Meat preservation and food in general.

[Dirmagnos]

Yes, its one of those topics.

It is fairly obvious that the way game deals with foods is rather absurd. Supposedly for the purposes of balance, whatever it supposed to mean. I really dont see any reason for food to spoil at those crazy rates.

In general whole approach to food spoilage is that everything spoils really really fast. Far above normal rates.

MREs have shelf life of 5 years, officially. Unofficially they can last as long as 15 and be completely safe to eat.

Canned foods differentiate from wall to wall, taking into account their content.

Water-based foods should be first 2 go, water expands when it freezes, so those cans would just burst.

At the same time things like pork'n'beans can last for decades, literally. When i moved into this apartment, i did a bit cleanup in the basement. Among ton of various useful and useless junk i found 2 cases(20 cans per case) of old canned pork with something(i dont remember what it was). After some examination and cleaning, following basic safety(can is intact and is not rusted thru), i threw away about half of them and over period of several months ate the rest. Thing is that this stuff was canned in 1987 and by the time i got my paws on it those cans(and their content) were about 22 years old. Content looked a bit weird and lacked in taste department(but maybe it was this way to begin with), but went both in and out with flying colors. No intestinal distress, poisoning or discomfort of any kind.

Candies and shit like that have usually shelf life of between 6 months to 2 years. But again, were talking about below 0 environment, so those numbers can be doubled.

Sodas are unfortunately are the only foods that are out of luck under current conditions. They are both water-based and have a ton of sugar in them. A month is probably best they could do under perfect conditions... if they wont burst first.

Now, back to the root of all evil - meat, it spoilage rates and preservation.

Its absurd, plain and simple. I buy fresh meat directly from butcher, several kilos at the time, divide it and stuff into freezer, where it stays for 3-4 months at the time sometimes. No problem.

In terms of LD were dealing with one big endless freezer. And unless player heats cabin up, temperature is still rather low. Were dealing with situation where meat is either frozen of, at least cooled majority of the time.

Yet, in terms of spoilage it feels that im carrying all that meat in my pants.

Logically i should be able to collect all my food, drag it into next cabin(that i dont heat up) and be set for as long as it lasts, in terms of calories.

Granted, certain foods, like candies should "spoil" at accelerated rates when in backpack(package breaks, it gets mangled, etc). But why to hell rest of the stuff spoils in backpack faster than in the cupboard ? What is the logic behind it ? Backpack may be insulated, maybe, but it seriously doubt that it has heating elements in it.

In terms of preserving foods game absolutely ignores the cornerstone of the game - the fact that its damn friggin cold all the time. Its like sitting in a room full of knifes without ability to cut an apple.

Now, there has been a lot of good ideas regarding preservation of meat. Salting, smoking and, haha, freezing are probably the most realistic in current situation.

Salting, air drying and brining.

Good, fairly simple and fairly fast. Unfortunately we dont have salt, nor ways to obtain it. Even tho we do have access to the sea on 2 maps. Maybe later. Making salt is not really that hard, its more question of volume than ability.

Smoking is good, but rather lengthy process that requires a lot of preparation and patience. Many proposed option to "build" a smoker, but no1 really explained how exactly it could be done. Most obvious choice would be an oil drum, there are a few of those in several locations. But it would require constant supervision for days at the time and can process fairly small amount of meat per session. So, unless player deploys a whole battery of those, they wont do that much good. Plus dragging even one on the other side of even one map is a lot of hassle, or making periodic runs back and forth for a few kilos of smoked meat.

However, there is an answer right in front of our eyes. We dont need to build anything. Player just takes one of many looted cabins and convert it into a smoker or a dryer or whatever(if think preservation, why not to think big, with various options). A bit of renovation and player gets a perfectly good smoker with next to unlimited capacity that can be left on its own for a several days(by using slow burn, also making otherwise not so useful coal far more important), while meat is being cured.

And freezing. Simple, fast, extremely effective. Unfortunately its not exactly that we have winter outside of our windows to be able to use it.

[phaedrus]

Yes, its one of those topics.

It is fairly obvious that the way game deals with foods is rather absurd. Supposedly for the purposes of balance, whatever it supposed to mean.

I completely understand where you are coming from when you want to see values and such in the game be a reflection of real life. I think the immersive qualities of this incredible virtual world are a big part of what draws us to it.

