Malnourishment - My solution for the hibernation "exploit"


rahgots

Recommended Posts

Hi! It's my first post here. I've been playing The Long Dark for a couple of years now I have about 220 hrs and it's my favourite game and I really think it has a lot of potential.

Anyways, onto the topic at hand. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I've thought about how many people use the hibernation strategy to stretch out their food supply. I don't think it's a bad way to play the game. I think that it's a very smart way to save food. However I do find it too forgiving. The Well Fed buff is currently the only reason to keep your Hunger meter filled at all times, and I think we can all agree that it's usefulness is highly situational. I also don't think the Cabin Fever affliction is a good way of dealing with it either. I think I've come up with a solution that would balance out the hibernation strategy without making it completely unviable.

I would solve this problem by adding a new Affliction to the game: Malnourished.

You would get the affliction in a similar manner to how you get the Frostbite affliction. When your hunger gauge is empty a temporary affliction called Starving would appear that has a meter like Frostbite Risk does. While starving, the meter would slowly fill up. While you have your hunger meter filled, it would slowly go down. When it fills all the way up a level of Malnourished would be applied. I would try to time the meter so that if you spent about half the day starving for three days in a row, you would have Malnourished applied. 

Malnourished would have three effects: 

- Lowering your maximum Condition by 10%.

- Reducing your max carrying capacity by 1KG.

- Increase time for things like harvesting and crafting by 10% of the base time.

The effects would also stack to 10 and at 10/10 you would of course die because your condition would be at 0% max.

To remove one level of Malnourished simply stay above starving for three days in a row. You also could not receive the Well Fed buff while having the Malnourished affliction.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What do you guys think? It might need some tweaking, but I think it would work very well. You could still hibernate to an extent as long as you're willing to mitigate the condition loss and debuffs.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this idea, I also believe there should be some penalty to "hibernation" meta. There should be a proper minimum calorie intake limit to decide malnutrition or not, which can be varied based on difficulties and custom settings. Concept of 'stacking up' would help to describe this with a bit of realism. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, yes. Figuring out how the game would decide whether to apply malnourished or not was the hardest part of this idea for me. I thought of a couple different ways it could be done, but your calorie intake one never occurred to me. While I do like it, I still think a meter similar to frostbite risk would be better, because you can never just reset the counter by eating the bare minimum for a day. Though I think now that I would probably make the meter invisible, to make things more difficult. But I definitely agree that how fast the meter rises and falls should depend on difficulties and custom settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this idea.

But I think the stacking of affliction from 1 to 10 is too complicated, a fixed penalty would be easier to implement and understand. Something like 20% less maximum condition and maybe 20% more time to recover stamina. And maybe some temperature penalty, like 2 degrees Celsius lower feels like temperature (the reverse of the cold fusion buff).

These mechanics are already implemented in some way, and the consequences are mild enough so that long term hibernation still remains a viable gameplay option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WillemD - I'm glad you like the idea, but I disagree that stacking the Malnourished affliction is too complicated.

Stacking it represents the slow attrition of our survivor's body. It's simply a stackable version of Well Fed with slightly different effects. I think it's fairly intuitive to understand. Don't eat a lot, the effects slowly get worse. Eat a lot the effects slowly go away.

A one time penalty of 20% to condition is not enough of a penalty IMO. Since it's a hard cap, it wouldn't really change much, since when you're hibernating you don't really go outside a whole ton for condition to matter much anyways. And I see what you are thinking with the Stamina and temperature loss, but I think those should be caused by a seperate affliction, if anything. I have some ideas for that that I'll share later in another post sometime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2020 at 2:55 AM, rahgots@gmail.com said:

What do you guys think?

I think the systems are fine the way they are.  It's been discussed at great length before, so I'd recommend using the search function (because there has been some really good discussion about this topic in other threads).

I'll just echo what I've mentioned before:

On 4/5/2020 at 1:16 AM, ManicManiac said:

Starvation is already meaningful.  I don't think there is anything to fix.

