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

[Tabulius]

Having played more with combat overhaul I don't think it's a solution, and it also has it's own share of problems. It makes combat more complex mainly with area specific damage, but it doesn't really improve the existing flaws. A lot of the complaints about combat in general are hit box related. And although hitboxes do seem to be a problem I think in a lot of cases the problem isn't actually enemy hit boxes but the way hits are registered. You have to have your reticle on the enemy while the weapon is swinging or else it won't hit. This means that tiny enemies like locusts are an utter pain to fight, because you have no AOE attacks and you need to be pin point accurate. Faster enemies like shivers can be easy to miss, and hordes of enemies in general are difficult because even if you can swing wide enough that your weapon should hit multiple, it only registers what your reticle covers.

 CO does improve this a bit, I'm not sure if it was added in the mod or it exists in the vanilla game but I have been been able to damage multiple enemies if they're clustered, particularly with pole arms. But it's not something I can reliably count on since the mod still relies on the pin point reticle based hit reg. On top of that, it makes some really odd changes to armor. Like making brigandine completely useless since it has all the same debuffs as plate but worse stats. In general early game armor is trash, that's also true for vanilla, but in vanilla there would be some benefit to even copper lamellar even if it wasn't really worth making for most people. Now lamellar in general is completely useless outside of surface armor, and even as surface armor it's not good because it can't be layered with anything else, you'd be better of just using chain mail and layering with gambeson. Scale kind of has a use since you can wear gambeson with it, but it's still just marginally better than just wearing chain and gambeson. It would be better to not waste the metal since you'll still have a use for chain, but you'll out grow scale.

 Side note, I've also discovered that any amount of armor will make you completely impervious to bears, even a single layer of basic gambeson. This is definitely a glitch.

 I do really like the new weapons. and the region based damage in theory. But I think changing hit reg is needed first. Weapons and their attacks having physicalized hitboxes instead of just being a thing you hold to increase your damage would make a bigger difference than most of what CO changes.

Edited October 22, 2025 by Tabulius

[LadyWYT]

25 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

Side note, I've also discovered that any amount of armor will make you completely impervious to bears, even a single layer of basic gambeson. This is definitely a glitch.

Are you referring to CO stats here, or vanilla? In vanilla, having tier 2 armor like gambeson will make bear attacks mostly a non-issue(aside from hitboxes), since bears have tier 2 attacks. In any case, just checking, because I got confused by the preceding paragraph and thought you were talking vanilla armor mechanics, until I realized you were still referring to Combat Overhaul.  Silly me!

 

27 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

 CO does improve this a bit, I'm not sure if it was added in the mod or it exists in the vanilla game but I have been been able to damage multiple enemies if they're clustered, particularly with pole arms.

This is 100% a CO change. To my knowledge, the only things in vanilla that allow for AoE attacks, are bombs. And those are quite situational in use.

 

29 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

You have to have your reticle on the enemy while the weapon is swinging or else it won't hit. This means that tiny enemies like locusts are an utter pain to fight, because you have no AOE attacks and you need to be pin point accurate.

I do want to note that while this is true, it's not really a problem for Blackguards specifically, unless they have very bad aim. Blackguards are able to oneshot locusts, provided said Blackguard is decently armed. 

[Tabulius]

25 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Are you referring to CO stats here, or vanilla? In vanilla, having tier 2 armor like gambeson will make bear attacks mostly a non-issue(aside from hitboxes), since bears have tier 2 attacks. In any case, just checking, because I got confused by the preceding paragraph and thought you were talking vanilla armor mechanics, until I realized you were still referring to Combat Overhaul.  Silly me!

Referring to CO. For some reason bears are damage tier 0 in CO, they are literally completely incapable of damaging you if you have any kind of armor that gives full coverage. Unless I have another mod effecting it but I can't think of what would.

Edited October 22, 2025 by Tabulius

[Endeavour]

I was playing tower of mask and thinking about this exact issue: VS heavy focus on combat that is boils down to "mouse click until enemy falls over".
I think just adding critical hits would help a lot - they reward good aim, they reward staying calm, instantly weapon reach starts to matter more, it could tie into lore with the drifters and would make hunting more interesting.

