Milton Mailbag -- Dispatch #40

[ManicManiac]

9 minutes ago, TheRealPestilence said:

By not understanding that you actually take DAMAGE from letting a buff lapse?  Who on earth would assume you take DAMAGE just because it's dinner time?

I'm still not sure why anyone wouldn't/couldn't understand it.  It's seemed plain to me when I first gained and lost this buff... by paying attention the first time I saw very clearly: "oh, the buff that game me an extra 5% health will also be lost if the buff goes away... got it."  However, I don't often let myself get into such dire straights to begin with, because if I let my condition get that low and something unexpected happens... it's still my own fault for letting myself get into that situation in the first place.    

Edited August 25, 2019 by ManicManiac

[Blankshield]

52 minutes ago, TheRealPestilence said:

I've been attacked by a wolf and and ended up around 20% condition while freezing in high wind close to the dam trailers.  I had food on me, but the cold was already killing me fast anyway.  I was struggling to walk into the wind and bleeding condition profusely.  By the time I got through the hunter's blind area and around the corner, I was wobbling.  The wolf was waiting by the trailers, so I popped a flare, managed to find a place to light a fire with it, scared the wolf off, and got into the trailer with 3% condition left.  If I had had the well fed buff, but somehow, in all that kerfuffle, forgot to make sure I didn't let my hunger go red, I would have instantly died - not from freezing, not from an attack, not from not having food, just for forgetting to not get hungry. 

That death would be a bullshit death.

Why (if you have food) would you be in the habit of letting your hunger meter drop that low?  If you are trying to maintain well-fed, why risk getting near starvation when there is no good reason to? 

Once I'm past the initial "oh crap, no food no clothes" hump, I will pretty much always eat and drink to stay 'full', because if I eat/drink it, then I don't have to carry it, and I'm not adding any risk factors.  There is pretty much zero downside to staying fed if you have food.

 

[ThePancakeLady]

I like the idea of the Well Fed buff still giving room for the extra condition, and having it fill up at the normal rate, as long as you maintained the buff. And having the condition loss, if you lose Well Fed, drop the same way. Gain 1%/in-game hr- lose 1%/in-game hour. Gaining and losing the extra carry weight in the same way. 

Not sure how possible that would be, or how complicated, with the complexity of the game code being what it is. I am a software dev, not a game dev. I believe it is possible. But I also know it won't be "easy" or "quick" to do. But I see no point in people sitting here yelling and having an argument back and forth over it. Make reasonable suggestions of how you feel it should work, and let Hinterland decide if they can do it, and if they feel it would add something to the quality f the gameplay and the experience they are working to create for us.

And for the time being, now that we know how it operates for now, we know to make plans for it, and do our best to not let our condition drop to really low levels, any way we can, in case we can't eat, and may lose Well Fed. And those who are speaking on behalf of a large group of people who aren't here to read the thread or comment in it themselves, can perhaps pass the information along to the rest of the large group that they are speaking for. 

[Guest jeffpeng]

44 minutes ago, ThePancakeLady said:

I like the idea of the Well Fed buff still giving room for the extra condition, and having it fill up at the normal rate, as long as you maintained the buff. And having the condition loss, if you lose Well Fed, drop the same way. Gain 1%/in-game hr- lose 1%/in-game hour. Gaining and losing the extra carry weight in the same way. 

That's actually a pretty smooth way to do it. Most definitely more complicated to code than my approach, but more pronounced in how it works - I like that. And one might even call it more "realistic" *duck*

[Blankshield]

4 hours ago, TheRealPestilence said:

The specific example I gave, having a hell of a lot more serious set of problems to worry about, is why you could momentarily forget to shove another donut in your face just because another one will fit.  Interloper players aren't used to being well fed.  I'm here because a large group of us *just* noticed the gain and loss of 5% of our health when the buff status changes.  Thus the mailbag question.

Yes, I recognize that you presented a complex situation.  What I was trying to convey (and failing, it seems) is that hunger should have been resolved long before you were in those circumstances.   If you have food (and are trying to maintain well fed), why would you ever leave safe shelter without being full?  Why would you let yourself stagger through?  You have food, and a flare, and the things to make a fire with.  Crouch in the bind if your clothing if a wind break is enough to stop freezing, or go shelter in Alan's Cave and build a fire.   And while you're recovering from those other issues, deal with hunger and thirst.
 

I 100% get that in the situation you posited, hunger and keeping well-fed are the last thing on your mind.   But hunger is (if you have food) just about the easiest thing in TLD to minimize the risk from.  Now, if you don't have enough food, that's a completely different situation, but that's not the example you gave.

[Arran]

On 8/23/2019 at 2:44 AM, Raphael van Lierop said:

That was my initial take too, but understanding it better I can see that what is needed is clarity -- the Buff and the changes to the Condition Bar need to be clear enough that people understand the associated risks, so that they can plan better.

I think all is needed to display last 5% with different colour - at all condition levels, not only when above 100%. It would be very clear you die when you only have extra condition from well fed buff and you are about to lose that buff.

