Scrap metal ridiculousness

[Spottdrossel]

What you guys are asking for is essentially a 4th difficulty level.

Resources are maybe 25% of what they are in Stalker.

Random events occur every "in game week" which can both benefit but also harm the player, a bad storm blows over a bunch of trees and gives free wood to be harvested, or it snows really bad and you cant fix any sticks for two days and all teh traps are buried in snow.

Where food poisoning and wolf bites are much more dangerous.

Where the effect of clothing is halved and you are constantly on the lookout for making fire and warming up and trying to survive.

Where sleep recovers you but at half the rates in Stalker.

Is this what you want?

I'll guess there is no clear "that's what we want" because there are too many different opinions.

Personally I'd prefer a less "arcadey" approach, meaning

not being able to heal back from a wolf attack in just a few hours of sleep,

not having tools that need to be repaired after a few days of use,

not having clothes that you can watch fall apart in a storm,

not being able to repair just about everything with a piece of metal and a toolbox,

not drowning in cloth, scrap metal, wolf meat, deer skin and cured guts,

not being able to boil 5 liters of water when I don't have a vessel holding that much liquid,

not being able to devour 3 kg of meat in 20 minutes,

not being dehydrated to the point of losing health when missing half a liter of water.

I don't really care if this is a another mode or an adjustment of an existing one.

[Scyzara]

@Octavian

I pretty much assume that Raph (or whoever is responsible for the general gameplay design) is aware that the current TLD is supplying players with enough resources (not only scrap metal, but also ammunition, medicine, etc.) to make mid-game last more than 10.000 days. I also assume that he knows that playing 10.000 days takes about 500-3000 real life hours (depending on your playstyle).

I furthermore assume that he - for whatever odd reason that is completely beyond my personal imagination - seems to find such a ridiculously long game duration a good idea and "fun to play", otherwise he would change it and not move more and more into the direction of infinite survival with every darn patch.

My point is simply that I (and pretty much everyone else to whom I ever talked about it) completely and wholeheartedly disagrees with the assumption that infinite survival is fun. Neither is prey or item overabundance. If you never run out of anything, heck not even start to ever really NEED anything, exploring becomes pointless and choices meaningless.

One example to explain what I mean:

If I have 2 pieces of scrap metal it can mean the difference between life and death whether I use it to repair my hatchet, craft a fishing tackle or repair my rifle. I have to make a choice and gauge whether my need for fuel (or water), food or security is highest. If I on the other hand have 200 pieces of scrap metal instead I simply do all of the above and make no choices at all.

The very same thing is true for the difference between 2 and 200 rifle rounds. If I have 200 bullets, it doesn't matter if I miss a shot. I don't feel nervous at all while aiming because I know that I will survive no matter whether I hit or not. I also don't have to care if the deer, wolf or bear drops dead instantly, because I can simply ignore them if they run away. Why bother to follow their blood trail if I can simply use another of my 200 bullets to shoot another wolf around the next corner.

My point is: If there are no meaningful choices to be made, no hardships and shortages to be endured and no dangers to be braved, even the best-looking survival game soon becomes boring as hell. That's why 80% of the users who post here on the forums are more or less new to the game and why rather few people play it on a daily basis. Most of the people who survive for more than 200 days simply feel bored afterwards and stop playing because they don't see any point in grinding their way through an eternal mid-game for another few thousend days.

The reason why many players keep saying "I liked version XY better" is not because everything in these versions was better, but because they were more fun to play for them. And if you find making choices (and thus item scarcity) fun, you will automatically find various gameply decisions made between V. 152 and 265 NOT fun.

It's just incredibly frustrating to see the game improve on various (imho) "minor" areas like UI, graphics, running and foraging system, weather, etc. while the (imho) utmost important aspect why I personally bought TLD - feeling challenged and thus having fun - dwindles away more and more with every single update.

The current TLD (as awesome as it looks and as smooth and convenient as it can be played) is simply not at all what I had in mind when I read the reviews about this game one year ago and decided to buy it.

Tough luck for me, I guess. But hey, that's some feedback as well: The game has developed into a direction (convenience>challenge) that I wouldn't have forseen in my wildest dreams about one year ago.

@KDB7BCH

It doesn't matter to me any more how exactly this issue might be adressed. I'm indifferent whether the Devs might decide to change Stalker mode (so that it actually fits its describtion again x-x) or add a forth mode or give us a slider to choose the amount of items and prey.

I would gladly accept any solution that makes TLD challenging and gameplay decisions meaningful again.

Even if this "solution" would be nothing but access to old (early alpha) game versions.

Like probably everyone else here I just want to have fun while playing and an environment that drowns me in literally everything is no fun at all for me. If I wanted to manage a few bars and be happy about satisfying my character's needs with a few easy clicks day after day and year after year, I would rather play "the Sims" and not TLD.

