Farming overhaul!

[FelixDR]

I already posted in the discord, but since I am excited about it, and fleshed it out, i thought could post it here as well! The following ideas are drawn from my experiences working on a farm in real life

Currently, farming is kind of an ‘afk’ activity in Vintage Story. You can easily collect and plant a bunch of seeds and get a big harvest year 1. The following ideas are intended to make it a bit more challenging, interactive and add more of a progression curve.

-          Increased growth times

Now you can get 2, or even 3  harvests in a year without having to do anything special. In my opinion, players should only be able to reach this efficiency if they invest time and effort into their land. Of course, there need to be some game mechanics to actually do this: 

-          Weeds.

Nature is wild, and will reclaim that fancy patch of farmland in no time, unless you manage it. What if every day, a block of farmland has a chance to grow some weeds. This could go in 3 stages, from some small seedlings, to completely overgrown.

This wouldn’t kill your crop, but it would give a debuff to growth speed, until you clear out the weeds – by simply holding right click on the farmland. 

-          Increased time land stays wet.

Watering is a tedious task, and most people build ugly farms with water holes next to every block. This is not what farms look like. To encourage people to build proper fields of crops, without holes in them, maybe the watering mechanic should be a bit more forgiving. 

-          Mulching

This is when you put dried grass over your land. This keeps moisture in, and weeds out. Game mechanics wise: Invest some grass, and you don’t have to water and weed as much. 

-          Crop death

No farmer in the world has a 100% harvest. Pests, bad genes or other factors always cause some of your plants to die. Plants should just randomly die sometimes. The only thing you can do about this, is give your plants the best chance possible. If your plants are properly taken care of, and have enough nutrients, they will be most likely to stay healthy, and the chance of them dying will be lowest – never zero though. If they die, I do think you should get the seed back! 

-          Environmental pressure

Maybe you have an exceptionally hot year? Or it rains for a week straight. These are things that stress plants out. Extreme weather conditions should slow growth down, and increase chance of crop death. 

-          Composting

Currently, you can only make compost out of food (rot). But real compost is made of other things as well. I would love to build a pile of dried grass, rotting food, wildflowers, weeds I pick from the garden, and any other green material I find. This could turn to compost over time. This could look similar to a pile of charcoal in game (lots of little layers I can shovel up) 

-          Getting more seeds

I think to get more than 1 seed from a plant, you need to invest and let the plant go to seed. This means sacrificing the crop, and letting it grow to maturity on your land. Then you can harvest extra seeds instead of food. 

-          Genetic selection

Ok. This one is a bit more wild, but could be really cool! Plants have genes. What if seeds can vary in temperature resistance, moisture needs, growing times and crop yield. In general, these qualities should be very similar for a species, especially if the seeds are taken from the wild. But maybe if you let a plant go to seed, it has a chance to ‘mutate’, and give you a seed that has some more favorable qualities. This way, over time you could train a strain to work better in your climate, by selecting the best seeds to plant next year.

One example: Soybeans and rice are some of the best foods in the game. But they don’t grow so good in a temperate climate (irl). This way, it could take you a couple seasons to get a big harvest from these end-game crops.

I do realize that this system risks a horrible inventory management issue, with lots of different seeds to keep apart. Maybe the properties of seeds should average out if combined in a stack? Add the good seeds to your ‘growing pile’ and discard the bad ones.

 

What do you think?

[SongOfRuth]

If one introduced the idea of seed quality (with seeds from wild plants being the lowest quality), then you could tie seed quality to how much each seed produces in produce and seeds. Lower quality seeds would produce less produce and fewer seeds. Seeds produced would match the original seed but with a small chance of producing a next quality level seed. The idea could be similar to generations for animals.

[majestik]

On 5/20/2025 at 2:44 PM, FelixDR said:

-          Increased time land stays wet.

Watering is a tedious task, and most people build ugly farms with water holes next to every block. This is not what farms look like. To encourage people to build proper fields of crops, without holes in them, maybe the watering mechanic should be a bit more forgiving. 

-          Mulching

This is when you put dried grass over your land. This keeps moisture in, and weeds out. Game mechanics wise: Invest some grass, and you don’t have to water and weed as much. 

I like this. I'd like to see things like ollas as a way to irrigate the fields. I think they are in the Primitive Survival mod? But it could be cool in vanilla too, and I think in par with the game ambiance and mechanics. I know it is not always possible to be 100% irl accurate in a game, but it seems to me that could be a compromise.

[LadyWYT]

Welcome to the forums!

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Increased growth times

Now you can get 2, or even 3  harvests in a year without having to do anything special. In my opinion, players should only be able to reach this efficiency if they invest time and effort into their land. Of course, there need to be some game mechanics to actually do this: 

It kind of depends on the crop and the climate. Some crops it makes sense to have multiple harvests per year. But I mostly agree that currently it feels like farms are a little too productive for the effort they require, and knocking the average harvest back to one per growing season would make them a bit more interesting to manage.

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Weeds.

Nature is wild, and will reclaim that fancy patch of farmland in no time, unless you manage it. What if every day, a block of farmland has a chance to grow some weeds. This could go in 3 stages, from some small seedlings, to completely overgrown.

This wouldn’t kill your crop, but it would give a debuff to growth speed, until you clear out the weeds – by simply holding right click on the farmland. 

I think this could work as well, provided it's something you do everything once in a while instead of something you have to check daily. Otherwise it's going to be too tedious.

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Increased time land stays wet.

Watering is a tedious task, and most people build ugly farms with water holes next to every block. This is not what farms look like. To encourage people to build proper fields of crops, without holes in them, maybe the watering mechanic should be a bit more forgiving. 

This might help, but I'm not sure that it would solve the "ugly farm" problem. Water holes everywhere in the farm might not be the prettiest thing, but they keep adjacent farmland at 75% moisture with no effort, which is still going to be more attractive than needing to water manually. Personally, I irrigate my farms, and use the watering can in my greenhouse; that way I can maximize the amount of greenhouse growing space available.

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Mulching

This is when you put dried grass over your land. This keeps moisture in, and weeds out. Game mechanics wise: Invest some grass, and you don’t have to water and weed as much. 

I like this idea. 

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Crop death

No farmer in the world has a 100% harvest. Pests, bad genes or other factors always cause some of your plants to die. Plants should just randomly die sometimes. The only thing you can do about this, is give your plants the best chance possible. If your plants are properly taken care of, and have enough nutrients, they will be most likely to stay healthy, and the chance of them dying will be lowest – never zero though. If they die, I do think you should get the seed back! 

This is one of those cases where realism doesn't equal fun. Sure, if you plant a crop in bad soil, then it can have a chance to die, but that's also a scenario that the player can easily avoid. If a player plants the crop in good ground though, and takes good care of it, and it still dies? That's just going to be frustrating.

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Environmental pressure

Maybe you have an exceptionally hot year? Or it rains for a week straight. These are things that stress plants out. Extreme weather conditions should slow growth down, and increase chance of crop death. 

Similar to the above, it's realistic, but I'm not sure it's fun. It's one thing if players lose progress to something preventable/avoidable, because at least they have a chance to counter the issue. But springing a disaster that they can't prevent or otherwise avoid, that wipes out their progress, isn't fun to deal with.

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Composting

Currently, you can only make compost out of food (rot). But real compost is made of other things as well. I would love to build a pile of dried grass, rotting food, wildflowers, weeds I pick from the garden, and any other green material I find. This could turn to compost over time. This could look similar to a pile of charcoal in game (lots of little layers I can shovel up) 

You can compost hides as well--it's not limited to just food. The reason you can't compost flowers and dried grass in the game, I'd wager, is due to dried grass being used for haybales and sheep food, and flowers being used for dye and decoration. It's also very easy to acquire lots of rot just by hunting and foraging berries, so I don't think adding dried grass and flowers to the compost list is really necessary either.

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Getting more seeds

I think to get more than 1 seed from a plant, you need to invest and let the plant go to seed. This means sacrificing the crop, and letting it grow to maturity on your land. Then you can harvest extra seeds instead of food. 

I would say this concept is already implemented, somewhat. When you harvest a mature crop, you have a chance to get an extra seed. Though I wouldn't be against reworking the system to require players to let some crops go to seed in order to get more seeds, instead of just harvesting everything.

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Genetic selection

Ok. This one is a bit more wild, but could be really cool! Plants have genes. What if seeds can vary in temperature resistance, moisture needs, growing times and crop yield. In general, these qualities should be very similar for a species, especially if the seeds are taken from the wild. But maybe if you let a plant go to seed, it has a chance to ‘mutate’, and give you a seed that has some more favorable qualities. This way, over time you could train a strain to work better in your climate, by selecting the best seeds to plant next year.

One example: Soybeans and rice are some of the best foods in the game. But they don’t grow so good in a temperate climate (irl). This way, it could take you a couple seasons to get a big harvest from these end-game crops.

Best left to the mod realm, in my opinion. It's a neat concept, but probably more complex than what most players will want to deal with.

