Farming overhaul!

[Enjen]

1 minute ago, traugdor said:

Because that is YOUR CHOICE. In my subtext, I said "being forced". If this kind of micromanagement of the base were in the vanilla game, those who do not enjoy that type of gameplay would be turned off by it, no doubt, but if it's a requirement for the playthrough to even succeed, then it needs to be something that can be enjoyed by everyone. CHOOSING to be the base mom is fine. I don't have a problem with that. But like Thorfinn doesn't enjoy chiseling, I don't enjoy base mom-ing. Why should your choice be my default?

I apologize, I did disregard your comment of "being forced", that's my bad. On that note, I'm not implying my choice should be the default I was just countering your comment about it not being fun. Like I've mentioned before I'd be scared of a Farming Overhaul if the idea were implemented as is and not refined and balanced for all levels of progressions. From beginning, middle and End game. 

Although after giving it more thought I don't understand what you mean specifically by being forced? Alot of mechanics are present that I supposed "Force" players to play a certain way. I think it's up to the player to see the available systems in-game and play how they want to play. With that being said, I don't think it's the job of the game to cater to every type of player. Not saying that's what you're saying but did want to bring that up.

7 minutes ago, traugdor said:

but if it's a requirement for the playthrough to even succeed,

Genuine question: is farming a requirement for a playthrough to succeed as the game is now? Could someone do a Carnivore diet and still be fine playing the game? Does the game force the player to farm or does it just make it easier and give variety for food stuffs?

[Rudometkin]

I'm still in the process of catching up, but I wanted to point this out now.

Enjen is showing a rare and highly valuable trait. While I also respect a degree of LadyWYT's responses, Enjen openly admits to this suggestion maybe not being for (him?), yet he is still reinforcing solid fairness within the community in a way that resonates deeply with me.

There is an idea where the more areas some(thing) can be applied, the more valuable it is. Enjen, you are a valuable member in this community, especially this suggestion forum. I think you are doing a great job at being objective. You even root for a suggestion that doesn't necessarily resonate with you personally. Also, with your comments about how we are one community, should never stop the conversations, never stop the ideas, and how you make an effort to bring people together.

I appreciate Enjen here not merely because he happens to side with me on some of this, but because I'm seeing someone who has these great qualities that build up the community and bring unity to it. And frankly he is defending some of my points that seem to be somehow going over some of our heads. That is refreshing to experience.

I, on the other hand, am bad about being abrasive. I tend to be direct in my replies like I am chiseling away at a stone wall, to get through. Sometimes I forget about the person behind the computer screen, I think because I am so focused on addressing the content at hand. I am on my own journey of becoming more easily-digestible, polite and well-rounded. The Lord is working on me in that manner.

 

56 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Wait a sec! There is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!

Thorfinn, there is a stark difference between the two apologies.

I apologized for something I did.

You apologized for something I did.

I can honestly say I apologized for something I did.

You cannot honestly say you apologized for something you did.

 

56 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

He said he apologized for making me feel "threatened", I apologized for making him feel "offended". IN THE VERY SAME QUOTES YOU CITED!

You did not apologize for making me feel offended. You apologized for me taking offense. There is a crucial difference. I'm taking ownership and showing you respect, and you are sorry for what I'm doing.

As Enjen pointed out:

1 hour ago, Enjen said:

Look, I'll just drop it, @Rudometkin. I'm sorry you took offense.

 

1 hour ago, Enjen said:

I'm sorry I made you feel threatened when I suggested "my game-design oriented mind"

This is not "no difference at all".

 

56 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Learn to read for comprehension.

This really backfired on you. You ought to feel a bit silly for that, and apologize to Enjen for mistakenly insulting his reading comprehension. Then, you should feel really good about yourself, for character development. Not many people can show humbleness like that.

Edited June 30, 2025 by Rudometkin

[Teh Pizza Lady]

4 minutes ago, Enjen said:

Genuine question: is farming a requirement for a playthrough to succeed as the game is now? Could someone do a Carnivore diet and still be fine playing the game? Does the game force the player to farm or does it just make it easier and give variety for food stuffs?

I believe a balanced diet is actually required to maintain satiety between meals. Having a bit of fruits, veggies, grains, dairy, and meat all reduce your need to consume MORE meals as time progresses. So you could certainly have a strict carnivore diet, but you'd need to spend a lot of time hunting or taking care of livestock... which would require even more gathering from wild sources that don't replenish. So having livestock is probably out of the question given that they need to eat a fair bit in order to reproduce. Hunting it is. I guess if you just wanted to eat pots of redmeat stew or bites of charred bushmeat with whatever random foraged bits you could gather tossed in, then by my guest! But it's far from optimal gameplay in that regard.

