On sleeping, rest and condition and why they need tuning.


pi972

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, nicko said:

huh, if your game character is tired in game yes you can sleep if not you cant. same with climbing so what is your point? what has physics got to do with anything?

to me it's pretty simple, if my my game character is tired i probably would not want to attempt a rope climb :)

My comment wasn't about these specific points. I was talking about the limitations of not being able to sleep anywhere (and let the physics - in this case the temperature - do its job to decrease the perceived temperature) and not being able to climb anytime (now you cannot climb when encumbered) (in this case, the physics makes you slower because you are heavy and makes it more prone for you to slip).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, Carbon said:

Regarding the quoted text above, the sleeping mechanic and climbing mechanic have one critical difference: one was never available, the other recently altered.

Well, yes, there is this difference, but why is it critical? Both are design choices made by the developers. Both are imposed limitations.
And I wish both were removed :P

On a serious note, I know that the climbing limitation is far easier to be removed (probably a couple of lines of code) than the sleeping limitation, which involves implementing new stuff. But I still think that removing player's options that way (in both cases) is not good design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, slackhideo said:

I agree that it is very broad, but it is what is written in my diploma.

That's why I'm glad mine says "network engineer".. :)

(Not that that bears much resemblance to what I do, most of the time!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carbon said:

 I say critical because losing something is far more disappointing than never having had it. To you second idea - reflecting bad design - I disagree, as per my last lengthy reply. TL;DR: "bad" is subjective. :)

I actually think I'd value the two things (hard block on encumbered rope climbing vs on sleeping anywhere) the opposite way round to you. 

The way I look at it, climbing down a high, vertical cliff on a long rope with a heavy pack would be incredibly dangerous, and quite likely cause you to lose your grip and fall, possibly to your death. But if the game did that to you it'd be incredibly annoying, so blocking you from doing it at all seems sensible. 

On the other hand, the fact that you can build a snow shelter in the outdoors and sleep directly on the snow, yet you can't use the same or similar materials to construct a makeshift bed indoors - or in a cave - just seems illogical and a bit arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of not being able to sleep when not tired enough (and having to alternate between pass time/sleep in the morning hours, which can get annoying) could be solved without dramatically changing the current mechanic. The character could automatically switch to "pass time" mode once fully rested and get back to sleep, again automatically, to wake up fully rested at the time the player has set before going to bed. In this phase, the player could also interrupt the sleep/rest cycle at any time or wake up automatically if too hungry, thirsty or cold.

With this kind of automation, many players would not even notice they cannot really sleep when not tired.

I am aware that this only addresses one of the issues mentioned in the OP. Sorry for veering off the current discussion of climbing and off-bed sleep :) I support the idea that the player should not be able to die of exhaustion itself. When exhausted, I think I would sleep anywhere, and I might even sleep to my death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... I actually like that last idea of mine :) When the character is fully exhausted, vision blur kicks in and after a while the player will go to sleep - anywhere - and not wake up until say 15% rested. If still alive. Now that would make people manage their fatigue carefully, wouldn't it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pillock said:

I actually think I'd value the two things (hard block on encumbered rope climbing vs on sleeping anywhere) the opposite way round to you. 

The way I look at it, climbing down a high, vertical cliff on a long rope with a heavy pack would be incredibly dangerous, and quite likely cause you to lose your grip and fall, possibly to your death. But if the game did that to you it'd be incredibly annoying, so blocking you from doing it at all seems sensible. 

On the other hand, the fact that you can build a snow shelter in the outdoors and sleep directly on the snow, yet you can't use the same or similar materials to construct a makeshift bed indoors - or in a cave - just seems illogical and a bit arbitrary.

 Once again, reality creeps into the discussion. Logic says that 30.1 kg won't let me climb? Reality says that that extra spoon you put in your pack makes the descent impossible?

 Reality and logic have no direct relationship to the game. Everything is arbitrary to the player and the entire premise of the game illogical - or at least highly unlikely - right from the start. Games - as with most forms of entertainment - are played on an agreement to the suspension of reality, a willingness or surrender of hard reality and compliance with the dictates of the game. It is at best an emulation or very select reality. If we were to reject that which doesn't conform to reality then we wouldn't engage with any entertainment media at all.

