Malnourishment - My solution for the hibernation "exploit"

[sonics01]

5 minutes ago, Dr. S. said:

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.

I (and others) think this makes the game bit too easy. It is not super critical game-breaking problem. That I can agree.

But still, I bet my 25 cents that HL didn't intended "hibernation meta" to be widespread and being a mainstream when they design this feature. I don't know about full intention of HL. However, considering the fact that they included various types of wildlife, various ways to hunt, fishing, and Well Fed buff, they surely know about this and they think such "hibernation meta" is not the way the game flows.  

What is the point of interloper difficulty then? Why do we select the challenging difficulty mode, and yet do all cheesy things and exploit all possibilities to play game "easy", and claiming that it is player's choice? I admit even I did mountain goating, but I think this should be fixed, so I suggested to counter "mountain goat meta" in mental affliction suggestion post. 

[ManicManiac]

23 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

During my army career

...and I was active duty Marine Corps... I could reference my military experience too, but I generally don't when it doesn't matter to the subject I'm discussing.

  

23 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

Even without "heavy" activities, human beings cannot stay healthy at 200cal per day for many months.

Not really true.  I did for 6 months, and suffered no adverse health impact.  ...so I'd say it is possible.
It's defiantly not advisable and it's generally a bad/risky situation to find one's self in if they are not ready for it... but it is possible.

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by ManicManiac

[sonics01]

3 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

...and I was active duty Marine Corps... I could reference my military experience too, but I generally don't when it doesn't matter to the subject I'm discussing.

Whatever. You surely survived 200cal per day for many months, so I don't buy it. 

[ManicManiac]

@sonics01
You don't have to buy it... I'm not selling it to you.  I'm just saying that despite what you seem to think, it is possible.

Just like anything else in life, you can believe whatever you want to.

[sonics01]

3 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

Just like anything else in life, you can believe whatever you want to.

Yeah, I don't believe you survived 200cal per day for many months with the lifestyle of TLD characters. 

Edited August 13, 2020 by sonics01

[odizzido]

8 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

Whatever. You surely survived 200cal per day for many months, so I don't buy it. 

I don't either. I would need good evidence for such a bold claim. Personally I have eaten around 200cal a day, maybe a little less, for a few weeks and I was so weak I couldn't do much of anything. I think I would have died if it went on much longer. I certainly would not have lasted months. That was my situation though.

Maybe if you don't move and you have a lot of fat on you and the things you do eat have all the vitamins and minerals you need.....maybe. But you would lose weight very quickly and you would have to be right on point with food choices.

Edited August 13, 2020 by odizzido

[ManicManiac]

@sonics01 I didn't say that I maintained the lifestyle of TLD characters... I think you should go back and read those posts again.

Edited August 13, 2020 by ManicManiac

[sonics01]

Just now, ManicManiac said:

@sonics01 I didn't say that I maintained the lifestyle of TLD characters... I think you should go back and read those posts again.

Even then, nothing changes. 200cal is 2 eggs. You did this diet for what, 6 months? And suffered no adverse health impact? It is internet, so you can mention whatever you want.

Hell, I should've mentioned I was in spec ops group. Who cares? Then people would've more trust me.  

[ManicManiac]

46 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

200cal is 2 eggs

2 whole eggs perhaps... but egg whites by themselves are only 17 cal. 
 I would have 4 boiled egg whites in the morning, 4 boiled egg whites in the evening, a multivitamin (to ensure I didn't have any deficiencies), I would also take a little bit of Metamucil for dietary fiber, and I would check in with a medical professional once per month to ensure I was still healthy.

I did this for 6 months.
so yes, it is possible to survive on a very scant diet.

Look the point is... I don't think there is anything to fix with regard to the game and how the player can (and I think should be able to) choose to manage their food resources. 

If folks don't like a certain strategy then they can just choose not to play that way.

Edited August 13, 2020 by ManicManiac

[Dr. S.]

37 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

What is the point of interloper difficulty then? Why do we select the challenging difficulty mode, and yet do all cheesy things and exploit all possibilities to play game "easy", and claiming that it is player's choice? I admit even I did mountain goating, but I think this should be fixed, so I suggested to counter "mountain goat meta" in mental affliction suggestion post. 

To have fun?

I play interloper and I don't do any of those "cheesy" things that you mentioned. If you don't like the hibernation strategy, don't do it. Those who like it can do it if they want.

I guess I do a little mountain goating, as I understand the term, but I don't do some of the more extreme things people talk about, like getting to the top of TWM without using ropes, or bypassing the underbrush to get to the mysterious fire on day 1.

