idea (idea) wasting away starvation mod

[IAmMoss]

So i personally think a lot of the mods that change starvation mechanics go quite a bit overboard in complexity and mechanics in one way or another

I had an idea to make a starvation mod that works like this-

• once you reach zero satiety instead of taking damage, over the course of 14 in game days, you would lose your total health pool by one point by roughly one day. 
• when you reach day 14 of starvation you would be left at one health point from your health pool and finally start taking starvation damage.
• after about 7 days, your nutrition bars decay rate will be multiplied and you will lose all health bonuses over the ladder half of starvation. giving those who have a more balanced diet more health to work with as they starve, at least for the first half.
• eating any food will immediately halt the clock that takes away your health, however it will take you roughly one in game day to regain 2 lost health back from your health pool, meaning the recovering time is about half the time you spent starving. 

i have a pretty good idea at how the extra hud info could be neat, compact, and easy to understand.

maybe there could be ways to recover faster via items, but i havent thought that deep into it.

my idea is to have a harsh ramification for not eating while keeping it from being annoying (chip damage noises and over complicated systems)

 

Does anyone think this is a good idea? i would love to hear anyone's thoughts interested.

 

 

 

[LadyWYT]

5 hours ago, IAmMoss said:

Does anyone think this is a good idea? i would love to hear anyone's thoughts interested.

There's two main hurdles to overcome, I think, the most important of which is...what happens to the penalties if the player dies, and is it possible for the player to softlock themselves out of playing the game thanks to penalties incurred. If the penalties are reset on death, then starvation isn't much of a threat since the player can just use death as an easy reset rather than put in the effort to actually recover. However, if the penalties persist through death then you risk the player, inexperienced players especially, getting themselves into a situation where they're still struggling to stay alive because they're too weak to actually stay alive long enough to get food.

It's also important to consider that the default month length is nine days. Given what you've outlined, the player would probably die from other causes thanks to the lowered health before they manage to actually die of starvation, however, preserving food for the winter is one of the major challenges of the game(even if a simple one). Allowing the player to go over a month without any food at all is a fairly generous amount of time, and one that could encourage players to get lazy about how they approach tasks like food storage or supplies for travel.

5 hours ago, IAmMoss said:

eating any food will immediately halt the clock that takes away your health, however it will take you roughly one in game day to regain 2 lost health back from your health pool, meaning the recovering time is about half the time you spent starving. 

One problem here--by "immediately halt the clock" do you mean avoiding the health penalty for that day? If so, then "any food" means that all the player has to do is eat a single flax grain or other low-value food item to avoid taking any sort of penalty. In which case, the player doesn't actually need to concern themselves with storing food or otherwise establishing a food supply except for filling nutrition bars.

There's also the aspect of...if it takes a full day without food to lose a point of health, but one full day to regain two points of lost health back, then starvation means very little since the player can earn back the health faster than it's lost. Which again leads to the situation of the player being encouraged to ignore securing a good food supply, since any penalties incurred are so easily mitigated.

I think for starvation to actually mean something in regards to the proposed health loss, you need to make it easier for the player to lose health to starvation and harder for them to gain that health back once it's lost. For example, if they lose a hitpoint of health for each day they go without food, it should take them two days of steady meals--no starvation ticks--in order to gain that point of health back. To avoid death as an easy out, the penalty should also persist through death, albeit with a limit in order to ensure that the player will still be reasonably strong enough on respawn to dig themselves out of the mess they've gotten themselves into without needing to start a new game. 

[IAmMoss]

On 8/1/2026 at 11:55 PM, LadyWYT said:

There's two main hurdles to overcome, I think, the most important of which is...what happens to the penalties if the player dies, and is it possible for the player to softlock themselves out of playing the game thanks to penalties incurred. If the penalties are reset on death, then starvation isn't much of a threat since the player can just use death as an easy reset rather than put in the effort to actually recover. However, if the penalties persist through death then you risk the player, inexperienced players especially, getting themselves into a situation where they're still struggling to stay alive because they're too weak to actually stay alive long enough to get food. 

This idea i think is more balanced around the 30 day month and limited resource/ temporal gear uses. it's more so to change the ramifications while on a long journey. i mean the problem with vanilla starvation is solved by dying as long as you are near home or have a temporal gear on hand. The same goes with this i think. The danger comes from being away from home with limited resources for too long. i can't remember or haven't seen how other hunger mods affect you after death, it is something i may have to look into.

