100% by eating greasy food, thus making you fat. 80% would be starved and 90% would be a living corpse.

The problem of this whole topic is that it sounds very complicated. In reality it would not be that for the players, since you would still eat your daily food automatically, but instead of the unnatural 200 g potatoes, it might consist of a well-rounded meal finished with a few grams of ice cream.
Not-so-sad panda

Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest