I kinda think hunger levels rise too quickly...

[Lamoi]

This character is clearly quite a hog when it comes to food. I mean he requires food almost every hour. I just think this needs to be adjusted, it becomes a bit relentless. I'm playing on medium difficulty...

I mean too venison steaks cooked, should easily see you for one whole day... Maybe with a granola bar.

"And it’s there where The Long Dark takes some curious liberties, because intuitively, we know that you shouldn’t have to eat a dozen energy bars and a pound of venison to sustain yourself day-to-day. We know a crowbar doesn’t lose half its integrity after being used to pry open a couple of lockers. " GameSpot

This game definately needs tweaking.

[Lamoi]

I just ate a cooked venison steak.......... Barely did anything to my hunger levels. THIS IS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT.

That's ridiculous.

[Kaisentlaia]

Quoting from a comment I posted on reddit a while ago, a guy made a photography book about average meals around the world. This carver from Canada usually eats 4700 calories in a day, he probably lives in a heated house and doesn't run around in deep snow with 30kgs of gear every day. Considering this the calories consumption in the game could even be a little on the low side.

What's not realistic is the calories/weight ratio, especially for meat... but that exists for balance reasons. If you could harvest all the meat from a deer, let's say it weights 80kgs, you would get something like 25kgs of boneless meat. At 1200 calories/kg (more or less) just one kill would keep you going for many days. Let's not even mention bears. The game would be pretty dull IMO, for me it already gets boring every time I kill and harvest a bear and then I don't have to worry about food for a long time.

[selfless]

The attribute bar to which you are referring is Fullness, not Hunger. Hunger is the condition you feel just before Starvation starts. You may choose to be gluttonous and always keep your belly full to capacity, or you may more realisticly allow it to empty occasionally before stuffing it full again, perhaps even experiencing some Starvation which easily repairs with sleep.

Yes, resources are consumed more quickly in the game environment. This is a trade between keeping resource availability interesting while time compression is minimized to maintain a realistic experience. (Note: Realistic = illusion of realism, not real at all)

How would you play if upon entering a store you found 10 cartons of jerky and 25 cases of soda which took you 100 game hours to consume? You might get a little punchy until you realized that healing and injuries had been normalized too and that gash in your stomach will be healing for just as long (and your missing arm is not regrowing, what?!?). Likewise if it took ten hours of gameplay to find one day's rations.

Put away the high school science notes and enjoy the experience you are being offered and maybe stop trying to revive opinion articles that were written 9 months ago...

[ChillPlayer]

I mean too venison steaks cooked, should easily see you for one whole day... Maybe with a granola bar.

1 cooked Venison = 800kcal

2 granola bar = 250kcal (IIRC)

so in your example you have an intake of 1850kcal. Sleeping 12hours burns 700kcal - don't know what your problem is.

Of coure if you are running around naked (and freezing) all day long you will need much more cals, the game is realistic in that regard. Therefore you're requested to manage your intake and burning of cals, as you'd be expected in a real survival situation.

The numbers are not very realistic though, a kg of venison most probably has more than 800kcal but that's just for balancing the game. In fact the numbers don't matter much, just the fact that sleeping burns considerably less cals than being active.

[Boston123]

Quoting from a comment I posted on reddit a while ago, a guy made a photography book about average meals around the world. This carver from Canada usually eats 4700 calories in a day, he probably lives in a heated house and doesn't run around in deep snow with 30kgs of gear every day. Considering this the calories consumption in the game could even be a little on the low side.

What's not realistic is the calories/weight ratio, especially for meat... but that exists for balance reasons. If you could harvest all the meat from a deer, let's say it weights 80kgs, you would get something like 25kgs of boneless meat. At 1200 calories/kg (more or less) just one kill would keep you going for many days. Let's not even mention bears. The game would be pretty dull IMO, for me it already gets boring every time I kill and harvest a bear and then I don't have to worry about food for a long time.

