You shouldn't start dying from hunger as soon as you're are empty

[Puppet Pal Clem]

You should start losing stats before you start losing HP, giving us about 20-30mins hour gap(can be adjusted this is why i am putting this out here) before we lose HP from starvation. This will make fights more dynamic and help us travel across the huge map to look for food instead of panicking when we reach 1/5 hunger, you don't even have a chance to really fight back when your starving because you're losing hp too rapidly on a huge map which doesnt make much sense to me.


Also I dont know if this is only me but A.I callouts are pretty hard to pinpoint. Sometimes they sound like they are behind me when they are in front of me, sometimes with each periodic shout, they sound like they are in a different location. Finding A.I when you're a big dino is paramount to getting you to the next place. If you are stuck looking for a small A.I (when bushes cover them and trees are in your way) you will basically be stuck looking for small A.I until you die.

After i was done eating 1 A.I, a few minutes later i'm back on empty, so i look for more before i start taking hp damage (which wouldn't help me fight another player to survive especially if i don't come into contact with a player within 10mins or ill be too low on hp to fight making me have to look for sparse tiny A.I).

This is why i firmly believe that the devs should look into losing stats before losing hp. Because we get a better chance, but hunting other players is harder, a sub allo for example could have a chance against an adult but late stage strvation giga, because the stats would sort of even out. I believe this would make the game more dynamic too because now players could look for weak but big game (just like in real life when animals pick out the weak,old and hungry).

Maybe even make the dinos look skinny as they lose stats.

PS there is still an issue when dinos die on shallow water and you can't eat their body and sometimes they are on land. I basically died because of this terrible bug. I've killed and come across dinos that were in shallow water to just waste my time and continue starving.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1623811074

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1623824003

This was the most frustrating thing i have ever seen and it needs to be fixed soon. I'm literally almost dead from hunger and can't eat it. I attempted to position myself all around the corpse, nothing, just drink water... Then i spent my last dying moments to find 1 tiny taco A.I, i ate it, was back to empty within like 2mins. Then i spent my last dying moments panicking as my screen turned red giving me no chance of doing anything.

[Lambalot {Lamb-Bah-Ghini}]

You use to start taking damage as soon as you ran empty, but now they have given you a few more minutes due to the model transformation. Sounds like you need to find where the hotspots are or play with someone to get more AI spawning.

[Why Watt]

Players already pick out weakened animals that are starving, the visual cues are hard to miss in broad daylight; they look emaciated, which means they are low hunger, and are pale, which means low HP = an ideal prey item to be killed.

See there's a really simple issue, a reason why, stats dropping and death not happening for ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ HOURS is possibly the worst idea in the history of ideas.

Dinosaurs do not have negative hunger. You could eat a single Taco and no longer be starving if only for a short time. Therefore all your stat drops are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ gone. You'd have a system where there is absolutely no practical limitation on any large creatures, herbivores, carnivores, etc.

What would stop 20 adult Trexes from being together? All they need is to be just above starving, or even not starving for only a short time every now and again, to reset the decline. Absolutely nothing would inhibit that. At all. Affinity is going to do stat debuffs when low, but most importantly it will increase hunger and thirst drain. What does it matter if starving is not an actual problem?

As large dinosaurs you should not be trying to subsist on AI. They are there to stave off starvation, as you did. I was in the exact same situation as an Allosaurus, a while back. I'd grown to adult on plenty of Oros, but they eventually stopped spawning after I logged back in to resume. I travelled across the lands, panic rising, and would gobble up whatever AI I'd find, which bought me more time. Eventually I found a juvi Allo... and ate it. I hadn't known it was there. But I'd made some sound and it made a call in reply. I told him I was sorry but he shouldn't have made noise. He begged, in vain.

Learn from your mistakes. The game is not intended to be easy. It's literally listed as hardcore. It isn't intended to hold your hand. It does not want you to keep your dinosaur alive for ever. The gameplay loop is around growing, living and eventually you stop living.

The hilarious extreme you are saying, where a starving adult Giga would lose to a Subadult Allo is absolutely unreal! A Sub allo is among the weakest things to exist. It is slow. It cannot hunt any adult for itself. It's weak. You'd want Gigas to be solo-able by a Utah in a near-facetank with how you envision it, after starving a long time? That's even more unfun. Feeling useless is infinitely more frustrating than being on a timer.

