Temporal storms are a bad implementation of a good idea.

[QueenGeeBee]

9 hours ago, Ceridith said:

which includes rift wards which should have at least some impact.

I could not agree more than I do. I was reading through this thread loading up a post on how rift wards should protect the area from the effects of a temporal storm, and you beat me to it.

People barely build jonas tech items. They're fairly late game, and half of them are terribly not worth the effort. I think giving one of these later game inventions the ability to protect your base from temporal storms would be similar to making a warm set of clothes and stockpiling food for winter. Its something a player can actively do in order to better survive a challenge, and doing this prep lets them do more than just huddling around a tiny area waiting for things to pass.

No ones coming out the gate building a rift ward early game, so new players aren't missing out on that core experience of going through several temporal storms, building a ward will just allow them to do more stuff around the base without fear of getting instantly murdered.

It also still makes being caught out in the wild dangerous, as it'll be like being caught in the middle of winter without the proper protection. 

9 hours ago, Ceridith said:

The inclusion of temporal storms in the game makes sense in context to further completion of the story content and/or the implied addition of devices or other mechanics to mitigate or reduce storms. Their implementation in the current state of the game however, has them come off as needlessly punitive and more of a nuisance to be worked around rather than something that can achievably be overcome.

The way i see it now, Storms are as if the devs added Winter, but theres no warm clothing currently in the game, so the only gameplay is stand next to a fire until it gets warmer outside. We have a tech in the game that could feasibly be used as some kind of deterrant, so I think they should make it work as one.
 

9 hours ago, Stralgaez said:

I need more on a storytelling level to show me how the storms are bad:  Show me wastelands that display the lingering effect of them, mutated animals beyond recognition that result from it.

I think the bits of areas that are permanately temporally unstable should look messed up like the rust world. Metal clutter structures sticking out of the ground, dead trees, just a really messed up place that also serves to show the player 'hey this place is temporily unstable', I think a player exploring these areas and seeing just how messed up they are would serve your idea pretty well, while also improving a feature thats currently in the game.

[Blaiyze]

3 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

There is a reason Tyron put a "Rage Quit?" button on the death screen. It literally says that. You can argue all day that temporal storms are rough on new players, but that is the point. They are meant to be rough. It is no secret that a storm can and will catch a new player off guard. The only way through it is preparation.

And new players will not prepare. I did not.

My first storm was miserable. I ended up hiding in my basement, backed into a corner with no weapon because I died and could not get back to my gear. Since then, I keep a spare set of weapons and tools next to my respawn point. Later, when I crafted my first iron armor, I thought I was untouchable because bears could not kill me anymore. Then a tier 4 drifter ripped a chunk out of that armor and sent me limping back to camp with my proverbial tail between my legs.

The question is not whether this is "great" game design. The question is whether the game is intentionally built to punish players who are unprepared.

It is.

 

Just because he put a rage quit button, doesn't make it good game design. Deliberately pushing new players to rage quit your game is literally driving OFF a portion of your new player base. I'm sorry I don't see that as smart game design. Which is exactly why the majority of games give some sort of on ramp for new players - you don't have to hold a new players hand, but there's no real tutorial to speak of with VS as is beyond the first Handbook introduction.

I'm aware of how bad the storms used to be. I've had this game for a long time - my short chat history on the forums means nothing for actual time spent in the game. 

There's nothing wrong with established lore re: the Storms, but the mechanics of the Storms in-game is lacklustre and severely lacking. Look no further than the divisiveness of this discussion, and the multitude of others exactly like it. Which goes to show there's plenty of long term players that generally like the concept of the Temporal Storms but want a mechanic that is more satisfying to engage with. As it stands, the mechanic loses its' spark of joy after a handful of Storms and leaves enough of the player base annoyed with them that they turn them off. Sure, customizability is great - but if a good chunk of your player base is turning OFF a critical game mechanic literally presented in the trailer for the game - then you've missed the mark.

It's impossible to satisfy everyone, but the main underlying complaints are the same when you distill the arguements down, which therein shows where the mechanic itself can be tweaked.I'm a lore fiend myself in games and love seeking out the books etc, but LORE is not a singular good reason for a mechanic that is universally divisive like this. I've made enough small games myself to learn this one. A poorly implemented good idea still remains poorly implemented. Most of the suggestions people are making are not to overhaul the Storms entirely, but to tweak them slightly to rid the annoyance so people will actually leave them on and engage with them more often as a fun part of the game, rather than an annoyance to avoid.

