RPGM A Struggle with Sin [v0.6.1.1b] [Chyos]

[zARRR]

When Emily is kidnapped, one of the robbers takes her away, and the remaining one (the second one) fights with you. But if you're fighting two robbers, then who dragged Emily away?))) What kind of nonsense is this???

If you fight two robbers and kill them no one takes Emily away, if you fail to them they take her away

 

[Evangelion-01]

In reality there were 3 robbers, but one is hiding behind the closet.

Wasn't it the MC hiding in her closet?

 

[123Ins123]

If you fight two robbers and kill them no one takes Emily away, if you fail to them they take her away

Well, what nonsense!!! TWO robbers break into Emily's house!!! One knocks out Emily and walks away with her on his shoulder, and the second engages in a fight with GG. I passed this place several times and ALWAYS killed the robber, while the SECOND ONE carried off Emily!!! DON'T TALK NONSENSE!!!

 

[Evangelion-01]

Well, what nonsense!!! TWO robbers break into Emily's house!!! One knocks out Emily and walks away with her on his shoulder, and the second engages in a fight with GG. I passed this place several times and ALWAYS killed the robber, while the SECOND ONE carried off Emily!!! DON'T TALK NONSENSE!!!

...Really you didn't get any of the discussion did you?
You can engage that Event in 2 ways... first you wait and allow the robbers to kidnap Emily (fighting only one of them)... second you storm out of the room and fight BOTH robbers preventing them from abducting Emily.

DON'T TALK NONSENSE!!!

or atleast check your facts first please

 

[zARRR]

Well, what nonsense!!! TWO robbers break into Emily's house!!! One knocks out Emily and walks away with her on his shoulder, and the second engages in a fight with GG. I passed this place several times and ALWAYS killed the robber, while the SECOND ONE carried off Emily!!! DON'T TALK NONSENSE!!!

???
Nonsense? Dude chill, let's take a deep breath... since where is the nonsense?
You have two choices when the bandits break in Emily's house, ignore the sound or go to confront them.
You don't believe me?
Sure here are the screenshots:

Choose ”just the wind” and you fight one but Emily gets kidnapped, choose “investigate” and…


Now what? Still nonsense?

 

[123Ins123]

???
Nonsense? Dude chill, let's take a deep breath... since where is the nonsense?
You have two choices when the bandits break in Emily's house, ignore the sound or go to confront them.
You don't believe me?
Sure here are the screenshots:
View attachment 2331235
Choose ”just the wind” and you fight one but Emily gets kidnapped, choose “investigate” and…
View attachment 2331277
View attachment 2331237
Now what? Still nonsense?

This was not the case a year ago...

 

[zARRR]

This was not the case a year ago...

Wut?
I played this game two years ago and I got Emily kidnapped by losing to the two bandits!
And even Evangelion-01 probably was also there long time before and experienced it just like me!

 

[Evangelion-01]

This was not the case a year ago...

It was ALWAYS this way.
Chyos made it that way to offer Players a chance to prolong the Event in order to grow stronger or gain more money to pay the ransom, also the Quest to capture Imawyn would be pushed back since you need to save Emily twice from her camp before the timer starts (you can prolong this part by paying the ransom bt preventing the abduction is cheaper)

 

[fabulous007]

Hm, so I assume my 4 level jump (13->17) after dinner with Penny and Henry isn't normal ? Some kind of bug maybe ?

 

[Evangelion-01]

Hm, so I assume my 4 level jump (13->17) after dinner with Penny and Henry isn't normal ? Some kind of bug maybe ?

probably not... these Quests grant up to 10k exp so 4 Levels aren't that strange actually

 

[fabulous007]

I see, I was just surprised because it never happened before. Also it's probably more than 10k in total (for the 4 levels), since at level 17 I need 6.6k to level up.

Thanks. Also while I'm here, is it normal I almost always have the stomach icon on my character (not the icon on the top right of the screen, just the one next to my characters, like in combat) even when my satiety is very high ?