[Souretsu]

1-2 hours? That's way too long. The stomach of most things lasts 30 minutes to an hour, that is usually enough time to track something down. You can't just screw off in a corner and wait to get bigger on a map like V3.

[Puppet Pal Clem]

I should have elaborated, this effect is only for adult form, stats recover after a period of time, and perhaps the stats decay could only last 30mins before death HP decay. I believe it would be fair and put more emphasizes on exploringing. The stat decay before HP decay wouldn't break the game especially since there are A.I. It's to ensure that players die from combat most of the time, instead of starvation from lack of a.i and players (making the game feel mostly dead at times).

Herbivors are the safest dinosaurs. And are they pretty strong. If anything stat decay should be a thing especially for carnivors. The map is just too big and dying/panicking from strarvation while the nearest player is 30mins away is pretty frustrating. We should sort of even the playing field. Herbivors never have to worry about going hungry and barely have to worry about apex predators. I bet carnviors mostly consume carnivors because of the numerous plants and pack numbers they have. I've been a trike and in a pack for 3 days straight and it got so boring i just suicided in the water. To scoff at stat decay and not see the other end of the spectrum is honestly "Hilarious extreme."


And Why Watt you should calm down, you sound pretty mad, you're just putting words together to make it sound bad because you disagree. There is no harm in trying stat decay or messing around with the survival aspect in early access. Things can be adjusted and implemented fairly. I'm giving my own experience and how i feel about the game.

"The hilarious extreme" lol what? Get a hold of yourself buddy, your face was probably red and your heart pounding after reading that lol.


I believe stat decay is best for a huge map, or reduce map size if player count won't be in the 200s. It's one of the main problems a lot of people have, and keeping the forumla the same means this game will most likely just have a small community of hardcore players. This is why i believe the game should be a little more fair.

[Why Watt]

Originally posted by Fóros:

And Why Watt you should calm down, you sound pretty mad, you're just putting words together to make it sound bad because you disagree. There is no harm in trying stat decay or messing around with the survival aspect in early access. Things can be adjusted and implemented fairly. I'm giving my own experience and how i feel about the game.

"The hilarious extreme" lol what? Get a hold of yourself buddy, your face was probably red and your heart pounding after reading that lol.


I believe stat decay is best for a huge map, or reduce map size if player count won't be in the 200s. It's one of the main problems a lot of people have, and keeping the forumla the same means this game will most likely just have a small community of hardcore players. This is why i believe the game should be a little more fair.

In the end all we are doing is putting words together. To make a point. It's almost like that is what a debate is. Now the difference is, you are throwing ad-hominems around to attack my image to make my post seem bad.

Now, if you actually care for a reply, I think the emotion I felt was bemusement? Mildly puzzled as to why you'd cite that specific idea? I derive pleasure debating and deliberating. Turning beat red is not on the menu.

The reason why I'm able to safely say that such a system can be a very bad thing is I've seen what happens when hunger is lenient.
I've been actively playing the game for years, as it stands. Trust me. If you've seen what I've seen you'll understand my hesitation to be your yes-man for this idea. I've seen packs of 20-30 adult Rexes form when hunger was slightly more lenient. I've seen packs of 20-30 Gigas on prior versions of V3 even before any AI existed at all, and it took upwards of 10hrs to get a Giga, and the map didn't even have an ocean. Playercount, for the server, I cannot recall, but it was called Isle of Wynter.

Official V3 servers, a long, long time ago, only had 60 players. 60. The map was just as large, but it also happened to... lack water. A lot. There were a few lakes. Progression times for given dinosaurs lined up more-or-less with current growth times in Survival, so I feel it's a perfect example. Aside from herbivores having an even easier life eating trees, yes, they ate whole trees, was quite funny to watch a herd cause deforestation, it could reflect decently enough.
40-60 players, no AI, scarce water, no nesting, no scent, no ambush.

If you think current is harsh, you are gravely mistaken. Packs of predators could only form, or gather, around a large herd. That's right. Not even a pair of adult Trexes could survive without starving unless they converged and attacked a herd. Predators desperately camped lakes, hoping for prey to come by.

Scent, AI, massive rivers, abundant ponds, rain, higher player count. You have many luxuries that others thrived without. I, personally, my extreme hard core side of what I personally enjoy, albeit not your cup of tea I'll assume, would be closer to that prior difficulty. I love the idea of predators not risking travel. Of converging where they'd otherwise be cannibalistic on a massive herd.

