Mroz4k

Members
  • Posts

    1,643
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mroz4k

  1. Dont think it should be immediate. I had thought of something similar in the past. I think it should be similar to how intestinal parasites work. Once you reach exhausted, there will simply be a gradually bigger risk of passing out. That way, you can still move around for some time after you are exhausted, but the longer you are so exhausted, the higher chance of passing out. Lets say at 20% risk of passing out, one can actually pass out. There should be some margin of error, because the most of the time you run exhausted is mid rope-climb. Rest of this looks fine. I like the idea that would force people to keep their strenght up, not just carrying capacity issue and slow 1% degradation of condition. The risk of falling asleep for a bit in the middle of nowhere for a bit is a serious issue. Like you said - it could be in a middle of a strong push during bad weather outside... that could be very deadly. All in all, a good idea, but would have to be balanced out. Simple flat out falling asleep as soon as you reach red would not be feasible for the game. But having it gradually creep up as a risk with intestinal parasites would make more sense in my opinion.
  2. Hi! I feel ya. It can get pretty difficult to remain interested in the game at the late game. However, the purpose of a sandbox in a very definition is that it does not have a goal. So, the solution to your problem is to actually set up goals for yourself. The game is not just about survival, especially in the late game. You are most likely going to have everything you need, and it is easy to spiral down into a routine. So, instead of doing that, set up goals for yourself. Say that for no reason at all, you will travel from your base to Broken railroad and do something there. For example, create outposts. or mark out the bear and moose spawnpoints with the can of spray. The world is yours. It is entirely up to you what to do with it. There does not need to be a predetermined goal to the sandbox, in fact, if there was, you would eventually complete it too, and then you would be at the same exact situation you are at right now. If you have trouble setting up goals for yourself, come by here and in a survival section of the forums, ask others to make a goal for you. Lets give that a shot - if you would accept my assignment, here is what your goal can be: The moose hunter challenge: Visit these areas to look & hunt for a moose. Take its hide and bring it back to your mainbase and craft the moosehide cloak out of it. The location where to look for the moose: Hushed river valley - Monolith lake. Ash Canyon - the burnt patch of the canyon below the exit of the gold mine. Bleak inlet - the washed out trailers area Mountain town - Milton basin. Look for the signs of a moose in these areas. if you find the markings, look for the moose. If its not there, you can try to visit the other areas, but mark this down in your notes. If you cannot find the moose at other areas, you may come back here to try again. After you found a moose, take it down. You may only use bow and arrows to hunt the moose down. After you kill it, make screenshots if you can. Take the hide, tan it and craft it in your main base into a moosehide cloak. After you are done, make a post about it in Survival stories. This should keep you busy for a while, it is a pretty reasonably difficult challenge, and at the end, if you are successful, you will have a moosehide cloak to commemorate your adventure with a story to tell about it.
  3. I believe hte idea there is for it to be vague. To prompt people to explore over and over the zones they were until they were familiar with each nook and cranny. It helps to map the area in detail - not only via the vistas, but overal by remapping some areas to mark down all the resources and landmarks. At that point, you can be pretty sure that you have visited every location there is to visit.
  4. Props to the people in topic below: The posts there solidified my theory that the bus was actually leaving the prison, and most likely was transfering the prisoners from Blackrock penitentiary towards Perseverance mills, the key populated point of the island. It is most likely there will be a port, and an airstrip that Will was going to use for landing. Thus it makes sense they could use it to transfer the prisoners off the island. It is also very logical that the prison area was going to be very remote to the populated side of the island. There was also a theory in that topic where the services of the island are - once again, it makes sense for them to be mostly on the populated side of the island.
