Realism junkie questions

[Wasteland Watcher]

Which difficulty has the most realistic calorie burn rate and hydration/dehydration rate?

I realize "everyone is different" so I'm going for the National Health Association average for active/semi-active people (active when we explore & hunt but only semi-active on days we stay inside due to bad weather or just go fishing).

Also, which difficulty has cloths, food, and gear deteriorate at the rate most similar to real life?

[Thelek]

both of these are good questions, but i think many of us disagree on the answers. personally, i believe pilgrim has the most realistic calorie usage (i just cant agree with using 900 calories just to sleep for 12 hours.). as far as item degration goes (including clothing), none of the modes are realistic, although items last longer in pilgrim. complete realism is impossible, the game needs to provide a challenge even in its easiets mode or no one would play it. Hinterland has chosen to do this by using a degradation subroutien to force the player to repair/replace equipment at an accelerated rate. personally, i believe there should be a difficulty between pilgrim and voyager that uses the usage/degradition rates of pilgrim and has aggressive predators.

[Wasteland Watcher]

Hmmm, that's some food for thought.

After reading your answer the light bulb turned on and I googled "calories burned while asleep."

It turns out the average 150 lb person burns about 65 cal/hr while sleeping and another that stated the heavier you are the more you burn while asleep.

Well I guess that puts my question to rest: On Pilgrim you're "kind of light," you're average weight on Voyageur, and a "little heavy" on Stalker.

I wish the item degradation was a little more realistic but at least we've been kindly provided with cleaning kits and whet stones to compensate for it

Thanks for the answer, Thelek

[ThresholdSeven]

Hmmm, that's some food for thought.

After reading your answer the light bulb turned on and I googled "calories burned while asleep."

It turns out the average 150 lb person burns about 65 cal/hr while sleeping and another that stated the heavier you are the more you burn while asleep.

Well I guess that puts my question to rest: On Pilgrim you're "kind of light," you're average weight on Voyageur, and a "little heavy" on Stalker.

I wish the item degradation was a little more realistic but at least we've been kindly provided with cleaning kits and whet stones to compensate for it

Thanks for the answer, Thelek

I agree with you that a mode with more realism would be fun and is worth experimenting with, but I am also an advocate for throwing some realism aside for more challenging gameplay. I want the degradation rate drastically sped up to make the game more difficult and consequently bring endgame more quickly. I think we could both be happy if both modes were implemented. There are already 3 modes, why not add a "extreme realism mode" for you and an "extremely difficult (and by necessity unrealistic)" game mode for me.

That wouldn't really be too complicated at least to start testing and implementing. What would be extremely difficult is to make a game that is both ultra realistic, super challenging and fun to play. The entire game would most likely have to be rebuilt from the ground up. Implementing 2 new separate modes as I suggested would be an awesome move that would use the mechanics already in the game with relatively minor tweaks. Experimenting with both ways would also give a better idea of how to combine the 2 and make them fun. This speculation could go on for ever, which brings me to this conclusion... There should be a modding community, dev tools and mod support for The Long Dark. I can't see how that wouldn't be good for the game in all aspects.

[Wasteland Watcher]

I agree with you that a mode with more realism would be fun and is worth experimenting with, but I am also an advocate for throwing some realism aside for more challenging gameplay. I want the degradation rate drastically sped up to make the game more difficult and consequently bring endgame more quickly. I think we could both be happy if both modes were implemented. There are already 3 modes, why not add a "extreme realism mode" for you and an "extremely difficult (and by necessity unrealistic)" game mode for me.

That wouldn't really be too complicated at least to start testing and implementing. What would be extremely difficult is to make a game that is both ultra realistic, super challenging and fun to play. The entire game would most likely have to be rebuilt from the ground up. Implementing 2 new separate modes as I suggested would be an awesome move that would use the mechanics already in the game with relatively minor tweaks. Experimenting with both ways would also give a better idea of how to combine the 2 and make them fun. This speculation could go on for ever, which brings me to this conclusion... There should be a modding community, dev tools and mod support for The Long Dark. I can't see how that wouldn't be good for the game in all aspects.

