Food variety - existing and great but not incentivized. Let's change that!

[Kulze]

Currently the game has several hundred thousand combinations, which is great... but let's be real here, players generally only use a few and stick with them, making it 'nice to have' but giving no incentive beyond the caloric differences and a HP buff for nutrition types which can easily be interchanged, ultimately leading to a few specific recipes being permanently used on repetition without a reason to divert from it.

So my suggestion here: A randomized buff system for meals.
This system is one I fondly remember from 'Wurm Online/Wurm Unlimited', though there it was tied to a skill exp buff specifically.

How does it function?
An seed based on player ID and ID's specified for a food combination. This allows a RNG to set a unique effect only for that player.

What effects could be included?
A variety, whatever can come up with.
Armor boost, resistance to temporal stability, regeneration speed for temporal stability, health regen (mild), health boost, a 'strength' buff doing more damage, optimally specifically tied to a specific weapon made out of a specific material to increase the pool and so on.

Want it to be more variety even?
The system can also have a RNG attached to effectiveness. A baseline value and adjusting the power of the buff +/- 50% from baseline, hence even when finding a fitting combination of a meal for the specific effect... what would another one do? After all it could be better still.

That would be such a hassle to keep track of!
True, which leads to a follow-up directly. The 'recipe book'. A character specific part of the handbook which can be searched by effect, every recipe being initially hidden until it is consumed once. That 2 red meat stew for the first meal in a pot? Now it's listed with the effect and power of it.

This would substantially increase the incentive - without enforcing to do it - for food variety. It would also elevate the farming of crops which usually aren't accessible in the base-area, as well as foraging for mushrooms becoming a overall positive. And since food is handled via a table simply for the combination ID there's a lot of upward space for variety possible in the future as well as auto-inclusion for every mod-based added consumed item as it introduces a layer of depth to the otherwise fantastic food variety in the game, removing people from endlessly consuming pie and nothing else day in and out.

[LadyWYT]

I mean...I don't know about anyone else, but eating the same thing all the time gets a little stale, so I'll change what I'm cooking from time to time--it doesn't really need any buffs attached to it. Likewise, I don't think it's really a bad thing if players decide they want to maximize efficiency and only eat redmeat-turnip stew and berry pies, or if they decide they just really love blueberry pie and want that to be the backbone of their diet. 

40 minutes ago, Kulze said:

Want it to be more variety even?
The system can also have a RNG attached to effectiveness. A baseline value and adjusting the power of the buff +/- 50% from baseline, hence even when finding a fitting combination of a meal for the specific effect... what would another one do? After all it could be better still.

The problem with RNG is that if the player isn't getting consistent buff strengths, then they're going to end up getting frustrated when one meal provides a really good buff and then cooking the same meal sometime later gives a weaker version of the buff. And of course, if specific ingredients are required for specific buffs, then you end up with frustrated players when they can't get the buffs they want because they don't have access to the ingredients they need.

 

42 minutes ago, Kulze said:

This would substantially increase the incentive - without enforcing to do it - for food variety. It would also elevate the farming of crops which usually aren't accessible in the base-area, as well as foraging for mushrooms becoming a overall positive. And since food is handled via a table simply for the combination ID there's a lot of upward space for variety possible in the future as well as auto-inclusion for every mod-based added consumed item as it introduces a layer of depth to the otherwise fantastic food variety in the game, removing people from endlessly consuming pie and nothing else day in and out.

With all due respect, I don't see how this really improves on the current system or doesn't force players into very specific diets. It sounds similar to Valheim's food system, where eating different foods provides different levels of health and stamina--you eat whatever is appropriate for the job you intend to be doing. The drawback to Valheim's food system though is that you get forced into eating the same things all the time, because some foods are drastically better than others so if you don't eat them, you're effectively hamstringing yourself. There's no point to eating roast boar, venison stew, or queen's jam anymore when you have serpent stew, wolf kabobs, and onion soup, since the latter provide significantly more benefit.

