A Dog

[JohnWalks]

I imagine this has been said lots, but a dog companion would be great, especially as you'd have to split your resources which would make things harder but, you could choose whether to leave it at your camp or take it, and it could potentially ward of wolves.. Or catch rabbits etc. 

Lastly it could die if predated on or went unfed etc.. Which would be crushing.. Enhancing the isolation and loneliness. 

That's be so cool. 

[Mroz4k]

Hi!

You are correct, this is a popular topic of discussion. I dont know if they will ever add a canine companion, something tells me Hinterland´s indent for the game is to feel isolated and lonely. But, like you pointed out, there is something to be said about the dog, being a strain on resources that would actually encourage the survivor to collect more, and the possibility of it dying would surely have an effect on a player. Especially if they had the dog for a long time or if they spent a lot of effort on befriending it.

Some people suggest a wolf as a tameable animal. I think that would be a mistake - but I think that an idea to be able to have a dog companion is a great one. I suggested in the past that runaway dogs would likely be a part of the environment of Great bear, but they would be very rare. And while they could be initially semi-hostile to players, if they once were an animal companion of another person, then the idea of "re-taming them" would not be impossible.

I like this idea and support it, 100%. The main issue I see, however, would be how to make it work. What would the mechanics be. I think that is something worth a discussion - how would you think the animal would become a companion? What could it do, how would it benefit the player? I would love to hear more of your ideas on the specifics!  

Edited February 11, 2021 by Mroz4k

[manolitode]

Having a dog companion seem to work really well in some other games but I'm not sure how well it would do in The Long Dark. 

Adding a dog to lategame would make it more interesting for sure. Lets say you can find a dog after 100+ days. You find him by a deer carcass, growling at you. He is quite aggressive after being hunted by berserk wolves for some time. So he attacks you and if your condition is okay you manage to fend him off. If you choose the knife, axe or hammer you kill the poor dog instantly and there's no chance of finding another. If you choose the prybar or fight him barehanded he limps off wounded. At that moment, you can choose to either kill him... or bandage him, feed him and give him water. And that's how his loyalty towards you start to grow and is maintained. The benefit of tracking sounds like a decent idea. While I'm not so sure we need hare hunting to be easier it might make life a little more comfortable. Tracking other animals as well seem like an appropriate idea in order to locate an unfriendly animal or a deer a few seconds earlier than usual. In that case, I would support this if food and water costs for having a dog was high. And if there was a deep level of options, and not just repetitive stuff like feed/hunt/pet. The dog should be quite vulnerable, if you bring him to a bear or wolf fight then the risk of losing it should be high. 

Anywho, it would change a lot of mechanics and I'm not sure what effects that would have on the whole. 

[Mroz4k]

Good points. Many I would agree with. My main issue would be two points - a "single" dog, and that is it. If you tame a dog, and them lose it, some people would like to try again. Another idea might be with raising a couple (I admit this might be a stretch) - but if you have, say, 4 of them, they could in time be used to drag a snow sleight - as we know, in the past, Hinterland had a plan to add a horse into the game as a means of travel. I think having dogs and a dog-drawn sleigh would make more sense. But going back to the idea of just raising one dog at a time... I dont think, if you enter into a struggle, that you could ever rebuild that relationship to a point the dog would be loyal to you. I like the idea of the encounter, but perhaps it should be handled in a different way. If you fight and struggle with the animal, it would never trust you again. 

What if the dog was already hurt when you approach it? It would be hostile-ish, growling, but keeping some distance. You could initiate the friendship by placing a "decoy" of a meat down, then backing off, let the dog approach it. then, slowly, with slow, steady movements, you would approach the dog. Gradually getting closer and closer, eventually letting the dog approach you, where you would have the ability to treat its wound and bandage it. Then pet the dog - which would start an even longer and tedious process of earning its trust. Then eventually training the dog to a point where it would be your companion. 

I like the idea of building your own "pack" - like you pointed out before, one dog versus one wolf would not be feasible for the dog. If there were more, they could act as a deterrent for you, but you would need to feed more "hungry mouths". So there is a trade-off. And given how overstacked on meat people are in the later part of the game, this could be a decent balancing factor to encourage people to hunt more.

The main issue would be clear - this whole thing would have to be optional for everyone. Which in itself is not really a problem, even if it were in the game, players could just decide for themselves to tame the dog or not. 

Something that could be feasible for this mechanic already exists in the game -  that is the ability from Story mode Episode 3. Spoiler incoming, I guess: 

 

Being able to carry survivors around on your back. It would not be infeasible if you found the dog heavily hurt, and you would carry it into safety where you would nurture it back to health. 

[Stinky socks]

[ManicManiac]

On 12/27/2020 at 9:25 PM, ManicManiac said:

This gets discussed quite a bit, and I recommend to other folks reading this to also use the search function in addition to reading this thread.  I say that only because there has been a large amount of good discussion about this very topic.  Including many more ideas on how other folks would implement such a thing.

As for me, I really don't want NPCs or animal companions (wolf, dog, or otherwise) in the survival sandbox.

I think this could work fine in the Story Mode or as a dedicated Challenge... but I would not like it if this were incorporated into Survival Mode.  I think it would undermine the lonely isolation and personal struggle that I enjoy so much in survival mode.

Another reason, is that I think that if we had an animal companion... then we might have a hunting partner, or even to a limited extent a protector.
I don't like that idea because it makes life easier for the player... and I'm rarely in favor of things that would make life easier for the player.

Let me clarify that I'm not against the idea  of an animal companion... I just really don't want it in my Survival Sandbox. 

