Feedback on calorie density of food!


Ninjakebab

Recommended Posts

Hey guys!

Let's get to it. When hiking, or going on otherwise long trips, with minimal food, and low weight, the thing used to discriminate what to bring (in terms of food) is calorie density (kcal/kg). Some good items are nuts, dried fruit, chocolate and so forth.

Therefore the first things I noticed about the food item in TLD was this value, and that it was a bit off, for instance coffee, tea and soda all have higher calorie density than cooked meat in the game! Say what?!

So I cooked up (ha ha) the following list based on the ingame calorie density of cooked meat, and other stuff. I used wiki masses in some cases, since only 1 decimal is shown ingame for some items, for some reason:

lefthttp://i61.tinypic.com/j8jupf.png

I was lazy and did not provide any references for the real world values, but know that I used multiple sources for each item!

Now, as you can see, there is suddenly an explanation as to why people are complaining about the high bio-needs in the game, simple because the energy of the meat (mainly) is unrealistically low. I mean, in real life, the only things below a 1000kcal/kg range are salad, fruit and other green stuff!

In real life, my personal threshold for food items to bring on trips in the mountains and whatnot goes at the 3000kcal/kg value. Anything below weighs too much as opposed to the energy it provides.

One more note (RL of course), when cooking meat the available caloric value actually increases due to denaturing of proteins etc. Meat only looses caloric value if charred, or if fat drips off.

Now I understand that there are gameplay tweaks that causes hyper-realism to be impossible, and you have to make it balanced. But the low caloric density of the meat in the game just seems too low. I tested a 24 hour period in the game, and needed 4,5kg of meat and 2,5 liters of water just for some indoor crafting and sleeping, no going outside - in just 1 day!

Anyway, thanks for reading, I really enjoy the game! This is not something that makes me not want to play, tuning it will just make me even more hooked! You guys are awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree since I started I have always thought deer meat is to low. also fish seems way to low, it's hardly worth the effort catching them? some say their are big fish in the lake - yet to catch one. Then I guess if they are too high in calorie count the game might be to easy? so yeah it's just a matter of finding a nice game balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I think fish are way too low in energy currently, especially since I am only getting an average of 2 fish per tackle before it snaps! Because of that I have given up on fishing :P it's easier to stalk a wolf until it kills a deer, brawl it off and scavenge the deer.

Maybe a tweak would be to up the calorie density of meat, but making them harder to catch / rarer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, for one, do not understand why we are limited to 2500 "calories", while in a situation similar to TLD, I would want to be eating at least 3500, and probably more.

Yes, food becomes more "digestible" (and more nutritious by proxy) when cooked, but food also loses raw calories when cooked, due to the loss of fat. Different methods of cooking causes fat to be lost at a different rate.

For example, the only way to cook meat (both game and fish) in-game is either roasting/frying it on a fire/in a pan. This has to be least "effective" means of cooking meat, due to the loss of fat.

In reality, you want to (and I almost always do) BOIL your meat, both game and fish, as the loss of nutrients and fat is as small as possible, and whatever nutrients/fat is lost is just transferred out into the boiling water; AKA soup. For instance, "rabbit starvation" is when you eat too much lean meat (of which rabbit, especially when roasted, is a prime example) and not enough fat. BOIL the rabbit (with the bones and body fat, instead) and you can avoid "rabbit starvation".

Take a pot of water just-off-the-boil (there are pots clearly on top of "woodstoves" in-game), add some meat/fish, some fat, add some bones, and add whatever else you like (can't really go wrong with soups or stews), and let is simmer.

Boom, tasty soup/stew that both is hot, easier to digest than straight meat, more nutritious than other methods of cooking, and can "stretch" food supplies for longer than just the sources by themselves.. If you can't eat it all at once, set it outside to freeze.

Of course, we also eat the "least effective" parts of the animals (both game and fish); the lean muscle meat. In reality, you want to eat absolutely EVERYTHING off the animal, except for the hide: eat the muscle meat, eat the organ meats (which, besides being high in various vitamins and fats, are rather tasty), make sausages from intestines + fat+ meat+ blood, eat the fat, crack open the bones for marrow / boil the bones for soup stock, etc etc etc.

There should also be a LOT more usable meat on an average deer than just 20 or so pounds (which is the maximum I have gotten off a freshly-killed deer in-game). A deer should be able to hold you over for quite a while (at least a week), especially if you are eating everything off the carcass, as above. Conversely, they should be more difficult to hunt.

Finally, fishing is the #1 source of protein for the majority of the worlds population. There are numerous methods we could use to make fishing more viable: set up multiple lines, with flags to let us know when there is a fish on the line. Just check them every day, like you do with rabbit snares, and you could easily eat plenty of salmon every day

http://www.survivalprimer.com/SurvivalF ... Screen.bmp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gameplay above realism guys, always. I saw something in CH which I don't think was there before and which leads me to believe drying will follow. Clothes or food, we'll see. Maybe it was there all along and it doesn't mean anything, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't really read and compare the information in depth, but I just wanted to say that at this point in time, with the mechanics in play for the game, I can understand unrealistic properties to calories. Mostly for the sake of providing a bit of challenge in the system. To be fair, not everyone would only consume 2500 calories a day, and some would not even need to consume that amount. Starvation and calorie intake is different on an individual basis, so with the mechanics following a strict method which indicates a specific body structure and so on, I can understand the lack of realism in the system. I'm open to the idea of changes being implemented naturally, but I'm not going to stress over it much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't really read and compare the information in depth, but I just wanted to say that at this point in time, with the mechanics in play for the game, I can understand unrealistic properties to calories. Mostly for the sake of providing a bit of challenge in the system. To be fair, not everyone would only consume 2500 calories a day, and some would not even need to consume that amount. Starvation and calorie intake is different on an individual basis, so with the mechanics following a strict method which indicates a specific body structure and so on, I can understand the lack of realism in the system. I'm open to the idea of changes being implemented naturally, but I'm not going to stress over it much.

