Does something seem wrong here?

[Purpleater]

There was a time posted on the Stalker leaderboard of 1,875 days. The profile of the Steam user who logged this time shows the 15 day achievement earned on Feb 7th. The playtime for the past two weeks is 11.7 hours.

I hate to call foul play, and I realize there are some incredibly skilled players, but if you do the math on that playtime it appears to be impossible. If I'm doing the math right, it means passing time at an average rate of 1 day every 22.4 seconds. That would be amazing. Even hibernating, I don't even think I can sleep away time that quickly, and that average rate has to take into account the slower periods when just starting out and when restocking supplies.

Am I missing something? Is this possible?

[FoneBoneJay]

There was a time posted on the Stalker leaderboard of 1,875 days. The profile of the Steam user who logged this time shows the 15 day achievement earned on Feb 7th. The playtime for the past two weeks is 11.7 hours.

I hate to call foul play, and I realize there are some incredibly skilled players, but if you do the math on that playtime it appears to be impossible. If I'm doing the math right, it means passing time at an average rate of 1 day every 22.4 seconds. That would be amazing. Even hibernating, I don't even think I can sleep away time that quickly, and that average rate has to take into account the slower periods when just starting out and when restocking supplies.

Am I missing something? Is this possible?

This has already been addressed. There are hacks and cracks. That is why features like the leaderboards are dumb and useless. There will always be cheaters and exploiters. Resources should not be wasted on leaderboards or efforts to fight this.

[Purpleater]

I don't really pay much attention to the leaderboard. I consider it pointless, mainly because I realize there are a lot of great players that don't like to hibernate, and hibernation is the only way to get a really long survival time. But I make a distinction between "exploiting" intended game mechanics like starvation/hibernation, and straight up hacking the game the to get a time of almost 2,000 days in 11 hours of playtime on your first long survival attempt. The cheating here looked so egregious I thought I should call attention to it.

[autonomous]

There is definitely hacks. Just use the leader board as a way to record your own best survival time. Anyone who logged game 5 in game years is probably cheating because you would get board first if something else doesn't get you. lol

[TLDFAN]

I am thinking the environment is survivable and sustainable but I don't know about wolves. I think wolves are like smoking and smoking give you cancer, eventually you are going to be killed even if encountering wolves at 100%, there is going to be one that simply bests you. You really can't keep wolf attacks down to less than 1 a week unless you aren't moving around. So that would be 52 per year. I don't know about you but even a 30% chance of death per attack means you keep rolling the dice 52X and you should be dead in half that time.

Environmentally I think if you can get the magnifying glass and it never dies, with the way fires work now you will probably be sustainable for years.

[Hylander]

In my current game (Stalker), I started in Mystery Lake, spent 10 days there, then 8 days in Coastal Highway, and the on to Pleasant Valley. I'm currently on day 52. I've had a total of 6 wolf attacks:

2 on day 1

1 on day 10

1 on day 12

1 on day 14

1 on day 46

So I went 32 days without having a single wolf attack. During those 32 days, I killed and fully harvested 2 bears, and I killed 6 wolves. I also spent most of my time outdoors, running literally all over the place, working on my map (http://www.huv.com/TLD/Map.png if you haven't seen it). If you averaged it out you would get about 1 attack per week, but in reality it is quite possible to live in Pleasant Valley for an extended period of time without fighting wolves.

[Purpleater]

The problem I noticed is that the player who lived for 1,875 days only played for 11.7 hours. Also, based on their Steam achievements, this looks like their first long survival run (they just got their 15 day survival achievement). So it appears to be absolutely blatant cheating.

It is possible to live for a very long time using the hibernation method (which exploits slow starvation and quick condition recovery). If you harvest a deer & wolf combo, you can go sit inside and sleep for approximately 40 days before the meat begins to spoil. Then go get another deer & wolf, and sleep for another 40 days. Using this method you can survive for an extremely long time, but doing this takes a lot of real life time and is incredibly tedious.

[Purpleater]

In my current game (Stalker), I started in Mystery Lake, spent 10 days there, then 8 days in Coastal Highway, and the on to Pleasant Valley. I'm currently on day 52. I've had a total of 6 wolf attacks:

2 on day 1

1 on day 10

1 on day 12

1 on day 14

1 on day 46

So I went 32 days without having a single wolf attack. During those 32 days, I killed and fully harvested 2 bears, and I killed 6 wolves. I also spent most of my time outdoors, running literally all over the place, working on my map (http://www.huv.com/TLD/Map.png if you haven't seen it). If you averaged it out you would get about 1 attack per week, but in reality it is quite possible to live in Pleasant Valley for an extended period of time without fighting wolves.

