suggestion Firestarting overhaul

[Ghurcb]

There are a few things I really don't like about the way firestarting works in TLD right now.

1) It's too easy to start a fire

2) Firestarting lvl3 makes tinder completely useless

3) Firestarting base chance is confusing for the beginners

4) Burning time is... Weird...

 

Let me get into a little more detail...

It's too easy to start a fire. Let's say, you have a firestarting level 1. You use a piece of reclamed wood and wooden matches to start a fire. The chance of success is already 40%. Isn't it a bit TOO generous?  If you have a firestarting level 2, you'll succeed yousing the WORST materials HALF THE TIME! There's no use to carry around books or accelerant. There's already a 50% chance of success.

But that's not all of it. Get to level 3 and all the tinder becomes completely redundant too. There's LITERALLY no reason to use it now! And one of the feats allows you to start with it. Isn't it insane?!

I think, the main culprit here is the "firestarting base chance". I've got a bunch of problems with this guy... For one, it confuses the beginners. How? Well, let's look at this picture.

Here it is. Right next to the estimated fire duration and chance of success. A lot of new players are confused as to why it doesn't change when they change the fuel add an accelerant. They don't know that it doesn't change. But if it doesn't change, why show it? It doesn't give a player any useful information when starting a fire. "Chance of success" is what everybody should be looking at.

Why can't you put "firestarting base chance" into the skills menu right next to crit. damage chance and fishing time.

Or even better...

Get rid of it altogether.

Don't laugh yet! That's not all of it.

What if the tinder had an affect on the chance of success? Let's say, cattail head would give you a +15% chance, tinder plug would give a +25% chance, +40% for all the paper (cash, newsprint, etc.) and +45 for birch bark, making it a hard choice, whether you burn it or make a tea out of it. That way, even after you get a firestarting level 3, you'd still use tinder to increase your chances.

With each level you would get a firestarting BONUS (+5%, +10% and so on). In my opinion, it shouldn't increase up to +50% as it does now (actually, it's +90, but you start with +40% so...). Instead you should get new abilities like starting with coal or using friction to light a fire (maybe, it would give you a -60% to -40% disadvantage?) I'm sure, players will LOVE it.

 

And the last bit... The burning time is weird. I start a campfire that should last for 4 hours, I sleep for 4 hours next to it... And when I wake up it still has an hour left. Did I wake up earlier? Did I use more fuel than was needed? No, for some reason, the minutes that it shows are actually longer than all the other minutes in-game (like when you cook, or sleep, or read...)

I heard, it's like that because in TLD fire lasts longer when outside (which makes no sence, if anything, it should be the opposite). Maybe that time is added because of the skill level, idk? I'm not saying you should remove this feature, but why not just show the ACTUAL time remaining?

[Ghurcb]

PS: newsprint roll weighs 0.15 kg, but you can make 0.20 kg of tinder plugs out of it. Maybe, it should also weigh 0.20? Actually, that's the problem with a lot of items. For example, wound dressing. All kinds of tea and coffee have the opposite problem. They weigh less then even water that you spend, but restore more hydration somehow.

[odizzido]

Yeah I think all the weights in this game could do with a look at so they make sense. This is why players will walk around with uncrafted old man's beard.

I would like fires to get a look at too. One big thing I would like to see with fire starting is lowering the number of clicks.

[Kranium]

I want tinder to have a use once your fire skill makes it all useless. Craft tinder plugs into firelogs, or you can burn them like sticks or something?

[Ghurcb]

On 12/2/2021 at 4:17 AM, Kranium said:

I want tinder to have a use once your fire skill makes it all useless. Craft tinder plugs into firelogs, or you can burn them like sticks or something?

Honestly, I think that using tinder as a fuel is not the best way to go. It would basically be a way to get rid of it. Tinder should retain its purpose as something useful when starting a fire.

I mean, it can't be a GOOD type of fuel, so why add a BAD type of fuel into the game? Wood, sticks and coal are renewable, so they don't really need a plentiful but inferior alternative.

[stratvox]

The real answer to tinder plugs is to stop chopping up cedar except in dire emergencies. They wear your tool down for less reward; reserve your hatchet to chop up fir. And self defence, of course. Chopping cedar is the number one source of tinder plug proliferation.