 

[Evangelion-01]

I see, I was just surprised because it never happened before. Also it's probably more than 10k in total (for the 4 levels), since at level 17 I need 6.6k to level up.

Thanks. Also while I'm here, is it normal I almost always have the stomach icon on my character (not the icon on the top right of the screen, just the one next to my characters, like in combat) even when my satiety is very high ?

green Icon = Player has HP regen
No Icon is around 60-30% no buff
and Red Icon is HP debuff below 30%

 

[Solak]

I'm aware obviously. But events tangentially related to food is not remotely the same thing. It's not actually tied to hunger level. At best they restore the pointless bar as a secondary effect. You can still however do them regardless of if you're hungry or stuffed. Which is why you can pretty much disable hunger right now and not remotely impact any of these events.

The examples I gave was like if you somehow faint from hunger and get resuscitated with a breastfeeding hj. Or you need to be completely starved so you can win a food eating contest. I was trying to come up with things that need the mechanic. But ultimately it is just not really necessary for almost any type of scene. It's purely a redundant chore system.

Like with the stink example, you can say "well you can bathe with x!". That doesn't really justify the system because you don't need that excuse to bathe with anyone. You can just do it cause you want to.

That is actually a fair point you've brought up. Hunger is mostly used in the beginning as an incentive for MC to get his bearings in his new life: a place to sleep, something to eat, a way to make ends meet... It achieves this by making it so if MC doesn't eat, he'll get a malus in combat. Given that MC sucks early game in battle, that's basically a death sentence unless you're well-fed. Past a certain point however, you've got 2 allies with you who can pick up your slack and carry your starving ass through battle.

However, having starvation pass days or force a game over could easily lead to unforeseen softlocks. It's always delicate to enact such drastic drawbacks (which is why MC doesn't stumble asleep on the floor when exhausted like a Sim would). So i don't think that'd be the way to go here.

Even the idea I got while reading those replies, I'm not certain it wouldn't risk softlocks. The idea being: if starved, can no longer use stamina actions (or they cost double or something like that). Because chopping down a tree or mining while starving would be a bit hard to do. You'd faint.

On the one hand, you could say "why worry about softlocks? You always have at least a bit of food lying aroudn in your inventory. A bit of anything and you're golden". But on the other hand, imagine an early game situation where you're starved and without anything to eat and no money. That'd mean you can't hunt, so you can't get food that way. You can't do chores either, like helping Claire at the kitchen. If Penny has had enough of you, tough luck there too. No way to make money either. You'd be completely softlocked, unless you somehow manage to defeat Tia's orc scout for instance.

That's why I'd say "double the cost of stamina actions", because you can always sleep for free. But I hope that showed how difficult (and annoying) it can be to design gameplay concepts. With all that said, what to do with the hunger system? Is it truly needed? I'd say it works as intended in early game. It's once you get past the early game that it loses all meaning, but it's not a system that you can suddenly revamp in the middle of a playthrough. Imagine the game telling you "from now on, starving will render you unable to perform actions that cost stamina". It's immersion breaking and very odd. The system needs to be the same from start to finish, the game can't change its rules in the middle of playthrough, that'd be unfair.

With all that said... What I CAN suggest is:
- the game not allowing the player to share a meal in Emily's household for instance if they're already well-fed enough
- some intensive labor could also be blocked while the rest would still be fine (solving the issue of being unable to hunt)
- a few slight dialogue changes to reflect MC's starving state (like Emily pointing out how MC is wolfing down his plate)
- since you mentioned lactation, no lactation play if well-fed... also if lactation + meal event, can only share the meal after sucking the teats if MC was starving at the start (otherwise he'll say he's not that hungry after all)

Would that give enough purpose to the mechanic?

 

[zARRR]

That is actually a fair point you've brought up. Hunger is mostly used in the beginning as an incentive for MC to get his bearings in his new life: a place to sleep, something to eat, a way to make ends meet... It achieves this by making it so if MC doesn't eat, he'll get a malus in combat. Given that MC sucks early game in battle, that's basically a death sentence unless you're well-fed. Past a certain point however, you've got 2 allies with you who can pick up your slack and carry your starving ass through battle.

