Temporal storms feel too easy.

[Zane Mordien]

56 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Regarding YouTube, I wouldn't really use YouTubers as a good metric of what makes something good or not. YouTubers are typically focused on being entertaining first and foremost, which means they're going to be tailoring their games and editing their videos to make entertaining content, which doesn't always translate to using the settings they actually enjoy playing with.

I don't know, it's pretty entertaining to watch them die in frustration over and over. Also I do watch some pretty obscure people with 10 followers and they turn it off to build their base. Also I've played a few online games where castle building was an option and most of the castle builders engaged with as little of the other fighting content of the game as possible to build their castle. Not all of them, but at least two thirds of them.  Building was the part of the game that made them happy. I can't imagine those types not turning off temporal storms. Maybe that's changed with the generational changes since I am .. old.. but it doesn't feel that way to me. 

56 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

The main "lore issue" I see is that monsters are described to be pretty specific in what/who they target, and not so much be mindlessly bent on destruction. Basically, if there's a humanoid target in a house, it makes sense that they'll try to break down the door or smash windows, but it doesn't really make sense for them to tear up an empty building.

I don't see any lore issue because any lore is about how they react to humans. We are beings that have been altered by temporal technology. I always get a mental image of us being covered in that nasty temporal goo that we see in the RA. We even glow with temporal radiation after we die and come back to life (haha that is how I'm going to interpret it at least). I don't think it's a big leap in the lore for a temporal monster to react differently to a regular human vs a sereph. They should almost be drawn to us like moths to a flame since we are imbued with temporal energy (or even worse the goo).

56 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

As for a horde base defense though, that feels like a change that goes too far. Even if I go out and aggressively stack a pile of monster corpses, there's always going to be that monster or two that happily tears something up despite my best efforts.

That just goes back to the planning aspect you mentioned. You have to plan around the event. Don't be anywhere near your base when the storm hits. I'm really not advocating for this idea, but it isn't that crazy either. Physics would have to exist for all blocks though for it to work. 

 

30 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I think its safer to say most players either turn off storms completely, sleep thru them or wait them out.

I would love to know the statistics, but there is just no way to know. Not even the devs have a way to know. I bet plenty of people just go through it as intended and die over and over. Even though I hate dying over and over there is really no punishment for dying over and over in the base game. It's just an annoyance unless you are far from home then it becomes a bit more of a challenge since you might loose your gear.

 

 

Edited January 5 by Zane Mordien

[LadyWYT]

27 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

I don't know, it's pretty entertaining to watch them die in frustration over and over.

Oh yeah, for sure. But I also know it can be very irritating to watch too, depending on context.  Some players don't really handle silly deaths well, and from the viewer perspective sometimes you just want the creator in question to get on with the show.

 

28 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

Also I do watch some pretty obscure people with 10 followers and they turn it off to build their base. Also I've played a few online games where castle building was an option and most of the castle builders engaged with as little of the other fighting content of the game as possible to build their castle. Not all of them, but at least two thirds of them.  Building was the part of the game that made them happy. I can't imagine those types not turning off temporal storms. Maybe that's changed with the generational changes since I am .. old.. but it doesn't feel that way to me. 

I mostly agree here, but I'm also quite sure there's a decent chunk of the playerbase that primarily enjoys building but also keeps storms on for the atmosphere. 

At least for myself personally, I enjoy having the break in my average routine.

31 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

I don't see any lore issue because any lore is about how they react to humans. We are beings that have been altered by temporal technology. I always get a mental image of us being covered in that nasty temporal goo that we see in the RA. We even glow with temporal radiation after we die and come back to life (haha that is how I'm going to interpret it at least). I don't think it's a big leap in the lore for a temporal monster to react differently to a regular human vs a sereph. They should almost be drawn to us like moths to a flame since we are imbued with temporal energy (or even worse the goo).

Very true. I was mostly trying to say that it's a bit of a grey area when it comes to the lore. There's nothing to bar the monsters from wanton destruction, but based on what we've seen so far they do seem to have some strange sort of logic they use to make decisions.

