Starvation should make you colder

[one_shurbbery]

 Starvation would cause you to become colder, as you're loosing fat insulation. You could lose a degree in temperature as you starve (not sure if that's the case irl). Fat could become an important mechanic, as it is in real life for people living in arctic conditions. Different foods could show how much fat or protein is in them along calories, allowing players to better balance their diet. More fat providing the aforementioned insulation, while more protein providing less fatigue. Too much of each having their own negative effects.

Edited February 15, 2021 by one_shurbbery

[odizzido]

I think starting down the nutrition road isn't somewhere the devs want to go.

That being said, I think having a better starvation/fat system would be of benefit. Right now it's too simple and I don't think it works well. Having everything linked to health means that food and health are largely the same thing which enables people to eat almost nothing every day and simply regen their "food" back at night. Or regenerate their cold back, or whatever it happens to be. It also means you could, in theory, burn yourself to 1% inside, step outside, and freeze to death in ten seconds after standing in a fire. It's obvious that having health be everything gives a poor representation to what is happening.

Of course on the plus side, it's super low effort to make everything health so maybe it's not worth it to them to put the effort into having things make more sense. It might end up being a job for the modding community, assuming they open the game up to that.

[Gracia_WolfSlayer]

I agree with @odizzido that the devs likely are happy with nutrition as it is, but some tweaking to how starving affects health would be nice. I personally just don't allow myself to play that way. If my survivor has food and is about to hit 0 calories, they eat. I don't hoard food for sleep time to meta game. Mostly because I know if I was literally starving and had a candy bar, I'd eat it, not save it for bedtime.

Green Hell is a fun game if you want more nutrition in your survival! Super brutal game too.

[Stinky socks]

I think micromanaging food will become too cumbersome. Doesn't look like a very good idea. What we have already is good enough.  You have too many other things to worry about as is.

[one_shurbbery]

I thought of some ways it could work, so here's a better explanation.

Starvation could become an affliction after 3 days of being ravenous or starving, that could cause your fatigue and freezing rate to be possibly doubled. You could cure it by bringing and keeping your calorie intake up to mean your calorie expenditure. This should penalize the famous starvation exploit.

 A nutrition system could expand on the  Well Fed buff. The Different foods could have different nutrition stats along with the current calorie counts showing fats and proteins, both have their plus and minuses, and their own well fed buff. For example: rabbits being extremely lean and mostly protein, bear meat containing alot of fat. Balancing fats in your diet you get a slight buff on cold resistance and a slightly slowed hunger rate, however too much and you get fatigued faster. Balancing protein offers the current Well Fed buff effects, however too much could lead to protein poisoning (rabbit starvation/mal de caribou), similiar to food poisoning but cured by adding more fats into diet and decreasing protein intake. Both balanced together would offer either a 5% (as offered by the original Well Fed buff) or 10% condition bonus. This would add a bit of challenge to getting the buff and make food consumption more of a careful decision process. Instead of hoarding canned foods in one spot, it could force players out to hunt more. As mentioned by others, my only concern is it potentially over complicating the simplicity of the game, however I think it should be considered.

 

[odizzido]

 

Just going to leave that there about rabbits.

[ManicManiac]

I've given the thread time to breath... so I'll weigh in on it now.
I think starvation is fine as it.  It's already an affliction... though true it doesn't have a discrete affliction icon; the effects are still there and worsen as time goes on.

In terms of insulation against the cold, I think that part is already pretty well taken care of by virtue of wearing more insulated clothing (humans are homeotherms after all ).  Besides, I think that this game doesn't (and shouldn't) need to try to perfectly mirror reality.
 

I've discussed this a few times before so I will just echo what I've mentioned in some of those previous conversations:

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

While it's not given it's own discrete affliction status icon or a convenient risk meter...

After going on zero calories we do get a fatigue penalty/cap, 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. 

Considering what's already in place, I just don't see a need for this particular change.

On 12/14/2020 at 10:31 PM, ManicManiac said:

However I still think the character becoming "weaker and worn-out" is already encapsulated rather well with the fatigue cap, as well as the condition loss.  Even if this was highlighted in a discrete "labeled affliction," the "cure" is still the same as what's in the game now.

Also, even though the player can sleep as much as they want when they have a fatigue cap active... that sleep is effectively wasted (in that it's non-restful).

On 7/21/2020 at 1:20 AM, ManicManiac said:

Personally I think the mechanics are fine as they are.  I trust Hinterland to keep true to their vision for their game.  If Hinterland wants to change it, then fine... but I don't see any real need to change how the mechanics work (especially considering that negative effects are present and cumulatively worsen).

The way I see it, we already have an "affliction" for starving...  It comes in the form of the fatigue/rest cap that worsens the longer we don't eat, and also the condition loss from starvation.  I'd say that just because it doesn't have it's own discrete "affliction icon" doesn't mean the negative effects aren't there...

