Combat is too shallow for it to be so integral to the game.

[Tabulius]

I realize many have complained about the state of combat before. My goal here isn't to illustrate what's wrong with combat as others have done that better than I can. My goal is to express how the heavy focus on combat is why so many people are bothered by it.

 Of all the things this game has that makes it a unique and captivating experience, the combat is absolutely not one of them. The combat feels shallow, unsatisfying, and clunky. A lot like minecrafts. That's not necessarily a problem, only it's one of the features the game puts a heavy demand on you engaging with. The temporal storms force you to interrupt whatever you're doing to interact with the combat, And the story content is exclusively combat oriented. This is incredibly backwards as far as I see it. If combat stays as it is then in my opinion it should be a minor focus of the game, and act more as a punishment for playing unsafe. Now personally I do enjoy good combat and i'd like to enjoy the combat in this game. But i'd almost rather none over this. It's not that it's hard, it really isn't for the most part. It just never feels enjoyable. I'm never excited to get in a fight, or satisfied having won one. It just feels like an irritating obstacle I have to navigate to get back to the fun part of the game. I've tried mods like the combat overhaul, but they don't make it more interesting, they just make it a bit more tolerable at best. Minecraft has a similar issue. It has very primitive and unsatisfying combat, yet most of it's later updates were mainly focused on introducing more dungeon crawling type content. The problem with this should be self evident. People weren't hooked on these types of games because of the combat, and the combat is not either of their strong suites.

 Bottom line If you want to focus on combat, before you add more dungeons you need to focus on ironing out the actual feel and depth of the combat first. Or else the dungeons are just going to feel like a chore. If you're not going to do that, then you should design the game around it's strengths. Like the building and crafting, instead of the combat.

Edited October 15, 2025 by Tabulius

[Zane Mordien]

I feel your frustration. I love the game, but as combat becomes front and center there is something lacking. The days of saying the game isn't about combat are over. 

I could have ignored it more if Chapter 2 didn't lean into combat yet again. If the boss at the end was some sort of puzzle or skill challenge it would have backed away from the combat requirement a little. Maybe I missed some lore, but why exactly do you need to fight the boss to pick up the lense? Was it holding it there with it's mind powers? Magnets that get disabled when it takes off? 

[ifoz]

32 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

Maybe I missed some lore, but why exactly do you need to fight the boss to pick up the lense? Was it holding it there with it's mind powers? Magnets that get disabled when it takes off?

It's (as far as we know) just a case of "video game requires you to fight boss to progress' 
Interestingly if you poke around the game files, you can see that for ch1, the boss was originally planned to drop a special machine part that would be required to open the only door out of the boss arena, creating an in-universe reason for the fight. This was scrapped at some point though, since as it currently stands ch1 is also "kill boss to magically open door".

Edited October 15, 2025 by ifoz

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, Tabulius said:

The temporal storms force you to interrupt whatever you're doing to interact with the combat, And the story content is exclusively combat oriented.

I actually have to disagree, at least partially. Yes, combat is required to complete the story chapters, at least so far. However, aside from boss battles, the main focus of the story chapters is solving puzzles and discovering places. In some locations, it's possible to skip fighting some of the monsters, though it depends heavily on certain conditions being met(such as rift activity in a very specific area of chapter 2). As for the storms, fighting through is only one option of how to handle them--the player can also choose to work indoors, hide in a bunker, or even sleep through it if they have that rule set to "true".

While Vintage Story does have combat, it's not an action game, nor is it really trying to be. The game's main focus is homesteading, exploration, and solving creepy mysteries. The combat system that is there is pretty solid, and simple enough for newcomers to jump right in and start having fun, while also having enough nuance for players to hone their skills over time(timing movement to dodge attacks, for example). The monsters, which are the main threat to the player, aren't so much enemies to actively hunt, as much as they are environmental hazards that the player will need to figure out how to deal with. Sometimes that's killing them, sometimes that's avoiding them. Likewise, temporal storms act as an unnatural disaster that the player will have to plan around, and help illustrate the point that something horrible happened to the world. 

[Tabulius]

28 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

In some locations, it's possible to skip fighting some of the monsters, though it depends heavily on certain conditions being met(such as rift activity in a very specific area of chapter 2).

I'll concede you probably have more experience with the dungeons than I do. But, in my experience running past fights is the suboptimal choice in most cases. If you had better stealth options then I might agree. But, most alternatives to fighting are either janky, or cause greater stress than just fighting.

20 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

 As for the storms, fighting through is only one option of how to handle them--the player can also choose to work indoors, hide in a bunker, or even sleep through it if they have that rule set to "true".

The explicit intent of temporal storms is to force you to engage in the combat, and work has only been done to make avoiding it more difficult. I haven't been able to do and indoor work in my recent playthroughs because enemies spawn indoors now. And I wouldn't call hiding in a bunker and doing nothing for 20 minutes a compelling alternative, would you? This is exactly what I'm talking about, a poor implementation of combat being made integral to the experience. Personally I think if temporal storms operated like sieges in 7 days to die, where you have to build up your base in preparation to defend against them that would be much more interesting. At least then you would have to play with the more interesting mechanics of the game like building, and not just run circles in your house throwing spears.