On 2/24/2020 at 3:16 AM, ManicManiac said:

Combat starvation more effectively:
Why?  I mean, I just don't see a need.  What's odd though, is that a lot of what is usually described is already here with us, it's not given a discrete affliction or convenient "risk meter" but it is there.  I tried it out the other day...  After going on zero calories we do get a fatigue penalty, and the longer we go without eating that fatigue penalty keeps getting more severe.  Also, in order for that penalty to gradually go away and return to normal we have to keep food in our stomachs.  The other part I like to point out, a survivor should be able to ration their food/water how they want to, right?  Shouldn't that be a player's prerogative, if they want to eat sparingly or gorge themselves and keep a full stomach at all times (and every variation in between)?  Considering what's already in place, I just don't see a need for the game to force a particular play style... especially when I think that play style should (for the most part) be up to the player.

On 12/21/2019 at 6:21 AM, ManicManiac said:

To me player choice is more powerful at adjusting the experience than wanting to change the game itself.
I think the game gives players far more agency than most realize (at least in survival)

:coffee::fire:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2020 at 7:18 PM, ManicManiac said:

After going on zero calories we do get a fatigue penalty, and the longer we go without eating that fatigue penalty keeps getting more severe.  Also, in order for that penalty to gradually go away and return to normal we have to keep food in our stomachs.

Obviously that fatigue penalty is not enough. Many players are exploiting hibernation meta to save food, which makes this game (even loper) easier, which you also don't want to see in this game. And it is not realistic as well, which breaks the immersion. It is not only my opinion, many supports the same idea. Malnutrition would induce more med-term or long-term penalty, to strongly discourage the hibernation meta. 

On 8/11/2020 at 7:18 PM, ManicManiac said:

The other part I like to point out, a survivor should be able to ration their food/water how they want to, right?  Shouldn't that be a player's prerogative, if they want to eat sparingly or gorge themselves and keep a full stomach at all times (and every variation in between)? Considering what's already in place, I just don't see a need for the game to force a particular play style... especially when I think that play style should (for the most part) be up to the player.

Very simple to solve this issue, make this as a custom option and let players choose the style in the way they want to play. 

On 8/11/2020 at 7:18 PM, ManicManiac said:

To me player choice is more powerful at adjusting the experience than wanting to change the game itself.

Well, the optimal solution from many players to survive in this game flows to exploiting the hibernation meta to enjoy this game bit too easy. I don't think Hinterland devs are really intended to support the hibernation meta and promote players to use the starvation strategy to starve all day and only eat 900 cal a day right before sleep. It is off balance and need to be penalized. Well Fed is also a good concept to promote players to the oppose direction, but that is still not enough. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked my journal and checked my calorie consumption. I think the core of this problem is, there is a too big gap in calorie consumption between "Well Fed" and "Hibernation meta". 

Averagely, in my interloper games, I averagely burn 3500~4000 calories per day while performing all "daily chores" and keeping the Well Fed. In this case, I need to consume 3 bear meat on average per day to keep Well Fed. On the other hand, if I use the hibernation meta, I only need 750 calories per day. My cooking level is 5, so one bear meat can offer 1125 calories. In this case: 

A. It requires 9 bear meats (on average) per 3 days to keep the Well Fed. 

B. It requires 2 bear meats (on average) per 3 days to survive using "Hibernation meta" 

After 3 days, on average, the difference between two lifestyles is leveraged to 7 bear meats = 7875 calories. This is 2625 calories difference per day, which is more than 2 bear meats. This calculation is based on "daily chore" activities such as item farming, walking around the town, hunting, and harvesting, which does not include long-range running or climbing up the rope. If a player runs a lot or climb up the rope, or performs any "heavy" activity, this gap will be increased. 

I think this calorie gap is the key to see and understand this issue. It requires too many calories to keep Well Fed and live, and it requires too low calorie to live using hibernation meta. The optimal solution would be reducing the gap between these two extreme cases. 

In this case, "malnutrition" can help to increase the lower bound of the minimum required calorie. The penalty amount due to "malnutrition" should be carefully designed, and that is why I like the idea of "stacking up" the affliction to describe gradual inclination of penalty. 

