one moose should give you 90000 Kcal (at least!)

[alone sniper]

Hi guys. 
I saw a Roadmap. and i found out that moose will come to game!  
and i am a little worried about its meat calorie.

so, maybe it is little bit early but i think 1 moose should give you about 90000 Kcal !!!!

here is why!  

one adult male moose weigh 380- 700. and 1 kg moose meat has 1000 Kcal !!

so in worst situation(actually one moose has 300 kg harvestable meat)
one adult male moose (150 kg harvestable meat and 600 calories!) should give you 90000 Kcal !!

So what is your opinion about this?

[Boston123]

Considering how deer in-game provide about 1/4 or less the amount of meat they provide in real life, and much fewer calories, I would be concerned.

In my freezer, I have one leg of deermeat. That one leg weighed around 15-20lbs, and the animal was taken in early spring. That is just lean meat, not fat and organ meats.

[alone sniper]

 

1 hour ago, Boston123 said:

Considering how deer in-game provide about 1/4 or less the amount of meat they provide in real life, and much fewer calories, I would be concerned.

In my freezer, I have one leg of deermeat. That one leg weighed around 15-20lbs, and the animal was taken in early spring. That is just lean meat, not fat and organ meats.

thanks for post Boston123.
i think animal meat and their calorie need a big change.

                                           calorie in real                 calorie in game

1 kg roasted venison          1580 Kcal                      800 Kcal

1 kg roasted bear meat       1550 Kcal                      900 Kcal

1 cup of condensed milk      982 Kcal                       750 Kcal

and if i continue this will be long list and because of these number i think they should change it. 

 

[nicko]

3 hours ago, alone sniper said:

Hi guys. 
I saw a Roadmap. and i found out that moose will come to game!  
and i am a little worried about its meat calorie.

so, maybe it is little bit early but i think 1 moose should give you about 90000 Kcal !!!!

hehe don't you think 90,000 is a bit to much? 900 maybe bit like deer.

I have confidence in the dev's they don't go adding stuff willy nilly (well one or to times no one is perfect)

@alone sniper and @Boston123 so how much in game calories per kg do you think a moose should be compared to deer. I would of thought moose is way more fatty? so higher calories? I could be wrong just putting ideas out there for the devs to see. Also moose I would expect to be more rare to hunt/ harder to find.

[Scyzara]

The purpose of the game is not to reflect every last detail of reality as accurately as possible, but to generate a game environment that is enjoyable for players to survive in.  The devs haven't chosen the current calorie values for (or the weight of ) food because they don't know better. They've chosen them because these numbers ensure a somehow reasonable balance between risk, player effort and reward.

If one moose gave you 90.000 kcal, the result would be that you only had to go hunting once every five weeks or so.  I doubt many players would find that a lot of fun.

Even black bears are already quite problematic in this regard imo and they 'only' provide 30-50 thousand kcal. I very much hope moose won't give more. And they should be both scarce and dangerous enough to make hunting them at least as risky as hunting bears.

[alone sniper]

7 minutes ago, Scyzara said:

And they should be both scarce and dangerous enough to make hunting them at least as risky as hunting bears

+1

agree. 
actually something like moose winter tick and Chronic Wasting disease could cause lose weight.

[nicko]

I have only watched you mad men/women hut moose on TV shows lol. seems they usually only harvest the best bits, then again a mountain man would harvest every bit they could as it all counts to survival.

In the end it's a game here so I agree with @Scyzara it's not a simulation of real life just a game, some thing will not be life like.

 

 

[nicko]

Also food harvest wise my first thought being a novice hunter but more game player here would be make the moose in between the bear and deer, maybe more slanting towards the deer on resources/food you get, but aggression lean towards the bear, where it might attack you if it's a crazy bull. If thats what you call a male moose.

[cekivi]

Normally, moose will only go after a person if it's in the mating season, you come between a calf and a cow or you corner the moose. Otherwise they just run away and you don't see them again. For such an odd looking animal they are very fast.

Personally, I would prefer deer (and moose by extension) to give lots more and higher calorie meat. The tradeoff would be animals should be far less abundant after 30 days so that even though one animal would be a bonanza of food you may still starve trying to find and harvest one. The other addition would be a way to cure/store meat since 30 kg of meat would rot with the current mechanics before you could eat it all. But that's just me

[Docterrok]

2 hours ago, cekivi said:

Normally, moose will only go after a person if it's in the mating season, you come between a calf and a cow or you corner the moose. Otherwise they just run away and you don't see them again. For such an odd looking animal they are very fast.

