mattyboi

Members
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

96 Prepper

1 Follower

About mattyboi

  • Rank
    Prepper

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The wolf AI and the spear are really two separate topics, IMHO. The current wolf AI is fairly rudimentary and needs an upgrade regardless. And since wolves represent the primary threat in most difficulty levels, an upgrade to the AI would be a significant impact to the game overall. But using the current wolf AI as justification to limit the options available to the player for crafting is really a disservice to the game. Like I said in my previous post, making the game more challenging through "additive" means results in better gameplay; in this case, adding a better wolf AI plus a spear would be a more entertaining game than the current wolf AI and no spear. Question; would you object to having a spear in the current game if the mechanic to aim the spear was exactly the same as the mechanic to aim the bow (ie, the spear would stab to approximately center screen with no aiming reticle), with the only difference being that you wouldn't burn time drawing an arrow back to fire? How about with the trade-off being that if you miss the wolf and it tackles you, you drop the spear and have to fight bare handed?
  2. 1. Is killing a wolf from ~50 feet away with a bow and arrow more or less challenging than killing a wolf from ~5 feet away with a spear? Personally, I could see advantages and disadvantages to both. 2. Will crafting a spear using components that could otherwise be used to create two other weapons (maple sapling + hunting knife/improvised knife) make your ultimate survival more challenging or less challenging? Again, I see advantages and disadvantages to both. The point is, currently the player isn't even offered the opportunity to decide, and to me that is the disappointment.
  3. I've been keeping an eye on this thread, because a spear is also something I recommended for this game some time ago, and I've seen others recommend it as well. Ultimately I think this comes down to gaming philosophy. There seems to be this big drive to make TLD more "challenging", and recent developments in the game have been moving the game in that direction. I'm not sure I inherently agree or disagree with this. On the one hand, some developments (particularly the revamped clothing system, etc) have made the game more interesting, IMHO. But I don't necessarily believe that more challenging always = more interesting. For one, this depends very much on the preferences of the target audience for the game. For two, being a survival game, a sense of realism needs to be maintained for the target audience to remain engaged with the game. So throwing out the idea of a spear for the supposed reason that implementing a spear "will not make the game more challenging" isn't inherently logical to me, because we have not defined whether the game necessarily needs to be more challenging to be more interesting. And with the various difficulty levels, weapons can easily be added or removed to artificially create varying degrees of difficulty, much like the rifle/hunting knife are already added or removed depending on the difficulty level. On a completely different spectrum, I think many gamers, including myself, enjoy creative problem solving. If you have the option to turn a maple sapling into a bow or a spear, then you have the opportunity to play the game creatively, and invest your resources according to your play style, and deal with those trade-offs correspondingly. If you only ever have the option to make a bow, you are relegated to dealing with threats at range or on your back taking damage. This is a false dichotomy since many of us have already expressed, if we were personally trying to survive a similar situation, we would very early on try to make a spear. So from a players perspective, it's hard not to suspend disbelief for the lack of this crafting option. In general, I would say, making a game more "challenging" by additive means (ie, adding more severe challenges, a wider variety of challenges, etc) typically results in a better gaming experience. Making a game more "challenging" by reductive means (in this case, limiting a player's problem solving options), typically results in an inferior gaming experience.
  4. It seems we are essentially saying the same thing. In the context of no scripted story, the decisions the player makes becomes the story, ie, survival is the story.
  5. In TLD sandbox the survival of the character is the story, so if you don't protect the harsh elements of the game, the story becomes nerfed/broken.
  6. Hmmm...probably the earliest example I personally played was the old Quest for Glory c. 1992? And many games since, particularly RPGs. Honestly I'm pretty surprised you're contesting this point, and I'm having a hard time thinking of an RPG that doesn't have some kind of "You cannot "___" at this time". And this is essentially my point; any gamer can find ways to manipulate virtually any mechanic if they really want to. That's not particularly how I enjoy gaming, but if you really feel like quitting/force quitting/rebooting/etc, more power to you. But so long as players already have that ability, why not offer more simplified ways of saving a game to enable players, like myself, who often only have limited playing time available or need to close out on relatively short notice, to play the game more regularly? Especially if there are ways to implement this while still limiting the opportunity for scumming? It appears that I'm not about to convince you, for whatever reason, and that's fine, I don't really need to. I'm only here in this particular forum to offer feedback, which is, essentially, that the current saving format of the game, limits my play time after about the mid-game, and consequently this limits my interest in purchasing future content or and my ability to recommend this game to my gaming friends, most of whom have similar age/family/real-life-obligations to myself.
  7. mattyboi

