Carbon

3 hours ago, ajb1978 said:

I think the people complaining are subject to the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.  Sprains are the topic of the day, so now they're hyper-aware of them.  I've been keeping track and I'm actually getting FEWER sprains now, because I can now tell when I'm on a risky slope.  I looted the entirety of Mountain Town, making 50kg trips back to paradise meadows, and have not gotten one single sprain thanks to the ability to identify dangerous vs. safe slopes.

It's Vigilant Flame all over again where some people don't like it because it's different.  Give it a couple weeks, the complaints will fade away.

 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.

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.

2 hours ago, Thrasador said:

Don't eat yellow snow....it's really salty, and tastes NOTHING like a banana snow cone....sadly....

 Interesting that you know this.

1 hour ago, SnowWalker said:

Yeah, come to think of it the game wouldn't allow us to make a fire up there anyway, probably. Anyway, cool.

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

38 minutes ago, SnowWalker said:

@Carbon Awesome shots. Did you have a fire going in the lighthouse or something? Love that lighthouse one and the foggy yellow shot.

 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!

6 hours ago, cekivi said:

... I guess that guy really needed to finish the paper before making tinder plugs eh @Carbon? 

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

On 7/25/2017 at 7:21 PM, Thrasador said:

I feel this thread is a good example of how even when someone attempts to agree with the point they "thought" Carbon was trying to make, Carbon is still contrary...

I am wondering if he/she is an Aquarius. They are the most argumentative of all the signs. I had a buddy growing up who was an Aquarius, he liked to argue just for argument's sake. Like they just enjoy debate. 

I find arguing tedious....especially when your intent was to actually agree with the person who is now arguing with you. Doing that is just a waste of your time/life.

I'm not trying to start a fresh argument, I am just making an observation after reading many threads with Carbon arguing with others in the thread. I read the comments in this thread and was like HOLY CRAP, even when someone attempts to agree with Carbon....they are still wrong...

  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.

On 7/18/2016 at 6:47 PM, Dirmagnos said:

Again with this argument, and i prefer to wash my hands be4 handling any food. Its not really that hard.

 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.

 Lamp oil can be harvested by cooking fish and can then be used as an accelerant to start fires quickly (and guaranteeing ignition), refuel the lantern or to make a torch (which can be crafted without a workbench).

 Look, I won't drag this out, but you engaged me initially and wrote quite a bit relating to why my ideas "didn't go far enough". I then wrote to your argument and if I truly derailed it, then it was weak. I am in no way concerned about you personally closing me out; I was only concerned with the argument and you continuing to hold up your end of it in a reasonable manner.

 I only told you that a lower level might be best after a lot of reasoning why; I am a horribly pedantic person and I rarely say anything without substantiation. I disagree with your assessment that I was obnoxious; you seem quite sensitive to criticism and if you can admit that, then perhaps you could also re-read my posts and see them in a more neutral light. Either way, I never intend to antagonize but I am also not going to coddle.

 Finally, I do take my own advice. I write carefully and considerately (did I mention what a pedant I was?) and think quite carefully before replying, as I have also done here. I do not talk about posters, but posts and only address words, not people. It is sage advice to allow your ideas to be challenged and criticized without taking it personally; think of it as a kind of peer review. If we put forward an idea and allow it to be looked at from every angle - not only the ones we see or agree with - the idea will either emerge stronger and better for it or weaker and can be dismissed.

 Anyhow, I don't want to cause you any stress or grief, so accept this olive branch. If you go back over the thread, we have more agreement than not, so let's focus on that. Peace.

 Highly reactionary reply Renegade.

 Toxic? But not wrong. I'm fine with you thinking that. I was very civil in my post and took much time to reply thoughtfully; a waste apparently.

  I could easily go through your post and argue (in the proper sense of the word) each point, but why bother? You are already name calling, completely closed and defensive, all due to a stranger challenging your ideas. It won't get any better I'm afraid, so as I said, call me what you will but I'm not wrong and it seems you'd best get acquainted with humility. Suffice it to say that your post is essentially backpedaling, innuendo, and some strange bravado.

 Anyhow, a tip for future reference: don't ever write to "me" or anyone on forums...discuss words, speak to ideas because you know nothing of the person writing them. This helps keep a conversation civilized and avoids the need to babysit fragile egos.

 Enjoy your great victories in Interloper. And get outside already man...you'll go crazy out there at the lake.  

2 hours ago, Renegade30 said:

The cabin fever mechanic is literally self defeating.

