Temporal storms are a bad implementation of a good idea.

[CastIronFabric]

13 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

The reward for spending hours making your house pretty is your enjoyment of it - that -is- the game reward. 

 

That is exactly my point.

That was exactly my point with the COD example.

Do you see how my COD example would apply to storms specifically? There is more of a long term reward system in place now for Storms than exists for COD one of the most popular games around

I am asking not be confrontation  but rather to make sure you understand my core point.

 

[MKMoose]

26 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Given that temporal storms are, essentially, the result of two separate realities trying to occupy the same space, I don't really think it makes sense to make them localized events. Or at the very least, it feels like a disservice to the mechanic.

What I mean is that the long-lasting global phenomenon that is the temporal storm would remain with massively toned down enemy frequency, and within that storm there would be intermittent localized events. Anomalies, discharges, fissures, rifts, rust blossoms, dislocations, time shifts, ghosts. No matter how exactly it's painted, the main point is that the thought process regarding what to do during a storm should be a lot more involved than "hide immediately, unless you're prepared and willing to fight".

You could potentially stay outside for a while, look at the cool gears turning, say hi to Dave, notice an anomaly, check what it did, maybe collect a funny-looking flower, then hear a loud bell nearby, get freaked out at the massive beast that made the sound and run back home, then look outside as it walks by unbothered, finally watch as your home gets torn apart for a few seconds by a massive fissure, take a peek into the rust world, and only then get jumped by a shiver that entered your world through that fissure.

[CastIronFabric]

3 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

What I mean is that the long-lasting global phenomenon that is the temporal storm would remain with massively toned down enemy frequency, and within that storm there would be intermittent localized events. Anomalies, discharges, fissures, rifts, rust blossoms, dislocations, time shifts, ghosts. No matter how exactly it's painted, the main point is that the thought process regarding what to do during a storm should be a lot more involved than "hide immediately, unless you're prepared and willing to fight".

You could potentially stay outside for a while, look at the cool gears turning, say hi to Dave, notice an anomaly, check what it did, maybe collect a funny-looking flower, then hear a loud bell nearby, get freaked out at the massive beast that made the sound and run back home, then look outside as it walks by unbothered, finally watch as your home gets torn apart for a few seconds by a massive fissure, take a peek into the rust world, and only then get jumped by a shiver that entered your world through that fissure.

That would work one time I think (if I understand correctly)

I think its just the wrong player base for this kind of stuff. We are here to build, craft and explore. I do not think this game appeals much to the COD crowd if that makes sense.

[LadyWYT]

10 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

What I mean is that the long-lasting global phenomenon that is the temporal storm would remain with massively toned down enemy frequency, and within that storm there would be intermittent localized events. Anomalies, discharges, fissures, rifts, rust blossoms, dislocations, time shifts, ghosts. No matter how exactly it's painted, the main point is that the thought process regarding what to do during a storm should be a lot more involved than "hide immediately, unless you're prepared and willing to fight".

You could potentially stay outside for a while, look at the cool gears turning, say hi to Dave, notice an anomaly, check what it did, maybe collect a funny-looking flower, then hear a loud bell nearby, get freaked out at the massive beast that made the sound and run back home, then look outside as it walks by unbothered, finally watch as your home gets torn apart for a few seconds by a massive fissure, take a peek into the rust world, and only then get jumped by a shiver that entered your world through that fissure.

Oh okay. Yeah that makes a lot more sense. Even if the events are just cosmetic, like "ghosts" playing out certain past actions over and over, it would still make for something different than just "monster that wants to kill you".

[CastIronFabric]

10 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Oh okay. Yeah that makes a lot more sense. Even if the events are just cosmetic, like "ghosts" playing out certain past actions over and over, it would still make for something different than just "monster that wants to kill you".

if I understand correctly the idea is 'go outside and look at new thing, ok, cool, time to go back in'.

Someone does have to develop that feature, create the models etc.

or am i misunderstanding

[Blaiyze]

40 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

That is exactly my point.