I play games to engage with mechanics, not turn them off.

[Andael]

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Out of curiosity have you completed all the story chapters and read all the lorebooks?

No, I've been waiting for the latest release to go stable before I start a fresh run up through everything to this point.

I have completed the Resonance Archives twice. I've read the four(?) collections in the Archives, and a smattering of other lorebooks/tapestries collected from panning or ruins.

1 hour ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

EDIT: And I will say that perhaps a change to the storms is coming and if it does, it will be interesting to see how the devs improve upon it. I think they're fine the way they are now, not great, but just fine.

You think they're not great, but just fine.

I think they're not fine but an adequate placeholder -- really in need of a degree of improvement compared to most of the game.

The Storms are trivially implemented and haven't really changed (aside from some spawn-tables when the new creatures were added).

My major problem is that spawns are simply random checks anywhere around, allowing the chance to appear behind you and attack even as they're "materializing". You don't have a problem with that. Many people do, hence the arguments and people not arguing because they've quit playing even though they might really like the more richly designed aspects of the game.

As a game developer myself, my greatest pet-peeve is trivial "spawning" -- it's just rude to players, and lame.

Next problem is all tiers capable of spawning at any storm intensity. A player can't have a sense of "oh, this one is light, I can probably weather it, or maybe try..." Instead, most people just try to ignore/avoid every storm -- hiding in a tiny room or coffin, if not outright disabling storms. Because any storm can drop a nightmare on your ass. And I've been ganked like this far too many times. Arguments that it's "not a problem for you" are not valid, sorry. That's the nature of statistics when you choose random-chance of effect and random-table. It basically means in a large enough player population, someone will be very unlucky and have that utterly dumb experience. (My second peeve in games: the "random roll".)

I want the Storms, and I want drifters able to spawn inside (I've never had the impression that you should feel completely safe in a storm) -- but I want there to be better mechanics involved in the storms. Enough to encourage some interaction and experimentation rather than outright avoiding or deciding storms are shit.

Light/dark is one of the few influencing factors the game communicates to me about spawns. But it also seems pretty inconsistent. I think several aspects can be improved by spawns being more restricted by light (only darker shadows), but allow storms to overcome a well-lit home by altering light -- a local zone of rust-world/past doesn't have this light, creating a local dimming effect and more opportunity for spawn... but a player can bring a lantern into darkening corners... or cower and deal with what crawls out of the darkness. Carrying a lantern would then be an effective deterrent against nearby spawns (rather than some arbitrary rule of player-proximity).

There are many ways to build gameplay out of Temporal Storms -- but you're right that none of us know enough to mesh with all the lore we haven't been privy to. I hope there are plans for more to be done, and think it's a sore-spot in the game currently. If not, then it seems like ripe territory for a mod.

I wish people didn't feel like the way to play VS was with Storms disabled... but I also can't really fault them with Storms as they are.

 

[QueenGeeBee]

2 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I think something like a protected radius around the player might be a good middle ground solution. Maybe something like 4-5 blocks radius where spawns are prevented during a storm. That would still allow enemies to appear nearby and keep the tension but it would stop the frustrating cases where things just pop into existence right inside your house or other building while you're just trying to do your thing. Think about how cramped the spaces are for the NPCs in the game. Perhaps they learned through trial and error what worked and what didn't and made adjustments.

I personally would appreciate this as a middleground. I understand that no where is supposed to be safe, and that this is like an apocalyptic event, but no one likes an enemy spawning directly on top of them and getting a free hit, lore or no lore.

Also, unrelated to the quote, if the rift ward isn't a good solution, maybe talking to a certain guy in chapter 2 could give the player a blueprint to upgrade it to make it actually work on storms.

