Temporal storms are a bad implementation of a good idea.

[Bumber]

On 3/5/2026 at 5:25 AM, CastIronFabric said:

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.

IDK, when was the last solar radiation storm? Usually the atmosphere protects us from such apocalyptic events.

Hurricanes aren't global, but there's a reason you need an evacuation warning hours before they hit (even with motor vehicles). There are miles of effect that you can't just outrun.

Even if we take something more narrow like a tornado (and we're calling that a "storm"), "Tornado Alley" consists of the entire central USA. If you weren't lucky enough to already be in the specific vicinity, you aren't chasing that storm before it dissipates. It's not going to be practical to find your way to a specific spot for an occasional event, and if it's always there it's not a "storm" it's a "region". It doesn't work gameplay wise, nor as conceptually defined.

Edited Monday at 02:18 PM by Bumber

[williams_482]

Fortunately both the lore and explicit statements from the devs have made clear that temporal storm rotbeasts will not be smashing your builds, stealing your stuff, or killing your livestock, because that sounds absolutely miserable to deal with. That's not a reason to endure a temporal storm, it's the exact opposite: a further punishment for trying to engage with the mechanic instead of shutting it off or sleeping though it. 

Temporal storms are no joke even for well equipped experienced players with prepared "safe" places to duck into for healing. A mechanic which forced the player to specifically defend their structures, crops, and livestock against functionally infinite swarms of drifters, starting a couple months in when the best weapon they can get is probably a copper spear? That's far and away more difficult than running around dodging hits and getting in the occasional kill. In a heavy storm with a large base full of valuable stuff it sounds outright hopeless.

[CastIronFabric]

24 minutes ago, Bumber said:

IDK, when was the last solar radiation storm? Usually the atmosphere protects us from such apocalyptic events.

Hurricanes aren't global, but there's a reason you need an evacuation warning hours before they hit (even with motor vehicles). There are miles of effect that you can't just outrun.

Even if we take something more narrow like a tornado (and we're calling that a "storm"), "Tornado Alley" consists of the entire central USA. If you weren't lucky enough to already be in the specific vicinity, you aren't chasing that storm before it dissipates. It's not going to be practical to find your way to a specific spot for an occasional event, and if it's always there it's not a "storm" it's a "region". It doesn't work gameplay wise, nor as conceptually defined.

are you actually trying to take the position that real life storms are commonly global using sophistry? I will be sure to tell the storm chasers that storms are not local

the lengths people will go is astonishing. remind me a bit of 'its perfectly reasonable to get 64 units of clay by sand panning if you cant find a clay depsoit.

 

Edited Monday at 02:28 PM by CastIronFabric

[Stralgaez]

15 minutes ago, williams_482 said:

Fortunately both the lore and explicit statements from the devs have made clear that temporal storm rotbeasts will not be smashing your builds, stealing your stuff, or killing your livestock, because that sounds absolutely miserable to deal with.

That's part of the 'uncompromising wilderness survival' that the game advertises - And currently the monsters themselves are way too passive other than beelining towards you and not doing anything else. 

[Bumber]

20 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

are you actually trying to take the position that real life storms are commonly global using sophistry? I will be sure to tell the storm chasers that storms are not local

the lengths people will go is astonishing. remind me a bit of 'its perfectly reasonable to get 64 units of clay by sand panning if you cant find a clay depsoit.

Are you actually trying to take the position that real life storms are a thing people typically decide to show up to?

Going to the rain? Nah, not today, man.

Edited Monday at 02:46 PM by Bumber

[CastIronFabric]

17 minutes ago, Bumber said:

Are you actually trying to take the position that real life storms are a thing people typically decide to show up to?

Going to the rain? Nah, not today, man.

I have zero idea what that means but I will be sure to tell some real life storm chasers that you think storms are global

Edited Monday at 03:03 PM by CastIronFabric

[CastIronFabric]

39 minutes ago, Stralgaez said:

That's part of the 'uncompromising wilderness survival' that the game advertises - And currently the monsters themselves are way too passive other than beelining towards you and not doing anything else. 

wrong.

what you are suggesting is a tower defense game. 'uncompromising survial' does NOT intrinsically mean 'tower defense' 

 

Edited Monday at 03:12 PM by CastIronFabric

[Bumber]

24 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I have zero idea what that means but I will be sure to tell some real life storm chasers that you think storms are global

What definition of "global" are you applying to VS? The VS "world" isn't even more than just former Europe.

