The Shelter Dilemma Fix

[Fuarian]

There's something in this game that bothers me. Something I call the "Shelter Dilemma". 

It's basically goes something like this; Why would you decide to go live and survive in an undesirable location such as a cave, railcar, shed or small cabins? Or a trailer that's out of the way? When you could be living/staying at a perfectly intact and comfy cabin/house/building in an easier to survive area? 

The answer to us is because of desirable difficulty. We like the game to be more difficult and moving shelters/regions is key to that. But it's not very realistic. And realism is a big factor in this game. So I propose an idea;

1. Make it so that certain key shelters that people use as bases to be burned down. This way, we'd be forced to go take shelter and live there long-term in places like small cabins, sheds and caves. Because if it were to happen irl this would be the most likely scenario. The various key shelters to burn down would be places like the Camp Office, Forestry Lookouts, Trapper's Cabin, Misanthrope/Jackrabbit Island houses, Quonset Gas Station, PV Farmstead, Barn etc... There'd be a chance they burn down upon starting a new game. Upon finding the burned down structure one can find various key items you would find there if it were intact such as a Rifle, Ammo, Rope, Canned Food (inside of non-burnable containers like metal boxes and refrigerators) and other items that would survive a fire. 

2. Make it so that smaller key shelters can burn down through aurora fires. (not when you're in it ofc) Things like small cabins, houses etc... same rules above apply. 

3. Make it so that the area the key shelter is in is unsuitable for stay. Be it a lack of wildlife in the area (for long periods of time), severe weather (for long periods of time), wildlife at the front door, damage to the building or environmental risks like falling trees, aurora shocks (from appliances like laptops, lamps, ceilings lights etc...). 

Not only would these things make the game significantly more difficult, but they'd also make it more realistic. No longer will you simply live in an undesirable location by choice (simply because other areas are to easy to live in), now you will be forced into such locations. Like a bunker, a trailer, a mine, cave system, old church etc...

Now I know that not everybody plays this way. But a lot of us do, and I suffer from this as well. So I just thought I'd put this idea out there.

[Wade]

Don't burn down my favorite shelters please.  If you don't like the shelters, go live in a cave.  Use some will power and just avoid the bigger shelters if they bother you so much.  Nobody makes you use them.  Some of us enjoy using those shelters!

[Seshins]

What he said. 

[Fuarian]

11 hours ago, Wade said:

Don't burn down my favorite shelters please.  If you don't like the shelters, go live in a cave.  Use some will power and just avoid the bigger shelters if they bother you so much.  Nobody makes you use them.  Some of us enjoy using those shelters!

Then make it an optional feature. Simple as that.

[RossBondReturns]

I would love that either way.

But optional would probably be the best way to implement it.

[hozz1235]

It is an option - you have the option to use the shelter or not 

[Prestermatt]

I'd be for this.  As an option.

[Fuarian]

48 minutes ago, hozz1235 said:

It is an option - you have the option to use the shelter or not 

I know that. But I find it difficult to do that. Maybe it's my OCD (that I don't have) or whatnot. Also I like to have a feeling of desperation. Being forced to make tough choices. And choosing to abandon higher chances of survival for lower chances of survival simply because I'm bored isn't something I enjoy. 

[Wade]

On 1/19/2018 at 2:12 PM, Fuarian said:

I know that. But I find it difficult to do that. Maybe it's my OCD (that I don't have) or whatnot. Also I like to have a feeling of desperation. Being forced to make tough choices. And choosing to abandon higher chances of survival for lower chances of survival simply because I'm bored isn't something I enjoy. 

Great work!  Admitting your TLD problem is the first step.

[Fuarian]

1 hour ago, Wade said:

Great work!  Admitting your TLD problem is the first step.

Isn't that the point of the wishlist? To suggest things? 

And this can be optional. You can please everyone if you give them options. Everyone deserves to be able to tune the game to play the way they want to.

[Wade]

22 hours ago, Fuarian said:

Isn't that the point of the wishlist? To suggest things? 

And this can be optional. You can please everyone if you give them options. Everyone deserves to be able to tune the game to play the way they want to.

Absolutely that is what the wishlist is for!  In fact its a great idea IMHO, if it is an optional choice.  Bring on some more great ideas.

[Pillock]

I don't know about random fires destroying buildings, to be honest. But I've always liked the idea of decay/maintenance for them - so that they'd gradually just become uninhabitable due to storm damage and general wear and tear, as interior temps steadily get closer to outside ones.

Maybe the possibility of a big fire due to careless stove usage, or even aurora events, would add some drama, but I should think it'd be quite hard to balance well.

[cekivi]

I've also been a bigger fan of shelter maintenance as opposed to shelter destruction. If base building is ever added as a feature maintaining your shelter as windows break or even something as simple as removing garbage will be a challenge. At that point, maintaining a smaller dwelling may be easier than the larger building. To add another wrinkle to this, if my personal favourite forum suggestion "dynamic interior temperatures" are ever added then you'd have even more choices. Do you maintain the shelter that is well insulated or just live in a cave with a bear skin bedroll?