[QueenGeeBee]

35 minutes ago, Andael said:

Light/dark is one of the few influencing factors the game communicates to me about spawns. But it also seems pretty inconsistent. I think several aspects can be improved by spawns being more restricted by light (only darker shadows), but allow storms to overcome a well-lit home by altering light -- a local zone of rust-world/past doesn't have this light, creating a local dimming effect and more opportunity for spawn... but a player can bring a lantern into darkening corners... or cower and deal with what crawls out of the darkness. Carrying a lantern would then be an effective deterrent against nearby spawns (rather than some arbitrary rule of player-proximity).

They could introduce a new enemy that exists to slowly walk around and stuff out lights so even more stuff could spawn. Maybe only weaker enemies could squeeze through the storm in more well lit areas, with the intensity continuing to grow more and more worse as lights are smothered and the environment is more accepting of higher tier enemies. Could also tie the storm intensity directly to what tiers of enemies can spawn like someone suggested earlier. I really did like that idea.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 hour ago, Blaiyze said:

Just because he put a rage quit button, doesn't make it good game design. Deliberately pushing new players to rage quit your game is literally driving OFF a portion of your new player base. I'm sorry I don't see that as smart game design. Which is exactly why the majority of games give some sort of on ramp for new players - you don't have to hold a new players hand, but there's no real tutorial to speak of with VS as is beyond the first Handbook introduction.

I'm aware of how bad the storms used to be. I've had this game for a long time - my short chat history on the forums means nothing for actual time spent in the game. 

There's nothing wrong with established lore re: the Storms, but the mechanics of the Storms in-game is lacklustre and severely lacking. Look no further than the divisiveness of this discussion, and the multitude of others exactly like it. Which goes to show there's plenty of long term players that generally like the concept of the Temporal Storms but want a mechanic that is more satisfying to engage with. As it stands, the mechanic loses its' spark of joy after a handful of Storms and leaves enough of the player base annoyed with them that they turn them off. Sure, customizability is great - but if a good chunk of your player base is turning OFF a critical game mechanic literally presented in the trailer for the game - then you've missed the mark.

It's impossible to satisfy everyone, but the main underlying complaints are the same when you distill the arguements down, which therein shows where the mechanic itself can be tweaked.I'm a lore fiend myself in games and love seeking out the books etc, but LORE is not a singular good reason for a mechanic that is universally divisive like this. I've made enough small games myself to learn this one. A poorly implemented good idea still remains poorly implemented. Most of the suggestions people are making are not to overhaul the Storms entirely, but to tweak them slightly to rid the annoyance so people will actually leave them on and engage with them more often as a fun part of the game, rather than an annoyance to avoid.

I play games to engage with mechanics, not turn them off.

I get that you're frustrated, but I think it's worth framing this as intentional humor rather than malice. When the player dies, Tyron gives them a choice: adapt and survive or rage quit. It's meant to be a funny jab.

But at the same time it's also worth remembering that the game we're playing is the game that Tyron wants to play. Our opinions on whether it is good game design need to be put on hold until the story is complete, at the very least. As of right now, it's a work in progress and game mechanics are going to be designed around what he feels are engaging and less around what the community thinks is a polished work of art. Sure, no other game does what he's doing. But then, isn't that why we play his game rather than the others?

As for the storms themselves, I think it's well established at this point that any existing mechanics that we have are either temporary, prototypes, or mostly implemented. Examples:

• rot beasts: I don't think drifters were ever supposed to be the only rotbeasts in the game. I think they are potentially placeholders for other rotbeast types. We have shivers and bowtorn now. 
• Current mechanics surrounding crafting: We know that Tyron wants to leave behind the 3x3 crafting grid entirely in favor of a different kind of crafting method. It remains to be seen how he does this but smithing is a good example of a prototype system that is getting fleshed out more. Same for farming as it is somewhat getting extended to berry bushes soon.
• systems that are mostly implemented would be the major ones that involve the lore and story chapters.

I think your argument of "on ramps" holds merit. A way for players to understand better how to interact with the game would see some use as more and more players join the game. However one of the fundamental tenets of game design is that you do not create your tutorial until the game is done. Otherwise you will spend too much time keeping your tutorial up to date that could be spend developing and polishing game mechanics.

Tweaks of the existing systems are a good middle ground. I think we both agree on this, at least.