That was exactly my point with the COD example.

Do you see how my COD example would apply to storms specifically? There is more of a long term reward system in place now for Storms than exists for COD one of the most popular games around

I am asking not be confrontation  but rather to make sure you understand my core point.

 

No, and I'm not interested in engaging in video game whataboutisms either. COD is hardly a reasonable comparison to VS.

43 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

No, that wasn't the mod I was thinking of. I think it was Temporal Tempest: https://mods.vintagestory.at/temporaltempest

There's also "Temporal Storms Require a Fight" which does similar: https://mods.vintagestory.at/show/mod/36080

I can appreciate that a mod like Temporality Plus exists, but it changes too many things about temporal storms(and things unrelated to temporal mechanics) to be of much interest to me. The earlier half of the mod's comment section is also a good example of why adding monsters that go through walls and force players into combat isn't really the best of ideas.

I think it would be interesting as a mod, but from a lore standpoint, the player should really be trying to figure out a way to fix whatever is causing the temporal storms to occur, not figuring out ways to make them worse. 

What difference does it make with how the TS's work presently, when enemies can spawn inside your base, behind you, disobeying the fact that your walls exist already? Frankly, I plan on turning that part of the mod off - but the other parts of it, Rifts spawning as part of the storm and the rust devastation etc, I'm interested in checking out.

[Ceridith]

28 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

What I mean is that the long-lasting global phenomenon that is the temporal storm would remain with massively toned down enemy frequency, and within that storm there would be intermittent localized events. Anomalies, discharges, fissures, rifts, rust blossoms, dislocations, time shifts, ghosts. No matter how exactly it's painted, the main point is that the thought process regarding what to do during a storm should be a lot more involved than "hide immediately, unless you're prepared and willing to fight".

You could potentially stay outside for a while, look at the cool gears turning, say hi to Dave, notice an anomaly, check what it did, maybe collect a funny-looking flower, then hear a loud bell nearby, get freaked out at the massive beast that made the sound and run back home, then look outside as it walks by unbothered, finally watch as your home gets torn apart for a few seconds by a massive fissure, take a peek into the rust world, and only then get jumped by a shiver that entered your world through that fissure.

This kind of threads into the whole issue of temporal instability being a half-baked mechanic which could use an overhaul as well. Currently above ground temporally unstable locations seem arbitrarily scattered about with no rhyme or reason, with the only impact being that your sanity drains more or less quickly while in them. It would be interesting to see temporally unstable areas have more uniqueness to them, but also some incentive to visit them as currently they come off as more of a nuisance area to be avoided.

The stability of an area should also have an impact with temporal storms as well, in that areas that are already temporally unstable should become extremely dangerous to be in during a storm. Conversely, there should be areas which are more temporally stable which are less effected by temporal storms. Most importantly, this should be presented as an optional trade off for players. Do they make a base in a neutral location and deal with the occasional temporal storm? Do they specifically seek out a temporally stable location to mitigate the impact of storms on their base, at the opportunity cost of limiting where they can settle? Or, do they decide to brave a temporally unstable area with higher risk but with possible higher reward of unique temporal related resources?

[CastIronFabric]

10 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

No, and I'm not interested in engaging in video game whataboutisms either. COD is hardly a reasonable comparison to VS.

What difference does it make with how the TS's work presently, when enemies can spawn inside your base, behind you, disobeying the fact that your walls exist already? Frankly, I plan on turning that part of the mod off - but the other parts of it, Rifts spawning as part of the storm and the rust devastation etc, I'm interested in checking out.

Ok, fair enough I was not trying to be confrontationtial. You just didn't understand my point and that is fair, carry on 

[LadyWYT]

6 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

What difference does it make with how the TS's work presently, when enemies can spawn inside your base, behind you, disobeying the fact that your walls exist already? Frankly, I plan on turning that part of the mod off - but the other parts of it, Rifts spawning as part of the storm and the rust devastation etc, I'm interested in checking out.