 

33 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

That just goes back to the planning aspect you mentioned. You have to plan around the event. Don't be anywhere near your base when the storm hits. I'm really not advocating for this idea, but it isn't that crazy either. Physics would have to exist for all blocks though for it to work. 

Right, and for the most part that's also why I'm against it. I see too many frustrations getting introduced, while having too many easy work-arounds for the good challenges it does offer. Granted, players could opt to just not use the easiest strategies, but to be fair I don't trust most players to not use the easy strats if said strats also happen to be the most cost-effective.

[Cryo Stratos]

On 1/4/2026 at 7:00 AM, Zane Mordien said:

What am I missing? All of the things that he mentioned can be turned off when you create the world or you can turn them off after you create the world with world configuation commands. You can also play Homo Sapiens mode and add the map or whatever you want to add back in the settings. 

What is missing is that if you concentrate on lore/story, and not on realism, when you disable lore, you remove the unwanted features of the game (rifts, temporal storm, fictional mobs) together with desirable features of the game (traders, ruins, lots of decorative items). The problem with the game is to use "lore" toggle, instead of realism toggle, lore should be kept miles away from some items in the game. For instance, books and unobtainable in Homo Sapiens, because black ink requires gears, that is a problem you were missing.

Respect to everyone who likes the default game of course.

[Zane Mordien]

1 hour ago, Cryo Stratos said:

What is missing is that if you concentrate on lore/story, and not on realism, when you disable lore, you remove the unwanted features of the game (rifts, temporal storm, fictional mobs) together with desirable features of the game (traders, ruins, lots of decorative items). The problem with the game is to use "lore" toggle, instead of realism toggle, lore should be kept miles away from some items in the game. For instance, books and unobtainable in Homo Sapiens, because black ink requires gears, that is a problem you were missing.

Respect to everyone who likes the default game of course.

I guess the problem for the devs is the traders are tied directly to the lore/story so they get removed. They sell lore items and tell parts of the story in their dialog. 

It pains me to say this because I feel it is a lazy response most time, but I think what you guys want is only going to be available in a mod. You want the base game features without the base game lore. A realism toggle doesn't fit because the traders don't make sense anyway and the ruins are part of the story. I could be wrong but it seems a bit much for the developers to make a game mode for every possible playstyle.

That being said, make a suggestion in the forums for what you want. I don't think it  wouldn't be really hard to do if they wanted to spend time on it. Just remove some traders completely and give them some basic "hello adventurer" dialog. Write a routine that sanitizes lore content from ruins. Maybe they will add it at some point. You just need someone to make it their pet project. That dev may exist and you never know until you ask.

[CastIronFabric]

28 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

I guess the problem for the devs is the traders are tied directly to the lore/story so they get removed. They sell lore items and tell parts of the story in their dialog. 

It pains me to say this because I feel it is a lazy response most time, but I think what you guys want is only going to be available in a mod. You want the base game features without the base game lore. A realism toggle doesn't fit because the traders don't make sense anyway and the ruins are part of the story. I could be wrong but it seems a bit much for the developers to make a game mode for every possible playstyle.

That being said, make a suggestion in the forums for what you want. I don't think it  wouldn't be really hard to do if they wanted to spend time on it. Just remove some traders completely and give them some basic "hello adventurer" dialog. Write a routine that sanitizes lore content from ruins. Maybe they will add it at some point. You just need someone to make it their pet project. That dev may exist and you never know until you ask.

I am nearly positive it would not be hard HOWEVER, lets play with the idea that it is for a moment.

People who state that they do not care for the lore do want traders, do want translocators, do want ruins and do want lore related loot. Given that things like the RA is a 'I go to you' features I can not imagine anyone having a problem with those missions remaining in the game. We are fine with just playing the game by turning off storms but I think everyone (this is not directed to you personally) would be well suited by not suggesting turning off ALL lore features as a solution for someone who states they do not care for lore, I think that is not being fair, realistic or frankly honest. In fact it come off a bit rude and intentionally dismissive (that is not directed to you specifically just generally). 

Edited January 6 by CastIronFabric

[Zane Mordien]

3 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

I am nearly positive it would not be hard HOWEVER, lets play with the idea that it is for a moment.

