3 Body Types based on calories and How to make them work.

[philthechamp]

I think Calories should be the very first place to look when considering new buffs and other core game changes. Body types are a good place to continue building TLD because other abstract effects that build on core stats like dehydration or anxiety will become too distracting from gameplay. Body types and reasonable effects thereof have the potential to be immersive and provide more nuance between the difficulty levels as well as, critically, the late game... Key features to make this work - I don't think there should be any nerfs. Only slight benefits to each type that wouldn't require any current behaviors to change. I think they should keep the same +5.00kg weight for non-zero calorie weeks, and add in these minor differences based on average calories. I think that average calories while awake, similar to how hours spent indoors are tracked, should determine one's body type. Calories in general make more sense to develop because your metabolism and energy tracking is critical to survival and the current buff as it stands is fairly inconsequential.  Consensus is that the game also lacks late game content and interloper realism, which this could address.

The benefits and body types as I see them:

Malnourished - If you are starving for most of the day and choose to eat right before sleep you would be malnourished. The boost would be that you gain 10% more calories from food if your average calories are above 0 and below 100. This would make it possible to only eat cattails but get more bang for your buck if you parcel them throughout the day. If you're consistent you can get the +5.00kg and be a little more calorie efficient (which is biologically more accurate as your metabolism adjusts in survival states). Changes should be implemented through an average because it allows teetering between 160 and 0 calories to become a new game feature while finally giving a practical alternative to the interloper-starvation trend. With that in mind,  starving all day would make it relatively harder to gain calories if you sink into it but doesn't change anything as is. This gives the illusion of 'resisting starvation' by altering calorie intake itself at a critical small window. Very cool, immersive feature, IMO.

'Natural' Weight - Staying below 100 calories per day, unless you're on interloper, should honestly be fairly irregular considering your body is trying to be at its natural weight. If you keep above 200 calories per day then you should have some natural coordination. I think that there could be a clean +5% wolf struggle bonus just for being in this shape. I don't want this to be too noticeable. Mostly that you might worry about 'being out of shape' should you stay above a certain weight or begin to starve. Again, the nerf is only relative which is what could make this body type system work as opposed to stacking additional features.

"True Lumberjack" - Lastly, should you be so formidable as to stock enough healthy supplies, and then some, and stay consistently fed throughout the week with over 1500 or 2000 calories while awake (possible on interloper?) then you should be rewarded with the most intimate buff the game can offer. A warmth bonus. Similar to the 'cold fusion' feat which is arguably the most essential, keeping above a certain high calorie count should be recognized by an additional +2.0C warmth effect. The opportunity cost could incentivize lighter gear as well, proving a constant challenge and alternative to heavy clothing in the very late game. 

I know that my outline is a little convoluted and could use tweaking, but overall, calories and body types should be the very first place to look when considering new gameplay effects. This is a series of individual pieces of game content that could have a positive effect on situational playstyles and the late game. Too many psychology buffs or abstract random effects are unenjoyable, but the calories we have constant control over. Its an intimate enough survival system that hopefully doesn't discourage any current playstyles. If there are ever going to be more active effects in game--This should be how they do it...Let me know what you think. 

[one_shurbbery]

I really like all of these, in particular the true lumberjack perks. I really think TLD needs heavier starvation penalties and could benefit from some sort of nutrition system as well. 

The only question I have is will this body type system replace the existing Well Fed buff?

I think this system would work great as visual cues for the player seen in the clothing/affliction menu. "Natural weight" being the vanilla look of the survivor. "Malnourished" the survivor looks more gaunt; face holloed in a little, ribs showing. "True lumberjack" the survivor is jacked from those gains. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by one_shurbbery

[ManicManiac]

I think the mechanics are fine the way they are.  I think they accomplish what they set out to do
I really don't think I would enjoy it if this game tried to become some form of dietary/nutrition simulator.

I think that part of the beauty of the game is the elegance that everything is built on conceptually simple principles at the foundation, and that the emergent gameplay in the Survival Sandbox gets it's variety and complexity from how they interact.  I think that the more one tries to cram in... the more they risk the game turning into a big convoluted (or at least bloated) mess.

Edited February 22, 2021 by ManicManiac

[one_shurbbery]

44 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

I think the mechanics are fine the way they are.  I think they accomplish what they set out to do
I really don't think I would enjoy it if this game tried to become some form of dietary/nutrition simulator.

I think that part of the beauty of the game is the elegance that everything is built on conceptually simple principles at the foundation, and that the emergent gameplay in the Survival Sandbox gets it's variety and complexity from how they interact.  I think that the more one tries to cram in... the more they risk the game turning into a big convoluted (or at least bloated) mess.