[odizzido]

Some people like to to challenged when playing to the best of their abilities using all the tools at their disposal. I am on of those people. Waiting for modding to be good so I can make a challenging experience for myself in ways that I like.

[sonics01]

4 hours ago, Dr. S. said:

To have fun?

I play interloper and I don't do any of those "cheesy" things that you mentioned. If you don't like the hibernation strategy, don't do it. Those who like it can do it if they want

Having fun and exploiting the loopholes of the game is obviously different. 

Let's say we have some loopholes and bugs in some games. Not TLD, but any other games. It is not a competitive game and not a multiplay game, so everyone has their own choice. Now, there are some bugs or loopholes to give you a guaranteed pass to the 50/50 chance event. Or, there is a bug or loopholes for players to bypass the barrier/hurdle to challenge players. 

Then, some players suggest some ideas and possible fixes for these bugs and loopholes. Are they wrong? Are they enforcing other's peaceful buggy-exploiting life of other players? Or are they helping designers and developers by suggestion/ideas/brainstorming? I wish you to think about this. 
 

https://hinterlandforums.com/forums/topic/22908-all-mods-are-disabled-entirely-on-new-update/?do=findComment&comment=159412

Quote

What you WILL get banned for is sharing links to unofficial mods, or encouraging people to use unofficial mods. This includes save-game manipulators, which frankly encourage a style of play that is 100% contradictory to our intention for the game. We are responsible for setting the direction of the player experience in The Long Dark.

This comment is about the unofficial mod, so it is a different story from this topic. However, during this comment about the unofficial mod, we can see Raph himself clearly commented he doesn't want to encourage people to play TLD in the opposite direction from their intention. Based on this comment, I see he has his own vision about TLD, and I think exploiting loopholes whenever players want would not be his intention or vision or plan or anything.

You are telling me that you are not using these methods, but then why do you bother with this malnutrition idea? Am I enforcing anything? No, I'm not. I'm not saying we need to force this to all others. In the custom option of the current version, we can turn on/off the affliction we want. Malnutrition would be the same. As an affliction, this will be an open option for everyone to select or not. So I can say the same thing: you can turn off if you don't like it, and players like you don't need to bother. 

Quote

I guess I do a little mountain goating, as I understand the term, but I don't do some of the more extreme things people talk about, like getting to the top of TWM without using ropes, or bypassing the underbrush to get to the mysterious fire on day 1.

Huh, you read my posts? Fine, bypassing the thorn brush at the mysterious fire is a loophole. But you know what? I don't adhere to that either. Mysterious fire will give you guaranteed Mackinaw, and hammer based on chance. But there is a way to rush to bear coats "100% legally" in this game so I don't too much bother or adhere to Mackinaw from mysterious fire. I'm not denying Mackinaw is good, but you can still survive and prosper without one Mackinaw at the opening phase. So, I think these loopholes should be fixed too. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by sonics01

[sonics01]

4 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

I did this for 6 months.
so yes, it is possible to survive on a very scant diet.

Yeah, whatever, Mr. ex-marine-unit-who-survived-200cal-per-day-for-6-months-without-suffering-any-adverse-health-impact. 

4 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

Look the point is... I don't think there is anything to fix with regard to the game and how the player can (and I think should be able to) choose to manage their food resources. 

If folks don't like a certain strategy then they can just choose not to play that way.

This is not a game-breaking problem, neither a seriously critical issue. That is correct. However, playing and enjoying the game and exploiting bugs and loopholes are very different aspects. I bet the intention of devs and designers would not be on the side of exploiting loopholes and bugs. So other players and I are giving some suggestions, ideas, brainstormings to possibly fix or smartly regulate these bugs and loopholes. These are small things, but these details to small and tiny things can make a difference to the quality of the product. In this case, that would be the quality and gaming-fun of TLD. 

You are saying this game has no issues, but then you can make your own posts to advocate your idea, instead of nitpicking and discourage other's suggestions, brainstormings, and new ideas. And of course, I and so many players of TLD think TLD needs more contents, fixes, and upgrades to being a better game. 
 

Plus, I'm not enforcing you or others anything. Like all other afflictions, the new affliction of "malnutrition" can be and should be chosen from the custom option by the player's will. This way, players who wish to challenge further difficulty will be valued and will be able to enjoy this game further. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by sonics01

[ManicManiac]

7 minutes ago, sonics01 said:

Playing and enjoying the game and exploiting bugs and loopholes are very different two aspects. Plus, I'm not enforcing you or others anything. Like all other affliction, the new affliction of "malnutrition" can be and should be chosen from custom option by player's will.

