The Sustainability debate


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Scyzara said:

@Dirmagnos: We've had this discussion at least 10 times before and neither of us is going to change their mind, no matter which arguments we may present. Let's just hope we never encounter a situation that will prove (on a global scale) who of us is right. 

Thank you @Scyzara for bringing the discussion back to The Long Dark.  Games don't need a justification in real life history to be good.  They do, however, need to appeal to their customers.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As I read more and more of this forum, I sense an interesting divide among the most passionate fans of The Long Dark. While late-game sustainability seems to be a hot topic in many threads, I haven’t

Different people believe themselves to be set and ready to go once they find a rifle or the full kit of tools and weapons. I think that rather than have a mid-game 'lull', it would be better to instea

The way I would like to see this tackled would be to have injuries and conditions that you suffer throughout your game have a very small but permanent affect on your character's abilities to carry out

On 4/26/2017 at 7:07 PM, Boston123 said:

PAHAHAHAHA ...... no

You have very little idea about how actual human psychology works, do you?

Oi, everyone is entitled to there own opinion. However, I do agree with you on this one, trading would probably be a thing in this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cekivi said:

Since the group were able to successfully hunt before the split (at least one deer was shot on the trek out) who is to say if more of the escape party may have survived if they kept working together? The sites I've checked didn't mention murders at the main site of the Donner party. I'm not ruling it out but there likely wouldn't be any need due to many dying from starvation and exposure.

The fallout of Katrina did last months. The storm may have been over in a few days but the flooding and damage to the city took months to fix.

I should have used wood instead of fuel since that's what I meant. There's plenty of wood (fuel) to keep warm all winter. It just takes a lot of effort to harvest especially for one person.

I believe you get cause and effect in reverse. Decision of killing those men came because they were starving as result of inability of obtaining additional food.

What you are doing is guessing. So, i accept your premise, but i reject your conclusion. As it is equally possible that if group were to stay together, then none of them would have made it. And instead of horrific events that resulted in death of almost 40 people and acts of cannibalism and murder, wed have another Roanoke colony -type event.

Fallout of Katrina lasted years. But initial event was over in matter of days. After that order was restored, bit by bit, and both supplies and food started to pour into city. In case of tLD were dealing with opposite, as nobody is doing paradrops to alleviate situation and most of means available to player for survival are quite finite.

If New Orleans were cut off from the rest of the world, for prolonged amount of time, then situation would get a lot grimmer and bloodier as supplies were getting low. Thats when real horrors would begin. An extreme version of Lord of the Flies.

And wood...

 

Im sorry, i couldnt resist(from times when show was actually good). 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dirmagnos said:

If New Orleans were cut off from the rest of the world, for prolonged amount of time, then situation would get a lot grimmer and bloodier as supplies were getting low. Thats when real horrors would begin. An extreme version of Lord of the Flies.

That is an excellent point, however, I believe its safe to assume that not that many people live on Great Bear Island (When compared to New Orleans)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Docterrok said:

That is an excellent point, however, I believe its safe to assume that not that many people live on Great Bear Island (When compared to New Orleans)

Amount of people is fairly irrelevant at this point, as lower population also implies lower amount of supplies in general. City with 100k inhabitants will have warehouses full of food, but without resupplying all that will be gone in couple of weeks at the best. Amount that would keep 100 or even 1000 people fed for decades, 100k will consume in matter of weeks.

Granted, in rural areas supplies will last longer, as inhabitants dont have a supermarket within walking distance(so they stock more), but its still will be maybe couple of months worth of food due to evolution of technology, where most remote places are not really cut off from the rest of the world. Our reliance on comfort would become our greatest enemy in situation like in tLD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dirmagnos said:

Amount of people is fairly irrelevant at this point, as lower population also implies lower amount of supplies in general. City with 100k inhabitants will have warehouses full of food, but without resupplying all that will be gone in couple of weeks at the best. Amount that would keep 100 or even 1000 people fed for decades, 100k will consume in matter of weeks.

Granted, in rural areas supplies will last longer, as inhabitants dont have a supermarket within walking distance(so they stock more), but its still will be maybe couple of months worth of food due to evolution of technology, where most remote places are not really cut off from the rest of the world. Our reliance on comfort would become our greatest enemy in situation like in tLD.

I think population numbers is extremely relevant. It might even be the most relevant factor.

I'm not a sociologist, but intuitively it seems quite obvious to me that there's a certain 'sweet spot' of population within a societal group, below which people will naturally incline towards banding together for mutual protection and support (and, fairly importantly, for company), and above which people will incline towards separating themselves into competing factions - regardless of available resources.

