On hibernation and possible remedies

[Monty_Gulli]

[...]

I think a really GOOD way to modify morale is have the game tag every resource the player has touched. It then categorizes it. Does not matter if it is in the zone or another zone. For example, the player harvests 10 hardwoods and uses three. The player has 7 hardwoods at their disposal. If the player had more than X hardwoods the avatar could say "I have enough fir to last me a week!" This gives them a resource morale bonus. Their resource falls below a certain level the avatar could say, "If I get snowed in I will freeze to death. Better gather more wood." The player then takes a resource morale penalty. [...]

I don't know if that's the way to go. Of cause it is good to have your supplies here and there so that no matter where you are it's not far from a well-appointed shelter. And I am sure it can boost your moral knowing that whereever you are you never are completely out of anything. But on the other hand... what good do tons of wood and gallons of water do you if they are stashed at the gas station in coastal highway and you are right now in mystery lake in the camp office and a blizzard trapps you inside for three days?

So I think I'd rather have the inventory and the stuff in the structure you are right now monitored for a resource moral bonus or penalty.

[AmericanSteel]

[...]

I think a really GOOD way to modify morale is have the game tag every resource the player has touched. It then categorizes it. Does not matter if it is in the zone or another zone. For example, the player harvests 10 hardwoods and uses three. The player has 7 hardwoods at their disposal. If the player had more than X hardwoods the avatar could say "I have enough fir to last me a week!" This gives them a resource morale bonus. Their resource falls below a certain level the avatar could say, "If I get snowed in I will freeze to death. Better gather more wood." The player then takes a resource morale penalty. [...]

I don't know if that's the way to go. Of cause it is good to have your supplies here and there so that no matter where you are it's not far from a well-appointed shelter. And I am sure it can boost your moral knowing that whereever you are you never are completely out of anything. But on the other hand... what good do tons of wood and gallons of water do you if they are stashed at the gas station in coastal highway and you are right now in mystery lake in the camp office and a blizzard trapps you inside for three days?

So I think I'd rather have the inventory and the stuff in the structure you are right now monitored for a resource moral bonus or penalty.

Good point. Maybe only the resources in the zone count or only within a certain radius (say 500-1000m). Even if a blizzard sets in, I can still make it from the Farmhouse to the Barn or from the Gas Station to any other house in Coastal Village.

[joki]

Lot's of good suggestions on this issue!

Althou the restoration is slower than back then you can still constantly survive on almost no carlories by just starting for 3-4 days, eating a few hundred kcal, and sleep once. Whenever you sleep, try to sleep for the full 12 hours after drinking. In real life, if can of course starve for a lot longer than 3-4 days (approx. 1% condition lost per hour), but in this time your body will have to use reserves from your fat depots, which you _will_ have to replenish in the end, before starving again, instead of just eating 1000 kcal ONCE and being fed and fat again. :lol:

Edit: Not sure if this is stll the forumla in pilgrim mode as it was in january, have only been playing stalker since then (And i still find too much gear...).

[Hotzn]

I have expanded and updated the OP a bit. Please let me know if any ideas have been left out or misrepresented. If I have not credited people properly, please advise.

[Scyzara]

I think you got elloco a bit wrong, Hotzn (point 6).

He wasn't suggesting a highly-complex score-system. Just that the time you're starving is tracked ingame (I bet that's possible with little programming effort) and later on subtracted from the total time survived (for the leaderboards only).

For example let's say you survived 20.000 hours alltogether, but starved 12.000 of these. The leaderboards will thus only rank you as 8000 hours survived. That's not complex at all in my opinion.

Maybe you could make the score system idea and the "subtract starving time from total time survived for the leaderboards" idea two different points.^^

@Devs: Have you noticed this thread? I think the community would very much appreciate it if you could give us a little confirmation about that.

Many people have made quite some effort in here and tried their best to suggest solutions, you just have to pick one of them.^^

[toebar]

I think the Time Starved statistic is an excellent idea. I like that it is a simple solution-- gameplay is not altered, but incentive for this play style is lessened.

In a way, this approach acknowledges that constant starvation is not a sensible way to survive (due to the loss of body condition, morale etc), but does not go so far as to incorporate such mechanics explicitly into the game. I can see the argument against it as well though, and that it could be considered a bit of a cop out to do this instead of adding depth to the game via another mechanic.