  5. This topic inspired me to finish a project of mine, which basically tried to tie together the regions we already have in the game to what we know of. You are welcomed to take a look at it here: It contains most of my opinions and theories that tie deep into logic and lore of the game, both of Sandbox and Story mode. From the map there, you guys will see how well the roads and the railroads actually connect. Indeed! And more then that, think Blackrock prison, where the Prison bus was headed/headed from. It is very likely that there is a port, either at Perseverance mills or on the opposite side, but what this post pointed out makes me believe its likely going to be at the Perseverance mills. Its very likely that this will be a port town, along with the airport, and it would be the central point of the connection to mainland for the island. Putting that into consideration, I imagine that somewhere to the side of Broken Railroad, where the maintenance shed is, is where there will be a deep forest, and quite likely the Blackrock prison the bus was headed from. The railway is used to transport cut logs from the island towards the where they would be ferried off the island. With that in mind, it makes sense for the maintenance shed to be on the opposide side from the railway then the ferry would be located. With that in mind, I think you are right, OP, there is likely going to be some sort of unloading station/depot for the railroad at Perseverance mills. This would put the maintenance shed to a location somewhere mid-railway or end-railway to do maintenance on the train engines in case it malfunctioned towards the loading area or along the way. I dont think there will be "airport", it is very likely that there is going to be some sort of small "airstrip" that mostly small bushplanes land on, like the one Will used. It is a common way to travel in this kind of Canadian wilderness. I believe it makes sense for the fire department to once again be in the Perseverance mills area if this is to be the staging point for the whole island. The train destination is probably going to be ferry, as log transports are traditionally done mostly by trains and ferries. It probably connects the loading and timber areas of the island to the main port.
  6. Hello! Posted this under General. It ties deeply into both Wintermute story mode, and Survival sandbox. Would not be fair to put it into either of the sections. Keep in mind some major spoilers for both Sandbox and Story mode are ahead, I will be diving deep into the lore of the game to try and tie together some of the mysteries, and from them, devise what comes next. I have planned to make an overal map based on the "Choose your region" map you get when starting a new survival game to pick a spawnpoint... be advised, some overal spoilers to the game and to story mode, mostly Episode 3, are below. So keep that in mind if reading further - I cant spoiler it all out. I will also bring some of my theories to the mix. Map of the Great bear island Legend: White are marked out main zones. Purple are marked connector-zones. Dark blue are the connector-caves. Green are the asphalt-kind roads. That is the known part of the game. Now, to the theory-part of the map: Red is the missing "zone". Pink is the missing connector-zone/cave/tunnel? (Note that it is very likely that red and pink are both one part of a same "connector zone, as I explain further) Yellowish green are the "zones" I expect going further. ----- White areas mark out the locations of the major regions you can visit in the game in Survival sandbox. Purple are the smaller, connector-kind zones to depict the continuity. The overal "Choose your region" map is tilted in a very annoying kind of way, so for the regions you really need to use some imagination to see where they connect. I used both the in-game charcoal maps and the Whiteberry toarda style kind of maps to try to match the roads and zones as closely as possible to rivers and mountains on the maps, and transfer it onto the "Choose your region" map as closely as possible. I did this by hand, so expect some major human mistake in terms of exactness. Also, the tilt makes it impossible to be really precise. Time to theorize! Enough theories for one day. I hope this read was interesting to some of you, either way, as the map proves, the roads and the railroads in The Long dark actually connect almost perfectly. I must give ten bows to the Hinterland for how seamlessly they connected the zones together so that if someone with a good sense of direction takes a look at the map, they see how well it connects one location to the other.