A breakdown how I would imagine a simple, quick implementation that would still be rewarding and add depth:
A critical hitbox is added to each enemy, it can be head for a rabbits and wolves, heart for bears, deer and maybe drifters, torso for boars etc.
Upon hitting the critical hitbox, the feedback would be the hit sound pitched differently and enemy flashing white. They could also stagger for longer giving even more advantage to players. 
The damage would be multiplied depending on weapon type, maybe even depending on whether enemy was aware of you making it important to be sneaky while hunting.

As a result you would have a system where when fighting the horrors you have a way to finish the combat quicker or stagger the enemy in order to get in more hits or buy more time to run away. Bow close combat would be vastly more difficult and it would incentivize spending an inventory slot for a melee weapon.  
Hunting would reward accuracy and stealth cause you could catch a deer with a shot into the heart rather than chase after it while spamming arrows or cheese it with a pit.

[Echo Weaver]

3 hours ago, Endeavour said:

cheese it with a pit.

Pits are not cheesing. They're strategy.

[Endeavour]

3 hours ago, Echo Weaver said:

Pits are not cheesing. They're strategy.

Building dirt towers and digging pits to avoid combat says a lot about the combat though.

[Thorfinn]

On 10/21/2025 at 7:16 PM, Tabulius said:

A lot of the complaints about combat in general are hit box related. And although hitboxes do seem to be a problem I think in a lot of cases the problem isn't actually enemy hit boxes but the way hits are registered. You have to have your reticle on the enemy while the weapon is swinging or else it won't hit. This means that tiny enemies like locusts are an utter pain to fight, because you have no AOE attacks and you need to be pin point accurate.

This could all be true. I was quite interested in the new auto-looting falx, and gave it a whirl, but ended up going back to spears. Why? Because effective combat is a skill you have to develop, and I am not good enough to switch over in high stakes fights, which at 150% enemy damage, 33% fewer seraph base HP and permadeath, is basically all of them.

It's not that its so much a pain to fight as it requires a level of player skill I just don't have. Yet.

[LadyWYT]

8 hours ago, Endeavour said:

I think just adding critical hits would help a lot - they reward good aim, they reward staying calm, instantly weapon reach starts to matter more, it could tie into lore with the drifters

Rotbeasts are very different than living creatures, as are the mechanical monsters, and I think how they're implemented in the game is actually quite tame in comparison to what they're supposed to be in lore. This short story gives a decent idea of what they should actually be like: https://www.vintagestory.at/stories/storyexcerpt-ghosts.html/

Mind you, I'm not arguing against critical hits/shots entirely(the main point I hold against them is they tend to be based on luck in many cases), but there is a reason that falxs are specialized for monster fighting and the flavor text on the weapon indicates that standard weapons won't do in that scenario. 

5 hours ago, Echo Weaver said:

Pits are not cheesing. They're strategy.

1 hour ago, Endeavour said:

Building dirt towers and digging pits to avoid combat says a lot about the combat though.

I mean...this is just realistic combat strategy, given that fighting isn't a good idea in general if it can be avoided. Fighting carries risk of injury, which while it might not kill, also might not heal properly either. Granted, Vintage Story is a videogame, yes, but the current balance of combat reflects that realism--sometimes, the risk is too much, even with good equipment, and it may be more in the player's interest to avoid the fight, or otherwise figure out a way to even the odds.

Of course, it's not ideal for players to rely exclusively on towers and traps, but I don't get the impression that's the case either. It depends heavily on the player's preferred playstyle. I also don't think there's a way to stop players from using those strategies either, unless the enemies are able to just teleport around the obstacles...which definitely isn't going to feel fair.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

I mean I shamelessly admit that my first combat experience in this game was  building fences in a cellar and baiting drifters so I could stab at them with my spear without them hitting me back. I don't think any "cheese" strategy is going to say anything about the combat experience. The rotbeasts are strong. Very strong. They hurt.

The veterans aren't saying "Don't fight."

They're saying "Don't fight unprepared."

Sometimes the preparation is copious amounts of bandages and aquavitae in jugs. Sometimes the preparation is building pits and towers to out-range the opponent. Sometimes the preparation is a dirt hut to hide in until you have enough armor that it doesn't matter how much you suck at combat, the enemies can't hurt you. Sometimes the preparation is to run out there with nothing but bear armor, an iron falx, and a warcry daring the world to put you down... and laughing when it does.