Animals should provide a realistic level of food (which actually is not "just" meat, but also organs, fats, and bone marrow). On the flipside, actual hunting should be realistically difficult. Seeing a deer should be an awesome moment, not the "meh" that it currently is. Case in point: I personally have seen several deer on the screen at the same time in Pleasant Valley. All within 200 meters of each other. Not realistic.

Right now you can literally leave the front door of your base, and chances are you will see an animal that can be shot and killed from your stoop. This both makes the game "stupid easy" (shoot. butcher. sleep. repeat) and makes the game boring. If you actually had to go out hunting for game, stalking it over several days, the game would both be more difficult and more interesting.

So, a deer (or other animal) would provide a realistic level of meat (or "food), but, you would have to make that stretch for a longer amount of time

[Bill Tarling]

actual hunting should be realistically difficult. Seeing a deer should be an awesome moment, not the "meh" that it currently is.

There are hunting games for that...

While the deer, wolves, and wildlife are a big part of the game, they aren't the main focus.

The Long Dark isn't meant to be a Simulator... it uses Simulation aspects, but that's completely different from a Simulator. They need to balance aspects of realism with game play.

[Boston123]

actual hunting should be realistically difficult. Seeing a deer should be an awesome moment, not the "meh" that it currently is.

There are hunting games for that...

While the deer, wolves, and wildlife are a big part of the game, they aren't the main focus.

Then what, exactly, is the main focus? Survival? This will never be a "survival game" if all you have to do to survive is leave the front door of your cabin and press the mouse button.

Take a look at the series "The Last Alaskans", a documentary-ish series about a set of families living close to/above the Arctic Circle in .... Alaska. To all of them, even though they have stockpiles of supplies from town, hunting large game is survival. They all say at some point that without hunting and trapping (and they don't trap only rabbits, but wolves, lynx, beaver, etc), they wouldn't be able to live out there. Lack of available game is a serious concern for several of the families, and this is in a situation where they have snowmachines and bushplanes, to cover tens/hundreds of miles of trapping/hunting country.

Edit: and to me, the "game-play" would be much better balanced by tying it to actual survival mechanics. Tell me, what would happen to the game if there was a dearth of game to hunt, and you ran out of "packaged food"? What would happen if you actually had to hunt game, stalk it, and there be an actual pressure to succeed, instead of the current "fill up a fridge with tens of kilograms of deer, wolf, and bear meat because hunting is so easy"? Would the game be better, or worse?

What is one of the major issues players have when it comes to the "end-game", when they are set up in a base with supplies? Boredom, due to lack of challenge and "things to do". What could alleviate this boredom? Actually difficult (realistic) hunting, combined with "realistic" energy and food requirements. If you needed 5000 kCal a day, just as a base (which is not that unreasonable in TLD's environment), and you could only get a couple hundred kCal from rabbits and fish, AND you haven't seen a deer in a week, what would you do? Would you be "bored"?

That, my friend, sounds like an actual survival game.

[ChillPlayer]

What would happen if you actually had to hunt game, stalk it, and there be an actual pressure to succeed, instead of the current "fill up a fridge with tens of kilograms of deer, wolf, and bear meat because hunting is so easy"? Would the game be better, or worse?

This points actually to an issue I have with recent changes: respawn times for game are way to short. I remember a time where I hated to stay in PV simply because after a week or two you couldn't find anything to hunt. But now the devs overdid it imo, 5 days (afaik) respawn for a bear is just too short, it should be 50-100 days and then you get the stress of finding food - surviving - you (and I ) are longing for back.

[Bill Tarling]

respawn times for game are way to short. I remember a time where I hated to stay in PV simply because after a week or two you couldn't find anything to hunt. 5 days (afaik) respawn for a bear is just too short, it should be 50-100 days

Again though, for gameplay purposes it wouldn't work well... One of the original issues with bear kills was that they weren't respawning, so if your bear died and you couldn't find it, you had no way of completing some of your crafting [i.e. it defeated any reason to try crafting].

