Carbon

I'm discounting the anomaly - those who outright deny an increase (2 I count in a brief skim of this thread ) compared to the norm (the majority who claim it to be abnormally increased). This and as I said, Raph himself stated that players might not be so happy with the new system (why would that be?) and the system is indeed undergoing scrutiny internally (why again, if it is the same?). To be clear: the general consensus is that is is now problematic and my contention is that this isn't an example of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.

With all due respect, no. The sprain system is over-active right now; watching some streamers last night play the update made it very clear that the new system most certainly makes sprains more commonplace. Quantifiably so I believe, if one were to do the research. Even if the new system makes them equally likely but over a broader range of satisfied conditions, they will increase. You are applying the phenomenon in question incorrectly (its own kind of cognitive bias); the effect comparatively measures particular types of attention; previous inattention measured against a newly activated close attention. Sprains are simply too remarkable in and of themselves and to be discounted with such a phenomenon and are currently being measured by a large pool of individuals. This isn't group serendipity or synchronicity but a quantifiable numerical/statistical increase. I for one am very aware of the frequency of sprains after both playing the game for years and watching countless hours of streams; there is absolutely no doubt that the numbers have increased significantly since yesterday. Even Raph said in this very thread that it's going to be contentious and is now being internally re-examined, simple truth that something is both different and problematic.

Wow....just wow. Love the updates and the re-working of some aspects. Great job HL and thanks for your continued thoughtful development. TLD is far and away the most unique and inspired game to come long in many, many years for me. Much appreciated.

I'll just leave the analogy on the plate. Look, feel how you want to feel. Nobody can change your mind, especially when you insist on and would likely continue to move the goalposts. It's true that the episodes take a long time to come, there's no arguing about that. However, there is no reason to keep beating that drum or tell people they are silly for being both willing to wait and satisfied with the game (especially when they tell you they don't care much for story mode anyhow). You've made yourself clear, so what else can a user forum do for you? Can you find no pleasure in the survival mode at all? There are some excellent challenges from the community that are every bit as compelling as story mode and far more difficult, if that's what you enjoy. "Deadman" challenge is particularly interesting, so maybe you could look into that. Anyhow, I'm not interested in further making this forum a battleground and neither are the mods, so we should both reel it in while we can. For what it's worth, my mistake in thinking that the next episodes will require more money was also answered in my own screenshot, so it seems neither of us are paying close enough attention. Peace.

Here's the store page I see, where it clearly says that the episodes will be released when finished. Too bad you didn't take the time to click "read more" in the "about this game" section.

It's not an argument, it's a rationale. I paid for an early access game some time ago now and implicit in that agreement was that future development was somewhat ambiguous as was the timeline, an agreement to which I willingly submitted and have been more than satisfied with the product since that time. Besides, I wanted and bought survival mode; story mode is very cool, but that's not what I play and not why I paid. When you bought the game, did you see any long-term timeline announcements? Were you deceived in this somehow? No, you weren't and no, there were no concrete deadlines announced, so while I somewhat understand your being disappointed if you bought in later and only for story mode, but you bought in with the ambiguous timeline in place, so...what's the problem again? Finally, if you think Episode 3 is coming for free, I suspect that you'll be further disappointed. I expect HL to start thinking about not being a charity anymore; we've all gotten our more than money's worth between Ep. 1 & 2 and all of the survival mode content we've received and I for one will be happy to pay more for future content. TLD is currently an amazing, one-of-a-kind game and more than worth the money, even if there were no more episodes to come.

While I understand the nature of your post - everyone loves new content - the veiled threats of "we may look elsewhere" and the perceived slight of not being told a specific date indicate a certain lack of both empathy and TLD development history. As has happened to Hinterland in the past and with many, many other game developers, missing a stated deadline does far more damage than the good of announcing one. Even I am guilty of coming down on them for some of their announcement decisions in the past, action I now regret. TLD isn't a cookie-cutter CoD game and Hinterland are no Bethesda; the concept is utterly unique and the dev team comparatively small, even after the expansion. Implicit here is that it's more difficult to know with certainty what will be done when even internally and additions must be considered more carefully, as they lack any precedent. What's the necessary difference between an excuse and the truth? Making great content is more important to me than meeting a deadline and I'd rather have silence than a missed deadline. Considering I have received a multitude of updates and overhauls all for the original asking price of the game - and keep in mind these aren't simply patches or bug fixes but large additional content releases - I feel only grateful. There is something more meaningful about receiving a random gift than one on my birthday. Peace and patience my TLD brother.

Be fully rested before beginning the climb (that rope, along with one in TWM, is one of the longest climbs) and rest on the ledge, where you can either get a bit of sleep if you have a bedroll (watch temps, storms, etc) or pound a few coffees if you have them. But it is a two-stage climb that needs you to be well-rested at the start and recover on the ledge. Best to start the climb right after sleeping and no running from the cave to the start of the climb. Gotta save all of your stamina and energy.

I had the same problem (4770k, 16GB, GTX1070, SSD, 2560x1440, highest graphics). I can't recall exactly what solved it (a driver update?) but I think it was messing around in the NVIDIA control panel. I set anisotropic filtering to 16x manually, as well as turning "off" anisotropic filtering optimization, texture filtering "allow negative LOD bias" to "off", texture filtering to "high quality" and "texture filtering - trilinear optimization" to "on". This seems to have solved the issue. Or yes, a driver update; I'm using 388.13.

