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

[Thorfinn]

5 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

A one-shot-kill for surface monsters is fine, but the higher tiers should really still be dangerous even in the late game, especially since they aren't encountered all that often by the player.

Maybe. The only good way I can think of to do it is to lower the HP of the creatures you want to be able to one-shot. But this takes away from the specialness of the crossbow/gun/whatever that's being proposed because it affects every weapon. You can't just give rusties armor so the new weapon doesn't take them down too without having to redo all other weapon damages or rustie HP damage or some combination. Heck, even something as easy as changing the percentages assigned to any given action in the AI could well have major impact on the survivability or complexity of encounters. Ask me how I know this.

It's just that so many of the combat suggestions have far more wide-reaching consequences than I think the people making those suggestions think.

[Echo Weaver]

21 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Ironically, more creatures that require the player to vary their strategy is what we got in 1.20...and there are still complaints about it. The arms race bit and one-shot weapons are spot on though, and exactly what I don't want to see in the game. A one-shot-kill for surface monsters is fine, but the higher tiers should really still be dangerous even in the late game, especially since they aren't encountered all that often by the player.

Yeah, versatile games like this have such a wide variety of expectations that the devs essentially can never win. The point made (by you? Thorfinn?) about how the most popular mods are actually homesteading ones was eye-opening to me too. Combat generates so many more frustrated forum posts. But I think probably there are two things going on -- 1) folks playing for homesteading are likely to be less loud, and 2) casual players are likely to be homesteading players, and those are underrepresented on the forum itself. Forums are absolutely not representative of your general player base.

So, there were tons of gripes about how rotbeasts were almost entirely drifters, and that was boring. They added bowtorns and shivers, and the other half of the fanbase had a fit. I do find it interesting that specifically bowtorn-removal mods have gone out of fashion. I had to fix an abandoned one to make my teen happy. (Maybe I should post that.) Mods around rotbeasts tend to nerf all of them, block all of them from spawning on the surface, etc. Bowtorns still generate way more forum complaints than the others put together, but mods available don't reflect that.

I admit that I felt the annoyance a bit myself -- those of us who are into slow-burn prepare-and-mitigate strategies have to put work into new strategies. But I got over it, and I think the new rotbeasts are an improvement. 

32 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Though with the recent auto-loot feature added to the falx, I think there's a better case to be made for adding a standard arming sword/longsword.

Heh. I've been using autoloot reforged for ages. I didn't even know the falx had changed except for the forums 

33 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I'm betting that the devs are wanting to make each weapon have its own niche when/if added, instead of just adding what's essentially a bunch of sword reskins.

I totally agree here. I don't need or want dozens of the same thing. 

OTOH, as mentioned in other threads, we really need a polearm or some sort of weapon with extended mele range without bringing unbalancing range attack options along with it.

 

[Echo Weaver]

9 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Maybe. The only good way I can think of to do it is to lower the HP of the creatures you want to be able to one-shot. But this takes away from the specialness of the crossbow/gun/whatever that's being proposed because it affects every weapon. You can't just give rusties armor so the new weapon doesn't take them down too without having to redo all other weapon damages or rustie HP damage or some combination. Heck, even something as easy as changing the percentages assigned to any given action in the AI could well have major impact on the survivability or complexity of encounters. Ask me how I know this.

It's just that so many of the combat suggestions have far more wide-reaching consequences than I think the people making those suggestions think.

Yeah. I think a bunch of us are in alignment here -- this is not an action RPG, and I don't want it to play like one. Combat should be kind of clunky imho -- many survival horror titles choose awkward or clunky combat mechanics precisely because you're supposed to feel vulnerable.

OTOH, I think the obvious way to introduce one-shots is ranged head shots. Those are generally difficult but make sense, particularly for drifters because they're humaniod. Other rotbeasts can have head-equivalent vulnerabilities. This would require body-region hitboxes, and refining the current hitboxes would be the priority. But for those who want that kind of combat, I think it makes sense without changing the mood of of the game or being too easy.

[LadyWYT]

7 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

OTOH, I think the obvious way to introduce one-shots is ranged head shots. Those are generally difficult but make sense, particularly for drifters because they're humaniod. Other rotbeasts can have head-equivalent vulnerabilities. This would require body-region hitboxes, and refining the current hitboxes would be the priority. But for those who want that kind of combat, I think it makes sense without changing the mood of of the game or being too easy.

