Wolf Attack - TAP A BUTTON?? Seriously?!!!!


Lamoi

Recommended Posts

Couple this with the fact that they always reassure the player base by saying they're a world-class team with a clear vision so presumably the current system, since it made its way into the game, makes sense in their vision, and we'll see how in the future.

Well, I can only say that I've seen many systems implemented in TLD that have changed (foraging wood?) or even been removed (building a snowshelter?) over time. Apparently the feedback given by the community have altered their vision. Guess that's why they ask us to give them feedback, so we can let them know if something is not working out as they had intended.

Yes, the Hinterland team has a lot of seasoned game development veterans and they have a clear vision of what they want to create. And I have a lot of respect for them and thrust they will deliver us a great game. But they are also human and therefore not infallible. If something makes in into the game and it doesn't work out or needs some work, that's not because the team is not good at their job or that they lack a vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guess that's why they ask us to give them feedback, so we can let them know if something is not working out as they had intended.

Well, the feedback is not "this is not working as you (Hinterland) have intended." We have no way to know what they intend. The feedback is, I like it, I don't like it, it's hard, it's fun, it's stupid, I want this, I don't want that, blab blab blab.

It can't be that someone is keeping a tally to see if the the player base experiences it as intended - which is not known to the players - so what, they read every single feedback and keep a tally of how players find a particular thing?

27 said it works, 6 said it doesn't work, 2 said its stupid, 17 like it but want it tweaked, out of those 17, 4 want...

And at the end they say, based on such and such, the players do not experience it as we intended, so it must be changed?

If something makes in into the game and it doesn't work out or needs some work, that's not because the team is not good at their job or that they lack a vision.

I never said that, what I'm saying is that they must surely know if what they themselves implement works out as they themselves intend it because they themselves test it before release, correct? Why would you release a change if you're not happy with the state it's in, correct? So that's why I'm saying, if something made its way into the game, it must simply be what they want it to be.

Well, I can only say that I've seen many systems implemented in TLD that have changed (foraging wood?) or even been removed (building a snowshelter?) over time. Apparently the feedback given by the community have altered their vision.

I don't think the community altered their vision. It could have been those systems were either placeholders (foraging wood) or have made it into the game for other reasons than them fitting their vision.

Otherwise, how do they decide? If the feedback did alter their vision, but not all feedback, some, even with wide support, doesn't make a change happen, then it must mean that they have to decide. This feedback can alter our vision while this other feedback can't.

I don't think it works that way. I think they know, the moment they decide to release something they do know exactly how it works, and exactly how it plays. That's why they test it, and have people to test it. It can't possibly be that they blindly release something and wait for the players to tell them how it is.

So, my feeling is that Hinterland knows very well, for example, the alleged shortcomings of the current wolf struggle mechanic, from before the moment it was released. So there must be a good reason why it is the way it is and we'll find out with time; we're just missing pieces of the puzzle.

Even if it gets changed, that simply means it was a temporary change that was not their vision but they felt it necessary until said vision does get implemented. For example, this could be a way to cut back on the frustration of new players regarding the old struggle mechanic. Some said they didn't get it and had problems with it, not enough time to figure it out during the struggle, that sort of stuff. So maybe it's just a band-aid until they eventually get to implement their wolf struggle vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're basically saying the team has a vision, they design the game to meet that vision and that's it. Nothing we say or do influences their decision making or makes them rethink any part of the game? Then why do they keep telling us to provide them with feedback? Why would they have people like Bethany, Melody and Jeremy roaming these and the Steam forums if they are not going to do anything with what we say here?

Yes, the team has a vision, but it is not set in stone. They think of something, design it, build a prototype, discus it, refine it, test it and implement it in the game. And yes, the system is working exactly as they designed it when they release it (not counting possible bugs). But working as it is designed may not have the intended result when a whole bunch of players are let loose on the system. And the feedback we give them tells them that maybe they overlooked some aspect or they were expecting players to use it differently.

When that happens, you take that feedback and look at the system again. And maybe you come to the conclusion that you don't need to change anything and maybe you come to the conclusion that it does need some changes or even be replaced completely. That's just a part of software development.