Nice map!

[klesh]

Leaderboards for a single player game are silly. I could care less how other people play their single-player experience.

[ChillPlayer]

Leaderboars would be okay so people can get an idea of what is achievable and where they stand in terms of understanding the game. But, it has to be reliable, it should not be easy hackable or cheatable. First thing to fix would be copying a saved game after a death, second would be manipulation of stats.

The thing is, this game is alpha and until the final version is out the LB doesn't matter much. That's why I'd guess that it's rather on the lower end of the dev's todo list.

[StringEpsilon]

Leaderboards for a single player game are silly. I could care less how other people play their single-player experience.

I disagree. Most arcade games had leaderboards and some modern games like Spelunky or Nuclear Throne have leaderboards for their daily challenge too. And if we're talking about speedrunning, thousands of games have leaderboards.

What I agree with is, that it does not provide much for the Long Dark. People who want to compete for who can survive the longest will find a way to share their goals and achievements anyway and the casual player won't get motivated by the board to become better. I heard about 50+ days and my first thought was "Damn, I suck", not "Wow, I want to get there".

[Boston123]

I don't really pay much attention to the leaderboard. I consider it pointless, mainly because I realize there are a lot of great players that don't like to hibernate, and hibernation is the only way to get a really long survival time. But I make a distinction between "exploiting" intended game mechanics like starvation/hibernation, and straight up hacking the game the to get a time of almost 2,000 days in 11 hours of playtime on your first long survival attempt. The cheating here looked so egregious I thought I should call attention to it.

In ACTUAL wilderness survival, you are "supposed" to sleep as much as possible, in order to conserve energy (basal metabolic rate is the key thing, here)..

But I agree. Spending real-time to sleep in-game time makes for a shitty game.

[ChillPlayer]

In ACTUAL wilderness survival, you are "supposed" to sleep as much as possible, in order to conserve energy (basal metabolic rate is the key thing, here)..

I'm sure Les Stroud would beg to differ, your main goal in a real survival situation is to get out of there, find civilization and get rescued. By sleeping only and not moving the risk of dying is much higher because chances are that you'll never be found.

There's a fascinating book I'm reading - Deep Survival, who lives, who dies, and why - by Laurance Gonzales in which he explores why some people in a survival situation lived and why other people in the same situation died. In many cases, the ones who stayed stationary died, the ones who moved, survived.

If you only speak about getting the best out of your calories, sleeping is the best way to do it, no doubt about it. But food is probably the least concern you'd have in a survival situation, because most times you will find any sort of food and the body can go on for a month or more without any food. Try that without water or see how your body reacts to a splinter with dirt on it if you don't have antiseptic...

So no, sleeping alot is exactly what you are not supposed todo in a real survival situation

[pikkue]

because most times you will find any sort of food and the body can go on for a month or more without any food...

Well known rumor, would like to see evidence for this claim.

[Boston123]

In ACTUAL wilderness survival, you are "supposed" to sleep as much as possible, in order to conserve energy (basal metabolic rate is the key thing, here)..

I'm sure Les Stroud would beg to differ, your main goal in a real survival situation is to get out of there, find civilization and get rescued. By sleeping only and not moving the risk of dying is much higher because chances are that you'll never be found.

There's a fascinating book I'm reading - Deep Survival, who lives, who dies, and why - by Laurance Gonzales in which he explores why some people in a survival situation lived and why other people in the same situation died. In many cases, the ones who stayed stationary died, the ones who moved, survived.

If you only speak about getting the best out of your calories, sleeping is the best way to do it, no doubt about it. But food is probably the least concern you'd have in a survival situation, because most times you will find any sort of food and the body can go on for a month or more without any food. Try that without water or see how your body reacts to a splinter with dirt on it if you don't have antiseptic...

So no, sleeping alot is exactly what you are not supposed todo in a real survival situation

Well shit, I guess I better go back to all my previous instructors and tell them they were wrong! /sarcasm

Tell me, do you have any actual survival training? I do, I teach a survival course. All of my training, and all of the coursework I taught to my students, says the exact opposite: when you get lost, stay where you are Only move if 100% necessary.