I could see this. I'm not sure about making it a one-shot for rotbeasts, as in lore those are supposed to be very tough and they don't really have proper heads(or at least, they're faceless), however I could see it being a critical hit in that case, perhaps.

I know that headshots are a thing in Mount & Blade: Warband. Generally, they're a lucky hit, and a one-shot-kill if you do manage to land one. The one exception is exceptionally tough targets, whether that toughness be from armor, hitpoints, or a combination of both. At worst though, a headshot will do a lot of damage.

Where I am skeptical of the idea, is that such a change is likely to generate complaints about headshots being too hard to land, and that aiming needs to be made easier so headshots are easier as a result. Which, in my opinion, defeats the purpose. Headshots are not something that should be easy at all, especially with medieval ranged weapons, unless the target is very close. The current system actually does allow for high shot accuracy, but it takes a LOT of practice to consistently hit targets at long range, or targets in motion.

[Echo Weaver]

2 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Where I am skeptical of the idea, is that such a change is likely to generate complaints about headshots being too hard to land, and that aiming needs to be made easier so headshots are easier as a result. Which, in my opinion, defeats the purpose. Headshots are not something that should be easy at all, especially with medieval ranged weapons, unless the target is very close. The current system actually does allow for high shot accuracy, but it takes a LOT of practice to consistently hit targets at long range, or targets in motion.

I think you're dead right there. As far as fan satisfaction goes, there's no way to win. 

While I'm proposing headshots, and I'd support them being added to the game, I'm unlikely to ever put the effort into getting good at them. My kid would, though, and I think she'd have fun with the challenge.

[LadyWYT]

5 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

While I'm proposing headshots, and I'd support them being added to the game, I'm unlikely to ever put the effort into getting good at them. My kid would, though, and I think she'd have fun with the challenge.

While I'm musing on the topic, I also wonder too if some of the complaints about the ranged combat in VS feeling "bad", is due to there being no aim assistance in VS. I don't know that every game has aim assist, but I don't think it's uncommon to include it as a shortcut to making the player feel powerful. Skyrim, for example, has it, and as a result the player doesn't actually need to hit the target, but rather just make the shot "close enough".

[MKMoose]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

1 hour ago, Thorfinn said:

Sure. The major theme of most of the combat threads seems to be variety. More creatures, more weapons, more tactics, whatever. Maybe some RPS mechanic. Weapons with special abilities, often with little thought how that would impact gameplay. And the majority would just become an arms race. Weapons to one-shot creatures get offset by creatures getting buffed. Which means other weapons need tweaks.

Ironically, more creatures that require the player to vary their strategy is what we got in 1.20...and there are still complaints about it.

In regards to variety, I think the reason why it's such a common complaint is that people don't really know what they want. They want something to get them more interested in combat again, and "variety" seems like the thing, because what they already know has become stale. And it's quite natural for a person to say that, because they aren't generally going on a deep introspective journey to consider what actually bothers them about the system. The job of a game designer is sometimes to find the nature of the frustrations and address them at their origin instead of directly implementing community suggestions - and not an easy task, it is.

More creatures are certainly helpful, though I worry that what we got with bowtorns and shivers isn't sufficiently different from drifters to make a meaningful long-term difference for complaints about combat, because they appear in all the same places and ultimately both their behaviour and methods of dispatching them aren't particularly innovative. Thing runs at you or throws stuff at you, so you either get a bow and shoot it or get a stick and run at it. I'm oversimplifying of course, but, aside from some adjustments to basic strategies, kinda nothing has changed in terms of how the player approaches combat, and it becomes stale again once they get used to the new stuff.

All too often, "variety" is actually much better achieved by increasing depth and moment-to-moment enjoyment, because they are far from independent. Hitboxes have been mentioned a few times, and that seems like a quite fine place to start to improve enjoyment from combat. I've had plenty of cases where me attacking and an opponent receiving damage felt kind of completely uncorrelated, with weird delays and whiffs that just felt wrong and clunky, and that was on singleplayer. Of course, we don't want it to be perfectly snappy and smooth either since we want to retain the survival horror spirit of the game. The line between "clunky in a good way" and simply annoying and tedious is pretty thin and pretty subjective, and I believe there are some improvements that could be made in this area.

Enemy behavior seems to be in a fine place to me, aside from line of sight being arguably long overdue. Perhaps bowtorns could use some minor improvements to feel more interactive and maybe a bit less oppressive (they seem to me to kind of either stand in place or run away with no inbetween most of the time, but when they start throwing it's like Malevelon Creek), while shivers seem erratic enough to me and drifters don't really need anything aside from LoS.