[Echo Weaver]

6 hours ago, Endeavour said:

Building dirt towers and digging pits to avoid combat says a lot about the combat though.

Not necessarily. I keep finding myself in this conversation where combat-focused players think that other players avoid direct combat because the combat system is flawed. Some of us actually enjoy setting traps more than we like head-to-head combat.

ETA: Expanding on this, I'm not a fantastic head-on fighter. I prefer advanced preparation and risk reduction, using brain rather than reaction speed. But even beyond that, in a survival horror game I tend to treat foes as if they are too dangerous to fight head-to-head even when they sometimes aren't. It's a mood. I like the game to be scary, and I sort of want to feel outclassed. Fighting head-to-head feels like it drops the fear and turns the game into any other combat game.

Edited October 23, 2025 by Echo Weaver

[Jochanaan Fair-Schulz]

On 10/23/2025 at 3:34 PM, Echo Weaver said:

Some of us actually enjoy setting traps more than we like head-to-head combat.

Traps fit the setting and tone of VS spot-on (honestly better than chargeing in to melee, imo). A great addition would be adding more trap focused blocks to the game: Having place-able spikes alone would offer so much to pitfalls, but also to countering enemies that can climb our walls. 

I was always fascinated by the possibilities of creating traps with redstone in Minecraft, but the mechanics of the game never really incentivized that kind of play (not to mention it was woefully underutilized by the devs in their dungeons). I'm not saying that we need a redstone equivalent, but it always seemed a shame to me how Minecraft and its successors never  explored how they could do combat differently.

I don't think that combat, or fleshing out that system, has to be just a question of abilities and gear; that would significantly improve what is there, but it would also not maximize the potential of the game. VS, like Minecraft, has its building (survival) side and then its combat (conquest) side, and the two are not fully integrated yet, so they end up fighting for resources. Currently, building competes with combat for much of the game: homesteading is about building barriers to manage danger and adventuring is about crossing barriers to seek danger for reward, but the resources and equipment we gain by homesteading are far more valuable than anything we gain by combat, not-to-mention more likely to be lost in fights (By comparison, building and exploring feed into each other much more mechanically: we explore to find different materials to build with, and we build roads, bridges, boats and canals to better explore). Pit traps and archery towers are some of the only places were the combat and building systems are working together in synergy (yeah it can feel cheesy, but that's because it is such an effective combination of systems, for which the enemy design is not always optimized). 

Temporal storms are actually a step in the right direction, since having a threat that cuts right through all our built barriers, for which the only long-term solution is Jonas tech powered with temporal gears, gives fighting rust mobs and dungeon diving a practical purpose: fighting gives us materials to build better utilities. The only issue is that we access these very late into the game, so early and mid game we are left with few solutions but to wait and hide. Temporal storms (and these challenges in general) are very clever incentives to experiment, but, unfortunately, without a lot of options; ex. I like to set up a field of pit kilns outside my home before a storm, the rust beasts wander into them and I loot them after it ends (it doesn't actually accomplish much, but it feels meaningful to try).

No other games in the world have the potential for creativity that Minecraft and VS have, and VS is the only one that I think would be willing to bring that creativity to building for combat/combat through building: Crafting bear traps and tripwires, Mining to trigger cave-ins or floods on our attackers, Building trap mazes and siege engines (Ballistas and Catapults) to fight hordes or bosses... the potentials are really endless.

 

Edited October 25, 2025 by Jochanaan Fair-Schulz

[Tabulius]

On 10/21/2025 at 5:16 PM, Tabulius said:

Having played more with combat overhaul I don't think it's a solution

I'm actually gonna have to amend that opinion again. I had been playing with CO for a while and it's changes were subtle enough that I didn't realize how much of a difference it made. Going back to vanilla there are a lot of little things that are different. For one hit reg is definitely worse in vanilla. There were multiples times where my reticle was red and I 100% should have landed a hit but it didn't register, that never happened with CO. There were also times where my reticle wouldn't go red even though I should be in range.

 Another thing is enemy attacks are better telegraphed and easier to dodge. In vanilla some of the enemies will still hit you even if you're far enough away that you logically should have dodged them. This is probably where most of the complaints about wolves come from. Also enemies like shivers and bears which are slightly faster than the player in vanilla, also have a quick difficult to dodge attack, with a hitbox larger than the actual animation. Where as in CO I'd say they may have over corrected a little. Now you can basically avoid all damage just by walking (not running) backwards and side stepping when they attack. Bears are also slowed, to the point where they are slightly slower than the player at sprint, instead of slightly faster like in vanilla.

