discussion Harder difficulty

[Rifleman]

Realistic should be a difficulty that is harder then the stalker difficulty.

If you got any idea how to make the game harder please add them here.

[danicusrex]

From my own experiences of living in the woods, Pilgrim is actually the closest to "realistic" for someone with survival skill. (For conditions previous to the electromagnetic event, anyway)

Wolves don't attack you, food doesn't spoil THAT quickly, and the weather isn't really so bad if you layer up. It's the difficulty I play on most, because it's relaxing and reminds me of my old camping trips where I'd wander into the woods with a knife, hatchet, matches, some water purification tablets and not much else for a couple of weeks.

Granted, I normally did that in mid-summer... my winter camping usually involved bringing a lot more gear.

[alone sniper]

3 hours ago, Rifleman said:

Realistic should be a difficulty that is harder then the stalker difficulty.

If you got any idea how to make the game harder please add them here.

It is apocalypse !!! 

And you can't find a peanut butter everywhere !! (people gather EVERYTHING !!!!!!!!) 

So , supplies should be a little rarer ! (little ! I don't mean 1 deer per sandbox !!!)

And @danicusrex is right !! food doesn't spoil TOO fast !!! 
maybe list of the things You cant do make game harder !!!!!!!!

 

• you can't treat every injury ! so, you can get a heart attack and die !!! 
• you can't eat 1 kg meat on a day !!!
• you can't control bear attack infection with a singe pill !
• sprained  after falling 2 meter ?? I recommend break !
• wolf doesn't leave their meal on 30% condition!!  they just kill it !

But , be patient !
road map says that sprained and infection will be improved. 

So the game will get harder!!! 

And , in apocalypse long term survival plan is important !!! so, (for example) survive for a 400 on pilgrim is harder than 50 on stalker !!  

[Raf109]

I personally never touched stalker mode, but I've got some ideas.

- Significantly increase wolf spawn rate, increase the distance of being detected and make them more spread throughout the map.

- Less deer, because of more wolves the player would find a lot of dead deer just laying around.

- Less food overall, but increase durability of all food items to contrast the amount of time that it would take the player to find food.

- Bears don't just protect their territory, they are more aggressive towards the player.

- Higher chances of blizzards.

- Some items take double resources to craft.

- Harvesting items take more time, around 1.5x more.

[cekivi]

10 hours ago, Raf109 said:

I personally never touched stalker mode, but I've got some ideas.

- Significantly increase wolf spawn rate, increase the distance of being detected and make them more spread throughout the map.

- Less deer, because of more wolves the player would find a lot of dead deer just laying around.

- Less food overall, but increase durability of all food items to contrast the amount of time that it would take the player to find food.

- Bears don't just protect their territory, they are more aggressive towards the player.

- Higher chances of blizzards.

- Some items take double resources to craft.

- Harvesting items take more time, around 1.5x more.

With the exception of harvesting time and crafting resources that's a fairly good description of Stalker mode

[Boston123]

Amusingly enough, Pilgrim is actually the most "realistic" version of the game, 

"Realistic" doesn't necessarily mean "hard", it just means that the situations and consequences of the game match up with reality. Now, normally, this does mean things could get difficult, but realism =/= difficult. 

. Sure, the wolves and bears being aggressive towards the player makes the game difficult, but it is in no way realistic. Whetstones degrading into dust makes the game difficult, but it isn't very realistic.  You only getting around 20lbs of meat from a deer might make the game "interesting", but it certainly isn't realistic. 

Catch my drift?

People love to say that The Long Dark is "the most realistic survival game they have ever played". I always laugh whenever I read that, because it totally isn't. TLD doesn't even try to be realistic, not really. Not with infinite game animals and magically disappearing whetstones.

Want to know about an actual realistic "survival game"?. NEO Scavenger. Game set in post-apocalyptic Michigan, with literal monsters and supernatural things happening. Most realism I have seen in a game, ever..  Hands down, no contest.

But this is getting off topic a bit. It just grinds my gears to see the above topic brought up.

