• Announcements

    • admin

      Rules and Guidelines for the Hinterland Forums   02/24/2016

      The Hinterland Forums strive to be a place that is positive, inclusive, welcoming and comfortable. A community where intelligent, entertaining and meaningful conversations can occur. The rules are presented with these goals in mind. NOTE: Warnings, bans, and lifetime bans are all at the discretion of Hinterland depending on the seriousness of the infraction. Rules and Guidelines for the Hinterland Forums No Backseat Moderating Let the moderators do the moderating. Backseat moderating is when people who are not moderators try to enforce the forum rules. If you see a person breaking the rules, take advantage of the Report () button or simply ignore the offensive post(s), thread, or review. Report Posts to Moderators Should you observe a fellow Community member breaking these rules please report the post or item by clicking flag button located on every item, post, and review. Do not do any of the following: • Flame or insult other members • Bypass any filters • Post personally identifiable information (i.e. name, address, email, phone number, etc.) • Bump threads • Derail a thread's topic • Post links to phishing sites • Post spam or Re-post Closed, Modified, Deleted Content • Repetitively post in the incorrect forum • Openly argue with a moderator Off-Limit Topics/Replies Do not post any topics/replies containing the following: • Porn, inappropriate or offensive content, or leaked content or anything else not safe for work • Any discussion of piracy will result in a permanent ban from the Hinterland Community including, but not limited to: Cheating, hacking, game exploits • Threats of violence or harassment, even as a joke • Posted copyright material such as magazine scans • Soliciting, begging, auctioning, raffling, selling, advertising, referrals • Racism, sexism, homophobia, or discrimination • Abusive language, including swearing • Religious, political, and other “prone to huge arguments” threads No support will be given to those using cheat tools, or hacked/pirated copies, and any forum users who discuss pirated/pirating software will be removed. Please note that these guidelines may be edited or added to by Hinterland Studio as needed. If there is something you do not agree with, please email info@hinterlandgames.com
    • admin
    • admin
    • admin

Hotzn

Members
  • Content count

    834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hotzn

  1. Hmmm... just did the poll... where can I see the results? Concerning animals, I would like to see cougars added, as they would add something new gameplay-wise: a predator which does not bark and is very sneaky in general. Other animals I would like to see are the owl (I know you can hear it at night sometimes, but I've never actually seen it, maybe it's already there) and little birds. Just for the atmosphere. The owl would be especially cool if it existed, it would be high reward to see it if it requires going out at night and extinguishing light sources. I remember when I was a boy I once walked home at night in the winter, everything was covered in snow, and it was dead quiet. I saw an owl sitting on a fence pole. I stood close by watching it for a while, and then it unfolded its wings and flew off, closely above the ground. I remember very well that its wings were very quiet, no flapping noise at all. Magical. Another thing that would be high on my list is animal AI. Currently animals react in a very mechanical way. I would also like wolves to display pack behaviour.
  2. Look into this thread.
  3. Good initiative. At first glance it looks more like a drawing than a paper doll. Are you going to cut it out? These paper dolls also tend to have different paper clothes coming with them...
  4. @Pharose: These magazines are brilliant. It seems that the guy on the cover is always the same. How does he manage to get into fights with all these animals? And the girl is the same as well. She also seems to be wearing the same outfit to every calamity. I can picture their Sunday morning conversation: Man: Hey darling, it's Sunday! Why not go out into the wilderness for a little adventure? Woman: Fantastic! But not again to that swamp we went to last time - the one where we were attacked by the Snapping Turtles. Man: Haha, I remember that! How I bled! And you fainted! Good thing I had my hunting knife with me. Woman: Yes. Let's instead go to that other swamp we read about in the newspaper. Man: You mean the one where people claimed to have seen a gorilla? Woman: Ahahaha! Yes, that one! A gorilla, can you believe it? Man: Haha! Hahahahaha! A gorilla! Where would a gorilla come from in these parts? Haha! Well... not to worry - I'll just bring my hunting knife again! Haha! Woman: Ahaha! And I'll put on my blue skirt and red shirt! No bra, of course! Man: Hahaha! Let's go then!
