Here's a question: is opening a door more important than applying a heal or eating?

[Broccoli Clock]

Some of you, just due to the title, may have picked up where this is going. For others, using items in your hand requires you to right click while that item is highlighted on your toolbar. However, right click is also the button you use to interact with items, for example doors.

Now, in the current setup, the door takes priority. Doesn't matter what you have in your hand, if you are facing the door, it will open. So again, the question I have is opening a door more important than applying meds or eating? In my mind, the user has specifically switched to that item, wants to use it, so let that be the priority. The door can be 5 blocks away from you and it'll still be interacted with.

There is, I am sure, some counter argument about how if the user looks at a door, then their intent is to open that door, which I feel doesn't really add up, because at worse if you have a heal in your hand it'll just start with the animation which is slow enough for you to cancel whereas opening a door is pretty instant (and can have immediate effect dependent on what's the other side of it).

Now you could say, BC, this is just a skill issue you need to 'git gud' and to be fair you are not necessarily wrong, doesn't stop me feeling the priority is wrong though.

 

What's the thoughts here, it's not a big deal, and can be worked around but thought I'd find out how others see it.

 

 

[Shoom]

I suspect right-click gets disabled when looking at a door to prevent you from placing placeable blocks in front of it when trying to open them.

Imagine how annoying it would be, you're holding a dirt block and trying to run indoors from a shiver or something and as you open the door you simultaneously put the dirt block in front of yourself, blocking you out. 

[Broccoli Clock]

24 minutes ago, Shoom said:

Imagine how annoying it would be, you're holding a dirt block and trying to run indoors from a shiver or something and as you open the door you simultaneously put the dirt block in front of yourself, blocking you out. 

OMG, so many times!  

Which is weird right? Placing a block, fine, that takes priority, while healing yourself doesn't.

 

[Never Jhonsen]

I see no reason for eating and healing to be above door usage.

If I'm looking at a door, I usually want it operated.

I'd rather be annoyed cause I opened a door when I wanted to eat, than get attacked because my Seraph decided to heal instead of opening the door.

[Broccoli Clock]

3 minutes ago, Never Jhonsen said:

I see no reason for eating and healing to be above door usage.

If you have specifically swapped to a healing item, then the game interacts with something 5 metres away, I'm not sure that's a "logical result".

11 minutes ago, Never Jhonsen said:

If I'm looking at a door, I usually want it operated.

I'd rather be annoyed cause I opened a door when I wanted to eat, than get attacked because my Seraph decided to heal instead of opening the door.

I understand the point being made, but the game already works that way. As @Shoom pointed out you can place a block while looking at a door. Do you think that mechanism should be changed as placing a block (and thus blocking the door you want to open) will get your Seraph attacked, instead of opening the door?

IMO, I do think that should be changed, if the game is going to give the door a higher priority over things (that you selected) in your hand then it needs to be consistent.

[Never Jhonsen]

23 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

As @Shoom pointed out you can place a block while looking at a door.

1 hour ago, Shoom said:

I suspect right-click gets disabled when looking at a door to prevent you from placing placeable blocks in front of it when trying to open them.

Imagine how annoying it would be, you're holding a dirt block and trying to run indoors from a shiver or something and as you open the door you simultaneously put the dirt block in front of yourself, blocking you out. 

Shoom did NOT say that, nor does the game work that way. Clicking a door whilst holding a dirt block operates the door only, with no block placing.

27 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

I do think that should be changed, if the game is going to give the door a higher priority over things (that you selected) in your hand then it needs to be consistent

It should be consistent, which is why it is. Looking at a door when using right-click will only open the door, no matter what you're holding.

47 minutes ago, Never Jhonsen said:

I see no reason for eating and healing to be above door usage.

If I'm looking at a door, I usually want it operated.

I'd rather be annoyed cause I opened a door when I wanted to eat, than get attacked because my Seraph decided to heal instead of opening the door.

Everything I said here still stands

[Professor Dragon]

I know that I've been conditioned to:

• Always look at a "dead" block when I have anything in my hand that I wish to interact with eg look at wall or ground to eat food
• Never have a dirt block in my hand and attempt to run through a series of gates

Make of that what you will.

The one that tripped me up just five minutes ago was activating a bed instead of the torch that was in front of it. I know that a family member would instantly (and harshly in my view) feel free to classify that as a "Skill issue."

 

[Scorpixel]

2 hours ago, Professor Dragon said:

The one that tripped me up just five minutes ago was activating a bed instead of the torch that was in front of it. I know that a family member would instantly (and harshly in my view) feel free to classify that as a "Skill issue."