As for always growing the best stat foods...you can do that if you want to min-max. However, one of the core ideas of Vintage Story is working with what your environment has to offer, which will vary from game to game. Some things are only available in certain climates, and that's perfectly fine. It helps keep gameplay fresh and varied.

[Thorfinn]

Do keep in mind that n00bs play the game, too. Once you figure out the game systems it's a piece of cake. But lots of n00bs are having trouble getting through the first winter, or even making it through June.

Hunger rate only cranks to 200%, and that's a bonus in early game anyway, but food spoilage goes to 400%. When meat and berries last a day in your cellar, and veggies barely make it to the next harvest, and grain won't make it through the winter, it does add somewhat to the challenge. Plus, think of all that wonderful, wonderful compost.

Edited June 25, 2025 by Thorfinn

[Rudometkin]

I love these ideas for the vanilla game.

Weeds:

These should have a chance of killing your crop if left fully overgrown. Even if it's just a 5% chance per day. It makes sense, is a real problem in farming, and would enhance the art of farming, since a solution is required. The ones who account for the weeds are the better farmers. Weeds can rob your crops of room to grow and completely smother them, killing them. In general I would have these last several days per growth stage, for the ones that do happen to grow.

 

Increased water retention:

I think current water retention is fine, and players can make choppy pond farms if they want. I personally don't see such a need to discourage it in that direct way.

 

Mulching: 

Mulching is the answer to the weed and water retention problems. This is how choppy pond farms should be discouraged.

 

Spontaneous crop death:

This is an excellent idea. Instead of allowing players to be total gods over their crops, we are establishing that they are mere handlers. Players will respect farming more this way. Honestly. And if it's a huge problem to some, then I propose it just be made a toggle option. Everyone can be happy. But let's not disregard it totally down to a mod. That's my take on it, and I love to see all of the opinions.

 

Seeding:

The seeding idea to invest in your crops is excellent. However it should probably be applicable to certain crops.

 

As for the noob objection, we addressed that problem in the game description. "Vintage Story is an uncompromising wilderness survival sandbox game."

Uncompromising: showing an unwillingness to make concessions to others.

Vintage Story shouldn't worry about being too difficult for the sake of noobs. The game is clearly built on a solid foundation with little to no regard for individual inadequacy. I propose that an unwritten motto for VS is 'learn it, or struggle'.

But, I like when the issue comes up, because it still should be discussed. There is still a balance. If someone isn't or doesn't want to be the best at farming, they don't have to be. They just won't enjoy all of the same benefits as someone who does specialize in it. Deeper farming mechanics doesn't have to make it nearly impossible for the newbies, but even if it does, then many of them will actually enjoy learning it and love the game more for it. Vintage Story has been running me through the grinder as I learn it, and I love it for its extreme premise. I think it's refreshing and uncommon.

[Thorfinn]

I'm not opposed to the ideas, but not for vanilla. In vanilla, you get just the one implementation. Left to mods, you get to pick and choose which features you like. And maybe more to the point, which features you are willing to take the performance hit to have.

Personally, I'm not the kind who likes a game of drudgery. If I wanted to weed a garden, I can just go outside and do it. Similar to those who champion bodily functions in the game. Realistic, sure, but is that how you choose a good book? Where the protagonist goes out to weed his crops, or steps behind a tree every page or two? "I don't remember eating any corn!"

Like @LadyWYT says, it's already tough enough to take time off during the growing season to actually, you know, engage with the story. I get the impression many of these suggestions are coming from people who have not completed or even really begun the story content. If you want to forego the story, that's fine. It's a sandbox. Find some mod to make it the sandbox you want.

Edited June 28, 2025 by Thorfinn

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Weeds:

These should have a chance of killing your crop if left fully overgrown. Even if it's just a 5% chance per day. It makes sense, is a real problem in farming, and would enhance the art of farming, since a solution is required. The ones who account for the weeds are the better farmers. Weeds can rob your crops of room to grow and completely smother them, killing them. In general I would have these last several days per growth stage, for the ones that do happen to grow.

As I said before, it works if it's something you do every once in a while, and not daily. Keep in mind that you need to spend a decent chunk of time away from your base when completing the main story, which means no farming for an extended time if you travel during warm weather, in addition to all the other tasks you're going to fall behind on. Currently, you can simply plant a field of crops, leave, and have it ready to harvest(or close to it) by the time you return, which keeps players from feeling like they're sacrificing too much progress and needed resources to pursue story content.

I would also say that we have a decent weed mechanic in the current game. If you leave farmland fallow, it can grow grass and horsetails, which you will need to remove before planting. Immersive, but doesn't hurt anything, and isn't a hassle to remove when you're ready to use your farm again.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Mulching: 

Mulching is the answer to the weed and water retention problems. This is how choppy pond farms should be discouraged.

Mulching would pair nicely with a weeding mechanic, however, it's not the solution for allowing players to pursue story content without feeling like they're being punished, if you make the weeding mechanic too time intensive. I would also note that the more time the player has to sink into a specific gameplay loop to get a desirable outcome, the less time they'll have to devote to other gameplay that they may enjoy more.

 

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Spontaneous crop death:

This is an excellent idea. Instead of allowing players to be total gods over their crops, we are establishing that they are mere handlers. Players will respect farming more this way. Honestly. And if it's a huge problem to some, then I propose it just be made a toggle option. Everyone can be happy. But let's not disregard it totally down to a mod. That's my take on it, and I love to see all of the opinions.

With all due respect, this is a terrible idea. Imagine your farm animals just dying due to complications from disease or pregnancy. Realistically, it happens, and sometimes there's nothing you can do except put the poor creature out of its misery. Does that make for fun gameplay? No, absolutely not, because the player had no opportunity to prevent that loss. Likewise, imagine having to feed and water your animals daily to avoid having them starve/thirst to death--it's realistic, but you'd essentially have no time to do any kind of exploring lest you lose your livestock.

Farming crops may not take as much time and resources as animal husbandry, but if you take rewards away from the player arbitrarily after they put in the work, then it's not a fun challenge to overcome but a frustrating mechanic that makes the game feel like a punishing chore. And like I said before, to complete the main story, the player needs to be able to confidently leave their base for extended periods of time, without having an absolute mess to recover from when they get back. The current implementation of farming accomplishes that, although I will note that if the player plants their farm without irrigation or the wrong crops at the current time of year, their crops could die from drought or temperature stress by the time the player returns home.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

As for the noob objection, we addressed that problem in the game description. "Vintage Story is an uncompromising wilderness survival sandbox game."

Uncompromising: showing an unwillingness to make concessions to others.

Vintage Story shouldn't worry about being too difficult for the sake of noobs. The game is clearly built on a solid foundation with little to no regard for individual inadequacy. I propose that an unwritten motto for VS is 'learn it, or struggle'.

It is an uncompromising survival game, yes, however that does not mean that everything has to 100% realistic. Realism does not always equal fun in a videogame, and to paraphrase @Thorfinn, if the game itself insists on adding every tedious chore with 100% realism...why play the game? I can go outside and tend my own garden, and lose all my crops anyway because of bugs or bad weather; it happens, but that's life. Most people play videogames to escape that kind of drudgery. It doesn't mean that players need to be handed everything on a silver platter, but they do at least need to have clear rewards for the effort they put in, as well as be able to complete the main story the game wishes to tell without getting so frustrated that they quit.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

There is still a balance. If someone isn't or doesn't want to be the best at farming, they don't have to be. They just won't enjoy all of the same benefits as someone who does specialize in it. Deeper farming mechanics doesn't have to make it nearly impossible for the newbies, but even if it does, then many of them will actually enjoy learning it and love the game more for it. Vintage Story has been running me through the grinder as I learn it, and I love it for its extreme premise. I think it's refreshing and uncommon.

Vintage Story is a tough game and doesn't pull its punches, but one major reason it's so satisfying to play is that it gets a lot easier once you learn how to tackle those challenges. And yes, you are right in that if someone wants to skip certain parts of the game, they'll miss out on certain benefits(such as players skipping steel and sticking to iron). However, the reason the systems currently work is that they're balanced well. The gameplay loops have clear reasons and rewards for putting in the time to complete them, and they complement each other well without any overshadowing the other. They're also balanced in such a way that while they'll cover the majority of a player's time in Vintage Story, they aren't so intensive that a player can't set them to the wayside from a bit to go explore or work on the main story.

Honestly, if Vintage Story was going to double down on being brutally realistic...players aren't going to be going on some grand world-spanning adventure at all, not if they want to actually have a base of operations. Running a homestead is a lot of work, even moreso in a medieval setting. In a brutally realistic scenario, one simply won't have time to leave for an extended period without losing most, if not all, they've worked for.

[Facethief]

On 5/20/2025 at 9:44 AM, FelixDR said:

-          Crop death

No farmer in the world has a 100% harvest. Pests, bad genes or other factors always cause some of your plants to die. Plants should just randomly die sometimes. The only thing you can do about this, is give your plants the best chance possible. If your plants are properly taken care of, and have enough nutrients, they will be most likely to stay healthy, and the chance of them dying will be lowest – never zero though. If they die, I do think you should get the seed back! 