  5. Hibernation has come up in various threads in the past (for example here (thanks to joki for the link) or here (on the steam forums, with some interesting remarks from Hinterland (thanks to Hyssch in another thread here which I only discovered after starting this one). For those who don't know: "Hibernation" means a playing style where the player spends larger periods of time just sleeping and drinking, while condition goes down to a few % (from starving), then eats and sleeps again to heal back up and then repeats the process. This makes it possible to survive for a very long time on very little food. I have never experimented with it before, but just did so in my "Living Off the Land" run, a report of which can be found in the "Survival Stories" subforum. Just so I know what I'm talking about. And I found that hibernation is really easy to do and allows for almost endless survival (EDIT: at v228 this is still the case). Now it's always a fundamental question what one seeks in a game, and to what degree a game developer wants to satisfy this preference or that. So to some people it might be fun to hibernate and thus find a way to "beat the game", which is perfectly legitimate. Others - like me - may derive pleasure from a competitive aspect and want to see how well they do compared to other players who are competitive. For those players, hibernation may appear as an exploit - at least as far as I am concerned, I have no desire to compete on the hibernation level. To me it seems nothing but grinding spending thousands of game days sleeping and drinking. And playing without hibernation makes it impossible to compete for longest-term survival, since the hibernating player will generally survive longer. The Steam leaderboards become pointless. I dimly remember the devs having said somewhere at some point that the mid-game part is too long and grinding, and that they are thinking about making changes there anyway. However, it cannot hurt to discuss hibernation here and collect ideas in one place. Foremost, I would be interested how people would remedy hibernation. If someone especially enjoys hibernating, I would also be interested to know about it. EDIT: Possible remedies that have been suggested here or elsewhere: 1. Punishment via medical afflictions (suggested by bburton31 and JoseyWales) Starving could be punished via medical afflictions. We currently already have a fatigue modifier (fatigue is raised while starving, but is lowered again after eat-sleeping one night), but there could be infections which possibly aggravate if starving continues (eg cough - lung infection - death (bburton31) or bedsores (JoseyWales)). Fighting these afflictions would cost resources (extra food, antibiotics etc.). The downside is that the new afflictions would have to be added as new game mechanisms. However, this seems possible: The right place, in my eyes, would be the "first aid" menue. So if the character was starving and an affliction befell him, the red first aid icon would appear in the lower right corner (as is the case when the character gets injured). The player then would have to open the first aid menue to check what is going on and would get an indication what has happened, why it happened, and how to get rid of it. The "aggravation" - at least in my thinking - would then be a quick loss of condition (as is the case when catching dysentery). So the overall effect would be that starving is still possible, but starving periods would often be shorter than they currently are, and that they would "cost" more resources. However: Introducing these afflictions would also make it considerably harder to survive for any unlucky player who really runs out of food. As things are now, a starving character may still set out to hunt and will have a sufficient time frame to succeed. However, if afflictions "speed up" the starving process, the door might close on these "just made it" scenarios. Lately, I had an idea concerning an affliction which might actually deter people from hibernating, or at least overdoing starving: What about a certain probability that the whole digestion system goes off the rails when starving? It could be made so that the more a player starves (either going down to a very low condition or repeating the starving process too often), the higher the probability gets that his system comes off its hinges. The consequences could be severe, eg with the player having digestion problems for an extended period of time. He could randomly vomit up solid food, especially meat (that would nicely add value on liquid food like tea, tomato soup or soda as a side effect), which would then be lost in caloric value. He could also suffer from vertigo from time to time (blurred vision, slower movement), even after starving has stopped. This could be fitted into the game as another affliction, so when it strikes the little red first aid icon would appear in the lower right corner, and consulting the first aid manual would give the player hints how to treat it. 2. Adjusting sleep-healing (suggested by Kraelman and Scyzara) The rate of sleep-healing could be lowered. This is an interesting idea, since it would likely not require any changes in game design. One has to keep in mind though that this would not only affect starving, but also any condition loss from other sources, eg freezing and injuries. I like the idea - I will often freeze or risk a slight injury in the game knowing that I can easily sleep-heal it off in one night. In real life, I would be much more careful and would try to avoid things like freezing, starving and injuries altogether (especially in a survival situation). So reducing the rate of sleep-healing would make me act more carefully and thus add some realism to the game. However, there might be a downside: It would make survival during the first days of a run a lot more difficult, since that is the time when condition losses are most likely and at the