At the same time, maybe, I think it would be better to reduce the calorie burn rate for all activities, just a little bit, when Well Fed is activated. This will lower the upper bound of calorie consumption. This is a buff to the Well Fed, which can be a further motivation to keep Well Fed and not to rely on "hibernation meta" to players. Plus, introducing a bit of calorie burn rate reduction for Well Fed can reduce the calorie gap between two extreme cases. The exact number for the buff on calorie burn rate should be carefully decided for balance. 

Edited by sonics01
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sonics01 said:

I don't think Hinterland devs really intended

Then they  will change it... but they haven't in all these years so I'd tend to think they are in favor of player choice and that players can ration their food however they see fit.  

Again, if Hinterland saw it as a problem... then they would address it.  If they don't then I think it's reasonable to assume the creators don't take issue with the stratigy... and if the systems are behaving as they intend, then by definition it's not an exploit.  :D

 

11 hours ago, sonics01 said:

And it is not realistic as well, which breaks the immersion.

These are both kind of weak arguments (usually because many folks often misuse terms).
I'll echo what Raph has stated before about "realism", then I'll echo what I've discussed before about "immersion:"

Wait wait -- please don't use "realism" as an argument for or against a game mechanic (or any tuning around it). You've played this game long enough, or been in this community long enough, to know not to do that. We don't design for realism, and we don't use it as a metric to determine how something should or should not work in the game. Our only "north star" is -- does something create the possibility for interesting choices to be made, choices that will deepen the player's experience in some way.

 

On 10/7/2019 at 5:34 AM, ManicManiac said:

what I'm going to talk about is in general terms... that is to say I am not speaking about any one in particular or any specific examples.  So please bear in mind that as I write my view on the subject you brought up, I'm not referring to your original post so much as the topic of discussion itself.

My thoughts on the subject of "immersion breakers:"

Honestly I think most of the talk about things breaking immersion in this day and age falls into the category of "nit picking" (as you suggested).  It's an easy way for folks to find fault with literally anything... we see this type of thing in all media.  Take Cinema Sins for example: if you think about any movie hard enough, you are going to find tropes and irrational leaps of logic, and even sometimes no logic at all.  My point in relation to games and things that some folks say "break immersion," is that most of the time it's pretty silly... I would say there is never a time when you are not aware you are playing a video game.  So in my opinion it's most often a lame thing to complain about because just like a movie... sometimes a video just needs to video game.

Sometimes this kind or criticism really does have merit... I'm not saying it doesn't.  I am saying that it's become a lightning rod for those who just want to find things to complain about.  So they use it as a convenient cop-out when they just want to dump on something but don't really have anything to complain about.  Let's face it, people nowadays are never satisfied.  If it's not one thing, it would be something else.

For me there is nothing about this game that I consider to be immersion breaking.  I say that because, I choose to accept the world of The Long Dark for what it is... and if you treat any video game and it's constraints at part of that "reality," then it's not really an issue.  The story, lore, atmosphere, aesthetics, and characters (human and non-human) to me are far more important things to talk about when the topic of immersion comes up.

If you can really throw yourself into the world you are playing in, then those little things that can be limiting are not really a problem, it's just a part of the reality you are living in.  I think that immersion has as much to do with us as a participant, as the game does as a means of conveyance.  I also think that too many folks nowadays use anything they don't like about anything and cry "immersion breaking."

And sometimes I see posts discussing things like this, and I recall that wonderful observation from Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word... I do not think it means, what you think it means..."
 

:coffee::fire:
I couldn't stop thinking about that scene from The Princess Bride... so:
montoya.png.bb617467558dd2afb84466b5fe4d0ca5.png

 

On 10/8/2019 at 12:17 AM, ManicManiac said:

Seems to me that the meaning of the terms used are a little confused.  Lack of frustration is not the same thing as immersion.  I think a lot of people erroneously think immersion means "enjoyment" and that's not the case.  I suspect that most people using the word don't know what it means.
 

im·mer·sion
/iˈmərZHən,iˈmərSHən/
Noun: deep mental involvement

So when folk say not being able to step up/jump breaks our "immersion" (a.k.a. - deep mental involvement) in the game, I would posit... no it doesn't.
(I'm using general terms now)

