Temporal storms... just... why?

[MKMoose]

9 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

That being said...while what I suggested above does sound fun, it does strike me as a horrible idea(outside of a mod). It's something more befitting a fantasy action game and not really grounded in reality(or pseudo-reality) like most of VS's mechanics are, not to mention that players who turn off temporal storms get locked out of an entire gameplay loop.

It really doesn't have to be fantasy, and doesn't have to revolve around any special abilities. Most of this kind of stuff can be easily explained either with some sort of Jonas tech which may or may not require new resources (e.g. a lightning-producing device which could be a nice addition to the combat system as a stunning weapon, exaggerated height could be influenced by something wearable like armor or mobility-enhancing boots or stilts or exoskeleton - imagine a full 3-piece set including the night vision device), or with alchemy or herbalism (due to seraphs' biology tolerating much stronger stimulants and other drugs).

I feel like alchemy or herbalism is the better place for a brand new special resource, as processing it into more stable forms could naturally busy the player somewhat while the storm is still going outside. It could potentially also lean into the resource being consumable or perishable, requiring the player to obtain more of it at least once in a few storms to continue benefitting from it. And it doesn't even have to be magical or fantastical in any way - it may just be a strong chemical solvent, catalyst for certain reactions or something of the sort.

Lastly, as I said before, whatever that special resource might be, I see no reason not to allow obtaining small amounts of it outside of storms. As long as storms remain the primary source, making them non-exclusive doesn't hurt the original goal of making storms more engaging, or may even benefit it by informing the player about the existence of such a resource and encouraging them to look out for it when a storm comes around.

 

9 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Maybe, but I'm looking at it as more of a way to coax more cautious/passive players into trying a game or two with the storms enabled, so they have a couple more options to ease themselves into that gameplay style comfortably rather than defaulting to just "turn it off" or "sleep through it". Being able to work a few tasks indoors in complete safety is a decent way to build up one's confidence(it's basically how I learned to deal with the storms), and it's also just nice to have as an option instead of feeling pressured to go fight through every single storm.

I maintain that this kind of misses the point of the recent discussion here, though it is admittedly very relevant to the original post. It's a fair effort to curb the number of complaints from new players getting suddenly attacked in their own home with no real way to fight back, and it's a good suggestion in its own right, even if it doesn't make the storms much more engaging for the players who just find them tedious or boring.

Note for clarity: I see three main categories of suggestions related to temporal storms, all of which have their merits and could benefit the game in different ways:

• improve accessibility and reduce random punishment (this seems like the main focus of your suggestion related to more reliable safe rooms),
• improve player engagement and incentivize going out into storms in some capacity (this is the focus of the special resource suggestion),
• make the storms more immersive, more atmosopheric, visually more interesting, and adjust the potentially nauseating effects (generally these are the suggestions that don't focus on gameplay aspects).

[QueenGeeBee]

10 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Rift ward doesn't really feel strong enough to create a "safety bubble" from something like a temporal storm, but I could see a more elaborate Jonas device being able to achieve that kind of affect. 

As for who builds rift wards...if you've not built one, you really should, if you have the means to. They're quite effective at cutting down on rusty hooligans, and one or two is enough to protect most bases.

Yeah i could build them, or I could just light up the entirety of my base and be more than fine.

[CastIronFabric]

11 hours ago, ifoz said:

I mean, the lore isn't only temporal storms. I love the lore of the game but dislike the current storm mechanics! Lore generally refers to the worldbuilding, lore books, tapestries, story locations, ruins, NPCs etc.

like I said, I do not agree that lore (regardless of where or what those limits are) are NOT what separates VS from MC by any stretch. I have seen many many videos showing the radical difference between those two games and in none of those videos have I see the word 'lore' even used.

[LadyWYT]

20 hours ago, ifoz said:

It's cool and all, but there is now also a new bug where rift wards turn invisible. So I can't actually see the thing I spent all those materials to build. 

Turning it off and on will fix it. At least, it'll fix it for a little while. I think it's related to chunk loading, as the model seems to vanish whenever the player ventures too far from base.

12 hours ago, MKMoose said:

Lastly, as I said before, whatever that special resource might be, I see no reason not to allow obtaining small amounts of it outside of storms. As long as storms remain the primary source, making them non-exclusive doesn't hurt the original goal of making storms more engaging, or may even benefit it by informing the player about the existence of such a resource and encouraging them to look out for it when a storm comes around.

