[Poll] Player Hunger: Survival Fun or Invasive Drudgery

Testing required for sure!

And I am for sure not pushing for anything like DAY Z or Infestation. This is NOT a survival game. Food and water isn't the M.O.

 

Of course it could. As I suggested, you could give people some crafting xp for consuming food on reasonable cooldown. (Eating 1000 cookies at once shouldn't help.)

 

WARNING: The following post contains gratuitous depictions of toilet humor, and makes fun of the argument of 'IMMERSION!'

The argument that eating and drinking is needed for immersion only counts if pooping and peeing does too. What goes in, must come out. I think I can count on one hand the games that have had that level of immersion, and most of them start with The and end in Sims.

Would definitely add something to the gameplay... wandering through a scenic forest:

Player A: Oops! I really need to go!
Player B: You should have gone before we left town!
Player A: I really really really need to go. My Bladder Bar is full! I'll just be a sec.
(Player A scurries off the road into the forest, leaving Player B standing irritated, tapping their foot and waiting for their return)
Player A: Ah. This looks like a good spot.
(Starts to cast: Number 1)
Grizzly Bear: Roar!
Player A: Eek!

It ends rather messily. More so with a number 2 if you forgot to bring the toilet paper and had to scrounge through your backpack for something to use. Perhaps thats why we're all wearing capes?

And don't get me started on what'll happen to PvP with needing to take care of those necessary human functions. *shudder*

Think of all the cool new diseases you could have!

I now demand a gold-plated toilet for my Duke's House to attend to my Bodily Functions Necessary for Immersion Needs. What kind of world has fully functional Tesla Towers but no indoor plumbing?

This South Park Moment Was Brought To You By The Letter P.

 

Why am I suddenly reminded of the movie Lightning Jack?

As it is the immersion argument at least half counts which is better than not counting at all. What you need to understand is that immersion if a valid goal only so far as it is fun to play. I think most folks (including myself) know this and that is what we're going for. I dare say in a setting like this most of us wouldn't find the necessity of having to use the toilet fun and that level of immersion can go hang.

That is not to say there shouldn't be useable bathrooms. There could be and I think a lot of people wouldn't be bothered by it.. but being forced to use them is another matter. We want a certain level of immersion so far as it is entertaining. What adds to that entertainment is something many feel is a good thing while what takes away is not.

 

Hunger wouldn't necessarily have to effect health at first... it could affect a stamina stat, and then only when you get to a "starving stage" -- perhaps on depletion of your stamina -- would you start losing health. As you pointed out in your post, it should realistically take a long time before you get close to dying from starvation.. A person in the real world can live without food for 40 days. That should mean a player shouldn't reach the theoretical point where he would die in the game until he's spent at least 30 game days without eating. That would be a long period of game play. For the average player, the penalty for hunger shouldn't even hit very hard as long as he eats once in a while, because it would build up very slowly. You would only start significantly noticing hunger if you spent days without eating. I made a thread a long time ago with a proposed system. I don't know if that's the ideal system, but I think its a place to start.

A fun survival based RPG I play is UnReal World. What I described somewhat how the game does it, although it doesn't have health and stamina stats. Different things -- including starvation, lack of sleep, injury, and weight carried -- give you a penalty, and the penalty affects how quickly you become tired, how well you perform skills, and so on. When your hunger builds up to a certain point, and you don't eat, eventually your starvation meter starts to grow, at which point, you start incurring a starvation penalty, if it builds up far enough, you can die. As far as gameplay goes, it mainly makes you tire faster and makes you sloppier with your skills. You can carry the same amount of items, you just feel the burden quicker, because you have your weight burden and your hunger burden add to each other for the penalty.

