UpUpAway95

Walking out of the Hibernia plant in a fog only to become face to face with a bear. I jumped scared so bad that somehow I jammed the controller in such a way that the character glitched into the debris beside the building in such a way that the bear could no longer reach him and the bear ran off. I wasn't able to get out of the debris, but I was able to reload from my previous save, which was still inside the processing plant... and exit using a different door to avoid the bear. The second one was, of course, when I opted to sleep out a blizzard just after taking a shot at bear... not realizing it was the bear's cave... and waking up next to a dead bear rather than a sleeping one.

Good point. If it involves the trader, it may just be a way of him announcing what region he might be found in within so many days. Then, if we want to encounter him to trade, we would plan to head into that zone to meet up with him (or to avoid if we don't). Personally, I still hope the radio isn't involved where the trader is concerned... I'd really prefer random, chance encounters (that is, if the trader is going to be found at all outside the DLC area). Maybe the handheld shortwave is just for warning us of impending bad weather (or maybe new tremors or other apparent random dangers - rogue animals or other enemies).

We do know that in Wintermute, Will flew from the mainland to the island, so it was in range of his small plane. Not saying a boat would be impossible, but it seems to me that a plane would be more likely.

Oh, I think I could probably cook one in the 2L cooking pot in a pinch... and we already have the syrup! 😀

Ummm... pancakes don't need yeast and they are a HL tradition, after all... and we already have the syrup. 😀

Pancakes?

Escape the Dogwalker? 🤣 (I can't shake the image now of Astrid running away from some guy with five poodles on leashes).

Yeah, I misread that... but rather than suggest they mess with bleed out at all, why not just add the ability to turn them off as well (just like any other gun in the game). Messing with the distress pistol's power would affect interloper and other "gunless" difficulties across the board and perhaps the early developed challenges (like The Hunted)... regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense. Whereas, adding an option to turn it off only affects individual players in their own runs according to their personal choices. If you need a "standard" difficulty, why not make a separate "big game hunter" one - where the only gun that spawns is the shotgun, the bear and moose spawns are dialed up to 11 and the deer are so skitterish and can detect you a such long ranges that it's actually a challenge to take on down with the shotgun.

I don't play on PC... but yeah, kind of my own "enforced" time capsule. As I said, I honestly don't object to anything anymore... as long as HL gives me the option to switch it off in custom. The shotgun doesn't need a long dissertation to justify it. Some people want it, and that's enough. Some people don't, and that should be enough reason to provide the option to switch it off... in any difficulty level. More importantly, I like the pistol the way it is. Why should HL have to mess with the "bleed out" just to acommodate a shotgun. You have the option to turn pistol spawns off already.

Disable the rifle and revolver, and DP becomes a different challenge... even with "pilgrim" loot. Dial it up to low availability and spawn there such that the hammer isn't there either and you've got a different challenge yet again. One-zone runs are all about making do without whatever the zone doesn't have in it on that run. Randomizing things further is going to make them even more exciting - one can live in "hope" of finding what they need, but there may be (I hope) no guarantees. I do keep each run relatively short (30 to 50 days at most). The smaller zones are my "quicker" runs and zones like Ash Canyon I stretch out longer. I anticipate that managing the long climbs in AC potentially without ever availing oneself of crampons and the backpack is going to add a little bit to "challenge" of staying in that one zone only, but certainly won't make it impossible. My least favorite one-zone is Bleak Inlet, since the spawn point inside that zone means one can never access the entire zone or the workshop. I usually start those in ML and commit to leaving ML with only the means (i.e. a rope) to get to the upper portion of BI. However, randomizing the loot will also potentially make exploring the entire world more chaotic (and fun) for me. Of course, if one activates the trader (and depending on what's the price), it could change the nature of these runs such that they all play out even more the same than they currently do.

You know me... I usually do one-zone custom runs, so for me; the luxury stuff moving around a bit just means I might find it in whatever zone I choose as my one and only zone for that run as opposed to knowing that an Ash Canyon start is the only one that will give me the crampons and the backpack.

Then you may have to explore more than bee-lining to Ash Canyon to find it... and in the meantime, you can still kill a moose anywhere on the map and make a satchel. ETa: ... and if you buy the DLC, you'll have a travois, too. ETA2: ... and if you activate the trader, you'll probably be able to buy at least one from him.... for a price. 😀 ETA3... which begs the question... What's the price? We're sort of assuming that the price will be something we can get more than 1 of. However, it could be that you have to sell your singular "luxury" finds (like your crampons) that you don't necessarily need to buy the "rare goods" from the trader that you want.