You seem to be missing what I'm saying in each post... so I'll just repeat it one last time, then I think you and I will be done with the conversation (specifically I mean the part where you and I are talking to each other )

Firstly, I haven't been personally insulting you... so I think it's pretty poor form (and kind of a weak strategy) for you to resort to trying to insult me personal just because you don't like what I have to say. 

Secondly... just because you don''t like a strategy doesn't make it an exploit... I've covered that at great length.  However I will say it again for anyone who's still not managed to pick up on it.  I'm not going to waste time to retype it so, I guess I just have to echo it again instead:

5 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

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.

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

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)

Thirdly, I don't thin there is a need or a new affliction. Which I also explained:

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

Combat starvation more effectively:
I just don't see a need.  What's odd though, is that a lot of what is described is already here with us, it's not given a discrete affliction or convenient "risk meter."  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.

now the "conversation"  seems to be just going round in circles... so there's not much more for me to say.
As to your attempts to personally insult me... nice try, but I'm not going to take the bait.
At this point I don't see much point for you to continue to try and engage with me on this topic.

We don't agree, and that's okay... we don't have to. 

[sonics01]

4 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

You seem to be missing what I'm saying in each post... so I'll just repeat it one last time, then I think you and I will be done with the conversation (specifically I mean the part where you and I are talking to each other )

Firstly, I haven't been personally insulting you... so I think it's pretty poor form (and kind of a weak strategy) for you to resort to trying to insult me personal just because you don't like what I have to say. 

Secondly... just because you don''t like a strategy doesn't make it an exploit... I've covered that at great length.  However I will say it again for anyone who's still not managed to pick up on it.  I'm not going to waste time to retype it so, I guess I just have to echo it again instead:

Thirdly, I don't thin there is a need or a new affliction. Which I also explained:

now the "conversation"  seems to be just going round in circles... so there's not much more for me to say.
As to your attempts to personally insult me... nice try, but I'm not going to take the bait.
At this point I don't see much point for you to continue to try and engage with me on this topic.

We don't agree, and that's okay... we don't have to. 

 

OK, a person who had extensive rifle marksmanship training and had the benefit of working with and being taught by some truly talented marksmen but somehow breath holding control is not recommended in true marksmanship  + Ex marine + A person who survived 200cal per a day for 6 months and had no adverse health effect but somehow does not recommend this to others. 

4 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

Firstly, I haven't been personally insulting you... so I think it's pretty poor form (and kind of a weak strategy) for you to resort to trying to insult me personal just because you don't like what I have to say. 

I'm being sarcastic about your claims. I just don't trust any claims from some internet guy who advertise himself or herself who achieved so much like this. So I'm being sarcastic. Why don't you call yourself, you were Marine major who were captured in duty and being tortured and being starved for 6 months but escaped from POW camp and survived and telling this story to others? That will be more dramatic. Isn't it? 

4 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

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

Are you sure HL intended to design all these loopholes and bugs to be exploited like this? You are not in position to call that claim. HL surely know about this exploiting of hibernation others. And they just leave it and gave the Well Fed buff to promote the opposite direction. But that does not means this exploiting strategy is not exploiting and confirmed/allowed to be exploited from HL devs. In my opinion they know about this exploiting from years ago but they just leave it for other reason, not because they are willing to let players exploit this as long as they want. I don't know why they leave like this, but my guess is they don't have enough time and resource to fix such "not that important tasks". I can understand that, but I'm kinda person who thinks the difference in small things and tiny details will make a big difference. So I wish it to be fixed using new affliction. 

4 hours ago, 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

I'm also repeating again, fatigue penalty is not enough. 

4 hours ago, 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)?

If that is exploiting the poor design of the game or design flaw, I disagree. Plus, it is not realistic. But you don't like being realistic for this game but at the same time you also don't like bigfoots and zombies or any other horror aspect ideas because they are not realistic, riiiight? That is very convenient definition of realism for you. Good luck with that. 

4 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

At this point I don't see much point for you to continue to try and engage with me on this topic.

 Yeah, same here. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by sonics01

[gotmilkanot]

Just want to say that Hinterland prioritises gameplay over realism. The loading screen literally says not to attempt any of the game mechanics in real life because they simply don't work.

As for exploits, I gotta say it's up to the player's choice. Just because they're there doesn't mean you HAVE to use them. If you think starvation technique makes the game easy, then simply challenge yourself by not starving. If you think Cooking 5 is too easy to get, then make it harder for yourself by not cooking pieces of 0.1 kg of meat. If you think mountaingoating is cheesing, then feel free to climb the ropes down from the summit instead of the shortcut.

