ManicManiac

Members
  • Content Count

    1,554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

644 Pathfinder

About ManicManiac

  • Rank
    Pathfinder

Recent Profile Visitors

2,317 profile views
  1. As far as issues with finding things in the dark... I would generally recommend:
  2. @JackTrysGames Welcome to the wilderness.
  3. @Ich9210 I'm relieved to know I'm not the only one seeing that bit of oddness with the mapping. Interesting that the achievement unlocks in spite of the mapping issue in that region (I'm glad though, as this is my third attempt at my own personal challenge that includes earning this achievement among many other self imposed stipulations)
  4. @Ich9210 I appreciate the info, thank you. This being the case I will continue on with my current personal challenge. I will give standing on the mine entrance a shot. Knowing the achievement will unlock without the icon will at least keep me pushing forward.
  5. @Alexg Welcome to the wilderness.
  6. ManicManiac

    shotgun??

    Late to the party I know... but shotguns? I'd rather not. I think we have all the weapons we could possibly need. (though I am still hopeful the bear spear will still make an appearance in survival in the future --- definitely not a necessity, but since it was spoke of by the Hinterland team... I'm eager to see what they'll come up with for it)
  7. I've been on vacation so I've not been on much (nor have I played much). However, I thought I would post a quick update. I've finally finished my mapping of Pleasant Valley (again 😄). I've noticed an issue now with the charcoal mapping of this region... one that will frustrate my efforts to achieve Faithful Cartographer. I've already mentioned this in the thread for the updated location list, so I will just link to what I posted there. I've already submitted a ticket with the support portal, but I wanted to draw attention to it in the event other's were seeing the same issue I've experienced. Faithful Cartographer Achievement Locations in The Long Dark [SPOILERS] - Updated w/ Bleak Inlet
  8. I very much appreciate the option to break down campfires. Before, when campfires were permanent fixtures I would almost never put down one... even when it would have been very advantageous for me to do so (like carving a carcass and things like that). I've always admitted it was due to the personal desire to not clutter up the landscape... but now that I can break them down, I feel free now to use campfires as freely as those who didn't mind littering the landscape prior to inclusion of this option. Yup, I appreciate the inclusion of this option very much
  9. Thank you so much for this update, but I'm also experiencing an issue relevant to the thread: I just submitted a ticket... but I thought I might post here as well in case other's were seeing the same thing I am. In the lower right hand corner (and spanning up a little over half of the edge of the map) of the Pleasant Valley map won't mark resources, caves, cars, or a vital location listed on the updated list posted here. Below I've included my charcoal maps (both zoomed out and zoomed in) for reference. *Obscured for those don't want to see the images enclosed* [Addendum] My estimation of where the missing icons "should" be are admittedly estimations and may not be pixel perfect. @Admin is this something that the team is already tracking?
  10. I love the discussion of ideas and the exchange of points of view. I've made posts in the wishlist subforum in the past as well, but the longer I played the more I came to understand (or at least by my estimations) and respect why things were implemented the way they were. To be clear, there have been ideas here that I have very much supported... the other's I have just weighed in on with my perspective. I think it's equally valuable for any developer to hear from both sides of an idea or opinion. I seem to have a much different perspective on the game as a whole than a lot of people on the forum. Which I suppose has caused some to assume I'm against changing anything... which is not the case. In the end, I trust Hinterland to do what's best for their game... so if they see fit to change things, then great. I've not objected to anything they've changed, even though I've not always agreed with the changes... I've accepted them and took the challenge of adapting my playstyle to overcome those decisions I initially didn't like. I didn't fuss about it... I chose to embrace it, and as a result I've become much happier with the game. I do feel (that at least to some degree) I understand and can appreciate the choices that Hinterland has made with their game... and I think a voice expressing that is not harmful, but provides a counter balance to all the voices who do what to change things based on their own personal preferences. I don't condemn other's for their opinions, I just don't always agree with them because I try to understand and appreciate why Hinterland makes the choices they do. To me player choice is more powerful at adjusting the experience than wanting to change the game itself. I think the game gives players far more agency than most realize (at least in survival)