At any rate, I've supported hunger, because I think it ---

A. Adds a lot of role-playing value to the game,

B. Adds fun -- not tedium -- into the game, because it makes travelling interesting and camping important. When travelling, you're required to stop to hunt if you didn't bring enough food, or sit and eat over a campfire, perhaps with friends. Travelling is no longer about just drudging on the map from point A to point B, its about having an adventure... like Oregon Trail. Campfires can be a site of ambushes, and the smoke could give you away to other players on the travel map,

C. Gives value to food in the game. In games where food has the same effect as potions, potions are usually better, so players stop carrying food and just stock up on potions. Food starts to become meaningless, and people sell off all the food they find on their adventures.

D. Helps create balance in the game. First, to the economy; in giving cooks a source of income, and as a gold sink, so players can't amass huge piles of gold as easily -- they'll have something to constantly spend their money on -- or their time on -- in case they want to hunt or farm instead of purchasing the food. Second, in curbing players who only want to be in the game to grief people and prank them for lulz. When your character has to survive, griefing behavior becomes less casual and requires you to fit into the role, and makes you role-play as a roguish character.

E. The immersion from the realism doesn't hurt.

 

Your character obviously goes to the bathroom while you are logged out. For your convenience and their privacy.

 

I think this point needs to be reiterated. And why Darkstarr gets +100 for his Fallout example. When I played it through a second time with Hardcore mode enabled, it was an entirely different gaming experience. It fit the game world. It fit the lore. It's a post-apocalyptic world where survival was part of the world in which we adventured.

When I played through Skyrim a second time, I installed mods that enabled this style of play. It didn't necessarily fit the world but it was personally fun for me.

If SotA were to implement this I would propose the following:
- it's an optional mode, not required of anyone
- it fits within the game lore, as we know the world is recovering from the cataclysm but it doesn't seem there's any mention of this life/death struggle of /basic/ needs (food, shelter) to survive based on everything we've read so far in Blade of the Avatar or other story reveals

If the world does indeed have a /strong/ basis of survival based on story, then I could see it being a requirement in some quests or however they implement it. Otherwise, it should be a hardcore option for those that want it.

 

Hmm... well every Ultima game until Ultima VI had starvation. Of course, you would auto-eat as long as you had food -- so you only had to worry when your food supply disappeared -- but there wasn't a very advanced interface either; food wasn't an inventory item. Most old DOS RPGs in fact had starvation in some form, or had some type of negative effects from not eating. I played in the DOS era, and I never really considered starvation hardcore, I just took it for granted -- I think every player did.

It would all depend on how well its implemented and and integrated into the rest of the game. I honestly don't think food is a big deal, and I think the hunting and camping it would involve would add fun, as well would the frequent stops at taverns. Water is a larger burden, so its possible they could only require it in desert regions. Nutritional requirements are also a larger burden, so its possible they only handle that by adding buffs to your stats, supplementing the stick method with a carrot. Certain unhealthy foods could provide debuffs in addition to buffs.

I own Skyrim, never installed the survival mods. It doesn't look like I would like them from the videos I watched. There's no persistent display on the screen that indicates what you need. The process of getting things like water seems awkward. I generally don't install mods anyway, because usually I don't like playing in a way that the rest of the game wasn't designed for.

 

Ultima 7 (both parts, the underworlds as well) had a manual hunger system. Party members would verbally announce they are hungry/starving/must have food etc. avatar included. Followed by, more, I must have more, that hit the spot, I'll soon be plump, I couldn't eat another bite etc. when feeding them.

The survival mods in skyrim are great exceptionally but a little broken in practice because they are in fact mods, not integrated features. Sleep deprivation for example slows down experience gain and it can be pretty damn hard to find a bed... This is mostly okay except the way it's coded meand when you goto an NPC trainer and pay them to raise a skill it break and doesn't raise the skill all the way if you are tired. Which is kind of a huge deal when you only get 5 training sessions per level and the amount of gold you need to drop at the higher levels is monstrous. WHen you realise it's happened you load the last autosave, take a nap, then pay the trainer... So it's nothing short of annoying. Another quirk is if you are well fed the slight buff you get is applied as a magical effect so when you enter an unarmed boxing match with an NPC they see the effect in place, perceive it as you using magic to cheat and draw a weapon and declare this is now a fight to the death, potentially braking quest lines. If it was a properly integrated core mechanic like in fallout none of this would come up as problems and it would be great.

