Dr. S.

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Prepper

About Dr. S.

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 1. For deer, I used to do the crouch-stand-aim thing, but I found it better to just learn to judge the distance at which they spook, and shoot from just beyond that range. I never shoot from behind, only from the side or front, and aim for head or neck shots. edit: oh, and when in doubt, aim high. An arrow at a deer’s feet will spook it, but a high miss will give you a second shot. 2. For wolves, before archery 5 I only hunt them by luring them to prey (or vice versa) and then shooting them while they feed. After archery 5, you can do whatever you want of course. 3. For bears/moose, I scout in advance for fallen trees or buildings to climb in areas where they spawn. There are safe perches at trapper’s, the unnamed pond, and the little cabin in ML, just to name a few.
  2. Another +1 for Bleak Inlet. I spent a month in-game there recently on interloper. If it weren't for the damn wind, the cannery workers residence would probably be one of my favorite bases. My least favorite is probably BRR. As others have mentioned, the maintenance yard is no fun, and I don't like the hunting lodge much either. There are a couple of caves there that I much prefer to either of those spots in BRR.
  3. Is that a 💀 in the flames? Doesn't seem like a good omen!
  4. I don't think that there's anything wrong with save scumming. I don't do it because one of my main goals in playing is to see how long I can survive (and how much of GBI I can make my home) without dying, so save scumming would be self-defeating for me. As for whether it's a good learning experience, I think not, assuming that what you're trying to learn is how to survive. Learning to survive is as much (or more) about learning what not do as it is about learning how to do things, i.e. learning what situations to avoid. If you're still dying regularly then you're probably not learning that. With that said, avoiding dying also means accepting restrictions on your actions in the game: when you can go outside, when you can interact with predators, etc. Those restrictions aren't always fun.
  5. "Far better" assumes a metric that isn't relevant to all players. I don't know exactly what the rate of recovery is in interloper when all four needs are met (I'll have to do an experiment), but since the survivor loses 1% condition per hour while starving (on top of any other condition loss), the difference between a starvation diet and WF (never starving) can easily be 10% to 15% per day.
  6. Of course the only right answer is "whatever makes the game more fun or interesting for you", but I wouldn't overlook the condition benefits of WF. One of the challenges for me on interloper after day 50 is finding ways to spend time outdoors. Even with good clothing, the "feels like" temperature outdoors is negative, often very negative, especially when it's windy or on certain maps. WF provides more condition, and more condition recovery, which means more time outside. I would estimate that WF gives between 10% and 15% bonus to condition per day, between the extra 5% at the top and the condition gain (or lack of loss) compared to starving during the day. So to me that means more time to spend outside.
  7. This happened a while ago, so I don't remember all the details, but I once survived three attacks by a bear and a wolf struggle, all in short order. I was in the cave by Stairstep Lake in HRV when a bear came in. I shot him but didn't kill him, so he mauled me. I crawled around the corner into the back of the cave to apply bandages. After I applied the bandages I heard a wolf nearby. He came around the corner and attacked me too. I applied more bandages. Then the bear came back around the corner and mauled me again. At this point I was out of bandages, so I had to craft some more. I also used at least one stim shot to recover some condition. Then the bear came back again for another mauling. (I guess he couldn't find his way out of the cave!) I applied more bandages. At this point I was at about 5% condition, so I wobbled back into the main part of the cave and laid down on my bedroll to sleep, bear or no bear. I think about 50% of my clothing was ruined. The next morning I woke up to find a bear carcass in the cave, so at least I got the last laugh.
  8. mmm ... it's always possible to retcon things into an existing story, e.g. very low-power devices could still work, even if devices that require more power do not. I didn't suggest a film camera because it's not interesting to me. I don't see the need for more treasure-hunting for things like film. But the ability to visually document every day of an extended run, that would be cool.
  9. I'm a little surprised I haven't seen this suggested before. I would like to see a digital camera added to the game. (Yes, I know that you can take screen shots!) Here's what I would suggest: You would have to equip it to use it, similar to weapons or charcoal. Finite battery life, but rechargeable at computers during an aurora. A set number of photos on the camera, let's say 36. Each photo would be date-stamped and correspond to an icon on the map (similar to the icons from the spray can). There would be a "selfie" mode, where the camera would shoot backward and an image of your avatar would be superimposed on the scene. You could designate a photo as the "photo of the day" which would remove it from the camera roll and put it in the journal, visible on the day you shot it. This would give players a way to keep a visual record of their run along with the other stats, etc. that are kept. For me, this would add a lot of interest to longer runs, since it would allow me to better document my survivors experiences. Voyageur and Pilgrim players could start with a camera, Stalker and Interloper players would have to find one.
  10. Limbs comb in two sizes. The smaller ones respawn; the larger ones do not.
  11. Interesting. I've been playing the test branch on my MacBook Pro (with Intel graphics, Catalina) with no problems. I did have one incident of some spurious artifacts, but I haven't been able to reproduce it. I do get about 1.5 x frame rate than I do on the non-test branch, which is good.
  12. Oh, I misinterpreted the wikipedia page on mending. It only takes 275 mends to go from level 3 to level 5. Still, that's well over 130 days, unless you are mending two items per day. Even mending one item every other in-game day (which is a lot!), it's over 500 days.
  13. The mending skill is definitely broken from a game-play perspective, in a number of ways. First, unlike the other skills, progressing through mending is almost completely irrelevant (unless you're specifically trying for skilled survivor). That's because the tools required (cloth or pelts, sewing kits, fishing tackle) are plentiful, and most players mend in their downtime, when they are stuck indoors anyway due to bad weather. So the benefits (shorter mending times, lower failure rate, higher percentage increase in repair) don't matter. If my survivors were stuck at mending 1 for an entire run, I wouldn't care. That's different than every other skill. Second, if you do want to get to mending level 5 in anything like a reasonable time, you have to devote yourself to mending in a way that's counterproductive. When I did skilled survivor, I started thinking I would mend anything that got below 90%. This quickly turned into 95%, then 97%, then 99%. That still wasn't enough, so I went around (as ToAsT apparently did) finding old clothes, mending them to 100%, then immediately harvesting them for cloth to mend more old clothes that could then be harvested. Repeat. Even that took a long time. If I had kept to my usual schedule of mending (mending only worn items, when they get to around 75%), it would have easily taken well over 1000 days to get to mending 5. (You have to mend 500 times just to get from level 3 to level 5!) No other skill in the game is like that.