  7. I admit, I quite like your writing style, but it is a bit difficult for me to understand, so apologies ahead of time if I misunderstand something. Do clarify, please. Happy to respond in turn. 1. Do I understand it correctly, that a bear with a fish diet taste has a different taste to their meat? Okay. I think the only way to achieve that would be if the bears were somehow different, and dropped different kind of black bear meat then all the other bears. One with the same name, but different ID. I guess that is doable, probably would not be that difficult. Except for one thing - Will and Astrid voices are voiced by professionals. So unless it is a part of some wider collection of dialogs, filing recording session to add only one dialog for the purpose of some minor immersion additions would not be practical. But that does not mean its impossible. I admit it is a neat little detail. I would not mind it in the game. 1.2 Nah. The whole thing with animal carcasses is not really meant to be realistic, it is a matter of game mechanics. Cosmetic changes like a different comment on the meat of a fish-consuming bear, that is fine, but difference to how it acts compared to other bears should not be the case in my opinion. 2. Frankly, the containers everywhere should provide Unsafe water, not potable water. The water inside the resorvoirs is stagnant. Many of them were probably unused for days, weeks, some maybe even years. Stagnant water like that is prone to become infected by bacteria or cyanobacteria, etc. Even chlorinated water is not safe forever, the chlorine out of it will dissapate. 3. Think the "match count" is once again not really realistic, more of a gameplay mechanic. I doubt wood matches in Canada would only have 12 matches. The ones I use have maybe 30. The bigger box even a 100. Either way, burning "more matches" would just be a wasteful behaviour. Something every survivalist knows, firestarting is not about how many matches you use, it is about how well you prepare the appropriate tinder to then bring the flame to life. I would be against this - not only is it wasteful, it doesnt make much sense. True enough that if your hands are frozen, it is more difficult - I would like to see that reflected in firestarting chance if one is suffering from hypothermia, or hypothermia risk respectively. Say -10% to -20%. --- Just a couple of my opinions on your suggestions. Would love to see more from ya!
  8. I was thinking about this further. Barring the usage of dropping a backpack outdoors to run from a predator or when one needs to quickly climb up and down a rope, but instead thinking of how to make the load outs mechanically plausible. I will assume what I suspect of the game, I have no knowledge of coding or of the inner works of the game, but I believe I have some limited idea behind the mechanics. I suspect all items have their own unique ID, at least the items which are non-stackable. Lets also assume that loadouts could be a mechanic only used indoors. For that reason, I assume all indoor locations have a knowledge of all the items stored inside them, or dropped on the ground. What if the inventory had an option, "create outfit of gear" - this would put you into the storage-kind of inventory. Think of it as an "internal container" of sorts. You put specific items into it and save it by leaving the window. At this point, nothing changes - but then you have an option to place down an item that looks like a backpack down anywhere indoors. It could also say the "weight" of the collective gear, but putting it down wouldnt actually take any items away from your inventory. However, if you drop those items anywhere within that room, then pick up the loadout, it will put the items into your inventory. Regardless where they are stored. Think this would work pretty well. It would just give people the "role-play/convinient choice to put specific gear together into one box, then spread those same items over the ground, and then pick them up again simply by grabbing the load-out pack.
  9. Possibly. Then again it is a different thing context-wide. However, I think you are right in a sense it wouldnt impact the game rating. There are some pretty grim moments in the game, worse then this would be. That is an excellent point. You get an upvote for that one
  10. Reward, for failing the game? Also, it would mean that the player would actually have to have a model as well... right now, we dont Not sure I agree. It is a bit morbid, and that might be an issue. It could affect the game´s rating. Right now it is rated for teens, this would probably push it towards Mature audience, which I doubt Hinterland wants. In fact, from what I remember Ralph said, they were hoping for rating for younger people. But, I guess the game is pretty brutal at times as well. Lets just think of all the rabbits ever caught by a stone... maybe I am wrong and it wouldnt change a thing. In that case, I dont mind it . There is a thing to consider here about the wolf behavior and attacks. Predatory animals dont always just attack when they are hungry. There are different types of an animal attack, the way I understand it - predatory and defensive/offensive types of attack. Predatory is what you would expect - the animal attacks its prey because it is trying to eat it. Even then, it usually does not just "dig in" - they are most likely going to check the area first before taking a bite. The defensive/offensive/explorary type of attack is a result of instinctual attack on the person by the wolf who appears to be defending themselves, who are cornered, protecting their pack or their young, who are curious and attack to test the defense of its target, etc... it is said that animals, who kill their target in this manner of an attack, most of the times will not eat it afterwards. There is also a marked difference between how the attack happens - predatory attack, it is the intent of the predator to kill its prey. They bite into the soft tissue with intent to cause massive bleeding and kill the prey quickly. During defensive attack, the idea is to hurt the target instead. They dont aim for cartery, for neck. They bite extremedies instead, because they are easier to reach, and the idea is to discourage the target from attack, or to test its defense instead. Obviously, wolves attack deer and rabbits for predatory reasons. But human is much bigger then they are - it is plausible that attack on a player by a wolf is motivated by defensive, offensive or just curious behaviour. In this manner, the wolf struggles are survivable, and actually make a lot of sense with the way things work in TLD. If the wolf did attack the player in order to kill them, the struggle would be more fatal. They would push the player to the ground, then go after their neck immidiately after. Different sources divide wolf attacks to even more sub-sections. It is actually quite an interesting topic. If anyone is interested, there is a wikipedia page on wolf attacks.