[Lambalot {Lamb-Bah-Ghini}]

It sounds good on paper, but as Why Watt says it just means that pack numbers are going to be a problem again because they now have the time to find enough food for everyone. Doesn't sound bad, right? Until you realize that there's now a pack of 10-15 strong that is able to scout the map and hunt down everyone. The only thing that could then kill off that pack is another pack of the same power, which means that now at least a quater of the server is the same spieces. Eventually it will just lead everyone either leaving or changing to the same spieces that is currently ruling the server.

Playing as a carnivore is the easiest it has ever been, and it'll only get better when larger AI is put in. There really isn't a point adding a system like this when AI is already improving. Give it time and larger prey will be released. For now I stand by what I said before. Try and learn the map and all the hotspots on where people hang out (Mrs. Catbug Plz recently uploaded a map of v3 in the artwork section) or play with a friend. As long as you too stay together then AI will eventually spawn.

[Why Watt]

Marvelous, instead of actually replying to the substance of what I've brought up against the idea of having a grace period between starvation and taking damage, you are flamebaiting.

Originally posted by Fóros:

Hmmm, i don't know how to put this in an objectively nonoffensive way, but do you have autism?


Serious question.

[Why Watt]

Originally posted by Fóros:

Originally posted by Why Watt:

Marvelous, instead of actually replying to the substance of what I've brought up against the idea of having a grace period between starvation and taking damage, you are flamebaiting.

It was a serious question. You can take it the wrong way if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the question was legitimate. But nevermind though, since you are taking it offensively.

It's completely irrelevent to the topic you started, given the very nature of a legitimate discussion. Given the 'serious question's' provocative nature, and how it has no relevance to the thread, I could report you. I haven't, because I only truly care to debate.

In a debate, one challenges the arguments, or a perspective, they oppose. It never, ever matters who actually it is you are debating against. If I'm going to debate the virtues of Democracy Vs. Absolutism, it shouldn't matter whether I am talking to a Chinese, a Russian, a Saudi, or bloody Spartans. It doesn't matter if I, the person advocating Democracy is Canadian, American, British, French, South Korean.
The arguments made, and counter arguments posed, the perspectives, the faults, the shortcommings. Those things matter.

Asking whether or not I'm autistic is not a legitimate question. What I am, or am not, is simply irrelevent, just as in this discussion who you may be, or not be, is totally irrelevent. That is the nature of a debate.

If the subject up for debate was relevent to education, or sociology, or mental health, or pharmaceutics... your question could be valid. Because in those contexts, if I was autistic, I would have clear biases, or a vastly different angle to look at things.

But it isn't. It's about The Isle, a videogame, and your perspective things need to be more lenient and focused around combat rather than basic survival mechanics. You take issue with how, during starvation, you are so low on HP that you cannot risk fighting others. And yet, your proposal of decreasing stats over 20-30minutes to make you 'weaker' is even more crippling and frustrating, while also still preventing you from taking the risk of fighting another player and coming out on top... but getting out of this crippled state would be easier than current starvation. This makes the entire premise pointless. At such severely lowered stats, there is no way you could actually kill things, thus sealing your fate when your stats drop. Current starvation only adds risk to your hunting, because you have less HP to throw around.
You'd want a more lenient system, without the applied consequences being any different in practice, that would also allow massive groups to form. It would play out over 30-40min, due to 10min of dying from loss of hunger. That's the only difference, from 10minutes of current.

Instead, one could propose any number of alternatives to your proposal that would be more effective and less frustrating. Because face it, being in a fight and having no chance of winning is powerless, it's far less exciting than the desperate struggle of staving off starvation and being willing to take risks.

For instance, as I eluded to in my first post, you could make hunger have a deficit, let's say, equal to your base food. You'd change the name of your standard food bar to 'Satiation' and the other one to 'Starvation'. Much like how the stamina gauge flips when ambush is ready, once you'd transition from Satiation to Starvation there would be a flip, and it would fill up over a span of time. While Starvation is active, you would not lose HP but you'd stop recovering HP, and your Weight could start decreasing. To offset your Starvation, you'd need to eat enough food to return to being in the sated state. So while you could basically twice as long without eating before you die, and still be able to travel, search for food, you would be more vulnerable to predation yourself, and need to contend yourself for smaller prey... and actually eat a lot to offset how malnourished you are.
That idea would be more immersive, given you would actually need to recover from starving instead of going from full, to empty, to just fine, and it would also prevent massive packs from forming given food isnt actually more lenient, you'd need to eat a lot to get out of starving. Hypothetically you could survive starving by scraping by indefinetly, if you keep finding craps of food. However you'd absolutely need a lot more food to offset your loss and go positive.