On 8/1/2026 at 11:55 PM, LadyWYT said:

It's also important to consider that the default month length is nine days. Given what you've outlined, the player would probably die from other causes thanks to the lowered health before they manage to actually die of starvation, however, preserving food for the winter is one of the major challenges of the game(even if a simple one). Allowing the player to go over a month without any food at all is a fairly generous amount of time, and one that could encourage players to get lazy about how they approach tasks like food storage or supplies for travel.

 

The thing is, the benefits of preserving food still exist. you still get health buffs, and having those health buffs will give you a larger health pool while you go hungry unless you go too long. the current system can still be gamed by eating minimal food. you just aren't getting the benefits of more nutritious meals as with this idea. Maybe it could be balanced based on what length of month you choose in that regard, but i feel like it could be fairly balanced in a 30 month day, which was my idea. kind of have hunger mirror the real world with you know, weight limits, etc.

On 8/1/2026 at 11:55 PM, LadyWYT said:

One problem here--by "immediately halt the clock" do you mean avoiding the health penalty for that day? If so, then "any food" means that all the player has to do is eat a single flax grain or other low-value food item to avoid taking any sort of penalty. In which case, the player doesn't actually need to concern themselves with storing food or otherwise establishing a food supply except for filling nutrition bars.

There's also the aspect of...if it takes a full day without food to lose a point of health, but one full day to regain two points of lost health back, then starvation means very little since the player can earn back the health faster than it's lost. Which again leads to the situation of the player being encouraged to ignore securing a good food supply, since any penalties incurred are so easily mitigated.

I think for starvation to actually mean something in regards to the proposed health loss, you need to make it easier for the player to lose health to starvation and harder for them to gain that health back once it's lost. For example, if they lose a hitpoint of health for each day they go without food, it should take them two days of steady meals--no starvation ticks--in order to gain that point of health back. To avoid death as an easy out, the penalty should also persist through death, albeit with a limit in order to ensure that the player will still be reasonably strong enough on respawn to dig themselves out of the mess they've gotten themselves into without needing to start a new game. 

By that i mean your starvation clock (your health actively ticking down, like how hunger or nutrition is programmed to drop, except without the variables) stops ticking while your satiety is above zero, but will immediately start ticking again if you don't keep your satiety bar up. so it will go right back down to draining if you don't find more food.

I think having to wait a full day for 2 health to come back is still quite the downside, especially because of how dangerous the world is. That being said, if you wanted it harder, you could maybe make it half health or one health point per day. I personally thought it was better to be a bit more forgiving. My idea is to not make the game more hard or easier. It's to have a system that is equal in difficulty, but handles the downsides differently.

On 8/1/2026 at 11:55 PM, LadyWYT said:

I think for starvation to actually mean something in regards to the proposed health loss, you need to make it easier for the player to lose health to starvation and harder for them to gain that health back once it's lost. For example, if they lose a hitpoint of health for each day they go without food, it should take them two days of steady meals--no starvation ticks--in order to gain that point of health back. To avoid death as an easy out, the penalty should also persist through death, albeit with a limit in order to ensure that the player will still be reasonably strong enough on respawn to dig themselves out of the mess they've gotten themselves into without needing to start a new game. 

I think these are great ideas, that perhaps could be implemented. Like specifically if someone dies in anyway while in a state of starvation, that state persists, and you lose all nutrition bonuses regardless. So you are at your base health, with half a satiety bar, but still in a state of starvation. What do you think?

Like i said, my main problem is more so that it seems like most mods that try to scratch that realism itch go just a bit too overboard in my opinion. i kind of wanted something more realistic, but less bloated with features/ mechanics.

 

Perhaps if i can learn how to mod eventually i could do it. For the time being, i just wanted to put my idea on here, in case anyone thought it was neat, and get some feed back

Edited August 3 by IAmMoss
changed "base" to "vanilla" in the first paragraph

[LadyWYT]

4 minutes ago, IAmMoss said:

This idea i think is more balanced around the 30 day month and limited resource/ temporal gear uses. it's more so to change the ramifications while on a long journey. i mean the problem with base starvation is solved by dying as long as you are near home or have a temporal gear on hand. The same goes with this i think. The danger comes from being away from home with limited resources for too long. i can't remember or haven't seen how other hunger mods affect you after death, it is something i may have to look into.

