Condition has more of an effect than just as a health meter.

[HazardousHowitzer]

Right now, I like the condition system but it could be better. I have a suggestion to what else a players condition could effect. 

I always find myself going out for loot runs and leaving the house with 40/66 pounds of gear (18/30 kilograms). I always have to make a choice. Come back a second time later or come back super-encumbered. I have full condition, which means I would be at full strength right? Maybe when at full condition there could be more of an exception; When at full condition, your character is able to carry more weight, but as he starts to get weaker (slight condition drops), it will go back down to a minimum of 66 pounds (30 kilograms). This feature wouldn't be affiliated with the energy bar. When your character is tired, their max weight will go down like normal and the condition/weight thing I'm suggesting would no longer apply. This might of been a little confusing, I'll try and simplify it:

• When full condition, your character is able to carry slightly more weight before becoming encumbered.
  • When you have full condition but are tired you lose the benefit.
  • If you lose condition points (say, five condition points) you lose the benefit and go back to the original 66 pounds.

 

What do you think? I know a lot of you don't like this because it may make the game easier. It is only a suggestion, I want to see what you guys think, as I said before the condition system is fine how it is.

[togg]

Mmm, I don't know, it needs some testing to see if it reacts well. It could either be too little to notice or OP. I think we have to wait for the changes on the emotional cost of survival to understand better how to deal with condition.

[Viktor Kvasnica]

Hi @HazardousHowitzer,

I think that strictly technically speaking the weight carrying capacity is mainly dependent on your health, or well-being, as a common factor for the tiredness, illness, hunger or thirst. The more hungry, tired, thirsty or ill you are, the less overall health you have, less stronger you are and less carrying capacity you have. When your body is fully watered, rested, has full calories store and no injuries/afflictions, you are 100 % physically healthy and able to carry some maximum weight (correct me if I am wrong). So I will rather make the carrying capacity primarily dependent on the overall health and the health more on the tiredness, illness, hunger or thirst.

[HazardousHowitzer]

@Viktor Kvasnica That's a good idea too. That would be a little frustrating though as that's much harder to maintain. It would make sense though. It would also cure the strategy of starving yourself just to save food. I honestly hate that technique. I hope the developers look into changing the condition system in some way like that, would really change it up!

[mystifeid]

7 hours ago, Viktor Kvasnica said:

So I will rather make the carrying capacity primarily dependent on the overall health and the health more on the tiredness, illness, hunger or thirst.

Currently I think this would make playing Interloper almost impossible.

Already illness and especially thirst have quite a dire effect. Hunger and fatigue have a reduced effect on health loss but how quickly should they kill you?

I think saving your food is a valid strategy in real life and the game. Possibly though the condition loss could be increased marginally from the current 1% per hour. Even at 2% though no-one would blink at losing 20% for a ten hour starvation walk if they started with 100%. At 3% you die in a day and a half from hunger. Realistic? I mean, I don't care about realism one way or another but there are thousands who do.

If carrying capacity is dependent on your health then every time you get caught in a blizzard or injured unexpectedly you would be forced to leave a long trail of possessions on your way to a place of safety. Possessions that might have saved your life once you got there. Quite often I've been reduced to 5% - 20% health by a wolf and had to retreat to a cave. What do I do then after having dropped everything? Why not just have the wolf kill me straight away.

[cekivi]

1 hour ago, mystifeid said:

If carrying capacity is dependent on your health then every time you get caught in a blizzard or injured unexpectedly you would be forced to leave a long trail of possessions on your way to a place of safety. Possessions that might have saved your life once you got there. Quite often I've been reduced to 5% - 20% health by a wolf and had to retreat to a cave. What do I do then after having dropped everything? Why not just have the wolf kill me straight away.

An excellent argument for the status quo.

Carry weight is something that's often come up on the forums but how much it affects you is really dependent on your play style. If you want to take everything and the kitchen sink with you (like most games) you'll find it a frequent nuisance. If you get in the habit of using caches of supplies or only traveling with the bare essentials you'll find that the current carry limit is not bad at all.

[HazardousHowitzer]

6 minutes ago, cekivi said:

An excellent argument for the status quo.

Carry weight is something that's often come up on the forums but how much it affects you is really dependent on your play style. If you want to take everything and the kitchen sink with you (like most games) you'll find it a frequent nuisance. If you get in the habit of using caches of supplies or only traveling with the bare essentials you'll find that the current carry limit is not bad at all.

100% agree. 

[mystifeid]

On 25/11/2016 at 7:33 AM, HazardousHowitzer said:

It would make sense though. It would also cure the strategy of starving yourself just to save food.

I think it would be good to address long term starvation. It probably shouldn't be possible to survive for 100 or 200 days with an average daily energy intake of 1000 Cals.

