Temporal storms are a bad implementation of a good idea.

[PineReseen]

1 minute ago, Thorfinn said:

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.

Hell yeah! How long do you have to wait for that though? I swear the first ones don't really give too much hope for getting to that point anytime soon...

[Teh Pizza Lady]

32 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

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.

I would need to dial the mouse sensitivity up to what I had in WoW but I was pretty well practiced in flipping my camera 180 and pressing my hunter's disengage button to close non-combat gaps in raids. It can be done, it just needs to be practiced and... well... bears are HIGHLY unforgiving if you get it wrong. Plus it's been too long since I played WoW in any sort of capacity to call myself a raider again.

15 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

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.

Is this for real? I've never had to go out and fight, even in a heavy storm, but I choose to because of the off-chance that a Jonas part might drop! How long does it take in-game before the storms completely drain all stability?

[CastIronFabric]

39 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.

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).

You: 'The game should be uncompromising'

Me: 'The game IS uncompromising right now'

One could argue that every single feature in the game should be 'uncompromising'. I personally do not think it should, but the game is already uncompromising without storms. Storms are not required for the game to be uncompromising because the game already is uncompromising

That does not mean it cant be uncompromising but it means its not a requirement because the game already is uncompromising.

 

A bit off topic but relevant:

not to mention, the 'uncompromising' aspect can change if its so desired to be changed, if any aspect of the existing game no matter how long established causes unpleasant gaming experience by the community and/or developer they CAN change it. 

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[Teh Pizza Lady]

3 hours ago, Bumber said:

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

Well... there is one... Sort of.

[williams_482]

Regarding lore and the current implementation of storms: Do current NPCs do things that make sense with the way storms work now? I'm going to argue "not really".

Spoilers, obviously: 

Spoiler

It seems notable that nobody recommends building a walled tower to protect yourself from temporal storms. The structure the Nadiyan's hide in to protect themselves seems plenty suitable as a defense against attacks by conventional enemies (who notably come from outside the village), but doesn't do a very good job protecting against monsters which appear seemingly at random in any place they can fit. 

The villagers have been around a long time. They know the score, and they've had plenty of opportunity to design and construct ideal defensive places to keep themselves and their young ones as safe as possible. A tower doesn't do much for them: height doesn't matter, and the worst thing you can do in a storm is expose yourself to bowtorn snipers at range. 

I would expect the villagers to dig a small artificial cave with narrow alcoves in the wall, just large enough for individual noncombatants to cram themselves into, and give each of them a shield large enough to cocoon them within that alcove if something appears and attacks them. This cave should have one entrance guarded by a sequence of heavy locked doors which drifters apparently lack the ability to either open or smash through, through a tunnel too short for bowtorn and too narrow for shivers. The cave itself should be large enough that all combatants can fit in with room to maneuver, stationing themselves leaned up against the walls. Most of the time, the job is to lean against a wall and wait until something happens to spawn in the open space, at which moment everyone swarms it and hopefully kills it before it has a chance to do any damage. A dozen immediate spear thrusts should deal with most things, and as long as everyone has a decent sized shield, it's okay if a notably tough one survives long enough to take a few swings. 

The fort just isn't good for this. There's not really a place where the villagers can all come together to both hide the noncombatants and give the fighters room to fight. Instead, it seems like the villagers would all get spread ought and find themselves fighting individual duels in small rooms, unable to offer each other much help and also still vulnerable to occasional projectile intervention from outside via windows. Do that every storm and you're going to lose people that could be saved with a smarter setup, one the villagers should have been able to build for themselves. 

On that grounds I'll argue that I don't think the current storm implementation is supposed to be permanent, although it's also possible that the devs just didn't think through the tactical side of this very well. 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

2 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

Me: 'The game IS uncompromising right now'

GOOD

Let's keep it that way.

[CastIronFabric]

17 minutes ago, williams_482 said:

Regarding lore and the current implementation of storms: Do current NPCs do things that make sense with the way storms work now? I'm going to argue "not really".

Spoilers, obviously: 

  Reveal hidden contents

It seems notable that nobody recommends building a walled tower to protect yourself from temporal storms. The structure the Nadiyan's hide in to protect themselves seems plenty suitable as a defense against attacks by conventional enemies (who notably come from outside the village), but doesn't do a very good job protecting against monsters which appear seemingly at random in any place they can fit. 

