Going from "Engorged" to "Peckish" in 2 hours is stupid [Warning: Bitter sarcasm]

[Vastin]

Hate to say it, but any game system that causes this much confusion may not be worth whatever realism it is trying to bring to the game - I mean, unless the goal is to create an accurate obesity simulator.

Usually people starve to death during the apocalypse, but, meh, competition for food is scarce in CDDA.

[draghi]

i think this new food system opened some perspectives and such but the way it’s implemented just feels choppy most of the time even after many updates. the transition between stages just seems really off at times.

when first introduced i remember my character staying at peckish literally for days before famished even appeared (which i gave up on the thought of actually appearing at one time), also a lot of times you go from peckish to famished up to full then have go back to famished in a matter of hours like OP mentioned… not sure how all these work. from my tests this seems to happen when you don’t eat for a long time, i assume your calorie level drops from not eating and you need to re-eat to compensate? not sure whats the logic behind all this but it definitely feels annoying like what do Engorged Full Sated even mean if they end up vanishing like that despite eating. also is calorie value relevant in any way? never seen anything mentioned in game

[dpwb]

Let’s try again.

When you are engorged etc, it means your stomach is full.
Famished means you have a calorie deficit.

It is possible to have both a full stomach and also have a calorie deficit.

Say you didn’t eat for days, you eat a big pizza, your stomach is full, the status shows engorged.
A little while later it shows famished, why? because you are still starving, you need to keep eating, but you can’t keep eating whilst your stomach is full.

When you were at peckish for days, is because your stomach was empty , but you were not running a calorie deficit, which means you had been eating well for a long time, and were not starving.

You can tell the way it works because it works just like real life.

Of course calorie value is relevant, it’s the most relevant thing.

[dpwb]

Maybe I am going mad, but I cannot understand the confusion this has caused.
It seems absolutely simple and even more intuitive than the previous system, because it relies on a more accurate to real-life system.

Perhaps if there were two meters, one for long-term calorie storage, and one for short-term stomach contents, itd be more easily understandable at a glance, but I dont think the person who did the system likes that idea.

And tbh it shouldnt be required, I dont feel like you have to be smart to understand this.

[faefux]

I think the problem is that certain people are very, very used to video games and kind of expect a game system where as cataclysm strives to be as realistic as it can. That and it’s possible very likely that many, many players are in the first world and comfortable and so don’t really understand actual hunger in real life? I couldn’t say, but these are the only things i can think of.

[dpwb]

Yeah I think the problem may be familiarity with traditional game design mechanics skewing how people see these things.

[Vastin]

It’s not that complex, but it’s deeply un-intuitive from a game perspective. Most people play games, and they eat food when the game says they’re hungry, hunger goes away, comes back later. Simple.

In this case you have two different concepts that mean two completely different things, and frankly, it ISN’T the case that people are particularly good at understanding the difference between fullness and starvation even in real life. If they were, obesity would be far easier to avoid. Your body frankly doesn’t care much - for the most part, if your stomach is empty you’re hungry, if it’s full you aren’t. As long as you aren’t in the habit of eating grass and rocks, this will get you through the day most of the time.

Humans have the opposite problem in modern times, we eat food that is very high in calories, and very quick to digest, which makes us hungry much more often than we should be, leading to easy obesity.

So no, it isn’t a system people intuitively understand, in games OR in real life.

[dpwb]

You may well be right, but I am used to traditional game mechanics too, and I still got how the new stomach system worked after reading one paragraph of it, and I aint some kind of genius.

At this point I do feel some of the constant confusion and complaints about it is some form of memery.

[draghi]

yea i think those two being mixed really confuses players. some fat/ calorie calculus should be implemented to determine how close you are to dying from starvation and the other status should be a simple reminder of what stage you are in. the way they are mixed really makes for confusing moments as mentioned and there’s no need to play the high and mighty card and say oh its real simple you just don pay attention. sorry but this is the opposite of simplicity and the mass of confused players stands proof.

so yeah nice idea but half assed implementation really wrecks the gameplay experience

[dpwb]

Did you do a census of how many players are confused by it and how many are not?
Do you know the numbers?

Because people who complain often get the idea they are some mass movement when really it’s because they are the noisiest and the people who dont complain just quietly get on and play so you never hear from them.

To call it half-assed implementation is insulting to the person who spent a VERY long time implementing it, researching hard numbers and wading through the stages of th code to present something that I believe is a very good and easy to understand addition to the game.

To say it wrecks the gameplay experience is absolute hyperbole, the amount you need to eat has hardly changed at all, you do NOT need to worry until it says " hungry " or “famished” , whats the big deal about it? even if you do find it confusing, you can just ignore it until its a red or yellow status in the UI.

This is why game devs sometimes come across as jerks I swear lol.

[dpwb]

Feedback = Hey, maybe you could add some x to y.
Future ignore list = Hey, x is half-assed and y ruins the game!!!