 

I always put my beds in the worst places (next to a quern or stacks of crates) and end-up frantically spasming over my keyboard every time so as to not wake-up in the evening.

I could have a dedicated bedroom, but then run out of space and start filling it too. It's an involuntarily self-imposed purgatory.

[LadyWYT]

Yeah I'm with the "doors/blocks take precedence" crowd. I'd wager that if it were the other way around, then we'd probably see remarks like "I died to monsters outside my house, because the game tried to apply bandages instead of letting me open the door! " Does it make realistic logical sense? Well...yes and no. If you're injured, then of course you want to be treating that injury ASAP. However, unless I'm mistaken, one of the primary rules of first aid is making sure that it's safe to apply medical attention first--ie, make sure that both you and the patient are out of any immediate danger before worrying about the patch job. Same logic applies here--yes, it's important to heal yourself after taking damage, but you need to make sure that you're safe from whatever was attacking you to begin with. That could mean killing it, or it could simply mean just going inside.

[Tom Cantine]

The relative "importance" of these things is always contextual. We can all think of situations where it's more urgent to heal than to open the door, and we can all think of situations where it's more urgent to open (or close!) the door than it is to apply the bandage or eat the food. 

Trying to guess that THIS particular item in your hot bar should change the normal priorities because you're focused on a particular scenario is just a recipe for greater confusion. A more generally applicable principle is ultimately going to be more efficient in the big picture, and arguably, being aware of WHAT YOU HAVE IN HAND is pretty darned important all the time.

For example, I play on a laptop using a trackpad, not a mouse, which means that sometimes if I'm not careful I click with the wrong "button". So if I'm going to talk to a trader, I make sure I do NOT have a weapon in my active hand. Ideally I have RG in that hand or nothing, or occasionally the stack of resin I intend to sell on the Auction House. This ALSO avoids the problem of trying to eat instead of interacting with the trader. (Besides, it's just rude to talk with your mouth full.)

[Professor Dragon]

5 hours ago, cjc813 said:

What an asinine complaint.

Maybe just... Turn a few degrees.

Now, now.  The question was in good faith and looks a reasonable thing to discuss.  

[Krougal]

1 hour ago, cjc813 said:

Is it tho?

It is.

[Broccoli Clock]

On 9/9/2025 at 1:15 PM, Never Jhonsen said:

Shoom did NOT say that, nor does the game work that way. Clicking a door whilst holding a dirt block operates the door only, with no block placing.

I have had situations where a dirt block has been placed right in front of a door, rather than opening the door. Could it be that I wasn't directly aligned at the door and I was just placing a block normally? Possibly, it happened so often that I just assumed that it took precedence. So when replying, I wasn't being disingenuous, I honestly that was what they were referring to.

I asked for opinions and it seems that most are happy with doors taking priority. I would argue that goes against game logic, but that makes no difference if those who play the game are happy enough for it to happen. Especially if this is "how it's always happened" and it's now ingrained in their our playstyle.

Obviously I disagree, hence the thread, but I'm happy to acquiesce..

On 9/9/2025 at 10:36 PM, Tom Cantine said:

The relative "importance" of these things is always contextual. We can all think of situations where it's more urgent to heal than to open the door, and we can all think of situations where it's more urgent to open (or close!) the door than it is to apply the bandage or eat the food.

 

I think this is the key element, context. I would wager, heals are more important that any other (non-weapon) you can have in your hands, which is why I feel there is merit to the question. Admittedly, you do not bleed in this game so it's less time sensitive. If bleeding ever gets introduced I think that shifts the debate somewhat. That said, whatever a serpah is intended to actually be in the game it's not the mythology based one as it can't die... and we all die quite a lot!

 

 

[Krougal]

4 hours ago, Broccoli Clock said:

I think this is the key element, context. I would wager, heals are more important that any other (non-weapon) you can have in your hands, which is why I feel there is merit to the question. Admittedly, you do not bleed in this game so it's less time sensitive. If bleeding ever gets introduced I think that shifts the debate somewhat. That said, whatever a serpah is intended to actually be in the game it's not the mythology based one as it can't die... and we all die quite a lot!

Yes, if we had bleeding it might shift the debate like you said, but I think I'd still prefer it the way it is. Get out the door, shut it, and then heal!

Edited September 12, 2025 by Krougal

[LadyWYT]

8 hours ago, Broccoli Clock said:

That said, whatever a serpah is intended to actually be in the game it's not the mythology based one as it can't die... and we all die quite a lot!

Well technically...in-game seraphs can't actually die either. The respawn mechanic is 100% canon. So the player isn't actually dying, as much as they are getting reset back to a specific point in time.