My ideal "Realistic" difficulty for TLD would basically be Pilgrim on steroids. Animals that will run away from you (so long as you don't provoke an attack), but cut the population down to half, maybe even 1/3. Make weather pretty much the same, just make inclement weather a bit more common. Keep the same level of resources, just remove the nonsensical degradation mechanic that somehow makes sealed canned food rot away. So, then instead of having to run around looking for food because it decayed on you, you would have to gather it ....... to have a stockpile in case of emergency. Remove the forge, bring back arrowheads to the workbench. Lock bowmaking behind a woodcarving skill, and make it take longer to craft. Remove guts as binding agents in crafting, and add sinew (from kills) and rawhide lacing (cut from hides) instead. Allow us to make any sort of clothing from any sort of hide. Implement actual tanning, as wearing rawhide sucks big fat ones. Allow us to stuff our clothing with insulative material, like cloth, crumpled newspaper, birch bark, etc. Introduce a tarpauling, for shelterbuilding.  etc etc etc

 

[Rifleman]

4 minutes ago, Boston123 said:

Amusingly enough, Pilgrim is actually the most "realistic" version of the game, 

"Realistic" doesn't necessarily mean "hard", it just means that the situations and consequences of the game match up with reality. Now, normally, this does mean things could get difficult, but realism =/= difficult. 

. Sure, the wolves and bears being aggressive towards the player makes the game difficult, but it is in no way realistic. Whetstones degrading into dust makes the game difficult, but it isn't very realistic.  You only getting around 20lbs of meat from a deer might make the game "interesting", but it certainly isn't realistic. 

Catch my drift?

People love to say that The Long Dark is "the most realistic survival game they have ever played". I always laugh whenever I read that, because it totally isn't. TLD doesn't even try to be realistic, not really. Not with infinite game animals and magically disappearing whetstones.

Want to know about an actual realistic "survival game"?. NEO Scavenger. Game set in post-apocalyptic Michigan, with literal monsters and supernatural things happening. Most realism I have seen in a game, ever..  Hands down, no contest.

But this is getting off topic a bit. It just grinds my gears to see the above topic brought up.

My ideal "Realistic" difficulty for TLD would basically be Pilgrim on steroids. Animals that will run away from you (so long as you don't provoke an attack), but cut the population down to half, maybe even 1/3. Make weather pretty much the same, just make inclement weather a bit more common. Keep the same level of resources, just remove the nonsensical degradation mechanic that somehow makes sealed canned food rot away. So, then instead of having to run around looking for food because it decayed on you, you would have to gather it ....... to have a stockpile in case of emergency. Remove the forge, bring back arrowheads to the workbench. Lock bowmaking behind a woodcarving skill, and make it take longer to craft. Remove guts as binding agents in crafting, and add sinew (from kills) and rawhide lacing (cut from hides) instead. Allow us to make any sort of clothing from any sort of hide. Implement actual tanning, as wearing rawhide sucks big fat ones. Allow us to stuff our clothing with insulative material, like cloth, crumpled newspaper, birch bark, etc. Introduce a tarpauling, for shelterbuilding.  etc etc etc

 

There are unrealistic things about pilgrim

1 you can save yourself from freezing temperatures with a few sticks 

2 wolf don't attack you but they should because the apocalypse affected the ego system meaning less food from wolfs meaning that they will get desperate and will eat anything 

 

[Rifleman]

If anyone can come up with a better name then realistic please share it.

[Boston123]

7 minutes ago, Rifleman said:

There are unrealistic things about pilgrim

1 you can save yourself from freezing temperatures with a few sticks 

2 wolf don't attack you but they should because the apocalypse affected the ego system meaning less food from wolfs meaning that they will get desperate and will eat anything 

 

1) I can "save myself" from freezing with a few sticks in real life, too. It is called....... "building a fire".

Also, a fire made solely from sticks will not warm you all that much, both in-game and in real life. In "reality", you use the sticks to get the fire actually burning, then you add larger firewood. This is what you do in-game as well. Notice how sticks provide a higher chance to start a fire than a chunk of firewood? That is like that for a reason.

2) Also, wolves shouldn't attack you, not the way they do in-game. . That is 100% unrealistic. I hold the belief that the only reason, or, more accurately, the main reason, that always-hostile wildlife was put into the game was because the environment wasn't thought of as enough of a threat. Which is utterly ridiculous. In any survival situation, the environment is always the primary threat.

"Eat anything" =/= "attack humans like crazed berserkers", for that matter. In "reality", wolves are very, VERY,VERY intelligent, and use pack-hunting and actual tactics to take down prey. They don't just charge mindlessly at anything they can fit their mouths around.

