As far as I know, yes.
But then I still have problems with my simulator which may tell me that there’s still something that I don’t understand.[/quote]
Your simulation seems to for some reason invert the random health number. I tried entering negative nutritional values and ended up getting positive health numbers somehow. Seems like a coding problem on your end. Maybe a min/max problem? Why does your max health, if above 200, go back to 100, but your min health if below -200 go up to -200 again? Why the inconsistency?
Anyway, back on topic. Just from looking at the equation for health, it looks as though the problem lies with the RNG and with the health check—it’s too strict. Otherwise, it’s sound. Health should automatically move towards the health modifier due to normal distribution, and the bell curve should so to speak follow the health modifier around (though maybe introduce a limit to how far health can deviate from the health mod?). You would essentially have to eat a hundred points of nutrition just to guarantee yourself a single health point (assuming no external factors and your health is 0, otherwise you always just eat a hundred nutrition points above your current health modifier to out-range the rng, good luck with that), and then that modifier is reduced to 75% of what it was before… every six hours. That’s insane speed, but I understand it’s meant to force you to keep eating healthy.
And if you were at a health value greater than 0, it just gets more impossible to keep your health up. Let’s assume health is 20. Using that same equation, “break even value (y) = health (20) - health modifier (x) + environmental factors (0),” your health modifier has to equal at least 20 in order to “break even,” or in other words get a 50% chance to go up or down in health, since rng can land equally above or below 0 and has to be above or below the break even value of y. Think about that. You have to eat 20 nutrition points EVERY. SIX. HOURS.
This continues on. At a health of 75, you have to somehow feed yourself 75 nutrition points EVERY SIX HOURS. A fourth of that is reduced, and you have to re-feed yourself 18.75 nutrition points before the next check to get your modifier back up to 75. This is only for a 50% chance at going up or down (for a 100% chance to go up you would have to eat an impossible 175 nutrition points). Most food items in the game I believe give only between 1 and 3 nutrition (health modifier) points, and six hours is not long enough for your character to get hungry enough to eat so many nutrition points’ worth of food. You see the problem here?.
I am curious as to what the health values would look like after changing the nutritional value of all food to be about 3, 4, or even 5 times as healthy as it is now. Or, changing the checks to be every 12 or 24 hours, essentially doing the same thing by giving you more time to become hungry and eat, yet slowing down the rate of change of health. Or, alternatively, change the reduction in health modifier from a quarter reduction to, say, an 8th reduction, so you don’t lose so much. If it were easier to keep your health modifier up, you would see better gains in health, while still allowing RNG to temper your gains if you don’t put any effort in.
I think most players typically live off of cooked meat, fruit, and veggies. What are their nutrition values (health modifier)? What’s the healthiest item in the game? Is it actually even possible to become healthy at the high ranges?