The villagers have been around a long time. They know the score, and they've had plenty of opportunity to design and construct ideal defensive places to keep themselves and their young ones as safe as possible. A tower doesn't do much for them: height doesn't matter, and the worst thing you can do in a storm is expose yourself to bowtorn snipers at range. 

I would expect the villagers to dig a small artificial cave with narrow alcoves in the wall, just large enough for individual noncombatants to cram themselves into, and give each of them a shield large enough to cocoon them within that alcove if something appears and attacks them. This cave should have one entrance guarded by a sequence of heavy locked doors which drifters apparently lack the ability to either open or smash through, through a tunnel too short for bowtorn and too narrow for shivers. The cave itself should be large enough that all combatants can fit in with room to maneuver, stationing themselves leaned up against the walls. Most of the time, the job is to lean against a wall and wait until something happens to spawn in the open space, at which moment everyone swarms it and hopefully kills it before it has a chance to do any damage. A dozen immediate spear thrusts should deal with most things, and as long as everyone has a decent sized shield, it's okay if a notably tough one survives long enough to take a few swings. 

The fort just isn't good for this. There's not really a place where the villagers can all come together to both hide the noncombatants and give the fighters room to fight. Instead, it seems like the villagers would all get spread ought and find themselves fighting individual duels in small rooms, unable to offer each other much help and also still vulnerable to occasional projectile intervention from outside via windows. Do that every storm and you're going to lose people that could be saved with a smarter setup, one the villagers should have been able to build for themselves. 

On that grounds I'll argue that I don't think the current storm implementation is supposed to be permanent, although it's also possible that the devs just didn't think through the tactical side of this very well. 

If one wants continuity of lore I think it would make more sense in this case to change the dialogue at the village to match the experience that the vast majority of players have for most of their game play. The village is arguably late mid game if not late game, so it should take a back seat to be frank.

[CastIronFabric]

14 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

GOOD

Let's keep it that way.

I am not advocating that it should  not be.

I think you are intentionally cherry picking what I said, I am not sure why you would do that but as a reminder that quote is related to specifically storms not needing to be dangerous because the game is ALREADY uncompromising without the storms.

 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

3 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I think you are intentionally cherry picking what I said

Oh whoops, my bad. Didn't realize it was only okay when you did it. Ignore what I said then.

[LadyWYT]

@Thorfinn I'm curious what stability drain you're referring to as well. I know the heavy storms can get pretty bad in that regard, but they do have limits to how long they last. In my experience, they can take a player at 100% down to around 40% over the course of the storm, if the player isn't out killing at least a few monsters. 

I think I mentioned it earlier, but it could be interesting to increase the stability drain for heavier storms. The early storms should be relatively mild so that the player has a fighting chance of survival, regardless of hiding or fighting, but by the time the heavier storms start rolling through the player should have at least acquired bronze gear and be able to fight a little bit. If they're still in the stone age at that point in the game, there are other issues present.

Thinking on it a little more though, I wonder if some of the problems are self-inflicted. By that I mean that when we first start playing, we struggle a lot, because we don't have experience to handle what the game throws at us. Thus it makes more sense to hide from the storms than fight. However, one advantage of becoming more experienced at the game is the player is able to do things they weren't able to before. For example, most new players aren't going to be able to tackle a bear with only stone spears; they'll probably at least want to invest in a little armor and maybe some better weapons, or rely on a bit of sneaky strategy like bear pits. A more experienced player, on the other hand, won't really have qualms about bear-hunting with no armor and stone spears.

In that case, I wonder if perhaps players are getting too used to hiding from the storms when learning to play, and falling into the trap of assuming they must hide from every storm unless they have iron+ equipment. I know I'm guilty of it. To be fair, hiding while underequipped or inexperienced is a good idea, but light storms can be handled with bronze gear in most cases, and veteran players are able to progress a lot faster than new players. It's something I'll have to play around with next time I start a fresh world, I think. It is good to be cautious, and using proven strategy is smart, but Vintage Story is also very much a game that requires some outside-the-box thinking when it comes to solving problems.