Personally, I don't think an animal companion really works from a lore perspective anyway.  I think even if we did find a wolf or dog... it would probably immediately try to eat our faces off due to the effects the aurora (in that carnivorous animals are preternaturally aggressive and blood thirsty).  Considering they would most likely just turn hyper-aggressive, I think it puts this particular type of animal companion somewhere in between "extremely dangerous" and "just not really possible under the circumstances."

 

[odizzido]

TLD already has dogs, they're called wolves in the game for some reason though. They are your constant bloodthirsty suicidal companions who want to hug your neck with their teeth. I tend to play fetch with them but I am bad at launching my sticks and they tend to go into their heads which makes them tired and have a nap. I guess that makes us both terrible at showing our affection for eachother.

[Mroz4k]

@ManicManiac I used to make that suggestion to people too, but it wont help much - most of the time people just post their own thread on the topic. And, frankly, it is probably better this way cause even if the topic might be the same, the ideas might be widely different from each other. But I agree with you 100%, it is good to use "search" and read the other threads too, they contain a lot of inspiration to improve upon one´s own idea for the suggested wish.

As for your reasoning - I respect your standpoint. I think many people would feel that way too. This is why I think it is a good idea to make it as much of an "optional" thing as possible. Sort of like ammunition crafting is in the game right now - it was also very controversial topic. Hinterland added it into the game eventually, but made it very optional for people who just wanted to use Firearms more in longer term games. If I dont want to craft more ammo, I dont have to. But I have the option.

And personally, I am quite grateful for it. I was against the proposed mechanic for a very, very long time. But, in the end, it actually ends up being quite a positive change in my opinion. I think it could very well be the same way with the dog.

I agree with you, I think it would be a very poorly designed choice if the dog was somewhat "forced" upon a player in Survival. But I highly disagree it should be a dedicated challenge or just a Story mode thing. Dont think it fits well into the Story, and adding a detailed and elaborate suggestion for a sake of a single challenge mode would be a poor design strategy.

[ManicManiac]

@Mroz4k
I'd posit that we already have examples of this kind of thing incorporated as dedicated challenges (The Hunted pt.1 & 2).  I don't think those were poor designs... 

Those are examples of a smaller self-contained stories that play out well as dedicated challenges... I think that finding a dog/animal companion, caring for it, dealing with how the aurora affects it, and having it as a hunting/travel partner... would fit right in with the Challenge concept.

There are also challenges without time constraints, meaning that the if we wanted to see how long we could avoid the Demon Bear as it hunts us down... we could just avoid going to the Trapper's Cabin and run around Great Bear Island indefinitely (or at least until the bear mauls our survivor to death).  Same (I think) would be true of an Animal Companion type challenge... there may be a goal to or place to go as a victory condition, but if the player wanted they could avoid that and continue living with their animal companion as long as wanted (or as long as they can manage to keep them both alive).

As for the story mode... I think it's pretty evident that there are many little side-stories that we encounter while working to progress the main story... or ones that we can ignore all together if we want to.  This is where I think dog/animal companion side-story would fit in.   

I respect your point of view as well...  but I disagree that it doesn't/wouldn't fit into the Story Mode or as a dedicated Challenge.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of adding NPCs (specifically I mean Human NPCs or animal companions) into the Survival Sandbox.
I'm just not in favor of the idea.  While I can appreciate that the idea has also been framed in the context of it being optional, I still am just not in favor of the idea.  

Edited February 12, 2021 by ManicManiac

[manolitode]

On 2/11/2021 at 3:05 PM, Mroz4k said:

Good points. Many I would agree with. My main issue would be two points - a "single" dog, and that is it. If you tame a dog, and them lose it, some people would like to try again. 

While it's pretty harsh to have to start a whole new playthrough in order to find a new dog, the life of the dog would mirror the life of the survivor. You only get one shot and need plenty of miserable failures and efforts to master it. It's a concept that appeals to me but I realize it doesn't suit everyone. Perhaps something like a 100+ day interval before the next encounter would work, as long as the dog is very rare (I'm thinking much rarer than a moose encounter) and vulnerable.

On 2/11/2021 at 3:05 PM, Mroz4k said:

What if the dog was already hurt when you approach it? It would be hostile-ish, growling, but keeping some distance. You could initiate the friendship by placing a "decoy" of a meat down, then backing off, let the dog approach it. then, slowly, with slow, steady movements, you would approach the dog. Gradually getting closer and closer, eventually letting the dog approach you, where you would have the ability to treat its wound and bandage it. Then pet the dog - which would start an even longer and tedious process of earning its trust. Then eventually training the dog to a point where it would be your companion. 

This scenario about taking care of the already wounded dog seems like a pleasing way for the player to feel instant affection for his companion. Less dark than what I proposed, I think I'd enjoy playing both scenarios for different reasons. 

On 2/11/2021 at 3:05 PM, Mroz4k said:

I like the idea of building your own "pack" - like you pointed out before, one dog versus one wolf would not be feasible for the dog. If there were more, they could act as a deterrent for you, but you would need to feed more "hungry mouths". So there is a trade-off. And given how overstacked on meat people are in the later part of the game, this could be a decent balancing factor to encourage people to hunt more.

Caring for a pack of dogs opens up some interesting options for travelling and combat as you suggest. I know you said it's a stretch but if the dog pack could handle wolf fights for you there wouldn't be much challenge left for stalker and interloper players. Also, the option of being able to go fast with a pack of dogs pulling a sledge, what does that mean for the overall difficulty. Can you outrun a charging wolf (not just a stalking one)? A charging bear? I like the idea of just the player and the one dog being dependent on their strong bond for survival. It might still feel like a solitary The Long Dark experience, with more dogs I'm not so sure. But it would be a nice project to take care of a whole pack of dogs and bring them to Bleak Inlet. Pack vs pack  

[Stinky socks]

Yes, probably one dog is fine. Don't need too many, this isn't a farm.