However, having starvation pass days or force a game over could easily lead to unforeseen softlocks. It's always delicate to enact such drastic drawbacks (which is why MC doesn't stumble asleep on the floor when exhausted like a Sim would). So i don't think that'd be the way to go here.

Even the idea I got while reading those replies, I'm not certain it wouldn't risk softlocks. The idea being: if starved, can no longer use stamina actions (or they cost double or something like that). Because chopping down a tree or mining while starving would be a bit hard to do. You'd faint.

On the one hand, you could say "why worry about softlocks? You always have at least a bit of food lying aroudn in your inventory. A bit of anything and you're golden". But on the other hand, imagine an early game situation where you're starved and without anything to eat and no money. That'd mean you can't hunt, so you can't get food that way. You can't do chores either, like helping Claire at the kitchen. If Penny has had enough of you, tough luck there too. No way to make money either. You'd be completely softlocked, unless you somehow manage to defeat Tia's orc scout for instance.

That's why I'd say "double the cost of stamina actions", because you can always sleep for free. But I hope that showed how difficult (and annoying) it can be to design gameplay concepts. With all that said, what to do with the hunger system? Is it truly needed? I'd say it works as intended in early game. It's once you get past the early game that it loses all meaning, but it's not a system that you can suddenly revamp in the middle of a playthrough. Imagine the game telling you "from now on, starving will render you unable to perform actions that cost stamina". It's immersion breaking and very odd. The system needs to be the same from start to finish, the game can't change its rules in the middle of playthrough, that'd be unfair.

With all that said... What I CAN suggest is:
- the game not allowing the player to share a meal in Emily's household for instance if they're already well-fed enough
- some intensive labor could also be blocked while the rest would still be fine (solving the issue of being unable to hunt)
- a few slight dialogue changes to reflect MC's starving state (like Emily pointing out how MC is wolfing down his plate)
- since you mentioned lactation, no lactation play if well-fed... also if lactation + meal event, can only share the meal after sucking the teats if MC was starving at the start (otherwise he'll say he's not that hungry after all)

Would that give enough purpose to the mechanic?

I have another suggestion for the food matter, to give the food actual buffs and debuffs Tloz Botw style.
If starving in the late game becomes an easy matter then why not give to each aliment a status?
So let’s say you don’t want to chug down Emily’s dinner since it gives zero buffs but you instead want to devour special food you made or go to eat at the Queen’s table to receive a buff that will be over once starvation hits you.
For example your gourmet food gives you +10 % exp received, or you walk two times faster, or you regen faster.
This would also make the food you cooked actually useful, I am not eating the roasted carrots rabbit I cooked, that’s a valuable resource!
But if you give it a buff I may do it.
Maybe the food you can also get tired of the food you eat so after let’s 2 times you eat the same dinner you don’t get anymore buffs, so you go to eat somewhere else to get buffs.

 

[Tehemai]

[...]

With all that said... What I CAN suggest is:
- the game not allowing the player to share a meal in Emily's household for instance if they're already well-fed enough
- some intensive labor could also be blocked while the rest would still be fine (solving the issue of being unable to hunt)
- a few slight dialogue changes to reflect MC's starving state (like Emily pointing out how MC is wolfing down his plate)
- since you mentioned lactation, no lactation play if well-fed... also if lactation + meal event, can only share the meal after sucking the teats if MC was starving at the start (otherwise he'll say he's not that hungry after all)

Would that give enough purpose to the mechanic?

I agree with your analysis, you essentially understood why I chose to just turn that system off. It only adds a negligeable motivational utility VERY early on. And the energy/sleep system already fills that role. The game then quickly makes that mechanic trivial, which turns it into but a small nuisance. Balancing is hard, which is why game design wise it's not advised to just throw in mechanics willy nilly simply for the sake of realism.

