RustyXXL

Members
  • Content count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RustyXXL

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. No to hunger

    Well, that's my point...if you use a pseudo hunger mechanic to heal yourself, you don't have a hunger mechanic, you have a healing mechanic. Doesn't matter if you use a potato or a potion. (and I'd argue that the idea alone of "oh I'm shot, let me quickly eat a steak so I heal and don't die from the next arrow" would be pretty silly, if transferred to real life....just for those who like to argue with healing and realism for hunger mechanics at the same time)
  2. No to hunger

    Diablo 1 already had potions, without farming, without hunger without all that. How we call it is pretty irellevant, as long as it is the same thing we do. Doom 1 had health pack...without any hunger mechanic....there are plenty of examples, of all those mechanics without hunger in gaming. You repeating the opposite doesn't make it true. I'm in that mindset, because that's all I ever experienced, and as that's all I have experienced yet, and don't get any answer to my questions about how to make it interesting, this isn't changed yet. If Astroneer will do better yay for the devs, until then, I keep sceptic about that and feel free to say, if you do it the way shown in so many other ways, I can live without that, thanks, but no thanks. And actually I've already gone a step further and have outlined a concept, that does make it more interesting.
  3. No to hunger

    Makng it an optional gameplay mechanic allows for that "overthinking" to add the challange for thoose that want the challange. It is ment to be a complex gameplay mechanic "easy to get into, but very hard to master". That's kinda my general idea of how good gameplay mechanics should work.
  4. No to hunger

    Farming can be done for many reasons, I've already said that many times, and even given a couple of examples. Farming is independent from hunger. You want further proof? Look at Stardew Valley, Harvest Moon, the Farming Simulator Series....there are plenty of games that even have their main focus on farming without the need for hunger mechanics. And there are even more games that add a farming mechanic as a beneficial thing to do in your downtime. World of Warcraft, Starbound etc. Even in Minecraft you can disable hunger by playing peaceful and still you can farm (and a lot of people do build extensive farms, even though they technically don't need to). Farming is fun, that alone is justification enough for farming in games. Because the main goal of games is to be fun. Yet I personally don't know any game that has hunger-management as its single or even major (like 90%) focus of gameplay. and even most of the survival games feel the need to make hunger about buffing or healing yourself and not about satisfying your hunger, which for me is kinda telling. Healing and buffing can be done (and has been done since the dawn of videogames with different means than eating either, and both on their own don't justify a hunger mechanic either. Yet you keep repeating those points, as if they became true just by repeating them often enough. The Hunger mechanic itself is in no way something that adds to the game. Farming does. Buffing does. Health does, but each of them can be done (and have successfully been done) without hungermechanics. Hunger mechanics on the contrary have devolved in most games I have seen to a simple "stuff things in your mouth every xx minutes or you'll die",, and furthermore in most games I've played hunger became a none-issue after 30 mins to 1h max. That's really boring and uninspired to me. Maybe I just didn't play the games that did hunger right, that's entire possible, but if so, please, please, please educate me.
  5. No to hunger

    No, I just don't feel challanged by something that becomes a mere "Stuff things in your mouth every x minutes" after a short period of time in pretty much all games I've played so far. That's why at least tried to come with a system that might add an actual challange and some more depth if implemented right, which is more than most others did so far, who simply say "hunger adds challange, hunger adds realism, hunger adds farming" without iterating on the how exactly this would be the case in their opinion. I still would probably opt out of the system I myself proposed, because even in that form it wouldn't be a system I would be that interested in, but it is the best I could come up with when talking about hunger.
  6. No to hunger

    Never said it's that creative. And the main point is to add a challenge with more complexity and depth than just "eat or die", because we already have that. There's no need to duplicate that just more long term. And one of the thoughts behind that is to be relatively easy to get into but make it really hard to master and make it a real effort to max your results. In all games I've played so far food became a non-issue after a relatively short period, and there probably is a reason even so called survival games often feel the need to justify their hunger mechanics by adding buffs to food. This system adds the challange without the tedium for those that don't like it, is more long term, and doesn't need an extra gamemode. The only thing missing is the ability for those that need it, to feel superior to those that fail to manage their food.
  7. Can we talk about hunger?

    I have posted the following in the other thread, and thought I'd just leave it here, too, as it might be of interest to some. Please note, that I didn't have the time to read this Thread yet.
  8. No to hunger