Food is necessary to play the game, unlike other block games we know and have mixed feelings about. Thus the methods of obtaining that food need to be reliable and rewarding for the efforts. Minimal effort should produce minimal reward. Increasing the effort required should substantially increase the reward, but so far none of the OP's posts nor the posts from supporters of the idea have suggested an increased reward for the increased effort -- Strike One. Introducing random crop death reduces the reliability of farming crops -- Strike Two. And honestly the attitude of others who have supported the idea is enough for it to be three strikes against the idea so I'm out. Improve upon the other two strikes and we may have a fair mod suggestion, but I would still be wary of encouraging it to be incorporated into the base game.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

4 minutes ago, Rudometkin said:

I, on the other hand, am bad about being abrasive. I tend to be direct in my replies like I am chiseling away at a stone wall, to get through. Sometimes I forget about the person behind the computer screen, I think because I am so focused on addressing the content at hand. I am on my own journey of becoming more easily-digestible, polite and well-rounded. The Lord is working on me in that manner.

given the subject matter at hand. I believe some well-worded apologies may be in order then.

I for one am not sorry for what I said. The way you worded things was just... bad and deserved to be called out. However if you can be civil to others, then my beef with you is ended.

[Enjen]

8 minutes ago, traugdor said:

I believe a balanced diet is actually required to maintain satiety between meals. Having a bit of fruits, veggies, grains, dairy, and meat all reduce your need to consume MORE meals as time progresses. So you could certainly have a strict carnivore diet, but you'd need to spend a lot of time hunting or taking care of livestock... which would require even more gathering from wild sources that don't replenish. So having livestock is probably out of the question given that they need to eat a fair bit in order to reproduce. Hunting it is. I guess if you just wanted to eat pots of redmeat stew or bites of charred bushmeat with whatever random foraged bits you could gather tossed in, then by my guest! But it's far from optimal gameplay in that regard.

I see! I must've glossed over this at some point. That's probably why I have to eat so often! I've eaten nothing but berries and Vegetable stews 
 

8 minutes ago, traugdor said:

Food is necessary to play the game, unlike other block games we know and have mixed feelings about.

preeeaaach hahaha that's the truth
 

8 minutes ago, traugdor said:

Increasing the effort required should substantially increase the reward, but so far none of the OP's posts nor the posts from supporters of the idea have suggested an increased reward for the increased effort -- Strike One.

This is false actually! Initially yes there was not increase or reward and seemed to only increase the complexity for complexities sake, however Rudometkin did suggest (this morning in fact) that those who don't play into the systems will still receive crops, but their yield would be average and someone who uses the system to it's fullest would reap much more for their hard work. That is, if I understood it correctly.

Here's the quote: 

11 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

In a nutshell, keep your plants watered properly, not too much, not too little, lay mulch, use high quality soil, separate your farmland from wild grass, lay some preventative concoctions that could last several months, (or perhaps longer, if there is desire to implement higher quality pesticides), and you will be preventing all plant death and weeds. You will need access to trees, halite ore, saltwater, and the right technological advancements to have the full scoop. The full scoop can keep a farm in perfect condition for say, roughly up to 3 months. Miss any of these steps, and you're beginning to farm with risks. Implementation of this farming overhaul package could aim for players to roughly harvest 75% of their crops if they totally ignore the new special mechanics, meaning the avid farmers are rewarded with 25% bonus crops for taking special care. Ultimately, harvest for the players who ignore the new special mechanics are receiving some less harvest, as you simply suggested as a quick tweak, already. Is this all fair?

 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

16 minutes ago, Enjen said:

This is false actually! Initially yes there was not increase or reward and seemed to only increase the complexity for complexities sake, however Rudometkin did suggest (this morning in fact) that those who don't play into the systems will still receive crops, but their yield would be average and someone who uses the system to it's fullest would reap much more for their hard work. That is, if I understood it correctly.

in order for this to work... 

Those who do NOT play into the suggested systems shouldn't have their gameplay affected negatively. Like with making steel, you can still use tier 1 refractory bricks, but you'll have to replace them very frequently. By putting in the time and effort to make tier 3 bricks you can skip the brick making phase after a while. An increased effort produces an increased reward (time savings. if the player is rewarded with time, then it is still a reward). You still get the same amount of steel, but you can start making more sooner! By not playing into the brick tier system, you are not punished, but playing into it gives a better reward!

How would the suggested system reward the players for the increased effort? Again, NOT playing into the system shouldn't impact players negatively in comparison to how the systems work today. In other words, if this was rolled out into the game now, if I change nothing with how my farms are managed, then I should be able to expect the same harvest as before. Increasing my farming effort should increase my reward either by saving me time later, giving me a bigger harvest or something else that is sure to be useful in the game.

I appreciate your candor and willingness to discuss this, but these are questions that should have been answered from the first first post... and weren't. If the person suggesting a thing doesn't give all the information, we can't assume they know what they're talking about!

