Jump to content

The Dawn of the Carpenters


Blasted_Taco

Recommended Posts

Guest easy AI opponent
And buckets (and other containers) being used to ineffectively collect rain is something Romain has wanted to do since his initial farming mod.

There's no reason to not do so . .  because this would be a terrible way to gain any meaningful supply of water in reality. This is why most rain collection schemes leverage large surface areas draining to a single point: just putting out a sheet of plastic and getting a few mm of rain per inch doesn't amount to much.

 

How do you know that this would be a terrible way of collecting water in reality?

 

Please do not again refer to 28 Days Later, because it may not represents reality! Not only because it is a Zombie-Movie but mostly because it is a MOVIE and movies sometimes tend to do a poor job in representing real life conditions (leaving zombies aside):

 

You are right in that point that its mostly about surface area for water collection. However this area does not need to be a continuous one (like a roof) but can be separated into several smaller collections areas (like those of a bucket).

 

Let me give you an example:

 

Precipitation is measured in mm. To my knowledge 1 mm represents 1 L of water raining down onto an area of 1m2 (100x100cm).

 

The average monthly precipitation in Kentucky is roughly about 100mm. That means it rains down about 100L onto 1 m2 during the course of 1 month. A bucket with a diameter of 35cm has a bottom area of about 950 cm2 therefore you need roughly about 11 buckets to collect water in an area of 1 m2.

 

TLDR; In Kentucky for a water supply of c. 3L per day per person, one needs about 11 buckets to collect 100L of rain during the course of one month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You HAVE TO build a rain barrel, if YOU PREFER the easiest (or should i say the most convenient) playstyle, nothing else.

 

I'm looking forward to having other playstyles than the "build a base and never ever have to leave it again" approach.

 

There's nothing wrong with other play styles, but when the main website advertises BUILD and DEFEND......its pretty obvious that building a base is a main play style.

 

 

There is only one point in this discussion, which i can understand at least a bit:

A pot or whatever droped in the rain should get filled with water.

But thats just another way to simplify gameplay, and that seems not to be the focus atm.

 

How so? Yeah, it doesn't require you to waste points (or grind out about 1000 trees), but you still have to collect said pots and buckets, no different from having to gather garbage bags if your a carpenter. Rain atm gives too much water anyways imo, but pots and buckets would obviously hold no where near the same amount of water. You would have to gather 12.5 buckets to hold the same amount as an advanced rain barrel. I know for sure its a lot easier to collect 4 garbage bags, so a carpenter will rightly be rewarded for his profession.

 

Like I said before, I'm expecting the new profession/hobby system to be about your preferences in choices, and not forcing mandatory things on you. The developers have said our concerns are noted, and I'll trust that their working hard to get it right instead of the current placeholder system we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mm, something is flawed with those numbers. From practical experience (leaving things open outside in 1-2" rains, unintentionally) I'm not getting anything near the ~2 liters per square foot of bucket I should be getting.

Perhaps it's down to wind, evaporation, and variation in actual rainfall amounts vs. what's reported at the weather center?

A note: I mean ineffective compared to a properly set up rain-collection system. They are. Pointing out you can get a liter or two, while it makes survival of the individual easier, isn't going to enable farming .etc without something much larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to reality, things are always easier. I agree, a bucket on its own would be not very effective (but not useless), as "easy AI opponent" just said. 

 

However (using the same water collecting logic that EG is suggesting) a bucket located under the gutter of the roof, would be filled under minutes. Every Most houses with a stainted roof have a gutter system, so a bucket in Muldraugh / West Point could be a perfectly good solution. You could easily create gutter systems yourself and make those water barrels really efficient. 

 

Anyway, this is a game and I'm fine with the limitations. I also agree with Moose on the raining giving way too much now. In my farming periods, I only care to water the seed stage (and latelty I'm patiently waiting for a rain to come to start planting, and so reduce the clicking nighmare) and then forget about it. I wouldn't change it until a better (less clicking please) farming mechanic is in place, though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enigma is spot on. A water barrel, bucket, or other container wouldn't collect much water. You need a water collection method. Personally, I'm a fan of making a Plumber skill the pre-eminent domain for water survival. My idea detailed here.

