Food Aging -- Discussion Thread

[nessalin]

With the latest change, an optimal stacking of bonuses would give food items a 75% resistance to aging.  This would result in food lasting around 6 RL days.

[AdamBlue]

I say that foods should last 1.5x longer entirely.

[Brytta Léofa]

DRIED food such as jerky - can last for years and never spoils.

I think that DRIED foods should last 5x longer than the maximum possible now: if you have a cook, the right ingredients, and a place to store it indoors, you can stockpile food that will last ~ 1 RL month.  It gives something to work for.

What I don't want to see is people stockpiling edible live insects 'cause they're the only readily-available thing that lasts.

[Desertman]

I think the preserved foods should last around ten RL days, for not only playability purposes but economic purposes. (Six days seems a bit short to me.)

If you tell me my cooked steak -might- last six RL days if I salt it....or it will last three days in a nice dark place....I'm probably not going through the extra effort of expending the time and resources to gather and use preservatives.

(Unless the process for salting/smoking/preserving food is just....craft item.....use magic salt that isn't really there....in that case, it's a no effort system and I will go ahead and preserve it.)

Adding a note: Either way, this new system is a billion times better in my opinion than the old system. Great work guys.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

What I don't want to see is people stockpiling edible live insects 'cause they're the only readily-available thing that lasts.

I was about to say 'why not' but then I realize these things would realistically require food to stay alive, so the very poor really ought not to be stockpiling them.

They will, but its a better system than we had, where apartments and House airtight bins could be filled with two months worth of food without consequence.

[Armaddict]

Should we be bugging food items that say they are cured/salted/smoked but do not appear to last longer?

[Akariel]

Should we be bugging food items that say they are cured/salted/smoked but do not appear to last longer?

If anyone sees any items that they think should have longer lifetimes than the norm, feel free to send me a request titled "ATTN Akariel: Food Project". At this point I'd like to start compiling a list of food items where their crafting message/mdesc/other arbitrary things say they have been preserved in some way. Make sure to clan the request Oash or Fale.

[Armaddict]

Should we be bugging food items that say they are cured/salted/smoked but do not appear to last longer?

If anyone sees any items that they think should have longer lifetimes than the norm, feel free to send me a request titled "ATTN Akariel: Food Project". At this point I'd like to start compiling a list of food items where their crafting message/mdesc/other arbitrary things say they have been preserved in some way. Make sure to clan the request Oash or Fale.

Thank you, I guess my 'missed posts' button didn't catch this.  I'm assuming that this is the same for 'food preserving containers'.

On that point, how picky are you wanting to be?  Will food preserving containers be 'special items' that most people just don't have access to, or will it be common for every home?  I.e. Urns and baskets and hampers, are they 'food preserving', or should we only submit it if their description specifically states that they're air-tight?

[Akariel]

Should we be bugging food items that say they are cured/salted/smoked but do not appear to last longer?

If anyone sees any items that they think should have longer lifetimes than the norm, feel free to send me a request titled "ATTN Akariel: Food Project". At this point I'd like to start compiling a list of food items where their crafting message/mdesc/other arbitrary things say they have been preserved in some way. Make sure to clan the request Oash or Fale.

Thank you, I guess my 'missed posts' button didn't catch this.  I'm assuming that this is the same for 'food preserving containers'.

On that point, how picky are you wanting to be?  Will food preserving containers be 'special items' that most people just don't have access to, or will it be common for every home?  I.e. Urns and baskets and hampers, are they 'food preserving', or should we only submit it if their description specifically states that they're air-tight?

Right now I'm just handling foods that should be preserved in some way. We've already got the flags on anything with 'salted', 'smoked', 'dried', and 'jerky' in the sdesc, but if you catch an item without those in the sdesc and it mentions it in the mdesc, or the crafting message, then shoot it over.

For containers I'm not really sure at the moment. You can throw them at me and I'll discuss it with the others.

[solera]

In our dryish climate dried fruit lasts forever (years) until the weevils find it. How long do dates last in their homeland?

[nauta]

Hmm, maybe this has been answered above: Do all foods spoil at the same rates?

From what I can tell:

o prepared foods (dried, smoked, cured, etc.) take longer to spoil.
o bugs take longer to spoil (or maybe they don't spoil)?