Anyway, good ideas and discussion-- and nice work Hotzn for putting them all together here

[Nemesis]

I'm in for whatever change in game mechanics may solve the starvation/hibernation exploit.

Be it Polarbears suggestion (double the amount of kcal needed per hour after starvation), a change in regeneration times or even my plain sledgehammer method "if you starve for more than 1000h in a single game, you simply drop dead". (There should be a warning after 800h of starvation, whoever continues to starve on purpose afterwards, doesn't deserve better than losing his/her savegame).

As I've explained in another thread recently, it is nothing but realistic that you finally die once all your fat and muscle reserves are used up because of excessive starvation. And no-one can tell me that they starved 1000h hours alltogether "accidentally" within a single game - that would be about 40 days in a row or e.g. 12h every 5th day during a 400 days run!

People who seriously can't manage to find enough food in TLD would never ever survive for more than 50 days, anyway.

The community has probably already suggested more than 10 different approaches to this problem, of which at least 5 could be implemented without (too) severe/punishing side effects for new players or people who starve accidentally from time to time.

In my opinion, either the devs don't consider the problem worth a fix OR (and I assume the latter) they are trying to develop a solution completely without unwanted down sides. I personally doubt that such a solution exists, but I'll be pleasantly surprised should we get one.^^

Lots of thoughtful and creative thinking in this thread. Been thinking about it for a couple of days and I see too much downside to all the solutions except for something in this post. I think the solution is here. So we need a calculation of what a normal range of starvation time would be for someone NOT using the hibernation strategy. So lets say the upper number of that range is 100 hours spent at 0 calories in a 200 day run. Now all you have to decide is what the penalty is for going over the average of 1/2 hour per day at 0 calories. Permanent loss of stamina so that you get fatigued easier? Permanent loss of conditioning so that the more time you spend in 0 calories the less maximum conditioning you can achieve? This way you would have to ask yourself if you mind running around the game with max conditioning at 99%, 90%, 80%, etc and/or suffer the consequences of having not enough stamina to skin a whole deer because you get fatigued. Obviously all the numbers I used are for illustration and so they can vary according to what "normal" is and how lenient you want to be.

[elloco999]

I think you got elloco a bit wrong, Hotzn (point 6).

He wasn't suggesting a highly-complex score-system. Just that the time you're starving is tracked ingame (I bet that's possible with little programming effort) and later on subtracted from the total time survived (for the leaderboards only).

For example let's say you survived 20.000 hours alltogether, but starved 12.000 of these. The leaderboards will thus only rank you as 8000 hours survived. That's not complex at all in my opinion.

Maybe you could make the score system idea and the "subtract starving time from total time survived for the leaderboards" idea two different points.^^

I actually did suggest a more complex system using a 'score' based on several factors and only added the "just tracking time not starved for the leaderbords" as an afterthought.

I agree with Hotzn that such a 'survival score' would be difficult to implement and more importantly balance. What factors do you take into account and how do you weigh them against each other? It will be hard to find all the right factors and balance them appropriately. There will always be people who feel the scoring used doesn't accurately reflect their way of playing TLD.

I therefor think a simple system of not counting hours starved for the leaderbords is by far the better solution. It is simple, probably easy to implement, has no impact on the gameplay whatsoever and doesn't punish anyone unnecessarily for starving.

I think it's a good idea to list both options as separate points on the list.

[harobed1156]

Another possibility is to have achievements aimed at hibernators so that their accounts would be permanently labeled to show how they accomplished their positions on the leader boards. Perhaps these achievements could bear the universally recognized NO symbol, a red circle with a slash across it, if the developers disapprove of the practice. This would allow everyone to play the game as they choose without burdening the developers and other players with anti-cheat mechanics.

Edit: My reason for suggesting this simple solution is that I'd rather see the developers invest their valuable time on game improvements like more animals (moose, dogs, etc ...), food (blueberries, pine nuts, roots, etc...), crafting, ability to place objects, hunting methods, and so on than on foiling hibernators. I see it as a matter of opportunity cost and what enhancements we, as players, would need to forgo or delay in order to prevent the starvation play style.

[ezvc]

Just show hours spent starved.. a good "score" is maximum days survived and minimum time in starvation..

In fact, never starving should be a nice achievment..