I mostly disagree. I see the concern in the game potentially becoming an overcomplicated mess with the addition of new mechanics and I do believe the simplicity on which the current mechanics are based on is part of the appeal of the game, however I also believe that in order for TLD to compete against other or future games in the genre, it must continually evolve it's mechanics or add new features to keep players playing. I don't believe that the OP's suggestions or my suggestions for changes to the hunger/calorie system would turn the game into a dreaded "nutrition simulator," I think those changes would benefit gameplay if implemented correctly, plus there's plenty of other in game stuff to worry about as well to, in my view, balance it out. It ultimately comes down to the dichotomy of "realism" vs. "it's just a game." What got me playing was the promise of realistic survival gameplay, so I lean towards favoring more realism or features that add to the existing immersion. It seems you are (to use political terminology) more of a conservative, and while I respect that view point, I guess I would be viewed as a progressive. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by one_shurbbery

[Mroz4k]

I am inclined to agree with ManicManiac. The true beauty of the game is in how simplistic it is, for the most part, and how these simple suggestions are combined to create a more elaborate bigger picture. I also believe the game is fine as it is, at most I would provide some demerit to starving, but nothing so elaborate. The way I usually suggest ideas and create my own suggestions for the game, I follow a couple of principles. Two of those principles include: 1) try to keep the idea simple. The simplier, the better, makes it fit within the game more naturally and it is easier to explain as well. 2) try to use the existing mechanics to make something happen. This would in theory make it easier to be implemented into the game, bring something "new" into the game by using the existing game resources. 

Not saying that following these principles is neccesary, it is what I do, but there is a logic behind it and over the years, i found out it works the best. 

16 minutes ago, one_shurbbery said:

I see the concern in the game potentially becoming an overcomplicated mess with the addition of new mechanics and I do believe the simplicity on which the current mechanics are based on is part of the appeal of the game, however I also believe that in order for TLD to compete against other or future games in the genre, it must continually evolve it's mechanics or add new features to keep players playing.

Fair point. But that is not what ManicManiac suggests, at least that is not how I understood his comment. I dont believe he suggests that the game stops evolving. But if you look at how the game evolved over the years, it is possible to spot a pattern. Hinterland usually adds one or two new mechanics, that they thoroughly tested, and then tie them into what is already in the game. That is why this game provides such polished, seamless experience. It is clear that the people in Hinterland team are very experienced in the matters of game design. Many games nowadays are pushing for new, elaborate mechanics, but never actually tie them into the game which often ends up with catastrophic consequences for the game. But one or two new mechanics that change the game, tied and interconnected with what is already in the game, can often create and entirely new, fresh experience. 

One of the points of criticism that Hinterland keeps getting over the years is how long it takes for them to add a few new things. But people often fail to realize that this is a good thing, because of how much detail is put into connecting what is new into the game. 

But back on topic. While I agree there should be something to punish the people who still hibernate, I dont think this is particularly good way to go about it. I think the idea of an affliction like malnourishment is worthy addition into the game, but it could work in a way to mirror the "well fed" buff. The way I see "hunger" in the game is not as "starving" - I see it as the content of a stomach of the survivor. So, going into "starving" really just means the person has not ate in some time and are beginning to feel really, really hungry. This makes sense with the comments the character makes by the time his "stomach feels empty", or almost empty. So, in theory, to be "starving", he would need to take a lot of condition damage by starving. But because one cannot just "stay in starvation for 3 days" to develop a counterpart of a well-fed buff, I believe it should work similarly like hypothermia, and starving should increase the risk of malnutrition, risk that would only decrease if the player kept himself filled for three days without falling into starvation. That would still make starving feasible as a short term strategy, but not as a long term one.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Mroz4k

[ManicManiac]

@one_shurbbery

Fair enough, perhaps to that degree I was using a bit of hyperbole... but I find that things like this have a risk of being a slippery slope.
The last thing I'd want is for The Long Dark to slowly mutate into Green Hell.  To me, I think that most of the suggests like this tend to try and push it in that direction... which is when I tend to speak up and weigh in with my opinion too.

I really wish you wouldn't try to frame this in political terms... I don't think that's very appropriate.

I want to see the game change and grow as well.  However, I just don't agree with many of the idea's that other folks come up with; so I express that opinion.

To be clear, there have been ideas here that I have very much supported... the other's I have just weighed in on with my perspective.  I think it's equally valuable for any developer to hear from both sides of an idea or opinion.  I seem to have a much different perspective on the game as a whole than a lot of people on the forum.  Which I suppose has caused some to assume I'm against changing anything... which is not the case.

In the end, I trust Hinterland to do what's best for their game... so if they see fit to change things, then great.  I've not objected to anything they've changed.  Even though I've not always agreed with the changes, I've accepted them and took the challenge of adapting my playstyle to overcome those decisions I initially didn't like.  I choose to embrace it, and as a result I've become much happier with the game.

I do feel (that at least to some degree) I understand and can appreciate the choices that Hinterland has made with their game... and I think a voice expressing that is not harmful.

Edited February 22, 2021 by ManicManiac

[one_shurbbery]

44 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

I really wish you wouldn't try to frame this in political terms... I don't think that's very  appropriate.

@ManicManiacI sincerely apologize if I insulted you, it wasn't my intention. I was trying to make an analogy to our contrast in viewpoints. My mistake. 