Edited June 30, 2025 by traugdor

[Rudometkin]

23 minutes ago, traugdor said:

in order for this to work... 

Those who do NOT play into the suggested systems shouldn't have their gameplay affected negatively. Like with making steel, you can still use tier 1 refractory bricks, but you'll have to replace them very frequently. By putting in the time and effort to make tier 3 bricks you can skip the brick making phase after a while. An increased effort produces an increased reward (time savings. if the player is rewarded with time, then it is still a reward). You still get the same amount of steel, but you can start making more sooner! By not playing into the brick tier system, you are not punished, but playing into it gives a better reward!

How would the suggested system reward the players for the increased effort? Again, NOT playing into the system shouldn't impact players negatively in comparison to how the systems work today. In other words, if this was rolled out into the game now, if I change nothing with how my farms are managed, then I should be able to expect the same harvest as before. Increasing my farming effort should increase my reward either by saving me time later, giving me a bigger harvest or something else that is sure to be useful in the game.

I appreciate your candor and willingness to discuss this, but these are questions that should have been answered from the first first post... and weren't. If the person suggesting a thing doesn't give all the information, we can't assume they know what they're talking about!

This is the danger/fallacy of gripping onto an early access game too early that I warned about. You are at the point where you seem to be demanding any changes that are made to Vintage Story be precisely balanced according to the early access game that is in heavy development.

Here is the quote, please give the point justice by reading it carefully:

• "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."

The game is not finished. Balancing is not necessarily finished. So I am not compelled to worship the current balance system.

Edited June 30, 2025 by Rudometkin
Boldness for emphasis

[Enjen]

18 minutes ago, traugdor said:

Those who do NOT play into the suggested systems shouldn't have their gameplay affected negatively. Like with making steel, you can still use tier 1 refractory bricks, but you'll have to replace them very frequently. By putting in the time and effort to make tier 3 bricks you can skip the brick making phase after a while. An increased effort produces an increased reward (time savings. if the player is rewarded with time, then it is still a reward). You still get the same amount of steel, but you can start making more sooner! By not playing into the brick tier system, you are not punished, but playing into it gives a better reward!

Ahhh I understand what you're saying. Then in that case the expanded Farming could then cater to those more dedicated to improving their farms while Still maintaining the current system of farming. a Sort of Basic and Advanced Farming mechanic at the same time. To activate "Advanced Farming" Maybe there is a certain Temporal Dust (or something lololol) that your spread on your farmland that makes weeds start to grow and diseases more prominent BUT your yields are MUCH higher because your crops are "Temporally Tampered" or some other Temporal term lololol
 

21 minutes ago, traugdor said:

I appreciate your candor and willingness to discuss this, but these are questions that should have been answered from the first first post... and weren't. If the person suggesting a thing doesn't give all the information, we can't assume they know what they're talking about

I appreciate you too! And yes! although I don't think @FelixDR has been very active on the forums  it's a good thing we have everyone else here to flesh it out and point out the inconsistencies! 

[Enjen]

9 minutes 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. In my perspective, I finally found a game with a backbone, a strong foundation, that is not so dependent on its potential fanbase.

This part! It's good to have critique, objections and concerns, but it doesn't invalidate it. Not Every idea can be implemented, but we should treat each idea with its own respect. I also agree with the notion that "(Vintage Story) is not so dependent on its potential fanbase". It's thrived this many years already and continues to grow! 

I was just going to add a reaction but I've reached my reaction limit for the day 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Enjen

[Facethief]

5 minutes ago, Enjen said:

I was just going to add a reaction but I've reached my reaction limit for the day 

It refreshes over time.

[Rudometkin]

46 minutes ago, traugdor said:

NOT playing into the system shouldn't impact players negatively in comparison to how the systems work today.

I was just re-reading your point here, as I often study a lot.

It turns out, in all fairness, this is you blatantly asserting that any suggestions concerning 'rebalance' are invalid.

This is very close-minded. It only allows the possibility for Vintage Story to get only easier in the future. Since, if we made the game more difficult in any degree at any point, we will be breaking your rule of 'impacting players negatively in comparison to how the systems work today'. So it is demonstrably an unbalanced demand you are imposing on us here.

Your game design principles need a rebalance.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

28 minutes ago, Enjen said:

To activate "Advanced Farming" Maybe there is a certain Temporal Dust (or something lololol) that your spread on your farmland that makes weeds start to grow and diseases more prominent BUT your yields are MUCH higher because your crops are "Temporally Tampered" or some other Temporal term lololol

or just increased yields overall, reducing the amount of time even needed to farm for things like grains and veggies.

[Enjen]

4 minutes ago, traugdor said:

or just increased yields overall, reducing the amount of time even needed to farm for things like grains and veggies.