 

Rain collection devices like roofs, tarps, etc. don't collect potable water. You can tilt your head up in rain and drink safely, but not enough to stave off dehydration. Same with clean containers like buckets and barrels. But you can't drink water that has flowed over a roof unless you like getting diseases from bird shit. True water sustainability requires purification of non-potable water. Or a clean source like a spring or well. But it's a moot point unless we get different kinds of water.

 

Plumbers understand water pressure, piping, and mechanical pumps. Carpenters make shit out of wood. There is some overlap, but long term water sustainability requires plumbing knowledge, not Carpentry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest easy AI opponent

Mm, something is flawed with those numbers. From practical experience (leaving things open outside in 1-2" rains, unintentionally) I'm not getting anything near the ~2 liters per square foot of bucket I should be getting.

 

Just dont argue with your sparse personal experience against 30 years of continously collected weather data.

 

 

Enigma is spot on. A water barrel, bucket, or other container wouldn't collect much water. You need a water collection method. Personally, I'm a fan of making a Plumber skill the pre-eminent domain for water survival. My idea detailed here.

 

Its not about a bucket, its about 11 or more buckets collecting rain at the same time should earn you enough water.

If you keep those buckets clean then there should be no big problem.

 

Otherwise I like your idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just drink out of the thousands of toilets that are everywhere. Honestly finding water is not the problem, if you play mp then you actually have to look for water but it isn't like all the taps everywhere have been hit. You'll get your chance to drink, you just have to search for water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mm, something is flawed with those numbers. From practical experience (leaving things open outside in 1-2" rains, unintentionally) I'm not getting anything near the ~2 liters per square foot of bucket I should be getting.

 

Just dont argue with your sparse personal experience against 30 years of continously collected weather data.

 

 

Enigma is spot on. A water barrel, bucket, or other container wouldn't collect much water. You need a water collection method. Personally, I'm a fan of making a Plumber skill the pre-eminent domain for water survival. My idea detailed here.

 

Its not about a bucket, its about 11 or more buckets collecting rain at the same time should earn you enough water.

If you keep those buckets clean then there should be no big problem.

 

Otherwise I like your idea.

No, no matter how you swing it, you're not getting enough water to tend a large amount of crops out of 11 buckets, realistically or otherwise, as there are some holes in your supposition. A) that buckets would be efficient and B) that average precipitation per month can be countered on in reality.

I've personal experience that 2-3" rains don't result in 2-3" within 19L buckets left out in the rain. Perhaps you should try it.

And, like as not, Jatta is right, how right is questionable, but it seems the CDC is hedging their bets towards "non-portable:" http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/private/rainwater-collection.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In SP, past the water shutoff, you can pretty much fill a pot of water in every house you'll search, using toilets + bathtub etc... You just have to be methodical (mark the houses you've already pumped dry) and bring your water to your base and stock it. Not that hard.

in MP, I've another solution to get water, you only have to follow a few basic steps :

1) Spend points in aiming
2) Find shotgun
3) Find someone with water and/or lvl 3 carpentry skills
4) ??
5) Drink water


I've to agree on one thing tho, natural water streams are frustratingly un-interactive ; but I'm pretty sure the devs will change this sooner or later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

And, like as not, Jatta is right, how right is questionable, but it seems the CDC is hedging their bets towards "non-portable:" http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/private/rainwater-collection.html

 

 

 

If there were some actual apocalypse and I needed water I would drink water from a rain barrel before I would try it from a Kentucky  lake/pond, or the Ohio River.  The Ohio is the big river on the PZ map (for those unfamiliar) and I would never drink from it without boiling the water and using some type of water purification treatment.  Rain barrel water should be treated too but it seems like a better option than the Ohio River if you were facing dehydration and death.  I think well water would be the safest once you can't get municipal water from the tap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest easy AI opponent
No, no matter how you swing it, you're not getting enough water to tend a large amount of crops out of 11 buckets, realistically or otherwise, as there are some holes in your supposition. A) that buckets would be efficient and B) that average precipitation per month can be countered on in reality.

I've personal experience that 2-3" rains don't result in 2-3" within 19L buckets left out in the rain. Perhaps you should try it.