[CastIronFabric]

6 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Oh whoops, my bad. Didn't realize it was only okay when you did it. Ignore what I said then.

ok, maybe do not reply

[williams_482]

5 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Thinking on it a little more though, I wonder if some of the problems are self-inflicted. By that I mean that when we first start playing, we struggle a lot, because we don't have experience to handle what the game throws at us. Thus it makes more sense to hide from the storms than fight. However, one advantage of becoming more experienced at the game is the player is able to do things they weren't able to before. For example, most new players aren't going to be able to tackle a bear with only stone spears; they'll probably at least want to invest in a little armor and maybe some better weapons, or rely on a bit of sneaky strategy like bear pits. A more experienced player, on the other hand, won't really have qualms about bear-hunting with no armor and stone spears.

In that case, I wonder if perhaps players are getting too used to hiding from the storms when learning to play, and falling into the trap of assuming they must hide from every storm unless they have iron+ equipment. I know I'm guilty of it. To be fair, hiding while underequipped or inexperienced is a good idea, but light storms can be handled with bronze gear in most cases, and veteran players are able to progress a lot faster than new players. It's something I'll have to play around with next time I start a fresh world, I think. It is good to be cautious, and using proven strategy is smart, but Vintage Story is also very much a game that requires some outside-the-box thinking when it comes to solving problems.

I think this is correct, and it's downstream of the first storms being so incredibly punishing if the player tries to fight their way through. 

The game makes a rudimentary effort to give the player a gentle start by starting with the weakest temporal storm and ramping up, the problem is that even light storms are ridiculous. If light storms were much more manageable while still showing the correct type of dangers (fewer monsters and only T2 or below) while also conveying that things will get much, much worse in time, that lets the player make some less disastrous errors and learn things in less infuriating / automatically death spiraly ways. 

As far as lore explanations for the weaker storms, I'm spitballing without knowing what the devs have in mind but maybe the same temporal weirdness which put our character where they are also had a temporary chilling effect on the storms? That would explain why the first storm is weaker and they ramp up from there, despite the fact that we know storms are getting weaker over the much longer timescale of the world. 

[Blaiyze]

7 hours ago, Tabulius said:

Which mod?

https://mods.vintagestory.at/show/mod/35820

1 hour 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.

As usual this conversation always goes this way - the people offering up suggestions for Temporal Storms WANT to actually engage with them. We're frustrated that the way they're -presently- designed is not fun, give little to no reason to actually engage with them and therefore become an annoyance we would rather turn off - because Tyron gave us the option to turn them off, not -because- we want them off.

Go back and seriously re-read the suggestions in all the topics. We WANT to engage with the storms - we just want the enemies to not spawn inside our bases, or within a certain section of our bases, without being -forced- to build a storm-safe hidey hole and wait out the storm. Sure, in the start of the game and in the stone-age tech era, you're not supposed to have much, if anything at all, to defend or protect yourself. The game also puts heavy emphasis on it's supposed to be a slower progression through these tech eras, hence the in-depth crafting involvement. If we were supposed to shoot through the tech eras rapidly, we would be able to progress as quickly as that other block game. Ergo, we're supposed to fuss and fart about longer in each tech era - giving tech aligned craftables that a player can assemble to create a small no-spawn bubble that perhaps is weak and needs to be regularly maintained/rebuilt after each storm, would be reasonable and not break the devs intent or mess with lore.

Most people just want some sort of enemy scaling with player progress. As it currently stands, a high level enemy can drop behind you or literally spawn on you, during the first storm which creates a ridiculous scenario that will lead to a death loop. I've tried to get 10 people into playing this game, who all entered a death loop, ragequit and never came back - HOW is that benefitting the game overall longterm? Chalking it up to some pretentious "only the strong remain" attitude only drives more people out of the community.

Temporal Storms do not have to be a super gamey gift cannon event to the player, but making the loot dropped a tiny bit more useful and scaling enemies a tiny bit more in-line with player progression, and not having the enemies spawn inside our base either just as default or by giving us a scaling craftable that can be accessed from the earliest point of the game, would -encourage- engagement with this mechanic. Look no further than the amount of people that say they dig a small hole and bury themselves for a duration of a storm/otherwise hide/or turn on sleep through storms to understand that a large chunk of the player base is actively avoiding engaging with the storms because they feel there is little to no benefit for doing so. Considering this specific mechanic is considered one of the core mechanics that was touted in the trailer for the game, players seeking to NOT engage with it underlines a development flaw - hence all the suggestions and discussions surrounding them. 