I have called the wolves of TLD "furry zombies" for a very long time. That is all they amount to: mindless antagonists that provide challenge for the player, and little more. The Steam Store page likes to toot its horn about there being no zombies in TLD, and I always laugh whenever I read it. They might not be rotting, and they might have fur instead of clothing, but the zombies are definitely present.

[alone sniper]

3 minutes ago, Boston123 said:

 Also, wolves shouldn't attack you

And shouldn't run away from you ! 
 

[Boston123]

Just now, alone sniper said:

And shouldn't run away from you ! 
 

Why not?

In real life, wolves, and 99% of the animals on the planet for that matter, are flat-out TERRIFIED of humans. They will, 9 times out of 10, run away from humans, and when they do confront humans, it is usually because we either corner them, offer no escape, stumble upon their young or their dens, or are wounded and seem weak.

Animals, even predators, running away from humans is realistic.

[Rifleman]

20 minutes ago, Boston123 said:

1) I can "save myself" from freezing with a few sticks in real life, too. It is called....... "building a fire".

Also, a fire made solely from sticks will not warm you all that much, both in-game and in real life. In "reality", you use the sticks to get the fire actually burning, then you add larger firewood. This is what you do in-game as well. Notice how sticks provide a higher chance to start a fire than a chunk of firewood? That is like that for a reason.

2) Also, wolves shouldn't attack you, not the way they do in-game. . That is 100% unrealistic. I hold the belief that the only reason, or, more accurately, the main reason, that always-hostile wildlife was put into the game was because the environment wasn't thought of as enough of a threat. Which is utterly ridiculous. In any survival situation, the environment is always the primary threat.

"Eat anything" =/= "attack humans like crazed berserkers", for that matter. In "reality", wolves are very, VERY,VERY intelligent, and use pack-hunting and actual tactics to take down prey. They don't just charge mindlessly at anything they can fit their mouths around.

I have called the wolves of TLD "furry zombies" for a very long time. That is all they amount to: mindless antagonists that provide challenge for the player, and little more. The Steam Store page likes to toot its horn about there being no zombies in TLD, and I always laugh whenever I read it. They might not be rotting, and they might have fur instead of clothing, but the zombies are definitely present.

In pilgrim one stick can counter 40 minus degrees.

also the wildlife need a massive upgrade. I have seen a few dears run in circles.

hopefully when the game if fully developed we will get better wildlife.

[dbldrew]

they should add a 4th hardness setting that is "Custom" and things like animal re-spawn rate, predictor aggression, weather, natural recourses, man made food, man made tools, clothes, etc are all on a slider bar from low to high

that what you can tweak the game to make it harder, or easier based on what you like to play. and clicking on pilgrim, voyager and stalker will just pre set the slider bars for everything.  

[miah999]

Custom difficulty is really the only answer, any new static difficulty level won't solve the problems. Players will always either find the static levels either too hard, too easy, or unrealistic. I have several posts on this already, so you should give a search for my other posts for more of my opinions on this. I don't think it's necessary to hijack this thread yet again.

But to answer the op, no I don't think there is need for a higher difficulty level, a more realistic one, maybe.

[dbldrew]

31 minutes ago, miah999 said:

Custom difficulty is really the only answer, any new static difficulty level won't solve the problems. Players will always either find the static levels either too hard, too easy, or unrealistic. I have several posts on this already, so you should give a search for my other posts for more of my opinions on this. I don't think it's necessary to hijack this thread yet again.

But to answer the op, no I don't think there is need for a higher difficulty level, a more realistic one, maybe.

i dont think talking about a custom difficulty is hijacking the thread. the op asked for other ideas to make the game harder.. and a custom setting does allow the option to make it harder.. not to mention that he can tweak the custom setting to get the "realistic" setting he is looking for

[Rifleman]

The developers said that they will not add a custom difficulty.

[miah999]

2 hours ago, Rifleman said:

The developers said that they will not add a custom difficulty.

They also said they won't add harder difficulty.

 

[Rifleman]

14 minutes ago, miah999 said:

They also said they won't add harder difficulty.