100 days , 0 days starved.. etc

[octavian]

I try to make a point here for a new game mechanic, which I will keep mentioning until one of the devs will explicitly call it the worst idea ever :lol:

A variable length of the day/night cycle :roll:

First of all, this idea is in no way shape or form specifically geared towards something i.e. against hibernation. It's intended simply as new core mechanic. With surprising implications, including regarding hibernation.

In my post about it I was moderate about the entire thing and considered the fact that it could annoy players that hibernate as being a negative point. If deterrence of hibernation is desired, it would work. If impossibility of hibernation is desired, it could do that too. Easy.

It does happen to combine a few ideas which I've seen were already mentioned except it does also have mechanics I have not seen mentioned. If that's not the case and I've missed them, I apologize.

I will try to explain it one more time, briefly. This also helps me develop it more, in my head.

In my following description of how it would work, I'll suppose an extreme, radical, wrath of devs kind of implementation and focus solely on how it would affect hibernation. If interested in advantages for normal play and its justification for existing, please take the time to read my original post on this model.

A floating point variable keeps track of your calorie burn rate and fatigue, both computed over time.

This variable acts as a modifier for the length of the day/night cycle and for how effectively you can alter your bars (fatigue, cold, hunger, thirst).

Suppose for some time you burn as least calories as possible and are well rested. The effect?

1. Requirements for warmth, food and water drop.

2. The day/night cycle gets longer i.e. it lasts more in terms of real time.

3. Initiating rest is a chance based interaction. Fatigue reduction through rest is minimal if any. You also rest for less time than intended.

How radical this would be is irrelevant at this point. Let's just say that if it would take 6 real hours for an in-game day/night cycle with no way to advance time by resting, it would get boring, fast.

Also at that point you would lose condition by having maximum fatigue and no way to lower it. The only option besides death would be to increase your calorie burn rate as much as possible and keep it high over time. In other words, be active.

But the other half of this model is its opposite. A long calorie burn rate and a high fatigue, both over time, would have the opposite effect.

1. Requirements for warmth, food and water rise.

2. The day/night cycle gets shorter i.e. it lasts less in terms of real time.

3. Initiating rest is not a chance based interaction. Fatigue reduction due to rest is at its maximum possible. Also, you rest for more time than intended.

Suppose you're hibernating. You have to deal with very long days and no way to advance time, and you're starting to lose condition because of maximum fatigue, which you have no way to reduce.

So you start to burn a lot of calories to overcome this or die. Supposing this adventure of yours doesn't kill you, as your fatigue is and has been for some time as high as it can be you would end up needing a huge amount of calories simply to survive with the added "benefit" of a very short day/night cycle.

Also from naive calculations, pushing hard against the model would induce massive shifts in sleeping patterns, with "fun" periods of time of having to sleep during the daytime.

Not only this, it would proactively guard against preparing for a long time of hibernation by gathering resources.

You would spend calories and fatigue to gather resources "beyond reason", only to induce in the near future an increased need for calories, water and warmth. Presumably, enough to offset any intended advantage.

What I like most about this model, except having came up with it :lol: , is the fact that it's self-balancing and has inertia. Any player, regardless of approach and playing style, can push against it, "within reason". If he wants to. He would get a short-term advantage at a high long-term cost. Left alone the model regulates itself.

Push against it too hard, it becomes unstable and uncontrollable and its extreme states feed back into each other. Which, even if survivable, would effectively ensure hibernation would not be possible.

[Hotzn]

I will try to explain it one more time, briefly. This also helps me develop it more, in my head.

I updated the OP and included this as item #11 on the list, but would kindly ask if the system could be explained in a simplified manner.

[octavian]

I updated the OP and included this as item #11 on the list, but would kindly ask if the system could be explained in a simplified manner.

If not understanding it is grounds for purposely misunderstanding it to make it "funny", there's no need Hotzn, it's OK.

[bethany]

There are some good ideas and interesting feedback here. I know we're working on a "fix" for hibernation, but it's no small undertaking, and involves (from what I understand) some pretty big changes to the game.

No clue on when this will happen, but we don't plan on letting things continue this way forever.

[Scyzara]

No clue on when this will happen, but we don't plan on letting things continue this way forever.

Thank you so much, you made my day!

[octavian]

I know we're working on a "fix" for hibernation, but it's no small undertaking, and involves (from what I understand) some pretty big changes to the game.

Big changes best changes

[toebar]

sounding promising

[Sam6AF]

There are ideas on this thread that I think have potential - fitness bar, morale bar, bed sores, and some others.

