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

[Zane Mordien]

I agree, it would be nice if there was a middle ground between the iron age and night vision. It can be unlocked by story progression, but that is always my idea. Unlock it by story progression.

[williams_482]

Regarding monsters breaking into your house during temporal storms, I was impressed by the suggestion in a reddit post from several months ago that monsters (and rifts) could make blocks temporarily insubstantial, then pass through them. If more expensive and/or sturdy materials take longer to break through, players would have a reason to build specific temporal storm resistant structures. 

Personally, I'm firmly in the camp that temporal storms are currently much too disruptive and annoying to bother with, so I just shut them off. If there was any real preparation I could do to allow me to just sit in around and make pots or whatever without being harassed by random otherwise-impossible drifter spawns, I'd be more inclined to actually engage with the mechanic. Preventing drifters from spawning too close to the player but giving them more ability to reach an unprepared player seems like a decent compromise. 

[Bumber]

16 hours ago, Echo Weaver said:

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.

It's kind of obvious with all the counter-cheese they've added. Before you know it there'll be drifters just flying out of pits, or teleporting behind you when you hit them around a corner.

(I wonder if one could just sic a bunch of angry rams on them?)

Edited October 16, 2025 by Bumber

[Echo Weaver]

5 hours ago, Bumber said:

It's kind of obvious with all the counter-cheese they've added. Before you know it there'll be drifters just flying out of pits, or teleporting behind you when you hit them around a corner.

(I wonder if one could just sic a bunch of angry rams on them?)

Could you expand on this? How much counter-cheese has there been? I've been playing heavily for the last few versions, and other than adding two more rotbeast types, I haven't seen a ton of difficulty increase, honestly.

[LadyWYT]

7 hours ago, Bumber said:

(I wonder if one could just sic a bunch of angry rams on them?)

You can, if you can get the drifters to bonk the rams with rocks. I don't think the rams care otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, Echo Weaver said:

Could you expand on this? How much counter-cheese has there been? I've been playing heavily for the last few versions, and other than adding two more rotbeast types, I haven't seen a ton of difficulty increase, honestly.

I'm guessing that once upon a time, drifters didn't throw rocks, and that may have been added to try to stop players from just standing on ledges or pillars in relative safety, though I can't really confirm this. The couple things I do know of that were changed to prevent cheesing enemies:

Spoiler

The top of the Devastation Tower used to have a staircase to access the boss arena. However, the design of said staircase made it very easy to avoid getting knocked around by the Crow during the fight, since the player could just hide in the staircase and avoid the knockback, if not the entire attack itself. The Tower design has since been changed, replacing the staircase with a short ladder on the outside. Now the player has nowhere to hide and no quick escape from the Crow's wrath, unless they use the Timeswitch ability.

Likewise, the Eidolon has also had some changes to prevent cheesing. The ground slam attack used to be able to launch players up onto the side alcoves, if I'm recalling correctly, which gave players opportunity to just attack the boss at range without repercussion. That's why invisible walls surrounding the arena exist now. There was also an exploit where the player could damage themselves with a rock to launch themselves over the Library barricade and skip the boss fight entirely, which has been fixed as well.

 

[Echo Weaver]

11 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I'm guessing that once upon a time, drifters didn't throw rocks, and that may have been added to try to stop players from just standing on ledges or pillars in relative safety, though I can't really confirm this.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is why rock-throwing was added, but as others have frequently pointed out, they don't do a ton of damage.

I also don't think that using approaches to monsters that avoid head-to-head combat is cheesing, and it shouldn't be easy. Nothing Anego has done so far seems like it has been focused on neutralizing alternative ways to engage monsters -- just removing really easy ways to farm them.

[Thorfinn]

I just think this obsession with combat is counter-productive. There are so many things on the roadmap which would have greater impact on your game. Herbalism, steam, waterpower, Jonas tech, changes to farming, heck, even little things like StepUp (for whatever reason, the people who complain the most about this refuse to use the mod, and also refuse to git gud). Same with the gazillion bed spawn or stick crafting mods.