    Sprains

    So after straining an ankle today doing nothing more than walking up the forestry lookout stairs, I checked my stats for this particular sandbox: in 52 days of survival, I've had 22 sprains. This is a Voyager sandbox, if that helps. In any case, this is far more than any other type of affliction in this sandbox. Seems pretty steep to get a sprain nearly every other day. Just my $0.02. Update: Final tally after today's gameplay is 56 days, 28 sprains. None of the additional sprains from were from animal attacks; just from walking around. I'm really not sure what this affliction rate is supposed to accomplish; at best it doesn't contribute to the game experience, at worst it detracts from the overall enjoyment. My personal preference is to deal with survival challenges other than repetitive spraining. End of feedback; I'll let the topic go now.
  8. Really, this depends on your personal playing style, and also, where you are at in the game. Like I said initially, early game it's easy to knock out a bunch of days fairly quickly. Also if you're playing pilgrim or even voyager, and you don't need to worry about running out of resources for a long time, then it doesn't cost much to knock out days fairly quickly. But if you're in late game, and/or at a fairly high difficulty level, and every time you sleep you burn calories/lose condition, which ultimately means you have to hunt, which means you have to make new bows/arrows/fish hooks/fires/improvised tools/etc, then just resting can matter a lot.
  9. Interesting; have the devs hinted that this may happen? I have a hard time believing they'd reduce predator frequently anywhere, especially in Stalker/Interloper. I've made quick trips into Muskeg in some early game to try to find loot at Poacher's. It's otherwise too brutal to try long term if you don't have enough clothes/equipment.
  10. Sure. But using this system, the game punishes you (takes you back to some previous point) for closing out of the game. Being able to save at any point would make this far easier to manipulate. Proximity to threats, even if they are not "active" threats, is a pretty typical save restriction in many games. I also mention blizzards since, if you are out in a map like Forlorn Muskeg with few landmarks, and a blizzard reduces your visibility and puts you at risk of freezing, a player could easily manipulate a save feature to navigate out of the situation. Likewise, if you have hypothermia or food poisoning or similar afflictions you have a limited amount of game time to find a solution before certain death; a player could also easily manipulate a save feature to try to find medicine/warmth before death, etc. I'm mostly just throwing out ideas. A developer can make a game as restrictive or non-restrictive as they want by altering save restrictions like this.
  11. The only drawback I could see to this is if, for example, you're going on a bear hunt, you could do a quick save right before taking your shot. Then if you miss, or even if you do hit but don't get a crit, and then the bear charges you, you could simply quit and restart instead of taking the damage. I think there should be some circumstances (ie, proximity to carnivores, being outside in a blizzard, having the hypothermia/risk for hypothermia affliction, etc), where the player shouldn't be allowed to save. I do think the harsh risk/reward feel of the game does need to be preserved. But I do think there should be more opportunity for the player to save than is currently available; at least, this would make the game more playable for me.
  12. True, although, Roman soldiers wore armor everywhere including some colder locales (Britannia, Gaul, Germania, etc). They wore a layer of cloth padding (subarmalis) underneath as well, so it wouldn't have been direct metal-to-skin contact. My bigger concerns would be A) the weight of the armor, and B) the time and materiel required to create the armor, and C) the time and materiel to maintain the thing and keep it from rusting and losing its protective quality, not to mention losing it's mobility, and becoming functionally worthless. Even Roman soldiers didn't wear their armor when out foraging, probably for these reasons. The idea is, however, very entertaining to think about in TLD.
  13. In theory, once you have a forge, you should be able to make anything from the iron age. In practice, I don't even want to know how much leather/scrap metal/hours the game would require of us in order to make Roman segmentata armor.
  14. Also, to be very nitpicky, it was Roman velites wore the wolfskin headdress; Centurions wore helmets with transversal crests to distinguish themselves from other infantry.
  15. @Pharose Interesting thread here, as I have recently spent a lot of time in FM and can relate to a lot of this. A few points I would make: 1. IMHO, this is probably the toughest map to start in, or certainly top two, so kudos for trying. 2. I run into varying animal spawns at Spence Homestead. Sometimes deer, sometimes wolves. I think at higher difficulties it's only wolves? But, I have run into 3 wolves in Voyager mode here, so don't feel too bad that you've had this in Stalker. Personally, I don't try to get to the homestead if I can't get there with a weapon and full condition, plus some bandages with lichen or meds. Which means, I have to put together some good clothes first, find and harvest lichen, bring plenty of water and food, make sure I have plenty of rest, etc. So the whole expedition isn't as simple as "go to the forge and make stuff"; it takes a lot more preparation. Even more so if you're in interloper and don't have any weapons made yet. On the flip side, it's less preparation than trying to make the pilgrimage all the way to Desolation Point. 3. If you're looking at the merits of FM on an isolated basis, I think a lot of your arguments make sense. But in the context of the entire game, I think the difficulties of this map are warranted. You get a huge amount of harvestables, plus a forge, in a map immediately adjacent to Mystery Lake, which is generally agreed upon to be the easiest map in the game. Plus there is no transition zone in between the two maps. Plus you don't need a light source to navigate around the forge. So if FM in general, and particularly access to the Spence homestead, were any easier, it would be far too easy for players to camp out between ML and FM and survive almost indefinitely. Due to the nature of the map, there must be added challenges to offset these huge benefits. In a similar vein, I think the presence of wolves in the Coastal Highway village is similarly warranted. 4. The hammer in FM is a very finicky thing and can be located in a variety of locations in the map (not all of which are in/around the Spence Homestead). Again; this related to the point I'm making above. 5. The prevalence of wolves on this map and others is a touchy topic for me as well. If you're prepared and actively hunting, sometimes FM almost seems too easy to get wolf hides and meat, because there are so many of them. Other times it seems ridiculous how often you get chased/attacked. So it's hard for me to pinpoint what I'd really like, other than to say that more consistency would make the game feel more palatable IMHO.