[Blaiyze]

The mere fact that this game is a work in progress is precisely why these discussions are important - because the game is in active development and feedback from the player base helps to craft and shape the direction of development obviously with the devs being the ones at the helm. Which is why topics like this are important and exist. It does a disservice to push away feedback in favor of 'just let the devs do their thing' when, if they didn't WANT our feedback in the first place, these forums wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to provide suggestions for improvement.

Thus far, I love the direction development is going. Every new version the game improves in ways that I wish other games doing similar 'early access' style dev would do. In particular, I love that some mods end up being effectively rolled into the base game. Given this is probably the fourth topic on this very issue that I can recall in just the last couple years, and everytime it becomes a long, and sometimes divisive, topic just like this one - is evidence enough that the community has a lot of feedback about this particular mechanic - one that we all unanimously seem to like and want to see it done better. 

It's fair to say that until such time that improvement are made to the Temporal Storm mechanic that isn't a mod, we're going to see this discussion come round and round again.

In the meantime, I just spotted a new Temporal Storm mod that I'm definitely going to try.

Edited March 5 by Blaiyze

[Tabulius]

1 hour ago, Blaiyze said:

In the meantime, I just spotted a new Temporal Storm mod that I'm definitely going to try.

Which mod?

[Stralgaez]

8 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

That might be cool. I'm not sure how it would affect the story pacing as currently you know nothing until you get to the chapter 1 location unless you manage to find a lore book or tapestry in a ruin somewhere.

Picking up upon a thread and following it to reach the point where Chapter 1 kicks off definitely would help garnering interest and finding more about the What, How, and Why one might have as questions when starting up the game. A 'Prologue', if you like.

(On the other side giving the beginning of the game a touch-up in itself can also be useful - As not being just placed in the world and instead witnessing a short scenario where it leads the player character being shunted and transformed into what we are now. Just something to put in place and say 'Look, we got this all laid out before you which you can pursue - If you are curious.' Because as for now, you get dropped into the world just like in Minecraft - And some players set their expectations like that when it comes to exploring the world.)

(I'm also in favor of cutting down most of the handbook and removing nearly all recipes in favor of discovering them (with some exceptions based on the class you took), either by reading manuals and schematics found in ruins or bought from traders, or finding suitable mentors that share their knowledge.)

[Bumber]

On 3/3/2026 at 4:00 PM, CastIronFabric said:

What I have never been able to understand is why people think lore is sacred and immutable. That said as far as I am aware making 'storms' be a place you go to, instead of a place that comes to you, would not break the lore.

Well, they're not called "temporal volcanoes".

[CastIronFabric]

10 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

The developer is the final authority over canon lore. In that sense it is immutable. .

The developer is the final authority over all features including farming, spears, husbandry, cooking, smithing, smeltiing and in that sense those features are immutable

using the EXACT same logic and EXACT same words

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[CastIronFabric]

11 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Yes you have stated that a few times now. Could you respond to the counterarguments that people make instead? I think that would help people understand you better instead of just repeating the same thing over and over.

the counter arguments are 'the developer is the final say on lore' however nobody wants to respond to my point that using the exact same logic 'the developers are the final say on Farming, smithing, smelting, cooking and EVERYTHING in the game'

There does not exist evidence that i have seen that the developer considers the story more important than any other feature in the game and in fact changing FARMING has more of an impact on game play than changing Lore.

The very premise that lore is the most important foundation in this game would logically suggest that the most important reason a person is compelled to play this specific game is because of the lore, which of course is completely and totally absurd and unbelievable. The story? really they lore? the lore is the main reason most people play this game? I reject that 

 

Story is NOT the creator of  the tone, mystery, and thematic direction that is a myth people have been taught to believe. It CAN be but its not by FAR the main or only mechanism for that. More over, reading lore as if its a legally binding document absolutely positively will NOT affect tone, mystery, or thematic direction

D&D is a good example, before they introduced story telling to Chainmail it has tone, mystery, and thematic direction.

I would give you an example using the lore in this game but to be frank despite playing the game for about 1000 hours and enjoying the tone and overall feel I have no idea what the lore even is at all whatsoever other than storms do not have to be global. I also do not know anyone personally who knows the lore and yet they still love the game.

You have to boil this absurdity to its core. If what you are saying is true the following would also be true.