The suggestions I thought I would put forward for discussion are:

- A 'shrinking stomach' - the more you starve the more your stomach shrinks and vice versa. There could be a moving cap on the hunger bar and calorie intake e.g. you can become full at 500 calories. This would not 'solve' hibernation but it would make it more tedious and less effective and put some people off the idea. It can also be combined with other ideas of course.

- A 'fat store/energy reserve' metre (or equivalent) - This is a stat which goes down when you starve and up (to a point) if you're consistently well-fed i.e. if you are past a certain calorie level (for example 2000). (This could perhaps increase the more reserves you have i.e. you need to consume more food to increase body fat the more fat you have already). If you have no reserves at all starvation will quickly kill you. It means you cannot starve for a large amount of total time without replenishing your fat reserves by eating a lot of food (being consistantly well-fed for some time). If this is combined with the 'shrinking stomach' idea it becomes an extra slow (potentially more realistic?) process of replenishing reserves - not sure if better or worse though. I like this idea a lot and it seems elegant and balanced to me but feel free to mention any problems i may have overlooked. It could also factor into other things in the game, having a lot of fat could add a degree or two of warmth, and perhaps there could be a 'sweet spot' (in the middle?) where you are at peak fitness (fatigue slower etc.) - so the trade off at the top end is having more fat reserves but being a bit less fit, or having less (mid-level) reserves and being a bit fitter. Also having low reserves would decrease 'fitness' as well. (For me this is also better than a straight fitness/strength metre).

[Sam6AF]

I have made an example of this idea with a rough mocked up image (attached) to demonstrate how easily and well it could potentially work.

'FAT STORE' Metre Example:

• Goes DOWN when STARVING (slower than standard condition drop, which remains. Perhaps 100% condition drop = 25% 'Fat Store' drop).

• Goes UP when above 2000 (or 2200*) calories (this is slow as well and is designed so that food not eaten when starving is made up for in recovery).

• Stays THE SAME between 1 and 2000 (or 1 and 2200*) calories.

(*in this example I am thinking this should be above 2200 calories when the 'Fat Store' stat is above 60%).

• 0% 'Fat Store' = very fast condition drop (imminent death) when STARVING.

• 50% 'Fat Store' = 'PEAK FITNESS' - the closer to this the better any suitable fitness related advantages (fatigue etc.).

• Above 70% 'Fat Store' = +1 degree of WARMTH
  Above 90% 'Fat Store' = +2 degrees of WARMTH
  Below 30% 'Fat Store' = -1 degree of WARMTH
  Below 10% 'Fat Store' = -2 degrees of WARMTH
  (this is simply added to 'feels like' or added to 'clothing warmth bonus' which would be changed to 'insulation bonus').

• Player starts at 50% 'Fat Store' (alternatively they start near 50%, decided by random or by difficulty level. Starting higher at 75% may also work well).

In the example image the player is using up fat stores because they are starving. They are close to peak fitness, and they are not receiving any warmth bonuses or penalties as their 'Fat Store' is between 30% and 70%.

The only real downside i can see to this idea is the bending and simplification of biological reality, however I think other elements of the game mechanics do this as well anyway, and that as a mechanic this works. It deals with the hibernation issue well, still allowing for starvation albeit with some lesser immidiate penalties and a greater long term penalty which deals with any food-saving advantage. It has no negative effects on other mechanics i can think of, and it introduces some new elements and player choice which could make the game even more engaging.

Please feel free to shoot this down if you feel it is not a good idea. I enjoyed the process of making it anyway. I am fairly certain whatever the devs choose to do will work well.

[Fluffy]

I posted my attempt at fixing the 'hibernation' problem here (viewtopic.php?f=57&t=5517&start=50).

It's basically to make animals much more scarce in the game, replacing some of them with harvestable edible and poisonous plants with low calorie content. This way you do actually have to be a stalker in 'Stalker' mode in order to hunt, and between hunts you're slowly eating up your food stores. If food doesn't accumulate, and you really have to travel for it and risk exposure to the wolves and the weather, then you're not going to be able to hibernate. You wouldn't be able to idly sit indoors, except perhaps after a particularly successful hunt - in which case you've earned it, and it won't last long. Perhaps long enough to repair your stuff and process some emergency plant rations, and then it's back out exploring and hunting before your stores run out again. During early-game you can rely on tinned foods, and when these run out there's a real risk you'll starve if you make mistakes or encounter bad luck. It'd be another survival challenge (is there anyone that actually starves to death in-game at the moment?).