I'll be completely honest: all other games use an unrealistically fast items/armor "degrade factor" for the sake of gameplay.

That's why I am *not* playing those games.

Basically, the more realistic this game is the more I'll like it, and the further it gets from reality the more likely I am to stop playing and also not purchase the full version.

A strong, personal example is that Fallout New Vegas had Hardcore Mode (need to eat/drink/sleep to live) and I loved that. Items also decayed and needed maintenance but the rate felt "about right."

Fallout 4 shipped with no Hardcore Mode AND items do not degrade whatsoever so now I refuse to purchase any games made by Bethesda Softworks because I already know I'll be disappointed by the gameplay.

As it is now tools and clothes in The Long Dark degrade unrealistically fast and I'm kind of disappointed by that. I hope it's adjusted accordingly.

If you want "throw realism to the side" and play a game with an unrealistic (quick) degrade factor, you should consider playing Fallout New Vegas or Fallout 3.

I came to The Long Dark to get away from that.

I hope that doesn't come off the wrong way, I just think The Long Dark stands out from the crowd by being more realistic than any other survival game I've played so far and that's what I love about it so much.

Making it less realistic for the sake of 'gameplay balance' or whatever would make me like it less.

[ThresholdSeven]

It's an age old battle between realism and gameplay that will never satisfy everyone unless both modes are implemented. You can't easily have competitive gameplay and realism at the same time especially when the point of the game is to see how long you can survive. I want hardcore runs to end at 20-30 hours of gameplay, which wouldn't take much more than reducing the shelf life or durability of items so they last about 10% of the time they do now and by getting rid of immortality tactics. That would be ultra unrealistic of course, except the immortality, but a much better way if competitiveness is even to be considered than runs that take 300-400 hours to complete and potentially a lot more time.

The point is that if it was ultra realistic, we'd have virtual hermits at the top of the leader board still playing the same run 80 years from now in real time. It would be fun to play a real life wilderness simulator but how do you make that competitive when it might not end for decades in real time? That's why the only real answer that would suit both competitive and realistic game modes is to have a separate one of each. I would love that.

By competitive I don't just mean comparing leaderboard scores, but also simply beating your own personal record. I would like a difficulty setting where the sessions of solo gameplay are finished once every couple days or weeks. A super realistic setting would create sessions that could last decades. See what I'm saying? There is a distinction between both that simply can't exist together unless they are in separate modes/difficulties.

[Spottdrossel]

Hmmm, that's some food for thought.

After reading your answer the light bulb turned on and I googled "calories burned while asleep."

It turns out the average 150 lb person burns about 65 cal/hr while sleeping and another that stated the heavier you are the more you burn while asleep.

Well I guess that puts my question to rest: On Pilgrim you're "kind of light," you're average weight on Voyageur, and a "little heavy" on Stalker.

Thanks for the answer, Thelek

Actually you burn more calories in Voyageur: 75kcal/hour of sleep compared to only 60 kcal/hour of sleep on stalker.

[Wasteland Watcher]

It's an age old battle between realism and gameplay that will never satisfy everyone unless both modes are implemented. You can't easily have competitive gameplay and realism at the same time especially when the point of the game is to see how long you can survive. I want hardcore runs to end at 20-30 hours of gameplay, which wouldn't take much more than reducing the shelf life or durability of items so they last about 10% of the time they do now and by getting rid of immortality tactics. That would be ultra unrealistic of course, except the immortality, but a much better way if competitiveness is even to be considered than runs that take 300-400 hours to complete and potentially a lot more time.

In order to "satisfy everyone" my proposed solution would be for Voyageur to be "ultra realistic" and Stalker to have "competitive gameplay reduced shelf life & durability of items."

I'd play on Voyageur and be happy living forever eating rabbit and melting snow, and you (and others with a similar mindset) would be happy playing Stalker with the Ultra-challenging settings.

The point is that if it was ultra realistic, we'd have virtual hermits at the top of the leader board still playing the same run 80 years from now in real time. It would be fun to play a real life wilderness simulator but how do you make that competitive when it might not end for decades in real time? That's why the only real answer that would suit both competitive and realistic game modes is to have a separate one of each. I would love that.

