Game to easy, Stalker needs way less animals


Recommended Posts

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.

Possibly they are, but another possibility (that shouldn't be neglected) is that there simply IS no answer for many of Octavian's questions. ;)

And I don't mean that no user here on the forums or no Dev can imagine the answer but that there really IS none.

Not every problem can be solved by asking the right questions or thinking about the problem for hours. One has to accept the possibility that certain problems might just be unsolvable (from nowaday's point of view at least).

This is more or less a philosophical issue (and I'm a rather pragmatic person), but I for one don't believe that the fact that no-one knows the answer to a question is inherently an indication of the question's meaningfullness.

Don't get me wrong, asking "out-of-the-box" questions is a great thing. In case that there really IS an answer to them they're often more helpful than normal questions. But to me it's not surprising at all that people might get these (very abstract) concepts wrong extremely easily. ;)

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

different. "

This is just what I mean. It is an awesome concept for sure and works great for story-driven games, but I don't believe that it makes a lot of sense to think that every awesome concept could possibly be applied to TLD if only someone thinks hard enough about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Possibly they are, but another possibility (that shouldn't be neglected) is that there simply IS no answer for many of Octavian's questions. ;)

And I don't mean that no user here on the forums or no Dev can imagine the answer but that there really IS none.

Not every problem can be solved by asking the right questions or thinking about the problem for hours. One has to accept the possibility that certain problems might just be unsolvable (from nowaday's point of view at least).

This is more or less a philosophical issue (and I'm a rather pragmatic person), but I for one don't believe that the fact that no-one knows the answer to a question is inherently an indication of the question's meaningfullness.

Don't get me wrong, asking "out-of-the-box" questions is a great thing. In case that there really IS an answer to them they're often more helpful than normal questions. But to me it's not surprising at all that people might get these (very abstract) concepts wrong extremely easily. ;)

Yet there is no proof that there is no answer.

There's not even an attempt to find an answer.

There is a single attempt to repeat a concept that has been heard/seen/experienced somewhere else (randomized maps) and then that's the end of it.

The most fancy thing people can imagine are static maps that were randomly generated, but they are still static.

Why are people so stuck at static maps? Is it because that's the only thing they know and have seen?

Is it because ultimately all they want is to learn these maps until they know them like the back of their hand and then formulate a plan that tells them how long to stay where, when to move, where to move, how fast to move, where to look for what?

All this without any surprises, without uncertainties.

Only to see who can formulate the most efficient plan and execute it best in order to achieve the longest run.

This whole approach has boredom and chore written all across.

Where is the surprise, the excitement, the unknown and the risk in this?

Can you imagine what a changing map could do?

What your plan would be if you knew that the map could and would change?

How you couldn't predict what to do when respawns wouldn't take X days but a random value?

When a stick wouldn't have a set burning time of X mins but a randomized value?

Right now we're playing spreadsheets.

Dressed to look like winter.

And we're trying to optimize the formulas and cell values to find the sweet spot that would bring excitement and fun.

"If only this value would be tuned to a lower value ..."

"If this formula's result would double every time it is called ..."

However this doesn't change that all those values are completely known (there is no way to hide them from players) and predictable.

And this "staticness" is where the problem comes from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An "easy" way it could be done is with NPCs.

The idea would be, do you know how, at the dam, there a kind of "story" going on? With the corpse, the door, the arrows, the torch, the scarf. It's not really a story, but the prototype of a story.

This could be done, organically. So you have a kind of NPC "sets" for which permutations are available, like with weather, just more complex.

So for instance you can go to DP, and when you go to, say, PV, you find a scarf in the snow, one that wasn't there before, and the signs that "something happened" like for instance cartridges on the ground.

It wouldn't be just that, it would be an entire "set", like a complete story, and you found just a piece of that story.

So the maps would stay exactly the same, but they would become alive in a way, because you would see signs of human activity, again, this is if NPCs are introduced in sandbox.