But then we'd have to ask what's the point? I'm sure the overhaul aims to add complexity and reward those that are more dedicated to their farms. To be frank, it's sounds like you'd be okay with the game just becoming easier? please correct me if I'm reading into that incorrectly.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

2 minutes ago, Rudometkin said:

this is you blatantly asserting that any suggestions concerning 'rebalance' are invalid.

I’ll only respond to this once, as I’m finding it difficult to approach any conversation with you constructively at the current moment.

'Rebalancing' suggests that something is currently unbalanced. If you can demonstrate that’s the case, I’m open to reconsidering my perspective. As it stands, I believe the balance works well for most players and doesn’t require adjustment. Naturally, any suggestions that disrupt already-balanced systems would be viewed as personal preference rather than an objective need for change. Interpreting this as me invalidating your opinion is your own misinterpretation of what was clearly written. Sorry if that offends you.

To avoid further misinterpretations of my words, please give my words justice by reading them carefully before responding. I guarantee you, that I meant precisely and only what I said and nothing else. If there are lines between which to read, don't.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

9 minutes ago, Enjen said:

But then we'd have to ask what's the point? I'm sure the overhaul aims to add complexity and reward those that are more dedicated to their farms. To be frank, it's sounds like you'd be okay with the game just becoming easier? please correct me if I'm reading into that incorrectly.

I appreciate you asking instead of just assuming.

Adding complexity doesn't necessarily increase fun. It's been pointed out several times by others that realism does not equate fun in a video game. If the game were realistic, then we wouldn't have temporal storms or drifters or anything else, just about. The landscape wouldn't even be blocks. At some point you have to ask yourself if the added complexity has a point and if the point is purely just to make farming *harder* then the complexity exists for the sole purpose of existing. Anything that exists fore the sole purpose of existing is useless and needs to be trimmed out. If you want less crops then plant less crops or something, lol, idk, but forcing players to spend more of their precious time on something means less time spent elsewhere. Less time spent adventuring, less time spent crossing the wastelands to get to chapter locations, less time spent working on other things that desperately need attention like the forges, or proper food storage so the hard work spent in the fields doesn't go to waste!

Complexity for complexity's sake is just bad video game design.

EDIT: Bear in mind that this is largely intended to be a single player game with everything being able to be accomplished by a single player. So if you want to be a base mom, then go ahead, but you won't get anything else done in the game.

Edited June 30, 2025 by traugdor

[Enjen]

1 minute ago, traugdor said:

Adding complexity doesn't necessarily increase fun.

I agree! I was told of a Disease Mod (no ill will to the creator) that does not sound fun in the slightest. But I wasn't equating Complexity to fun. Nor was I alluding for it to add realism. OP did suggest these ideas based on his real life experience in farming, but it doesn't need to be "realistic".  It's a system that can be added for those that are dedicated to their farms. Not affecting the "Basic" level of farming that would be equivalent to the system in place today.

4 minutes ago, traugdor said:

but forcing players to spend more of their precious time on something means less time spent elsewhere.

That's not it lol respectfully I'm implying it'd be catered to those who like the farming. Basic farming would essentially be the same. and in the same respect this could be applied to other overhauls as well! Weapon Smithing, Claymaking, Cooking, Herbalism (when implemented). I hope I'm making sense lol

It's not just being added just for the sake of adding it. It's giving a more advanced layer for those that really enjoy that specific Profession.

I will note, what I have been explaining seems to have branched off differently from what Rudometkin was supporting. If implemented like this I think it'd work in most peoples favor.

Thoughts?

[Rudometkin]

8 minutes ago, traugdor said:

'Rebalancing' suggests that something is currently unbalanced.

Not necessarily. That is an oversimplification in this context.

Because in game design, there is no objective standard in balancing.

Suppose you design your own game. Fans love it. Then, you decide to update it with a rebalance. "I think it was too easy, players were flying past cool mechanics that I implemented, so I would like them to spend some time in it, so I'm making it a bit more difficult and complex."

Cool.

But then, you get that one angry fan, who throws your words back at you: "The game wasn't unbalanced! NOT playing into the system shouldn't impact players negatively in comparison to how the systems worked before your silly update!"

You would have the right to say, "I don't care if you don't think the game was unbalanced. I wanted to rebalance it." You would be totally valid in the rebalance, and your rebalance did not mean the game was simply unbalanced, maybe you just wanted to shift the average player experience with a rebalance.

 

You said:

1 hour ago, traugdor said:

NOT playing into the system shouldn't impact players negatively in comparison to how the systems work today.

I'm over here wondering, what are you going to do when Tyron makes something harder in Vintage Story?

Tell him he's not supposed to rebalance his game?

[Enjen]

2 minutes ago, Rudometkin said:

Not necessarily. That is an oversimplification in this context.

Because in game design, there is no objective standard in balancing.