On 12/14/2020 at 9:51 PM, ManicManiac said:

I'm also not keen on the idea of this becoming a dietary/nutrition simulator

  
 

Edited February 18, 2021 by ManicManiac
Meant to type thread not threat... corrected my typo.

[Mroz4k]

3 hours ago, one_shurbbery said:

thought of some ways it could work, so here's a better explanation.

Starvation could become an affliction after 3 days of being ravenous or starving, that could cause your fatigue and freezing rate to be possibly doubled. You could cure it by bringing and keeping your calorie intake up to mean your calorie expenditure. This should penalize the famous starvation exploit.

The reverse of a well fed buff, in a way. That is something I had in mind in the past, too. Thing is, how to keep track of it? It cant be three consequtive days without food, noone goes hungry for that long, that would almost kill the player. They would eat somewhere in the way, too. That said - I think it is a really good idea, to punish people who go hungry too often for extended periods of time. It could be something of a "malnutrition" de-buff that makes the player weaker in carry capacity, more succeptible to cold like you pointed out, loosing fatique faster and maybe even take worse hits in animal struggles. 

Actually, I just got an idea how it could work. It could be a combination of how intestinal parasites work, and how hypothermia risk works. By dropping to "starving", the player could get start getting malnutrition risk. This risk would continuously build up for as long as the player is actually starving. Now, unlike parasites, the player would not randomly "get malnutrition", the risk bar would have to get up to a 100%. But, the "malnutrition" risk would start going down the same way hypothermia risk goes down. In case hypothermia risk, its by being warm enough not to be freezing. Lets say after being above "starving" for 3 full days (by getting well fed bonus) at this point, the risk would start going down. That way, not eating is in a way more punishing then the benefit of eating, and people who dont want to get malnourished should at least once in a while eat well for an extended period of time to drive their risk down. It still makes starving viable as a strategy to conserve food, but only for a short periods of time, followed by long periods of eating well. 

This avoids any sort of "new systems", just makes use of the current way how afflictions work in the game.

The only way to get the well fed buff, the player would have to meet 2 criteria: They cant have ANY malnutrition risk at all, and they have to go extra 3 days of not dropping to "starving", which is how it works right now. So, you could not have at one point both well fed and malnutrition risk afflictions.

[Stinky socks]

Why would you want something like that, @Mroz4k?

2 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

Besides, I think that this game doesn't (and shouldn't) need to try to perfectly mirror reality.

This. Thank you @Maniac! All these micro managing additions would just bog down both player and gameplay.

[Mroz4k]

Well, first of all immersion. Going out of your way to starve only to recover it by cheesing the line between starvation and eating just enough to recover the damage should have lasting effects. In fact, the well fed bonus was added there to motivate people to try to keep their hunger up. With hunger comes other activities, like hunting, fishing. Right now, its very easy to build up a stockpile to a point you dont really have to hunt. Many players tend to stop doing certain tasks if it feels like they dont have to. As soon as you have no incensive to hunt, you lose things to do in the game, and soon enough you are doing only the three tasks left that you cant prep ahead of time over, and over again. The more tasks that you can "complete for a long time", the less tasks you get to do, the sooner you reach a point at which the game becomes repetitive. 

On the other hand - the game has very little in terms of "long-term affllictions". Parasites are only ever a problem if you have them turned on and actually eat the predator meat. Broken ribs are very serious, but even then its just ten days and you are well again. Cabin fever is at this point irrelevant, I think. Havent heard anyone complain about it for a long  time. Frostbite is not much of a long-term affliction as just a punishment forever.

This actually adds an incensive for long-term gameplay. And punishes cheesing the mechanics for an extended period of time. 

I have done a lot of suggestions on some sort of ever-moving balancing system. I think the game could really benefit from something like that. To reward the player for keeping their survival needs up, and punish them for keeping them down. The sole idea here being something that shows symptoms mostly in the end-game but is negligible at the start. 

Hmm, that reminds me my old idea for a morale system. Doubt it would be feasible at this stage, but Im gonna dig for it anyway to read it again. Think that was a suggestion I made back in 2018 or so. Basically, I believe anything that has cumulative positive effect for suceeding well at surviving and diminishing effect for failing at that is a good idea for end-game in my opinion.

EDIT: Found it! Interesting read, to think this is how we looked at hibernation before Well fed bonus was a thing. Used to be one of the biggest topics on the forums. Though I think that my idea would probably not impact the game in the way I would like right now (as it would actually probably make the game harder in the early stages, rather then in the later ones), it is still something I consider memorable after all these years. and as a system, I dont think it would be all that bad to have a "spiral into death" kind of mechanic in place, that punishes people for not keeping all their other needs up for most of the time. 