While it's certainly possible that any systems that have changed since I started playing TLD were planned from the get go, I highly doubt that. The wood foraging for instance has been practically the same since I started playing in version v.127. You go outside, open the survival menu and click the forage button to open the wood foraging interface and after you've selected your options and clicked the button the screen goes black and voila you have your wood.

Now in v.256, 10 months later this is changed to having to go out and find sticks, branches and tree limbs. Is it possible that they intended the current system 10 months ago? Sure. But why not build it that way from the start? And why did it take 10 months to change it to what it is now? Is it just coincidence that people have been saying it would be better if they would have to go into the woods to actually gather wood and the new system does just that? Maybe, but I rather doubt that.

And the same is true for many of the other changes I have seen. So either a lot of players happen to have the same vision of how TLD should shape up as the devs, or the devs vision has been influenced by those players feedback.

Here's another example of something making it's way into the game after incessant player requests: the bow and arrows. On the reddit AMA someone asked if a bow and arrow would ever be implemented. Raph actually answers something like "if we can figure out a way to shoot a bow without hands we may implement it". That tells me the bow was not part of their vision, or else they would have a vision of how to implement it...

And here's an afterthought: if you have a vision of how you want to make a system work but for some reason you design it quite differently at first and a lot of people start saying in the forums that you should change it pretty much the way you had always intended it, would you not tell them "Hey guys, that's exactly what we're planning, just be patient."

Well, I'm sure you can think of arguments why the team would not listen to anything we have to say. If that is what you believe, I won't be able to change that. I choose to believe that they do listen to us. So I'm going to leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're basically saying the team has a vision, they design the game to meet that vision and that's it. Nothing we say or do influences their decision making or makes them rethink any part of the game? Then why do they keep telling us to provide them with feedback? Why would they have people like Bethany, Melody and Jeremy roaming these and the Steam forums if they are not going to do anything with what we say here?

No, that's not what I'm saying, I'm making a point.

Now in v.256, 10 months later this is changed to having to go out and find sticks, branches and tree limbs. Is it possible that they intended the current system 10 months ago? Sure. But why not build it that way from the start? And why did it take 10 months to change it to what it is now? Is it just coincidence that people have been saying it would be better if they would have to go into the woods to actually gather wood and the new system does just that? Maybe, but I rather doubt that.

(..)

And here's an afterthought: if you have a vision of how you want to make a system work but for some reason you design it quite differently at first and a lot of people start saying in the forums that you should change it pretty much the way you had always intended it, would you not tell them "Hey guys, that's exactly what we're planning, just be patient."

Exactly. So they do not have a clear vision. Or if they do have one, the players come with something better, or at least show the faults in theirs (Hinterlands'). So why then are they saying that they do have a clear vision, and why when a number of players feel something strongly the official response is, well, we take into account feedback and it's valuable for us, but we have a vision, so what you guys are saying may or may not count in the long run?

Well, I'm sure you can think of arguments why the team would not listen to anything we have to say. If that is what you believe, I won't be able to change that. I choose to believe that they do listen to us. So I'm going to leave it at that.

I never said that. I'm sure they do listen. The point of this entire discussion was to reach a point where, hopefully, it would be evident that there is no clear vision (or we have to define clear) and in fact player feedback counts more that you (not you elloco999 in particular but you as in everyone reading this) would believe based on the official statements. Concerning wolves, concerning other mechanics.

I'm not questioning their best intentions or professionalism or whatever. But something doesn't fit. Why don't you (Hinterland) ask first? Why spend the time to implement .256 wolf struggle only to see, based on community feedback, that the majority seems to feel that it's not working.

Definitely not like stamina, which I fell is overall well received, and the new foraging for wood mechanic which I feel is overwhelmingly well received.

A player I hugely respect (in terms of game experience and general demeanor) said to me in a PM, look, I don't get why they did this (new wolf struggle) and I don't understand their angle, it's weird that they did this. Paraphrasing. Presumably, this player, and many others, could have said before it was released, if asked, I don't think a massively input-biased heavily RNG dependent implementation fits.

But see, then comes the deadlock, the official answer. Changes can be jarring, it takes time to adapt. What you say is not relevant because you were jarred. Which basically negates any initial feedback and first impression. They still might take it into account and make changes based on that feedback, but why say as your first reaction that changes can be jarring and seemingly dismiss it (presumably on grounds of vision) instead of taking the feedback at face value?

