Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Vectious

Hunger Mechanic

Recommended Posts

Having never had to open my inventory mid-combat to eat, I cannot help but think they're doing something very, very wrong.

Also, some of them don't burn food as much. Refer to my previous comments above. Duelists in combat don't do anything that accelerates their chicken ticker's decay, besides just being in combat. But consuming stamina - which some ATs actually do a lot of to power their skills - burns through it faster than anything else.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was my feeling when the chicken ticker was introduced. I still agree with you, BUT I understand why some players and the devs think it might be compelling. The "survival" influence feels a little like the kitchen sink to me, but I get it. Those games are kind of popular right now.

 

I have some concern that a jack of all trades is a master of none. That, perhaps, CF may be trying to be too many things. Kind of like Sears. If they can pull it off, it'll be fantastic. This hunger mechanic affects ATs differently and it just seems to me that it's one more thing to balance that I, personally, would far prefer to see the effort spent on character building.

 

Having said that, even though I don't like it, it will not put me off the game and I even reserve the right to change my mind about it. I think it's clear they need to lower the rate though, and a lot.

I agree man. Its the one thing I felt always made me "tread water" and not progress, or it severely hindered progression in the game. It either needs to be more of an after thought, or not at all in the game. 

 

We already have so much "decay" items and what not, I just dont think we need a punishing hunger system involved as well. 

 

This is an interesting read: http://www.pcgamer.com/how-survival-games-get-hunger-and-thirst-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/

 

I like what he says "After I've eaten, leave me alone for a while"

So I think the whole food/hunger system could be reworked somehow... Maybe some type of requirement that only needs to be done at longer periods of time in between without a meter "counting down" till you need to do it again.

 

Something that you can FORGET about for a while after you do it, not constantly watch "oh crap I lost 2 chicken legs"

 

Let me play for a while, then once in a while make me go feed again.... I think this is an area where less is more. 

 

Less transparency is better, allowing us to forget about eating while we focus on something else. Then after a while, maybe after 1-2 hours of gametime, we get a little nudge.... hey.... remember to eat... after that... HEY! You need to eat!!! Etc etc...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Play certain ATs and you'll see what he means.

 

Some of them can't regen manna after getting too hungry, for example.

 

Also, some of them don't burn food as much. Refer to my previous comments above. Duelists in combat don't do anything that accelerates their chicken ticker's decay, besides just being in combat. But consuming stamina - which some ATs actually do a lot of to power their skills - burns through it faster than anything else.

I've fought as a Myrmidon, Knight, Duelist, Legionnaire and Confessor, never having had to eat in-combat. I've also fought as a Ranger, but that was before Big World.


Hi, I'm moneda.

s1tKI24.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

 

In some of the hour+ fights I've been in I had to stop and eat multiple times. It's the long fights where you never die that force you to stop and eat. And that was before they turned it up several notches with this last patch.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you realize that when the game will release, dying out of hunger will be as probable as dying from a gank.

 

When you realize that when the game will release, dying will make you most probably lose your inventory, but also your gear, AND your vessel.

 

When you realize that when the game will release, there won't be respawn, but reincarnation in a new body.

 

When you realize that two bodies may not be fed the same way, nor have the same hunger whatsoever.

 

And when you realize all that, you accept the hunger being a pain, for the sake, once again, of pre-alpha.

Edited by Eaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you realize that when the game will release, dying out of hunger will be as probable as dying from a gank.

 

When you realize that when the game will release, dying will make you most probably lose your inventory, but also your gear, AND your vessel.

 

When you realize that when the game will release, there won't be respawn, but reincarnation in a new body.

 

When you realize that two bodies may not be fed the same way, nor have the same hunger whatsoever.

 

And when you realize all that, you accept the hunger being a pain, for the sake, once again, of pre-alpha.

They actually said that you couldn't die of hunger - it could halt your ability to regenerate health, stamina, or class resource and damage you down to ..20% max health, I think? But that it would not, on its own, kill you.

 

That said, I agree with the rest of your argument. And hunger might also become lethal by live. But still. :3

 

Edit: also, pointing out when hunger is a pain seems like an important part of pre-alpha. Like, noticing that Confessors burn through their chicken ticker like nobody's business while Duelists hardly ever do seems like an important note once we get from pre-alpha to beta and start focusing more on game balance.