Oh no, in a cold-weather situation like in-game, you wouldn't want to consume anything less than 2500 calories per day. Preferably, much more. Your metabolism is boosted in cold weather, not even including walking through the environment in heavy clothing, with a load on your back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't really read and compare the information in depth, but I just wanted to say that at this point in time, with the mechanics in play for the game, I can understand unrealistic properties to calories. Mostly for the sake of providing a bit of challenge in the system. To be fair, not everyone would only consume 2500 calories a day, and some would not even need to consume that amount. Starvation and calorie intake is different on an individual basis, so with the mechanics following a strict method which indicates a specific body structure and so on, I can understand the lack of realism in the system. I'm open to the idea of changes being implemented naturally, but I'm not going to stress over it much.

Oh no, in a cold-weather situation like in-game, you wouldn't want to consume anything less than 2500 calories per day. Preferably, much more. Your metabolism is boosted in cold weather, not even including walking through the environment in heavy clothing, with a load on your back.

The game would need to implement a large number of variables to account for a large variety of actions/events to truly create a system that makes sense. What you describe would basically entail being out in the cold long durations of time carrying lots of weight, but this isn't a factor that would be in play at all times. I'd make a bunch of arguments against it, but then I'd be getting into a ton of details about life experience and events that I've endured and really don't care to discuss, mostly because many would simply dismiss them to begin with, or possibly judge, but in the end, it'll still come down to opinions since no factual evidence can be provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with meat having very little calories. Not because it's unrealistic but because it's a pain in the a** to carry it around. But when I think about it, if I can live off of a single deer for like 10-15 days, that's just gonna wipe out the entire game's concept. It's not gonna be survival challenge, it's gonna be a holiday sim with minor inconvenience.

But in my opinion, there can be further balancing to other aspects of the game while increasing calorie values for meat without making this a holiday sim.

From the top of my head, there may be less bullets in maps or less meat on carcasses or less wildlife population/respawn rate alltogether in order to balance it to make it feel like survival.

One irrelevant idea is that, what do you guys do when you boil some water to make an instant coffee or something like that? I for one stare at water until it boils ^^. Seriously though, that needs to change IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with meat having very little calories. Not because it's unrealistic but because it's a pain in the a** to carry it around. But when I think about it, if I can live off of a single deer for like 10-15 days, that's just gonna wipe out the entire game's concept. It's not gonna be survival challenge, it's gonna be a holiday sim with minor inconvenience.

But in my opinion, there can be further balancing to other aspects of the game while increasing calorie values for meat without making this a holiday sim.

From the top of my head, there may be less bullets in maps or less meat on carcasses or less wildlife population/respawn rate alltogether in order to balance it to make it feel like survival.

One irrelevant idea is that, what do you guys do when you boil some water to make an instant coffee or something like that? I for one stare at water until it boils ^^. Seriously though, that needs to change IMO.

Just because a deer would now provide a more realistic amount of meat, doesn't necessarily mean the game would lose all "survival cred".

To compensate for more realistic meat "capacity", the deer population on the map would in turn be severely cut back. I know guys that hunt who have gone months without seeing a single deer, much less get a shot off on one. And this is in a region in the US where there is a Whitetail Deer EXPLOSION, with extremely high populations.

I know from personal experience that on the Pleasant Valley map, I have seen at least 5 deer on my screen at the same time. Not all clumped together, of course, but all in the same general 200m^2 area. That needs to change.

So, if the deer provided a realistic amount of meat, while being cut back (population-wise), what does this mean? It means you actually have to worry about your meat supply, plan ahead, not go and chase a deer into a wolf every couple of days. You could go days, maybe even a week or two, without seeing a single deer. This means you have to make every shot count (even more than you do now).

Sounds pretty "survival-y" to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think a balance would still preserve every survival aspect of the game. Fewer deers+wolves and/or harder to kill. I think reducing the ability to scavenge off ravaged deer carcasses would also work (maybe through a quality or amount reduction of the meat). I also appreciate the whole gameplay above realism, but in this case I lose immersion if the energy density is not intuitive and predictable - which my chart shows that it is not.

I could accept if the energy density was reduced all over the board, but since it's going in all directions, making meat worse than soda for instance, then I get confused :(

Upping the energy in the meat especially would allow for longer exporation trips, and a better overall pace of the game - I think. Boiling the meat, as Bostons says, would be a nice addition with maybe lower energy loss, and longer cooking time? I think it could be implemented by only allowing this on stoves where pots can be found.

One of the biggest problems I have with the weird energy content is the low value of meat, and the obscenely high energy in coffee, tea and soda which should not be better weightwise to carry around on hikes - but currently is. Coffee and tea should not really contain any considerable calories. A tweak here might make tea obsolete though, unless given a unique bonus like coffee currently has.

Fun fact: currently ingame rabbit and fish meat contain as much energy as real life apples and soda! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.