Right, and despite the fact that pretty much anything goes when it comes to mods, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of balancing around default gameplay settings. Longer months means that the player will need more food to survive overall, and means that the player will need to wait longer for crops and livestock. However...longer months also means more time to get things done...which means that the player really shouldn't be going hungry at all, since they can more easily devote entire days to specific tasks and don't need to worry quite as much about multi-tasking. Though I suppose it could also be argued that this sort of change makes longer months even less forgiving, since players who fall into trap of getting lazy with food stores will find themselves suffering a lot more over the winter than they maybe would otherwise.

Regarding temporal gears and base game starvation being solved by dying...that only kind of works. Death wipes out half the nutrition bars each time and the hunger bar itself is only half-full on respawn, so unless the player prioritizes food they really aren't going to get very far. Temporal gears also have limited respawns by default, and are hard to come by in the early game, so burning through respawns on frivolous deaths isn't recommended. 

In fairness, I'm not saying a mod that makes starvation "realistic" couldn't work. But at the end of the day, it is still a videogame, and trying to make the hunger "realistic" usually results in either overcomplicating the mechanic or making it almost negligible.

14 minutes ago, IAmMoss said:

The thing is, the benefits of preserving food still exist. you still get health buffs, and having those health buffs will give you a larger health pool while you go hungry unless you go too long. the current system can still be gamed by eating minimal food. you just aren't getting the benefits of more nutritious meals as with this idea. Maybe it could be balanced based on what length of month you choose in that regard, but i feel like it could be fairly balanced in a 30 month day, which was my idea. kind of have hunger mirror the real world with you know, weight limits, etc.

A fair point, but depending on other settings, the health buff can be ignored, or built up easily enough before the player actually goes to do something. So I'm not sure the health buff alone is enough to keep players invested in the system, if the system itself can be exploited to avoid worrying about food almost entirely.

 

16 minutes ago, IAmMoss said:

By that i mean your starvation clock (your health actively ticking down, like how hunger or nutrition is programmed to drop, except without the variables) stops ticking while your satiety is above zero, but will immediately start ticking again if you don't keep your satiety bar up. so it will go right back down to draining if you don't find more food.

I think having to wait a full day for 2 health to come back is still quite the downside, especially because of how dangerous the world is. That being said, if you wanted it harder, you could maybe make it half health or one health point per day. I personally thought it was better to be a bit more forgiving. My idea is to not make the game more hard or easier. It's to have a system that is equal in difficulty, but handles the downsides differently.

It is a harsh penalty, yes, but I think the penalty needs to be a little harsh in order to keep the player from gaming the system and just eating a meal every now and then instead of actually establishing a food supply and keeping themselves properly fed. If the health never ticks down while the hunger bar is above zero, then all the player really has to do is eat the occasional flax grain or other cheap food, and only ever invest in full meals when they need the nutrition bar full for an adventure or something. That's not to say every player would do that, but I can see several players gaming the system in that fashion since there's not really a penalty for doing so.

Same goes for the health being earned back twice as fast as it decreases. It's a mechanic that's very easy to exploit, since the player can just go days without before spending a day or two to recover and then going several more days without.

I would also note that players often don't play the game in a realistic fashion, despite comments pointing out how various mechanics aren't very realistic. It's a videogame, it's to be expected. When it comes to "realistic" hunger systems, I think it's also fair to point out that just because the average human can go several days without food and not die...that really only happens in extreme circumstances. The average person tends to get at least one or two meals a day, and in the circumstances that starvation is actually occurring, it's not something one just recovers from after a meal or two. Skip a couple of meals and you'll generally feel more irritable, less focused, and weaker, even if you otherwise have a normal diet.

Thus when it comes to videogame realism, I'm not sure it's really fair to argue that the player should be able to go days without food because it's "realistic", without also imposing some pretty steep penalties when it comes to recovering from days without food, or even softer penalties for skipping a meal or two. That doesn't mean that food supply needs to become an absolute chore either, but I don't think it should be something the player can just ignore as they wish and expect to succeed at the rest of the game.

29 minutes ago, IAmMoss said:

I think these are great ideas, that perhaps could be implemented. Like specifically if someone dies in anyway while in a state of starvation, that state persists, and you lose all nutrition bonuses regardless. So you are at your base health, with half a satiety bar, but still in a state of starvation. What do you think?

