new fire starters- player made

[Snoman]

I would have to try this to see if i could make it work but here is the idea. Its based off the idea of the survival flash lights.

step 1. find components tube, magnet, copper wire, steel wool, tinfoil

step 2. wrap copper wire around tube

step 3. insert magnet in tube and cap ends. ( may need to make sled for the magnet )

step 4. attach copper wire to ignitable component

the ignitable component could be any thing from steel wool, tinfoil, or maybe even a thin single strand of copper.

step 5. shake like your life depends on it.

Now you could take it a few steps further with diodes and a capacitor, but I don't think you would have to.

A different kind of tinder would most likely be needed. As gross as it sounds belly button lint mixed with ear wax makes a good starter tinder to get twigs started, hair would also work. I would think this could be part of a home made zippo.

most of this could be found in cars and homes.

[octavian]

To add what to gameplay, we can already make fire

[Snoman]

In my opinion it would be in gameplay to find ways to survive with out having to hope you find matches or a flint and steel. Every thing is disrepair and looks to be abandon. I would think there would be less supplies to find.

[AmericanSteel]

To add what to gameplay, we can already make fire

We have limited ways to make fire: fire striker, matches and magnifying glass. I think we can use a flare to start a fire and we can carry a fire with a torch. However, I have been on runs where I started with about 20 matches and never found another in a zone. I was hording those jokers. It would be nice to fall back on primitive methods to start a fire instead of just saying "this is it." There are also resources sitting in the game that have fire starting potential that we just can't access.

1. What if I wanted to break a flare down into a few chunks of accelerant and a striker?

2. What if I wanted to pull the striker out of the gas stove?

3. Are there any grills, pull the strikers out of those?

4. For goodness sake, I have not seen one zippo or old school bic lighter. What gives?

5. Batteries and wires to create a spark OR a short to generate heat

6. Friction fires

7. Flint and steel + charcloth (or another material to take a spark)

8. Sap (like pine) for accelerants (which I think we should be able to forage for like tinder and wood)

9. Headlamps from cars make excellent light concentrators like the magnifying glass

10. Fluids from cars to make accellerants or extenders (like using oil for a torch instead of gas)

A car alone is a treasure trove of stuff the player can use do to all sorts of things (cloth, steel, springs, wire, tires, string, mirrors, etc). The list goes on and on and on... Cannibalize a few seat and make some cordage, yank the hood off a car and bingo you have a pull behind sled. I can then take that sled and make a wind screen between a few trees. Not that the game would ever get that detailed (though I can dream).

Just because the game offers us a few choices does not mean those should be the only choices.

[Boston123]

Just because the game offers us a few choices does not mean those should be the only choices.

^ This, right here.

The game would be much more realistic (and a little easier, but not "easy"), if we could actually do the things we could do in real life. Like yank the hoods off of cars for sleds and windbreaks, make cordage out of literally anything, start fires with different methods, etc

[octavian]

Just because the game offers us a few choices does not mean those should be the only choices.

Few choices, best choices. Starcraft: minerals, gas, supply, not sunshine uranium and science too. Forget strategy games, atoms, Nature itself works like this, it's where complexity comes from. Chair, model of the atom, chair, model of the atom. Birds and squirrels and bees and trees, you and me, electrons protons neutrons. Magic? Nature. Metro: weapons cost bullets, weapon mods cost bullets, bullets cost bullets, everything costs bullets. And since you also shoot bullets from guns you bought with bullets, it's an effective economy model. Chess doesn't have "just" six types of pieces because people couldn't come up with one more, I wouldn't want to play 47 piece type chess.

[AmericanSteel]

Just because the game offers us a few choices does not mean those should be the only choices.

Few choices, best choices. Starcraft: minerals, gas, supply, not sunshine uranium and science too. Forget strategy games, atoms, Nature itself works like this, it's where complexity comes from. Chair, model of the atom, chair, model of the atom. Birds and squirrels and bees and trees, you and me, electrons protons neutrons. Magic? Nature. Metro: weapons cost bullets, weapon mods cost bullets, bullets cost bullets, everything costs bullets. And since you also shoot bullets from guns you bought with bullets, it's an effective economy model. Chess doesn't have "just" six types of pieces because people couldn't come up with one more, I wouldn't want to play 47 piece type chess.