But honestly, I don't see what difference it makes if I have to eat around 1 pound of meat each day or I have to eat around 10 pounds of meat each day. Inside the game world, it is really only relevant how much I need to eat each day versus how much is available and what it takes to obtain it (which is actually the same line of thinking that is applied in the real world). No matter how hard the developers work, they will never be able to create a mirror image of the real world. So, it will always come down to you as a player finding the best ways of interacting with the game world within the game world's boundaries, regardless of how closely they reflect reality.

I think it's great this forum is here and we players can offer an endless supply of feedback as the game evolves. It is exciting to be a part of the creation of a game we enjoy playing so much. But it's important to keep in mind that creating a video game is an extremely complex undertaking and the way things work in the real world has absolutely nothing to do with how things work in a game world. Do you really think the developers are unaware of things like how much food and water a human being actually needs to survive?

When you ask for something like the quantity of food needed each day to be reduced, even though you may not realize it, you are actually asking for a great many other things to be changed as well.

Here are a couple of excerpts from an article that specifically addresses the importance of game balance (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134768/understanding_balance_in_video_.php?print=1):

"Gameplay is all about making choices and in a poorly-balanced game, many of the choices available to the player are essentially rendered useless. And this, in a nutshell, is why game balance is so important -- it preserves your game elements from irrelevance. In an imbalanced game, one or more "dominant strategies" quickly emerge, limiting other strategies useless except for some un-intended purpose (such as getting used as a handicap mechanism, or comedic reasons)."

"Games are a delicate, intricate web-like machinery of cogs and pulleys, and throwing one new cog into the mix can cause the whole contraption to grind to a halt. We should be building our games with as few elements as is possible to create the experience we wish, while reducing the chance of the machine falling apart....."

I don't want to discourage anyone from throwing out ideas, because I think this forum is fantastic and this is a really cool way to create a kickass video game that is different from what we have seen before.

So keep on with the brainstorming! Also enjoy the game for the game that it is!

[akodo1]

I completely understand where you are coming from when you want to see values and such in the game be a reflection of real life. I think the immersive qualities of this incredible virtual world are a big part of what draws us to it.

But honestly, I don't see what difference it makes if I have to eat around 1 pound of meat each day or I have to eat around 10 pounds of meat each day. Inside the game world, it is really only relevant how much I need to eat each day versus how much is available and what it takes to obtain it (which is actually the same line of thinking that is applied in the real world). No matter how hard the developers work, they will never be able to create a mirror image of the real world. So, it will always come down to you as a player finding the best ways of interacting with the game world within the game world's boundaries, regardless of how closely they reflect reality.

It's true that mechanically a deer can yield 800 KG of meat, and your calorie need could demand you eat 200 KG of meat a day, or 8 KG and need to eat 2 KG a day.

There are tons of ways to balance...how much food, how long it lasts, how many calories it gives, how many you need, etc.

HOWEVER, we aren't given a balance sheet which shows how this all balances, so the players assume that it should be darn close to reality. Not only does breaking off from reality break the immersion, it is unfair to make players 'guess' what the hidden balancing points are.

It's like playing poker not knowing how many aces are in the deck, and the only way you can figure out if there are 2 aces or 10 is to play until you get an idea of it. You might be able to balance such a game, but it will feel wrong to the players.

It also depends on who they are trying to balance the game for. Do they try and keep challenge for the people who are on the leaderboard? Or for the more average player? I sometimes think too much emphasis is put on balancing the game for 200+ day runs, and the end result is many players have a bad first day experience and never come back.

[phaedrus]

It's like playing poker not knowing how many aces are in the deck, and the only way you can figure out if there are 2 aces or 10 is to play until you get an idea of it. You might be able to balance such a game, but it will feel wrong to the players.

Interesting point. Since when did Mother Nature start telling you how many aces are in her deck?

[selfless]

Currently raw meat lasts more than a week in a container. Cooked meat lasts over a month.

Is the mechanism of 'harvest-then-place-in-a-container" really so different from any of the real-life actions suggested that this needs to be redone? Are the preservation times so unreasonable for a rustic survival situation?

Realism approximated, IMO.

[Dirmagnos]

I understand the point of good balance. But i really dont see how fast-spoiling foods benefit it.

And yes, container or backpack preservation mechanics are so differ from real life(what exactly causes meat to spoil faster in backpack ?). Gonna have to make a closer look on exact spoilage duration, i have serious doubts that cooked meat lasts for a month(at least that it would remain edible).