21 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

While Vintage Story does have combat, it's not an action game, nor is it really trying to be. The game's main focus is homesteading, exploration, and solving creepy mysteries. The combat system that is there is pretty solid, and simple enough for newcomers to jump right in and start having fun, while also having enough nuance for players to hone their skills over time(timing movement to dodge attacks, for example). The monsters, which are the main threat to the player, aren't so much enemies to actively hunt, as much as they are environmental hazards that the player will need to figure out how to deal with. Sometimes that's killing them, sometimes that's avoiding them. Likewise, temporal storms act as an unnatural disaster that the player will have to plan around, and help illustrate the point that something horrible happened to the world. 

I don't think vintage story has to be an action game. Nor does it necessarily have an obligation to make its combat more action oriented IF it refrains from having action oriented gameplay scenarios. The combat seems more at place if the game was designed around being a survival horror game, and if it were I'd agree that it's serviceable (if not a bit too easy.) But, it's not. You don't have fast paced fights with hordes of enemies in a survival horror game, nor do you seek out the enemy and fight bosses. Right now the combat lacks identity. It feels like you're being given conflicting messages. On one hand you gain very little from fighting, the loot pool seems to be designed to intentionally discourage you from it. Most enemies are slow enough that you can often easily flee a fight. But the game keeps putting you in circumstances that outright encourage you to fight in spite of this, and punish you for not fighting, even though you still don't stand to gain much from fighting. Even in heavy temporal storms where the possible loot is probably the best in the game the risk for early to mid game is disproportionate. Unless the storms were designed around the meta strat of spear spamming from towers.

[Thorfinn]

I think people have a tendency to way overestimate how large a role combat plays in the game. A 5 minute temporal storm (that I suspect most people avoid for the first several months) every 10 game days (~8 hours) and maybe another couple dozen wolves or rusties at 30 seconds a pop, and you are still under 20 minutes. A typical workday is roughly that same 8 hours, but as almost twice as much time dedicated to coffee breaks. Yet no one I know stresses how significant a part of his job is the coffee break.

I agree it would be nice to play to the game strengths, but what would that look like, exactly? Build a Colosseum? Chisel a Michelangelo's David? Smith a bronze Colossus of Rhodes? Plant the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Shovel out the Augean stables? They tried exploration, and that went over swimmingly. They tried parkour, more complaints. MacGuffin? Been there, done that. What's  left? Goat milking? Iron Chef? A Jets/Sharks dance-off? I'm at a loss.

[Jochanaan Fair-Schulz]

This is one of the best posts on this topic that I have ever read.

It really seems to me that when anybody brings up a combat overhaul, or points out that combat is an under baked system currently, that it gets shot down by people saying, "combat isn't the point of VS" or "Not every game needs to be dark souls." To be clear, I agree. One of things that really started sucking the fun out of Minecraft for me was how much development of the game is focused around dungeon crawling and fighting, rather than really expanding on the innovations they made for building and crafting mechanics. What makes VS the better game today, and I would say one that is pushing the envelope of game design further in the survival genre, is how it took the mechanics that MC pioneered and has expanded them. So, it should be fair to point out that VS is starting to fall into the same pit-holes. 

Vintage story is not dark souls, and I don't ever want it to be; which is why some of the decisions being made right now are so weird.

Obviously, it's the developers game, so they can do whatever they want. It doesn't take away from the good parts (and there are really good parts that the devs are constantly improving), but that shouldn't be an excuse to dismiss criticism either.

The combat system in vintage story is good enough for the early game. Being awkward and slow is exactly how it should feel for us as hunter-gathers squaring up against foxes and bears. The problem right now is that the system does not expand with the increasing level of threats we deal with. Yes, we get higher tiers of armor and weapons, but those are improvements on the same options rather than new ones. We have a combat system made for hunting being applied to fighting inter-dimensional horrors.

If the goal is for us to run away, and find ways of avoiding combat, then that is fine. That is the solution that most of the community has taken, because even the tools that we are given for combat (armor and weapons tiers) are about enduring rather than developing the system: we take less damage, we deal more, but we don't play differently (not to mention our enemies are hitting harder and surviving longer anyway). I would honestly be fine with this, and even like it thematically, if it wasn't becoming more apparent that the devs intend for us to be running toward the fights.

The story quests in VS are combat based. They are centered around boss battles.  That isn't something that is avoidable, unless you leave that entire section of the game untouched. The gameplay of the story, and the dungeons, which are spaces that players are expected to want to go, is centered on the combat system. When I engage with these parts of the game, and most of the community as well it seems, it is for the story and not the fights. That is not a lethal flaw, but it is still a flaw.

Even the people who don't want an over haul to combat seem to be coming at it from the angle of disliking the combat so much that they want it to remain as avoidable as possible; that is not a recommendation, but it is a terrible contradiction given the way things are headed. It is not wrong to insist that if the game wants us to seek out combat scenarios then it has to be a system that invites engagement. It should be fun and/or interesting, including for those who don't particularly care about it. "The rising tide lifts all ships."

(Consider, if you don't want an overhaul because you "don't like combat": Maybe if the combat was better, then you would like it more).

I see a growing disconnect between the apparent intentions of the dev team, and the actual dynamics of play that are being created in-game. This is the best time to get a handle on the situation, before the next 6 chapters of the story and the procedural dungeons come out. I respect their talent and inventiveness on this project too much to do them the disservice of not pointing out a serious issue in its foundation.

VS is still, and will always be a great game. I love it to bits. So, those are my honest thoughts.