Unfortunately all things are relative, yet you argue as though you know what "high" and "medium" actually mean. If this were a bug or series of bugs, the forums would be rattling with complaints; this is a very passionate and vocal community, for good and bad. That it is - or seems to be - only you that has these issues, I would suspect that it gets back to my opening statement: you seem to think you know what these vague terms mean concretely. "Very high", "high", "medium" and "low" are probabilities of probabilities; with sliders things get meta quickly and I for one have noticed clear differences between the settings. Yes, it requires experimentation, but who would have thought otherwise with such ambiguity and likelihoods playing off one another? I have started 7 new games in the last week, each of a couple of hours in order to learn the ropes, as it were and I suspect I will be doing this for a few more 'false starts'. I think it is quite reasonable that with the introduction of sliders, the learning curve is now more fluid and this will take some time to figure out. I thus believe that the things you describe aren't bugs at all and that you adjust your personal definitions and expectations of what the setting terminology means and how such differences may manifest in game. Not trying to upset or attack you at all in this, just trying to be objective.

I ordered a poster some time ago, before the changes and was very pleased with the packing. It comes in a thick cardboard tube with the ends taped and the poster furled inside, lined with clean white paper for further protection. Very well packed and I am half the world away. It took a long time to arrive, but the quality of the poster and again the packing was excellent.

I use a standard issue ISO/IEC 7810 ID-1, fully automatic 3.37" × 2.125" laminated debit card for getting cattle, pigs and chickens, with the occasional duck. I can also use it for fishing, often bringing in cod, salmon, tuna and perch. I wouldn't leave home without it.

It's Astrid's boyfriend calling to tell you to quit stalking her.

Completely agree with everything @TROY said (well said mate). Thanks for your work folks.

Interesting that you know this.

You can indeed make fires up there (it is 'outdoors') but the storm lantern is more luminous.

Indeed. I lit 2 storm lanterns on the top of the lighthouse then ran to the road, making it look like the lighthouse was occupied. A strange feeling both to walk away from burning lanterns (wasting fuel) and to look back and see light emanating from the place. Thanks for your comments!

The guy was seriously giving me the creeps. At least this way he looked busy.

Sorry to bump this but I've been away for a couple of weeks and saw this now and felt it needed a response. I don't argue, I am pedantic. Any argument stems from want of clarity in a discussion, either furthering my own points or asking for clarification. There was of course a subtext in my OP (that's the joke), Joe Smash was taking it too seriously; to the point of asking if it should be reported. If there are things I cannot abide, being misunderstood or to have my motivations depicted are among them. Which brings me to you. I am not the topic of this thread, nor any thread. If you have some insightful observations or have been otherwise surreptitiously noting my behavior I might ask first that you check your own and second, kindly keep it to yourself. This will save you both being wrong and further exposing your obvious affection for me.

So well done, all of them. My particular favorite is Heather Norcott's piece; it's a bit removed from the overall art style, but she has certainly captured a moment. Great work everyone.

The problem is that it remains a valid argument. It is indeed a game and the parameters are set out in the form of hard and fast rules; there are far fewer options than in RL and as a result the rules must be adhered to regardless of the RL minutiae. I have long held the same argument because it's the only one that can be upheld rationally and consistently. Issues perceived within the game must be measured by and within the game, not RL. Ideas are implemented in a broad manner and subsequently mitigated in the same broad strokes. Thus, antibiotics are a panacea that cure all microbial ills, pain killers work instantly and completely cure a sprain, wolf bites have no long-term healing time, bleeding is stopped instantly by the application of a bandage, on and on. What cures parasitic infection or how one might contract it in RL are largely irrelevant to this discussion. The birch bark cure is a well-founded idea; yes it works in RL but more importantly because it fits into the game world seamlessly. The game emulates aspects of reality but takes a quantum leap of faith in countless ways, most of which with we are fine until that is it has a negative effect which we feel is disproportionate. It's not wrong to feel this way or to have issue with something in the game, but arguments of substantiation or those for solutions must remain within the context of the game and make enough sense to simply be plausible. The "its a game" argument is unfortunate in that is often put forward but also has the frustrating virtue of being valid and true. Show me a game where nonsense and fantasy aren't at every turn; games are where otherwise absolute madness is accepted in the agreed suspension of belief. When things work within the framework of the game, they become plausible and practically invisible to the player but when held up to RL, things become quite ridiculous. We cherry-pick our arguments, taking examples of ideas we don't like and founding arguments against them based on RL yet ignore the myriad nonsensical ideas that we like yet have the same surreal foundation for existing. If we argue against parasites from RL then we are also obliged to argue against pain killers being so effective and should hobble about for days. Wolf bites will need daily treatment, changing bandages and re-application of antiseptic accompanied by a long-term condition hit until recovered. Bear mauling will kill you 99% of the time. Lacking vitamins in your diet, never bathing, never defecating or micturating...reality would quickly make this game - any game - no fun at all. Imagine crawling back to your shelter frozen, hungry, low condition from a wolf fight, wrist sprained and then having to get out your crafted shovel and spend 2 hours digging out the entrance due to it being covered with packed snow from the blizzard. Reality sucks and we should be careful what we wish for.