  11. I agree it would be convenient. You can also just place the gear in a specific pile, then equip and take it off based on your planned trip. Carry what you carry always on you. I actually turn it into a ritual for myself. Afterall, in real life, you have to "get dressed" as well, right? And that takes time of your day... but just cuz I do it this day, does not mean there cant be a way that this would work more conviniently. I suggested something similar in the past. The issue with my idea would be that "different size backpacks" could also essentialy be used as moveable containers if people wanted to. I think Hinterland does not want to give people ability to make internal storage containers - it seems storage space is something to consider when choosing a base (never was for me, I just lay it on the ground, but I guess some people care about putting things into storage.
  12. I dont think Interloper is easy at all. Some people find it difficult to live past the first day, that is why it is even an achievement for Steam... for a seasoned Stalker player, I guess Interloper might be easy. For most Voyageur players, who enjoy playing a tuned-down version of the game, I really dont think Interloper is easy at all. However, I dont think its fair to judge a game difficulty on abusing the game mechanics in a way that avoids the core of what the game is about - permadeath. If save scumming is the way you play the game, that is fine, as others pointed out, this is a singleplayer game and everyone can play it the way they want to. But it is clear the game is intended not to have "saves" and making a mistake should be fatal. Hence permadeath. That said, it also does not justify that others here should jump to conclusions, in my opinion. Not really. Stalker was too easy for people, I think Interloper was a correct step. Deadman should, however, remain what it is - a community challenge. The fact they already added a Challenge As the dead sleep to honor it should be enough. That is exactly why they added Custom gamemode - so people can make their own difficulty. So they dont need to add more generic game difficulties afterwards.
  13. Reading your post, I am almost sad. I have been playing the game basically since it came out, I have been to most places and done most things, and hearing you experience it for the first time, learning as you go, I almost envy you. This game is amazing, and I can not agree more then with what @Bean said... the game is amazing. The way it pulls you in... I dont think I have ever been so immersed in a game then this one. Only just recently I took the time to explore the new region, Ash canyon... There is a sense of pride when you just finish climbing that first major ledge on a rope climb as the sun begins to set, you are tired and build the campfire to warm yourself as you set up a small camp behind a stone to protect the fire from wind, and then you go take a look at the sun, setting over the mountaintops... it just pulls you in. Once you become a seasoned player, I often find that you focus on survival a bit too much, and it is easy to forget to take your time and appreciate the beauty... if I can give one tiny tip to you - there is no need to rush everywhere. Take your time, and trully experience the journey, friend. P.S: The picture is pitch perfect. The one thing that makes it even better is the story that is behind it!