Edited October 15, 2025 by Jochanaan Fair-Schulz

[MKMoose]

5 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I agree it would be nice to play to the game strengths, but what would that look like, exactly? Build a Colosseum? Chisel a Michelangelo's David? Smith a bronze Colossus of Rhodes? Plant the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Shovel out the Augean stables? They tried exploration, and that went over swimmingly. They tried parkour, more complaints. MacGuffin? Been there, done that. What's  left? Goat milking? Iron Chef? A Jets/Sharks dance-off? I'm at a loss.

It's pretty difficult to require a person do do something creative, because how are you gonna judge whether they've completed the task? Building is out of the question unless it's for a functional purpose, e.g. protect a site during a temporal storm, but even then you'll probably be watching people build horrific abominations to cheese the defense. Combat is by far the easiest challenge to implement in many respects.

Some other systems could work in some ways. Granted, take what I say with a grain of salt, as I haven't looked at the story chapters much yet. Maybe have the player forge a few blueprinted pieces to repair a mechanism (already in the game to some extent), or just deliver materials to some device. Potentially chisel out a few replicas of a statue or forge a bunch of decorations or equipment to restore greatness to a lore location. Have them comb through an area and dig up ruins to find some artifact or blueprint. Get them to grow some unusual plants that require nonstandard fertilizers or raise an animal that requires a lot of care and protection. Perhaps have them provide food and supplies for a group of NPCs in some way.

There's a lot of things that could be done, and for each of them a bunch of reasons why they might not work. One universal issue is that requiring a person to just keep doing largely the same tasks that they've been doing for the past dozen hours to gear up risks being fairly repetitive and tedious.

What combat-oriented dungeons do well is that they require the player to engage with other systems first in order to tackle the challenge, but are themselves somewhat different in nature, which can provide great gameplay variety. There's a catch, though - if dungeons are the end goal, then other systems are often just the means to an end, and I don't think we want the survival aspects of the game to fall to the wayside.

I think combat should still be a part of most quests in moderation, even if it's only for the purpose of basic self-protection and not as a way to progress, because it applies strong pressure on the player to engage more deeply with other systems.

Arguably the best thing that a broad "combat overhaul" could provide in my eyes would be depth and variety to make combat and preparation for it more engaging, not just because currently it's pretty simple (which can also be beneficial) and maybe a bit clunky. Thing is, the majority of weapons, armor, other combat-related items and enemies are direct upgrades to something unlocked slightly earlier in progression, and offer no added mechanical complexity over the stuff available in the first couple hours of the game. This makes for a heavily frontloaded system which inherently struggles to be deep and accessible at the same time, and doesn't really support meaningful progression beyond making numbers bigger.

If combat were to be a focus, it should be polished and developed to keep the player wanting to try different gear and different strategies for different encounters, and actually enjoying the moment-to-moment combat experience rather than slogging through a war of attrition. Granted, we don't want to compromise the vision of the game. Enemies that are hazards more than active opponents do have potential, as well as storms as dangerous unnatural phenomena more than a challenge. There is a balance to be maintained and it's fair to argue that we are close to it, and I do think as well that any drastic redesigns are probably unnecessary.

[Echo Weaver]

I think everyone concedes that combat needs an update. I object to 

9 hours ago, Tabulius said:

The explicit intent of temporal storms is to force you to engage in the combat

Do you have a quote saying this is true? I certainly don't think so. Temporal storms require you to engage with danger. I don't enjoy head-to-head combat and have focused on trapping and neutralizing rotbeasts so that I can dispatch them without a significant threat to myself.

Perhaps this is "engaging in combat," but the focus of this thread seems to be head-to-head combat, and I can assure you the game does not require this in most circumstances.

I think almost everyone agrees that combat needs improvement. My objection along with some of the others on this thread is overemphasizing its importance. 

I assure you that this is not a combat game. There are places where some form of combat is required, but that doesn't make combat a central focus. 

Moreover, I think that increasing the focus on combat makes the game more generic. We don't lack a wide variety of combat-focused games.

[LadyWYT]

8 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

I think almost everyone agrees that combat needs improvement. My objection along with some of the others on this thread is overemphasizing its importance. 

I assure you that this is not a combat game. There are places where some form of combat is required, but that doesn't make combat a central focus. 

Moreover, I think that increasing the focus on combat makes the game more generic. We don't lack a wide variety of combat-focused games.

Tagging on to this, because it's probably the best general summary of my thoughts on the matter. I do agree that there is room for improvement on the combat; most notably, the hitboxes are the worst offender, especially for ranged, as hits don't always connect when they really should. In melee it's not so bad, as the crosshair will turn red when the target is close enough to be hit, however, melee also bears one of the best examples of hitbox problems, in the form of bears. It's possible for the player to clip into a bear's model and thus be unable to actually hit the bear, while the bear can still hit the player. I also suspect that the hitbox issues are why several players jump to brand combat bad as a whole.

However, when this particular topic comes up, I don't tend to be in favor of a combat rework, as most of the time what seems to be asked for is a complete rework of the system to put more focus on combat and action, and not so much just smoothing out the system already in place(like adjusting hitboxes). That is, flashy moves, hit combos, etc, is what comes to mind. There's nothing wrong with those, but generally such things are better suited for fantasy or over-the-top action games, and not so much a game that's trying to stay grounded in realism. I'll cite Skyrim's kill cams as an example here--they've aged...not so gracefully, perhaps, but the main idea behind them was to give the player a flashy finishing move so their character could look really cool while ending an opponent. Monster Hunter also has a lot of flashy moves and combos with absolutely ridiculous weapons, armor, and moves. However, while moves like the listed examples might look really cool, an analysis of their actual practicality often reveals they're absolutely horrible for any kind of real combat situation(too easily countered, leaving too many parts of the body unguarded, etc).

