Game Development: Bullfinch Falls

[Nightdawg]

please next patch stitched casing stacks + hat instead of bird + hat

thanks

[AlexNT]

Being reset to 300% when youve got an end game table is such a huge long term advantage because your hunger % barely moves with an end game table so in the long run you just end up ahead of everyone else eating the same stuff. I know because it happened to me last world.

I am not 1 of the tards who whines about overblown forum rumours. What I just described is common sense if you understand this hunger system. Just stop and think about how silly it is that last world the people in our village who fucked up and died were rewarded with the best stats in the long run.

This sounds like more an issue with not being able to go back down to 300% without dying in any reasonable amount of time, rather than death resetting to 300%.

How many days of not eating is a 300% reset equivalent to? If the answer is "infinite", because the decay is asymptotic, then it's easy to see why some players consider it dumb.

Would it make sense to replace the full reset with a decay equivalent to fasting a fixed number of days (3-5-10-15) for the death "bonus"? Would that make it sufficiently unattractive / unpractical to exploit?

[Reiber]

[quote="AlexNT"][/quote]
well the most important thing is time, if you have an industry that basically beltfeeds you food, you can kill yourself, inherit and regain your stats in 5-10minutes,

[Aerona]

I mentioned this in another thread on the topic, but if hunger isn't reset to 300% after death that's bad for everyone, especially those who didn't want their hearthlings to die. It's not targeted at those who use massive amounts of food and fine dining sets to exploit the system, so it's not a good fix. What seems appropriate is something that adds risk and consequence to rapidly consuming food while at extreme hunger values, since only players who exploit the system, particularly by deliberately killing their own hearthlings, will be interested in maintaining extreme hunger values, consuming vast amounts of food very rapidly, and especially both at once.

Last time I played H&H there were 'black FEPs' caused by eating certain foods, which would resolve by deducting HHP (there were no wounds yet) instead of raising attributes.There could be a chance to gain black FEPs (associated with a wound related to indigestion) from eating rich food items, which was more likely with higher-quality foods, more dangerous at high satiation values, increasingly more likely to trigger when hunger values are over 200% or below 100%, and that stacks with itself in a magnifying way when triggered repeatedly, similar to beestings. It could increase over time before fading, or have another sort of delayed effect, to help with moderation even more. Instant feedback helps to figure out how to make "optimal plays" without risk and cost, which is good for systems that help the player interact with the game world, but not so much for those that enable power-levelling.

This would have many benefits: Attribute growth from binge-eating would slow down since some of the 'level ups' would inflict wounds rather than raising attributes, cramming would be a risky game to play and not necessarily optimal, and there'd be less motivation to have "titans" who single-handedly monopolize food resources for themselves, since distributing it to other hearthlings would reduce the amount of wounds its consumption would inflict in place of attribute increases. While overstuffing a hearthling would become a way for their own player to kill them deliberately, it couldn't be perfectly planned or predicted, and following the death they'd have to slow down for a while until their hunger returned to a moderate value.

It wouldn't affect most players very much, both because most players tend to stay around 150% hunger, and because most players above 200% either don't have enough resources to spare to cram themselves to death, don't spend enough time online that wound recovery is a headache for them, or when playing a newly inherited hearthling, weren't expecting they'd be in that situation, probably didn't stockpile food in advance in anticipation. and have other matters to attend to besides just trying to rush up their attributes.

***

I like the new waterfalls, though I have a similar comment that it's a bit uncomfortable seeing a river flowing down from its headwaters, then up, and then down again. (Was considering pointing that out before the update.)

Regarding bows: The main thing they should be good for but aren't is hunting small animals. Somehow, using a horse is an efficient way to catch moles, rabbits, and even birds. I don't think this should be the case. Sure, they might be able to trample non-flying small animals (maybe not ones that can just burrow or hide behind terrain horses can't pass through, I guess) but catching bullfinches in seconds at no cost just by galloping up and snatching them in mid-flight feels even more unfair than the rabbits that just waited patiently for players to grab them in Legacy.

[terechgracz]

instead inheriting hunger, let it start at 100% so we all can take break

[Stoneface]

Why WOULDN'T Jorb want to make another bum-burn type wound...sounds rad, sign us up!!!

[Fostik]

instead inheriting hunger, let it start at 100% so we all can take break

Based, on the background of much lower stat values at world start, different playstyle players could benefit differently from going below or above this value

[Ø]

I mentioned this in another thread on the topic, but if hunger isn't reset to 300% after death that's bad for everyone, especially those who didn't want their hearthlings to die.

This is a contradiction.

While overstuffing a hearthling would become a way for their own player to kill them deliberately, it couldn't be perfectly planned or predicted, and following the death they'd have to slow down for a while until their hunger returned to a moderate value.

This contradiction also, plainly, creates a new way of hungercide that would be, aptly, named "Death Eaters". It does not take into account ANY other aspects and mechanics of the game where stuffing is required; credos and quests to gain X in stat. In other words, a change like this would do the opposite of your intention and would create another complication to the normal player that does not hungercide while rewarding those that do by giving them a new way to kill themselves.

While it is presented as a well thought out idea it does not take into account the general mechanics of the game that are an aside to just eating.

For those that just hit the, "You lack the energy for hard labor.", barrier from things like long mining sessions, a regular aspect of the game, it means potentially hindering progression due to losing HHP which could mean death from a cave-in or mob spawns from things like loose rock.

Initially, it sounded like a cool and fun mechanic. However, after considering the most basic game play and need for stuffing your face in a short time it is apparent that this idea would be a hindrance for all regular game play and would do nothing to stop or even hinder those that choose to use hungercide to buff their characters.