What about (these are all items I think should take longer to spoil)?:

o tubers (unprepared)
o roots
o wheat
o flour
o candy items (candied necklaces)
o saps (the golden sap)
o nuts
o seeds
o elf fingers (those are Zalanthan twinkies, right?)

(I wish I knew the food categories.  Sorry this list is pellmell.)

[nessalin]

Currently food aging ignores food-type (bread, meat, fruit, tuber, etc...), relying instead on environment (indoors, darkness), treatment (salted, smoked, dried, etc..), and where it is (preservation container, or not).

We can configure different maximum ages for foods based on food-type, but currently do not.  Right now they all have the same max age (216 game hours).  Changing maximums by food-type will probably be one of the last things to be tuned, and gradually.

[Armaddict]

I think timeframes need to be adjusted earlier than later.

Right now there is actual incentive to not log in when resources gathered need to go to specific people.  The log in/check/log out becomes the rule in order to not make your work useless.

[Desertman]

I do know when I take food orders for people in the future they WILL pay up front and I WILL arrange for them to be around at a certain time for delivery that both parties agree to.

If they fail to show up at the designated time they lose their money because I gathered the food and they let it go bad.

They aren't paying for the food. They are paying for my labor/risk in gathering it.

That's really the only way to go about that. But honestly, that seems very realistic. If someone orders three scrabs worth of scrab meat...they need to arrange to be there to pick it up before it goes bad.

It might be a little taxing on the playability front, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

[Armaddict]

...none of those things you listed are easy to get other people to 'go for', because that's not the way people see things.  You may have experiences where you had characters who were established enough that people felt safe 'paying for the labor, not the product', but that's a very strange outlook to try and maintain as a rule of thumb in counterargument to feedback about how things are currently going. (Edit here:  Not to mention...demand a specific meeting time or it won't happen?  That's...a 'little' taxing on playability?)

Things may change as tweaks are made, but such was the purpose of the feedback I was trying to convey, which was 'This is a promoting an unhealthy line of thought in its current state, and a simple tweak here could remove said thing.'  I'm still not dissing the idea, I'm trying to refine it here into filling a 'good spot' in the game.

[Desertman]

...none of those things you listed are easy to get other people to 'go for', because that's not the way people see things.  You may have experiences where you had characters who were established enough that people felt safe 'paying for the labor, not the product', but that's a very strange outlook to try and maintain as a rule of thumb in counterargument to feedback about how things are currently going. (Edit here:  Not to mention...demand a specific meeting time or it won't happen?  That's...a 'little' taxing on playability?)

Things may change as tweaks are made, but such was the purpose of the feedback I was trying to convey, which was 'This is a promoting an unhealthy line of thought in its current state, and a simple tweak here could remove said thing.'  I'm still not dissing the idea, I'm trying to refine it here into filling a 'good spot' in the game.

It's Zalanthas. If someone is buying from your pre-gathered goods they can pick and choose from your basket.

If they want to place a special order with you to go out and do dangerous as fuck shit....they better pay up front, at least partially.

I think that is very Zalanthan. In fact, so does the T'zai Byn.

(I'm also not opposed to changes to make this more playable. In fact, I think it is probably needed. That's a hardline tactic to use and I was just pointing out that with the current system, you will probably have to use it for food orders.)

[Armaddict]

...you're comparing the T'zai Byn to the average rangers who go out and get knick-knack crafter needs for people?

Again, you may be coming from a place where your characters can push for such bargains, like the T'zai Byn, but in average business dealings, the 'pay up front or get nothing' usually results in 'I'll get someone else.'  That is expected behavior, unless you're in a position that you've been able to successfully acquire for that person or group for long enough that you have established that as a the expectation.

This 'I'll find someone else' happens in everything from acquisitions to services.  Basing the code of the game off of the interactions of only those groups who have the power to make such demands is not exactly healthy.  At this point, you're arguing against feedback purely to be argumentative, demanding that the very basis of average dealings change in perspective rather than listen to the prospect that numbers in a new thing might just need tweaking.  And this feedback is not 'Remove this idea, I don't like it', it is 'This current setting has it very hard to make the meetings that need to happen happen'.

