Game to easy, Stalker needs way less animals

[selfless]

Reducing the amount of food is the only way to go. Now with all scrap metal also fishing a viable option since the hooks now are plentiful to create.

One catch with that arrow heads now are so scarce its that it will be much harder to hunt until you can go to the forge and mass create new ones. Time after time a arrow runs away from me that I never find again, with so few available... well this update makes it tougher, indeed.

So making arrowheads more scarce helps shift "too much meat" to more of a late game problem, yes?

[jumpingbean77]

I would think so, my feeling is that Hinterland don't really want to make the game harder at the end- quite the opposite. But this latest implementation with the forge does indeed makes the early-mid game harder. Even if I have crafted the bow I would be limited to 2-4 arrows if I initially stay at the same "world/area".

I have noticed that that arrow is more available as loot now and that bow spawn as a new thing. (can only speak for desolation point area) have not visited the other areas after the update yet.

But as I said, in every stage of the game it is to much meat walking around.

If Hinterland want to keep having the game hard early game (with the wolfs), there is no reason reducing the amount of animals available, but setting the respawn times longer or infinite would also make the game harder mid- to end game.

[xcrazydeathx]

I agree it is to easy. The arrow heads being made at the forge doesn't really cause a problem for experienced players since there's crazy amounts of scrap metal just stock up on arrow heads. I agree if wolf spawn were reduced it would cause more of a hunger issue but then you have the other affect of never having a issue of being attacked so then the game is more boring for another reason. Maybe if the wolfs were in more of a pack and more rare then when you do run into them you are in trouble might be a good way. I agree with rabbits you can survive of rabbits alone on the farm after you have 4 snares or more as long as you have fire water and snares your good. I think they should make stalker a lot harder there already 2 other modes for the players who want it easier. Make stalker harder for the players who want survival experience to be exactly what it says. This is just my opinion anyway. i love this game but honestly after you know the area and maps the challenge is mostly gone after you learn how to use supplies and know where your going. There are more stalker people then everyone realize i hope we aren't forgotten about.

[ChillPlayer]

I think I just found the perfect solution for the animal respawn issue that works for everyone, experienced players who last several hundred days and unexperienced players who barely make it to day 50 in Stalker: instead of setting respawn time to animals to a value that works for everyone, why not double or better yet tripple the respawn time with every kill of a specific instance of an animal?

Let's say you kill the wolf on the ML close to camp office, the first time it respawns after 3 days again if you've completely harvested it. The second time you kill it it respawns after 9 days, then after 27 days, then after 81 days and so on. With bears, quadrouple it after the first kill, triple after the second. This would prevent players who survive for long days to camp in one place and have a home delivery service for meat while others won't even reach the day where they are missing some animals.

What do you think?

[wolfstriked]

Bears:

- no respawns at all

- reduce the overall bear number to 8 animals in all maps all together. Make them spawn and patrol in (at least slightly) remote areas of these maps to make hunting them a challenge.

Deer:

- reduce their number to 1/3 of the current amount

- set their respawn timer to 50 days

Wolves:

- reduce their number to 1/2 of the current amount

- set their respawn timer to 25 days

Head out to search the far corners of the maps for big game,I like it.Also,make rabbit snare spots have less and less yields wherein you must search for new areas to spot them to set your traps.Leave fishing alone as its perfect and gives you a chance to string along for awhile....until rabbit guts run out.

Less and less game gives a reason for wolves to turn to hunting humans also.I will be honest and when I first tried Stalker my first thought was WTH they just added a ton of wolves to make it harder?I liked the less supplies feel but could do without the massive amount of wolves.

[wolfstriked]

Also,keep forgetting to post this....have it so recovering from low health or any ailment is not cured with a nights sleep.To allow this a not sleepy block should pop up if you try spamming sleep,maybe 8 hours every 24 is good.And the ability to only gain 1/4 health per nights sleep/no hunger/thirst.