This gives way to infinity opportunities, like finding out, say, the camp office, is now burned to the ground. And you would also be able to find out why someone did that, it wouldn't be just a random thing, it would be, like I said, a kind of story.

This is one of the ways you can have exploration and discovery be a thing even after you know all the maps.

And this works well this the fact you can't be in more than one place at one time. Anything can happen on the other maps when you're not there. Or even with you there.

Couple this kind of unseen element with the usual NPC mechanics we know, like seeing them and interacting with them, and you have something you could work with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion in this thread has spun off from my Original Statement.

Hinterland has made the game as it is, I am not here to invent a completely new gameplay in this thread.

I clearly say that Stalker is to easy, I argue not so much over immersion or having the same feeling through the game as the first 1-2 days in the game.

If we take what we have in the game, and should modify this slightly, one perfect way is to reduce the amount of animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
However this doesn't change that all those values are completely known (there is no way to hide them from players) and predictable.

And this "staticness" is where the problem comes from.

Totally agree. I think a good way to introduce randomness and difficulty without breaking the game mechanics is to put more effort into the animal behavior. Right now they are just meat-bags. After a while, I know which zones are "safe", where wolves never go. I know where there'll be both deer and wolves so I can hunt efficiently.

What if we have wolf packs that move over a much larger area? Single wolves howl for back-up before taking you on? Two or three wolves sharing a killed deer, so it would be much harder for you to steal the kill? Groups of deer moving to other locations when then run out of grass to eat? Bears attracted to the scent of fish?

I just want a game where the things I need for survival, after 100 days, are not always at the same place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello All,

I have so far survived 200 days on voyager, then I killed my self to continue on stalker mode.

I had at the time good stats and no foreseeable death ( I would guess + 1000 days)

Now I play on stalker, close to 100days. (also with more than enough of everything)

It is so much food (especially wolfs are so easy to kill) Approach a wolf, drop a kg of meat, step back, shoot and kill.

I'm confused....... or am I missing something???

Shooting wolf ... or dear is easy until you run out of bullets right??? Or do bullets just keep respawning on the maps so you have an infinite supply??

Because in my opinion .... there should only be a certain amount of bullets you can find on the maps and when they are gone....................they're gone!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of bullets is limited, but quite big. Usually about 100-150 rounds if you search all maps thoroughly.

Plus another 120 arrows or whatever their average number may be. (Please note that one birch sapling equals 3 arrow shafts and that one arrow is sufficient to kill about 3 animals before the shaft breaks).

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a "New Player", I've read a lot of these posts from the experienced players about how "Stalker Mode" is too easy .............

Here's my suggestion Devs............ Stick it to em!!!

Just tweak the wolves and bears so that if you can see them......they can see you.... and they'll be coming!!

Make it so wolves and bears will react to you and come for you from a lot farther distance in "Stalker".

As for me........ I'm still struggling to get past 70 days in Voyager so I have a hard time relating to someone who thinks "Stalker" is too easy. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
As a "New Player", I've read a lot of these posts from the experienced players about how "Stalker Mode" is too easy .............

... I have a hard time relating to someone who thinks "Stalker" is too easy. :)

One may move from Voyager to Stalker because one has learned the ways of the game and now knows how to deal with the limits of wolf behavior. Unfortunately, all one will find in Stalker is that many wolves have been replaced by three wolves.

However, if one was able to avoid/distract/murder one wolf having learned the game's mechanics, it is not so difficult to then avoid/distract/murder three wolves. Now, if killing wolves is your tactic, you are rewarded with 3 times as much meat and pelts as when you played Voyager. And meat and pelt requirements are still pretty much the same as before. So, more wolves is not so much a challenge. It becomes a comedy of riches.

What Stalker needs is not more dumb wolves. It needs smart wolves.

Or less daylight :twisted:

Link to post
Share on other sites
.

What Stalker needs is not more dumb wolves. It needs smart wolves.