Part of Vintage Story's atmosphere is that there are otherworldly monstrosities that will have to be dealt with occasionally in order to survive and progress the story, and those monstrosities are a hazard rather than bags of loot for the taking once defeated. Fighting them is sometimes necessary, but it can also just as easily get you killed(even with good equipment) should you pick a fight at the wrong time. NPCs themselves will inform the player of how dangerous the world is(most NPCs hide in fortified bunkers during temporal storms, when possible); to have the player be able to just slaughter their way through any foe with impunity makes that kind of set building laughable. That's not to say the player shouldn't have an easier time in combat as they acquire better gear, because they should; my main point is that changes to the combat system need to be done carefully, lest the entire setting be changed as well. 

[Tabulius]

43 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

Do you have a quote saying this is true? I certainly don't think so. Temporal storms require you to engage with danger. I don't enjoy head-to-head combat and have focused on trapping and neutralizing rotbeasts so that I can dispatch them without a significant threat to myself.

Perhaps this is "engaging in combat," but the focus of this thread seems to be head-to-head combat, and I can assure you the game does not require this in most circumstances.

I'm afraid I'm not exactly sure where I saw it, but I'm pretty sure there's documentation of Tyron essentially saying that he wants players not to hide during storms and have to engage with them. Regardless, the design makes this imminently clear as avoiding the storm has only gotten harder.

 I don't consider your method of dispatching enemies, not combat. It's just the state of combat in vintage story. It's telling that most players prefer metagaming to avoid fights rather than actually dealing with enemies the way you're intended to.

17 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I don't tend to be in favor of a combat rework, as most of the time what seems to be asked for is a complete rework of the system to put more focus on combat and action, and not so much just smoothing out the system already in place(like adjusting hitboxes). That is, flashy moves, hit combos, etc, is what comes to mind.

A rework could take many different forms, it doesn't have to be that of an action rpg. It seems like most people would rather the combat be less emphasized than more so. So, an easy option with the groundwork the game has set up would be to adjust it to be more akin to a game like thief. Combat is still an option, but you're given stealth options to avoid it, and the game is less balanced around open fights. This would mean stronger individual enemies but no hordes of enemies in dungeons and in the underground like you see currently. As well as a revamp of stealth mechanics and the enemies detection ai. Temporal storms could become less of a mosh pit, and more of a horror experience, like the nights in a game like darkwood which I honestly think would suit it better. 

[Echo Weaver]

8 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

I don't consider your method of dispatching enemies, not combat. It's just the state of combat in vintage story. It's telling that most players prefer metagaming to avoid fights rather than actually dealing with enemies the way you're intended to.

I strongly disagree with this characterization. I don't think you're taking seriously the number of people who play this game who hate head-to-head combat. If head-to-head combat becomes required to deal with temporal storms, that won't make things more fun for me. I'll quit playing. There are hundreds of combat-focused games out there with objectively good combat systems, and I don't like those either. I don't engage in metagaming to avoid combat because the fighting system isn't good enough. I do it because I find it enormously more fun than fighting.

Inasmuch as there's a problem here, It's addressed by preserving the style choices currently available to players. 

11 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

So, an easy option with the groundwork the game has set up would be to adjust it to be more akin to a game like thief. Combat is still an option, but you're given stealth options to avoid it

This is closer to my play style, but I don't think this is something they'd be building from the ground up. I currently sneak around in caves and avoid combat. I'd appreciate having more options to facilitate this play style, though.

[LadyWYT]

11 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

So, an easy option with the groundwork the game has set up would be to adjust it to be more akin to a game like thief.

I've never played Thief but heard good things about the stealth, so I can definitely get on board with adding stealth options to the game.

 

12 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

Combat is still an option, but you're given stealth options to avoid it, and the game is less balanced around open fights. This would mean stronger individual enemies but no hordes of enemies in dungeons and in the underground like you see currently. As well as a revamp of stealth mechanics and the enemies detection ai.

Can also agree here, though I'd keep the surface hordes. If the underground were tuned to favor fewer enemies, but stronger ones when they occur, I think that would make the spelunking more enjoyable. 

 

14 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

Temporal storms could become less of a mosh pit, and more of a horror experience, like the nights in a game like darkwood which I honestly think would suit it better. 

Can't say I've heard of Darkwood, but honestly the temporal mosh pit outside the front door is part of the horror of temporal storms. 

 

16 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

I don't consider your method of dispatching enemies, not combat. It's just the state of combat in vintage story. It's telling that most players prefer metagaming to avoid fights rather than actually dealing with enemies the way you're intended to.

I somewhat agree with @Echo Weaver on this, however, I think you've hit the nail on the head, perhaps, with the metagaming bit. I've seen several complaints about various things on the forums, and while that's not to say they all lacked substance, the root of many complaints seems to be...players opting for what they perceive as the meta, rather than what they find fun. Min-maxing isn't bad, and that is how some players have fun, but a player that chooses to play that way each time every time locks themselves into a very narrow experience.

Honestly, I'm not sure that player metagaming can ever be truly fixed. There will always be ways to exploit the creature AI, and there will always be the "best" way to do specific game tasks if one does the math. 

