[POLL] primitive technologies for the Long Dark

[SteveP]

How do you feel about adding more primitive technologies to The Long Dark? Which kinds would you like to see?

I used the following references for ideas:

Primitve technologies

Bone tools

Antler and Bone Paleo Tools

[hauteecolerider]

Is that a femur I see in the top left? Looks like it is being used as a bone awl? Cool, I'd love to be able to do that in the game!

[Diamondz]

Interesting poll, I wonder why nobody else has done this.

[Vilespectre]

I'd personally like to see more primitive crafting for basic needs: gathering food, harvesting firewood, making fires, etc. I'm not a huge fan of highly-specific crafting tools, myself. 

[SteveP]

6 hours ago, hauteecolerider said:

Is that a femur I see in the top left? Looks like it is being used as a bone awl? Cool, I'd love to be able to do that in the game!

I'm no expert however we do have somebody on the forum who was in veterinary medicine or dealing with animal autopsies and after a quick search, it's you sir! If I recall we also talked about keeping knives sharp and how important that is.

Doesn't it look more like a tibia bone? Perhaps the lower end? Can't find a good matching image.

Tibia

Bones do make good tools especially when flint is not available such as in the North.

Making a Bone Awl with Stone Tools shows using a tibia bone to make an awl. They say most of the larger leg bones would work.

I like the idea that we would have to rely upon more primitive tools as the conventional ones get used up. That would extend the game play and maintain interest. Once you acquire a knife and hatchet and a rifle with rounds, things become much easier so more challenge in the latter stages of the game would be good. The player would have to acquire the skills and knowledge to make such tools; it's not something the average person is going to know if not a student of archaeological tool making.

Paleo tools and skills is a passion of mine so I find the whole subject fascinating. It's part of the general interest that is associated with survival and you can see it in the multitude of TV shows on the subject.

[hauteecolerider]

Upon closer examination, that bone in the top left is the distal end of the metacarpal bone (foreleg bone below the knee). That wide part forms the upper side of the fetlock joint. The tibial joints are flatter, as they do not form a true hinge joint like the elbow or fetlock. The ridges and grooves visible in the photo are consistent with those of a deer metacarpal, due to the double toes (phalanges) that support this bone. It's difficult to be sure without seeing the whole bone, but I doubt it could be a cow's or a moose - it just doesn't seem massive enough.

3 hours ago, SteveP said:

I'm no expert however we do have somebody on the forum who was in veterinary medicine or dealing with animal autopsies and after a quick search, it's you sir!

Yup, that would be me! 

[SteveP]

Now I understand my confusion. The metacarpal in humans is a hand bone. I guess this bone evolved for a different purpose in other animals such as horses and deer. We humans don't have an equivalent leg bone. Perhaps we have those distinctive ridges in our hand and foot bones?

Interesting trivia note: this website explains:

Quote

This unusual looking bone is actually from a very common animal, the domestic cow. It is the metacarpal, or long bone of the forefoot. That’s right, it’s a foot bone and not a long bone of the leg! And there’s more to the story that that. It’s actually two fused metacarpals, from digits 3 and 4. So if you picture the long bones in your hand that connect with your middle finger and the ring finger, then fuse those two together you’ve got a strong, fused metacarpal. The cow’s other digits are lost through evolution, however a remnant of the 5th digit still remains as a small bone that articulates near the upper end of this metacarpal bone. It’s interesting too that in dissection of a fetal or newborn calf, these 3rd and 4th metacarpals are not yet fused can still be separated into their individual bones!

 

Bison skeleton – metacarpals shown in red.

Why does the cow, and other large ungulates like deer, elk, sheep, goats, etc., find it advantageous to fuse their foot bones!? Basically it’s for strength and for speed. The two fused metacarpals are thick-walled and provide a very strong structure to support the weight of the animal. Also lengthening of the lower leg, by virtue of lengthening the foot, provides for greater speed. This is an advantage for prey species. These animals don’t need to manipulate the feet in different directions, they just need to move them in one direction – forward. Thus they’ve fused and reduced the foot bones for a fast, strong, and stream-lined structure. The hoofed mammals are called “unguligrade” meaning that they walk on their toes. You can see this in the picture of the bison skeleton, and you’ll also see that the toes articulate with the rounded distal end of the metacarpal.