My main sticking point here is that if the devs decide to go that route, I trust it to be in an interesting manner that feels integral to the game's world and not an obvious loot drop event. Player suggestions I tend to be pretty skeptical of; generally when this particular suggestion comes up, what comes to mind is MMO events where a mini-event happens every X number of hours and players go kill monsters and get some sort of currency drop to spend on gear/other goodies. Or the player spends their time doing random stuff in the game to get tokens to empower their super special weapon, which turns into a slog quite quickly. 

EDIT: Thinking a little more about it, what I would rather see is the current "unique" temporal storm resource developed more, before just adding yet another special resource to figure out what to do with it. Currently, temporal gears are the main special resource for temporal storms--the player can acquire them elsewhere, yes, but storms are the best source. Temporal gears themselves are clearly some special nugget of esoteric power that can't be crafted(presumably) and are really only useful to the player and a few select NPCs. However, the only real use they serve to the player at the moment is changing spawn points, restoring temporal stability, and powering a couple of machines. In the case of the latter two, most players manage their stability well enough not to need to resort to the gear sacrifice, and the machines I think players either aren't aware those are options, or there's currently workarounds that are more convenient(like lanterns).

In any case, I think the better option here is to add more Jonas tech options(which is already an area that desperately needs more options), and perhaps increase the drop rate of Jonas parts in storms so the player will have better luck actually building that tech once they achieve steel. Tying the part drops in to @williams_482 suggestion of adjusting mob strength with storm strength means that by the time the player gets the means to work on Jonas tech, the storms faced will be stronger and dropping more of the stuff they need(and they'll have the gear to face those storms too). And of course, if the temporal gear drops remain the same then those gears become much more valuable as a result since the player will actually be using them to power all of the various gizmos they end up building.

Edited December 24, 2025 by LadyWYT
grammar -- missing word

[QueenGeeBee]

Personally, my way to fix jonas tech parts being annoying to grind is to take those temporally unstable surface chunks, add lots of rusty debri and rust world blocks, like a certain other location but on a much lesser scale, and then just have locust nests respawn in those corrupted areas when storms happen.

They could probably make a lore reason as to why, and it would be a cool way to make scrap and parts a bit easier to get. Like, 'Lets go gear up and head into that unstable chunk'. 

[Cryo Stratos]

Hello, everyone! I just wanted to contribute with my opinion on this topic.

• I respect and admire all players who like drifters, shivers, rifts and temporal mechanic,
• I respect and admire game devs and lore specialists who love these things,
• I have very strong negative feelings about them being in the game or being part of any lore of this game, I dislike drifters, shivers, rifts, temporal storms strongly, they are not real things, and even though I started playing on passive mobs so they don't attack - they still feel out of place,
• I am extremely happy that they can all be disabled upon world gen and thank the devs for this option as this makes playing Vintage Story possible for me,
• I am unhappy that this is not done via "realism" toggle, but was done via a "lore" toggle; I mean: why disable traders alongside disabling drifters? If traders are a real thing and drifters are not a real life thing, why not add lore to a world with fictional dangers disabled,
• I would suggest removing "lore" toggle and add a "realism" toggle,
• I would suggest making the toggle stand out and be visible far more when creating the world.

That said, awesome game. And again, I respect everyone who enjoys fiction dangers in games, you're all badass; I'm happy I can play without any of these things.

Best wishes

[ifoz]

1 hour ago, Cryo Stratos said:

I would suggest removing "lore" toggle and add a "realism" toggle,

I feel like it should be named something like "monsters/temporality" instead of "realism", since the name 'realism' would make it look to new players like the game has two modes, unrealistic and realistic, when in both there would still be the overall gamified realism present in the rest of the game's mechanics.
Basegame VS is "realistic" in regards to its own world, as in the monsters fit very will with the established lore and worldbuilding. Though I do also totally get what you're saying, realistic in terms of the real world.

I think it'd be a good idea, having a monsters-only toggle. Sure it'd make some lore content not really make sense without the in-universe threat of the Rust and Rust monsters, but that kind of goes along with customising the game settings anyway. 
It'd also hopefully prevent the times that players will choose the homo sapiens gamemode thinking it only disables monsters, only to be met with large chunks of the game being disabled such as ruins, traders and story locations.