Perhaps at this point this seems off-topic but I don't feel it is, it's precisely on topic. Because wolves have always been a major issue, and if, based on this topic and others, even one line of code concerning wolf struggle changes, that's precisely the mystery. Why does this matter and other feedback does not?

Just, pick one. Like mouse/keyboard steadily losing features because of controller support. Allegedly, you could "accidentally" press "M" on a 100+ key keyboard, coupled with the fact a controller does not have anywhere near 100+ buttons, topped with it's hard to have two separate methods of input instead of just one, ported.

This is what confuses me and what I cannot understand. When me (as in anyone reading this), as a simple player, is providing feedback, why does my experience of the game counts in some areas while at the same time it counts for nothing in others.

So if players that say the new wolf struggle is not as good as it can be are taken into account, why is it that when the same players desperately argue that something else is not right, nothing changes regarding that?

It's a mystery. I'm going to leave it at that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, there is a vision in place. If there wasn't, the Kickstarter campaign would have been wholly unsuccessful and we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Community feedback certainly helps us fine tune things, fix bugs, and may inspire new ideas or improvements, but I would not go so far as to say it "alters the vision" to a point where the game will become unrecognizable.

I don't really feel like there's much of a point to me making a big case here, as I'm fairly certain from spending time with some of you here in the forums that your opinions are a bit set in stone. Hopefully, you'll continue providing thoughts and feedback while trusting that this team is capable of creating something special -- Look how great it already is.

As a reminder: This is not a team of developers that just graduated university and decided to make their first game...It's a team of developers and artists that have been core members of some of the biggest AAA titles released (Mass Effect, Saints Row, God of War, and so forth...). At the end of the day, I trust that they know what they're doing, and that, in the end, they'll have balanced community feedback and playtesting without compromising their end-game vision, which I believe will be truly amazing.

Game experience from players in all areas counts for something, but please remember that things are still being developed, and that incorporating feedback around features that have not yet been implemented or revealed can be incredibly tricky. And in reference to negating feedback because the feature is "new and can seem jarring": We do ask that players give new features a decent amount of time (more than a couple of hours) before deciding they absolutely can't handle it or want to see it changed. Your feedback is not being swept under the rug, but held for consideration until you actually have an opportunity to give things a decent chance. The new wolf struggle and injury system was a huge feature to properly implement -- We are hearing feedback, and we are taking it into consideration.

And as a final note, if you feel the need to argue or become combative in these forums: Don't. Walk away, use the report button if you must, but please save your energy for something that contributes to the productivity of the discussion. At the end of the day, this is a game, and we're all here to have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can improve my chances in the current system taking less damage and enduring less risk because auto click enables me out of it sure I am going to do it, and so is everybody else who can't click at Ludicrous speed.

At least the previous mechanic while cumbersome was not exploitable, neither mechanic shows much depth and are very rudimentary implementations.

It may not be the vision to have players face cheap threats but that is what wolves are right now on day 1 and again when supplies have run out. Yes by which point you are sustainable in other ways but on day 1 with nothing but the boots on your feet you can get infection which will wreck you. Day 60 Day 80 Day 100 doesn't matter if I am out of stock on something to fight infection I die?

The vision was not the combination of elements that kills you but single point of fails? I doubt that. Recall that food poisoning used to take you all the way to 0% but now stops at 15%, still knocks you on your ass but doesn't kill you. Infection does.

If wolf interactions on all maps weren't a daily thing it would be one thing but in the wild out walking around I might see one wolf a week, in TLD walking half the distance on a hike I'll see a dozen or two from dawn to dusk, day in and day out. Attacks are prevalent. I don't have an issue with managing those attacks, the issue is with running out of ways to fight infection.

Right now its all fixed limited supplies which will run out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having given this some thought, I'm not actually sure that the problem is with the fast clicking mechanic (it does do the job of making me feel frantic while getting attacked). Rather, I think the reason I don't enjoy the combat is because there is an obvious "best weapon" that the game automatically selects. I suggest that the player choose the weapon of choice through the backpack UI and that each weapon have its own pros and cons.