Also surprised how little feedback there has been on the opt-out mechanic I proposed. No separation of the populations, players who want nothing to do with the hunger system don't have to and those that do can partake as desired. I guess with such a comprehensive OP not everyone reads through it.

Regardless, the mechanic I proposed, or another I'm shocked at the number of people voting against when there's an option there to let other players have it so long as they personally can opt-out. Not one of the opposes has voted that way. Tad selfish me thinks. Is description for that vote option not clear?

 

You mean magic as a solution? I don't have a problem with create food spells, but don't think magic vials should work without a cost. I don't agree with making magic too commonplace and a solution to everything.

In general, I don't like opt outs unless there's a strong enough reason for them. I don't like putting unwanted burdens on players who don't want them, either -- but I think the better solution is just to design a balanced hunger system that doesn't feel like a burden and can be fun for even players who don't like survival elements. Don't make it too punishing, give players options, add fun gameplay and emergent elements, give persistent displays and indicators instead of making the players degree of hunger a mystery. I have my ideas about how this would work, but in general I think its going to need some play testing.

 

No opting out. All or nothing for everyone.

If you allow some to be able to play without food, it's not fair to those who invest their time and limited skill points in learning cooking.
If we cut half of the potential cooking market, the equivalent for other trades would be like allowing players to opt out of wearing armor. Or opt out of using reageats, or using weapons.

If we do implement some kind of hunger system, we should all be affected by it or don't bother to implement. Simply for balance reasons.

As far as magic goes, I'm ok with it, but it should be weak and very temporary, and the summoned items should decay rapidly if not used.
Again, simply to be fair to the cooks.
If we allow the summoning of food, we should then allow the summoning of armor and weapons or furniture.

 

I'm afraid that's pretty much going to be inevitable. With the splitting of the 3 skills trees (magic, craft and combat) as you can effectively raise it without hindering your progress on the other 2 trees it's inevitable everyone will have some magical ability, which is what the devs seem to be going for (bar those people who specifically avoid using it for role play purposes, and such people are obviously not concerned about character prowess, just like ones that want to focus only of craft). Just as it is enevitible everyone will eventually be wandering around in fully enchanted gear, be it magic weapons and armour, and magically enchanted backpacks too carry more and enchanted crafting tools. The notion of someone wanting to forgo both the burden and potential benefits of good nourishment is not remotely outlandish, be it via jar that magically fills with soup, or an amulet that simply halts their metabolism. Now I did say these items like all other items should need to be crafted, need repair and they could possibly need expensive ingredients, so it wouldn't be without cost... Especially when they lose any potential benefits of good nutrition opting to go that route.

As for a good reason for the opt-out there is a pretty good one... The game that is being designed here is a single player experience with a rich multiplayer sandbox layered on top, with the goal of encouraging players to participate in the online community without railroading them into doing so, or blocking them out if they prefer a specific play style. See in single player it's easy to have a difficulty slider and little check boxes to manage how the player wants to experience the game... In a persistent multiplayer world everyone has to play by the same rules. To that end compromises need to be made to accommodate different play styles. This is why theres a PVP slider, the whole selectively multiplayers system with friend matchmaking and why the three skill trees have been split to allow the flexibility to play a merchant without sacrificing combat skills. Look at the numbers in the poll so far. At least 20% of players simply do not want a hunger system, now about half of them maybe just don't have faith in the devs to make it fun or would prefer them to spend their time developing any number of other things... But at least half simply do not want to participate in it no matter what. You say so what it's only 10% of players? That's at least 2800 players currently, at the average pledge that's $330k revenue for Portalarium. Money they get if they simply do nothing. On the other hand we are asking them to spend time and money on a system that alienates that demographic further cutting their revenue. As they've never promised the system to the remaining backers in the first place that's kind of a no brainer.