My general point was that I think it's a good thing that Temporality Plus exists as a mod since it gives players more options, but since the changes it implements don't sound very fun I'm not at all inclined to say that what that mod implements would be good changes to make for the vanilla game. That's all.

 

1 minute ago, Ceridith said:

The stability of an area should also have an impact with temporal storms as well, in that areas that are already temporally unstable should become extremely dangerous to be in during a storm. Conversely, there should be areas which are more temporally stable which are less effected by temporal storms. Most importantly, this should be presented as an optional trade off for players. Do they make a base in a neutral location and deal with the occasional temporal storm? Do they specifically seek out a temporally stable location to mitigate the impact of storms on their base, at the opportunity cost of limiting where they can settle? Or, do they decide to brave a temporally unstable area with higher risk but with possible higher reward of unique temporal related resources?

I'm skeptical about this, but it seems like it could maybe work given the lore that we have. That being said, I would keep the storms as a global condition, and let the local stability affect what kind of monsters can spawn in the area and how many can be present at once during the storm. In that case, stable areas could have relatively fewer monsters, and those that do spawn could be weaker. Unstable areas could have higher concentrations of monsters during storms, in addition to those monsters being more likely to be stronger as well.

Basically, the player is still going to want to build their base in a stable location, but they might consider building an outpost in/traveling to an unstable area when a storm occurs in order to have better chances of encountering the special monsters.

From an NPC standpoint, it also tracks with why they all live in fortified structures. Basic defenses might be fine for dealing with whatever crawls out of the typical rift, when rift activity occurs, but when a temporal storm rolls through everyone who's not capable of fighting needs a safe place to hide.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

There was a mod, I think, that tried to tie rift activity more to temporal storms, in that rift activity would be calmer post-storm and start to get worse as a storm approached. I want to say it also tried to tweak the spawns and storms so that monsters would only spawn from the rifts during temporal storms, and the player could shorten the storms to some extent by killing monsters.

I don't know that I'm quite sold on either feature being the best solution, but they don't really strike me as bad ideas either.

I wouldn't mind playing around with this, actually...

43 minutes ago, Blaiyze said:

disobeying the fact that your walls exist already?

I'm still curious why, exactly, people think their walls should protect them from what is essentially a collision of two parallel worlds one of which doesn't contain those walls. Bro was chillin in his little rust world and then suddenly bam, walls? A human? Must be hostile. Time to kill. Your walls mean nothing to a world that doesn't have them. At least, that's my take on it... and that's why the lore is important here, despite all the nonsense I unfortunately keep seeing about the lore not mattering to the game mechanics.

29 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

My general point was that I think it's a good thing that Temporality Plus exists as a mod since it gives players more options, but since the changes it implements don't sound very fun I'm not at all inclined to say that what that mod implements would be good changes to make for the vanilla game. That's all.

Looking back through the thread, many of the people calling this a "bad implementation" never describe what a better implementation would actually look like.

Without that, there isn't much anyone can meaningfully respond to. Criticism alone doesn't provide a direction for improvement.

This whole discussion is proving to be pointless, so I'm bowing out and unsubscribing from the thread. Wake me when someone who has a problem with the current implementation actually proposes a solution.

[williams_482]

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

You could potentially stay outside for a while, look at the cool gears turning, say hi to Dave, notice an anomaly, check what it did, maybe collect a funny-looking flower, then hear a loud bell nearby, get freaked out at the massive beast that made the sound and run back home, then look outside as it walks by unbothered, finally watch as your home gets torn apart for a few seconds by a massive fissure, take a peek into the rust world, and only then get jumped by a shiver that entered your world through that fissure.

This setup sounds genuinely fun in a way that current storms and most suggestions don't.

