Jump to content

Food and Water


Recommended Posts

 

So every further discussion about this topic with you vylqun will be considered as useless by me and thank you that you have confirmed my opinion about you.

Have a nice day :)

 

it sure is hard to discuss with emotional ppl, you just can't accept it, that your arguments are refuted, especially because most of them are based on your opinion, that we will have "millions of players with thousands participating in a single war which lasts for months", which is completely unrealistic.

 

Green planets, yes it is science fiction, but that doesn't render my argument useless, it could be that growing plants on a planet is way more easy and profitable as growing them in hydroponics, where you would have to provide everything the plants need.

 

 

No it won't, with our current technology we will have more efficient indoor farming than outdoor farming within the next 3 or 4 decades. A nice page to get a rough overview is verticalfarm.com. Farming on the surface of planets will definitely not be more profitable if even the real world will archieve this this century.

 

and regarding the warfare, as far as we know it could be possible that alone the transportation of the troop could take long periods of time, depending on your propulsion and the distance between planets and the battle is normally first ended after someone has won, be it diplomatically or with the military and if you want to conquer a well defended planet it could probably take weeks or even months, we simply don't know.

 

 

i have to remind you once again, that we talk about a mmorpg, not the real world. Only very few hardcore pvp-player will have the endurance to spend days or even a week to travel to an enemy just to spend months to beat him. That is certainly nothing you would see in the general warfare. 

You completely overestimate the scale of mmorpgs.

 

In my eyes you have claimed to give constructive criticism, but you have certainly given pure criticism, so i have corrected you.

 

 

I don't know where that misbelief that constructive criticism always has to give an alternative for the matter in question comes from, constructive criticism is giving good reasons why something is bad, so that mistakes can be prevented, it can have suggestions for improvement, but it doesn't need to have it. The goal of constructive criticism is to help to improve something, in that case the game, not a single idea.

 

If its like you say then literally no idea is allowed to be refuted completely, no matter how bad it is, because thats "bad" criticism. And sry, thats just false.

If someone comes to the conclusion, after considering all facets of a topic, that its bad for the game no matter how its designed, because the core mechanic itself is the problem, then there is no logical reason to suggest improvements, because those would still be bad for the game.

 

Its a bit as in science. If you have a hypothesis then its nothing fatal if some of the predictions are wrong, you can always modify the hypothesis, so that it first the experiments. But as soon as the core of the hypothesis is refuted by reality then there is no need to work on it anymore, its plainly wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My thought was that it will discourage pvping to some degree. but not in a negative way. You would have to plan the logistics of long warfare for a large force or plan and build an agricultural ship t

I'd imagine there will be food that's high in energy, and going by other aspects of the game, it won't be easy to make or come by. I don't forsee food being such a hindrance as to divert from anything

While posting on another thread i realized that im not certain how the game will take into effect that we are humans and that we would need to eat and drink to survive. I think somewhere in another th

This is a very intriguing question, because as I see it, there are valid arguments for both sides. This game is intended to focus on higher levels of interaction with the outside world. That is, participating in some kind of geopolitical organization and the interactions between these organizations. Food and water would add another element to those interactions. War, markets, exploration just in the name of food and water would take place. I think if food and water were implemented to make that possible, it would fit in very well with the game.

However, I don't think they should be included.

Firstly, as far as I have seen in the forums and dev blog, food and water currently aren't explicitly planned for. In this case, the people who want food and water shoulder the burden of proof as to why they should be added, but I'm still going to say a couple more things.

Secondly, I agree with the others who have said it would be a chore in-game to pander to this mechanic. If it were to be included, I would want as much of it as possible to happen behind the scenes, not needing any significant amount of conscious thought.

Third, have you remembered the rule of threes?

You can survive three minutes without air.

You can survive three hours without shelter from rough conditions.

You can survive three days without water.

You can survive three weeks without food.

I think that if water and food are being considered as a mechanic, then environmental conditions and oxygen should be considered first since they are more important to survival than food or water. After all, cold nights was one of the dangers faced in the DU short story. Having to combat radiation as a mechanic could be equally troublesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a full-blown survival model with food and water would be a bit much for what this game is. That being said, the need for sustenance would infuse more complexity into the economy and introduce a new consideration to weigh along with other cargo, fuel, ammunition, etc.