 Also, armor is so much worse in vanilla. Walk speed being halved with plate is ridiculous, and makes you a sitting duck. You can't even chase down bowtorns, since they're slightly faster than you. So if you get caught out in the open with full plate during a storm with a bunch of bowtorns around you your only option is to retreat. Compared to that even with 3 layers of plate, chain, and gambeson your speed is only reduced to 71% in CO meaning you're still able to actually respond to the enemy.

 I think CO is definitely a more balanced experience, I rarely feel like a death wasn't my fault when using CO. However it arguably trivializes some of the enemies too much. Fast enemies like wolves are a lot more fair, but their attacks are almost stationary now. You could avoid all damage by standing still and then stepping back at the first telegraph. Rarely do they do the jumping attack that's the bane of many a noob, and even when they do it's way easier to avoid. And some attacks you almost have to be inside of the enemy to get hit. Where as in vanilla, the only viable strategy is to kite them. If you try to side step an attack at all the risk is way too high and you'll almost certainly take the hit. I do think CO is preferable to vanillas feeling of it being a wild card whether you dodge an attack or not, and it's not like it makes enemies unchallenging, but especially one on one enemies are not the same threat they were.

I think it would be nice if the standard strategy of kiting enemies to death was broken up. In both vanilla and CO enemies will track you perfectly if you side step or jump around them. So your main means of fighting is always kiting. This is pretty universally considered to be a sign of poor design. CO avoids this better because of how much more forgiving the hit boxes are, but especially with multiple enemies you'll be kiting a lot. I think the longer reach of vanilla enemy attacks wouldn't be as much of a problem if they couldn't track you perfectly and seemingly change direction during attacks.

[Bruno Willis]

On 10/15/2025 at 7:51 PM, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

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.

To jump back a bunch to this, I think the way the key story points are designed is a lot to blame to people not liking combat.

At the moment, claimed areas are almost as restrictive as they can be. You can place torches in torch holders, and you can place story items in story item slots. I think opening that up just a little more would make a world of difference and open up the design space for story locations hugely.

When I first prepared for the RA I gathered up a huge number of rope ladders and anti creature explosives, because I had gotten used to avoiding hard fights if I could, or taking fights on my own terms. I was so disappointed to find that I couldn't place any ladders, especially when the situation so clearly called for them. My immersion as an adventurer in a ruined land was totally broken. I also decided to hop down to the bottom of the pit and got stuck there for a long time, but that was on me.

I know being able to mine blocks would totally break dungeon design, but dungeons can still be really interesting, risky and fun spaces to explore if you are avoiding detection, climbing, looking for interesting gaps to exploit. I could see VS designing key chapter points more like heists than boss battles, but it would require a change to how claiming works. Imagine if you could place some blocks in claimed areas, but the denizens would take them down again after a couple of hours or when they bumped into them (the alterations would disappear). Then the devs would be able to design maps where players would have to look around and spot holes to rope ladder up to, places where using a bomb might be a good way to kill a band of foes, and maybe even weak points in walls which a stone breaking bomb could open up a passage permanently (although this one would be the most challenging to work with). 

It looks like the Zelda games do a good job at making puzzle dungeons, and I really think VS suits puzzle dungeons so much better than combat dungeons. It should be able to do puzzle dungeons better than any other game. I want to be fixing things, turning ancient and gargantuan things on, use pully systems to drop tones of rock onto robotic horrors, not just stand around hitting things with lengths of bent metal. No matter how good the hitting mechanic is. 

(to be fair, I can see the devs are already designing 'turn things on' and 'fix broken machines' quests, but I think they're hamstrung by how restrictive the claiming system is)

[Vexxvididu]

I believe people have made good points about technical changes that can be explored.  I especially agree with @Bruno Willis that VS should have more puzzle dungeons than combat dungeons. ...but I think it's worth mentioning that many people will jump through technical hoops to avoid admitting something is just too hard.  Saying "this is too hard, make it easier" seems to rub a lot of gamers the wrong way.  I think many gaming communities have a sort of "cult of difficulty" where you can never admit something isn't just broken, but maybe too hard.

