Will the Sandbox have a Morale System? Does it need it?

So, as I recall the single player campaign will have some sort of morale element to it. There is your family photograph/locket and the teaser trailer showed some morally questionable situations your character might be put into. Personally, I think that'll be really interesting to see in the single player because the campaign will have a more directed narrative and a morale system would help with multiple endings and NPC interactions. Hopefully whatever the system is though it will be more nuanced than good/evil, paragon/renegade etc.

My question for the community is would the sandbox benefit from a morale system? In real life survival the morale of the survivor and their ability to motivate themselves is often the single most essential component of getting out alive. It is truly amazing what a well motivated human being is capable of. How this could be reflected mechanically would be in movement speed (energized vs melancholic), crafting efficiency, weapon accuracy and quality of sleep. Keep your morale up and you can do anything. Let your morale slip too low for too long and your performance suffers and you may even lose the will to live and fade into the long dark. Things to increase morale would be hot meals, tea/coffee, successfully crafting something, a successful hunt and not being hungry (makes hibernating less attractive). Loss of morale would come from starvation, injury, animal attack, broken traps, dehydration, exhaustion, freezing and failed repairs. Morale could either be a hidden stat (indicated by a player bark upon waking or changing) or as a fifth status bar.

Would this sort of system be interesting for players? Or would morale just act as another status bar to balance and ultimately be an annoyance?

As someone trained in wilderness survival, I really, REALLY, REALLY think the game should include a morale system. As you state, morale is intrinsic to survival. You can have the skills, the equipment, everything you "need" to survive, but if you "don't want to", you won't. There are examples of people getting lost in the woods, with full gear and the necessary skills, who then got discouraged and literally laid down and died.

Without a morale system, the game literally becomes little more than a "fill up that bar" simulator, and rapidly becomes boring as a result. If all I have to do is eat food, drink water, and sleep regularly, then I pretty much cease to give a damn about the character. I have committed suicide in-game because I literally couldn't care about the character enough to open the inventory one more time.

And I disagree that "morale should be on part of the player". That is nonsense. You are never going to be cold, be hungry, be scared, like the character is. You will never be able to empathize with the character enough to be able to simulate "morale", except for thinking "oh no, my status is low..."

Morale could be increased by "good things" happening: eating hot meals regularly, having a surplus of materiel, not being sick, being warm, being armed (I know that I would certainly be happier if I had a firearm/weapon in a situation where the wildlife was out for my blood) or just being able to relax,maybe with a good book. I know that, during my wilderness survival course, the students are never happier than when they have their shelters

built, a fire going, the "1st-aid-victim" stabilized, and they can actually sit down and BREATHE.

Conversely, morale could be depleted by being cold regularily, eating cold food, being short on materiel, being unarmed, or by constantly being busy. Survival is stressful enough, you don't need to add additional stress on top. On the other hand, the conditions could balance each other out, so say: if you get laid up for a couple days with a sprained ankle, but you are in a warm shelter, with plenty of firewood, food/water, and some entertainment, you won't be too unhappy, you could even be downright cozy. Have a sprained ankle, with only a little food, no firewood, and nothing to do but lie there in bed? Not a happy camper.

Sometimes all you need to boost your morale is witness something pleasant, like a sunrise, or talk to someone friendly. I myself "increased my morale" in real life by waking up to the sun rising. The night was cold and windy, and I didn't get much sleep as a result. I managed to fall into a fitful sleep, and woke up to the sun rising over the lake I was at. At that point, I didn't care that it was below freezing, or that I was sore and stiff. Being able to watch the sun rise put me in a good mood that lasted the rest of the day. In a situation like TLD, just plain talking to someone after being alone for so long is almost-guaranteed to lift your spirits.

You both make some VERY INTERESTING points.

Morale and / or "will to live" is a HUGE part of any survival situation.

Don't know how many of you watched the survival series "Alone", but it was really interesting to watch the morale of many of the contestants virtually evaporate within a few days, while others lasted much longer without much trouble.

Much of it seemed connected to their overall personality, general attitude, and of course, what was going on in their "real life" not connected with the show.

Personally, I believe the show producers should have picked contestants who were not married and not involved in relationships, or who had family members in poor health. Of course the reason being that those types of thing had a large impact on many of the contestants decisions to stay or leave.

But GREAT TOPIC that needs some more thought and input!

Its really lovely how ppl are discussing concept that they dont even understand.

First of all, one of the main requirement for morale is availability of a group, that obviously absent in sandbox and wont probably be much of a factor in a story more.