The status effect system would also open up a lot of possibilities, including different damage types (could be fun to choose between sharp and blunt weapons) and attacks that aren't just focused on damage, more elaborate wounds and healing, a variety of utility and buff/debuff items and so on, though that's all individual ideas which have to be evaluated separately and introduced gradually.

The above three are, in my view, the three most important combat-related improvements and features that would benefit the game greatly. Things like new weapons (especially crossbows and polearms, arguably) are also cool and interesting, but new content needs a stable and expandable baseline to build up from. A better foundation would also make it easier to implement new threats more localized to specific areas or events that significantly mix up the gameplay, for example turrets that put more focus on stealth gameplay and problem-solving to give a quick example.

 

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

The arms race bit and one-shot weapons are spot on though, and exactly what I don't want to see in the game. A one-shot-kill for surface monsters is fine, but the higher tiers should really still be dangerous even in the late game, especially since they aren't encountered all that often by the player.

I would argue strongly in favor of a heavy steel-prod crossbow with no less than ~12 damage with steel bolts (not counting traits), and of course different variants earlier in the progression. It still wouldn't one-shot anything more than the surface monsters, maybe a pig or some deep monsters for the hunter, which as you say should be fine if in balance with other weapons. Range, accuracy and reload time should be good enough drawbacks in most cases.

High-damage weapons generally are finnicky to balance because breakpoints start to matter a lot with them, which can cause problems if not thought through well. Some targets might have 1 or 2 HP left after a shot or two shots, which would require a secondary weapon to finish them off efficiently (a good incentive if you ask me), and then get much easier once the player gets an upgrade (a motivator to progress), but in some cases it can easily start to feel arbitrary and annoying ("why does an iron bolt one-shot it, but a bronze bolt doesn't?"). The good part is that the game is already fairly well set-up to handle something like this thanks to a large variety of different HP pools across the different animal and monster variants, which mostly eliminates excessively drastic jumps in effectiveness and requires the player to observe the threat, think on their feet and adjust to the gear they're using more often.

Weapons even stronger than that, i.e. around 20+ damage, are usually completely unfitting for Vintage Story. Maybe they could err on the side of power fantasy a little bit with simple firearms or Jonas tech, but even that shouldn't go above ~20 damage and needs appropriate drawbacks in other departments, most likely accuracy, reload time and ammo cost.

 

41 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

I think the obvious way to introduce one-shots is ranged head shots. Those are generally difficult but make sense, particularly for drifters because they're humaniod. Other rotbeasts can have head-equivalent vulnerabilities. This would require body-region hitboxes, and refining the current hitboxes would be the priority. But for those who want that kind of combat, I think it makes sense without changing the mood of of the game or being too easy.

I think headshots could work for both melee and ranged weapons. Another thing, which is frankly a bit rare in games: weakpoints, be it head, legs or anything else, don't need to just increase damage - they could in some way stagger, stun, weaken or cripple the enemy, perhaps courtesy of a status effect system. Bleeding is also an important possibility, which would make them technically a one-shot, but not an instant one, retaining some level of threat from the target.

This could go a long way to improve hunting if nothing else (ideally along with LoS and potentially aiming changes) by allowing more skill expression through optionally waiting for the perfect moment or moving to the side for the perfect angle.

As for rotbeasts, the shiver could have an exceptionally vulnerable weakpoint that is only briefly visible when it opens the mouth (or whatever that is) to bite the player, making for a much more engaging enemy to fight in melee. Bowtorns could have a weakpoint on the back, which could create some interesting incentives in multiplayer, though admittedly may be somewhat annoying in singleplayer, and it does also mean they would be much easier to kill while they're running away. Perhaps a way to scare them off briefly could be cool, even as simple as throwing a fistful of sand at them, or quicklime for a longer-lasting effect.

 

 

[Zane Mordien]

5 hours ago, Echo Weaver said:

They added bowtorns and shivers, and the other half of the fanbase had a fit. I do find it interesting that specifically bowtorn-removal mods have gone out of fashion

I don't love them, but since they dialed back the spawn rate they make more sense. They spawned at a ridiculous rate at first. 

[Thorfinn]

5 hours ago, Echo Weaver said:

I think you're dead right there. As far as fan satisfaction goes, there's no way to win. 