You can't escape the fact that you've essentially argued that we should be able to avoid a natural disaster by just not heading towards it. All those people who die in floods each year sure seem silly right now. Just go outside and walk away from the tornado, it's not that hard.

Edited Monday at 03:26 PM by Bumber

[Stralgaez]

11 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

wrong.

what you are suggesting is a tower defense game. 'uncompromising survial' does NOT intrinsically mean 'tower defense' 

Because IT IS shitty outside in the world, and they WILL come after you. In the caves, out in the open, even during storms. 

And when you're digging a hole and hide in it is how you deal with it, then the game does it wrong. So it needs to force you out of it unless you turn it off - When they cannot get to you, then one option they should go for is towards the things you painstakingly made and gathered. 

Edited Monday at 03:24 PM by Stralgaez

[CastIronFabric]

6 minutes ago, Bumber said:

What definition of "global" are you applying to VS? The VS "world" isn't even more than just former Europe.

You can't escape the fact that you've essentially argued that we should be able to avoid a natural disaster by just not heading towards it. All those people who die in floods each year sure seem silly right now. Just go outside and walk away from the tornado, it's not that hard.

you are not making any sense.

Storms in real life are not global I have no idea why you thinnk they are and you can in fact go to one and yes you can avoid them by going away from them. Try watching storm chasers 

Edited Monday at 03:26 PM by CastIronFabric

[Bumber]

Just now, CastIronFabric said:

you are not making any sense.

Storms in real life are not global and you can in fact go to one and yes you can avoid them. Try watching storm chasers 

It looks that way if you're not engaging in rational discussion, let alone engaging on the substance of the argument.

I already gave you a solar storm example, which you're ignoring because it means you're wrong.

[CastIronFabric]

5 minutes ago, Stralgaez said:

Because IT IS shitty outside in the world, and they WILL come after you. In the caves, out in the open, even during storms. 

And when you're digging a hole and hide in it is how you deal with it, then the game does it wrong. So it needs to force you out of it unless you turn it off - When they cannot get to you, then one option they should go for is towards the things you painstakingly made and gathered. 

to repeat 'uncompromising' is not synonymous with 'tower defense'.

Stormworks is ''uncompromising', stationers is 'uncompromising' and neither of those game even have monsters lets along tower defense.

[CastIronFabric]

1 minute ago, Bumber said:

It looks that way if you're not engaging in rational discussion, let alone engaging on the substance of the argument.

I already gave you a solar storm example, which you're ignoring because it means you're wrong.

just to repeat, real life storms are not global, you can go to them and you can go away from them. I am not engaging in sophistry trying to equate solar storms with what we BOTH know is being discussed here. I am not changing my mind on this. I do know know why you think storms in real life are global and to be frank I do not even want to know

[Stralgaez]

5 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

to repeat 'uncompromising' is not synonymous with 'tower defense'.

Stormworks is ''uncompromising', stationers is 'uncompromising' and neither of those game even have monsters lets along tower defense.

If that what it takes to get you guys out of your holes that you believe you can safely stay in to outmaneuver a mechanic, then I take it. 

 I won't change my mind.

Edited Monday at 03:34 PM by Stralgaez

[CastIronFabric]

5 minutes ago, Stralgaez said:

If that what it takes to get you guys out of your holes that you believe you can safely stay in to outmaneuver a mechanic, then I take it. 

 I won't change my mind.

I have no idea what that means in the context of what I said so all I can do is repeat it.

 'uncompromising' is not synonymous with 'tower defense. I can assure you Stationeers is way less compromising then 7 days to die is. As far as your concern about how other people play..well..that is a different problem

Edited Monday at 03:39 PM by CastIronFabric

[Bumber]

16 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

just to repeat, real life storms are not global, you can go to them and you can go away from them. I am not engaging in sophistry trying to equate solar storms with what we BOTH know is being discussed here. I am not changing my mind on this. I do know know why you think storms in real life are global and to be frank I do not even want to know

Are you in need of a reminder of what your original argument was?

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.

You're been trying to argue that an apocalyptic event that brought down a civilization should be something you have to go and visit. I don't know if you're capable of noticing, but you've not been doing a very good job at supporting that point.

It's just your opinion, it's immutable, and you're not convincing anyone through intellectual surrender.