[octavian]

@Scyzara: I don't buy that.

Where were those fabled players when I was harping everyday about choices, about balance, about exploits that are not addressed, about game design, where were those fabled players when I was, for all intents and purposes, threatened, that if I continue to "belittle" the studio I will get banned, in a complete disregard of the forum rules as they themselves have written them?

All because I voiced my opinion that the game is becoming what you're now saying it has become.

Nowhere to be found.

What about the wolf mash RNG fest I took the time to elaborate. Who supported that? Sure, some may not like the mash, although that's a dead topic now, but what about the RNG? That post got zero support. So I guess, all these fabled players like the RNG fest.

Take this topic, your topic. Where are those fabled players now? Not here. Or, is this all of us?

So it's just me an you and a few other people? Well, that's why the response was "thanks for the feedback, it's been passed along."

[bethany]

@Scyzara: I don't buy that.

Where were those fabled players when I was harping everyday about choices, about balance, about exploits that are not addressed, about game design, where were those fabled players when I was, for all intents and purposes, threatened, that if I continue to "belittle" the studio I will get banned, in a complete disregard of the forum rules as they themselves have written them?

All because I voiced my opinion that the game is becoming what you're now saying it has become.

Nowhere to be found.

What about the wolf mash RNG fest I took the time to elaborate. Who supported that? Sure, some may not like the mash, although that's a dead topic now, but what about the RNG? That post got zero support. So I guess, all these fabled players like the RNG fest.

Take this topic, your topic. Where are those fabled players now? Not here. Or, is this all of us?

So it's just me an you and a few other people? Well, that's why the response was "thanks for the feedback, it's been passed along."

Octavian, it is my job to assess and share feedback. I would rather tell Scyzara that the feedback was shared (and it was -- I immediately shared a link to the discussion with the team) than say nothing at all. I may not always have a fully fledged response to share in cases like these, where the topic itself is based on player opinion, but I do always want the community to know they're being heard. These are not empty words.

That being said, we do not take feedback and immediately run to change things. Each mechanic is a thought out and carefully planned decision, and I would like you to consider something Raphael said to you... As I don't want to dig through the posts, I'll paraphrase, but he told you what you are witnessing is essentially a moment in time for a game that is not yet complete. We are always excited and happy to hear feedback, but not in a manner that suggests that us not adding or changing specific things is a sign of us being dismissive, neglectful, or ignorant. Many of the things you have mentioned in the past exist the way they do for reasons that will become more clear as we get closer to full release.

As to the banning: You and I have had numerous conversations about tone and approach. While you are entitled to your opinion, it is extremely discouraging to come here and see you express love and excitement over the game, only to turn around and essentially badmouth the team. For all of the late nights they put in, and hard work they put forth, I personally feel it is extremely disrespectful to suggest that they do not listen to or care about their players. You personally have had direct interaction with myself, our technical team, and even our creative director. You know your voice is being heard. I'm sorry if we're not living up to certain expectations you've set, but we're certainly doing our best to make a game we hope people will love in the end. I don't think it is unreasonable of me to be open about the fact that unwarranted negativity towards the team and studio is not a welcome discussion in these forums.

I apologize for slightly derailing this thread. Scyzara, I have absolutely heard you (and everyone else!), and as I said before, I passed along this thread as soon as it came to my attention. More than anything, I shared this to point back to the discussions regarding what some players feel to be an overabundance of resources and wildlife in Stalker -- I know there have been additional comments about long-term gameplay, but I feel like access to resources is the core of this discussion. Please correct me if you feel otherwise.

As days survived is currently the most popular way players measure their success, we felt we wanted to offer opportunities for those players to expand their time even further, if they choose to do so. As I pointed out before, things are obviously still growing and changing. We'll see what happens.

As always, if anyone has any questions or comments, you can feel free to PM me. I'm always happy to talk.

I'll let you guys continue your discussion now, but I ask that you remember the team is pouring their hearts into this game, and that they love and appreciate the community more than almost any other developer I've seen. I have never been part of a group with so many hard workers, and I really feel that it is a disservice to them if I do not come to their defense, particularly when other community members are messaging me to say how upset they are by some of the comments being made.

Thanks, guys. Have a great weekend.

[DrMembrane]

I'm annoyed at people like chill bitching at basically any time a game isn't gruelingly hard cause of the random number generators happened to have done well. Seriously, if you don't think the last update deep forest made it harder, not easier, you're not playing the same game I am.

[lupineways]

I am a first time poster but I have put a significant amount of time into TLD. I have been a forum lurker for some time but I tend to keep my thoughts to myself. I for one feel this is a very important topic to be digested by the development team. It is not just scrap metal I am talking about so if someone feels there is a better topic for this to be shared in, I am happy to re-post.