1. the vast majority of people who enjoy this game would have to be playing it BECAUSE of the story. Reality is most people enjoy this game for thousands of hours and barely even know the story at all.

2.Minecraft, same thing.

3. Call of Duty, same thing.

etc

This is all just silly

I know people get upset when Star Trek Lore gets broken, I do not know enough about Star Trek to really dispute or agree with that but the difference is that is 100% a story, this is a video game. In a video game there is plenty of strong evidence to support the assertion that the story is NOT the most important part of game play and is NOT the driver of the ton, it CAN be in some 'cut scene simulators' but not in this game, not in this game.

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[CastIronFabric]

1 hour ago, Bumber said:

Well, they're not called "temporal volcanoes".

when the last time you experienced a storm in real life in which said storm was global?

why do we presume the storms have to be global when real life storms do not operate that way and there is zero reference in the lore that even suggests storms are global let alone should be global.

 

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[williams_482]

37 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

The developer is the final authority over all features including farming, spears, husbandry, cooking, smithing, smeltiing and in that sense those features are immutable

using the EXACT same logic and EXACT same words

Mechanics obviously aren't immutable, they change all the time. Spears got an overhaul in the latest update, along with berry bush mechanics, sheep behavior, fish spawning conditions and harvesting mechanics, and all manner of other things. All of those listed are things which the same development team implemented in the past and has decided to implement differently now.

It's not the "EXACT same logic and EXACT same words" because storytelling and game design are not the same thing. 

Edited March 5 by williams_482

[CastIronFabric]

44 minutes ago, williams_482 said:

Mechanics obviously aren't immutable, they change all the time. Spears got an overhaul in the latest update, along with berry bush mechanics, sheep behavior, fish spawning conditions and harvesting mechanics. All of these are things which the same development team implemented in the past and has decided to implement differently now.

It's not the "EXACT same logic and EXACT same words" because storytelling and game design are not the same thing. 

its not obvious.

you keep making assertions that are not only not obvious often times are illgocial.

1. The idea that lore sets the basic architecture for the overall game is FALSE and not founded on evidence.

2. The idea that people play this specific game mostly because of the lore is FALSE and not remotely close founded on evidence

3. The idea that if you changed something in the game that affects the lore that the VAST majority of people do not even know is lore somehow affects everyones experience in the game is FALSE

4. The claim that the developers consider the lore to be well established is founded on ZERO evidence of that anymore than they have consider berry bushes to be well established and founded.

5. your reasoning is completely circular and could be applied to anything in the game, pause and think about it for a second. I can walk you thru it if you like.

 

Its ironic how the two specific features of this game that are the least engaging for the player to the point of most players just finding it a bother is proclaimed by many here to be the most important aspect of the game. Those two features are monsters spawning around your base and storms. The importance of those two things proclaimed here on the forums are actually the EXACT opposite in the game play experience. Lore? well most players do not even know the lore and those that do only learn about in the game play by around late mid game.

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[PineReseen]

13 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

There is a reason Tyron put a "Rage Quit?" button on the death screen. It literally says that. You can argue all day that temporal storms are rough on new players, but that is the point. They are meant to be rough. It is no secret that a storm can and will catch a new player off guard. The only way through it is preparation.

And new players will not prepare. I did not.

My first storm was miserable. I ended up hiding in my basement, backed into a corner with no weapon because I died and could not get back to my gear. Since then, I keep a spare set of weapons and tools next to my respawn point. Later, when I crafted my first iron armor, I thought I was untouchable because bears could not kill me anymore. Then a tier 4 drifter ripped a chunk out of that armor and sent me limping back to camp with my proverbial tail between my legs.

The question is not whether this is "great" game design. The question is whether the game is intentionally built to punish players who are unprepared.

It is.

[Quote]

The whole point of the storms is that do not have anywhere to run. No where is safe. How can it be when temporal forces permeate even the fabric of reality? If the storm politely stops at the walls of your home and knocks on the front door to ask for permission to enter, it stops being an unnatural disaster and starts being a scheduled event where you bunker down. It is no different from a blood moon from 7dtd that players will min max around. Minmaxing is not intended VS gameplay.

