sling for small game

[dbldrew]

I think it would be a fun option for hunting small game if you could craft a sling using 2 cured guts and a rabbit pelt or leather. have small pebbles spawn randomly around large rocks.. it would make exploration more interesting again. and hunting rabbits, birds squirrels etc a fun option.  

[nicko]

I like this idea. the game needs a few more fun factor

[Loppysaurusrex]

We need a spear before we need a sling

[nicko]

we all need or want things, either way we are just suggesting to HT. Their choice in the end.

[dbldrew]

54 minutes ago, Loppysaurusrex said:

We need a spear before we need a sling

im not apposed to a spear.. but that makes 3 hunting options for large game. with 0 "logical" options for small game. yes you can use a rifle round and arrow for small game. but the risk reward isnt there.. wasting a rifle round for such a small animal makes no sense. and the chance of loosing and arrow or wearing it out for such a small reward doesn't make sense either. 

the only logical way to get rabbits is a snare.. and how much "fun" is using a snare? 

 

[Tbone555]

definitely for a sling, i think this would be a great way to hunt small game and add some variety. +1

[Wastelander]

Yeah, a slingshot makes sense - more so than a bow, actually, considering how complicated it is to make a real-life bow. Could also use scrap metal (ball bearings!) as ammo!

[dbldrew]

another bonus is that it will force exploration again. right now I know the maps and there is only a few spots on the map I go to that I know will have supplies. having random spawns of small rocks anywhere rocks and cliffs are on the maps will force using and exploring the entire map again. It will bring back exploration again that I loved in the beginning when I didn't know the maps

[Boston123]

In "real life" survival, you actually are "not supposed to" actually hunt for small game: they are, well, small, making them more difficult to hit, and will not provide the energy necessary for active hunting. You would use more energy hunting them than would get from eating them.

You hunt large game, you trap small game. That is "logical"

Of course, none of that is reason for why we couldn't have a sling. I have a sling in my real-world survival kit.

[dbldrew]

54 minutes ago, Boston123 said:

In "real life" survival, you actually are "not supposed to" actually hunt for small game: they are, well, small, making them more difficult to hit, and will not provide the energy necessary for active hunting. You would use more energy hunting them than would get from eating them.

You hunt large game, you trap small game. That is "logical"

Of course, none of that is reason for why we couldn't have a sling. I have a sling in my real-world survival kit.

I dont agree with that at all.. unless you are lucky enough to be well armed in your survival situation hunting large game is not possible. and a rabbit will contain 500-600 calories depending on size. 

But regardless this is a game and made for fun, trapping rabbits is kind of boring   

[Boston123]

Just now, dbldrew said:

I dont agree with that at all.. unless you are lucky enough to be well armed in your survival situation hunting large game is not possible. and a rabbit will contain 500-600 calories depending on size. 

But regardless this is a game and made for fun, trapping rabbits is kind of boring   

And how many calories do you think you will be burning trekking up and down hills, looking for game? Hint: A LOT more than 500-600 calories.

Trapping game is supposed to be "boring". There is a reason trapping is called "passive hunting". It is an activity you can do without undue energy usage.

Only in The Long Dark are small game and fish so inefficient.

[vancopower]

2 hours ago, Boston123 said:

In "real life" survival, you actually are "not supposed to" actually hunt for small game: they are, well, small, making them more difficult to hit, and will not provide the energy necessary for active hunting. You would use more energy hunting them than would get from eating them.

You hunt large game, you trap small game. That is "logical"

Of course, none of that is reason for why we couldn't have a sling. I have a sling in my real-world survival kit.

You obviously never watched Ultimate Survival with Bear Grylls. He eats anything he could get his hands on: insects, goat testicles, snakes camel rumen. When you are really forced to the extreme you would not care whether the game is small or big just how you can catch it. Squires and rabbits will appear like Turkish kebabs to you 

[Boston123]

29 minutes ago, vancopower said:

You obviously never watched Ultimate Survival with Bear Grylls. He eats anything he could get his hands on: insects, goat testicles, snakes camel rumen. When you are really forced to the extreme you would not care whether the game is small or big just how you can catch it. Squires and rabbits will appear like Turkish kebabs to you 

That has absolutely nothing to do with my post, Vancopower.