People who state that they do not care for the lore do want traders, do want translocators, do want ruins and do want lore related loot. Given that things like the RA is a 'I go to you' features I can not imagine anyone having a problem with those missions remaining in the game. We are fine with just playing the game by turning off storms but I think everyone (this is not directed to you personally) would be well suited by not suggesting turning off ALL lore features as a solution for someone who states they do not care for lore, I think that is not being fair, realistic or frankly honest. In fact it come off a bit rude and intentionally dismissive (that is not directed to you specifically just generally).

 Bear in mind that most players don't even know everything that is lore. I had to do a couple test worlds when I responded to Cyro because I didn't know 100% myself. 

I know you hate the hear about the "lore" but my guess is they wouldn't want to make a game mode/toggle where you have part what they consider the lore. From interviews Tyron says he checks everything himself and I bet he takes great pride in everything fitting together. Having only some lore would have continuity issues. That may seem stupid to you and me, but I bet it matters to him. VS is his baby after all.

Turing off surface spawns seems like a strong possibility, since he already let's you turn off storms and stability.  As you say, you don't have to go to the story locations. 

In the end, I don't know. 

[CastIronFabric]

9 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

 Bear in mind that most players don't even know everything that is lore. I had to do a couple test worlds when I responded to Cyro because I didn't know 100% myself. 

I know you hate the hear about the "lore" but my guess is they wouldn't want to make a game mode/toggle where you have part what they consider the lore. From interviews Tyron says he checks everything himself and I bet he takes great pride in everything fitting together. Having only some lore would have continuity issues. That may seem stupid to you and me, but I bet it matters to him. VS is his baby after all.

Turing off surface spawns seems like a strong possibility, since he already let's you turn off storms and stability.  As you say, you don't have to go to the story locations. 

In the end, I don't know. 

its easy to create a game mode with some of the lore removed without removing all of it, I am very confident that this is not an issue and if people are not playing the lore then continuity of whatever is really not an issue

 

[cjc813]

On 1/3/2026 at 2:29 AM, The Lerf said:

The idea of base repair would only come into play if you ignored the storm and hid. To say, look what you allowed to happen through inaction or fear, which I feel resonates with the lore a bit. And if you were away from home when a Temporal Storm hits, well then your base is in an unloaded chunk and it doesn't really matter.

The idea is very creative, but I don't think the underlying philosophy is sound.

What we're dealing with is that temporal storms aren't engaging or fun for most players. People don't enjoy them, and they get nothing out of them, so they don't do the not-fun thing.

This is perfectly reasonable behavior.

Your suggestion is, instead of trying to make the not-fun thing into a fun thing, we punish players for avoiding the not-fun thing.

This is the equivalent of ignoring the carrot entirely and just hitting the player with the stick.

Instead of being an avoidable inconvenience, storms become an inconvenience you can't ignore.

I think we should look for ways that make storms interesting and fun, that way more players actually *want* to do them.

[LadyWYT]

32 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

I know you hate the hear about the "lore" but my guess is they wouldn't want to make a game mode/toggle where you have part what they consider the lore. From interviews Tyron says he checks everything himself and I bet he takes great pride in everything fitting together. Having only some lore would have continuity issues. That may seem stupid to you and me, but I bet it matters to him. VS is his baby after all.

This is really one of the best cases for why certain changes really ought to be mods. Continuity issues are a pretty big deal, and it also varies from player to player on exactly which parts of the lore they like to keep and which they want to cut. Some of the preferences can be generalized, but attempting to account for every possible playstyle and preference is going to result in an overwhelming list of settings and little progress in developing new things for the game. It's much better in the long run to have a few presets to cover basic difficulty(easy, medium, hard, and "realistic" via Homo Sapiens mode), with a selection of more specific options that the player can use to fine-tune general things about their gameplay. 

Likewise, the developers also need to remain interested in developing their own game, or otherwise the end product ends up lackluster.

29 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

its easy to create a game mode with some of the lore removed without removing all of it, I am very confident that this is not an issue and if people are not playing the lore then continuity of whatever is really not an issue

 

If it's that easy to create then why not just make a mod for it right now? All the tools are there; you don't even have to do the work yourself either. Just submit a request in the mod section of the forum, or commission a mod author directly.

