Guns. (at least a few)


The_Czar762

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, starfighter441 said:

I'm amazed that no-one has considered somehow dismounting the harpoon gun from the Riken and using it on bears...;)

It's been suggested.. I won't link directly to the post, because the entire thread is well worth a read. But when you get to the harpoon bit, you won't be disappointed! :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, henroe32 said:

Sounds heavy, and dangerous to you as well

And ages out of commission, given how horribly destroyed and rusted Rikken looks. It has been so rusted shut that you would not be able to fix it even with access to the civilized industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arite, revisiting my post... and... lol... where do I begin. 

First would be the immediate blunder I made in the topic name.  more guns. so... Ok, let's clarify.  More as in more variety.  Not more outright quantity.   One of the other guys up the post nailed it:  It gets boring finding the same rifle a 5th time.

Another (somewhat) valid point is that yes, guns can potentially make things very easy, and overpowered at times...  Which is why they should be hard to find.  In a survival situation like tld, would you be likely to find that gun on a weapon rack?  I say nay:  Far more likely you'd find it half buried on a dead guy out in the snow.   Also, as a counterpoint for making it potentially very easy, it could also make the game kick you in dorris even worse than before.  This would be on purpose, and by design:  by wrestling with different ammo types and respective weights, you'd be forced to compromise, and this would augment the game from becoming too easy.  I'd argue, if you play the long dark, who want's an easier game? I'd live for that moment when I'm stuck with an empty rifle and a fist full of shotgun ammo (even though I'd likely be cursing Hinterland with the most colorful vocabulary you could imagine for listening to me).  Equally worth considering though, is when you have the right tool for the right job.  This could mean, you might actually have a decent prospect of hitting a fast moving rabbit with bird shot, or actually stand a better chance at dropping a bear with slugs before it makes you it's chew toy.

I also like the black powder idea... But man would it be a pain in the ass if they went percussion cap.  flintlock would be more viable.

Another good one could be broken weapons with parts that are still good... but aside from a horrific car or plane crash, guns are kinda surprisingly hard to break...

Now for the fun part (a few things that made me laugh:

COD man vs. wild. -  LOL! yeah, I agree with you there.  Which is why I'm not asking for an AR15 and a couple thousand rounds.  I actually did a good bit of research on Canadian gun laws, and talking to a gaming compadre who lives up there to find just what would, and wouldn't be common up there.

"Can I at least get a sharp stick to keep the wolves away" - damn. we can't even figure out how to make a sharp stick can we? 

Shooting a rabbit with a shotgun and blowing it to tiny little pieces - well, with small game shot, like the kind that's used on birds... is actually used on rabbits too... conversely, I think it'd be a hilarious learning experience to blow a rabbit to little gibblets with a slug only to realize that you destroyed it beyond the point of eating... while starving to death...

And lastly, cultural differences:  Yeah, in Europe things are different.  And down in the states there's a lot of guns... Neither of which is what I'm looking for.  What I'd attempt in this idea is playing a bit at immersion and reality of life that far north.  A friend of mine who's stationed in Alaska made it apparent to me a while back that, even on a bustling military base, you'd be surprised how often you run into a bear rummaging through your garbage.  When you're surrounded by wilderness like that, the wilderness tends to come to you.  Logic, and confirmation from my previously mentioned Canadian friend (from an earlier point) gives me the impression that up in the yukon, they don't plan on getting eaten by bears either.

But as always, food for thought... Take it for what it's worth... And good luck out there, all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when you're counting your matches, when a firesteel becomes a rare item, when a single knife becomes so useful, when something as rudimentary as a prybar lets you access to that ruined can of dog food that saves you from starving... does it make any sense to have something as refined as a functional shotgun ???? My guess is that for the game, even the standard rifle is quite overpowered. This is a survival game, not a "usually living in the woods" game. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, StrayCat said:

Well, when you're counting your matches, when a firesteel becomes a rare item, when a single knife becomes so useful, when something as rudimentary as a prybar lets you access to that ruined can of dog food that saves you from starving... does it make any sense to have something as refined as a functional shotgun ???? My guess is that for the game, even the standard rifle is quite overpowered. This is a survival game, not a "usually living in the woods" game. ;)

Actually reading your post has kind of given me an idea, what if you had found some ammo, but it was somehow defective or very low condition, it would have a crimp was bad and the actual bullet falls out but everything else on the cartridge is fine. You could hand crimp (as best you can with just hands) and then use the round as a blank to help you start a fire.