In my view, the one change I'd maybe like to see to firestarting is that tinder adds to the chance to light a fire after level 3, but is no longer required to be able to even try to start the fire. Drop all the base chances to start the fire by one in twenty and have the presence of tinder contribute that one in twenty back to the fire starting chance. Have it continue to do so while no longer required (level 3 and up), but allow the player to try and start the fire at the lower chance of success.

The weights are a thing that are part of the magical realism of this game. Just like aurora powering up computers and lights and radios and radio stations (!), aurora driving predators crazy, fires set outdoors lasting longer when the temperature is colder, fire in Mountaineer's lasting longer because it's burning while you happen to be outside where it's cold, unheated buildings maintaining a constant temperature just below freezing when it's forty below outside... need I go on? I mean, the buildings, that's second law of thermodynamics right there, doesn't get much more outside of reality than that.

They're there to be learned and exploited, to make life easier for your survivor. And there are ones that flip the script, like OMB and the crafted wound dressings. Given the time frame for infection to set in, crafting omb into the dressing after the mauling and bandaging so you can apply is not a major issue, so long as you have enough omb on you... and if you leave them uncrafted you can carry more omb which means you're able to carry more dressings, so the knowledge does help you. It's up to the player to notice and figure them out.

[Ghurcb]

2 hours ago, stratvox said:

The real answer to tinder plugs is to stop chopping up cedar except in dire emergencies. They wear your tool down for less reward; reserve your hatchet to chop up fir. And self defence, of course. Chopping cedar is the number one source of tinder plug proliferation.

In my view, the one change I'd maybe like to see to firestarting is that tinder adds to the chance to light a fire after level 3, but is no longer required to be able to even try to start the fire. Drop all the base chances to start the fire by one in twenty and have the presence of tinder contribute that one in twenty back to the fire starting chance. Have it continue to do so while no longer required (level 3 and up), but allow the player to try and start the fire at the lower chance of success.

The weights are a thing that are part of the magical realism of this game. Just like aurora powering up computers and lights and radios and radio stations (!), aurora driving predators crazy, fires set outdoors lasting longer when the temperature is colder, fire in Mountaineer's lasting longer because it's burning while you happen to be outside where it's cold, unheated buildings maintaining a constant temperature just below freezing when it's forty below outside... need I go on? I mean, the buildings, that's second law of thermodynamics right there, doesn't get much more outside of reality than that.

They're there to be learned and exploited, to make life easier for your survivor. And there are ones that flip the script, like OMB and the crafted wound dressings. Given the time frame for infection to set in, crafting omb into the dressing after the mauling and bandaging so you can apply is not a major issue, so long as you have enough omb on you... and if you leave them uncrafted you can carry more omb which means you're able to carry more dressings, so the knowledge does help you. It's up to the player to notice and figure them out.

For me, magic aurora that affects animals is simply a part of the setting. Some stories have magic in them, others use technologies, that would be impossible in real life. Some stories have aliens, and this one has that weird geomagnetic event. I can believe in it.

What I can't believe in is when by adding two and two together you get five. I simply cannot suspend my disbelief hard enough for that to make sence. And that's not a deliberate choice, that's a mistake. Personally, I would prefer a game with less exploits, even if it would make it harder.

Oh, by the way! I really wanted to add the part about indoor locations losing temperature overtime into this suggestion. But I suppose, this would be too big of a change to ask for. What I mean is, buildings staying just below zero IS weird, and seems especially out of place in a game about surviving in the cold environment. I think that indoor temperature should slowly but constantly drop until it's the same as on the outside. Fire, torches and lanterns would increase the temperature inside. That way you would have to keep your base warm. Sure, you can easily withstand -10'c, but what do you do once temperature of your home reaches -35'c? If you only light the fireplace to cook food or boil water, then one day these walls will only be able to protect you from the snow, wind and hungry wolves, but NOT the cold weather.

[Kranium]

IDK, I just hate useless object in games. Gotta be a snesible way to make 'em useful.

 

BBL, going outside to split some firewood IRL. haha

[Ghurcb]

4 hours ago, Kranium said:

IDK, I just hate useless object in games. Gotta be a snesible way to make 'em useful.

 

BBL, going outside to split some firewood IRL. haha

Yes, that's why I think, that making it, so tinder has a huge impact on firestarting chance (+15% to +45%) is the best solution. You would keep using it after firestarting level 3, even if you don't have to. Still, you would have an option to start a fire without having any tinder on you, at the cost of possibly wasting more time and matches.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Ghurcb

[ajb1978]

Ehhh it's a video game, I'm OK with little random inconsistencies here and there. I mean you can sleep off a bear mauling and be right as rain in the moring, for cryin out loud.