[Scyzara]

I understand the point of good balance. But i really dont see how fast-spoiling foods benefit it.

"Fast"-spoiling food* gives you a reason to leave your base and go hunting every once in a while.

I always wonder why people ask for more meat per carcass and/or for means to preserve meat longer. What good would it be to go on a hunting trip only once per month and then live off that meat for the next four weeks? It would only make you spend even more time in bed and give you even less things to do during mid-game. Pretty much the last thing TLD needs imho.

@phaedrus: Great article, thanks for sharing it!

* I really don't find the current meat degradation rate particularly fast. In my opinion the meat decay rate is pretty realistic for raw meat whereas cooked meat lasts even longer than in reality. Have you ever tried keeping a grilled steak in your fridge for more than a week? I for one wouldn't recommend eating it any longer afterwards in RL, but in TLD it's still well above 70% condition.

[Dirmagnos]

* I really don't find the current meat degradation rate particularly fast. In my opinion the meat decay rate is pretty realistic for raw meat whereas cooked meat lasts even longer than in reality. Have you ever tried keeping a grilled steak in your fridge for more than a week? I for one wouldn't recommend eating it any longer afterwards in RL, but in TLD it's still well above 70% condition.

Im not talking fridge, im talking sub-freezing conditions, that should extend food preservation considerably.

[thestranger]

I understand the point of good balance. But i really dont see how fast-spoiling foods benefit it.

Fast - spoiling food balances between scavenging playstyle and hunting playstyle. If canned food lasts longer than meat players will probably harvest kills but won't spend time hunting. If meat lasts longer than cans no one will bother scavenging after they build a bow and snares. If all food spoils quickly relative to the player's consumption then the player will be incentivized to go hunt or scavenge, ie play the game.

[SteveP]

If you wanted to make the game into a simulation of reality, you'd have to greatly extend the size of the map and make finding and approaching game much more difficult. A typical shot might be between 200 and 300 meters. Almost ever aspect of the game would have to be revised. As it is, this is a game that is an awful lot like a simulation but it's not. It's a game. If hunting were less necessary, it could add a new dimension to the game where one must stay indoors and engage in non-productive activities such as crafting decorative items, or make crafting fur clothing much longer in duration and require all sorts of materials. There are only a few situations where the rapid spoiling of meat can be really annoying and that is when you only have about 1-2 days to harvest an entire bruin. With bad weather, it becomes very difficult but then one does have the choice of when to hunt the bear. Time compression makes it little more difficult to shoot the bear early in the day to have optimal time for harvesting.

I think the balancing act occurs when Hinterland monitors the duration of play and the average life expectancy and causes of death for all the players in the alpha testing program. I'm not sure how they gather game statistics but I see they have done a good job of making those statistics available to us, if not also to them as developers to aid in the tuning process.

If we make it much easier to store and preserve food for long term, then I think the game would need to have additional hazards and ways to die.

[Dirmagnos]

Fast - spoiling food balances between scavenging playstyle and hunting playstyle. If canned food lasts longer than meat players will probably harvest kills but won't spend time hunting. If meat lasts longer than cans no one will bother scavenging after they build a bow and snares. If all food spoils quickly relative to the player's consumption then the player will be incentivized to go hunt or scavenge, ie play the game.

So, youre explanation is that things are the way they are because certain game aspects are already broken ?

If you wanted to make the game into a simulation of reality, you'd have to greatly extend the size of the map and make finding and approaching game much more difficult. A typical shot might be between 200 and 300 meters.

If we make it much easier to store and preserve food for long term, then I think the game would need to have additional hazards and ways to die.

What you are referring to as "shot" ?

Problem is not that more realistic preservation timers would make things less interesting, but general lack of "action". Game, in its current state, is simple loot'it'all linear progression, it has no external events aside of bad weather. And im not talking about primitive "ways to die", but in broader term, with events that would make player lift his arse and move, or new crating options that would include meat, like creating poisoned bait.

[SteveP]

What you are referring to as "shot" ?

Rifle shot. In reality, most large game is taken at a range of around 200 meters.

[Dirmagnos]

What you are referring to as "shot" ?

Rifle shot. In reality, most large game is taken at a range of around 200 meters.

To make an accurate shot at such distance player must have a really good rifle and be really good shot. Considering conditions in the game, even 100 meters would be seriously pushing it. No scope, no hard leaning surface, heavy rifle, cold weather, and probably lack of experience.