In the context of Vintage Story, you get shoehorned into always eating specific meals for specific tasks, so if you wanted to eat a redmeat pie before going fishing that's just too bad if some other meal offers a more appropriate buff; you could still eat the pie of course, but you're just not going to be able to do the task as effectively as you would by eating the proper meal. Other issues that arise are the fact that you can't just eat whenever you want--you need to be hungry first, which also means that you can't just switch buffs on a whim. Likewise, there's also the question of what happens when the player can only eat part of a meal, but not the full thing.

[Kulze]

Ah, I think the part about the RNG for effectiveness has been badly communicated by me here.

What I meant with it is not a change in effectiveness every time you use it, it's a difference in effectiveness 'per recipe'.
So we imagine 'stew with 2 red meat' provides a movement speed increase, 5% baseline value (as example) for that one... but it only provides 3% as it rolled bad.
On the other hand 'carrot pie' does provide 7% movement speed. Same buff different effect.

This incentivizes trying out new combinations even when you've found a fitting recipe, be it for a better effect or to get a more simple one with it.

I agree with you 100% that simply randomized effect effectiveness would feel bad, that's not a fun mechanic. RNG exists to provide variance where variance matters, not to ruin your day with a sudden low roll.

 

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

With all due respect, I don't see how this really improves on the current system or doesn't force players into very specific diets.

I recommend looking up the food system in 'Wurm Online' in that case for a better showcase then my simple description here.

As for why exactly it does provide a upside:

- Since it's not a fixed system but based on the character, hence causing a different seed to be generated every time you play any new world will cause the 'search' for proper recipes anew. This means while when you've found a fitting recipe for a specific task you'll focus on that one that during the search process you need to gather a variety of ingredients which increases the different created recipes quite a lot rather then focusing on one permanent method staying always the same.

- Once again, since the seed is different for every character this has especially in MP a vast effect, permanently. As every single player has their respective buff at other recipes it causes the cook of an inn for example to need to store a vastly larger variety of consumables, there alone it provides a substantial upside.

- Many players generally lean towards making pie as time goes on. It allows meat and vegetables to be included as well as improving the nutrition of flax grains - which are otherwise very bad - substantially. If that results in a awful buff out of bad luck though then it's likely to gravitate to something else.

- Depending on which buffs are used it can have significant effects long-term. Usually players lean to a single food-type in non-combat situations (and many even otherwise since they don't bother) which can be counteracted. Mining/Digging speed increase with a specific food? When terraforming you absolutely want that, even if the recipe for it is not the most easiest to achieve. Damage reduction before a temporal storm? Absolutely so. Movement speed when going for exploration? Can help quite a lot to reduce time needed for travel. Damage buff for your currently used weapon? Before spelunking or doing one of the story areas it's definitely a major upside. And so on and so forth.

This is specifically to NOT cause a inherent 'this food is automatically better then any other'. Quite the contrary. When 'solved' it still does push for a MUCH higher variety then currently seen, especially if one wants to maximize effects, hence having to deal with nutrition first and the buff secondly.
 

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

so if you wanted to eat a redmeat pie before going fishing that's just too bad if some other meal offers a more appropriate buff; you could still eat the pie of course, but you're just not going to be able to do the task as effectively as you would by eating the proper meal.

Plainly spoken: So?
It's a incentive, obviously you want to make use of incentives. But they're not mandatory to achieve your goal, you can forego it.
You don't need to quenching/tempering... you can absolutely do without! But doing so will increase your results as you get either more use-time out of an item or it does the job better. It needs time and material though... also got a risk attached to it but that's to uphold material balance at large for a non-renewable resource that's usually acquired under mediocre danger (dark caves have drifters after all).

So you either got the right stuff and are happy... you take care to get it as you wanna be effective... or you forego it as it's not feasable or you simply can't be bothered. The options are absolutely open.
 

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Other issues that arise are the fact that you can't just eat whenever you want--you need to be hungry first, which also means that you can't just switch buffs on a whim. Likewise, there's also the question of what happens when the player can only eat part of a meal, but not the full thing.

Yes, that's a good question, absolutely so!

