• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Wolfbait

About DarkUncleBoh

  • Rank
  1. +1 to that, though I'd like if they went one step further and instead of options being "on/off", make it "full/medium/low/off" so that you can turn it for those times when you don't need it to be so bright and want to save a bit of kerosene...
  2. First off, welcome to the forums. Secondly, I'd suggest spending some time poking around /searching the forums and reading other threads. I believe all of your bullet points here have been suggested and discussed in other threads in the Wish List forum (including some, like the compass, that have been flat-out rejected by developers as being against the game's background / canon) -- either way, you may be interested to read up on what has been said on these suggestions previously.
  3. While I don't point out any of that for sympathy, I do appreciate the sentiment. Anything further on that subject is neither relevant nor appropriate for this forum, so I will politely refuse to comment and request that you let it lie as well. And there it is. In your opinion. On the other hand, in my opinion, games like TLD can be so much more fun to play together. I've been a hardcore gamer for over 30 years - and by far the most memorable times that I have in playing games involved overcoming a challenge, or reacting to something unexpected, together with a friend in the game. My girlfriend and I do a lot of playing single-player games in the same room - but we also have a lot of fun playing other survival based games co-op... yet always find ourselves wishing that those games had less focus on combat or PvP or horror or building, and instead had more focus on survival. So many of the mechanics in TLD are exactly what we wish for in the other games that we do play co-op. As I've said many times - I don't know that I'd want the devs to put some of their limited resources into including a co-op option. But if they did, I can predict four things: 1) You'd still play single player, 2) I'd play much more of the game (split between single and co-op), 3) I'd personally buy at least 2 or 3 more copies of the game to gift to friends I'd be interested in playing with, and 4) that the opinions of others won't be taken into account when it comes to how much fun I'd have playing with my friends.
  4. The point for me would be mostly to be have fun while playing with my girlfriend (and possibly one of my best friends when he comes over with his laptop). I would love to go out hunting and camping in RL with friends. Unfortunately while my second spinal surgery five years ago restored the use of my left leg, my days of doing much outdoors have to be left back in my 30's. Likewise any such activities aren't likely in my girlfriend's future, as even walking with a cane she often has difficulty walking more than 100 feet without a rest (she has MS). Regardless of our specific situations, the argument of "doing it in real life is more fun" feels like an odd one to apply to multiplayer mechanics - as it seems to hold equally true for single-player. Yes the game as it is right I find it too easy, but I'm confident that it won't always be that way (knowing balance is an ongoing process, and this game is still in early access - also hopeful for the possibility of modded content down the road). Besides that... -- food: yes two can hunt/harvest more than one, but it also means that looted food will go half as far when in a pinch and/or before you're equipped to hunt well -- water: less of an issue, but the same situation... toilet water won't last as long before you need to melt/boil some more water -- non-renewable resources: more food consumed means more chances for random food poisoning, more clothing means more sewing kits used, if you look at each bullet by a matter of how long you can survive off of the meat from a single round... they won't go as far... etc, etc To be clear: There absolutely will be many areas of the game that would be easier playing co-op, particularly as a result of the increased carry capacity. The point of the above is simply to point out that it is not "that simple"... and while such gameplay doesn't appeal to all, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place in a game like this.
  5. While I personally am not convinced that putting work into multiplayer play for TLD would be the best use of limited developer time and resources, in my opinion the above would only be relevant if multiplayer were implemented in an a generic and wholly inappropriate way for TLD. -- PvP is one of the big things that brings in the "insecure childish peeps", but IMO would have no place in TLD which should focus on co-op only. -- A lot of MP FPS games have been trending to more and more and more players, but IMO a limit of 4 players absolute max would be appropriate for TLD. -- A lot of issues with other games come up on dedicated servers that are running at all times, even when players are not in the game (making it so that those with more time on their hands can "out compete" others, and thus attracting more players who are interested in "winning" over others), but again this would have no place in TLD for which a dedicated server would make no sense - just a "local" run game (in quotes because there is no reason a friend shouldn't be able to join over the net, but the game should be run locally - no on a central server, no servers listings for random people to join, etc). Personally I do play several other MP FPS games - and agree that TLD shouldn't go in the direction that many of those do... but there is still a LOT of room for a co-op focused implementation. Frankly, while there are a ton of the "other" kind of games, there are an unfortunately small number of FPS games with a true co-op focus - which would fit very well with the survival side of things. ...besides, if they implemented co-op in TLD, I could finally give my girlfriend the answer she wants to hear whenever she sees me playing and asks if this is something she could play with me.
  6. +1 to both the OP and American Steel's points While yes it would require more programming, the temperature aspect of the game is such a major one that IMO it is justified -- and I for one would love to see a more intricate fire/heat system, including things like: - differing radiance of heat (how much ambient is heated by the same amount of fuel, dependent on the type of fire) - thermal mass of stoves (both retaining and providing heat longer after a fire dies down, as well as taking longer to provide meaningful ambient heat when they're entirely cold) - fires burning down to hot coals, based on how much fuel the fire burned originally (and in what form - open fire, barrel, stove) - harvesting partial fuel from an open fire blown out by high winds Another thing I for one would really like to see is a "stoke" mechanic - where you can at any time stoke an already burning fire which will essentially give the fire a "buff" for a while (and you can restoke it before the buff runs out to just rest the buff to its max duration). As long as a fire has the "stoked buff" it burns fuel twice as fast, but also put out 50% additional ambient heat. So it wouldn't be as efficient, but would give you the option if/when you needed more heat etc.