Sure it might frustrate us and even impact our enjoyment (if we choose to let it), but I bet at the same time we are even more deeply mentally involved in what's going on at that moment! :D 

Here's how I see it... the particular rules so far seem very consistent.  Like I was saying earlier, it's all just a part of the reality your character exists in.  All of the other creatures in The Long Dark can't jump/step up either (no I'm not counting attack animations, because it's just an animation and not an actual method of locomotion around the environment).  Everything in the world appears to be on equal footing, so it's fair (I acknowledge I can't see the code so I can't know for sure).  Even with the system set up the way it is, a player can still scale up many surfaces and inclines in ways that the animals can't (because they are not capable of being creative, they just have pathfinding algorithms).  In that regard the player always has the distinct advantage of being able to think creatively and use the mechanics to the utmost that the world allows.

For another example just because you're conditioned to have a jumping mechanic from other games does not mean it's "immersion breaking" just because you don't have a mechanic that you expected in another game.  It's just a design choice.  We can either accept the "reality" we are playing in, or we can choose to let small perceived inconveniences ruin our experience; and that's a personal choice.

The point is... we can't just look to the sky and fly off in the air, and we accept this because that's just part of the reality we live in.  Likewise, in the world of The Long Dark we can't jump/step up, that's also just part of that reality we're playing in.  We may certainly not like it, that's our right.  If we really don't like it we can play something that we like better.

I just think all the use of buzzwords is really tired and in most cases kind of a cop-out, especially when the meaning of the words being used is lost or deeply confused.
 

:coffee::fire:
People playing Super Mario Brother's 3 didn't take a look at the swimming mechanics and clamor, "Oh that's not how swimming works... Immersion Breaking!!!"  I think the problem today is that we are spoiled, nothing is ever enough, and so many people always have to have something to nit pick and complain about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand this discussion, or the need to curb the hibernation "exploit".

I just finished a 105-day interloper run (where I died by getting stuck in the terrain, 😪), and I kept well-fed continuously from when I crafted a bow and arrows (day 15 - 20 or so), and I had tons of food lying around when I died. (Well, not literally tons, maybe 100 to 200 kg of decaying meat spread out over the maps.) So in my games I don't see the need (beyond the first couple weeks) to try to exploit the starvation system or even conserve food. Lack of food is the absolute last thing I'm worried about in my interloper games once I have a bow and arrows. To me, trying to conserve my food in that way actually makes things harder: I'd much rather have my survivor eat their fill whenever they want.

What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

These are both kind of weak arguments (usually because many folks often misuse terms).

This game clearly mentioned "we strive for realism in many areas". If this game does not care about realism and don't care about it, then let's accept and value ideas of zombies, big foots, and alien monsters. Why not? 

You are just nitpicking and adhering to the word "realism". I do understand the aspect of gaming fun and balance is also important. I'm not arguing that the TLD should be ultra-realistic. (Though I wish to see a really hardcore mod with such ultra-realism if someone make such mods) I just mentioned the realism as a part of the reason behind the malnutrition, that is all. If I really wish to be ultra-realistic, then I can bring some journal publications regarding nutrition system. And I do realism has its own value in game mechanics and for immersion. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ManicManiac said:

It would seem that some folks would just like to limit player choice...

 

Funny, you are assaulting other ideas because new ideas like tent and shelters will make the game too easy, and now you are blaming some ideas to make this game more challenging because it limits the player choice. I think I know who is nitpicking ideas around here.. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr. S. said:

To me, trying to conserve my food in that way actually makes things harder: I'd much rather have my survivor eat their fill whenever they want.

Me and some people in here are pointing out that there is a point of exploiting the resource in the idea of "eat whenever they want", by surviving with only 750 calories per a day. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

11 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

This game clearly mentioned "we strive for realism in many areas".

Okay... I've discussed those trying to cite the disclaimer as well:

On 3/21/2020 at 1:24 AM, ManicManiac said:

I don't think the assumption that's been made is correct.  The text in the "disclaimer" reads: "...The Long Dark is a survival experience, and we strive for realism in many areas...It is not a wilderness survival training simulation."