Climbing over dangerous terrain and sprain your ankle then you should have to limp for a few days.Pain killers are not to allow you to run instantly again but rather to allow you to even walk.No painkillers and you must travel with limp worse than in game now and slower speed while if you do take some pain killers you get the ability to limp around that we have now with same speed....but running comes after a few days rest.

Dysentery/infections should last two rest cycles.Antibiotics cut it to only one rest cycle.

Wolf attacks,dehydration,starvation all are now very bad as you gain only 1/4 health per rest :twisted: ,

[signal]

How would the long respawn times work with wolves killing the deer? Can wolves kill a deer even if you're not there?

[Scyzara]

I think I just found the perfect solution for the animal respawn issue that works for everyone, experienced players who last several hundred days and unexperienced players who barely make it to day 50 in Stalker: instead of setting respawn time to animals to a value that works for everyone, why not double or better yet tripple the respawn time with every kill of a specific instance of an animal?

Let's say you kill the wolf on the ML close to camp office, the first time it respawns after 3 days again if you've completely harvested it. The second time you kill it it respawns after 9 days, then after 27 days, then after 81 days and so on. With bears, quadrouple it after the first kill, triple after the second. This would prevent players who survive for long days to camp in one place and have a home delivery service for meat while others won't even reach the day where they are missing some animals.

What do you think?

I like this idea quite a lot, especially in combination with a slightly reduced animal number. Nothing drastic, maybe 70% of how it is currently.

I've though this through a bit and the suggested system works well during the first about 500 days. It forces you to live a nomad's life and actively search for your prey, but if you adapt and do so, you will be fine. It would certainly enable you to find enough food until about day 500.

Afterwards (=when all day 240 respawns on all maps are killed and eaten up), food should turn into a limiting factor (I guess you planned it this way Chill, didn't you?) and the lack of prey might be your ticket into the long dark. (Which is a good thing that I appreciate very much).

The problem with this approach are the current perpetuum mobile rabbit snares that make it possible to survive eternally even after you're emptied your maps of everything else. To a lesser extent also fishing tackles as they work more or less the same way because of the ridiculously high amount of scrap metal.

In other words, your awesome suggestion would imho work best in combination with slightly reduced animal numbers and a rework of fishing tackles and rabbit snares.

How would the long respawn times work with wolves killing the deer? Can wolves kill a deer even if you're not there?

Afaik the game only simulates the map on which you're currently playing. Wolves thus shouldn't be able to kill deer on other maps. Regarding deer kills on your active map.. well, tough luck if they're faster than you, I guess. Might be a good idea to give deer the ability to outrun wolves, though. ATM the only outcome of such an encounter is a dead deer (which is convenient for wolf-deer combos) but certainly neither fun nor realistic. A 50% chance for the deer to escape the wolf would be better imo.

[Spottdrossel]

The problem with this approach are the current perpetuum mobile rabbit snares that make it possible to survive eternally even after you're emptied your maps of everything else. To a lesser extent also fishing tackles as they work more or less the same way because of the ridiculously high amount of scrap metal.

Those increasing respawn timers should also apply to rabbits of course.

Fishing would have to be modelled accordingly: The chance to catch a fish should be based on the total number of fish (which is unknown to the player). Catching one would reduce this number and when a fish respawns it is increased.

[octavian]

I would just like to point the obvious thing out that any shape or form of "less animals" means "less wolves" and since, obviously, wolf aggression plays, well, some role in their vision, things would get... a bit weird.

Because, let's face it, concerning the average new player, wolves are part of the main opposition if not the main opposition. Less wolves, less opposition.

Maybe I misunderstood, but if with every wolf you kill, you get more time without wolves, opposition decreases as you play.

And you can't really argue, opposition increased because of a shortage of food, because you're not really doing anything then. You either have food, or you don't, you either are in search for it, or you aren't. This isn't really "it" in terms of forces opposing the player.

So everything just winds down as you play, and everything becomes, thin and comatose.

Makes sense?