While I'm proposing headshots, and I'd support them being added to the game, I'm unlikely to ever put the effort into getting good at them. My kid would, though, and I think she'd have fun with the challenge.

Combat Overhaul is all about head shots and "criticals".

I think adding headshots would be funny as heck. "What? I didn't mean seraphs could die from headshots, too!!@!@!"

[LadyWYT]

41 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

"What? I didn't mean seraphs could die from headshots, too!!@!@!"

Ha!  Though really, this absolutely needs to happen with any kind of combat change. For the kind of game that Vintage Story is, if the player can inflict critical injury or status effects on the creatures, then it's only fair that creatures be able to do the same in turn. 

Honestly though, I suspect that many who are griping about the combat aren't looking for that kind of balance, as much as they are a way to feel exceptionally powerful compared to anything else in the game. Or perhaps as MKMoose put it:

5 hours ago, MKMoose said:

In regards to variety, I think the reason why it's such a common complaint is that people don't really know what they want. They want something to get them more interested in combat again, and "variety" seems like the thing, because what they already know has become stale. And it's quite natural for a person to say that, because they aren't generally going on a deep introspective journey to consider what actually bothers them about the system. The job of a game designer is sometimes to find the nature of the frustrations and address them at their origin instead of directly implementing community suggestions - and not an easy task, it is.

 

[Thorfinn]

5 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Honestly though, I suspect that many who are griping about the combat aren't looking for that kind of balance, as much as they are a way to feel exceptionally powerful compared to anything else in the game.

And that's part of the charm of VS. It's not a Superman kind of game. Except that he can run around with a freight train's worth of stuff on his back. As I'm reminded way too often, it's the kind of game where you have to pay attention anytime you are out and about, because death is only one Siberian sinkhole or one surprise brown bear away.

Combat is something you make the conscious decision to engage in when you are prepared for it, whatever that means for your skill level, or you are forced into it and likely bolting if the chance presents itself. It's not the kind of game where you go fight things because you are bored of smashing pumpkins or milking chickens and want a change of pace. Used to be you could go around smacking up through maybe corrupt drifters with torches or even sticks, but now it's really easy to get in over your head if you don't take it seriously.

And, I'll admit that from a philosophic point of view, I like the fact that the game is balanced such that battle is generally a net loss. Very few games out there are like that. They either have no combat at all, or combat is how you farm resources.

[Tabulius]

I haven't had a chance to try the temporal tempest mod, but it seems like it would fix some of the issues I have with temporal storms. Enemies not spawning randomly in and around your house but instead from rifts, allowing you to prep defense. That encourages you to fight them in order to shorten the storm while still having the option to wait the storm out in your base. 

[Jochanaan Fair-Schulz]

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Honestly though, I suspect that many who are griping about the combat aren't looking for that kind of balance, as much as they are a way to feel exceptionally powerful compared to anything else in the game.

Not in this thread. If you go back to the original post that started this and read through it, then you will realize that we are actually all on the same side here.

VS is not a combat game, and it would be a direct downgrade to the game if that is what it became. The problem that the OP, I, and others have been trying to bring attention to is that Dungeon diving and Boss Battles are a major part of Vintage Story's future: Procedural Dungeons is one of the features headlining the 1.22 roadmap, 1.23 is going to be another Story quest (all dungeons so far, so why would we assume that is going to change), and then there are the endless fixes for the above and the next 5 story chapters that will probably trickle out over the next couple of years; that's just the stuff we know about.

Until now, this has been a very minor part of VS. There have only been a few dungeons in the game, centered around the first two story chapters, and each ending with a single boss. However, If you bother to look at the road-map and read the dev logs, that is about to change in a big way. It is what the developers have decided on for their personal vision of the game, and I wish them the best of luck with it, which is why it is important to get some clarification on who this new gameplay loop is actually for.

For those who don't like combat, either aren't interested in it or just prefer other solutions, ask yourselves if dungeon diving is something you'll ever do, aside from once or twice to explore. So, this is not for you then. What about combat players? Well, you are over the moon, but that's also because you are probably already using a combat mod (a minority of players). !!!Why is a base game play loop, which is going to tie down a ton of development resources for years to come, being made if it only appeals to people with specific mods!!!

An imaginary combat overhaul doesn't need to steal attention from the development of your personal fixation, because this is already doing it, while making even less sense.