 If I can plagiarize myself: To compare the game to reality is inappropriate and to base criticism or even desire on a kinship with reality is a suspect notion with too many variables to take seriously. The reality is the confines of the game and this is the yardstick by which ideas should be measured. If yes to A, then why not B, C or D? If reality is the goal, then we cannot refuse anything that is humanly possible and to reference myself again (doing a lot of that in this thread: we are either having a terribly circular discussion or experiencing a kind of virtual Groundhog day), we will get stuck into an infinite branching of conforming to each individual's reality. What is possible for person A isn't for B, so what then? I know people playing the game who can't climb a ladder; what of their reality? Nope, there is nothing but trouble in the notion. It's Hinterland's reality, they are the gods of the game and referencing any other reality has no place in discussions pertaining to the game.

 We are being fooled by our own thoughts: if the trees were rock spikes, the Canadian North Mars, the wolves blobs of nasty alien goo, I wonder if we would be having this same discussion?

 Rappelling is far safer than you might think; so long as the rope can bear the burden, one can descend quite safely with far more weight than that with which one could ascend. I have done it many times, once quite heavy indeed as I had to carry a partner's gear after an injury. When one descends, one doesn't simply grab the rope and slide down; there is a procedure of wrapping and looping - even without a proper harness - to ensure a very controlled lowering.

 As for preference, in the quote I expressed none; I was noting the difference between the two aspects. It is true that I consider the changes to climbing far too extreme and have already stated a few times in this thread that if the sleeping mechanic were changed, I would make use of the changes. To again quote myself, I believe that sleeping on floors of caves or structures would be detrimental to an aspect of the game that should be seen as more necessary than annoying.

 I'm not sure if we are off-topic or have simply expanded the discussion...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Drifter Man said:

Hmm... I actually like that last idea of mine :) When the character is fully exhausted, vision blur kicks in and after a while the player will go to sleep - anywhere - and not wake up until say 15% rested. If still alive. Now that would make people manage their fatigue carefully, wouldn't it :)

:)

"I could lie down right here, have a little sleep..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, JAFO said:

That's why I'm glad mine says "network engineer".. :)

(Not that that bears much resemblance to what I do, most of the time!)

I understand that. I'm working with A but studying B, although they are more or less correlated, so it's not that bad :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Carbon said:

 I say critical because losing something is far more disappointing than never having had it.

I agree with you. But being disappointed is a feeling, a subjective thing. I was expecting a more objective reason.

Quote

To you second idea - reflecting bad design - I disagree, as per my last lengthy reply. TL;DR: "bad" is subjective. :)

Yes, it is subjective. That's why I wrote "I still think that removing player's options that way (in both cases) is not good design". I can see value in most people's opinions but I can only share my personal opinion, which is the only one I have, and, of course, is not more important than any other user's opinion.

I don't really think that anyone can say that any particular feature needs to be in the game, not even the developers. Many of the game's features are wishes, desires and not needs (again, my opinion). Examples of these things? Cabin fever, intestinal parasites, mapping, stone throwing, to name a few. So I really don't think that any user's request is less important just because is not a need.

18 hours ago, Carbon said:

Reality and logic have no direct relationship to the game. Everything is arbitrary to the player and the entire premise of the game illogical - or at least highly unlikely - right from the start. Games - as with most forms of entertainment - are played on an agreement to the suspension of reality, a willingness or surrender of hard reality and compliance with the dictates of the game. It is at best an emulation or very select reality. If we were to reject that which doesn't conform to reality then we wouldn't engage with any entertainment media at all.

This game is set in the Earth, and while the disaster could explain (?) some things, I doubt it could explain the planet being absolutely different from what we have in real life. So I don't find foolishness comparing the "game's world" with the real world. Of course, we cannot expect a faithful copy of the real world (not even simulators can deliver it), but that doesn't make invalid comparisons or wishes based on real life and what we, human beings, think it is logical.

Quote

We are being fooled by our own thoughts: if the trees were rock spikes, the Canadian North Mars, the wolves blobs of nasty alien goo, I wonder if we would be having this same discussion?

I'm afraid we'll never know the answer.