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you realize that when the game will release, dying out of hunger will be as probable as dying from a gank.

 

When you realize that when the game will release, dying will make you most probably lose your inventory, but also your gear, AND your vessel.

 

When you realize that when the game will release, there won't be respawn, but reincarnation in a new body.

 

When you realize that two bodies may not be fed the same way, nor have the same hunger whatsoever.

 

And when you realize all that, you accept the hunger being a pain, for the sake, once again, of pre-alpha.

 

Did you not read what Tinnis listed? It disproves some of these 'facts'. Also, you indicate that these are obvious when they are mostly based off of assumptions that are not even in the pre-alpha. And then you end up dismissing your own argument with the huge stamp of "its pre-alpha". 

 

Like...we are testing things that will be the framework of the future game, if we think something is wrong or wont work, or needs additional changes this is the PERFECT time to say it. 

 

Stop using Pre-Alpha as a reason we should with-hold judgement and suggestions. Its actually the exact opposite, its the time period that people need to be the most vocal.

 

Edit: As long as its constructive, obviously. 

Edited by Vectious

CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not read what Tinnis listed? It disproves some of these 'facts'. Also, you indicate that these are obvious when they are mostly based off of assumptions that are not even in the pre-alpha. And then you end up dismissing your own argument with the huge stamp of "its pre-alpha". 

 

Like...we are testing things that will be the framework of the future game, if we think something is wrong or wont work, or needs additional changes this is the PERFECT time to say it. 

 

Stop using Pre-Alpha as a reason we should with-hold judgement and suggestions. Its actually the exact opposite, its the time period that people need to be the most vocal.

 

Edit: As long as its constructive, obviously. 

 

Well, hunger going down too fast is worth reporting.

 

That means that the complete rest of the hunger system is working perfectly for everyone. Fair enough.

 

Also, I personally hate the 80% regen debuff when Warmth is down.

 

But, well, PRE-ALPHA STAMP. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was my feeling when the chicken ticker was introduced. I still agree with you, BUT I understand why some players and the devs think it might be compelling. The "survival" influence feels a little like the kitchen sink to me, but I get it. Those games are kind of popular right now.

 

Hunger at the individual level is pretty annoying, or at least boring.  It's the higher level effects that interest me.  Will we be able to starve out our enemies by destroying supply lines and wrecking their farms?  Will you win a campaign because in the end you managed your food better leading into winter?  Is an army of 100 people at your gates more easily defeated because it may not have brought enough food to last the siege?

 

It's too early to say if these scenarios will actually happen, but I think the game would benefit from the possibilities that food, as a strategic resource, could provide.  I'd gladly eat a few roasted pine nuts if it adds to the depth of the overall war game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunger at the individual level is pretty annoying, or at least boring.  It's the higher level effects that interest me.  Will we be able to starve out our enemies by destroying supply lines and wrecking their farms?  Will you win a campaign because in the end you managed your food better leading into winter?  Is an army of 100 people at your gates more easily defeated because it may not have brought enough food to last the siege?

 

It's too early to say if these scenarios will actually happen, but I think the game would benefit from the possibilities that food, as a strategic resource, could provide.  I'd gladly eat a few roasted pine nuts if it adds to the depth of the overall war game.

Hadn't considered that aspect. Which is odd, since I usually try to put EVERYTHING into the larger context of the finished game. >_>

 

Thanks for that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunger at the individual level is pretty annoying, or at least boring. It's the higher level effects that interest me. Will we be able to starve out our enemies by destroying supply lines and wrecking their farms? Will you win a campaign because in the end you managed your food better leading into winter? Is an army of 100 people at your gates more easily defeated because it may not have brought enough food to last the siege?

 

It's too early to say if these scenarios will actually happen, but I think the game would benefit from the possibilities that food, as a strategic resource, could provide. I'd gladly eat a few roasted pine nuts if it adds to the depth of the overall war game.

I agree with you. Individually annoying as hell.

 

When this was first introduced I suggested it might, perhaps, be better to introduce hunger as a guild wide buff / debuff system tied to food in the guild warehouse compared to the number of members, etc. You'd be able to play the tactical game entirely without everyone having to constantly be annoyed by the micromanagement that the current system requires.