How it might work

Let's say that the pry bar, although it has less killing power, offers the best protection from wolf bites because it is a large, relatively blunt piece of metal that offers the best chance to put distance between the player and the wolf's jaws. The knife meanwhile is small and maneuverable and the easiest to use to in close quarters to damage a wolf, but its drawback is that it is short range and the wolf would have a much easier time causing damage as well. The hatchet could perhaps offer a middle ground being more cumbersome but with better range than the knife, but easier to use but with less range than the pry bar.

Along with this, there should be more emphasis on the protection from clothing during a fight. I have seen more than one person mention that its better to fight a wolf naked because this avoids wear and tear on clothing. This choice should not be so obvious. The threat of wolf bites should be dramatically worse if the player is not wearing any clothes. This would not only provide a reason to reconsider fighting wolves naked, but also would compliment a system of pre-selecting a weapon of choice.

Example

Imagine that the player is wearing only jeans, a winter coat and some basic hiking boots, all of which are at 40% condition. However, the player has both the knife and the pry bar. Which one should the player use? Under the current system it isn't even a choice and the knife is the auto selection, because it has better damage. But in this alternative system, the player's clothing is poor, leaving the player more prone to bites, scratches, and infection. So the player in that situation might opt to use the pry bar. The wolf wouldn't be killed in a confrontation, but the player would also come out of it with less damage to both the player and the player's already tattered clothing.

Now let's say the player then later on crafts a wolf coat, deer pants and boots, and the rabbit mitts. In that case, the player now has much more protective clothing and may opt to use the knife instead to ensure a kill against the wolf rather than just a draw. Some players might still choose the pry bar in this situation in order to preserve the valuable clothing as much as possible, but if there was a possibility of the wolf being killed right in the combat (rather than running far away to die) then that would provide a compelling reason to use the knife for players that already have adequate defense.

I think that by emphasizing the choices a player makes leading up to combat, the combat with wolves will become more interesting. As a bonus, I think this would also give some added value to the pry bar which currently becomes virtually useless after the player has opened all containers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having given this some thought, I'm not actually sure that the problem is with the fast clicking mechanic (it does do the job of making me feel frantic while getting attacked). Rather, I think the reason I don't enjoy the combat is because there is an obvious "best weapon" that the game automatically selects. I suggest that the player choose the weapon of choice through the backpack UI and that each weapon have its own pros and cons.

How it might work

Let's say that the pry bar, although it has less killing power, offers the best protection from wolf bites because it is a large, relatively blunt piece of metal that offers the best chance to put distance between the player and the wolf's jaws. The knife meanwhile is small and maneuverable and the easiest to use to in close quarters to damage a wolf, but its drawback is that it is short range and the wolf would have a much easier time causing damage as well. The hatchet could perhaps offer a middle ground being more cumbersome but with better range than the knife, but easier to use but with less range than the pry bar.

Along with this, there should be more emphasis on the protection from clothing during a fight. I have seen more than one person mention that its better to fight a wolf naked because this avoids wear and tear on clothing. This choice should not be so obvious. The threat of wolf bites should be dramatically worse if the player is not wearing any clothes. This would not only provide a reason to reconsider fighting wolves naked, but also would compliment a system of pre-selecting a weapon of choice.

Example

Imagine that the player is wearing only jeans, a winter coat and some basic hiking boots, all of which are at 40% condition. However, the player has both the knife and the pry bar. Which one should the player use? Under the current system it isn't even a choice and the knife is the auto selection, because it has better damage. But in this alternative system, the player's clothing is poor, leaving the player more prone to bites, scratches, and infection. So the player in that situation might opt to use the pry bar. The wolf wouldn't be killed in a confrontation, but the player would also come out of it with less damage to both the player and the player's already tattered clothing.

Now let's say the player then later on crafts a wolf coat, deer pants and boots, and the rabbit mitts. In that case, the player now has much more protective clothing and may opt to use the knife instead to ensure a kill against the wolf rather than just a draw. Some players might still choose the pry bar in this situation in order to preserve the valuable clothing as much as possible, but if there was a possibility of the wolf being killed right in the combat (rather than running far away to die) then that would provide a compelling reason to use the knife for players that already have adequate defense.

I think that by emphasizing the choices a player makes leading up to combat, the combat with wolves will become more interesting. As a bonus, I think this would also give some added value to the pry bar which currently becomes virtually useless after the player has opened all containers.