 

 

[Scyzara]

3 hours ago, SteveP said:

Now I understand my confusion. The metacarpal in humans is a hand bone. I guess this bone evolved for a different purpose in other animals such as horses and deer. We humans don't have an equivalent leg bone.

All bones in mammals are equivalent (homologous) in principle, they just come in different shapes, sizes and positions. You just said it yourself, the human metacarpal hand bone is equivalent to the cow's metacarpal bone. To understand the different anatomies it may help you to have a look at a gorilla's hand in walking position (picture C1 below). Now just imagine the gorilla's metacarpal getting longer and longer until you get to a point where it's as long as the bison's metacarpal.

Hope that helps you a bit to see the homology. 

[dbldrew]

the more crafting items the better. in my opinion.

[SteveP]

1 hour ago, Scyzara said:

Hope that helps you a bit to see the homology

yeah, I read quite a bit more on ungulates but decided it wasn't relevant to this discussion. Very interesting trivia though.

Obligatorial comment on topic: These metacarpal bones were chosen for use as tools because of their density and strength.

[hauteecolerider]

That's because as the main weight-bearing bones in each leg, they have the thickest cortical bone per cross section in the entire column. And from a bioengineering standpoint, they have the best compressive and tensile strength, but not rotational strength. 

Sawing those bones in half can be a real pain, not to mention dangerous with a dull bandsaw blade! And yes, I've done that with horse legs.

@SteveP, you asked if we have those distinctive ridges in our metacarpal bones? Not quite. 

Here is a picture of the human metacarpal bones. These are the bones that form the palm of the hand, between the wrist and the first knuckles. The ends at the bottom of the picture form the first knuckle joints with the first phalanges (the finger bones). You can see that they aren't as ridged, but they are sorta shaped like the cow's or the deer's. 

Imagine, then, placing I and II side by side. Imagine that they're made from soft clay, such as sculpting clay. Press them together in the middle of the bones to form a single, unproved shaft. Then you will see the grooving characteristic of the ungulate metacarpal. That's because that one bone is supported by two phalanges, so that grooved surface you mention is very prominent in these animals. 

Sorry! Couldn't resist a little lesson there! All those years of client education, and sharing the tidbits I always find so interesting!

[hauteecolerider]

8 hours ago, SteveP said:

@hauteecolerider: no picture.

Oooh! Sorry! Thanks for the heads up. I went back and edited the post. Now you should be able to see dem bones!

[Pillock]

This is all very interesting, but personally: No.

None of it, except perhaps more findable foodstuffs like shellfish and berries.

The rest is too complicated, and (I think) beyond the scope of our character's expertise. I suppose it becomes more reasonable if the devs introduce their "knowledge" mechanic, based on instructions found in books. But no way should you be able to make all this stuff from the start.

[SteveP]

On 2016-04-10 at 10:30 AM, Pillock said:

The rest is too complicated, and (I think) beyond the scope of our character's expertise. I suppose it becomes more reasonable if the devs introduce their "knowledge" mechanic, based on instructions found in books. But no way should you be able to make all this stuff from the start.

Too complicated for what? Most people who haven't just fallen off the turnip truck know that you can make fire using two sticks and in this day and age, most of us even have an inkling of how to go about it. Necessity is the mother of invention. If you have no matches, you are going to have to improvise. If you can't improvise, then have fun freezing to death, alone, in the dark, by yourself, all alone.

Besides, we have a knowledge system and NPCs that could provide crucial technology know-how so please don't insist that our intrepid survivors must freeze to death when they run out of matches. If the technique you are using isn't working, then you have to try something else, or give up after 45 minutes of futile trying. The bright and forward thinking survivor is going to practice this to build up her skill long before she runs low on matches. I rather like that people who can't think ahead will freeze to death in the long cold darkness. Serves them right!!