That’d make early game painful, and there’s always the 1 in a million chance that ALL of your crops die.

[Rudometkin]

1 hour ago, Facethief said:

That’d make early game painful, and there’s always the 1 in a million chance that ALL of your crops die.

That depends on how big your farm is, and I doubt you or I are that lucky.

Also, you speak as if early game isn't painful. Pain is not a bad thing. Starting from nothing is difficult. It makes 'being settled' that much better.

[Facethief]

4 minutes ago, Rudometkin said:

Also, you speak as if early game isn't painful. Pain is not a bad thing. Starting from nothing is difficult. It makes 'being settled' that much better.

Early game is painful? To me it’s uninteresting at worst. Maybe it’s because it’s the stage I’ve spent most of my games in, and the state that I leave most of them in- but I enjoy the problem solving alongside the general progression.

[Rudometkin]

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

As I said before, it works if it's something you do every once in a while, and not daily. Keep in mind that you need to spend a decent chunk of time away from your base when completing the main story, which means no farming for an extended time if you travel during warm weather, in addition to all the other tasks you're going to fall behind on. Currently, you can simply plant a field of crops, leave, and have it ready to harvest(or close to it) by the time you return, which keeps players from feeling like they're sacrificing too much progress and needed resources to pursue story content.

I would also say that we have a decent weed mechanic in the current game. If you leave farmland fallow, it can grow grass and horsetails, which you will need to remove before planting. Immersive, but doesn't hurt anything, and isn't a hassle to remove when you're ready to use your farm again.

Mulching would pair nicely with a weeding mechanic, however, it's not the solution for allowing players to pursue story content without feeling like they're being punished, if you make the weeding mechanic too time intensive. I would also note that the more time the player has to sink into a specific gameplay loop to get a desirable outcome, the less time they'll have to devote to other gameplay that they may enjoy more.

This is not resonating with me, and that's okay, that's totally fine.

The big objection here is "sometimes people have good reason to leave for extended periods of time". This just does not make this enhanced farming idea a deal breaker to me. So people need to wait until perhaps their second year to get food stocked and stored, and maybe not farm so much during the time they're gone. Instead need to perhaps supplement some of their food with some wild foraging and kills along the way. To me this is not the blaring problem it's made to sound like. So story content and big adventures are more suitable for players who have established themselves and don't need to farm for that year. So what?

 

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

With all due respect, this is a terrible idea. Imagine your farm animals just dying due to complications from disease or pregnancy. Realistically, it happens, and sometimes there's nothing you can do except put the poor creature out of its misery. Does that make for fun gameplay? No, absolutely not, because the player had no opportunity to prevent that loss. Likewise, imagine having to feed and water your animals daily to avoid having them starve/thirst to death--it's realistic, but you'd essentially have no time to do any kind of exploring lest you lose your livestock. Farming crops may not take as much time and resources as animal husbandry, but if you take rewards away from the player arbitrarily after they put in the work, then it's not a fun challenge to overcome but a frustrating mechanic that makes the game feel like a punishing chore. And like I said before, to complete the main story, the player needs to be able to confidently leave their base for extended periods of time, without having an absolute mess to recover from when they get back. The current implementation of farming accomplishes that,

Well, we are talking about crops here, not farm animals. This does lead fine into farm animals, as well. Rare diseases can be a great addition to plants and animals. If you aren't equipped to cure them, they may eventually die. This is a great idea, and I imagine you would somewhat agree on the basis that something could be done.

But the fun part about spontaneous crop death is that it is out of our control. I like the idea of plants being diseased better than spontaneous crop death, but I can still defend the idea. To say it objectively does not make for fun gameplay is extreme. Your justification is that the player had no opportunity to prevent the loss. Well, yes they did. They could have avoided the loss by not planting the crop.

Similarly, I was recently struck dead by lightning when struggling to establish myself in the world. You could say I had no opportunity to prevent that loss, and that's fine. It was still fun. In that case, lack of loss prevention still led to fun. So lack of loss prevention in crops would not necessarily be unfun. But I did have an opportunity to prevent that loss. I could have stayed out of the rain to begin with. Sometimes when you do something basic, there is some risk. I don't see a problem with this, and I don't see any unjustifiable problem in spontaneous crop death. Even if we were talking as high as 1 out of every 10 crops were going to die of spontaneous crop death, that would be fine for me. Instead of getting frustrated, losing heart, and blaming the game for being terrible, I would accept it, and move on. Keep farming. You're going to lose some. That's the way the world works. Sometimes things die. Don't get too attached to every little thing we try to do. Some seeds aren't going to sprout. This is not the objectively terrible thing that it is made to sound as. This would actually demand more respect for farming.

I disagree that even the animal issue would rob you of all of your time to explore. If you are established well, perhaps you could have your animals near water and well stocked with food for a long leave. Perhaps you could have quality soil and sealed off sections to your farm that is not connected to wild grass, so weeds are exponentially rarer.

The deeper mechanic here is that you have to manage your crops and livestock in order to take the longer leaves without being so punished. The desired comfort and freedom does not have to be unattainable. If one can see through the surface inconveniences, they can be open to more complex systems such as these. These added mechanics adds a little bit of challenge for the noobs, and makes it deeper and more complex to master for the pros. That is how professions are made. When you have a lot of little variables that make a simple system complex. The pronounced farmer handles these crop issues with detail. The average player (perhaps they are proficient in a different aspect) can still live on farming. They just are not as proficient. Not everyone has a green thumb. That's OK.

I think we're somewhat throwing the baby out with the bathwater in some of these objections. Like the game would be all of a sudden terrible and broken if one of the crops you planted didn't survive. We are beginning to sound a bit entitled. I appreciate the great discussions and objections being made here. This is what helps keep the game alive and healthy. There needs to be discussions had on both ends of the extremes.

And we can say it would make the game a "punishing chore", but in that case, the torches burning out is also a "punishing chore". So, so what? I perceive a phenomenon where people naturally accept the extremely punishing aspects of a game in early access, and they love it. In fact, they squeeze on so tightly that they begin to shame every new idea that is perceived as punishing. They do not want the game to grow in its fundamental progressions anymore. They want it to stay how it is, perhaps with some tweaks and added content. But it was too early. The game is still in early access and needs room to grow and rebalance; not be held down. They begin to hold so tightly to the early access version they fell in love with, that every new idea is compared to the current balance. Instead of being open to the game going through natural rebalances as it grows, they prefer it stay what they fell in love with. Well, I propose that this is highly problematic, and was the downfall of Minecraft as a survival game. Now, expressing concerns as the game grows is good. Using objections such as "Hey, be careful, this steepens the already steep learning curve" and "Hey, this is going to make things a chore" is good. But of course it doesn't mean it shouldn't be added to the game. In my perspective, I finally found a game with a backbone, a strong foundation, that is not so dependent on its potential fanbase. It's an uncompromising game. That is its strong point. And I'm not saying anyone here is doing that, but it is worth mentioning. It is a phenomenon that I perceive, and should be voiced.

 

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

although I will note that if the player plants their farm without irrigation or the wrong crops at the current time of year, their crops could die from drought or temperature stress by the time the player returns home.

This is a great system. But many would call it a "chore" and dismiss it on the basis that the game is "not a farming simulator".

I'm serious, there are people who make these kinds of arguments!!

 

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

It is an uncompromising survival game, yes, however that does not mean that everything has to 100% realistic. Realism does not always equal fun in a videogame, and to paraphrase @Thorfinn, if the game itself insists on adding every tedious chore with 100% realism...why play the game?

Sure, but we aren't insisting on making the game add every tedious chore with 100% realism here. I like that you brought it up, because it is a serious thing. But I need to voice that it isn't happening here with this idea.

 

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I can go outside and tend my own garden, and lose all my crops anyway because of bugs or bad weather; it happens, but that's life. Most people play videogames to escape that kind of drudgery. It doesn't mean that players need to be handed everything on a silver platter, but they do at least need to have clear rewards for the effort they put in, as well as be able to complete the main story the game wishes to tell without getting so frustrated that they quit.

Well people are always able to not get 'so frustrated that they quit'. That is up to the player whether they have no patience to play an uncompromising survival game.

 

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Vintage Story is a tough game and doesn't pull its punches, but one major reason it's so satisfying to play is that it gets a lot easier once you learn how to tackle those challenges. And yes, you are right in that if someone wants to skip certain parts of the game, they'll miss out on certain benefits(such as players skipping steel and sticking to iron). However, the reason the systems currently work is that they're balanced well. The gameplay loops have clear reasons and rewards for putting in the time to complete them, and they complement each other well without any overshadowing the other. They're also balanced in such a way that while they'll cover the majority of a player's time in Vintage Story, they aren't so intensive that a player can't set them to the wayside from a bit to go explore or work on the main story.

