Boredom and sane Satiation for Curiosities and Food

[jorb]

Ok, requesting strong, good, and healthy incentives to keep a varied diet.

This.

How does removing hunger increase the incentives to keep a varied diet?

[Hrenli]

How does removing hunger increase the incentives to keep a varied diet?

It will turn each satiation into it's own hunger and we will have to play minmax game over each of those separately. Which is arguably both better and worse...

[DDDsDD999]

Ok, requesting strong, good, and healthy incentives to keep a varied diet.

This.

Huh? How does that change anything?

Satiations regenerate so quickly, while hunger only regenerates as quickly as you quest, such that the most efficient set up is going to be to run a bot that eats the best fep per hunger food whenever its satiation is reset. Hunger only serves as a filler timegate against the exact purpose you want as it just promotes eating the most efficient fep per hunger food you can get. If satiations are slowed down, the optimal path for stat gain is to eat the biggest variety of foods you can that touch on all the different types of satiation. With satiations then time-gating fep gain, hunger only serves to complicate the system, and deserves to be removed since it mainly promotes non-stop questing to maximize gain on the best foods. With the change, the most optimal stat gain path would be a list of foods that interact in a way that touches all forms of food industry, and not just the best fep per hunger food you can eat on a timer bot.

[Ysh]

Ok, requesting strong, good, and healthy incentives to keep a varied diet.

The men will always produce whichever food is most efficient and sustainable. Most efficient definition is some food that has highest FEP/hunger at quality level this man can acquire. Sustainable definition is that man must be able to obtain it in enough quantity that the limiting factor in his eating is some thing other than ability to acquire the food.

From here, I think that any solution fundamentally must interact with one of these two axis of food evaluation (i.e. efficiency and sustainability) in order to address issue in real way. So far I think most proposted ideas have interact with efficiency. This FIFO queue/boredom type mechanism and satiations (both implementations) fall under this category. It seem to me that the basic problem with these options are as follows:

• If it is too hard to reset this efficiency nerf, the men will complain that they are trapped and can not eat any food. This has been seen with old satiation system (which enough men complained that it is changed this world). Adding drinks seem to be attempt of mitigating this, but that is beyond reach of nabs complaining that he can no longer eat his rats and mushrooms. I think the FIFO queue per food item proposal of these thread is better than previous satiation in this regard, because it is based on individual food instead of category of food. Nab has access to plenty of individual food, but few category.
• If it is too easy to reset this efficiency nerf, then the men will simply reset it and continue eating this most efficient foods. This is seen with drinks for high end player in previous implementation I think, where the men will simply reset his satiation with drink or other means of trivializing system and continue to eat these most efficient foods. I suspect current implementation of satiation have this same problem, since the men can simply wait until tomorrow to eat his efficient foods again.

I think for this angle of attack, if I am you, I will try some system that is one or both of A. based on individual food instead of category, so even player with few option (nabs or early game players) does not feel punished and B. reverse satiation mechanism presentation to some thing like ''cravings'' or ''delicacies'' which will give bonus to uneaten foods. If the listing of these delicacies is not presented in UI, but instead on tooltip of these foods, nab will not even need to know about system until he is more experienced in game, which I think is useful property. Similarly, first time he crafts some new food, he will see that he has big bonus saved up on this new food item, which makes this unlock seem more rewarding to him at first.

As far as solution which will attack problem from angle of sustainability, I think this one is more vague. I think here you can look at curiosity system for comparison. If I can study ruby dragonfly all day, I will do it. But I can not do this, because this ruby dragonfly is not sustainable. I can not farm it in quantity to study it all day, but I will study it every time I will get one during normal play. It is perhaps possible to bring similar concept to foods, where there is a number of unsustainable foods that are very rewarding to eat compared to mass produced foods. Player will still mass produce most efficient foods when he can not get these unsustainable megaefficient foods, but this is some way to inject some variety into the diet as is currently done with curiosity. Maybe if accumulation of these megaefficient foods is pervasive enough, the sum of them collectively can prove to be sustainable (i.e. I get enough of them to always be eating these megaefficient foods, but there is a lot of variety among them). Though this runs the risk of, depending on implementation, making player feel powerless as he can not farm these foods (since they are not mass producible by definition) and think of system as arbitrary, too RNG, or a timegate. I think at this moment I am skeptical that solution like this alone is sufficient to address problem.