You're never "safe," which is clearly something the devs want, but you're also not constantly and unavoidably an unlucky split second away from being one-tapped. You can hide in the basement panning if you want and will avoid most of the danger, but still face the risk of being driven out. Monster spawns being more closely tied to rifts and fissures will cause them to naturally cluster around points other than "wherever you happen to be", giving more opportunity to either evade the mobs or throw yourself into trouble as you please. Finally, having something of value to be searching for as you dodge clusters of enemies is another reason to keep drinking in the scenery, and a balance to the inconvenience of dealing with this whole thing in the first place. 

Obvious spawn points and clustering of enemies also means less immediate punishments (and thus fewer learned un-fun habits) for new players trying to engage with this mechanic who don't really know what they are doing. Combine that with sharper differences in quality of monsters faced in light, medium, and heavy storms, and I think you'll get a lot more new players who approach the storms with appropriate caution and come away with a more positive outlook. 

[Ceridith]

45 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I'm skeptical about this, but it seems like it could maybe work given the lore that we have. That being said, I would keep the storms as a global condition, and let the local stability affect what kind of monsters can spawn in the area and how many can be present at once during the storm. In that case, stable areas could have relatively fewer monsters, and those that do spawn could be weaker. Unstable areas could have higher concentrations of monsters during storms, in addition to those monsters being more likely to be stronger as well.

Basically, the player is still going to want to build their base in a stable location, but they might consider building an outpost in/traveling to an unstable area when a storm occurs in order to have better chances of encountering the special monsters.

From an NPC standpoint, it also tracks with why they all live in fortified structures. Basic defenses might be fine for dealing with whatever crawls out of the typical rift, when rift activity occurs, but when a temporal storm rolls through everyone who's not capable of fighting needs a safe place to hide.

For a particular story location...

Spoiler

It seems like Nadiya is built on a small patch of temporally stable land which prevents portals from appearing within it, but that doesn't stop rust beasts from trying to get inside once they come through a portals from the area surrounding the village.

Were I to have full design control of the temporally related mechanics, I wouldn't make it a binary effect, but modular. The more or less temporally stable an area is, the more or less portals are likely to appear, how many and how powerful of rust beasts can come through, the chance that unique flora, fauna, or other temporal related resources are likely to appear, etc. Temporal storms should act like a negative modifier against stability for their duration, where already unstable areas are made much worse, neutral areas become unstable, and stable areas are weakened. The more powerful the storms become, the stronger the negative modifier to stability applied, to the point where particularly stable areas could still become somewhat unstable during stronger storms.

I would also add ways for players to impact temporal stability by building devices that impact the area around them, either for better or worse. Another possibility is for future story locations that reduce the intensity of storms, or make the world overall more stable, once they're progressed through.

But that's my own personal thoughts of what I would like to see out of a temporal mechanics overhaul.

Edited March 6 by Ceridith

[LadyWYT]

3 minutes ago, williams_482 said:

Obvious spawn points and clustering of enemies also means less immediate punishments (and thus fewer learned un-fun habits) for new players trying to engage with this mechanic who don't really know what they are doing. Combine that with sharper differences in quality of monsters faced in light, medium, and heavy storms, and I think you'll get a lot more new players who approach the storms with appropriate caution and come away with a more positive outlook. 

Not to mention @Teh Pizza Lady's suggestion about letting traders warn the player about what temporal storms even are. I mean, it's pretty clear that the player just popped into existence and has no real clue what's going on or what the monsters even are aside from horrible things that crawl out of holes in the air. The traders are friendly, for the most part, so it would make sense they would drop an "Oh, it's not bad...not bad at all. Mind the monsters though. And the storms. You don't want to be a poor soul that gets caught out in the middle of one."

 

2 minutes ago, Ceridith said:

For a particular story location...

About said story location...

Spoiler

I don't entirely disagree, however, I have seen Nadiya spawn on unstable land. I'm not sure if that's just because story locations need more fine-tuning on that aspect or not; I've chalked it up as humans and wildlife aren't bothered by temporal stability. It's only the seraphs that are susceptible to it as a side effect of having a tenuous grasp on the present time, at best.