I'm going to pick some numbers out of the air, but for argument's sake, lets say a party has population in the single-digits: they don't need much organisation, they don't really need a 'leader': they can make group decisions fairly easily, can distribute tasks among themselves for the benefit of the group, and settle any disputes through face-to-face discussion and mutual agreement. If you had 20-30 people in a group, you may well need to recognise someone (or more than one) to be 'leader', in order for decisions to get made at all and to have the final say over dispute resolution, and therein lies potential for cliques to form and the authority of the leader(s) to be questioned and/or challenged - but it's still likely that that size of group could succeed. Above that number you're likely to get factionalism and conflict if you don't impose specific systems - laws, effectively - to deal with conflict resolution and ownership/distribution of tools/resources, along with defined punishments for infractions; you might also need some kind of 'police' to enforce it. Again, these numbers are very imprecise, and probably vary quite a lot according to things like individual personalities and to the specific situation or environment. But that 'sweet spot' for a group's size would be fairly universal, I think, and universally quite small, at that.

With a city the size of New Orleans, it's not terribly surprising that the sudden removal of the previous system of law and order led to increased violence - if people don't know each other, they don't recognise each other's authority or rights of ownership over territory or property any more. Your 'property' - what you own - boils down to what you can reliably defend by yourself, because there is no outside authority to defend it for you - and if someone thinks you're trying to assume ownership of more stuff than you can defend, they're likely to try and take it off you... because they can, and because "who says that's yours?".

Taking it back to TLD's scenario, the permanent pre-disaster population of the whole area we have available to explore is pretty small  (fifty, maybe? Perhaps more if you include working groups of loggers or fishermen?). Post-disaster, it might be something like 20, tops? There's plenty of resources available in the environment to feed, house and clothe that number of people, as long as they were reasonably well organised - they wouldn't need much expertise, they'd just need to be sensible. Therefore, I think that's what would happen: it would be advantageous for the remaining survivors to band together and cooperate under those circumstances because they could live more safely and comfortably that way - so that's what they'd do. It would only be the sociopaths who would actively seek solitude, and they would probably struggle to get by without resorting to theft and/or violence, simply by virtue of the fact that being alone is more difficult than living with others.

Edited by Pillock
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dirmagnos said:

Amount of people is fairly irrelevant at this point, as lower population also implies lower amount of supplies in general. City with 100k inhabitants will have warehouses full of food, but without resupplying all that will be gone in couple of weeks at the best. Amount that would keep 100 or even 1000 people fed for decades, 100k will consume in matter of weeks.

Granted, in rural areas supplies will last longer, as inhabitants dont have a supermarket within walking distance(so they stock more), but its still will be maybe couple of months worth of food due to evolution of technology, where most remote places are not really cut off from the rest of the world. Our reliance on comfort would become our greatest enemy in situation like in tLD.

Good point, but you also failed to consider a lot of the inhabitants would probably perish before the real issues came up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The success and durability of any group would be dictated by the make-up of the people in the group

 

In a small group there will likely be one alpha type personality. This is a good thing. The rest of the group would follow his/her lead and the quality of survival would depend on the skills and demeanor of the leader.

 

A small group with two alpha type personalities would not last very long. A group of two, both with alpha type personalities would likely not exist long enough to be considered a group.

 

One can resist their natural inclinations if they think it's in their own best interest for some time, as long as things are going relatively well. After that, all bets are off.

 

In TLD we have a lone survivor searching for a way home and hoping for rescue. For his part I think his first encounter with others would likely be looked at positively, subsequent encounters would likely depend how the first one went.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the way I see it, self sufficiency should be the focus (making spears, traps, trading material, etc) This game should focus on what you can do as an individual, not what you can achieve as a group.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Docterrok said:

This game should focus on what you can do as an individual, not what you can achieve as a group.

This cuts right to the essence of the debate - Post Of The Month to you, sir.

(Though I think you might be in danger of losing this accolade on Thursday. Sorry about that.)

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Docterrok said:

Well, the way I see it, self sufficiency should be the focus (making spears, traps, trading material, etc) This game should focus on what you can do as an individual, not what you can achieve as a group.

I couldn't agree more!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2017 at 3:43 PM, Docterrok said:

Good point, but you also failed to consider a lot of the inhabitants would probably perish before the real issues came up.

Good point, but you also failed to consider quality of that food, accessibility and the fact that everyone will be hoarding and hiding what they can find. How many people will perish in the blizzard or get mauled by wild animals carrying significant amount of food with them, that will either then be eaten by that wildlife or disappear under the snow.

