Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
By the way, staging bases - they regularly get attacked by hunters, i recon? So it's more than just strategic planning. It's also about doing double - triple - guadruple etc repairs for such staging bases - the more of those there are, the more the player gets busy fixing the system which supposedly allows him to be less busy. At some point, it inevitably turns into anti-productive affair: time saved by using such staging bases is less than time spent maintaining them.
When this points arrives? It depends on play style, overall progress (end-game means more different items = easier to reach that point of futility), AND it depends on player inventory size.
Now i ain't saying the game "should" have larger inventory, though. I merely say i personally would enjoy such an option, but that's just my personal opinion, alright? :)
Your argument is that if I don't think that inventory should be expanded then that is equivalent logically to thinking it should be one slot? That's a logical fallacy of appealing to extremes.
I think the optimal size is pretty much what it currently is, any less and there is too much running around and any more and it diminishes the need for strategic and tactical planning.
Only bases with a BCU will get attacked by hunters. I have staging bases with a woodburner and storage in a number of locations.
yes, that's your opinion...and mine is that expanding it past what it is might be conveinent but that it would detract from the need to make important choices.
That chatter is not without merit, though. Great many games use options to increase size of one's inventory as a reward mechanic. For example, Blizzard is known to be quite very competent game makers, and that mechanic is used by them in WoW and in D3 - i.e. in both games of their making which feature any inventory. And if you insist to stay in Survival genre, then i can refer to Neo Scavenger, which features well-thought system of various options to expand player's inventory - bags, backpacks, satchels, sleds, carts, even pockets in one's clothes which offer small and variable - depending on which piece of clothing it is - amount of extra inventory slots. And i never heard players complaining about it in Neo Scavenger forums, too.
edit:
No, my argument was that using your argument above about "bigger inventory = less strategic planning = worse gameplay" inversed to "lesser inventory = more strategic planning = better gameplay" is inherently flawed, exactly because it gets absurd if to apply it "down to" 1 slot inventory. This means this particular argument is invalid for certain inventory sizes - like you point out, it is logical fallacy when applied to inventory size of 1. Which is why we should not apply it at all, since we have no reliable means to know which other inventory sizes are "OK" to apply that argument to.
Now you fixed it already, though, expressing your thought that optimal size is pretty much what it currently is. We seem to disagree here, but well, it happens. I'm OK about it, and i'm sure you'll live, too. :)
P.S. Oh, about staging bases without BCUs. CG is working on hunters' AI, i hear. Possibly they'll learn to loot "freebies" in the future. I'd like that being the case. It's quite very strange when they risk their lives going against fortified player base actively defended by the player while couple minutes away in some staging base plenty fancy loot is just free for grabs, you know.
Personally, i won't use non-BCU locations at all, both because this is so much against the spirit of survival (which involves protecting things one managed to collect / make), and also because i plan to play in non-passworded coop most of the time, means there won't be only hunters around - but also other human players. Those will happily grab anything not well protected, you know. BCU or not.
See, like i said above - play style affects this, very much. Which is why such an option, like i said in the 1st post - probably involving adequate drawback of some sort, like stamina penalty, - could perhaps be good. Just thinking aloud, though.
You logical conclusion, that not applying the arguement to extremes means it should not be applied at all, is not logical and as I pointed out is the logical fallacy of appealing to extremes. It does not in any way negate my reasoning for not increasing inventory size. But since you didn't specify by how much you wanted to increase it I have to say my argument becomes stronger the larger the value you want to increase it by. If you only wanted to increase it by one slot then my argument is rather unimportant...but your increase in size is also rather insignificant. If you wanted to double it then I'd say my argument becomes much more important.
If you're suggesting that a non-BCU base is taking an advantage of a game mechanic then yes, it certainly is. But then ANY successful tactic or strategy takes advantage of game mechanics since game mechanics define the environment. If you think this is somehow 'worng' then I think you are WAY offbase.