The first: Food management, if you want to be buffed then handle it properly, a non-mandatory but rewarding usage of not being stuffed to the gills non-stop.
The second: Reduction of the time a buff applies. The buff duration can be directly connected to caloric intake simple, this makes it universal an application for any type of food. So cooked bushmeat while not providing much satiation will if you eat enough to fill you up nonetheless provide the respective buff accordingly. You don't get penalized for using it, and also not rewarded. This makes finding appropriate buffs for higher caloric food still good though and doesn't punish using those despite not being able to consume it in full.


In summary:
It's a system which simply adds another layer of choice.
You can forego making a choice, which is more then fine! You either get no effect at all which is useful... or best-case you get a 'lucky hit' anyway as a side-effect.
But for everyone who does try to make an active choice it rewards to put in the effort. This is managing your satiety before doing tasks, doing things to reduce your satiety which isn't affected in-between, hence giving an extra incentive to do those before doing something more 'grand' of any kind... and it does reward you accordingly for putting in the effort.

[LadyWYT]

9 minutes ago, Kulze said:

What I meant with it is not a change in effectiveness every time you use it, it's a difference in effectiveness 'per recipe'.
So we imagine 'stew with 2 red meat' provides a movement speed increase, 5% baseline value (as example) for that one... but it only provides 3% as it rolled bad.
On the other hand 'carrot pie' does provide 7% movement speed. Same buff different effect.

This incentivizes trying out new combinations even when you've found a fitting recipe, be it for a better effect or to get a more simple one with it.

Yeah, I'm still not getting it. What I see is that sure, the combinations might technically be different, but ultimately it's just a more complicated numbers game of figuring out which ingredients give the best value and then sticking exclusively to that recipe. Not to mention that the player can roll poorly when they cook the meal and thus not get the full benefit--this is already a feature of the quenching system when the workpiece snaps thanks to rolling poorly, and players are already frustrated with that. I can't imagine them being thrilled about getting a sub-par benefit just because RNG decided they botched cooking a meal.

 

13 minutes ago, Kulze said:

'Wurm Online'

To be perfectly honest, I've never played that game and don't know much about it, and the explanation attempts I have seen about its mechanics don't make me keen on playing something like it.

 

15 minutes ago, Kulze said:

Since it's not a fixed system but based on the character, hence causing a different seed to be generated every time you play any new world will cause the 'search' for proper recipes anew. This means while when you've found a fitting recipe for a specific task you'll focus on that one that during the search process you need to gather a variety of ingredients which increases the different created recipes quite a lot rather then focusing on one permanent method staying always the same.

This right here is an absolute NO. Not only is it going to be a massive pain in the rear to have to figure out all the recipes every single time I start a new world, but that's also going to make it very difficult to answer questions that newer players might have about food since there's just no way to know what's attached to what. I can't say that meat pie is the best food for fighting if it gives a strength bonus in one world but a stability bonus in another. 

I also like to pick out my own character's personal preferences--that's a major part of the fun of roleplaying! Choice of diet can say a lot about a character, and if the game is the one deciding what the character does and doesn't like, then it's not really me getting to write a character anymore, as much as it is just being handed a premade character sheet to play.

24 minutes ago, Kulze said:

Plainly spoken: So?
It's a incentive, obviously you want to make use of incentives. But they're not mandatory to achieve your goal, you can forego it.
You don't need to quenching/tempering... you can absolutely do without! But doing so will increase your results as you get either more use-time out of an item or it does the job better. It needs time and material though... also got a risk attached to it but that's to uphold material balance at large for a non-renewable resource that's usually acquired under mediocre danger (dark caves have drifters after all).

So you either got the right stuff and are happy... you take care to get it as you wanna be effective... or you forego it as it's not feasable or you simply can't be bothered. The options are absolutely open.

Unless you deliberately crank up the hunger rate, or otherwise wear armor/carry stuff in your off-hand to crank up the hunger rate...the player doesn't really eat that many meals a day. And if the meals are giving distinct buffs to various activities, players are absolutely going to want those buffs, and get upset when they can't switch buffs because they aren't hungry. It's why Valheim had the bukeperry item--to allow players to reset their food benefits as needed rather than needing to wait several minutes for the buff to wear off so they could eat something else. That's not even getting into what such a system is going to inflict on players who decide to turn the hunger rate down...that's going to cause all kinds of frustration.