That said I agree with you in principle. A well design and well balanced hunger system that is fun and not burdensome should be the goal regardless. But including a hard opt-out eliminates any argument that minority who simply doesn't want it can raise. In the interest of pushing boundaries, innovating and making the best game/virtual world they can, while still encouraging as much as the player base as possible to participate actively online, this is a compromise we might just have to be willing to accept.
That said my proposal was just one possible option. The solution doesn't necessarily have to be magic based. This is amongst other things brainstorming thread. If you can think of another good in lore system that allows anyone opposing hunger the option to opt-out, allowing the devs to confidently include hunger in the game... suggest it so the devs can weigh it up.
If nothing else an opt-out gives them more freedom to make the hunger system more in depth and not water it down for the non hardcore mode players.

While again I agree with most of what you say, laying down an attitude of "Play my way or don't play at all" is not constructive. If hunger is going to be included at all it has to cater to both groups, so lets think up some ways we can make that work fairly.

 

If you are referring to single player offline, fine.

Isn't it weird to see someone advocating for the minority?? Wouldn't see this on a PvP thread lol!

Opting out is a terrible option IMO for the reasons I have stated in previous posts.
I am not trying to force people to play my way.. I am not trying to be selfish.
I think the reasons I have posted against opting stand on their own. I would like to hear them challenged rather than my perceived motivations.

I think the way to make it work for everyone is auto feed / drink as some have mentioned, and make any kind of negative penalties very minimal with a lot of time spent in between the penalties getting worse.

edit: if having to eat becomes optional, I will rethink my crafting choices. No point to cook since no one will bother to buy my food.

 

Personally, I hate the "playstyles" argument... optimally, you want to create a game that's fun for everyone of every playstyle, and not have to segregate everyone's playing experience so everyone is essentially playing a different game. If a hunger system only appeals to hardcore players, then, imo, there's a problem with the way its been implemented. So if that's the case, you're going to want to adjust the hunger system, anyway. Its not that I want to force players to play how I like, I just think the optimal solution is always finding something in the middle that works for everyone. You want to always first try to find a balance, and only then -- if you're find yourself unable to create a balanced system -- you start to add options. If its a fun, balanced, system in the end, it won't drive away players.

Think about all of the other things we'd have to add options for if it was just about people's playstyles -- coins taking up weight, weapons not breaking, quest markers, exclamation points on quest giver's heads. You don't want to do that as much as possible. You only want to do that as a last resort -- only if its necessary. And a lot of that does have the potential to impact multiplayer. The person who wants hunger wants to have fun too, and wants to be able to compete in a multiplayer world, and he's handicapping himself if he puts hunger on himself and everyone else around him doesn't have to worry about it.

I accept the PvP slider because, of two reasons. First, because its proven very difficult to balance open PvP correctly; people always find ways to grief, even if there's ways to curb griefing behavior. If they could design a balanced open PvP world, and took the time to do that, that would be great with me. Second, real world needs sometimes get in the way of PvP. If you're called away by your kid or your spouse or your parent, you don't want to tell them you can't come, because you're in the middle of fighting off a PKer who will leave you dead and loot all your valuable items. That's not even an issue of playstyle.

 

Fair enough. I didn't want to actually start a debate but I like most of your suggestions so your concerns deserve answering.

I added numbers to your points for ease of linking the replies... As I'm going to answer them out of order.