  14. Mroz4k

    A Dog

    @ManicManiac I used to make that suggestion to people too, but it wont help much - most of the time people just post their own thread on the topic. And, frankly, it is probably better this way cause even if the topic might be the same, the ideas might be widely different from each other. But I agree with you 100%, it is good to use "search" and read the other threads too, they contain a lot of inspiration to improve upon one´s own idea for the suggested wish. As for your reasoning - I respect your standpoint. I think many people would feel that way too. This is why I think it is a good idea to make it as much of an "optional" thing as possible. Sort of like ammunition crafting is in the game right now - it was also very controversial topic. Hinterland added it into the game eventually, but made it very optional for people who just wanted to use Firearms more in longer term games. If I dont want to craft more ammo, I dont have to. But I have the option. And personally, I am quite grateful for it. I was against the proposed mechanic for a very, very long time. But, in the end, it actually ends up being quite a positive change in my opinion. I think it could very well be the same way with the dog. I agree with you, I think it would be a very poorly designed choice if the dog was somewhat "forced" upon a player in Survival. But I highly disagree it should be a dedicated challenge or just a Story mode thing. Dont think it fits well into the Story, and adding a detailed and elaborate suggestion for a sake of a single challenge mode would be a poor design strategy.
  15. It is possible that Nomad challenge has the Aurora setting turned off. I cant confirm this for sure, but if you went for 164 days without seeing one, it is very likely. Even on the lowest settings, the aurora is not that uncommon, I believe. Especially not in Bleak Inlet, where the possibility of encountering aurora is much higher then usual. In my custom game which has Aurora set to rare, it took 2 nights for me to encounter Aurora. Nomad was a challenge mode they introduced long before Aurora was added into the game. It is also possible they simply did not change the challenge to include Aurora. If you enjoy Nomad as a challenge, I would reccomend you try playing Voyageur afterwards. Pilgrim is fine too, from what I remember, Nomad challenge is somewhere b between the two settings. But especially if you like the survival aspect of the game, Voyageur will challenge you more. Pilgrim is more suited for you if you just prefer to explore. It is a huge difference, if the predators can attack you, or run away. Another option would be to play a Custom game. That is what I usually do - to tailor my game the way I like to play. I usually play hostile wildlife, and harsher weather, but richier loot and safer damage taken by animals and so on. Problem with the Custom mode is that you will not get any Badge progress if you play Custom mode.
  16. The very first time I held revolver in my hand I tried to pick up a stick with it, and accidentally shot. But it was not even close. And if you think about it, this really is just a "game mechanics" kind of a mess up, in real life, you would not do this by a mistake. if you were picking up a stick from the ground, you would put the revolver away for a bit. I like the things they are the way they are right now. If you end up doing this, you will quickly learn to put your revolver away when picking things up from the ground. Also I am not a big fan of adding a whole new affliction entirely for a purpose of something that is probably only ever going to happen to a player once. Realism or not, it just doesn´t seem like a good use of limited resources. Nah, I get how you feel like that, but it would just complicate things too much. It is just easier to either put the revolver down, or take the time to pick the stick up, after seeing that you have it targeted for picking it up. I have done the thing with the rabbit before... but most of the time, I simply just put the stone away when I am running for the stunned rabbit. You can always pick the stone you used afterwards and use the spacebar option to "hold it" to re-equip stones. Or using the weapons window of radial menu. It is really easy.
  17. I gotta say, this seems very complicated for something that would have basically next to no effect on the game. In my opinion, I think it would be best if they just kept things the way they are. I have nothing against hoods per say, I think they look awesome. I agree that wearing a wolf head cowl as a headcover would be neat - but I dont think there needs to be elaborate mechanics behind it. Just having it as a cosmetic choice would be good enough, afterall, this game is not a perfect survival simulation. And, quite frankly, this seems like a waste of time for the designer team, unless they have nothing to do (and I believe they always have something new to design). This would be a very neat Steam mod for cosmetics once the support is out for those. Props for the original idea, but I would prefer more attention was focused elsewhere
  18. I think it really is mostly for the nostalgia, or because of my deep familiarity with the region, but I always somehow end up back at Mystery lake. I guess it is cause of my attachment to it since the early days of Alpha of the game. But I dont really have a "favourite" per say. Almost all the regions have their charm, and I find myself spending some extended period of time in most of them. I think the least time i spend are actually the Desolation point, Coastal highway and broken highway. Think it is just because of my PTSD from the earlier versions of the game, and from my Interloper games. I would always die in these regions because of all the wolves in those areas, and sometimes a limited field of view. Somehow that is not an issue for me in places like Hushed river valley. Dont know why.