Afterthought: also, you could easily exploit this mechanic. Kill every wolf where it stands, whatever it takes, for all intents and purposes exterminating them for a time period, just so you have the freedom to explore. Because if your biggest problem is death by wolf, even if you don't eat them, there is enough food to last you for a long time. And if you need this kind of respite, then this is not the solution, I feel. Pilgrim is not a solution either, because you want the balance of voyageur or stalker.

Also, concerning the more experienced player, I don't really think it's a good idea because I don't think people, no offence, actually understand how boring it would be to arduously search for food. And I can only speak in the light of what's currently in the game.

Without any new mechanic, there would just be even less to do. When I suggested something similar, I was talking in the context of having fairly realistic weapon handling, where every action of the weapon is modeled, fairly realistic ballistics, and "infinite" ammo. Like in the bunker, boxes with boxes of rounds. The point being, the mechanics would have been such that you would have to practice shooting, just like in real life. So that when you do see the elusive meat, actually shooting it is a challenge in itself. And the practice is just the foreplay of the hunt.

Without "something else", how the game is now, it makes no sense to see a wolf in a blue moon. You know you're guaranteed to kill it. It even comes straight at you. So there is no tension. In the meantime, you're just waiting, or moving from map to map, killing somewhere else, waiting somewhere else, and so on.

[ChillPlayer]

@Octavian: as I know you haven't played v196 when PV was released, but that's exactly what I had in mind when I introduced my idea. Back then you would have your pack of wolves near Farmstead and a deer. You killed the deer and the wolves, slept for a week and... found yourself out of foodsources. No deer nor wolf was to be found and you had to get high up into the mountains searching for a bear or deer which usually got spoiled by a blizzard trapping you for hours or even days without food, wasting your bullets on a single wolf you encountered only to be out of food again two days later. That was pure desperation, you literally had to fight for your daily survival and it didn't come easy.

Wolves are no obstacle for any seasoned player, they are a food source. Hence my logic that unexperienced players won't go hunting wolves but instead will fear them and try to stay out of their way. They might kill the occasional wolf but that's about it. Experienced players do not fear wolves, they fear the lack of wolves and deer. Because this means getting out of your comfort zone and actually taking a risk. Being trapped in a blizzard due to hunger was the number one cause of death for many players in V196.

[jumpingbean77]

Octavian- Wolfes are no threat to an experienced player as ChillPlayer and many other states. For me wolves are only a problem until I get a bow, after that I see them only as a nuisance. Most often I don't even bother to harvest them after a while since I already has more pelts and guts than I could need (and food).

Stalker is for the seasoned player, and for the seasoned player the wolves are not a threat. Hinterland has obvious a wolf vision, and this is ok for the first few ingame days / weeks where they actually presents a threat. After that the game needs to made harder for the experienced player, bear in mind not for the levels easier than stalker.

So how to make the game harder and still leaving the fun be there, for me everything that forces me out in the nature is a good thing, because it is there where the threat is. Lying cosy in my hut with lots of food close by is not a challenge. If I would be forced to go out and hunt for longer periods the game would automatically be much harder since the environment is so harsh.

I would also love to see some more everyday chores, getting snow to melt, etc. as in the newly introduced wood gathering system.

[octavian]

@Chill: sure, I understand what you're saying, I can totally see where you're coming from.

On the other hand, I'm just trying to get the point across that I don't feel it's that enjoyable. No offence but, I simply wouldn't like it. Try to see things for my perspective. My question is, what's the point?

Let's forget about anything else except calories in terms of needs, just to make things easier, okay? Suppose, there's only calories, no thirst, no cold, nothing else. Let's also suppose all calories are made up of wolves, for the sake of simplicity.

So basically, you need calories to survive. Correct? And the issue some players draw attention to is that getting calories is too easy. There is an overabundance of wolves. Like I said, let's pretend all calories are wolves. So, too many wolves, correct? There is absolutely no challenge in getting calories.

So, let's make calories more scarce, whatever the means, because at this point there is no challenge. Correct? Well, you can do that if you don't change anything about the spawns, but make wolf meat have 100 calories per kg. Or 200. Whatever, just lower the calorie count of wolf meat.