Of course, and this can still ring true if this farming overhaul idea is implemented well. However, if we are judging the "proper balance" by the game's current difficulty in its current state, then we have a major problem. Since, the game is still in early access and perhaps is not yet difficult or complex enough in some aspects. For example, I fear we got used to crops living '100% of the time', where we should be willing to accept a 5% decrease in crop life. If that is immediately going to be deemed 'terrible balancing', then I fear we would be too close-minded. Of course we want well balanced. But according to whose standards? I'm glad Vintage Story is uncompromising, so the player has to adapt to the world, not so much the other way around.

 

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Honestly, if Vintage Story was going to double down on being brutally realistic...players aren't going to be going on some grand world-spanning adventure at all, not if they want to actually have a base of operations. Running a homestead is a lot of work, even moreso in a medieval setting. In a brutally realistic scenario, one simply won't have time to leave for an extended period without losing most, if not all, they've worked for.

Of course even someone who has successfully farmed and established their base with long lasting food should lose their hard work when they travel for an extended period. It's called the cost of living. When you travel, you can eat the food that you worked hard for back at home.
 

Of course, your general concern is that people will lose their farms if they leave for an extended period of time. I propose perhaps they shouldn't have farms if they are planning an extended leave. Don't have the food yet, though? Then don't leave yet. We already have the excellent systems of food preservation in effect. This is a non-issue in my mind.

 

With all this said, go ahead and feel free to dismiss everything I said, because I admittedly am still early in the game.

 

5 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I'm not opposed to the ideas, but not for vanilla. In vanilla, you get just the one implementation. Left to mods, you get to pick and choose which features you like. And maybe more to the point, which features you are willing to take the performance hit to have.

Personally, I'm not the kind who likes a game of drudgery. If I wanted to weed a garden, I can just go outside and do it. Similar to those who champion bodily functions in the game. Realistic, sure, but is that how you choose a good book? Where the protagonist goes out to weed his crops, or steps behind a tree every page or two? "I don't remember eating any corn!"

Like @LadyWYT says, it's already tough enough to take time off during the growing season to actually, you know, engage with the story. I get the impression many of these suggestions are coming from people who have not completed or even really begun the story content. If you want to forego the story, that's fine. It's a sandbox. Find some mod to make it the sandbox you want.

In vanilla, we can have toggle switches that is more dynamic than just one implementation. "Dynamic crops" can be a toggle switch that adds many of these features.

 

Edited June 28, 2025 by Rudometkin
typo

[Rudometkin]

I love that I'm getting wolfbaited for reinforcing the game's core values in a thoroughly coherent manner.

This entire game is wolfbait to the majority of video game players.

As for this seed quality idea:

On 6/23/2025 at 4:20 PM, SongOfRuth said:

If one introduced the idea of seed quality (with seeds from wild plants being the lowest quality), then you could tie seed quality to how much each seed produces in produce and seeds. Lower quality seeds would produce less produce and fewer seeds. Seeds produced would match the original seed but with a small chance of producing a next quality level seed. The idea could be similar to generations for animals.

I think this is excellent and should be implemented. Having 3-5 stages of seed quality would give farmers a lot to work toward. Also having a slight chance of a crop producing a lesser quality seed will keep things in balance while still allowing for overall progression.

[Thorfinn]

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

In vanilla, we can have toggle switches that is more dynamic than just one implementation. "Dynamic crops" can be a toggle switch that adds many of these features.

Maybe. Check the code on some of those toggles, and you will see it's still loading a lot of fluff you didn't want in your game. Not all of that can be backed out cleanly, because anything vanilla is, by definition, base game. And, of course, if it is vanilla, it needs to be updated by the core team. And the more that drags out the development cycle.

Have you completed the game yet? It sounds as if you have not. Yes, Chapter 1 will probably not be too bad. Your first time, a day or two to get there, maybe a month there, a day or two to get home. Maybe you will lose some turnips, but if you left right after planting, you should be fine, so long as you are not counting on mulch and such carrying you through. But Chapter 2? If you got a flat plain all the way there, you can probably sprint it in 4-5 days running day and night, eating on the run. A good strong several days on the content itself, probably a month your first time through. At least triple your travel time for a more typical terrain generation, and lots of people complained about it being much worse than that.

Why are you so dead set against using a mod? All the things you said were fun for you would be well within the realm of a mod, and, in case you haven't picked up on it yet, not everyone agrees with your definition of "fun".

[Rudometkin]

57 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Maybe. Check the code on some of those toggles, and you will see it's still loading a lot of fluff you didn't want in your game. Not all of that can be backed out cleanly, because anything vanilla is, by definition, base game. And, of course, if it is vanilla, it needs to be updated by the core team. And the more that drags out the development cycle.

Yes, you say maybe, but it is more certain than maybe. Though it is a valid concern to not want to drag the development cycle for a dynamic crop toggle switch. Let's just make them dynamic without the troublesome toggle switch.

 

57 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Have you completed the game yet? It sounds as if you have not. Yes, Chapter 1 will probably not be too bad. Your first time, a day or two to get there, maybe a month there, a day or two to get home. Maybe you will lose some turnips, but if you left right after planting, you should be fine, so long as you are not counting on mulch and such carrying you through. But Chapter 2? If you got a flat plain all the way there, you can probably sprint it in 4-5 days running day and night, eating on the run. A good strong several days on the content itself, probably a month your first time through. At least triple your travel time for a more typical terrain generation, and lots of people complained about it being much worse than that.

No, I have not completed the game yet. Which is largely irrelevant, since there can be longer term quality of life fixes to these mechanics that have already been hinted at and demonstrated. Does that make sense?

57 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Why are you so dead set against using a mod? All the things you said were fun for you would be well within the realm of a mod, and, in case you haven't picked up on it yet, not everyone agrees with your definition of "fun".

I am not dead set against using a mod. As I often find myself needing to tell people in various settings, 'perhaps we should establish whether I am dead set against using a mod, before asking why I am dead set against using a mod.' In fact, I plan to make mods.

Of course not everyone agrees with my definition of fun. Not everyone disagrees, either. But is that the standard for base game content now?

All of a sudden, does everyone need to agree something is 'fun' before it can get added into the base game? Of course not.

Now for the sake of defending my position here, since it is only fair I fight for what I think is solid, as you do for yourself, I can use the same terminology method on you that you used on me, to show how it is not exactly a fair and considerate method. That is, why are you so dead set against adding something into the vanilla game just because not everyone agrees it's fun?

See, it's quite unfair to ask each other such blunt and loaded questions. It makes us look ignorant against each other. We should work to be considerate Just as you might reply, "I am not dead set against adding things to the vanilla game just because not everyone agrees it's fun", I would reply, "I am not dead set against using a mod." So those questions become unnecessary and irrelevant.

-----

In general, I understand the 'dead farm' objection when we get back from traveling to be a 'storm in a teacup'. Yes, it is a problem. But complex farming mechanics should not suffer because someone wants to farm their crops from 100k meters away. There are several possible solutions, such as irrigation systems, and having higher grade soil and farms properly segregated from wild grass, to greatly minimize the existence of weeds, for example. I think some of us might be chalking this idea up as, "too tedious", which is a dangerous argument. That kind of reasoning can eventually lead to the death of Vintage Story principles as we know it. It could be the next thing we know, we have people complaining that torches are burning out, and that "more realistic doesn't equal more fun". The "it's too difficult/tedious/not fun" is a fine concern to voice. But where do you draw the line? If left unchecked, it can be a cancer that takes over the community, to the point developers could receive backlash from a spoiled community just for making a 'negative' rebalance in an update.

E.g., if torches just started to burn out in v1.20, people would be calling it tedious and unfun. They would complain that by the time they get back from their long adventures, they don't want to come home to a bunch of burned out torches. Burned out torches should just be a mod. Not everyone thinks it's fun. Do you see how far it can be taken?

Edited June 28, 2025 by Rudometkin
Typo

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

The big objection here is "sometimes people have good reason to leave for extended periods of time". This just does not make this enhanced farming idea a deal breaker to me. So people need to wait until perhaps their second year to get food stocked and stored, and maybe not farm so much during the time they're gone. Instead need to perhaps supplement some of their food with some wild foraging and kills along the way. To me this is not the blaring problem it's made to sound like. So story content and big adventures are more suitable for players who have established themselves and don't need to farm for that year. So what?

Vintage Story is a slow burn regarding gameplay and story pacing, however, I don't think it's a good idea to force players to wait until the second or third in-game year to be well-established enough to even think of pursuing story content. The great thing about the current structure is that it's flexible enough to allow players to take things as fast or as slow as they like--and that's on the default settings. As for traveling very long distances, yes, players will usually need to supplement supplies with foraging and hunting, but that doesn't mean that they should always have to be coming back to ruined food stores and decrepit infrastructure after every long outing.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

But the fun part about spontaneous crop death is that it is out of our control.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Well, we are talking about crops here, not farm animals. This does lead fine into farm animals, as well. Rare diseases can be a great addition to plants and animals. If you aren't equipped to cure them, they may eventually die. This is a great idea, and I imagine you would somewhat agree on the basis that something could be done.