 

[stratvox]

I have actually thought about this myself. I had a slightly different idea, related to the idea of pulling charcoal out of stoves. Currently, the max charcoal one can have is 24. However, you can keep putting fires into stoves after you've filled up the ash box, as it were. Have the game track how much extra ash you accumulate (though when you clean a stove you still only get 24 max charcoal) and as the number above 24 goes up, so does the chance of a chimney fire. This is something that would apply to all interior stoves and fireplaces in the game including in fishing huts. If you get a chimney fire, you've got about ninety seconds to grab stuff and get out and the building goes up in flames (basically take the fire graphic and scale it up to building size). This makes maintenance on your fireplaces/wood stoves etc important so that you don't end up burning down the building and all your stuff stashed in it. This shouldn't be too hard to implement from the game dev perspective; you'd need to create a model of each building after burning down and make a convincing looking house on fire graphic overlay to put on the buildings.

I mean, can you imagine? You're trucking along doing great, you've got a really good well-stocked base, then you get lazy or forgetful and one night while you're prepping dinner poof! it's all gone and you're back at ground zero.

[StrayCat]

On 18/01/2018 at 11:56 PM, Fuarian said:

2. Make it so that smaller key shelters can burn down through aurora fires. (not when you're in it ofc) Things like small cabins, houses etc... same rules above apply. 

THIS. But extended to bigger shelters : aurora -> fluctuant electricity -> shortcuts -> sparkles -> fire -> destruction of the house. Destroying also what is stored inside. Rare but might happen : the probability may go up the longer you stay in a region, to force the player to move. Losing one's favorite shelter and loot makes a big twist for late games, when everyone falls into a routine and just sit on a huge pile of loot.

Obviously, only as an option, as I think losing a big stock can make some players rage quit and complain here.

Living outside of a key shelter, or in harder regions (TWM vs CH) is a non-optimal choice for rational players. It would be good to have a reason to wander in these sub-optimal conditions.

 

[cekivi]

Electrical fluctuations are actually unlikely to start a house fire the same reason your house won't burn down if struck by lightning. Properly installed electrical systems should always be grounded. While electronics might short circuit the shorts should all go to ground and not cause a fire. 

I'm more in the camp of blizzards breaking windows or putting a branch through a roof. The interior now feels like the exterior and you have to choose whether to repair the damage or move on. Both have risks which is what makes it interesting. 

[Fuarian]

10 hours ago, StrayCat said:

THIS. But extended to bigger shelters : aurora -> fluctuant electricity -> shortcuts -> sparkles -> fire -> destruction of the house. Destroying also what is stored inside. Rare but might happen : the probability may go up the longer you stay in a region, to force the player to move. Losing one's favorite shelter and loot makes a big twist for late games, when everyone falls into a routine and just sit on a huge pile of loot.

Obviously, only as an option, as I think losing a big stock can make some players rage quit and complain here.

Living outside of a key shelter, or in harder regions (TWM vs CH) is a non-optimal choice for rational players. It would be good to have a reason to wander in these sub-optimal conditions.

 

Yes, that's what I was getting at. Obviously aurora fires would only be so rare. I think that we should be able to prepare for them by removing electronics from the vicinity. Also, aurora fires are probably going to have some significance in Wintermute in the future. So it's a likely possibility. But having your home destroyed while you're in it? No thanks.

[CaveDweller]

As discussed in the 'base building' post, this goes to the heart of what TLD currently is re., 'a game of survival' (GOS) or a 'survival game' (SG). The issue is that at the start it's a GOS and at the end it rapidly becomes a SG - but the mechanics aren't in place to support that. @Fuarian What you'r really discussing is having events that transition TLD from a GOS to a SG. I support!

@cekivi I believe what you are actually touching on here is one of the unique elements of of TLD - the singular and never-ending battle with the environment. When viewed this way we are not talking about adding random 'survival busy-work' elements but rather expanding the influence weather exerts on our game world. I support!

[Fuarian]

1 minute ago, CaveDweller said:

As discussed in the 'base building' post, this goes to the heart of what TLD currently is re., 'a game of survival' (GOS) or a 'survival game' (SG). The issue is that at the start it's a GOS and at the end it rapidly becomes a SG - but the mechanics aren't in place to support that. @Fuarian What you'r really discussing is having events that transition TLD from a GOS to a SG. I support!

@cekivi I believe what you are actually touching on here is one of the unique elements of of TLD - the singular and never-ending battle with the environment. When viewed this way we are not talking about adding random 'survival busy-work' elements but rather expanding the influence weather exerts on our game world. I support!

At the beginning it is pretty challenging given the right starting conditions, then within a few days it becomes the easiest thing ever and usually stays that way.

[cekivi]

Welcome to the forums @CaveDweller

And yes, Mother Nature should always be your biggest adversary in her indifference to your situation