Edited December 25, 2025 by ifoz

[CastIronFabric]

6 hours ago, Cryo Stratos said:

Hello, everyone! I just wanted to contribute with my opinion on this topic.

• I respect and admire all players who like drifters, shivers, rifts and temporal mechanic,
• I respect and admire game devs and lore specialists who love these things,
• I have very strong negative feelings about them being in the game or being part of any lore of this game, I dislike drifters, shivers, rifts, temporal storms strongly, they are not real things, and even though I started playing on passive mobs so they don't attack - they still feel out of place,
• I am extremely happy that they can all be disabled upon world gen and thank the devs for this option as this makes playing Vintage Story possible for me,
• I am unhappy that this is not done via "realism" toggle, but was done via a "lore" toggle; I mean: why disable traders alongside disabling drifters? If traders are a real thing and drifters are not a real life thing, why not add lore to a world with fictional dangers disabled,
• I would suggest removing "lore" toggle and add a "realism" toggle,
• I would suggest making the toggle stand out and be visible far more when creating the world.

That said, awesome game. And again, I respect everyone who enjoys fiction dangers in games, you're all badass; I'm happy I can play without any of these things.

Best wishes

agreed.

I think having monsters roaming around my property like a gnat infestation and affecting how much light I have in my house if I do not want them around to be just an annoyance side note to my game play.

With that said, I do like having a reason to make armor and weapons so that I can go into a cave safely, I like that part.

Solution?

1. very simple, have Deeds in which hostiles do not spawn or enter your deeded area.

2.Three options instead of two: 'passive', aggressive','provoked'. Provoked means, if I attack a monster or normally hostile animal everything within a X number of blocks will attack me until I leave that radius and then it resets

Done.

 

Edited December 25, 2025 by CastIronFabric

[regex]

With temporal storms being so hostile to gameplay it's going to take a lot more than just a resource that can be gathered before/after the storm to make me want to turn them back on; that's a ton of wasted time alt-tabbed out of the game waiting for/after resource gathering.

Rather than have this hostile game mechanic just hanging around because it "fits the narrative" I think it should be rethought entirely from the ground up, because I genuinely don't see a good way to make the current mechanic interesting in any way.

[ifoz]

3 hours ago, regex said:

Rather than have this hostile game mechanic just hanging around because it "fits the narrative"

Funnily enough, it actually doesn't really fit the narrative, in a way. The existence of storms does definitely fit don't get me wrong, but their current implementation doesn't really line up with their established lore. Canonically, they're raid-like events where any survivors would be encouraged to defend themselves with palisades, moats, traps, bows, spears, etc. This shows a lot with the upcoming 1.22 trader huts that have been teased, almost every single one we've seen has a palisade wall and a small moat, with some others up on stilts in the air to get away from the monsters on the ground.
Currently monsters just spawn wherever they want in storms, totally circumventing the established "storms are almost like tower defence" lore. What good is a moat when enemies can just pop into existence inside of it?

That said I wouldn't want VS to become a tower defence type game. I don't think having mobs break most blocks or be able to grief your structures would be good at all considering how detailed builds can get here. I do think though that if monsters could only spawn far away from you but would instantly aggro upon spawning, that could help incentivise these defensive strategies without making having a giant castle the meta.
EDIT: Also, having more traps! Being able to actually craft our own palisades and spike traps could create some really interesting gameplay where a player who doesn't like combat could still reap some storm rewards by trapping mobs and then harvesting them once the storm is over.

Edited December 26, 2025 by ifoz

[CastIronFabric]

12 hours ago, ifoz said:

Funnily enough, it actually doesn't really fit the narrative, in a way. The existence of storms does definitely fit don't get me wrong, but their current implementation doesn't really line up with their established lore. Canonically, they're raid-like events where any survivors would be encouraged to defend themselves with palisades, moats, traps, bows, spears, etc. This shows a lot with the upcoming 1.22 trader huts that have been teased, almost every single one we've seen has a palisade wall and a small moat, with some others up on stilts in the air to get away from the monsters on the ground.
Currently monsters just spawn wherever they want in storms, totally circumventing the established "storms are almost like tower defence" lore. What good is a moat when enemies can just pop into existence inside of it?