A reasonable way of dealing with this might be to gradually decrease the maximum energy level - say 1-2% per day when starvation is reached - and allow it to be rebuilt at the same rate (by remaining fed) but only after 5 or 10 days of not starving. So then you could starve yourself for a purpose but would be wary of continuing for too long particularly if you had previously experienced unforeseen events that reset the clock on rebuilding your maximum energy.

[HazardousHowitzer]

@mystifeid Great idea. Never would have thought of that.

[mystifeid]

We'll see. Wait till @cekivi gets here.

[SteveP]

On 11/26/2016 at 6:43 PM, mystifeid said:

If carrying capacity is dependent on your health then every time you get caught in a blizzard or injured unexpectedly you would be forced to leave a long trail of possessions on your way to a place of safety. Possessions that might have saved your life once you got there. Quite often I've been reduced to 5% - 20% health by a wolf and had to retreat to a cave. What do I do then after having dropped everything? Why not just have the wolf kill me straight away.

The players need to get in the habit of not trying to carry firewood with them. Normally in real life, you would only gather firewood from the immediate vicinity of camp and there should not be a great shortage. It may take an hour or two to gather sufficient for the night. I've also seen players carrying 10 kg of water in order to conserve matches. You simply don't carry water with you except for your daily needs, 1 liter normally. I agree that the current method of survival in Interlooper is absurd. When your condition is low, you risk death; it's that plain and simple. Close the loophole. Interlooper should be suicide mode. Perhaps it can be mitigated by some other means. BTW, you must anticipate weather and never get caught in a blizzard. That is a death trap. At such times, you might starve overnight and loose only moderate condition however you would expect to replenish your reserves the next day. In actual fact, you can survive a month on no calories however you must be in a sheltered spot and you cannot exert yourself. Starving rapidly limits your ability to conduct strenuous activities. It is the spiral of death in the wilderness. You must set snares and fish with a minimum of calories. Hunting big game is not a viable option; too many calories expended walking if you are starving. Trapping and possibly waiting in ambush with bait are also potential strategies. Again, temporary shelter out of doors is essential such as having a hunting blind/snow shelter.

The current situation in Interloper is rather absurd in my opinion. It's little more than a game exploit. I think the gradual spiral of death is entirely realistic and is what SHOULD happen if one is in such a situation in extended blizzards without any food caches. Only by having a windfall early could one expect to survive starvation. Running from house to house seems contrived. I'm glad that there is so little found loot especially food. One is better to rely upon scavenging food like cattails. BTW, it is nigh impossible to harvest cattail roots from frozen ground. I suppose you could build a fire to thaw the ground but then the calorie rewards for that effort would need to be much greater. Well let's see if future enhancements can add to the realism.

[mystifeid]

1 hour ago, SteveP said:

The current situation in Interloper is rather absurd in my opinion.

What is the current situation in Interloper?

For me, Interloper is already suicide mode. I don't want to think how many times I've died but it would probably be a shockingly high number.

Personally I find it to be more like a cartoon version of life and any discussion about realism is much less interesting than one about the challenge of the game.

[cekivi]

10 hours ago, mystifeid said:

We'll see. Wait till @cekivi gets here.

Here but not quite sure what you needed me to do. I'm just a volunteer mod so aside from making sure things stay friendly in the forums I have little actual influence

[mystifeid]

4 hours ago, cekivi said:

Here but not quite sure what you needed me to do.

Do you think it's possible to increase the number of Calories consumed by the means suggested above and would it even be a good idea?

You have shredded ideas in the past and will shred more in the future. No-one has proven to be a more reliable shredder than you. If I hear that something is a 'great' idea that just makes me think there is a 50/50 chance it's not. I'm very afraid that I've grown to respect your opinion but if you have no interest I can understand.

(Wow. Almost sounds like you've had a less than great weekend. Everything ok?)

[SteveP]

4 hours ago, cekivi said:

. I'm just a volunteer mod so aside from making sure things stay friendly in the forums I have little actual influence

Human psychology is funny! Being moderator gives you a lot of respect on the forums Cek! Merely by expressing a counter-point, some folks take this as an authoritative rejection. Bah! One should never be offended to hear the counter side of an argument, provided that the criticism is provided without insult and as positively as possible. Criticism is extremely valuable! We tend to have a blind spot and unable to see minor or major flaws in our own thinking. Friendly advise is great!! BTW, thank you for your volunteer work Cek!

[RCCross]

18 hours ago, SteveP said:

BTW, it is nigh impossible to harvest cattail roots from frozen ground. I suppose you could build a fire to thaw the ground but then the calorie rewards for that effort would need to be much greater. Well let's see if future enhancements can add to the realism.

Good point.

[HazardousHowitzer]

It is a good point, but no one wants to start a fire just to harvest cattails. Let's pretend that we're just breaking them off at the beginning of the ice, rather than pulling the whole thing out. When you drop cattail stalks on the ground they look significantly shorter like we're not harvesting the whole thing anyways.