 

5 minutes ago, Ceridith said:

Were I to have full design control of the temporally related mechanics, I wouldn't make it a binary effect, but modular. The more or less temporally stable an area is, the more or less portals are likely to appear, how many and how powerful of rust beasts can come through, the chance that unique flora, fauna, or other temporal related resources are likely to appear, etc. Temporal storms should act like a negative modifier against stability for their duration, where already unstable areas are made much worse, neutral areas become unstable, and stable areas are weakened. The more powerful the storms become, the stronger the negative modifier to stability applied, to the point where particularly stable areas could still become somewhat unstable during stronger storms.

I would also add ways for players to impact temporal stability by building devices that impact the area around them, either for better or worse. Another possibility is for future story locations that reduce the intensity of storms, or make the world overall more stable, once they're progressed through.

But that's my own personal thoughts of what I would like to see out of a temporal mechanics overhaul.

I don't think it's a good idea to add unique flora and fauna to stable/unstable areas, as that creates the problem of locking players out of that content if they disable temporal stability and whatnot. At best it would have to be something rather superficial, in which case...it's going to end up feeling rather disappointing. Personally, I prefer the more random distribution of flora and fauna as well, rather than having it be something influenced by temporal stability.

That being said, one thing I wouldn't mind seeing in this regard is giving unstable surface areas a higher chance of having a procedural dungeon. That way such things are a little easier to find, as well as giving the player more reason to go poking around in unstable areas. Depending on what's in the dungeon, it could also help provide some reasoning as to why certain areas are the way they are(ie, somebody was sciencing too hard in that location before the world got scrambled).

[Blaiyze]

29 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I wouldn't mind playing around with this, actually...

I'm still curious why, exactly, people think their walls should protect them from what is essentially a collision of two parallel worlds one of which doesn't contain those walls. Bro was chillin in his little rust world and then suddenly bam, walls? A human? Must be hostile. Time to kill. Your walls mean nothing to a world that doesn't have them. At least, that's my take on it... and that's why the lore is important here, despite all the nonsense I unfortunately keep seeing about the lore not mattering to the game mechanics.

Looking back through the thread, many of the people calling this a "bad implementation" never describe what a better implementation would actually look like.

Without that, there isn't much anyone can meaningfully respond to. Criticism alone doesn't provide a direction for improvement.

This whole discussion is proving to be pointless, so I'm bowing out and unsubscribing from the thread. Wake me when someone who has a problem with the current implementation actually proposes a solution.

Because walls infer protection in some degree, otherwise why give us a sandbox where we can build to our hearts content? If the only option to not being attacked without warning inside your base is to either bury yourself in a hole, or turn the mechanic off and not miss out on the rest of the Lore or the rest of the game, then the mechanic doesn't matter.

Deliberately overlooking the multitude of suggestions that have been mentioned within this thread alone merely because you don't like them, doesn't mean that no one has offered any other ideas on how to implement Temporal Storms. The main point of contention seems to be: people want to engage with the storms but are annoyed by the lack of reason for doing so, lacklustre rewards in the absence of any other reason to experience this mechanic, and want preferably a heads up or functional way of mitigating spawns of rust baddies, and high tier enemies spawning during storms which is entirely unfair for a player new to the world lacking proper equipment to take them on - thus having to hide and ride it out.

As mentioned before, I have bad RNG and the amount of times I've had a rust baddie spawn directly behind me inside my base during a storm, with no indication its' there until it's up my... tail pipe, is ridiculous. Maybe this doesn't happen to everyone, fine. But it has happened enough to me that I turned the storms off due to a lack of being able to mitigate this happening in game - hence suggestions of giving us a craftable pre-Jonas tech that will give the player a safety bubble where enemies won't spawn in, so one can better prepare. Or tie Rift spawn to the storms, have enemies spawn from Storm Rifts with a touch of a delay and allow Rifts to spawn wherever, including inside your base, but the appearance of the Rift and a bit of a delay gives you time to react - whether that's going and hiding or choosing to fight - we should get that choice.