In any case, I do not have a clear understanding of what the final vision of the game is but the current abundance of resources definitely makes the game quickly get boring once you establish yourself. It is not longer a struggle to survive, it becomes a struggle push your self to repeat routines to eek out a few more days. No doubt, the game can be an exciting struggle to survive at the beginning of a play run and even more so for new players learning the mechanics and maps.

Maybe the development team have a vision to address the resource abundance issue mid game by adding a few new mechanics that would challenge the players. Perhaps these mechanics would require resources in larger quantities, or threaten those resources in other ways. I don't know exactly what that would be but I have seen other survival games do well in keeping the pressure on players over time. Don't Starve did this well as they added more content. They added threats to the player that increased over time and threatened their accumulated resources. I think increasing mid-game threats would be the ideal solution to resource abundances. I don't want to necessarily struggle to survive because I cannot find wood or metal when it is clearly all around me, but I do want to struggle. Make me use the resources and make me have to fight to go get more. And make that fight to obtain and keep resources harder and riskier. But, by all means, do so while keeping as closely aligned to the development teams vision for the game.

I hope this feedback has been valuable to the community and development team.

[Patrick Carlson]

Hi lupineways,

Welcome to the forums and thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. Regarding your comments on keeping the pressure on players, what is the "mid-game" to you? I'm sure this is different for everyone but I was curious how and where you situate that point.

[lupineways]

Hi Patrick,

Thank you for following up on my comments.

I generally consider mid-game the point where I have almost everything I need to survive and I only need to go out to hunt for food and gather wood for extended periods of time. Usually this means I have the crafted clothing, a stock pile of cloth and scrap metal and all of the basic tools/weapons. This can happen within the first 20 to 30 days. Then a routine sets in. I don't need anything but food and wood for the next 50 to 100 days I can easily meet my characters survival needs without engaging in much risky behavior like facing the wilderness for extended periods of time to explore for additional resource. So a routine like the following easily sets in - hunt, gather wood, eat, sleep, fire for water/food (but by then I probably have a huge stock of water too, why waste those fires?). Sure that routine gets broken up a bit to repair clothing and tools. The first thing I am likely to need to explore more for is matches and that is more due to their degradation than needing to use that many over time. I intentionally leave matches on the ground untouched and don't loot containers that commonly hold matches to go back for later.

And as a final note, there is a lot to love about this game and I definitely got my moneys worth already. A more thrilling experience for long term sandbox play would definitely add that much more value to me. I know story mode is to come, of which I am very excited for the possibilities. I suspect that story mode will probably change the experience quite a bit. My comments are mostly regarding a survival sandbox experience.

[KD7BCH]

People are passionate about the game.

I mean in no way disrespect to the team when I say I agree that the game has gotten to be too easy on the hardest mode, too comfortable.

Aside from cheap ways to die in the game, I feel the experience is too manageable, in that once you learn how to do it after 50 attempts you are unlikely to continues dying early.

I know it is a game first simulator second, however I feel that the game is strongest when it leans more towards the simulator side than the game side. I also feel that the game is superior when the environment acts "more real" than less real. Changes like smoother weather transitions, and torches that give off heat, are smart "more real" changes that make sense and improve the game. At the same time they make it easier for the player to endure than it once was.

I am in agreement with those who would rather see the development shift slightly more towards the simulator side, in having to collect containers for water, and having to accumulate snow, and also a dry/wet meter. I really really like the currently layout of the UI, but I wish we had a 5th meter to go with it as it really is the missing piece of the simulation. I do like the ability to place objects as well but we need more development on that as well as right now I am finding it difficult to make it work.

The excess of materials on maps is something that should be evaluated and re-balanced.

Back to the topic of adding more simulation aspects... I think this would be good not just because it is where the game is strongest but also because the added difficulty would make surviving even once you reach that point more difficult. Getting water, getting food, getting materials, it is all pretty easy at this time once you have made some investments. There need to be more things to invest in and there need to be more things that can go wrong. I also think being able to start a fire should not rely on the sun or matches so much as being able to craft your own fire making equipment and I am surprised this is not in the game yet as of .256. Firemaking in this way though difficult to master and should be a low success option early on where you would practice indoors would make for an option that would create incentive for "long term" investments which would prolong your survivability and make the sandbox more fun.

[Bill Tarling]

I know it is a game first simulator second (...) I am in agreement with those who would rather see the development shift slightly more towards the simulator sid

Just a side note: it never was intended to be a "simulator"

Personally I agree towards a harder preference - but I doubt very much they're about to scrap plans to put out the intended game in order to switch to a different genre release. The game has some survival aspects, but that's very different than making a simulator type game.

Just wanted to point that out before the whole "this is suppose to be a survival simulator" arguments erupt on the forum(s) again.

As for the long term gameplay survival portion, again I prefer harder conditions. Now with that being said, the devs need to run extremes [too much/too little] in order to determine where final levels need to be balanced. If you did each setting and mechanic just a little at a time, you would be looking at years and years of adjusting (by which time you've missed the release window).