In reply to others' suggestions, I think that changing the scoreboards sounds like a good idea to appease people who are concerned that others are getting an unfair advantage out of hibernating. Personally, I'm not comfortable with the implication that some people's free gameplay choices are wrong or should be open to censure or criticism. I just think it's a game breaker that you know that you could do it and it's currently the best in-game survival option. I'd rather fix the problem, but if it's too hard to fix then the scoreboard option would be ok I guess. The fat stores or health options are the most true to life, so I like them, but I'm not sure they'd be easy to implement, especially at this late stage.

I hope we can find a fix for the excess food -> excessive hibernation option though. I don't have a problem with very short bouts of eating-sleeping or even starving-sleeping, because I think you could cope with it for short periods in a real survival situation if you had to.

[snegec]

It's basically to make animals much more scarce in the game, replacing some of them with harvestable edible and poisonous plants with low calorie content. This way you do actually have to be a stalker in 'Stalker' mode in order to hunt, and between hunts you're slowly eating up your food stores.

I do that in Stalker difficulty already. I don't have a permanent base. I move around, following the wildlife herds. However, I'm at a higher disadvantage than someone who would stay put. However, if I go along with your idea, I'd have to argue at the top of my voice, that current eating mechanic is totally bad.

Either meat decays too fast in the sub-zero temperatures outside or I'm eating 3500 calories worth of food per day. Something needs to be fixed. If I can freeze to death outside by not having any clothes on so should meat in a trunk of a car half-buried in the snow. Or in a container half buried in the snow. Sure, there's always a chance a wolf or bear will smell the meat and eat some or all of it. But the fact that a black bear's body (with all the meat, skin and gut) COMPLETELY dissapeared less than 24 hours after I killed it at a side of the Unpleasant Valley Farmhouse is proposterous.

My freezer here at home works at -5 degrees celcius. The oldest meat I have in there is from last winter. That's 6 months.

If food doesn't accumulate, and you really have to travel for it and risk exposure to the wolves and the weather, then you're not going to be able to hibernate. You wouldn't be able to idly sit indoors, except perhaps after a particularly successful hunt - in which case you've earned it, and it won't last long. Perhaps long enough to repair your stuff and process some emergency plant rations, and then it's back out exploring and hunting before your stores run out again.

Which brings you back to the thing called "Encumbered mode". Unless you have a base out of which you go hunting, leaving most of the heavy duty stuff back home, you'll almost always be encumbered, especially if you're wearing crafted clothes. So unless you're supporting Hibernation mode, you're walking slower, burn calories faster, carry heavier loads, risk injury, death, illness and wildlife attacks to survive.

Seems to me most of the "suggestions" in this thread are arguments on how to improve hibernation. There's so much support to negative effects no good ones really stand out.

During early-game you can rely on tinned foods, and when these run out there's a real risk you'll starve if you make mistakes or encounter bad luck. It'd be another survival challenge (is there anyone that actually starves to death in-game at the moment?).

Most people are either killed by wolves (low condition attracts wildlife) or weather conditions (freezing) than starvation.

In reply to others' suggestions, I think that changing the scoreboards sounds like a good idea to appease people who are concerned that others are getting an unfair advantage out of hibernating. Personally, I'm not comfortable with the implication that some people's free gameplay choices are wrong or should be open to censure or criticism. I just think it's a game breaker that you know that you could do it and it's currently the best in-game survival option.

Instead of rush-fixing the aspects of the game and potentially ruining it for some/all playstyles, they could instead rush-fix the leader-board put out values to have more details.

It wouldn't just be sorted on "top survived days on top" but would take average eating/drinking habits, rest, travels, wildlife interaction, crafting recipes completed, etc.

If I check Steam Leaderboards for Voyageour there's a guy with 72002 hrs and 33 minutes on top. 3000 days. Impressive. And leaderboards from TLD, there's rankings 1 through 470something, but no data. Can't see how long they survived, etc. That's the problem, lack of data. Logs are sort of inconclusive.

I'd rather fix the problem, but if it's too hard to fix then the scoreboard option would be ok I guess. The fat stores or health options are the most true to life, so I like them, but I'm not sure they'd be easy to implement, especially at this late stage.

