PISTOL, SHOTGUN, .22 RIFLE, BACKPACK(s), POT, Canteens


citizen928

Recommended Posts

I apologize if these have been suggested already.

Pistol: A pistol would make great self defence weapon for wolves while out gathering resources. Make it relatively light weight (under 1 kg) and ammo somewhat scarce. Limit the range severely and nerf it a bit against bears to avoid its use as a primary hunting tool, making it primarily an option for last line self defence against wolves and to wound a bear who mauls you. They are fairly common in rural northern Canada and perhaps they could be found in safes in select homes or on random frozen bodies (maybe a unique mountie). 

Shotgun: Another self defence option and extremely common in rural Canada. They could be used with buckshot/birdshot on rabbits, and perhaps slugs for larger animals and even bears. Make it heavy and perhaps a classic double barrel or single barrel. Make it as heavy as the .303 rifle currently, but ammo even heavier.

.22 rifle: This could be found in nearly every farmhouse and should definitely be in the trappers cabin. It would be good option for rabbit hunting, but all but headshots useless on deer and wolves, and all but useless anywhere against a bear (*the longest standing world record grizzly was taken by a .22 rifle, so it is possible to take a bear with a headshot if they chose to make it like a 5% possibility). It should be fairly light (1.5 kg ish), and ammo reasonably plentiful (ammo boxes IRL are 50 rounds so that is good upper limit and one could find partial boxes). It is much more realistic to find than a "survival bow" in Canada's north, and found in many survival and even plane survival kits for years. 

These options in addition to the current .303 rifle are very realistic options to find in rural northern Canada, and would require different strategy and load outs options for different areas, risks, and tasks. 

Backbacks: One should be able to craft or find various size packs to increase carrying capacity. Different size packs can have their own weight and durability and effect on slowing you down and fatiguing you as well allowing for many strategic choices. They could degrade like clothing depending on quality and less condition could perhaps hold less or even have a chance to drop things if really bad condition. The backs could be quickly dropped while scavenging and be a portable storage container. Start the game with nothing and thus very limited load carrying options. Better packs could allow more weight to be carried with less fatigue, and poor packs less weight and more fatigue. Combinations could be big heavy packs with lots of weight carrying, but great fatigue drain, or quality expedition backs with same weight carrying capacity and less fatigue drain. Small daypacks could be for quick scavenging, and large packs for moving to new bases and areas. 

Load carrying capacity could also be adjusted slightly by clothing. Perhaps cargo pants and bulky parkas with lots of pockets could allow for more things to be carried as well.

Pots/Kettles: One should need to find/carry a pot or kettle to boil water. Different size ones could boil and carry more at greater weight. Even the empty can from canned food could be a basic option early game with options from a heavy cast iron pot to lightweight titanium hikers kettle. 

Canteens/Water Bottles: You should have to find a vessel to carry water in, not just boil all you want at once. You could carry whatever your boiling vessel holds, but anything more and you need to have empty bottles or a canteen to carry it. Drink a bottle of water and you now have an empty bottle to refill. 

Flashlight: Self explanatory with batteries that degrade and need to be replaced. 

These are my current items on my wish list. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forums! ;)

The only problem with adding three more guns is getting too close to a hunting sim. I like the idea of a revolver, always have, (it's on the roadmapB|) but eventually it'll become too easy. If you can obtain all four guns, then finding ammo for at least one would be fairly easy in comparison to finding ammo for the ONLY one.

Backpack carrying capacity isn't really the problem... it's the actual limit you as a person can handle. The 66 pounds is about what you can carry without dragging you down. After all, lots of things can be thrown in your coat pockets or tied to your pack. I've carried over 100 pounds of items before, but it took me a whole hour to walk from Max's Last Stand to the Trapper's Lodge. It's  just too darn heavy for your person, but the backpack isn't a problem, if you catch my drift.

Love the idea of both canteens and pots, but a flashlight wouldn't probably work in the geomagnetic disaster. My guess is if it would, then the devs would have added it already.

The ideas are genuine, you'll find a lot of strange ones on here (Tauntauns and wolf-domestication [oops, did I say that out loud?]) but keep enjoying TLD and keep on finding good ideas to post on the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I downloaded the game a couple years back when it was just Mystery Lake and very limited in "loot" to find (it was frustrating to say the least) and just got back into it last month on a whim. It has come a long way and I really enjoy it now and look forward to its continued evolution.

I think having a variety of available found firearms (still generically classed as say hunting rifle, shotgun, revolver and .22 rifle) would make it more interesting and strategic for survival as one would need to decide what to carry at any given time (carrying all of them and you would always be over burdened). Each one would have its own strength and weakness for different game and threats. 

And variety of ammo found would throw a spanner (a very realistic one too) into things as just because you find ammo, doesn't mean you could use it in the firearm you have found (or have with you). Carrying 3 or 4 types of ammo and it really starts to weigh you down. Ammo would still be finite in the world, and once gone it would be gone. You may have your favourite trusty rifle (or revolver) in decent condition still, but used all the ammo in the universe and only have some ammo for the .22 left, and now have to learn to rely on it if you never balanced your hunting and skill using both. 