I sort of believe the regular crampons won't reliably be found in Ash Canyon anymore... with the loot tables being redone, all such guaranteed spawns could be changed as well... and not be guaranteed at all. Personally, I relish the idea of such "luxury" items having only 1 instance in the game world and being encountered totally at random locations. One run might put the crampons in ML, the next in HRV, and the next in Ash Canyon. There would then be a "reason" to explore all areas of the map if such luxury items are desired by the player. If their location was completely random, then finding them would always feel like Christmas. They aren't necessary at all... one can survive forever without them and just use cloth and painkillers to manage sprains. If you are correct and these crafted ones are part of the main game and not the DLC, then yeah, they are probably not suprerior and may be inferior in some way. If made with scrap metal, then I would anticipate them being heavier (just like improvised knives and hatchets are heavier than their counterparts). If made with tin cans, then they probably break really easily. Still, I think they are probably part of this DLC's "new item variants." We'll know for sure in a few days.

Same. 😀

As I said in other posts, I no longer really object to anything being added to this game. For me, the "survival" tension has been lost long ago due to there already being too much "stuff" and too many "luxury" options. I can already survive with much less than is readily available in the game even on the harder difficulties. So, have at her - add a gatling gun while you're at it. 😀 I probably won't need it and I won't bother with the weight of it all. If the rifle or bow (depending on the difficulty I'm playing) is ineffective against the cougar, I'll just turn off the cougar... no biggie... since the standard line is "if you don't like it, don't use it"... I can live with that. 😀

Shouldn't that be "wash your hands before eating?"

I don't think they necessarily have to be inferior. The usual trend with DLC items in games is to make them "on par" with or even superior to the standard items in the game. If the DLC items are all inferior to main game, what's the incentive to buy the DLC?

These are probably a DLC crampon variant, so the others are most likely still in the main game. I suspect though, that like other loot that has been more randomized, they may no longer be found in such a reliably consistent location.

Yes, I'm embarrassed to say it didn't really sink in until after I made the first part of my previous post. It will be nice to see some does in the game... who knows, maybe they'll all be does this round. Doubt they'll be any fawns though.

Well, if everyone moved to the country, it would become the big city... and a roadside ditch isn't a great source of clean snow regardless of whether or not you take the time to sweep away the top inch just because it's a lovely color of black and pink, which is an algae BTW (here's the link to Les Stroud's video): https://www.mcgilltribune.com/sci-tech/dark-secret-behind-snow-pollution-643215/ He also fails to consider that the snow he's eating has been sitting in that ditch for some time (since it's springtime in Colorado) and as the surface melts, the contaminants from it seep into the layers below. So, even the snow that looks clean, likely is far from it. I believe Colorado also uses road salt, so there's likely a toxic cocktail there from that as well. Yes Les... "nice cold water... yuck!" Also, when people talk about how eating snow lowers body temperature and whether or not that should be a concern, keep in mind there is a difference at -40C when your body is already struggling to maintain your core temp and at 0C ( light jacket weather in Colorado in springtime). As I said, I ate snow as a kid (much to my mother's chagrin) and I never got hypothermia from it. As far as satiating thirst goes though, mom's hot teas and chocolates were much, much more effective.

I wouldn't be too worried about it... odds are you are never actually going to be in a situation where you are going to have to eat snow or even drink untreated water in order to survive. If the Les Strouds of the world want to be stupid about it, they can... it's their cancer.

Here's an article from a distinguished Canadian university on the subject: https://www.mcgilltribune.com/sci-tech/dark-secret-behind-snow-pollution-643215/

The one video I saw of Les Stroud talking about eating snow showed him taking it from a roadside ditch - ugh. 😀

Not if it's clean. I used to eat snow all the time as a kid and I don't remember getting cramps. It doesn't really do a good job of quenching thirst though; and these days, bacteria in the snow and toxic particles that fall with the snow due to air pollutants is an issue (and even the air in northern BC contains pollutants). Sure, the top layer is probably the dirtiest, but that doesn't mean the layers underneath are clear or even that, at one time, they weren't the top layer as well. Frankly, I'd boil it first if at all possible or melt it somehow and drink it through a lifestraw... just to be safe.

... and there are no does in TLD. 😀... except... maybe... in the new trailer (I'll have to view it again to check). Yes... confirmed... the deer in the trailer has no rack.