I don't care about realism, just, let's just go with it.

Isn't the effect basically the same? Either, you kill a wolf, and its calories last you three days, or you kill three wolves, and their calories last you three days. Correct?

If you lower the calorie content enough, even with current spawns, it would become extremely hard just to stay alive. Correct?

So what you would have is constant hunting. Say, having to kill a wolf per day or die, and you'd just barely eek out a living. How is this different from, having to kill a wolf every week, and you'd just barely eek out a living?

The effect is still the same, you just barely eek out a living, what you have to do is different. Which is, the actual process of hunting. Hunting is what it all comes down to. The process of getting the calories.

You either shoot a wolf from your porch every day, or travel across all maps and shot one wolf, every week.

The point is, all you're doing is that you're looking for calories. You're not doing anything else, correct? Just getting enough calories is a struggle.

So you reach this point where just getting enough calories is a struggle. What then? You continue, survive more days, just barely, barely surviving, having to crisscross all maps to get the calories.

Is there something else you're doing? No, just getting the calories, just get enough calories to survive one more day.

Isn't this the saddest, most boring thing ever? What's the point? What's the reward? Just grind to increase a number, barely, just in constant "terror" you may or may not increase the number? What actual choices are you making, what decisions are you making, while all this is happening? How is your creativity put to the test? Your imagination? How are you feelings being played with? What will you learn from all this?

See, personally I don't think the elephant in the room, what I consider it to be at least, is ever addressed. Past managing our bars, there's no game, and since managing our bars is too easy, lets' make managing our bars harder. It's never, why isn't there anything past managing our bars? Once our bars are insured for the next 10 days, let's go do something that isn't managing our bars, but wait, there's nothing else, so instead of adding something else, let's make managing our bars harder, so we can beat the game with a stick until a better game comes out. But, nothing will come out.

See, I don't get why a survival game should be JUST about managing our bars. Whatever you do, you'll just tweak the bars. Sometimes, big words are mentioned, like atmosphere, or exploration. Really, really big words. But every single time, every single suggestion, is somehow related to the bars. I haven't seen a big discussion about atmosphere or exploration, I haven't seen one big push for something else than managing our bars.

For instance, a discussion about how to make exploration a thing once you already know the maps. When there is nothing more to explore, what can you do to not loose exploration from the game? Anyone? Ideas? No. That's really hard, it's really hard to come up with something that does that, keep you discovering, once you already discovered everything there is to discover. You'd have to basically tilt the entire game, and make the player see it completely different.

And because we have no ideas of this kind, let's just not worry about it, and just make managing the bars harder.

This is just how I feel. I can understand everyone, where they're coming from, what they want, I understand the bars, I understand the desire of survival, just pure survival. But, it's my opinion that if there's nothing else except that, it's not good enough.

Think of it this way, balance can always be done, theoretically. But you'll never, ever, have the other thing. The thing that doesn't exist. Like exploration, like atmosphere, playing with your emotions, taxing your imagination, and creativity, making you wonder. Nope, just the bars.

[ChillPlayer]

So, let's make calories more scarce, whatever the means, because at this point there is no challenge. Correct? Well, you can do that if you don't change anything about the spawns, but make wolf meat have 100 calories per kg.

I actually had a similar train of thoughts yesterday during sleep/eating for a few days. Reduce the amount of calories we get from meat or increase the amount we need to survive. But I think this wouldn't solve much as long as all the calories you need are in the vicinity of your safe camp.

You speak about exploration and that this is not happening if you know the maps already. But indeed it is, if you need to explore to find food. What I picture is a 3-400 days run where I haven't spent more than two or three weeks on the same place because everything I could get out of this place is vanished, either looted or killed. So I move on, see what the next place has to offer for me. Randomness in animal appearance would help alot too, sometimes there's a wolf pack in Quonset and sometimes the same pack camps up on Jackrabbits Island.