However, what most people refer to is called "morality". As difference between right or wrong. And if Hinterlands will be stupid enough to actually implement it, enforcing on player certain criteria, instead of allowing to make their own choices, it wont benefit game even in the slightest, since it will give a good hit to immersion.

Survival and morality are two things that dont really mix well together(moralists have tendency to have high mortality rates and fairytale shit where noble knight on a white horse saves the kingdom from evil amoral witch would be a great way to ruin the game). Thats one of those things that i love about LD, it doesnt enforce some absurd civilized norms on player, allowing to visualize(to an extend) how live after "event" could be.

In a bad situation one never wins by being nice. Every choice that player makes is up to him and on him, not some abstract gauge based on meaningless values.

Maybe boredom and hope values(where morality could be a minor factor), that could have certain effect. Boredom could range from lethargic to energetic and second from cheerful to hopeless, with both affecting player overall performance/effectiveness in everything that he does and certain game events.

Its really lovely how ppl are discussing concept that they dont even understand.

First of all, one of the main requirement for morale is availability of a group, that obviously absent in sandbox and wont probably be much of a factor in a story more.

However, what most people refer to is called "morality". As difference between right or wrong.

First off, before you come into a discussion and insult the people taking part in it, you might want to actually read their posts before you pipe in with your negativity.

Nobody, who posted above, except you..... was talking about "morality" ... difference between right and wrong.

We were talking about : mo•rale (məˈræl)

n.

emotional or mental condition with respect to confidence, zeal, etc., esp. in the face of opposition, hardship, etc.

[1745–55; < French, n. use of feminine of moral moral]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

morale (mɒˈrɑːl)

n

the degree of mental or moral confidence of a person or group; spirit of optimism

[C18]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

So Dirmagnos, when you go back and take the time to read the posts to actually KNOW what the topic is about, please come back and take part .... in a positive and constructive way hopefully

What i was talking about is the fact that term morale is used when talking about group(or individual in a group) of people, not a solitary person as in TLD situation.

Original post referred to "morally questionable situations", as where person may be forced to perform actions that can be considered wrong.

I'm with cowboymrh on this one-- read the definitions provided. They sure look applicable to a single person The original post also refers to pleasant things that boost morale, and none of these are related to morally questionable situations.

Anyway, I'm luke-warm on a morale system. The other gauges are based on physical well-being. Emotional well-being is a much harder thing to chart. It would feel quite contrived I fear.

Anyway, I'm luke-warm on a morale system. The other gauges are based on physical well-being. Emotional well-being is a much harder thing to chart. It would feel quite contrived I fear.

I agree with you about being luke-warm on the idea. I think it would be far more rewarding in the beginning stages of a run, and kind of "peter-out" as you get longer into the game.

However.... I still get excited when I look in a closet or drawer and find a 95% Premium Winter Coat, 98% Insulated Boots, or come over a rise and see a nice little cluster of birch branches I didn't expect to see.

However.... I still get excited when I look in a closet or drawer and find a 95% Premium Winter Coat, 98% Insulated Boots, or come over a rise and see a nice little cluster of birch branches I didn't expect to see.

Exactly! Now, wouldn't it be neat if that excitement you felt as a player got translated into something your character felt to increase immersion?

The problem (and the reason I posted this in general discussion as opposed to the wish list) is that a) I don't know if it can be done mechanically in the game and b) whether players would appreciate it. Personally, I would like to see some sort of morale system. I think it would increase immersion and give me a reason to care about my character and their well being. I just don't know how to do it well

Original post referred to "morally questionable situations", as where person may be forced to perform actions that can be considered wrong.

To clarify the original post you are correct that I mused about morals as they were hinted at as impacting your character in the trailer for the single player game. However, what I wanted to discuss in this post is morale and whether it should be implemented in the sandbox. I deliberately avoided any mention of morals in the sandbox mode as they vary a LOT between people and cultures. In the single player campaign though you are playing a Canadian (presumably - definitely someone from N. America as shown in the trailer) who would hold Western cultural values so for the single player campaign only morale and morals would be more interlinked.

Basically, ignore my first paragraph (it was just me musing about the trailer) and focus instead on the second and third paragraph as they are what I (and the other posters) are commenting on.

Exactly! Now, wouldn't it be neat if that excitement you felt as a player got translated into something your character felt to increase immersion?