As for the solutions, I unfortunately do not think it really solves the issue. While it gives more purpose yes, I feel most of these points (1&2&4) only serve to add to the nuisance factor. Being arbitrarily locked out of events is never fun. I suppose you could say the same about energy, but generally games have to include some kind of limiter mechanic. The question is if this is only going to be a limiter, do we really need another? Does the game give the player too much freedom without it? Personally, I don't think so. It takes a long time before energy stops kicking your ass (6 or 10 con).

I like the dialogue aspect of your suggestion. But the only way I think this mechanic really works is if it has some sort of upside. That's why I thought of possibly lactation. I do think zARRs idea for different buffs could also be good start. But I'm still not entirely convinced this mechanic can be salvaged in this genre of game. Will definitely reserve judgments. But for now, it'll be turned off for me.

Edit: Upon further reflection, upping the nuisance factor with point 1&2&4 could be fine so long as whatever upside that gets included is rewarding enough. It would ultimately depend on how things are balanced. If the rewards are trivial, then the whole thing will only end up frustrating.

 

[Solak]

I agree with your analysis, you essentially understood why I chose to just turn that system off. It only adds a negligeable motivational utility VERY early on. And the energy/sleep system already fills that role. The game then quickly makes that mechanic trivial, which turns it into but a small nuisance. Balancing is hard, which is why game design wise it's not advised to just throw in mechanics willy nilly simply for the sake of realism.

As for the solutions, I unfortunately do not think it really solves the issue. While it gives more purpose yes, I feel most of these points (1&2&4) only serve to add to the nuisance factor. Being arbitrarily locked out of events is never fun. I suppose you could say the same about energy, but generally games have to include some kind of limiter mechanic. The question is if this is only going to be a limiter, do we really need another? Does the game give the player too much freedom without it? Personally, I don't think so. It takes a long time before energy stops kicking your ass (6 or 10 con).

I like the dialogue aspect of your suggestion. But the only way I think this mechanic really works is if it has some sort of upside. That's why I thought of possibly lactation. I do think zARRs idea for different buffs could also be good start. But I'm still not entirely convinced this mechanic can be salvaged in this genre of game. Will definitely reserve judgments. But for now, it'll be turned off for me.

Edit: Upon further reflection, upping the nuisance factor with point 1&2&4 could be fine so long as whatever upside that gets included is rewarding enough. It would ultimately depend on how things are balanced. If the rewards are trivial, then the whole thing will only end up frustrating.

Agreed, without zARRR's added suggestion, it makes it only punishing, hardly ever rewarding. It would also give purpose to cooking, which atm has none except to advance Katherin's quest line at one point and that's it. Even for selling purposes, it's better to take the venison to Tomas and sell roasted rabbit meat instead.

Glad you liked the brain teasing. I for one liked the point you raised which aptly put the finger on why that system felt wrong for so long, then using it as a props to bounce new ideas off of. If we can't suck milk from teats IRL anymore, at least let us do it in game, dammit!

 

[XSelLint]

What is someone who will save the game?

Why? What's wrong with the game? Is Chyos Abandoning it or Something? Transitioning Dev?
Or you meant Save Scumming?

 

[zARRR]

Agreed, without zARRR's added suggestion, it makes it only punishing, hardly ever rewarding. It would also give purpose to cooking, which atm has none except to advance Katherin's quest line at one point and that's it. Even for selling purposes, it's better to take the venison to Tomas and sell roasted rabbit meat instead.

Glad you liked the brain teasing. I for one liked the point you raised which aptly put the finger on why that system felt wrong for so long, then using it as a props to bounce new ideas off of. If we can't suck milk from teats IRL anymore, at least let us do it in game, dammit!

Then zARRR suggestion should get more upvotes on discord!
Make hunger great again lmao

 

[Evangelion-01]

Then zARRR suggestion should get more upvotes on discord!
Make hunger great again lmao

As long as it doesn't have some boobs I doubt that campaign will go far though

 

[zARRR]

As long as it doesn't have some boobs I doubt that campaign will go far though

I mean in the suggestion thread there was the lactation mention soooooo….