Suppose you design your own game. Fans love it. Then, you decide to update it with a rebalance. "I think it was too easy, players were flying past cool mechanics that I implemented, so I would like them to spend some time in it, so I'm making it a bit more difficult and complex."

Cool.

But then, you get that one angry fan, who throws your words back at you: "The game wasn't unbalanced! NOT playing into the system shouldn't impact players negatively in comparison to how the systems worked before your silly update!"

You would have the right to say, "I don't care if you don't think the game was unbalanced. I wanted to rebalance it." You would be totally valid in the rebalance, and your rebalance did not mean the game was simply unbalanced, maybe you just wanted to shift the average player experience with a rebalance.

 

You said:

I'm over here wondering, what are you going to do when Tyron makes something harder in Vintage Story?

Tell him he's not supposed to rebalance his game?

I'd like to add that "re" just means to do again. Rebalance just means to balance again. Often times a rebalance does follow an unbalanced mechanic but it's not a prerequisite. As far as I know at least.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 minute ago, Enjen said:

That's not it lol respectfully I'm implying it'd be catered to those who like the farming. Basic farming would essentially be the same. and in the same respect this could be applied to other overhauls as well! Weapon Smithing, Claymaking, Cooking, Herbalism (when implemented). I hope I'm making sense lol

It's not just being added just for the sake of adding it. It's giving a more advanced layer for those that really enjoy that specific Profession.

I will note, what I have been explaining seems to have branched off differently from what Rudometkin was supporting. If implemented like this I think it'd work in most peoples favor.

Thoughts?

I can kind of see where you're coming from...? You can make weapons without smithing (casting or lapping is involved instead). You can still eat without clay making, cooking is probably optional since you can just consume wild fruits and veggies directly.. it makes sense I guess, but given how farming is something that I consider to be required for successful gameplay (flax is required to make some types of bandages, sails for the sailboat, and for the windmill) I am still wary of making it too complex for fear of punishing the casual player. Drifter underwear is just too unreliable a source of flax fibers for me to consider it any sort of viable alternative in any capacity without a mod to increase mob loot drops.

 

However...

 

Smithing *IS* required if you want iron or steel weapons and armor for chapter 2.

Claymaking *IS* required if you want iron at all or if you want food to last more than a couple of days before having to throw it out.

Cooking *IS* required if you want to have food in the winter.

By the same logic, farming is required if you want bandages, sails, etc. Not even for the grains category aspect of eating, but just for basic necessities. Any changes to the current farming system just need to make sense. Random crop death doesn't make sense in this game. There needs to be a reason for it. I'm not saying there isn't, just that it needs to be a good reason outside of adjusting things to match personal preference. That is what mods are for.

5 minutes ago, Enjen said:

I'd like to add that "re" just means to do again. Rebalance just means to balance again. Often times a rebalance does follow an unbalanced mechanic but it's not a prerequisite. As far as I know at least.

Outside of environmental changes, if something is already balanced, then rebalancing could introduce unnecessary complexity or even disrupt the existing equilibrium, which several have already pointed out could very well be the case. If players are ignoring something, then it suggest a lack of balance, so it should be adjusted. If new content is introduced, then it could upset established systems which might need adjusting. If a QOL improvement is made, it might unbalance something that would need to be fixed. If the game devs' philosophy changes, then it could prompt a rebalance if the game isn't properly reflecting their vision for it.

Lacking those things, the rebalancing of farming is basically useless, because as I've stayed before, it's fine the way it is, not overly complex, not boringly easy. It's a bowl of Baby Bear's porridge. These changes threaten to upset the balance, not fix it.

[7embre]

What a wild ride this thread is... First of all, let's not forget that the purpose of any game is to be fun and/or enjoyable.

 

Personally, I really like @LadyWYT's suggestion/take on fields becoming dirt blocks over time when left fallow for an extended period of time, hoe right now is a single-time use tool, plus, you can't move any tilled soil without using mods (understandable, as it leads to a possibility of ignoring soil nutrient mechanic altogether). Perhaps this direction needs some thoughts to it. Albeit thought-out simplicity most of the time is more fun to engage with and better in general than unnecessary complication in a vast sea of sandbox game's possibilities (at least based on my perception and of people I know).

From on my experience, if you're trying to build something nice (and I really enjoy building in this game), the amount of chores you have to do on your base just for, well, existing, is already big enough to introduce any kind of complication to any of them. Even the implementation of necessety of tilling the field after each harvest will be met a lot of negativity, as it's not fun to them, even if it's realistic - you have to prepare the field. In my latest playthrough I'm on my 1st year june, and still have not managed to finish all the chores there are after visiting first story location earlier in february. Like tending the bees, animals, the fields, trees, berry harvest, food preservation, cooking, cattail harvest, iron blooms, bloomeries, a bit of a resource gathering, leather making, cooking candles for lanterns, forging for necessary tools and for some gears, moving goodies to a proper storage room, making said storage room, building a house which isn't just a kitchen with beds in the basement, building a proper forge (it's still in a state of "windmill is bare, I have dirt blocks above molds, forges and anvils, and everything just lies on the ground on vessels, reed baskets or in a bazzilion of crates"). And that's with the fact that we have 3-6 people on any playing session. It's summer already, I have and I want to go and explore things, trade for gears to buy elks for everyone, heck, even look for iron, as our previous deposit is about to end. Don't even make me start talking about steel.