Again, if you're simply going to wipe player progress at random, despite the fact that they put in the work to do everything right...that's going to frustrate the player more likely than not. As a mod, sure, it would be fine, and add an optional challenge for those that want it. 

 

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Similarly, I was recently struck dead by lightning when struggling to establish myself in the world. You could say I had no opportunity to prevent that loss, and that's fine.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

But I did have an opportunity to prevent that loss. I could have stayed out of the rain to begin with

You contradict yourself here, somewhat. Death by lightning is kind of one of those "bad luck" deaths, in that it's extremely unlikely to occur, but the player also has an opportunity to prevent deaths like that by simply taking shelter during thunderstorms.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Sometimes when you do something basic, there is some risk. I don't see a problem with this, and I don't see any unjustifiable problem in spontaneous crop death. Even if we were talking as high as 1 out of every 10 crops were going to die of spontaneous crop death, that would be fine for me. Instead of getting frustrated, losing heart, and blaming the game for being terrible, I would accept it, and move on. Keep farming. You're going to lose some. That's the way the world works. Sometimes things die. Don't get too attached to every little thing we try to do. Some seeds aren't going to sprout. This is not the objectively terrible thing that it is made to sound as. This would actually demand more respect for farming.

The lightning death scenario doesn't really work as an equal comparison here though, since again...death to lightning is extremely unlikely(and also requires a very specific set of circumstances to occur) and also preventable by the player. Pest-destroying crops and disease don't have nearly as strict of parameters, so they're much more likely to occur. Perhaps not with the extreme side effect of death, but again...if you're just destroying crops at random to simulate pests/disease, you're still wiping player progress without giving them opportunity to salvage the situation(and also telling them to just "deal with it"!).

Now perhaps you could give them opportunity to deal with the issues before they lose their crops, but keep in mind that the methods need to match medieval technology. Also keep in mind too that the more resources from the player a gameplay loop demands, the less resources they'll have to devote elsewhere to gameplay they may enjoy more.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

I disagree that even the animal issue would rob you of all of your time to explore. If you are established well, perhaps you could have your animals near water and well stocked with food for a long leave. Perhaps you could have quality soil and sealed off sections to your farm that is not connected to wild grass, so weeds are exponentially rarer.

Not every animal lives on just grass, and most food will rot in troughs. Water will freeze in the winter, if it gets cold enough in that climate. Quality soil like terra preta takes a long time to produce in quantity, and if you're sealing off farms to stop weeds you're essentially just farming exclusively in greenhouses.

That's not to say players couldn't find solutions to those issues, however...the reason things are set up the way they are now is to allow players flexibility. Most players know that animals need to be tended, but I daresay that most players also appreciate that they can run off on adventures when they wish and return home to an intact base, instead of needing to constantly babysit their animals and farms. If you change that balance too much, you're narrowing the range of gameplay options that players have.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

The average player (perhaps they are proficient in a different aspect) can still live on farming. They just are not as proficient. Not everyone has a green thumb. That's OK.

The average player should find at least most gameplay loops worth completing. Farming is already a little more intensive than it is in other games, as you need to manage soil quality, moisture, and temperature parameters to ensure you get a harvest. However, it's also a simple enough system that most players can manage it and have some fun, even if they don't enjoy farming that much, while still leaving players plenty of time to work on other gameplay loops.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

And we can say it would make the game a "punishing chore", but in that case, the torches burning out is also a "punishing chore". So, so what?

Torches burn out in order to encourage the player to seek better lighting solutions. The advantage of torches is that they're very cheap and easily made while offering a decent light radius; if you simply made them permanent light without needing a torch holder, then there's no reason to invest in things like lanterns aside from aesthetics.

I will also note that the burnout timer on a torch is quite generous--48 in-game hours. Likewise, you can reset that timer just by breaking and replacing a torch, so it's possible to keep your starting home lit with just a single torch until you have a better option.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

I perceive a phenomenon where people naturally accept the extremely punishing aspects of a game in early access, and they love it.

There's also this phenomenon where people hate the extremely punishing aspects of the game and come on to the forums to demand change(sometimes they ask nicely though). In my experience, it's more common to have a bunch of complaint threads arise when default gameplay is tweaked to be more challenging, than it is for threads complaining about the game being too easy. Generally, I would guess that players who find certain gameplay loops not quite challenging enough will be tweaking things to their liking with mods.

One good example I can think of here is the recent change to fire clay and the quern crafting recipe--there were quite a few players that complained about the changes. It was, however, a change for the better since it smoothed out the early portions of the game and gave more value to all the flint one inevitably collects. What the change did not do, however, was require players to spend a significantly larger portion of their time in a specific gameplay loop at the expense of others.

2 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Using objections such as "Hey, be careful, this steepens the already steep learning curve" and "Hey, this is going to make things a chore" is good. But of course it doesn't mean it shouldn't be added to the game.

Actually, I would argue objections like that are a great reason not to add certain features to a game, provided that a strong supporting case is made for said objections. A steep learning curve is fine, but one that is too steep will discourage more players from sticking with the game(or trying it in the first place) than it will draw in new players. Gameplay that becomes a chore rather than fun also isn't going to retain players, as the main reason for playing a videogame to begin with is getting a fun escape from reality for a while.

3 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Well people are always able to not get 'so frustrated that they quit'. That is up to the player whether they have no patience to play an uncompromising survival game.

I mean, if you're going to use that argument, they can always just...not play the game too. Generally, it's not good for a game's long term health to frustrate players to the point of quitting(especially newer players). There will always be a handful that do, of course, and that's natural, but if it becomes a common occurrence that's not good.

3 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Of course, your general concern is that people will lose their farms if they leave for an extended period of time. I propose perhaps they shouldn't have farms if they are planning an extended leave. Don't have the food yet, though? Then don't leave yet. We already have the excellent systems of food preservation in effect. This is a non-issue in my mind.

Currently, you can plant your farms, go off on an adventure, and return to harvest, provided you timed things appropriately. A player may or may not need the food, but they'll most likely want a flax harvest to come back to, given how useful flax is. They may want food as well, depending on their game settings and the time of year that they return. In any case, they're not going to need to worry about having to start over from scratch or missing out on too many resources vital to other gameplay loops(such as flax).

3 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

In vanilla, we can have toggle switches that is more dynamic than just one implementation. "Dynamic crops" can be a toggle switch that adds many of these features.

It's great that we have a lot of settings and toggle to adjust various things. However, I'm personally not a fan of "just make it a toggle" as an answer to most arguments, as coding often isn't as simple as it seems. Likewise, a toggle for something that is supposed to be part of the core game experience feels...cheap, though that's just my opinion.

I should also note that when it comes to suggestions for the game, I tend to look through the lens of what fits the overall vision that's been presented for the Standard gameplay mode, as that is what I would consider the default mode for the average player. 

46 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Have you completed the game yet? It sounds as if you have not. Yes, Chapter 1 will probably not be too bad. Your first time, a day or two to get there, maybe a month there, a day or two to get home. Maybe you will lose some turnips, but if you left right after planting, you should be fine, so long as you are not counting on mulch and such carrying you through. But Chapter 2? If you got a flat plain all the way there, you can probably sprint it in 4-5 days running day and night, eating on the run. A good strong several days on the content itself, probably a month your first time through. At least triple your travel time for a more typical terrain generation, and lots of people complained about it being much worse than that.

I'm curious about the answer here as well. As I recall, the entirety of the planned story was supposed to take a hundred hours of gameplay to complete or so, once the full story is fully implemented. Of an eight planned chapters, we have two implemented so far, and judging based on @Thorfinn's gameplay style it's possible to complete the current two in about 50 hours of playtime...although as I understand it that's also pushing the absolute bleeding edge of how fast one can progress in the game. For my own experience, I'm somewhat laid back and usually end up finishing the story content about 75-100 hours into the world.

Not to spoil too much regarding chapter 2, but it's very intense regarding the amount of time the average player will need to spend away from home in order to complete it. On default settings, I'm usually gone for about one and a half in-game months, and that's with really pushing the progress instead of taking my time traveling, assuming no delays due to death.

4 minutes ago, Rudometkin said:

No, I have not completed the game yet. Which is largely irrelevant, since there can be longer term quality of life fixes to these mechanics that have already been hinted at and demonstrated. Does that make sense?

Since the answer posted before I finished typing all this...I wouldn't say it's irrelevant at all. It's not really fair to say your proposed changes would be "no big deal to long player outings" and that players can just "deal with it", if you yourself haven't completed the main story(which is one of the core reasons to play the game). It's also not fair to push for a change that may drastically affect the story content already implemented, and just expect the story content to be reworked to support said change. 