Yes the game engine can detect rooms, cellars, greenhouses. It intentionally does not when determining where to spawn rotbeasts. The storm is not a mob wave, it is a tear in reality. It's supposed to violate your sense of security, keep you on edge, and wondering "Am I safe?". When reality warps, then the reality of the safety of your base warps with it. No where is safe.

[...]

I think this is the opinion I agree with. I don't know if it's just me, but very many people that post on threads like these seem to think that the player's agency is sacrosanct and that it can't be in any way challenged via in-game mechanics. I find that to be rather ridiculous, as creative mode isn't what this game's design philosophy is about. Hell, the game describes itself as uncompromising, why should the player be able to hunker down and ignore all the horrid creatures outside their flimsy door every single night?

If the player doesn't arrive to the fight, the fight should arrive to the player. I've already mentioned this, but in my opinion the game doesn't do this enough. I think the model of largely unexpected flash storms that are a bit shorter but force the player to actually do something instead of stare into a wall would be better.

[CastIronFabric]

1 minute ago, PineReseen said:

I think this is the opinion I agree with. I don't know if it's just me, but very many people that post on threads like these seem to think that the player's agency is sacrosanct and that it can't be in any way challenged via in-game mechanics. I find that to be rather ridiculous, as creative mode isn't what this game's design philosophy is about. Hell, the game describes itself as uncompromising, why should the player be able to hunker down and ignore all the horrid creatures outside their flimsy door every single night?

If the player doesn't arrive to the fight, the fight should arrive to the player. I've already mentioned this, but in my opinion the game doesn't do this enough. I think the model of largely unexpected flash storms that are a bit shorter but force the player to actually do something instead of stare into a wall would be better.

I will say this about that.

The reason this game is 'uncompromising' and the reason there exists currently videos talking about how 'hard core' and hard this game is CURRENTLY is not because of storms.

its because of food, monsters at night and hostile animals. Storms barely even enter the orbit

 

[williams_482]

1 minute ago, CastIronFabric said:

1. The idea that lore sets the basic architecture for the overall game is FALSE

I don't know what "sets the architecture" means, and certainly didn't use those words myself. The lore is central to the setting and the vibe of the game, and the various components connecting to that lore is a big part of what makes the game feel "alive." That's a subjective take which can't be proven or disproven, but it's hardly an absurd one and I'm far from alone in having it. 

1 minute ago, CastIronFabric said:

2. The idea that people play this specific game mostly because of the lore is FALSE

I did not say that.

1 minute ago, CastIronFabric said:

3. The idea that if you changed something in the game that affects the lore that the VAST majority of people do not even know is lore somehow affects everyones experience in the game is FALSE

I did not say that either. 

1 minute ago, CastIronFabric said:

4. The claim that the developers consider the lore to be well established is founded on ZERO evidence of that anymore than they have consider berry bushes to be well established and founded.

That's self evidently untrue. We know they don't consider berry bush mechanics "established and well founded" because they are currently changing them. 

I cannot prove definitely that the developers consider the lore currently in the game to be fixed. I have not, for example, found a quote along the lines of "every lore thing we put in the game will be there for ever and ever, suck it haters." Which is no surprise, because why would a reasonable person say that even if it were true?

What I can say is this:

1. They put the word "story" right in the name of the game. They could have named this game anything; presumably they chose the name they did because they care about the story they are telling in the game. 

2. They haven't made any meaningful changes to the lore they've established, while game mechanics change all the time. 

3. People with a specific artistic vision who are actively implementing that vision are generally much more receptive to criticism and open to suggestions about how they can present that vision, than they are to being told that their vision itself is bad and needs to change. 

1 and 2 have been repeated many times over. 3 I foolishly believed was obvious based on how I've felt about comparable things in my life, and how others around me behave regarding their own creative endeavors. As best as I can tell this is very typical of how people think about their own artistic intentions and creations. 

Creating stuff is hard. Sometimes (often?) the vision itself is bad and does need to change. That's clearly not the case here, the game is great with some flaws that are at least mostly the result of work-in-progress implementation. If I read your argument correctly you don't even think that the lore as exists is inherently bad, you just don't care about it, and you think it is difficult to make it mechanically align with the way you want to play the game. And you've been given the ability to play the stormless game you want, so I'm not really sure what the problem is. 