 

In regards to @Rudometkin's latest suggestion with viruses, pests and fungi killing/rendering inefficent both the soil and a crop, I don't really see it in the base game, as it implies too much focus on a single game mechanic and dealing with it, which is fun only to farming enthusiasts/professionals in the field (I'll cover that later in the same post). It will also discourage players from making terra preta, as it may just become useless one day due to some RNG shenanigans. Plus, don't forget, we're in the middle ages, as the game implies. Don't force modern day's technologies and discoveries into the game, it would only lead to a loss of game's identity (having that gamedesigner mindset should make it easier for you to understand this argument).

Implementing thirst mechanic (as a supposed challenge for hot climates) as another bar you have to keep your eyes on, with probable punishment in a form of a heatstroke and coma for a few hours; player diseases, which you can't really avoid and it'll force you into inefficiency for a few ingame days; some combat-oriented players wanting dark souls-esque combat system, which I find hilarious in a sandbox game - just imagine exchanging vulnerability time frames with a freaking wolf, dodge-rolling in the meantime, or stupidly circling with it in anticipation of it's charge. Yes, I played souls games, and I enjoyed them, thank you. I understand what I'm talking about.

That's just a few of the most popular, yet out of game context suggestions, and I didn't even step into the territory of suggestions like proper metallurgy, which essentially will force you into material study (that's a special degree, mind you) and will probably come with an encyclopedia in a handbook, and OP's suggestion falls into this realm, with all these countermeasures to problems it'll introduce. It's not fun when any game mechanic steals agency from the player, forces a player into extensive study, or when game as a whole looks like a bunch of neat, but not interconnected mechanics. It's also not fun when you can't comprehend how the game works, or when it reacts to your input in an unpredictable manner. I really doubt that Tyron's vision for VS lines up with any of it, and some of the suggestions are proposed in a form "I played game A, and I want said feature from it in game B" which is just lazy in my opinion, as most of the time it doesn't consider how it'll fit in the current VS gamedesign whatsoever.

I'm not saying that this suggestion is irrelevant due to said reasons, and I acknowledge the fact that it may appeal to some. Just not to the majority of the playerbase, and thus should be optional as a game mode, or left to modding realm. That's what @traugdor, @Thorfinn and LadyWYT meant too. And yeah.. sorry guys for bringing you back here.

Also I'm not discouraging you from suggesting, I'm simply being open and honest as you were writing yours.

 

In conclusion, I can't say for sure if current farming system should be more difficult than it's now. Sure, it might get some love from the devs with introduction of birds, which Tyron really want to have in game, but Vintage Story is already a game with learning curve steep enough, encouraging people to read the handbook guides for several hours. Most of the playerbase are townsfolk, and, for obvious reasons, they had no experience whatsoever growing stuff, and that's supported by numerous examples of people going blind into the game and being mindboggled by the sole fact that fields need rotating. It's not common knowledge anymore.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

20 minutes ago, 7embre said:

What a wild ride this thread is... First of all, let's not forget that the purpose of any game is to be fun and/or enjoyable.

 

Personally, I really like @LadyWYT's suggestion/take on fields becoming dirt blocks over time when left fallow for an extended period of time, hoe right now is a single-time use tool, plus, you can't move any tilled soil without using mods (understandable, as it leads to a possibility of ignoring soil nutrient mechanic altogether). Perhaps this direction needs some thoughts to it. Albeit thought-out simplicity most of the time is more fun to engage with and better in general than unnecessary complication in a vast sea of sandbox game's possibilities (at least based on my perception and of people I know).

From on my experience, if you're trying to build something nice (and I really enjoy building in this game), the amount of chores you have to do on your base just for, well, existing, is already big enough to introduce any kind of complication to any of them. Even the implementation of necessety of tilling the field after each harvest will be met a lot of negativity, as it's not fun to them, even if it's realistic - you have to prepare the field. In my latest playthrough I'm on my 1st year june, and still have not managed to finish all the chores there are after visiting first story location earlier in february. Like tending the bees, animals, the fields, trees, berry harvest, food preservation, cooking, cattail harvest, iron blooms, bloomeries, a bit of a resource gathering, leather making, cooking candles for lanterns, forging for necessary tools and for some gears, moving goodies to a proper storage room, making said storage room, building a house which isn't just a kitchen with beds in the basement, building a proper forge (it's still in a state of "windmill is bare, I have dirt blocks above molds, forges and anvils, and everything just lies on the ground on vessels, reed baskets or in a bazzilion of crates"). And that's with the fact that we have 3-6 people on any playing session. It's summer already, I have and I want to go and explore things, trade for gears to buy elks for everyone, heck, even look for iron, as our previous deposit is about to end. Don't even make me start talking about steel.