That said I wouldn't want VS to become a tower defence type game. I don't think having mobs break most blocks or be able to grief your structures would be good at all considering how detailed builds can get here. I do think though that if monsters could only spawn far away from you but would instantly aggro upon spawning, that could help incentivise these defensive strategies without making having a giant castle the meta.
EDIT: Also, having more traps! Being able to actually craft our own palisades and spike traps could create some really interesting gameplay where a player who doesn't like combat could still reap some storm rewards by trapping mobs and then harvesting them once the storm is over.

yes. I am so done with tower defense building games. Just done, finished, done, nope, no more, turn it off. 

Anyway, I would rather they focus on more game mechanics like they have listed for the upcoming update, elevators for example.

And as far as everyone throwing around the card 'but the lore'. This is not shakespeare , lets get more grounded here its not a sacred text

Edited December 26, 2025 by CastIronFabric

[MKMoose]

On 12/24/2025 at 4:39 PM, LadyWYT said:

EDIT: Thinking a little more about it, what I would rather see is the current "unique" temporal storm resource developed more, before just adding yet another special resource to figure out what to do with it. Currently, temporal gears are the main special resource for temporal storms--the player can acquire them elsewhere, yes, but storms are the best source. Temporal gears themselves are clearly some special nugget of esoteric power that can't be crafted(presumably) and are really only useful to the player and a few select NPCs. However, the only real use they serve to the player at the moment is changing spawn points, restoring temporal stability, and powering a couple of machines. In the case of the latter two, most players manage their stability well enough not to need to resort to the gear sacrifice, and the machines I think players either aren't aware those are options, or there's currently workarounds that are more convenient(like lanterns).

In any case, I think the better option here is to add more Jonas tech options(which is already an area that desperately needs more options), and perhaps increase the drop rate of Jonas parts in storms so the player will have better luck actually building that tech once they achieve steel. Tying the part drops in to @williams_482 suggestion of adjusting mob strength with storm strength means that by the time the player gets the means to work on Jonas tech, the storms faced will be stronger and dropping more of the stuff they need(and they'll have the gear to face those storms too). And of course, if the temporal gear drops remain the same then those gears become much more valuable as a result since the player will actually be using them to power all of the various gizmos they end up building.

For me, one of the first design assumptions was that special storm-sourced resources cannot be looted from monsters (unless very specifically designed for it), for a number of reasons:

• loot from monsters makes them into targets and not obstacles or threats,
• monsters appear near players and follow them, which means that the player can just wait in a meticulously prepared spot instead of having to properly face the storm and seek out the challenge,
• monsters, especially drifters as they are implemented currently, are highly cheeseable (mainly due to the previous point), which will only get worse the more valuable loot they can drop,
• monsters spawn all the way throughout the storm's duration, meaning that the entire storm's duration is a looting session; it diminishes the atmosphere and lore, and encourages grindy monster-killing sessions over short and thrilling harvesting runs,
• a focus on killing monsters places explicit emphasis on combat and reduces viability of alternative problem-solving methods and survival strategies.

Expand the variety of Jonas tech, sure. Give more uses to temporal gears, sure. I've suggested some of that myself, and I don't see a reason to disagree with any of it. But I think this can easily also make storms worse in certain other regards if done carelessly without additional design changes, even if it somewhat improves momentary engagement during storms.

 

On 12/24/2025 at 4:39 PM, LadyWYT said:

My main sticking point here is that if the devs decide to go that route, I trust it to be in an interesting manner that feels integral to the game's world and not an obvious loot drop event. Player suggestions I tend to be pretty skeptical of; generally when this particular suggestion comes up, what comes to mind is MMO events where a mini-event happens every X number of hours and players go kill monsters and get some sort of currency drop to spend on gear/other goodies.

MMO events are a pretty good analogue here and I genuinely don't know why you seem to be introducing them kind of as a bad thing. Systems like these have some of the most effective reward mechanisms, at least when implemented reasonably well.

Their tedium, as far as I can tell, tends to come from mindless repetition of the same tasks regularly, which would worry me much more when implementing monster loot that tends to be most efficiently obtained through mob farms. The entire storm could then be seen as such a loot-gathering event. Rushing to harvest something at the start of the storm and then survive on the way back home doesn't have nearly the same risks, I would say.