  7. I had an idea for a book to teach you how to make a crossbow, but with a twist - not just for the crossbow, but for the book reading as something to fill some "down time". Example: The book itself takes maybe 72 hours to read in total, but you do it in chunks (like crafting larger items). Once you have read the entire book, you learn how to craft the individual parts (say "stock", "bow", "firing mechanism", and "bolts" - as well as how to assemble the three main parts into the final crossbow). However, each of these parts (and the assembly) take a substantial amount of time to do... ...so for the "twist", after you have read the book in full, that also unlocks options when (re)reading the book of "review how to craft a crossbow stock" - which only takes 2 hours to do, and when you do so it gives you a buff for the next 24 hours - that buff doubles any craft time that you put into building a stock. There would of course be "review" options for each section of the book - so that keeping the book around and referring back to it as you build, help keep you moving along with the crafting. It is an idea in its infancy - needs a lot of fine tuning I'm sure, but was a though I had for a way to implement books for how to craft more complicated things.
  8. +1 to the idea of having a melt+boil option for use at times. I'd still want the default options to stay as they are though, for a variety of reasons (including the use of water tablets, the option to drink unclean water if you're desperate, etc).
  9. In solid candle designs, the wick does burn - not primarily, but as the wax level goes down the tip of the wick ends up further and further away from the burning wax, such that the tip burns down a tiny bit at a time. This is one of the big advantages to "liquid" candles (such as modern paraffin candles - which are basically small/simple lamps) since the heat of the flame isn't required to change the fuel source into liquid (and thus able to traverse up the wick), the distance between the flame and the fuel becomes less of an issue - allowing for the same point of the wick to be used to burn fuel even as the fuel level continues to drop (in which case the wick does realistically get burned away, but only in tiny bits as long as it is properly maintained - and a single wick can be reused for several liquid candles). My girlfriend made several small "ancient styled" lamps with a simple braided piece of torn cloth as wicks (very much like this)- we pull them out on special occasions, and burn them for probably 30-40 hours per year (burning cheap olive oil actually)... after ten years the wicks are in great condition, and I suspect should be good for at least another 10-20 years.
  10. Just read your own post and you'll have your answer....they're allready there...and therefore: no need for 'more People' in the game... Uhh... what? How does the existance of NonPlayerCharacters equate to another PlayerCharacter for co-op mode being "already there"? Or are you just making a joke?
  11. Hey, stealing my examples now danicus? Seriously though, I agree that while throwing knife/hatchet would be groovy on the "FPS" side of things, they don't make sense in a game where survival is so very much the main focus.
  12. While I know it isn't happening anytime soon, and quite possibly never, I for one would still like to see co-op as an eventuality. Right now, I'm glad that Hinterlands is focusing on the solo game - there is still a lot to do, and I'd rather see them do what they're doing as well as they possibly can, without getting pulled into too many directions (especially since from a technical development standpoint, adding any form of multiplayer would take a substantial amount of resources). Still... if they did add co-op, danicusrex could still have his solitude (we'd just all have to sign a petition to promise not to play co-op with him) As for "wouldn't make any sense in this game"... everyone is entitled to their own opinion I suppose. I for one think it makes plenty of sense in this game - both from a game design standpoint, and from a story/lore standpoint. Heck, the story mode is going to have NPC's and other survivors - why wouldn't it make any sense that in a sandbox version of that, we ended up "teaming up" with another of those survivors?
  13. I do like the idea of being able to harvest scrap and/or oil from some of the oil drums (though that wouldn't work as lantern fuel for the current storm lanterns - but I'm sure other uses could be added for it). Note on cars: Regardless of getting your hands on gas for cars, they're not going to be able to start due to the geomagnetic storm that is the lore background of the game in the first place (and why nothing electronic works).
  14. I agree that they have a good place in the game. They should be very limited in their ability to warm you up, but in an emergency they could provide that little tidbit needed to help make it through... However, I personally thinkn 5-10 C is WAY too much - both from a balance standpoint, and from a realistic standpoint. Yes they give off a lot of heat, but in an extremely small/focused area - and in game temperature mechanics, we're talking about your whole body. I agree that the simplest would be to just activate them in your inventory (rather than specifying "this one goes in my left boot..." etc), but I think they should be more like 1C (each). Personally I think they'd be an appropriate rare-ish loot for glove boxes and med kits (maybe also having a small chance to spawn in a hunter's blind, given their use as hand warmers).
  15. In the end it really comes down to where the devs want to draw the line, in the interest of enjoyable gameplay - knowing that all of us are going to have different opinions on where that line should be drawn in any particular instance. ...I mean, I personally find it more believable that a wilderness pilot knows how to make a pretty good bow and arrow with the materials provided, than I do things like tearing apart a storm lantern and then using the scrap metal attained from that to fix an extremely beat up rifle back to pristine condition with nothing but 1kg worth of basic hand tools...