[xdragonlord18]

How does removing hunger increase the incentives to keep a varied diet?

if u want players to eat a variety of foods then players must feel rewarded for eat a variety of foods it sounds simple but i think everyone is missing the most critical point which is that the system must feel rewarding to the player

the hunger system currently feels like a punishment cuz it is a punishment more specifically its a negative punishment because u r taking away food efficiency when the player commits the undesired offense of eating 2 much food 2 fix this u need 2 inverse it and make it a positive reinforcement make it start at some base like 100% and make it go up the longer the player goes without eating with this u are adding efficiency when the player performs the desired action of not eating too much food i would recommend similar treatment of the satiations system u should invert it when u eat a specific food type it should slightly buff the other food types while equalizing the most eaten food type and make it so they do not go away over time they can only be reduced by eating other foods

the numbers r obviously flexible but the point is that u should make the game systems reinforcement based instead of punishment based when possible since people respond better to reinforcements

[ricky]

To build on the problems with hunger:

If satiations are designed to stop me from eating 20 pieces of food from the same category, hunger is designed to stop me from eating 20 pieces of ANY food.

Some foods are simply not viable if you want to sustain a hunger bonus above 100%. For instance, i won't eat roast meat ever again for the rest of the game due to its 4% hunger cost, and in fact people here will laugh i ate roast meat at all.

I enjoy the idea of having a Hunger bonus/debuff. It incentivizes not eating all day, which is good. Currently however i don't think it's being used in the ways you originally intended.

Some changes that might make hunger tolerable and mechanically effective:
Bound hunger bonuses from 200% to 50% in 10 stages.
Halve all hunger costs across the board.
Additionally, have all hunger costs scale to current hunger level (200% = 2x hunger cost, 50% = .5x hunger cost)
Remove hunger bonus from symbelware
Bound quest tree hunger reduction from 2-20%

The idea here is we can still have hunger bonuses and debuffs, but it takes a lot more food to leave from one stage to the next.

Regardless of the above suggestions, 300% efficiency bonus should be removed

[Granger]

How does removing hunger increase the incentives to keep a varied diet?

if u want players to eat a variety of foods then players must feel rewarded for eat a variety of foods it sounds simple but i think everyone is missing the most critical point which is that the system must feel rewarding to the player

That's what I added in the update post in this topic.

make it a positive reinforcement make it start at some base like 100% and make it go up the longer the player goes without eating with this u are adding efficiency when the player performs the desired action of not eating too much food i would recommend similar treatment of the satiations system u should invert it when u eat a specific food type it should slightly buff the other food types while equalizing the most eaten food type and make it so they do not go away over time they can only be reduced by eating other foods

I had also thought about something like that at first, the problem I saw was that players would quickly figure out a short circle of items that will keep the foods they're interested in at maximum effect.

the numbers r obviously flexible but the point is that u should make the game systems reinforcement based instead of punishment based when possible since people respond better to reinforcements

Please see the update linked above. The suggested general mechanic in the OP should work regardless of being formulated as a nerf or a buff - though the latter might require to reduce the base effect of all food items to prevent the approach from just becoming the next 300% hunger multiplier.

[azrid]

Ok, requesting strong, good, and healthy incentives to keep a varied diet.

Increased cooldown on satiations.
Give every satiation type a group of end game foods without joke feps.

[xdragonlord18]

make it a positive reinforcement make it start at some base like 100% and make it go up the longer the player goes without eating with this u are adding efficiency when the player performs the desired action of not eating too much food i would recommend similar treatment of the satiations system u should invert it when u eat a specific food type it should slightly buff the other food types while equalizing the most eaten food type and make it so they do not go away over time they can only be reduced by eating other foods

I had also thought about something like that at first, the problem I saw was that players would quickly figure out a short circle of items that will keep the foods they're interested in at maximum effect.

this should not b a problem since the circle is still a variety of foods if the circle is 2 small then they can increase the number of categories all the way down 2 b on an individual item basi jorb only said he wanted a variety of food types 2 b eaten not that he wants every food 2 b eaten

the numbers r obviously flexible but the point is that u should make the game systems reinforcement based instead of punishment based when possible since people respond better to reinforcements

Please see the update linked above. The suggested general mechanic in the OP should work regardless of being formulated as a nerf or a buff - though the latter might require to reduce the base effect of all food items to prevent the approach from just becoming the next 300% hunger multiplier.

i think it being formulated as a nerf or a buff is the mission critical difference cuz people do not respond well 2 punishments its really just not a good way to get people 2 do things

[Granger]

this should not b a problem since the circle is still a variety of foods if the circle is 2 small then they can increase the number of categories all the way down 2 b on an individual item basi jorb only said he wanted a variety of food types 2 b eaten not that he wants every food 2 b eaten

I had thought a good while about that, the reasoning for me to drop the idea to turn the current satiation categories into a zero-sum game (one raises while another lowers) is that the more food items there are the shorter a cycle to raise a certain FEP would get. I think it also wouldn't help much against the issue with the top-x of food items being quite static when you're not limited by production, as Ysh stated some posts back.

i think it being formulated as a nerf or a buff is the mission critical difference cuz people do not respond well 2 punishments its really just not a good way to get people 2 do things

I agree from a psychological standpoint that it being seen as a buff would be easier to digest.
Do you have an idea how the numbers could be made to work to that effect?