I'm not trying to put you down for not having played through the story either. However, it's unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence for inexperienced players to hop on the forums and start asking for things that already exist in the game or proposing changes that haven't been fully thought out regarding the game as a whole. It's also why you tend to see veteran players react with "not for the vanilla game, but it would make a great mod" regarding a lot of suggestions. Vintage Story was built to be highly moddable, and the beauty of mods is that they allow players to season the game exactly to their liking, without altering the overall core experience for everyone else.

[Facethief]

Generally, if the feature requires players to “just deal with it” or entirely tear down something they spent time and effort making and lose resources, it’s a bad feature unless the game is explicitly designed to be unreasonably punishing. I personally don’t want Vintage Story to be a foddian rage game, so any steps that lean towards this I dislike.

[Thorfinn]

3 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Not everyone disagrees, either. But is that the standard for base game content now?

Well, technically, the standard is whether it fits the vision Tyron has for what he wants the game to be. As it is for all mod authors. If it were his vision for the game, it would probably be on the roadmap. And maybe that's what is meant by polishing systems. Dunno. I'd just rather not slow the development cycle any more than it is. There is enough content added that it's already quite a bit slower than when I first bought the game, and that's with more people working on it.

3 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

That is, why are you so dead set against adding something into the vanilla game just because not everyone agrees it's fun?

Fair question. The base game is the base game. Kind of like pretty much anything else in life. Start with the essentials, get those rock solid, then start adding "nice to have"s. There are hundreds of Early Access games that demonstrate what happen if you move the "nice to have"s too early into the development cycle.

3 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

I think some of us might be chalking this idea up as, "too tedious", which is a dangerous argument.

I sure am! I don't want to play a game that makes me wish I were getting a root canal. (I think. Never had one, but I've heard tell.) There are gameplay loops I avoid or minimize, as does everyone. Many minimize combat, looking for more of a cozy game. That's why there is a "Passive" setting on creatures. Chiseling bores me to tears, but there are a lot of people who absolutely love it, and who do fantastic things with it.

You are the one who wants farming changed. Make your case. Why should a person who loves that part of the game have to put up with the tedium and frustration you are proposing when all he wants to do is spend a few hours winding down after work making works of art?

Edited June 29, 2025 by Thorfinn

[Rudometkin]

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Vintage Story is a slow burn regarding gameplay and story pacing, however, I don't think it's a good idea to force players to wait until the second or third in-game year to be well-established enough to even think of pursuing story content.

Of course they can think of pursuing story content from the very beginning even with this farming overhaul idea. Implementing this idea does not necessarily stop people from thinking, planning, and even pursuing as early as they like. It just might be difficult to do it early on. What is the problem with that? It is not like it is not already difficult. In an effort to advocate for more free gameplay in terms of exploring story content, you are discouraging free gameplay in terms of more advanced farming.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The great thing about the current structure is that it's flexible enough to allow players to take things as fast or as slow as they like--and that's on the default settings.

Yes, the default settings of an early access game in heavy development. But I do not think this idea will hinder people that much to really justify making a big deal such as this out of it on its own. I think tweaking some crops will still allow players to be flexible. We don't want to get into a slippery slope fallacy. E.g. "Weeds can kill crops? Oh no, story content is now impossible for early game. Players are now forced and the game is no longer sandbox."

Of course we ought to know the effects are not that extreme.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

As for traveling very long distances, yes, players will usually need to supplement supplies with foraging and hunting, but that doesn't mean that they should always have to be coming back to ruined food stores and decrepit infrastructure after every long outing.

We are not proposing they should always have to be coming back to ruined food stores and decrepit infrastructure. This is a straw man of the position.

Of course depending on how long you have left your base will have different effects. Leaving your base for over 2 days will leave you with burned out torches, for example. Yet it would not allow for weeds to kill a healthy farm that you left 2 days ago. Why is nobody complaining about the torches here? For some reason, losing the seed you clicked into the ground seems to be the deal breaker. We hate spontaneous crop death, but we love certain torch death, for some reason.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Again, if you're simply going to wipe player progress at random, despite the fact that they put in the work to do everything right...that's going to frustrate the player more likely than not. As a mod, sure, it would be fine, and add an optional challenge for those that want it. 

I note you are basing this on likelihood. Likely the player would be frustrated a crop died. I can just as easily propose a player likely would not be frustrated a crop died. It would likely inspire the player to plant more. Likely, the players who would be upset over losing a crop would have left the game long before they got to the point of planting a crop. I propose this opposing outlook since we are asserting likelihoods without solid basis.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

You contradict yourself here, somewhat.

No I do not contradict myself here. You even admit it falls under a 'somewhat' category, because I did not contradict myself.

Suggesting what "you could say", and what I say, can contradict. This does not equal me contradicting myself. If anything, it means I can formulate opposing ideas in my mind and articulate them and reason with them to produce a well thought argument considering both sides. I do understand that sometimes when you think ahead and address arguments from angles not yet brought up by others, it can be seen as contradictory and confusing.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Death by lightning is kind of one of those "bad luck" deaths, in that it's extremely unlikely to occur, but the player also has an opportunity to prevent deaths like that by simply taking shelter during thunderstorms.

Precisely, and the player has an opportunity to prevent crop death by simply not giving crops the chance for life.

I could simulate an entire argument in your style about how tedious it might be for players to have to stop and take shelter every time it rains, just because they don't want to risk losing everything on an important story journey thousands of blocks away from home. Is this starting to sound familiar? One would think you would advocate for lightning death to be a mod based on some of your arguments. After all, it is suggested to be a bad idea to force players to stop travel during thunderstorms, especially through common rainfall areas.

Are you understanding my point? You speak against punishing players for traveling and spontaneous death, then in the case of lightning, you defend spontaneous death when it is avoidable by not traveling. So you are fine when traveling is prohibited for lightning death, but not when traveling is prohibited for crop death. That is odd to me. I propose lightning death is fine. So is occasional spontaneous crop death. Though I like the idea of curable diseased crop death more.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The lightning death scenario doesn't really work as an equal comparison here though, since again...death to lightning is extremely unlikely(and also requires a very specific set of circumstances to occur) and also preventable by the player.

You're right, in fact, lightning death is worse. Oddly you seem to be fine with the harsher one, and harsher on the more mild one. Both are unlikely. Lightning death kills you. Crop death kills a crop. Both kill and both can be avoided. Don't play with the lightning, don't play with the crop. Or play with the lightning, and play with the crop. They are free choices.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Pest-destroying crops and disease don't have nearly as strict of parameters, so they're much more likely to occur. Perhaps not with the extreme side effect of death, but again...if you're just destroying crops at random to simulate pests/disease, you're still wiping player progress without giving them opportunity to salvage the situation(and also telling them to just "deal with it"!).

Or, we can simply make them much less likely to occur. Also, we can create some killable pests and curable diseases to go with the crops.

The player having to 'just deal with it' sounds uncompromising. Reminds me of Vintage Story.

The lightning told me to "just deal with it" after it struck me dead, when I was gathering resources for my immediate survival. That was fine. So what?

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Now perhaps you could give them opportunity to deal with the issues before they lose their crops, but keep in mind that the methods need to match medieval technology. Also keep in mind too that the more resources from the player a gameplay loop demands, the less resources they'll have to devote elsewhere to gameplay they may enjoy more.

Yes this is a great point. If they enjoy something more than saving every last crop, then they can do that instead, at the cost of possibly losing some crops. It's not a lightning strike to the heart. The loop doesn't have to demand much. We also need to be careful about suggesting not making farming any deeper merely on the basis that some people might not enjoy farming very much.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Not every animal lives on just grass, and most food will rot in troughs. Water will freeze in the winter, if it gets cold enough in that climate. Quality soil like terra preta takes a long time to produce in quantity, and if you're sealing off farms to stop weeds you're essentially just farming exclusively in greenhouses.

That's not to say players couldn't find solutions to those issues, however...the reason things are set up the way they are now is to allow players flexibility.

Or, maybe it is simply because it takes more time to get them further set up to the desired way. This idea can be implemented without losing vast amounts of flexibility in the long run. Compromises can be made.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Most players know that animals need to be tended, but I daresay that most players also appreciate that they can run off on adventures when they wish and return home to an intact base, instead of needing to constantly babysit their animals and farms.

Well they already need to babysit their torches, until they get some upgrades. So requiring babysitting in itself is not against Vintage Story principles. But I am not suggesting here that to improve farming we need to make players return to a base that is no longer intact. Unless perhaps by no longer intact, you are referring to the consequences of a neglected, underdeveloped farm.

I'm beginning to hear a little bit of, "we should be able to experience no downsides for neglecting a farm for long periods of time, because the developers made some really cool reasons to go out and explore."

That would sound very simplified, not giving farming mechanics the consideration it deserves.

It sounds like a simple farm management issue to me, not a farm mechanic issue. I'd say consider building your farm up to make it as self-sufficient as possible before going on a long trip, if you're going to try farming from 100k blocks away.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

If you change that balance too much, you're narrowing the range of gameplay options that players have.