As well, we don't know what they have planned ahead with the NPC [quite possible they may introduce some into the sandbox mode to also compete for resources] -- but either way, the devs have extensive experience, and will make the decision of what they feel is an appropriate level for each mode.

They'll also be taking into account that serious hardcore mode players are a very very small portion of the total players [they've tracked the levels throughout the development so far].

One final reminder is that the sandbox was originally only intended to provide one or two dozen hours of gameplay once fully completed... naturally they've expanded the game far beyond the original plans, but that's still important to realize since all the foundations are meant to fit the needs of the main Story Mode just ahead.

A lot may change between now and then (for better or worse), but current releases and versions were never intended to represent final settings or versions.

[Spottdrossel]

I know it is a game first simulator second (...) I am in agreement with those who would rather see the development shift slightly more towards the simulator sid

Just a side note: it never was intended to be a "simulator"

"The Long Dark is a thoughtful, exploration focused survival simulation set in the

Northern wilderness in the aftermath of a global disaster."

http://hinterlandgames.com/the-long-dark/

"THE LONG DARK, a first-person post-disaster survival sim"

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hinterlandgames/the-long-dark-a-first-person-post-disaster-surviva/description

I hope we're not arguing semantics here, that a "sim" or "simulation" is not a "simulator", but something different.

"It's not a simulator" has become a common argument and people use it to defend all kinds of game mechanics and design decisions. Yet when you look back at the earliest descriptions and goals this word pops up from time to time.

You won't find it on Steam and probably not here on the forums and somehow people seem to have forgotten about everything else.

So why is it suddenly "not a sim" and even "never intended to be a simulator"?!

Was the description on kick-starter misleading? Just a trick to get people interested?

Is Hinterland's website for TLD simply mistaken or intentionally lying?

[Bill Tarling]

@Spottdrossel

There's a big difference between "a simulator" and "simulation"

[Spottdrossel]

@Scyzara: I don't buy that.

Where were those fabled players when I was harping everyday about choices, about balance, about exploits that are not addressed, about game design, where were those fabled players when I was, for all intents and purposes, threatened, that if I continue to "belittle" the studio I will get banned, in a complete disregard of the forum rules as they themselves have written them?

All because I voiced my opinion that the game is becoming what you're now saying it has become.

Nowhere to be found.

What about the wolf mash RNG fest I took the time to elaborate. Who supported that? Sure, some may not like the mash, although that's a dead topic now, but what about the RNG? That post got zero support. So I guess, all these fabled players like the RNG fest.

Take this topic, your topic. Where are those fabled players now? Not here. Or, is this all of us?

So it's just me an you and a few other people? Well, that's why the response was "thanks for the feedback, it's been passed along."

Octavian, it is my job to assess and share feedback. I would rather tell Scyzara that the feedback was shared (and it was -- I immediately shared a link to the discussion with the team) than say nothing at all. I may not always have a fully fledged response to share in cases like these, where the topic itself is based on player opinion, but I do always want the community to know they're being heard. These are not empty words.

That being said, we do not take feedback and immediately run to change things. Each mechanic is a thought out and carefully planned decision, and I would like you to consider something Raphael said to you... As I don't want to dig through the posts, I'll paraphrase, but he told you what you are witnessing is essentially a moment in time for a game that is not yet complete. We are always excited and happy to hear feedback, but not in a manner that suggests that us not adding or changing specific things is a sign of us being dismissive, neglectful, or ignorant. Many of the things you have mentioned in the past exist the way they do for reasons that will become more clear as we get closer to full release.

As to the banning: You and I have had numerous conversations about tone and approach. While you are entitled to your opinion, it is extremely discouraging to come here and see you express love and excitement over the game, only to turn around and essentially badmouth the team. For all of the late nights they put in, and hard work they put forth, I personally feel it is extremely disrespectful to suggest that they do not listen to or care about their players. You personally have had direct interaction with myself, our technical team, and even our creative director. You know your voice is being heard. I'm sorry if we're not living up to certain expectations you've set, but we're certainly doing our best to make a game we hope people will love in the end. I don't think it is unreasonable of me to be open about the fact that unwarranted negativity towards the team and studio is not a welcome discussion in these forums.

I apologize for slightly derailing this thread. Scyzara, I have absolutely heard you (and everyone else!), and as I said before, I passed along this thread as soon as it came to my attention. More than anything, I shared this to point back to the discussions regarding what some players feel to be an overabundance of resources and wildlife in Stalker -- I know there have been additional comments about long-term gameplay, but I feel like access to resources is the core of this discussion. Please correct me if you feel otherwise.

As days survived is currently the most popular way players measure their success, we felt we wanted to offer opportunities for those players to expand their time even further, if they choose to do so. As I pointed out before, things are obviously still growing and changing. We'll see what happens.