It's a single player game, so you have the freedom to either play the game or "game" the game.

Also, I'm not entirely against the proposed idea but judging from other afflictions in game, I think the affliction has to be in the official modes first before it can become an option in custom mode. Probably why those who are against the idea are strongly suggesting that this will force a specific playstyle on them.

Edited August 14, 2020 by gotmilkanot

[odizzido]

In custom games if you turn off sleeping health regen it helps an awful lot. It doesn't solve the actual issue being discussed here, but it's a huge bandaid.

[gotmilkanot]

1 hour ago, odizzido said:

In custom games if you turn off sleeping health regen it helps an awful lot. It doesn't solve the actual issue being discussed here, but it's a huge bandaid.

Come to think of it, it actually does solve the problem. Since starvation technique makes use of health regen from sleeping to heal back the condition lost from starving, turning it off means the only way to heal is to meet all 4 needs during the day so the player is forced to not starve. Could be something people can try if they think starvation technique makes the game too easy.

But I guess the only question is whether one wants to force that kind of playstyle onto other players in a single-player game where freedom plays a big part.

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by gotmilkanot

[Admin]

This thread has taken an argumentative turn. Please refrain from that. It's fine to put forward your views and disagree with one and another but please do not make personal attacks or insult each other.

Further everyone is allowed to play the game as they see fit.

[sonics01]

On 8/14/2020 at 2:21 PM, Admin said:

This thread has taken an argumentative turn. Please refrain from that. It's fine to put forward your views and disagree with one and another but please do not make personal attacks or insult each other.

Further everyone is allowed to play the game as they see fit.

First of all, I send my sincere apology to the admin of this forum about my mistake here. 

The reason why I take a form of sarcasm in this argument, which I believe is the violation of the rule in the HL forum, is because the internet identity of the problem in this post, which I don't even want to comment, is using a blatant and obvious lie (survived 200cal a day for 6 months without any adverse health effect) to discourage and hinder the free brain-storming attempt and constructive discussion around ideas.

In addition, this identity's lie is not exactly related to this topic. The internet identity also confessed that the lie is "not" based on the example of characters in this game, who are supposed to walk and run while carrying 20~40kg in the back. I pointed this out, then the identity denied he or she was in such a condition when the identity was under the influence of such a low calorie diet. 

The identity didn't even need to bring that lie, which is out of topic for this post. But, based on the argument around here, it is very clear to deduct that the identity brought that lie just to distract and interfere with the constructive discussion about this calorie and malnutrition issue in this "Wish List" forum. At that point, I decided this identity is trolling with the other forum users regarding this post, try to suppress the free suggestion and ideas of other players who wish to flourish this game in many other directions as possible, even if such an idea is flawed or not super-urgent issues. That is why I took the form of sarcasm to counter one's blatant lie in this post. I wish the admin of this forum read the argument in this post and extenuate my position regarding this issue.  

We fans, who wish to be on the more realistic side (though that is not a super-realistic) and challenging side, believe that the free discussion and brainstorming itself have their own values for the generation of bright ideas. Though most of them will be forgotten, or flawed, or not-an-ultra-game-breaking-issue, free ideas from brainstorming itself is important for creative ideas and suggestions. According to Wiki, here is the rule of brainstorming: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming

1) Go for quantity: This rule is a mean of enhancing divergent production, aiming at facilitation of problem solution through the maxim quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated the bigger the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.
2) Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.
3) Welcome wild ideas: To get a good long list of suggestions, wild ideas are encouraged. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking might give you better solutions.
4) Combine and improve ideas: As suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.

We, who throw any suggestions and ideas, all know that our suggestions are not perfect and probably will be forgotten. However, attempts and efforts to brainstorm and describe the idea itself should be rewarded. Plus, no one knows the future. What if any of such wild-ideas are improved and tailored to be a nice idea by the hand of devs or modders, and being a great content? 

I think all discussions in the Wish List forum should be valued as themselves. Of course, totally-out-of-topic ideas should be carefully removed or corrected. But any suggestions related to this game should be protected and approached in a positive way, even if they are "wild-ideas". And I believe the intention of the "Wish List" forum lies in the same direction. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

As such, I believe, the internet identity who use such a blatant lie, which was not even related to the topic, to just prohibit further discussions of idea should not be allowed to post anything in the "Wish List" forum. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by sonics01