Or less daylight :twisted:

I can't tell you how many wolves I've blown the heads off of because they don't have any other tactic other than "charge right at you". I understand (even if I don't entirely agree with) that the wolves are going to be antagonistic in this game, but I don't see why they have to be so stupid. Why can't we have pack-tactics, flanking, harrying, and ambushing, again?

One thing that REALLY grinds my gears is how the "decoy" mechanic works. Now, "in real life" wolves are pretty damn smart, and they know to prioritize targets. In-game, a wolf will charge you, only to stop and start eating in the middle of an attack :roll: . Now, I also know why that mechanic is in-game, but it really shouldn't work quite like that......

Oh, and I had a 15-hour day yesterday. We have that in SUMMER in New England. 6 hour days, please! Then we would actually be forced to stay outdoors at night, rather than 99% of the time it being a deliberate choice....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will put my vote in for less wolves and deer,or at least spawn rates that are longer.I always try to avoid wolves unless i need food,then i will hunt them.They are more of a nuisance than anything.Im at trappers cabin and just walked outside,wolf comes charging up,"pow",arrow to the head and there he lays at my doorstep.That wasnt to hard!Go to unnammed pond in the hunting stand and i have 3-4 of them circling me!what the hell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually, in all seriousness, finding Pilgrim more difficult than Voyager or Stalker at this point, all due to the fact that wolves and bears actually run away from you, instead of coming to you.

In Pilgrim, you actually have to sneak up on the wolves and bears, in order to get an effective shot with an arrow. Any other time, they run away from you once you get within 50 yards or so, which actually makes hunting them FAR more difficult.

If I could get a game mode with "Pilgrim"-style animals and "Voyager/Stalker"-style loot amounts and weather, I would be happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am actually, in all seriousness, finding Pilgrim more difficult than Voyager or Stalker at this point, all due to the fact that wolves and bears actually run away from you, instead of coming to you.

In Pilgrim, you actually have to sneak up on the wolves and bears, in order to get an effective shot with an arrow. Any other time, they run away from you once you get within 50 yards or so, which actually makes hunting them FAR more difficult.

If I could get a game mode with "Pilgrim"-style animals and "Voyager/Stalker"-style loot amounts and weather, I would be happy.

But definitely take the calorie burn and water consumption from Stalker.

Pilgrim is just too easy on that aspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Please excuse me if my response seems "over simplified".

But it seems to me the easiest way to make Stalker mode more difficult for the hard core players would be to reduce "all resources" by 50% to 75%.

Make it so you catch half as many fish at a fishing hole, half as many deer & wolves on all maps.....

Half as much loot, half as many curtains and chairs you can harvest into cloth, half as much antibiotics and pain killers, ..........

Fires last half as long .......... No re-spawning coal ........ Wood takes 2 or 3 times longer to re-spawn.....

Wolf attacks 50% more harsh!

In fact....... make there be a 10% chance that a wolf attack is FATAL!

THAT would change some attitudes about stalker being too easy!!

and so on.........

In all honesty, that's probably how it should be in the first place.....................

Pilgrim mode 100% resources, Voyager Mode 75% resources, Stalker Mode 50% resources,

Stalker Extreme mode :twisted: 25% resources!!

I believe the DEVS could make Stalker Mode really tough .......... if they chose to, buy doing nothing more than changing the loot and resource percentages................... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please excuse me if my response seems "over simplified".

But it seems to me the easiest way to make Stalker mode more difficult for the hard core players would be to reduce "all resources" by 50% to 75%.

That's already done - In Stalker you'll find many containers are empty already, and your hunger/thirst/fatigue drain much faster than in Voyageur or Pilgrim.

The tricky part about difficulty is that the challenges that are presented by the game are different depending on where you are in the game.

When you just drop in, Stalker is unforgiving. Day or night, the ambient temperature is going to lead to freezing in minutes, so finding shelter, being able to build a fire, upgrading your clothing - these are all key early objectives. Having a fire means getting fresh water too, and food is your only other major worry. Navigating the world and avoiding wolves are necessary survival skills you should have learned from earlier runs - there is no time to be lost, and you can't rely on being able to find things you need when you need them. If you're not prepared for blood loss and infection risk, you will likely die.

