What would your suggestions be for better temporal immersion?

[Thorfinn]

5 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

In this case, I would say that the animation could still play as normal, and pop the monster out on the nearest available block, which could be on top of a fence if necessary. Or the monsters simply crawl out of the air/ground/whatever block is within range of the rift.

Nice. I like it.

22 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I think if most players are trying to avoid a specific game feature/experience the people who need to step back and reflect are the minority of people who want it and ask themselves 'why not just engage in said feature rather than trying to find ways to force everyone else to engage in it as well'.

Democracy is a crappy way to run anything. But I doubt most players are that upset about rifts. We have a very vocal group that are, but I think that's like a lot of activism. It tends to be a highly visible minority.

[Thorfinn]

6 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I think there is some level of truth to that however I think in most cases the question I propose needs to be contemplated in deep mediation and taken seriously and not discounted before any 'work around a hack' features is installed. I know of a game that did this constantly until it just effectively killed the entire game for most players, the dev was just wanting to force everyone into a game experience that the community did not even want.

I think I might have misunderstood you. Are you saying simply, "So what if players can block a portal?" OK. Might be a problem for MP, but we can always boot disruptive players. Well, as long as the admin agrees. If you feel strongly enough about it, you can just abandon this server for another with an admin closer to your preferences.

[CastIronFabric]

7 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Nice. I like it.

Democracy is a crappy way to run anything. But I doubt most players are that upset about rifts. We have a very vocal group that are, but I think that's like a lot of activism. It tends to be a highly visible minority.

there is some truth to that, however what we are talking about here is different.

I am not refering to the game experience/feature itself, I am talking about a developer putting in extra effort and work in forcing a player to do something that they may not want to do but killing every single work around they can think of. That is..well to be frank...creepy

Edited February 14 by CastIronFabric

[LadyWYT]

9 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I think there is some level of truth to that however I think in most cases the question I propose needs to be contemplated in deep mediation and taken seriously and not discounted before any 'work around a hack' features is installed. I know of a game that did this constantly until it just effectively killed the entire game for most players, the dev was just wanting to force everyone into a game experience that they community did not even want.

 

A fair enough point, which I counter with Vintage Story's own development. The devs patch out undesired strategies, yes, and that's not really unusual when it comes to game design. The boss fights of VS are a good example to use here, I think, since both had cheese strategies when initially implemented, that have since been fixed. The first boss could fling the player into nearby alcoves, which allowed the player to potentially skip the fight entirely, or otherwise shoot at the boss from safety. The second boss had a stairwell the player could hide in to avoid getting knocked out of the arena(and falling to their death) and otherwise duck into to damage the boss from safety. It's not really ideal for the player to be skipping the fights like that, hence why both strategies have been patched out. 

 

However, the devs have also been known to walk back certain changes, or make alterations as needed based on player feedback. The changes to healing are a good example of that. The initial change canceled the bandaging process if the player fell for longer than one second, making the first boss fight tougher than what many players could handle. While the devs obviously want boss fights to be challenging, they don't want the fights to be so difficult that most players can't beat the fights either. Thus the healing change was adjusted so that falls no longer interrupt the bandage process. The second boss was also adjusted to have a slower, more predictable attack cycle, so that the player can more easily damage the boss and dodge incoming attacks(and just...overall tell what's happening in the fight). The oncoming spear controversy is another good example: spears were too strong before, and have received some adjustments to compensate, as well as some new options to bring them in line with the available materials. The initial adjustments seem to have been a little too strong, so they're in the process of making more adjustments to the numbers so the weapon feels better for players to use while still being in line with the intended game balance.

4 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

But I doubt most players are that upset about rifts. We have a very vocal group that are, but I think that's like a lot of activism. It tends to be a highly visible minority.

I would say that applies to most things in the game, really, not just rifts. There are certainly plenty of players that don't enjoy X mechanic, but I'm not sure that alone is a good enough reason to delete certain mechanics or rework them. Pleasing everyone is an impossible task. Best for the devs to design the game they wish to play themselves, since that will ensure the highest quality.