By competitive I don't just mean comparing leaderboard scores, but also simply beating your own personal record. I would like a difficulty setting where the sessions of solo gameplay are finished once every couple days or weeks. A super realistic setting would create sessions that could last decades. See what I'm saying? There is a distinction between both that simply can't exist together unless they are in separate modes/difficulties.

I don't ever look at leaderboards: I play for my own enjoyment and tend to throw $$ at anything that satisfies my requirements

But again, Stalker having "competitive" settings and Voyageur being "ultra realistic" would likely satisfy both of us.

I've never played Pilgrim so I can't comment on it.

[Wasteland Watcher]

Hmmm, that's some food for thought.

After reading your answer the light bulb turned on and I googled "calories burned while asleep."

It turns out the average 150 lb person burns about 65 cal/hr while sleeping and another that stated the heavier you are the more you burn while asleep.

Well I guess that puts my question to rest: On Pilgrim you're "kind of light," you're average weight on Voyageur, and a "little heavy" on Stalker.

Thanks for the answer, Thelek

Actually you burn more calories in Voyageur: 75kcal/hour of sleep compared to only 60 kcal/hour of sleep on stalker.

Thanks for the correction

[Thelek]

i play on pilgrim more than on any other mode. to me it is the most realistic where calore usage,decay, and degradition are concerned. i just wish it had agressive predators. well, more like provokable, i guess. not where they go out of their way to attack you like in V & S modes,but will fight you if you provoke them in some way. such as trying to steal a wolf's kill or invading a bear's den.

[ThresholdSeven]

i play on pilgrim more than on any other mode. to me it is the most realistic where calore usage,decay, and degradition are concerned. i just wish it had agressive predators. well, more like provokable, i guess. not where they go out of their way to attack you like in V & S modes,but will fight you if you provoke them in some way. such as trying to steal a wolf's kill or invading a bear's den.

I think that would satisfy a lot of players looking for more realism. Am I right in assuming there is no decay of items in Pilgrim, even meat?

[Thelek]

Am I right in assuming there is no decay of items in Pilgrim, even meat?

nope. you are quite mis-informed. everything still decays and wears out, just takes a little longer. except the whetstone and rifle kit, those wear out pretty fast even in pilgrim. they each might take a single item from 60% to 99%. as far as i can tell, you will only find 2 of each per map, even in pilgrim. that is a total of 10 of each in a game. weapons will go pretty fast at that rate.

[ThresholdSeven]

Am I right in assuming there is no decay of items in Pilgrim, even meat?

nope. you are quite mis-informed. everything still decays and wears out, just takes a little longer. except the whetstone and rifle kit, those wear out pretty fast even in pilgrim. they each might take a single item from 60% to 99%. as far as i can tell, you will only find 2 of each per map, even in pilgrim. that is a total of 10 of each in a game. weapons will go pretty fast at that rate.

Not sure why I thought that about pilgrim. I found about 2 of each of whetstones and gun kits on each map also, except the tail section has a bunch more of each.

[TWM]

...not where they go out of their way to attack you like in V & S modes,but will fight you if you provoke them in some way.

Yes, i'd like to see that too. Dodging wolves all the time becomes a nuisance after a while, but Pilgrim is just ludicrously easy, especially with the weather announcing itself the way it does now.

It even allows you to just scare away a wolf from it's kill just by walking up to it. And bears fleeing on sight, come on!

Pilgrim would be way more fun if it introduced just a tad of danger. Like you said: no unprovoked attacks, but have a wolf stand it's ground every so often, and at least protect it's kill and warning you to take a hike.

[Soul Sojourner]

My first game was on voyager. I knew wolves and bears were a threat, obviously, but I died a few days in because a wolf spotted me while eating a deer. I thought it was complete bull that it stopped eating it's kill to chase me down and kill me when I was literally nowhere near it while it was eating. I understand that the game needs to have a threat, but when you play a game like this for the first time, you do expect an animal to act like an animal. Wolves with plenty to eat won't bother with humans, too much of a threat, and I understand that they attack you despite this because it's a game, and like I said, there needs to be a threat. However, the wolf totally disregarded even remotely normal animal behavior when it ditched it's meal to chase after much smaller, and potentially lethal prey.