And if the team were to focus more on making combat "better" (apart from possibly hit boxes and nerfing/buffing as required, though I suspect you are not supposed to Hugh Glass grizzlies, and there's a reason they created boar spears), that would just make combat a more common solution to every problem, and attract the kind of person who would really be better off finding a good combat sim. 

[Forks]

For me it's a critique that is a dead horse I've beaten to hell and back across many games.
Damage Feedback.
It's why I've always disliked CoD zombies and why the melee combat in Skyrim felt so terrible, enemies barely react (if at all) to being hit.
I feel like if enemies were adjusted to have a natural armor system that reflected player armor, Tier 1 and so on, and if they are hit by a weapon that meets or beats their Tier they enter into a short stagger animation.
Maybe slow down player attack animations just a little bit so it's harder to stunlock an enemy and update the attack animations so they look more satisfying.
Imo overall the animations in are one of the weakest aspects of the game, they are either super jank or not telegraphed at all.
 

[Thorfinn]

Also, "meta" gets thrown around like its a bad thing, and way too often. All IRL weapons training is "meta" -- you learn all the little tells, and learn enough psychology to predict what your opponent's action will be when he comes under fire, so you can cover all his contingency plans. That's what the whole overlapping fields of fire and L ambushes are all about. Protecting your own while minimizing your foe's threat.

[Jochanaan Fair-Schulz]

Its 100% possible for the devs to develop combat in addition to working on other aspects of VS. Case in point, I don't think the berry bush rework is nearly as important as adding the next story chapter, but I am still excited for both. This doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

Also, while I agree that it is brought up a bit more than necessary, the fact that a combat overhaul is such a common suggestion that gets regular attention whenever it shows up is evidence that it is a real issue for a substantial portion of the community (not for just for "combat players," or "new players," but for many Vintage Story players). I think that it is more productive to look for solutions to that problem than to get bogged down debating if we should even talk about it.

[Thorfinn]

1 hour ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

This doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

No, but it is a matter of opportunity cost. Anyone spending time on redoing combat is not able to spend that same time making a waterwheel.

1 hour ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

the fact that a combat overhaul is such a common suggestion that gets regular attention whenever it shows up is evidence that it is a real issue for a substantial portion of the community

Maybe. But CO is not as popular as you might think. Not compared to things like Expanded Foods or Primitive Survival or Bricklayers or From Golden Combs or QP's Chisel Tools or CarryOn. It's about on par with Smithing Plus and a lot of others. That is, a lot of the more peaceful domestic homestead mods are much more popular.

You are seeing a lot of it largely because people who want combat changed appear not to be satisfied with downloading a mod.

Edited October 16, 2025 by Thorfinn

[Tabulius]

8 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I just think this obsession with combat is counter-productive. There are so many things on the roadmap which would have greater impact on your game. Herbalism, steam, waterpower, Jonas tech, changes to farming, heck, even little things like StepUp (for whatever reason, the people who complain the most about this refuse to use the mod, and also refuse to git gud). Same with the gazillion bed spawn or stick crafting mods.

Disagree, the problem with combat isn't that it's mediocre. it's that, combined with the fact that it's an ever present aspect of the game that only seems to be getting more important. If one of the main gameplay loops isn't enjoyable then there's a problem. And one that's more significant than adding new features. Most people on both sides of the argument seem to agree that combat isn't fun. Those on the anti-overhaul side's opposition often isn't that they think combat is ideal, but just that they're afraid that an overhaul will put more focus on combat. That seems like a somewhat mute point to me, as combat is already at the core of the game, and the main part of the story. So, if we're gonna do it we should do it right. Something like this becomes a lot harder to adjust as development continues.

56 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

You are seeing a lot of it largely because people who want combat changed appear not to be satisfied with downloading a mod.