You are welcome, please do send them my way.

[faefux]

To call it half-assed implementation is insulting to the person who spent a VERY long time implementing it, researching hard numbers and wading through the stages of th code to present something that I believe is a very good and easy to understand addition to the game.

This is exactly the problem i have with this forum… it seems people largely just come here to complain about others hard work and tell them what they should be doing differently and instead without even attempting to contribute… It’s really problematic, actually. People should really learn to be better as a community…

I mean, you have people here implying the dev of this pull is obese…

To say it wrecks the gameplay experience is absolute hyperbole, the amount you need to eat has hardly changed at all, you do NOT need to worry until it says " hungry " or “famished”

This. Straw poll: When was the last time you actually died of Starvation in C:DDA? because it has at least been years for me and this addition hasn’t changed that.

[harison86]

I think the way stomach contents and calorie reserves are handled now is better than the way it was before with the “game-y” system, and the internal workings don’t need to be changed much. However, the way the info is presented could be improved by making the current hunger feedback in the sidebar (“Hungry”, “Peckish”, “Famished”, etc) only refer to stomach contents, and calorie excess/deficit should be displayed in the player status screen (within the same area as vitamin excess/deficit) with descriptors such as “Lean”, “Visibly Starved”, “Overweight”, “Obese”, etc.
I think this would be more intuitive since you don’t “feel” a calorie excess/deficit the same way you feel full/empty, so it doesn’t make sense to lump them into one item in the sidebar. Additionally, it makes sense to me to display calorie excess/deficit in the same area as vitamin excess/deficits. It’s all nutrition-related minutiae that aren’t as immediately felt or immediately concerning as simply filling an empty stomach.
Do you find this to be useful feedback?

[darktoes]

It sounds to me, and I haven’t been following this that closely, that it might be worth just revising the use of the word peckish. I dunno about everyone else, but peckish has connotations of being hungry to me. If we can come up with a word that means “I could eat but don’t feel any hunger” then that would probably make more sense to people, but I can’t think of a single one.

It sounds like a lot of the “issue” here is simply because peckish means kinda hungry to a lot of people. I also have some support for the “separate stomach fullness and nutrition” idea, since I’m not sure a person is actually able to tell the difference between empty stomach and beginning malnutrition, but that sounds like something that would have been researched during the PR so I’m not sure what to think.

[Erk]

The plan for some time has been to add a second descriptor for stored nutrients, in the form of a BMI report in the stats window. I think korggent is working on the code right now in fact.

[darktoes]

I honestly think that will help. Combining the readouts for “I have/haven’t eaten enough in the short term” and “I have/haven’t eaten enough in the long term” probably isn’t ideal.

[Rot]

I think it’s more of poor word choice. I read the thread and I’m guessing people get confused with how the words are presented and the context is in.

At least in my mind, peckish means you’re not hungry, maybe a little hungry, and could do with a snack, maybe.

Instead of peckish, why not just replace it with a simpler “Fine” as “I’m fine with food, I’m not hungry but I could eat more if I wanted to.”

You guys are making a big deal out of nothing, I think the real problem here is just a lack of description to describe the nutrients vs stomach contents

I think two meters for stomach content and starvation would make it so there’s more feedback, to prevent the lack of a middle ground between the whole “peckish for 5 day’s then starving”

A simple “Fine/Healthy”, “Full/Starving”, “Hungry/Starving” or “Full/Healthy” would make things easier to comprehend.

[Rot]

Other things like “Full/Fine” and “Fine/Hungry” denoting middle grounds, first is for those coming out of starvation, their stomach is full but they’re not out of the waters yet, and the latter is for someone that needs to eat more.

Just my new two cents

[JayThirtySeven]

Took me longer than I thought and maybe not as relevant but I made a gameplay video of me dealing with the current hunger system. (I am not a youtuber, this video is not particularly entertaining) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFC23jTm8Zg&feature=youtu.be

(P.S. Just noticed that a small section of the video repeats near the end. I’ll work on fixing that but encoding and uploading a video takes a while.)

(edit: Here is a fixed version. Doesn’t change the content or conclusion, just deleted the repeated clip near the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDD8XVmHtY)

Synopsis: I ate food and drank a lot of water right before sleeping. Got up and moved around for a couple of hours, ate 1500 calories of cookies and graham crackers I found on the floor, and then felt fine just drinking water for the next 20+ hours.

I really do think this is mainly a problem of presentation. Many people support the system and it seems to fit well with CDDA’s overall attempt at realism. I think this issue can be resolved with a little tweaking to word choice, color choice, and maybe adding a new sidebar entry or even just some periodic messages.

[kevin.granade]

If we can come up with a word that means “I could eat but don’t feel any hunger” then that would probably make more sense to people, but I can’t think of a single one.

peckish

peckish

(ˈpɛkɪʃ)

adj

informal chiefly Brit feeling slightly hungry; having an appetite