Side note: you seem to be largely focused on a bunch of generalized community suggestions and not on mine, which makes me mildly confused as to how I should even respond to some things. Like, yeah, sure, I also would prefer that it be implemented in a way that feels integral to the game world. I kind of take that as a given.

[LadyWYT]

2 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

For me, one of the first design assumptions was that special storm-sourced resources cannot be looted from monsters (unless very specifically designed for it), for a number of reasons:

• loot from monsters makes them into targets and not obstacles or threats,
• monsters appear near players and follow them, which means that the player can just wait in a meticulously prepared spot instead of having to properly face the storm and seek out the challenge,
• monsters, especially drifters as they are implemented currently, are highly cheeseable (mainly due to the previous point), which will only get worse the more valuable loot they can drop,
• monsters spawn all the way throughout the storm's duration, meaning that the entire storm's duration is a looting session; it diminishes the atmosphere and lore, and encourages grindy monster-killing sessions over short and thrilling harvesting runs,
• a focus on killing monsters places explicit emphasis on combat and reduces viability of alternative problem-solving methods and survival strategies.

Expand the variety of Jonas tech, sure. Give more uses to temporal gears, sure. I've suggested some of that myself, and I don't see a reason to disagree with any of it. But I think this can easily also make storms worse in certain other regards if done carelessly without additional design changes, even if it somewhat improves momentary engagement during storms.

Okay with this sort of explanation your earlier suggestions make a lot more sense and it's something I can lean toward supporting, though it seems like moving the loot drops from the monsters into some sort of special resource node would worsen some of the complaints about monsters feeling like a waste of time.

I'd still prefer smaller changes to start with, like the Jonas tech and more uses for temporal gears, and see how much that changes things with temporal storms before worrying about adding more stuff to them.

8 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

MMO events are a pretty good analogue here and I genuinely don't know why you seem to be introducing them kind of as a bad thing. Systems like these have some of the most effective reward mechanisms, at least when implemented reasonably well.

It's probably because I've seen several MMO reward systems that just weren't done very well, as well as perhaps the personal opinion that at least some of those systems work fine for multiplayer-oriented games but not singleplayer. I'm also suspicious that at least a few MMO systems feel good because they're designed to prey on brief dopamine rushes and thus keep the player chasing the rush, but aren't actually very good systems otherwise.

For the record, my MMO experience consists mostly of WoW(late Pandaria-early Shadowlands), with a brief stint in ESO(beta, and trying it again later in the Morrowind expac) and FFXIV(pre-Dawntrail launch, didn't enjoy the game very much).

Overall, one general complaint I have about many of my experiences in MMOs is that it's not unusual at all for the events to feel like a party game first, with the barest of lore tacked on as an afterthought so it "fits" in the world. That is, the events/gameplay don't actually feel like part of the world, as much as they feel like stuff just tacked on to get players to sink more time(and money) into the game. It's one reason I'm not inclined to play MMOs(or many new games) anymore.

27 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

Their tedium, as far as I can tell, tends to come from mindless repetition of the same tasks regularly, which would worry me much more when implementing monster loot that tends to be most efficiently obtained through mob farms. The entire storm could then be seen as such a loot-gathering event. Rushing to harvest something at the start of the storm and then survive on the way back home doesn't have nearly the same risks, I would say.

It's definitely a concern to consider when it comes to design, but I don't think repetitive tasks are always bad either. Most tasks in Vintage Story are somewhat repetitive, I would say, and yet players still find them fun. Forging is one of the worst offenders when it comes to repetition, but that's also why the helve hammer exists--to cut down on the most tedious parts.

I would agree that rushing out to gather up a special resource right before a storm hits and then running to safety doesn't carry the same risks as needing to fight through the storm to obtain the resource, however...I think the problem that arises there is that players are going to get upset about needing to drop whatever they're doing to grab the resource, or otherwise get upset about getting caught in the storm because they didn't collect as much as they wanted. Sure, the argument could be made that the special resource could be obtained in much smaller quantities outside the storm as well, but I think that if the storms are the most efficient way to get the resource then that's what most players will opt for(whether they like the storms or not).