Quote

As for preference, in the quote I expressed none; I was noting the difference between the two aspects. It is true that I consider the changes to climbing far too extreme and have already stated a few times in this thread that if the sleeping mechanic were changed, I would make use of the changes. To again quote myself, I believe that sleeping on floors of caves or structures would be detrimental to an aspect of the game that should be seen as more necessary than annoying.

I don't need to say that, but of course I respect your opinion. In the same time, I think giving options for the player to choose is more akin to what Hinterland has been saying. The player would have to choose between searching for a bed/car/bedroll or sleeping on the cold floor, which obviously wouldn't have all the benefits of the former option.

Quote

 I'm not sure if we are off-topic or have simply expanded the discussion...?

Hmmm... I'd like to think it's the second option. But maybe only the OP could answer this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply @slackhideo! Always good to read your thoughts.

 Objective. Yes, absolutely, and my choice of "disappointing" was weighing on my mind actually. I should have said, demanding or troublesome perhaps, simply because it is more challenging to re-accommodate than to accommodate or to re-learn something known. Or, to use a cliche, old habits die hard. But you are right in that my dislike is personal but hopefully my reasoning isn't.

 I'm not arguing against reality per se, but simply which reality and the idea of using a personal notion of reality as a measure of the game. Of course opinions abound and I have my own, but I try to use the game itself to make the decision between want and need.

 As for needs, well I believe there are particular needs which can be established, stemming from other aspects of the game; maybe dependencies is a better way to put it. Losing calories = must eat, must eat = methods by which the player can do so, which then needs X, which follows to Y, etc. for example of a chain of dependencies, which are essentially needs. And without fundamental mechanics like shelter, warmth, food, water, etc, then we have no game.

 Now, many needs are established from the reality the game presents and it is by this that new ideas should be assessed. Is sleeping on the floor a need? No, because that aspect of the game has been addressed and the implementation isn't broken; it works exactly as intended from the start and we have accommodated this mechanic and the game is deigned around it and what we need as a result of this fundamental aspect has been provided. Is climbing heavy a need? No, but it can be argued that in some areas such a s TWM, the initial design seems to be to allow for climbing heavy. The change has much deeper implications or dependencies that seem to go against the initial design of the map or are in conflict with it. I don't believe therefore that with all of the ropes involved, the new restrictions on the climbing mechanic work within the context of the established game; the changes don't retro-fit. This then, to me, is indicative of a design conflict, not something I 'want' but measuring the change by the yardstick of the game, it seems not to fit and is, hopefully, an objective assessment from within the game.

 As for being off-topic, let's think of this as a tree with many branches what all lead back to the trunk. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2017 at 6:50 AM, Carbon said:

 Once again, reality creeps into the discussion. Logic says that 30.1 kg won't let me climb? Reality says that that extra spoon you put in your pack makes the descent impossible?

No, this is just bad design. Arguing reality is completely irrelevant at this point. 

On 6/24/2017 at 6:50 AM, Carbon said:

Reality and logic have no direct relationship to the game. Everything is arbitrary to the player and the entire premise of the game illogical - or at least highly unlikely - right from the start. Games - as with most forms of entertainment - are played on an agreement to the suspension of reality, a willingness or surrender of hard reality and compliance with the dictates of the game. It is at best an emulation or very select reality. If we were to reject that which doesn't conform to reality then we wouldn't engage with any entertainment media at all.

Pls tell me you are joking, as otherwise its the dumbest argument of this month, that ive seen.

As 99% of what we see in the game is directly tied to our current reality and laws that govern it. If its not directly implemented, then its implied, like breathing. There are few issues that i have a problem with, but generally, this game is far more realistic parts, than it has fictional.

Also, you do not understand term "suspension of disbelief" and how it is applied. And your following arguments, based on flawed base are fairly dubious, to put it lightly.

When i play game like Rebel Galaxy, i have to take a lot of it aspects on fate, so this rule will apply. However, in games like tLD, most aspects of it are realistic, even tho they may be tweaked and/or a bit or simplified(they still fall within real of possible). And when i see something that find to be unrealistic and hard to believe, like implementation of parasites, then i come to forum and bitch about it. Because im not willing to accept premise of that feature.

As. Is. Author. Of. This. Topic.

Something that goes literally directly against your narrative of suspension of disbelief. As in this case those arguments would not exist to begin with, since author would accept version of reality presented to him in the game. 