[CastIronFabric]

3 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

A fair enough point, which I counter with Vintage Story's own development. The devs patch out undesired strategies, yes, and that's not really unusual when it comes to game design. The boss fights of VS are a good example to use here, I think, since both had cheese strategies when initially implemented, that have since been fixed. The first boss could fling the player into nearby alcoves, which allowed the player to potentially skip the fight entirely, or otherwise shoot at the boss from safety. The second boss had a stairwell the player could hide in to avoid getting knocked out of the arena(and falling to their death) and otherwise duck into to damage the boss from safety. It's not really ideal for the player to be skipping the fights like that, hence why both strategies have been patched out. 

 

However, the devs have also been known to walk back certain changes, or make alterations as needed based on player feedback. The changes to healing are a good example of that. The initial change canceled the bandaging process if the player fell for longer than one second, making the first boss fight tougher than what many players could handle. While the devs obviously want boss fights to be challenging, they don't want the fights to be so difficult that most players can't beat the fights either. Thus the healing change was adjusted so that falls no longer interrupt the bandage process. The second boss was also adjusted to have a slower, more predictable attack cycle, so that the player can more easily damage the boss and dodge incoming attacks(and just...overall tell what's happening in the fight). The oncoming spear controversy is another good example: spears were too strong before, and have received some adjustments to compensate, as well as some new options to bring them in line with the available materials. The initial adjustments seem to have been a little too strong, so they're in the process of making more adjustments to the numbers so the weapon feels better for players to use while still being in line with the intended game balance.

I would say that applies to most things in the game, really, not just rifts. There are certainly plenty of players that don't enjoy X mechanic, but I'm not sure that alone is a good enough reason to delete certain mechanics or rework them. Pleasing everyone is an impossible task. Best for the devs to design the game they wish to play themselves, since that will ensure the highest quality.

to be clear I am making a general statement, I am not addressing any feature specifically nor am I praising or criticizing the developers themselves. its just when I read words like 'players could work around', that just makes me nervous because of my experience with that unmentioned game. Given this is not a pvp game inertly I think its best for a player to just not engage in a hack they think is cheeky to the their game experience and not worry about what other people are doing. it makes me uncomfortable honestly.

In fact as a side note, Gabe Newel went into detail on this, their team on I think Half Life had this very discussion. At which point is a player 'work around' not actually a 'hack' but instead a creative solution to a presented challenge.

not a cut and dry question to answer really in all cases

 

[Thorfinn]

1 hour ago, CastIronFabric said:

In fact as a side note, Gabe Newel went into detail on this, their team on I think Half Life had this very discussion. At which point is a player 'work around' not actually a 'hack' but instead a creative solution to a presented challenge.

I can give a good example of exploits from a game I played a bit the last few months, No Man's Sky. You can buy upgrade modules from a trader, and sell them back to the very same trader without leaving the trading screen and make about a 50% profit. Def exploit, yet been around several versions and never patched. There's a similar exploit in Outlaw systems. The game has lots of loops where you exchange easy to acquire money for power.

In single player, who cares? If you like cheese, you be you. In multi, which is implicitly PvP, big deal. Particularly since some of those players are running characters they have had for years, while n00bs are, well, n00bs. Fortunately, you can max out everything combat related in a dozen hours or so, at least with a lot of practice and a little luck. 

[EDIT]

Dunno about explicitly PvP, but combat loses a lot if there is not friendly fire.

Edited Saturday at 06:07 PM by Thorfinn

[LadyWYT]

5 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

In single player, who cares? If you like cheese, you be you. In multi, which is implicitly PvP, big deal. Particularly since some of those players are running characters they have had for years, while n00bs are, well, n00bs. Fortunately, you can max out everything combat related in a dozen hours or so, at least with a lot of practice and a little luck. 

Valheim is a pretty big offender here, I think. It's been a while since I last played, but to my knowledge it's possible to play a single character across multiple worlds, in both singleplayer and multiplayer. While that does make for some flexible gameplay, it also leaves the door wide open to cheating since anyone can use console commands in singleplayer to give themselves whatever they want before hopping into multiplayer.