  19. Mroz4k

    A Dog

    Good points. Many I would agree with. My main issue would be two points - a "single" dog, and that is it. If you tame a dog, and them lose it, some people would like to try again. Another idea might be with raising a couple (I admit this might be a stretch) - but if you have, say, 4 of them, they could in time be used to drag a snow sleight - as we know, in the past, Hinterland had a plan to add a horse into the game as a means of travel. I think having dogs and a dog-drawn sleigh would make more sense. But going back to the idea of just raising one dog at a time... I dont think, if you enter into a struggle, that you could ever rebuild that relationship to a point the dog would be loyal to you. I like the idea of the encounter, but perhaps it should be handled in a different way. If you fight and struggle with the animal, it would never trust you again. What if the dog was already hurt when you approach it? It would be hostile-ish, growling, but keeping some distance. You could initiate the friendship by placing a "decoy" of a meat down, then backing off, let the dog approach it. then, slowly, with slow, steady movements, you would approach the dog. Gradually getting closer and closer, eventually letting the dog approach you, where you would have the ability to treat its wound and bandage it. Then pet the dog - which would start an even longer and tedious process of earning its trust. Then eventually training the dog to a point where it would be your companion. I like the idea of building your own "pack" - like you pointed out before, one dog versus one wolf would not be feasible for the dog. If there were more, they could act as a deterrent for you, but you would need to feed more "hungry mouths". So there is a trade-off. And given how overstacked on meat people are in the later part of the game, this could be a decent balancing factor to encourage people to hunt more. The main issue would be clear - this whole thing would have to be optional for everyone. Which in itself is not really a problem, even if it were in the game, players could just decide for themselves to tame the dog or not. Something that could be feasible for this mechanic already exists in the game - that is the ability from Story mode Episode 3. Spoiler incoming, I guess: Being able to carry survivors around on your back. It would not be infeasible if you found the dog heavily hurt, and you would carry it into safety where you would nurture it back to health.
  20. I have seen quite a discussion on wolves. Wanted to weight in with the information we know of wolf behaviour over the years. If we dont mention Timberwolves for a bit, the regular wolves all have various strenght, it is impossible to determine if this strenght is their own of if it simply differs each encounter. What we know is that there is a % difference to the size of all animals - from rabbits to wolves and to bears. Some people theorize that the "bigger" animals have more meat on them if you kill them, but this is yet again unclear - people who tested this report that this seems to be a hoax. That it does not matter how big the animal is to how much meat it has on - it appears to be simply an aesthetic feature, to make the wildlife appear more varied despite using the same models. However, because the difference in size can be up to 10% by eye estimate, it does appear as though there are sometimes "alpha" wolves which are bigger, and for that reason (myself included) in the past we thought there were different types of the animal. It appears we were wrong and the appearance is just aesthetic, although I cannot claim so with a perfect confidence. The very nature of the TLD struggle mechanics makes it impossible to do tests that would be conclusive and reliable. Here is what we do know: Most people think that the most important in struggle is the clothing protection level you carry. This is partially true for the damage you take. Also, the lenght of a struggle comes from what weapon you use to defend yourself. The most important thing in a wolf struggle overal is the level of condition of the player. Are they too tired? This drops effectiveness by a lot. Are they warm, or freezing instead? Are they encoumbered? Are they full or starving? How click are they clicking in a struggle? Here we dont know for sure - some players reported that clicking as fast as they could works the best for them, others claim that it is about clicking fast, but also consistently - that consistent fast clicking indicates how calm you are and helps you scare the wolf away faster. However, there are many different factors in play when you are struggling against wolves. This is probably where answer to your question lies, OP. I dont believe, based on the discussion on this topic with other forumers over the years, that there is a significant difference between wolves. There is certainly no difference in strenght in other regions. There is possibly a small varience of their strenght, in either the animal or the struggle itself. Most likely, however, the reason why you struggle with them more in these regions comes from the clothes you carry, how much gear you have, and what the condition of your survival needs are at the time of the struggle. Also, which weapon you are using to defend yourself (and, in case of a revolver, what your skill in Revolver is). I was curious about that. I have not played TLD too much since Hesitant prospect came out, so I was entertaining the idea there might be a pack of them on TWM that I have simply not encountered yet, but yea, from my experience, just plain wolves there. Bleak inlet is the only spot I know of Timberwolves outside the Story mode.