I think many enemies in this game, including small animals (such as foxes and deer) have too much HP and hit too hard.  It seems weird to me I can't 1-hit kill tiny animals like raccoons or chickens with default settings and a flint spear.

Now, it is fair to say that maybe you should need to spend time crafting armor and advanced weapons to kill many enemies in the game.  I think many of the deep monsters are fine as they are, but a lot of the basic surface animals probably should have their stats halved (HP and damage they do).  I think wolves and bears are both a bit too strong and common by default.

I of course realize that many of the tweaks I'm asking for can be easily adjusted in world settings, but I believe it's better for new players if the default settings are a bit less daunting.  Maybe the world settings should have a simple difficulty slider for combat to make it easier for new people to control.  I think the current defaults could be considered "hard."  I'd argue the "normal" difficulty should at least have weaker surface animals.

[Alonso7]

Honestly, if I wasn't playing on a server, I would stop the drifters from spawning altogether. Having to fight drifters becomes too much of a hassle very quickly. It would be OK if they spawned a couple a night or something like that. But it feels like an endless stream of drifters, constant portals and temporal storms. I just want to bake pies 

I saw an interview in which the creator of VS talked about a new type of enemy, a biological one. From what he said, I'm quite sure they are bandits. I wouldn't mind encountering bandits from time to time as long as they're not too common. I think enemie spawn should be more realistic, drifters comming out of portals instead of spawning everywhere is darkness.

[LadyWYT]

59 minutes ago, Vexxvididu said:

It seems weird to me I can't 1-hit kill tiny animals like raccoons or chickens with default settings and a flint spear.

Actually, the player should be able to kill small animals like chickens and rabbits on default settings, with only one flint spear, assuming that the player is throwing said spear and not stabbing. The only class that cannot do this, is Blackguard, as it takes two shots minimum to kill.

 

1 hour ago, Vexxvididu said:

but a lot of the basic surface animals probably should have their stats halved (HP and damage they do).  I think wolves and bears are both a bit too strong and common by default.

I of course realize that many of the tweaks I'm asking for can be easily adjusted in world settings, but I believe it's better for new players if the default settings are a bit less daunting. 

I have to disagree here. First and foremost, nerfing the hitpoints of wildlife(especially to that extent) will make the predators essentially no threat, and make hunting way too easy. One benefit of investing in livestock is having an easy supply of meat, fat, hides, and dairy once you get the herds going. Likewise, picking the Hunter class offers an advantage early on by making it easier to kill things at range, and getting a bit more reward for one's butchering endeavors.

Secondly, while it may seem a bit harsh for wolves and bears to be killing new players that easily, it is at least somewhat realistic(unless one has very good weapons/armor, the odds are absolutely stacked in the large predator's favor) and teaches the player a very important lesson early in the game about how the game's world operates. That is, the world is dangerous, and while the game will give the player a fair shot at success, it absolutely will not pull punches or otherwise stack the deck in the player's favor, as other games tend to do. Success or failure hinges heavily on the player's own ingenuity and efforts.

As for predators not actually being that aggressive in real life...there are lore reasons for why wildlife is more aggressive in Vintage Story, although it has yet to really be explained.

3 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

When I first prepared for the RA I gathered up a huge number of rope ladders and anti creature explosives, because I had gotten used to avoiding hard fights if I could, or taking fights on my own terms. I was so disappointed to find that I couldn't place any ladders, especially when the situation so clearly called for them. My immersion as an adventurer in a ruined land was totally broken.

I did this too, however, I wouldn't say my immersion was broken. Rather, it was a rare shocking reminder that Vintage Story plays by a different set of rules than the other block game, or even titles like Skyrim. The puzzles themselves aren't terribly difficult, but they aren't so simple that the player won't have to actually search for clues or think about how to solve it for a little bit(puzzle doors in the draugr crypts, anyone?). Likewise, the player can't just break blocks to bypass the challenges within, or otherwise tear the entire place apart in order to cart it home.

 

3 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

At the moment, claimed areas are almost as restrictive as they can be. You can place torches in torch holders, and you can place story items in story item slots. I think opening that up just a little more would make a world of difference and open up the design space for story locations hugely.