I feel this would be an improvement. The whole button mashing thing sucks on two levels, 1, it doesn't really fit with the rest of the game and the mechanics, it is too abstract, too dumbed down, too simply and too difficult to leave the fight or at least try to. You can't choose to be aggressive or defensive it is click the button fast or faster or macro it, so in effect, take the most damage, less damage, or the least possible damage.

The after effect consequences such as infection are game enders if you get infection and you have no antibiotics/R Tea ur dead, not even ur dead 50%, its just THE END.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The after effect consequences such as infection are game enders if you get infection and you have no antibiotics/R Tea ur dead, not even ur dead 50%, its just THE END.

Yeah, infection is rough, but I get the feeling that the designers want it that way. On the other hand, I would agree that, if the player is warm, well rested, fed, and hydrated, it should be possible to fight through infection. I think under these circumstances, the hunger, dehydration, fatigue and cold meters should rise faster to model the devastating effects of sickness and infection, but a player who has a warm, safe base with ample stocks of food and water should at least have a chance to survive if the sole issue is a lack of medicine.

Actually, food poisoning used to work the same way as infection as I recall but now will only lower the condition to 15% and stop there. So if food poisoning was changed, maybe infection will be changed too at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I would like to see something where you click and hold the LMB (to make a fist) and you swing at the wolf by literally moving your mouse from the outside inward. It sort of simulates you performing the striking.

We need something that makes the player kick and scream and claw at his controls the same way you would if a wolf was on top of you.

Totally agree. Great suggestion!

The wolf combat was definitely simplified in favour of the number of new players we see die repeatedly with no idea how the old combat system actually worked.

Hi Bethany,

Please do not pander to uniformed new players that can't figure out the game. Make the game the right way, and they'll either learn and adapt or be too stupid to figure it out. Also, consider a tutorial where bad things happen to you and you're shown how to react if you're not going to make a .pdf manual that explains this stuff.

As you say, the new aftereffects of an attack are great, I agree. Unfortunately that is nullified by the simplification of the actual melee combat event.

Was this another reaction to what you folks saw at E3, similar to people thinking warmer/colder was a navigation aide?

Making the game the right way IS the way to go. Pandering to children (I know their parents money is green like everyone else's) isn't the way to go and there is a proven track record with AAA titles ruining their IP as a result of this. Case in point, Call of Duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making the game the right way IS the way to go. Pandering to children (I know their parents money is green like everyone else's) isn't the way to go and there is a proven track record with AAA titles ruining their IP as a result of this. Case in point, Call of Duty.

We've had this argument before. If kids play TLD their opinions are just as valid as anyone elses, even 30+ year gaming misanthropes such as myself. I didn't like the "Wave mouse to bash wolf" idea because it made me spill booze in Black and White (an old game, my beard is greying) but I still don't like "mash LMB" either. Once again, Hinterland you wonderful devs - left click when wolf goes "awaoroo" and fang glints, then repeat until - A) player gets it wrong slightly wolf runs away OR B) player gets it perfect, wolf dies, player gets food and resources. Thanks for bringing this back to life Weyland - DISCOURSE - that's the thing! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If something frustrates you, it is fine to say it is frustrating. I'm trying to analyze the reasons given (abstract, too easy, doesn't fit with rest of game) so it is good if one tries to analyze the reasons for frustration.

Sometimes something is just new and one prefers the old way. New changes cause stress. Stress is good; it causes us to worry, cogitate and think up new strategies. I try to look at the changes in the TLD as new challenges which I enjoy adapting my strategy. An example seems to be the change in Wolf and Deer AI behaviour. Used to be they could be herded but now, not so much. It is trickier to hunt the wolf; the wolf seems to sense our approach much earlier, even when approaching from the rear while feeding as in the past. The new AI is more difficult; on the other hand, I more often come upon a wolf eating a deer and can get the deer. Since I'm currently using Pilgrim to avoid wolf deaths (that was getting frustrating) it is really difficult to kill a wolf and so that's my current QA goal. Try to prove it's possible or it's really hard.

I worked for most of my life in QA. Dealing with a persistent and difficult bug is extremely frustrating. But that's why they hired us! We persevere and when we find the answer, it is so rewarding. It's like that in this game too. You must try again.

I don't mind dying too much; it sure can be frustrating! But look at it another way; it's a new opportunity to start fresh with new knowledge!!

