I noticed a relatively recent nerf that hits “outcast” survivors quite a bit.
First, pine nuts got nerfed really hard. Not only did they get moved up in the skill list (2 survival needed), but their cost got multiplied by 4, making them at best a desperate measure to stave off starvation.
The second change is removing tanbark acorns. They were rather heavily overpowered mostly due to their numbers, but now they don’t exist at all.
The result is that getting food in winter pretty much requires hunting (or scavenging stuff killed by infighting) and makes herbivores/meat intolerant pretty much unable to survive without raiding cities (or triffids).
Now, that may be a valid direction to take from the gameplay point of view (herbivore+winter+wilderness is now a challenge), but I’m not sure if the degree of the nerf was intended. Plus, it’s not all that realistic - there’s quite a bit of edible weeds and tubers that survive in winter.
If the magnitude of nerf is not intended, my idea of a “fix” would be to add some semi-rare (10-20% of normal drops?) low-quality food to forage_winter item group and buff the pine cone by 200% (to 50% of what they were before the nerf).
Low quality food such as acorns, wild berries, wild vegetables and shrooms (maybe with a higher chance of poisonous ones?).
Good! The changes were realism-based, but this is what I was hoping for!
Have you seen New England forest winters? You’ve got snow, and bark, and twigs, and that’s about it. Weeds? Tubers? How will you find them under a foot of snow, buried in ground that’s frozen too hard to dig through? There’s a good reason most animals prefer to fatten up or store a larder, then sleep through the whole season. Which reminds me - most of them shouldn’t even spawn in the winter, except perhaps deer, rabbits and turkeys.
Winters should still be pretty survivable, even without looting towns - if you’re prepared for it. Food just no longer leaps down your throat by itself, is all.
As for acorns: blackjack oak acorns aren’t really edible without extensive treatment to remove their tannins, and even if they were, they’re only ripe in the fall, same as acorns of the white oak, which ARE edible. So rather than make tanbark only available in the fall, I added acorns as an autumn forageable instead.
Pine nuts: New England pine cones have nuts, but their nuts aren’t what you’re thinking of when you think of pine nuts. Those nuts come from an assortment of desert pinyon species out west. These nuts are generally a waste of effort to extract. Even such an inefficient recipe as we have is being a bit generous, imo. They’re not what you’d consider a major dietary staple, and if you’re reduced to eating them to get by, you have officially fallen on hard times.
[quote=“Coolthulhu, post:1, topic:9288”]First, pine nuts got nerfed really hard. Not only did they get moved up in the skill list (2 survival needed), but their cost got multiplied by 4, making them at best a desperate measure to stave off starvation.
The second change is removing tanbark acorns. They were rather heavily overpowered mostly due to their numbers, but now they don’t exist at all.[/quote]
I don’t know that totally removing acorns is ideal, but they did need to be nerfed HARD. Gathering 12 handfuls of acorns from a single tree would get you 60 flour, or 240 biscuits (6,720 nutrition). In comparison, a fruit tree might drop 6 apples, which is 96 nutrition eaten raw. The biscuits certainly took more work, but not THAT much more work. Tweaking the acorn meal recipe to use 12 handfuls of acorns would reduce the yield from those 12 acorns to half a flour craft, or 560 nutrition in biscuits. Much more reasonable considering the effort and the consumed oil.
Pine nuts have always needed survival 2, but they were pretty harmless (pinecones were relatively rare, and obnoxiously bulky). I don’t think I’ve ever bothered eating them.
Smoking racks were recently added, as a low-tech alternative to the metal charcoal smoker. In spring and summer, you can collect mountains of fruit and veggies and dehydrate them (I seriously had something like a thousand dehydrated foodstuffs stocked up). I’ve always felt that if you’re a wilderness survivor, preparing for and surviving a winter is your primary short term goal. I could maybe see a tiny chance for food from foraging during winter, but thematically I prefer the feeling of fighting off the oncoming oblivion.
Stocking up isn’t a problem - if you start in the autumn, you can probably survive the winter just fine.
The problem is winter starts. As soon as the winter hits, all forage results drop to 0% and there is no good way of subsisting without meat. Not even high-labor poverty food like boiled bark.
Acorn meal should be craftable with low number of acorns. Flour could use more of those, but even a single acorn should be usable in a recipe. With subsistence food it is important that even a single ingredient can be used.