The one thing I would love to see added for firestarting is a renewable, craftable firestarter, like the oft-requested bow drill. Or a means of storing/transporting embers from last night's fire, so you can start a new one the next day.

See, starting fires isn't a problem. I've gone a thousand days without using up even a single box of matches. The problem is that it lends itself to this kind of min/max style of play where we use matches until we find a mag lens. Then wait for a sunny day, grill 10 bears and boil an Olympic swimming pool full of water, and then we're set for life. I'd much prefer a style of play where we cook and boil what we need, when we need it. And to balance the renewable firestarter, have food and water actually freeze.

Edit: I don't expect this to happen because besides being a massive shift in game balance, it would completely nerf the utility of a six-burner stove. Who needs six burners if you're only going to cook one piece of meat and boil the amount of water you can drink? A fireplace would be fine. Heck, the pot belly stoves wouldn't even be so bad.

Edited December 5, 2021 by ajb1978

[Ghurcb]

On 12/5/2021 at 7:29 PM, ajb1978 said:

The one thing I would love to see added for firestarting is a renewable, craftable firestarter, like the oft-requested bow drill.

The main problem when adding new items to the game is figuring out, how to make it useful without breaking the balance.

Imagine, you've acquired a bow drill... Why would you use matches, then? Is it hard to craft, so you don't want to waste its durability? Well, it's just a stick with a rope. The most expensive (and logical) crafting recipe I can come up with is maple/birch sapling + guts. But having to use saplings would make it even LESS renewable then matches.

Does it decrease your firestarting chance? You would only really want to use it once your matches run out. That would be lategame. At that point everyone has firestarting level 5, so this little annoyance would make no difference.

Personally, I don't see how a bow drill would fit into the game. It's either OP or useless. 

[ajb1978]

18 minutes ago, Ghurcb said:

Personally, I don't see how a bow drill would fit into the game. It's either OP or useless. 

Ideally it would allow players with high firestarting skill to have a renewable means of starting fires. I mean currently we just min-max the game by waiting for sunny days then going on a cooking/boiling marathon. This is just so horribly unrealistic it's laughable. By introducing a renewable craftable firestarter, the game could be played more realistically, by cooking and boiling as you need it. And not just cooking up 2 bears and leaving them in the snow for a month.

The best implementation would be to have the firestarting chance be penalized using a bow drill, such that even a level 5 firestarting might not succeed every time. TL;DR  by allowing a player to start a fire anytime, anywhere, it would disincentiveize the mag lens exploit of cooking everything all at once and then just gnawing on frozen cooked meat and bottles that magically appear out of nowhere and never freeze.

[Ghurcb]

2 hours ago, ajb1978 said:

Ideally it would allow players with high firestarting skill to have a renewable means of starting fires. I mean currently we just min-max the game by waiting for sunny days then going on a cooking/boiling marathon. This is just so horribly unrealistic it's laughable. By introducing a renewable craftable firestarter, the game could be played more realistically, by cooking and boiling as you need it. And not just cooking up 2 bears and leaving them in the snow for a month.

The best implementation would be to have the firestarting chance be penalized using a bow drill, such that even a level 5 firestarting might not succeed every time. TL;DR  by allowing a player to start a fire anytime, anywhere, it would disincentiveize the mag lens exploit of cooking everything all at once and then just gnawing on frozen cooked meat and bottles that magically appear out of nowhere and never freeze.

So the crafting recipe would only appear once you reach a high enough firestarting level? Sounds like a great idea! It's a bit sad that firestarting section of the crafting menu is basically "1001 way of making tinder" that you will never use once you reach level 3.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Ghurcb

[Fuarian]

My biggest gripe is the whole tinder situation. 

At level 3 you don't need it. AT ALL. 

You can literally just take a chunk of wood and a match and boom you've got yourself a fire. That.. not only is extremely unrealistic but even WITH tinder that would be borderline impossible. 

Hot take: You shouldn't be able to start a fire with firewood, you should need sticks, books, etc... to START a fire. And once it's hot enough/going for long enough, then you can add your bigger pieces of wood. And you should NEED tinder. 