 

14 minutes ago, cjc813 said:

The idea is very creative, but I don't think the underlying philosophy is sound.

What we're dealing with is that temporal storms aren't engaging or fun for most players. People don't enjoy them, and they get nothing out of them, so they don't do the not-fun thing.

This is perfectly reasonable behavior.

Your suggestion is, instead of trying to make the not-fun thing into a fun thing, we punish players for avoiding the not-fun thing.

This is the equivalent of ignoring the carrot entirely and just hitting the player with the stick.

Instead of being an avoidable inconvenience, storms become an inconvenience you can't ignore.

I think we should look for ways that make storms interesting and fun, that way more players actually *want* to do them.

The point I was trying to make earlier, but laid out much better.

[PoisonedPawn777]

59 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

its easy to create a game mode with some of the lore removed without removing all of it, I am very confident that this is not an issue and if people are not playing the lore then continuity of whatever is really not an issue

 

Everything you've said that you want from the game is fairly easily configurable on a standard world setup. There's really no need for a specific game mode. You can already start a world that has story elements, traders, ruins and underground mob spawns without temporal storms, surface spawns and temporal stability (each of which can be toggled on/off separately).

I think it's fair to have a discussion on how temporal storms and spawns can be improved to provide a better experience to the player, but those who dislike the features entirely do have the option of removing them without removing other aspects of the game they might enjoy.

Edited January 6 by PoisonedPawn777

[CastIronFabric]

47 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

 

If it's that easy to create then why not just make a mod for it right now? All the tools are there; you don't even have to do the work yourself either. Just submit a request in the mod section of the forum, or commission a mod author directly.

 

I could, and your right it would not be complicated.

But for me personally I am 100% fine with Explorer mode and adjust a few settings, go. I am not in the mood to download Visual Studio at the moment but yeah it would not be really hard to....wait..what EXACTLY are we talking about here? I mean specifically...turning off storms? catch me up I am lost a bit an that is my fault.

Why would I create a mod for removing storms when its literally just a setting in the settings? I think I misunderstand something

Edited January 6 by CastIronFabric

[CastIronFabric]

26 minutes ago, PoisonedPawn777 said:

Everything you've said that you want from the game is fairly easily configurable on a standard world setup. There's really no need for a specific game mode. You can already start a world that has story elements, traders, ruins and underground mob spawns without temporal storms, surface spawns and temporal stability (each of which can be toggled on/off separately).

I think it's fair to have a discussion on how temporal storms and spawns can be improved to provide a better experience to the player, but those who dislike the features entirely do have the option of removing them without removing other aspects of the game they might enjoy.

I agree 1000% million billion % so to be frank I am not entirely sure what we are talking about here.

Why are we even talking about 'x is hard to remove because they are its to the lore?' I think I am confused.  There already exists ways to do that in the settings anyway

Edited January 6 by CastIronFabric

[LadyWYT]

4 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I could, and your right it would not be complicated.

But for me personally I am 100% fine with Explorer mode and adjust a few settings, go. I am not in the mood to download Visual Studio at the moment but yeah it would not be really hard to....wait..what EXACTLY are we talking about here? I mean specifically...turning off storms? catch me up I am lost a bit an that is my fault.

Why would I create a mod for removing storms when its literally just a setting in the settings? I think I misunderstand something

You wouldn't. What one would, however, create a mod for:

 

1 hour ago, CastIronFabric said:

its easy to create a game mode with some of the lore removed without removing all of it

That specifically is what I was referring to. If it was really that easy to create specific game modes, then it shouldn't be an issue for players in general to just make a mod for it, or otherwise commission someone to make it for them. No need to wait on the devs to make a decision if the tools are already there.

But I'm thinking that's a task that's not actually easy to do.

[CastIronFabric]

5 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

You wouldn't. What one would, however, create a mod for:

 

That specifically is what I was referring to. If it was really that easy to create specific game modes, then it shouldn't be an issue for players in general to just make a mod for it, or otherwise commission someone to make it for them. No need to wait on the devs to make a decision if the tools are already there.