For me personally, while I obviously have no control over when temporal storms arrive, how long they last, or what kind of loot I get, I do have control over whether or not I choose to go fight and acquire some loot or stay inside. Both options feel like they have fair benefits and drawbacks. A change that makes some special resource node spawn right before a storm though feels like it tips the scales too much toward "complete this event or else miss out on this special thing you'll absolutely need a lot of later", which just sounds like a chore(to me).

43 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

Side note: you seem to be largely focused on a bunch of generalized community suggestions and not on mine, which makes me mildly confused as to how I should even respond to some things. Like, yeah, sure, I also would prefer that it be implemented in a way that feels integral to the game world. I kind of take that as a given.

Sorry  I try to be pretty clear in my writing and make distinctions between generalities, specifics, and specific personal opinions, but sometimes stuff gets scrambled or lost in translation anyway.

I would take "implemented changes should feel integral to the game world" as a general given rule, however, over time I've also seen enough suggestions(for various games, not just VS) that throw that logic completely to the wayside that I don't really take it as a given anymore.

[Cryo Stratos]

On 12/26/2025 at 2:09 PM, CastIronFabric said:

And as far as everyone throwing around the card 'but the lore'. This is not shakespeare , lets get more grounded here its not a sacred text

This quote I wish to appreciate. 

I love people who like the lore, and those devs who make it. But there should be ways around the lore, because the game offers so much more than it. For example, the situation in which you can't make a library in Homo Sapiens, because with "lore" toggle existing and disabled, you can't get rusty gears, which are required to make grey and black dyes, so you can't make ink, so you can't have books. This maybe is just an oversight, but locking out rather primitive and needed objects in such a game unless you agree to rifts and drifters seems like taking the lore that was put in place far too strictly.

Personally, I would much rather wish the lore was about nature survival, not medieval post-apo with horror vibes. It's okay if that's the direction - love you all who like it. Just give me a little side toggle that lets me be a pixelated Les Stroud/Bear Grylls who fight only nature and no fictional dangers. And kindest request for black dye to be made of something other than lore exclusive items like rusty gears.

[Zane Mordien]

3 hours ago, Cryo Stratos said:

This quote I wish to appreciate. 

I love people who like the lore, and those devs who make it. But there should be ways around the lore, because the game offers so much more than it. For example, the situation in which you can't make a library in Homo Sapiens, because with "lore" toggle existing and disabled, you can't get rusty gears, which are required to make grey and black dyes, so you can't make ink, so you can't have books. This maybe is just an oversight, but locking out rather primitive and needed objects in such a game unless you agree to rifts and drifters seems like taking the lore that was put in place far too strictly.

Personally, I would much rather wish the lore was about nature survival, not medieval post-apo with horror vibes. It's okay if that's the direction - love you all who like it. Just give me a little side toggle that lets me be a pixelated Les Stroud/Bear Grylls who fight only nature and no fictional dangers. And kindest request for black dye to be made of something other than lore exclusive items like rusty gears.

Welcome to the game.

I think you have to view it that the base game has 'lore' and the other modes were added for people won't don't like the lore. It takes a lot to get things right for the main game and they miss some things for the Homo Sapiens mode. Keep reporting the issues and I bet they will come up with solutions. I'm sure there are suggestions like this on the Discord or Reddit but I can't remember seeing many on the forums. 

[CastIronFabric]

3 hours ago, Cryo Stratos said:

This quote I wish to appreciate. 

I love people who like the lore, and those devs who make it. But there should be ways around the lore, because the game offers so much more than it. For example, the situation in which you can't make a library in Homo Sapiens, because with "lore" toggle existing and disabled, you can't get rusty gears, which are required to make grey and black dyes, so you can't make ink, so you can't have books. This maybe is just an oversight, but locking out rather primitive and needed objects in such a game unless you agree to rifts and drifters seems like taking the lore that was put in place far too strictly.

Personally, I would much rather wish the lore was about nature survival, not medieval post-apo with horror vibes. It's okay if that's the direction - love you all who like it. Just give me a little side toggle that lets me be a pixelated Les Stroud/Bear Grylls who fight only nature and no fictional dangers. And kindest request for black dye to be made of something other than lore exclusive items like rusty gears.

