I’m looking at peanuts in game now and they seem pretty close to what they should be tbh.
There was a push a while ago to balance caloric values/portions around real world values. I recall someone doing it for alcohol (or planning to?) and some random food items.
Nuts probably weren’t addressed. It’s all just a few lines of JSON stuff, any of you lurkers that are reading this could do it if you put in a little time.
I will say that I think the difficulty with acorns is their availability. Nerfing their frequency in bushes (through foraging) would be good, but this would probably require adding new edibles to balance things out. Making them only obtainable from trees would be another possibility.
Unfortunately, in North America, Acorns are basically everywhere so it’s hard to rationalize substantially reducing their numbers.
Lol, you think acorns breaks the game. Simple answer, don’t harvest them. Longer answer those nuts are only harvestable in the fall so if you start in the spring (default) you’ll still have to survive that long until then. By that time if you’ve started a farm you’ll be eating other types of foods including ones that provide better nutrition. Even if you don’t start a farm you’ll more likely run across other sources of food like fish, canned/packaged foods, candy, meat, etc. Also in the summertime you’ll find tons of fruits and will be able to dehydrate them (which last 1 year).
In other words acorn is not the super food you describe it to be.
But hey it’s your game if so feel free to mod it out if you think acorns throw the game completely off balance…
2 Likes
‘Lol, just ignore it’ doesn’t evolve the game in any way.
If a system, like the calorie system that is intended to be balanced in-game and attempts to emulate real world values, has outliers that break the trend, it deserves attention and to be addressed.
I guess what I’m saying is ‘lol, you think this thread is dumb, simple answer, just don’t read it.’
2 Likes
Which is almost exactly what the basic acorns are, before you cook them. It’s also close to where the ‘roasted acorn’ meal is. Probably someone just messed up typing in the values for the cooked acorn meal - that’s obviously just a bug.
So in terms of realism I’d say, sure, the basic acorn is a pretty calorie rich foodstuff - HOWEVER - it’s not an especially palatable type of food, and should probably require more extensive prep to make it so - and might still carry a mildly negative morale value even then.
The quantities available get a little crazy. I’m a little suspect about the realism of that in terms of how much of that quantity is functionally inedible shell and fibrous material once you’ve gotten all that out of the way - but the quantity issue would be less of a problem if it was a slightly more bland, difficult food in any case, game balance wise.
Aye, It does seem like the cooked version is off somewhat but as stated above the cooking isn’t really that intensive. If fact if I’m reading it right, its mostly done to improve the taste since you can eat them raw as long as it isn’t in large quanities. I’d instead say it might be more balanced to place a very small hidden health penalty on RAW acorns so trying to subside off them as your main food source will build up to making you ill.
Like I said above, it isn’t balanced around simplified nutrition. They are super food under that system but under others you simply won’t be getting the vits you need and will instead have to subsidised them with other food or vitamin/calcium suppliments. You can do this with plenty of other foods.
edit: the health stuff is because acorns apparently contain high levels tannic acid, something that can be toxic to humans in large amounts. This also is what gives them an unpleasent taste, the cooking process is to remove this.
The OP claimed acorns is a super food. I showed him that it wasn’t by giving some reasons. Acorns would only be imbalanced if they were available all year 'round but they’re not. You could only harvest them 1 time during the year and they provide little nutritional value. By that time you’ll have access to much better foods.
The OP made this thread and I don’t agree with it so I gave my own opinion. I don’t know where
you came up with your own conclusion saying I thought this thread was dumb.
I guess what I’m saying is ‘Do you understand how discussions/forums work now?’
1 Like
What I’m saying is that no food multiplies its caloric value by 8x just because you cooked it. That’s just a bug. 
I should of been clearer but the first thing I said:
was me agreeing with you about it being bugged. Everything after that was a reply to the rest of your post.
So if [someone] were to make a PR to reduce calorie and enjoyability of cooked acorn would that put things back into place ?
Also does anyone has values in mind for caloric value of cooked acorn ?
(by someone I mean me but I’m not entierly sur about how soon I can do it, probably before the end of the week if you already have the values in mind)
Half the point in cooking them is to make them palatable, they already have 0 enjoyment when cooked.
So, cooking food does not increase its caloric value beyond that of the combined ingredients.
If you throw a bunch of asparagus and a blob of lard in a skillet, you end up with much higher calorie asparagus - but no more than actually went in the skillet to start with, it just took up a lot of the lard calories.
Cooking can reduce the number of calories in a food (esp if you burn it) - but it can also reduce the number of calories required to digest the food by breaking up some of the tougher chemical bonds ahead of time. This can result in a net caloric gain for the person eating it, even though the foodstuff itself hasn’t gained calories. I don’t think this would ever be more than a modest % gain however, unless the stuff you started with was virtually inedible.
So sure, cooking a hard to digest meal like acorns or highly fibrous wild vegetables might improve the net caloric value for eating them, but not all that much. For the most part, what you get out == what you put in, 'cause thermodynamics applies to chemistry and biology just as much as it does to physics.
Taste and general palatability, of course, are a whole different ball game. Cooking can improve those as much as one cares to imagine — though of course flavor is in the taste buds of the beholder.
Well, there is a very smart work around for this if you play without simplified nutrition (I think it was removed for O.D.) is that acorns don’t provide you with enough support in the vitamin department to be sustanible, you would have to supplement it with cooked vegetables, wild herbs, or maybe just some good ol’ fashion seeds. Anyways it would be a lot smarter to use acorns for flour, to make meat pie or pelmini for a better use…
It’s done : #29050
Cooked Acorns has 114 ca and 1 charge instead 456 ca and 2 charges.
4 Likes
Now only its mass conservation during crafting is broken 30g of acorns turn into 100g of acorn meal and its energy density which should be around 500 kcal per 100g is broken. Both could be fixed by reducing the weight to around 20g of the crafted acorn meal.
So Wikipedia says 3,87Kcal/g for acorns
google (not sure if linking a google search will work) says 5ca/g for acorn flour.
This and this say 0.56ca/g for cooked acorn
And That one says 0.4ca/g for cooked acorn
Finally wikipedia says 27.9% water for acorn and this says 82.9% water for cooked acorn which would explain the very low calorie count.
The description of cooked acorn meal in the game specifies that it is dried, so water content should be very low logically.
So turn down the mass to 30g- 30g*28% = 21.6g and put the calorie to 21.6g *5ca/g = 108ca ?
That sounds about right, good job.
Those numbers look about right to me.