octavian

Members
  • Content Count

    990
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Survivor

About octavian

  • Rank
    Pathfinder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Balancing a sandbox like TLD will always be; difficult. Today I started a new Stalker sandbox and on day 2-3 I was at the summit and had 4 knives and 4 hatchets all ~80%. Now I'll go to FM to make arrowheads and on the way I'll find enough whetstones to last me "a lifetime". Not to mention even more knives and hatchets. If there were less knives/hatchets/whetstones - it would be easier to just craft knives and hatchets instead of bothering to look for them. I probably wouldn't even bother with a hatchet since hacksaws are better than hatchets anyways. Besides, forging is very sexy now because FM is attached to ML. So since you'll presumably do some forging sooner or later, you have to go through DP or ML; the former being a supermarket in a rough neighborhood and the latter a supermarket in a regular neighborhood. So you'd loot those maps since you're forging on the Riken/FM to begin with and most likely find even more knives hatchets and whetstones. We could also raise all kinds of problems - why repair a serrated blade for a hacksaw instead of forging blades for it; it would make the hacksaw less overpowered. I think tools will remain the way they are now; it would be hard to rebalance them now. That being said there is the possibility of the axe being introduced soon, which I imagine would warrant a rebalance of at least the hatchet. Not to mention that if cooking changes fire mechanics, I imagine fire making and implicitly wood and how you harvest it will change too. We'll see. Maybe in the future we'll see a more robust approach regarding tools.
  2. I think/hope with a next UI pass - or cooking overhaul - at the very least all foods - if not all items - should intuitively make it clear to the player their decay rate "state". When I started playing TLD I expected meat left outside to decay slower - which was not the case. In the same way a player, now, could wrongly assume that foods decay the same inside and outside since neither the tooltip ( or anything else ) doesn't give any info about the decay rate being different inside compared to outside. To make condition % and decay rate even more confusing, some items decay slower inside and faster outside - if that didn't change - and some don't decay at all, but they still kept their condition %, which not only keeps them from stacking but could also lead a player to believe that they do decay, or that their condition has bearing on something. Just like cans you can heat tell you on the tooltip if they're heated or not, maybe in the same manner ( or other ) items could tell you about their decay rate "state". Ultimately I think that condition % is a bit too much information, and maybe - with some changes and additions - there would be a way to remove condition % completely from all items. A torch, I don't need to know its condition %. I'd prefer an estimate of remaining burn time, which I already do in my head when I look at condition %. Tools, the same; I would prefer an estimate number of uses left which I already do when I look at condition % - although there it's a bit more complicated since decay rates vary depending on what you do with the tool.
  3. I think many of these issues will be addressed by other mechanics, like wellness and the cooking overhaul.
  4. Nice challenge. I propose this one gets a revision. It's a bit... short Didn't even try that hard
  5. When I said, I meant "what I'm about to say and describe next", as in, a new way for feats to work which I'm going to describe in general. And in this new way, all feats you would earn you'd do so just for the particular sandbox you earned them in and wouldn't apply to any other sandbox; and you have to earn them in each sandbox you want them in.