On 6/24/2017 at 6:50 AM, Carbon said:

 If I can plagiarize myself: To compare the game to reality is inappropriate and to base criticism or even desire on a kinship with reality is a suspect notion with too many variables to take seriously. The reality is the confines of the game and this is the yardstick by which ideas should be measured. If yes to A, then why not B, C or D? If reality is the goal, then we cannot refuse anything that is humanly possible and to reference myself again (doing a lot of that in this thread: we are either having a terribly circular discussion or experiencing a kind of virtual Groundhog day), we will get stuck into an infinite branching of conforming to each individual's reality. What is possible for person A isn't for B, so what then? I know people playing the game who can't climb a ladder; what of their reality? Nope, there is nothing but trouble in the notion. It's Hinterland's reality, they are the gods of the game and referencing any other reality has no place in discussions pertaining to the game.

You cant. You can only plagiarize some one else work. To do it to oneself is only possible by either having DID or being narcissist of extreme magnitude.

Everything what you wrote afterwards is completely subjective and consist of one conjecture followed by another conjecture, and it all is based on conjecture to begin with.

"What if" argumentation is one of the worst ones possible(in debates players actually get penalties for using it). It cant be refuted or argued against. But it also cant be supported or connected to anything, as it has no basis.

On 6/24/2017 at 6:50 AM, Carbon said:

 We are being fooled by our own thoughts: if the trees were rock spikes, the Canadian North Mars, the wolves blobs of nasty alien goo, I wonder if we would be having this same discussion?

How is this relevant to anything ?

If France would be deer, the Sun would be radio and pigs could fly. I wonder if we would be having this same discussion ?

15 hours ago, Carbon said:

 I'm not arguing against reality per se, but simply which reality and the idea of using a personal notion of reality as a measure of the game. Of course opinions abound and I have my own, but I try to use the game itself to make the decision between want and need.

This whole paragraph do not make much sense. As at the very best it simply establishes obvious, that reality exists and our perception if it is subjective. At the very worst first sentence contradicts second one.

15 hours ago, Carbon said:

As for needs, well I believe there are particular needs which can be established, stemming from other aspects of the game; maybe dependencies is a better way to put it. Losing calories = must eat, must eat = methods by which the player can do so, which then needs X, which follows to Y, etc. for example of a chain of dependencies, which are essentially needs. And without fundamental mechanics like shelter, warmth, food, water, etc, then we have no game.

You started with pointless "what ifs", then used some parts that stem from real world and then continued build on premises based on parts that stem from realism. So basically you, at the same time, say that reality is subjective and game need not to be based on it and then only thing you could come up afterwards is based solely on our current reality. Hypocrisy at it finest - when it fits you, then features based on realism are ok, but when you disagree with them, then "its just a game".

And in last paragraph you  just flipped whole thing. With no point nor reason, and completely bypassing reasoning behind original idea.

In general, you took original idea, simply dismissed half of it arguments, created some of your own in their place(that dont really make much sense, this whole part with dependencies/needs, with rather extensive mental gymnastics to fit into narrative), and then refuted them. It would be impressive, if it wouldnt be so lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Carbon said:

Thanks for your reply @slackhideo! Always good to read your thoughts.

Thanks, @Carbon! I can say the same about you.

If you are talking about the developers' effort, yes, the sleeping system change discussed can be seen as more demanding than the climbing system one, as I said in other comment. However, this doesn't make this feature request less valid.

I think I get what you want to say when commenting about the "dependencies". What I wanted to say with "needs" and "wishes" is that the game already have many things that I really can't see as needs, as I wrote in the previous comments (on the other hand, it's hard to imagine this game without, say, wolves or weather), so, in my opinion, one can't dismiss a feature request by saying it is not needed. The developers already put in the game unnecessary things like stone throwing (the rabbit hunting was already addressed with the snares), so why dismiss a feature like sleeping on the floor?
Of course it's up to the developers to choose what they want in the game and what they don't want in the game. There's a gigantic pool of ideas in these forums, in the Steam forums, in the reddit, and in the Hinterland's roadmap, and for me the stone throwing feature (for instance) is no more "needed" than sleeping on the floor or climbing heavy. These ideas are all valid candidates to be implemented.