  21. Mroz4k

    A Dog

    Hi! You are correct, this is a popular topic of discussion. I dont know if they will ever add a canine companion, something tells me Hinterland´s indent for the game is to feel isolated and lonely. But, like you pointed out, there is something to be said about the dog, being a strain on resources that would actually encourage the survivor to collect more, and the possibility of it dying would surely have an effect on a player. Especially if they had the dog for a long time or if they spent a lot of effort on befriending it. Some people suggest a wolf as a tameable animal. I think that would be a mistake - but I think that an idea to be able to have a dog companion is a great one. I suggested in the past that runaway dogs would likely be a part of the environment of Great bear, but they would be very rare. And while they could be initially semi-hostile to players, if they once were an animal companion of another person, then the idea of "re-taming them" would not be impossible. I like this idea and support it, 100%. The main issue I see, however, would be how to make it work. What would the mechanics be. I think that is something worth a discussion - how would you think the animal would become a companion? What could it do, how would it benefit the player? I would love to hear more of your ideas on the specifics!
  22. What is the point of fixing them, then harvesting them? Wouldnt that techically be a waste of metal? Personally, I usually just keep them in the place where I find them. I also end up keeping one lantern in all the connective caves - in case I wanna use it instead of torches which I usually use to cross caves. With the rest - sometimes I bring them to my homebase - to have about 4-5 of them in a base, I fix them up, but dont refuel them unless I plan to take them with me for some reason. I would reccomend keeping more then one. If you at some point get mauled by a bear, your only lantern may be broken as a part of that attack. Or some glitch may misplace it. Better to have backups in case. Also, you can turn them on, place them to create a stationary light source for a while. If I ever feel overcomed by the darkness and just want to feel like I am back in the "civilized, electrical age" I turn the lanterns on and spread them around to provide light indoors despite there being no electricity. It gives you a very powerful feeling and boost to morale if you are deeply immersed into the game and its solitude. But, who am I to say... I encourage you to try it out for yourself. Maybe post a picture too here if you do - would be very interested to see a lit-up room of your primary base if you have one
  23. Hello! I skimmed through most of the discussion here, but I see a lot of the points that were brought up over the years. I used to be on the side of "Sleeping without bedroll" but over the time have leaned towards the opinion against it. Like others pointed out, the fact that you cant just "rest everywhere" is a pretty lovely game mechanic that actually forces you to make certain decisions and take certain strategies that you would not be forced to do if you had the ability to just sleep everywhere. Yes, sleeping everywhere woudl be convinient. If I were to choose words for The Long dark and describing it, convinient would be the last word I would use. I noticed the idea "sleeping everywhere with high probability of death" - if this is just a flat-out chance it happens, thats a 100% no, thanks. I am against any sort of RNG system of that kind, that doesnt tie into the mechanics of weather, where certain kind of RNG makes perfect sense. After all, weather changing quite often puts a stop to your plans, and sometimes even forces you to improvise. Personally, I like things the way they are, but since there are two camps on this idea, it would not be me if I did not offer a suggestion of a compromise. One that, I think, would more of less satisfy both camps of this discussion. The makesift bedding of leaves you can find in some caves, I believe it should be buildable under the section "campcraft" just like Snow shelter. It would take material and time and energy to make one, and they could only be built inside the "indoor" areas. That means a cave where the outdoor temperature drops, and where there is no "wind" coeficient. Like the caves they are currently found in. They would be temporary - with a condition