3: As I originally pointed out an all or nothing approach is not constructive. Yes there are problems here but there's no reason we can't be innovative and come up with with a system that works. This is not a cookie cutter MMO, it's a Lord British game. They can dare to do new and exciting things. Lets look at the balance concerns...
1: A fair point but the baseline is it currently does nothing. So what are they losing? The alternative is it becomes a second alchemy, and what is the point of that exactly? I should clarify that. If food just provides buffs, it's just potions in a different shape, if you start making rules to differentate what one or the other can buff you are just making artificial justifications for splitting the consumable buffs skill, which is pointless. Cooking should serve it's own unique function. Just because some people choose not to eat is not strictly speaking diminishing the skill over say alchemy. You don't have to use potions (or scrolls either). Adding an arbitrary penalty to justify the skill is kind of a cheap cop out to... However I think it's one that is worth it if it is made to be worth it. Risk = reward. Opting-out = No risk = No reward.
2: Just to be clear... You do realise opt-out for those other professions do exist right? You are not forced to wear amrour, use weapons or be a mage. Heck wearing armour might actually penalise mages, is that fair to blacksmiths? Yes. Just because a skill doesn't cater to the whole player base doesn't mean it will necessarily be a smaller market. I mean if warrior need armour repairs twice as often as a mage needs to restock regs there can be half as many warriors and mages and blacksmiths are still laughing.
4: I actually like this point the best. Mostly because I like it as an idea. Who's to say you can't summon armour and weapons? I already suggested summon food cuts out any benefits from the hunger system, why not summoned armour and weapons let you get by when financialy deistitute and unable to afford repairs but you are effectively opting out on the benefits of high quality master crafted and enchanted equipment?

It's pretty clear people who are going to opt-out aren't interested in minmaxing, so they are non balance concern competitive combat wise. Now I get your concern is economic but I see no reason that can't be balanced with an opt-out system in mind.

 

Edit: accidental double post. Oh well.

Redfish I get what you are saying but it's not as simple as that. Regardless of how you do it some systesm are going to be redudant or intrusive to some players. There are going to be people who are strictly non combat for instance. The whole combat system is redundant to them. If they are pacifists they might be opposed to killing anything, period. No matter how good the combat system is you can't draw them in. Whether it's a monk or merchant they need an opt-out mechanic to get through the main story. Be it the ability to pacify enemies without killing them or to sneak past them. Most the ultimas did accommodate this. That said zero kill runs were hard, but they were certainly possible. It's one of the great accomplishments of the series. When it comes to the online sandbox and the interactive virtual world you have to look at every system the same way. Is it blocking people from playing how they want to play? Some compromises are reasonable, others less so. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be open to compromise, especially when the alternative is don't include something altogether.

 

@Astrobia,

I think you would have options here too.. 1. buy food versus hunt, 2. dried rations versus freshly cooked that might spoil, 3. eating every day versus taking some type of minor hit --- hopefully it will be minor -- and just eating every few days, 4. stopping to camp on travels versus just swinging by the tavern to get a meal every time you get to a town. I'm also hoping there will be two ways to eat: out of your bag versus automated at the campsite or at a tavern.

I'm thinking if they make the hunger system balanced and the options around eating very versatile, it will offer a lot of different playstyles.

 

See that's constructive and useful feedback. More of that.

Edit: I should probably expand on that so it doesn't sound patronising (not the intent).
There's not much point simply stating what we want to see here in the comments and then debating it reiterating the same points over and over. It's worth stating your position once if it doesn't consider with the poll above. Beyond that it's more productive to brainstorm ideas that help make your preferred implementation more practical and accommodating. That way the devs can go over the suggestions and fit together the system from the ideas that matches their vision best from the feedback. Then once they make there first proposal we can debate how to further balance and improve the system.

 

Pro Specific: I want hunger but have an alternative suggestion for how to do it (post in comments).

I would love to see hunger be an issue in the game as long as it follows some sense of realism. There are a lot of benefits to having such a system in, the obvious being that it gives cooking a purpose beyond having a couple buffs.

Death should certainly be the outcome of not eating over a long period of time. Your character should slow if it doesn't eat at least once a (real world) day. By making it based on a real world day vs an in game day, it will be less of an annoyance, but enough of one to actively seek out food while not having to keep food on you all the time.

I had also posted before on how I'd love to see a system in place that makes your character reflect your eating habits such as in Fable. If you eat a ton of food, your character becomes fat. If you eat very little, you become stick thin. This would also enable us to evolve our character over time which is always nice to be able to change the way you look.

 

Yes, i want it. Should effortless, though, to find meals and food for a extra energy boost.

It has been a part of most other Ultimas.