[CastIronFabric]

13 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

I can give a good example of exploits from a game I played a bit the last few months, No Man's Sky. You can buy upgrade modules from a trader, and sell them back to the very same trader without leaving the trading screen and make about a 50% profit. Def exploit, yet been around several versions and never patched. There's a similar exploit in Outlaw systems. The game has lots of loops where you exchange easy to acquire money for power.

In single player, who cares? If you like cheese, you be you. In multi, which is implicitly PvP, big deal. Particularly since some of those players are running characters they have had for years, while n00bs are, well, n00bs. Fortunately, you can max out everything combat related in a dozen hours or so, at least with a lot of practice and a little luck. 

[EDIT]

Dunno about explicitly PvP, but combat loses a lot if there is not friendly fire.

I understand the multiplayer aspect but for this game specifically I really think we need to lean features in a direction that assumes people are respectful to the rules of any given server. Games that are actually pvp focused (like Darkfall online was) are a complete S Show when it comes to feature debates because everything has to be balance to an extreme and its super annoying. I think for this game we have to assume the larger majority of players are not going to be pvp and we should not be making decisions that affect everyone based on their needs.

That is my view on this game specifically.

Anyway, I think we are not in any strong disagreement on my point so fair enough, I just wanted to point it out is all

 

Edited Saturday at 06:15 PM by CastIronFabric

[TFT]

20 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

Not me. Like another poster keeps mentioning, players will learn to meta out anything interesting in a game. Not necessarily a bad thing, but how many fence sections would it take to negate a portal if that were the case? So now we have to introduce rusties destroying fences or walking through them? Players switch to blocks. Then chiseled blocks. Not tough to see where this all ends.

Yeah, it's a given in anything and someone will find a way to exploit, so why be afraid of it? Min-maxers are great for finding bugs and unintended mechanics, but they're not the people you're making a game for. Normal players aren't engaging in cheese unless it's a poorly designed system. 

It's not a bad thing to think ahead for implications of a change, but an endless cycle of "but what if" is a waste of time because everything can and will be exploited no matter how hard you try to anticipate. Here, let me do a similar hypothetical. How many fences will it take to negate a portal? How many times will you have to repeat that over a day of high rift activity? How much material is wasted making all those fences? How much time and hunger is spent running around to negate rifts? How much time and tool durability is spent cleaning up all the fences leftover from despawned rifts? Not tough to see where this all ends Sisyphus.

I can respect being against suggestions because you dont like change, but being against the idea of monsters popping out of rifts because you're afraid that someone will fence them to stop monsters is silly. Yeah, so what if someone puts a fence to block a portal? You're trying to bubble wrap an idea that only a minority of min-maxxers are going to do (and might not given the effort and negligible gain) and everyone else has to suffer for it. Monsters can break fences, blocks, and chiseled blocks because you dont want this imagined player exploiting rifts in this specific way.

18 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

Are you saying simply, "So what if players can block a portal?" OK. Might be a problem for MP, but we can always boot disruptive players. Well, as long as the admin agrees. If you feel strongly enough about it, you can just abandon this server for another with an admin closer to your preferences.

"Admin he's playing my block game the wrong way ban him now!"

 

[CastIronFabric]

2 hours ago, TFT said:

Yeah, it's a given in anything and someone will find a way to exploit, so why be afraid of it? Min-maxers are great for finding bugs and unintended mechanics, but they're not the people you're making a game for. Normal players aren't engaging in cheese unless it's a poorly designed system. 

It's not a bad thing to think ahead for implications of a change, but an endless cycle of "but what if" is a waste of time because everything can and will be exploited no matter how hard you try to anticipate. Here, let me do a similar hypothetical. How many fences will it take to negate a portal? How many times will you have to repeat that over a day of high rift activity? How much material is wasted making all those fences? How much time and hunger is spent running around to negate rifts? How much time and tool durability is spent cleaning up all the fences leftover from despawned rifts? Not tough to see where this all ends Sisyphus.