I mean in the interest of balance, like I said in my previous post, why not make it a single shot break action shotgun? It wouldn't be out of place in the rural setting and old firearms are often passed down through multiple generations within a family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I really think TLD should not expand around weapons. Gosh, this is NOT a shooting / hunting game !!! If this gameplay is to your liking, just play cabela's big game hunter ! I really think TLD is all about how you can survive a few days more in a hostile environment with 2 matches, 3 sticks and a small twine. In my opinion, the game loses its interest when things get to easy and you know you can comfortably live for months without worry.

In my opinion, even the current rifle should be heavily dowgraded. In very cold weather, we know the steel becomes to rigid and may just break on the first round (that is why specific rifle models have been developped for use in arctic conditions), this should be transposed in the game. I really think that, when you're playing on a higher difficulty than pilgrim, you should absolutely shiver in fear when you know a wolf is around. I really like the feeling of "will I be able to survive the confrontation if it happens ??". Players usually fear the confrontation when they have nothing but a knife/hatchet, and when they get their hands on the rifle, they just see wolves as [meat+guts+pelt] on paws. The survivor becomes the big-boss-in-the-place. This should never happen with a survival game.

So I really think the current rifle should be downgraded to either :

  1. An old hunting rifle that can randomly break appart due to the cold ;
  2. A small .22LR that would only repel wolves, and may wound/kill one with many rounds with bleeding or a headshot. And bears would become the absolute fear of players.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, StrayCat said:

Well, I really think TLD should not expand around weapons. Gosh, this is NOT a shooting / hunting game !!! If this gameplay is to your liking, just play cabela's big game hunter ! I really think TLD is all about how you can survive a few days more in a hostile environment with 2 matches, 3 sticks and a small twine. In my opinion, the game loses its interest when things get to easy and you know you can comfortably live for months without worry.

In my opinion, even the current rifle should be heavily dowgraded. In very cold weather, we know the steel becomes to rigid and may just break on the first round (that is why specific rifle models have been developped for use in arctic conditions), this should be transposed in the game. I really think that, when you're playing on a higher difficulty than pilgrim, you should absolutely shiver in fear when you know a wolf is around. I really like the feeling of "will I be able to survive the confrontation if it happens ??". Players usually fear the confrontation when they have nothing but a knife/hatchet, and when they get their hands on the rifle, they just see wolves as [meat+guts+pelt] on paws. The survivor becomes the big-boss-in-the-place. This should never happen with a survival game.

So I really think the current rifle should be downgraded to either :

  1. An old hunting rifle that can randomly break appart due to the cold ;
  2. A small .22LR that would only repel wolves, and may wound/kill one with many rounds with bleeding or a headshot. And bears would become the absolute fear of players.

The rifle in the game is designed after the Lee-Enfield rifle that real Canadian Rangers use in real life.....or they did until recently when it finally was discontinued after like 50 or more years of use (I'm not a gun nut....it may be more like 100 years old, I forget exactly). It was picked because it DOES work in the Canadian frozen wilderness....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thrasador said:

The rifle in the game is designed after the Lee-Enfield rifle that real Canadian Rangers use in real life.....or they did until recently when it finally was discontinued after like 50 or more years of use (I'm not a gun nut....it may be more like 100 years old, I forget exactly). It was picked because it DOES work in the Canadian frozen wilderness....

I think there does need to be some authenticity when considering what you would use in this scenario and to me the Lee-Enfield is good to go. Further more is it actually authentic for a remote, rural Canadian community to be disarmed? I actually have to question whether or not people are saying that we shouldn't have firearms given the scenario because it isn't reflective of what happens in an actual remote Canadian community or if its because of personal bias against firearms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, deathbydanish said:

I actually have to question whether or not people are saying that we shouldn't have firearms given the scenario because it isn't reflective of what happens in an actual remote Canadian community or if its because of personal bias against firearms?

No personal bias at all (actually I like shooting), nor is it trying to be authentic about weapons in Canada. My point is that firearms give you power. A lot of power, enough to face a bear on equal grounds. And I view TLD as a game that puts the player in a state of weakness and powerlessness, on the thin line between life and death. That is the whole purpose of this game. Where any unexpected event could shift from one side to another. Giving the player real ways to shut/shoot down the most hazardous things (except for blizzards) shifts the game from a survival one to another random-standard-shoot'em all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StrayCat said:

No personal bias at all (actually I like shooting), nor is it trying to be authentic about weapons in Canada. My point is that firearms give you power. A lot of power, enough to face a bear on equal grounds. And I view TLD as a game that puts the player in a state of weakness and powerlessness, on the thin line between life and death. That is the whole purpose of this game. Where any unexpected event could shift from one side to another. Giving the player real ways to shut/shoot down the most hazardous things (except for blizzards) shifts the game from a survival one to another random-standard-shoot'em all.