[Pillock]

6 hours ago, SteveP said:

Too complicated for what? Most people who haven't just fallen off the turnip truck know that you can make fire using two sticks and in this day and age, most of us even have an inkling of how to go about it. Necessity is the mother of invention. If you have no matches, you are going to have to improvise. If you can't improvise, then have fun freezing to death, alone, in the dark, by yourself, all alone.

Besides, we have a knowledge system and NPCs that could provide crucial technology know-how so please don't insist that our intrepid survivors must freeze to death when they run out of matches. If the technique you are using isn't working, then you have to try something else, or give up after 45 minutes of futile trying. The bright and forward thinking survivor is going to practice this to build up her skill long before she runs low on matches. I rather like that people who can't think ahead will freeze to death in the long cold darkness. Serves them right!!

Too complicated for the scope of the game.

The Long Dark is going to be primarily a story-based game - that's what it started out as and that's where the focus of the development should be. The sandbox is a gamemode that allows players to use the mechanics from the story mode in a freer context without any pre-defined objectives. You and I don't know what the story is yet, but anything that isn't relevant to the story shouldn't be included in the sandbox mode otherwise it might break the balance of the main part of the game.

Making fire by rubbing sticks is one thing, and I can see that being a good addition if and when the devs create the proposed "knowledge" system for learning new tasks. This might apply to some of your other suggestions as well, but I think there is a danger that it could be taken too far: every time you introduce a new ability for the character to use, it upsets the survival balance and other mechanics have to altered to accommodate them and/or play off against them. I like the way the game is balanced at the moment - when you run out of resources in one location, you have to move on to look for more. This drives exploration and gives you a sense of urgency. If you can craft everything you'll ever need out of sticks and animal parts, surely it's going to get too easy? You'll never have to leave your starting location, except perhaps to look to 'knowledge books' or whatever, which would seem pretty artificial to me.

I'm not trying to poo-poo your ideas just for the sake of it - sorry if it came across like that. I do think the game needs to maintain a focussed, balanced set of abilities and mechanics for the player to work with, though.

[SteveP]

23 hours ago, Pillock said:

Too complicated for the scope of the game.

You say that as if complexity were an issue at all; Call it by it's proper name, richness. A diversity of options for the game. What is the scope of the game? do you want only a very simple game? I don't understand from which perspective of user you think it is too complex. Are you saying that young teens can't figure out how to work a game that has the ability to make fire by using X and then if there is Y, then it is too difficult to master? I think the big risk is games that just go overboard with huge menus of items especially magical items and then it becomes simply too arcane. Mech Warrior comes to mind.

[SteveP]

23 hours ago, Pillock said:

The Long Dark is going to be primarily a story-based game - that's what it started out as and that's where the focus of the development should be.

TLD gives us an open world sandbox and there is no question that open-world games have tremendous appeal. There is also no question that the vision of Hinterland has changed since the appeal of sandbox has been seen. Modding for example wouldn't even be considered in a Story mode only. How do you know that the Story doesn't already include primitive technology features? Why would Hinterland even bother with a wishlist if they didn't want to test the water with new ideas and tailor the game for what fans want?

Let me rephrase this to better get at what your concern is Pillock. What is your vision for how TLD should evolve? Do you prefer that it remain an arcade style game with coordination skill being the dominant factor of success and thus neglect all new features? Or is it just fan inspired features that concern you?

[SteveP]

23 hours ago, Pillock said:

You and I don't know what the story is yet, but anything that isn't relevant to the story shouldn't be included in the sandbox mode otherwise it might break the balance of the main part of the game.

This is just risk-aversion. As has been stated previously, we can trust the developers not to break the balance of the game. The big advantage of having an Alpha phase involved with ongoing features of the continuing evolution of TLD is that we can try out things to see how the users feel. Some will want things harder and others will want things easier. Some will want things more coordination skill oriented and yet others will want a thinking, strategy style of game.

If anything, I think what you might be advocating is more ability to tailor the game to skill level and game style.