I brought up 7dtd only for a mild comparison - the two games are functionally entirely different. Even 7dtd dealt with ensuring the Bloodmoon events wouldn't be a gift cannon by reducing drops from zombies - much to player frustration at the time, they removed every single zombie being lootable in favour of giving a chance to drop a loot backpack, wherein the loot scales with the player progression, just like the intensity of the Bloodmoons scales with player progression as well. Creating a mechanic that develops as the player continues to play. While it was an annoyance at first, the switch was accomodated for elsewhere and players made that transition with little ongoing grumbling, which infers it ultimately ended up being a good game design choice. Yes, the game also has the option to turn Bloodmoons off and many people do play with them off, most that do turn them off merely want a world that won't eventually get to the point that it is impossible to survive - which is the point with the Bloodmoons.

With VS, the Temporal Storms increase with intensity but have a cap where they will eventually plateau at - indicating, unlike 7dtd, the intent of this mechanic is not to eventually make it impossible for the player to survive and thus goodbye gameworld. That means the mechanic is intended for us to play with indefinitely and be a complication that we work with/around/and engage with as we see fit, which means it should be a mechanic that people -want- to deal with in the first place. Which begs the discussion - some sort of scaling progression with the storms, perhaps other impacts of said storms etc should come into play.

 

[PineReseen]

42 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

You: 'The game should be uncompromising'

Me: 'The game IS uncompromising right now'

One could argue that every single feature in the game should be 'uncompromising'. I personally do not think it should, but the game is already uncompromising without storms. Storms are not required for the game to be uncompromising because the game already is uncompromising

That does not mean it cant be uncompromising but it means its not a requirement because the game already is uncompromising.

[...]

I think you're conflating storms with the game here. I am generally referring to storms when talking about the "danger arriving to the player":

1 hour 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.

I don't really understand what you're saying with the "Storms are not required for the game to be uncompromising" stuff, all I'm saying (or what I intend on saying, at least) is that a feature that's supposed to challenge the player doesn't do that effectively, and that it should be changed to do it effectively. I don't think that is a particluarly bad idea, when something's broken, you fix it.

45 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

[...]

A bit off topic but relevant:

not to mention, the 'uncompromising' aspect can change if its so desired to be changed, if any aspect of the existing game no matter how long established causes unpleasant gaming experience by the community and/or developer they CAN change it. 

So like, world creation options? Y'know, turning off storms, creature aggresion, etc. I think I've already mentioned it in another thread, but temporal mechanics should also be more customizable. You should be able to customize existing and future storm mechanics via some options that the developers give us.

[CastIronFabric]

6 minutes ago, PineReseen said:

I think you're conflating storms with the game here. I am generally referring to storms when talking about the "danger arriving to the player":

I don't really understand what you're saying with the "Storms are not required for the game to be uncompromising" stuff, all I'm saying (or what I intend on saying, at least) is that a feature that's supposed to challenge the player doesn't do that effectively, and that it should be changed to do it effectively. I don't think that is a particluarly bad idea, when something's broken, you fix it.

So like, world creation options? Y'know, turning off storms, creature aggresion, etc. I think I've already mentioned it in another thread, but temporal mechanics should also be more customizable. You should be able to customize existing and future storm mechanics via some options that the developers give us.

let me walk you thru this.

Cooking..'well the game says its uncompromising game thus cooking needs to be uncompromising'

would you agree?

SIDE TOPIC (EDIT): no, what I am saying is that if the dev decides 'this 'uncompromising' thing is not working out well' they can change it. Its not written in stone. I am not advocating that it be that way I am just saying I reject the arguement that something should be as it is BECAUSE it has been decided to be as it is. I reject that line of logic in all things

 

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric

[Teh Pizza Lady]

22 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

let me walk you thru this.

Cooking..'well the game says its uncompromising game thus cooking needs to be uncompromising'

would you agree?

Yes and it is. You must have the proper ingredients in the right ratios to make a meal and you can only cook up to 6 servings at a time which takes considerably more fuel now than it did before. And if you leave it in the cookpot and don't put it in a crock in your basement/cellar, then you run the risk of it spoiling in a couple of days. That's about as realistic as the game can get without allowing you to invent new foods...at which point you might as well just eat the raw ingredients and pretend it's a meal.

I do recommend cooking the meat and mushrooms first at the very least. Some of the mushrooms get spicy now.

Reveal spoiler for screenshot of upcoming mechanics.

