#Tent Placement—Adding Bivy Sacks

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

rare blaze
#

An idea that may help address the upcoming changes to tents as well as other issues with tents is the addition of bivy sacs. They would be easier to place (especially in the mountains) and could be placed closer to zones, but would have no cache or increase the number of fast travel points on any given map. Players could then place a combination of tents/bivys to suit their needs.

#

Whether or not this should be a new dlc or added to the tents dlc should be considered as well.

wind jay
#

I like the idea! Like lil sleepingbags versus a whole tent.
Would think the smaller frame would be easy to place out than the tent for sure

rare blaze
#

@quartz cliff

quartz cliff
#

I'll absolutely upvote this. I'll also add in my thoughts from the other thread. As a compromise to a lower spook radius and being able to place in more vertical areas, I'd be OK if it just had fast travel capability with no other options. I don't much care to use it as a sleeping area and definitely don't need the cache. The 16 combo limit still keeps everything the same in that regard

marsh pond
#

I think EW's main issue is the ability to fast travel too close to a zone with out the animals spooking .... it doesnt matter if its a tent or a sleeping bag ....

rare blaze
#

So for tents it would be 250m but a bivy maybe 175m?

marsh pond
#

they could just keep the tents and lessen the spook distance if they want to do that .... I also know there are issues with placing tents .... I think that needs to be looked at across the board on every map ..... I find places all the time that I should be able to place a tent but the game just wont allow it ....

rare blaze
versed rune
#

I think this is a great idea.

gaunt urchin
rare blaze
gaunt urchin
rare blaze
#

Maybe for balance you can only have 5/16 be bivys. But since they’re smaller and have no cache they are then quieter. It’s just an attempt to find a middle ground

marsh pond
rare blaze
gaunt urchin
#

Unless I'm missing something I'm just not sure the things you're balancing are the things the devs are concerned with. The upcoming fix doesn't seem to be motivated by having a bed or cache too close to the animals, it's about being able to fast travel too close to the animals. Making the biv pack easier to place and have a smaller spook radius seems to actually exacerbate that.

rare blaze
gaunt urchin
rare blaze
gaunt urchin
#

I get why the grinders are upset. But I don't see how your suggestion is the middle ground between the grinders' preference and the devs' preference that you seem to think it is.

rare blaze
gaunt urchin
rare blaze
#

Yeah idk how else to explain it.

quartz cliff
# gaunt urchin I get why the grinders are upset. But I don't see how your suggestion is the mi...

It's not necessarily a middle ground per se, it's just an alternative to the tent placement issues. Since it would be able to be placed in areas where tents cannot, it could theoretically be placed closer to certain zones than tents. To try and balance things out, OP has suggested a smaller spook radius (fairly balanced at 175 imo), no access to time changing or weapons cache, and a limit of these special fast travel locations to 5 of 16 possible tents. This wouldn't make tents obsolete, and would also give incentive to use these smaller fast travel points to hunt hard to access areas

I hope maybe this cleared things up.

rare blaze
quartz cliff
#

To add to the idea to fill out a possible update...

Survival .22 - ultra light (maybe 1kg) but at the tradeoff of only having iron sights. The IRL weapon it's modeled off of fits inside the butt of the rifle when disassembled.

Crossbow pistol- also light weight, but at the tradeoff of a much lower draw weight and therefore less range than a traditional crossbow

Call it the Minimalist Pack

rare blaze
#

Ultralight. I like it

gaunt urchin
# quartz cliff It's not necessarily a middle ground per se, it's just an alternative to the ten...

How you described it is exactly how I understood Soup to mean it. So unfortunately it doesn't clear anything up because I still think the logic is flawed.

The problem from the devs' perspective is: Players are able to fast travel too close to animals without spooking them.

This solution: A way to fast travel even closer to animals and that makes it even easier to avoid spooking them.

That does the opposite of what the devs are trying to solve.

Using the lack of bed and cache as "balance" doesn't make sense to me because we have no indication the devs are worried about that part of tents. Their concern here seems to be solely with the fast travel.

The limited number works better as balance, but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the fact that the other changes pushed it even further in the direction the devs are trying to avoid.

rare blaze
# gaunt urchin How you described it is exactly how I understood Soup to mean it. So unfortunate...

Right so the devs are going to have animals spook 250m away from a tent when fast travelled to. That distance is what is upsetting some folks. So rather than reduce that number you add bivy sacks that 1) only spook 175m away when travelled to and 2) are easier to place in the mountains. Them not being able to have a cache or a bed is more to keep tents relevant but that can also be done by only allowing 5. Does that clear anything up?

gaunt urchin
rare blaze
quartz cliff
#

Is the difference in 250m and 175m really that much in the grand scheme of things? Even if a tent was placed at 250, you could run the 75m gap in say 30 seconds?

rare blaze
quartz cliff
#

Even if the number is 200m, the main point is a better tent placement system without having to re-code tents and/or the terrain. It allows for a fresh code that just allows more placement options. The trade-offs from both sides being distance and cache/sleeping

rare blaze
quartz cliff
#

I like the idea of the sound tradeoff for a smaller item. It just logically would make sense

gaunt urchin
rare blaze
gaunt urchin
# rare blaze Is that true? If so is that changeable for our purposes here?

I'm not talking about programming, I'm talking about the logic of it. How would a spook effect generated by fast traveling be logically tied to the size of the static object being fast travelled to? I think it's obviously meant to be the sound of the player's approach to balance the fact that they don't generate any actual sound when they skip the walking part.

quartz cliff
rare blaze
gaunt urchin
# quartz cliff By that logic, the spook radius should be around 100m

Yeah, 250 certainly doesn't assume the player has been moving discreetly during the fast travel. I assume that's meant to be a bit of an added "cost" to balance out the convenience of real-world time saved and the fact that in-game time doesn't move forward during the travel.

Personally I'd prefer fast travel with a smaller spook radius but that progresses time realistically, but I feel like grinders would like that even less.

quartz cliff
gaunt urchin
# quartz cliff At that point, you're just adding an extra step. Fast travel, change time, shoot...

Well that would also incur a cost from the time skip. Not sure how punitive that would be for grinding since I don't do it myself.

I should say I'm also open to the spook distance for fast travel being less than 250. I think the logic behind the mechanic is good but I'm not married to the exact number.

But I do also feel like we're drifting into a discussion about the tent spooking in general rather than Soup's idea.

rare blaze
gaunt urchin
rare blaze
#

I know Jaxy has seen this idea. He reacted to my initial post about it so hopefully that’s a sign they’ll consider it.

quartz cliff
marsh pond
#

I'll take my tent with a plastic zipper so it doesnt make as much noise .... 😉

rare blaze
quartz cliff
gaunt urchin
quartz cliff
rare blaze
#

Sooooo open to ideas that relate to this folks.

rare blaze
#

Bump

#

Tent Placement—Adding Bivy Sacks

rare blaze
#

Bump