Very interesting read to read thru the whole topic - I reccomend. Some of the people posting there were the giants of their time here on forums  

Edited February 18, 2021 by Mroz4k

[ManicManiac]

@Mroz4k
With all respect, isn't it just a matter of player choice though?

I mean if a player doesn't want the experience you described (re. starvation)... then they can choose to hunt and scavenge as much as they need to avoid starvation.  I think that the player should be able to ration their food/water how they want to.  If they want to eat sparingly or keep a full stomach at all times (and every variation in between), I think that ought to be a player's prerogative.  Considering what's already in place, I just don't see a need for the game to try to further force any particular playstyle.

I think it's better that we can simply use player choice to change how we experience the game for ourselves, rather than trying to change the game itself (thereby changing how everyone else experiences the game).  I don't see a need for the game to take options away from folks when we can use player choice instead to play how we want to.

Edited February 18, 2021 by ManicManiac

[Mroz4k]

18 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

@Mroz4k
Isn't it just a matter of player choice though?

I mean if a player doesn't want the experience you described... then they can choose to hunt and scavenge as much as they need to avoid starvation.  I think that the player should be able to ration their food/water how they want to.  If they want to eat sparingly or keep a full stomach at all times (and every variation in between), I think that ought to be a player's prerogative.  Considering what's already in place, I just don't see a need for the game to try to force a particular playstyle.

I think it's better that we can simply use player choice to change how we experience the game for ourselves, rather than trying to change the game itself (thereby changing how everyone else experiences the game).  I don't see a need for the game to take options away from folks when we can use player choice instead to play how we want to.

You got me there  I am a sucker for player´s choice. 

In essence, I agree with you 100%. However, there is a line to what ought to be a player´s choice and what should be forced by the game. Im not saying this is neccesarily the line, but there is a line. Othervise, you would end up with a game that essentially "never changes" because everything new just becomes optional. That is not going to move the game further, it would stop evolving. 

It comes down to if we consider that people who are skimming the line are playing the way the game was intended to be played. And there is a "way the game was intended to be played" - Hinterland has some idea towards that, a goal they are following. If they meant for players to always try to keep their needs up - then some affliction that encourages that is a good idea. If they dont mind it, then that idea is moot and unnecesary.

I think it is a great thing that "Custom" mode actually allows you to modify afflictions. In a way, it would be just as easy to create a custom mode where you would simply turn Malnutrition off entirely, and it would solve that. If Hinterland intended to force players to keep their hunger up, this is a good way to do it. If not, its a moot point and wont be added. 

There is one fundamental problem with "player choice". And that is a fact that player choice requires a high level of self-control. Do I just die on my 200 day run because I slipped off the ravine and fell down? Or do i just turn the game off before hitting the ground and just replay with a loss of maybe 15 mins of the game. Do I stop and reload because the bear didnt die in first strike? 

Usually, player´s choice is something that mostly long-term players understand. It is not something one could expect often from players who have less experience with the game. And if they get bored of the game before realizing the beauty of player´s choice, then they stop playing it, perhaps forever, and they never reach their full potential with the game. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Mroz4k

[ManicManiac]

43 minutes ago, Mroz4k said:

In essence, I agree with you 100%. However, there is a line to what ought to be a player´s choice and what should be forced by the game. I'm not saying this is necessarily the line, but there is a line.

Fair enough... and I don't want the game to stagnate either.

That's part of the reason I participate in the forum.  I just discusses these kind of ideas to add my perspective to the conversation.  As always, once Hinterland makes their decision and implements a change, I embrace it and adapt my playstyle accordingly.  However, until Hinterland makes those decisions, I do like to offer my thoughts and preferences (when they differ) for folks to consider.

I suppose the way I see it, if Hinterland feels the strategies players are employing are exploitative (by that I mean, using systems and mechanics to do things they didn't intend for players to do), then they'd likely change it.  For example: Hinterland deemed that the "bait hunting" strategy was an exploit (and not how they wanted decoys to work), so they changed it.

I suppose when it comes to starvation in particular...  It just seems to me that Hinterland decided on positive reinforcement to reward players who choose to stay "Well Fed" (hence the buff) and avoid starvation.  Honestly, I think this was a better approach than using more negative reinforcement to further discourage those who choose to eat minimally, by making the penalties for starvation more severe than they are presently.

Personally, I don't subscribe the "always starving" strategy either (plus I do enjoy the benefits of being well fed)... so I always do my best to have the food I need.  However, from a survival standpoint... I appreciate that if for whatever reason I found myself short on supplies, I would have the option to stretch what little I may have try and get by a little longer.  I think it makes for some harrowing gameplay.  Are there folks who abuse it, and constantly yo-yo condition... yes.  However, I would say that since it's a single player game... the only folks they are really cheating, are themselves.