If it helps y'all to understand the reason for this change, as has been said before, the original wolf fight was complex (two buttons clicked alternately) and new players were getting killed off early in the game before having a chance to find rewarding experiences. THAT'S why it was changed. Kudos to Hinterland for being very aware of the user experience and gathering feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the button frenzy was the easiest minigame to implement the wolf fight with but it is way to mechanic (you could just drink your tea and not look at the disturbing screen).

From what I read, Hinterland weighs suggestions against popularity and difficulty in implementing. I would indeed like a 3D fight, with various approaches (do I try a spear & shield to keep it away and deter it, do I get hand-to-fur with a knife, do I make a biteable fur wraped leftarm as a sort of decoy and hack with the other)? The wolf is nimble, should rush, jump, crouch, growl, run if hurt too much. A bit difficult to implement.

What I would propose is based on the button mashing screen used now, but without the mashing. Instead, based on equipped weapon or preference (hands, hnife, 2 knives, hatchet, hatchet+knife, shield and knife) the game would vary:

- with bare hands, my only hope would be to get a strangling hold on the wolf before it gets to my neck, so the minigame would consist of me trying to get my hands into position, while both are thrashing about. Left mouse would point and direct the left hand, RMB the right hand, perhaps in slowmotion (or not, trying to grab something without being bitten would be the first step, both actions simultaneous and ceasing one move in favour of a more critical one), perhaps first one hand to the neck to keep distance from the main danger then the other hand for locking into position. Visceral survival scene.

- with one knife, about the same as before just a combination of keeping distance and thrusting the knife (due to thrashing about, the aim would miss entirely or only partially, with the according result).

- with the hatchet, I don't know, I guess I die as applying the handle to it's neck seems too easy to avoid...

- with 2 knives perhaps a double thrust and then reverting to single knife combat, or not (blocking and reverse cut into it's neck and hold there like with a claw and continuous hacking with the other). Somewhat like army training.

It would be a click and direct movement minigame, health against health, with parry and thinking the moves and above all, for real for the player. There are some that tackle the bear. It would be in the same vein.

Perhaps, with the spear I could get 1 or 2 thrusts before getting in close with the wolf.

Well, what do you think about this option?

It is minimalistic but not quite dumbed down to destroying the mouse or keyboard or pad.

Oh, and perhaps parental lock and/or restricted to medium and hard difficulties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the button bashing, but this mechanic is so far away from anything else you have to do in this game. It doesn't feel as part of the games vocabulary so to speak. In other ways than in its simplicity. And simple is very important!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the button bashing, but this mechanic is so far away from anything else you have to do in this game. It doesn't feel as part of the games vocabulary so to speak. In other ways than in its simplicity. And simple is very important!!!

Perfectly put. You're engrossed in this thrilling bleak world, a wolf attacks and... Then you're playing a video game - Hammer LMB - No Faster - You lose 50 points - And so on. I can see where any mini game would have this effect somewhat but at least a skill based selective clicking would feel more in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. It takes skill to navigate, skill to shoot, skill to manage resources - it should take skill to beat a wolf to death with a blunt or sharp object, crazy as that may sound. Less skill; you take more damage and he does a runner to hide his corpse from your dinner plate. No skill (i.e. first couple of times) you are on His menu. Wolves should be terrifying in this situation, not a botheration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes skill to navigate, skill to shoot, skill to manage resources - it should take skill to beat a wolf to death with a blunt or sharp object, crazy as that may sound. Less skill; you take more damage and he does a runner to hide his corpse from your dinner plate. No skill (i.e. first couple of times) you are on His menu. Wolves should be terrifying in this situation, not a botheration.

+1, I agree results of the fight should depend on skill just not (only) some numerical attribute but weather or not you act correctly at the appropriate time.

Question is, what could be the fight minigame, something simple enough to implement but personal and terrifying?

Perhaps we should hand Hinterland thought out variants and they'll choose what's doable.

My proposal earlier might not be appropriate, but it's a start...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taken the time to re-read all the replies in this thread and couldn't help but notice the jarring inconsistencies in the communication from Hinterland.

There's an incredible amount of shallow explanations that can't withstand a minute of critical thinking and questioning. I'm appalled anyone expects me to buy this and I'm beginning to find it hard to believe some of the statements made by official Hinterland personnel, pondering the possibility of them simply playing their roles.

