More Choices When Making A New Character

[Anthony Roberts]

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.

Eating 100% food a day, would cause you to gain 1% health.

Ahh! Sorry, my brain shut off. Yes, 100% you gain 1% health, so then for "no change", I guess it could be 67%, as you state.

However, though, are we going to expect the players to know these calculations? We'll want something "basic" for them to understand. I still feel that using 50% and 200% would be easiest on the player, and obvious.

[The Industriallist]

But that means that clever consumption choices are better...

The pure zero-point of your formula is 75.75690% and smaller change, according to my calculator. But by using 100% one day and 50% another, you get 75% as zero-point.
By using 100% two days and 0% one day, you would get 67% (I think the best. I would have to check...but it's so ugly...I think...)

So your system is worse for people who aren't good at math. Mine only requires understanding linear functions. The only mistake you can make in terms of efficiency is eating enough to heal when you are already healthy.

Yours asks them to optimize:
sum (i = 1...n) of f(ai)
where
sum (i = 1...n) of ai = food/(100% day rate)

and n = number of days under consideration and
f(x) = -2x^3 + 5x^2 - 2

That isn't something I would want to do very often...

[Anthony Roberts]

No, I think I'm being misunderstood. You wouldn't be able to actually type in a percent amount that you eat, but rather choose from 4 different options, much like when you attack someone.

So, let's say you eat 150 grams of Pop Tarts in a day, you could then choose to eat 0% (0g), 50% (75g), 100% (150g), or 200% (300g). By eating 0%, it would be the same as eating no food, you'd lose 2% health. Say you're running low on food, by eating 50% of yuor food, you'd only lose 1% (Which, really is the same thing. If, say, you ate all 150 grams of Pop Tarts you had in 1 day, then nothing the second day, you'd only lose 2% health. But if you ate 75 grams each day, you'd lose 1% on both days, therefore losing 2% total - the same. But I'm sure it could be applied somewhere useful) By eating 200%, you'd gain 2% health, and would be the same as eating the normal amount in 2 days, but instead it's only for one.

Hmm, writing that, I see what you're attempting to debate over. Perhaps I shall rethink the amount to lose only 1%. Maybe eating 75% food to lose 1%, and anything lower loses 2%?

[The Industriallist]

Loosing 1% would have to be lower, not highter, to compete with eating one day and starving the next.
In 2 days, eating 50% costs you 1 day food and 2% life.
Eating 0%, then 100%, costs you 1 day food and 1% life (net).

In reality I think eating consistently is good, and eating inconsistently is bad. Your system promotes the opposite behavior...

Eating more, the food-inefficiency might be compensated by the time-efficiency. But the other point is no good.
Maybe if you ate 25% and lost 1% life, that might be good.

[Anthony Roberts]

Ahh, but we are onlt discussing the healing behaviour. By eating more than 100% food, you would gradually gain weight (Ie: Projects complete slower, travelling takes longer). Who wants to be fat? And by eating less than 100%, you'd lose weight AND muscle structure (Ie: Projects complete slower, weapons hit with less damage) - There are cons to using the system, and benifits for your health.

So, I think really, it's not "promoting" an unbalanced diet. Just, it's tempting when you need it.

[AoM]

Getting back to the original topic... How would this change be implemented into the current game?

You say that working on certain tasks would improve or lessen one's muscle build? What if we have characters that have been soldiers their whole lives? Will you be able to go back through everything a character has done and apply it to make them up-to-date? or will everyone start off equal as soon as this update occurs?

I'd hate to have my uber charismatic warrior suddenly be determined to be fat, unhealthy, and bald while my wimpy tailor is suddenly a He-Man.

I also think that every skill should be improved with practice... Tailors should become more efficient. Architects should build faster. In the same vein as people get better with weapons that they train with.

~AoM

[kroner]

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.

Eating 100% food a day, would cause you to gain 1% health.

Ahh! Sorry, my brain shut off. Yes, 100% you gain 1% health, so then for "no change", I guess it could be 67%, as you state.

However, though, are we going to expect the players to know these calculations? We'll want something "basic" for them to understand. I still feel that using 50% and 200% would be easiest on the player, and obvious.

it's always better to make it logical than "simple". the linear relation through the existing points makes sense, or if you want to add a bit more stragegy have more and more food create less and less additional benifit. it would encourage a more even consumption rate rather than alternating eating and starving.

for instance:
0% eating yields -2% change in health
50% eating yields 0% change in health
100% eating yeilds +1% change in health
200% eating yeilds +2% change in health

of course then logically 50% would become the normal consumption (and the new 100%) and the daily amounts should also be increased appropriately.

here are those graphs...

linear version:

Code: Select all

+2|       +
  |
+1|     +
  |
 00===+========
  |
-1| +
  |
-2+


the diminishing increase version:

Code: Select all

+2|           +
  |
+1|     +
  |
 00==+=========
  |
-1|
  |
-2+


your version:

Code: Select all

+2|           +
  |
+1|     +
  |
 00============
  |
-1|  o
  |
-2+


the "o" in the last graph is the point that makes no sense as the industriallist was saying... it would be completely pointless to ever use that setting because it's worse than the average between 0 and 100% eating.

don't mess with math people, please. you will only get hurt...

[west]

My vote: Keep it the way it is.

Or the wombat gets it.

[kroner]

ah, you're so conservative. have you no vision of cantr greatness?
and don't go involving the wombat... he never harmed anyone!

[Appleide]

maybe two different numbers:

-one for health and

-one for strength.

-eating is for replenishing health. -
The more strength, the more efficient you are at some tasks, like crushing hematite, so you'd do it faster.

-And every 10 days you do it, you get 1% strength.

-and every day you do that task continuously for 8 turns, you lose 5 % health for tiredness, to replenish that is to stop working, let the food heal you slowly.

-Take the healing food idea off, like say you are at 1% health, because of a sabre wound or some thing, eat 10000 mushrooms and you'd be fine again, it just doesn't make sense

-Or maybe change healing foods so they triple your replenishing rate.

[Appleide]

And then for every 10 days you stop working on crushing hematite (example), you lose 1% strength. But you never drop below 100% strength because walking, eating keeps it up, unless we get astronauts in the future.

[The Industriallist]

Three things:
1) That is just way, way to complicated for cantr. One key thing is how you aren't supposed to be motivated to micromanage.

2) Do we really want to separate strength from health at all?

3) Is it reasonable to curse all the nomads to be perpetual wimps? You can't do heavy labor like that while on a road.

[Appleide]

whatever.... well, it works

[Skimpen]

The easiest way to solve this is just to let people type in a character description, like is normally done in old MUDs. The description should be fairly short and tell the viewer what they see as a first impression, be fairly neutral and not contain feelings.

Example: "You see a fairly tall man with a slight overweight around his waist. His eyes are blue, his skin a little bit dirty from some strange mud and his red, straight hair falls down to his shoulders."

A bad example: "An intimidating man with short, brown hair is standing in front of you. You feel an urge to flee away in fear."

The description could be located for everyone to read when you click and see their inventory, tiredness, etc.

[wichita]

I like that a lot, and that would be a good place to put it.