I don't see that as reflecting the actual game experience though, unless I headshot the bear 100% of the time I expect to get mauled. I think a more accurate statement is that it gives you a fighting chance, I might only have (for example)  a 1.25% chance to headshot that bear, but its better than mauled 100% of the time in every hostile encounter. Just real talk, if we are going to go with that sentiment that weapons = power then we need to address the fact that people can cheese their way through these encounters. For example people will remove their clothes and purposely initiate a wolf attack knowing that they can ax or knife it off because they have enough condition and first aid to do so. I mean if I were to turn that into a screenplay, how am I supposed to explain why Will got buck naked and goaded a wolf into attacking him in the middle of winter?

I think in real life as well people need to understand that when you are in bear territory, a rifle is not a pass to ignore the fact that you are not at the top of the food chain and that each round you have is not a 100% guaranteed bear kill.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2017 at 2:04 PM, StrayCat said:

No personal bias at all (actually I like shooting), nor is it trying to be authentic about weapons in Canada. My point is that firearms give you power. A lot of power, enough to face a bear on equal grounds. And I view TLD as a game that puts the player in a state of weakness and powerlessness, on the thin line between life and death. That is the whole purpose of this game. Where any unexpected event could shift from one side to another. Giving the player real ways to shut/shoot down the most hazardous things (except for blizzards) shifts the game from a survival one to another random-standard-shoot'em all.

 

That's not accurate at all, though.
TLD doesn't have you constantly on the thin line between life and death, and any unexpected event cannot shift you from one to the other. A blizzard won't kill you unless you're terminally low on supplies already, a wolf or even bear won't kill you unless you're already dying.

It's about surviving a hostile environment, sure, but it's also about smart planning and resource management. Analyzing risk vs reward. There are plenty of times when the player's current equipment leaves them not having to worry about specific threats right now. You're stocked up on food, then you don't have to worry about hunger. Lots of firewood means you don't have to worry about water or blizzards. Guns are just another extension of that; you've got, say, 5 rounds, so you don't have to worry about wolves for a while. That doesn't make you unstoppable, that means that, at this current moment, one specific threat can be handled if you don't botch the job. That's no different from having lots of food, wood, medical supplies, or anything else.

The hunting rifle can already reliably kill anything in the game. Having another gun wouldn't be unbalancing unless it was designed extremely poorly, with too much ammunition or somesuch. Otherwise, it's just a different tool with different strengths and weaknesses. Having a lighter rifle with less stopping power, for example, would allow you to pick up more gear and move faster, at the cost of being less equipped to handle an attack. The alternative is that there's only the current rifle, and they're perfectly prepared for attack because it's an instant kill.

And, quite frankly, saying that having - for example - three guns instead of one would turn TLD into a random shooter is simply ludicrous. Having guns doesn't make it a shooter any more than the Trust system makes it a dating sim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll precise my thoughts, let's take an example, that just happened in my nomad challenge that I'm currently playing. I spent a few days in the barn in pleasant valley (3 days + waiting for blizzards to stop), then tried to go to the signal hill, but another blizzard happened suddenly and I got lost. The night was falling, I had no light and when I heard barks, I realised that a wolf was 15 m in front of me, which obviously attacked (no weapons, only the tools to defend). I was in a bad shape, but trying to survive in these conditions is exactly what I like in TLD. By luck I finally got to signal hill, in which I found the rifle + 10 cartridges + maintenance kit.

Then everything changed. I could go everywhere and do everything. I could get guts to secure my food supplying (for snares & bow - I was very low on food and didn't encounter even 1 carcass to harvest since the start, bad luck). So I went to the farmstead (that I already looted), as I knew there are often wolves in this area (no one around signal hill). I found a pack of 4 wolves. I approached without care, proudly and insolently, as I knew the rifle is overpowered. 1 wolf charged, I just waited quietly for the moment before the jump, and easily headshoted him. No worry, no problem, my character is the king of the hill. The 3 other wolves don't pose much of a threat either, the only question I had was to harvest them now or let them be (as their meat don't decay while they're on their paws). So as long as I have cartdriges, wolves no longer pose a threat, the survival challenge that I like (usually avoiding wolves and bears) is gone. If I had no rifle, I would have to think heavily of a strategy to evade these 4 wolves, and my brain would become my best weapon. And the insolence I had previously would have get me in a bad spot.