Other suggestions such as increased visual distortions to varying degrees depending on storm severity I like the thought of too and additional features to stability. 

It's a bit of an underbaked mechanic atm which is why it leads to such divisive discussions about it. The game is functionally a sandbox crafting, building and exploration game with an actual functional back story that the player discovers at their own pace. To disallow the player the creative discernment as to whether or not they want to engage with the storms and the enemies from them, by forcing them to have to deal with enemies that can spawn anywhere including within their own base, functionally contradicts the underlying creative sandbox theme. Sometimes, we just don't WANT to fight enemies in that moment, forcing us to fight because devs and lore say so, is a piss poor way of doing game dev - which is why I brought up 7dtd in the first place.

 

Edited March 6 by Blaiyze

[ifoz]

39 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I'm still curious why, exactly, people think their walls should protect them from what is essentially a collision of two parallel worlds one of which doesn't contain those walls. Bro was chillin in his little rust world and then suddenly bam, walls? A human? Must be hostile. Time to kill. Your walls mean nothing to a world that doesn't have them. At least, that's my take on it... and that's why the lore is important here, despite all the nonsense I unfortunately keep seeing about the lore not mattering to the game mechanics.

I agree with the fact the lore is very important and can hold sway over game mechanics, but at the same time canonically storms seem different from what we experience in gameplay. 

Spoiler

The new 1.22 traders as well as Nadiya have palisade perimeters, with Nadiya also having an entire fortress that dialogue tells us the townsfolk take shelter in during the storms. The fortress is defended by an inner wall, arrow slits, and places to dump boiling water/oil on any monsters who might make it past the outer perimeter.

This to me seems like evidence toward storms canonically acting more like raid events, where monsters would spawn at a distance and then try to find their way into the settlement. If storms functioned in the lore like how they do in gameplay, all of the defences shown in the 1.22 trader huts and that certain spoilery location would be useless since monsters could spawn inside the walls/fort.

There's a clear mismatch here with how storms are portrayed in the lore and how they actually function in gameplay, which is a bit unusual for VS when otherwise the game likes to have lore content and gameplay match up nicely. To me it seems like the storms are more of a placeholder mechanic, since I'd expect one day eventually they'll be overhauled to match their canonical counterparts. At least, I hope they are. 

Edited March 6 by ifoz

[Thorfinn]

Dunno. Probably the odd man out here, but the stability running down and eventually out while I was cooking and rearranging my sock drawer was awesome, at least in retrospect. At the moment, not so much, maybe. I was the height of unprepared, having left all my tools and weapons elsewhere and inventory chock full of the stuff I was sorting into other storages. I managed to get 2 stone spears knapped out before running out of stability and having to regain some stability by killing things. That's why I've switched to cranking the duration -- it adds pressure to engage with the game on its own terms, rather than what I might think a better game would do. It also adds to the chance of getting enough Jonas tech to do something.

Kind of related to @Teh Pizza Lady's comments (I think) a good game encourages one to engage with its distinctive features. Like it or not, storms are, I think, VS' defining distinctive feature. Followed by chiseling. My "solution" to the "lackluster" impression some have? Fleshing out Jonas tech. So far, there's nothing I really care to make. Returning to your grave is meaningless in permadeath. Night vision? Why? Lanterns work, and since creatures sense you anyway, there isn't much point to not carrying one. Maybe have Jonas tech grouped by "power" so if you loot the body of a level 3 drifter during a storm, you have a chance of getting a level 3 Jonas part? Still doesn't change the fact that if you pop into an established server, your first storm is likely to be at or near max anyway. You still have to dodge all the level 4s.

 

[LadyWYT]

8 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Night vision? Why?

I think night vision goggles are best suited to exploring underground areas, so that the player can be holding a shield but still be able to see where they're going. That being said...I don't think the night vision device actually counts as a proper helmet, so...yeah...

