• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Wolfbait


  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A man in 1981 said one time said. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." Today you guys seem to think it is ok to cling to the premise that 32 bit ought to be enough for anybody. Now I have been warned for suggesting that be the problem. I really am against censorship in whatever form. But if you feel it is necessary for me to pull my joke from your precious forums I'll do that. However this kind of thing doesn't happen when Windows can address 192GB of memory as with 64bit systems, it does however according to GOOGLE happen religiously to Windows 32 bit users. In 6 months when you guys are re-developing your software to conform with the standards set back in 2004 with Windows XP 64 bit, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8, 8.1 and Finally Windows 10 which is going to launch before TLD does. YOU CAN HEAR ME SAY I TOLD YOU SO. Until then you can take your board warnings over a legit and more than half-true joke and shove it. Ban me if you want. You already have my friend who has supported your game buy buying it. Maybe just maybe you all could get a clue and investigate why the rest of the world doesn't try to live and die on 2GB or 3GB kind of like 640 a day is not all we'll ever need either. Not everybody does use 64bit, but making the rest of us, the majority, the gamers, the people who buy your product suffer as a result of other potential players failure to get with the times really doesn't make sense either.
  2. Its scary, in fact the zone is twice as scary as before
  3. I think in terms of crafting that the new menu isn't terrible, I would prefer that we be able to cycle though an index of everything that can be crafted. In the future it is reasonable that crafting will add another dozen or two dozen or though modding hundreds of items that can be crafted so a quicker way of finding what you want to craft is needed. Clicking through a dozen times isn't really a chose but when the list grows it will be a bigger pain in the ass than need be.
  4. Yes we do NEED more things to do, more things to craft, more duties to manage, more conditions, we need a deeper experience.
  5. Worth considering alternative methods to starting a fire yet?
  6. Most players (about 3/4) seem to be unable to survive for even 5 days, but I somehow doubt they die of starvation. Presumably they can't avoid or survive wolf attacks, get frustrated and quit playing before they would get better at dealing with wolves. I assume the V. 212 changes were at least influenced by community feedback. People claimed in numerous threads that they do not want to die solely because of wolf attacks but for other reasons (biting cold/exhaustion/starvation) as well. The latest changes are just what many people asked for: Less predictable & less zombie-like wolf behavior? - we got it. Fewer wolves that are harder to kill? - got it (numbers in Coastal Highway have decreased a bit in general and if you hunt them for some time the area gets almost depopulated) The environment (hunger, cold and exhaustion) being more of a problem? - got it. You needn't like these changes (I personally don't like all of them either^^), but many people asked for them. I assume the huge difficulty gap between the modes is on purpose. It's better to have difficulty gaps than losing a lot of potential customers because they believe the game to be either too easy or too difficult in general. With a vast range of difficulties, everyone can pick the mode he or she enjoys most. I haven't played voyageur since V.212 yet but if the patch brought it somewhere more in the middle between pilgrim and stalker difficulty, I'm happy about it. Always considered voyageur and stalker to be too close together.^^ The environment continues to take a far back seat to wolf action. The amount of calories necessary in Stalker are a big drive to engage wolves at all when as they exist they should be avoided. Imba Imba imba. Wet should be #1 killer. but it isn't even modeled. Followed closely by Cold, and then WET+ COLD. Wolves and running out of water/food at the end of a long run all secondary. Calorie need in Pilgrim makes no sense at all, you can literally live off meat supply for one day of meat gathering give you several days supply and this meat will last a very long time too. Only losing 1% per day condition once cooked. Stalker on the other hand, you need 6lbs of meat a day to live. LOL imba imba imba.
  7. Not really a bug but in the Ravine when you are heading back to ML and you start moving a long way away from trees the game stops drawing them and their associated shadows which when the angle on the sun in early morning is right instantly disappear in the front of you and are highly noticeable as it happens in real time as your move forward. Might want to adjust the drop off in the RAVINE as this area has very good gpu performance already.
  8. Asked for a wet meter and consideration on that several times as that would be a is a core component of the whole balance effort towards what winter survival is all about. Walk in a forest and the danger in the winter is from lack of shelter, and the cold, what gets you cold fastest? Getting wet? Why because by the elemental, molecular and meta physical nature of water acting as a cooling agent, it wicks away heat 25 times faster than air. It can be zero degrees and you can endure for a long time outdoors without the heat loss that comes from that when insulated. However, be wet, and your heat energy transfers through the moisture orders of magnitude faster. A wet meter could work really well at limiting your maximum pace of travel too. It could and should be something you have to balance against. Yes you should be able to travel a good long distance and it is even necessary in the Coastal Highway, but were you subject to sweating and the build up of moisture you would and should have to manage that. Wet + cold = the rate of death we see from Wolves in the game, not the other way around. IRL wolves attack and kill you a far lower rate than weather does in TLD. The whole balance of the project is pretty far out there. I hope they reign it in.