 

I have never claimed 11 buckets would water your crops. I said it should yield 3L per day which should be enough for 1 person to survive! So i am not the one who is swinging it.

 

A) How can u claim buckets are not efficient? Can you give me any proof? Otherwise simple subdividing your arguments into A and B does not make them any more convincing.

 

Here check out his link with a dude on a boat living from the rain water he collects in 2 buckets (admittedly with some simple cloth cover to filter the dirt).

 

http://fivegallonideas.com/rainwater-collection/

 

I guess if you spent some time google it up you could find plenty of other examples.

 

B) I find your willingness to reject meteorology rather fascinating. Check out the page:

 

 http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Kentucky/average-yearly-precipitation.php

 

You can browse through the monthly and annual averages. You can also find the average number of rainy days there (about 10 per month).

 

So if you had your bucket outside for 3 rains then you would get about 33 mm per m2.

 

Assuming your bucket has also had a bottom area of c. 950 cm2 then you collected about 3 L. This would make your bucket roughly filled 3 cm high. So dont tell me you have never seen a bucket left in the rain with a few cm filled with water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, what meteorology does, when anticipating precipitations, is only an average of datas gathered over the course of time, and applied on a X period of time on Y surface (annual average, monthly average, weekly etc... applied on the entire surface of Y state/city/country). But this is only an average, it doesn't say you'll have 33mm per m2 everywhere in KY, at regular intervals, everytime it rains.

You might get 3 weeks of total dryness during summer and then 3 days of heavy rains filling all your buckets. Or, during autumn, 20 days of very thin rain, only filling your buckets with 1cm of dirty water and dead leaves. It means if you solely rely on a few buckets and the god of rain, you'd have plenty time to die of dehydratation before your buckets happened to be filled in a way that will allow you to drink from them.

Not saying meteorology isn't a true science or something like this, just pointing the fact it's not divinatory.

If you want an effective rain collector, as stated by some other people, you need to cover as much surface as you can ; like get a large tarp, stretch it and find a way to fix it like 1.5 meters above the floor, poke a tiny hole in the middle and put a large watertight container under. That would prove to be [(surface of the tarp divided by the surface of the top of the bucket)*(number of buckets)] times effective than just a few buckets, and would also serve as a first layer filter. That requires a minimum crafting tho, a few wooden stakes and nails to fix the tarp (or the corner of a wire-fence and twine to tie nods).

(I've always found rain barrels rather OP to be honest, considering the surface they cover and the amount of water they provide)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest easy AI opponent

 

 

Well, what meteorology does, when anticipating precipitations, is only an average of datas gathered over the course of time, and applied on a X period of time on Y surface (annual average, monthly average, weekly etc... applied on the entire surface of Y state/city/country). But this is only an average, it doesn't say you'll have 33mm per m2 everywhere in KY, at regular intervals, everytime it rains.

You might get 3 weeks of total dryness during summer and then 3 days of heavy rains filling all your buckets. Or, during autumn, 20 days of very thin rain, only filling your buckets with 1cm of dirty water and dead leaves. It means if you solely rely on a few buckets and the god of rain, you'd have plenty time to die of dehydratation before your buckets happened to be filled in a way that will allow you to drink from them.

Not saying meteorology isn't a true science or something like this, just pointing the fact it's not divinatory.

If you want an effective rain collector, as stated by some other people, you need to cover as much surface as you can ; like get a large tarp, stretch it and find a way to fix it like 1.5 meters above the floor, poke a tiny hole in the middle and put a large watertight container under. That would prove to be [(surface of the tarp divided by the surface of the top of the bucket)*(number of buckets)] times effective than just a few buckets, and would also serve as a first layer filter. That requires a minimum crafting tho, a few wooden stakes and nails to fix the tarp (or the corner of a wire-fence and twine to tie nods).

What meteorology does is that it collects weather data over several different weather stations all over the country over time. This data is then interpolated and together gives a pretty good idea about the climatic conditions of a given area. Of course not 100% correct for each and every spot but also not completely off.

 

The monthly averages are what you can expect in a given month on average, give or take. Leaving interannual variation aside, in Kentucky that's to much to ignore. Needless to say that one cannot expect to get 3 L per day on day 1.