But I'm thinking that's a task that's not actually easy to do.

as you have argued many times that the storm is lore, if I can go into settings and turn off storms then that is doing exactly what you are saying is hard to do?

Same is true for Temporal Stablity

[LadyWYT]

Just now, CastIronFabric said:

as you have argued many times that the storm is lore, if I can go into settings and turn off storms then that is doing exactly what you are saying is hard to do?

Same is true for Temporal Stablity

Those are specific settings. A game mode is a preset of various settings to accomplish a specific type of overall gameplay, which is a very different thing than just an individual setting. Adding a game mode is much harder than adding an individual setting, since a game mode requires all its settings to play together nicely in order to accomplish the intended experience.

An individual setting, in contrast, is easier to implement, but will still require quite a lot of work to implement well in most cases. It's one thing to add simple options like changing health values or hunger rates--that kind of setting is just changing a number. Where it gets complicated is when you start trying to break down all of the lore stuff and other world generation into separate toggles, as changing those things will often result in unintended consequences elsewhere. A prime example of strange behavior is the inability to craft books in Homo Sapiens; currently black dye can only be crafted via rusty gears or scrap metal, neither of which exists without lore content being turned on.

To use disabling lore content but keeping ruins and traders as an example: let's say that exists as a game mode. The most likely scenario to happen here, I'd wager, is players will pick that game mode, and then proceed to generate a stream of complaints about it feeling a little too barebones/not making sense and suggestions about what could be added to the game mode to flesh it out more. The reality though, is that it's a self-inflicted problem; their game is lacking features and continuity, because they chose to actually cut out parts of the game. Ironically, I've seen similar complaints about Homo Sapiens mode--players will opt for HS because they don't like the lore, and then proceed to complain about the game feeling incomplete as a result.

 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

ITT

CastIronFabric wants to play Minecraft but with better mechanics.

Edited January 6 by Teh Pizza Lady

[CastIronFabric]

10 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Those are specific settings. A game mode is a preset of various settings to accomplish a specific type of overall gameplay, which is a very different thing than just an individual setting. Adding a game mode is much harder than adding an individual setting, since a game mode requires all its settings to play together nicely in order to accomplish the intended experience.

An individual setting, in contrast, is easier to implement, but will still require quite a lot of work to implement well in most cases. It's one thing to add simple options like changing health values or hunger rates--that kind of setting is just changing a number. Where it gets complicated is when you start trying to break down all of the lore stuff and other world generation into separate toggles, as changing those things will often result in unintended consequences elsewhere. A prime example of strange behavior is the inability to craft books in Homo Sapiens; currently black dye can only be crafted via rusty gears or scrap metal, neither of which exists without lore content being turned on.

To use disabling lore content but keeping ruins and traders as an example: let's say that exists as a game mode. The most likely scenario to happen here, I'd wager, is players will pick that game mode, and then proceed to generate a stream of complaints about it feeling a little too barebones/not making sense and suggestions about what could be added to the game mode to flesh it out more. The reality though, is that it's a self-inflicted problem; their game is lacking features and continuity, because they chose to actually cut out parts of the game. Ironically, I've seen similar complaints about Homo Sapiens mode--players will opt for HS because they don't like the lore, and then proceed to complain about the game feeling incomplete as a result.

 

Lets get super concrete because Temporal Stability and Temporal Storms are considered by you to be Lore. As such the statement that aspects tied to Lore are hard to remove would not be exclusively true, it would depend on which SPECIFIC features you are referring to.

So my question is this, who is advocating/requesting that traders or ruins be removed from the world? We can talk about how that would be easy or not that would be to remove all we want but who is requesting to not have traders or ruins while at the same time finding Homo Sapien mode unacceptable? Because this feels like an academic exercise that nobody would ever request anyway.

I do not know why the developers decided to tightly couple these Lore features so that one setting could be toggled, that feels like an oversight to me. That said, the real question is, who is advocating to have those things removed while at the same time finding Homo Sapien unacceptable?

 

 

 

[LadyWYT]

4 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

That said, the real question is, who is advocating to have those things removed while at the same time finding Homo Sapien unacceptable?