[Broccoli Clock]

16 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Well technically...in-game seraphs can't actually die either. The respawn mechanic is 100% canon. So the player isn't actually dying, as much as they are getting reset back to a specific point in time.

If you want to get all intellectual and theological, Seraphs simply cannot be hurt. When you say canon, it's not canon within the religious context. That said, as not just an atheist, but an anti-theist, I don't at all consider the "player" I play as, as having any religious affiliation in any way. 

That said, it was my fault for brining up the subject. My bad. I should keep clear of that mythological nonsense.

 

[LadyWYT]

6 hours ago, Broccoli Clock said:

If you want to get all intellectual and theological, Seraphs simply cannot be hurt. When you say canon, it's not canon within the religious context. That said, as not just an atheist, but an anti-theist, I don't at all consider the "player" I play as, as having any religious affiliation in any way. 

That said, it was my fault for brining up the subject. My bad. I should keep clear of that mythological nonsense.

 

It's the game lore, dude. I wasn't talking IRL terms. Seraph, in the context of Vintage Story, refers to humans of the Old World that were altered into something else, hence why they're a bit taller than the human NPCs, with odd-colored skin and certain abilities like respawning. It's canon lore that the player characters can't actually die; they just reset back to a specific state, as it were.

As for why NPCs chose that title, that's up for the players themselves to decide.

[Broccoli Clock]

41 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

It's the game lore, dude. I wasn't talking IRL terms. Seraph, in the context of Vintage Story, refers to humans of the Old World that were altered into something else, hence why they're a bit taller than the human NPCs, with odd-colored skin and certain abilities like respawning. It's canon lore that the player characters can't actually die; they just reset back to a specific state, as it were.

As for why NPCs chose that title, that's up for the players themselves to decide.

Sure, I take the point you are making. Although it's odd to use a very deep lore biblical entity as the name for your player and then not expect people to draw conclusions.

Edited September 13, 2025 by Broccoli Clock

[Krougal]

8 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

Sure, I take the point you are making. Although it's odd to use a very deep lore biblical entity as the name for your player and then not expect people to draw conclusions.

True. I thought it was an odd choice as well.

I have noticed in general that a lot of things don't translate from German into English very well, or at least in so far as they can be a bit nonsensical and comical...X2 gave me endless laughs "The COCK are invading! The COCK are attacking! Here come the COCK!". It was spelled Khaak, and I would think it would be pronounced with a long A sound, not O, but the voice actors thought otherwise. I don't know if this is the German sense of humor (I mean they just love April fools day  and bad jokes in general) or just lack of QC. Tyron being from Austria, and Austrians and Germans being similar people with a similar language. Anyway, just a theory.

Another nit for me is Jonas Falx and then we have the Falx as our sword. I mean sure, it could be a surname, but it's like an overuse of the word for the game, especially as the Falx is not a commonly known weapon. (I could not find one to purchase in Bulgaria either  )

[LadyWYT]

28 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

Although it's odd to use a very deep lore biblical entity as the name for your player and then not expect people to draw conclusions.

To my knowledge, there was a community poll way back when, and that was the name picked. "Seraph" is generally used in a religious sense, yes, but apparently it's also an alchemy term for a superhuman.

[Krougal]

9 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

To my knowledge, there was a community poll way back when, and that was the name picked. "Seraph" is generally used in a religious sense, yes, but apparently it's also an alchemy term for a superhuman.

Interesting. Did not know that.

[Tom Cantine]

On 9/13/2025 at 9:04 AM, Krougal said:

 

Another nit for me is Jonas Falx and then we have the Falx as our sword. I mean sure, it could be a surname, but it's like an overuse of the word for the game, especially as the Falx is not a commonly known weapon. (I could not find one to purchase in Bulgaria either  )

Yes and no. There IS a fairly well-known edged weapon called a falchion, and it's even kind of similar in function, in that it's a sword-like edge with the weight far forward for heavy chopping, sort of like how the falx looks like it's designed to strike with the very end with a chopping motion (though the end is a stabby point).

I think it kind of makes sense. And the Falx family could well have taken their name from the weapon.

 

[Krougal]

10 hours ago, Tom Cantine said:

Yes and no. There IS a fairly well-known edged weapon called a falchion, and it's even kind of similar in function, in that it's a sword-like edge with the weight far forward for heavy chopping, sort of like how the falx looks like it's designed to strike with the very end with a chopping motion (though the end is a stabby point).

I think it kind of makes sense. And the Falx family could well have taken their name from the weapon.

 

Falchion doesn't look anything like the Falx. The Falx was actually a real sword used by the Thracians and Dacians(ancient Bulgarians & Romanians).

Falchion is more akin to a Scimitar or cleaver.

Falx is more like a scythe.