I wish people would take an objective look at the story in a video game, try to remove their emotional childhood attachments that video games stories are supposed to be outstanding, then take a story like perhaps the mini series 1883, Hell on Wheels, Better Call Saul, Vikings and then with a serious face try to tell themselves said game story is anywhere remotely close to as important or as good of a story telling as those shows. No where remotely close to the level of depth and human story telling. I can see a child thinking a video game story about Sonic the Headhog is better than Better Call Saul but come on people!

 

rant over, I hope I did not offend anyone but sometimes I just have to be fully honest.

 

 

 

[LadyWYT]

6 hours ago, Cryo Stratos said:

you can't make a library in Homo Sapiens, because with "lore" toggle existing and disabled, you can't get rusty gears, which are required to make grey and black dyes, so you can't make ink, so you can't have books. This maybe is just an oversight, but locking out rather primitive and needed objects in such a game unless you agree to rifts and drifters seems like taking the lore that was put in place far too strictly.

It's an oversight. Homo Sapiens is a feature for those who just really want nothing but a realistic survival experience, and is not the game mode that the game itself is developed around. Therefore it's pretty easy for some details to slip through the cracks(like gray/black dye).

[Zane Mordien]

15 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

I wish people would take an objective look at the story in a video game, try to remove their emotional childhood attachments that video games stories are supposed to be outstanding, then take a story like perhaps the mini series 1883, Hell on Wheels, Better Call Saul, Vikings and then with a serious face try to tell themselves said game story is anywhere remotely close to as important or as good of a story telling as those shows. No where remotely close to the level of depth and human story telling. I can see a child thinking a video game story about Sonic the Headhog is better than Better Call Saul but come on people!

 

rant over, I hope I did not offend anyone but sometimes I just have to be fully honest.

 

 

 

There is nothing to be objective about. You're stuck with the lore because that is what the developer wants the game to be about. We can suggest tweaks, but if you want it removed then I think you're out of luck.

Even the greatest TV show was a pile of garbage until a good writer took the half-baked outline and wrote a good story. Come to think of it, I’ve spent more hours playing Vintage Story than I’ve spent watching all of those shows combined. After season 2 almost all TV shows Jump the Shark for me and become ridiculous.  

[CastIronFabric]

9 hours ago, Zane Mordien said:

There is nothing to be objective about. You're stuck with the lore because that is what the developer wants the game to be about. We can suggest tweaks, but if you want it removed then I think you're out of luck.

... 

not true.

If that was true, nobody would be talking about making changes to anything in the game.  Your logic can not apply to ONLY things attached to lore, that logic would apply to literally everything. even the smallest of change.

and please do not try to suggest your hours and hours of loved game play is all linked directly to story expereince, just do not go there with me please becasue that is a hard stop with me. While you are making clay and working on steel you feel those actions are tightly coupled to the story experience? no, I am not having that conversation

oh and Storms are NOT tightly coupled to the lore. They are at best tightly coupled to a few conversations that could easily be changed without affecting lore and one tapestry. 

oh and its circular to say 'the developer wants this so it aint changing' in a forum subject that is literally about changing it.

Edited December 29, 2025 by CastIronFabric

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, CastIronFabric said:

oh and Storms are NOT tightly coupled to the lore. They are at best tightly coupled to a few conversations that could easily be changed without affecting lore and one tapestry. 

It's a bit more than that, for those who are wondering: 

Link to the comment for those that missed it, because I don't want to just copy/paste the entire lore dive again.

[CastIronFabric]

36 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

It's a bit more than that, for those who are wondering: 

Link to the comment for those that missed it, because I don't want to just copy/paste the entire lore dive again.

the other elements you listed are actually weaker than the ones I listed on your behalf. I literally listed the most compelling ones.

Storms existing in the dialogue is for sure more compelling argument for it being tightly coupled with lore than a trailer or pointing out the words 'temporal instability' is for sure.

[Zane Mordien]

13 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

not true.

If that was true, nobody would be talking about making changes to anything in the game.  Your logic can not apply to ONLY things attached to lore, that logic would apply to literally everything. even the smallest of change.

As I've stated, the lore will allow for anything almost. If you are trying to paint me as a defender of the sacred lore, you are way way off base. The lore is so wide open you could fly a jumbo jet into the game and the devs could add a few more lore books to support it. It would be stupid, but it wouldn't violate the lore. 

You need to be objective about your own arguements. 