 

I m not arguing that water collection with a roof or tarp potentially would not be more effective than collecting it with buckets.

 

However i argue that a number of buckets would be sufficient and efficient enough to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you understand how averages actually work. Averages and statistics have no real world impact on individual examples. The variation through the years of observance is massive; sometimes the "average" for a set of data is something that is never actually EVER represented in real life. I'm not going to argue about the buckets thing because honestly I just don't care, but you're vastly misapplying meteorological data and the mathematical application of averages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the surface area covered by your buckets was the same as the surface area covered by roof or tarp, then yes you would collect same amount. However, I suspect a roof/tarp funnel to container would reduce collected water surface area and temperature, thus reducing loss due to evaporation.

Buckets would be more labor intensive for collecting the water as tarps and roofs would use gravitational energy to put the water were you want it, rather than lugging buckets around after a rain.

Leaving the water standing and open to the elements would also be more problematic with a bunch of buckets covering your yard. Dirt, insects, bird shit would all collect quickly.

Not sure that I understand the nature of the disagreement. Could you use a ton of buckets? Yes. Would you want to if better alternatives were available? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i've been writting that post sporadically while playing SpeedRunners with ma gf and doing other random stuff, so the answers inbetween kinda say the same things already]



 


I m not arguing that water collection with a roof or tarp potentially would not be more effective than collecting it with buckets.

 

However i argue that a number of buckets would be sufficient and efficient enough to survive.

Yes about Meteorology, that's what I said, it gives a pretty good idea, but it's not divinatory nor representative.


Yeah I hear your bucket solution, but you'd need a pretty large amount of buckets to cover a large surface ^^ Even more if you consider random factors, wind blowing the buckets away, dirt, evaporation, loss of water when filtering/boiling it etc... But we're getting lost in IRL details when we should focus on whether or not it is beneficial for the game.

If buckets collect too much water, they will be OP, if they collect a very small amount of water you'd need a large amount of them, and then it would become a real pain in the butt to micro-manage all those buckets and get some drinkable water out of it.
I think actual rain collectors are OP, players got used to it and would like to apply the same thing on cooking pots and buckets to even the ground inbetween carpenters and the rest of the world ; that should work the other way around, water collector should be nerfed pretty hard imo.

If it was that easy to survive on rain water, civilizations and cities wouldn't have grown near rivers and water sources I think. It feels normal that we can live far from natural water sources now that we have the comfort of running water and stuff, but if you want to provide enough water for a small community in a post-apocalyptic environment in which our actual civilzation is totally dead, you want to live close to a water source, or have an efficient water collection/treatment system, or an entire field of buckets and daily harvesting.
I don't see any real value as a gameplay feature tbh.

Edit : I've some kind of idea about how the actual rain collectors should be nerfed, but it's late I'll write it down later during the week end !

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest easy AI opponent

I'm not sure you understand how averages actually work. Averages and statistics have no real world impact on individual examples. The variation through the years of observance is massive; sometimes the "average" for a set of data is something that is never actually EVER represented in real life. I'm not going to argue about the buckets thing because honestly I just don't care, but you're vastly misapplying meteorological data and the mathematical application of averages.

 

 

I am pretty sure i know how averages work. First I talk about monthly averages. Have a  look on the climate report from the last years:

 

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/lmk/pdf/2013_review_initial_1.pdf

https://weatherspark.com/history/30762/2012/Louisville-Kentucky-United-States

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/lmk/2011weather/2011reviewfinalfinal.pdf

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/lmk/pdf/2010_end_of_year_review2.pdf

 

You will see that precipitation was always considerable close to the monthly averages (in fact it was even more than predicted on average).

 

Averages and statistics have a impact on real life! While the exact day and amount can vary (if you look only on the indvidual day) on average its what you can expect over a certain time. e.g. When you catch on average 2 fishes then you may catch on one day 2 another day 4 and then on the next day none. However over the course of a month you may had 2fishes/day on average.

 

For me its impossible to look into enigma greys bucket. As an example i used monthly averages to tentatively predict how much water it may contained and how high this water has filled the bucket. For me that guess was plausible because 3 cm of a water filled does not look like much and are maybe mistaken for less volume especially if you dont measure it.

