A 3rd accessory slot

[Cyclone35]

Now that we have more available accessories added in the game (ballistic vest, crampons, foreman's toolbelt, etc), I think having only 2 accessory slots isn't enough anymore. It becomes an inventory issue to carry around all those accessories without having enough space to utilize them. If I was equipped with a moose hide satchel, I wouldn't swap it out for a rifle holster since the trade off is not worth it. Considering how difficult it becomes to balance weight limit and staying stocked up, it might be worth adding a 3rd accessory slot. If the 3rd slot ruins the balancing, you can always just revert it back to 2 slots.

Note: I'm aware the Travois is meant to greatly expand inventory space, I'm referring more to players who don't want to craft one or stockpile their supplies in 1 shelter.

[Lexilogo]

IMO the problem here is bad accessory balancing, not the pure number of slots. The Moose Hide satchel is so good that you have to use it, and that leaves extremely fierce competition for the last slot, which most accessories don't survive. It mostly comes down to improvised insulation vs crampons.

 

If Moose Hide Satchel was a permanent upgrade like the Technical Backpack, that second slot would be freed up and equipment would become a lot more interesting.

[Leeanda]

I gave up the crampons for the rifle holster...  

If the crampons were  added to the footwear section it would leave more scope.

[The Feng Hunter]

On 10/4/2024 at 4:55 PM, Lexilogo said:

The Moose Hide satchel is so good that you have to use it…

Thing is, you DONT “have to use it.”

If you want to carry as much crap around as possible, then yes, you “have to use it,” BUT I’m doing just fine — 360 days into a Custom with Interloper weather and damage settings — using nothing but the regular backpack. I didn’t even secure the Moosehide Pack until about ten days ago in-game, and have yet to acquire the Technical Backpack.

It just means being more selective with your load-out. 🤷 

My proposed solution:

Each clothing slot receives an additional accessory slot.

BELTS could become a wholly separate accessory item, either completely random drop OR a Tales-like reward.

UNDERLAYERS are applied to the shirt accessory slot.

EAR WARMERS (lol) are applied to the head accessory slot.

CRAMPONS or SNOWSHOES or SKIS would be applied to the foot accessory slot.

TWO *GENERAL* ACCESSORY SLOTS would still exist — these would be for things like the RIFLE HOLSTER, an additional UNDERLAYER, BALLISTIC ARMOUR, COUGAR CLAW KNIFE, ICE AXE, &c.

I feel like this may help organize accessories while also allowing for a Survivor to become increasingly “kitted out,” like a real mountaineer or speleologist.

Edited October 7 by The Feng Hunter
Expansion of idea.

[Lexilogo]

5 hours ago, The Feng Hunter said:

If you want to carry as much crap around as possible, then yes, you “have to use it,” BUT I’m doing just fine

You can do fine without it, players did for years before any carry weight buffs were added, but you could be doing even better with it. +10kg from the T. backpack & satchel makes such a massive difference.

It's less so a matter of carrying around crap as it is:

-Wearing a lot of crap

-Carrying supplies for quick warmup fires (and/or having room to comfortably torch chain if you want to conserve matches)

-Carrying a high quality bedroll

-Having backup food, water, medicine, birch tea, and a weapon on hand, all making you safer

-And yes, carrying around crap to your stockpiles

 

And, well, that stuff is exactly what takes care of all the game's core needs. Carry Weight makes you better at everything, it's TLD's core stat, to the point where the satchel does a lot of things better than accessories that are ostensibly doing their own thing- Eg. it indirectly adds more warmth than the ear warmers, by allowing so much bonus space to equip heavier clothes.

Of course, "have to use it" is hyperbolic, but if you want to play optimally, it is true.

[The Feng Hunter]

14 minutes ago, Lexilogo said:

Of course, "have to use it" is hyperbolic, but if you want to play optimally, it is true.

Why does everyone assume people want to “play optimally”?

I swear to god this is the WORST trend in gaming — optimization. 

Some of us really do like to play things as an immersive roleplay without best in slot gear for everything, you know?

”Playing optimally” is, quite frankly, boring to me. The risks aren’t as great, so any potential reward in doing [whatever it is you’re doing] is lessened.

35kg is more than enough.

Perhaps this is why I was rather underwhelmed by the Foreman’s Toolbelt. Yes, it’s great for use underground — especially if you’re running without a Respirator. But I’d much rather see something like an oil headlamp capable of being affixed to the Hard Hat (if there were accessories per body slot — or even specific pieces of gear! — this would be possible).