The result is the opposite of what you're desiring, thusfar, which is I won't get those goods.  There will be less interaction over those items.  So it's great that the endless supply of chalton meat now decays, but on the other hand, getting harder-to-find-food-items (or food items that are also used for other purposes) to or from someone who doesn't log in every day is now a feat of scheduling, resulting in playtime adjustment based on making that meeting.  That's undesirable.  And the only tweak it requires is to make it less of a pressing issue, time-wise, -at least- until all the new code gets sorted out.


Edit:  And honestly, it's not even worth arguing whether you should or shouldn't listen to my feedback.  Perhaps I'm an anomaly.  But the login/check/logout will continue for now, I suppose.
 Edit again:  The above was not noticing D-man's edit, I agree with his statement that this is a good change and should stay in, but could be made more player-friendly and still establish our desired result.

[Desertman]

...you're comparing the T'zai Byn to the average rangers who go out and get knick-knack crafter needs for people?

Again, you may be coming from a place where your characters can push for such bargains, like the T'zai Byn, but in average business dealings, the 'pay up front or get nothing' usually results in 'I'll get someone else.'  That is expected behavior, unless you're in a position that you've been able to successfully acquire for that person or group for long enough that you have established that as a the expectation.

This 'I'll find someone else' happens in everything from acquisitions to services.  Basing the code of the game off of the interactions of only those groups who have the power to make such demands is not exactly healthy.  At this point, you're arguing against feedback purely to be argumentative, demanding that the very basis of average dealings change in perspective rather than listen to the prospect that numbers in a new thing might just need tweaking.  And this feedback is not 'Remove this idea, I don't like it', it is 'This current setting has it very hard to make the meetings that need to happen happen'.

The result is the opposite of what you're desiring, thusfar, which is I won't get those goods.  There will be less interaction over those items.  So it's great that the endless supply of chalton meat now decays, but on the other hand, getting harder-to-find-food-items (or food items that are also used for other purposes) to or from someone who doesn't log in every day is now a feat of scheduling, resulting in playtime adjustment based on making that meeting.  That's undesirable.  And the only tweak it requires is to make it less of a pressing issue, time-wise, -at least- until all the new code gets sorted out.


Edit:  And honestly, it's not even worth arguing whether you should or shouldn't listen to my feedback.  Perhaps I'm an anomaly.  But the login/check/logout will continue for now, I suppose.

I think you posted this tirade about me not wanting change and hating your feedback and disagreeing with you before you saw my edit where I said exactly the opposite. See timestamp on edit above. Sorry for your confusion.

[Armaddict]

Yup!  Edit fixes it.

[AdamBlue]

Currently food aging ignores food-type (bread, meat, fruit, tuber, etc...), relying instead on environment (indoors, darkness), treatment (salted, smoked, dried, etc..), and where it is (preservation container, or not).

We can configure different maximum ages for foods based on food-type, but currently do not.  Right now they all have the same max age (216 game hours).  Changing maximums by food-type will probably be one of the last things to be tuned, and gradually.

So basically 'don't invest in buying any kind of food whatsoever until everything is done unless you plan on eating it immediately' is what you're saying?

[Desertman]

No worries. 

[Xalle]

I made flour infinite for now, and candy necklaces.

[Desertman]

I made flour infinite for now, and candy necklaces.

My wife and I were just talking about flour in this regard yesterday.

This is a good change.

[RogueGunslinger]

After some time to consider, I don't find this change very appetizing. You've made hunger-code go from something that facilitated roleplay, to something that is now an annoyance.

What will Recruit AOD soldiers do when someone isn't around to fetch them food from the Templar Quarter, log out? Is a poor corporal going to have to deal with the tedium of making sure food is stocked EVERY time they log in? Boy maybe this will be the moment the recruits finally get a cook.

Planning for two-day (or more) spanning RPTs will now have to account for whether or not food will be where you're going, and if you've got rangers good enough to feed everyone off their forage skill.

For indies, or just anyone who is heading out to spend extended  time in the wilderness more time will have to be devoted to acquiring food, instead of doing other interesting things.

And staff are now going to be spending their time trying to fill all the holes in to make it less annoying.

There just seems to be lots of ways this will end up being a nuisance, and the only benefit we're getting form the change is now things are "more realistic" and store rooms will be less crowded.

[Saellyn]

That's what rations are for.