 

What I might like to see is "sustenance" simplified into a single item, much like a future MRE, that would need to be carried on your person or in your construct as a sort of solid fuel for your character. You'd simply consume them over time, and if you went too long without access to one, there would be some sort of negative effect. If not damage and outright death, at least some sort of debuff.

 

To craft this item, special food resources could be required, meaning some degree of simplified, low maintenance farming and gathering would be necessary for production. This is surely something many players would largely automate eventually, reducing the burden on play time while retaining the impact of that infrastructure's existence in the game world.

 

In my opinion, some sort of sustenance model could be an important balancing element, and would lead to some compelling economic opportunities and geopolitical dynamics in an emergent game world such as this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is a discussion that won't end, now will it?

 

I am hoping at some point in the near future the dev's release a survival devblog with their decisions on this matters. Hopefully earlier then later, considering this seems like it could be a deal breaker for people on either side of the isle, and it's better to have the fanbase of the game you want to make rather then a huge wave of people leaving later on because it wasn't what they were hoping for.

 

The problem is that right now, we have this:

 

From their facebook page:

 

"We are considering to implement survival gameplay. In the case we would develop this aspect, we haven't decided possible features yet. Some ideas we are currently looking into are harsh environmental conditions, like atmosphere toxicity, gravity, temperature. The goal is to have survival gameplay when you explore a wild, unknown planet, not colonized yet. But once proper gear or element is crafted and population start to grow on the said planet, all the survival aspect would slowly fade as the environment start to be controlled."

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/dualuniverse/posts/561569937348716?comment_id=562179610621082&reply_comment_id=562641063908270&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R8%22%7D

 

 

And the words "we are considering" is a huge call to arms for anyone against this, suggesting that this is their opportunity to fight against it's inclusion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to try something different today.  l would like to address some issues WITHOUT calling anyone out.  I do this because I believe an effort must be made to curb the increasingly harder edge disputes that are popping up.  To accomplish this I'd like to make a few points to everyone who has posted so far.

 

First off some posters WOULD like food and drink integrated, for the sake of immersion or another aspect of gameplay.  There is nothing wrong with this.  Plenty of MMO's have included food mechanics and found a way to make them work.  Other survival/construction games also exist that include food mechanics that work fine as well.  Some may feel these mechanics will interfere with the direction of DU as a game.  Others are quick to point out that we can have whatever direction we want in a sandbox game.  However, a game rarely does everything we want it to.  Or I should say "You can't please everybody."  If such a mechanic is included it may be put in SPECIFICALLY as a hurdle or to slow our progress o other aspects of play.  Remember this is a sandbox game.  It can take all kinds.... Including farmers, if the devs so choose.

 

Secondly.  There are many kinds of criticism.  

  • Constructive criticism is specifically suggestions of improvement or alternative paths to achieve the same goal.  It never invalidates the original idea.  
  • Practical criticism is pointing out when the original idea or aspects of it, does or does not work in an actual application.

There are many other kinds of criticism but these are the most prominent you see on the boards, and no one is obligated to give you one form of criticism over the other.

 

Third, this thread is in the idea box of the forum.  Idea discussions SHOULD focus on how they might work.  Not why we might not want them.  That comes later, and usually on a separate thread.

 

I'm pointing these out because people are bringing up some interesting thoughts here.  Thoughts that if explored could lead to new and provocative ideas that can open up the game in ways we never imagined.  So let's not burn any bridges, either idea wise or with each other. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Constructive criticism is specifically suggestions of improvement or alternative paths to achieve the same goal.  It never invalidates the original idea.  

 

no, thats a misconception, let me quote omniscient google on that matter:

 

Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, [...] The purpose of 'constructive criticism is to improve the outcome

 

I gave arguments for an "eat or die" system and arguments against it followed by a logical assessment of both sides with the goal to improve DUs gameplay, which completely qualifies as constructive criticism ;)

 

That said, "hard edges" in disputes aren't nessecarily bad because it means people care for the matter, of course only as long as no personal insults are used. Using double the amount of words to describe something "nicer" just because others might get offended if you formulate it plainly is a waste of effort. That desire to never offend anybody anytime because of any idea is hindering progress and one of the cancers of our current society, especially if those "offensive" things are just plain facts and reasoning without any emotional argument.

People who get offended because you refute their ideas with logic and reason should toughen up a little bit, its not like they are insulted or get hurt if someone tells them that their ideas are bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like the devs to do what they plan to do and have like large scale ingame votes for different types of updates such as this. that way when the game is live and there are millions of players they can all have a voice instead of just us relative few. 