For a hunter shack or staging shack what would be the point of a BCU? They are meant to generate minimal power and mass and produce items. A hunter shack or a storage shack has no need for that functionality so placing a BCU on it just makes no sense. That they attract hunters is the risk associated with the benefit. If one day CG changes hunter algorithms to attack any structure they happen along then that's just fine also.
As a side note on my profile that has been active for over a year now I had eight bases with BCUs (some had as many as eight BCUs for just one base). I did end up running around between bases with BCUs repairing since you can't tell from the attack message which base is getting attacked. The disadvantage of multiple bases with BCUs is that you have to constantly visit all of them nearly every day. I subsequently removed BCUs from bases that I didn't need to generate power or manufacture items. I kept BCUs on bases for which I had a aethetic fondness.
Since I have no desire to play MP...especially MP with anonymous internet strangers...I don't have the same concerns you do. I just know, from years of experience, that those kinds of servers are rife with exploiters and hackers that will go out of their way to ruin other people's entertainment...not people I care to associate with. In RL I have other options to deal with them .
Hopefully if one day CG has hunters attacking non-BCU bases one of the requirements is that they have to, while about their normal business come into line of sight with the base. Having hunters automatically know where every foundation on the map is is just plain silly. That way I can hide staging bases and hunter shacks by placing them in concealed locations outside of a hunters normal paths. Rogues might spawn within line of sight and hence attack but they don't last long. Additionally if I kill the hunters that have found a base they ones that respawn should have no 'memory' of their predacessors having seen it. This type of dynamic would be welcome from my perspective.
This statement is beyond the realms of absolute ridiculousness and server no purpose to the dymamics of the game what so ever.
And further more you appear to be on the forums with a argumentative attitude,constantly looking for a fight or to start some kind of argument.
Like the game we have evolved from such pettyness.
Looking for a fight? Absolutely not. I do not see any fight in this topic, in particular. Ever heard the term "civilized discussion"? I bet you have. It means, in my book, that participants of such a discussion respect each other enough to allow each other to have different, even opposing, opinions whenever they are unable to find consensus even when they try their best to do so.
"Such pettyness"? This sounds like a personal attack, you know. What exactly you do it for? I won't cry no matter what you say to me. Sorry. ;)
P.S. What you quoted is a rhetorical question. Sincerely, i did not expect anyone would take it as anything else than that. Of course nobody would run around with 1 slot inventory. "Duh...", you know.
edit: oh, Zuleica, sorry i didn't spot your post right away. Here's the reply to it.
Ok, i think we'd bore everyone to death if we'd keep sorting out whos logic was flawed and whos was not, up above. Please accept my apology if i failed in some way up there, though i still don't see if i did... Still, let's move on, ok?
How much of an increase i am thinking of? About half the normal inventory extra, give or take a bit. Again, not without penalty of some sort applied whenever extra inventory space is being used by the player.
Non-BCU staging bases and "hunter shacks": it's not even primarily about using hunters' inability to loot them; main thing, to me, is that those structures are "nobody's". Since there is no BCU, any such place is not owned by any player - nor by any NPC (hunters). So, how often in real life you come to some shack in the middle of nowhere, which have signs of homeless people often spending a night in it, and stash YOUR things in there? That's my main point here. Maybe it's just me, i don't know, but i find it highly strange to stash things inside "nobody's" structure which is clearly a point of interest to any strangers happening to pass by - be it in a game or in real life.
And yes, i already know you prefer single player. I respect it. Certainly, i have no wish to anyhow "dictate" how you "should" play the game. Note how since very 1st post here i talk about an _option_ to have larger inventory - an option which nobody is forced to use. I hope you see that just like your own preferences, other people also have preferences - and some of them differ from yours dramatically.
The other day, i joined one MP no-password game. Two guys there were very kind to add me to their massively developed base' users list after i explained i am completely new, and then explained that if i'd die (no items on me anyhow), then i'd appear in their base. So i died, and appeared inside their base. There goes some of their energy for that bed charge they just spent for a complete stranger (me).