I can respect being against suggestions because you dont like change, but being against the idea of monsters popping out of rifts because you're afraid that someone will fence them to stop monsters is silly. Yeah, so what if someone puts a fence to block a portal? You're trying to bubble wrap an idea that only a minority of min-maxxers are going to do (and might not given the effort and negligible gain) and everyone else has to suffer for it. Monsters can break fences, blocks, and chiseled blocks because you dont want this imagined player exploiting rifts in this specific way.

"Admin he's playing my block game the wrong way ban him now!"

 

I think a developer dedicating too much time in their day to explicitly look for ways to force a player into a gaming experience that they want them to do despite those players being actively engaged in trying to avoid that experience is to put if simply, creepy.

I understand fully that there is a balance and its not an exclusive rule but in general the more time a developer spends in trying to force a experience players are trying to avoid the creepier it gets. Not to mention the simple fact of 'if one does not like the exploit, then one can simply not engage in it said exploit.

Example: If one think blocking the portal is an exploit, then do not do it.

Single player = obvious

Multiplayer = who does this specific feature affect specifically? Unless its done at some large groups HQ does it affect anyone anyway?

Edited Sunday at 01:52 PM by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

3 hours ago, TFT said:

How many fences will it take to negate a portal? How many times will you have to repeat that over a day of high rift activity?

I don't know. Maybe as few as two? As many as 8? Absolute worst case if they have to spawn in the one block around the portal, twelve. Maybe as many as 4 portals within 25 of your "base".

Portals were an answer to complaints about the prior spawn mechanic, which I think was a radius around the player. If you plan one step ahead, you can work through the night by choosing your worksite outside range of the portals, and have only have to deal with those that happen to randomly wander close enough to you. Plan a couple steps ahead and you can relocate in case another rift spawns near you.

It's not that I'm opposed to change. It's just that I hate the game I love being nerfed to the point it becomes an activity. What's next? Instead of having rifts and rift wards, you have to build a Jonas device that enables rifts?

Edited Sunday at 02:41 PM by Thorfinn

[Thorfinn]

52 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I think a developer dedicating too much time in their day to explicitly look for ways to force a player into a gaming experience that they want them to do despite those players being actively engaged in trying to avoid that experience is to put if simply, creepy.

But it's fine for them to dedicate time to making it easier to cheese things?

Look at all the exploits they have patched out. Kill boxes are a prime example. Was that creepy, too?

[CastIronFabric]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn said:

But it's fine for them to dedicate time to making it easier to cheese things?

Look at all the exploits they have patched out. Kill boxes are a prime example. Was that creepy, too?

that is not a logical flow AND not related, such a comparative statement here would not apply logically anyway. What is or is not 'eaiser' is highly subjective given your framing. You are trying to suggest that having drifters crawl out of a portal is 'easy'. Is it? is it really easier than it is now? no its not.

What I would suggest instead is just try not to defend 'forcing a player into a gaming experience that they do not want' and just call this one a loss of debate and move on instead of doubling down on it.

EDIT: before replying with a counter point in a desire to justify your position hear my advice following: I do not think its wise to try and defend the position of 'forcing a player to do something that they do not want to do'. I think its better to punt on that before you find yourself being 'that guy'. If a player thinks building a fence is cheeky they can just simply not do it.

Edited Sunday at 03:55 PM by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

The team obviously has a vested interest in having a game that is not chock full of exploits. If they didn't care about the image of their game, they wouldn't have bothered to put in the effort to nerf drifter drops depending on cause of death. They've nerfed spears because they are OP. Why would they bother implementing something that could be so easily exploited, when it would be easier to just leave things be and expect people to learn how to deal with it, or just shut spawning off?