I agree they respawn a little too easily (especially given how each wolf and bear can be safely killed with one shot just by standing in a safe spot), but I think (random time) 7-21 days would be more workable. A lot of players don't make it to 50-100 days, so that long of a wait for respawn means if you lose a bear, there's no real reason/incentive to waste time of effort towards gathering what's needed for crafting - and it also removes travel danger.

Eventually they will likely adjust the AI and safe killing zone exploits (as well as other mechanics), so they're bound to try a couple of extreme variations over the next couple of updates to gauge where the balance should be.

[ChillPlayer]

I agree they respawn a little too easily (especially given how each wolf and bear can be safely killed with one shot just by standing in a safe spot), but I think (random time) 7-21 days would be more workable. A lot of players don't make it to 50-100 days, so that long of a wait for respawn means if you lose a bear, there's no real reason/incentive to waste time of effort towards gathering what's needed for crafting - and it also removes travel danger.

Or let the respawn times scale with difficulty, like 7-21 days for Voyageur and 25-50 (or more) for Stalker. I mean there are, last I counted, 4 bears in PV, each gives you around 30KG of meat which results in 15 days worth of food when only sleeping. In theory you could survive in PV 50-60 days only from bear meat while sleeping (and then die out of bordedom). Obviously most people won't do this but it would be a start to base respawn times around. Also, there are bears now in ML and CH too, there's no need to wait for a bear respawning in PV if you just need the pelt.

(Some) peope are complaining that the game is too easy because they just need to step outside the door and shoot, then go back to sleep. Others complain that there are too many wolves to travel safely around. The scarcitiy of food in PV on the other hand was what made this map so appealing for people seeking a truer experience, where you actually had to work to fill your stomach. Now that appeal is somewhat gone. With a balance approached that takes into account what you get from an animal, how many animals there are and when you will "need" more animals, I believe you could actually satisfy most people.

[Scyzara]

(Some) peope are complaining that the game is too easy because they just need to step outside the door and shoot, then go back to sleep. Others complain that there are too many wolves to travel safely around. The scarcitiy of food in PV on the other hand was what made this map so appealing for people seeking a truer experience, where you actually had to work to fill your stomach. Now that appeal is somewhat gone. With a balance approached that takes into account what you get from an animal, how many animals there are and when you will "need" more animals, I believe you could actually satisfy most people.

I completely agree with every single word. Pleasant valley was (by far) most fun for me to play right after its release when it didn't have any animal respawns at all. Simply because the increasing lack of prey forced you to venture further and further away from your base during the course of your game in order to acquire enough food. With wolf numbers decimated and bears hunted into extinction, the most dangerous enemies you had to face were actually blizzards and starvation. These were great times for me.

Some time later 3-day respawn timers were introduced and various player gave feedback in these forums that they would very much prefer longer respawn timers, at least for Stalker and Pleasant Valley. Unfortunately, instead of the requested longer respawn timers (= increased food scarcity) we even got free bear steaks walking around in close proximity to buildings in every single map (= complete food abundance) now.

This spoils a whole lot of fun for me at the moment and is the main reason why I haven't been playing much lately. Maybe it's just me, but I for one have most fun playing a survival game when I actually have to struggle for survival and need to take risks in order to acquire my food. When I'm forced to make tough decisions and feel emotions like desperation and inner conflict.

Not when my food is served to me on a silver plate in such abundance that I can't even eat up a bear's meat before it already respawns again.

To cut a long story short: I very much support longer animal respawn timers for Stalker, especially way longer timers for bears.

[Shanti]

respawn times for game are way to short. I remember a time where I hated to stay in PV simply because after a week or two you couldn't find anything to hunt. 5 days (afaik) respawn for a bear is just too short, it should be 50-100 days

Again though, for gameplay purposes it wouldn't work well... One of the original issues with bear kills was that they weren't respawning, so if your bear died and you couldn't find it, you had no way of completing some of your crafting [i.e. it defeated any reason to try crafting].