And even irl, most large game, deer and up is taken out on ranges 50-100 meters.

[Boston123]

What you are referring to as "shot" ?

Rifle shot. In reality, most large game is taken at a range of around 200 meters.

To make an accurate shot at such distance player must have a really good rifle and be really good shot. Considering conditions in the game, even 100 meters would be seriously pushing it. No scope, no hard leaning surface, heavy rifle, cold weather, and probably lack of experience.

And even irl, most large game, deer and up is taken out on ranges 50-100 meters.

Really?

I don't consider myself a very good shot, but I could probably make 100-200 yard shots without too much difficulty. That is basically spitting distance for a "full-sized" (which a .303 is) rifle cartridge

[Dirmagnos]

You mean you "could probably" make a shot from familiar weapon, rested, calm and in good spirits.

It may be possible, but how many actually do it . Even 400 yards is possible under perfect conditions.

[thestranger]

So, youre explanation is that things are the way they are because certain game aspects are already broken ?

Well, yeah, kind of. Every game is defined by its rules, things you can't do. In the absence of rules you can do whatever you want. The devs could add godmode and make players invulnerable to wolves, cold, starvation, etc but it wouldn't be a fun game. There are limitations and working within those limitations is what makes a game fun.

That's the ultimate problem of game balance and ultimately it is its own justification.

[SteveP]

To make an accurate shot at such distance player must have a really good rifle and be really good shot. Considering conditions in the game, even 100 meters would be seriously pushing it. No scope, no hard leaning surface, heavy rifle, cold weather, and probably lack of experience.

And even irl, most large game, deer and up is taken out on ranges 50-100 meters.

At 50 meters a competent marksman can put the shots into the size of a quarter with a good rifle. The .22 will make a larger group than the .308 Norma Mag but is not accurate beyond 75 - 100 meters as this is the point where it transitions from super sonic to subsonic and the bullet becomes unstable in flight.

The Norma 308 magnum or the Winchester magnum will group about 3-4 inches at 200 meters which is plenty accurate enough to hit the boiler of a large animal. It's normally sighted in for 200 meters with a 5x scope. It is preferable to use a zoom scope on a .22 LR up to 8x since plinking requires the ability to see the target very clearly and the targets can be small.

The Norma & Win Mag have a muzzle velocity of over 3000 ft/s whereas the .303 is in the mid 2000 ft/s range; very adequate for 100-200 m.

A lot of hunters and target shooters use a bipod for target shooting and if hunting one would always employ something: a rest or tree or rock. I suppose hunting range depends where you are and how close you can get to an animal.

The Science of Shooting Deer: Wayne Van Zwoll on Long Range Shots

I think there are statistics on average range but this gives you an idea of what is possible with the British .303

[Dirmagnos]

This is all interesting and everything(and .303 has effective range of ever 2km), but were dealing with a hafl-starved, half-frozen, confused, tired individual who operates unfamiliar weapon, that is in poor condition, not to mention being heavy and without any additional accessories. Plus, were talking firing range, but actual live firing under duress.

[Boston123]

Considering how .303-chambered military surplus rifles were used to take down ELEPHANTS with single shots, a bear should in no way be able to tank more than one .303 round.

The main "problem" with using the in-game rifle should be the rarity of the ammunition, not that creatures can shrug off multiple shots.

[selfless]

Considering how .303-chambered military surplus rifles were used to take down ELEPHANTS with single shots, a bear should in no way be able to tank more than one .303 round.

The main "problem" with using the in-game rifle should be the rarity of the ammunition, not that creatures can shrug off multiple shots.

They don't completely shrug off shots. Yes, they don't always die immediately, but they always bleed out.

[Gleudal]

hey don't completely shrug off shots. Yes, they don't always die immediately, but they always bleed out.

Bears can shrug off one or two (head-)shots without dying from bleeding. The bleeding stops after a time.

[SteveP]

We have strayed from the topic of food preservation here. While the subject material is very interesting, it's off topic on this thread so I suggest we follow up to a thread on terminal ballistics in another forum. Several posts here are incorrect but I'll not respond again on this thread. Perhaps the admin would be able to move some of the appropriate comments from here to there.

[Patrick Carlson]

Yes, while we're happy for diverse discussion, it's great when threads can stay as on-topic as possible.

For discussion of ballistics, SteveP has kindly started a new topic here: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10085

Check it out!

Thanks,

--Patrick