 

Edited by ManicManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

Me and some people in here are pointing out that there is a point of exploiting the resource in the idea of "eat whenever they want", by surviving with only 750 calories per a day. 

Yeah, I get that. My point is that I don't understand why surviving on 750 calories is considered an exploit.

Consider a different "exploit": drinking only before sleeping and going thirsty all day. Why isn't that also considered an exploit that needs to be fixed?

That's rhetorical of course; I know the answer. Water is generally plentiful. So is food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

surviving with only 750 calories per a day. 

...but a human can survive with only 750 calories "per a day," so given that... I'm not sure what the problem is.

:coffee::fire:
I can speak form personal life experience that it's possible to survive many months on only 200 calories per day.

Edited by ManicManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dr. S. said:

Yeah, I get that. My point is that I don't understand why surviving on 750 calories is considered an exploit.

Since your loper character is survived more than 100+ days, he or she should have level 5 cooking. In this case, a bear meat 1kg will offer 1125cal. 

The minimum requirement of calorie intake in TLD using hibernation meta is 750cal for 10hrs of sleep in interloper. (In lower difficulties, players can sleep longer so this might increase to around 900 calories depending on sleeping time) In this case, you will only need 2 cooked bear meat to survive for 3 days. (750 * 3 = 2250 and 1125 * 2 = 2250)

Now, let's assume that you hunted a 30kg bear. In this case, the bear will offer 30 number of 1kg cooked bear meats. Now, under "hibernation meta", all you need to eat is 2kg of cooked meat per 3 days. If you do simple math, with a 30kg bear, you can survive 45 days without eating any other foods, without any penalty. If you hunter 40kg bear, you can survive 60 days without any other foods without any penalty. Since the cooking level is 5, no worries about ruined food. 

Why do you need to bother with a bunny trap? Wolf meat? Dear meat? Meh, you don't even need to waste your arrow and bow condition for these. Or, you can hoard the fishing hooks and stack up a huge amount of raw fish beside your fishing hut, and eat only 750cal before going to sleep. Then you wouldn't even need to hunt anything. At fishing level 5, it wouldn't take too long to hoard a ton of fish.

To me, bear hunt gave me more time-to-effort ratio and lower fuel consumption. So I prefer the bear hunt. As far as I know, the respawn time for bears in interloper is 49 days. Depending on the map, you will have at least one bear spawned somewhere in any place, and at least 2 in "big maps". Hunt 2 bears, then no worry for foods and no worries about any penalty from the "semi-starvation" for at least 2 months. 

With all harvested bear meats, go to Ravine cave or any other non-loading screen cave. Make a rock cache to store your clothes when you sleep. Then, you can bring a semi-infinite loop of eat sleep eat sleep eat sleep rotation, only consuming 750cal per day until your bear meats running dry. When you sleep, you can take off all your clothes and put them in the rock cache to minimize the degradation of the condition. You can do any activity you want during eat-sleep cycle, all you need to eat is 750cal per day before going to bed. 

From the "gameplay" and "balance" perspective, this is cheese. I don't know what else can be categorized as an "exploiting" other than this cheesy exploiting technique. 
 

And please read and think about the post I wrote above:

 

PS) Oh yeah, I didn't even mention 0.1kg harvest cheese and "mountain goating meta" and other cheesy tactics in this game.  

Edited by sonics01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

I don't know what else can be categorized as an "exploiting" other than this cheesy exploiting technique.

Included here is the broadly accepted definition of the term Exploit (with regard to video games): "In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."

Put simply (again), if systems are working the way the creators intended... then it's not an exploit. :D

I'd say the solution to your conundrum is pretty simple... we can just call it: "a strategy you don't like." :)

:coffee::fire:
I can certainly respect not liking a particular strategy (there are plenty of strategies I don't like either)...  However, instead of wanting to take options away from other players for something we don't like... we can just choose not to play that way.  :)  (that's another big benefit of player choice)

Edited by ManicManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

I say the solution is pretty simple... we can just call it: "a strategy you don't like." :)

:coffee::fire:
I can certainly respect not liking a particular strategy (there are plenty of strategies I don't like either)...  However, instead of wanting to take options away from other players for something I don't like... I just choose not to play that way.  :)

From 

This post you mentioned 

First, I don't think these features are needed at all... so to me, how they would be hypothetically implemented is kind of a moot point.
Second, I'm generally not in favor of things that would only serve to make life more convenient for the player.