[CastIronFabric]

3 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

The team obviously has a vested interest in having a game that is not chock full of exploits. If they didn't care about the image of their game, they wouldn't have bothered to put in the effort to nerf drifter drops depending on cause of death. They've nerfed spears because they are OP. Why would they bother implementing something that could be so easily exploited, when it would be easier to just leave things be and expect people to learn how to deal with it, or just shut spawning off?

you seriously want to be the guy who is arguing for 'put in effort to force players to do something that they do not want to do instead of just adovacting for players to not use a hack if they do not want to'. you really want to be that guy

[Thorfinn]

1 minute ago, CastIronFabric said:

you seriously want to be the guy who is arguing for 'put in effort to force players to do something that they do not want to do instead of just adovacting for players to not use a hack if they do not want to'. you really want to be that guy

Don't be that way. I want to be the guy who argues for adding useful features to the game instead of wasting time and effort on fluff.

[CastIronFabric]

19 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Don't be that way. I want to be the guy who argues for adding useful features to the game instead of wasting time and effort on fluff.

if a person thinks putting a fence over the portal to prevent monsters from coming at them is wrong, they can simply not do it.

Just like when you are in a cave, you have the OPTION to use blocks to protect yourself from monsters coming at you in a cave or you can choose not to do so and fight them instead.

its that simple

Edited Sunday at 08:53 PM by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

3 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

if a person thinks putting a fence over the portal to prevent monsters from coming at them is wrong, they can simply not do it.

Just like when you are in a cave, you have the OPTION to use blocks to protect yourself from monsters coming at you in a cave or you can choose not to do so and fight them instead.

its that simple

I'm not sure what it is you are not following. Blocking a portal is only really plausible if you rework the way rusties spawn so they emerge from a single voxel. I agree that might seem the most obvious way for them to spawn, but Tyron chose not to do that. Why? Dunno. His desire to avoid his baby being full of exploits is my best guess.

Why give drifters rock throwing? Probably to stop pillaring cheese.

Why make placed rocks no longer prevent spawns? Maybe to stop you from cheesing your mines?

Why have the axles smoke if you try to make supercharged querns?

Why remove fish from small ponds?

Why get rid of ice elevators?

I'm not the one who made those decisions and more, and there are some I would not have done, at least in that way. You wanna be mad at someone for being "that guy"? Take it up with Tyron.

[EDIT]

The placed rocks thing is really telling if you look at how that was done. It's not just hardcoded for loosestones-*, but it's actually a list of things that explicitly do not block spawns, so you can add things to the list in seconds as people find other ways to cheese spawns.

Edited Monday at 12:39 AM by Thorfinn

[LadyWYT]

10 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

I agree that might seem the most obvious way for them to spawn, but Tyron chose not to do that. Why? Dunno. His desire to avoid his baby being full of exploits is my best guess.

Just throwing my two cents in here, but it seems to me that patching exploits is just...standard practice for game development. Or at least, it used to be the standard. Sometimes the exploits are fun and minor enough that the devs decide to leave them in, but more often than not it's more ideal to fix them in order to have a more polished product. Too many bugs and exploits, and studios start getting a reputation for unpolished products. 

[EnbyKaiju]

It's absolutely part of game development (speaking from years in games journalism/development).

When devs see players finding exploits they have two options: either find ways to mitigate those exploits so that it doesn't detract from the experience they wanted to make, or indulge the exploits and leave them in. In which case they become features. The latter you often see end up in the speedrunning community. Though personally I don't like the idea of VS as something to speedrun, but each to their own.

The VS devs seem to like to skirt a line between taking out the exploits/cheesing mechanics that make the game too easy or metagameable, and encouraging folks to play in their own way. We see that a lot in how the game customisation allows for a lot of things that the devs might not consider their way of doing things. The Project Zomboid devs do the same thing. That's why these are sandbox games where you get to determine a lot of factors.

Sometimes you'll find mechanics that the devs definitely don't want to you to exploit (e.g. the story elements), in which case I say just let the devs cook and see what they turn up. If they think something is broken, and they get feedback to that extent, they will decide if it's worth changing. But for Dave's sake, be polite about it. We've enough games out there where the devs walk away because people scream at them or make the fanbase hostile. We don't need more of that. I sure as heck wouldn't want to see it happen to VS.