 

On 5/2/2017 at 8:22 PM, Lovehandel said:

The success and durability of any group would be dictated by the make-up of the people in the group

Why everybody completely miss part that lead to formation of this group ? Every argument i see is about cooperation inside already established group and how good it is. And at best glancing over on how those groups are supposed to be created in the first place.

Quote

In a small group there will likely be one alpha type personality. This is a good thing. The rest of the group would follow his/her lead and the quality of survival would depend on the skills and demeanor of the leader.

A small group with two alpha type personalities would not last very long. A group of two, both with alpha type personalities would likely not exist long enough to be considered a group.

One can resist their natural inclinations if they think it's in their own best interest for some time, as long as things are going relatively well. After that, all bets are off.

Good leaders are an extreme rarity. Paradoxically, rule of the thumb is that best leaders are those who do not want to lead. Simply speaking, the greater is person willingness to lead, the lesser he is qualified to do so. Its a power thing.

As example, there is not a single competent leader in the western world at this point. Their proficiency is actually measured by their incompetency and stupidity right now. Granted, its a direct result by completely corrupted political system, that prevent good people from rising on top, but it is a general indicator how things often work.

Also, 2 alphas may not be a bad thing, if were dealing with reasonable and intelligent people, as one can compensate for shortcomings of another, while they both can share responsibilities and deal with different aspects of community everyday life.

Quote

In TLD we have a lone survivor searching for a way home and hoping for rescue. For his part I think his first encounter with others would likely be looked at positively, subsequent encounters would likely depend how the first one went.

Why ? Generally speaking lone people tend to be most suspicious, as you have no idea what youre dealing with. While groups can be observed and their appearance and interactions may be an indicator about personalities of people in that group(allowing to get general gist without directly interacting with them). Not to mention that those people being in that group is already an indicator they are capable of working with other people.

Its one thing to observe a guy sitting by the fire and eating his lunch from a tin can, that tells you little to nothing about that person personality. And its different when you see people talk(their demeanor, language skills, openness, etc) and interact within set group(how they get along for example).

And how exactly people in subsequent encounters would know what happened before ? Does Event now causes telepathy development as well ? Or they learn how to see his karma ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Please don't take this the wrong way, but while this is an interesting discussion, its really going nowhere. So many unsubstantiated claims being made, its almost comedic.

 Yes, "it's just the internet" and most discussions do just fine without actual support - they may also simply peter out or deplete the hearsay reserves before the need arises - but anecdotally, by the third page, things tend to start circling the drain until one party shoulders the burden of proof. This discussion is at that point. Nobody is making headway against anyone and again, while some interesting ideas are coming up, they are swallowed without chewing.

 Break out the referencing kung-fu, make your points and be satisfied. "Thou doth protest too much" can speak as much to endings as it does to guilt and from an objective perspective, its time for closing arguments folks. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting discussion. My whole take on this whole debate is as follows:

I used to think freedom could exist without laws. I thought that if we had no laws, government, etc that we would be free to do whatever we want and live a subsistence type lifestyle. As I've grown older and worked in the real world, I've realized that there ARE people in the world that are just inherently bad. In a world with no law, I do not think freedom could exist. There would be people coming to rob your sh*t and kill you every day. Just look at what the world was in the prehistoric period...bands of people moved place to place and fought each other for resources. Humans, psychologically, have not changed dramatically in that time period, just how we live and the resources we use.

Speaking of which, has anyone seen the movie THE ROAD? It feels very similar to what TLD has presented so far...

In a situation like what is happening in TLD...I think it would be naive to say all of humanity would be working together. Its never really happened, and from my perspective as a historian, probably never will. Honestly, I think that even if the power grid went out for about 30 days we would see the darker side of humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dirmagnos said:

Good point, but you also failed to consider quality of that food, accessibility and the fact that everyone will be hoarding and hiding what they can find. How many people will perish in the blizzard or get mauled by wild animals carrying significant amount of food with them, that will either then be eaten by that wildlife or disappear under the snow.

 

Many people would die, meaning a thinner population, meaning less food received, meaning more death from starvation, meaning an even thinner population, which leads to equilibrium. 

Edited by Docterrok
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Docterrok said:

Many people would die, meaning a thinner population, meaning less food received, meaning more death from starvation, meaning an even thinner population, which leads to equilibrium. 

But those people will not die instantly after Event, so by the time equilibrium is reached, most of the food will be eaten or lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now