In my experience, it's the players who'd prefer a purely realistic survival experience, as well as the players who'd prefer to have an experience more similar to what the other block game offers. Nothing against those players either, but in the case of the former, Homo Sapiens isn't the game mode that Vintage Story is developed and balanced around, so it's going to end up feeling lacking compared to the game modes that enable lore content. In the case of the latter...Vintage Story is not the other block game, nor does it need to be.

 

8 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I do not know why the developers decided to tightly couple these Lore features so that one setting could be toggled, that feels like an oversight to me.

Sometimes, the players need protecting from themselves. As I was trying to explain earlier, one could, in theory, separate the traders into a toggle separate from all the other lore. However, the problem that arises from only the traders being enabled, is that some players are going to get confused and start suggesting changes to the traders so that they better fit into the world. Changes that aren't needed, mind you, because the traders already have a reason to exist; those reasons just aren't apparent due to the player's own decision to play that way.

To shift the discussion back on topic--the reason that temporal storms and temporal stability have their own separate toggles despite being significant lore features and part of the intended experience, is that those particular features are also quite polarizing when it comes to whether or not players enjoy them. In a similar instance(and this was before my time), enough players wanted just a pure realistic survival experience that the devs put in the extra work required to add the Homo Sapiens game mode and lore toggle as additional features.

[CastIronFabric]

9 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

In my experience, it's the players who'd prefer a purely realistic survival experience, as well as the players who'd prefer to have an experience more similar to what the other block game offers. Nothing against those players either, but in the case of the former, Homo Sapiens isn't the game mode that Vintage Story is developed and balanced around, so it's going to end up feeling lacking compared to the game modes that enable lore content. In the case of the latter...Vintage Story is not the other block game, nor does it need to be.

 

Sometimes, the players need protecting from themselves. As I was trying to explain earlier, one could, in theory, separate the traders into a toggle separate from all the other lore. However, the problem that arises from only the traders being enabled, is that some players are going to get confused and start suggesting changes to the traders so that they better fit into the world. Changes that aren't needed, mind you, because the traders already have a reason to exist; those reasons just aren't apparent due to the player's own decision to play that way.

To shift the discussion back on topic--the reason that temporal storms and temporal stability have their own separate toggles despite being significant lore features and part of the intended experience, is that those particular features are also quite polarizing when it comes to whether or not players enjoy them. In a similar instance(and this was before my time), enough players wanted just a pure realistic survival experience that the devs put in the extra work required to add the Homo Sapiens game mode and lore toggle as additional features.

I am not seeing it.

I am not seeing a player base who has trouble with Homo Sapiens but at the same time wants to turn off traders and/or ruins, I think this thought process is actually beyond just being academic. WIth that said, I would be shocked that the world generation code does not have a way to differentiate traders from ruins and as such not generate one or the other given a new setting that could be created. So yes, I think that would be easy, no I am not going to fire up Visual Studio and learn how to mod specifically for Vintage Story to do something I can not imagine anyone would want.

With that said, someone has already created such a mod that removes traders but not ruins.

https://mods.vintagestory.at/show/mod/14177

Edited January 6 by CastIronFabric

[cjc813]

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

CastIronFabric wants to play Minecraft but with better mechanics.

What cracks me up is my boy's in 2 different threads, neither of which he's the OP of, derailing the whole conversation.

People are making suggestions about how to improve storms and whatnot, and he's just like, "I don't want them."

Cool. Go make a thread about how you think temporal storms should be turned off.

Edited January 6 by cjc813

[CastIronFabric]

1 hour ago, cjc813 said:

What cracks me up is my boy's in 2 different threads, neither of which he's the OP of, derailing the whole conversation.

People are making suggestions about how to improve storms and whatnot, and he's just like, "I don't want them."

Cool. Go make a thread about how you think temporal storms should be turned off.

 I would think talking about the subject itself instead of me would be best.

Edited January 6 by CastIronFabric

[cjc813]

2 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

 I would think talking about the subject itself instead of me would be best.

The person derailing TWO threads with pointless arguments is asking me to stay on topic.