I would agree that it's restrictive, and that having a few more options would be nice. However, as you've already noted, it's difficult to pull that off without enabling the player to cheat and bypass the challenges. Likewise, it's also easier to design a dungeon location with a more linear route/challenges, and then spend more time detailing the set pieces or hiding little goodies around for the player to find. Currently, that also seems to be the design the VS devs are working with, given that the path through the location puzzles is fairly straightforward, but there's a lot of storytelling going on with the set design and lots of hidden goodies to discover. The Resonance Archive itself has at least three or four hidden locations to find; it's not unusual for those nooks and crannies in the walls to turn out to be more than just background detail.

 

3 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

Imagine if you could place some blocks in claimed areas, but the denizens would take them down again after a couple of hours or when they bumped into them (the alterations would disappear). Then the devs would be able to design maps where players would have to look around and spot holes to rope ladder up to, places where using a bomb might be a good way to kill a band of foes, and maybe even weak points in walls which a stone breaking bomb could open up a passage permanently (although this one would be the most challenging to work with). 

Like I said before, some of this is already part of the location design, as there are hidden bits that are easily missed, until the player figures out that not everything is just set dressing. As for placing blocks...I think that's a big "maybe". I think it's a concept better suited for procedural dungeons, while saving really special things(like the special bit from chapter two) for story locations.

As for enemies interacting with placed blocks...rotbeasts don't seem intelligent enough to really do stuff like. Mechanicals like the locusts might, but creature AI needs more improvement to handle something like that, really.

Overall, I think one of the present weak points of current location design, is that it's not always obvious what the player can interact with/is supposed to interact with. Obviously, extra goodies aren't that important, and there mostly as a fun little reward for a player's exploration efforts. Objects related to the main story recently got an improvement, in that they now emit particles if they are something the player can interact with(like lore books or the library resonator).

3 minutes ago, Alonso7 said:

I saw an interview in which the creator of VS talked about a new type of enemy, a biological one. From what he said, I'm quite sure they are bandits. I wouldn't mind encountering bandits from time to time as long as they're not too common.

Interesting. I'll have to go try to find the interview at some point. It makes sense that there would be some more nefarious humans out there, especially given that many NPCs suggest as much, however, I would also expect bandits to be a fairly rare occurrence out in the wild. The wilds are, after all, incredibly unsafe, and the idea behind being a bandit is making your living by stealing other people's livings. Can't really do that if there's no people to steal from.

[Alonso7]

3 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Interesting. I'll have to go try to find the interview at some point. It makes sense that there would be some more nefarious humans out there, especially given that many NPCs suggest as much, however, I would also expect bandits to be a fairly rare occurrence out in the wild. The wilds are, after all, incredibly unsafe, and the idea behind being a bandit is making your living by stealing other people's livings. Can't really do that if there's no people to steal from.

Here you go: 

 

[Vexxvididu]

16 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Actually, the player should be able to kill small animals like chickens and rabbits on default settings, with only one flint spear, assuming that the player is throwing said spear and not stabbing. The only class that cannot do this, is Blackguard, as it takes two shots minimum to kill.

A flint spear does 2 damage stabbing, and 5 throwing.  A chicken has 3 hp, which means you can one hit it on a throw, but not a stab.  Call me crazy, but I think I should be able to one hit kill a Chicken, hare, or raccoon with one stab of a spear.  It's just an example of how basic surface animals seem to generally have too much HP.

 

20 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I have to disagree here. First and foremost, nerfing the hitpoints of wildlife(especially to that extent) will make the predators essentially no threat, and make hunting way too easy. One benefit of investing in livestock is having an easy supply of meat, fat, hides, and dairy once you get the herds going. Likewise, picking the Hunter class offers an advantage early on by making it easier to kill things at range, and getting a bit more reward for one's butchering endeavors.

You make a good argument about the value of husbandry, but I do think a lot of basic animals like deer seem more resilient than they should be.  Even if their hit points were nerfed a bit, husbandry would still be valuable since then you don't have to go looking for prey.

 

24 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Secondly, while it may seem a bit harsh for wolves and bears to be killing new players that easily, it is at least somewhat realistic(unless one has very good weapons/armor, the odds are absolutely stacked in the large predator's favor) and teaches the player a very important lesson early in the game about how the game's world operates. That is, the world is dangerous, and while the game will give the player a fair shot at success, it absolutely will not pull punches or otherwise stack the deck in the player's favor, as other games tend to do. Success or failure hinges heavily on the player's own ingenuity and efforts

This is a good argument for why wolves and bears should be stronger than the unequipped player, which I agree with.  But I do think they are maybe a bit too common.  Real ecosystems always have a much larger population of prey animals than predators. It feels like wolves in particular are a bit more common than makes sense.