I agree they respawn a little too easily (especially given how each wolf and bear can be safely killed with one shot just by standing in a safe spot), but I think (random time) 7-21 days would be more workable. A lot of players don't make it to 50-100 days, so that long of a wait for respawn means if you lose a bear, there's no real reason/incentive to waste time of effort towards gathering what's needed for crafting - and it also removes travel danger.

Eventually they will likely adjust the AI and safe killing zone exploits (as well as other mechanics), so they're bound to try a couple of extreme variations over the next couple of updates to gauge where the balance should be.

Maybe this applies on the lower difficulties, but by the time you get to stalker, shouldn't you be responsible for tracking your bear once you shoot it? The whole point at that difficulty is that you have to do everything perfect, or know how and where to go to try again if you mess up!

I guess at the end of the day, my votes are:

+1 to more calorie consumption / day

+1 to more realistic caloric density & meat per animal

+1 to more realistic numbers and behaviors of animals

I'm not afraid of TLD incorporating more elements of a hunting simulator. We already have incredibly complex options when it comes to wolves, why not extend that to the other wildlife?

In my opinion, survival is, and therefore TLD should be, primarily about the weather. After that, resources. And hunting plays such a huge role in resource gathering, that giving it more depth, adding more challenge, and above all, giving the player more meaningful choices is absolutely key to making TLD an amazing game.

All that said, these are all comments about the sandbox game play, which is entire mechanic dependent. With a story line, many of these flaws can be ignored, although that will seriously reduce it's replay value to me.

[Lamoi]

I think what I'm talking about is balancing the game, so I have a chance to breath, and take in the experience a little more. I just feel that I having to pause the game whilst I think about what to do next, if I stand still infront of the fire, my hunger and thirst levels are rising at what feel like a comedic rate.

I LOVE this game but I think I would prefer to balance of being able to customise the difficulty. Because at the moment I'm doing pretty well, but am thinking I'd probly be more suited to 'easy' difficulty, whilst I'm learning the ropes. But then wildlife don't attack you! Which is just boring.

[Lamoi]

I for one have most fun playing a survival game when I actually have to struggle for survival and need to take risks in order to acquire my food. When I'm forced to make tough decisions and feel emotions like desperation and inner conflict.

Altho I do agree with this sentiment.

[Shanti]

I think what I'm talking about is balancing the game, so I have a chance to breath, and take in the experience a little more. I just feel that I having to pause the game whilst I think about what to do next, if I stand still infront of the fire, my hunger and thirst levels are rising at what feel like a comedic rate.

I LOVE this game but I think I would prefer to balance of being able to customise the difficulty. Because at the moment I'm doing pretty well, but am thinking I'd probly be more suited to 'easy' difficulty, whilst I'm learning the ropes. But then wildlife don't attack you! Which is just boring.

Don't be afraid to play on pilgrim, it's a vastly different experience. My first game every, I chose voyager, and almost had a panic attack every time I had to stop and calculate how far I could walk until I started starving, or if I need two pieces of wood to boil enough water, all the while, I was getting colder, more hungry, etc.

I played my next game on pilgrim, and like you think, found it boring. But, it did give me an experience of being in the game, and not feel like I'm dying, which allowed me to ease into the game, so that I could play again on voyager and not get super stressed out by everything. I personally try to keep myself at 100% condition, but playing on pilgrim reminded me that you don't die as soon as you start starving, or being dehydrated, or even freezing. By using my condition as a bit of a buffer (I try to keep myself above 90% at all times), it gives me a bit more breathing room. I can't recommend letting it drop into the 70's or even the 50's like some people do - that seems to be a death sentence when a wolf does finally get your scent.

My main complaint with pilgrim is that everything gets easier. You can run all day long and not get fatigued. You barely need any food and water, and your resistance to the cold is amazing. I wish that the "survival" mechanics for pilgrim were exactly like voyager, except with non-hostile wildlife. That way you could learn the survival bits, before adding in the complexity of mean wolves and hungry bears. But that's my own $0.02...