As always, if anyone has any questions or comments, you can feel free to PM me. I'm always happy to talk.

I'll let you guys continue your discussion now, but I ask that you remember the team is pouring their hearts into this game, and that they love and appreciate the community more than almost any other developer I've seen. I have never been part of a group with so many hard workers, and I really feel that it is a disservice to them if I do not come to their defense, particularly when other community members are messaging me to say how upset they are by some of the comments being made.

Thanks, guys. Have a great weekend.

There are a couple of points I'd like to address in a very short manner.

The posts in this thread tend to become longer and longer.

The problem with "Your feedback has been passed along" is that more often than not this does not result in addressing the problem - either at all or in a way that "works" for some players. For me, this phrase has become a "Got it. Now stop talking about it".

The problem with "Our reasons will become clear soon" is that I feel we're going into the wrong direction.

It's like telling someone driving straight away from the airport is the best way to catch your plane on time. Usually it isn't. I also don't believe in "it has to get worse before it can become better".

If you know how to the get it right in the final release, why can't you make it right (or just better) now?

The problem with "Don't express negativity about the game or team, they are working so hard" is that it is a logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity). I'm not here to buy "hard work" or "long nights" or "sweat and tears". I'm here to buy and play a game. Something that has been described in a certain way and which we're now expecting in such a fashion.

Personally I love the concept of TLD (the "thoughful exploration and survival sim"). That concept is impeccable. The game and team are not.

The problem with "I feel like access to resources is the core of this discussion" is that more often than not I have the feeling that the players are so much faster in dissecting the game's concepts and mechanics and formulating an opinion than the developer.

I do not know why, but it feels like we need to explain your own product to you, so you can understand how to improve it and for me this is a stark contrast to the "we're industry veterans" message that keeps getting attached to every other news item and trailer.

[Spottdrossel]

@Spottdrossel

There's a big difference between "a simulator" and "simulation"

Care to explain this big difference?

[Bill Tarling]

@Spottdrossel

There's a big difference between "a simulator" and "simulation"

Care to explain this big difference?

A simulator is specifically designed to recreate the realistic conditions and experience in as complete detail as possible. A simulation represents aspects, but is not trying to represent itself as actual conditions or approaches to use (it uses a lot of deviations for gameplay purpose rather than strictly realism).

"The Hunter" would be a good example of a game that is quite like a simulator style game because it strives to recreate and include as many of the realistic conditions as possible (with the least possible deviations for gameplay/programing use).

The original Flight Simulator by Microsoft would classify as a simulator approach because it strove to recreate each step as best possible). The Sims is an example of a simulation game [not reality restricted]

[Spottdrossel]

@Spottdrossel

There's a big difference between "a simulator" and "simulation"

Care to explain this big difference?

A simulator is specifically designed to recreate the realistic conditions and experience in as complete detail as possible. A simulation represents aspects, but is not trying to represent itself as actual conditions or approaches to use (it uses a lot of deviations for gameplay purpose rather than strictly realism).

"The Hunter" would be a good example of a game that is quite like a simulator style game because it strives to recreate and include as many of the realistic conditions as possible (with the least possible deviations for gameplay/programing use).

The original Flight Simulator by Microsoft would classify as a simulator approach because it strove to recreate each step as best possible). The Sims is an example of a simulation game [not reality restricted]

You're describing a gradual difference, not a conceptual one, which makes it hard to tell things apart.

I was going to ask about inconsistencies in your explanation, but came to realize that I disagree with so many of your posts, that it really doesn't matter any more.

[ChillPlayer]

Huch emotions are rising high in this topic... :roll:

Let me try one more time to defend my position. First and foremost I will never tire to acknowledge the incredible work the devs have put into TLD, it's an amazing game by all means and have gifted many of us with some of the most intense moments ever presented in a game, it was very polished right from the start and all in all works perfectly. That's a huge accomplishment hinterland has achieved and after all it's why I still stick around and argue about certain aspects of the game.

Of course I see that the devs need to try to figure out the right settings and toy around with min/max values to find a middleground, I also understand that it's only alpha and due to change drastically with every update. But... there's always a but I play the game since December last year and up until April this year, 4-5 months, it was a tremendous challenge to only survive for 100 days. But since then, around v200 I see this challenge getting patched away with every update and I begin to fear that this is the direction the devs are heading, so I voice my concerns. I just don't get why "Stalker" needs to become more accesible if that's what they are trying to achieve, it wasn't impossible before just a true challenge.

All my arguments are only about Stalker, not Voyageur or Pilgrim. Maybe if the different modes would've been called "easy", "normal", "hard" we wouldn't have this argument because no one would want the "hard" mode to be more easy. But some players feel entitled to be playing the game on "hard" right for the start and from my point of view - which is a simple outside view that compares 5 months of intense gameplay to 5 months of virtually all tension gone - the devs seem to buy into those players.