Then why do you bother with my idea and others idea, if you really care about making life in TLD more convenient for the player? Don't you think eating 750cal per a day is not "in general favor of things that would only make TLD life more convenient for the player"? I can certainly respect not liking a particular idea. However,  "just because I think it is OK" is not something I like to read in this forum. 

Also, I already mentioned above: 

16 hours ago, sonics01 said:

Very simple to solve this issue, make this as a custom option and let players choose the style in the way they want to play. 

On 8/11/2020 at 7:18 PM, ManicManiac said:

 

This idea will make you not worry about playstyle. You can play any playstyle you want in this game. 

4 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

I can speak form personal life experience that it's possible to survive many months on only 200 calories per day.

During my army career, I was a member of the LRRP team. We were not "spec ops" or "top tiers" or anything can be called "special force". But as a member of recon unit of the Infantry Division, I received very good training and education regarding outdoor survival, nutrition, and food safety from the wilderness, which can be compared to that of spec unit guys. 

Mackenzie and Astrid in this game continuously walk and run, going uphill and downhill, climb a rope or descent with a rope, with 20~40kg weight behind their back. Have you ever walked 40km distance with 30kg+ backpack with rifle and ammo and other gears? I did. A lot of times. And I can assure you, consuming 200cal per day for many months with this lifestyle is not possible. You did this many months with 200cal per day in real life? Really? 

Even without "heavy" activities, human beings cannot stay healthy at 200cal per day for many months. Studying books, harvesting from dead animals, repairing or sewing... Anything requires a good level of concentration would be severely interfered due to lack of energy + all diseases and symptoms from lack of nutrition. During SERER training, me and other trainees survived 1000~1500cal per day only for 5 days, while digging holes, trenches, and shelter, walking uphill inside the forest without a road, fast walking following the ridge lines... But even that was still a challenging experience, yet it was a bit easier version than what spec ops guys received back in the day... 

All in all, it wouldn't need a journal paper to show what you mentioned is a lie. 200cal per day with many months? At this point, I'm not interested in your bragging so let's stop this. OK? 


 

Edited by sonics01
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

Since your loper character is survived more than 100+ days, he or she should have level 5 cooking. In this case, a bear meat 1kg will offer 1125cal. 

The minimum requirement of calorie intake in TLD using hibernation meta is 750cal for 10hrs of sleep in interloper...[Long explanation of hibernation strategy deleted.]

Oh, I understand the strategy and the math, what I don't understand is why such extreme conservation of an infinitely-renewable and easily-obtainable (once you have a bow or other ranged weapon) resource is considered exploitative or game-breaking.

If a player doesn't like hunting and would prefer to minimize the time spent obtaining meat, that's fine. That's a valid lifestyle choice, even after the apocalypse. But beyond that I honestly don't really see the point of the hibernation strategy, (since I don't think it actually makes the game easier, speaking just for myself) except as a sort of optimization problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

Then why do you bother with my idea and others idea, if you really care about making life in TLD more convenient for the player?

The difference is in accepting the game as it is, vs things other people want to ADD that would change the experience for everyone (just to suit their own personal preferences).

  

11 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

"just because I think it is OK"

I've never said that :D


:coffee::fire:

Edited by ManicManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

The difference is in accepting the game as it is, vs things other people want to ADD that would change the experience for everyone (just to suit their own personal preferences).
:coffee::fire:

From my point of view, this is

suggesting to improve/enhance the game mechanics game experience for everyone vs accepting the game as it is, without any new ideas and new contents, which is 200th in steam ranking which is lower than other rival survival games and waiting for the game to be forgotten. 

Also, I'm not "forcing" this to all players. These kinds of option can be included as a custom option, and players can freely choose the style they want to play. 

Well, considering you "really" survived 200cal per day for many months so you surely can think in your way I guess. 

Edited by sonics01
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now