Spoiler

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/302152934249070593/1474902153884860487/image.png?ex=69aab26b&is=69a960eb&hm=68e6954bed7c417827495c97be4c88240c0da164f3a9acfa8f7bd9f0f45897b1

The point is even the simplest of game systems are uncompromising because they are designed with that in mind.

BUT

They can also be modded and expanded upon. Do you think that mods shouldn't be allowed in the game since that violates your understanding of the word uncompromising?

EDIT:

I will also add that the thread title said that temporal storms are a bad implementation of a good idea.

To bring things back around to the initial discussion since we have gotten so far off track, I will say that I disagree that they are a bad implementation. They are a fair initial start, but as with all things, there probably is room for improvement. However the storms need to stay global and they need to remain an actual threat for pretty much any player regardless of whether they are just starting out or are 2-3 years into the game.

Edited March 5 by Teh Pizza Lady
wording and added a thing

[OBAMFSpike]

Okay. 

I read into the second paragraph and abandoned reading anything else to assert my two cents. 

Temporal Storms make Vintage Story EXACTLY what it is by making the player aware of their surroundings and having to plan in accordance. 

Yes they are a pain in the ass. But we are talking about a world split between realities so danger is an element in itself. I don't understand why people try to avoid these things. Even on the server I play on the days are lengthened and months stretched longer. You can sleep through the storms. It takes away from the game. 

My opinion, take it or leave it. The vanilla game offers a thorough journey to excel through the ages and the storms and rifts are the hurdles to achieve the later fun in the game like the terminus teleport and the night vision goggles. 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

4 minutes ago, OBAMFSpike said:

Okay. 

I read into the second paragraph and abandoned reading anything else to assert my two cents. 

Temporal Storms make Vintage Story EXACTLY what it is by making the player aware of their surroundings and having to plan in accordance. 

Yes they are a pain in the ass. But we are talking about a world split between realities so danger is an element in itself. I don't understand why people try to avoid these things. Even on the server I play on the days are lengthened and months stretched longer. You can sleep through the storms. It takes away from the game. 

My opinion, take it or leave it. The vanilla game offers a thorough journey to excel through the ages and the storms and rifts are the hurdles to achieve the later fun in the game like the terminus teleport and the night vision goggles. 

Honestly just hole up in the ground if you're not prepared for the first few storms and go make a sandwich or something.

[OBAMFSpike]

I always took it as a great time to make pottery. XD

[CastIronFabric]

29 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Yes and it is. You must have the proper ingredients in the right ratios to make a meal and you can only cook up to 6 servings at a time which takes considerably more fuel now than it did before. And if you leave it in the cookpot and don't put it in a crock in your basement/cellar, then you run the risk of it spoiling in a couple of days. That's about as realistic as the game can get without allowing you to invent new foods...at which point you might as well just eat the raw ingredients and pretend it's a meal.

I do recommend cooking the meat and mushrooms first at the very least. Some of the mushrooms get spicy now.

Reveal spoiler for screenshot of upcoming mechanics.

  Reveal hidden contents

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/302152934249070593/1474902153884860487/image.png?ex=69aab26b&is=69a960eb&hm=68e6954bed7c417827495c97be4c88240c0da164f3a9acfa8f7bd9f0f45897b1

The point is even the simplest of game systems are uncompromising because they are designed with that in mind.

BUT

They can also be modded and expanded upon. Do you think that mods shouldn't be allowed in the game since that violates your understanding of the word uncompromising?

EDIT:

I will also add that the thread title said that temporal storms are a bad implementation of a good idea.

To bring things back around to the initial discussion since we have gotten so far off track, I will say that I disagree that they are a bad implementation. They are a fair initial start, but as with all things, there probably is room for improvement. However the storms need to stay global and they need to remain an actual threat for pretty much any player regardless of whether they are just starting out or are 2-3 years into the game.

I would say your assessment on cooking is extremely subjective. I do not find cooking remotely 'uncompromising'. I am however inclined to avoid engaging anymore 

 

[PineReseen]

24 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

[...]

As usual this conversation always goes this way - the people offering up suggestions for Temporal Storms WANT to actually engage with them. We're frustrated that the way they're -presently- designed is not fun, give little to no reason to actually engage with them and therefore become an annoyance we would rather turn off - because Tyron gave us the option to turn them off, not -because- we want them off.

Fair enough. Drifters/other creatures killed while a temporal storm is ongoing would take more time to despawn and have increased drop rates of valuable items like temporal/rusty gears and maybe would have some additional drops. Would mesh well with what I want for storms too, as in the player needing to fight somewhat during storms.