Few choices may not equal best choices...

Starcraft - By your analogy there should only be a few types of units.

Nature - Obfuscation answer. We may build on only a handful of subatomic particles but the interaction drives a periodic table of possibilities AND we are stilling finding new elements. So how is few, best here. Dunno. Seems like more.

Magic - No clue what you are saying

Metro: The economy is based off bullets. But there is a reason why the economy is based off bullets. They are few, far between and hard to get. We have a closet economy and they are a limited number of matches. Makes sense that matches should be the coin of the realm when we trade with other people. Also, we should only be able to use matches to start a fire. Or we could just use Nuka-Cola caps and be done with it.

Chess: Actually changed and evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years. Not an alpha just out of the gate. It also has an unlimited number or permutations based on the pieces and possible variations of moves. This does not remotely align with the definition of few. Fire starter (4 choices) x Tinder (2) x fuel (3) x Accelerant (binary, so 2) = not unlimited number of permutations. Also always ends with fire or no fire in 1 step.

All of these however do not point to a realistic system (except chess in a box) Lets look at realistic system: stock market, commodities, cars, boats, planes, food, clothing, words, even ideas. More choices are a good thing.

However, if we were stuck with only three choices... then I have better choices:

1. If I was given a choice between a magnifying glass and a simple hand drill, I would choose the drill. A bow drill is evidently WAY better than a magnifying glass. After all, we made fire for how many tens of thousands of years using one. Not only that, I can make a new hearth board and spindle anytime. I can also start a fire inside or outside. Magnifying glass can only be used outside and only in certain conditions. I have to find the magnifying glass. I can make the hearth board and spindle if I have a knife or an axe.

2. Between Matches and a zippo, I would choose a zippo. Matches have one strike, if they get wet they are useless and the striker can go bad. I can run a zippo case for years and refill it when needed (we already have lantern fuel). If it does get wet, I just dry it out for a day and then keep using it.

3. Firestarter I would leave alone.

[octavian]

Starcraft: All those units and strategies with just three resources.

Chess: All that complexity with just six types of pieces.

Nature: The periodic table with just three particles.

Metro: Postcards would be fewer, farther between and harder to find but you don't shoot postcards out of guns. It's a first person shooter where you shoot bullets out of guns. If this is not clear to you, I'm sorry.

Magic: Sarcasm.

If you disagree, fine, if you don't understand I can't explain it simpler that I already did and I have no interest in debating the obvious.

[Snoman]

Starcraft: All those units and strategies with just three resources.

Chess: All that complexity with just six types of pieces.

Nature: The periodic table with just three particles.

Metro: Postcards would be fewer, farther between and harder to find but you don't shoot postcards out of guns. It's a first person shooter where you shoot bullets out of guns. If this is not clear to you, I'm sorry.

Magic: Sarcasm.

If you disagree, fine, if you don't understand I can't explain it simpler that I already did and I have no interest in debating the obvious.

I would love a bow drill. I was just voicing an option. Call me nutz if you like, but to say that less is more when talking about a game. I just don't know what to say. In life we have many options some good and way to many bad ones. I think any game can only benefit from good and bad ideas getting discussed. With out free flowing ideas we would have never made the wheel or an airplane and o ya video games. I personally like the idea of there being bad ways to do a task and I'm talking a risk vers reward. If your desperate you will do any thing to stay warm. Let me gut the bear and crawl in to get out of the storm wolfs be damned.

[TWM]

The game would be much more realistic (and a little easier, but not "easy"), if we could actually do the things we could do in real life.

If I wanted 'realism' in a winter survival game, I'd move out to Ontario, Colorado or Finland.

What makes the game mechanics in TLD work so beautifully, is their simplicity and relative uniformity. Once you understand the UI for one item, you understand it for most.

It works the other way around as well. You want to fix your axe? Get some hardwood and 'scrap metal'; you want to make fishooks? Get some 'scrap metal'; you want to make arrows? 'Scrap metal'.