[Thorfinn]

29 minutes ago, ifoz said:

If storms functioned in the lore like how they do in gameplay, all of the defences shown in the 1.22 trader huts and that certain spoilery location would be useless since monsters could spawn inside the walls/fort.

Don't they? Way back when, I sheltered in a trader wagon and got jumped by Mr. Dead, though he might have spawned on the porch, not inside the wagon proper. Still wouldn't that have been covered by the claim? Unless there were trees overhead. I just don't remember the specifics well enough, and a wagon is a pretty small space relative to everywhere else they could spawn.

[CastIronFabric]

9 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Like it or not, storms are, I think, VS' defining distinctive feature. Followed by chiseling. 

 

I could not remotely agree with this statement. I mean not mining? not farming? not smithing? mechanics?

For me what brought me into the game was smithing, farming and machines.

[Thorfinn]

14 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I mean not mining? not farming? not smithing? mechanics?

Mining and farming are vanilla TOBG, no? Farming in Ostriv or Manor Lords is considerably more complex. All kinds of games have automation. Smithing/knapping/clayforming, sure, at least to some extent. I don't know of any games that do that. And the game definitely encourages you to engage in those voxel minigames. You have to engage in them to do anything apart from simple gathering of basic resources. Heck, if you don't make a knife, you can't even make a torch, barring some lucky cracked vessel drops. While clayforming may be VS exclusive, there is probably a reason that Knapster is kind of in the same ballpark popularity-wise as Expanded Foods. Where is the similar mod removing these aspects of storms that people think are so overwhemingly unpopular?

Edited March 6 by Thorfinn

[CastIronFabric]

2 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Mining and farming are vanilla TOBG, no? Farming in Ostriv or Manor Lords is considerably more complex. All kinds of games have automation. Smithing/knapping/clayforming, sure, at least to some extent. I don't know of any games that do that. And the game definitely encourages you to engage in those voxel minigames. You have to engage in them to do anything apart from simple gathering of basic resources. Heck, if you don't make a knife, you can't even make a torch, barring some lucky cracked vessel drops. While clayforming may be VS exclusive, there is probably a reason that Knapster is kind of in the same ballpark popularity-wise as Expanded Foods. Where is the similar mod removing these aspects of storms that people think are so overwhemingly unpopular?

I do not know what TOBG means

but I disagree with the assertion that the distinctive feature of VS is storms and chiseling. Storms are really not that compelling to this game play, I really doubt that is why they are selling so many copies, because of storms.

 

[Thorfinn]

4 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I do not know what TOBG means

That Other Block Game. You would not believe how long it took me to realize that's what @Maelstrom and others meant by it.

 

4 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

I disagree with the assertion that the distinctive feature of VS is storms and chiseling.

By distinctive, I mean "something not present in other games, or something that is done much better in this one." Would there have been a better word for that concept?

Edited March 7 by Thorfinn

[CastIronFabric]

3 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

 

By distinctive, I mean "something not present in other games, or something that is done much better in this one." Would there have been a better word for that concept?

perhaps, I can not think of one but I would ask 'why would that be important?' Let me think of an example:

Example: maybe one would say 'micro transactions are distinctive in game X' 

ok...does that mean we need to focus on that? Perhaps I mean to say why is it important? why is something that nobody enjoys or likes important?

Edited March 7 by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

Just now, CastIronFabric said:

maybe one would say 'micro transactions are distinctive in game X' 

No, one would be wrong to say that. Lots of games have micro transactions. It's getting to the point that not having microtransactions sets games apart.

[CastIronFabric]

Just now, Thorfinn said:

No, one would be wrong to say that. Lots of games have micro transactions. It's getting to the point that not having microtransactions sets games apart.

I know I was trying to use an example of 'something that nobody likes but is also distinctive in a game' maybe drop it? why use it just because its distinctive and nobody likes it