28 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

Go back and seriously re-read the suggestions in all the topics. We WANT to engage with the storms - we just want the enemies to not spawn inside our bases, or within a certain section of our bases, without being -forced- to build a storm-safe hidey hole and wait out the storm. Sure, in the start of the game and in the stone-age tech era, you're not supposed to have much, if anything at all, to defend or protect yourself. The game also puts heavy emphasis on it's supposed to be a slower progression through these tech eras, hence the in-depth crafting involvement. If we were supposed to shoot through the tech eras rapidly, we would be able to progress as quickly as that other block game. Ergo, we're supposed to fuss and fart about longer in each tech era - giving tech aligned craftables that a player can assemble to create a small no-spawn bubble that perhaps is weak and needs to be regularly maintained/rebuilt after each storm, would be reasonable and not break the devs intent or mess with lore.

Most people just want some sort of enemy scaling with player progress. As it currently stands, a high level enemy can drop behind you or literally spawn on you, during the first storm which creates a ridiculous scenario that will lead to a death loop. I've tried to get 10 people into playing this game, who all entered a death loop, ragequit and never came back - HOW is that benefitting the game overall longterm? Chalking it up to some pretentious "only the strong remain" attitude only drives more people out of the community.

Okay, I have never had anything spawn on top of me when a storm was ongoing, so I can't really speak on this.

However, reducing drifter spawns in houses wouldn't necessarily conflict with what I am trying to do, as I'd prefer the player to initiate fights, rather than the drifters. Having creatures spawn in a house is a rather artificial way to force a fight, and I'd rather have the player need to restore stability to more naturally make the player do something.

36 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

Temporal Storms do not have to be a super gamey gift cannon event to the player, but making the loot dropped a tiny bit more useful and scaling enemies a tiny bit more in-line with player progression, and not having the enemies spawn inside our base either just as default or by giving us a scaling craftable that can be accessed from the earliest point of the game, would -encourage- engagement with this mechanic. Look no further than the amount of people that say they dig a small hole and bury themselves for a duration of a storm/otherwise hide/or turn on sleep through storms to understand that a large chunk of the player base is actively avoiding engaging with the storms because they feel there is little to no benefit for doing so. Considering this specific mechanic is considered one of the core mechanics that was touted in the trailer for the game, players seeking to NOT engage with it underlines a development flaw - hence all the suggestions and discussions surrounding them.

I'm afraid that encouraging the player to interact with a storm via any kind of reward alone will make the storm more of an optional challenge that the player can either wait out or kill some creatures for better loot. That's why I think the player should be forced to fight lest they suffer some sort of stability-related consequence if we are to add increased loot chances.

I haven't really ran into issues with scaling yet, since I haven't actually be forced to fight anything during the storm, but I think that improved scaling with intensity should definitely be considered if fighting is to be a part of temporal storms.

43 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

I brought up 7dtd only for a mild comparison - the two games are functionally entirely different. Even 7dtd dealt with ensuring the Bloodmoon events wouldn't be a gift cannon by reducing drops from zombies - much to player frustration at the time, they removed every single zombie being lootable in favour of giving a chance to drop a loot backpack, wherein the loot scales with the player progression, just like the intensity of the Bloodmoons scales with player progression as well. Creating a mechanic that develops as the player continues to play. While it was an annoyance at first, the switch was accomodated for elsewhere and players made that transition with little ongoing grumbling, which infers it ultimately ended up being a good game design choice. Yes, the game also has the option to turn Bloodmoons off and many people do play with them off, most that do turn them off merely want a world that won't eventually get to the point that it is impossible to survive - which is the point with the Bloodmoons.

With VS, the Temporal Storms increase with intensity but have a cap where they will eventually plateau at - indicating, unlike 7dtd, the intent of this mechanic is not to eventually make it impossible for the player to survive and thus goodbye gameworld. That means the mechanic is intended for us to play with indefinitely and be a complication that we work with/around/and engage with as we see fit, which means it should be a mechanic that people -want- to deal with in the first place. Which begs the discussion - some sort of scaling progression with the storms, perhaps other impacts of said storms etc should come into play.

 I'll be honest, I don't really know what 7 Days to Die is. I can't really say anything about that.