Contrast this with Pilgrim, where you seem to be able to traverse most of the map in sub-zero temperatures before your cold bar completely fills and starts eating away at condition, and most containers have something in them. This means the first aid kit will likely have what you need, the fridge will have food, the closet will have clothes. You can get completely lost for hours, stumble upon a shack, and you'll probably have food and medicine waiting for you.

Mid-game is where the crafting happens - when you have your immediate needs met and you're constructing a bow and arrows, as well as the top tier clothing. Stalker extends the timeframe because of the increased fatigue/hunger/thirst requirements, forcing you to play a little bit more cautiously. In any difficulty, surviving the early game generally means the mid-game is also survivable, it just comes down to patience and planning.

The late game, when you have everything, is just a matter of renewable resources. Maintaining your equipment, getting food, staying alive.

I like the idea of shorter days for Stalker, as this extends the time to late game further. But I think it is a solid suggestion that difficulty tweaks come down to the variety and number of fauna and their behaviour, as this is the most significant constant that we know alters the late game, which is where the challenge of Stalker drops away. I'm not convinced about just transplanting Pilgrim wolf behaviour, as this would have consequences for early and mid game.

The real interesting part about Stalker is, let's say you want to get from Trapper's Homestead to Quonset Gas station: You need to plan your route from one safe interior to the next. You need to think about what equipment you're going to need and what you can leave behind, how much food and water to take, knowing it's not likely that you'll be able to carry enough to take you all the way there (or you may not have that much spare), and reacting as you hit a snowstorm halfway through, or have to detour around a wolf pack.

Lowered carry weight, less predictable day/night cycles, and some less predictable wolf AI would go someway to keeping things interesting. The decisions you have to make to stay alive while achieving your objectives are the interesting thing, and it is a delicate balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am actually, in all seriousness, finding Pilgrim more difficult than Voyager or Stalker at this point, all due to the fact that wolves and bears actually run away from you, instead of coming to you.

In Pilgrim, you actually have to sneak up on the wolves and bears, in order to get an effective shot with an arrow. Any other time, they run away from you once you get within 50 yards or so, which actually makes hunting them FAR more difficult.

If I could get a game mode with "Pilgrim"-style animals and "Voyager/Stalker"-style loot amounts and weather, I would be happy.

But definitely take the calorie burn and water consumption from Stalker.

Pilgrim is just too easy on that aspect.

I know that most of you don't play Pilgrim mode very much as it isn't all that challenging without the constant threat of "When Animals Attack," but I totally agree that I am finding hunting wolves and hunting in general, to be a lot more challenging in Pilgrim mode, especially when using a bow. Mostly because unless you are crouched they wont come anywhere near you and to make a single shot insta-kill, you have to be pretty close. I have especially been enjoying "steering" the wolves to my favorite vantage point so that I am not to far from my front door for when I do put an arrow into one. LOL

I agree that I too, would like to see a little more difficulty introduced into the Pilgrim mode especially like calorie burn and water consumption. Cold weather caloric and hydration requirements are greatly increased especially when temperatures are below 32F/0C. Considering the environment that we are surviving in, I could see it being closer to 5K in calories considering I am covering up to 5 kilometers a day running after game and searching for feathers. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a lot less wolves and the amount of damage they inflict go up higher. I think its just there are so many and there a easy target, i think if they was harder to kill or traveled around in packs so you would have to try and single one out to hunt it for food would help 1 is easy to kill but 3 at the same time would make me look somewhere else for my next meal. As for the bears i see them as a big issue also if you know were to stand you can kill at least 3 that i know of 2 on ml and 1 on pv that you are in no danger at all from being attacked, so with there spawn rate someone can exploit that and live on bear meat for a very long time, when each kill only takes 1 bullet for 30kg of meat i think the exploits people can use to hunt them needs addressed also.

Link to post
Share on other sites