 

And the next day's most common search terms for DU subscribers:

 

"What is food?"

"What does it mean to not need food?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you don't understand vylqun i wasn't emotional because of the topic, i'm emotional because of you

 

hindering progress and one of the cancers of our current society, especially if those "offensive" things are just plain facts and reasoning without any emotional argument.

People who get offended because you refute their ideas with logic and reason should toughen up a little bit, its not like they are insultet or get hurt if someone tells them that their ideas are bad.

 

because you're obviously thinking that your opinion is the non plus ultra and so you are presenting these as facts and with these facts your argumentation is logical, yes that is right.

next point is that your a speaking for many players, but which players have allowed you to speak for them? were you elected as speaker for them or something?

if your answer is no, then please speak only for yourself and present your assumptions not as fact, you can take other mmorpg's as example, but we simply don't know how DU will evolve, so your assumptions at this point are so valid or invalid as my hopes for the game.

 

So simply said i can respect your opinion, if you are presenting it as your opinion and not as fact, to give you an example "I think it will happen in this fashion", that is good it is presenting your opinion, now "It will happen in this fashion", that is bad, it is presenting a fact and this is the format of your current arguments.

 

And i see no point in arguing with someone, whose opinion is already so rock hard that it seems as fact to him.

 

So please think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

next point is that your a speaking for many players

 

But he does: After years of laying in the shadows of themeparks, survival sandbox games have skyrocketed in recent years since minecraft made the sandbox metaphor that much more literal. But most of these have come through single player games and small scale multiplayer,  and the acceptance of such mechanics hasn't yet truly penetrated the MMO market. There's going to be resistance. Right now here in this conversation he is the loudest of those resistance, but the inherit conservatism of the stance means that if you are hoping both sides reach the topic with an open mind considering all points of view, you are unlikely to get what you wish for, and despite that fact this is an important process, every change needs people with a conservative mindset to resist it so that we have the pressure to examine it and see whether it's a desirable one. It isn't a pleasant process, but it's a vital one.

 

(Except in this case where the dev's most likely have already formed their own ideas on how they'd like this implemented and if not outright coding them already into the game, so this conversation is most likely futile. But you know, in general, in society and such) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% in favor of needing food to survive in the game, because without a need for food, how could I ever do this ingame?

 

 

I want a game with complexity and as much detail as possible, and having food and all sorts of cooking mechanics is just a further step in that direction. I'm not in favor of being expected to RP food mechanics simply because it inconveniences the PVP'ers. If they're buying their ships from other players, is it really such an annoyance to have to buy food and other supplies as well? 

 

Are there even ANY survival games without food mechanics of some type? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

because you're obviously thinking that your opinion is the non plus ultra and so you are presenting these as facts and with these facts your argumentation is logical, yes that is right.

next point is that your a speaking for many players, but which players have allowed you to speak for them? were you elected as speaker for them or something?

if your answer is no, then please speak only for yourself and present your assumptions not as fact

 

As i already said once, i don't think my opinion is the non plus ultra, but its based on facts, logic and experience from the last 15 years where such topics arose dozens of times, its empirical knowledge. As scientist, if we observe something happen all the time, then we take that as fact until something different happens. But with the amount of examples over the past 15 years and the development of most mainstream-gamers into people with low or no patience and resistance to hardships its extremely unlikely, that something different will happen.

Thus the reasonable consequence from this is, that games with to many annoying mechanics, annoying defined by the majority of players, will only be successful within an small playerbase. But thats something we all wish to avoid.

 

If you can't accept this, then thats fine for me, if you think miracles might happen, then thats fine too. And if that miracle for DU happens, that DU has a massive playerbaser in spite of "eat or die" mechanics and similar, then i sure will be happy for DU.

But if that mechanic is something that doesn't add a lot of value to a game but has a big potential of harming it, then sry, the reasonable consequence is to not include it into the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As i already said once, i don't think my opinion is the non plus ultra, but its based on facts, logic and experience from the last 15 years where such topics arose dozens of times, its empirical knowledge. As scientist, if we observe something happen all the time, then we take that as fact until something different happens. But with the amount of examples over the past 15 years and the development of most mainstream-gamers into people with low or no patience and resistance to hardships its extremely unlikely, that something different will happen.