But what I talk about is what I think the storms should be; foremost a complication instead of a largely optional benefit. I don't exactly agree that players should be able to engage with the mechanic as they see fit, that's more reserved for the world customization system, I instead believe that players should work around the mechanic as they see fit. So the player is forced to fight the storm, instead of choosing to do so willingly, and perhaps then we increase drop rates, so the storm must be interacted with, and there's a tangible benefit.

[Ceridith]

10 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Honestly just hole up in the ground if you're not prepared for the first few storms and go make a sandwich or something.

This sums up exactly why it's currently a bad game mechanic.

Firstly in that players can completely sidestep any challenge of it by simply boxing themselves in for the duration, but more importantly that doing so is the only reliable way to survive it in the earlier game for most players. It's arguably even the preferred way to deal with it mid to late game as there's little payoff for fighting off monsters that are spawned during it. If a game mechanic makes the player want to step away from the game to wait for it to be over, it's not a good mechanic.

 

[LadyWYT]

20 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

Honestly just hole up in the ground if you're not prepared for the first few storms and go make a sandwich or something.

Instructions unclear; made sandwich and got put in a hole.

 

3 minutes ago, PineReseen said:

Okay, I have never had anything spawn on top of me when a storm was ongoing, so I can't really speak on this.

However, reducing drifter spawns in houses wouldn't necessarily conflict with what I am trying to do, as I'd prefer the player to initiate fights, rather than the drifters. Having creatures spawn in a house is a rather artificial way to force a fight, and I'd rather have the player need to restore stability to more naturally make the player do something.

Speaking from my own experience, it does happen, but it doesn't happen often. It seems to depend rather heavily on how the player's building style and preferred aesthetic. A large interior will offer more space for stuff to potentially spawn than a small interior. Likewise, interiors that are heavily decorated with things like fur rugs, piles of items, and other general clutter(useful or not) don't have as much unoccupied space that stuff could spawn in, while interiors that are super clean and simple will have more space that qualifies as unoccupied.

Now I'm not sure what the exact rules are regarding the spawns, nor am I saying that every interior space needs to be tiny and cluttered with stuff. But in prepping an interior "safe spot" for temporal storms, it does seem more ideal to have a smaller room, with a few rugs and whatnot on the floor . It's also a good idea to have more than one door leading in/out of the room, so that if something does end up in that room with you for some reason, you have an escape.

[PineReseen]

51 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

let me walk you thru this.

Cooking..'well the game says its uncompromising game thus cooking needs to be uncompromising'

would you agree?

[...]

I mean, I gotta agree with @Teh Pizza Lady here, it already is kinda uncompromising. Certainly more than it is in like, Minecraft, I guess.

54 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

SIDE TOPIC (EDIT): no, what I am saying is that if the dev decides 'this 'uncompromising' thing is not working out well' they can change it. Its not written in stone. I am not advocating that it be that way I am just saying I reject the arguement that something should be as it is BECAUSE it has been decided to be as it is. I reject that line of logic in all things

I mean, yeah, I'm advocating for the storms to be changed right now because they're not working out. Although, the more ingrained a feature is, the less you can change it before the changes have to spill over into surrounding areas. Sort of like a game of Jenga, the more you keep adding the more dependent the newer features are on the core assumptions. At some point the risk-versus-reward may start getting a bit too high (when that point is reached is up for debate, though). My changes shouldn't be too intrusive as far as I am aware.

[CastIronFabric]

18 minutes ago, PineReseen said:

I mean, I gotta agree with @Teh Pizza Lady here, it already is kinda uncompromising. Certainly more than it is in like, Minecraft, I guess.

I mean, yeah, I'm advocating for the storms to be changed right now because they're not working out. Although, the more ingrained a feature is, the less you can change it before the changes have to spill over into surrounding areas. Sort of like a game of Jenga, the more you keep adding the more dependent the newer features are on the core assumptions. At some point the risk-versus-reward may start getting a bit too high (when that point is reached is up for debate, though). My changes shouldn't be too intrusive as far as I am aware.

nope.

I reject the notion that cooking is 'uncompromising'. EDIT: to put a finer note, when the ads say this game is 'uncompromising' I am confident that cooking is not the list that backs that up, I also have not seen cooking mentioned in the few videos I have seen that go into detail as to why this game is 'uncompromising'

regardless, that is getting into subjective stuff that I am not going to engage in.

Edited March 5 by CastIronFabric