 

In regards to @Rudometkin's latest suggestion with viruses, pests and fungi killing/rendering inefficent both the soil and a crop, I don't really see it in the base game, as it implies too much focus on a single game mechanic and dealing with it, which is fun only to farming enthusiasts/professionals in the field (I'll cover that later in the same post). It will also discourage players from making terra preta, as it may just become useless one day due to some RNG shenanigans. Plus, don't forget, we're in the middle ages, as the game implies. Don't force modern day's technologies and discoveries into the game, it would only lead to a loss of game's identity (having that gamedesigner mindset should make it easier for you to understand this argument).

Implementing thirst mechanic (as a supposed challenge for hot climates) as another bar you have to keep your eyes on, with probable punishment in a form of a heatstroke and coma for a few hours; player diseases, which you can't really avoid and it'll force you into inefficiency for a few ingame days; some combat-oriented players wanting dark souls-esque combat system, which I find hilarious in a sandbox game - just imagine exchanging vulnerability time frames with a freaking wolf, dodge-rolling in the meantime, or stupidly circling with it in anticipation of it's charge. Yes, I played souls games, and I enjoyed them, thank you. I understand what I'm talking about.

That's just a few of the most popular, yet out of game context suggestions, and I didn't even step into the territory of suggestions like proper metallurgy, which essentially will force you into material study (that's a special degree, mind you) and will probably come with an encyclopedia in a handbook, and OP's suggestion falls into this realm, with all these countermeasures to problems it'll introduce. It's not fun when any game mechanic steals agency from the player, forces a player into extensive study, or when game as a whole looks like a bunch of neat, but not interconnected mechanics. It's also not fun when you can't comprehend how the game works, or when it reacts to your input in an unpredictable manner. I really doubt that Tyron's vision for VS lines up with any of it, and some of the suggestions are proposed in a form "I played game A, and I want said feature from it in game B" which is just lazy in my opinion, as most of the time it doesn't consider how it'll fit in the current VS gamedesign whatsoever.

I'm not saying that this suggestion is irrelevant due to said reasons, and I acknowledge the fact that it may appeal to some. Just not to the majority of the playerbase, and thus should be optional as a game mode, or left to modding realm. That's what @traugdor, @Thorfinn and LadyWYT meant too. And yeah.. sorry guys for bringing you back here.

Also I'm not discouraging you from suggesting, I'm simply being open and honest as you were writing yours.

 

In conclusion, I can't say for sure if current farming system should be more difficult than it's now. Sure, it might get some love from the devs with introduction of birds, which Tyron really want to have in game, but Vintage Story is already a game with learning curve steep enough, encouraging people to read the handbook guides for several hours. Most of the playerbase are townsfolk, and, for obvious reasons, they had no experience whatsoever growing stuff, and that's supported by numerous examples of people going blind into the game and being mindboggled by the sole fact that fields need rotating. It's not common knowledge anymore.

I keep reading this and I don't think much more needs to be said at this point. What a mic-drop moment.

[Enjen]

47 minutes ago, 7embre said:

What a wild ride this thread is... First of all, let's not forget that the purpose of any game is to be fun and/or enjoyable.

 

Personally, I really like @LadyWYT's suggestion/take on fields becoming dirt blocks over time when left fallow for an extended period of time, hoe right now is a single-time use tool, plus, you can't move any tilled soil without using mods (understandable, as it leads to a possibility of ignoring soil nutrient mechanic altogether). Perhaps this direction needs some thoughts to it. Albeit thought-out simplicity most of the time is more fun to engage with and better in general than unnecessary complication in a vast sea of sandbox game's possibilities (at least based on my perception and of people I know).

From on my experience, if you're trying to build something nice (and I really enjoy building in this game), the amount of chores you have to do on your base just for, well, existing, is already big enough to introduce any kind of complication to any of them. Even the implementation of necessety of tilling the field after each harvest will be met a lot of negativity, as it's not fun to them, even if it's realistic - you have to prepare the field. In my latest playthrough I'm on my 1st year june, and still have not managed to finish all the chores there are after visiting first story location earlier in february. Like tending the bees, animals, the fields, trees, berry harvest, food preservation, cooking, cattail harvest, iron blooms, bloomeries, a bit of a resource gathering, leather making, cooking candles for lanterns, forging for necessary tools and for some gears, moving goodies to a proper storage room, making said storage room, building a house which isn't just a kitchen with beds in the basement, building a proper forge (it's still in a state of "windmill is bare, I have dirt blocks above molds, forges and anvils, and everything just lies on the ground on vessels, reed baskets or in a bazzilion of crates"). And that's with the fact that we have 3-6 people on any playing session. It's summer already, I have and I want to go and explore things, trade for gears to buy elks for everyone, heck, even look for iron, as our previous deposit is about to end. Don't even make me start talking about steel.