Thus the reasonable consequence from this is, that games with to many annoying mechanics, annoying defined by the majority of players, will only be successful within an small playerbase. But thats something we all wish to avoid.

Thank you for this, this is well formulated as your opinion based on your experience and knowledge and i can respect and accept it.

Just to clearify it, my problem with you over the last few days wasn't your content, it was how you have presented it, to me it has all sounded like facts that are certain and at this stage of the game development i don't like it, if someone sounds like he knows already how it will be at game release, with no room for changes.

 

I personally can follow your thoughts about this and i see your point, even if i don't like it, i can accept it as a possible outcome, even as the most possible outcome, but not as certain outcome, at least not for now.

 

I hope we can now continue on a healthier basis :)

I also hope that i can come up with a food mechanic that will satisfy the roleplayers and not be too annoying for the others, it could take a while, but i'm looking forward to your feedback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gues the right need for food mechanic would not be a deal breaker for me, but I sincerely hope there will not be a need to eat and drink ir order to stay alive.

Haveing fuel to run ships etc is a need and that could be the limiting factor for ship design and travel distance and so on. But I would realy hate to not forget to pack my sandwich before going to shoot some stuff. I just do not whant to be worried about these pesky details about primitive human needs on a sanbox universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, thats a misconception, let me quote omniscient google on that matter:

 

 

I gave arguments for an "eat or die" system and arguments against it followed by a logical assessment of both sides with the goal to improve DUs gameplay, which completely qualifies as constructive criticism ;)

 

That said, "hard edges" in disputes aren't nessecarily bad because it means people care for the matter, of course only as long as no personal insults are used. Using double the amount of words to describe something "nicer" just because others might get offended if you formulate it plainly is a waste of effort. That desire to never offend anybody anytime because of any idea is hindering progress and one of the cancers of our current society, especially if those "offensive" things are just plain facts and reasoning without any emotional argument.

People who get offended because you refute their ideas with logic and reason should toughen up a little bit, its not like they are insulted or get hurt if someone tells them that their ideas are bad.

 

First, you are not quoting google. That is a direct quote from Wikipedia which is the first thing that pops up and should never be quoted as the factual accuracy of any post should always be in question.  The Wikipedia front page even has a disclaimer (Link here) on why they cannot guarantee the validity of any post.  A good example of this in action is this (Link) article from Wikipedia.  It also contains a definition of constructive criticism.  This article contradicts your article on the subject.  "Constructive criticism" is two different words and therefore are defined by a dictionary.  

 

For instance by the Oxford dictionary Constructive is defined as:

 

ADJECTIVE

1Serving a useful purpose; tending to build up:
'constructive criticism'

Note how they even included "constructive criticism" as their example.

 

And just for completeness:

 

Criticism

NOUN

1The expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes:
'he received a lot of criticism''he ignored the criticisms of his friends'

Second, As I previously stated no one is obligated to give anyone one form of criticism over another. 

 

Third, I agree hard edges in a dispute aren't bad.  My concern is that they have become INCREASINGLY harder.  And let me be clear this is happening on both sides of the table.  I have no idea if anyone has been offended.  I don't know anyone here personally, so I could never make that judgement unless it broke down into name calling.  All I know is that both sides are not debating with the same vernacular and things were looking hostile for a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, you are not quoting google. That is a direct quote from Wikipedia which is the first thing that pops up and should never be quoted as the factual accuracy of any post should always be in question.  The Wikipedia front page even has a disclaimer (Link here) on why they cannot guarantee the validity of any post. 

 

yes, i'm sorry, i didn't think my posts in this forum have to be as exact as papers :P

Arguing against something to improve the overall project is still constructive criticism tho.

 

 I have no idea if anyone has been offended.

 

there is nothing that can offend me, and in my opinion the discussion didn't become increasingly harder, only increasingly futile due to the repetition of the same things over and over again. Maybe the lack of patience was recognizable.

 

 

we need a moderator here... this is sooo far off topic its nuts

 

I would agree to that, but i wouldn't mind if this topic gets burried in spam :P Where is nora if you need him/her? 

(Because of past happenings with people who get offended for others, i will give the hint that the last part was irony ;) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow lots of ideas. One thing to try it to make food, air, water automatic in the cockpits and control units but set them to kick on activating survival mode 100 m from the ship. This gives you base bonuses to your human avatar that is only useful out of the ship.  Running, jumping fall distance, etc. Hazard endurance, research, prospecting, exploration result bonuses.