  11. It is indeed, and so far I think they've done a good job... However I think this idea goes back to what I call "issues with late game expectations." I've mentioned it before in a previous Milton Mailbag, so I'll just quote myself to save some typing:
  12. Yes indeed, Happy Holidays Hinterland... and to all our survivors! Stay safe, stay warm, and enjoy the company of friends and/or family (in all the many ways folks do this time of year)
  13. @SpiritQKnight In general I tend to think that people just don't adapt well to change... there were people on the forum complaining to high heaven about the cooking system when it was added. I think that if people take the time to learn and adapt, they will likely find that it's over all an improvement. I think a valuable part of the survival experience is learning how to overcoming this... with out "nerfing" the game back to an "easier state." For the most part I disagree with this sentiment in general. I think that so far we've seen vast improvements, and I think it's a wonderful opportunity for folks to take on the challenge of re-evaluating their tactics to adapt to the new threats posed by wildlife. I disagree with your assertions here. It sounds like the main gripe here is that cooking level 5 allows players to not risk food poisoning... it seems to have little to do with whether or not a player can eat ruined things. I've mentioned this many times before so I will briefly summarize it here: I think folks should be able to play how they want, and I don't think removing options from players is not necessarily the right answer. If folks don't like that something is possible in the game... all they have to do is choose not to play that way. If a player doesn't agree with being able to eat ruined food, then all they have to do is despawn it in a nearby container. I see no reason to take the option away from other players. Things don't tend to grow in winter... so I think them "respawning" would be a bit non-sensical. I think that the decisions to make them more or less finite was a good choice on the part of Hinterland. It requires a player to take thoughtful and deliberate actions (which I think is part of the core and nature of the game). I just don't see it as nessisarry because the current system (I think) works just fine. Not necessarily… I know what you are driving at, but if the body is getting the nutrients it needs then there is no problem. Besides I think there is enough possibility for variety that I think adding the systems you suggest would be far more work (and resources) than the gameplay value would conceivably add. Again, plants tend to go dormant in the cold and tend not to grow very well... I just don't think this would seem reasonable. This is more or less how starvation works right now... so I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Maybe... but I imagine that the Hinterland team had already considered this when they were balancing the needs penalties. I don't know for sure of course... either way, they determined that the tools a player uses determines the crafting time and that seems to work fine. I think this is already the way it is... I mean if you are suggesting that it should be worse or more drastic, that's what the harder difficulties and custom setting accommodate for. It's been wished for a lot, but I have a feeling that this kind of thing might end up in the next game... it would take some massive overhauls (I mean really massive) to make this happen. I'm not sure we'll see this kind of thing so late in the life of the game. One never knows though, perhaps one day All in all, I don't see a need for much of this... but all interesting ideas to think about. If the Hinterland team sees fit to change things, then fine.... but I don't see a need for this much drastic change when much of it can be solved or achieved though player choice and adaptation of player tactics. Also, I find the idea of wanting to make the game a challenge but not "too hard" or "frustrating" are kind of incongruous ideas. Though I will point out that I think frustration is just a measure of an individual's ability (or inability) to cope with difficult situations.... not so much a measure of difficulty. I think trying to "ease frustration" would likely just serve to make the experience easier overall... which then would take the "challenge" element out if it.
  14. "You must do what you feel is right, of course." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
  15. @UpUpAway95 Fair enough. If I misread your initial post, I sincerely didn't intend to. As for my previous question, it was meant to be rhetorical. I seem lately to be catching a lot of flack for giving my opinion... often by the same folks who seem to get offended by my disagreeing in the first place. (and no, I'm not referring to you... you've done nothing of the kind on this thread - you've been civil and I appreciate it) I bear no hard feelings towards you or anyone on the forum. I like a good conversation, and I do always speak my mind... especially when I don't agree with a thing.