Further, then they offered me items - and not just telling about it, they dropped things to my feet. I declined politely, of course, intending to leave soon and not wishing to waste their resources. They asked me questions and answered questions i asked them, they started a fire when night came in (their clothes allowed them not to need it, and by the looks of it, they had to go get some fuel to start that fire just for me). We had a great chat, etc.
This is NOTHING like "ruining other people's entertainment". Quite the opposite, those guys were fantastic! Now i know what you mean, though. Both kidns of strangers are there - both great and nasty. You are right nasty ones exist. But it's not fair to mention one kind - nasty ones, - without mentioning the other. So here we go, done.
Also, your point still stands nonetheless; no matter what sorts of people are playing online and where, you and anyone else can just prefer single player. Heck, even if everyone on the planet would turn into total saints, like noble and kind and all-forgiving, etc - i bet even then we all would still need certain moments and/or spaces for privacy. It's the loner gene i guess? %) It's alright.
What you describe about hunters only going for player-made structures if they happen to see it - i like very much. Yep, i'd like that happen too! No idea if it's hard to do technically, but i hope CG will make it happen some day.
Say, i enjoyed this conversation quite much, despite us disagreeing about certain things, Zuleica. Thank you! And i'll keep an eye here if you'll want to continue this talk, of course. :thumbs_up:
Yeah, good conversation :)
It's like caches in RL...for those of us that are into Zombie Apocolypse preparation, lol. Sure, you're not there to protect them but if you hide them well and don't load it up to be too valuable, they are potentially quite useful, especially with limited capacity to carry items, or in order to limit interest in an adversary wanting to take what you're carrying.
I've met some nice people online. However I've been in far too many games that were largely ruined by the other crowd and at this point in my life just done with all that, I'm more inclined to play with people I know in RL.
There is definitely a lot CG could do with the hunters to make them more engaging.
In fact, don't tell anybody yet, but i am hiding some right now, preparing that "sky ladder" world i'm creating for the opening. So far i managed to hide 3 chests, each more difficult to spot than the last; the 3rd one is hidden so well that chances are nobody will find it in a year or few. Fourth will be even harder to find. And the the fifth will be the ultimate, i expect noone will ever find it. Takes me lots of time, as i know i am hiding those not against some silly NPC, but human players.
Putting some fun loot into them for players to find, too. Hiding is _the_ whole point of 'em stashes. Yet it's entirely different game than "staging bases", you know. Noone ever found refuge in a glorious hidden sack of emergency goods... :D
Yep, solid choice - playing with friends is the best!
P.S. But this time i think i'll try that challenge of hosting no-password world, see how it goes. See, those nasty trolls can be a sport of sorts, too! ;) But it does not in any way mean i'll _always_ run it no-password. I hope that once i steadily run it, maybe you'll come visit a few times, too - and if we'd like i can always set a password for such times.
So far i like very much how i progress with shaping it. That secondary "small" ladder, if you remember it from my recent video - i entirely removed; there are now few much smaller two-way pathways over the fence here and there (i just hate any sorts of fences, so had to do it); level 10 rabbit is now roaming woods somewhere - by the way, do you know you can in fact release domesticated animals, by picking 'em up, going a bit away from the base and "dropping" them alive? Sure run away like proper wild rabbit, hehe. Etc. :)
But, this is all too early yet. We'll see how it goes. I plan to make separate topic once everything is ready and i start hosting regularly with the forwarded port. IIRC i got me static IP, too, so that will also help.
LMFAO!!!!! Do you have a split personality? Pot meet Kettle. Your joking right? Right???
Fins and Zul are having a grown up conversation here. Go on now,,,back to your tree. Get.
On topic: I would like to see an option to add storage space for your inventory by adding things to your character such as additional bags or satchels like Fins mentioned. JMO
Кто загремел твою грудную клетку ... вернись под скалы.
I guess if you can already run while carring 3,500 chunks of iron ore on your person you might as well be able to carry 4,900 chunks (two more rows).
Of course I'd prefer not to be able to carry 3,500 chunks of iron ore on my person...not without a full time chiropractor. But then I don't have any good solutions for that.
Ты загремел мою грудь, Эйнштейн