As for the game's reality, we know that the real world is just one, yet every single person views this same world through a different prism, right? Because of this, I understand that you want to judge feature requests using the game's reality, which is much more limited and thus unified than the real world. But I see a problem in doing this: by requesting a new feature we are requesting a change in the game's reality (usually an expansion of it), so that you can do something you couldn't do before. Another "problem" is that the game is not finished, so it's reasonable to think that the game's reality is not complete, and subject to changes. Thinking in this way, we feel the need for a kind of immutable superset of the game's reality, which happens to be the real world (mixed with Hinterland's lore, but since it's a bit of a secret we can't comment based on that). In this way, we come back to our subjective, personal and limited view of the real world :) (I hope it makes some sense)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2017 at 3:49 PM, nicko said:

You lost me on your statement - why is it that I can't sleep if I'm not tired?

probably because your not tired( wow), therefore maybe rest instead if you have too, else go hunting, pick up sticks, cook etc etc, until you are tired then have your sleep. being mauled by a predator you should be able to at least rest , sleep , rest. etc

Disagree, during my time in the military I (and pretty much every one else ) developed the skill of catching a catnap anywhere, anytime.  I still can do this, not a deep sleep but a light doze which also tops my batteries up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2017 at 6:38 PM, slackhideo said:

You are absolutely right.
The first time I played the game, as I was getting thirsty, I started to look for a river that somehow wasn't frozen. I couldn't find any and my condition started to drop. Eventually I found the waterfall in Raven Falls Railway Line and desperately tried to get some water, but to no avail. So, I proceeded with my search for water, and when my condition was about 15% a wolf finished me off. :(

That finished me off a couple of times before I figured it out.  Went for about 10 days the second time out  subsisting on soda, peaches and the odd water bottle that I found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2017 at 8:31 PM, pi972 said:

I see nothing wrong with disabling cabin fever risk increase if the player was sleeping while heavily injured. In fact, I even made another forum post about cabin fever (I think it still needs work).

 

As I said... Give us a heavy temperature penalty then. Force us to have a fire going the entire night, I don't care. But actually dying because you were exhausted but couldn't sleep without a bedroll is very stupid, not a "meaningful parameter". It's a bit like dying of starvation because you have food but not a plate to eat it on. I understand you're desperate to defend the game's every flaw but make an effort to see it my way.

Quite, if need be you can build a mattress of pine boughs, that with a fire and if located in a cave or some other sheltered location, would keep you alive if not especially comfortable.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2017 at 6:14 AM, cekivi said:

As others have pointed out you can still freeze to death in a warm room if the ground is cold. Air is a wonderful insulator and as long as its not moving you can stay relatively warm. Full contact with a cold surface (like the ground) will freeze you solid very quickly fire or no fire. That's why you can't sleep on the cold ground or cold floor: you will still become hypothermic. 

However, as has also been pointed out, there are many, many survival techniques for mitigating this. Inside you can sleep on a chair (or couch, or on the second floor, etc.). Outside boughs (piled at least 15 cm thick, more is better) will protect you from the cold. Conversely, you can build a massive fire to warm up the ground, move the fire away, and then sleep where the fire was and have the ground warm YOU for a little while. 

The closest compromise for this presently in the game is the snow shelter. Personally, I'd love to be able to harvest boughs (emergency bedding!) and sleep on furniture other then a bed... but so far the snow shelter is the best we've got. 

This. ^

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, slackhideo said:

Thanks, @Carbon! I can say the same about you.

If you are talking about the developers' effort, yes, the sleeping system change discussed can be seen as more demanding than the climbing system one, as I said in other comment. However, this doesn't make this feature request less valid.

I think I get what you want to say when commenting about the "dependencies". What I wanted to say with "needs" and "wishes" is that the game already have many things that I really can't see as needs, as I wrote in the previous comments (on the other hand, it's hard to imagine this game without, say, wolves or weather), so, in my opinion, one can't dismiss a feature request by saying it is not needed. The developers already put in the game unnecessary things like stone throwing (the rabbit hunting was already addressed with the snares), so why dismiss a feature like sleeping on the floor?
Of course it's up to the developers to choose what they want in the game and what they don't want in the game. There's a gigantic pool of ideas in these forums, in the Steam forums, in the reddit, and in the Hinterland's roadmap, and for me the stone throwing feature (for instance) is no more "needed" than sleeping on the floor or climbing heavy. These ideas are all valid candidates to be implemented.