Oh yeah, I forgot that was a thing. I really don’t know, because I just assumed that was part of the challenge of those scenarios. I could very easily see the hilarious levels of difficulty for a winter started herbivore that relies on wilderness survival as totally justified.
That’d also work, just the big thing would be keeping in mind the craft time for acorn meal is pretty high (24 minutes each?). Alternatively, directly roasting individual handfuls of acorns might be a thing - keep that at the subsistence level and the acorn meal as the more involved process.
Aren’t winter starts described as a challenge? You get more points for a Sheltered start than starting surrounded by zombies in a mall. It even says outright in the scenario description: “Supplies are running low, and for the first time since the cataclysm, you will be forced to face the outside world.”
[ETA] I just checked - Sheltered also defaults you to “Sheltered Survivor.” Changing that back to normal survivor gets you seven points, only one less than the Challenge starts. That’s probably a bug, but I think it ought to pose some kind of problem, don’t you?
I think the acorn recipes are okay the way they are. It seems odd at first that two acorns can make ten flour, but the weights work out - they really are handfuls of acorns apiece.
Well, remember, it’s handfuls of acorns with hulls. They’d lose a significant amount of both volume and weight when worked all the way to flour - according to some random blog I just googled, about 1-2 lbs of acorns would produce about 2 cups of flour, which is about right for one batch of biscuits. Even if we assume that 2 handfuls of acorns is enough to make 2 cups of flour, we’d still need 10 handfuls rather than 2 to produce a batch of 10 cups of flour. Even making hardtack instead of biscuits, you’re looking at 720 nutrition from a single harvest, with both the raw acorns and the flour as non-perishable.
Well, remember, it’s handfuls of acorns with hulls. They’d lose a significant amount of both volume and weight when worked all the way to flour - according to some random blog I just googled, about 1-2 lbs of acorns would produce about 2 cups of flour, which is about right for one batch of biscuits. Even if we assume that 2 handfuls of acorns is enough to make 2 cups of flour, we’d still need 10 handfuls rather than 2 to produce a batch of 10 cups of flour. Even making hardtack instead of biscuits, you’re looking at 720 nutrition from a single harvest, with both the raw acorns and the flour as non-perishable.[/quote]
That’s only a factor of two from what we currently have. Double raw acorn weight and there you go: 2 handfuls of acorn (~2 lbs) makes 2 cooked acorn meals (~1 lb), makes 10 flour (~1 lb).
But I think I see the root of the misunderstanding. 10 flour is 4 cups of flour, not 10.
That weight’s a bit off. As of 0.C at least, two handfuls weighed less than half a pound. Acorn meal weighs twice as much as the acorns, so you’re taking a bit less than a pound of acorns, making a bit less than a pound of meal, and producing 0.1 pound of flour (45 grams). Note: a cup of flour IRL weighs about a quarter pound (or 120 grams), while 10 flour by weight is about six tablespoons.
That the numbers are all over the place isn’t even really an issue. It’s more that because the numbers are all over the place, either the numbers need to be fixed (which would require a rebalancing of pretty much the whole food system) or the acorn drop rate/usability can just be nerfed a bit since blackjack oaks were so wildly, ridiculously more beneficial than anything else in the game.
You’re reading those pages wrong. The weight given is per unit, so multiply that by the charges listed.
Or just pick up the relevant amounts in-game and check their weight.
But yeah, someone eventually needs to fix the units. For example, flour, cornmeal, and oatmeal are 10, 12, and 16 units to a pound of material and a liter of volume. Why, you may ask? Hell if I know. It’s pretty far from critical, just wacky, so I doubt it’ll happen soon unless you want to take a shot at it yourself.
Wait, what the hell? Ugh, the way everything interacts is so weird. Volume is for total charges, spawning a single item uses total charges, weight is for individuals charges? Hurf blurf.
I’ve always assumed the opposite and I swear that I’ve triple checked it but here we are~
I could get lost in that rabbit hole and spend hours trying to maintain mass and energy and looking up recipes and nooooope.
I mean, my take on the acorns is based on my farting around in 91 day, size 1 city, 0.03 item spawn rate games and my metric ton of flour. It’s insane how much food you can gather as long as you’re willing to trundle around in the woods using a wheelbarrow or travois.