If you're a player that lives on your ship you never see the stats and they never go below 20 but if you're the castaway, explorer, survivor type you can eat, drink, etc and push the stats up to 100/ 200 or so. You can find and do stuff that the ship player can't find and probably does not want to look for. 

Social bonuses would also be linked to the base stats so they matter in a starport bar. Better the bar and it's food the better those stats. 

Run out of food, etc you don't die but finding alien plant life, surface ores and hunting things with ray guns are locked in at the base level 20 with no bonus loots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So alot of points have been uhm *pointed* out towards two words that i'd like you to think about.

 

Realism and futurism.

 

So you want it to be realistic? well its in the future so too bad but there wont be any t-bone steak or macaroni and cheese. If you think of todays food alot if allready unhealthy without the industry adding more junk into it.

Settling on an alien planet, would you kill and just grill the first alien you see that looks like a plague infected rat crossed with a two headed blobfish with elephantitis? No ofc. not because it would likely turn you into an pink cowgoroo that spews out gold out of its udders instead of milk, but you look so tasty that the other people eat you instead.

 

So heres the deal, im bringing up points against food and water, and afterwards points for a survival like system with the last part being something players will hate me for but devs would be glad to see.

 

Contra-Survival:

 

Makes no sense in a futuristic setup even if trying to be realistic, imagine all the allergies we have now, and think what would happen with new things. Why is it forbidden to bring foreign flora/fauna into australia? because it would destroy all of the native ones. Same with the bacteria in our bodies if we added something alien that we cant properly understand and defend against (think bout aids but worse).

 

We have plenty of food supplements as of today, and in the future could be healthier than eating normal food.

 

And dont forget the POOPs, i mean if you eat your ribeye beefsteak with country potatoes, im sure your body doesnt digest it all and has to get rid of the things it doesnt need.... so i would make trillions with my Poop Planet where you can dump your stinky shit for a price since nobody wants that shit on their turf.

 

Main points against it are the additional workload for something so little, ofcourse food and water would span over many other parts, but its too much effort for such a small thing that would only be a bother. BIG + i want the devs to focus on something else thats way more fun and interesting than a cheap food/water survival system that almost every 3. mmorpg has, so its nothing new, if you want to try and build effective farm layouts, go play modded minecraft.

 

now the Pro-Survival:

 

So depending on how advanced our bodysuits are it could regulate our bodily fluids and absord moisture from the atmosphere, or think a bit like the suits on the planet of DUNE.

 

At the same time it also collects noble gases or space/planet particles to give your body nutrients, should you be on a hazardous planet you would need to bring something as refill. Thus creating the nutri-gatherer which collects faster than your suit does and creates cans that you just need to place on the entry plug of your suit.

 

On the other hand if you go too deep underground, your suit cant collect any cosmic/stellar particles from the air anymore, thus needing either an energypack(like food) or you need to resurface(like breathing).

 

In the end it comes down to your equipment how long you can last. And incase of toxic or simply uninhabitable planets you would only survive temporarily until you get equipment that lets you live there indefinitely.

 

If its about buffs/boosts why not just make something like energy/stim packs or adrenalin, melatonin, seratonin, those are some good stuff too if you want something not so vague like *energy*.

 

Oh and last but not least the point i mentioned that will possibly not be well liked:

 

If you clearly think about it, this survival thing will be a bother and waste of time most of all, but another market niche for those who dont want to compete in weapons or vehicles etc.. BUT it will increase the time needed for most players to get their first PLEX!!! because many will need to focus some of their time and attention to surviving not just PvP/PvE but PvA player versus Area.

 

So if you think about it, you as players and myself will favor NO survival unless it is alot of fun and not too time consuming. But most of the suggestions for food & water dont sound like fun even if you could generate income with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Market Unit requires an energy supply and a container to store the traded goods. It can be as small as a front door market in your little farm, where travelers can buy your local production, to an orbital station sized market where interstellar megaships are traded.

 

Just gonna leave this here.

Source: https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/12/04/from-barter-to-market-economy/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading through the devblogs earlier, and had either forgotten about, or hadn't processed this part before: 

 

We are also thinking about farming and hunting, because you will need food.

 

So we will need food it seems, which I am glad about, it just depends on how it will be implemented. 

 

From this devblog: https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/08/17/about-the-alpha-gameplay/

 

Edit: Seems Halo381's post above partially answers that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...