[Pencil]

I agree that tinder shouldn't become useless after level 3 fire starting. I still start my fires with tinder past level 3 skill just for fun. 

As for the percentage, I don't think it is too much, since a 70% chance seems to still take 5 tries sometimes. It could be lower though. 

For the fire time, fire does burn longer outside in The Long Dark. Personally, I think you shouldn't be able to see an exact time duration of your fire. Determining how long to sleep based on how strong the fire looks sounds more fun and challenging than being given exact numbers. An estimated time being given would be better too.

[ajb1978]

8 hours ago, Fuarian said:

My biggest gripe is the whole tinder situation. 

At level 3 you don't need it. AT ALL. 

My take on that is it's like learning how to feather your firewood to essentially create your own tinder on the fly. You don't need separate tinder, you've learned to shave off fine slivers just before starting a fire. I've done this myself with softwood (specifically spruce) and it works quite well. You don't need separate tinder or kindling if you have a good sharp knife and some softwood.

I wouldn't want to try that with hardwood or "reclaimed wood" like chunks of busted up couch however. That...yeah. Recipe for disaster. But softwood, especially if you have access to fatwood, totally doable.

[Ghurcb]

21 minutes ago, ajb1978 said:

My take on that is it's like learning how to feather your firewood to essentially create your own tinder on the fly. You don't need separate tinder, you've learned to shave off fine slivers just before starting a fire. I've done this myself with softwood (specifically spruce) and it works quite well. You don't need separate tinder or kindling if you have a good sharp knife and some softwood.

Sure, but gameplay-wise it's a bad design choice, because once you reach firestarting 3. You simply don't use the tinder anymore. Tinder plugs, paper, money, cattail heads turn into garbage. They serve no purpose now. That's bad game-design.

The better way doing the "you don't have to use tinder anymore" would be to have it increase your success chance when starting a fire. Then, once you get this upgrade, you can start a fire without tinder, but you would still WANT to use it.

[Guest jeffpeng]

The main problem with making fire starting harder than it is, or require more time to get a real fire going, is that it would require a major re-balancing in so many areas that it would be single-handedly the biggest change of the entire game. Just a simple example: if making a fire that actually gets you warm takes an hour to accomplish you then have to factor that time in so you have enough "warmth" left so you don't freeze (too much) until your fire actually warms you. To compensate for that you can either make the world warmer, or you can do things like making body heat last longer. But this also prompts other issues, like: if the world is now warmer, isn't this a huge buff to clothing, and don't you need fires much less than you needed them before hence prompting an oversupply of firewood in the world, which would in turn have to reduce stick drop rate and make chopping wood more costly to your tools - and so on. The question here is: is this tiny tidbit of "realism" worth upsetting a pretty well balanced world in which fires are just that bit easy to start?

As to the tinder-situation I mostly agree. We had this discussion a few times on the forums already, and I think the general consensus usually turned out to be what @stratvoxsaid:

On 12/4/2021 at 2:12 PM, stratvox said:

Drop all the base chances to start the fire by one in twenty and have the presence of tinder contribute that one in twenty back to the fire starting chance. Have it continue to do so while no longer required (level 3 and up), but allow the player to try and start the fire at the lower chance of success.

Doesn't upset the balance, retains the ability to start a fire without tinder, still makes use of tinder. I actually argued for giving it a small buff from level 4 on to offset the "need" to now carry at least some tinder on you, but that's details. Might strike one as a cheap solution, but it's one that doesn't cause the entire house of cards to crumble.

About renewable fire starting: I'm pretty much with @ajb1978here. I've had games "retire" past 500 days with hundreds of matches left (on Loper, no less) and OCD min/max the use the mag lens despite clearly having more matches than I would ever realistically use. Adding in a renewable fire starter that would not rely on some random weather condition would relax this a lot, incentivize you to use you matches more relaxed and give you other things to do on a sunny day than to frantically cook a mid-sized population of wolves that has "accumulated" on your doorstep. And personally I don't see it so bad that those 6 spot burners get a small nerf with this. They still are far more efficient when cooking large amounts of food or water. And even if you would have to thaw previously cooked food and water (which would be a good way to counterbalance this, indeed), especially if you could heat it the same way it works with tea now, while the 6 spot burners would lose the outright OP-status they now have, but they'd still valuable.