With every update I am reading the patchnotes in hope for the "magic" addition or feature so that all this abundance of everything finally makes sense again, something that prevents me from camping for eternity in Farmstead and hunt a bear ever other week, something that keeps me on my toes again, that makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something. I still have faith that this update will come, but I also believe that the issue has to be voiced by those who feel the same, otherwise TLD will become a quick fix that players play for 1-2 months and then put aside. The potential is there for TLD to be a long runner that people play for years, but not if the biggest challenge the game sets is to be able to stare at a black screen for hours.

Lastly, this is and always has been a very friendly community. Sure ever so often someone arises from the dark (pun intended) to stir up the pot and begins attacking people on a personal level but please, stop this! Neither the devs nor the players who are passionate about TLD deserve the hate and we as a community accomplish more if we work together and discuss certain aspects of the game in a civilized manner. In the end the devs are making the decision how the game develops - the name "dev" implies that - and all we can provide is feedback. Attacking others personally helps no one.

[Kaisentlaia]

All my arguments are only about Stalker, not Voyageur or Pilgrim.

Same here, and I think that's the point many are missing in this thread. At first there were no difficulty levels, they have been added because some players wanted an easier game and others wanted it harder. Of course right now many play on Voyageur which is the "original" difficulty setting and how the devs intended the game, which is awesome, and of course there are few of us playing on stalker but... it's for us that stalker was born in the first place. Let Voyageur be full of loot and food, I don't care. Is it the way it's intended? That's awesome. Are players and devs happy with it? Yay! I'm not asking for anything here, I'm just saying that having the hard mode being hard again would be great.

[Scyzara]

Wow, this thread has really turned into one of the most active ones in months. Thanks for the various participations and opinions, I assume they show the relevance of certain things for many players (and I'm definitely not only talking about scrap metal here^^).

@Scyzara: I don't buy that.

Where were those fabled players when I was harping everyday about choices, about balance, about exploits that are not addressed, about game design, where were those fabled players when I was, for all intents and purposes, threatened, that if I continue to "belittle" the studio I will get banned, in a complete disregard of the forum rules as they themselves have written them?

All because I voiced my opinion that the game is becoming what you're now saying it has become.

You need to be more patient. This thread is only two days old (one day when you posted) and many players only visit the forums once per week or even month. They will add their voices here (or in other threads) sooner or later, but you can't expect this to happen in an instant. As to the question why there was rather few support for some your own posts: I can try to explain my opinion about this problem to you in detail in a PM, if you like. The (over)simplified version is: Most people probably don't understand your writing style and don't get what you mean or want. Sometimes I don't understand your intention and/or point either. Moreover, many people probably don't read your posts thoroughly because they're often extraordinary long. I'm telling you this openly because I know that you know that I don't intend any offense at all here. I'm just being honest with you (as I would like others to be honest with me). Should you want to discuss this further, I suggest we continue our talk via PM.

I apologize for slightly derailing this thread. Scyzara, I have absolutely heard you (and everyone else!), and as I said before, I passed along this thread as soon as it came to my attention. More than anything, I shared this to point back to the discussions regarding what some players feel to be an overabundance of resources and wildlife in Stalker -- I know there have been additional comments about long-term gameplay, but I feel like access to resources is the core of this discussion. Please correct me if you feel otherwise.

I appreciate your commitment for these Forums and its community very much, Bethany. You're doing your job (to filter and pass comments to the Devs) more than just well in my opinion. It is true that the original point of this thread was to give the Devs some feedback that there is a massive overabundence of resources (e.g. scrap metal) in V. 265 Stalker mode in my opinion.

The problem is that this overabundance is only a problem because it makes the game non-challenging and stretches mid-game into all eternity. It's impossible to draw a line and say "comments about Stalker difficulty or desirable game duration belong into another thread" in my humble opinion as all of these different aspects are directly linked together via the amount of available resources.

I'd like to emphasize that I don't want to disrespect the Dev's work or commitment for their game in any way. I'm seeing all of the hundreds of tiny detail improvements (like eg. the new font when you enter a new region in V.265, the new bird voices or the nocturnal shadow effects during certain moon and cloud conditions as well as the more obvious UI and gameplay changes) and I appreciate all of them very much. One can see that the Hinterland's team is putting a whole lot of work into this game which is getting better and more polished with every Update regarding its details and immersiveness.

It's just that I know from my own experiences (I'm no game developer but a scientist ofc, but I don't think it matters much in this very context) that it can easily happen to you that you lose your view for the big picture while you're perfecting and polishing details. Everyone who ever planed and coordinated a bigger project at work knows this.

