Vigilance wrote:I am so sincerely sorry that calling you a dimwit hurt your feelings
It hurt not my personal feelings but the spirit of discussion, I suppose. And it's not for me to decide.
Vigilance wrote:by how hard the game kicked back at you for everything you chose to do. Every food you ate, every action you took, everything had a level of kickback. Eating sessions could be instantly ended in the early game by satiations rolling unluckily.
Limit to eating is just a part of the game world rules. Do they (or it's you?) call any gameplay obstacle a kickback? I don't see what it is
back from, except from expectations maybe. Neither I see why the players being able to shove all the food they have will be specifically
better for the game.
Vigilance wrote:I would really like to take a poll to see what has made most people quit playing
It could be nice, but we won't see answers from most of those who has left, so the result would be extremely skewed. And one needs to differentiate players experience and game mechanics anyway. Players are not developers, they can't dictate
how the game is to be done.
Vigilance wrote:but you have to consider that blowing up virtual numbers also includes the initial few weeks of a character's life.
The underlying gameplay, if I got you right. That's exactly why I said there won't be much difference. The gameplay of obtaining food is not being improved, and the gameplay of managing food types only has some conditions altered.
Vigilance wrote:And as for comparing them "not being fun" because someone has to lose, that's sort of the nature of any vaguely competitive game
Nature of good competitive game is based on some useful skill, that is, the competition in
what. The reward distribution part is zero-sum, while the growth in skill is fun for both sides and the source of net positive outcome.
One may overlook this in a real competition when only the outcome matters, thus making any means useful, but it the game design you have to connect a skill-check and a reward manually.
Vigilance wrote:Removing satiations and leaving hunger will still allow some level of holding the gate of progression.
The progression may be "faster" or "slower", with more gates or less, it's all only relative virtual numbers, not much "better" or "worse" it the sense of the game. It all depends on the devs' idea of what the game should be.