Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-24108228-20140713003210/@comment-24108228-20140713091132

Qoazi wrote: NoBanana wrote: And bring that through the formula provided we get that even at saturation 50 the addes saturation would be 8, once saturation is at 51 the added saturation would be 7.8, then at 52 7.6 etc. If we round that off in the script we get that the saturation will only lower once you are above max saturation, Thats the point, its a soft cap. Although I would be more than happy to increase the amount decreased by 2 each 5. It was about midnight when I came up with some of these numbers, and although I tried, it's still not perfect. Being at max and eating gives the normal saturation. This also makes it so that you'd get 1 saturation even at 85 saturation, Since 5 + 6/2 - (85-50) / 5 8 - 35/5 8 - 7 = 1 This also means that you'd get 1 saturation until you had 88 saturation. Minor issue though. On a side note this formula would mean that above 92 saturation would actually give negative 1 saturation next time you ate, Easily countered but still a side note If it is easily countered, then counter it. Problem solved :D Also NoBanana wrote: For some more examples, if I had an item baked by a baker of level 10 and a base saturation of 10, with a max saturation of 100, and my saturation was at 130, I would do: 10 + 10/2 - (130 - 100)/5 15 - 30/5 15 - 6 To get a result of 6 saturation per portion. 15 - 6 = 9, Right? I was playing around with the figures for the saturation values. Guess I forgot to update all the numbers when I settled on a final answer anyway, If this formula is used the food sources that gives alot of base saturation will really only be useful for a low level Cook, As an example, a lvl 20 Cook can make 1 apple pie and get 20 saturation from it each portion. '''I think you are underestimating the difficulty of getting to level 20 cooking. I made 75 apple, berry, and pumpkin pies, and that got me to level 23. Anyone who does that deserves the 20 saturation.

However, he could also easily throw some chicken on a fire and each chicken would give 12 saturation with each portion, This would make Pies and Bread into and the hard to get food sources into worse choices over easy things to get like chicken or bento meat, This would literally make it so that the better the Cook is, The simpler Foods he should make, Not what you initially intended :/ '''Ah, this was all thought out. The max saturation soft cap was introduced to tackle this issue without hurting legitimate cooks too much. Let's say I want to get to 125 saturation, like a lot of people would. Let's also say I have a level 20 cook, who just cooked some chicken on a stove top. Well, since chicken has a soft cap of 10, with current figures you would be stopped dead in your tracks at 70 saturation. To get there, you would have to eat huge numbers of chickens. If I had my level 20 cook do this with apple pies, they're limit is all the way up at 150 saturation. This also affects beef, and other various foods. Since the cook's level doesn't actually come into play unless it is cooked on a stove, which most survivors wouldn't do (normally because they don't have the cooking level), beef would have a tiny impact on your saturation, and wouldn't be able to be that perfect food source that mithrilites use.

My only suggestion is that we make animals drop Bodies, that the Cook later can remove the flesh from by crafting the body, This would add a nice opportunity to initialize the script, We could also make it so that you'd need a higher cooking skill to get the meat from the more meaty animals. '''Better idea. If it isn't cooked on a stove, you don't bother applying the cook's level. Meat is OP right now, and the entire point of this suggestion being so complex is to effectively nerf meat, and buff baked foods, as well as create excellent groundwork for additional foods to be added and actually have reason to be made. It requires a certain level of cooking to do it for each food (beef requires something like 6), and that way, it isn't too intrusive either. We don't want to ruin meat, just make it reasonable. NoBanana wrote:

Occasional Raiders
First I'll mention that most "Occasional Raiders" Don't even try to fight you, Many just burn a couple of Buildings, Store/all then forage your farm while you hack away on him A farm is a handmade structure, they certainly shouldn't be foraging it., It's not like you can actually do anything beyond teleporting him away. '''Well, most tribes wouldn't have the power to do so fast enough. If they got a bonus tier, they could remove the raider before they did any serious damage. NoBanana Wrote: This is debatable yes but seriously, If a tribe wants defence Then they make Defence, These people make food, They want food. If they want to defend themselves they should get defense Aka make weapons. I don't personally Think that they should be able to defend themselves just because they have higher quality food. Though that it would make them more healthy is a fair Point, and i can stand behind that however if the villagers who eat good get healthy, shouldn't the warrior who spends time mining, Hauling ore and smashing metal be big and strong and do more damage? shouldn't the raider who spends time running around in Heavy armour and honing his skills be able to kill a farmer just because the farmer ate some pie earlier? No, This would be fairly unfair, That those who specialise solely in killing would be at such a disadvantage.''' The idea is that it's not intrusive by an extreme amount. The steel sword guy who ate a pie a couple seconds ago will win a fight against a steel sword guy who didn't. A well fed iron tribe will fend of a hungry steel raider. If I have steel, and I fight a maxed saturation stone spear wielder, who is going to win? Me. It buffs you up a tier at the very highest, remember you would need to eat vast amounts of food to do so. If I have full mithril and bluesteel, I'm still invulnerable, and chances are, I could just kill some cows to get myself a small saturation boost anyway. It's a non-intrusive way of helping farmers, cooks, and fishers, as well as well fed tribes, to defeat nomadic raiders who have a huge advantage as far as tool creation goes. Tribes cant really leave their island without moving completely, otherwise they risk being raided while they're gone. Nomads can just sail from rockma to spire in order to jump to the next stage in about a second. Saturation damage buffs may seem unfair, but overall its not hurting many people, and is mostly making combat more evened out.

NoBanana wrote:

Single Dimensional Combat
Ok, when I say combat is single dimensional, I tell a lie. There is a huge number of factors to consider. However, they still all follow the same basis. Better Smithing = Better Weapons This is both unrealistic and boring. A well fed and fit soldier is capable of killing someone with slightly better weapons, who doesn't have such good health or physical posture. If there is one skill that determines if you can beat someone in PvP, that makes it rather linear. By adding what is effectively a potion of strength, it makes combat more interesting, as if you use your food at the right time, you can defeat opponents stronger than you, and by choosing your cook wisely, you can have the upper hand against people with a similar mindset. It makes combat much more interesting, as there is more factors than who has the better weapon. Can't say much more on this matter, Personally i Think there should be a Fighting Skill, But that'd be abused. Right now combat is based on your Equipment and your actual real Life reflexes and whatever planning you had Before. Well, this is your fighting skill. Someone with high fighting level (cooking) can beat someone who has better weapons, but lower skill in the ways of the sword. And it's not something that can be abused either. The boost is temporary and expensive (although this can be countered by training your fighting further), so it doesn't mean your instantly better. Plus, it's even tradeable, so you can trade your experience to a lesser combatant. Smart eh? If you wish to reply in the form of quotation, remove things you no longer think (if I have convinced you that this helps Occational raiding, remove that from the quote), and reply in Blue.