 

13 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

and please do not try to suggest your hours and hours of loved game play is all linked directly to story expereince, just do not go there with me please becasue that is a hard stop with me. While you are making clay and working on steel you feel those actions are tightly coupled to the story experience? no, I am not having that conversation

No, but you were making the silly comparison between TV shows that cost millions of dollars per episode to develop to an indy game that started with a tiny budget. That's the conversation you were trying to have. 

 

13 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

oh and its circular to say 'the developer wants this so it aint changing' in a forum subject that is literally about changing it.

Explain how that is circular? For example, I could make a forum post about how much I hate that the game is based on cubical blocks and the dev's should rework everything to be tetrahedron based. Someone telling me that the developer isn't going to change it, doesn't make it circular. I have one idea and the developer has another. 

Also this post/thread is just a complaint session, which is fine. God knows I've made a couple. There is a suggestion forum/discord channel/reddit thread where we can make suggestions. Come up with something cool and post it, but if you are just going to say get rid of temporal storms.. I'd say you are wasting your time, but it's your time to waste. 

[CastIronFabric]

9 hours ago, Zane Mordien said:

As I've stated, the lore will allow for anything almost. If you are trying to paint me as a defender of the sacred lore, you are way way off base. The lore is so wide open you could fly a jumbo jet into the game and the devs could add a few more lore books to support it. It would be stupid, but it wouldn't violate the lore. 

You need to be objective about your own arguements. 

 

No, but you were making the silly comparison between TV shows that cost millions of dollars per episode to develop to an indy game that started with a tiny budget. That's the conversation you were trying to have. 

 

Explain how that is circular? For example, I could make a forum post about how much I hate that the game is based on cubical blocks and the dev's should rework everything to be tetrahedron based. Someone telling me that the developer isn't going to change it, doesn't make it circular. I have one idea and the developer has another. 

Also this post/thread is just a complaint session, which is fine. God knows I've made a couple. There is a suggestion forum/discord channel/reddit thread where we can make suggestions. Come up with something cool and post it, but if you are just going to say get rid of temporal storms.. I'd say you are wasting your time, but it's your time to waste. 

Lore in a game like this does not include making clay items.

Lore in a game like this does not include working on steel.

When you play the game for hours and hours you are NOT engaging in lore for the vast majority of that time.

Of course the devs can change how steel is made and it not affect the lore and of course the devs can change and even remove storms and it not affect the lore.

I am not going to discuss or explain that anymore than that and my views on this is, again, immutable. So if you disagree with any of the obversions I just made here understand I will not be changing my mind and its likely a waste of time to try.

 

Edited December 30, 2025 by CastIronFabric

[CastIronFabric]

On 12/28/2025 at 11:18 PM, Zane Mordien said:

... Come to think of it, I’ve spent more hours playing Vintage Story than I’ve spent watching all of those shows combined. After season 2 almost all TV shows Jump the Shark for me and become ridiculous.  

comments like this one is a full stop for me, is what I am trying to say given the context of what I say saying. not having it.

[pigfood]

On 12/22/2025 at 6:18 PM, LadyWYT said:

So far the devs have done an excellent job balancing the gameplay in a way that's true to the lore as well as fairly realistic, while keeping it fun. However, there's no guarantee that the gameplay decisions are going to be the ones that the individual player likes either. 

Quote

However, turning storms off by default for the Standard difficulty would be a massive disservice to the story and its setting. 

I 100% disagree with you. The new enemies are utter f.... you BS. There are 2.5 options for temporal storms - skip them (sleep / hunker down in tiny space and hope for best), cheese/exploit things as far as possible, resorting to some form of killbox/spawn manipulation (that requires FAR more game mechanics knowledge than 99% of the players have) or being ok with dying quite a lot.

If VS didn't have a huge amount customization options and mods, I wouldn't play it. IMO, without mods, on default settings, it's a bad game that I wouldn't recommend to anyone.

Given the current state of things with the new BS enemies, I likely would have stopped playing right away (with default settings). I'm not looking for some '7 Days to Die experience'. 7 days has problematic combat mechanics, but it's light-years ahead of the exceptionally poor VS combat.

\\

For anyone claiming temporal storms are remotely reasonable without EXTREME amounts of cheese/game mechanics exploits - prove it. I've watched a lot VS content and none of the 'professional' gamers can do it.

Edited December 30, 2025 by sushieater