much like snow shelter. You can build them, then take them apart next morning, at a loss of material and more time. In the end, you can build a snow shelter to do most of those things. The advantage of building one is the extra temperature boost it provides and the unnecesity to have a burning fire to detract predators. The risk would be the weather could change, the temperature may not be enough. Bedding would provide no temp bonus, and you would be succeptible to animal attacks if you did not keep a fire burning closeby. It still brings something new to the game, it has its merits and demerits, but in the end, does not affect the game too much compared to how things are right now. It is also more realistic in a way. The credit for this idea is not mine entirely, it is based on a collaboration with other forum members. The mechanics of "how it would work" - those are mine now, the initial idea was a bit different. I will give proper credit in a bit, as an edit to this post.
  24. There most definitely would be. It is one of the most suggested features there ever was. At the same time, its one of the least realistic ones, as given the nature of the game, it would probably be less work to code the whole game all over again then it would be to add the multiplayer option into the game. As much as I woudl enjoy multiplayer in TLD, the game is simply not build for it. At least that is the general understanding we have as a community. Long time ago, there was a message on Twitter about Hinterland looking for game developers with experience in Co-op games of this sort. But that may have very well been for a reason of interaction with NPCs in this game, rather then a prelude to Multiplayer development. There were nothing to indicate multiplayer was getting developed since then. It is possible, but I wouldnt hold out much hope. There was a list like this a while ago but I believe the person who did it stopped visiting forums and as such it was discontinued. There are issues with selecting the list like this - how far would one go? How to include widely different suggestions to a same idea (aka two different approaches to how a multiplayer should work, for example) and so on. Someone who dives into the past suggestions using the search feature might find this past post.
  25. I agree with this suggestion, like most people I imagine. The thing here is - the extra added fire starting chance is there for game-balance issues. As Firestarter itself is much rarer then the usual matches. That said, having a lit torch in order to conserve matches is a very common strategy by players. Also, I think we could explain it as firestarter being more precise in starting fires then a lit torch. When starting fire, first step after preparing the fire for ignition is to light the tinder. That might be easier to do with a firestarter then with a lit torch. Then again, just placing a torch onto a wood might be enough to start a fire without tinder in reality... so Id say these are mostly just game design, something to distinguish the use versus rarity in item selection. Back to my main point: While most people would prefer to use lit torch over the firestarter to conserve matches, this may not be the same for everyone. Someone might actually want to create the fire with teh firestriker because of its added bonus to starting the fires. So, this comes down to personal priority. Each player might wanna use something different. This issue is also very commonly seen in other parts of the game - the quick-equip buttons, for example. Press 1, you will equip flashlight, for example. Now, flashlight is entirely useless unless there is an aurora up... which there isnt, most of the time. Same with weapons. Press 2, you will whip out a rifle. Now, most people might prefer a different weapon, most would probably choose Bow before the rifle. My suggestion in the past was that there was a setting in the game settings where players could select their own individual preference. And even change the preference in the future as they get more gametime experience and change their routines. My "fix" to this: I usually only carry unlit torches, one lit torch, and a set of carboard matches or wooden matches to boot. So, when starting a fire, and changing what to use to start the fire, I usually click "back" which puts it on the lit torch straight away. I still on occasion waste a match as well.