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such a thing, and it's somewhat what I would expect if the hunger mechanic were overhauled to include something of a "starvation grace period". But I still think it's the kind of thing that's very difficult to balance. Too little penalty, and the player will just ignore the downsides in favor of gaming the system, no matter how unrealistic, simply because it's a videogame and easy options tend to be very attractive. Penalties that persist through death tend to be a pretty good motivator to avoid certain mistakes, but they can also be rather frustrating to deal with, especially for newer players who are still trying to master the game.

 

32 minutes ago, IAmMoss said:

Like i said, my main problem is more so that it seems like most mods that try to scratch that realism itch go just a bit too overboard in my opinion. i kind of wanted something more realistic, but less bloated with features/ mechanics.

To my knowledge, the only mods out there that really overhaul the hunger like this are Expanded Stomach, Tasshroom's Body Fat mod, and Max's Simple Starvation. There used to be another mod, Realistic Starvation, that basically did what it says on the tin--made it take days for the player to actually starve to death. The main problems with that mod though, was that there was absolutely no penalty for overeating(and thus no reason not to eat everything in sight), and food otherwise was no longer a challenge since it took so long for any penalties to actually occur.

Tasshroom's Body Fat is probably the closest fit to what you're looking for, I'm guessing. It's rather straightforward in what it adds--you can overeat and store a certain amount of extra calories each day as fat. When the hunger bar is empty, it will burn through any fat first before it starts to damage player health. Most values, I think, are configurable...or at least they were when I last toyed with the mod, which was quite some time ago. 

For the vanilla game, I think there was some rudimentary ideas for fat and starvation mechanics buried deep in the code, that my friend ran across while we were working on Expanded Stomach. If I'm recalling correctly, the ratio was such that for each day the player went without food and relied on fat reserves to survive, it would take them seven days to recover those reserves, which seems pretty fair to me. It's enough to let the player go a little longer between meals if they're in the middle of a project, or survive a little longer in an emergency, but it's not so lenient that the player is going to game the system by regularly skipping meals and ignoring food supply.

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, IAmMoss said:

it's more so to change the ramifications while on a long journey.

A different angle that crossed my mind...if the goal is to make long travels have more impact and thus require more planning, I'm not sure that changing the hunger is the answer. Currently, traveling has little impact on the player's plans aside from time, since there's very few circumstances where the player will be spending more than a few days away from home. And pies will stay fresh for a few days and are stackable, so supplies aren't usually an issue. The player can also cover a lot of ground on foot since sprinting is fast and has no time limits.

I think in this case, the simpler solution is to increase the distance between story locations in the game settings, as well as potentially decrease the player's speed in order to make mounts and vehicles much more valuable. Adding a mod like Vigor to limit how long the player can sprint will further contribute to the value of a mount. As for food, the spoilage rate can be adjusted in the vanilla settings, but a mod that adjusts the spoilage of specific foods, like raw meat, would be better. Realistically, raw meat will spoil rather quickly in warmer weather, and when it comes to travel food the mainstays are going to be things like grains, salted/dried meats, dried fruits, or specific raw foods that keep very well, with freshly hunted/foraged foodstuffs supplementing those supplies whenever possible. Of course, changes like these also make changing the hunger to be more "realistic" have more value other than a simple way to exploit game mechanics, but even so, I would still argue that it's not very realistic/ideal to be deliberately planning to go days without food, especially when traveling.

[Rainbow Fresh]

All the back and forth discussion aside for now, I still think a more in-depth hunger system is neat and I agree that the mods out there already existing have questionable or over-tuned approaches. We don't need Project Zomboid's whole weight and nutrition system to spice things up beyond "Bar go down. Bar 0 = death". Not to mention even PZ's system only, eventually, pushes the player into the one and only min-max strategy of eating nothing but rabbit all day every day cause everything else is not worth it in the long run. (Atleast back in V41, haven't played the new V42 yet). So a layered approach separating the immediate effects of the hunger bar from the notable effects of starvation is a good idea in my opinion.