That was the first issue I ran into with this game. It wouldn't take much away from the challenge to give animals more normal animal behavior. I'm not talking about removing any challenge, just make it make sense. For the harder mode, it can be explained in the description that ferocious animals will attack on sight with no hesitation. Then a player would expect animals to behave abnormally. However, it makes no sense for an animal to abandon a large deer carcass to attack you when you're not showing a threat, especially if dropping jerky, after being pursued, would distract them. That's just downright bizarre.

The other issue I had, was I expected cooked or raw meat to stay good in a container outdoors, or even in an unheated dwelling. Simply because, well, in real life I keep frozen venison from hunting in a freezer for well over a year sometimes. Let alone other foods.

Now this isn't a big deal. Once I figured it out, I figured it out. I still felt the need to look up a wiki to make sure I wasn't going to be wasting meat by accidentally letting it go bad.

That is a change I could easily shrug off. However, if it were to be changed that meat stays good frozen, raw or otherwise (I think raw should hold more calories than cooked first and then frozen). Raw frozen meat should take longer to cook and frozen cooked meat should need to be re-heated. That would help re-balance the system with the loss of degradation, however, that could be further balanced by reducing the number of game accordingly. (which would also make wolves and bears being more ferocious more logical, due to a smaller supply of food) This is also good if you plan to add more game, to the game. Which is highly recommended. Scenery alone gets a bit dull after awhile, when you expect the same animals over and over.

One more thing on realism, even though the toilet water should technically be frozen, assuming it's not, shouldn't we at least have to purify it or boil it first? I mean, it's a toilet... I would sooner trust melted snow than toilet water, no matter how clean that toilet looks. Just sayin'

[Thelek]

actually, the water in a toilet tank should be perfectly safe, since it comes direct from the same source as the water in your kitchen sink. there is one toilet in game i absolutely wont take the water from, however, and that is the one in the gas station. there is no tank on that one, so that means you are taking the water from the bowl. and that bowl is beyond disgusting.

one thing i do get a kick out of is how that whenever you are in a kitchen or bathroom you can hear the feucets dripping. problem with that is that there needs to be water pressure on the faucet for it to drip, and if there was pressure to the faucets, we wouldnt need to be boiling water. hell, even with just a drip we would never have to worry about water, just plug every sink and tub.

[Soul Sojourner]

Guess you've never seen a rusty toilet tank. I live in the country and we have our own well. The water is rusty, even with an expensive water softener that's supposed to help eliminate rust. The walls of the tank are rusty, and the water always has stuff in it and a strange swirl of color that sits in it. I wouldn't trust water from a toilet bowl by any means, but from a tank neither. That goes for just about any sitting water, which the water from the toilet tanks would be presumed to have been sitting for at least a little while.

[akodo1]

side note...water softener is to eliminate 'hard water' i.e. calcium dissolved in the water that otherwise slowly builds up in pipes and shower heads.

The water that is delivered to your toilet tank is the same water that is delivered to your faucet. Many toilet tanks have a build-up from materials like iron that are also dissolved in the water, but the water is still the same, and still fine.

It sounds like you have some outside contaminant in your tank, which is an anomaly, which might make your particular tank of toilet water undrinkable, but for most folks on a well, the water going into the toilet is the same going into the kitchen sink (which may or may not pass through the water softener) and is just as clean/drinkable.

[akodo1]

I agree with you that a mode with more realism would be fun and is worth experimenting with, but I am also an advocate for throwing some realism aside for more challenging gameplay. I want the degradation rate drastically sped up to make the game more difficult and consequently bring endgame more quickly.

I am confused.

I recognize your stance of having fast item degradation as unrealistic but it does increase the challenge, which for you increases the enjoyment.

I don't see how increased difficulty speeds up the 'endgame' as the only 'endgame' is dead.

Are you saying 'endgame' is really 'game length'? And you you find it more enjoyable to have a real struggle for 30 days of survival vs less struggle for 100 days of survival?