[Pencil]

Let's be real here; lots of players love the moose hide satchel, and it doesn't make sense for them to let go of +5 kg. Some people enjoy playing risky, but some people enjoy playing safe and prepared with 5 kg of emergency supplies. 

I personally am alright with shuffling around the remaining 5 accessories (not counting ear wraps since insulation is better) depending on what region I'm in; if I am around base doing things like crafting and maintenance, I'll wear the ballistic vest for 100% protection. If I'm travelling, I'll do toolbelt. If I'm hunting, I'll do holster. And obviously crampons if I'm going somewhere with rope climbs. On Misery I do double insulation. 

I do think every item has a use and has reasonable stats, even the ballistic vest. But one thing I do wish was changed was the crampon's placement; I do wish the crampons had their own separate spot so that I wouldn't have to trade out crampons. The question is, would they balance accessory slots in some way, or just add a new slot to make things easier? I would love a new slot but I wouldn't want to simply make things easier and lose the tradeoff aspect. 

[Cr41g]

since the introduction of the ptarmagin I have forgone the moose hide satchel in favour of 2 x insulation, one in one slot, and in bad weather the second in the other... but normally crampons in the other...(because of the punishing sprain mechanic)... I have had the tool belt, armoured vest, rifle holster and honestly for me, they are leave behinds. The technical backpack and well fed are better bonuses

[ThePancakeLady]

On 10/4/2024 at 4:59 PM, Leeanda said:

I gave up the crampons for the rifle holster...  

If the crampons were  added to the footwear section it would leave more scope.

I said he same thing (crampons slot on footwear) in another thread about this. It's the only gear slot that does not have a second slot. It makes sense to put crampons there. And since HL loves trade-offs- they can only be equipped if you are wearing a certain type of foot wear. No leather shoes, no running shoes, no ski boots (maybe no insulated boots?). Deerskin boots? Yes. Mukluks? Yes? Trail boots? Yes. Work Boots? Yes. Chemical Boots? Yes. Combat Boots? Yes. Everything else? Nope.

[ManicManiac]

I'll try to summarize what I've discussed in the past on this sort of idea.

I don't think more inventory slots are really needed.  I think having more accessories just means that we have to be more thoughtful in how we want to "load out" our survivor.  I think this causes the player to have to make some tough choices, and frankly I love that. 

If a hypothetical player really feels they really love the satchel... then they have to choose to use up one of their two accessory slots in order to wear it.  

If that hypothetical player also really wants to wear crampons at all times (for whatever reason)... then they have to choose to use up one if their two accessory slots.

If that hypothetical player, then really wants to armor up (for whatever reason)... then need to reevaluate if wearing crampons at all times is actually necessary, or if maybe they might switch them out with the ballistic vest.

In my opinion, it would be the wrong answer to just give the player more accessory slots just because a hypothetical player wants to have more "advantages."

I think a survival game should be full of tough choices... so I think it's appropriate that the number of accessories we can "equip" at a time is limited at two.  I really appreciate that these days we find ourselves having to evaluate our "load out."  I think this elevates how we need to approach our strategies. 

~

I think it's safe to say that there is no accessory in the game that is so vital that it "must be used"... I think that's just objectively not the case.

Not even the much-lauded satchel is "indispensable"... it's just a matter of choice.  
The standard 30kg carry capacity (and 50 kg "maximum" encumbrance) is, I think, very reasonable.  Folks who want a permanent +5kg "upgrade" to that, can go get the Technical Backpack.  Then they can have that +5kg to their carry capacity and they don't use up an accessory slot at all.
Then, if they still want +5kg more... then they can just work on eating well (and still not take up an accessory slot). 
If they want yet still more carry capacity... then sure, they can choose to occupy an accessory slot with the satchel.
But again, it's a choice.

I find I can get along just fine without a satchel, technical backpack, travois, staying well fed, or eating certain recipe items that (somehow) give us the remarkable ability to lug around more stuff for a certain period of time.

Is the extra carrying capacity nice to have... yes, of course it is.  I'm just saying that we can survive without it just fine as well.
Therefore, strictly speaking, it's not necessary. 

I also don't find crampons to really be needed at all.  It's been more than a year since the last time I remember using them.  In my current run, I've even forgotten where it was that I stashed them.  I don't have an issue with climbing ropes (coffee and Go! Energy drinks work just fine... and so does just being well rested before making a climb), avoiding thin ice, or sprains.  So, for me crampons are something I will collect, but then just end up stashing in a container somewhere.  Years ago, I would wear them only when I wanted to go beachcombing... but since then, I find that beach combing isn't really dangerous anymore, so my need for crampons dropped to zero.  