[CastIronFabric]

21 minutes ago, williams_482 said:

I don't know what "sets the architecture" means, and certainly didn't use those words myself. The lore is central to the setting and the vibe of the game, and the various components connecting to that lore is a big part of what makes the game feel "alive." That's a subjective take which can't be proven or disproven, but it's hardly an absurd one and I'm far from alone in having it. 

I did not say that.

I did not say that either. 

That's self evidently untrue. We know they don't consider berry bush mechanics "established and well founded" because they are currently changing them. 

I cannot prove definitely that the developers consider the lore currently in the game to be fixed. I have not, for example, found a quote along the lines of "every lore thing we put in the game will be there for ever and ever, suck it haters." Which is no surprise, because why would a reasonable person say that even if it were true?

What I can say is this:

1. They put the word "story" right in the name of the game. They could have named this game anything; presumably they chose the name they did because they care about the story they are telling in the game. 

2. They haven't made any meaningful changes to the lore they've established, while game mechanics change all the time. 

3. People with a specific artistic vision who are actively implementing that vision are generally much more receptive to criticism and open to suggestions about how they can present that vision, than they are to being told that their vision itself is bad and needs to change. 

1 and 2 have been repeated many times over. 3 I foolishly believed was obvious based on how I've felt about comparable things in my life, and how others around me behave regarding their own creative endeavors. As best as I can tell this is very typical of how people think about their own artistic intentions and creations. 

Creating stuff is hard. Sometimes (often?) the vision itself is bad and does need to change. That's clearly not the case here, the game is great with some flaws that are at least mostly the result of work-in-progress implementation. If I read your argument correctly you don't even think that the lore as exists is inherently bad, you just don't care about it, and you think it is difficult to make it mechanically align with the way you want to play the game. And you've been given the ability to play the stormless game you want, so I'm not really sure what the problem is. 

1. Berry bush mechanics have existed as is LONGER than the story.

2. Have they stated that the story is immutable? have the stated that berry bushes are mutable? because unless they have EXPLICTLY stated it, the berry bushes are actually more immutable than story becasue they have been around as is longer than the story.

3. There are two features of this game that are the least popular, least directly engaged in, least intresting by the player base. Those two features are the exact features you all claim are critically important to keep in place because they are tied to lore of which most people are not even well versed in the lore, do not even interact with the lore until mid to late game. So the arguements here are actually the EXACT opposite.

 

Berry bushes are objectively more important than the lore for reasons i have spelled out but I can itemize them again if you like

lets be clear, the position you are framing is that currently in the game as it stands now, some of the most important features of the game play experiece and could possibly destroy the entire game if changed too much is

A. monsters spawning around your base

B. storms

Do the developers personally think story is critically important in this game? perhaps, I have not seen them say that explictly however even if they did, it does not mean its unchangeable. 

I watch way more VS youtubde videos than is likely healthy and I have to say over the course of 12 months I have seen literally ONE video that talks about the story of the game. I submit that for this game, the story is really not as important as you think it is.

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[williams_482]

3 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

1. Berry bush mechanics have existed as is LONGER than the story.

Sure. That's relevant to anything I said... how?

3 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

Have they stated that the story is immutable?

As far as I can find, no. If you'd actually read the post you just quoted, you would know that. 

4 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

have the stated that berry bushes are mutable?

Yes, implicitly but definitively, in the logs of prereleases in which they changed them. And then again in Discord when they said some of those changes were incomplete and would be changed further. 

6 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

because unless they have EXPLICTLY stated it, the berry bushes are actually more immutable than story becasue they have been around as is longer than the story.

If I understand you correctly, your augment is as follows:

The only criterion by which we can judge how "immutable" something is 

1. If the devs have explicitly said it's immutable, or barring that,

2. how long it's been in the game. 

Thus, because the devs have not (to my knowledge) made explicit statements about the mutability of either element, because berry bushes have been in the game for longer than lore content has, and because berry bushes are currently being changed, therefore lore must be something they are willing to change. 

Do I have that right? Because that's a wild pile of logical leaps behind a veneer of "objectivity" if ever I've seen one. 

12 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

There are two features of this game that are the least popular, least directly engaged in, least intresting by the player base.