I know what you're saying, but I don't agree that this would increase immersion.. Currently when you find something good, you (the player) are happy. Why and how do we know what makes the character happy? I think its more important and more immersive to be happy as the player, rather than having the character tell you he/she (and by extension you) is happy.

edit: e.g. consider the break of immersion if something that makes the character happy makes you sad as the player... what if the character likes eating wolf eyeballs... or wearing other peoples faces.... lol

edit: e.g. consider the break of immersion if something that makes the character happy makes you sad as the player... what if the character likes eating wolf eyeballs... or wearing other peoples faces.... lol

True. But than again the average person would experience happiness if they found a warm coat while freezing cold

I'm with cowboymrh on this one-- read the definitions provided. They sure look applicable to a single person The original post also refers to pleasant things that boost morale, and none of these are related to morally questionable situations.

Anyway, I'm luke-warm on a morale system. The other gauges are based on physical well-being. Emotional well-being is a much harder thing to chart. It would feel quite contrived I fear.

Im quite familiar with various definitions, and im also familiar with various examples(that come with those definitions), that pretty much always are team-oriented.

I consider implementation of anything like morale interfering with game immersion for a simple reason: each person is different and have different standards and view of the world. Not to mention that making truly dynamic moral system would be extremely hard, because getting +5 morale every time you chunk down a piece of meat or drink some water will get repetitive real fast. It also probably wont account for various states of mind, that can be associated with conditions that game is set in, be it shock or state of hypothermia.

So in the end wel get generic system that wont really add anything of value to the game.

In the single player campaign though you are playing a Canadian (presumably - definitely someone from N. America as shown in the trailer) who would hold Western cultural values so for the single player campaign only morale and morals would be more interlinked.

All that ive seen regarding story character is his name and a bit of bio. His nationality, world view, mental state, skills or physical abilities are unknown. Unless i missed something.

For all that i know hes a member of a terrorist cell from N.Africa, whos plane was delivering a shipment of Anthrax. Who is agnostic and a cannibal with masochistic tendencies, who used to be a child soldier and later member of death squads, with extremely high pain tolerance and proficient with all the conventional small arms.

Crazy talk aside, nothing really hints that he holds any value in so-called western values. Not to mention that all those values go out the window when youre cold, hungry, thirsty and desperate. Even under perfect conditions all those "western values" are often nothing more but empty words.

True. But than again the average person would experience happiness if they found a warm coat while freezing cold

True. But why do you wannt to trivialize situation ? LD is good because its different, and i consider it far better game than most recent so-called AAA games, be it garbage like F4 or etalon of mediocrity that was Battlefront or BO3.

Besides, what if that warm coat is worse than what you are already wearing ? You might be freezing, but youd benefit far more from a knife, for example, rather that from a coat that really gives you nothing ? Thats a lot of interactions to program, depending on various conditions and values.

lol.. nice scenario.

To be fair, it is difficult to translate the happy ++ that a hot cup of coffee provides to someone from onscreen in game to the player. But, the benefit does appear in the warming of the character, so I do feel relief in game when I drink hot coffee.. sort of..

Im quite familiar with various definitions, and im also familiar with various examples(that come with those definitions), that pretty much always are team oriented

Once again, if you had taken the time to read past the first paragraph of the first post, before you posted your first comments, you might have stumbled across the true topic of the post.

My first post for example, does not refer to ANYTHING which is "team oriented"...........It's 100% about morale affecting sole survivors! ........ but you conveniently skip that part......or did you even read it?

And how do you come to the conclusion that "morale" is pretty much all team oriented???? Individuals can't have morale??? I've done enough world class athletics (Javelin) and solo mountain climbing in my younger days to know that's pure BS.

Nobody is saying that your opinions don't have merit, but it's the seeming contempt you seem to have for folks who's opinion doesn't agree with you that takes people back a step.

Truthfully Dirmagnos, you really seem to be a "glass half empty" sort of person.

Again, how exactly does morale is supposed to affect player at each interaction ?

Will finding an item that you already own, multiple instances even, increase it ? Or should it decrease it because i was hoping for something else ? How do you program each player personal preferences ?

Another scenario: player just started, its dusk, has only basic clothing and a rifle with few rounds; he sees a campfire with a man sitting by it; man is well clothed, has a rifle laying next to him, roasting some meat or eating some canned pork; at the same time not far from campfire you can see a corpse that has signs of violent death; man havent seen player yet.

Should you approach and possibly become second corpse ? Should you shoot that man, killing him, and take his belongings ? Should you walk away and hope that you get lucky ? You are hungry and cold and have 0 chance to survive a night with what you have.

How each choice would affect your morale ? How it should affect it ?