 

Edit: think Shadowbane warehouse system meets Shadowbane shrine and boon system, but with negative buffs as a potential when low on food.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunger at the individual level is pretty annoying, or at least boring.  It's the higher level effects that interest me.  Will we be able to starve out our enemies by destroying supply lines and wrecking their farms?  Will you win a campaign because in the end you managed your food better leading into winter?  Is an army of 100 people at your gates more easily defeated because it may not have brought enough food to last the siege?

 

It's too early to say if these scenarios will actually happen, but I think the game would benefit from the possibilities that food, as a strategic resource, could provide.  I'd gladly eat a few roasted pine nuts if it adds to the depth of the overall war game.

I see the issues with this are that if you really were in a battle and the goal was to "starve" out an enemy, I dont see this happening... The amount of time it takes for hunger to set in, doing NOTHING, is a long time. Not to mention players will have "storage" of food they can use and nobody is going to sit around for HOURS waiting for hunger to take over.

 

In theory, what you have stated isnt a bad idea, however I dont think its something that can be easily done in an MMO without sacrificing something else and frankly a "lets starve them out!" mechanic doesnt make for a very fun game... If the defenders get the sense there is no action and they have no chance, there is a HIGH probability they will cut losses and log out, letting you ruin their keep - and atleast they dont take durability loss on all the armor. They wont just sit in there and watch their food bar tick down and say "oh man we better give up or attack". 

 

not to mention its highly probably you will be attacking their keep, so the inevitable breakthrough is what will win that battle. Not a food mechanic. 

 

IMO, I think the food/hunger mechanics need to be made more simple. Like I posted above, once you eat, you can forget about it for a while. Out of sight and out of mind... Maybe you get a nudge after an hour or two of gaming that says "hey you should eat soon" in some form of hunger mechanic... Then if you ignore it, penalty sets in after X time that impacts your character in a BIG way... 

 

I think this could be in the form of a much smaller hunger bar, with fewer chicken legs that have a MUCH slower rate of decay. Something like 5 legs or 4 instead of however many we have now.

 

You can operate just fine until it drops to 1, then you might see some mild negatives and if it drops below 1, you get a movement penalty and stamina regen penalty. If it hits 0 you die.

 

Why less Number of chicken legs?

Its a mindset thing. Take it to an extreme. 

 

Lets say there is only ONE leg, It can be at 0%/50%/100%. So you eat, and it pops to 100%, you could run around for an hour and it would show 100%. You wont even THINK about it... after an hour you might start to wonder "when will it drop to 50?" when it does, you eat again. 

 

If there are 20 chicken legs, If you are running around for an hour, you might see 9 of them fall off. You are still over 50%. But you FEEL like you need to eat and are "missing something" Its a much more apparent VISUAL which then creates a desire to fill this bar up.

 

Two very distinct methods. The first one allows you to eat and forget. The second one makes you feel like you are constantly battling hunger.

 

Whats funny is they both have the SAME impact on the game, but its perception that changes.

 

 

This is why I think simple is better. Maybe not ONE, because if you were about to leave for combat you might want to know "am I at 51% or 91%" Its not enough and doesnt give you ENOUGH info.

 

Reducing the number of legs to 4, might make sense. Now you can eat. Be at 4 FULL legs for a while, you dont SEE the impact of the chicken legs going down and might not for 20-30 minutes. Then you might see one go down. You might look at that and think "oh well ill wait till its at 2" and forget about it.

 

Less "visual" less "transparency" of the hunger is better. Thats my point. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunger at the individual level is pretty annoying, or at least boring.  It's the higher level effects that interest me.  Will we be able to starve out our enemies by destroying supply lines and wrecking their farms?  Will you win a campaign because in the end you managed your food better leading into winter?  Is an army of 100 people at your gates more easily defeated because it may not have brought enough food to last the siege?

 

It's too early to say if these scenarios will actually happen, but I think the game would benefit from the possibilities that food, as a strategic resource, could provide.  I'd gladly eat a few roasted pine nuts if it adds to the depth of the overall war game.

Indeed, i can get behind that.

 

But not in the current implementation. The whole reason them considering the "taking a knee" mechanic is so people wont just give up on a campaign that they are losing.