 No, it's not. Literally. I think you mean somehow 'contradictory' or 'conflicting'.

 I've read your posts carefully, as I do with anyone to whom I reply. That's why this...

2 hours ago, Renegade30 said:

i love the difficulty and i have no problem dealing with cabin fever.

...seems odd when compared to this...

11 hours ago, Renegade30 said:

Camp office (after 12 hours of recovery)->foraging & Forestry lookout (spent 6-8 hours resting)->train wreckage & harvesting carcass ->camp office (spent 8-10 hours to recover) -> Carter dam (raided the whole place, was completely exhausted but no bedroll) -> logging cabins (spent 8-10 hours to recover)... Got 60% chance of cabin fever.

  Anyhow.

On 7/3/2017 at 1:38 PM, Renegade30 said:

Recap - Why is this a game mechanic?
To prevent hibernation gameplay, where a person spends like 90% of their time in bed either sleeping or passing time, starving and consuming few calories. Basically 'breaking' the game.

 Here you state that hibernation breaks the game but where you seem to diverge from this understanding is with the numbers; the current calculations are below 90%, but this does not mean that a lesser number would not break the game. Its hibernation that breaks the game, the number is just a corollary. So it seems then that the definition of hibernation is in dispute, not the idea of cabin fever in and of itself.

 Much of the rest of the quoted post talks about reality - which I have argued many times has no place in a discussion regarding the game's reality - and you offer a solution in the form of "constructive activity". I replied to this idea directly to which you then said that it didn't go far enough although in fact, I was essentially paraphrasing you. I said that sleeping and passing time are the only indoor activities that should count towards contracting cabin fever, a.k.a.; constructive activities wouldn't count. I maintain that it does go far enough and that its a reasonable and relatively simple solution. I think we agree here actually. Your other ideas:

On 7/3/2017 at 1:38 PM, Renegade30 said:

1. Look at the amount of real time vs game time.

 I have no idea first what this means. It's mind-bending to consider how this might work actually, but I'm sure you'll illuminate my dark ignorance.

On 7/3/2017 at 1:38 PM, Renegade30 said:

2. Look at what the person has achieved in game each day. Distance traveled, locations visited, things crafted, hunting performed, wolf struggles etc

 Travel, hunting, wolf fighting and visiting locations all imply being outside, but its the duration that is important, not what one is doing. One could easily visit some nearby locations, hunt something or fight a wolf daily and quickly. Distance traveled (= time outdoors) makes no sense to be on this list; if you are reaching a distance set by the developers - and one would assume that this distance would correlate to their current requirements for 'outdoor time' -  then you would be outside sufficiently long to avoid cabin fever anyway. It wouldn't make sense for the developers to set a distance quota which requires little time to satisfy, if cabin fever is to remain something formidable in the game (that would be truly self-defeating).

 So, again, I was not and am not arguing for the idea of cabin fever (quite the opposite if you read my earlier posts). I actually don't think it should be implemented at all; if one wishes to hibernate, go ahead. It sounds boring and pointless, but whatever blows your hair back. You paid for it, so whatever.

 However, your claims indicate that interloper simply isn't for you. You don't complain about the intensity or frequency of blizzards, the outdoor temperatures, the lack of decent clothing in the world all of which directly correlate to your problem with cabin fever. If the weather were warmer, the clothing found better or the blizzards fewer, cabin fever wouldn't be an issue. Thus, by your rationale, all of the things listed above are "self defeating".

 In fact, these things are the very cause of cabin fever, or at least the factors which motivate you to stay indoors provoking it so wouldn't it thus be more reasonable to have these scaled back a bit? You don't argue for that however; no mention of weather temperature, etc...and why? Perhaps because Interloper is seen as some kind of badge of honor and pride, the 'real survivalists' wouldn't be caught dead playing anything else. Yet, you are in reality taking issue with many aspects exclusive to Interloper, hence my claim that you should play on a lower difficulty. You can rail against cabin fever all you want but the truth is you need to look at the cause of your cabin fever and see that's its systemic and inherent to Interloper.

Edit: I see in another post your want sliders to tune the game. Yes, your ideas speak to just that; you want certain aspects of Interloper but not others...à la carte. Well, that says it all really.

 While some aspects of the combined sound somewhat reflects what I am carrying, I don't have tin cups and cowbells hanging off my bag. I guess the volume doesn't bother me as much as the number of layers and types of sounds present while walking.