Jump to content

Leith McLean

Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Leith McLean

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Animals stay away from urban areas because of the noise, people, and lack of habitat and food. As world erosion sets in, there is no longer any such thing as 'urban' and it should get easier to find birds, squirrels etc everywhere. I live in Christchurch, New Zealand. In 2010 we had an earthquake that levelled big parts of the city. Within a few weeks of abandonment, properties were overgrown and plants were invading houses. Within months, abandoned suburbs were habitats for all sorts of birds, insects, and mammals. We could hear bird calls of tui, bellbirds, and other creatures that never enter the city. Did you know, there are more wild coyotes living in towns and cities than in 'the wild'?
  2. Yeah, the guide to making a suggestion specifically tells you to necro
  3. What I'm seeing here is a lot of people saying it takes too much effort to avoid a death-spiral. Realistically, it takes much less food to maintain 60kg than 80kg. So slow rate of weight loss as weight decreases.. Shift the penalty onto the physical effects of malnutrition - weakness, low fitness, poor co-ordination. Because lower weight takes less food to maintain, your rate of food intake determines your stable weight level - NOT your rate of weight loss. With the penalties for different levels of starvation, you can make it so being badly fed (most survivors) is pretty bad, but can be kept from descending into famished, malnourished, and starving - though a sizeable % of survivors should end up in those bands at some point. And attaining the wondrous goal of *gaining* that weight back and keeping it - that's a survivor that's looking goooood. The point is, make weight stabilise at some point determined by the rate of eating.
  4. Being able to burn more things would be good. Better than a destroy button. I think we should be able to destroy items because, although you *could* go and drop it somewhere, that's really boring. I spend enough time sorting bags as it is.
  5. I agree that all clothing should have armor protection. For example blouses protect the arms better than vests. Clothing should mostly affect scratches; bites should always be very, very bad - though *armor* itself could protect against them, clothing really shouldn't Clothing can also give offensive benefits. For example hiking boots would make it much easier to stomp zombie skulls. Leatherworking could make it so late-game you're a zombie-slaying tank; boiled leather armor, jackboots, gauntlets. Epic.
  6. Weight gain and loss should be mostly due to protein imo. Also, as less food is required to maintain lower body weights, weight loss should slow as a player gets very thin. It's hard to starve to death, but easy to be starved into being zombie-bait. If we want to get *really* realistic, we should model muscle mass and fat separately. Health problems don't automatically come with being husky (also fat-shaming lol) but being unfit regardless of weight is bad for you.
  7. This is a feature in the Hydrocraft mod. Install it! It has a lot of recipes that make hauling things easier (PALLETS).
  8. I'm not very fit, but I know that after about three months of regular training, I can run much much further than the breadth of Muldraugh in much less than an hour. I couldn't do it sprinting while carrying 20 kg of gear, but keeping it THAT realistic would make it boring, just a series of relays back and forth through cleared territory carrying stuff.
  9. I'm liking it. And let me say Johnnyonoes said almost everything I created my account to say I feel the diverse requirements it imposes have the potential to drive diverse gameplay options - but a lot of those options aren't really *in* the game yet. If you want your players to meet a variety of needs, we need a variety of options. Animals and hunting will complement the nutrition system really well too - high energy expenditure, big reward. As well as introducing seasonal elements. Get animals in the game asap, because you have just introduced a system that demands them. And oh it'll be so good when maybe that rustling in the trees is good... but maybe it's ZOMBIES. I'd therefore oppose adding high-carb plants to the farming options. Forcing players to venture out to hunt, trap, and fish will add depth and fun to the game. I really want Muldraugh and West Point to have more streams and other water sources too - this would also help break the dependence on rain barrels. Consider how many people you know grow potatoes or pumpkins - compared to how many grow wheat or rice. They're the sort of thing a large survivor settlement might get into rather than lone survivors. It has made Obese into an asset. I'm fine with that, but it's not -10 points worth any more. imo Obese is now a must-have, which is pretty wrong. It'll probably stay a must-have for a while, but getting 10 points of perks ON TOP of 35kg of padding omgwtfop And there needs to be a closer relationship between hunger and calories. I don't care much about realism; your players need reliable feedback from their decisions. I was recovering from a broken leg, with Light Eater, and keeping my belly permanently full and doing nothing but read books all day, and still losing weight. I'm a vegetarian who reads all day and let me tell you, maintaining my 85kg is not a problem. Also, once you lose the sugar- and corn syrup-laden processed foods of 'civilisation', high-calorie foods just are more filling. Once all the chips and icecream are gone, there is no way anyone who is eating enough to feel full, is going to lose significant amounts of weight. On the flipside, healing and strength should not be dependent on how full you feel. Those things are related to the amount of protein in your diet over the long-term, as well as the amount of calories in your recent consumption.
×
×
  • Create New...