As for the game's reality, we know that the real world is just one, yet every single person views this same world through a different prism, right? Because of this, I understand that you want to judge feature requests using the game's reality, which is much more limited and thus unified than the real world. But I see a problem in doing this: by requesting a new feature we are requesting a change in the game's reality (usually an expansion of it), so that you can do something you couldn't do before. Another "problem" is that the game is not finished, so it's reasonable to think that the game's reality is not complete, and subject to changes. Thinking in this way, we feel the need for a kind of immutable superset of the game's reality, which happens to be the real world (mixed with Hinterland's lore, but since it's a bit of a secret we can't comment based on that). In this way, we come back to our subjective, personal and limited view of the real world :) (I hope it makes some sense)

 Great post, good food for thought.

 I wonder if the stone throwing wasn't implemented to address the recent large number of complaints about the wolves. Perhaps it is just me, but there was a spike in the number of discussions about the increase in wolf populations and their new, improved bad attitude. From this, I thought that HL decided that an alternative method of distraction (aside from decoying) would be a way of off-setting the changes. Maybe not a 'need' in the sense that I had outlined prior, but a new mechanic - not a change to an existing one - and not one that has a large number of knock-on effects; it doesn't create any new dependencies nor require any adjustments to other aspects of the game. I realize this sounds contentious, but if you look at how the implementation was managed, the changes to existing aspects of the game play are nil in terms of rabbit hunting.

 Branching idea: Yes, again I may be wrong, but I see the stone throwing not primarily as being a method of bunny pummeling but as a means of distracting wolves. I thought this because HL don't seem like the type to create redundancies, yet that's what happened with stones and snares and again, I see this as an implementation that wasn't well thought-out or an idea that doesn't retro-fit well. I believe stone throwing will be dialed back somehow in the future (or the bone-headed rabbits will have their little AI brains tweaked). Snaring does have some difference and so stone throwing isn't a complete override - time spent outdoors being the one that comes to mind; snares allow you to go inside and wait, while stone-throwing needs you to remain outside, but if we're being honest, stone throwing is far too easy and I suspect that snaring has dropped off dramatically. This is actually becoming a 'thing'; many of the new ideas that were introduced are somehow problematic and I believe this is evidence of the result of tacking on things after the fact. Quartering, stone-throwing, climbing; many of the new ideas seems somewhat square peg / round hole-ish. Perhaps evidence that they were not part of the initial big picture and that implementing an idea in afterthought is a treacherous path for a number of reasons, but primarily in terms of how it works with what is already there.

 Back to topic: Sleeping on the floor (or sleeping in general, as the OP outlined) however would create a long list of dependencies: what sorts of surfaces could one sleep on, what would the temperature losses be, what if injured; would that change anything: should cabin fever be relaxed, under what conditions - how hurt or sick - would the player have to be to delay cabin fever, to allow sleeping when not tired, if the player isn't tired and not hurt, would the 'sleeping longer' idea be removed, etc. Again, I see the idea having too many open questions and needing too much alteration to existing mechanics and the addition of new (one would need to stack materials to sleep on, creating a whole new set of dependencies - unless one would just drop where they stand, which in risk/reward terms would be difficult not to make a foolish act) and as such, what with HL being a small team and under a deadline (not to mention that sandbox mode wasn't supposed to be such a 'thing' and due to it's being so wildly popular has taken up more time that the team had originally budgeted) faces the law of diminishing return.

 To your last section, it makes perfect sense. The prism through which we filter the world is indeed unique, but this in more of an ideological, cognitive or less tangible interpretation than cold, thirst and hunger, which are more concrete constants. I maintain however that it isn't any objective reality that the game is set against; that there are worldly elements and aspects to the game does not qualify it as realistic. There are far too many outright breaks with the real world at every turn to support any semblance to 'real' reality. That the game isn't finished might speak to my idea of diminishing return or dependency; as the team ramps up to story mode release, the changes they are most likely to implement would be the simplest; i.e; the ones with less affect to existing aspects.