Stay on topic, please

[dbldrew]

2 hours ago, Boston123 said:

And how many calories do you think you will be burning trekking up and down hills, looking for game? Hint: A LOT more than 500-600 calories.

Trapping game is supposed to be "boring". There is a reason trapping is called "passive hunting". It is an activity you can do without undue energy usage.

Only in The Long Dark are small game and fish so inefficient.

300-400 per hour with a strenuous walk, much much less if you are walking very slowly stalking. Im not saying that you should not set snares. I'm just saying that for this game it would increase the fun factor

[Boston123]

7 minutes ago, dbldrew said:

300-400 per hour with a strenuous walk, much much less if you are walking very slowly stalking. Im not saying that you should not set snares. I'm just saying that for this game it would increase the fun factor

On flat terrain, maybe.

Now, climb up hills, through snow. With a load on your back. In the wind.

And that is just the calorie loss from walking. Now figure in the energy loss through metabolism (to keep the body warm), as well as the energy used to gather, haul, and process the firewood.

And I am also not saying that a sling for small game would be a bad idea: I use one in real life. All I am saying is that, in a survival situation, you don't want to waste energy deliberately hunting for small game. You set up traps, and if you see one while out doing other things, you whip out the sling and send a rock at it. This is called "opportunity hunting", and is something you want to be doing all the time.

Out gathering firewood? Opportunity hunt

Hunting deer? Opportunity hunt

Gathering water? Opportunity hunt.

You don't go out hunting just rabbits, however. That is a waste of time and effort. 

[dbldrew]

16 minutes ago, Boston123 said:

On flat terrain, maybe.

Now, climb up hills, through snow. With a load on your back. In the wind.

And that is just the calorie loss from walking. Now figure in the energy loss through metabolism (to keep the body warm), as well as the energy used to gather, haul, and process the firewood.

And I am also not saying that a sling for small game would be a bad idea: I use one in real life. All I am saying is that, in a survival situation, you don't want to waste energy deliberately hunting for small game. You set up traps, and if you see one while out doing other things, you whip out the sling and send a rock at it. This is called "opportunity hunting", and is something you want to be doing all the time.

Out gathering firewood? Opportunity hunt

Hunting deer? Opportunity hunt

Gathering water? Opportunity hunt.

You don't go out hunting just rabbits, however. That is a waste of time and effort. 

walking slower burns much less.. a 2mph walk is only burning 180-200 per hour..

 

you know what I was going to type out this long reply and I really dont care.. if you dont think hunting rabbits is worth it then dont do it.. problem solved.

 

Now for those who want to hunt rabbits I think it would be a fun addition for the game 

[Loppysaurusrex]

So it seems that there is a trend on this forum of people wanting the devs to go out of their way to add unnecessary game mechanics/content to cater to people's whims.  There is a point where there can be too many options.

[dbldrew]

16 minutes ago, Loppysaurusrex said:

So it seems that there is a trend on this forum of people wanting the devs to go out of their way to add unnecessary game mechanics/content to cater to people's whims.  There is a point where there can be too many options.

so having 0 small game hunting options is too many options for you? OK

And on a side note isnt this the forum for people asking the devs what they want in the game? or are you looking for the "wish list" forum to just be blank?

[nicko]

58 minutes ago, Boston123 said:

On flat terrain, maybe.

Now, climb up hills, through snow. With a load on your back. In the wind.

And that is just the calorie loss from walking. Now figure in the energy loss through metabolism (to keep the body warm), as well as the energy used to gather, haul, and process the firewood.

And I am also not saying that a sling for small game would be a bad idea: I use one in real life. All I am saying is that, in a survival situation, you don't want to waste energy deliberately hunting for small game. You set up traps, and if you see one while out doing other things, you whip out the sling and send a rock at it. This is called "opportunity hunting", and is something you want to be doing all the time.

Out gathering firewood? Opportunity hunt

Hunting deer? Opportunity hunt

Gathering water? Opportunity hunt.

You don't go out hunting just rabbits, however. That is a waste of time and effort. 

yes I agree it would be good for Opportunity hunting. also fun, the devs could make it so we could place some empty soda cans or tins of food that we could use as target practice. Sounds like fun to me.