6 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

I don't engage in metagaming to avoid combat because the fighting system isn't good enough. I do it because I find it enormously more fun than fighting.

Ironically, I do enjoy the game's combat, but also am avoiding it most of the time. Which does sound like a paradox, however, I think that's also partly why I enjoy it. The game pushes me to pick my battles very carefully, lest disaster strike, rather than constantly push me to do nothing but fight! For as much as I enjoy me some Skyrim, that's one complaint I have about that game as well--there really are no good options for dealing with enemies aside from "kill", unless you mod. 

 

9 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

There are hundreds of combat-focused games out there with objectively good combat systems

Which is also why I don't want Vintage Story to become focused entirely on the combat. If I want lots of combat and action in general, I will go play one of the games that supports that. Vintage Story is more like a nice stroll in the woods, or a long-term project that I can relax and chip away at to unwind at the day's end.

[Tabulius]

23 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

I strongly disagree with this characterization. I don't think you're taking seriously the number of people who play this game who hate head-to-head combat. If head-to-head combat becomes required to deal with temporal storms, that won't make things more fun for me. I'll quit playing. There are hundreds of combat-focused games out there with objectively good combat systems, and I don't like those either. I don't engage in metagaming to avoid combat because the fighting system isn't good enough. I do it because I find it enormously more fun than fighting.

12 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Can't say I've heard of Darkwood, but honestly the temporal mosh pit outside the front door is part of the horror of temporal storms. 

In Darkwood you're essentially forced to stay in your house at night because outside there are extremely dangerous enemies that you have next to no chance of beating. So you wait out the night at your house, and have to barricade your doors, windows, and set traps. Sometimes nothing happens, and you just hear enemies walking around outside. Sometimes you hear voices and hallucinations, and other times enemies try to break down your door. As long as you stay in your house you won't have to face the extremely hard enemies. But there is a threat of some enemies attacking you. But you can defend, prepare, and counterplay against them. I think this is a better alternative to just being able to completely ignore the storm while sitting in your house, or being forced to face it head on. I think it could satisfy most players desires with storms, making them something you can fight if you want, or hold out if you want.

[LadyWYT]

Just now, Tabulius said:

In Darkwood you're essentially forced to stay in your house at night because outside there are extremely dangerous enemies that you have next to no chance of beating. So you wait out the night at your house, and have to barricade your doors, windows, and set traps. Sometimes nothing happens, and you just hear enemies walking around outside. Sometimes you hear voices and hallucinations, and other times enemies try to break down your door. As long as you stay in your house you won't have to face the extremely hard enemies. But there is a threat of some enemies attacking you. But you can defend, prepare, and counterplay against them. I think this is a better alternative to just being able to completely ignore the storm while sitting in your house, or being forced to face it head on. I think it could satisfy most players desires with storms, making them something you can fight if you want, or hold out if you want.

This tracks with how certain NPCs describe temporal storms. However, I'm not sure how feasible it is to actually implement in gameplay. Sure, monsters could be allowed to bash down doors or break through windows, but then the players is just discouraged from making windows and encouraged to plunk down solid blocks in front of the door to prevent entry. There's not really a way to mitigate the latter either, as if monsters are allowed to dig through softer blocks like dirt then the player is just going to plunk down stone. On top of it all, the chiseling system would also need to be accounted for, as it's not ideal to have hundreds of hours of chiselwork destroyed in an instant. Making chiseled blocks indestructible via monsters also isn't really a solution, as then all the player has to do is smack the fortifying blocks with a chisel to make them impervious. And regarding monster break-ins...the other block game attempted this, but zombies breaking down the door in that game depends entirely on how the door is mounted. I've always mounted mine "backwards", since that looks nicer to me, which also means that since it's the "wrong" way then the zombies can never break it.

Maybe some sort of rift ward upgrade(or different machine entirely) would be more ideal for this situation, like an upgrade to prevent certain monster spawns during the storm. That way, the player could prevent bowtorn spawns, for example, so they only get shivers and drifters. Or perhaps they simply limit enemy spawns to only the nightmare level, so there are fewer enemies to deal with, but the ones that spawn are more lucrative. A machine like this I would also limit to one per X block radius, in order to keep the player from having too much control over what spawns(essentially, the player could limit monsters by type, or by quality, but not both at the same time).

[Facethief]

58 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

A rework could take many different forms, it doesn't have to be that of an action rpg. It seems like most people would rather the combat be less emphasized than more so. So, an easy option with the groundwork the game has set up would be to adjust it to be more akin to a game like thief. Combat is still an option, but you're given stealth options to avoid it, and the game is less balanced around open fights. This would mean stronger individual enemies but no hordes of enemies in dungeons and in the underground like you see currently. As well as a revamp of stealth mechanics and the enemies detection ai. Temporal storms could become less of a mosh pit, and more of a horror experience, like the nights in a game like darkwood which I honestly think would suit it better. 

While I agree that an overhaul of this type would be cool and fit the game, it seems like it would still work poorly in the story locations’ forced combats; in a scenario where stealth isn’t possible, a stealth based system doesn’t work well.