Or if you run into a wounded person. Should you help him and deplete your extremely limited medical supplies, that may result in you bleeding to death after next wolf close encounter or should you leave him to die, knowing that your inaction resulted in some1s death ? Is there even right choice at all ?

I would prefer game being fully in the grey area of morality, where player choices are based on his personal preferences and expectations, rather than on some primitive obscure point system.

Were not killing demons here after all.

Dirmagnos, I do agree with you that it would be very difficult to implement such a complex mechanic into the game that would suit everyone the same way...... because of what you rightfully suggest, we're all different and have our own preferences and beliefs.

As far as the "moral" aspect of the game (right and wrong) I'm even wondering now, before the story line is even out, how I'm going to handle certain situations that have been suggested in the trailer. Some of it is very disturbing.......even though it's just a game.

The morality portion of morale is a tricky one indeed. Still, there's no reason the devs can't decide what is right and what is wrong -- other games do it all the time, so do movies. I guess it depends on whether we are meant to play the character, adopting their moral position, or meant to play as ourselves, with our own. (I may be contradicting one of my earlier posts in this thread )

I'm not convinced either that this would be well served as a simple 'obscure point system', but I don't know how else it would really work. It could be interesting to see how your choices stack up against other players (e.g. 80% shot the guy in the woods and took his food, 5% left, 15% approached)-- that would be cumbersome as well, but it doesn't say which is right or wrong. This really only applies to moral choices though, so it's not really a scale of morale per se.

Or if you run into a wounded person. Should you help him and deplete your extremely limited medical supplies, that may result in you bleeding to death after next wolf close encounter or should you leave him to die, knowing that your inaction resulted in some1s death ? Is there even right choice at all ?

I would prefer game being fully in the grey area of morality, where player choices are based on his personal preferences and expectations, rather than on some primitive obscure point system.

Were not killing demons here after all.

Both of your scenarios are valid. Both also show the interplay between morality (right/wrong) and morale (how character feels). However, both involve interactions with other characters. To the best of my knowledge there are no plans for NPCs in the sandbox game. So, despite the interesting conundrums your scenarios pose (and an example of why binary right/wrong systems don't work) we'll never experience them in the sandbox.

They question I want to know is in this stark, cold, post-civilized winter world, should your character feel good when they find a precious life saving item (e.g. the rifle) or bad if they feel their life ebbing away (e.g. starvation)?

They question I want to know is in this stark, cold, post-civilized winter world, should your character feel good when they find a precious life saving item (e.g. the rifle) or bad if they feel their life ebbing away (e.g. starvation)?

My question is-- isn't it enough for the player to feel good because they found a rifle?

My question is-- isn't it enough for the player to feel good because they found a rifle?

Yes, if it's the first time you play. I'm now on my seventh playthrough. The gun makes survival easier but I've learned enough about the game that I can go for a really long time before ever needing the rifle. Having your character be excited about the rifle would offset that as your character wouldn't know about starvation-hibernating, the wolf patrol routes or where good loot drops are. I would like to recapture how excited I was in the earlier alphas where just finding a can opener seemed amazing. Now it's more like "who cares" when it should really be important to the poor survivor in the game finally being able to eat from these cans they keep finding.

As was identified earlier, morale is an intrinsic part of survival. The will to live - and the reason solo survival is so challenging versus group survival - is harder to sustain in isolation. This should be reflected in some way, a general malaise or depression could be an option.

Gameplay philosophy note: It is enough, to answer a question posed earlier, that the player feel happy about having found the rifle. This won't work with long term veterans, for them they need new areas to explore and the ability to leave their imprint on the gameworld. This is harder to implement for them. I think it's important not to play a game to death and start min-max'ing it for this very reason, that emotional response is why we read novels, why we watch films, why we play games.

Within existing game mechanics, the mental state of the character can easily be implemented. For example, if the character is in a rough state for some time, on a starvation diet (thus punishing min-max'ers using the sleep exploit for example) or not getting enough sunlight or the weather has been bad for several days in a row (this itself would need to be implemented) then the character becomes depressed. The results of this depression make sleep less restful, less energy available, longer crafting times, and so on. Depression can be reduced (to nil? Not relevant: "can depression be cured?" Let's assume circumstantial depression only and not a chronic condition) through eating prepared hot meals (soup + crackers, coffee + chocolate bar, venison + fried mushrooms), through crafting (as it generally feels good to create and materially improve one's situation), reading, etc. This would increase the value of pre-apocalyptic event food beyond its current weight/calories ratio for expeditions and migrations.

