Skip to main content
Main Content

Add death of hunger/mood [as a user toggled option]

Posted 2021-04-17 09:35:30

I support the toggle option with a 7 rollover cooldown as suggested by user #22155 and for the same reason: it means you are to hold to your decision for a season on Wolvden at minimum.  I also want it to have a confirmation so it's not switched on entirely by mistake, with text similar to: "Are you certain? Wolves will die if at 0 hunger/mood at rollover for 7 rollovers!"  We have had wording issues in the past, and this is concise with little room for confusion.

Granted, there is the fact the Move Quest does not have a 7 rollover cooldown.  Is it not true you can move again next rollover? If so, a 7 rollover cooldown may not fit with the game as it currently functions.  Though, I still like the idea of a challenge you need to commit to once activated.

I already enjoy the restrictions on pack size, breeding male limitations (setting a breeding male, slots, slot refreshes) and heat cycles/breeding cooldowns for females.  I was attracted to the idea of a browser game that actually solved things like server strain combined with simulating realism with heat cycles and potential pup loss: this [toggle] is a wonderful potential addition.


Zeraki
#26932

Posted 2021-05-01 07:34:38

100% support. I mean, animals CAN die of starvation, right? it doesn't make sense for them to just run away.


Unicorn (she/they)
#40674

Posted 2021-05-09 09:45:15

Complete support! It’d just be a nice option for lore, and as a toggleable option it really works. I don’t see much of a reason to not add this, since theoretically the coding wouldn’t need to be modified much due to sickness deaths already existing. If you like it, you can use it, if not, you don’t have to. 


LeapingDoe
#2007

Posted 2021-05-22 08:33:07 (edited)

I would support it as it is, an option people can toggle at will based on what they like or dislike.

I would absolutely not support it being punishing for players and not allowing them to change their mind (even for just several days) as other people are suggesting. A game should not be punishing you for trying out its options and locking you out of an ability to change it back to its default. Especially since no matter how you word it, there will be people who activate that on accident - that's not an if, that's a when issue. There is no such thing as fool-proof coding.

If you want to play a certain way, that's fine. What isn't fine is locking players out of the default option because you want a "hard mode." Why should anyone get to dictate how someone else plays their game? What happens on my account should concern only me, and if I "wuss out" when I run low on food then that's on me, and not a choice someone else should have the right to remove because they think that's a "soft" way to play. This isn't Dark Souls, I don't need to "git gud," I need to have fun and maybe eliminating the danger every now and then is my idea of fun?

I would activate this on my account if it was an option but I cannot support the idea that you should be punished for opting to try it out and unable to remove the feature for any number of days. I can't speak for other people but if I was just trying out a game's options and two days in decided I wanted to change them and couldn't, I'd quit the game. That just makes the development team look insanely petty about having to design the thing in the first place. If a game is going to punish me for exploring its features, then I don't want to play it.


Flower
#3196

Posted 2021-06-19 11:28:59

Heavy support, I love this idea, especially for lore!

Birdie
#44286

Posted 2021-07-12 07:16:23

Support! I do agree with Flower though that it should be able to be switched on or off at any time, since inevitably some people are going to turn it on by accident even with a warning (which I also definitely think should be added), and even if they didn't I think people should be allowed to back out of it if they want to. I could see a lot of use for it outside even of lore, like deliberately turning it on to get rid of a given number of wolves and then turning it off once you're down to your preferred number. I would definitely use it for lore myself though.

However, I'm imagining the only notable difference would be that wolves who "run away", or in this case die, could not be reclaimed at all and would go directly to your dynasty? As far as I know, wolves that run away and aren't reclaimed won't end up in the chased pool anyway, although that might just be my own misunderstanding from what I've heard.

Weaselheart
#17081

Posted 2021-07-12 18:55:20

Yes, I did not edit my post, but I did verify that we can change home territory as often as we like with the Move Pack quest.

I think that what you said about run away wolves not being in chase pool is correct as well, #17081.

I see a lot of potential fun with the ability to toggle, and hope even more people wish to add their thoughts.


Zeraki
#26932

Posted 2021-07-13 00:10:49

For me, the fact we can change the biome our pack is in still does not justify a cooldown that prevents players from changing their settings. It doesn't matter what biome your pack is in, you should always be able to revert back to default settings.

Whether or not someone personally wants to play wolvden on "hard mode" should be an individual choice, not one forced by the developers. It's also just poor game design to implement it.

Let's say we have a player called Laura, who decides to try out this feature because she has a lot of time and is confident her hunters can catch as much food as they need to for the pack to survive. Oh, but Laura's schedule suddenly changed. She has exams that weren't announced before, or is working double shifts, or maybe has a sick child or pet at home that needs more attention than wolvden. Suddenly, Laura doesn't have as much time to feed her wolves so the only way to ensure they don't die... is to not play. Wolvden loses a week, maybe even a month of participation. Maybe longer.

Let's say we also have a player called Bob, who suffers from a chronic illness and turned this feature on because they were having a good couple of weeks. Except oh no, their illness flared up. Wolvden now loses participation for possibly months because not playing is the only way for that player to keep their wolves from dying.

It doesn't matter even if this player is in the easiest region like the Mountains because they don't have time anymore, or they're stressed, and wolvden is just adding to that stress. It's against the interest of the developers to make the game frustrating for people and harder to play (not win/succeed at, play).

If anyone wants to play "hard mode" then that's on them. That's a personal choice of a single player, not something that should be enforced by the game. I am adamantly against any suggestion that encourages taking choices away from the players and introducing punishing features for what are essentially ill, stressed, and struggling people.

I would love a feature where my wolves can die when their hunger drops. I genuinely want and support this. I cannot support any introduction of a cooldown, however. Your "hard mode" is called self-control, have enough of it to not revert the settings and don't go punishing other players because they don't care to participate in it. It's not okay.


Flower
#3196

Posted 2021-07-14 11:35:38 (edited)

Oh, I meant I don't support a cooldown on the toggle necessarily, due to verifying my thought in the first post about there being no cooldown for biome move.  S'all good.

We got one for breeding male and that one is not related to survival so it would not work for a comparison like the biome move quest does.

Since part of looking at suggestions is to look at how it fits in the current workings is why I looked at the two at all.  Like I said, I like the idea of a cooldown, but it doesn't fit with the current workings. :)

Edit for another thought: Any game needs to have some level of challenge in order to be enjoyable to the target audience that game is produced for else risk losing those customers.  This usually means finding a difficulty level that fits the average ability of those one is catering to.  Thus, there is always going to be some level of a learning curve.  Some will find it too easy whilst others will find it too difficult.  The key is finding the balance that is optimal for the majority.


Zeraki
#26932

Posted 2021-07-26 04:39:04
Support! Although, maybe as an extra consequence, if a wolf dies to neglect, you can't save them into your dynasty? Or maybe have to pay a small fee for it
bluerones
#39781

Search Topic