Adding condition linearly, ie 5% in 5 hours once buff is gained would look better, but I dont think its worth extra coding time.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Arran

[ThePancakeLady]

13 hours ago, jeffpeng said:

That's actually a pretty smooth way to do it. Most definitely more complicated to code than my approach, but more pronounced in how it works - I like that. And one might even call it more "realistic" *duck*

I was just trying to find a way that did not involve players needing to do advanced maths in their heads, or on a calculator, to be able to understand how it would work. Definitely, it is likely to be more complicated from the coding side, but easier from a new player's side, for them to understand quickly (if they observe the gain and loss over time... some aRPGs I play make DoT and HoT (regen) very difficult to understand how it is dealt by the character, how it damages the character, heals the character or enemy, IMHO.) I wasn't really thinking of "realism", but yes, I suppose it could be seen as being more "realistic", which in my mind, makes it easier for everyone to understand. Knowing that if you lose Well Fed, you have a limited amount of time to regain lost condition, and/or stop further condition loss *might* play into the "planning your strategies" approach used by many or some players.

Your suggestion would work as well. And I would love to see other reasonable suggestions about how it could or should work. ("Reasonable" being a subjective term, of course...)

[ManicManiac]

The system works fine to me... I still think the issue is more that players need to take responsibility for their actions and work within the world presented.  As I've mentioned before, losing the buff is not really an issue if you are taking good care of your survivor in general.    As I've also mentioned before, this game is all about player choice... each one has a consequence (good or bad).  While it's interesting to see how folks would change it if they could... I don't really see anything wrong with the mechanic as it exists right now, and I can't see much gameplay value being added by changing it...

Naturally, if Raph and the team want to make changes that's their prerogative, and ultimately we either need to accept the decisions they make or move on.  I for one will always be here  

 

[Addendum]
To be clear, in reading over the entire conversation.  I must say there are a lot of interesting ideas here.  I'm not saying I disagree with any of the ideas for the system that have been put forward.  I think there are a lot of good ideas here, but while the conversation is interesting I ultimately don't see really see a need to actually change the work done by the team in how they devised and implemented it.  Since Raph mentioned wanting to be more clear about it, well that could potentially be as simple as changing the description of the buff. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by ManicManiac

[Looper]

On 8/26/2019 at 8:55 PM, ManicManiac said:

I still think the issue is more that players need to take responsibility for their actions and work within the world presented.  As I've mentioned before, losing the buff is not really an issue if you are taking good care of your survivor in general. 

Exactly. Which can be said with most issues ppl complain about😁

[GothSkunk]

On 8/17/2019 at 4:56 PM, Raphael van Lierop said:

Yes. Old analogue rotary phones can function with a very small amount of power. There are even some old ones that can be used with a hand-cranked magneto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_magneto

I recall reading, years ago, about the importance of maintaining an old rotary landline phone in the event of a disaster -- not necessarily a geomagnetic one, mind you; it was more of a prepper-type scenario. The idea stuck with me. 

Hello. Phone company employee here.

 

It's been a long time since I've worked on voice/POTS lines, but yes, everything about this is absolutely true. Which is why it's important to have at least one telephone in a residence that is corded right through from the jack to the handset, even if for a 'just in case' scenario. This is because these phones are actually powered through the voltage in the phone line, and not through the power grid. Even if you don't have a landline, plugging in to a phone jack should still offer up some dial tone so that at least you can dial 911. By Canadian law, any phone that dials 911 must be put through, regardless of whether or not that phone is paying for a service (this includes cell phones).

Now here's where I get fuzzy on the rules, admittedly. We're seeing a paradigm shift as people more and more frequently are turning away from landlines in favour of cell phones. The aforementioned technologies have been obsolete for years, but they still serve their purpose even in todays telecommunication landscape and they still work as intended, whether or not people use them. It would therefore seem logical to me that such 'in case of emergency' situations should also work on the cellular network, where in the event of a wide area power outage, your cell phone should still work at least until your battery runs out. I don't know for certain if the cellular network is built with such integrity in place as it is not my department anymore, but I'll ask around.

That being said, we're still as susceptible to EM interference as the regular power grid, so if what happens in TLD were to happen in real life, it's quite possible that the phone network, both landline and cellular, would be just as dead as the rest of the grid. This is, after all, a geomagnetic disaster, not something as simple as a blown-out transformer or an explosion at a substation. However, artistic license must be afforded, and for the sake of the narrative, give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/phone/911/can.htm

Edited September 4, 2019 by GothSkunk

[Stone]

Late to the party on the stim question but @Raphael van Lierop I think they're great. Like @ajb1978 I save them, never judging a situation dire enough to warrant one. Except that is for a true Stim moment: ravaged by accidental food poisoning and exposure from consequential rieshi hunting, I low-condition-stumbled into the fire I was cooking on and burns dropped me 1 or 2%. I was sure the dark was about take me. Then I remembered the stim I'd long carried. It was salvation. Nothing else would have saved that (except the recent improvements to avoid accidentally eating uncooked meat but that's not the point). Its a moment I'll always remember. So yes, the stim is great. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Stone
Typo