Ah right, and my actual thoughts about this.... make starting a fire always a 100%, but scale the time it takes with the materials you use. Starting a fire with a match and lump of fir? Okay, that'll take you a solid two hours of caring for that fire like new born. Got a book, some accelerant and a bunch of cat tails? Well that's a fire hazard even without throwing in a flare to light it. The idea here is: reduce frustration (ever failed with 85% TEN TIMES in a row? I have.), remove the "need" to always proxy your fire with a torch, since, honestly, that's just a cumbersome way to eventually guarantee a 100% chance anyways, and also give tinder (and highly flammable fuel such as book, as well as accelerant) an actual use.

Like .... sunny day, you got the shades out and don't know much what to do other than try new tea recipes? You got that hour to light a fire. Or.... sunny day, you still got your shades out, but actually -40°C, and that wolf pack wants to eat you? Yeah, maybe we need to move a little bit faster on this particular fire. It's up to the player, it would give use to all available items, and it would really alleviate one of the major frustration points about TLD.

Edited December 9, 2021 by jeffpeng

[Strelok]

Make the tinder great again.

I fully support tinder as crucial firestarting material.

Tinder should be the second most important thing after match i claim.

If i could mod, i would have done it already.

[Ghurcb]

10 hours ago, jeffpeng said:

The main problem with making fire starting harder than it is, or require more time to get a real fire going, is that it would require a major re-balancing in so many areas that it would be single-handedly the biggest change of the entire game

I'm not saying that firestarting should be harder than it is now. I just think that the chance of starting a fire should be tied more with the materials you use and less with your level of skill. The best starter (firestriker) can give you +15%, the best fuel (book) gives +35,% accelerant adds +40%. +40 is your base firestarting chance, that can increase up to +90. PLUS NINETY PERCENT! You must be VERY unlikely not to start a fire with THAT.

As you level your firestarting skill up the numbers go up. That's it. But isn't it boring?

What if upon increasing your level you would get new unique abilities like using coal as a starting fuel or making your own matches or not having to use matches (that would require more time)?

Now THIS would be an interesting progression system.

[Guest jeffpeng]

1 hour ago, Ghurcb said:

That's it. But isn't it boring?

TLD basically made a game out of a lot of boring things, and it turned out quite alright 😉

On a more serious note: I guess if you had read my post in its entirety you'd know we basically agree that the stuff you use to make fires should matter more. Maybe we disagree on how to facilitate that.

As to new abilities .... yeah, bowdrill or craftable matches or breathing fire or whatever goes for replenishable fire starting at level 5.

[odizzido]

On 12/9/2021 at 11:46 AM, jeffpeng said:

Ah right, and my actual thoughts about this.... make starting a fire always a 100%, but scale the time it takes with the materials you use. Starting a fire with a match and lump of fir? Okay, that'll take you a solid two hours of caring for that fire like new born. Got a book, some accelerant and a bunch of cat tails? Well that's a fire hazard even without throwing in a flare to light it. The idea here is: reduce frustration (ever failed with 85% TEN TIMES in a row? I have.), remove the "need" to always proxy your fire with a torch, since, honestly, that's just a cumbersome way to eventually guarantee a 100% chance anyways, and also give tinder (and highly flammable fuel such as book, as well as accelerant) an actual use.

I would love for fire to have a 100% chance but the time it takes changes. It would reduce the amount of clicking by a LOT which this game desperately needs. This is exactly why I think a fire bow would work well. Start the fire with the fire bow...maybe it takes 30mins, maybe it takes 3 hours, but it's one click and you just let it happen and then cancel it at any time if you want. You could even have animations in there to show progress if you wanted.

Anyways what I really wanted to comment on is that I think the fire % chance of success is not working correctly. The probability of failing an 85% task ten times in a row is staggeringly low, like 5.8x10^-9 chance. I remember when I was first playing the game I would often calculate the chances that I would have failed 5,6, or 7 times in a row(which was common) and it was always like 0.5% chance, 2% chance, 0.001% chance. It's like the random number generated gets stuck sometimes.

[Guest jeffpeng]

3 hours ago, odizzido said:

I would love for fire to have a 100% chance but the time it takes changes. It would reduce the amount of clicking by a LOT which this game desperately needs. This is exactly why I think a fire bow would work well. Start the fire with the fire bow...maybe it takes 30mins, maybe it takes 3 hours, but it's one click and you just let it happen and then cancel it at any time if you want. You could even have animations in there to show progress if you wanted.