 

Reading through the recent post it seems to become increasingly accepted that 11 or a ton of buckets would be a sufficient and efficient way to collect water for surviving

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading through the recent post it seems to become increasingly accepted that 11 or a ton of buckets would be a sufficient and efficient way to collect water for surviving

I'm willing to concede that you may get enough to stave off dehydration, if sporadically. To claim it's an efficient to harvest a dozen (depending on real-world variation) buckets, and all the issues Deprav has mentioned, no; nor is the quantity going to be enough to use it for other purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the only way water is a problem to anyone is if he is playing on an MP server that ran constantly for a year and thus every sink, bathtub etc. got cleared and where NOBODY even touched carpentry, it's a non-existent issue, an annoyance at best if you have to walk house to house and collect water.

Edit: Also, seriously? Are we debating realism in a zombie apocalypse game? How about having to boil all water, tap water included, because in XXI century even that shouldn't be drank without it. Another time sink mechanic for the sake of realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realism? eheh, no, for sure.

 

As the game is now, If I got this right, a bucket doing that, should be in the form of something you "build" in game, place on a tile and use like a rain barrel.

Considering the purpose (rain barrels already exist)  and the small amount of water collected I can understand them if they'll say "it's not even worth it".

To get water from the river you should do something like "fishing": equip bucket, click on water and select "fill bucket", but are you sure you want to drink that water? :)

So I am ok if you do that, but I can live without it.

 

We're talking about a game at a stage where you don't even need to lvl up to be sure you can survive winter and water shut off (lvl4 cooking, lvl2 carpentry, farming and foraging it depends...).

The goal is to survive and while I understand people like Enigmagrey playing a bit differently, nevertheless the game has some rules, very different from own rules: to survive you need water and food, at some point there is only one way to get water, unless you want to go to the well every time, of course, or live there.

So, if carpenter is the go-to-guy for that...

Until the day game forces me to go to the well, let me use the easy way to get there if I want to. It's ok for me if you decided to kill zombies with a spoon only, it doesn't bother me, but I think the game was developed following a different logic: nobody forces you to read the book for beginners/intermediates/advanced/expert/master, but if you want multiplier that's the only way, there's no other way;  axe/bat > spoon if you want to kill zombies, but, once again. I don't understand why they feel the need to say "it's perfectly fine that way" or "it's alpha" or whatever they say just because their approach to gaming (or PZ in particular) is different, more relaxed, detached. An expert gamer knows a lot about balance and knows a lot about missed opportunities in games, they see the chance to "make it right this time". Also, this community is full of nice people trying to make a point with facts and really interesting informations (unfortunately, not me :( )

Also, reducing xp in some cases it's just diluting without adding anything...It's ok, but I really do hope it's not your vision of end game.

 

Also, talking about the picture posted by EG, well, that's fantastic, but... how easy it would be to lose that nice crowd? I tell you, very easy (except there are 3 other groups coming from other directions) and if you have speed lvl1+ , it's a joke.

About them attacking my base, as long as they cannot tear down walls, that's no threat either. 2 story house, no stairs, everything on second floor, unless they decide to camp there (but we're talking about a moving horde) I don't have to worry.

They could maybe "eat" my sheet ropes one day...but at that point I would ask you to add a ladder to the game (that you can move, instead of stairs) :)

 

 

That's why I think the survival aspect should be a challenge (cold, weather, diseases, chance of accidents if doing things with panic or in a particular state)...

 

A good choice in my opinion  would be locking some skills so it would make sense to choose this profession instead of 'that' one,  good for SP (play more time trying professions), even better in MP for obvious reasons.

What's the point of choosing a police officer when he becomes a perfect carpenter, the greatest cook and a great farmer?

Ok, small traits could make a difference, but that would be regardless of the profession you choose, and, once again, in the game we know now you don't even need to lvl up that much.

 

I think, (let's pretend), a farmer could even start with farming lvl 5 (because well, otherwise he would be a farmer that can't "farm") and he'll be the only one able to plant some seeds, grow some plants and harvest them , maybe one day you'll find chickens and cows (you know, eggs, milk...); Doctors could deal with a fracture or diseases in a way other won't be able to.