And I'm damn afraid that you might realize some day that you're running out of time to change fundamental core game aspects because you've spent a lot of time and commitment and hard work to polish things that finally turn out to be mere details. This is just my very personal fear and I'll be happy if you prove me wrong at some point in the future.

TLD is one of the best games I've ever played and I would find it very tragic to witness how it might become another mainstream title that people play for two weeks, then get bored and forget about it.

If I was to express my feelings in a metaphor I would say that I have the feeling that TLD is like a new car model that is improved in various areas constantly without improving the really important aspects of a car. It's great if each new prototype that we're allowed to test includes new cool features like a parking assist system, a fancy new car paint, an automatic gearbox and whatever else, but all of this is not what makes a car FUN (or secure) to drive. I just don't want TLD to end up as fancy-looking and awesomely convenient SUV but with a weak engine and neither good brakes nor airbags.

Geez, how I already know that good old Hotzn is gonna chaff me because of this metaphor. :lol:

One final reminder is that the sandbox was originally only intended to provide one or two dozen hours of gameplay once fully completed...

Ironically, that's actually what I for one would be most happy about. A sandbox game duration of maybe 20 or 50 hours that allows you to experience early, mid AND late game in a reasonable amount of real life time. I'm very grateful that I had a really long run during a TLD version in which it was actually still possible to run out of resources and thus experience the late game phase. This phase was not only a new and (awe-)inspiring TLD experience for me but also great fun. I find it a real pity that it is no longer possible to experience these final moments of desperation, struggle (and finally acceptance and peace) any more. Infinite survival took away a lot of the game's philosophical depth for me.

All my arguments are only about Stalker, not Voyageur or Pilgrim.

Same here, and I think that's the point many are missing in this thread.

Absolutely this. I'm totally indifferent about the amount of items and prey in Pilgrim and Voyageur mode and I would never arrogate the right to suggest changes for a mode that I haven't tested extensively myself during the last months. Simply because I don't feel capable of judging in which direction the gameplay is developing.

I'm sorry if I haven't made this clear enough during my previous posts, but all my comments about item or prey overabundance were related to the current state of Stalker mode only.

[whisperwind777]

Ironically, that's actually what I for one would be most happy about. A sandbox game duration of maybe 20 or 50 hours that allows you to experience early, mid AND late game in a reasonable amount of real life time. I'm very grateful that I had a really long run during a TLD version in which it was actually still possible to run out of resources and thus experience the late game phase. This phase was not only a new and (awe-)inspiring TLD experience for me but also great fun. I find it a real pity that it is no longer possible to experience these final moments of desperation, struggle (and finally acceptance and peace) any more. Infinite survival took away a lot of the game's philosophical depth for me.

Like I said, I could survive 1000 days in ML, CH and PV without respawn, theoratically. Now we have DP as a new region and there will possibly be more in the future. Even without respawn, I can live permenantly as long as new regions be released.

Well, now do you still think No Animal Respawn is too much for Stalker? Since all you expect is to deplete resources in less than 50 hours? 50 hours are barely enough to empty all preys in ML and CH.

[Scyzara]

My personal preference how to combat prey overabundance would be a combination of less animals and longer respawn timers as I described it here.

The actually limiting factor in this approach isn't the overall animal number, but the overall amount of bullets, saplings, medicine, scrap metal, etc.

In order to balance the amount of these resources for a game duration of about 50 hours their current numbers would have to be decreased drastically of course.

It's much more work than preventing animals from respawning for sure. I just like this particular approach better because it would probably give you some feeling of accomplishment (and thus make you happy) if you manage to find one of the (very rare) bullets or sapling or hatchets available.

Not like nowadays when you pick up everything - or even leave it be because you don't care - without ever feeling happy about your findings because you already have plenty of that item anyway.

But current animal numbers and no animal respawn at all (as you suggest it) would work as well, you're right about that.

Both suggestions are different means to achieve the same goal (= make prey scarce and valuable). It's more or less a matter of personal taste which of them you prefer. I could gladly live with your solution as well.

[Patrick Carlson]

Thanks everyone for your contributions to this thread. Your passion and interest in the game is welcome and appreciated.

Just to respond to a point made above by @Spottdrossel, when we say "your feedback has been passed along," that's exactly what has happened. It's been communicated to members of the technical and creative team. It does not, and never will mean, "stop talking about it."

Feedback, like the development of the game itself, is a process, and not a simple transaction. Rest assured, comments on resource abundance, game balance, ect. are definitely on the minds of the development team.

Thanks again.

-Patrick

[Patrick Carlson]

Hi Patrick,

Thank you for following up on my comments.