Speak your thoughts, consider that everyone plays differently, and encourage things you think might help change the game for the better without being overly critical. 

That's just my perspective of someone having seen this kind of thing go on many, many times.

Edited Monday at 02:28 AM by EnbyKaiju

[RogueVali]

On 2/13/2026 at 12:40 PM, Broccoli Clock said:

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not asking for temporal storms to be like the stalker/namalsk emissions,

Huh what if they were tho. That'd be cool. If they offered similar threat as well, instead of being just an annoying time sink that throws a wrench into anything you were doing, then huh. 
Cause feel that's the problem. Visually they're cool, but unless you want to fight a bunch of bastard enemies, 3 out of 4 being ranged, then what's the point of them. They're interesting and unnerving the first time, but then they're just annoying. Probably caused by their length. Emissions are short and sweet. Get tf inside, or fry. You're in the middle of nowhere? WELL NICE KNOWING U. U know? Emissions are always stressful, and if they catch u in a safe area, then they're blissfully short. Visually they're also amazing.

[Thorfinn]

3 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

patching exploits is just...standard practice for game development. Or at least, it used to be the standard.

Yeah, so far as I can tell, used to be. Oh, there are a lot of conscientious developers who still do, but it seems to be every other or every third early access game on Steam, not so much. Or maybe I just have poor luck picking games to try. Yeah, I could read the various forums before buying, but that takes away the fun of jumping in blind and seeing what this one offers. That and have you seen the Steam forums? Sheesh. Ya gotta go take a shower after wading into some of those, particularly the EAs.

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, EnbyKaiju said:

When devs see players finding exploits they have two options: either find ways to mitigate those exploits so that it doesn't detract from the experience they wanted to make, or indulge the exploits and leave them in. In which case they become features.

The other bit I forgot to mention, is that the old rule still applies: if something is obviously an exploit, it's fine to have fun with it while it's there(in most cases), but best not to become reliant on it because it may be patched out someday.

 

49 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

That and have you seen the Steam forums?

I've read the occasional game review, but never bothered venturing into the forums. That goes for forums in general, really. 

[EnbyKaiju]

3 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

The other bit I forgot to mention, is that the old rule still applies: if something is obviously an exploit, it's fine to have fun with it while it's there(in most cases), but best not to become reliant on it because it may be patched out someday.

VS is a perfect example of that. I remember when there was an exploit to just totally bypass one of the main story segments to get to the loot and I am so glad they patched that out.

There are times when invisible walls frustrate me, and times when I absolutely believe they are necessary to prevent folks from just skipping important parts of the game. Though I think giving folks the opportunity to get an elk, and get it cheaper, definitely was a way to encourage folks to engage with that part of the story more and to do it the way the devs intended.

I call that damn good game design.

[CastIronFabric]

12 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I'm not sure what it is you are not following. Blocking a portal is only really plausible if you rework the way rusties spawn so they emerge from a single voxel. I agree that might seem the most obvious way for them to spawn, but Tyron chose not to do that. Why? Dunno. His desire to avoid his baby being full of exploits is my best guess.

Why give drifters rock throwing? Probably to stop pillaring cheese.

Why make placed rocks no longer prevent spawns? Maybe to stop you from cheesing your mines?

Why have the axles smoke if you try to make supercharged querns?

Why remove fish from small ponds?

Why get rid of ice elevators?

I'm not the one who made those decisions and more, and there are some I would not have done, at least in that way. You wanna be mad at someone for being "that guy"? Take it up with Tyron.

[EDIT]

The placed rocks thing is really telling if you look at how that was done. It's not just hardcoded for loosestones-*, but it's actually a list of things that explicitly do not block spawns, so you can add things to the list in seconds as people find other ways to cheese spawns.

Let me ask you a simple quesiton.

If I got into a cave and I put blocks around me so that monsters can not attack me, am I hacking the system? should developer take time to remove that ability so that I am forced to fight with monsters?

OR..if you think its cheeky you can just simply not do that.