Of course in MP, in a game like that, surviving would become easy, so at that point  hordes have to be a real threat... :)

Ok, back to Earth now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am not looking forward to this new carpentry thing. There's realistic, and then there's boring and dry.

And there's grinding every skills without limitation, and enforcing a RP aspect by forcing people to commit to their initial character creation choices. It's not only about carpentry, it's the whole profession & trait system being overhauled. There will be no super-heroes maxing every skills anymore.

People freak out because they'll have to make an actual choice inbetween the comfort of the water collector they've been used to and being good at something else.

It feels like today's players have been formated by casual "rpg" AAA titles and used to "grosbillisme". *Read with an old man voice* Back in my days, RPG meant you had to choose a race/class combo with its own unique attributes and play the game according to that choice, if you were a thief and tried to beat the shit out of some NPC with a 2 handed sword, you'd be very likely to fail miserably... Well, from now on in PZ, if you want to build stuff, be a carpenter, if you want to build stuff but you're not a carpenter, fail miserably and die ingame.

I'm slightly mad (but still lovely) because the devs make an awesome work and do their best to create an awesome balanced game and people allow themselves one-sentence judgements on GOOD features they didn't try yet, or even understand.

Anywayyyyy, I'd like to get back on the water collector discussion. People would like to "even the ground" inbetween carpenters and other professions when it comes to accessibility to water, which (re)started the whole "I want to be able to collect rain with plastic buckets and cooking pots just by letting them under the rain" discussion. It wouldn't be an interesting game mechanic at all, either completely OP or totally dull because going through 15 to 50 buckets everytime it rains is rather boring and can't be considered as a good gameplay mechanic.

I've a few different ideas that would even the ground inbetween professions regarding access to water :

  •  Everyone could stretch a tarp and fix it to anything sticking out of the ground, poke a hole in the middle and put a watertight container under, that's not very a complicated task, it probably is as easy as barricading a door with planks and nails ! So make the first water collector recipe available at lvl 0 (just like barricading & log walls) but with a smaller capacity, less efficient, poor resistance to harsh condition/stomping zombies ; and change the recipes !

    level 0 water collector : 1 tarp / 4 logs / 4 nails / 1 bucket. Max capicity is 1 bucket.

    level 2 water collector : 1 tarp / 6 wooden stakes / 6 nails / 1 water container (actual lvl 2 water collectors). Max 2 buckets

    level 4 water collector : 1 tarp / 12 planks / 12 nails / 1 water container (actual lvl 4 water collectors). Max 4 buckets

    Needless to say, higher level means larger capacity, more efficient and better resistance.

     

  • Make the rain fill the collectors way less efficiently than they do now, even at an unrealistically slow rate. You'd need a few consecutive very rainy days to fill them at their maximum capacity.

    The optimal settings would be like :

    lvl 0 : ½ day of rain gets you approximatively just enough water to drink for 1 player during 1 day.

    lvl 2 : ½ day of rain gets you approximatively enough water to drink for 2/3 players, for 1 day.

    lvl 4 : ½ day of rain gets you approximatively enough water to drink for 4/6 players, for 1 day.

     

  • Make the water collectors use more surface,3x3 squares instead of only 1 as it does currently. That would also make it harder to hide them from other players than the actual ones (on MP servers I used to build tiny balconies and put 3 or 4 water collectors, OP as fork).

    Make it so we can only place the water collectors level 0 and 2 outside, in the grass/soil (gotta stick them in so they don't fall), only the level 4 one could be placed on a large balcony or a roof.

     

  • players have to totally empty the water container before X days after it rained, or it is considered stagnant and they get sick if they drink it or use it to cook.

     

  • Allow the players to get water from natural streams and boil it or one-drop-bleach it before use. Geography is a very important factor when you decide to settle somewhere, even more if you plan to survive.

That would allow everyone to have access to the comfort of a small water-point "in" their safehouse, but would also make it harder and more dangerous to rely only on those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm slightly mad (but still lovely) because the devs make an awesome work and do their best to create an awesome balanced game and people allow themselves one-sentence judgements on GOOD features they didn't try yet, or even understand.

 

You have not played the features (feel free to correct me if I am incorrect): you do not know if they are good, just as I do not know if they are bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...