Personally I don't think CO fully addresses the issues with combat, certainly not the ones that seem to be most complained about. It more so rebalances it and improves a few things. The combat still feels like it's lacking identity, and isn't satisfying to engage with. I think that has more to do with the enemies, their feed back, ai, and player movement. Where as CO focuses on weapons and armor. I do like it better, but fights still feel like a chore most of the time. I agree with @Forks take, that a lot of this comes down to how the combat feels more than anything. I've played games with way less robust combat mechanics that were more exciting to have fights in, the forest comes to mind.

Edited October 16, 2025 by Tabulius

[Jochanaan Fair-Schulz]

Respectfully,

3 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

No, but it is a matter of opportunity cost. Anyone spending time on redoing combat is not able to spend that same time making a waterwheel.

 

3 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

Maybe. But CO is not as popular as you might think. Not compared to things like Expanded Foods or Primitive Survival or Bricklayers or From Golden Combs or QP's Chisel Tools or CarryOn. It's about on par with Smithing Plus and a lot of others. That is, a lot of the more peaceful domestic homestead mods are much more popular.

This is a decent argument that I will seriously consider.

3 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

You are seeing a lot of it largely because people who want combat changed appear not to be satisfied with downloading a mod.

But, this is a needless jab. You're basically saying that, "Yeah, there are people who disagree with me, but they're not real enough fans to have an opinion."

A combat update may or may not be the best way to address some peoples concerns with the game. However, it is a fact that there are people who want to discuss that possibility, and they should be allowed to do so without gate keeping.

Edited October 17, 2025 by Jochanaan Fair-Schulz

[LadyWYT]

32 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

Those on the anti-overhaul side's opposition often isn't that they think combat is ideal, but just that they're afraid that an overhaul will put more focus on combat. That seems like a somewhat mute point to me, as combat is already at the core of the game, and the main part of the story.

One nuance I enjoy about the current balance is that while combat is required for certain story locations and for underground exploration, it's not required for the game as a whole. Most of the player's time is going to be spent homesteading, scouting, or gathering resources, and not fighting, unless they're going out of their way to hunt monsters at night. As a result, underground exploration and story-related combat serves as a nice change of pace.

 

1 hour ago, Thorfinn said:

You are seeing a lot of it largely because people who want combat changed appear not to be satisfied with downloading a mod.

I may sound a bit cynical saying this, but I'm not sure that the sentiment is limited to those who just really want nothing but combat. There have definitely been at least a handful of instances of various users coming through the forums demanding one change or another, instead of just...adjusting a few of the vanilla settings or installing a mod to cover their wants. Combat just happens to be one of the hot topics that gets complained about...frequently...from users who seem to want a game focused on combat, which isn't what Vintage Story is.

 

1 hour ago, Thorfinn said:

Maybe. But CO is not as popular as you might think. Not compared to things like Expanded Foods or Primitive Survival or Bricklayers or From Golden Combs or QP's Chisel Tools or CarryOn. It's about on par with Smithing Plus and a lot of others. That is, a lot of the more peaceful domestic homestead mods are much more popular.

You are seeing a lot of it largely because people who want combat changed appear not to be satisfied with downloading a mod.

I also wonder if some of the downloads aren't from players who don't really care about combat, but play on servers with CO installed. It's definitely a popular mod, but I do get the impression that those who use it are those who are mainly focused on combat to begin with, and not so much the other areas of gameplay. 

 

52 minutes ago, Tabulius said:

The combat still feels like it's lacking identity, and isn't satisfying to engage with. I think that has more to do with the enemies, their feed back, ai, and player movement.

This is one reason I keep harping on hitboxes, as that's one weak point I've noticed. The rest feels fairly solid. The other thing I keep forgetting is that a status effect system has been floated a time or two, and I think something like that would add quite a lot to a deceptively simple system. It's all fun and games until the drifters give you a concussion that isn't fixable by a mere poultice. Though honestly, I'd expect to see at least a few complaints about that sort of mechanic as well, if/when it's added.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

9 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I'm guessing that once upon a time, drifters didn't throw rocks, and that may have been added to try to stop players from just standing on ledges or pillars in relative safety, though I can't really confirm this.