Edited Monday at 03:47 PM by Bumber

[Blaiyze]

2 hours ago, Stralgaez said:

I second it. Have the monsters be able to attack door and fence gates, rattling at your place and eventually break them down. That Bowtorn you dodged? Did hit the glass behind you and punched a hole through it. 

If you let them, they'll smash your place and attack your lifestock, trample over your crops and destroy chests. And if you are unlucky, they would contaminate your animals and crops, which can spread and wipe out all of your hard work. So you need to shore up your defenses. Make it sturdy. Make it safe.

Because everything should be threatened when a storm hits your place and they spawn in your yard. 

There you have it - A reason to 'Endure the Temporal Storm' : To protect everything you have worked for.

No, because then it would be 7dtd, not Vintage Story.

The issue with TS's with how they've been designed at the moment, is there's no reason to engage with the storms - that doesn't mean they should become a siege event. The only reason people are assuming they're some form of weirdly programmed siege event, is because of how poorly they've been implemented.

Someone else mentioned a good solution earlier:

Tie-in temporal stability to the storms - the longer the storm rages, the lower your stability becomes, but give the player the ability to increase their stability. We can already do this by killing enemies, but there should be another way to do it for the people who don't wish to fight, but has a bit of a handicap compared to fighting. Should your stability stay above say 80%, no enemies spawn. Stability drops, enemies start spawning in small-ish numbers. Keep stability during the storm above that threshold, and the storm ends quicker. The more instable you are, the more and harder enemies show up. At a certain point of low instability, make it so the storm will rage during its' entire duration and no way to shorten it.

Beyond that - increase the loot a smidge and perhaps some sort of lingering after effect post storm.

As is, the storms give no reason to actually engage with the enemies. People see the pitiful loot and think "damn that's it" and then ignore the storms going forward by skipping them entirely. Which, as has been thoroughly discussed in this thread and others, renders the entire mechanic moot. 

Turning VS into 7dtd would be the worst decision the devs could make. I'm not opposed to enemies being able to open/knock down doors or gates, but absolutely devastating peoples builds - people would stop building because what would be the point. Which is anathema to the point of this game entirely.

As mentioned elsewhere as well - the Bloodmoon mechanic in 7dtd has NO cap. It will progressively become more intense and difficult the longer you play, eventually leading to the point that the Bloodmoons become impossible to survive, and everything you've built to withstand them will be detroyed beyond the point of being fun to repair. 

The Temporal Storms are NOT that. They have an intensity cap. We should be (and I'm sure we are, without spoiling) incentivised to find a way of stopping the storms/rust corruption.

1 hour ago, williams_482 said:

Fortunately both the lore and explicit statements from the devs have made clear that temporal storm rotbeasts will not be smashing your builds, stealing your stuff, or killing your livestock, because that sounds absolutely miserable to deal with. That's not a reason to endure a temporal storm, it's the exact opposite: a further punishment for trying to engage with the mechanic instead of shutting it off or sleeping though it. 

Temporal storms are no joke even for well equipped experienced players with prepared "safe" places to duck into for healing. A mechanic which forced the player to specifically defend their structures, crops, and livestock against functionally infinite swarms of drifters, starting a couple months in when the best weapon they can get is probably a copper spear? That's far and away more difficult than running around dodging hits and getting in the occasional kill. In a heavy storm with a large base full of valuable stuff it sounds outright hopeless.

This.

It would be far too much of a punishment,

[Ceridith]

5 minutes ago, Stralgaez said:

If that what it takes to get you guys out of your holes that you believe you can safely stay in to outmaneuver a mechanic, then I take it. 

 I won't change my mind.

Just because you would enjoy the extra challenge doesn't mean the majority of players will as well. The cave-in, soil instability, and fire from lightning mechanics are disabled by default for a reason. They're extra challenge mechanics that end up feeling more obnoxious than they do challenging for most players. Making rot beasts kill livestock and break structures would fall squarely into the same category of niche enjoyment of an otherwise obnoxious challenge mechanic. If this were ever forced into the game I would immediately disable temporal storms completely and never look back.

And I say that as someone who regularly plays with cave-ins turned on. I fully understand that it's something many players would get frustrated with, and while I enjoy that particular extra challenge I don't want all players to be forced into dealing with it unless they have an interest in it.

[Blaiyze]

3 minutes ago, Bumber said:

Are you in need of a reminder of what your original argument was?