 

Do you have a link

[vancopower]

Harder difficulty would be:

1. when you have to craft bottles for water

2. The illness take longer to cure like 2-3 days

3. little to no loot in houses only harvest-able items

4. Blizzards that last for weeks

5. Wolves always travel in packs.

6. Matches may get wet if you run outside for too long thus decreasing condition.

7. Can't think of more so: Weather is more unpredictable changing fast.

[cekivi]

2 hours ago, miah999 said:

They also said they won't add harder difficulty.

 

I don't recall that actually. I remember them mentioning that they want to remain within a set number of difficulty modes in order to make balancing possible. It is hard to test new mechanics once there are too many difficulty permutations.

[Hiemalis]

7 hours ago, cekivi said:

I don't recall that actually. I remember them mentioning that they want to remain within a set number of difficulty modes in order to make balancing possible. It is hard to test new mechanics once there are too many difficulty permutations.

Myself, I'm against more than three difficulty levels. The current number of modes is perfect, or almost: pilgrim is for whoever wants an easier experience, for beginners, for the ones who're there for the view/story; voyager is the default experience; and stalker is for the people who want a challenge. What could be added is a custom mode, for replayability, and that's it.

I wouldn't mind if the gap between the difficulty modes was expanded. After all, it seems there are as many people who say the game is too easy as people who curse it for being too hard (and here's a good opportunity to practice empathy: both are right).

Nonetheless I don't see a need for a "realistic mode". I don't think that's what Hinterland intends and, game-designwise, I don't think it would make too much sense; the game mechanics/structure would have to be quite considerably revamped for it to support what a realistic mode (if taken literally) would look like. I have the impression it would be a wholly different game in the end.

[Dirmagnos]

I find Voyager to be most enjoyable, altho a bit 2 easy. Sure, id like greater difficulty, but Stalker is not it. From my point of view it misses pretty much in every aspect and in the end its not harder but more irritating to play on it.

Im for properly made stalker or custom difficulty.

[dbldrew]

On 8/21/2016 at 7:58 AM, Hiemalis said:

Myself, I'm against more than three difficulty levels. The current number of modes is perfect, or almost: pilgrim is for whoever wants an easier experience, for beginners, for the ones who're there for the view/story; voyager is the default experience; and stalker is for the people who want a challenge. What could be added is a custom mode, for replayability, and that's it.

I wouldn't mind if the gap between the difficulty modes was expanded. After all, it seems there are as many people who say the game is too easy as people who curse it for being too hard (and here's a good opportunity to practice empathy: both are right).

Nonetheless I don't see a need for a "realistic mode". I don't think that's what Hinterland intends and, game-designwise, I don't think it would make too much sense; the game mechanics/structure would have to be quite considerably revamped for it to support what a realistic mode (if taken literally) would look like. I have the impression it would be a wholly different game in the end.

it might be perfect for you but why would adding another option take away from your experience? 

Skalker is easy.. by day 20-30 i get completely bored and quit and start over.. 

[Hiemalis]

1 hour ago, dbldrew said:

it might be perfect for you but why would adding another option take away from your experience? 

Skalker is easy.. by day 20-30 i get completely bored and quit and start over.. 

I didn't say it's perfect for me; I'm actually well aware -- or at least believe so -- the game isn't being tailor-made for me.

In this context, "perfect" means something like "one of the possibly best iterations for balancing the players' expectations/enjoyment and the developers' desired experience."

Too many difficulty modes and the game experience starts becoming too diluted, too abstracted. See Diablo 3, for example: "Torment IV" or "Torment XI" are meaningless terms; they are just placeholders for a stack of numbers. TLD is about a very personal, meaningful experience, one that tells a story -- and that's what "pilgrim", "voyager" and "stalker" are supposed to symbolize.

[ElvisHunter]

On 8/21/2016 at 11:49 AM, Dirmagnos said:

I find Voyager to be most enjoyable, altho a bit 2 easy. Sure, id like greater difficulty, but Stalker is not it. From my point of view it misses pretty much in every aspect and in the end its not harder but more irritating to play on it.

Im for properly made stalker or custom difficulty.

I agree. When I play on stalker it feels more like a game and I need to keep using the same "tricks". It is the mode i find least satisfying not because i need to 'get good' but because being good requires too much repetition.  

Voyager allows me to stop and smell the roses as it were but still provides a sting for poor choices. The most immersive of the 3 imo. 

I also agree with everyone who says keep the 3 modes and just adjust the gaps.