 I honestly think that we are not diverging in opinion as much as simply exploring the unknown wilderness of how ideas might get put into the game, a wilderness in which I am as lost as anyone! :) Makes for good discussion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dirmagnos said:

<snip>

 I would take the time to address all of your thoughts but I believe you simply want an argument. Not a proper argument, but mud-slinging and I am not interested in that. If you tone down the rhetoric, make efforts to be more civil and present a less emotional response, I would be happy to engage with you. Disagreement doesn't entail dislike. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, starfighter441 said:

Disagree, during my time in the military I (and pretty much every one else ) developed the skill of catching a catnap anywhere, anytime.  I still can do this, not a deep sleep but a light doze which also tops my batteries up.

In this game if  your not tired you can still rest (cat nap call it what you want) its the same thing! or am i missing your point? you either sleep or rest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your posts are always a good read, Carbon. Thanks ^_^

21 hours ago, Carbon said:

 I wonder if the stone throwing wasn't implemented to address the recent large number of complaints about the wolves. Perhaps it is just me, but there was a spike in the number of discussions about the increase in wolf populations and their new, improved bad attitude.

Do you mean before the Faithful Cartographer test branch? I noted this phenomenon only from the test branch onwards.

21 hours ago, Carbon said:

Branching idea: Yes, again I may be wrong, but I see the stone throwing not primarily as being a method of bunny pummeling but as a means of distracting wolves. I thought this because HL don't seem like the type to create redundancies, yet that's what happened with stones and snares and again, I see this as an implementation that wasn't well thought-out or an idea that doesn't retro-fit well.

I have the impression that Hinterland was "selling" the idea that it would be for rabbit hunting. But you could be right.

21 hours ago, Carbon said:

Snaring does have some difference and so stone throwing isn't a complete override - time spent outdoors being the one that comes to mind; snares allow you to go inside and wait, while stone-throwing needs you to remain outside

And snares allow you to kill rabbits without having to endure their cute face looking at you :P

About the sleeping system-related implementation questions, I agree that are many things to be decided (specially if tackling the sleeping on the floor feature and the sleeping when fully rested at the same time). But that is what the process of creating a game is all about, I guess. You decide these "answers" and implement them.
I understand that Hinterland is a small studio, and I would never expect they expand the sleeping system before the story mode. Most of us understand that this would take some time.

22 hours ago, Carbon said:

not to mention that sandbox mode wasn't supposed to be such a 'thing' and due to it's being so wildly popular has taken up more time that the team had originally budgeted

Well, that's all we have to the present date: the sandbox mode. These changes in the sleeping system is applicable to the story mode as well (I don't see how they wouldn't be), so it's not a sandbox-exclusive-feature effort, at least.

22 hours ago, Carbon said:

To your last section, it makes perfect sense. The prism through which we filter the world is indeed unique, but this in more of an ideological, cognitive or less tangible interpretation than cold, thirst and hunger, which are more concrete constants. I maintain however that it isn't any objective reality that the game is set against; that there are worldly elements and aspects to the game does not qualify it as realistic. There are far too many outright breaks with the real world at every turn to support any semblance to 'real' reality.

Indeed. I agree with you. As I said in other comment, I love simulators and I have never considered the possibility of The Long Dark being a simulator. On the other hand, as you said, there are worldly elements (many of them), so the player can feel more close to the game's reality. I mean it's more palpable than, say, science fiction, and because of this, I think that it's more likely that people feel like doing in the game what they can do in real life (as long as it is plausible in the game), like sleeping on the floor, and sleeping even when rested. I believe that this reasoning also explains why people complain about the AI. We know rabbit, wolves, deer, and bears in real life, and albeit the disaster changed their behaviour, we may find some actions by the wildlife ridiculous and not realistic.

22 hours ago, Carbon said:

I honestly think that we are not diverging in opinion as much as simply exploring the unknown wilderness of how ideas might get put into the game, a wilderness in which I am as lost as anyone! :) Makes for good discussion though.

Yep, I guess you're right, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017/6/25 at 5:21 PM, starfighter441 said:

That finished me off a couple of times before I figured it out.  Went for about 10 days the second time out  subsisting on soda, peaches and the odd water bottle that I found.

Wow, 10 days without melting ice! That's impressive.

Usually, the first time I play any game, I do it on Normal Mode (difficulty level), so I was on Voyageur. But after that lame death, I decided to play on Pilgrim so that I could learn the game without dying so fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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