  9. The meat does attract wolves (especially depending on which way the wind is blowing), which is why I tend to only carry small amounts at a time [just enough for travel or emergency]. If I'm still fairly close to my current base, I'll sometimes use one of the meat as a decoy if absolutely needed (and I don't plan on long distance travelling), but I usually avoid that if possible... haven't gone back to check if there was any qty gone after wolves chomped on it a bit. I also try to avoid using up frozen carcasses early on as well -- that way they won't despawn (the original pre-dead ones) and are handy for mapping out so you always know where you can run over to in case of food emergency later. The other reason I don't like to carry much meat is weight -- I try to stock up on cat tail stalks for emergency calories if absolutely needed, and save the meat (when possible) for larger pre-sleep periods for condition recovery. Bill you mentioned keeping meat on the porch, does this meat on the ground attract predators? Or do you have to drop it as a decoy?
  10. Unsustainability? I'm not really sure what you're talking about, to be honest. You can survive in Stalker mode for several hundreds of days without starvation/hibernation or using any other kind of food exploit. What exactly is unsustainable about that?^^ Shoot one bear and you've got enough food for at least 15 days of thorough exploration. The deer+wolf combo yields enough kcal to survive for about 4 days as well. Even better, scare or lure a wolf away from a deer corpse and you have free meat for 3 days without using a single bullet! Not even to mention fishing, snaring, cattails and canned food as supplemental kcal sources. In all honesty, starvation is the very last of all my many worries while playing Stalker. And I've been completely out of canned food for at least 100 days now.^^ I generally agree with you that it feels somehow strange that you have to eat several kg of meat or fish per day. But that's not really a problem of the amount of calories itself (various people pointed out in other threads how fast you burn calories under extreme conditions) but rather of the unrealistically low kcal/kg meat ratio ingame. Just to give some examples: In real life, 1kg of raw venison has more than 1200kcal, ingame it's only 800kcal. Rabbit meat is even worse: 1100kcal/kg in RL, only 450kcal/kg ingame. The very same is true for salmon, whitefish, etc. The reason for this is probably that the devs don't want you to carry around enough calories for a whole week without being encumbered, I guess. It's a balancing issue and there's probably not an easy solution for it, unfortunately. You can survive stalker for 100s of days maybe, most players can't. The game is radically unbalanced between the designed difficulties. You can't carry too much food in Stalker as it is post patch without being encumbered anyway so that cant be a balance concern. Also you can endure for a week without dying due to starvation, which isn't going to happen anyway because there are all these animal carcasses everywhere because there are WOLVES EVERYWHERE. Im talking about design unsustainability. They keep adding tremendous difficulty to Stalker and nerfing the difficulty with Pilgrim, we have 3 separate games here. Two of them make no sense at all. Food is quite possibly the easiest resource to get aside from foraging wood.
  11. Fox you are not the only one that feels this way. This game was so much more than wolf avoidance in the beginning and the potential is really high still. Your points are very valid as well. I have commented on the fact that the whole game is totally out of balance and that they need to work that back in one of these patches.
  12. I just wanted to mention some thoughts on Balance. Right now the design has 3 difficulty levels and schools of thought. By far I favor Voyager most, because survival is much more reasonable. Pilgrim has an excess of supplies and materials, as well as a reduced need for any of the resources, your food, water, heat intakes all need to be much less to keep you going and keep you from condition losses. I continue to remain puzzled by the apparent double quickening of food need when freezing only found in Voyager and not in Stalker. Also worth mentioning the ridiculous calorie need Stalker having you consume essentially 6lbs of meat per day while still sometimes being hungry. Is this really the best way? All in all the game at all levels presents challenges and some extreme ones. In playing Pilgrim you have the ability to carry more resources faster than in both other difficulty levels. I think adopting a selectable difficulty which works out as a difficulty multiplier is probably the way to go if the game is going to be score based. Meat also deteriorates at a ridiculously slow level in Pilgrim, so I can on an average day bring in 3-4 times caloric need, and then it will live in a file cabinet for the next month if I want and still be edible. Not only is wildlife pensive but the whole absence of any aggressive wolves makes the game a no-challenge cakewalk at that level. Im more concerned with the high caloric needs and the unsustainability of survival in Stalker than on the other end of the spectrum but wow does it vary highly.