[SteveP]

On 2016-04-16 at 7:53 AM, Pillock said:

every time you introduce a new ability for the character to use, it upsets the survival balance and other mechanics have to altered to accommodate them and/or play off against them

No. Not at all; this is just speculation based on risk-aversion. If you are saying that behaviours have to be changed meaning that C# code has to be rewritten, I don't think so. My impression is that the major tuning parameters are data driven and relatively easily tuned. You might expect that with a new fire making technology, the spawning of matches might reduce. That is a data value not a programmed behaviour. Besides this adds to the appeal of the game as it goes from survival for 50 to 100 days out to games that can last 1000 days or more. In the 1000 day game, we definitely need more things to do and more things to worry about as players. I say, YES, we want to add more appeal to the mid and long game.

What changes will affect the behaviours of animals? Weapons.

Perhaps the question is do we add those features as primitive technology or as modern technology. Does the player have to rebuild the world by bootstrapping power stations and transportation and agriculture to survive in a brave new world? Or does the player have to eke out a meager existence with a dwindling supply of matches and innovate new ways to accomplish what he once took for granted?

The point of this poll is to identify options for extensions since we want to focus on a subset of ideas. I'm not upset that some ideas are more appealing than others; I have my own preferences but what's important is the community's aggregate feeling.

[SteveP]

On 2016-04-16 at 7:53 AM, Pillock said:

I'm not trying to poo-poo your ideas just for the sake of it - sorry if it came across like that. I do think the game needs to maintain a focused, balanced set of abilities and mechanics for the player to work with, though.

No worries at all on that score. A healthy discussion is good. What we need to do is weigh options; in general people are going to want more features. I guess the other side of the coin would be to add more modern technology alternatives such as forging, metal working and so forth.

[Pillock]

I don't want a game where we're trying to rebuild civilisation, I want a game where we're trying to survive having crashed a plane in the wilderness. I don't see the point in trying to accurately simulate how my character would live out the whole of the rest of his natural life - I just want to play the bit where he/she is struggling against the elements in a hostile environment. That's where the fun is.

What I'm concerned about is game balance and maintaining the survival challenge. There is such a thing as having too many options. In The Long Dark, once the player masters the environmental hazards and resource management, the game becomes easy and a little tedious: this needs to be delayed as much as possible or even prevented altogether by the designers in order to maintain long-term replayability. Therefore, all character abilities and gameplay options need to be quite carefully balanced against each other with +ve/-ve trade-offs so that the player always has to make a decision about his next move. And getting the decision wrong needs to be punished by the game.

By simply adding more and more crafting options, all you're doing is giving the player 'stuff' to do, to sink time into, after they've completed all the rest of the challenges. You're not actually adding anything real to the game: sooner or later they will complete these tasks and be left with nothing to do again.

Crafting a bigger and bigger array of tools, and acquiring a bigger and bigger array of character skills doesn't do anything to maintain the survival challenge; it just makes the game progressively easier. Yes, this might be what happens in real life as a person adapts to their situation, but it doesn't necessarily make for fun, challenging gameplay.

[SteveP]

On 2016-04-17 at 8:25 AM, Pillock said:

I don't want a game where we're trying to rebuild civilization, I want a game where we're trying to survive having crashed a plane in the wilderness. I don't see the point in trying to accurately simulate how my character would live out the whole of the rest of his natural life - I just want to play the bit where he/she is struggling against the elements in a hostile environment. That's where the fun is.

What I'm concerned about is game balance and maintaining the survival challenge.

I think the point is that as civilization collapses in the event of an apocalypse, things we normally rely upon become scarcer and scarcer. These things include: matches, canned food, produced food of all kinds, ammunition, conventional fuels such as gasoline, kerosene and naptha (white gas), and clothing. Primitive technology is essential in the survival situation. That is why I have grouped items that include: weapons, tools, fire making, clothing (sewing), food preservation etc.

[SteveP]

Quite interesting; well primitive shelters were implemented!

[RCCross]

not only primitive from bones, but there's a lot of metal from the barrels, cars and even the airplane that could be used to make sharp tools. no?

[SteveP]

Fire making continues to be the one long term survival challenge that one cannot evade. I suppose the magnifying lens can do that but I was hoping for something skill based that required lots of practice and YES, frustration.