[Echo Weaver]

30 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

In Darkwood you're essentially forced to stay in your house at night because outside there are extremely dangerous enemies that you have next to no chance of beating. So you wait out the night at your house, and have to barricade your doors, windows, and set traps. Sometimes nothing happens, and you just hear enemies walking around outside. Sometimes you hear voices and hallucinations, and other times enemies try to break down your door. As long as you stay in your house you won't have to face the extremely hard enemies. But there is a threat of some enemies attacking you. But you can defend, prepare, and counterplay against them. I think this is a better alternative to just being able to completely ignore the storm while sitting in your house, or being forced to face it head on. I think it could satisfy most players desires with storms, making them something you can fight if you want, or hold out if you want.

OK, yes, this sounds like it's speaking to me. I should check out Darkwood. This is a name I've seen drifting by before in the survival horror space. Depending on the style, I really enjoy survival horror. Most of that energy is going toward VS at the moment, and I tend to go deep rather than broad with my games.

It's good to have this sort of example. It seems difficult to thread this needle in these conversations. I want the danger, but I don't care for head-to-head combat. I want to be able to prepare and think and mitigate these dangers, and I want the danger I am mitigating to feel real. I don't want easy mode, and I don't want more mandatory classic combat.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

I think the overarching complaint from every single one of these threads that I see about combat in this game is that it feels... boring. And almost every thread is accompanied by some saying "It's fine." and others saying "It really could use improvement." But none really seem to offer concrete suggestions on how to improve it other than installing a mod that not everybody likes or wants despite it's popularity. So here's my suggestion. 

Maybe allowing Hunters to augment their bows with Jonas tech to have a guaranteed hit for extra damage after a cooldown.

Maybe allowing Blackguards to augment their shield with Jonas tech to allow them to charge an enemy and stun it after a cooldown.

Maybe allowing Clockmakers to craft new mechanicals and improve them with Jonas tech.

Maybe allowing Malefactors to enhance their masks with Jonas Tech to spot enemy weaknesses and exploit them after a cooldown.

Maybe these enhancements could improve the combat and make it less boring and uninteresting and give people a reason to engage, especially if they can do something cool with it or make a saving play with their friends.

Do you see the theme here? Jonas Tech and allowing special combat abilities after a sufficient cooldown. Idk I'm spitballing here, but there's a lot of untapped potential to gamify the combat in this game instead of keeping it what I've heard some jokingly called "point and click" combat.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying the game should be exactly like this or that this is the direction the game should go, but just merely offering some sort of alternative to the repeated conversations that pop up every so often.

[Tabulius]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Sure, monsters could be allowed to bash down doors or break through windows, but then the players is just discouraged from making windows and encouraged to plunk down solid blocks in front of the door to prevent entry. There's not really a way to mitigate the latter either, as if monsters are allowed to dig through softer blocks like dirt then the player is just going to plunk down stone. On top of it all, the chiseling system would also need to be accounted for, as it's not ideal to have hundreds of hours of chiselwork destroyed in an instant.

You raise a good point, this would require some thought and potentially rework of building to implement well. A possibility could be adjusting how much of a danger entities pose to your base depending on the type of storm.

 For example, light storms they can only damage blocks like doors and glass, which you could protect with some kind of new reinforcing system, maybe even just using plumb and squares. On medium they can damage packed dirt or wood blocks if not framed by a stronger block like cobble, and on hard they can damage them regardless. The system could be made more predictable by having them always prefer the easiest block to break. This way you'll be able to spend the time when you get a warning for a storm preparing for whatever type it is, by barricading, reinforcing walls, setting traps, moving valuables, etc.

 This is a rough idea, I think something like this could be implemented well but it would require some good design. A big thing is that it would need to be accessible to early game players because fighting in temporal storms isn't a reasonable option for early game, unless you already know the combat by heart.

2 hours ago, Facethief said:

While I agree that an overhaul of this type would be cool and fit the game, it seems like it would still work poorly in the story locations’ forced combats; in a scenario where stealth isn’t possible, a stealth based system doesn’t work well.

The biggest thing it would require is an overhaul of the ai, making them more predictable with pathing and cones of vision. Especially because right now they can see through walls. Aside from that maybe a few modifications to the map to allow for additional places to hide.

[MKMoose]

5 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Sure, monsters could be allowed to bash down doors or break through windows, but then the players is just discouraged from making windows and encouraged to plunk down solid blocks in front of the door to prevent entry. There's not really a way to mitigate the latter either, as if monsters are allowed to dig through softer blocks like dirt then the player is just going to plunk down stone. On top of it all, the chiseling system would also need to be accounted for, as it's not ideal to have hundreds of hours of chiselwork destroyed in an instant. Making chiseled blocks indestructible via monsters also isn't really a solution, as then all the player has to do is smack the fortifying blocks with a chisel to make them impervious.

28 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

For example, light storms they can only damage blocks like doors and glass, which you could protect with some kind of new reinforcing system, maybe even just using plumb and squares. On medium they can damage packed dirt or wood blocks if not framed by a stronger block like cobble, and on hard they can damage them regardless. The system could be made more predictable by having them always prefer the easiest block to break. This way you'll be able to spend the time when you get a warning for a storm preparing for whatever type it is, by barricading, reinforcing walls, setting traps, moving valuables, etc.

Tyron has recently said in an interview that they generally prefer to never destroy player-built structures (or something in that vein) in response to a question about natural disasters, and I'd imagine that they aren't gonna make an exception for doors and windows. Maybe crude doors and simple gravity-affected blocks (sand, gravel, soil if enabled) could be argued to be destructible, but not better doors and not any other blocks or items. At most monsters could open doors, but then there's still the mentioned undesirable incentives, so I don't think this is enough for a standalone solution to anything.