[Gallowsknight]

Being able to pick up the rabbits too wound be a good idea. I find it ridiculous my guy will stand in the freezing dark instead of carrying them back to shelter which can be meters away.

[Wastelander]

9 hours ago, Boston123 said:

Out gathering firewood? Opportunity hunt

Hunting deer? Opportunity hunt

Gathering water? Opportunity hunt.

You don't go out hunting just rabbits, however. That is a waste of time and effort. 

This I can agree with. However, don't underestimate small game - throughout much of human (pre)history, small-game hunting was much more important than large-game hunting. Granted, having a gun or a bow makes large-game hunting way easier, but as I said, it shouldn't be underestimated. You are still right about opportunity hunting though - small game hunting was mostly done in prehistory by women when foraging for firefood, gathering water or foraging wild fruit, so yeah, that's correct.

[Boston123]

2 hours ago, Wastelander said:

This I can agree with. However, don't underestimate small game - throughout much of human (pre)history, small-game hunting was much more important than large-game hunting. Granted, having a gun or a bow makes large-game hunting way easier, but as I said, it shouldn't be underestimated. You are still right about opportunity hunting though - small game hunting was mostly done in prehistory by women when foraging for firefood, gathering water or foraging wild fruit, so yeah, that's correct.

Oh, believe me, I know. In an "actual" wilderness survival situation, most of your food will come from plants (season-dependent) and from small-game and fishing.

However, that fact is because it is possible to gather decent amounts of small game and fish through passive means: trapping and fishing. You use much less energy setting up and walking along a couple of snarelines, or by laying out next to a riverbank, pole or net in hand, than you do by stalking through the woods.

 

[Wastelander]

Just now, Boston123 said:

Oh, believe me, I know. In an "actual" wilderness survival situation, most of your food will come from plants (season-dependent) and from small-game and fishing.

However, that fact is because it is possible to gather decent amounts of small game and fish through passive means: trapping and fishing. You use much less energy setting up and walking along a couple of snarelines, or by laying out next to a riverbank, pole or net in hand, than you do by stalking through the woods.

 

This is also true - as a species, we moved away from spearing fish to using nets and rods for good reasons. Realism-wise, yes, passive food-gathering is better. However, the slingshot does make gameplay more interesting, and if Hinterland abandon a tiny bit of realism for some non-passive gameplay, I'm all for it. In the end it all comes down to personal taste I guess.

[vancopower]

19 hours ago, Boston123 said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with my post, Vancopower.

Stay on topic, please

Oh I'm sorry I thought that Ultimate Survival is a show about surviving  under extreme conditions which includes Hunting, shelter building and small game hunting which is what this topic is all about. My bad I'll try to make this right:  you said "In "real life" survival, you actually are "not supposed to" actually hunt for small game..." Whaat??

If you are starving and there is a squirrel running around you'll just say NO! This is small game better save my energy for something else. The longer you wait without food the harder it will be for you to survive. Human body requires amino acids at least on 24 hours if you wait for the big game as you say you will be too weak to hunt it. That's why you should get your hands on the first thing you can find just like Bear Grylls does.

You are approaching the survival issue like you are a crew of Enterprize. It is logical to hunt for the big game first let the small game go.    Also it is way better to hunt rabbits and squirrels with slingshot  then use a bow on wolves or even deer, especially male deer those horns are not only for show. 

[Boston123]

3 minutes ago, vancopower said:

Oh I'm sorry I thought that Ultimate Survival is a show about surviving  under extreme conditions which includes Hunting, shelter building and small game hunting which is what this topic is all about. My bad I'll try to make this right:  you said "In "real life" survival, you actually are "not supposed to" actually hunt for small game..." Whaat??

If you are starving and there is a squirrel running around you'll just say NO! This is small game better save my energy for something else. The longer you wait without food the harder it will be for you to survive. Human body requires amino acids at least on 24 hours if you wait for the big game as you say you will be too weak to hunt it. That's why you should get your hands on the first thing you can find just like Bear Grylls does.

You are approaching the survival issue like you are a crew of Enterprize. It is logical to hunt for the big game first let the small game go.    Also it is way better to hunt rabbits and squirrels with slingshot  then use a bow on wolves or even deer, especially male deer those horns are not only for show. 

Do...... do you actually read anything I write?

You know what, I am not even going to bother.