  6. Love the idea of feats for some of the most requested variations in gameplay. But I see it differently. I talked for the better part of the day with someone about this, trying to reach a common ground - and we kind of did. In the sense that we mainly agree the following is a good idea in principle but once you try to approach the particulars, how you'd go and do this, it becomes, well, very complicated. A few things though. 0. For me personally – how feats currently work just doesn't captivate me enough to make me have a feeling about what I’m actually doing. Feels like a “thing” I get for just playing the game, regardless of which sandbox. Doesn't even seem all that; fair, to be honest. A way which would be more entertaining - at the very least - to me, would work something like the following. 1. All feats you earn, you do so just for the particular sandbox you earned them in. They don't apply to any other sandbox. You have to earn them each sandbox you want them in. 2. There are requirements to be met to be eligible for a feat. Clearly stated like for current feats. More or less, do or don't do ABC within time interval. Some, you are likely to get just by playing. Some, never by just playing as usual, because they are the result of pushing really hard towards a certain form of gameplay. Regardless, everything is clearly stated and there is a fail-safe mechanism. 3. Once you are eligible for a feat, there is a fail-safe mechanism. You have a choice. Either do steps DEF within time interval, or feat becomes permanent for this current sandbox game. If you want it, then you don't have to do anything. But you can choose to not get it by doing DEF within time interval. This doesn't mean you can't get it later. If you don't already have it, whenever you do ABC within time interval, you become eligible for it. Day 15; day 47 or 470. 4. All feats have a pro and a con. This is where it starts to get complicated - and the main point of disagreement. What exactly constitutes a pro and a con. We'll just skip this for now. 5. You have a number of feat slots for each sandbox game - say three, and you can have any combination you want. None, one, all three, permanent, pending. Whichever you want and whenever you want, however you want. Except once locked you have it forever, in this particular sandbox. 6. Once a feat becomes permanent it can be elevated late game. Basically the ABCs for it to be eligible are way harder to complete, and required over a way longer time-span. We're talking tens or hundreds of days. Again, same rules apply. If you fail to get it you can simply try again the ABCs over the required time-span. These are huge feats in the true sense of the word, and you are rewarded with something that is not otherwise possible in sandbox. The idea behind them is split in two parts - if you want them, obviously. First, to get your foot in a particular gameplay door at the start of a sandbox - or whenever you want to. Because for the first level of a feat, time intervals required are small. 5-15 days. Second, to elevate a feat, is to make late-game very, very different than anything else you ever - or could otherwise - experience in sandbox. Perhaps most important, it's not necessarily about what one feat you have, but which pair, or trio. How well they work together. How, beautifully you can make them work together. What's a common request. Less wolves, reduced spawns, lower temperatures, less loot? I don't think dragging a slider down or up, checking or unchecking a box at the start of sandbox would ever work. Your wish would be granted to you - rather, you'd do it yourself - and it would be both a blessing and a curse.
  7. octavian