If you want to make a change, then, change foraging and wilderness spawning to be affected by spawn rate.
I don’t know why people gripe that they have super low spawn rates, and still this system that doesn’t respect it keeps spawning stuff! Why on earth could that possibly be?! When the variable it doesn’t check is really, really tiny!
The problem is that acorns are a better food source than anything in the game at higher than 1.00 item spawn rates. Did you miss where I pointed out that a single acorn tree can drop over 7,000 nutrition worth of flour?
Reeeeeally struggling to see how you’re missing the point this badly.
[quote=“Derpular, post:6, topic:9288”]Aren’t winter starts described as a challenge? You get more points for a Sheltered start than starting surrounded by zombies in a mall. It even says outright in the scenario description: “Supplies are running low, and for the first time since the cataclysm, you will be forced to face the outside world.”
[ETA] I just checked - Sheltered also defaults you to “Sheltered Survivor.” Changing that back to normal survivor gets you seven points, only one less than the Challenge starts. That’s probably a bug, but I think it ought to pose some kind of problem, don’t you?
I think the acorn recipes are okay the way they are. It seems odd at first that two acorns can make ten flour, but the weights work out - they really are handfuls of acorns apiece.[/quote]
Correct: winter starts are not the default, are well-paid, and are Not A Joke. Sheltered Survivor is well-off for a reason: we expect you to need every advantage we’ve given in that start.
The problem is that acorns are a better food source than anything in the game at higher than 1.00 item spawn rates. Did you miss where I pointed out that a single acorn tree can drop over 7,000 nutrition worth of flour?
Reeeeeally struggling to see how you’re missing the point this badly.[/quote]
An oak tree can, on average, produce anywhere from 70k ~ 150k acorns a year, one tree should set you for life if we’re going to be honest.
I get your point. I really do, and I agree - that’s why your point is academic, because acorns are no longer harvestable from oaks.
However, your point relies on a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that I must admit I don’t fully understand, and that’s what I was (a bit too sarcastically, I admit) trying to address. You’re playing in a world that is meant to be challenging - you voluntarily reduced item spawns to just 3% of the default - but then you shlep a wheelbarrow over to the forest, in order to better exploit the one element of the game that very clearly doesn’t respect your difficulty setting. It’d be one thing if 0.03 spawn rate was the default, or if someone said “here’s this generated world! Try to survive in it!” but you’ve deliberately made it much more difficult just for yourself, and equally deliberately are exploiting a mechanic that negates that difficulty. Why not just… not do that? Acorns are OP. Okay. So don’t pick acorns.
The mindset is similar to the equally-confounding arguments I’ve seen here regarding grinding. If it’s possible to reach a high skill level via some mind-numbingly repetitive low-level task, there are people here who will complain, simultaneously, that such a process makes it too easy, AND that such a process is too repetitive and mind-numbing. Somehow the concept of “not doing that” never trickles into their awareness. If it’s technically possible to grind fabrication by bending and unbending a nail for hours of real-life gameplay, then by golly, that’s what they’re gonna do, pissing and moaning the entire time about what a pain it is and how little sense it makes.
I’m trying to think of a good real-life analogy, but the best I can come up with is “picture a child who is stuffing marshmallows into his face as fast as he can, while complaining about how sick of marshmallows he’s getting.”
You might want to glance at the loadouts again. Sheltered Survivor is somewhat less well-off than the Survivor, trading good winter gear and four points for a multitool and a mess of low skills pottage.
My point doesn’t rely AT ALL on my personal choice of difficulty settings. I can repeat, for the third time now, that a single acorn tree can drop almost 7,000 nutrition worth of flour. A half dozen acorn trees in a field provide more nutrition than a grocery store on item spawn rate 10.00. There’s zero cognitive dissonance to say that’s a problem.
Except that’s not what I did. That’s why I said “you can” and not “I did”. I get that you’re confused about things, and that’s cool. But when you’re confused, ask questions instead of jumping straight to the personal attacks.
If you have a beef with how people other than me post or play the game, keep it to your fucking self instead of taking it out on me.
You might want to glance at the loadouts again. Sheltered Survivor is somewhat less well-off than the Survivor, trading good winter gear and four points for a multitool and a mess of low skills pottage.[/quote]
Not sure if you’re aware, but sheltered survivor starts at an LMOE in winter.