While the Dungeons that Anego has released so far have included some puzzles, they still rely heavily on mobs (read: combat) as the main source of challenge/threat. This makes them broadly unappealing to players who dislike combat. Players who "like" combat don't tend to be satisfied with the base game system, so they use mods. News flash, I don't actually have a problem with the combat of the game as I go about my daily work: exploring, farming, building, and mining; It just also leaves me with no desire to go further, and follow it into the few dungeons that currently exist. That feels fine right now, it's only a fraction of the game, but, as we have established, that is changing; What is so weird is that it feels more and more like I need to be getting combat mods in order to experience the game as intended.

Minecraft wasted years of development putting in dungeons without every really knowing how to make them interesting. The loot they gave was pointless (you can get a chest full of diamonds with a few hours of mining, and eventually you don't need more copies of "Cat"), the puzzles could never last 10 seconds, and the combat system was not interesting enough to take center stage. Like in Minecraft, the VS combat system was never meant to take the spot light. It was meant as a source of threat in the background, and it does that job well enough. There were so many different, far more interesting areas, into which MC could have put its resources (as VS has shown), but instead they gave into the genre convention of "dungeon diving" as the central gameplay loop in survival games; It's taken them ten years since to get that system from utterly pointless to... mediocre: in a truly cruel twist of fate, combat is the only system that I would say is now deeper in Minecraft than in VS.

Now, while I have more faith in the devs at Anego, I see them flirting with the same identity crisis. I personally don't think that VS needs dungeon diving. It doesn't play to the strengths of the game, or represent the broad interests of the community. However, if they have to implement it, I at least want it to be done well. If they insist on keeping combat as the main threat then that system has to be brought up to snuff (I'm not talking about combos or other nonsense, I want creative solutions that preserve the horror like in "Amnesia: The Dark Descent," "Soma," or "Deadspace;" something better than just our current 4 flavors of bonking Cthulu, and don't tell me it can't be done). Stealth is an even more bare bones system than combat, but that could also fit the bill with a decent makeover. Honestly the solution that would be the most impressive would be to focus down on puzzles (let us mine and craft a solution in the mining and crafting game instead of artificially blocking us out of those systems, and forcing us to engage in the much less interesting combat mechanics).

Some of the back and forth in this thread is really pointless; we seem to be agreeing on 95% of everything, but still acting like we're not.

I don't know what route will get the best results, there are those which I personally prefer, but what I know from looking at the past is that it would be better for everyone if Vintage Story picks a lane sooner rather than later; that is what this thread began on, and should stay about.

Edited October 18, 2025 by Jochanaan Fair-Schulz

[Tabulius]

1 hour ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

Not in this thread. If you go back to the original post that started this and read through it, then you will realize that we are actually all on the same side here.

This thread kind of turned into a thread complaining about complaining about combat

1 hour ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

Minecraft wasted years of development putting in dungeons without every really knowing how to make them interesting. The loot they gave was pointless (you can get a chest full of diamonds with a few hours of mining, and eventually you don't need more copies of "Cat"), the puzzles could never last 10 seconds, and the combat system was not interesting enough to take center stage. Like in Minecraft, the VS combat system was never meant to take the spot light. It was meant as a source of threat in the background, and it does that job well enough. There were so many different, far more interesting areas, into which MC could have put its resources (as VS has shown), but instead they gave into the genre convention of "dungeon diving" as the central gameplay loop in survival games; It's taken them ten years since to get that system from utterly pointless to... mediocre: in a truly cruel twist of fate, combat is the only system that I would say is now deeper in Minecraft than in VS.

This is what I made the thread to address, VS seems to be setting itself up to do the same thing. With combat as it is there's no problem with it being just another gameplay loop. But the issue is that it comprises the majority of what you're supposed to be working towards in the late game and doing in the endgame. And then there's temporal storms which I'm not sure if any one is happy with in their current state.

[Bumber]

19 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Yeah, I'd agree with this too. Though with the recent auto-loot feature added to the falx, I think there's a better case to be made for adding a standard arming sword/longsword. It can be similar enough in terms of attack power, perhaps ever so slightly worse on attack/durability, but it's the lack of autoloot that would make it less attractive than the falx for monster fighting.

The shortsword and estoc still exist. I think those would be less unique if we went back to anybody crafting a standard sword whenever.

17 hours ago, MKMoose said:

even as simple as throwing a fistful of sand at them, or quicklime for a longer-lasting effect.

Pocket sand!