Also... I don't think there's any good reason to haul around all the accessories that a survivor finds.  I think the better answer is just load out based on what a player feels their playstyle would benefit from most and equip to suit that.

One other thing that was mentioned... we don't have to stockpile things in one location or lug around all the accessories we pick up along the way.
Frankly, I think that's kind of a waste of energy.  I find it's much better to travel light (only packing the bare essentials), and leave the rest of the non-essentials, tools, and gear behind in several stop over points/encampments.  That way if the player wants, they can always return later to pick up or switch out equipment as they see fit.  No need to always keep a Ballistic Vest in your pack at all times, when we can just keep it at a place we might frequent.  Then, when we want to go on a hunt that we fear might be dangerous (or if we haven't learned how to avoid Timberwolf packs yet)... we can swap out something like crampons (which probably won't help much during a hunt or timberwolf attack) and equip the vest if we really think it's needed.  

My point is... player choice is a very powerful thing in this game.
And I think keeping our limited two accessory slots and a wider variety of accessories, just adds to that.

Please don't misunderstand, it's a perfectly good wish list item... 
I'm just giving my perspective on the idea.

Edited October 8 by ManicManiac

[The Feng Hunter]

40 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

but since then, I find that beach combing isn't really dangerous anymore, so my need for crampons dropped to zero.  

I would push back against this by saying — “have you been beachcombing in a Desolation Point boat post-Blizzard?”

The number of times I’ve fallen through thin ice doing so is off the charts. 

Even still, I’ve yet to pick up the crampons in this current Custom run — although, N.B., I’ve turned off the Sprain mechanic bc of the noise it makes AND it feels more an annoyance than a threat. I’d like to get them at *some* point, especially bc Ash Canyon is my favourite Region outside of Sundered Pass,  but I don’t feel it’s critical. The beachcombing challenge is nice.

//

Im of two thoughts on this entire issue: either overhaul the entire system as suggested above, or leave it as is, because you’re right: PLAYER CHOICE is what determines a game more than anything else. 

This said, Devs providing *options* shouldn’t necessarily be ruled out. And what works for you may not work for others.

Im in total agreement with you about the carry weight — it’s perfectly reasonable as is. 🤷 And the belovèd satchel is not necessary, though it is nice to have as an option.  

[ManicManiac]

1 hour ago, The Feng Hunter said:

I would push back against this by saying — “have you been beachcombing in a Desolation Point boat post-Blizzard?”

The number of times I’ve fallen through thin ice doing so is off the charts. 

For me, when I've gone out to beachcomb, I could (for the most part) just walk out and pick whatever's there up off the ice.  Nearly all the items, carcasses/corpses, rowboats/dinghies, etc... have not even been on thin ice.  I only recall having to occasionally risk weak ice to pick up a small item here and there, but for the most part it just didn't seem to me that weak ice was much of a concern these days.

Perhaps it's just been rare RNG for me then.  ?🤷‍♂️? 

I'm glad to know that weak ice is still a concern out there.
Seriously, I'm glad.

I had put in a support ticket some time last year asking if the weak ice had been moved out farther, relative to the beachcombing spawn areas (I don't recall if I ever heard back about that one), so I'd assumed they just nerfed the dangers of beachcombing (and that kind of bummed me out).  

I remember beachcombing in Old Island Connector, Coastal Highway, Bleak Inlet... and only a little bit in Desolation Point.  Biggest thing I'd come across so far had been an overturned dinghy.  🤷‍♂️  I don't know if that means I had been really lucky or really unlucky...  After that I didn't really look to go beachcombing all that much. 

@The Feng Hunter
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback.

Edited October 8 by ManicManiac

[K3V038]

I could not agree more, with so many things added we should get another slot.. or things like the ptarmigan down layer should be combinable with jackets, crampons combinable with boots, the belt with pants and so on

[The Feng Hunter]

No worries!

Ive really enjoyed the Beachcombing overhaul. Typically, I’ll stick to Bleak Inlet because Coastal Highway is arguably one of my least favourite Regions. I’ve noticed fishing boats themselves seem to have a lower spawn frequency in the Inlet than anywhere else. It’s anecdotal on my behalf, but interesting nonetheless.  

Stay dry out there!! ✌️

[ManicManiac]

23 minutes ago, K3V038 said:

or things like the ptarmigan down layer should be combinable with jackets, crampons combinable with boots, the belt with pants and so on

Fair point... feels reasonable and intuitive.