I'd like to see that citation.

14 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

most people are not even well versed in the lore, do not even interact with the lore until mid to late game.

I'd like to see that cited too.

15 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

Berry bushes are objectively more important than the lore for reasons i have spelled out but I can itemize them again if you like

You can spell them out again if you like, but that won't make them make sense. "Importance to lore" isn't an objective criteria to begin with. 

[CastIronFabric]

3 minutes ago, williams_482 said:

Sure. That's relevant to anything I said... how?

As far as I can find, no. If you'd actually read the post you just quoted, you would know that. 

Yes, implicitly but definitively, in the logs of prereleases in which they changed them. And then again in Discord when they said some of those changes were incomplete and would be changed further. 

If I understand you correctly, your augment is as follows:

The only criterion by which we can judge how "immutable" something is 

1. If the devs have explicitly said it's immutable, or barring that,

2. how long it's been in the game. 

Thus, because the devs have not (to my knowledge) made explicit statements about the mutability of either element, because berry bushes have been in the game for longer than lore content has, and because berry bushes are currently being changed, therefore lore must be something they are willing to change. 

Do I have that right? Because that's a wild pile of logical leaps behind a veneer of "objectivity" if ever I've seen one. 

I'd like to see that citation.

I'd like to see that cited too.

You can spell them out again if you like, but that won't make them make sense. "Importance to lore" isn't an objective criteria to begin with. 

again, you are building the argument that the least engaging features of this game are the most important features of this game becasue they are tied to what you think is an immutable lore of which the developers have never stated is immutable.

I am not going to go over every detail of what I have said to re-asset with endless evidence that it DOES apply to what you said, becasue I believe you know better. The above is the bottom line here and its something I do not agree with it at all.

 

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

11 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I think something like a protected radius around the player might be a good middle ground solution. Maybe something like 4-5 blocks radius where spawns are prevented during a storm.

Might be an OK compromise. Don't remember if that's JSON or not.

I'm pretty sure all attacks have a "wind-up" such that if you keep running, they can't hit you even if they spawn right on top of you. At least so far, since I started noticing the pattern, feets have never failed me. The ones that hit me are the ones I run into. That's true for all critters, BTW. If you don't slow down, you can often jump right over the back half of wolves and run behind bears. Just takes them too long to rotate 180 degrees.

Now the "wind-up" is pretty darned short. Under a second, for sure, around half a second, I think. That's hard to react to in time if you ever stop in place. I can't do it consistently, and I'm a twitch gamer. Keep on truckin' is all that's worked consistently for me.

[PineReseen]

46 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I will say this about that.

The reason this game is 'uncompromising' and the reason there exists currently videos talking about how 'hard core' and hard this game is CURRENTLY is not because of storms.

its because of food, monsters at night and hostile animals. Storms barely even enter the orbit

That's the problem. The storms aren't uncompromising enough. They don't make the player feel in danger, since the player can just hide in a hole practically forever if they have enough food stockpiled.

That's why I think they should be difficult to anticipate and require the player to actually fight/do something in response to the world being torn apart (doing something more with temporal stability during storms would definitely mesh well with the mechanics already in place).

[Thorfinn]

9 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I get that you're frustrated, but I think it's worth framing this as intentional humor rather than malice. When the player dies, Tyron gives them a choice: adapt and survive or rage quit. It's meant to be a funny jab.

That's what I thought the first time it popped up. "Whatcha gonna do? Cry to mommy or git gud?" The former no longer being an option tfor me, I chose the latter. Though that's what I would have chosen anyway.

Where are y'all getting the idea that most people shut off storms or sleep through them? I don't see all that many servers that do either. They would have the stats on how many just exit the game and rejoin after the storm is over. I don't have those figures and have never seen even a single server host post them. I can say that the servers I've played in have only a few who leave during storms.

[Thorfinn]

14 minutes ago, PineReseen said:

That's the problem. The storms aren't uncompromising enough. They don't make the player feel in danger, since the player can just hide in a hole practically forever if they have enough food stockpiled.

Give it time. Storms eventually get long enough that you lose all stability, so unless you have a stash of gears, you have to go fight. After having skipped all the easier and shorter storms that you should have been learning how to handle them instead of hiding in a hole.