[Bruno Willis]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Rather, it was a rare shocking reminder that Vintage Story plays by a different set of rules than the other block game, or even titles like Skyrim. The puzzles themselves aren't terribly difficult, but they aren't so simple that the player won't have to actually search for clues or think about how to solve it for a little bit(puzzle doors in the draugr crypts, anyone?). Likewise, the player can't just break blocks to bypass the challenges within, or otherwise tear the entire place apart in order to cart it home.

For me it was shocking because it told me the story location gameplay would use different rules and techniques than the ones I had learned through normal gameplay. It sort of feels like you're playing two different games, normal and story mode. I love VS so much, it has replaced all others for me, but that moment when I realized I couldn't use many of the skills I'd learned outside the dungeon anymore was a very disappointing one. I know now, and I have a great time and really enjoy the story locations, but I think having such a tactics divide between the claimed and unclaimed locations feels off. 

Saying that, the tall and timey story location is an excellent example of adding extra rules that are unique to a story location. I think that works because it is adding options, rather than removing them, and because it feels in-world justified. 

It's interesting to imagine what the RA would be like if it was unclaimed, but every time you broke something or sprinted in armor, or did anything else particularly noisy, a light would blink on on the darkened figure in the center, and then slowly fade to black again. Get too many lights lit and things get temporally unstable, locusts pour from high spots, essentially the space becomes unbeatable and you have to retreat. It would make it more of a tense, heist like scenario where you're pausing after every loud noise, waiting to see if the thing in the center heard you. I am not sure if that would be better or worse, but it is a different way than just saying "only combat and placing story things now".

I guess what I'm getting at is the whole "you cannot break things, this place is claimed by a higher power" feels interesting and ominous, but is literally a deus ex machina for the devs. It would be more interesting if they said "you shouldn't break things here, this place is claimed by a higher power" and then backed it up in world with interesting, brutal consequences. You get almost the same gameplay, but you get rid of that artificial divide between game modes. 

[Entaris]

On 10/23/2025 at 8:30 AM, Endeavour said:

Building dirt towers and digging pits to avoid combat says a lot about the combat though.

Yeah, it says that creatures are dangerous and the squishy fleshbeast known as the Player must use every advantage he can muster to overcome this challenge before his technologies can compensate. 

[MKMoose]

11 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

As for placing blocks...I think that's a big "maybe". I think it's a concept better suited for procedural dungeons, while saving really special things(like the special bit from chapter two) for story locations.

As for enemies interacting with placed blocks...rotbeasts don't seem intelligent enough to really do stuff like. Mechanicals like the locusts might, but creature AI needs more improvement to handle something like that, really.

It really doesn't have to apply for all blocks, but primarily for tools and devices like ladders, bombs, traps, light sources, maybe a campfire or some new portable cooking pot for an especially large enclosed location. Some restrictions may be placed and some items might get automatically broken at key moments to prevent cheesing and unintended behaviours when something gets obstructed by placed hitboxes.

A simpler way to handle removing placed items and blocks (though not universally applicable to all locations) could be to have them become temporally destabilized or otherwise affected after a short period of time in claimed areas, so that they become partially transparent and lose their hitboxes and functionality. Kind of like it has been suggested for temporal storms to make them more dangerous without just spawning enemies on top of the player.

The delay before destabilization or whatnot should be long enough to allow using bombs and the like, but fairly short and well-communicated to make the rules and effects clear. Ideally, it would still be possible to pick up the items and stabilize them in some way, even if just by taking them out of the claimed area.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

like it has been suggested for temporal storms to make them more dangerous

Suggested and summarily shot down as a generally terrible idea, IIRC. Or at least dismissed as going too far on the difficulty scale. The game is plenty difficult enough without your emergency hole in the ground suddenly letting rotbeasts through because the ground suddenly wasn't stable enough to keep them out. Difficulty ramps up after the first few storms anyway. I still have holes in my armor where a nightmare shiver sent me home fast than it takes to say it.