I read in another forum post a while back that people would just build catwalks everywhere to avoid drifters at night since they didn't really know how to climb vertical slabs. Anego updated them to throw rocks after that to discourage people from doing that.

[Echo Weaver]

I think a summary of my opinion is just: Combat needs an overhaul, but this is a survival horror game, not a combat adventure, and an overhaul to the fighting system needs to stay in that theme. I think body-region hits make sense. Attack combos do not. But I basically trust Anego's dedication to their vision, and they'll be able to thread that needle.

2 hours ago, Jochanaan Fair-Schulz said:

But, this is a needless jab. You're basically saying that, "Yeah, there are people who disagree with me, but they're not real enough fans to have an opinion."

I think this seems to be a common misconception. I'm quite sure Thorfinn is not telling you that your opinion isn't real because I've probably been in a dozen conversations with him that go in this circle. This is a moddable game. Installing a mod does not make someone a second-class citizen. I don't think anyone on this thread is primarily a vanilla player. I have mods I don't play without. Thorfinn has mods he doesn't play without.

The issue here is folks coming in and dictating that the game should revolve around their play style and being offended when other folks come back and say they don't want that idea. If you want a combat system closer to Combat Overhaul, the right thing to do is to install Combat Overhaul. Now, maybe Anego will be convinced that they should take the combat system that way, but as I mentioned above, I think they're pretty committed to the survival horror angle. A change of that magnitude is would be more than a year away regardless, and Combat Overhaul exists now.

What Thorfinn (and me because it's often me) is saying here is: "I don't agree that this feature should be part of vanilla, but there are mods that could give you the style you like." Make the game what you want it to be. That's what we're all doing.  

I honestly think we all pretty much agree that combat needs an update. The question is really how much the update should look like the current system. I'm certainly not going to turn down a system that works better than the existing one. I just also want my combat avoidant strategies to be supported too. And, philosophically, I don't really agree with the assertion in this thread (at least how I'm reading it) that Anego is funneling players toward a certain type of head-to-head combat. I don't play like that most of the time, and my play style currently feels well-supported.

 

[Bumber]

22 hours ago, Echo Weaver said:

Could you expand on this? How much counter-cheese has there been? I've been playing heavily for the last few versions, and other than adding two more rotbeast types, I haven't seen a ton of difficulty increase, honestly.

In addition to the rock flinging:

Spawns no longer blocked by placed rocks. Temporal storms are extremely resistant to any attempt to block spawns; will spawn double-headers right next to you.

Bowtorns are a counter to mitigating thrown rocks with armor. No surprise waves of them can spawn during storms.

I think drifter AI got a bit smarter versus trapdoor pit trickery?

Hot springs reduce loot. Falling reduces loot. IDK about pit kilns.

Edited October 17, 2025 by Bumber

[Echo Weaver]

2 hours ago, Bumber said:

In addition to the rock flinging:

Spawns no longer blocked by placed rocks. Temporal storms are extremely resistant to any attempt to block spawns; will spawn double-headers right next to you.

Bowtorns are a counter to mitigating thrown rocks with armor. No surprise waves of them can spawn during storms.

I think drifter AI got a bit smarter versus trapdoor pit trickery?

Hot springs reduce loot. Falling reduces loot. IDK about pit kilns.

OK, yeah, this sounds about right, but it doesn't seem terribly profound to me. I mean, a lot of that stuff was really was cheesing.

Drifters still happily fall into pits, maybe not quite as happily as previously. I didn't learn there was a special issue with trapdoors until after I put together my strategy, so I haven't used them much. But honestly in places where I've used trapdoors to be sure that I don't fall into my own pit traps, drifters seem to treat them the same as an open pit, and they still fall in. Shivers, afaict, don't though, even with a pit wide enough for them.

When I tried to use pit kilns as a way to burn up drifters, it worked fine, but it also burned most of the loot. That was in 1.19, I think. So if there was a way to do this effectively, it got nerfed a while back.