Edited October 18, 2025 by Bumber

[Echo Weaver]

6 hours ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

Procedural Dungeons is one of the features headlining the 1.22 roadmap

OK, yes I'll admit this does have me a bit concerned. I'd like more information about what they plan to do here. I'd really rather have enhancement of caving on the roadmap than procedural dungeons specifically. At least the meaning I put into that term does not fit the VS theme.

So far, they've been pretty good about keeping to a very specific worldbuilding vision. I don't see how classic procedural dungeons fit with that vision. I'm assuming at this point that there's more to learn. I can imagine a procedural dungeon being a more elaborate ruin with more lore and whatnot to find. I don't know.

I guess, while I agree that if combat is going to be more of a focus, the system should be improved, I'm far more interested in pushing back against a shift to combat focus. 

6 hours ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

For those who don't like combat, either aren't interested in it or just prefer other solutions, ask yourselves if dungeon diving is something you'll ever do, aside from once or twice to explore. So, this is not for you then.

Probably true. If it has nothing to offer my style of play and there's no companion feature added that does, I admit I'll resent it. 

5 hours ago, Tabulius said:

This is what I made the thread to address, VS seems to be setting itself up to do the same thing. With combat as it is there's no problem with it being just another gameplay loop. But the issue is that it comprises the majority of what you're supposed to be working towards in the late game and doing in the endgame. And then there's temporal storms which I'm not sure if any one is happy with in their current state.

Maybe where we got off on the wrong foot is the jump to combat mechanics rather than discussing VS's focus, whether it's changing, and whether that's something we want to happen. I think VS as a dungeon crawler presents plenty more problems than the combat mechanics.

 

Edited October 18, 2025 by Echo Weaver

[ifoz]

12 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

OK, yes I'll admit this does have me a bit concerned. I'd like more information about what they plan to do here. I'd really rather have enhancement of caving on the roadmap than procedural dungeons specifically. At least the meaning I put into that term does not fit the VS theme.

Elvas showed off some early dungeon work on one of his recent streams, they basically seem like larger, rarer ruins that have interconnected rooms/areas and are going to be home to various tough enemies. The parts he showcased were various rooms of a big underground shelter. There was a dining hall-like area, some bedrooms, etc.

From what I have seen and heard it looks like a way to keep lategame ruin diving interesting while gating it behind some trickier fights so the player won't find themselves at the mantle in a ruin rewarding some dry grass and sticks. Part of the problem with the current way ruins work is that none of them are designed around the lategame in particular, so unless you are after ruined clutter or some nice fashion, their rewards are usually a bit lacklustre. Dry grass, sticks, rot, firewood being found at mantle-level ruins since those same ruins could theoretically spawn just below the surface.

I'm really excited for the procedural dungeons personally, since they seem like they're going to give a more replayable ruin diving experience tailored to the mid-late game specifically.
I am also just happy the modular dungeons aren't simply copy/paste square rooms joined by corridors, the ones shown seemed quite unique and decently modular while retaining visual style. The dining hall was separated into quarters that could be interchanged and looked like they would still work seamlessly to create a large cave-like room.

Edited October 18, 2025 by ifoz

[Forks]

21 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

While I'm musing on the topic, I also wonder too if some of the complaints about the ranged combat in VS feeling "bad", is due to there being no aim assistance in VS. I don't know that every game has aim assist, but I don't think it's uncommon to include it as a shortcut to making the player feel powerful. Skyrim, for example, has it, and as a result the player doesn't actually need to hit the target, but rather just make the shot "close enough".

I'd be hesitant to say that's the reason for it, not that I would completely exclude it as a possibility though.
I like to think of myself as having fairly good aim, (Hunt Showdown my beloved), but even I permanently play Hunter because I can barely tolerate ranged combat without the buffs.
Especially on spears, the base spread and throwing arc is just horrendous, humans are defined by our incredible ability to throw things well and with great accuracy. Is that what separates us from Seraphs?
I'm sure everyone has experienced lobbing 4 or more spears at a rabbit and missing every single one.

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, ifoz said:

Elvas showed off some early dungeon work on one of his recent streams, they basically seem like larger, rarer ruins that have interconnected rooms/areas and are going to be home to various tough enemies. The parts he showcased were various rooms of a big underground shelter. There was a dining hall-like area, some bedrooms, etc.