Or, we are widening gameplay options in other areas.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The average player should find at least most gameplay loops worth completing. Farming is already a little more intensive than it is in other games,

Respectfully other games seem irrelevant to me at this time regarding this issue. Do you feel like this is relevant? If I were to somehow provide statistics on overall positive community feedback on instantaneous crop death in similar games that have similar game loops, for example, would that matter to you here? If so, why?

I think I personally take Vintage Story as its own standalone game, on its own terms. I don't feel like other games matter regarding this issue. But maybe they do. Maybe I've seen what happens when a game tries catering too much to people's concerns instead of focusing on making a solid coherent world that the player must learn to live in. I'm glad Vintage Story has a focus on uncompromising wilderness survival. Hey, let's make crops more dynamic, by the way. Throw a little more spice in the farmer profession.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

as you need to manage soil quality, moisture, and temperature parameters to ensure you get a harvest. However, it's also a simple enough system that most players can manage it and have some fun, even if they don't enjoy farming that much, while still leaving players plenty of time to work on other gameplay loops.

Yes. But you are drawing a line where it's at. It can still be a simple enough system with these farming overhaul ideas, to where most players can manage it and have some fun, even if they don't enjoy farming that much, while still leaving them plenty of time to work on other gameplay loops. They might just get 90% of the crops they're getting now. It's the farming professionals who are perhaps retaining that 100%, or more. Because they particularly enjoy it, and are spending the time to maximize their gains in the field. This is how professions work. (Or, the ratio may be more of a 75% - 95%).

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Torches burn out in order to encourage the player to seek better lighting solutions.

Yes, and it is great. Plants have problems in order to encourage the player to seek better farming solutions.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The advantage of torches is that they're very cheap and easily made while offering a decent light radius; if you simply made them permanent light without needing a torch holder, then there's no reason to invest in things like lanterns aside from aesthetics.

Same general point can be made for plants and plant upgrades.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I will also note that the burnout timer on a torch is quite generous--48 in-game hours. Likewise, you can reset that timer just by breaking and replacing a torch, so it's possible to keep your starting home lit with just a single torch until you have a better option.

Similarly, weeds would remain small for several days, and can be removed by just breaking them, so it's possible to keep your starting farm healthy with just pulling weeds until you have a better option. No big problems here.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

There's also this phenomenon where people hate the extremely punishing aspects of the game

People who don't like the game, yes. Luckily, the game isn't geared to compromise for them. Thank God, and thank the developers.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

and come on to the forums to demand change(sometimes they ask nicely though). In my experience, it's more common to have a bunch of complaint threads arise when default gameplay is tweaked to be more challenging, than it is for threads complaining about the game being too easy. Generally, I would guess that players who find certain gameplay loops not quite challenging enough will be tweaking things to their liking with mods.

Luckily, Vintage Story is built on solid ground. So the part of the community who wants 'dirt-to-diamond' features can play mods that make the game easier.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

One good example I can think of here is the recent change to fire clay and the quern crafting recipe--there were quite a few players that complained about the changes. It was, however, a change for the better since it smoothed out the early portions of the game and gave more value to all the flint one inevitably collects. What the change did not do, however, was require players to spend a significantly larger portion of their time in a specific gameplay loop at the expense of others.

Actually, I would argue objections like that are a great reason not to add certain features to a game, provided that a strong supporting case is made for said objections. A steep learning curve is fine, but one that is too steep will discourage more players from sticking with the game(or trying it in the first place) than it will draw in new players. Gameplay that becomes a chore rather than fun also isn't going to retain players, as the main reason for playing a videogame to begin with is getting a fun escape from reality for a while.

When this logic is accompanied with "burning out torches is tedious and not fun", Vintage Story is suddenly deemed an unfun game that ought to switch to all torches lasting forever in the next possible update.

What do you say to the people who want all torches to last forever? Do you perhaps flip the script and tell them to just 'deal with it'? I would think you probably point them to a mod, on the basis that you think Vintage Story should have the challenging aspect of finite torches, because maybe you learned the game when it already had finite torches. So maybe you accepted it. This is a chain of assumptions on my end, but I think you wouldn't be having an issue with more dynamic farming such as this, if it was already in the game when it was introduced to you.

Vintage Story is an uncompromising wilderness survival game. It's okay if crops sometimes spontaneously die.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I mean, if you're going to use that argument, they can always just...not play the game too. Generally, it's not good for a game's long term health to frustrate players to the point of quitting(especially newer players). There will always be a handful that do, of course, and that's natural, but if it becomes a common occurrence that's not good.

Even worse would be an 'uncompromising wilderness survival game' that compromises.  

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Currently, you can plant your farms, go off on an adventure, and return to harvest, provided you timed things appropriately.

So you are fine with the challenge of having to time your farms appropriately? Surely many people are not fine with this. What do you say to them? Perhaps download a mod?

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

A player may or may not need the food, but they'll most likely want a flax harvest to come back to, given how useful flax is. They may want food as well, depending on their game settings and the time of year that they return. In any case, they're not going to need to worry about having to start over from scratch or missing out on too many resources vital to other gameplay loops(such as flax).

It's great that we have a lot of settings and toggle to adjust various things. However, I'm personally not a fan of "just make it a toggle" as an answer to most arguments, as coding often isn't as simple as it seems. Likewise, a toggle for something that is supposed to be part of the core game experience feels...cheap, though that's just my opinion.

Sure, let's just go ahead and have the farming be more dynamic for everyone then  

It seems like there might be a phantom problem in some of your messages. Like, if this general overhaul idea were added to the game, then all of a sudden the game would deteriorate into a tedious mess that forces players to play the game in a very narrow way, and would perhaps turn away too many people. I don't want to strawman your position, I want to voice a possibility. I just don't see the concern being justified to bring up so many arguments against making a few crops here and there having some more chances of dying, in an uncompromising wilderness survival game. But I kind of like to see the opposing views, as it makes me think more deeply on the subject.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I should also note that when it comes to suggestions for the game, I tend to look through the lens of what fits the overall vision that's been presented for the Standard gameplay mode, as that is what I would consider the default mode for the average player.

Vision which is, uncompromising wilderness survival. I look through that lense, too.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I'm curious about the answer here as well. As I recall, the entirety of the planned story was supposed to take a hundred hours of gameplay to complete or so, once the full story is fully implemented. Of an eight planned chapters, we have two implemented so far, and judging based on @Thorfinn's gameplay style it's possible to complete the current two in about 50 hours of playtime...although as I understand it that's also pushing the absolute bleeding edge of how fast one can progress in the game. For my own experience, I'm somewhat laid back and usually end up finishing the story content about 75-100 hours into the world.

Not to spoil too much regarding chapter 2, but it's very intense regarding the amount of time the average player will need to spend away from home in order to complete it. On default settings, I'm usually gone for about one and a half in-game months, and that's with really pushing the progress instead of taking my time traveling, assuming no delays due to death.

Since the answer posted before I finished typing all this...I wouldn't say it's irrelevant at all. It's not really fair to say your proposed changes would be "no big deal to long player outings" and that players can just "deal with it", if you yourself haven't completed the main story(which is one of the core reasons to play the game).

Did I say the players can just "deal with it"?

Huh. Where?

Anyway, that sounds fitting for an uncompromising wilderness survival game. "Just dealing with" problems is kind of the point at a stripped back, fundamental level. If you want to strip it back that far.

Of course the game design goes much further than just having players simply "deal" with problems. I don't expect anyone here to have that simple of a philosophy.

Sometimes it can be an appropriate answer, however, I suppose.

Regardless, the relevance is in ensuring farms can be upgraded to the point of general long term self-sustainability. This is why I am confident it is not a big problem. Because I am confident these ideas can be implemented in a way where farming can still be upgraded to the point of being mostly safe during long times away. So whether I have experienced long times away from farms for any reason is irrelevant. And that's considering you even want to work with having a farm while you are away.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

It's also not fair to push for a change that may drastically affect the story content already implemented, and just expect the story content to be reworked to support said change.

I'm supposing you are suggesting there is or may be story content that is inherently incompatible with complex farming. I don't think so. In my opinion, that is so far off the radar, it would be reasonable to not even worry about it.

I am starting to hear a little bit of, "We can't make plants get diseases, because we don't know how that will affect future story content."

But I understand maybe you are just speaking in general here.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I'm not trying to put you down for not having played through the story either.

Thank you.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

However, it's unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence for inexperienced players to hop on the forums and start asking for things that already exist in the game or proposing changes that haven't been fully thought out regarding the game as a whole.

It is relatively safe to assume no players here have fully considered the game as a whole. Do you understand how complex that would be? You would need to practically live in the source code.

Now if you're speaking generally, then I'll say general thought regarding the game as a whole should be sufficient. I thought about farming mechanics, and the occasional need to leave the main base for long periods of time, and determined with my game-design oriented mind that these farming mechanics can be implemented for the betterment of the game, and I don't need to study how, hanging axes react to nearby fires, for example, in order to be justified in my support for the farming suggestion. General overall consideration is fine, as long as you consider the minimum necessary details, which are relevant details.