That's actually kind of adorable.

[Dood4u]

Temporal Storms are butt to me, I just turn them off. Not because i hate the mechanic but because its implemented poorly. If creatures spawned from predictable locations like shadows or open areas it could be fun because you could trap them or alter the terrain to your advantage. Instead right now they're just plopped right down next to you no matter the light level or space. 

And with how some of the mobs work that's completely unfeasible to work around unless you're some try hard combat enthusiast who doesn't have anything else to do in the game except fight. 

I already find it incredibly irritating for bow heads to constantly snipe and kill me while I'm trying to cook meat in a firepit or something. 

[Dood4u]

On 1/2/2026 at 11:25 AM, sushieater said:

IMO, the mechanic is plain bad. High level enemies can rapidly kill you, no matter your gear. Early game, you are guaranteed to die, if you get slightly unlucky with enemy spawns. A no-death challenge is a lot worse than playing russian roulette.

Yes, the sane thing to do right now is to hide out and hope for the the best. Anyone who tries to fight is plain crazy, there is a huge risk of dying (no matter the gear or skill) with little upside. I don't particularly approve of exploiting broken spawn mechanics. Working kill-boxes are a bug, not a feature.

Yes Same reason I HATE bears. Totally overpowered no matter your gear or strategy. The bears can run faster than you can if you hit them and will always aggro on you. They're worse than actual human trolls because they're EVERYWHERE.

[Dood4u]

On 1/2/2026 at 3:27 PM, MKMoose said:

This is a really difficult thing to balance for the vanilla experience, because while some people find storms too easy in various ways, you may also see complaints (especially from newer players) that the storms shouldn't cause enemies to spawn indoors at all, because a beginner with Stone-Age gear just isn't prepared to defeat a corrupt or nightmare monster that happens to materialize near them. Currently, there is no mechanic that would reduce indoor spawns, so you can still get jumped, especially in rooms that are on the larger side. There have been related suggestions to make the monsters announce themselves in some way (e.g. by first spawning a small rift, and only then having the monster come out of it), to give the player a heads-up when they spawn, which would at least help slightly with beginners dying suddenly where they thought they would be safe.

I've recently argued that the main way to make storms more engaging (and potentially harder by extension) is to give the player more reason to go out into the storms. The incentives that we have currently are very weak, since storms aren't the primary source of any resources, so the player doesn't really have a good reason to leave their hiding spot. The advantage of this solution is that as long as the resources acquired from storms are not required for anything particularly important, then the less experienced or casual players won't be significantly disadvantaged if they choose to stay inside, especially during the heavier storms. There is also the option to give the player something unique to do indoors during storms, but outside activities are more conducive to increased difficulty and would also naturally allow the player to see storm effects in their full glory.

 

I frankly have no idea how good most people are at fighting storms, but I can survive them quite easily with iron or better gear, as long as I stay either in a fenced-off enclosure (recently I've used a ~15x15 area just because that's what I happened to have) or near a small shelter with at least two exits and ideally with a bunch of windows as well (I've used my greenhouse a few times), to have more control over what I fight and when. The ability to hide for a moment to heal in relative safety is extremely valuable if you don't have good gear yet, but ideally you'll want to fight all the way through a storm to prevent enemies from accumulating.

I tend to lose about 10-40 health per storm in total, though that depends heavily on the equipment I use, the type of storm and a lot of other random factors. Drifters aren't really a threat due to how slow they are and they mostly just deal some chip damage with their rocks unless I whiff an attack. Bowtorns aren't much worse unless multiple spawn at the same time, though it's often best to make sure no other enemies are nearby before chasing them. The real threat is T3+ shivers for me, although those can also be sort of cheesed quite easily sometimes since their hitbox is wider than one block.

It would be funny and kind of cool to add in some way to domesticate a monster for resources, Like a SCP. You have to build a room for them made out of certain materials (which will degrade as you harvest resources from the enemy mob or as long as the monster stays in the room) and lure them in via clever traps. Or make it more cerebral and just gift the player lore on each enemy which increases damage to the enemy or something. 

Maybe you even unlock pings on your map for certain resources hidden in deep caves or something.