I generally consider mid-game the point where I have almost everything I need to survive and I only need to go out to hunt for food and gather wood for extended periods of time. Usually this means I have the crafted clothing, a stock pile of cloth and scrap metal and all of the basic tools/weapons. This can happen within the first 20 to 30 days. Then a routine sets in. I don't need anything but food and wood for the next 50 to 100 days I can easily meet my characters survival needs without engaging in much risky behavior like facing the wilderness for extended periods of time to explore for additional resource. So a routine like the following easily sets in - hunt, gather wood, eat, sleep, fire for water/food (but by then I probably have a huge stock of water too, why waste those fires?). Sure that routine gets broken up a bit to repair clothing and tools. The first thing I am likely to need to explore more for is matches and that is more due to their degradation than needing to use that many over time. I intentionally leave matches on the ground untouched and don't loot containers that commonly hold matches to go back for later.

And as a final note, there is a lot to love about this game and I definitely got my moneys worth already. A more thrilling experience for long term sandbox play would definitely add that much more value to me. I know story mode is to come, of which I am very excited for the possibilities. I suspect that story mode will probably change the experience quite a bit. My comments are mostly regarding a survival sandbox experience.

Thanks for clarifying this. I know my own definition of "mid-game" has changed drastically since I started in the first Early Access version a year ago. I would probably put it around 15-20 days for my typical games at the moment, but then part of what I enjoy about The Long Dark is taking risks and seeing if I can pull through the challenges I setup for myself. (I usually don't, but hey, that's what I like to do ) Obviously there are players who stretch each game to amazing lengths to push the boundaries and it's clear that resource abundance plays a huge role in what that experience is like.

[rw28]

@Scyzara - I've come to really appreciate and respect your posts. They are well written and well thought out and my thoughts and feelings on the matter are very much in alignment with yours. Thank you for taking the time and effort to continue pushing for a better Stalker experience.

The emotions in this thread are a great indicator of just how good and how special The Long Dark really is. It's great that people care and feel so strongly about this game, and I'm no exception to that. Many of the posts here come off in a negative light, but they stem from a great admiration. I think the frustration, disappointment and disheartening attitudes can be explained quite simply. We love the game, we've played it for countless hours and we are eager to continue playing it. One thing has to change first though, and that's a very drastic reduction in the amount of loot and animals in Stalker. Unless that happens, even with updates that add new items or maps, it's still very much a "been there, done that" scenario.

I understand that the players who want this the most are the very small minority, and Hinterland is mostly focused on their majority player base. That makes perfect sense, and I understand that. Whatever happens with the game in the future, I'm extremely happy and thankful for the experience I got. I bought this game during the Steam holiday sale and got nearly 250 hours out of it already. And there's still an entire story mode coming to look forward to. On one hand, I feel like I've already got so much value on my money for this game that I don't have any right to ask for more, but on the other hand I can really see great potential for the game to become something even more.

Part of the problem and the frustration in these threads is a lack of dev response. Like, to me, reducing the amount of loot across all maps by x% or otherwise making loot despawn x% across all maps every x days, seems like an easy thing to do. Even if it's just an extra mode above the difficulty of Stalker, called "Hardcore" or something like that. Then again, maybe it's much more complicated than that, or maybe the devs simply aren't interested in that whatsoever. Whatever the answer is, it would just be nice to hear it. What are the thoughts and feelings of the devs on this matter?

[Hotzn]

Geez, how I already know that good old Hotzn is gonna chaff me because of this metaphor. :lol:

Hrm... *clears throat*... I have been conjured? I am not sure I have ever heard the word "chaff" before (is it related to the "chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail" from the poem "Kubla Khan"?), so I wouldn't know what to do, but I find the metaphor pleasing and therefore won't chaff anyone.

I have not yet had the opportunity to try the new update, but I realized long ago that the game started shifting from certain death to endless survival. I am too lazy to dig them out now, but I started several threads about this general theme ages ago (at least it feels like ages ago). Scrap metal was the last resource that felt somewhat limited to me. So now that has gone as well.

Maybe the sandbox will remain like that, maybe it won't. We don't know. I belong to the faction of players looking for hardship and difficulty, I think the "forum veterans" know my view on this. My longest run was 201 days, and I extended it to get the "200 days survived" Steam achievement. Then I started a new run. I have never reached the end game, because the mid-game (which has been correctly defined as beginning when you have the crafted clothes and most of the tools) is too long and boring to pull through.

@octavian: Some of your earlier posts were too long and too difficult to understand. I once made fun of that and maybe turned you off a bit by doing so, it's possible you remember when and where. I feel a bit sorry now, because I later realized that you made a lot of interesting contributions on the forums. I hope you find it within yourself to forgive me

@the devs: I am sharing the concerns voiced here by Scyzara, Chill, octavian & others, and I would like to see the challenge return on stalker. But I am also curious to see where you are taking this game. I already got so many hours of fun out of the sandbox, and on top the possibility to witness part of the development process, that I cannot be anything but grateful. I got my money's worth a hundredfold, so even if you introduced zombies and bazookas now, I couldn't complain. 8-)

Hotzn over and out.