[cekivi]

6 hours ago, mystifeid said:

Do you think it's possible to increase the number of Calories consumed by the means suggested above and would it even be a good idea?

You have shredded ideas in the past and will shred more in the future. No-one has proven to be a more reliable shredder than you. If I hear that something is a 'great' idea that just makes me think there is a 50/50 chance it's not. I'm very afraid that I've grown to respect your opinion but if you have no interest I can understand.

(Wow. Almost sounds like you've had a less than great weekend. Everything ok?)

Ah, that's what you meant

I honestly don't know. From a gameplay standpoint having a penalty for long term starvation (and a reward for staying healthy) makes sense but I have no idea how any of the proposals here would work in the real world. I'm a knowledgeable fellow but my specialities are ice fishing, hiking, and chemistry not sports medicine 

Eh, my weekend was fine. I just never get quite as much work done on my thesis as I would like.

[mystifeid]

1 hour ago, cekivi said:

Eh, my weekend was fine

Glad to hear it. I'm not paranoid. Much.

[cekivi]

8 hours ago, mystifeid said:

Glad to hear it. I'm not paranoid. Much.

[Viktor Kvasnica]

20 hours ago, SteveP said:

One should never be offended to hear the counter side of an argument, provided that the criticism is provided without insult and as positively as possible. Criticism is extremely valuable! We tend to have a blind spot and unable to see minor or major flaws in our own thinking. Friendly advise is great!!

Such a great thought, @SteveP! I am glad to see I am not the only one thinks this way.

[Fuarian]

+1 Let's be honest, if you we're dying after a bear attack you wouldn't be able to just sprint away, even with adrenaline pumping in

[cekivi]

Duplicate post removed.

[heck]

On 11/27/2016 at 0:20 AM, mystifeid said:

I think it would be good to address long term starvation. It probably shouldn't be possible to survive for 100 or 200 days with an average daily energy intake of 1000 Cals.

A reasonable way of dealing with this might be to gradually decrease the maximum energy level - say 1-2% per day when starvation is reached - and allow it to be rebuilt at the same rate (by remaining fed) but only after 5 or 10 days of not starving. So then you could starve yourself for a purpose but would be wary of continuing for too long particularly if you had previously experienced unforeseen events that reset the clock on rebuilding your maximum energy.

You're right: 1000 calories a day over an extended period of time for your average person (62kg), even if they're inactive, is an easy way to become malnourished: a person will drop up to two pounds a week on a 1000 cal diet, and if they lose 30-50% of body mass, they will die. For an active survivor, subsisting on 1000 calories a day means they're likely to die rather quickly. The beginning stages of starvation include symptoms such as fatigue and trouble concentrating (which could be shown as a fast drain on the exhaustion bar & slower walking speed, and longer times required to complete actions & sway on weapons, respectively), which set in a mere few days after calorie intake is insufficient and the body begins to burn through fat reserves. Once the fat reserves are gone (how long this takes varies), the body begins to cannibalize its own tissues, leading to loss of muscle mass and gradual atrophy of vital organs, as well as lower body temperature and a sensitivity to cold. The exhaustion bar would take another hit, the survivor would lose the ability to sprint, carry weight would be reduced, and a debuff on the "feels like" temperature, both outdoors and indoors, would be applied. Eventually (after 30-50% loss of body mass), organ failure or cardiac arrest will claim you.

When the body begins to rely on fat reserves more than consumption, several things happen: the spleen decreases the rate of red blood cell breakdown, intracellular minerals (phosphate, magnesium, potassium) deplete, and insulin secretion is suppressed. When a person resumes eating normally (enough calories that fat breakdown isn't required as the primary energy source), insulin secretion spikes, pulling on the already-depleted reserves of intracellular minerals, exhausting them entirely or close enough. This inhibits the amount of energy a cell is able to produce, leading to cellular dysfunction, particularly in the liver, skeletal muscles, and red blood cells. Then, because the red blood cells are compromised, organs receive inadequate oxygen and fail, starting with the heart. This is called refeeding syndrome, and most often occurs within four days of the time normal feeding begins, though the chance is highest at the very beginning. Once the syndrome begins, it can be lethal within hours, though it can be avoided through restricted caloric intake gradually building back up to normal levels. 

So, on the first day of normal feeding, if the player eats something with huge caloric value, like a venison/wolf/bear steak or fish, there should probably be an 80% chance of refeeding syndrome occurring. If the player eats something with low caloric value, like candy/granola bars, soda, cattail stalks, or partial portions of larger caloric value foods, chance of refeeding syndrome should probably be about 40%. In both cases, the chances of refeeding syndrome upon eating an item decreases by 10% each day, until the fifth day, whereupon the chance to get it expires. 

 

[cekivi]

Neat except for the refeeding syndrome @heck. I don't think most players would account for that (especially if they've run out of food) and it would feel arbitrary as a result.