In wilderness survival, the thing you are supposed to do first and foremost is STOP.

Stop

Think

Observe

Plan

In 99% of survival situations, you generally want to remain right where you first noticed you got lost. If you move from that location, the search parties looking for you now have to search a much larger area. BY staying in one place, and making that place as noticeable as possible (fires with smoke, brightly colored blankets up in trees, etc), you make your chances of getting found much higher.

It is very rare that a lost person "walks out" of the woods into civilization. Most of the time, when people try to walk out, they just end up getting into more trouble. Even in New England, where there is a town within 20 miles in every direction, I still wouldn't walk my way out of a survival situation. The risks of injury and getting even more lost are too high.

Ah, I see you are bringing up that old chestnut about "the body can go more than a month without food!" You are....correct, in a way, but the reality behind that is far more nuanced than you think. Caloric requirements indicate your energy reserves and requirements for metabolism, yes. However, running low on calories (also known as malnutrition) can also lead to increased injuries, longer length on injuries, decreased immune system, lethargy, confusion, poor decision-making skills, etc etc etc. You aren't peachy keen until you starve to death, no. By the end of three weeks of trying to bushwhack your way out of the woods, you will likely be a half-mad, wasted lump of flesh covered with infected wounds.

By sleeping/relaxing/moving as little as possible, I am not only conserving calories, I am also conserving water, and preventing myself from getting injured. I still will need shelter, fire water and food, but I will need smaller amounts of them at a slower rate, and I wont have to find them as I tromp through the bush. Hell, with a proper shelter, I don't even need fire.

Les Stroud is an excellent Bush-crafter. I used to watch his show all the time. But....his aims are different from mine. I teach pure wilderness survival: how to survive when lost for as long as possible, to give search parties time to find you. That means limiting energy expenditure and injury risk as much as possible. This usually takes the form of sleeping whenever you arent building a shelter, gathering firewood, or boiling water. Les Stroud, on the other hand, is making a television show, AKA ENTERTAINMENT He is supposed to gather as many viewers for the show as possible, and that is why he walks his way to safety: watching a video of some guy sleeping in 4 hour shifts would be boring as fuck.

[harobed1156]

It is very rare that a lost person "walks out" of the woods into civilization. Most of the time, when people try to walk out, they just end up getting into more trouble. Even in New England, where there is a town within 20 miles in every direction, I still wouldn't walk my way out of a survival situation. The risks of injury and getting even more lost are too high.

Too true. I laughed out loud when I realized I'd walked in a circle in game. It's not so funny IRL.

[The_Hawk35]

Successful survival consists of 4 phases:

First find a safe location and assess your surroundings and resources This is the part where those that move survive. The trick is to get yourself out of danger not to just move with no consideration of where to go. (this is the shortest phase)

Second search nearby for resources to increase your survivability (food, water, fire making, shelter, etc) Build a shelter to protect yourself and hunker down. MONITOR your resources. This is where most folks are rescued.

Third move out before your resources are depleted to find a new longer term survival location. (very very few folks in the 1st world ever need to get to this point)

Fourth build a longer term shelter and start gathering and stockpiling resources. This is the end of days/societal collapse phase/major disaster.

The sandbox is set in phase 3 and 4. I'm going to guess 1 and 2 will be covered in the story mode when it is comes out.

[Boston123]

Successful survival consists of 4 phases:

First find a safe location and assess your surroundings and resources This is the part where those that move survive. The trick is to get yourself out of danger not to just move with no consideration of where to go. (this is the shortest phase)

Second search nearby for resources to increase your survivability (food, water, fire making, shelter, etc) Build a shelter to protect yourself and hunker down. MONITOR your resources. This is where most folks are rescued.

Third move out before your resources are depleted to find a new longer term survival location. (very very few folks in the 1st world ever need to get to this point)

Fourth build a longer term shelter and start gathering and stockpiling resources. This is the end of days/societal collapse phase/major disaster.

The sandbox is set in phase 3 and 4. I'm going to guess 1 and 2 will be covered in the story mode when it is comes out.

Yep.

I touch on "Survival" in three overarching sections: Immediate Survival, Bushcraft, and Homesteading.

"Immediate Survival" is what many people think of when they hear the words "wilderness survival". It encompasses steps 1 + 2 you outlined above: shelter-building, fire-building, water procurement, staying dry, etc. It lasts (approximately) for about a week in temperate deciduous forest climates (what I am trained in, and most comfortable with.), and the overwhelming majority of survivors get rescued in this stage.