 

If you force the enemy to no food they are completely helpless and the 'give up' response will quickly follow. 

 

Again, im not saying it should be removed. Just make it so that it adds to the game-play dynamic instead of being a game-play tax.

 

And the attrition mechanic is already in the game with items breaking/decaying. Items and gear, unlike the current hunger, it adds to the game play, it has other uses that is intertwined in to all other aspects.

Edited by Vectious

CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the issues with this are that if you really were in a battle and the goal was to "starve" out an enemy, I dont see this happening... The amount of time it takes for hunger to set in, doing NOTHING, is a long time. Not to mention players will have "storage" of food they can use and nobody is going to sit around for HOURS waiting for hunger to take over.

 

...

 

"Starving out the enemy" isn't exactly a goal you will have; it's just one more tactic you *could* employ when dealing with an enemy force.  I wasn't suggesting this should should be "implemented as a game system".  I'm simply saying if food isn't significant enough to create those sorts of scenarios in the larger game, then there's no reason for food to be in the game in the first place.  

 

If the game is going to require the time sink necessary to harvest and maintain food supplies, then it should have some bearing on winning or losing a campaign.

 

 

 

And the attrition mechanic is already in the game with items breaking/decaying. Items and gear, unlike the current hunger, it adds to the game play, it has other uses that is intertwined in to all other aspects.

 

Food, just like gear decay, should be just another weapon in your arsenal when it comes to winning campaigns.  It's a time and resource sink for everyone, but it becomes an advantage as long as you're doing it better than the other guy.  These two things together *could* have a real impact on a zerg team since you have to keep all those people geared and fed to maintain their effectiveness.  And, if a force of 200 rolls up to your gates and they *are* geared and fed, it *should* be because they put in the time and effort to maintain an economy that supports such a large army; the ability to field such a large number is their reward for doing so.

 

Time will tell if these economic factors really have such an effect in the game, or if I just made it all up in my head.

 

(...unless, of course, they're a rolling horde that exists only because they steamroll everything in their path, stealing and pillaging what they need to survive along way.  There's that. ;P)  

Edited by Hyriol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Starving out the enemy" isn't exactly a goal you will have; it's just one more tactic you *could* employ when dealing with an enemy force.  I wasn't suggesting this should should be "implemented as a game system".  I'm simply saying if food isn't significant enough to create those sorts of scenarios in the larger game, then there's no reason for food to be in the game in the first place.  

 

If the game is going to require the time sink necessary to harvest and maintain food supplies, then it should have some bearing on winning or losing a campaign.

 

 

 

 

Food, just like gear decay, should be just another weapon in your arsenal when it comes to winning campaigns.  It's a time and resource sink for everyone, but it becomes an advantage as long as you're doing it better than the other guy.  These two things together *could* have a real impact on a zerg team since you have to keep all those people geared and fed to maintain their effectiveness.  And, if a force of 200 rolls up to your gates and they *are* geared and fed, it *should* be because they put in the time and effort to maintain an economy that supports such a large army; the ability to field such a large number is their reward for doing so.

 

Time will tell if these economic factors really have such an effect in the game, or if I just made it all up in my head.

 

(...unless, of course, they're a rolling horde that exists only because they steamroll everything in their path, stealing and pillaging what they need to survive along way.  There's that. ;P)  

My issue with this, is two fold.

 

1) Its annoying at the individual level. Which means everyone everyday nearly everyplay session will be dealing with an annoying mechanic for what benefit? A small (arguably) situation of mass combat where it MIGHT come into play. So I see very much annoyance for very small potential benefit.

 

2) I see campaigns as already having a VERY tough time being balanced already. Food only adds another layer of balance complication to it. I think of the acronym KISS (keep it simple stupid) and I have a current gut feeling that ACE is trying to be too many things to too many people, which is a BAD idea. 

 

What do I mean? Simple. Use their analogy. RISK! You start off a game (campaign) and Uncle Joe (or Bob or whatever) takes over all of Northern and Southern America after his second turn. Well, it can become very lop sided, very quickly... And the more mechanics to balance, the harder its going to be to keep it balanced... Its going to be difficult to keep outnumbered/losing factions.guilds or whatever to STAY involved in the game. 