This is why I don't like the idea of developping the "guns" aspect of TLD. I don't like the idea of them becoming a reliable way to survive. I'd rather have an unreliable rifle that could break anytime, or a underpowered one (like a .22) that can wound wolves but can not kill them on the spot. And so bears also become a dreadful encounter, that I would totally fear.

But well, I think the guns matter is finally all about what we are looking for in TLD, just like the question of NPCs in sandbox. All players just can't share the same opinions and interests.  ;)

Quote

For example people will remove their clothes and purposely initiate a wolf attack knowing that they can ax or knife it off because they have enough condition and first aid to do so. I mean if I were to turn that into a screenplay, how am I supposed to explain why Will got buck naked and goaded a wolf into attacking him in the middle of winter?

1000% agree with you. The game should be twitched so that it doesn't make any sense to get butt naked in the cold in front of a wolf. Injuries should be aggravated in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StrayCat said:

Then everything changed. I could go everywhere and do everything.

Right.  And if you go back and read what some of us "pro" people have been saying, we don't want "more guns so I can kill everything!", but exactly what you're getting at in your post: more varietyso that maybe you didn't find that hunting rifle in Signal Hill, but an underpowered .22 instead that would completely change how you would have played that scenario.

Keep gun spawn locations and numbers the same, but add a couple of less-powerful varieties, so that the hunting rifle is once-in-a-game rather than once-in-a-map.  Make the less powerful guns more likely to spawn than the hunting rifle, so that most of the time you have to make do with something less effective, maybe even only useful for scaring animals, not killing them.  Make finding a hunting prepper cache really special, instead of just "well, lots of ammo is nice, but I don't really need two more hunting rifles to clutter up my base."

Thats what I'm looking for.  I'm not a gun person, and don't want to see guns as a "bigger" part of the game.  By increasing the variety (of less powerful weapons), it might paradoxically force people to rely on the hunting rifle less and adapt to more difficult situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StrayCat said:

@Prestermatt: ok, finally we agree on this subject. : ) I'm sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, so I may have understood wrongly what this topic is about, my bad. :$

No problem!  I'm a native speaker and I get things wrong all the time.

 And I'm sure that plenty of people do just want lots and lots of guns and shooting stuff.   But not all of us.  We just like seeing more variety.  (I'd also like to see more types of canned fruit and soups.)  I, for one, can't stand and don't play FPS games.  I took a risk on TLD based on consistently good reviews, and I'm glad I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/24/2017 at 5:03 AM, Prestermatt said:

Right.  And if you go back and read what some of us "pro" people have been saying, we don't want "more guns so I can kill everything!", but exactly what you're getting at in your post: more varietyso that maybe you didn't find that hunting rifle in Signal Hill, but an underpowered .22 instead that would completely change how you would have played that scenario.

Keep gun spawn locations and numbers the same, but add a couple of less-powerful varieties, so that the hunting rifle is once-in-a-game rather than once-in-a-map.  Make the less powerful guns more likely to spawn than the hunting rifle, so that most of the time you have to make do with something less effective, maybe even only useful for scaring animals, not killing them.  Make finding a hunting prepper cache really special, instead of just "well, lots of ammo is nice, but I don't really need two more hunting rifles to clutter up my base."

Thats what I'm looking for.  I'm not a gun person, and don't want to see guns as a "bigger" part of the game.  By increasing the variety (of less powerful weapons), it might paradoxically force people to rely on the hunting rifle less and adapt to more difficult situations.

Yeah I know I would not strut about as it I were the cock of the walk in front of that wolf pack with just a .22lr rifle, even more so if it was a bolt action, not a semi-auto like a 10/22. Even with something considered a step up like a snub nose revolver (I've learned a lot of these come in 5 rounds instead of 6 like I originally thought) would not give me much in the way of a margin of error when dealing with a wolf pack. I think what it really comes down too is it allows you to take a different approach as opposed to the same setup and shoot that we currently do with the hunting rifle. Really when you think about it, a .22 firearm and snub nose revolver are more defensive than offensive, neither has really good range to begin with and neither outputs significant kinetic energy at least as far as dealing with wild animals. They really are better for either scaring them away or less likely, stopping their charge as opposed to killing predators outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.