Managing bars would be the main driver of course because that's the very nature of this game, they are nothing but an abstract version of survival. It can be done, it has already been done to some extend in earlier versions, it'd be nice to come back to this again.

[octavian]

You speak about exploration and that this is not happening if you know the maps already. But indeed it is, if you need to explore to find food. What I picture is a 3-400 days run where I haven't spent more than two or three weeks on the same place because everything I could get out of this place is vanished, either looted or killed. So I move on, see what the next place has to offer for me. Randomness in animal appearance would help alot too, sometimes there's a wolf pack in Quonset and sometimes the same pack camps up on Jackrabbits Island.

What I meant by exploration is discovery. What you say is worse, in a way, you will know everything extremely well, the game will force you to do it.

All that would be left to "discover" will be an animal "here" rather than "there".

What I meant was, first time you played the game, exploring, discovering the world, literally. That feeling, that's what I'm talking about.

[ChillPlayer]

You will never get this feeling again in any game if you played it for several hundred hours, except of course procedural created maps. But I'm not asking for this, only that it stays fresh and presents me with new challenges and intense moments even after more than 300 hours on the clock. I am certain that any form of loot and animal reduction would accomplished that, because we already had this 70 versions ago.

[whisperwind777]

You will never get this feeling again in any game if you played it for several hundred hours, except of course procedural created maps. But I'm not asking for this, only that it stays fresh and presents me with new challenges and intense moments even after more than 300 hours on the clock. I am certain that any form of loot and animal reduction would accomplished that, because we already had this 70 versions ago.

Actually he has been expecting randomly generated maps. Too bad this game is not as simple as Diablo II in which the terrain doesn't has much impact on gameplay. In randomly generated maps of this game, you could possibly have 10 shelters together or no shelter around you at all. Not to mention the possibilities that players get trapped in randomly generated woods or canyons that are too big or too steep to get out. And besides all the above, the incoming bugs would take far more efforts to fix and those are more than the devs could afford.

[signal]

I think it's been said before in this thread, but:

* Having lots of wolves near your shelter is not dangerous. They make a steady food supply (too easy!), and reducing the amount of meat in a kill only makes the game more tedious.

* Travelling far from home to hunt is dangerous. The further we go, the more things can go wrong. It would be interesting gameplay. Force the player to travel further, like what changed with foraging wood.

My current play through example: Once I have all my gear crafted, the only interesting gameplay is going out to find more birch saplings. That means a lot of exploring the unfamiliar corners of the map. I got stuck in blizzards a few times, fight off some wolves, sprained ankles, it was fun. Give me more incentive to go on these long trips.

[octavian]

You will never get this feeling again in any game if you played it for several hundred hours, except of course procedural created maps. But I'm not asking for this, only that it stays fresh and presents me with new challenges and intense moments even after more than 300 hours on the clock. I am certain that any form of loot and animal reduction would accomplished that, because we already had this 70 versions ago.

Actually he has been expecting randomly generated maps. Too bad this game is not as simple as Diablo II in which the terrain doesn't has much impact on gameplay. In randomly generated maps of this game, you could possibly have 10 shelters together or no shelter around you at all. Not to mention the possibilities that players get trapped in randomly generated woods or canyons that are too big or too steep to get out. And besides all the above, the incoming bugs would take far more efforts to fix and those are more than the devs could afford.

@whisperwind777: Please, be civil and don't insult me, please don't tell others what I am expecting and not, because you are wrong, and do not know me, neither what I expect and don't expect, and haven't even been around long enough to even allow you to think you know me. The admins can consider I have flagged his or her response, I feel insulted, and my words twisted.

@ChillPlayer: See, I think it can be done, without procedural maps, but I'm amazed at how easily just talking and sharing ideas is dismissed, simply because you, or others, don't see a way, and you can only assume what you can only yourself see possible. That makes me, simply not see the point in actually, saying anything really.

Thanks.