same time the player does not yet have the resources to sleep for days to slowly get condition back up. So a premature wolf attack on the first day would mean running around the map for days with just 50% condition or so. Quite the challenge. Also one should keep in mind that adjusting the rate of sleep-healing would not completely offset the advantages of starvation-hibernation. Even if the rate of sleep-healing would be set to 1% condition per hour of sleep (that is the same rate as the rate of condition loss per hour of starving-sleep), a player using starvation-hibernation would get his starvation-hibernation period (let's say 94 hours = 4 days) free in food cost, while the recovery period of sleep-healing (equally 96 hours) would generate normal costs. All in all, according to my calculations, food costs would still be halved by applying starvation-hibernation in comparison to "normal hibernation" if the rate of sleep-healing would be reduced to 1% condition per hour of sleep (which would already be quite extreme). In one of my late Stalker runs, I found sleep-healing taking place at a rate of approx. 6.5% condition per hour of sleep (this may not be accurate, I did not do much testing). I would like to see that being reduced to, let's say, 3% (at least for Stalker) as part of a solution comprising several adjustments. However, due to the reasons stated above, I think that the starvation-hibernation problem cannot be solved by raising the rate of sleep-healing alone without doing too much damage to the game mechanics overall. 3. Raising "costs" of sleep-healing In terms of calories, hibernation creates a "credit" out of nothing: One hour of regular sleep burns 60 calories. Starting starving at 100% and going down to 4% (better keep some % as a safety buffer), this means roughly 96 hours of hibernation-sleep or exactly 4 days. 96 x 60 cal = 5,760 cal. So we draw 5,760 out of one hibernation cycle. And I think we need some 960 cal to get back to 100%. So one hibernation cycle, if we may call it such, gives a net profit of 4,800 cal. Actually a bit less, as water production and item degradation are not included in the equation. Now if we punished the hibernation cycle with 4,800 cal, hibernation would become useless. Sleep-healing is 6.5% condition per hour, so roughly 15 hours of sleep are needed to heal from 4% back to 100%. To punish this correctly, some 320 cal would have to be added as cost on every hour of sleep-healing. Seems pretty hefty. Downsides: the mechanics would become quite hard to understand for the average player. And the nights would have to be interrupted by eating all the time. Hmmm... 4. Prohibiting/limiting sleep (simarson, elloco999, AmericanSteel, Scyzara et al.) These suggestions range from a simple "no sleeping when starving" to models restricting sleep altogether (eg no more than 12 hours of sleep per day). The "no sleeping while starving" has simplicity speaking for it. It would also fit neatly into current game mechanics and is very transparent - everybody would understand it. Possible downsides? Maybe some people would complain it's "unrealistic". Personally, I have no idea whether a starving person would rather sleep more or less than normal (fortunately, I have no RL starving experience). And: Players might get caught up somewhere in a blizzard or during the night without anything to do. Would be a little bit harsh if that player wasn't hibernating, but actually ran out of food. And would then have to sit around for a long time in RL in front of the PC screen, waiting for time to pass. Another thing: If the occasional unfortunate player who really ran out of food gets caught up somewhere - maybe by a blizzard - cannot sleep, and so might be sentenced to death untimely by his fatigue bar. One model seems to say "no sleeping when rested". But this would not work against hibernation, since starving now also raises fatigue. So hibernation would make sleeping possible again. I have doubts whether a model with a fixed maximum number of sleep hours per day would work. People would definitely think it's unrealistic (I, for one, can easily sleep 16 hours or more). Also, sleeping is known to consume little energy and is therefore a viable survival strategy. Maybe this shouldn't be restricted in general. 5. Losing control of the character This might contradict basic game design decisions, but it's fun to think about: What if a starving character would go rogue? Like suddenly shouting, "I have to eat something or I will go crazy!", then - without the player being in control - running to the nearest food stash and just gobbling up everything? Or running outside and towards the nearest wolf, mumbling crazy things like, "no wolf, just a little cupcake... come to momma, little cupcake, now here... all nice and easy..." - I would surely have a good laugh... :lol: 6. Not counting starving time for the leaderboards and/or the "time survived" (elloco999) Another interesting suggestion is to subtract any periods of starvation from the "time survived", be it within the game in general or only for purposes of display on the leaderboards. This seems quite the elegant solution, as it solves the issue for those players who are competitive and aim for a position on the leaderboards. Downsides: We would no longer have "time survived", but "time survived without starving". It sounds a bit awkward, does it not? The question the game asked was so simple and beautiful - how long can you survive? Now it would be - how long can you survive without starving? A loss of elegance in my eyes, although it may bring an elegant solution for the basic problem on the other side. BUT: Would the problem be really solved altogether? bburton31 has correctly pointed out that it might still be nagging in the backs of our heads if we shortened our potential survival time by not hibernating, knowing well that we could, and irrespective of any leaderboards. It's not just the leaderboards that concern some people. For another downside, see below (No. 7). 