That said, the previous discussions have brought up a couple valid points so let me throw my 2 cents in aswell:

In order to have the forgiving nature of not-immediate death starvation while still aiming at a punishing, detrimental system heavily encouraging actually eating like a human would as well as trying to avoid softlocking unaware players, how about we tweak the numbers and systems like this:

• There is still the slow starvation aspect whereas if you reach 0 satiety, you will grow weaker and weaker until you eventually die.
• I agree with LadyWYT here that recovery should be harder than starving so we can say -1 Max HP per day vs. +0.5 Max HP per day.
• Instead of just being a timer that ticks if satiety = 0 and doesn't if satiety > 0 for starvation with a second timer that ticks with satiety >0 and stop with satiety = 0, how about a moving delta; Baseline you neither lose nor gain Max HP (only base HP, not nutrition bonus). When your satiety reaches 0, your delta moves by, let's just eyeball, -0.25 delta Max HP per day. Meaning if you keep your satiety at 0, you will lose 0.25 Max HP per day after the first day, 0.5 Max HP per day after the second, 0.75 and so on. The longer you actively starve, the worse it gets until you will inevitably die.
• If you get your satiety up to over 50%, you apply a reverse delta. +0.1 Max HP delta per day, for example, so you slowly recover. That also means if you are too far gone already, you will not recover in time before your Max HP reach 0, killing you.
• For incentive and player control, we could also add certain hearty dishes (tied to the current hunger pause mechanic, maybe?) that give a bigger boost to try and heavily course-correct but only if you actually invest in proper food.
• In order to not completely screw anyone over who is struggling and didn't manage to get any food for a single day with a permanent drain, there is also baseline correction. Over time, if your satiety is >0 you will slowly, naturally drift towards 0 delta. Meaning if you are a struggling beginner who doesn't get any food for a single day and briefly hits 0 gaining Max HP loss, then struggling to find enough to get reliably above 50% satiety, you will still slowly stop losing Max HP. Not gain any back unless properly fed, but also not doomed to die.
• As for death penalty; I'd say you keep respawning with half satiety (no free recovery) and the -delta is set to 0 but instead you keep your Max Health reduced to a minimum of, let's say, 25% of the world setting base health. That way you have a small leverage to try and recover while being handicapped enough to discourage tactical food ignorance.
• As a bonus, because pure penalties are shit, even when at full base Max HP you can retain positive delta up to a certain cap. This allows you stave off onsetting starvation through enough healthy eating beforehand. Natural delta decay will, however, also affect positive deltas so if you do not eat very healthily constantly, you will naturally go back down +-0.
• Finally, the nutrition system of the game needs no changing imo. Death cuts it in half already. It naturally decays with lack of food. And pre-filling all your nutrition bars gives a bigger buffer to potentially outlast severe starvation where food would otherwise not course-correct your Max HP loss fast enough.

[IAmMoss]

On 8/5/2026 at 2:51 AM, Rainbow Fresh said:

All the back and forth discussion aside for now, I still think a more in-depth hunger system is neat and I agree that the mods out there already existing have questionable or over-tuned approaches. We don't need Project Zomboid's whole weight and nutrition system to spice things up beyond "Bar go down. Bar 0 = death". Not to mention even PZ's system only, eventually, pushes the player into the one and only min-max strategy of eating nothing but rabbit all day every day cause everything else is not worth it in the long run. (Atleast back in V41, haven't played the new V42 yet). So a layered approach separating the immediate effects of the hunger bar from the notable effects of starvation is a good idea in my opinion.

That said, the previous discussions have brought up a couple valid points so let me throw my 2 cents in aswell:

In order to have the forgiving nature of not-immediate death starvation while still aiming at a punishing, detrimental system heavily encouraging actually eating like a human would as well as trying to avoid softlocking unaware players, how about we tweak the numbers and systems like this:

• There is still the slow starvation aspect whereas if you reach 0 satiety, you will grow weaker and weaker until you eventually die.
• I agree with LadyWYT here that recovery should be harder than starving so we can say -1 Max HP per day vs. +0.5 Max HP per day.
• Instead of just being a timer that ticks if satiety = 0 and doesn't if satiety > 0 for starvation with a second timer that ticks with satiety >0 and stop with satiety = 0, how about a moving delta; Baseline you neither lose nor gain Max HP (only base HP, not nutrition bonus). When your satiety reaches 0, your delta moves by, let's just eyeball, -0.25 delta Max HP per day. Meaning if you keep your satiety at 0, you will lose 0.25 Max HP per day after the first day, 0.5 Max HP per day after the second, 0.75 and so on. The longer you actively starve, the worse it gets until you will inevitably die.
• If you get your satiety up to over 50%, you apply a reverse delta. +0.1 Max HP delta per day, for example, so you slowly recover. That also means if you are too far gone already, you will not recover in time before your Max HP reach 0, killing you.
• For incentive and player control, we could also add certain hearty dishes (tied to the current hunger pause mechanic, maybe?) that give a bigger boost to try and heavily course-correct but only if you actually invest in proper food.
• In order to not completely screw anyone over who is struggling and didn't manage to get any food for a single day with a permanent drain, there is also baseline correction. Over time, if your satiety is >0 you will slowly, naturally drift towards 0 delta. Meaning if you are a struggling beginner who doesn't get any food for a single day and briefly hits 0 gaining Max HP loss, then struggling to find enough to get reliably above 50% satiety, you will still slowly stop losing Max HP. Not gain any back unless properly fed, but also not doomed to die.
• As for death penalty; I'd say you keep respawning with half satiety (no free recovery) and the -delta is set to 0 but instead you keep your Max Health reduced to a minimum of, let's say, 25% of the world setting base health. That way you have a small leverage to try and recover while being handicapped enough to discourage tactical food ignorance.
• As a bonus, because pure penalties are shit, even when at full base Max HP you can retain positive delta up to a certain cap. This allows you stave off onsetting starvation through enough healthy eating beforehand. Natural delta decay will, however, also affect positive deltas so if you do not eat very healthily constantly, you will naturally go back down +-0.
• Finally, the nutrition system of the game needs no changing imo. Death cuts it in half already. It naturally decays with lack of food. And pre-filling all your nutrition bars gives a bigger buffer to potentially outlast severe starvation where food would otherwise not course-correct your Max HP loss fast enough.

Honestly this is pretty great. I can agree with you guys on making gaining health more difficult than losing it, for sure. I don't think i have any objections. Could add tool tips to meals and what not on how it affects you and how certain food can buff your delta, so on and so forth. Thanks for your input!

[IAmMoss]

On 8/3/2026 at 1:11 PM, LadyWYT said:

A different angle that crossed my mind...if the goal is to make long travels have more impact and thus require more planning, I'm not sure that changing the hunger is the answer. Currently, traveling has little impact on the player's plans aside from time, since there's very few circumstances where the player will be spending more than a few days away from home. And pies will stay fresh for a few days and are stackable, so supplies aren't usually an issue. The player can also cover a lot of ground on foot since sprinting is fast and has no time limits.

I think in this case, the simpler solution is to increase the distance between story locations in the game settings, as well as potentially decrease the player's speed in order to make mounts and vehicles much more valuable. Adding a mod like Vigor to limit how long the player can sprint will further contribute to the value of a mount. As for food, the spoilage rate can be adjusted in the vanilla settings, but a mod that adjusts the spoilage of specific foods, like raw meat, would be better. Realistically, raw meat will spoil rather quickly in warmer weather, and when it comes to travel food the mainstays are going to be things like grains, salted/dried meats, dried fruits, or specific raw foods that keep very well, with freshly hunted/foraged foodstuffs supplementing those supplies whenever possible. Of course, changes like these also make changing the hunger to be more "realistic" have more value other than a simple way to exploit game mechanics, but even so, I would still argue that it's not very realistic/ideal to be deliberately planning to go days without food, especially when traveling.

That's the thing, changing all that makes the game feel completely different than what i am proposing. like i said, the mechanics can be exploited in roughly the same way in vanilla. How many people really min-max pies and how fast does the average player make it to the point in which they can effectively mass produce multi-nutritional pies? By your logic, hunger is a useless mechanic even in vanilla because pies exist. The only thing not accounted for in my initial post is killing yourself to avoid the penalties. There is no benefit to eating hearty meals in base game aside from nutrition bonuses and the hunger pause. I think @Rainbow Fresh expanded on my initial ideas with fairly good, balanced changes. I also want to mention that many mods are situational additions dependent on settings? This isn't any different, than me proposing this be balanced around the 30 day month.

I also don't mean offense, but i feel like your thinking about this more as a suggestion/ critique for vanilla rather than what i initially pitched it as. Which is just a realistic-lite hunger mod. In any case, i do appreciate your input.

[LadyWYT]

14 hours ago, IAmMoss said:

I also don't mean offense, but i feel like your thinking about this more as a suggestion/ critique for vanilla rather than what i initially pitched it as. Which is just a realistic-lite hunger mod. In any case, i do appreciate your input.

In fairness, that tends to be how I look at most suggestions, as a general rule.  It's easy enough to make something sound good on paper, but the actual in-game execution can be pretty lacking. Currently been dealing with that very issue playtesting a mod for a friend--the idea was good on paper, but mostly failed in playtesting.