Yes, Vintage Story does require some planning in advance, but use of consumables to get buffs shouldn't be something that requires advance planning. It should be something you're able to do on the spot as long as you have the appropriate item.

35 minutes ago, Kulze said:

So cooked bushmeat while not providing much satiation will if you eat enough to fill you up nonetheless provide the respective buff accordingly. You don't get penalized for using it, and also not rewarded.

There seems to be conflicting information here. I'm guess the idea is that the player can keep eating cooked bushmeat even if they aren't hungry and still get the associated benefit, but with a shorter timer? If that is the case, what ends up happening is players will just be constantly snacking in order to get buffs, without any real penalty for habitual overeating.

 

39 minutes ago, Kulze said:

This is managing your satiety before doing tasks, doing things to reduce your satiety which isn't affected in-between, hence giving an extra incentive to do those before doing something more 'grand' of any kind...

Given that Vintage Story is currently weighted toward pushing the player to stay well-fed and manage their activities carefully to avoid burning precious calories...I don't think it's a good idea to push players into doing things like running around in plate armor or hurting themselves to burn off hunger just because they want to stack/switch buffs. The various hunger penalties exist so that the player isn't just using the off-hand as a free inventory slot or otherwise running around in a full suit of plate for maximum protection.

[Rainbow Fresh]

As someone whose current in-game diet consist of spelt porridge with boiled onion - all day, every day, because those are the P and N crops I grow next to Flax as K - Having some sort of incentive to juggle around varying crops of carying effectiveness would be nice. Because sure, I could just go and plant something else; but these two are the easiest/fastest to grow so I don't have to babysit my farm when out on an adventure for, like, 10 days and I get nothing other than imaginary culinary variety for it.

That said, the proposed solution doesn't sound any better. As was already mentione and discussed before, relying on RNG to bring the player to do something is never a good fit. It was already mentioned how the nature of randomizing effects per player per world would lead to confusion, tedium and frustration while on the other hand just even moreso spearheading the one min-max recipe at the end of a long trial-and-error run - but I want to point out that there is another aspect to it: Unavailability. The current food system has 5 nutrition categories. While fruit might be the most underdeveloped as it's 90% berry bushes which only exist in a certain climate, all other categories have variety suited for different parts of the world. Multiple versions of grain and veggies that can grow in a variety of hotter and colder climates. Protein from animals or fish is obtainable in basically all livable parts of the world. As are animal options that can produce dairy. If we now randomize effects, it can easily happen that the player finally finds the optimal buff recipe just to realize it requires ingredients they can literally not produce in their home area. What do you do then? Move your entire existence built up over 100+ hours? Hope a convenient translocator network takes you to "free, easy farmland" where you can spend a year overharvesting so you have 3 years worth of ingredients? That doesn't sound like a good solution to incentivise experimenting more with different recipes. Not to mention the current implementation of cooking doesn't even allow this as there are technically only, like, 5 recipes - the name is just generated from the used ingredients. At the end it's all stew, soup, porridge or variety of pie.

 

If we wanted to forcibly make the player choose different foods, a wear-off effect might be a better approach. Eat the same food over and over again and it just becomes less and less effective; following the same logic of "Bushmeat gives less nutrition to emulate it being very, very unpalatable" the character would just "grow tired of eating the same dish 10 times in a row". However, I don't see this helping either cause then people just rotate two dishes over and over again. Make the cooldown harder and it becomes unreasonably unfavorable for beginner players that don't have access to reliable variety yet; which brings up the discussion of "survival vs. comfort". VS is a wilderness survival experience. If your very survival against starvation banks you eating any available food, would you really rather die than eat the same vegetable mash 10 times in a row? And if we say "Oh well, just apply it to established players" - how would one measure that. How do we define a clear line that separates the "eat anything starving survivalist" from the "well established homeowner" who wouldn't want to eat like a pleb anymore? So yeah, not really a solid approach either.