Anyways what I really wanted to comment on is that I think the fire % chance of success is not working correctly. The probability of failing an 85% task ten times in a row is staggeringly low, like 5.8x10^-9 chance. I remember when I was first playing the game I would often calculate the chances that I would have failed 5,6, or 7 times in a row(which was common) and it was always like 0.5% chance, 2% chance, 0.001% chance. It's like the random number generated gets stuck sometimes.

On one hand: yes, I see what you mean, and I've felt the same for so many times. I think I had the 85% times ten failure even on video, but I'm afraid I don't have that anymore. Then, on the other hand: there is this effect people in general suffer from, that a friend of mine once called the "standing in line at checkout syndrome". Basically since you are the person afflicted by something right now, your perception of you being actually affected is amplified so much that when you are questioned about the severity or frequency of "something" you truthfully overstate how much and how often this or that affects you. The "standing in line at checkout syndrome" comes from a short study said friend made, and she found at that allegedly roughly 80% of people always get the slow cashier and hence stand longer in line than anyone else.

So maaaaaybe us remembering having this extraordinarily bad luck is just, if you put it in a greater perspective, that we simply discard the instances where we have extraordinarily good luck. I mean I got through 60 days on TWM without failing a single repair. I today failed at an 80% repair 4 times in row. Both events should be highly unlikely, however I will probably remember the latter more despite the former being much less realistic.

[Guest jeffpeng]

Another point about the psychology of chances: right now a lot of things are the way that you either get exactly what you want, or you don't get it at all. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if you get what you want 75% of the time, or 75% of what you want all the time. Repeat the exercise often enough, and you will end up with roughly the same absolute value. The difference is that in scenario 1 you might get 100% of what you want three times in a row, despite the odds, leaving you with 300% instead of just the 225% you are "owed". But you could also end up of with much less than that - or 0%.

Now if you gamble at something, and you have a, say, 25% chance you automatically expect not to win (at least if you are a psychologically healthy person). Even at a 50% chance you will probably not count on winning if life told you anything. But having a 75% chance? You probably instinctively assume that there is no way doing something with a 75% chance will fail more than once in a set of four attempts. Sure, this assumption is plain wrong mathematically, but human psychology doesn't care for mathematics (except maybe mine 😅).

So where winning at a 25% chance will cause you to be happy because you expected to lose, losing at a 75% chance will cause you to be annoyed, because you expected to win. In one case you get something you hoped for, but didn't count on - in the other case you are being denied something you firmly expected to get. And as I learned a couple of years ago annoying someone is the second worst thing you can do to them (the worst being betraying trust).

Now what one can do to alleviate this issue is to guarantee some return in any case at the offset of lowering the achievable outcome. So instead of having a chance of 80% to repair 50% of an item, maybe give a chance to repair between 30 and 50% of said item, but guarantee to repair at least that 30%. You will still, on average, repair 40% of that item, but you won't feel cheated out of your invested resources just because you only got 30%, and you will actually perceive yourself lucky when you get the full 50%.

Same goes with fire starting. Now if we assume we get a 100% chance anyways if we proxy with a torch, the invested resources become time and tinder, with the former being arguably the main resource of the game. Now instead of having a 80% chance to start the fire in 5 minutes, starting a fire in any case in between 3 and 9 minutes has the same gross outcome, but it circumvents the player having to fail some of the time, and it also removes a cumbersome, unintuitive mechanic everyone being serious at this game does employ, but I guess nobody particularly likes. The math here being 1/0.8*5 = 6,25 minutes on average. Now add a 50% eccentricity to this number on both flanks equaling 6,25*1,5 = 9(,375) and 6,25*0,5 = 3(,125), and if you add up 9,375 and 3,125 and divide it by two you'll see that your average mean time to start a fire is still 6,25 minutes.

If we scale that a bit to a ridiculously low chance of 20%, you end up having to spend 1/0.2*5 = 25 minutes on average to light your fire. OR you could guarantee that fire in 25*0,5=12,5 to 25*1,5=37,5 minutes, which would still take you to achieve 25 minutes on average. It would still give the player incentive to care about using adequate materials to start a fire (like tinder if tinder had an effect on the chance, books, accellerants) but it would remove freak accidents like starting a fire with 85% ten times and still failing, which feels like the game is broken even if it is not.