When Bethany writes - in what reads like a shocked state for me - that some players might actually believe that Hinterland could ignore their feedback and how this hurts her, because the team is pouring their hearths and souls into this product, that's when I feel this big disconnect.

It was Hinterland's own Creative Directory, Raphael van Lierop, who gave his speech at the GDC about how Early Access should be done and how Hinterland is not trying to build the game the community wants, but the game that they want. I thought he looked proud when he said this.

And then we have the forums mods that try to tell us, that they have confidence in that team and that they are sure the final result would be amazing and that our feedback is always taken into consideration.

But how can this work?

Is our feedback changing what game Hinterland wants to make?

If we say that we don't like a certain part of TLD, that doesn't conflict with Hinterland's mission. So what difference does it make?

There are also quite a number of posts (both here and on Steam) that contain contradicting statements, when touching critical topics like wolves, dying in the Ravine, tracking/number of bugs and "realism".

We have

We don't want to bend too much and take every suggestion to heart (because that would be a complete mess)
followed one paragraph later by
There may be systems that will stick around that don't appeal to every player' date=' but we're always going over feedback and taking it to heart.[/quote']

So is every feedback taken to hearth or not?

We're constantly hearing how things are supposed to be and most of the time that's not how things actually are. The problem is not admitting/accepting that there is a gap between those two.

This thread clearly documents that all the feedback for this feature has not resulted in a change, despite telling us that it is heard and taken into account.

There's not even a word on a final decision, on the considerations that were made or why and how it was decided.

You just move on like nothing happened.

Leaving the thread to receive some more posts and let the matter die on its own.

And you wonder why people might think that their feedback could be ignored?

The whole "give this some more time to get adjusted to" is just delay IMO.

A nice sentence that sounds like a little wisdom but is ultimately just another appeal to pity. "Don't dismiss this hard work just yet. It was so expensive and we have nothing else."

If I don't like it, I don't like it - smashing buttons for a couple more weeks isn't going to change my mind.

More time is good when people are on the fence or disliking certain aspects and might get used to them after all, but something that you reject from the first second doesn't need another minute of consideration.

The same goes with "future releases will put this into perspective".

The wolf struggle is isolated from everything else. Button smashing is universal and not affected by any other decision, item or fact.

The player has exactly one option. You may make it less effective in some situation or more effective in some other, but this has no influcence on the gameplay.

The player is just stressing his fingers and hardware to the limit. (Or using tools that will do the clicking for her and I applaud everyone who does this - it's the intelligent thing to do)

I actually believe the new system was put there for consoles.

As someone already stated in this thread, the new system is more in line with console controls and I could even imagine it was part of the prerequisites to get published on the XBox.

And now there's almost no time until the release of the impatiently expected story mode.

I have no doubt in my mind that this wolf fighting system is the one we'll see for the full release.

People have given up and the storm of complaints has been weathered with "it makes sense" and "have trust" statements.

Hinterland made the feature they wanted (or needed) to have.

Mission accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes skill to navigate, skill to shoot, skill to manage resources - it should take skill to beat a wolf to death with a blunt or sharp object, crazy as that may sound. Less skill; you take more damage and he does a runner to hide his corpse from your dinner plate. No skill (i.e. first couple of times) you are on His menu. Wolves should be terrifying in this situation, not a botheration.

+1, I agree results of the fight should depend on skill just not (only) some numerical attribute but weather or not you act correctly at the appropriate time.

Question is, what could be the fight minigame, something simple enough to implement but personal and terrifying?

Perhaps we should hand Hinterland thought out variants and they'll choose what's doable.

My proposal earlier might not be appropriate, but it's a start...

Thanks for the +1 - My proposed answer to your question (it's buried in these posts somewhere so I'll repeat) would be to let new players mash the LMB and maybe survive the attack. But add certain audio and visual cues (within the current animation so it's not too expensive to implement) to let the discerning player know exactly when to click. The better your timing gets with practice or luck, the more damage you do and faster. I stole it from the original The Witcher game and I lamely call it "The Wolfer"

So, four to five clicks when the wolf snarls or whatever will definitely kill the festering furbag if you time it just right. Mashing like a madman will do what it does now, he sods off to die miles away, you can follow if you're really hungry and have some blood left in you. What I like about this is that it's bloody terrifying when they jump on you, my system would reward keeping a cool head just as nature itself often seems to. A system like this is easily graded for the various difficulty levels, how precise you need to be could be tuned by the Devs with playtesters, new and experienced.