7. Introducing a "survival score" (elloco999) Measuring the "time survived" as an indicator of players' skill could be replaced with a survival score. While this could have an impact on those players who like to play games for competition and/or compare their progress with other players, it also has a downside: Measuring game success in the absolute number of days survived is beautiful in its simplicity. It raises the almost philosophical question what is more important - the number of days you live or how you fill them. Mind you, without answering it. This simplicity would be destroyed by starting to attribute values to how you survive, eg giving more points to periods during which the players do not starve or disregarding these periods. In my feeling, the game should remain neutral vis-a-vis to what you do in it. Remember the question the game originally came along with: How far will you go to survive? It's up to you. I don't know if I am expressing myself correctly here or whether it is understandable what I am driving at. Once we start to introduce a score, we also start endless discussions as to how the score should be established. Should a player get more points if he sleeps at least 8 hours every night? If he gets up early to do some work? If he only eats vegan? If he never touches a gun? If he does not distract wolves with decoys before shooting them? If he does not stop the bear by building a fire in its way? 8. Adding a morale bar (CopperBot) The morale bar has been discussed for a long time, and indeed it seems obvious that starving should lower morale. However, what are the consequences of low morale? Suicide? That would seem a little out of place in a game in which the player is always in full control. Low morale could also lead to a high base fatigue. Now this could be interesting if sleep-healing after starvation-hibernation would not suffice to get the morale bar back up. The player would then be at 100% condition, but would still be highly fatigued. This could be dangerous... 9. A game mechanic threatening the player inside the shelter I originally had the idea of NPCs entering the player's shelter, which I introduced like this: "Ha! I just thought like this: Starvation-hibernation needs a shelter to take place in. Because having starved down to 10%, the player would not want to confront an enemy. Now... (harrharr)... what if a game mechanic was introduced that would allow enemies to enter our shelters? Imagine starving happily away upstairs in Camp Office and hearing the door downstairs open and close again..." Now I am thinking that this could be expanded generally to events that would either threaten the player inside the shelter (eg animals or NPCs breaking in) or that would force him/her to abandon the shelter and move. I don't yet have a clear vision aht kind of event could fulfill the requirements of the latter, but maybe somebody else will come up with an idea... 10. Introducing a new parameter (strength?) Part of the hibernation problem originates from the fact that all physical ailments are aggregated into one value expressing the overall physical state: condition. We may go down to 20% condition from freezing, taking damage from falling or fighting, from dysentery, burning, whatever. It's simple and elegant. However, it does not reflect that some ailments like freezing might be shaken off with a night's sleep while others should take days (dysentery) or weeks (starving) to cure. Extracting starving from this system and introducing a new bar for, let's say, physical strength, would allow to individually address starving by giving it some long-term effect different from the other ailments. 11. Doing something which might be ingenious, but is hard to understand (octavian_os) The hibernation problem might be solved by changing the continuum of time and space and calculating how some factors which change over time (and maybe, traversing other dimensions), all with a view to how the player's psyche perceives the calorie burn rate in relation to fatigue, the infinitesimals being... I mean taking the square root out of... no, a function of some variable, let's assume it's called alpha, and another function... probably a function of a function... erm... 12. Conclusion This is just my personal conclusion. It is obvious that something should be done about hibernation. Not counting starving time for the leaderboards has a certain elegance speaking for it and seems to be popular as a solution, but I think the game also loses elegance in the process. I would prefer an "in-game" solution. In terms of game mechanics, hibernation creates resources out of nothing, it is like free food, and quite a lot of it. To make hibernating unattractive, a mechanism should be introduced that raises "costs" for the player to a degree which completely offsets the amount of "free food" gained from hibernating. Thinking about it, I keep coming back to the idea of physical ailments affecting the player long-term (like paying back a credit plus interest). Now I am not an expert on starving and its consequences on the human body, but I do like the idea of upsetting the digestive system and having a long-term problem with eating or digesting certain kinds of food. Maybe starving down to some 80% once in 10 days would bear fairly low chances of triggering the ailment (so as to not punish the occasional food shortage too harshly), but below that the chances would rise steeply. And then the player would have a long-term digestive problem which could cost him many calories (vomiting up food, catching dysentery much more often and without obvious reason), and he would have to maintain himself well-fed for, let's say, 14 days or so. Downside: The amount of condition loss attributable to starving would have to be measured independently from the overall condition. But I think this can be done.