[Lambalot {Lamb-Bah-Ghini}]

Originally posted by Fóros:

Originally posted by Why Watt:

Marvelous, instead of actually replying to the substance of what I've brought up against the idea of having a grace period between starvation and taking damage, you are flamebaiting.

It was a serious question. You can take it the wrong way if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the question was legitimate. But nevermind though, since you are taking it offensively.

1: He doesn't have to reply to a question like that if he doesn't want to. It doesn't matter if the answer is yes or no, some people don't like to share information to others they don't know.
2: It's hard to tell how a sentence comes across in text since we don't have any visual or audio queues to base off.
3: He does have a point on this looking like it's bait. You wouldn't be asking this question mid-conversation to someone face to face unless it was the current topic or they were trying to give you hints.
4: It's off topic from your thread.

[Puppet Pal Clem]

Originally posted by Lambalot {Lamb-Bah-Ghini}:

Originally posted by Fóros:

It was a serious question. You can take it the wrong way if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the question was legitimate. But nevermind though, since you are taking it offensively.

1: He doesn't have to reply to a question like that if he doesn't want to. It doesn't matter if the answer is yes or no, some people don't like to share information to others they don't know.
2: It's hard to tell how a sentence comes across in text since we don't have any visual or audio queues to base off.
3: He does have a point on this looking like it's bait. You wouldn't be asking this question mid-conversation to someone face to face unless it was the current topic or they were trying to give you hints.
4: It's off topic from your thread.

To be frank you guys are just overreacting now. It was a yes or no question, the question has been mistaken as an insult, and there is nothing that will change that, am i supposed to make a youtube video so you can understand my sincereity? Should i be on my knees begging to know? Should i have a serious face or a curious face when i ask in the video because either way it could be taken offensively? I can assure you that using dictionary words within context isn't offensive. Some of his behavior here, sparked that question into mind, it didn't come out of the blue.

"All medical terms used to designate people with mental difficulties automatically become insults because people love similies, metaphors, and rhetorical question.

Remember, idiot and moron were once medical terms as well. Retarded is a medical term. The list goes on."

He is so obssessed and intesnely focused on the first bit of my OP. And why would this be bait? Was i expecting someone like "Why Watt" to barge in,sounding like the grand judge and jury, like it's their job and duty to try to completely shut down suggestions, are you kidding me? I've seen this person run around trying to sound like they are apart of the team and if s(he) doesn't like it, that means it's not good for the game end of discussion. I didn't bait anyone to over exaggerate, this idea wasn't "hilarious extreme." Trying to play down my suggestion as if it's absolutely crazy and whoever participates in it is laughable and a waste of time. It's alright if that's how you feel, but dont act like a conscending snob

*Direct quote from the dictionary*

Snob:

-"a person with an exaggerated respect for high social position or wealth who seeks to associate with social superiors and dislikes people or activities regarded as lower-class.

-"a person who believes that their tastes in a particular area are superior to those of other people."

Why Watt harped on for too long, writing a bible based on the first few sentences. One of the reasons i want the game to be a bit more forgiving and temporarly rework hunger is because of how sometimes the game is buggy and you can't eat food which you have killed (as shown in the screenshot). You can't eat them when they are in shallow water or even if they are the dirt but close to water sources. My allo died because my kill was on land but next to water. This bug has been here for a while, and the map is "hilarious extreme," to not only me, but many others. It's pretty hard being a carnivor and i'd like for us to be given a bit more time to have fun and hunting each other down. I LITERALLY SHOWED PROOF IN MY SCREENSHOT! My allo dying, and my prey unable to be eaten, then i die. This suggestion didn't come out of thin air. Stop trying to make it into a big deal please, if you don't like it that's fine, but don't lecture, exaggerate, and then act like a condescending know-it-all/ends-it-all, then expect a person to be a passive little ♥♥♥♥♥.

Should i thank him for pooping on me and ask for more by insulting me with subtle insults calling me a noob for suggesting this idea? I can't say anything back even if it's a question about themselves? Why Watt might as well rename his profile "Why Watt the (isle) Determine-maker"

And you assume too, just like me. This wasn't bait, what am i baiting, Why Watt? Was i expecting someone to join in like that, overreacting and obsessively focused on the first paragraph which i wrote with such intensitity. It would be an honest waste of time because he will be the only person writing here and trying to shut down the thread with his over the top reactions. Like he is the developer or something and has say in whats allowed to be written here. I see him go off on all suggestion threads trying to shut them down completely like it's his job and duty.