[ThresholdSeven]

I agree with you that a mode with more realism would be fun and is worth experimenting with, but I am also an advocate for throwing some realism aside for more challenging gameplay. I want the degradation rate drastically sped up to make the game more difficult and consequently bring endgame more quickly.

I am confused.

I recognize your stance of having fast item degradation as unrealistic but it does increase the challenge, which for you increases the enjoyment.

I don't see how increased difficulty speeds up the 'endgame' as the only 'endgame' is dead.

Are you saying 'endgame' is really 'game length'? And you you find it more enjoyable to have a real struggle for 30 days of survival vs less struggle for 100 days of survival?

End game to me is when you actually start running out of supplies. At 2500 days+ I still have so much loot that I can't even make a good estimate when my first type of item will go extinct. Maybe 5000, maybe 10,000 days. I love the game, maybe I've just played it too much, but I would like to see resources depleted at a much earlier time in the game.

If items ran out faster and players found themselves with nothing but a pair of pants, a knife and 2 matches left at a couple hundred days, maybe 400-500 at the most, I think there would be a lot more people competing with others and to simply beat their own personal score instead of a small handful of people who are willing to put the time it takes to get to 2000+ days with no end in sight. It would change the leaders from those who are most patient or have the most time to play to those who are most resourceful.

Don't get me wrong again though as I like the idea of a realistic and potentially super long lasting mode, it's just that I would like to see another mode/difficulty level where limited resource management and the theoretical endgame comes much sooner.

[Wasteland Watcher]

End game to me is when you actually start running out of supplies. At 2500 days+ I still have so much loot that I can't even make a good estimate when my first type of item will go extinct. Maybe 5000, maybe 10,000 days. I love the game, maybe I've just played it too much, but I would like to see resources depleted at a much earlier time in the game.

If items ran out faster and players found themselves with nothing but a pair of pants, a knife and 2 matches left at a couple hundred days, maybe 400-500 at the most, I think there would be a lot more people competing with others and to simply beat their own personal score instead of a small handful of people who are willing to put the time it takes to get to 2000+ days with no end in sight. It would change the leaders from those who are most patient or have the most time to play to those who are most resourceful.

Don't get me wrong again though as I like the idea of a realistic and potentially super long lasting mode, it's just that I would like to see another mode/difficulty level where limited resource management and the theoretical endgame comes much sooner.

Knives degrade irritatingly fast for me (Voyageur). I use it for work wherever it works faster than the hatchet and of course for fighting wolves that ambush me from time to time.

The limited whetstones honestly are not a whole lot of help. Better than nothing under the current mechanic, yes, but honestly I'm actually starting to get aggravated by the swift rate knives & hatchets rot.

As far as my experience goes, this is highest on my list of "things that make me want to turn the game off."

Oh well...I hope it gets fixed.

[Thelek]

i agree with you about the knife/hatchet degradyion and the near uselessness of the whetstone. but i have a few tricks to help extend their lives.

always use bare hands whenever possible. all crates and many chairs can be broke down with bare hands. same goes for cardboard boxes and curtains. and unfrozen carcasses can be harvested by hand, but i prefer to harvest frozen carcasses. the meat of a frozen carcass can be very quickly harvested with the hacksaw, which is repairable with scrap metal. still have to use the knife to skin and gut, tho. when breaking down furnature, try to always the hammer, which can be repaired with scrap and fir. however, this takes 2x longer then the axe, so you may wish to decide if it is worth the extra time and calories. the hammer may also be used to break down pallets, planks, and picnic tables/benches.

this is why i prefer to start in CH. although the rifle may be herder to find, you can almost always find a hacksaw & hammer there.

[akodo1]

I concur that the knife and hatchet degrade extremely fast, and the limited use whetstone is not much of a fix. I think an unlimited use whetstone is not out of the question. Honestly the beds in the cabin will wear out before your whetstone.

[Wasteland Watcher]

Thanks for the tips.

I'll be using my hands whenever possible to compensate for knives being made of wood. :roll:

My game was lost at day 72 - was wandering outdoors and then had a power outage. Loaded the game and 'sandbox1' was just ...gone

Started a new game and already at day 18. Will be using my hands whenever possible!

Even though using my hands when I have a knife is bad for 'realism'