[Thorfinn]

13 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I may sound a bit cynical saying this, but I'm not sure that the sentiment is limited to those who just really want nothing but combat.

Right. This is sometimes stated in no uncertain terms, though it's more common to say that no one should have to play under a broken system. The poster child was the discussion about distances involved in Chapter 2. Even when given the exact filename, line and numbers to change with notepad or your favorite text editor, the main characters in that discussion flat out refused, and insisted that it must be turned into a game config setting. Someone at Anego got tasked with turning that into an option, and whatever he had been working on was put on the back burner. 

 

[Echo Weaver]

1 minute ago, Thorfinn said:

Right. This is sometimes stated in no uncertain terms, though it's more common to say that no one should have to play under a broken system. The poster child was the discussion about distances involved in Chapter 2. Even when given the exact filename, line and numbers to change with notepad or your favorite text editor, the main characters in that discussion flat out refused, and insisted that it must be turned into a game config setting. Someone at Anego got tasked with turning that into an option, and whatever he had been working on was put on the back burner. 

I remember that drama, but I hadn't been playing long enough to have much context. And I still haven't made the journey to Chapter 2, so I don't have an opinion. I'm determined to make the full journey at least the first time. I like the idea of being a nomad for a while, the only concern being respawn. 

But this is a case where fan reaction led them to make changes to the game. In everyone's defense, Anego doesn't make changes in response to everyone's flamewars, so they must've been convinced by the complaints. Adding a config setting for something you could already change in a text config file sounds like an hour or so of work, not something that would have backburnered a feature for the next release.

[Thorfinn]

1 minute ago, Echo Weaver said:

Adding a config setting for something you could already change in a text config file sounds like an hour or so of work,

Maybe. That's something I have not looked into. Way back when, Craluminum (presumably DanaCraluminum now) said something about how the menus were handled in an entirely different manner than the rest of the game. "Not parameterized" was I think the phrase chosen. It's why most of the config options are settings, not sliders. It's why things like ConfigEverything exist -- because changing the base game options was too much work.

[LadyWYT]

9 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Right. This is sometimes stated in no uncertain terms, though it's more common to say that no one should have to play under a broken system. The poster child was the discussion about distances involved in Chapter 2. Even when given the exact filename, line and numbers to change with notepad or your favorite text editor, the main characters in that discussion flat out refused, and insisted that it must be turned into a game config setting. Someone at Anego got tasked with turning that into an option, and whatever he had been working on was put on the back burner. 

 

In all fairness though, adding an option to tweak distances is probably a LOT faster and simpler than overhauling the entire combat system. I think the other reason the combat debate puts me off, is that oftentimes when the subject comes up there's not really anything substantial to the argument than "the combat is bad, because I don't find it fun, therefore it must be made better." Okay, sure, players are entitled to that opinion, but there's also no way to discuss any kind of possible solution with that statement. If someone doesn't find it fun, that's not necessarily a problem with the gameplay, as much as it is just an observation on someone's personal tastes. If a specific problem is laid out though(like hitboxes), then it's a lot easier to evaluate and agree that yeah, there seems to be a potential problem, so let's figure out a possible solution.

Same logic applies to solutions. "Just make it better" could mean anything, and could include solutions that actually make the gameplay less fun for the player originally making the complaint. If a specific solution is laid out for a specific problem though, then it's a lot easier to read and either agree it's a good idea, or offer counter-arguments that might work better.

[Thorfinn]

13 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

If a specific solution is laid out for a specific problem though, then it's a lot easier to read and either agree it's a good idea, or offer counter-arguments that might work better.

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.

There's no practical reason I can think of that the longblade went away. The game had plenty of room for two kinds of swords. I suspect it was largely to simplify the basic balancing of the game, like you do in any prototyping stage. Limit the number of variables and see how it works in play. (Incidentally, also the best explanation for the various tweaks made to nerf drifter cheese. Whenever humans are involved, things get a lot more complicated. Fast.)