From what I have seen and heard it looks like a way to keep lategame ruin diving interesting while gating it behind some trickier fights so the player won't find themselves at the mantle in a ruin rewarding some dry grass and sticks. Part of the problem with the current way ruins work is that none of them are designed around the lategame in particular, so unless you are after ruined clutter or some nice fashion, their rewards are usually a bit lacklustre. Dry grass, sticks, rot, firewood being found at mantle-level ruins since those same ruins could theoretically spawn just below the surface.

I'm really excited for the procedural dungeons personally, since they seem like they're going to give a more replayable ruin diving experience tailored to the mid-late game specifically.
I am also just happy the modular dungeons aren't simply copy/paste square rooms joined by corridors, the ones shown seemed quite unique and decently modular while retaining visual style. The dining hall was separated into quarters that could be interchanged and looked like they would still work seamlessly to create a large cave-like room.

This is basically what I would expect from a procedural dungeon, though I might even take it a step further and say that there could probably be bits of lore added to them for players to find and speculate about. Certainly nothing as grand as the Resonance Archive or other story locations proper, but definitely something more interesting than "oh look, there was a small fort here once and...that's it".

 

8 hours ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

For those who don't like combat, either aren't interested in it or just prefer other solutions, ask yourselves if dungeon diving is something you'll ever do, aside from once or twice to explore. So, this is not for you then. What about combat players? Well, you are over the moon, but that's also because you are probably already using a combat mod (a minority of players). !!!Why is a base game play loop, which is going to tie down a ton of development resources for years to come, being made if it only appeals to people with specific mods!!!

I'm not sure that I'm the one to be asking this question, as I do like the current combat system(so I don't use combat mods), and absolutely would go dungeon delving if/when they're added. Ironically, I'm also one to avoid combat most of the time unless I have a good reason to be risking life and limb, for similar reasons to what Thorfinn stated:

 

9 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

Combat is something you make the conscious decision to engage in when you are prepared for it, whatever that means for your skill level, or you are forced into it and likely bolting if the chance presents itself. It's not the kind of game where you go fight things because you are bored of smashing pumpkins or milking chickens and want a change of pace. Used to be you could go around smacking up through maybe corrupt drifters with torches or even sticks, but now it's really easy to get in over your head if you don't take it seriously.

And, I'll admit that from a philosophic point of view, I like the fact that the game is balanced such that battle is generally a net loss. Very few games out there are like that. They either have no combat at all, or combat is how you farm resources.

As a result of that kind of design, the world actually feels as dangerous as it's made out to be. In my opinion, that's also a delicate balance that's easy to upset.

 

27 minutes ago, Forks said:

I like to think of myself as having fairly good aim, (Hunt Showdown my beloved), but even I permanently play Hunter because I can barely tolerate ranged combat without the buffs.
Especially on spears, the base spread and throwing arc is just horrendous, humans are defined by our incredible ability to throw things well and with great accuracy. Is that what separates us from Seraphs?
I'm sure everyone has experienced lobbing 4 or more spears at a rabbit and missing every single one.

In my case, a single spear won't kill a rabbit, but that's just the drawback of being a Blackguard.  Though this is also why I prefer the bow over the spear--easier to carry more shots, just in case one misses. And while rabbits can be a good food source at times, it's still better to hunt larger prey when possible. Pigs are usually pretty easy to find, and a lot easier to kill since you can walk right up and start smacking them.

 

1 hour ago, Echo Weaver said:

I guess, while I agree that if combat is going to be more of a focus, the system should be improved, I'm far more interested in pushing back against a shift to combat focus. 

Yeah, well said, and as I've tried to stress on my part, that's the main issue I have when the subject comes up. There have been several in the past that demanded the entire system change to place more focus on combat over other gameplay, which would shift the feel of the world quite dramatically. Such a drastic change also doesn't really feel warranted, since the current system is fairly solid, and could be improved easily enough with a few tweaks.

In other words, if combat is to be improved, I'd rather build on what's currently there, than start over from scratch and/or just copy a mod that does essentially the same thing. @MKMoose laid out some excellent suggestions on how to improve the current combat system with hitbox tweaks, line-of-sight(perhaps a noise detection as well?), and status effects. Hitbox tweaks would help players land more of their attacks, and a line-of-sight mechanic would help make avoiding dangerous creatures more intuitive, as well as require the player to take extra precautions when hunting lest their prey spot them. Likewise, a status effect system would give some extra depth while still being easy to understand at a glance; players can potentially ruin an enemy's day with some good hits, but enemies could just as easily do the same to a player(especially if said player is lacking proper protective gear).