    So let me play devils advocate, and do that, hich I would have expected from the pro-hunger faction here (instead of throwing in vague words without any decription like farming, realism and challange) and try to come up with an interesting hunger mechanic, that tries to add to the current gameplay, without coming in the way, penalizing exploring to much or serve as a long term oxygen like system, and could fit the general Astroneers theme in my opinion. The main Premises for this concept are: 1. Gameplay first: Add a rewarding and challenging mechanic without hindering gameplay 2. stay as optional as possible and only as forced as minimal possible Instead of a simple stat for "hunger" this part is split up in different values for Proteins, Dairy, grain, vegtables and fruits. Those stats are not directly visible to the player, though a suit addon that keeps track of what the player consumes would be imaginable, and maybe even preferable. This way those who want to min max it have to pay for it with valuable backpack space. The break up into different stats instead of a simple "hunger" bar allows for a more intresting farming and buffing system, which I will come back to. We assume that the most basic food need is fullfilled by the spacesuit technology. If you don't want the added challenge, you don't need to, but participating will have some benefits, that will depend on how varied your diet is. Furthermore different planetary environments will make it more difficult to fullfill the needs to the maximum, so the player can claim the bragging rights to have maxed his food for x days under the hardest conditions. This could further be supplemented with Achievements etc. Typically these players love their achievements. While players that don't participate are not penalized, and can continue their normal gameplay, Players that participate can earn different buffs. These buffs are tied to the different food categories. ie having eaten lots of fruits could make you faster, while drinking lots of milk (and thus dairy) could make you more resilient to fall damage (because of the calcium, which is good for your bones, my grandma told me so. ;P). Those buffs grow exponential to the amount of food of that category you have eaten. Having only eaten one apple does give you barely anything, keeping your bar at max has a very big effect. Either new buffs could be added for having a combination of bars at max, or the effects could be further amplified. To make things not to easy, you can only eat so much per time period. This could be modified by your activities, but not neccessarily. About Farming. Each planet has only a subset of the food categories. Furthermore some of them might be easier found in deep caves, and some are easier found on the top of mountains. Have the best sources of the respective categories be hard to find. Furthermore all thigns only grow under certain conditions. There shouldn't be a way to just set up a big farm on terran and be set for max food values. If at all, getting all your food stuff growing in one place, should be a massive undertaking, that needs a lot of work, exploring and research. Well, this is the basic concept. Certainly incomplete in some regards, but it should give a good Idea, how to make an interesting system that is not just a more long tterm version of oxygen.
  9. Wind turbines should work on the storm

    Actually at least some of our todays wind farms need to turn of their wind turbines for safety reasons when the wind gets to strong, so it could be the same thing in Astroneer. So while I would like to see that, it is not as far stretched as you'd think that they get turned of during a storm.
  10. No to hunger

    Because my question of what it adds to the game other than a tesium without any benefit still isn't answered. I gave plenty of points why I see farming independent of hunger, and it's already answered that realism isn't a good argument either. So as long as there is no satisfying answer to the question what it adds gameplay wise for me, my opinion will be unchanged.
  11. No to hunger

    I already posted my points against a hunger mechanic, and I don't feel like repeating them.
  12. No to hunger

    Quite honestly I would prefer an economic system, where you have to react to varying prices when selling resources by growing/mining/etc. different resources so the prices stay profitable anytime over a hunger mechanic...
  13. No to hunger

    So and how does Food that gives you buffs already absolutly neccessarily require a hunger mechanic? And there you have it, farming justified without hunger. You could farm for resources like natural carbon etc in plants that you need to build stuff - Farming justified You could farm for resources for trading - Farming justified You could have the need to "support your Corporation with food" - still a indirect hunger mechanic, but it would fit Astroneer much better, but Farming justified. You could simply farm because it is fun - Farming justified There are plenty of ways to get away without hunger.
  14. No to hunger

    Most of this is already answered in my last post, but I want to reiterate on the buff-food point. I'm not saying I'm against buff food. If that's the way they want to go, it's not very innovative, and I would hope for more innovation, but I'm okay with that. I'm just saying that I see a hunger mechanic described here, would add anything more than a tedium and an excuse for farming, while farming and buff-food both being perfectly valid without the need for a hunger mechanic. If you have a suggestion for a hunger mechanic that is more than that I'm more than open to hear that, but all the arguments I've heard so far are "we need hunger because of farming" and "we need hunger because of realism". And the last point has been adressed already as well.
  15. No to hunger

    The thing is I have no issue with farming. On the contrary, I love farming. I played Stardew Valley, and I always played with mods for minecraft that added to farming by either adding variety or making the gameplay more interesting by introducing breeding mechanics or some form of weed mechanics. I'm not arguing against farming, I'm arguing against the need for hunger as an excuse for farming. Or better said I'm arguing that hunger as it is seen in most other games doesn't really add more to the game than an excuse for hunger and maybe buffing and healing. (and the last 2 having better and more interesting options to be solved, i.e. an potion brewing mechanic in some games, or even dedicated healer gameplay) The difference ist between giving the player options to do things and forcing the player to do things. I argue that the first is good, and the second is bad (for me :P). In other words: The guys that tried/are trying to cut a planet in half, they didn't do so because the game forced them, they did so because they thought it was a fun project and wanted to see if it is possible. In my underground base I have a thread about, I certainly could have gotten away with coal power. It was on a tundra planet and there was more than enough coal around. If I just would have gone with what the game forces me I could have stopped there. Instead I went a tried to connect it to the surface with platforms, to see if I can get it solar powered, just because I could, and had a good couple of hours gameplay out of it, including farming for resources to build it etc. So in short, in my eyes the classic hunger mechanics add tedium without providing anything valuable to the gameplay, as the only dependency is hunger depends on food farming. But food farming is possible without hunger. If I had the tools I could certainly build some, but it is kinda hard to suggest them, without spoiling their solution.