Food and Energy Simulation
I was just wondering how food, water, and energy will be simulated in the game as these are likely the key components to ensuring human survival in the real world. I'm hoping to hear some clarification on this as these three are likely going to be important things to track with the research component. Hope to hear from someone soon!
Trost last edited by
In addition to @killerfurby33 , what about the waste (food, animal, humain)
Scots last edited by
You will survive without food/water etc (as you can't actually die) but your health would get low. Your ability to carry out tasks, learn skills etc will be diminished (if not stopped completely). Some food will help your health/skill bar to fill up faster than others.
I'm not sure about waste regarding food/animals/etc. I've only really seen mentions of industrial waste, so a member of the development will have to answer that one.
JohnK last edited by
I should do a Kickstarter post on this. But the short of it:
- The more well fed you (including nutrition, so it matters what you eat and that you have a diverse diet) the faster you gain skill. If you don't eat, you will reach 'starving' levels but never die, just become unable to do most things and very slow. Your skills go up even when youre offline, so you can load up with food and auto-eat through the night.
- Energy plays into our building system, some buildings will require an energy source, and can often choose what kind. To start there will only be local power generation (fireplaces/furnaces, water wheels, windmills), but later you can get remote power generation (electricity). The amount and quality of the energy will determine the efficiency of the building, and also be a large source of pollution potentially, so you will have to make tradeoffs on what kind of energy you use, and certain types can be outlawed.
- Transportation will also use a lot of energy, animal to start, then other kinds like coal burning trains.
Why was the apsect of death just left out of the game. Maybe you could make it so lack of food would cause your character to starve making you unable to play for 48 hours.
Can players regress in terms of skill and level if they don't eat? That would be more of a penalty for them without having people kept out of the game for extended periods of time.
RepeatPan last edited by
@Iramos15, I think that's not a good idea. Players should not be punished for things outside their responsibility. For example, if I'm unable to play for some time (say, because I'm on a business trip, out of town, something like that) and just happen to have no food on me, or was forced to log out outside my house, then I would "die" in-game and upon return find myself banned for two days.
That's a very frustrating concept, especially when we talk about prisons (if that stretch goal is reached). I don't know whether prisoners are "frozen" in time (skills probably, health/nutrition maybe?) or if they can learn skills (at designated prison schools?) and are fed by the public/prison owner.
Actually, that could be fun to (forcefully) (re-)educate offenders... If you chopped down a tree illegally, you're condemned to become a ranger to help reforestation). But that's another topic.
@RepeatPan, simple fix would be to make it so you can't die of starvation if you log out. There should be some bigger punishment then slower skills if you're eating absolutely no food, it's impossible to live on like that. Maybe if you sleep or something you consume food at a much slower rate when you log out which would allow you to keep only a little bit of food on you. I just think food should be a necessary aspect.
RepeatPan last edited by
@Iramos15, I agree that food should be necessary, but I heavily disagree with death/being unable to play. Starving should be out of question.
In my opinion, nutrition should play directly into everything a player does, which is not just restricted to skills. Using skills, doing things, even walking around could be severely impacted or even impossible below a certain nutrition level.
As for the logged out part, there will be no end of it once we start creating rules like that. If I'm not mistaken, the idea is something like "logging out in your house/housing will reduce food requirements for that time", e.g. you need 70% less food while logged out. If you can starve, but can't while logged out, there's always a chance that players would just starve the moment they log in, so you would need to get a grace period after logging in to avoid exactly that - at which point it becomes either a stupidly complex set of rules when starving is possible and when it isn't, or it turns into a race for food. At that point, I would say that we should step down realism in favour of having an enjoyable game. A mechanic should provide game depth, its sole reason to exist should not be like some sort of dull punishment.
@RepeatPan that makes sense, however if there's many farmers the whole sudo economy should be able to support the population. This would make the food aspect not so difficult. It will be easier to predict necessary challenges to keep the game challenging once alpha is released.
JohnK last edited by
Thinking about this a little more, starvation death might be a good thing to implement, and just have it take a really long time. IE, if I dont eat for a day I feel like crap, but I can still survive for a few weeks without eating. So right away you're pretty much incapacitated, but it will still be a long time before you die.
This also allows the 'extinct world' ending - if every source of food is extinct, players will gradually die over time.
@JohnK, if the starvation takes a few weeks and the simulation only lasts a month, then you're saying it takes a tremendously long time to starve.
Elliander_ last edited by
While I agree with @RepeatPan's position, I really like the lingering death approach brought up by @JohnK - and actually, if the world is almost dead, but not completely, the question is if a player would be willing to sacrifice their own advancement for the good of the world's recovery. I feel that there should always be some way out, just with great difficulty.
Maybe we can make dying off be part of an optional mod? I'm seeing a lot of room to experiment in the modding of the game. Maybe we can have people be able to cheat contracts on both ends of the deal? It doesn't need to be in the main game, but it could be in future iterations of the game.
ChronosWS last edited by
People should absolutely experiment with these in mods. What I would like to see out of the mod system is that people try these various features out, and if it becomes really successful, it can get incorporated either as a base game mechanic, or as a mod which is packaged with the main distribution.
tbbw82 last edited by tbbw82
My biggest issue with the simulation of things that i have not read that it will change ( please correct me if i'm wrong ) is the Tallings.
The description says "Contain in buildings or burry in rock to neutralize".
To me it sounds like if i build a containment room it will eventualy get neutralize becomming non toxic.
But instead of using the word "contain" wich would be the effects of just stuffing it into a stone room somewhere and walk away wisseling a random tune they use the word "neutralize" wich makes me think the Tallings would change into something else.
An idea would be if people make containment rooms for these... let em rest until they aged ( in time ) to then be recykled into something else.
It would add a whole branch of stuff to build and do with the byprodukt of smelting ingots.