Weathering and wearing down with ways to mitigate it instead of breaking outright does seem like an interesting idea, but it would still cause similar issues and would require a lot of dev time to create all the block variants or whatnot for a system that ultimately would probably be really annoying if it damages your stuff and very restrictive on building styles. Love it for very specific features (a bit like we have for beehive kilns), but absolutely not for a large portion of building materials.

Here's a suggestion, though: remove player structures temporarily. We already have the whole temporal instability stuff and rifts, so we could have huge fractures that sometimes open during temporal storms, modifying a slice of the world for a few moments, then return it right back. There would be a bunch of things to sort out like how exactly they should change the world, how to handle collisions with terrain when things get removed or added, how to handle things larger than one block (e.g. a lot of mechanical components) or things that rely on other things (e.g. plants or any items stored on the ground). There's also plenty of options to choose from for the exact size, frequency, duration and spawn conditions of those fractures, but generally I think something like this would have a lot of potential and thematic appeal with little impact on other existing systems. Spawn rates and enemy stats may need to be looked at, though, if the player's shelter were to be rendered temporarily open for anything outside. Also, there's a significant use for the rift ward to be found here as well.

 

40 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

In Darkwood you're essentially forced to stay in your house at night because outside there are extremely dangerous enemies that you have next to no chance of beating. So you wait out the night at your house, and have to barricade your doors, windows, and set traps. Sometimes nothing happens, and you just hear enemies walking around outside. Sometimes you hear voices and hallucinations, and other times enemies try to break down your door. As long as you stay in your house you won't have to face the extremely hard enemies. But there is a threat of some enemies attacking you. But you can defend, prepare, and counterplay against them. I think this is a better alternative to just being able to completely ignore the storm while sitting in your house, or being forced to face it head on. I think it could satisfy most players desires with storms, making them something you can fight if you want, or hold out if you want.

One thing that Darkwood does quite well and Vintage Story does very little of is tension, and I think lack thereof is the primary reason why people find temporal storms underwhelming.

There's a lot of ways to increase tension, and new monsters or other threats is one of those ways, though not an easy one for the devs. Things that seep inside, things that reach inside, ghosts, shadows, infestations, generally much less frequent but more dangerous monsters prowling about. Ideally, tie them to temporal instability and temporal storms to keep to the theming, though some small mechanical worms digging through the ground (without damaging anything) could also be fun. Anything more interesting than entire swarms which don't pose a threat as long as the door is closed, plus the regular monsters spawning inside if I don't light up my house like a christmas tree (I think they shouldn't spawn within a 2- or 3-block radius of any sufficiently lit block).

 

3 minutes ago, Facethief said:

While I agree that an overhaul of this type would be cool and fit the game, it seems like it would still work poorly in the story locations’ forced combats; in a scenario where stealth isn’t possible, a stealth based system doesn’t work well.

This is generally the biggest flaw of niche gameplay styles in many games, especially RPGs where the player has to invest a lot into a build - if it's useless in one part of the game, then many players will just decide not to use it at all. It's not the easiest thing to balance, because having to ensure that everything is always viable can also significantly limit the variety of challenges you can throw at players and lead to people using the same strategies throughout the entire game, quickly making it stale and boring.

As a general rule it's enough that players always have a multiple comvenient choices. If there's enough available strategies that can be used by practically any character (and some just implement certain strategies a bit better - classes already do this fairly well), then a tiny bit of creativity and problem solving is usually enough to get things done efficiently even if one or two of those strategies become temporarily unavailable. Problems appear most often when players are funneled down a select few optimal paths or heavily discouraged from certain suboptimal paths at key points in the game (story locations certainly have the latter risk, though I'm not very familiar with them at the moment), and I think there's plenty of things that can be done to make roughly stealth-oriented characters interesting to play even in a boss arena, including traps, throwables like various bombs or poison darts (could have a variety of different effects), stealth kills (and crippling or just high-damage hits against enemies which can't be one-shot), and mobility options that get much more practical with light armor. Items and tools that build on basic systems, not complex interweaving features.

If nothing else, though, a basic line of sight mechanic would go a long way, especially for hunting. It's really annoying when an animal notices you through terrain or while it's turned away from you. Granted, there's smell and hearing on top of sight, but it's too consistent to chalk it up to those. Also, there's drifters walking in place into doors after they see the player inside despite no LoS - it can be really quite immersion-breaking on the first nights.

[LadyWYT]

54 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

 For example, light storms they can only damage blocks like doors and glass, which you could protect with some kind of new reinforcing system, maybe even just using plumb and squares. On medium they can damage packed dirt or wood blocks if not framed by a stronger block like cobble, and on hard they can damage them regardless.

This is why I don't think it's a great idea. I would expect most players to turn it off, save for the ones who don't care about building and want that kind of challenge.

 

55 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

The system could be made more predictable by having them always prefer the easiest block to break.

Maybe, but that leads to strategies like...just plunking a bunch of glass blocks down around nearby so they'll go after those and not your stuff. And it's not like glass is expensive either, given how easy quartz is to find. Even haybales would probably work, and those are renewable.

 

57 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

This way you'll be able to spend the time when you get a warning for a storm preparing for whatever type it is, by barricading, reinforcing walls, setting traps, moving valuables, etc.

