More Choices When Making A New Character
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department, Programming Department, Game Mechanics (RD)
-
RyceLandeer
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:46 am
- Location: Spokane, WA
-
Sarah
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:42 pm
- Location: Nashville
- Pirog
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:36 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
If body weight was to be regulated by food I think different type of foods should have varied effects. People eating large amounts of bread should become larger than people eating carrots.
But such a system could be very advanced...because the amount of manual labour and such should also have an effect then.
But such a system could be very advanced...because the amount of manual labour and such should also have an effect then.
Eat the invisible food, Industrialist...it's delicious!
- Anthony Roberts
- Posts: 2578
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
- Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
That's how I want to see it, honestly.
The more stranious work you do (Digging, chopping, farming, building, etc) your muscles build. The more simple work you do (Fishing, cooking, clothing making, travelling (Debateable), etc) the more your muscles loosen.
As for food, depending on what food you eat, you grow large or small in weight. So eating carrots verses eating potatoes, with the latter you'll grow fat. But too many of the carrots, you'll grow skinny and, eating nothing you'll become melnurished (After your muscles become nothing, since they will be eaten away by your body if you starve).
I also agree with the ability to change how much you eat a day, as well. If you were to eat 200% of the daily food, you'd get healthier quicker (Instead of 1% of health gain a day, perhaps 2%) - but if you're running low on food, bring it down to 50% food a day, and instead of losting 2% health, you only lose 1%.
This is what I think should be done (And I'm pestering for it, although I think this is somewhat what's already been agreed upon).
The more stranious work you do (Digging, chopping, farming, building, etc) your muscles build. The more simple work you do (Fishing, cooking, clothing making, travelling (Debateable), etc) the more your muscles loosen.
As for food, depending on what food you eat, you grow large or small in weight. So eating carrots verses eating potatoes, with the latter you'll grow fat. But too many of the carrots, you'll grow skinny and, eating nothing you'll become melnurished (After your muscles become nothing, since they will be eaten away by your body if you starve).
I also agree with the ability to change how much you eat a day, as well. If you were to eat 200% of the daily food, you'd get healthier quicker (Instead of 1% of health gain a day, perhaps 2%) - but if you're running low on food, bring it down to 50% food a day, and instead of losting 2% health, you only lose 1%.
This is what I think should be done (And I'm pestering for it, although I think this is somewhat what's already been agreed upon).
-- Anthony Roberts
-
RyceLandeer
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:46 am
- Location: Spokane, WA
- glitterdown
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 10:32 pm
- Location: Detroit, MI
- Dragonslayer4ever
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:31 am
- Location: On the lonely road of lost souls
- Dragonslayer4ever
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:31 am
- Location: On the lonely road of lost souls
- Black Canyon
- Posts: 1378
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:25 am
- Location: the desert
-
Appleide
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 6:39 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
The Industriallist
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:25 pm
Anthony Roberts wrote:I also agree with the ability to change how much you eat a day, as well. If you were to eat 200% of the daily food, you'd get healthier quicker (Instead of 1% of health gain a day, perhaps 2%) - but if you're running low on food, bring it down to 50% food a day, and instead of losting 2% health, you only lose 1%.
if you graph those points, it looks odd...
0: -2
.5: -1
1: 1
2: 2
| +
|
| +
|
0=========
|
| +
|
+
Not that I look at it, maybe it is good... But what function would you fit to it?
Last edited by The Industriallist on Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If I can be a good crackhead, I can be a good Christian"
-A subway preacher
-A subway preacher
- Anthony Roberts
- Posts: 2578
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
- Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
It may look odd, but it makes sense.
Eating 0% food a day, would cause you a loss of 2% health.
Eating 100% food a day, would cause you to gain 1% health.
That's fixed, and can't be changed.
So then, how would one only lose 1% health? Obviously, half as much as they would to lose 2%. So, eat 50%.
And how would one gain 2% instead of 1%? Obviously, twice as much. So eat 200%.
That's how I figured it out, makes sense to me... Do you have any other calculations that could work?
Eating 0% food a day, would cause you a loss of 2% health.
Eating 100% food a day, would cause you to gain 1% health.
That's fixed, and can't be changed.
So then, how would one only lose 1% health? Obviously, half as much as they would to lose 2%. So, eat 50%.
And how would one gain 2% instead of 1%? Obviously, twice as much. So eat 200%.
That's how I figured it out, makes sense to me... Do you have any other calculations that could work?
-- Anthony Roberts
-
The Industriallist
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:25 pm
Sorry my graph didn't come out right...
The logical thing to my mind is to infer by linear interpolation that:
67% food
no change
33% food
lose 1% per day
to extrapolate a bit, 133% food
gain 2% health.
That would be the linear system. Later I will do the math and post the function for your proposal...
The logical thing to my mind is to infer by linear interpolation that:
67% food
33% food
to extrapolate a bit, 133% food
That would be the linear system. Later I will do the math and post the function for your proposal...
"If I can be a good crackhead, I can be a good Christian"
-A subway preacher
-A subway preacher
- Anthony Roberts
- Posts: 2578
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:45 pm
- Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
-
The Industriallist
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:25 pm
But that just isn't true. If you eat 100% food, you gain health. You can sustain health by eating less. since you can't set how much you eat, that can only be done by dropping food, but you can starve one day and eat two days (67% eating) and have no net change in health. So obviously 100% isn't the no change level.
I plugged your numbers into a lowest-order polynomial fitting technique, and fount the simplest function that generates them:
y = health % change per day
x = food level (100% = 1)
y = -2x^3 + 5x^2 - 2
It fits all your points. No simpler function will.
Anthony Roberts wrote:Eating 100% food a day, would cause you to gain 1% health.
I plugged your numbers into a lowest-order polynomial fitting technique, and fount the simplest function that generates them:
y = health % change per day
x = food level (100% = 1)
y = -2x^3 + 5x^2 - 2
It fits all your points. No simpler function will.
"If I can be a good crackhead, I can be a good Christian"
-A subway preacher
-A subway preacher
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