I assume Why Watt, like how you assume this thread is now bait because of 1 question, is trying to use the most intricate words to make his or her argument mean the complete shutdown of the thread because s(he), or a few other people disagree. I'm open to criticism, but not someone trying to shut down things. And then has the audacity to lecture me midway like i don't understand what i'm doing, but i'm not allowed to assume that he is AUTISTIC?! Are you kidding me, that's called being a hypocrite.

Don't act condescending or act rude without expecting someone to assume something is wrong with you. Nothing was directed at anyone until this person came in acting like they are in charge or the-all-knowing, i'm just reacting accordingly to what i see him do on the regular.


Lets end the discussion here because it's honestly apparent that some people are sensitive and touchy over certain subjects and that's alright with me, i'm just desensitized and often forget to make sure that i excerise euphemism in these troubling times.

To be sincere i'll apologize for coming off that way. I'm sorry i hurt you, Why Watt. I hope you don't take it personally, sometimes i try to figure out people, i do the same to myself if that helps you understand.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

This is my favorite bit from George Carlin, it's pretty relevant to the current discussion. There is no shame in using the direct word from the dictionary. I'd also like to say that by being over sensitive and taking everything as a literal insult, just makes people dumb by shooting down their honest curiosity by claiming it as something it is not, and overreacting. Heck i'm overreacting like you guys, but thats because you guys lead and allowed it to be the theme of the discussion, if you aren't willing to debate within such parameters we can stop here, and no hard feelings left behind. I'm not demanding my suggestion be put in the game, it's up for debate and maybe to hear other suggestions. I don't barg in trying to shut down things i don't like and not leave room for open discussion.

Alright did i "write enough" for you to understand why i reacted that way? There isn't a need to continue at this point because we'll just fight over something that wasn't meant to be taken as an insult, so there... i explained why i wrote that one small 5word sentence which triggered you guys into writing the Pulitzer Prize eqiuvalent for the isle. You win at life, you make a great team, you should get a job as the official..... and undebatable.... white-knights-for-the-isle, congratulations, you've earned it, i am defeated.

[Why Watt]

No one is claiming your O.P is bait. Your original post proposes an idea, and raises issues with occurences ingame. It was your second reply that very much came off that way.

I do care when people throw around accusations.

Bugs are an actual issue that aggravates current hunger demands, I've had numerous hunts end up as a total waste of effort because the target died along bugged ground on V3.
You named your thread as a proposal only pertinent to the first paragraph. I didnt rail into, as you seem to think, the other paragraphs not out of focus, but because hey, I agree, it can really ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ suck.

I don't prance around claiming to have the hidden ear of the devs, or that my direction is what will lead it into the future, fact of the matter is I know personally the direction is going to veer away from what I liked most about the game.
Nor am I trying to shut down this topic by making it monumentous for someone else to engage in it. As I said, I like any actual, healthy debate.

You are the one who derailed your entire thread by asking a question that is irrelevent. You could have, oh IDK, asked why I focused on that? Or perhaps asked why I had a stick up my ass? Why I was being blunt? None of those would have had this effect. Instead, you assumed I had some motive, or narcissitic complex, that just drove me to try and shut down a discussion.

Did you consider, for one second, I might just be very passionate about The Isle? That I might know first hand what kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ happens when the leash goes lax on hunger and you have entire servers of adult apexes? That I might agree with everything I didn't write about, and thus saw no reason to debate over it?

I do not care about sensitive terms. Nor about privacy for sharing my personal life over the web. I actually smiled when you linked George Carlin, given he's my favorite Comedian, and agreed with your most recent post, atleast when it comes to the pessimistic view on society. You didn't need to start throwing in s(he) to be politically correct.

[Puppet Pal Clem]

Let it end man, seriously, let it end. You just turn things into about what you want. And you are focused on having this thread shut down because you disagree. I've already apologized, if you don't like what i say, do not lecture me and act condescendingly, you came off as really rude to me, maybe we both misunderstood each other. I am sorry.

Let us move on, we both got out what we wanted to say. It's in the past. Lets move on. I am sorry.

[Darryl]

Locking this thread due to derailment. Please keep your posts on topic and respectful.