Having said all that, I'm still not sure this wouldn't break immersion even more than the current system, I guess it's subjective. It would certainly be a nice option in the menu - Complex Wolf Struggle - On/Off (with detailed explanation) - but of course I don't know how technically feasible or time consuming it would be. I'd love if one of the tech team had time to post here, even to say - "No, sorry we definitely can't do that" Bethany??? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is our feedback changing what game Hinterland wants to make?

I don't want to butt in on Bethanys' turf or anything but I have two points. First, I see an obvious equation, quite logical to me anyway: Hinterland will listen to ideas, it's why they have a forum and being an early access title, they do have some slight obligation to. If some player ideas fit well into the game they want to make and are feasible (not just technically but economically), they will likely implement them. If not, then not. But maybe in the sequel. If 50 people out of 450,000 complain about a system such as wolf bashing (see my post above), they'll look at suggestions and evaluate based on their goals (a great game and cash to make more games) and practicality (time/budget). So far, it's not happening on this one but we can always hope - 'til say, December anyway.

Second, last week I started a thread: "Do we really need the forge to craft arrowheads now?" - I wasn't actually complaining, just asking but a fair few people jumped in with negative feedback. Once it was confirmed we did need it I kind of lost interest but I later posted and said, I'm ok with it but could you please put in a few extra broken arrows, maybe beside those deer carcasses lying about, to help the player in ML or wherever before they journey to DP? A couple of days later, Hotfix v270 added a small number of extra broken arrow spawns. Today I was playing and I found my first one - beside a deer carcass. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its Alpha, nothing it off the table yet, they are tweaking. Give them time, like the vid said, they've made 50 updates in a year to the codebase, nobody can claim they aren't rapidly putting the game together. Current state needs work, that is why it is alpha, as for community interaction Bethany does way better than that Ryan guy they had while back who was all about doing stuff but then never following through.

Stop being so needy. Game is going well, if this is the worst part they will fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it really is a tricky question. How to simulate fighting, in a none fighting game? The most obvious way IMO is just rolling a dice. A system already introduced when repairing stuff and making fires. But I guess because of permadeath if rolling the wrong number, players would go nuts? Any mini-game will break the continuity of the mechanics philosophy, and in that respect just bashing LMB could be the best way to go!?!

... this is getting a bit to hostile for my taste. What it comes down to is trust, and no matter what happens, being respectful. Starting to dissect what have been said when and where, and questioning other peoples integrity, is not very respectful. If I were a mod or in any way affiliated with Hinterland, things like some of the posts above, would leave me sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... this is getting a bit to hostile for my taste. What it comes down to is trust, and no matter what happens, being respectful.

Hear hear Brun and +1 too! - I never leave a critical comment without saying "I love this game overall" or similar. And at the end of the day, this is a game, for fun. I don't understand (not necessarily here, I've seen much worse on other sites) how people can get so antagonistic about any game - did they miss the fun part?

That said, I politely disagree with a random combat result with wolves. Hand to hand with a bear, you lose, fair enough but with a wolf - a fit man or woman has a fighting chance against just one I think the current interactive system is better than none. See my idea above but I like some other ones here as well. Personally I'm hoping Hinterland will do something amazing that none of us has thought of, they are after all rather good at this. No, that's disrespectful - they're unbelievably awesome at this!!

Thanks for your comments mate, and please do keep reading/posting - Bethany the Moderator has our backs re: manners, it never gets that bad! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just that wolf fights are reduced to spamming the left mouse button, it's that nowadays the outcome seems to be completely random.

I used to understand wolf fights. I got better at it over time (if not to say: proficient), I learned what to expect and I really *felt* that the hunting knife was best to have, and that every succesful wolf fight made my stats more favorable.

Nowadays, I don't know what's up or down. I get into a wolf fight, and I just get chewed up... big time - every time.

So i switched over to pilgrim mode because I find the stress of having to be on gard all the time not that much fun.

It's like living in a house with armed boogeymen hiding in the closets and under the beds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.