Partial hunger penalty is the opposite of logic

[BFT2020]

5 hours ago, Gamida said:

Speaking of the hunger marks. Is there a way to turn off the moaning/groaning and 75% and 50%.

I think if you remove these lines from the buff.xml file in the hunger buffs, it won't play it (have never tried it myself)

 

            <triggered_effect trigger="onSelfBuffStart" action="PlaySound" sound="Player$Hungry" play_in_head="true"/>

 

[Gamida]

4 hours ago, BFT2020 said:

I think if you remove these lines from the buff.xml file in the hunger buffs, it won't play it (have never tried it myself)

 

            <triggered_effect trigger="onSelfBuffStart" action="PlaySound" sound="Player$Hungry" play_in_head="true"/>

 

Will try it, thanks.

[RyanX]

On 12/16/2021 at 7:16 PM, BFT2020 said:

 

That's not a penalty and you are only looking at one portion while ignoring other parts of it.

 

• When you start out, you are at 100 Food, 50% of that is 50, so once you lose 50 food units you are reach the 50% mark.
• When you are at 150 food, 50% of that is 75 so you have to lose more food units (25 more) than you started at to reach the same level
• When you are at 200 food, 50% of that is 100 so you have to lose even more food units (50 more) than when you started out at.

The math says I should be striving to get up to 200.  So what if my 50% mark moved from 50 units to 100 units, it now takes twice as much loss to reach the same point.

This is backwards.  I have to eat 75 food to get to 75.  I am hungry at 75 if my max is 150.  I have to eat 50 food to get to 50.   I am hungry at 50 if my max is 100.

 

I have to eat more food at a higher level in order to not be hungry.

 

I stand by the notion that it should be a flat number.  Make everyone hungry at 50 regardless of your level.

[Nox]

I modded these for now to start at 25% of the bar but in reality hunger needs two factors - hunger and nutrition.  

Hunger as has been mentioned, is not really related to starvation.  Whoever said "try going 3 days without eating or drinking anything" is missing the point completely.  You can go 3 days without eating anything.  Really you can, and it's something you can get accustomed to.  The hungry person is more alert and has more energy than the sated person, that's just how our bodies work.  

There are a lot of people who labor under the misconception that "you're not you when you're hungry, because you're starving" but that's not how starvation works either. 

Starvation is a mode that the body goes into to draw off of the reserves.  Some vitamins are difficult to synthesize, so taking in a little of certain nutrititive foods during starvation helps.  You can quite literally go MONTHS without eating.  Our bodies are designed to do that.  Really.   

What you can't do is go 3 days without drinking.  So the self proclaimed nutritionist that puts eating and drinking in the same sentence, well, not a good look.  Lets leave it at that.  Drinking and eating are not on the same scale of need.  Drinking is to eating what breathing is to drinking.  

Really how it should work - even if it's "just a game" is to  have a hunger indicator that lets you know your calorie intake vs your calorie output.  Then a second bar gives a vague indication of your nutritional health.  This second bar should raise and lower pretty slowly - we're talking over the course of weeks.  If it lowers that would lower your maximum stamina and your physicality as it does in real life.

One thing that's always annoyed me are the people who argue for really unrealistic things out of ignorance.  I get it that most people really have never known hunger or starvation, and so they make assumptions.  When corrected they are dismissive.  Imagine people arguing that your favorite race car game should have square wooden wheels beause it doesn't matter and it's just a game and besides, square wooden wheels would work just as well as round rubber ones.  

That's what we're seeing here.  The square wooden wheels set arguing for a status quo that is wildly misrepresentative of how things actually work.

[Ramethzer0]

 

I'm pretty well aware of those differences between food and water..  But, I framed that as a challenge with how they feel, and now you're re-framing to mean something else that was not as specifically stated (even removing one of the conditions), which is the exact same thing the OP did with his own argument.    While humans in particular are pretty adaptable to a lot of situations, including hunger and malnutrition, that doesn't repel the fact that your body is still suffering in a lot of ways.  It wasn't my intention to go through an exhaustive report, especially when the OP linked an article and it was already reprinted there.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you are speaking to how much you are annoyed by a thing, but then go to the lengths of adding in your own stack onto that problem.   Are you picking a lane or no?

 

 

[Nox]

I'm annoyed by people defending a conceit.  It would be largely a futile waste of time to be overly annoyed by the conceit since it is almost universal in 'survival games' which often amount to 'chewing simulators.'