Edited February 18, 2021 by ManicManiac

[Mroz4k]

I one-hundred percent agree. It is really in the end up to Hinterland, what they decide the line is. And quite frankly, I am in the same boat. I choose as a player to do my absolute best not to go below the hunger, so I end up playing with well fed buff all the time. The benefits are great - but I would do it regardless, as is my own choice to my playstyle. I would not starve myself on purpose to stretch out the one resource that is super plentiful in my survival games. 

This is actually why I often make suggestions to be depicted as an "affliction" - because in the end, certain afflictions can be turned off for custom mode, and this way it is possible to play the game the way one wants. But for the fixed game, they could be used to ever-so-slightly bring the game towards the goal Hinterland set it out. 

Well fed bonus was  way to "solve" the hibernation in the past because back then, it was literally 2-3 new topics on it every week. But the fact that it still keeps popping out points to fact that some players are not still satisfied with it. That may point to it still not being a fully done-deal. I like the forums for this exact point as well - I like to debate, suggest and speculate things. The more we do, the more Hinterland has a window into seeing how their players view and understand the game. The forums are an integral part of  the Hinterland´s overwhelming success with how the game is shaping out to be. Not to take all their accomplishments away, of course... the team is incredibly talented and experienced. But we all play our small part in its success, too  

[ManicManiac]

@Mroz4k
Definitely.
Which is what I think makes these conversations so valuable.  When the community discusses these topics from several points of view, then they get to look at all these kinds of topics from several perspectives.  That's how we all can contribute (even if only a small way) to some aspects of their creative processes.

I certainly respect and understand your take on it.  You make some good points.
 

For me, it just seems reasonable that starvation is a very slow killer (as compared to say dehydration and hypothermia)...  That's why I think that what he have in place (with the fatigue penalty and slow condition drain) kind of parallels the idea that it takes a long time to starve to death, and that people can get by on relatively very little.

In this game right now, death occurs after about 4 days of not eating... which I think is a reasonable amount time for a player to get their act together, and sure up a food source.  I think it's also reasonable (even if I don't play that way myself) that a person could ration that food to stretch farther when they are having trouble gathering food for themselves.

I mean sure, it's easy enough for for more advanced players to build pretty quickly up food in such abundance that they can keep their stomach topped off through every waking moment.  From the game perspective they are "experienced survivors..."  I'd suggest looking at it from the perspective of someone just coming into the game, and still struggling to figure out how to survive (never mind thrive)... I think it's reasonable that folks in dire straights (with little to no food security) would be able to ration what little they had to try and get by.  That's why I don't mind that the system, as it exists now, is a little forgiving in that respect.

The other part is that I thought it was a better choice to reward the behavior Hinterland would prefer a player take... rather than punishing to discourage behavior that they don't consider ideal.  All an all, we are talking about the Survival Sandbox... and in the end, I think that in the sandbox ought to be a little more open for folks to play around in as they choose.

Perhaps the root of the issue stems from how much condition a player can recover, by simply eating before bed.  This seems to be what the conversation always ends up coming back to...

But to refer to what you said earlier about some afflictions being optional...  I'd say the player can already use custom settings to reduce or eliminate both the "Condition Recovery rate," and the "At-rest Condition Recovery rate."  Additionally, if folks want, they can make starvation more dangerous (along with all sources of harm) by tweaking both of these; whilst also making found food more scarce.  Each standard difficulty does this too in it's own way.  I guess what I mean to say in this section of my post is, if a player can already make starvation more threatening and even more consequential... why would the standard game difficulties need to force other folks to play that way too?

Edited February 18, 2021 by ManicManiac

[ManicManiac]

@Mroz4k
Anyways, that's my take on it.

I know that strictly speaking it got a little bit off topic, but I really appreciate you taking the time to discuss it with me for awhile. 
------------------------
 

Relating back to the original post though... no, I don't think starvation should "make the player cold."
I say this because even if a person is "thin,"  if a person moves around and is wearing sufficiently insulating clothes; they can stay warm (I mean relatively speaking).
"Real world" stuff aside though...

That's why I said that I think the mechanics for clothing handle that nicely already, and I don't see a need for a "body mass index" mechanic.  I also just really don't think I would enjoy it if this game became a dietetary/nutrition simulator.

I also 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 game turning into a big convoluted (or at least bloated) mess.

To me, there is only so much micromanaging that I want to have to do in a game before it crosses that threshold when it stops being fun... and starts to just feel like a slog.  For me, having to worry about how chubby or thin my survivor is for the sake of staying warm (rather than just putting on warmer clothes)... just does not sound like fun.

Edited February 19, 2021 by ManicManiac