You're been trying to argue that an apocalyptic event that brought down a civilization should be something you have to go and visit. I don't know if you're capable of noticing, but you've not been doing a very good job at supporting that point.

It's just your opinion, it's immutable, and you're not convincing anyone through intellectual surrender.

Stop engaging with them. If you've read this entire thread, you'll see that they just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. 

[CastIronFabric]

6 minutes ago, Bumber said:

Are you in need of a reminder of what your original argument was?

You're been trying to argue that an apocalyptic event that brought down a civilization should be something you have to go and visit. I don't know if you're capable of noticing, but you've not been doing a very good job at supporting that point.

It's just your opinion, it's immutable, and you're not convincing anyone through intellectual surrender.

portal, similar to stranger things.

lets move on from this conversation I have to go do things.

[LadyWYT]

19 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

Tie-in temporal stability to the storms - the longer the storm rages, the lower your stability becomes, but give the player the ability to increase their stability. We can already do this by killing enemies, but there should be another way to do it for the people who don't wish to fight, but has a bit of a handicap compared to fighting. Should your stability stay above say 80%, no enemies spawn. Stability drops, enemies start spawning in small-ish numbers. Keep stability during the storm above that threshold, and the storm ends quicker. The more instable you are, the more and harder enemies show up. At a certain point of low instability, make it so the storm will rage during its' entire duration and no way to shorten it.

Just chiming in here to say that while I like this idea, it does have one flaw. If the player starts at 100% stability, they'll have to wait until they drop to 80% before they get a chance to fight monsters, which isn't really ideal when the player wants to actually go out and fight. The stability drain of the storm could be increased, but then that's going to frustrate the players who are trying to stay at high stability so they don't have to fight, as then it may not feel worth it to stay at high stability. Players who want to go out and kill monsters aren't going to like having to sit there and wait in order to do so. There's also the fact that killing high level monsters can restore stability quite quickly, which also makes it rather awkward to try to rack up monster kills since it will mean the player needs to take breaks from fighting to let their stability drop in order to keep having monsters to fight.

Basically I don't hate the idea, but it seems a rather awkward one to get to work properly.

24 minutes ago, Ceridith said:

Just because you would enjoy the extra challenge doesn't mean the majority of players will as well.

The way I generally approach things like this is that any change made should be convincing more players to give the mechanic a try, rather than giving more players reason to turn it off. That doesn't mean the mechanic necessarily needs to be a net benefit to the player, but it does mean that it should be a challenge that's reasonably satisfying to overcome.

Personally I like stacking monster bodies and leaving a trail of destruction everywhere for my friend to find, but not every player is like that. I'm happy with the loot I get from the efforts, and while I wouldn't mind seeing a few more rusty gears(I do like shopping but those traders drive hard bargains), I wouldn't want to see the temporal storms become lucrative to the point I feel pressured to rely on the storms for materials rather than figuring out how to produce the stuff myself. Temporal gears and Jonas parts are exceptions, since they're rather esoteric items and the knowledge required to make such has potentially been lost.

[Blaiyze]

8 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Just chiming in here to say that while I like this idea, it does have one flaw. If the player starts at 100% stability, they'll have to wait until they drop to 80% before they get a chance to fight monsters, which isn't really ideal when the player wants to actually go out and fight. The stability drain of the storm could be increased, but then that's going to frustrate the players who are trying to stay at high stability so they don't have to fight, as then it may not feel worth it to stay at high stability. Players who want to go out and kill monsters aren't going to like having to sit there and wait in order to do so. There's also the fact that killing high level monsters can restore stability quite quickly, which also makes it rather awkward to try to rack up monster kills since it will mean the player needs to take breaks from fighting to let their stability drop in order to keep having monsters to fight.

Basically I don't hate the idea, but it seems a rather awkward one to get to work properly.

I was just spitballing numbers off the top of my head. IMO it would make sense for Temporal Storms to have a heavy impact on our stability, to have stability fluctuate wildly at first, potentially dropping stability below the spawn threshold long enough for a couple monsters to pop in, and fluctuate higher again, thus players that want to fight don't have to wait too long, and players that prefer not to fight are incentivised to craft the thing/whatever to stabilize the fluctuation quickly. Iunno, tossing ideas.

Someone else mentioned more wonkyness with like, ghosts of monsters/creatures that appear and flicker in and out of existence, just to add to the existential dread during the storms and I think that's a brilliant concept - but have no clue if that's even possible to do.