  6. Ach, after all this time... would I be excited? I'm not. I'm calm. Lessee... 22 days, 00 hours and 26 minutes to go. Ha! That's a looot of time. Get comfortable, ladies and gentlemen... no need to be excited. OK, check Steam forums for news... ah, there's something... obscure... link to the timer... hm. Check timer... 22 days, 00 hours, 24 minutes. Am I excited? No. Checking my pulse... seems normal. Not excited. Not. Excited. OK. Backtrack this thread... @togg was the first to bring the news. Good man, that togg. Always got his guard up. Good man. OK... 22 days, 00 hours, 21 minutes. Hhrrgnhhhhhhhhh...
  7. If we start thinking about multi-purpose clothing items, where do we stop? Longjohns could become an emergency scarf. I already feel people thinking they can wear their mittens as socks, if need be.
  8. Serious necroing here, for a moment I thought this thread was new. @SteveP, in other forums you would be tarred and feathered by now...
  9. That's the reason I have difficulties watching his videos.
  10. It's been a while that I've played, but I remember containers outside in the open for example... at the collapsed train tunnel in ML (could have changed when they introduced the transition to FM) on one of the little islets connecting Jackrabbit's with the coast in the three-way cave above Echo Ravine in TWM on Bear Creek Campground in CH
  11. There are actually more of these containers around.
  12. Interesting info. I've never had too much trouble with sprains, so maybe I lacked the statistical material to make this observation. Would be cool if it was actually a feature - I mean that not looking where you're going raises the chances of getting a sprain.
  13. Hmpf. The true Interloper player would never ask for anything to be buffed. I say debuff the snow shelter. Make wolves move in while the player is out gathering firewood. Make it collapse and suffocate the player. Or leave it as it is so we can verify Drifter Man's bold theory that TWM-only Interloper runs of any substantial length are possible...
  14. In case the Hinterland team are currently busy, let me enlighten you a bit from the perspective of a long-time forum user... When the game came out in Steam's Early Access department, it was hellishly difficult. People would not survive longer than a few of days. Soon, some found ways and means to survive for 10 days, 20 days or even more. But they were few. There was but one region to toil in, and the resources contained in it were scarce and soon consumed. After that, it was inevitable death. Later updates brought more regions, more resources, more wildlife (seeing rabbits and bears still feels a bit weird to me). At some point nearly endless survival was possible. Some players started to complain on these forums that the original feel of the game had been lost, the grim and gritty feeling of impending and inevitable doom (I was one of them). As a response, Hinterland provided information according to which only a comparatively small fraction of players were regularly playing on stalker (at the time the "hardest" difficulty setting). I think it was about 10% of the regular players. However, this group of players was fairly active on the forums, so they appeared almost as a majority. But in reality they weren't. That was interesting. In the end, I think there were valid arguments for introducing interloper, even if only a small minority of players might be interested in actually playing that mode (at least judging from player data of the time before interloper): Firstly, the hardcore-difficulty-craving players are quite active on forums, and activity on the forums may draw attention and interest from passive users, thus generating a marketing effect for the game overall. Secondly, for the same reason I think it does a game generally good if it has a "legendary" difficulty level, as far as more casual players also find satisfaction in it on another diffculty setting. Who wouldn't be interested in a game that is rumoured to have such a super-duper-difficult difficulty setting? If the Hinterland team reads this - I would be very interested to know what percentage of regular players now play mainly interloper. Any statistics available on this?
  15. The idea seems a little weird to me, both from a realism and a gameplay point of view.
  16. Would it not make sense to introduce the ability to save at any given time? We could still have the auto-save as it is now, to preserve permadeath. But an additional save feature would allow players to do just that - leave the game when they have to and resume at a later point in time. Of course the last autosave would be replaced by saving manually.
  17. Ah. Good thing you reminded me. I was starting to think my survival efforts in the Canadian wilderness were reality, and the game was this strange sim where I play a German laywer in his weird everyday life. I already had a bad conscience for having spent thousands of hours playing that.
  18. From a pure realism perspective, you could be right. But thinking in terms of gameplay, giving tools too many uses will make other tools redundant, which in turn takes something away from the game. So sometimes it may be better to restrict the use of certain tools.
  19. There have been numerous threads in the wishlist subforum in the past about introducing more firearms and the ability to craft ammunition. While this is certainly debatable, I personally would not consider it a priority, the reason being that additional firearms would - this is my personal view - not add anything substantially new to the gameplay. If you are interested in further arguments for or against additional firearms, dig up the old threads.
  20. Probably this. Also maybe in the future there could be places where snow is not available for melting, but where you can still make coffee/tea. In that case you will need water.
  21. The Wendigo is a substantial part of late game survival and should NOT be removed.
  22. You are... not using the Hinterland mug?