I just think it would add a realistic variety to what would find in survival situation scavenging buildings and vehicles in Northern Canada, and with in-game ammo already scarce would make it even more challenging to juggle several different firearms with several different ammo's one could possibly find. 

In regards to the backpack, it could be a mechanism to perhaps not carry much more weight, but be less fatigued/encumbered when doing so. Someone carrying 30 kg worth of gear in their pockets and plastic shopping bags (which is what I envision having to do now in the game) is going to be far slower, awkward (more prone to slips and sprains), and fatigue faster than someone carrying the same weight in a mountain guide frame pack. I also love the idea of putting the pack down and having it as a portable storage container at temporary camps etc (or things like have to make the choice to leave it at the base of a cliff while climbing a rope to cut down on fatigue). The game world could can have small schoolbags, generic packs, to light and efficient modern mountaineering packs, and heavy old school trapper backboards or a military surplus army one and even an old school backboard one could craft. 

As for flashlights and a geomagnetic event (like a Carrington Event or EMP), in reality it shouldn't have any bearing on small basic tech like a flashlight anymore than it would on a watch on your hand. Larger electronics with circuit boards and connected to the grid are what is at risk of shorting out or being fried if plugged in. Batteries could be as rare as hens teeth and heavy for how the length of time worth of light you get out of them, making them a last ditch navigation option rather than something to read a book by at night. A realistic couple hour runtime for a .5 kg old school Maglight with heavy c cell batters should nerf it enough to be selectively used and eventually useless when batteries are no longer to be found. 

Just my 2 cents (or nickel these days). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the variety that these (edit: weapon) options provide (and have suggested similar in previous threads ;) )-- with the caveat that the ammo has to be limited.  Depending on what weapon you find (and what ammo), you may have to alter your playing style-- this makes playthroughs more different, so you're not just waiting until you find the rifle that you know is out there somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 3/23/2017 at 7:32 AM, citizen928 said:

Thanks, I downloaded the game a couple years back when it was just Mystery Lake and very limited in "loot" to find (it was frustrating to say the least) and just got back into it last month on a whim. It has come a long way and I really enjoy it now and look forward to its continued evolution.

I think having a variety of available found firearms (still generically classed as say hunting rifle, shotgun, revolver and .22 rifle) would make it more interesting and strategic for survival as one would need to decide what to carry at any given time (carrying all of them and you would always be over burdened). Each one would have its own strength and weakness for different game and threats. 

And variety of ammo found would throw a spanner (a very realistic one too) into things as just because you find ammo, doesn't mean you could use it in the firearm you have found (or have with you). Carrying 3 or 4 types of ammo and it really starts to weigh you down. Ammo would still be finite in the world, and once gone it would be gone. You may have your favourite trusty rifle (or revolver) in decent condition still, but used all the ammo in the universe and only have some ammo for the .22 left, and now have to learn to rely on it if you never balanced your hunting and skill using both. 

I just think it would add a realistic variety to what would find in survival situation scavenging buildings and vehicles in Northern Canada, and with in-game ammo already scarce would make it even more challenging to juggle several different firearms with several different ammo's one could possibly find. 

Welcome to the forums! I like your ideas, I think we can have a couple more guns without this turning into a hunting sim. And I really like the idea of having pots pans, etc, having a container is a very real issue in a situation like this. There was a family that was completely isolated in russia during or after WW2 and they had a VERY difficult time once their cooking utensils wore out.

As far as guns go, I like the idea of having a revolver, very limited range, and small caliber would make it a very specialized tool. Revolvers that shoot .22LR are pretty common, and would simplify things a bit if a .22 rifle is added. A break action shotgun would be sweet, preferably .410 or 20ga. Like you said it should be HEAVY. I still think the .303 should be the top dog.

The main thing I like about having multiple guns is it leads to decisions, "Well, I have the .303 but no ammo, I'll leave it here at the trappers cabin and take the .22LR" Then you find a stash of .303 in TWM, "Crap, I should have brought it with me! I'm tired of eating rabbits!" 

Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue against the realism of adding more weapons to the game. The weapons suggested are certainly very common in Canada. I know more people who own 12 or 20 gauge shotguns or .22 calibre rifles than people who own .303s, especially in northern Alberta. And most of the people I know who own one or more rifles/shotguns of any calibre also own a pistol of some kind. What I will argue is whether adding more weapons simply because it's "realistic" is a good idea. To me, at least, it seems like a case of "realism for the sake of realism", which I don't always feel adds any value to a game.