[whisperwind777]

@whisperwind777: Please, be civil and don't insult me, please don't tell others what I am expecting and not, because you are wrong, and do not know me, neither what I expect and don't expect, and haven't even been around long enough to even allow you to think you know me. The admins can consider I have flagged his or her response, I feel insulted, and my words twisted.

Thanks.

You need to be left alone. Everything regarding your ideas is total offense because no one knows who you are. Grow up.

[jumpingbean77]

Octavian, your bar of being insulted are below normal. I personally don't see and feel ChillPlayer insulting you.

That being said, signal's point and mine and many others feeling is that being forced out to look for "insert obejct" is what is really fun and also dangerous. Looking for saplings, wood, a special tool that you need for something is what makes the game fun as it is right now.

Surviving is not about fast thrills, or i.e. the bar of what is a fast thrill gets lower since everything is so much more precious when you are desperate.

I'll give a example, in some indoor locations there is water available in the toilets, that may be good but is not really a treat. Say the water collection would be more realistic, say that you would be forced to go out and collect snow or ice and than heat this to get water. Add onto on this that we would not have unlimited amount of water bottles, then the free water inside the toilet would be a big score. (at least bigger than it is)

The same goes to meat/food. If I would need more time to find food I would appreciate food more, I would see a deer or wolf as precious and I would remember their location and save them until really needed. Now I always have food, to much food, that always is there, all the time. What's the challenge or realism in that.

No for me the long boring or fun walks trying to find food would in so many levels add to my fun and the games toughness.

[octavian]

Octavian, your bar of being insulted are below normal. I personally don't see and feel ChillPlayer insulting you.

I don't feel ChillPlayer insulted me, I don't see how it's not clear what I literally said.

To clarify, if for some reason it's not clear, I feel insulted by whisperwind777 saying I "have been expecting randomly generated maps," putting words in my mouth, because this is not what I have been expecting at all. So I addressed the issue, whisperwind777 does not know me, or could even have reason to believe he/shows me, so he/she could say what I have been expecting and what not.

In any case, let's move on past this "incident".

Sure, I understand what you're saying, but, like I said, you're talking about just the bars, I'm talking about how there's nothing beyond that. My question was, how come nobody wants anything else beside just ways to mange your bars.

[Scyzara]

Maybe you should simply tell the people what you had in mind when asking for more exploration of non-randomized maps.

It's a bit difficult to imagine how this should work if you're neither talking about searching prey or items nor actually discovering a truely new area.

The only thing I personally can think of would be if bunkers (or sth. similar) only spawned later during your game. So first you explore and loot everything (for tools, ammunition, etc.), then on day 100 a bunker spawns and you search everything again - but this time with a different intention and thus a different view for the landscape.

Replace the hypothetical bunker with another plane crash or an ice bear (=only one in game, extremely rare, needed to craft some fancy item) should you prefer this.

If this is not what you meant either, I suggest you simply tell everyone what you mean. The Devs can't consider your idea if you don't explain it.

Apart from that:

I agree that V.200 PV (=no animal respawns) was certainly fun to play. It didn't feel tedious for me to go on longer trips for food... I'd rather call it exciting. But one has to keep in mind that this was probably mainly due to the risk to be surprised by blizzards or fogs which is hardly possible any longer.

So in order to make long trips for food challenging and exciting, blizzards and fogs would need to become dangerous again. (Which I for one would prefer anyway, the current weather conditions in Stalker are more like a holiday than a survival experience.) Just sayin'.

[Spottdrossel]

Maybe you should simply tell the people what you had in mind when asking for more exploration of non-randomized maps.

Maybe that's because he doesn't have the answer.

Often the right question can drive us into the right direction the same way as a right answer does.

And to be honest I find Octavian's questions to be brilliant ones.

Alone the fact that most of the "respected players" can't even seem to grasp what he is asking for, let alone imagine how something like this could be possible, tells me that these are the right questions to ask.

[octavian]

I don't have the answer, I'm just asking the question, prompting a discussion. But I have already hinted at what I feel the answer could be.

"You'd have to basically tilt the entire game, and make the player see it completely different. "