Personally, I would prefer deer (and moose by extension) to give lots more and higher calorie meat. The tradeoff would be animals should be far less abundant after 30 days so that even though one animal would be a bonanza of food you may still starve trying to find and harvest one. The other addition would be a way to cure/store meat since 30 kg of meat would rot with the current mechanics before you could eat it all. But that's just me

Also putting meat outside should preserve it!!!

[Mystral21]

I think that if you put meat outside in the snow it should attrack wolf/bear.. or disappear if you don't stay next to the meat.

[Wastelander]

4 hours ago, Scyzara said:

The purpose of the game is not to reflect every last detail of reality as accurately as possible, but to generate a game environment that is enjoyable for players to survive in.  The devs haven't chosen the current calorie values for (or the weight of ) food because they don't know better. They've chosen them because these numbers ensure a somehow reasonable balance between risk, player effort and reward.

If one moose gave you 90.000 kcal, the result would be that you only had to go hunting once every five weeks or so.  I doubt many players would find that a lot of fun.

Even black bears are already quite problematic in this regard imo and they 'only' provide 30-50 thousand kcal. I very much hope moose won't give more. And they should be both scarce and dangerous enough to make hunting them at least as risky as hunting bears.

This is what I wanted to say.

In the current sandbox meat calories are perfectly fine. If (or rather, when) seasons are added though, this becomes different - if seasons don't come with a way to cure meat for long-term storage I'm going to call bullsh*t.

[alone sniper]

 

8 minutes ago, Mystral21 said:

I think that if you put meat outside in the snow it should attrack wolf/bear.. or disappear if you don't stay next to the meat.

Hi mystral21.
Welcome to forum. 
yes, you're right about this.
 

[Dirmagnos]

As long as we dont have any way to preserve food all the talk about calories, be it 9000 or 900000000 is pointless, since player wont be able to store this meat for longer amounts of time to begin with.

Yeah, cool, 150 kilos of meat. But if you will be forced to throw 2/3 of it away, whats the point ?

[Boston123]

7 hours ago, Scyzara said:

The purpose of the game is not to reflect every last detail of reality as accurately as possible, but to generate a game environment that is enjoyable for players to survive in.  The devs haven't chosen the current calorie values for (or the weight of ) food because they don't know better. They've chosen them because these numbers ensure a somehow reasonable balance between risk, player effort and reward.

If one moose gave you 90.000 kcal, the result would be that you only had to go hunting once every five weeks or so.  I doubt many players would find that a lot of fun.

Even black bears are already quite problematic in this regard imo and they 'only' provide 30-50 thousand kcal. I very much hope moose won't give more. And they should be both scarce and dangerous enough to make hunting them at least as risky as hunting bears.

If animals were far rarer, but provided a "realistic" amount of calories, wouldn't that also be good gameplay? Desperation, survival by the seat of your pants?

" I am almost out of meat, but I haven't seen an animal in a week or more....." You would then have to brave the outdoors, stalking game, all for one chance to shoot something.

Many players complain about how, amusingly, the late game is far, far easier than the early game, due to the overabundance of animal-based food and resources.

I would find hunting every couple of weeks a blast, actually. Right now I can leave the front door of my base and chase a deer into a wolf every couple of days. Want to know what that is?

Not very much fun.

The animal/food balance in this game is broken. Scyzara. Let us not delude ourselves. How many posts do you see on the Steam forums, and here, about players with literal mats of wolfskins and deerhides covering the floors of their bases? Multiple bearskin bedrolls? People who commit suicide and stop caring 100 days or less into a game, because they are so bored with the game?

 Ironically, I find it harder to survive on Pilgrim, where it is harder to hunt and amass large amounts of meat and furs, than it is on Voyager and Stalker.

[cekivi]

Welcome to the forums @Mystral21!

[sarudak]

The game could be rebalanced eventually to give more food per animal but only if actually finding and killing an animal were far far more difficult. Plus it would have to involve active player involvement still. Maybe some kind of tracking mechanic. For now the game is already balanced too far toward abundance of calories to change it more in that direction.