EDIT: I'm going to say this:

Most of these suggestions are harebrained ideas by players and haven't actually been tested in a real gameplay scenario. In the case of ground stability getting yoinked away, all one would have to do is just hide in a dirt hut and then punch holes in it during a storm and see just how long they last. I tried it. I hated it. The end.

Edited November 12, 2025 by Teh Pizza Lady

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

It really doesn't have to apply for all blocks, but primarily for tools and devices like ladders, bombs, traps, light sources, maybe a campfire or some new portable cooking pot for an especially large enclosed location. Some restrictions may be placed and some items might get automatically broken at key moments to prevent cheesing and unintended behaviours when something gets obstructed by placed hitboxes.

I mean, it would definitely be a useful option to have for making custom maps. If it were something added, I'd expect it to be in a story update, or perhaps procedural dungeons, so that the feature can be showcased properly.

It's still a feature I'd prefer to see more in procedural dungeons than story locations, I think, simply because those aren't really plot critical and more meant as entertaining side quests. Thus the more intricate details and tougher challenges can be left to main story locations, while procedural dungeons could be more relaxed and handle a greater variety of problem solving.

As for keeping main locations "exciting"...I think a better option might be including secrets that have specific conditions to unlock. That is, perhaps the secret is only unlocked by a certain class(or certain class items), or perhaps the player needs to make certain choices in the story in order to have certain options available later. For example, instead of demanding more reward for your efforts at the end of chapter two, perhaps the player could forgo the immediate reward in exchange for something better later. Or perhaps there could be side quests for certain NPCs that increase your reputation with them, that eventually yields access to secrets later. Of course, these secrets wouldn't be critical to completing the main story, but rather just fun little side bits.

 

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

A simpler way to handle removing placed items and blocks (though not universally applicable to all locations) could be to have them become temporally destabilized or otherwise affected after a short period of time in claimed areas, so that they become partially transparent and lose their hitboxes and functionality. Kind of like it has been suggested for temporal storms to make them more dangerous without just spawning enemies on top of the player.

Technically, this is already a thing, in that one location from chapter two. It works a bit differently, but it's the same general concept of working one's way through things...er...frozen in time. Of course, that's also the lore reason why the player can't just go tampering with things in that area too; without spoiling too much, the area is a giant anomaly, and it's either not possible to mess with things, or messing with things would have catastrophic consequences. I'm inclined to think it's the former, and not the latter, in that everything is literally frozen in time. Other locations, like the Resonance Archive, seem to have similar anomalies occurring, but not to the same extent.

[MKMoose]

28 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Suggested and summarily shot down as a generally terrible idea, IIRC. Or at least dismissed as going too far on the difficulty scale.

Maybe I just haven't seen the same discussions, but I recall seeing similar suggestions received pretty positively, with the sentiment that implementing it well would feel much more immersive and engaging than just plopping down that same nightmare shiver directly in the player's house with no warning. The current implementation is extremely random and leaves the player with very little agency due to lacking prevention methods aside from exploiting monster spawn mechanics.

Either way, the reason I brought this up is that I have seen a bunch of people comment on those discussions, and so they should be familiar with the mechanism I'm describing. This case aims to accomplish a completely separate goal, though, and what I'm saying is also arguably a simplification of another person's suggestion.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

23 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

more immersive and engaging than just plopping down that same nightmare shiver directly in the player's house with no warning. The current implementation is extremely random and leaves the player with very little agency due to lacking prevention methods aside from exploiting monster spawn mechanics.

To be fair, the only times I have ever had issues with my house spawning random creatures is when I have multiple side rooms. I have never had rotbeasts spawn in the room I'm occupying as long as it is small enough to count as an interior room. The wine cellar off the basement? Sure, I'll get shivers and drifters, even bowtorns spawning down there. But never when I'm in the room.

I really think that half the people complaining about stuff spawning right on top of them during storms are building too big and the game is marking the interiors of their homes as valid spawning locations for these things. That's the only way I can imagine having something like a shiver or other create spawn right on top of you during a storm. I've played through countless storms and have NEVER experienced that except on one server I played on where I built a HUGE hunting lodge that was too big to count as an interior space. Every other interior space we had on the server was small enough to count as such and never had issues with rotbeasts randomly spawning inside on top of us while we were trying to hide from them.