    On Tinder

    Excellent point. If I were to make paths and guides, I'd use tinder too. Wildly abundant, costs practically nothing.
  8. octavian

    On Tinder

    Coming back to TLD after a year-long hiatus, to see what's changed, what's new and what's not, I felt a need to ask myself some questions; questions which also touch on the matter of, you guessed it, tinder. After this year-long break I've mentioned, I come back, I want start a fire - I'll need tinder. I know this, because I've played this game before a bit. Then, after a while, level 3 fire starting happens - tinder is no longer required to start a fire. So I never need tinder, never again. "Ha", I said, "that's; interesting." Being terribly confused - and stealing a rating system from some guy on the Internet - I asked myself, how do I rate the need for tinder - which I just lost - using this guy's rating system that I borrowed. How do I feel about the game's requirement that I needed tinder to start a fire. Me needing tinder to start a fire is something, either consistently inconsequential, or situationally weak. It's of no consequence to me I need tinder to start a fire. Whatever, I'll just break a stick - which I already need and not specifically for tinder, meaning I already have them. Having said this, there might be some obscure situation where I experience, a weak inconvenience, due to the fact that I need tinder to start a fire. I could never die - even be in mild peril - because I need tinder to start a fire - and presumably I don't have it, or enough of it. Because I'm thinking ahead, knowing it's a requirement for fire. Fire starting level 3 says - ignoring other bonuses, we're talking tinder now - you know that consistently inconsequential thing, where you need tinder to start a fire. You no longer need it. The reason I'm so confused is, tinder is everywhere. Not only that, you can get it from more than one thing. Newspapers, sticks, cat tails, cardboard boxes, cedar limbs, birch bark, or just found lying around places. All these are time-gated as "optional". What is of particular interest to me is that this is a doubly weird position. Tinder as it is now when you start with fire starting level 1 is of no real consequence - since it can be simply removed - hence making the bonus itself to remove the need for tinder, inconsequential. If we time-gate remove a requirement for fire; what can be said about how required is the requirement itself. And there's also the feat of starting with fire starting level 3, and implicitly not needing tinder; at all. So there's these things in the world that exist but which have no purpose now. So then why do we have so much tinder, from so many sources? Perhaps, another way to look at this skill would be the added chance of staring a fire to be because of the different types of tinder - which already exist - and just need to be differentiated. Wrap the fire starting bonus in the type of tinder you use. At level 2, stick-tinder gives +15% bonus chance to starting a fire - because there's so many of them that it basically mirrors the blanket +15% bonus you now get. At level 3, cat tail tinder ( or whichever ) gives +25 % bonus chance to starting a fire. You can start fires without tinder at 40% base chance. And so on until the rarest tinder - no idea which - gives +50% bonus chance to starting a fire. This would time-gate tinder to become more useful as times goes on, not optional and purposeless. Thoughts?
  9. This rope is inaccessible from below once deployed from above ( ends on a ledge you can't walk up to ).
  10. Sorry mutedgrey, I no longer have any interest to develop this. I hope you and anyone else interested in this or something similar to this can make some use of the ideas I had back then and improve on them or find better ways to do it. Thanks.
  11. Yeah, the entire talk about bugs I had before and frankly I just don't have the energy, or the time, to open it again. At the end of the day when Bethany says you can just use the forums and see what's reported, fixed, what's by design and whatever, or that you can ask, I don't think she spent a day looking for bugs, checking if old bugs are fixed, checking for how bugs lead to exploits, checking how new bugs are just old "fixed" bugs, and doing all this by using the forums and the extremely awkward search function. She would know it's extremely tedious, and sometimes downright impossible. But there's no point in even getting all excited about this. The idea is, they have their testers and scout corps, and whoever wants to help in any decisive manner, simply isn't needed, because they have their testers and scout corps. What they tell you to do is, if a bug happens to you, report it, but we're not going to give you any help or provide you with any information to look deeper into it - like a simple list of all known bugs currently in the game, just a number and a one line description - because we have our own testers and scout corps. So I say, fine, let the testers and scout corps be the only ones that look deeper into it. I mean, it's a video game, we should have the fun, they should do the work. So, let's all just relax, play the game, and not worry about. I mean, look at the game. Most stable Alpha out there, right? Isn't that what they always say? So, it must be, bugs aren't really that bad, or exploits, just cars changing colors and the like, nothing serious. So, have fun, it's a stable game. Most stable Alpha out there.
  12. An "easy" way it could be done is with NPCs. The idea would be, do you know how, at the dam, there a kind of "story" going on? With the corpse, the door, the arrows, the torch, the scarf. It's not really a story, but the prototype of a story. This could be done, organically. So you have a kind of NPC "sets" for which permutations are available, like with weather, just more complex. So for instance you can go to DP, and when you go to, say, PV, you find a scarf in the snow, one that wasn't there before, and the signs that "something happened" like for instance cartridges on the ground. It wouldn't be just that, it would be an entire "set", like a complete story, and you found just a piece of that story. So the maps would stay exactly the same, but they would become alive in a way, because you would see signs of human activity, again, this is if NPCs are introduced in sandbox. This gives way to infinity opportunities, like finding out, say, the camp office, is now burned to the ground. And you would also be able to find out why someone did that, it wouldn't be just a random thing, it would be, like I said, a kind of story. This is one of the ways you can have exploration and discovery be a thing even after you know all the maps. And this works well this the fact you can't be in more than one place at one time. Anything can happen on the other maps when you're not there. Or even with you there. Couple this kind of unseen element with the usual NPC mechanics we know, like seeing them and interacting with them, and you have something you could work with.