Now, bear with me, I know this might not be a particularly popular point of view, especially among people who want to see more weapons in the game, but I feel like it's important. We have to start by asking ourselves what the rationale behind adding weapons is. Is it to make the game easier? Well, some people will say that more weapon options make the game easier, as long as you have ammo for at least one of them you'll be able to hunt. Some will say that it makes the game harder, if you only have one weapon but all your ammo is for a different gun then you're kind of screwed. Certainly each weapon would present its own challenges. A pistol might have a much shorter range and less stopping power, a shotgun might be heavier, and yes having to manage multiple ammo types would be a challenge in and of itself. But if the goal is to make the game easier or harder, there are better ways to accomplish those goals than complicating the game with more weapons. As important as hunting is in The Long Dark, I still see it as a secondary mechanic, a tool of your survival rather than the core purpose of the game.

So, if it's not to make the game easier or harder, then what? Are the weapons functionally different? Well, obviously different weapons will have different strengths and weaknesses. The pistol is lighter, but with less range and power. The shotgun is more powerful, but much heavier. But their function is still the same. They are a tool you use to fill a need, hunger. Whether you are using the existing rifle, a pistol, or a shotgun, hunting will be much the same. Oh, you'll have to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each when you set out on your hunt, but from a game-play standpoint it will be much the same. Now, I could see a pistol being functionally different if it was usable in struggles (this may be the intent for the revolver if it gets added), but if it is just meant to be a tool for hunting it will just be a shorter range, less powerful rifle. I could also see the shotgun being functionally different, if there were birds to hunt (taking down a bird in flight with a .303 would probably be easier in the game than in real life, but it would still be hard). But, with the current set of animals it would simply be a heavier, more powerful rifle.

So, if the point is not to change the difficulty of the game, and the weapons are not functionally different, what does that leave us? Realism. Such a hot-button issue for so many people. I mean, who doesn't want games to be more realistic? Well, most people, actually. Sure, there are a lot of people who would love games to be more realistic. From what I've seen, most of the people who are very active on these forums would fit that category, which is why I feel like this opinion will be incredibly unpopular here. But this is what I refer to as "realism for the sake of realism", when realism doesn't actually add any value to game-play. Sure, it's great when a game's realism makes its game-play more compelling, but there have been loads of times when I've found myself thinking, "I wish this game was less realistic, but more fun to play". I've never felt that way about The Long Dark. In my opinion, TLD achieves an excellent balance between realism and game-play.

TL;DR: I'm sorry if this is really long-winded, and an unpopular opinion, but game design truly is an art form, and I tend to take it very seriously. I'd love to see more weapons in the game, but only if they are functionally different, and not simply added because "realistically" that's what you'd find in a real life survival situation. There have even been times in FPS games or true hunting sims when I've said to myself, "this game would be better if it had fewer guns that were more different". More guns don't make better games. More realism doesn't make better games. Good game design makes better games, and that means thinking very carefully about how and why we want more weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not opposed to the idea, I would rather see a spear or more primitive types of craftable tools rather than more firearms. If more guns are added they should have real drawbacks with ammo, maintinence, damage, and just plain useless in other than intended roles. This is to keep folks from using them as a "get out of jail free" card when they run into a pissed off bear with say the .22, the sound or the bullet should have little or no effect in keeping you from getting mauled cause the bear dont care.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-03-25 at 2:07 PM, DragonXIII said:

...

TL;DR: I'm sorry if this is really long-winded, and an unpopular opinion, but game design truly is an art form, and I tend to take it very seriously. I'd love to see more weapons in the game, but only if they are functionally different, and not simply added because "realistically" that's what you'd find in a real life survival situation. There have even been times in FPS games or true hunting sims when I've said to myself, "this game would be better if it had fewer guns that were more different". More guns don't make better games. More realism doesn't make better games. Good game design makes better games, and that means thinking very carefully about how and why we want more weapons.

good points and I agree... I think.    I don't think more guns should be added to make the game harder or easier.  They should be added to increase the variety between playthroughs, and as such, they have to have different characteristics to encourage players to alter their play style to fit with the tools they have available... (or to choose the proper tool)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, toebar said:

good points and I agree... I think.    I don't think more guns should be added to make the game harder or easier.  They should be added to increase the variety between playthroughs, and as such, they have to have different characteristics to encourage players to alter their play style to fit with the tools they have available... (or to choose the proper tool)

Yes, that is exactly what I mean by "functionally different". Like, put a shotgun in the game, but the ammo is birdshot rather than slugs or buckshot, and let us hunt birds for feathers and meat. Sure, you could use your shotgun to hunt wolves or deer, but it would be less effective because those are not the intended prey. A pistol's primary purpose should be the ability to use it in struggles, and maybe provide a way to actually affect the outcome of bear struggles. Again, you could use it to hunt like with a rifle, but a decreased range and relative scarcity of ammo would make you think very carefully about depleting your best defensive weapon. I have nothing against there being more weapons that add some value to the game, they just need to be the right weapons, and be added for the right reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something tells me that having a pistol will not do much to deter a bear that is already throwing you around like a rag doll. Not because it wouldn't be effective but the pain and disorientation would probably prevent you from using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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