I still think what we have now is good as is... but I can certainly appreciate the thinking behind the idea.

Edited October 8 by ManicManiac

[Lexilogo]

On 10/8/2024 at 1:18 AM, The Feng Hunter said:

Why does everyone assume people want to “play optimally”?

I swear to god this is the WORST trend in gaming — optimization. 

Some of us really do like to play things as an immersive roleplay without best in slot gear for everything, you know?

”Playing optimally” is, quite frankly, boring to me.

The reason for the assumption is, well, TLD has a goal: Survive. A truly nonoptimal player would hug bears to enjoy the mauling animation. As long as you're making decisions to try and achieve the game's objective, you are in optimisation's gravitational orbit, it affects you on some level and unless you actively expend energy resisting it, will probably affect you more over time, some people more or less than others.

But you're absolutely right, playing optimally can often suck. That's why games should try to make the "optimal" choice among a game's choices not super obvious.

 

Doing that, unless a developer does something really silly, won't affect people who have avoided optimisation. But it will help people who have. That's the bottom line here, for people like me who want to try my best to survive while playing The Long Dark, I would like a good reason to unequip the Satchel and use 2 of any of the game's accessories instead of 1 plus the satchel. If you're not using the satchel, why care?

IMO the best way is making the Satchel work like the T. Backpack as a permanent upgrade, but I'd also welcome something like the tool belt & holster getting improved, so their weight reduction can compete with the satchel and we have 3 weight reduction accessories that you can choose between, or potentially other solutions.

On 10/8/2024 at 1:18 AM, The Feng Hunter said:

I’d much rather see something like an oil headlamp capable of being affixed to the Hard Hat

I was also bummed out there wasn't a headlamp added to the game in the mines. Personally I think it being electric and automatically activating during the aurora would be the best way to do it.

The 1 accessory per clothing slot idea is cool, but it'd need Hinterland to at least double the amount of accessories currently in the game. Eg. If we have a dedicated belt slot, we can't have the only belt option in the game be locked behind the DLC Tales content.

[The Feng Hunter]

Point is, you don’t need 48kg carry weight. You don’t. You barely need 35kg UNTIL you’re hauling a large load during a critical moment. Common sense would dictate you should plan accordingly for those moments: if you’re hunting, you should go light. If you’re moving, take the travois. 🤷

Item weight seems like an easy choice at this point is all I’m saying, and hardly optimal for some of us who make excursion decisions a week or so out. 

[ThePancakeLady]

10 hours ago, The Feng Hunter said:

Point is, you don’t need 48kg carry weight. You don’t. You barely need 35kg UNTIL you’re hauling a large load during a critical moment. Common sense would dictate you should plan accordingly for those moments: if you’re hunting, you should go light. If you’re moving, take the travois. 🤷

Item weight seems like an easy choice at this point is all I’m saying, and hardly optimal for some of us who make excursion decisions a week or so out. 

Point is- the way you approach the game and planning your explorations and tasks is how you do it, It isn't how everyone else does it. I play vanilla Stalker 90%+ of the time. I travel light, just because I never know when I may need to sprint or climb to get away from hungry toothy things. But being able to equip the crampons on my boots when I am making planned climbs would be useful and pleasant for my individual playstyle. No other changes needed for me. But other people may enjoy being able to equip insulation on inner and outer jackets instead of having it take up one of the 2 existing accessory slots.

Not everyone plays the same way, not everyone min/maxes, not everyone likes to travel light, not everyone likes to play the same way.

Point is, you may feel like you don't need to be able to carry 48kg weight. Other people may feel like they need to, to suit their individual playstyle. Thank the powers-that-be that we can all play the game the way we want to, with or without the DLC, with or without mods. It's one of the things I love about the game- I can experiment with hundreds of different playstyles and strategies- none of them are wrong, though not all of them will suit me. Too many other games (in general) have a "only-one-way-to-play" approach, and I bounce off of those games pretty quickly.

Point is, I think having an accessory slot for footwear, for crampons only, with limitations on what footwear you can equip the crampons with in that slot would be something I would enjoy. YMMV.

Edited October 12 by ThePancakeLady
Typonese, always typonese

[The Feng Hunter]

8 hours ago, ThePancakeLady said:

Point is- But other people may enjoy being able to equip insulation on inner and outer jackets instead of having it take up one of the 2 existing accessory slots.

Not everyone plays the same way, not everyone min/maxes, not everyone likes to travel light, not everyone likes to play the same way.

You’re absolutely right. 

And thanks for highlighting my suggestions from earlier. I appreciate it!