The player gets the first storm warning 8 in-game hours before it arrives. If I'm doing my math correctly, each in-game day is 48 IRL minutes, so the player has about 16 minutes to get ready before the storm arrives. While that is quite a bit of time, that's still too late to really make serious storm preparations; the player should have that done in advance rather than scramble for it last minute.

Overall, the main issue I still see here is that changes like this would almost have to be some kind of toggle in the world settings, and off by default(except maybe for Wilderness Survival). If it's a change that's baked in, all I really see it doing is pushing players to stick with the absolute bare basic dirt/stone box house, as that's the most feasible thing to actually keep maintained. Which is a real disservice to the chisel system and other gorgeous building options available.

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Maybe allowing Hunters to augment their bows with Jonas tech to have a guaranteed hit for extra damage after a cooldown.

Maybe allowing Blackguards to augment their shield with Jonas tech to allow them to charge an enemy and stun it after a cooldown.

Maybe allowing Clockmakers to craft new mechanicals and improve them with Jonas tech.

Maybe allowing Malefactors to enhance their masks with Jonas Tech to spot enemy weaknesses and exploit them after a cooldown.

Maybe these enhancements could improve the combat and make it less boring and uninteresting and give people a reason to engage, especially if they can do something cool with it or make a saving play with their friends.

Do you see the theme here? Jonas Tech and allowing special combat abilities after a sufficient cooldown. Idk I'm spitballing here, but there's a lot of untapped potential to gamify the combat in this game instead of keeping it what I've heard some jokingly called "point and click" combat.

I think there's something to this. The suggested upgrades are quite powerful, yes, but that's also end-game tech, which the player will really have to work at to get. I was also thinking perhaps something like a cross between Subnautica's stasis rifle and Skyrim's aetherial shield.

For those who don't know, the stasis rifle freezes targets in a certain area for a short time, though said enemies can still be damaged(or damage you, if you wander too close to the pointy bits). It also consumes a lot of battery power per shot, so while useful it does need to be used carefully. As for the aetherial shield, targets bashed with it will be phased out of reality for a short time--they won't be able to harm or be harmed while phased.

How I think it could work in Vintage Story: allow some sort of ranged temporal weapon, that creates a "stasis zone" and renders targets temporarily frozen and invulnerable. Such a thing would allow players to buy themselves time to either reposition themselves, apply a quick bandage, or perhaps escape a dangerous situation entirely. To keep it balanced, the weapon could have a very limited number of shots before needing to be recharged via temporal gear, and would have no effect on large, powerful targets like bosses.

[Tabulius]

14 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

There's a lot of ways to increase tension, and new monsters or other threats is one of those ways, though not an easy one for the devs. Things that seep inside, things that reach inside, ghosts, shadows, infestations, generally much less frequent but more dangerous monsters prowling about. Ideally, tie them to temporal instability and temporal storms to keep to the theming, though some small mechanical worms digging through the ground (without damaging anything) could also be fun. Anything more interesting than entire swarms which don't pose a threat as long as the door is closed, plus the regular monsters spawning inside if I don't light up my house like a christmas tree (I think they shouldn't spawn within a 2- or 3-block radius of any sufficiently lit block).

That's actually a much better idea. Having specific enemies or hazards that can get into your house can bypass the whole design problem of having entities destroy your base, while still providing a threat. Just as long as it's in a way that you can see coming.

Edited October 15, 2025 by Tabulius

[Jochanaan Fair-Schulz]

I am very optimistic that there are solutions in the works. 

As the devs implement status effects (like poison, slow, etc...) and add a greater variety of weapons into the game, things will balance out. There is just set to be a pinch at the moment as the amount of combat focused content being added (story chapters and dungeons) is outpacing the depth of the current combat system.

[Echo Weaver]

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

If nothing else, though, a basic line of sight mechanic would go a long way, especially for hunting. It's really annoying when an animal notices you through terrain or while it's turned away from you. Granted, there's smell and hearing on top of sight, but it's too consistent to chalk it up to those. Also, there's drifters walking in place into doors after they see the player inside despite no LoS - it can be really quite immersion-breaking on the first nights.

Yeah, I thought more sophisticated line-of-sight pathing for monsters was supposed to be implemented in 1.20 or 1.21, but I haven't seen much change in the behavior of drifters. 

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

This is generally the biggest flaw of niche gameplay styles in many games, especially RPGs where the player has to invest a lot into a build - if it's useless in one part of the game, then many players will just decide not to use it at all.

This is true for a classic RPG where your capabilities are innate to the character, but I don't think it's quite as big a deal for a game like VS or the other game. In these games, your capabilities are largely tied to your gear. You don't spend a lot of time leveling up or building specific skills that could then become useless in important situations. In VS, if your usual style doesn't apply to a situation, you can change gear and strategy without any opportunity lost by your previous choices. 

There's some interesting brainstorming happening on this thread. I hadn't thought about a need to fortify your base. I agree that it would need to be handled carefully -- folks want to be able to put effort into building a cool base and know that they're effort won't be destroyed. OTOH, there are a lot of things that could be done that don't involve actually destroying the base structure. 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

I think there's something to this. The suggested upgrades are quite powerful, yes, but that's also end-game tech, which the player will really have to work at to get. I was also thinking perhaps something like a cross between Subnautica's stasis rifle and Skyrim's aetherial shield.

Even something mid-game that can be crafted out of those metal parts and all the bits and baubles we can create via casting/smithing would be cool. Like maybe mid-game tech is one-use before needing repair or recharging with a temporal gear or just isn't as powerful.