 

If one side/guild/faction becomes quickly over powered, hoarding all the gear/resources adding 1 more thing the "underdog" needs to try and manage is going to create for a VERY un-fun campaign.

 

If they already have to worry about armor/weapon/vessel decay and resources and stocking up enough for everyone and THEN have to worry about stocking foot, incase they are sieged. Itll be over VERY quickly.

 

So again, I just see a very taxing mechanic, that feels like its "trying too hard" and trying to do/be too many things to too many people. I dont think they need to totally scrap it, but "food" shouldnt be a "play tax" but rather just a side mechanic that is an underlying factor in the game. Something you can forget about over short spurts but not over long hauls.

 

I wrote above about how LESS transparency around the food decay is better for this. I think Crowfall CAN add this element but it shouldnt be a primary focus of the game. In real life, we can go a LONG time without eating, Once you do eat, you "forget" about eating for a while... It should be this way in game.

 

 

I can 100% get behind a hunger mechanic and using this in sieges IF, and only IF, its LESS annoying on an individual level, so it feels like it ADDs to the game rather than subtracts from the individual experience. 

Edited by th3gatekeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I put my two bits about Hunger here, is it possible to get a link to more information about Hunger?

The link that Tinnis posted last year isn't working for me, and I have searched the site and forums to no avail. 

Is the Hunger tied to Race? It seems tied to Class and actions. Confessor burned through tickers like crazy (I don't care for the chicken legs. Too Minecrafty) 

Myrmdion seemed slow but also food didn't seem to add as much as it did to human. Maybe just me. 

Thanks in advance :D

Edited by kokaska71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't sleep so here's my ideas about the Hunger mechanic. 

1. Take Hunger away completely. Use only in short Campaigns and have the Hunger 2-5 times more powerful. During these campaigns starvation is possible.

2. Another idea would be to do away with Hunger during Spring and Summer. Increase resources during those two seasons. Add slow very slow tickers in Autumn and start decreasing resources. Winter comes around resources gone and tickers increase, due to the spread of the Hunger. Only during Winter is starvation possible. Sieges in Winter could result in slow death by starvation if there wasn't adequate resources stored. 

I know its a waste of time and resources but I would love to see something like a player with only a few ticks left in Hunger bar..their screen pulses in time to rapid heartbeat. They slow down-movement debuff. Become dizzy. Character is emaciated unable to execute some skills. Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kokaska71 said:

1. Take Hunger away completely. Use only in short Campaigns and have the Hunger 2-5 times more powerful. During these campaigns starvation is possible.

naaaah hunger is a good mechanic that is needed in modern mmo´s, people are just too soft

6 hours ago, kokaska71 said:

2. Another idea would be to do away with Hunger during Spring and Summer. Increase resources during those two seasons. Add slow very slow tickers in Autumn and start decreasing resources. Winter comes around resources gone and tickers increase, due to the spread of the Hunger. Only during Winter is starvation possible. Sieges in Winter could result in slow death by starvation if there wasn't adequate resources stored. 

that was the plan, minus only starvation during winter, if im not mistaken

 

6 hours ago, kokaska71 said:

I know its a waste of time and resources but I would love to see something like a player with only a few ticks left in Hunger bar..their screen pulses in time to rapid heartbeat. They slow down-movement debuff. Become dizzy. Character is emaciated unable to execute some skills. Just a thought

a nerf to stamina, movespeed and accuracy seems fitting for the thematic of starving 


6XZoThV.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:-) I didn't explain very well. That's what I get for trying to think at 4 something AM. I will be more detailed when I get home from work. Hate doing this on my phone. 

 

Edited by kokaska71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Hunger as a mechanic, it's a good at keeping large guilds in check with the difficulty of keeping their troops in peak condition scaling with the advantage of numbers. It also opens up a significant counter to brute force with indirect warfare tactics. Along with these two gameplay effects, Hunger will add a sense of importance to the Seasons and time in campaigns, making a difference between acting now, later, or soon.

 

All in all, it is a good strategic mechanic. Scaling the numbers would be better than getting rid of it. Also, altering the display to a bar or something might be better? I'm half-and-half, though I've always felt the chicken ticker display was a little off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...