It's wonderful in it's simplicity, a child could understand it. I have one type of element with a universal use: I don't have to follow a course in electronics to find out how to get it to work; the only thing I have to worry about is that if I use it for this, I can no longer use it for that.

When I read these fairly convoluted schemes on the boards, requiring five to sixteen different parts and an elaborate set-up system, or an exhaustive mechanic regulating the players condition, or a tier system of craftables with different bonuses and drawbacks, I'm like:

Don't you get it man? It's the simplicity of the mechanics that makes this game work so well!

It allows you to get past the 'chores' and experience the world being created.

[Snoman]

When I read the outline for the game idea. A few things stick out to me and they are the reason I got the game. Now I know some things are going to need to be simplified. I just see so much potential with TLD I fear that keeping it simple will kill the game in the grand scheme of the idea. I'm not sure how they will make #3 work but it is with high hopes they do.

pulled from TLD web page

1.Exploration of an open world

2.Using survival skills to overcome hazards introduced by harsh weather, wildlife, lack of food and water, other survivors, and the mysterious aurorae that add unpredictability to an already extreme situation.

3.Morally challenging scenarios that push players to answer the question: “How far will you go to survive?

[TWM]

I would love a bow drill. (...) I personally like the idea of there being bad ways to do a task and I'm talking a risk vers reward.

I've seen people use these bow drills in survival documentaries, and that can take up anywhere from two hours to even nine hours to get such a thing going, if at all.

Let alone in winter conditions, when everything is wet.

I don't think it'd be much fun if we'd go for realism on that one.

Of course if they programmed it the way a hand drill or bow drill seems to work on shows like Dual Survival, yeah, sure, it'd be fun to have. I noticed after a 150 days or so, a lot of my matches are degrading, so it would be a reassuring thought to have a way to spark a flame when I'm all out...

If your desperate you will do any thing to stay warm. Let me gut the bear and crawl in to get out of the storm wolfs be damned.

Well that may sound like a fun extra, but of course, in programming the factor of cost/benefit ratio also applies. Does the added benefit really justify the manhours needed to add this feature?

There's also the matter of keeping a software program lean and mean. I'm running TLD on what's basically a laptop-grade processor, and I've already noticed over time, since a number of updates, my kit can't simply can't keep up, so I've had to set the display settings to 'low'.

Plus, once you'd add the possibility of using a bear cadaver for shelter, people would then reason you'd reek of meat, so they'd demand that once you did so, you'd attract wolves from far and wide. To counteract that, they'd require Hinterland the possibility to rub off the smell in the snow, or the ability to wash ones clothes (I've already seen people suggesting a 'hygiene bar').

You see where I'm going with this?

[Snoman]

I do see where your are coming from but hay its alpha if we don't ask we don't get. I would be deeply sadden if we got a bow drill and it only took a few mins to get fire.

[Boston123]

I do see where your are coming from but hay its alpha if we don't ask we don't get. I would be deeply sadden if we got a bow drill and it only took a few mins to get fire.

Note that it is indeed possible to start a fire in only a few minutes, or even less, using a bow drill.

You have to know what you are doing, of course, but since our character can repair a rifle with pieces from a lantern, and skin animals without "messing up" once, then it should be no issue.

In this video, the guy (who lives 2 towns over from me, coincidentally), starts a fire in only a few minutes, using a freshly-carved bow drill set in the pouring rain.

https://youtu.be/jAJZ-N9wqmA?t=404

[Snoman]

vary nice I will have to try that design. I have only ever done a split base and never with that kind of success.

[AmericanSteel]

Starcraft: All those units and strategies with just three resources.

Chess: All that complexity with just six types of pieces.

Nature: The periodic table with just three particles.

Metro: Postcards would be fewer, farther between and harder to find but you don't shoot postcards out of guns. It's a first person shooter where you shoot bullets out of guns. If this is not clear to you, I'm sorry.

Magic: Sarcasm.

If you disagree, fine, if you don't understand I can't explain it simpler that I already did and I have no interest in debating the obvious.

I was saying is you are mixing bullets with bear fat. You can't take the few options we have AND make the amount of choices you propose. It is just not there. Maybe later, but not right now. We are not talking about guts, leather and cloth = a expansive list of clothing choices.