 

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

It's also why you tend to see veteran players react with "not for the vanilla game, but it would make a great mod" regarding a lot of suggestions. Vintage Story was built to be highly moddable, and the beauty of mods is that they allow players to season the game exactly to their liking, without altering the overall core experience for everyone else.

Yeah, and it is easy to say, "not for the vanilla game". I'm sure we'll be seeing it for the rest of our stays here!

Edited June 29, 2025 by Rudometkin
Added a point.

[Rudometkin]

4 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

Well, technically, the standard is whether it fits the vision Tyron has for what he wants the game to be.

The vision, which is precisely an "uncompromising wilderness survival sandbox" game. Presumably stated, or at least accepted, as the official vision by Tyron himself.

 

4 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I sure am! I don't want to play a game that makes me wish I were getting a root canal. (I think. Never had one, but I've heard tell.)

Unfortunately I can say from experience, root canals today don't have to be bad. I had one or two of them done, and didn't feel a thing the entire time. Modern anesthetics have come a long way, thank God.

 

4 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

There are gameplay loops I avoid or minimize, as does everyone. Many minimize combat, looking for more of a cozy game. That's why there is a "Passive" setting on creatures. Chiseling bores me to tears, but there are a lot of people who absolutely love it, and who do fantastic things with it.

You are the one who wants farming changed. Make your case.

Well I did make a case, and I supported a case. It's okay if I convince no one. I don't hold the power to change minds.

 

4 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

Why should a person who loves that part of the game have to put up with the tedium and frustration you are proposing when all he wants to do is spend a few hours winding down after work making works of art?

Well for one, you are calling it tedium and frustration, not me. So the other player might not call it that, either. But if someone wants to wind down after work by making works of art, they can play creative for that. Why stress him out with torches burning out and lightning striking his head off, when all he wants to do is wind down by making works of art?

Or, to answer the question more simply, and still directly, because it's an uncompromising wilderness survival game.

[Facethief]

I appreciate your Noble 6 level last stand in this argument, but seriously, nobody wants to argue with you: we’ve all stated our case, and you’ve stated

6 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

it's an uncompromising wilderness survival game.

And

7 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

The player having to 'just deal with it' sounds uncompromising.

Seriously, you sound like you’d like Better Than Wolves- it’s a mod(pack?) for TOBG. I’d recommend you check it out. Little hard to download, too hard for me, but it has all of the farming features you seem to want and more. If you want what you’re recommending and it takes flak from the two most committed members of the community that I know, I’d take a look at what your idea might look like implemented (in TOBG, at least) just to see what you actually feel about the feature in gameplay. 
… as a warning, Better Than Wolves might be a little more difficult than this cushy game. Not speaking from experience here, but it’s probably good to warn you.

[Rudometkin]

1 hour ago, Facethief said:

I appreciate your Noble 6 level last stand in this argument, but seriously, nobody wants to argue with you: we’ve all stated our case, and you’ve stated

You don't know what everybody here wants and doesn't want. You only know you. It is very cute the level of control you are trying to claim here. In fact, I have been engaged with several times on the matter in the spirit of disagreement, and was just told to make my case, and was asked a question right after. Everyone can even come on here and say no they don't want to argue with me, yet we can see the evidence of what is true, above.

 

1 hour ago, Facethief said:

Seriously, you sound like you’d like Better Than Wolves... ...as a warning, Better Than Wolves might be a little more difficult than this cushy game

So because I know how to reinforce the principles established by the developers of this game in a discussion, I must therefore be suited more for a Minecraft mod than this game.

Interesting, thanks for the suggestion. I do appreciate it. I don't appreciate how your attitude towards me, a member of this community fighting for a suggestion for this game, happens to be in this post, where you try to paint me as making (some ridiculous?) stand that nobody wants to really engage with.

It's pretty unfair behavior to go around telling people nobody wants to "argue" with them when they are in a discussion that is helping keep this game alive and strong. Coupled with pointing them to a supposedly suitable Minecraft mod, and calling this a "cushy" game in comparison, given the context, effectively encourages them to leave this community as if it is not suited for them.

All because they know how to reinforce the principles of Vintage Story in a discussion.

It almost seems as if you are the one who might not be suited for this game, seeing as how not even 24 hours ago, you said:

21 hours ago, Facethief said:

To me it’s uninteresting at worst.

Regarding the early game.

I encourage you to be more supportive and not try to lead people away from this game in its own forum, as others here have suggested their concerns for this game not having very many players yet as it is.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be friends. Good day!  

Edited June 29, 2025 by Rudometkin
Clarity

[Thorfinn]

9 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

You're right, in fact, lightning death is worse.

Only if you, like me, play hardcore. If you play defaults, you just have to go back somewhere on the relatively safe surface to retrieve your stuff.

But if you want to make crop death as likely as lightning death, I have no objection. You are one of the handful I've even heard of it happening to. I'm fine with the same frequency -- weeds never killing my crops. Which is the current game...

9 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Well they already need to babysit their torches, until they get some upgrades.

That's just silly. I'm not sure I've ever babysat a torch, other than when I was a n00b and people made a big deal of it, suggesting I should care about it. Why bother obsessing over 2 grass and a stick?

9 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

I thought about farming mechanics, and the occasional need to leave the main base for long periods of time, and determined with my game-design oriented mind that these farming mechanics can be implemented for the betterment of the game

Awesome. Code it up. I guarantee I'll give it a whirl. I have done so for all other crop re-imaginings. And others' re-imaginings of other gameplay. All except chiseling. I just have not yet encountered any hardcore farming mods I think add enough to the game.

8 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

The vision, which is precisely an "uncompromising wilderness survival sandbox" game.

You are putting way too much emphasis on a blurb. Not all gameplay possibilities are fun.

8 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

Well for one, you are calling it tedium and frustration, not me.

Yes, I am. I, for one, do not enjoy tedium and frustration. I don't really care to play a farming simulator. If I did, there are simulators I could play, or, as I said earlier, I can go outside and do some IRL gardening.

So far as I can tell, the story has nothing at all to do with farming.

8 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

But if someone wants to wind down after work by making works of art, they can play creative for that.

That's so kind and gracious of you.

Edited June 29, 2025 by Thorfinn

[Thorfinn]

30 minutes ago, Rudometkin said:

You don't know what everybody here wants and doesn't want.

Actually, you can get a pretty good idea based on number of people who download various mods. Crops V2 is pretty good, and sounds a lot like what you are asking for. But there's only a few hundred downloads for any given version, and several of those were me. It is self-evidently not what "everybody here wants".

[Rudometkin]

8 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Only if you, like me, play hardcore. If you play defaults, you just have to go back somewhere on the relatively safe surface to retrieve your stuff.

But if you want to make crop death as likely as lightning death, I have no objection. You are one of the handful I've even heard of it happening to. I'm fine with the same frequency -- weeds never killing my crops. Which is the current game...

I think crop death should be more likely than getting struck by lightning. Adding some curable diseases to crops would be my preferred way to go. Of course this is just my suggestion, located in the suggestion forum.

 

11 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

That's just silly. I'm not sure I've ever babysat a torch, other than when I was a n00b and people made a big deal of it, suggesting I should care about it. Why bother obsessing over 2 grass and a stick?

Well that babysit terminology was derived from Lady's post, where (she?) suggested managing your crops would be babysitting them. So I naturally transferred that terminology into managing your torches.

If managing your crops is babysitting, then managing your torches is babysitting. And now funnily enough, you happen to equate babysitting with obsessing!

 

15 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Awesome. Code it up. I guarantee I'll give it a whirl. I have done so for all other crop re-imaginings. And others' re-imaginings of other gameplay. All except chiseling. I just have not yet encountered any hardcore farming mods I think add enough to the game.

I appreciate it. And maybe reconsider chiseling, man! I haven't done it yet, (the first world I'm in doesn't have chiseling - wilderness survival), but I think I'll love it for the customizability.

 

17 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

You are putting way too much emphasis on a blurb.

Or, you are not taking the official game description seriously enough, and I am.

 

18 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Not all gameplay possibilities are fun.

Of course.

 

18 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Yes, I am. I, for one, do not enjoy tedium and frustration.

I wouldn't expect people to. But this goes without saying, what some call tedium and frustration, others call fun.

I was introduced to Vintage Story because I was discussing how torches should burn out in Minecraft. Countless people argued just how ridiculous, tedious, and frustrating that would be for them.

Now I'm in a Vintage Story forum, where Vintage Story players are talking about how having to keep your crops alive in an uncompromising wilderness survival game would be frustrating and tedious for them.

Torches should sometimes lose their spark in this uncompromising wilderness survival game, I think all of us here can find common ground in that.

Where we disagree, is whether plants should also sometimes lose their spark in this uncompromising wilderness survival game.

The difference is miniscule looking at it from this angle. It begins to amaze me how this is such a fought against suggestion.