 

In regards to @Rudometkin's latest suggestion with viruses, pests and fungi killing/rendering inefficent both the soil and a crop, I don't really see it in the base game, as it implies too much focus on a single game mechanic and dealing with it, which is fun only to farming enthusiasts/professionals in the field (I'll cover that later in the same post). It will also discourage players from making terra preta, as it may just become useless one day due to some RNG shenanigans. Plus, don't forget, we're in the middle ages, as the game implies. Don't force modern day's technologies and discoveries into the game, it would only lead to a loss of game's identity (having that gamedesigner mindset should make it easier for you to understand this argument).

Implementing thirst mechanic (as a supposed challenge for hot climates) as another bar you have to keep your eyes on, with probable punishment in a form of a heatstroke and coma for a few hours; player diseases, which you can't really avoid and it'll force you into inefficiency for a few ingame days; some combat-oriented players wanting dark souls-esque combat system, which I find hilarious in a sandbox game - just imagine exchanging vulnerability time frames with a freaking wolf, dodge-rolling in the meantime, or stupidly circling with it in anticipation of it's charge. Yes, I played souls games, and I enjoyed them, thank you. I understand what I'm talking about.

That's just a few of the most popular, yet out of game context suggestions, and I didn't even step into the territory of suggestions like proper metallurgy, which essentially will force you into material study (that's a special degree, mind you) and will probably come with an encyclopedia in a handbook, and OP's suggestion falls into this realm, with all these countermeasures to problems it'll introduce. It's not fun when any game mechanic steals agency from the player, forces a player into extensive study, or when game as a whole looks like a bunch of neat, but not interconnected mechanics. It's also not fun when you can't comprehend how the game works, or when it reacts to your input in an unpredictable manner. I really doubt that Tyron's vision for VS lines up with any of it, and some of the suggestions are proposed in a form "I played game A, and I want said feature from it in game B" which is just lazy in my opinion, as most of the time it doesn't consider how it'll fit in the current VS gamedesign whatsoever.

I'm not saying that this suggestion is irrelevant due to said reasons, and I acknowledge the fact that it may appeal to some. Just not to the majority of the playerbase, and thus should be optional as a game mode, or left to modding realm. That's what @traugdor, @Thorfinn and LadyWYT meant too. And yeah.. sorry guys for bringing you back here.

Also I'm not discouraging you from suggesting, I'm simply being open and honest as you were writing yours.

 

In conclusion, I can't say for sure if current farming system should be more difficult than it's now. Sure, it might get some love from the devs with introduction of birds, which Tyron really want to have in game, but Vintage Story is already a game with learning curve steep enough, encouraging people to read the handbook guides for several hours. Most of the playerbase are townsfolk, and, for obvious reasons, they had no experience whatsoever growing stuff, and that's supported by numerous examples of people going blind into the game and being mindboggled by the sole fact that fields need rotating. It's not common knowledge anymore.

Wow! Yes like @traugdor said mic-drop moment! Very well put and concise.

[Rudometkin]

It is evident some of us take an uncompromising, wilderness, survival, sandbox game, and think it should give us zero consequence when we neglect a farm for up to 3 months.

On the surface, it is hilarious to see us grasp on and fight for it.

In a way, it's a losing battle. With Vintage Story, we are literally told to "Relive the advent of human civilization", and people are fighting against the idea of needing to tend to your crops.

Laughable. I think some of us don't appreciate what Vintage Story actually is.

[Zane Mordien]

I love new ideas, but I would vote no on this one if I had a vote. I'm not against something to complicate farming a little more but weeds and all of that gets old fast. Wurm  has that type of farming and for a short time it is fun, but after awhile it is just a grind. 

[Rudometkin]

I notice a very common objection here is, "This would be tedious and force the player to spend extra time on something they may not necessarily enjoy"

Whereas this doesn't have to be an issue. (No matter how much this is brought up, the exhausting stonewall response still seems to be, "this would be tedious and force the player to spend extra time on something they may not necessarily enjoy", as if the majority here has stopped considering the suggestions in this thread, but continue to reply regardless.) There can be solutions added with the mechanics, and even bonuses. With weeds and diseases, they can be preventable, and higher quality crops can also be introduced if the right amount of extra effort was put into the farm. It can still be possible to ignore the new farming mechanics and still produce a reasonable harvest.