44 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

 

Fair enough, perhaps to that degree I was using a bit of hyperbole... but I find that things like this have a risk of being a slippery slope.
The last thing I'd want is for The Long Dark to slowly mutate into Green Hell.  To me, I think that most of the suggests like this tend to try and push it in that direction... which is when I tend to speak up and weigh in with my opinion too.

That's fair. I also don't want the game to become Green Hell. Two very different games from what I understand (haven't played Green Hell yet, I hear that the nutrition system in it has definite downsides that need to be addressed). I agree with @Mroz4kthat any changes to gameplay should be thoroughly tested before implementation, which is the current model Hinterland has been using for adding new content. I'm not suggesting Hinterland rush new content by any means. 

@Mroz4k I really love your suggestion for malnutrition risk being progression bar similar to hypothermia/frostbite/intestinial parasites risk. How does this sound?

Being continuously ravenous for an extended amount of time or starving will cause you to develop starvation risk, similar to how hypothermia/intestinal parasite risk already works. As the meter progresses you'll gradually get de-buffs to fatigue, as you do currently by -2% per hour, until the bar reaches 100% and starvation becomes a full affliction, causing -50% fatigue, freezing rate to increase (starving should make you colder as you’re losing fat insulation), and carry weight to be reduced by 11lbs. It can be treated/mitigated by averaging your daily calories with your daily expended calories for at least two days. This way the game is more punishing for players using the famous hibernation exploit, while still allowing players to briefly starve for a short amount of time before it becomes a full affliction as you mentioned. 

The addition of a nutrition system. It would make calorie consumption a more careful decision process and force players to hunt/fish more instead of hoarding canned foods in one spot. Different foods could have different nutrition stats along with the current calorie counts showing fats and proteins. For example: rabbits being extremely lean are mostly protein, bear meat containing alot more fat in comparison. Protein poisoning (rabbit starvation/mal de caribou) could be another risk bar players could get if they don't get enough fat in their diet, with the full affliction causing fatigue and hunger rate to be increased. Both the bar and full affliction can be mitigated by consuming more fats and less protein till the bar becomes lower. Too many fats in someone’s diet could cause headaches or fatigue to drop a little. The new Well Fed buff would also offer added cold resistance as well, similar to the cold fusion feat, and be achieved by preventing both protein poisoning risk and dropping to starving for three days. In addition deeper cooking mechanics being able to mix/cook like different foods to make higher calories like stews or pemmican. These recipes can be something unlocked through cooking skill level. They could also add necessary fats or proteins to different foods. For example; rabbit stews could yield a little bit of fat content in comparison to just cooked rabbit meat. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by one_shurbbery

[Admin]

Let’s just be careful about framing this as “progressive” vs “conservative” in a political sense. This discussion is fine but we don’t want to get sidetracked. 
 

Thank you. 

[Mroz4k]

@one_shurbberyBy all means. I cant take much credit for the idea, Im basically borrowing the game resources with most of my suggestions. If it helps others to formulate or come up with their own ideas, Im happy that I played a tiny part in that with this small suggestion.

The suggestion looks alright. Its more true to the current mechanics which is a big plus in my opinion. It might still be a bit too elaborate but that is just my opinion. The "gradual degradation" of fatique is an interesting idea. I can see how thats similar to how intestinal parasites work. But I think it is quite harsh to tell the truth. Im personally more on the conservative side of things - I would be entirely okay if well fed bonus was as is, and malnurishment was its mirror opposite - like decrease to carry capacity, decrease to "feels like temp", small condition hit, and faster fatique decrease. And instead of three days of starving, the player would keep gettting increased risk of malnurishment each time they starved, to gradually build up in the debuff affliction over time, like hypothermia. But it should not just decrease as soon as the player reaches food again, because that way it could never develop, either - so which is why I suggested the requirements for well fed bonus need to be met first to decrease malnurishment instead of giving the buff right away. That basically takes care of balancing the two counterparts, so one couldnt have both debuff and buff at the same time. 

I really like the idea of the "loss of fatique" but I am not sure it would be feasible if it happened during the time the game is building up malnurishment risk. The way I see it, the hunger bar is "how full stomach is". So when stomach is empty, it doesnt mean the person is actually "starving". In a way, I look at the hunger bar in game as a difference between "eating normally" and "stuffing ones face all the time". 

I would either significantly cut down on the fatigue decrease during the "risk timer" - like say 1% fatique bar hit for 5% of risk, so at most it would be 20% decrease by the time Malnurishment develops, or I would drop it entirely, and the gradual decrease to fatigue bar from 1% to 50% max would be the condition of malnurishment debuff, once it was developed. Similar to how Intestinal parasites work - the risk itself has no such demerit, but once it hits, it gradualy decreases condition until its cured. Malnurishment could affect Fatique bar in same way once it develops. I think that would fit in better in terms of realism, as well. Because the longer you stay malnourished, the more cummulative the effects appear.

I would be happy to see your topic and elaborate my opinion of it more fully - looking forward to seeing it.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Mroz4k