I hope we can find a fix for the excess food -> excessive hibernation option though. I don't have a problem with very short bouts of eating-sleeping or even starving-sleeping, because I think you could cope with it for short periods in a real survival situation if you had to.

It's still early Alpha so to speak. We're not even at pre-Beta stage, so implementing a radical change to the game shouldn't be problematic, even if it takes a couple of months. Having a game with less exploitability, versatility and interesting stuff in it would be more appealing to the masses than a bug-infested game with only caters to a certain audience.

My current progress

Draw a map of where I've been and what I did from that log, make it as comprehensive as possible. Then tell me how I'd rank on the leaderboards.

[spoil]You're right. You wouldn't place me on the leaderboards, since I've only nearly died 4 or 5 times.[/spoil]

[Fluffy]

Either meat decays too fast in the sub-zero temperatures outside...

and

...the fact that a black bear's body (with all the meat, skin and gut) COMPLETELY dissapeared less than 24 hours after I killed it at a side of the Unpleasant Valley Farmhouse is proposterous

This is something that I don't know enough about, but find fascinating. I can't resist going off-topic:

[offtopic]In Siberia they're still pulling thousand year old mammoth corpses out of the thawing landscape that look as though they were alive just a few days ago. The world can be a giant and surprisingly reliable freezer.

On the other hand, I remember watching a film about a real-life Canadian/Northern-USA survival tragedy that stuck in my mind. After a week or so the man came across a large animal (I'm thinking bison) and shot it. Flies were all over the carcass within hours and he couldn't process it in time. An 'expert' gave his opinion that once flies landed on something, it would inevitably spoil very rapidly, and from that point onwards there was little you could do to stop it.

A large amount of the meat went to waste because he couldn't stop its deterioration. He spent time preparing for the next opportunity by gathering wood in advance and thinking up ways to keep the flies off, e.g. set up a smoke house immediately. But he never succeeded in bringing down another animal. Knowing he would be stranded until the next spring, and running out of food, he started sampling the flora in desperation. He picked something poisonous and never fully recovered. In his diary he wrote that the one bison would have seen him comfortably through the winter, if only he'd been able to process it quickly enough, but he hadn't realised that flies would be such a problem in the cold environment.

I've heard that flies use day-length rather than temperature as their guide about when to hatch. In TLD we currently have 14-15 hour days....is it a huge leap of faith to think that flies are introducing bacteria that spoils the meat when it's lying around in the open? Or that wolves and bears are getting at it and introducing bacteria? That the top layer of meat is repeatedly thawing in the sunlight and freezing again?[/offtopic]

So, anyway, I can totally believe in the two extremes: that a carcass can lie around frozen indefinitely, or can deteriorate within a day or so. Presumably depending on the precise circumstances.

[snegec]

Most of my days are fillized with fog and/or snow blizzards. Also, I highly doubt them flies persevere in situations with sub-zero temperatures.

[Fluffy]

It must be Canadian summer if there are 14-15 hour long days, and there are typically lots of insects around then. The abundant indoor corpses would be a good enough breeding ground; they're never frozen. If some flies hatch every other day because the days are long and the freaky weather is confusing them, then they don't have to survive for long outdoors. Just enough to touch the meat and pass on bacteria/eggs. Yuk.

Anyway, you may be right. I have no idea how long a fresh carcass would last during a freezing cold spell out in the open in the Canadian summer.

I think that in-game the bear corpses only deteriorate so fast because they take such a long time to freeze (large mass, well-insulated?). Don't know if this is intentional or not. I once lit a fire by one that had frozen overnight, and because it thawed I lost all the meat by attempting to harvest it in one go :-? It literally decayed out of sight.

[snegec]

That's the case.

We don't know if it's winter or summer, or any other season. We don't even know if there's flies that far north.

I am sure though, that if there's any wolves within a 2kilometer radius of a slain animal with it's belly cut open, they'd probably smell it. And come feast. And then you'd either wing it, hide or die.

But even with 15 hour days, it's somewhat winterish. Unless the difficulty sets that. I know Pilgrim and Voyageur get a lot of sunshine filled days, whilst Stalker is.. so far so bad. Never actually had a FULL day with sun out, without slight wind, snowing, fog or snow storms.

Edit: Cooked meat also deteriorates at enormous speeds. You'd think that if them flies layed eggs into the meat, cooking it to at least 60 degrees would kill them.