Edited October 17, 2025 by Thorfinn

[Echo Weaver]

4 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

In all fairness though, adding an option to tweak distances is probably a LOT faster and simpler than overhauling the entire combat system. I think the other reason the combat debate puts me off, is that oftentimes when the subject comes up there's not really anything substantial to the argument than "the combat is bad, because I don't find it fun, therefore it must be made better." Okay, sure, players are entitled to that opinion, but there's also no way to discuss any kind of possible solution with that statement. If someone doesn't find it fun, that's not necessarily a problem with the gameplay, as much as it is just an observation on someone's personal tastes. If a specific problem is laid out though(like hitboxes), then it's a lot easier to evaluate and agree that yeah, there seems to be a potential problem, so let's figure out a possible solution.

Same logic applies to solutions. "Just make it better" could mean anything, and could include solutions that actually make the gameplay less fun for the player originally making the complaint. If a specific solution is laid out for a specific problem though, then it's a lot easier to read and either agree it's a good idea, or offer counter-arguments that might work better.

Yeah, so I want to go meta because that's my obsession. I have a series of rants about the game that I bring up whenever I get an opportunity (eg: way more ruins items should be usable, and glue is dumb when the stuff you're retrieving isn't useful anyway). I also have some conundrums where I don't have a strong solution to propose (eg: vanilla respawn mechanics mostly put the kibosh on a nomadic lifestyle -- unless you're some crazy dude who plays on permadeath, hypothetically -- but they also feel appropriate to the game, and I'm not wild about jumping to bedspawn).

I don't think I bring these things up in a way that causes most folks (at least the regulars) to raise their hackles. So what makes a friendly discussion rather than an argument? Since the combat stuff comes up all the time, I'd love to have more brainstorming over what we'd like to see in combat, but it always seems to be contentious.

Phrases like, "X is broken; let's fix it." -- Guaranteed to be contentious. My hackles also immediately go up when someone takes a swipe at being pointed to a mod when they state their complaint. OTOH, "This bugs the crap outta me; I think the game should do X instead," doesn't generate that kind of reaction. So maybe it's simple -- folks who keep their take on the game personal and leave room for other people to share a different take. 

[LadyWYT]

3 minutes 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. 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.

 

6 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

There's no practical reason I can think of that the longblade went away.

That was the precursor to the falx, right? My best guess is that Tyron wanted a more unique weapon for monster fighting than the standard European blade. As much as I don't like the look of the falx, the design is pretty solid and definitely looks like it would be something easily made from farming tools, if one had to. 

 

8 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

The game had plenty of room for two kinds of swords. I suspect it was largely to simplify the basic balancing of the game, like you do in any prototyping stage. Limit the number of variables and see how it works in play. (Incidentally, also the best explanation for the various tweaks made to nerf drifter cheese. Whenever humans are involved, things get a lot more complicated. Fast.)

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. Other weapons like axes and stuff...I think there's room for those to be added as proper weapons as well, but 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. And while more weapons would be nice...it's also not something I expect to see anytime soon, as there are others things that are much bigger priorities. More animals, herbalism, late game tech, etc.

 

7 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

I don't think I bring these things up in a way that causes most folks (at least the regulars) to raise their hackles. So what makes a friendly discussion rather than an argument? Since the combat stuff comes up all the time, I'd love to have more brainstorming over what we'd like to see in combat, but it always seems to be contentious.

I think the answer you get to this question varies depending on who you ask. But to use this next bit as an example:

 

8 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

Phrases like, "X is broken; let's fix it." -- Guaranteed to be contentious.

Sure, it's almost a guarantee to be a contentious thread, if that's really all that's been laid out for the argument. In my opinion, the best arguments are the ones where the poster lays out specific grievances and why they have issue with them, and then proposes some specific solutions that they think would solve the problem(though saying "I don't know how to fix this, I just know there's an issue is also fine, because sometimes you just don't know). In those cases, I may or may not agree with the argument that's been presented, but it's a lot easier to understand where the poster was coming from, and offer other ideas.