[Tabbot95]

I think the best solution is something like mount and blade; 

though enemies themselves need to be upgraded in some respects as well..
Combat Overhaul is a good starting point in this respect; though there's an argument to be made that that style of combat is primarily one that is suited to a PVP in the open rather than claustrophobic PVE.

 

[Jochanaan Fair-Schulz]

A lot of combat mods sacrifice the mysterious feel of the setting in favor of power. I think that any additions should keep the current systems in place, and just build on them; specifically, I hope that the space between fight and flight will get filled out before the next round of dungeons comes out. Right now we either run away from mobs or kill them (which kind of robs the more eldritch ones of their sense of danger if we end up butchering them by the dozen with pointy sticks). Two games that I think handle this dilemma very well are Subnautica and Dead Space; while offensive options exist in these games, they tend to be indirect, focused on slowing down the enemy or even scaring them off; This way the player getting stronger doesn't automatically make the enemies feel less dangerous, in fact it underscores how out of our league they really are.

Somebody mentioned pocket sand, and I would honestly like that (though salt and garlic might be more in theme here  ). Having weapons or other tools where the focus is on knocking groups of attackers back, or pulling them toward us, would increase the skill ceiling without turning us into demi-God's or intruding on the play of those who aren't interested; that's the main issue I think with combat right now, we reach the height of proficiency long before we reach the highest tiers of gear, which makes the system feel more stagnant than it is:

Right now we have access from the get to knives/improvised weapons (weak melee), the spear (mid-range melee or projectile), then we get the bow (long range projectile),  we get the Falx with copper (short range melee), then finally we get access to the explosives (throw able area of effect), and from then on upgrading is about increasing the numbers on these rather than giving us new ways to use them. Even the ruined weapons and legacy swords are just stronger versions of options we already have. Filling out the other possible use cases or creating branching "gimmick" weapons would maintain a sense of momentum without turning into an arms race to get God's personal flyswatter.

The current system is nearly there, just not quite yet.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Jochanaan Fair-Schulz

[ifoz]

54 minutes ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

finally we get access to the explosives (throw able area of effect)

As much as I wish they worked like this, you can't toss bombs. You have to place them, then light them, then wait.
It means bombs are completely unusable in story locations since you cannot place/break any blocks there.

Bombs aren't also particularly great in terms of damage, even if you do manage to hit an enemy with a scrap bomb it likely won't kill it with the first blast.
The one "good" use of bombs for combat I have seen is wiping out a pen of chickens, but that doesn't seem like the kind of thing the devs would want the players using scrap bombs for. 

Edited October 20, 2025 by ifoz

[ifoz]

Oh also, you can make scrap bombs using golden nails. They should add a special bomb model for if you do that, as a silly trophy item.
Holy hand grenade!

[Jochanaan Fair-Schulz]

For anyone who is interested, my thoughts on this topic have been deeply influenced by a series of video essays about Minecraft by a games critic on Youtube called Whitelight.

Though it doesn't have anything directly to do with Vintage Story, it's fascinating to see just how well the points and suggestions put forward reflect improvements that VS has made on Minecraft. I don't agree with every point, but his arguments are very well reasoned (don't worry this isn't CriticalDrinker type stuff). Watching them with VS in mind, I think that these do a great job of explaining why I believe VS is so brilliant, and why I think the road ahead has both so much potential and risk, especially as more dungeon content gets introduced.

1. "A Serious Critique of Minecraft" - (July 12, 2019) 
2. "A Serious Improvement for Minecraft" - (Oct 4, 2019)
3. "The Perfect Update for Minecraft" - (Nov 15, 2019) 
4. "Another Serious Critique of Minecraft" - (May 18, 2024) 

- I don't know if i'm allowed to post video links here, so there are the titles -

The Fourth video, in addition to being the most recent, is also the most important in my opinion (though they are all quite interesting). Each is self contained, so watching them out of order doesn't matter.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Jochanaan Fair-Schulz

[Bumber]

18 hours ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

1. "A Serious Critique of Minecraft" - (July 12, 2019)
2. "A Serious Improvement for Minecraft" - (Oct 4, 2019)
3. "The Perfect Update for Minecraft" - (Nov 15, 2019)
4. "Another Serious Critique of Minecraft" - (May 18, 2024)

- I don't know if i'm allowed to post video links here, so there are the titles -

It'd probably be annoying if they were all embedded videos. It's probably fine as text links like this.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Bumber