"Bushcraft" combines the above with knowledge of land navigation, food procurement, and equipment packing and necessity. Which plants are safe to eat or provide useful materials, how to trap small game, how to make weapons for large game, how to move quickly and safely through different types of terrain, what pieces of equipment are necessary, how to tell directions, etc. Essentially, the survivor becomes a Stone Age hunter-gatherer. Lasts for approximately a month

"Homesteading" means exactly what it says: you are now living in the woods. Better get used to it. How to build long-term cold weather shelters, which food sources are best to rely on for longer periods of time, how to make new equipment (baskets, pots, knives, tools, cordage, etc)

The three subjects are related, but skills in one are only tangentially related to the necessary skills in another. You need training or experience to become proficient. Think of them as three different types of vehicle: sedan, truck, and tractor. Sure, you know generally how they work, what to expect, and maybe even how to use them, but in order to be most effective, you need further training.

For myself, as an example, I am trained in (and train others in) Immediate Survival in a Temperate Deciduous Forest environment. I have some experience with Bush-craft in this climate, and have confidence in my abilities, but not so for long-term survival.

The different climates and terrain also play a role. For example: I could survive with ease in a Temperate Deciduous Forest. Similarly, with some trial and error, in a Temperate Coniferous Forest. In Mountainous/Cold (Mountains, Boreal Forest, Tundra), I would likely be......OK, but I wouldn't be too happy, nor in too good shape, but the conditions would be similar enough for my training and experiences to "cross over", if only a little bit. Deserts, Grasslands, Swamps? Forget it. The concepts and conditions would likely be too alien for my skills to be of much use.

[ChillPlayer]

Well shit, I guess I better go back to all my previous instructors and tell them they were wrong! /sarcasm

Sorry I didn't want to step on your toes, you clearly have more knowledge about that than I do, until 2 months ago I didn't care about anything survival at all. I did/do some reading and it interests me but I'm not actually seeking to get into such a situation. Strouds argument made sense to me (and he explicitely tells several times why he never - camera or not - would stand stationary), so does Gonzales' book and I only recited what I think these two are trying to say.

I stand though by my initial point, no way would I just bunker myself in and sleep as much as possible - and I was only answering in regards to that. But I guess it all depends on what situation you are in, not the least in which country you are. I live in Switzerland, my possible survival situations would be in the mountains or near a river and civilization is reachable from probably everywhere within days. Of course I would try to find it. Out in Canada or Alaska I honestly don't know what I would do because I cannot imagine to do something there that might get me into that situation in the first place.

And of course you go mad after 2 weeks without food, I only said it's the least concern as long as you don't. If you didn't find for 2 weeks back home, well that'd be the point where I would settle down too and do exactly what you said, eat little, sleep alot.

[Boston123]

In wilderness survival, the thing you are supposed to do first and foremost is STOP.

Stop

Think

Observe

Plan

This is an old strategy for survival that has been void since 2012 because apparently this strategy does not work in pure survival. from the previous posts here someone mentioned about moving along asap. you get hungry try to save your energy bunker down and keep on moving. im sorry this training quoted above does not exist anymore in the Survival Tactic's book.

DO you have any actual source for your new-found knowledge, or are you just making this up? And, what is the "Survival Tactics" book? I own several different survival manuals, and they all suggest the above, at least for an Immediate Survival timeframe.

[Boston123]

No answer, huh? Good, this proves that I will ignore whatever you post from now on.

[TLDFAN]

No answer, huh? Good, this proves that I will ignore whatever you post from now on.

LOL, I've found his posts to be strangely vague on the actual game and related topics as well.

[FoneBoneJay]

No answer, huh? Good, this proves that I will ignore whatever you post from now on.

LOL, I've found his posts to be strangely vague on the actual game and related topics as well.

I suspect Germanguy has never played the game actually just a STEAM Troll

[littlefox1970]

I mentioned the hacks to my son today- Now while I know nothing about computers myself, he suggested that hinterland store saves on CLOUD? Shrugs - i have no idea---

[FoneBoneJay]

I mentioned the hacks to my son today- Now while I know nothing about computers myself, he suggested that hinterland store saves on CLOUD? Shrugs - i have no idea---

If anything about the cloud was learned during SIMCITY 2013, "It's never a good idea"