Psychology is an important factor to consider if you want someone to like your product - and making sure your product doesn't annoy the customer is the best way of generating a positive perception of it.

[Ghurcb]

On 12/11/2021 at 6:23 AM, jeffpeng said:

Another point about the psychology of chances: right now a lot of things are the way that you either get exactly what you want, or you don't get it at all. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if you get what you want 75% of the time, or 75% of what you want all the time. Repeat the exercise often enough, and you will end up with roughly the same absolute value. The difference is that in scenario 1 you might get 100% of what you want three times in a row, despite the odds, leaving you with 300% instead of just the 225% you are "owed". But you could also end up of with much less than that - or 0%.

Now if you gamble at something, and you have a, say, 25% chance you automatically expect not to win (at least if you are a psychologically healthy person). Even at a 50% chance you will probably not count on winning if life told you anything. But having a 75% chance? You probably instinctively assume that there is no way doing something with a 75% chance will fail more than once in a set of four attempts. Sure, this assumption is plain wrong mathematically, but human psychology doesn't care for mathematics (except maybe mine 😅).

So where winning at a 25% chance will cause you to be happy because you expected to lose, losing at a 75% chance will cause you to be annoyed, because you expected to win. In one case you get something you hoped for, but didn't count on - in the other case you are being denied something you firmly expected to get. And as I learned a couple of years ago annoying someone is the second worst thing you can do to them (the worst being betraying trust).

Now what one can do to alleviate this issue is to guarantee some return in any case at the offset of lowering the achievable outcome. So instead of having a chance of 80% to repair 50% of an item, maybe give a chance to repair between 30 and 50% of said item, but guarantee to repair at least that 30%. You will still, on average, repair 40% of that item, but you won't feel cheated out of your invested resources just because you only got 30%, and you will actually perceive yourself lucky when you get the full 50%.

Same goes with fire starting. Now if we assume we get a 100% chance anyways if we proxy with a torch, the invested resources become time and tinder, with the former being arguably the main resource of the game. Now instead of having a 80% chance to start the fire in 5 minutes, starting a fire in any case in between 3 and 9 minutes has the same gross outcome, but it circumvents the player having to fail some of the time, and it also removes a cumbersome, unintuitive mechanic everyone being serious at this game does employ, but I guess nobody particularly likes. The math here being 1/0.8*5 = 6,25 minutes on average. Now add a 50% eccentricity to this number on both flanks equaling 6,25*1,5 = 9(,375) and 6,25*0,5 = 3(,125), and if you add up 9,375 and 3,125 and divide it by two you'll see that your average mean time to start a fire is still 6,25 minutes.

If we scale that a bit to a ridiculously low chance of 20%, you end up having to spend 1/0.2*5 = 25 minutes on average to light your fire. OR you could guarantee that fire in 25*0,5=12,5 to 25*1,5=37,5 minutes, which would still take you to achieve 25 minutes on average. It would still give the player incentive to care about using adequate materials to start a fire (like tinder if tinder had an effect on the chance, books, accellerants) but it would remove freak accidents like starting a fire with 85% ten times and still failing, which feels like the game is broken even if it is not.

Psychology is an important factor to consider if you want someone to like your product - and making sure your product doesn't annoy the customer is the best way of generating a positive perception of it.

And I thought MY ideas are too game changing to ever be implemented... But this thing is on the whole different level.

Sure, it's less annoying to get 75% of what you want 100% of the time, then it is to get 100% of it 75% of the time. BUT...

When you're starting fire at 50% chance you're expected to lose 2 matches and 2 pieces of tinder on average. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

How would that be implemented? Would the number of matches/tinder required lower as you increase the chance of success? 

How would players even know what they're getting?

 

Say what you want about the firestarting system now, but at least it's intuitive (except for the firestarting base chance confusing the hell out of every new player, who think it is the actual chance of success)

When you fail to start a fire at 75% you know that the reason is those remaining 25%. And when it repeats 10 times in a row, you think "Damn, I'm pretty unlucky today", because you understand how the game works.

I can hardly imagine the system you're proposing being as intuitive. And even then, what do you mean by "75% of what you want"?

Would the fire last for 75% less time? Would it require 25% more resources? If all that would change is time, well... Most af the players pay no attention to the time it would take to start a fire (it's not even shown to them). 

 

PS: Sorry, if I'm overly critical here. This is a great concept, I just don't think it can get a good implementation.