The value of various shelters can help with this. Mountaineer's Hut, not being as weathertight as Trapper's Cabin, provides less comfort (with attendant morale effects) while corpses [add mechanic to clear bodies?] in Camp Office decrease comfort levels. Randomized rolls will determine the character's comfort level with various events. This removes stereotyping and complicates min-max'ing behaviour on the part of the player when selecting characters. By making it a random chance, replaybility is increased: one character may, in one playthrough, be able to cope with living in the same building as a corpse. Others may not. One iteration of the character may be able to deal with wearing clothes scavenged from a corpse. Others iterations may not. This would adequately simulate the "because because" factor in survival which is where mental toughness means so much: some have been found near death, or unfortunately dead, near plentiful resources because they couldn't come to grips with going through a pack on a corpse. Existing game design does not preclude a "squeamish" character iteration from surviving and thriving.

Stress may be induced by having to gut and skin animals. Over time the character becomes used to this and the morale effect of the action diminishes. The first one of the season is always the hardest for me, personally. While I don't want to project my player-biases onto the character, it would help make the game just that much more visceral and thought-provoking for the average player. As the player gains in skill, so does the character, and previously stressful tasks like processing kills and coexisting alongside corpses becomes decreasingly challenging. I myself became jaded to the corpses strewn incomprehensibly about the landscape after having to shelter in Camp Office for some time because of poor weather and condition and eke out an existence; and the only decent beds in the place requiring me to pass a body. The game is intensely atmospheric and that was a challenge for me in the first four hours, questioning whether or not I'd want to continue to be in that building. That player dynamic could be applied to the character as a game mechanic as outlined above if the devs choose to implement morale factors.

This gameplay function must be long-term to have any meaning. By making it long term, the player is not monitoring another character stat bar: it should not be represented as a stat. It should only come up after it is affecting rest, energy levels. Voice-acted lines can reveal this information about the character. While dehydration, starvation, and cold will kill the player very quickly in TLD, depression should not be a cause of death in and of itself, but instead aggravate the existing complexities and problems of preventing the cold and lack of nourishment from killing you.

Will to live is an abstract value, and solo vs group has nothing to do with it. Some people feel better alone, some feel choked by restrictions of modern society. For such people, that crash and end of the world scenario may actually be a blessing in disguise. Not to mention that depression in general is considered to be a byproduct of living in modern world, take all those stresses and obligations away, make life simple and it would do wonders to persons mental health. Its a condition from the same category as obesity.

Whole morale point has nothing to do with new vs old players, but in a world view of each player. Rifle is a rifle.

Considering morale mechanics to be easily implement may be only by some1 who dont have a faintest idea what actual survival may feel like. How it changes the way man thinks, and the lengths his willing to go to survive, how it changes mans perception of the world and time and how it redefines his morality values.

Stuffing LD into those generic primitive borders by introducing something as stupid as depression and forcing player to follow predefined conditions is the worse thing to do. It essentially makes game protagonist a generic nobody, stuck in the delusional word that is no longer there, a drone.

My question is-- isn't it enough for the player to feel good because they found a rifle?

Yes, if it's the first time you play. I'm now on my seventh playthrough. The gun makes survival easier but I've learned enough about the game that I can go for a really long time before ever needing the rifle. Having your character be excited about the rifle would offset that as your character wouldn't know about starvation-hibernating, the wolf patrol routes or where good loot drops are. I would like to recapture how excited I was in the earlier alphas where just finding a can opener seemed amazing. Now it's more like "who cares" when it should really be important to the poor survivor in the game finally being able to eat from these cans they keep finding.

This is a very fair point. I agree that I used to be much more excited to find a can opener...

Even though I can survive without the rifle, I'm still happy to find one. But what's more, I know from experience that I'm going to find one if I look here here and here-- and that's what reduces the excitement from finding one.

Less frequency, and more variety in terms of drop locations and even weapons themselves would lessen the surety that I'm going to find a rifle, and reinstate the thrill of finding a weapon.. at least somewhat. Experienced players will always know how to better survive without a ranged weapon at all, of course.

Not to mention that depression in general is considered to be a byproduct of living in modern world, take all those stresses and obligations away, make life simple and it would do wonders to persons mental health. Its a condition from the same category as obesity.

To start, I doubt mental health is solely a byproduct of the modern world. Much like obesity you can find historical examples of it.

Second, our characters are not primitive people. These are characters who were living in a highly developed country with all the perks and downsides that entails. Likely, you'll miss your menial job in an air conditioned building and microwave hot pockets would probably feel like a delicacy fit for kings if I'm stranded in the wilderness with no hope of rescue.